SHOP HOURS (DRAPERY TRADES, DUBLIN AND DISTRICTS) BILL, 1926—COMMITTEE STAGE.

The Seanad went into Committee.

Question—"That the Title be postponed, and that Sections 1 to 5 inclusive stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

If any person contravenes the provisions of this Act he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof—

(a) in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding one pound;

(b) in the case of a second offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and

Mr. DOUGLAS

I move:—

In Section 6, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words:—

"Provided that for the purposes of this section a conviction or convictions for an offence under the Act of 1925 shall be deemed to be and to have been a conviction or convictions for an offence under this Act."

The object of that is reasonably clear. A small nominal fine is provided in this Act of £1 in the case of a first offence, and in the case of the second offence the fine is £5. For the third offence there is a large fine of £50. Under the Act it is proposed to repeal, quite a number of offences were proved. I think it would be generally agreed that persons breaking the law at the moment should not gain an advantage. If they have already broken the law they should pay. That should be taken into account at the next offence.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I protest strongly against bringing convictions under the previous Act under this Bill for the purposes of increasing fines. The other Act is undoubtedly repealed by the present Bill, and I think any future fines should be with regard to the present Bill and not with regard to the past Act.

CATHAOIRLEACH

This Bill is to be construed at one with the Shops Act of 1912.

Mr. FITZGERALD

It is very much remodelled.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It actually incorporates that Act. It was made part and parcel of the Shops Act of 1912 in Section 1. It does not repeal that Act.

Mr. DOUGLAS

This Bill embodies very many important provisions of the Act of 1912 and the Act which it is proposed to repeal. If the Bill is left as it is, a person who was convicted twice of an offence under the previous Act and who is again prosecuted for an offence under this Bill would find himself able to start at a fine of £1. I do not think that is reasonable, and it would cripple the magistrate. I do not think there is any serious objection on the part of anyone, whether in favour of the Bill or against it, to this amendment.

Amendment put and declared carried, on a show of hands.

Question—"That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and First Schedule put and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Day.		Hours of business.
Monday and Tuesday	—	From 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Wednesday and Thursday	—	from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Friday	—	From 9 a.m. to 6.30 p.m.
Saturday	—	From 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I beg to move:—

To delete "9 p.m." and to substitute therefor "7.30 p.m."

This is the main and principal amendment to the Bill. It deals with what, I think, is the only point of serious controversy in the Bill itself. The Bill contains many useful improvements as compared with the Bill that was passed last year. This schedule provides that within certain hours shops carrying on a general drapery trade must be closed. The main point of controversy is as to what the hour of closing should be on Saturday evening. I do not want to be a party to certain suggestions of breach of honour on the part of the trade, but I would like, just very briefly, to deal with what I conceive to be the position. Some four years ago a general meeting of the trade was held. That meeting was held because the Assistants' Association had claimed that on Saturday evenings the hour of closing must be 6 p.m. That was resisted by the employers and a general meeting was called by the Merchant Drapers' Association, to which every person registered as a draper was invited. At that meeting there was a large attendance, and a committee was appointed to discuss the matter with the representatives of the Assistants' Association. That committee, after a considerable amount of negotiation, proposed to the meeting that an arrangement should be entered into—to which the assistants were then prepared to accede—that the hour of 7.30 should be observed as the closing hour in what are known as the very small houses.

A few houses, which I certainly would not call small, managed to get their name into that 7.30 list, but the houses which were older, and which were supposed to be bigger, agreed to close at 6.30 in order that the houses which were new and struggling, and which might not be very well established, could have an hour's advantage on Saturday evening. That was agreed to. Whether everybody carried out the arrangement is another point. It was carried out for a considerable time afterwards. I do not doubt for a moment that persons who attended that meeting and found out subsequently that they could not carry out that arrangement, and gave notice accordingly to their assistants, were acting otherwise than honourably. There was nothing dishonourable in doing that. I would be sorry that in anything said in this debate I would impute anything dishonourable to those traders who found that they could not carry out the arrangement, and gave notice to their assistants, but the fact is that the hours dwindled back again gradually to 9 and 10 o'clock on Saturday evenings. The houses which had been closing at 6.30 eventually came to the conclusion that they could not have their rival places of business working until 9 and 10 o'clock without considerable injury to themselves, and they notified the Assistants' Association that they proposed to change the hour of closing in some cases to 8 and 9 o'clock. The Assistants' Association vigorously objected to that, and a serious situation arose.

I was approached last year by the Merchant Drapers' Association and the Assistants' Association—I do not happen to be a member of either association—to introduce a Bill, the main object of which was to provide a uniform closing hour on Saturday evening. To that extent this Bill aims at the same thing, and this Bill recognises that in this particular trade, to be fair, it is necessary to have a uniform hour. It goes further than I did. It provides for that legal uniform hour on every day of the week. That is further than I thought necessary, but I am not framing any amendment against that provision. On Saturday there is a difference of opinion as to what should be the uniform hour. I believe, in the interests of the trade and the assistants, the uniform hour should be continued at 7.30. There might be a slight disadvantage to those houses who feel bound to close at 6.30, but that is a matter of their own honour.

I am satisfied that while it may be argued that a little money may go to my friends, Senators Kennedy and Fanning, should the hour be 7.30 instead of 9, the drapery trade, putting one house against another, will not lose if the hour is uniform. I am satisfied more particularly that there will be some gain to the assistants, who are nearly all girls. They will gain considerably, and I think, as it is, that the hours from 9 to 7.30 are quite long enough. If we could achieve by legislation that they should be uniform in this trade, and if the Merchant Drapers' Association and the Assistants' Association desire to achieve it, I think it is a very reasonable thing to ask the Oireachtas to give it legal sanction, knowing that it will be fair as between one shop and another.

If this amendment is not carried I am not going to prophesy what the situation will be. Senator O'Farrell suggested that the assistants are going to rely on their strength. I do not know what that means. I do not know that it will be a justification for a strike, but I do say if the Bill is passed as it is, the closing hour will become 9 o'clock in nearly every case. That will be inevitable. I urge the Seanad to accept this amendment. I would point out that the Bill was only passed in the other House by a very small majority, with the responsible Ministers of the Departments concerned voting against it. It is for that reason that I ask the Seanad to pass this amendment so as to make the Bill a good one now.

Mr. MORAN

I oppose the amendment. Senator Douglas has talked about small majorities in the Dáil in favour of this Bill. I would like him to know what the majorities in the case of this Bill and in the 1925 Act were. The Act was passed by a majority of two. The voting in favour of this Bill varied between 61 to 17, and 31 to 16. How does the Senator reconcile that majority with the majority for the 1925 Act? How he reconciles that is more than I can make out. Senator Farren told us that bringing forward this Bill was humbugging the Senate. Personally I think that if any humbugging has taken place, that humbugging was introduced by Senator Douglas in bringing in a Bill in the first instance. Others as well as I were led to believe that that was an agreed Bill. That was humbugging, and the humbugging has still continued.

They sent out a circular with a list of twenty-seven names against this Bill. I hold the list here, and I have letters from three of the largest firms who repudiate their signatures to that document. One of these firms is Messrs. E. Lee and Co., Ltd., who wrote that in reference to the circular from the Merchant Drapers' Association they repudiated their signature to such a circular. Messrs. Crowe, Wilson and Co. wrote that their attention had been directed to the circular of the Merchant Drapers' Association addressed to members of the Dáil and Seanad, requesting them to vote against the Shop Hours (Drapery Trades, Dublin and Districts) Bill. They stated that "we did not sign" or authorise any person to sign such document for them. I have a letter in the same terms from Todd, Burns and Co. Senator Douglas is not in the same position as the promoters of this Bill. The Senator has many strings to his bow besides the drapery business. The drapery business, so far as Senator Douglas is concerned, is a thing apart, but it is the very existence practically of the promoters of this Bill. They want a uniform rate of hours for their business. They want an additional hour and a-half on Saturdays, and they are willing to lose that much time in the rest of the week. I would urge the Senate not to pass this amendment.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I wish to support this Bill. Senator Moran's remarks brought back to my mind very clearly the manner in which the Shop Hours Act was introduced here, and rushed through in a very short time on statements made to the House which I think have not been substantiated in the manner in which we should expect. The people affected by this Bill are people in a very small way of business. Their living depends upon it. We are asking here to allow people to work when other people want them to close down. Now, if Senator Douglas or anybody else in the drapery trade wishes to close at 1 o'clock, or if they do not open at all, that is their business, but if people wish to earn a few shillings to keep their families and to supply their necessary needs, and to supply the very necessary needs of the people of Dublin, the poor people who get paid late on Saturdays, there is certainly no harm in it to anybody. We hear too much about putting on penalties. There is no intoxicating drink sold in these shops, and to say that a man in a small way of business cannot conduct his business decently within decent hours, and that he must be interfered with in this way is absurd. We have heard a good deal of threats about strikes. These men are not affected by strikes, nor afraid of strikes. Nobody is going to strike because these people remain open an hour and a-half extra on Saturdays. There is too much persecution in this country. People should be allowed to open their shops and sell their little wares.

Mr. FARREN

For once I am in agreement with what Senator Fitzgerald has said—that people should not be persecuted. I fully agree. We are not seeking to prevent a man from rearing his family and, if he has a shop of his own, keeping it open late and working it by his own sons and daughters, but we do object to him employing other men's daughters and persecuting them by keeping them working until very late hours on Saturday nights. Senator Douglas has put the case fairly and squarely. He has put the position to the Seanad as it exists. He has told the Seanad that last year's Act was the result of an agreement arrived at between the Association of Employers and the workers in the drapery trade. There is no doubt about it. Figures can be brought here to prove that statement as being correct. The Merchant Drapers' Association, which agreed to the passing of the Act last year, represents 95 per cent. of the people engaged in the drapery trade in this city. That statement cannot be contradicted, and I defy Senator Moran or Senator Fitzgerald or any of the people backing this Bill to contradict that statement. The members of that Association between them employ more than 95 per cent. of the people employed in the drapery houses in Dublin——

Mr. FITZGERALD

I would not accept that statement. I think it is entirely contrary to fact.

Mr. FARREN

That does not alter the fact that it is true.

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Senator says that 95 per cent. of the merchant drapers of Dublin are in favour of the Act, but I do not accept that.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Better leave it there.

Mr. FARREN

The statement I made is absolutely correct. The Merchant Drapers' Association and the trades union that caters for the employees arrived at a basis of agreement with regard to the closing hours on Saturday nights for the drapery houses in Dublin. I think that anybody who knows anything about the drapery business in Dublin will admit that there was some necessity for steps being taken to put an end to the late shopping hours in the drapery business in Dublin. It was no uncommon thing to see these drapery houses open after midnight on Saturday nights, and a lot of boys and girls kept on there serving people who did not believe in doing their shopping until all the licensed houses and the picture houses were closed. The language used by some of the people who went in there to purchase goods was not fit language for boys or girls to hear.

Mr. McKEAN

Were these the working classes?

Mr. FARREN

Some of them. It does not follow that because a working person does wrong we ought to condone it. When I am finished the Senator can get up and speak.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Better let Senator Farren proceed.

Mr. FARREN

I hold no brief for the working person, or any person, but it is wrong to say that anyone is entitled to inflict a hardship on any section of the community, whether through the working or any other class. Having regard to the facts of the case, and considering all we hear about questions of arbitration and conciliation in the settlement of disputes, if we are going back on the Act passed last July to regulate the working hours on Saturday nights in Dublin, we are opening up a good deal of trouble. Senator Douglas stated what was true when he said if you pass this Bill the houses that have complied, and that are always prepared to comply, with a fair agreement as to a reasonable closing hour, will be compelled to open their shops until 9 o'clock on Saturday night. It is a statement of fact that if the Bill is passed and that position brought about, the other decent houses that are prepared to close at 1 o'clock or any reasonable hour will be compelled to remain open as long as the other shops, and you are going to have a great labour upheaval in Dublin as far as the drapery houses are concerned. It is clearly laid down in the Act that the man who is running a small shop with the help of members of his family is not affected by the Act. He can remain open all night if he likes, and sweat himself and the family as much as he likes.

Mr. DOUGLAS

This amendment which Senator Moran has moved would prevent such a man from opening. It is right to say that the previous Act, which this is amending, would not prevent the smaller houses from opening if they had no employees.

Mr. FARREN

That is exactly what I said. Under the provisions of the Act which this Bill proposes to upset, perfect liberty was given to the man who owned a shop to keep open as long as he liked. We want to endeavour to protect young girls who come up from the country to these small shops to serve as apprentices, and for whom in many cases fees are paid for teaching them their business. I think it is only fair and reasonable that they should not be asked to work longer than from 9 o'clock in the morning till 7.30 on Saturday evening. God knows that is long enough for anybody to be working. With regard to Senator Fitzgerald's reference to the poor people for whom he seems to have so much consideration on this occasion, and who, he says, want to do their shopping at a late hour, I say that they do not want to do their shopping after 7.30, and if they do they should be compelled to do it at a reasonable hour. The Senator says that these people are not paid their wages until a late hour on Saturday. That is not a statement of fact.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I say it is a statement of fact.

Mr. FARREN

I say that 99 per cent. of the working people of Dublin are paid their wages on Friday, or before ten o'clock on Saturday morning, and therefore the argument that they do not have their money to spend until after a late hour at night is so much humbug. That is only an argument used to build up a case for continual late shopping. I respectfully suggest that it is not proper to keep any boy or girl working long after shopping in the larger establishments has stopped just for the benefit of people who could do their shopping within reasonable hours. If they want to buy anything they have all the afternoon to do it, and they should not be waiting until they have enjoyed themselves and then keep others sweating for their convenience.

Colonel MOORE

Although I do not know anything of this arrangement between the different people, I look on it as a perfect scandal that boys or girls should be kept working up to 9 o'clock at night. That is a disgrace to the country. On the broad principle I would vote for this; I think that 7.30 is very late to be kept working, and too late.

Mr. FANNING

I desire to support this Bill. I have never yet known any man or woman to work for the love of work. These people know their own business, and they keep open on Saturdays up to this particular time because that is the period during which these people control the business and get in a little money to keep them going. It is ridiculous to make the statement that big, wealthy houses are going to be convulsed with a tremendous labour upheaval if a few of these smaller shops keep open an additional hour and a half in the evening. If that is so they must exercise a tremendous influence in the life of Dublin. All the larger shops are kept going right through all the week, but what is the position with regard to these smaller shops? From the time they open on Monday until Friday evening they are doing nothing. They spend most of the week dressing their windows and overhauling their stocks to make them as attractive as they can for the ensuing Friday or Saturday.

I venture to say that 80 per cent. of the receipts of these people are taken between Friday and 9.30 on Saturday evening. If the people were reluctant to purchase at a late hour they would not keep open, but they understand the necessity and requirements of the people, and consequently they open not for the love of work but to get in money, and incidentally to give employment. I have never heard a single word uttered by way of complaint of any description from any one of the attendants in those shops. Why? Because they know thoroughly well the necessity for keeping open, and if they are forced to close at an earlier hour the shops would have to close down altogether, and the boys and girls employed there would find themselves out of employment. I am trying to look at this from a humanitarian standpoint, as well as Senator Farren and others, and I say that these girls are not complaining and they would be better off working until 9.30 on Saturday instead of walking the streets of Kingstown or filling the emigrant ships a few weeks hence.

Mr. FORAN

I did not want to intervene in this discussion, but as Senator Fanning was speaking I was wondering how he would view the setting up of a number of shebeens in Dublin. How would he view it if when the licensed houses were closed other people were carrying on the business of supplying drink? The same argument could be used with regard to shebeens that has been used regarding smaller shops that these were the hours suitable to their clientele, that these were the hours in which they get a few shillings together to pay their workers, and so prevent the emigrant ships from being loaded, and so on. In effect, that is what is proposed in this Bill. The clean, legitimate trade has agreed to a definite hour for closing in the evenings. A number of people seize the opportunity of doing an extra trade when these people are closed down, and are doing in effect a kind of shebeen trade.

The hours set out in the amendment give the working classes of the city a reasonable opportunity to do their shopping on Saturday nights. We know from experience that if the shops remained open until 1 a.m. people would be found to straggle in to do business. When the public know the hours they manage to get their business done within these hours. The net effect is that the people in the trade benefit, particularly the shop assistants, by having the houses closed at reasonable hours. By being able to get to their own homes at reasonable hours all concerned will benefit. We are always hearing the argument about the poor struggling man brought in as a make-weight against the general interests of the people.

Mr. MacGUINNESS

I would like to read the result of a plebiscite taken on June 23, 1923. It shows, I think, that Senator Douglas misled the House.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I do not admit that I misled the House.

Mr. MacGUINNESS

I have a return showing the number on the register of drapers, outfitters, boot and shoe dealers, the number in favour of the revocation of the closing order at present in force, the number against revocation; also the number in favour of and against the making of the proposed new closing order. Drapers: Number of shops on register, 302; number in favour of revocation, 117; number against revocation, 149; number in favour of proposed new order, 113; number against proposed new order, 153. Outfitters: Number of shops on register, 224; number in favour of revocation, 78; number against revocation, 126; number in favour of proposed new order, 21; number against proposed new order, 123.

I say there is no hardship on these people working up to 9 or 9.30 p.m. on Saturday nights. I was speaking to girls employed in these houses since this Bill was introduced and they assured me that they would prefer to have one hour shorter on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, a half-hour shorter on Friday, and to work until 9 o'clock on Saturday night, than the hours of the 1925 Act.

Mr. DOUGLAS

There were no hours in the 1925 Act except for Saturdays.

Mr. MacGUINNESS

Under that Bill assistants worked until 7 o'clock. This Bill gives them an hour less four days of the week. They work nine hours on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday; four hours on Wednesday, and until 6.30 on Fridays. Taking these hours into account, it will be admitted that the assistants suffer no hardship. They would prefer these hours, as to get away at 7.30 on Saturday evenings is of no use to them except that they could spend more money. If they were free at 6 o'clock on Saturday evening they might be able to make some use of the time at their disposal and visit a health resort. These assistants are quite satisfied, if they get off an hour earlier on other evenings of the week, to work until 9 or 9.30 on Saturday night.

As to Senator Farren's reference to a shopkeeper who can run a business with the help of his wife and family, that man can keep open all night. I do not approve of that. I think there should be a general closing hour for all shops. If that was so there would be no hardship on anyone. Small grocery shops and tobacconist shops can keep open all night if they wish, and there is not a word of condemnation from Senator Foran or Senator Farren. These girls are simply carrying on for five days of the week in the small shops and if they have to work until 10 o'clock on Saturdays they do not mind doing so. If the amendment is passed I say that a great injustice will be done not only to the small shopkeepers but to the people employed by them. I am perfectly satisfied that the result will be to add to the numbers of unemployed in Dublin.

Mr. DOUGLAS

With regard to the names on a circular to which Senator Moran referred, I know nothing whatever about the circular that was sent out. I had no connection with that association and I did not know the circumstances. I know that two of the houses referred to are wholesale houses.

Mr. MORAN

You are a director of one of them.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I am not a director of any of them. As far as I know, Messrs. Edward Lee and Company are concerned and one of their leading directors— I think he is the managing director— told me that he was strongly in favour of earlier Saturday closing. I do not question Senator Moran's statement, but if it is meant to imply that that firm are opposed to earlier Saturday closing I am certain he is under a misapprehension. However, I do not think the matter is very important. As to the statement that it was given out and understood that the other was an agreed Bill, I would ask Senator Moran to read my speeches in view of what he has stated. He will find that on no occasion have I said it was an agreed Bill. I stated on several occasions that I introduced the Bill at the request of the Assistants' Association and the Merchant Drapers' Association. That is absolutely true. I have misled no one with regard to that. I do not admit that I misled the Seanad.

While it is largely irrelevant whether it was an agreed Bill or not, that will not alter the fact that Senators have to make up their minds on the merits of the case whether it is desirable to keep shops open late on Saturday nights. That is really the issue on which Senators will have to vote. I disagree with Senator Fanning when he said that that was the assistants' desire. I see no evidence of it, but that is a matter of opinion. We have no proof here, and I only give my opinion for what it is worth.

With regard to a reference made by Senator Moran, it was not worthy of him, and not the kind of thing I would expect from him. He suggested that I was not much interested in a particular business which is under my name, and therefore I did not care a great deal about the Bill. As a matter of fact, my father owns that business, and it is his only means of livelihood. It is true that I am not much interested in it. I did not introduce that Bill as a matter of self-interest, but because I was asked, and because I believe in the principle of shorter hours. I am not ashamed of that.

I believe the drapers would gain, if they would all combine, by shorter hours. Without combination it is not fair to the smaller people to ask them alone to observe the shorter hours of closing. Senator Fanning asked why they keep open. It is because the smaller houses could not afford to face the competition. For that reason I never blamed them. I believe it is by legislation for the adoption of reasonable hours that you will succeed. I recognise that it is a matter of opinion, and, therefore, I have no quarrel with Senator MacGuinness, who represents one class of view on this matter, while I represent another. My belief is that the hours of the working-day for assistants, from 9 in the morning until 7 in the evening, are long enough, and if it is possible by legislation to establish that uniformity throughout there will be no loss to anyone. There will be less loss under the provisions of this Bill, if amended, than under the Bill I introduced, because this Bill deals with Sunday closing generally. There was a growing tendency to open houses on Sundays, which was quite unnecessary and undesirable.

Senator MacGuinness referred to a plebiscite. It is well known that as to shops of the kind we are dealing with here you cannot get an accurate opinion as to the desire of the trade. If a house employs no assistant, in a plebiscite it ranks equally in the voting with a house that employs 100 hands or 300 hands. I do not want to have any misunderstanding, but I believe I have the full support of the vast majority of the houses, measured either by the trade they do, the amount of capital invested, or the number of the assistants employed. But if it is to be simply houses, irrespective of size or the number of their employees or whether they are shops conducted by assistants who get away from their other business at 1 o'clock on Saturday and do business of their own for the rest of the day—if these are all to be reckoned equally, no doubt the figures given by Senator MacGuinness are correct. In conclusion, I ask the House to vote on the question: whether they believe it desirable to have a general closing in this particular trade at 7.30 on Saturday evenings. I hold that that is the proper course and I am not ashamed of my opinion.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Seanad went out of Committee.

Bill reported.

Seanad adjourned at 7.40 until Thursday, 3 o'clock.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 Jun 1926