Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1926

Vol. 7 No. 9

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

I move: "That the Bill be considered on Report."

Amendment not moved:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). To delete at the end of the sub-section the following words (added to the sub-section in Committee):—
"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."— (Senator Moran.)

I beg to move amendment 2:—

Second Schedule, line 35. To delete "7.30 p.m." (inserted in Committee) and to substitute therefor "9 p.m."

This amendment is one that I ask the House to accept, otherwise the position of the promoters of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, would be infinitely worse than it was before. As is known, these people are compelled at present to shut an hour and a half earlier on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and an hour earlier on Fridays. Under an amendment which was moved by Senator Douglas and inserted in the Bill, the promoters would find themselves in a very awkward position, so much so, that, rather than accept it, they would prefer to abandon the Bill altogether. I can scarcely conceive that the Seanad, when it passed Senator Douglas's amendment, really had the idea in their minds that they were going to curtail the hours of those people not only on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, but also by an hour and a half on Saturdays. Senator Douglas's amendment would deprive them of that hour and a half on Saturdays which they are already deprived of on several of the week days.

I ask whether it is in order to discuss an amendment now which was already fully discussed and decided upon in Committee? If the amendment is accepted I would like to say a few words upon it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it is better to allow it to be moved. Our practice, heretofore, has been to allow these amendments to be received. Particularly have we given that concession in the case of Government Bills; we have frequently passed amendments, in Committee, and the Government have sought to upset them on Report Stage, I cannot give less latitude in connection with private members' Bills than would be given in connection with Government Bills. I think, in this particular matter, as this is the essence of the Bill and as the promoters say they will abandon it if they do not get this amendment now, it is only fair to allow the matter to be considered again, not, of course, that I am suggesting that the House should alter the position already arrived at.

We are bringing this House and the Oireachtas into contempt by continually reconsidering questions of a petty nature such as this. I think it is lowering the dignity of a legislative assembly if, on any occasion, a few people with vested interests can challenge decisions already arrived at. I have spoken on this question half a dozen times. I spoke on it on the previous Bill last year, and I have spoken on it on this measure, but in view of the persistency of Senator Moran, in favour of putting forward his point of view, it is necessary that the House should know the position. Senator Moran in moving this amendment made the suggestion that the House did not understand what it was doing on the last occasion, that it was taking a couple of hours off the earlier portion of the week for the purpose of an addition at the latter end of the week.

This Bill was brought forward because people have been caught in their own net, and ostensibly for the purpose of getting this House to stultify itself by going back on the decision it gave when it passed the Act last year regulating the closing hours. The purpose of this Bill is to upset that decision, and the bringing forward of this amendment would remind one of the rescinding motions of the board of guardians. In order to accomplish their aims they make certain proposals with regard to closing on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, so that they might get late shopping on Saturday. Ostensibly the Bill is going to regulate the hours of labour, whereas in reality, as I have said, the object is to stultify the House in going back on the decision it came to after considerable discussion last year, when a Bill was passed giving legislative effect to decisions arrived at between the employers and their assistants in connection with this particular industry. If Senator Moran wants to do the decent thing he would withdraw the Bill. This matter was fully discussed in the Dáil last year, when it fixed the closing hour of these shops at 7.30 on Saturday night, and the matter was discussed fully on the Committee Stage in this House, which affirmed its decision previously given. It is now attempted on the Report Stage to get in 9 o'clock as the hour for shopping on Saturday night. If Senator Moran does not want to inflict penalties I hope he will withdraw it, and if not I hope the House will stand up to its decision and not accept the amendment.

I beg to move that the amendment by Senator Moran be rejected. I ask the House to keep to its decision. I am still strongly of opinion that the hours from 9 o'clock to 7.30 are long enough. The point made by Senator Moran is not in any sense an unfair one. The promoters of this Bill, most of whom, not by law but by custom, close at 7 o'clock, offered and made it legal to close at 6 on the other nights of the week. I ask the House to stick to 7.30 for Saturdays. If Senator Moran then moves that it should be 7 on the other nights, I will support him. That, I think, is a fair proposition. It is the long day on Saturday I am opposed to. I think it would be a great mistake to say that the smaller houses should be closed at 6 o'clock on the other nights of the week. I would be prepared to concede that, and to meet Senator Moran's point I would suggest an amendment extending the closing hours by an hour on week-days, and if the Dáil does not agree with that let us have a compromise on the lines I suggested.

I think it is better to stick to what we arranged the other day. I do not wish for any change.

I do not think there would be any inconsistency in the Seanad going back on its previous decision, considering that a number of Senators are here now who were not here then. The Seanad has gone back this very day on omissions from the Railways Act. It was not considered an undignified position to come before the Seanad to have these things put right, and there is nothing undignified, therefore, in bringing in this Bill to rectify any mistake made in 1925. The Bill was unduly rushed. It was introduced at a time when we did not know what it was driving at. It was passed by the Dáil and we did not like to throw it out. If the amendment is rejected it will do a great injustice to these small traders. That is the real point. The workers do not come into it at all, and there is no complaint from them. It is a question of the bigger shops and the smaller shops, or, in other words, a question of monopoly and poor strugglers striving to eke out a livelihood as best they can. They occupy small shops, and they have made commitments with banks and wholesale houses.

The moment this Bill is passed it will undoubtedly shake the credit and prestige of these people. From that point of view, as well as from the point of view that the Bill shortens the working hours per week by 2½ hours, I think you should allow this amendment to go through. It will not be a hardship on the workers, but it will be a great boon to the small traders. It will be an absolutely unfair and cruel thing to drive these traders out of their little businesses simply because the bigger houses want the monopoly of trade. Give them a reasonable time to get out, and do not hunt them out by an Act of Parliament of this sort. Senator O'Farrell refers to them as hucksters, but even hucksters have to live and provide food and clothing for themselves and their families.

I do not think it is a good thing for this House to rescind to-day what was ratified in the House last week. If that thing happens it will be said that it was a case only of a snatch vote from people whipped up specially for the occasion while many others of the Senators are away. I think it is detracting from the dignity of the House if attempts should be made to get this carried by a snatch vote. It appears to me to be a legislative Act promoted by a very small number of people. The workers' interests have been harped upon as one of the reasons why this Bill is promoted. I think the people best qualified to speak for the workers are the Senators on the Labour benches. The workers have no grievance against early closing. They would much prefer to see early closing than suffer the abuses that late hours inevitably lead to. I understand there are about 140 to 150 of these small shops concerned. It is not a good principle to legislate for the smaller section in opposition to the wish of the great masses of the people. This thing has been canvassed by interested parties in a way that I am afraid has not added to the dignity of Parliamentary procedure. I think no ground has been made whatever for this amendment, and I think the honourable thing would be to withdraw it and not to have this principle rescinded now by a smaller House than that which passed it last week.

Amendment put and declared lost.
A division was called for.

CATHAOIRLEACH

While waiting for the division I might mention, in view of what Senator O'Farrell said as to the possible inconvenience that may arise if this practice of moving on Report Stage to undo what was done on the Committee Stage becomes general, that it appears to me to be the recognised practice. I am not saying whether it ought to be curtailed or not, but our Standing Orders make no provision for curtailing it. What they do is this— they give me the power, where an amendment has been rejected in Committee, and an attempt is made to carry that same amendment on Report Stage, to stop that. That is rather an inference that I have no power to stop the opposite. Until the Standing Orders give me power I hesitate to exercise it. As I understand it, the practice in the House of Commons and I think in the Dáil, too, is to allow matters to be agitated on Report.

I think in the Dáil they frequently allow matters to be referred back to Committee.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If it is an important change, they protest the House by referring back the Bill again to Committee.

I think the Standing Orders Committee might consider it. I do not think it would be right to refuse under every circumstance the right to rescind what was done in Committee, but there ought to be a certain number who would sign so that it would enable the Seanad to see that it was not done on every occasion and that a large number of the House wanted it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is quite possible that in Committee we might pass an amendment on a misunderstanding and on wrong information, and there ought to be some power to correct it.

I agree with that.

I think our Standing Orders are lop-sided in that respect. You may turn down an amendment through a misunderstanding and you may also pass an amendment for the same reason. Yesterday we had the extraordinary experience of the House deleting an amendment which it had inserted previously and without any notice whatever, while I moved an amendment very slightly different from what was moved the other day and I was ruled out of order.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I have known this House on more occasions than one by unanimous consent agreeing on Report Stage that something inserted on Committee Stage be reversed.

Unanimously?

The Seanad divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 18.

Tá.

  • Thomas Westropp Bennett.
  • Martin Fitzgerald.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • Francis McGuinness.
  • James MacKean.
  • James Moran.

Níl.

  • John Bagwell.
  • Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown.
  • William Cummins.
  • Countess of Desart.
  • James Douglas.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • James Perry Goodbody.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Arthur Jackson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Patrick Williams Kenny.
  • Earl of Kerry.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • William B. Yeats.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That the Bill be considered on Report"—put and agreed to.

CATHAOIRLEACH

With regard to next week, there is not at present more business than would occupy the House for a comparatively brief time—that is, anything from an hour to an hour and a half. I have had inquiries made, and we are not likely to have any fresh legislation ripe for introduction into this House next week. In that view it seems to me that it would probably not be necessary for me to ask the Seanad to meet next week. If, however, an occasion should arise for any urgency I will communicate with the members of the Seanad. At present there does not seem any reasonable ground for bringing the Senators here next week. The House stands adjourned until further notice.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.40 p.m.

Top
Share