I beg to move amendment 1—to delete Section 6. I have been making inquiries in my own neighbourhood with regard to the operation of this section. I find from the shopkeepers who are affected by it that they are not desirous of having the exemption which it proposes to give them. They are of opinion that the public will not be inconvenienced in any way if their shops are obliged to close at the same hour as other establishments. Saturday is a very weary and fatiguing day with them, and they do not think that any useful purpose will be served by allowing them to keep open to a very late hour on Saturday evenings. If they were to keep open to a late hour on Saturday evenings, it would prevent them from making arrangements to enjoy the Sunday in the way they might wish to, and would also prevent them from attending to their religious duties at an early hour on Sunday as they might desire to do. For that reason, I ask Senator Douglas to accept the amendment.
SHOP HOURS (DRAPERY TRADES, DUBLIN AND DISTRICTS) BILL 1925.—REPORT STAGE.
I beg to second the amendment, which, I think, is a very good one. There are a lot of people who seem to object to this Bill on the grounds, as they urge, that it interferes with the liberty of the subject. Letters have appeared in the newspapers to the effect that certain people engaged in the drapery business object to this Bill on the grounds that it interferes with their liberty in keeping their shops open to a late hour on Saturday nights. The people who are affected by this section are desirous, as Senator MacKean has pointed out, that their hours of opening should be curtailed to 7.30 on Saturday evenings, and therefore I think their wishes on the matter ought to be agreed to.
I do not know whether there is any use, at this stage, in opposing this Bill, but at any rate I would like to take this opportunity of protesting against the way in which this Bill has been hurried and rushed through. I did not know, until I arrived here to-day, that the Report Stage of this Bill was to be taken to-day. Like many other Senators I was engaged at the county council elections on Tuesday last, and was not able to be present at the meeting of the Seanad held that day. Notwithstanding what has been said by Senator MacKean, I would like to say that I have received a circular from an Association in Dublin which claims to represent the majority of those engaged in the drapery trade in the city. They state that this Bill will be an interference with the rights of a big section of the people engaged in the trade. I share that opinion, too, and I think that every man ought to have the right to do business whenever the opportunity of doing it presents itself.
If the assistants engaged in this trade are working too long hours, that is another matter, and should be approached in another way. I am not in favour of the principle that assistants should be obliged to work long hours, but what I do say is that it is impossible to deal with a question of that kind in a Bill such as this is. I think that legislation ought not to be brought in to interfere with people who want to carry on their business. The point I want to emphasise is, that the circular I have received states that the majority of those engaged in the drapery trade in Dublin are opposed to this Bill. Senator MacKean has stated that the people affected by this section are not anxious to take advantage of the exemption which it gives them, but want to close their shops at 7.30. No one wants to compel them to remain open, and therefore I suggest there is nothing in the point that has been made. In conclusion, I want again to protest against the way in which this Bill has been hurried and rushed through the House.
I would like to explain that, personally, I do not feel very strongly for or against the amendment. If it is the opinion of the Seanad, and also of the Dáil when the Bill comes before it, that there should be no exemption, then, for my part I should not be inclined to oppose it. I had a conversation on the matter with Senator MacKean, and I told him pretty much what I am saying now. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the Seanad would be well advised to leave the Bill as it is. I myself had an interview with representatives of the Association, probably the same Association as that to which Senator de Loughry has referred. I had a long and a friendly conversation with the representatives of that Association to-day, and I put it to them as to whether they would prefer this amendment of Senator MacKean or not. They had strong differences of opinion on the matter. Some would, and some would not, prefer this amendment.
On the whole, I am inclined to think that it would be well for the Seanad to leave the Bill as it is until it gets to the Dáil. At any rate, whether we pass this amendment or not, the matter I understand will come up in the Dáil in one form or another. The principle of the amendment simply is this. There are a number of very small houses in the city which are known as "The one-man houses." The total of shops they represent is quite a considerable number. As to the amount of trade done, and as to the number of employees engaged, they represent a small number. That is as far as the assistants are concerned. It was thought wiser in the case of these small shops to allow them to remain open up to ten o'clock, which is the law at present, and that, I believe, was the reason why this section was put into the Bill. I personally do not feel very strongly about it, but if I were to work on my own sentiments, I should be inclined to support the amendment. On the whole, however, I think it would be better for the Seanad to let this matter come before the Dáil.
Before you put the amendment perhaps you will allow me to read an extract from a letter signed by the Secretary of the Irish Women Workers' Union which apeared in today's "Irish Times," it says:—
"Our members, working women, whose only shopping day is Saturday, are entirely opposed to keeping shop assistants at work after 8 p.m. on Saturdays, and we believe the large majority of working-class women would be equally as ready as ourselves to back Mr. Douglas' Bill."
If these women of the working-class are not willing to keep the drapers' assistants working on Saturday nights I presume they will find an opportunity of doing all their shopping earlier in the day and not keep other shops open who have no assistants and who employ simply the young people of their own families and who are kept at work up to an abnormal hour on Saturday nights. Saturday night is the last night of the week and the work is more wearing on that occasion than on any other night of the week.
The rushing of this Bill through the Seanad has been really abnormal. The first opportunity the House got of giving any consideration to the Bill was on Friday last. There really is no reason that I can see for this kind of rushed and hurried legislation. The whole time to be gained by the workers if this Bill is passed will not exceed ten or twelve hours for the present year. We have had divisions in Ireland already. At present we have the division of the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six Counties and now we are to have the division of shops engaged in the same trade in Dublin.
Is this in order? This is a Second Reading speech.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I thought the Senator was only getting his wind so I did not stop him. Of course, we are dealing with a specific amendment. There is a clause in the Bill which exempts a particular portion of the trade: that is houses which do not employ assistants but where the business is carried on by the family from closing down at a certain hour on Saturday nights. Senator MacKean is moving, and Senator Nesbitt has seconded an amendment, to strike out that particular clause. That is the question before the House.
I was stating and pointing out that this Bill has been so hurried that no reasonable opportunity has been given for consideration of it. No one, so far as I know, except, perhaps, the mover and supporters of the Bill have had any reasonable opportunity of thinking over the matter at all. It is dividing the country into several sections and dividing businesses of people who are engaged in trade in a small way into different classes. By the operation of this Bill it will be a question of whether young people are to be allowed to earn their living at all or not.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Will the Senator please come to the amendment?
If a person wants to work certain hours, I do not think there should be any law prohibiting him from working. This is one of the first Bills of that nature that I ever heard of; it is a Bill to prevent people from working. There are plenty of preventives already against work in Dublin. Before the Seanad passes this Bill, I think it ought to give it very much more consideration.
I beg to move:
In Section 7 to delete the figures "1925" and to substitute therefor the figures "1926."
This amendment gives the House a further opportunity before this Bill is passed of declaring that it does not stand for hurried legislation. The amount of time involved for the next few months is only a few hours entirely. At present we have lost one hour and twenty-five minutes of the day, and if you take further time off, people will find it very hard to exist. My amendment suggests that this Bill shall not come into operation until 1926.
I beg to second.
As a matter of correction, I want to say that there has not been an hour and twenty-five minutes taken off the working day. That statement is not correct. The object of the amendment is to prevent this Bill coming into operation until July, 1926. The mover of the amendment said it only meant a few hours of difference to these poor people this year. I suggest if the mover of the amendment had a daughter of his own, fourteen or fifteen years of age, employed in a drapery house from 9 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock on Saturday night, he would not be so anxious to have this amendment carried. The mover of the Bill has explained what the intention is. The intention clearly is to prevent young persons being kept at work until late hours on Saturday evening. I certainly hope the amendment will be rejected.
I distinctly stated that the time has been short. When the Summer Time Act is considered and the twenty-five minutes that were added to Irish time, 11.25 p.m. now is really 10 o'clock. I think I have been absolutely correct in my statement.
There is no age mentioned in the Bill. In order to follow Senator Farren's statement, an age should be mentioned.
The law provides for that.
Fourteen years.
Since the Bill was last before the Seanad I had an opportunity of seeing traders interested, and a great many of them are very much against it. They said it would be the means of putting them out of business. Some were willing to have a compromise and suggested that if the hour was fixed at 8 o'clock they would cooperate. They complained bitterly that this Bill was being rushed, and that there was no time to consider it on its merits. I really think that is the case, and that it would be better to further hear the opinions of these people. Having regard to the state of business at the present time in the city and elsewhere, it would be a serious matter if we did anything that would deprive people of a living. I would be very slow, no matter how poor that living was, to coerce any parties as a result of which they might be deprived of a means of living. Others told me that they only employed one or two assistants, and that if the Bill was put into force it would mean that they would do all the business themselves, and dispense with a couple of hands. At a time when we are endeavouring to increase employment, that would lead to more unemployment. If Senator Douglas were agreeable to allow the Bill to remain as it is, after the Second Reading or the Committee Stage has been passed, I think it would be the wise thing to do.
I am in favour generally of the provisions of this Bill. It is to the limitations of the Bill to the drapery and kindred trades, mostly of a seasonable character that I object, and also confining it to the immediate area of Dublin. There is something to be said for an extension of the time when this Bill would come into force. Killiney and Howth urban areas are included in the Bill. I can readily imagine people in Howth and Killiney objecting to it, as they have merchandise suitable for the seaside, and do a purely seasonable trade. In the event of a wet season supervening those goods would be left on their hands. In view of the fact that the Bill is to come into force on the 15th July, I think the time available for its consideration is very short. As a compromise, might I suggest to the mover of the amendment that it would be reasonable if the Bill came into force on the 1st January, 1926.
I am perfectly satisfied to accept that compromise.
Will not the Bill have to go before the Dáil in the ordinary way after leaving the Seanad?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course it must.
The suggestion that we should not fix a date definitely for the Bill to come into operation means that the Bill should be rejected. As I said on a previous occasion this Bill is an attempt in a small way at social legislation. There would be no complaint whatever if laws were brought in through the Seanad to deal with shebeeners who would be infringing on legitimate trade which some Senators know something about. This Bill is an attempt to deal with shebeeners in the drapery trade. Most of the people who have fair views as regards working conditions for their employees have agreed with the employees' union to close their premises at a certain hour so as to allow time for recreation. Other people taking advantage of that agreement saw the possibility of doing an illegitimate trade by keeping their premises open and their assistants behind the counters until a late hour at night. It is those people that some members of the Seanad are so keenly interested in. In my opinion such people are not entitled to any consideration in this or any other legislative assembly. The people who recognise that the working classes are entitled to a fair share of recreation are the people whose views ought to be respected in the Seanad. Apparently some Senators think that the people who are out to exploit the assistants and the employers who give fairly reasonable conditions are to be turned down while the views of the other class are to be taken. The suggestion is that the Bill be deferred. That really means turning it down. The Bill is a small one and applies to Dublin only. Ultimately it may apply outside Dublin, but at present it only deals with the situation in Dublin as it is generally known. There is no complication about the Bill and no mystery involved. Anyone can understand it after five minutes' consideration.
I do not think that Senator Fitzgerald need be the least alarmed about the date in the Bill. I do not see how it is possible, from the Parliamentary viewpoint, for this Bill to be in operation on the 15th July. I think we could safely say that it will not come into operation on the 15th July.
Why?
In the ordinary course of Parliamentary procedure——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think you could go as far as that. If this Bill passes to-day, and goes down or up to the Dáil, there is at least a week left to dispose of it. If the Dáil is keen about it the Bill can be passed or killed in that time.
What I want to direct attention to is this: that this Bill must go to the Dáil, where it must be discussed, and where Deputies will probably take into account the operations of the Bill. It is quite conceivable that the Dáil will alter the date. That is a matter for the Dáil. What I want to point out is that the discussion we are having of this measure is directing the attention of those who are concerned to the fact that the Bill is on the stocks, and that if they have any objection to it, or want to have it amended, they have to get busy. I do not think there is any reason why the Senator should try to change the date. The Bill will probably be changed in the Dáil.
Would I be in order in moving that consideration of the Final Stage of the Bill be postponed until after the Recess?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, a motion to postpone the Final Stage would be in order.
It would be better to deal with some of the questions raised in debate at this stage. There were a number of remarks I intended to make on my motion, that is down later on the Order Paper, that I think I had better make now, and also in view of the fact that this is an amendment in effect to defeat the Bill. I think that it would be better that I should repeat for the benefit of members of the Seanad who were not here when the Bill was first before the House, some of the reasons why the Bill was introduced. I should like to congratulate Senator Fitzgerald after his abortive methods in the Committee Stage on having found a thoroughly orderly method of defeating the Bill on the Report Stage. This amendment would mean that it would not be worth the while of those interested in the Bill to proceed with it. It would also mean that the state of affairs in the Dublin area, which the Bill is intended to prevent, would come into operation long before 1926, and it would be much better if the Seanad were in favour of the amendment, to defeat the Bill straight off.
I should like, so as to make it as clear as I can for the benefit of those who were not present when the Bill was first introduced, to say that the object of the Bill is to make operative in the whole of Dublin an arrangement that was come to at a large meeting of the drapery trade, which was held in Dublin in the year 1920, and which led to the general closing of drapery houses. When I say general, I mean it led to the closing of certainly 90 per cent. of the houses. Immediately after that meeting they voluntarily agreed to close early, and that arrangement was carried out for a considerable period. Some of the larger houses closed at 6.30, and an extra hour was allowed for the smaller houses, and they also carried out that agreement. That was made possible by the fact that war conditions had practically killed, and I think fortunately killed, late Saturday night shopping, particularly as regards larger houses. Gradually and particularly during the last year houses had changed hands, and certain of the houses have notified their assistants that they are going to stay open later. In passing, I make no charge of any breach of faith against any particular individual. An agreement was come to, but there was no law binding those who were parsies to the agreement, and they had signed no specific agreement. They were entitled to do what they had done, but I do not think they were wise to do so. The hours have been gradually increased until they have gone up to 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock.
Personally, I am not affected. As I have said, a number of the larger houses have notified their assistants that they will have to remain open later as the habit of late Saturday shopping is beginning to grow again. The Assistants' Association stated that they would not submit to the later hours, and a situation which would have led to a strike or a lock-out affecting a very large number of the assistants in Dublin has been averted by negotiations of a friendly character which took place, and which led to the promotion of this Bill, which is supported by the Merchant Drapers' Association and the Assistants' Association. A large number of small shopkeepers are not members of the Employers' Association, and a number of them have formed themselves into an association. I have met several of them to-day. The association is not registered, but it is a friendly co-operative association of some of the smaller shopkeepers.
The position the House has to decide briefly is this: some of the smaller houses would prefer to stay open till a late hour, and quite a number of them have told me that they would very much like to have the closing hour at 7.30, if they were satisfied that the closing at that hour was generally carried out, but that it would not be fair to have some of them closed and others opened. The larger houses, if I may use the term, have every intention of continuing to close at 6.30, if this Bill passes, so that the others may have a further hour to pick up any stray business that may be going on Saturday evenings. If the Bill passes no one is going to lose to any great extent, unless, as it is argued, workers may go to licensed houses and spend there what they would otherwise spend on drapery. That, unfortunately, we have to face, but there would be no loss to the various houses if the closing hours, as laid down in this Bill, were observed. The large houses would close at 6-30, and a situation that would lead to a strike in the city of Dublin will be avoided, and the Oireachtas will have an opportunity of carrying out what I am quite satisfied is a general wish of the trade.
I do not want to belittle the opposition of certain of the smaller houses. What I want to make clear in this amendment, and that is why I have a motion down on the subject, is that it is essential that this Bill should be taken and passed on a reasonably early date. It may not, and it is quite possible it will not, pass through the Dáil. If this House passes the Bill, and if it receives its Second Reading in the Dáil we may be able to tide over a difficult period. As to the suggestion that this is a hurried measure, that is partially true, but I should point out that I have not gone outside the Standing Orders, and I have given the requisite notice in each case as provided in the Standing Orders. I have not asked for the suspension of the Standing Orders, and while it is a perfectly strong argument to say that a great deal more time should be taken, I want to point out to the public that we have not suspended our Standing Orders, and that we have given every opportunity on the Committee and Report Stage for criticism. I hope the amendment will be defeated.
I move:—
"That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the Fifth Stage of the Shop Hours (Drapery Trades, Dublin and Districts) Bill, 1925, to be taken to-day."
The main argument in favour of this motion I have already set out in my remarks on the amendment. I should just briefly point out to the Seanad that under the Standing Orders, the Fifth Stage must be taken at our next meeting, or two days from this day. Nothing but a verbal amendment could be inserted on the Fifth Stage. The Seanad would gain nothing whatever by postponing the Fifth Stage for two days or until the next meeting. If the Seanad is in favour of passing the Bill it could be decided quite as well now as in two days hence.
I second.
I propose that it be held over until after the Recess.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are entitled to do that, but we are now on the motion to suspend Standing Orders.
I oppose the motion.
I think this is exceptionally hurried legislation, to suspend Standing Orders for this Bill. The Senator who proposed the motion took the opportunity of making some direct references to me. I am perfectly satisfied he meant all he said, and perhaps a great deal more. The hurrying of this particular legislation at this time means, even if it goes through on the 15th July, only a few hours when we are told that the Government intend to bring in a Bill dealing entirely with this question. We are going to legislate for one little part of the country while the Government intend to legislate for the whole country, and we are going to lay down the law here as to what is to be done for the whole country. I think it is entirely forcing matters in the Seanad to suspend the Standing Orders on such a Bill as this at the present moment.
I move that the Bill do now pass.
I move that we adjourn the Final Stage of the Bill until after the Recess.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
What date do you fix?
The first meeting after the Recess.
I second that.
I support the adjournment. Senator Douglas in speaking to-day dealt with the agreement that was come to between the Drapery Trade and the Drapery Assistants. I presume the same thing would happen through the country. I think I might say that I have no interest in the drapery business or in the shebeening business or anything that could be considered allied to it. I am going on the question of the right of people to carry on their business. If there were a Bill introduced to ensure that the shop assistants will not be forced to work unduly long hours, I certainly would support that or anything that would prevent any young boys or girls working until a late hour on Saturday evening. I would be in favour of any Bill of that kind. But this is a different question altogether. I presume that the shops remain open on Saturday night because there is business to be done and this is particularly so in the seaside places. I think it is an undesirable thing to compel people where there is business to be done, to close early on Saturday evenings.
I take it that the bigger drapery houses find that it does not pay them to keep open late on a Saturday evening. But it is a different matter with the smaller houses. The working people will not go into the big houses to do business. They prefer to go into the smaller shops. Whatever is the reason, the working people will not go into the bigger houses, they prefer to go into the smaller shops, and Saturday night seems to be a convenient time for them. I know that certainly when you come to apply this to the country towns it will meet with very strong opposition, much stronger opposition than in Dublin. As far as the trade is concerned you have not got a real opportunity of considering the effects of this Bill upon them. There is another reason and it is this, that this Bill has been rushed in a scandalous way through the Seanad, and we would be making very little of ourselves if we passed the Final Stage to-day. That is all I wish to say. I would urge the House to have regard to its dignity as an assembly and hold up this Bill so as to give the Senators and the public generally an opportunity of considering it more fully.
I think the mover and seconder of this motion would have expressed their intention better if they had spoken against the passage of the Bill. Their object is to defeat the Bill, because if the motion is carried the Bill for all practical purposes is dead. Senator Molloy moved the adjournment of this Bill, but he gave no reason whatever for its adjournment. Senator de Loughry is quite in favour, he tells us, of giving reasonable hours of employment, but he fails to do the one and only thing that will give reasonable hours of employment. It is extremely interesting to notice the anxiety that is expressed for the working classes by certain people on certain occasions. Now, if anybody has a right to voice the views of the workers, I think it is we on these Benches have the right to express them. So far, however, as we have been able to obtain the views and opinions of Labour for a long period of years, we find that the universal desire in Labour circles is for even earlier closing hours than those proposed in the Bill. Senator MacKean read a letter from the Secretary of the Women Workers' Union, who is in touch with the people for whom those piteous appeals have been made here to-day, and she says that her members are all in favour of the Bill and would support it if they got an opportunity.
The charge of rushing tactics are not well founded, except that to-day we have agreed to the suspension of the Standing Orders so as to put the Bill through a little sooner. We have passed Bills here involving millions of money and dealing with big questions of national policy in one-tenth of the time that it has taken this Bill of only a few clauses to go through the Seanad. The suggestion of Senators living here in Dublin that they had no time to consider this Bill is grotesque, and one would imagine that if they had an opportunity of considering it they would go round to the extent of asking every huckster in the city if he or she were in favour of this Bill. Senator de Loughry is exceedingly anxious that this Bill should extend to the country. Well, this Bill applies to Dublin, and I would suggest to Senator de Loughry to vote for the extension of such a principle to Kilkenny and to allow the merchants and the people of Dublin to settle their own hours if they can, and I would ask him not to interfere when legislation is introduced giving effect to the decisions they have arrived at. If this Bill is postponed over the Recess, any benefits to be derived from it this year will be gone. Senator de Loughry and other Senators who spoke on the Bill may not have an opportunity of coming back here to support the Bill. Well, here they have an opportunity of doing one good deed that will smooth the pillow on their death-bed if they have nothing else to show for their lifetime.
On a point of explanation, I wish to say that I did not profess to speak for the workers here. I admit the workers are very well represented, but I only regret that Senator O'Farrell has not used his influence amongst the workers and the people who are interested to get them to refrain from shopping on Saturday nights after 7.30 o'clock.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I allowed Senator de Loughry to make an explanation, but at this Stage of the Bill the Senator has no right to speak more than once. I will assume that what the Senator has already said is by way of explanation.
I only wanted to make that explanation, and I am quite in agreement with Senator O'Farrell when he says that the people of Dublin, the Drapery assistants, and the Drapery trade should settle their grievance amongst themselves.
I am in favour of the Bill, though I object to its limitations as to the class of trade and the district. I would prefer, if there had to be a Bill at all, that it should have much wider application, not only with regard to areas but with regard to the class of trade. This Bill has to go to the Dáil, and the principal valid objection which I have to it is that men get paid wages often on a Saturday night at an hour which, to some extent, necessitates late shopping. I hope that those who are behind the promotion of this Bill will try to take some steps to ensure that the Dáil will insert a recommendation or clause to the effect that wages will be paid, if possible, on Friday, so as to impose the least possible hardship on those who are paid and on those who have to do the shopping.
In reply to Senator Dowdall I may say that I do not know of any section of workers in Dublin, male or female, who are not paid in time to enable them to shop before 7.30 on a Saturday evening. I want to say, further, with regard to the remarks of some Senators, that we are not interfering with the right of any man to do business at any time. I suggest that under this Bill we are not attempting to interfere with any man doing business at any time he wants, but we are objecting to any man being allowed to sweat the blood of young people from nine o'clock on a Monday morning until one o'clock on Sunday morning. This Bill does not interfere with a man, who has no assistants, keeping open as long as he likes, but it does prevent a man who has young assistants in his employment, from keeping open after 7.30 o'clock on a Saturday evening. I hope for the credit of this House, that the Bill will go through. As Senator Foran has said, this is the first attempt on the part of the Seanad to deal with legislation of this type, and I think we all ought to be broadminded enough, whether representing employers or employees, to see, where reasonable arrangements are made for the carrying on of trade, that they ought to be obeyed by all concerned. It is unjust to the fair employer, who keeps his shop open at reasonable hours, and who keeps his assistants working for reasonable hours, if some other people, who are not so honourable as to carry out their obligations, are allowed to act as pirates to steal the business of honest and decent shopkeepers, who are prepared to trade in a reasonable way. I make this last appeal to Senators to allow this Bill to go through. As I say, it is the first attempt which we have made to deal with legislation of this kind, and I hope, for the credit of the House, that it will pass.
Motion—"That the further consideration of this Bill be adjourned for the first meeting of the Seanad following the Recess"—put and negatived.