I regret to have to tell the House that the Leas-Chathaoirleach has been in very indifferent health for some time, and consequently he has not been able to be in his place to propose the motion standing in his name. Perhaps some other Senator will move the motion.
Hairdressers Registration Bill, 1931—Second Stage.
Cathaoirleach
In the absence of the Leas-Chathaoirleach I beg to move: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I beg to move:
To delete all after the word "That" and to substitute therefor the words, "the Seanad declines to proceed further with the Hairdressers Registration Bill, 1931, as a Private Bill inasmuch as public interests are affected by the proposal contained in the Bill to prohibit, by making it an offence at law, persons who are not registered as hairdressers under the powers of the Bill from practising hairdressing."
Most of us in this House know that when you get a certain amount of publicity in the Press you are liable to be misunderstood. I find myself in the position that all sorts of people believe that I either do not believe in hairdressers at all or that I want to prohibit them in the practice of their profession. My interest in this matter is very largely from the point of view of procedure. My reason for putting down this amendment is because I want definitely to raise what kind of Bill should be treated as a Private Bill. If this Bill had been allowed to pass its Second Stage without the point being raised, a precedent would have been established which would have been rather difficult to alter in the future. It is not easy to define absolutely the distinction between a Public Bill and a Private Bill. Nearly all Public Bills affect private interests, very often in a way that we do not like, and nearly all Private Bills affect public interests. Often strictly Private Bills are liable, in a way you sometimes do not see, to affect public interests. It will always be difficult clearly to define the difference. The principal objects of our Private Bill procedure, as I understand them, are (1) to provide a method by which private individuals and corporations can seek to have the law altered in so far as it affects themselves without the necessity of obtaining the assistance of a private member of the Oireachtas, and by which they can have their case stated by counsel in a way that is satisfactory to them; (2) then to see that there is a full and detailed examination of anything which is put forward by private bodies or corporations, and that proper notice is given which might not be the case in cases of ordinary public Bills; and (3) to provide a way by which the State can ask them to pay for the privileges which they obtain in this way. One of the most important objects is to save the time of the Oireachtas and to ensure that it will not have to give a large proportion of its time to small matters and details which only affect private interests.
The only definition of a Private Bill is found in the Private Bill Standing Order, which reads: "Every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any person, or that interferes with the private property of any person, otherwise than in the interests of the public generally and as a measure of public policy, shall be treated as a Private Bill."
That is a very wide definition and I need hardly point out that a Standing Order of a wide character such as that is will from time to time become established by precedents as to the kind of Bill which is to be treated under it. While I personally think that that Standing Order can be clarified and improved and probably will be in the future, I recognise at the same time that no Standing Order will be found which may not on certain occasions create a difficulty. The Bill which we at the moment are considering is one which would unquestionably be, to my mind, a Private Bill as far as the bulk of its provisions is concerned. It aims at the setting up of a body which will try to improve the hairdressing trade and it will set up a standard for hairdressers generally. In so far as it does that it is unquestionably private and concerns only members of the trade. But this Bill goes further, and it proposes to prohibit any person practising as a hairdresser who may through any reason refuse to join that body or whom that body may for any reason refuse to admit into membership. That may be a good proposal or it may not, but it is not a private matter. Look at the matter in numerous ways. At present if I wish to make my son a hairdresser I can do so—provided he is competent and willing—without any legal restrictions. That applies now to every member of the public. If this Bill passes that will not be the case. I am of opinion, therefore, that the provision of prohibition in this Bill makes the Bill a public one. For that reason I am of opinion that a Bill of that kind should not be introduced as a Private Bill and that it would be better to have it introduced as a Private Members Bill or indeed as a Public Bill. If it were introduced as a Private Members Bill or if it were introduced as a Public Bill we may assume in the latter event that owing to the large proportion of it which is private that it would be submitted first to the examiner and probably to a Committee under Standing Order 52 of Private Bill Standing Orders. When a Private Bill comes before this House for Second Reading—all Private Bills come first be fore this House—I personally am strongly of opinion that that Private Bill ought to pass the Second Stage and be sent to Committee unless the whole principle of the Bill is absolutely objectionable. This House should not spend time on details until the promoters have an opportunity by their representatives of putting the whole case before a Committee. Therefore for my part I would vote for every Private Bill unless the principle of it was such that I could not vote for it. I would vote for it and then let it go to Committee. If, however, my motion does not meet with the approval of the House, I will vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because if it is a Private Bill it should go to a Committee and an opportunity should be given the whole Committee to improve it in a way that would be reasonably acceptable. That is the position as far as I am concerned. If the House passes my motion there would be, I think, two courses open to the promoters of this Bill. Either they may introduce this Bill as a Public Bill if they can find a member of either House with the necessary support willing to do so, or they can remove the public portion of it and withdraw their claim to prevent anybody whatever from acting as a hairdresser and then introduce the Bill as a Private Bill. That would be the effect of the motion which I am moving.
So far I have dealt almost entirely with the matter from the point of view of procedure. As far as my own personal view of the provisions of the Bill is concerned, I may say that I am not in any sense interested in the hairdressing trade, but at the same time I welcome any trade combining with the working people for the purpose of improving the standard of the profession. In so far as that is the principle of the Bill I am strongly in favour of it. I have no objection to a properly-set-up body, with reasonable restrictions, having power to register hairdressers or the members of any other skilled profession, and I have no objection to persons not registered being prohibited from describing themselves as registered. I have an objection to preventing people who may fail to be registered from carrying on their ordinary business while unregistered, as is the case at the moment.
I admit that I am not competent to advise in this matter; I have no right to advise Senators who may be opposing this Bill; but I am of the opinion that it would be far wiser to bring in a Bill in which there could be set up a standard for hairdressers, open to the skilled workers in the trade, and I think they should ask for powers to prevent people describing themselves falsely as belonging to that body if they did not belong to it. The prohibition of people should be left over for a number of years, because that is a matter of public policy and it would affect a large number of trades. A great deal of consideration would have to be given to the question of how far bodies which would be set up with powers of registration could prohibit people who, at the moment, are entitled to earn their livelihood. I want to get it established that where there is public policy involved to the extent of affecting every individual and preventing an individual carrying on his trade, in future a Bill should not be regarded as a Private Bill. I hope I have made myself clear.
I beg to second the amendment, and I do so for the same reasons as have been put forward by Senator Douglas. To my mind the true test of whether a Bill is properly a Private Bill or not is whether it interferes with public right. I agree with Senator Douglas that the definition in our Standing Orders for Private Bill procedure is a little vague. The true test is whether or not this will interfere with the right of the public. It clearly does in those provisions. If this Bill were passed the provisions would prevent a person practising as a hairdresser who would not be a member of the Association.
Senator Douglas said it was not easy to define the difference between Public and Private Bills. It is not easy, and I think the Senator's contribution has gone a long way to establish the definition. This is the first time the issue has been before the Oireachtas as to whether or not a Bill introduced as a Private Bill should continue to be regarded and treated as a Private Bill. It is rather a vital issue. The Senator says that he does not want precedents established which might later be considered undesirable. It is not necessary to argue the merits, although usually one does argue the merits of the Bill on Second Reading. It would be interesting if one were to follow to a logical conclusion the principle sought to be established by Senator Douglas when he mentioned that he believed in combinations. He said he believed that not alone should the hairdressers be allowed to submit a measure like this to the Oireachtas but that the members of all skilled professions should enjoy a somewhat similar privilege with regard to legislation that may be introduced later.
If carried to its logical conclusion the Senator's principle would likely lead to strange and rather peculiar results. Many of us who have very definite opinions on the matter feel that the agricultural profession, for instance, if this principle were accepted, should be entitled to hedge itself round with all sorts of conditions, and should be entitled to enforce regulations so that every farmer and agricultural worker would belong to an agricultural organisation aiming at benefit for the industry as a whole. If we were to follow that principle to its logical conclusion a very peculiar position might arise, and perhaps those who subscribe to that principle now might not, later on, be very anxious to have it accepted.
Senator Douglas quoted Standing Order No. 1 with regard to Private Business. That Standing Order sets out that every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any persons, or that interferes with the private property of any persons, otherwise than in the interests of the public generally and as a measure of public policy, shall be treated as a Private Bill. This Bill obviously comes within that definition and no reason has been advanced why it should not be treated as a Private Bill. Senator Douglas said that the Standing Order might require to be clarified and improved. He makes the admission there that his contention is not that the Bill does not come within the definition which requires it to continue to be treated as a Private Bill, but that the Standing Order is in itself defective. If that is the line of argument that Senator Douglas wants to pursue, then he should endeavour to have the Standing Order definitely clarified. It would be then time enough to talk about establishing precedents. This Private Bill does come within that definition, and it has been accepted in the Private Bill Office as coming within the definition of a Private Bill, and I ask the House to continue, at any rate until we have something more explicit in the Standing Orders, to regard it as a Private Bill.
The Bill itself does not explicitly indicate that its proposals are in the interest of the public generally. The promoters of the Bill themselves, if I leave out the Preamble, do not attempt to stipulate or establish that the Bill is in the interest of the public generally. This Bill very frankly is in the interest of the promoters themselves. It is in the interest of the hairdressing profession; it is in the interest of the practising barbers who are endeavouring to set up this wall for the protection of their own interests and the interests of the profession. They are not attempting in any way to render any particular additional public service by the introduction of this Bill and in seeking to have legislative sanction given to it. It frankly, accordingly, is not for the purpose of serving the interest of the public generally. It is for the purpose of serving the private interest of the hairdressing profession.
Senator Douglas made the admission that Private Bills affect public interest to some degree, and Senator Brown said that the true test of a Private Bill was whether or not it interfered with public rights and interests. I would ask Senator Brown in that connection, through you, sir, what Private Bills have been introduced and have been carried through that did not in some degree or other affect public interests? Let us take the Bill which was before this House last, in connection with which I served on the Committee—the Limerick Harbour Tramways Bill. That Bill was introduced as a Private Bill; it was treated as a Private Bill, and carried through as a Private Bill. In that Bill there was also interference with public rights, to a degree. In that Bill the right was given to the promoters to lay tracks across O'Connell Street, Limerick. By reason of the fact that these tracks are to be laid across O'Connell Street, and these trams and cars are going to pass through that street, the traffic is to be held up and will continue to be held up. The rights of the public to a certain degree are being interfered with through that Bill, which goes to prove my contention that it is nearly next to impossible to cite any case of any Private Bill which has gone through the Oireachtas which did not to some degree or other interfere with public rights. If Senator Brown admits that, he admits my contention, that in this respect it is practically impossible to have any Private Bill introduced which in one way or another, in some limited or unlimited degree, does not affect public interests. If the Bill conforms to the main principle embodied in Standing Order No. 1, that every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any person, etc., ought to be treated as a Private Bill—if that is the main governing principle, then I ask the House that this should be reasonably regarded as a Private Bill and should continue to be treated as a Private Bill.
Senator Douglas stressed the point about those already in the hairdressing profession, and that some of those who may not choose to or cannot comply with the regulations which will be established by this Board cannot have their names inserted on the register and cannot accordingly continue to carry on their trade as hairdressers. Those people who are already in the hairdressing profession have an obvious course open to them, even if this Bill continues to be treated as a Private Bill. They can appear before the Committee. There is no reason why they should not make their claim through counsel before the Committee and have their particular case argued. They have a measure of redress to their hand, so that that is no very formidable contention.
This Bill was examined and the Examiner reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with. If Senator Douglas's amendment is carried, it simply means that this Bill will have to be reintroduced as a Public Bill, and if it is introduced as a Public Bill and receives its Second Reading, it will, in all likelihood, be again submitted to the Examiner. There is one thing certain, that it will not be regarded absolutely as a Public Bill. The most that can be said for it in that respect is that it will be regarded as coming within the category of hybrid Bills, and there is every likelihood that it will be so regarded. If it is regarded as coming within the category of hybrid Bills, after the Second Reading it will be again submitted to the Examiner, and if the Examiner reports compliance with the Standing Orders, it will be submitted to a committee. That committee will, to all intents and purposes, be the very same committee as would be set up if the Bill were regarded as a Private Bill, and you get back to where you were. Under this amendment you get back to the same position. A committee will be set up which will be the same committee as would be set up if the Bill were regarded as a Private Bill, so that there is no essential difference in the treatment. There has not, I think, been sufficient advance to establish the precedent that a Bill like this, which interferes only to a very limited degree with public rights, should be regarded as a Public Bill, and so treated. I think a stronger case should be made in that respect, inasmuch as, reiterating the principle which I am attempting to establish, that this Bill seems to conform to the definition of a Private Bill as defined in No. 1 of the Standing Orders for Private Bills, this House should logically continue to regard it as a Private Bill, and not attempt to establish any precedent until the matter is more fully examined, having advertence to the Standing Orders.
I do not feel justified in advising the Seanad on the Constitutional point whether this Bill should be properly regarded as a Private Bill or not, but it does seem to me that Senator O'Hanlon's precedent of the Limerick Harbour Bill is not a good one. That Bill affected the public interests in the City of Limerick, but haircutting, shaving, waving, and all the rest, go on all over Ireland. I consider that the public interest is very much more widely affected by this Bill than by the Limerick Harbour Bill. I shall vote for the amendment, because I was much impressed by Senator Douglas's view on the subject. I know that he has made a long study of this particular aspect of the proceedings from a constitutional point of view. I was also much impressed by what Senator Brown said. But, to be perfectly honest, I must say that I would also vote against the Bill on Second Reading.
This is a very important motion, and one, I think, the House should be very slow to adopt without very careful consideration, inasmuch as if it is passed it will very seriously alter the basis of our Private Bill legislation. I hold that view on general grounds, but I hold it particularly on this Bill, having regard to the character of the Bill and the circumstances under which it comes before us as a Private Bill. Senator Douglas said if this motion was not passed—at least I so understood him— we would be establishing a new precedent in connection with Private Bills. Surely the reverse is the fact. There has never been a motion of this kind on a Private Bill before, and it is the Senator who would establish a new precedent if he induced the House to pass this motion.
It is, I think, rather unfortunate that such a motion should arise on a Bill of this kind, which is likely to create a good deal of controversy otherwise, because between the motion and the Bill it would be very doubtful to get the real issue. People will be influenced for or against this motion according as they view the merits of the Bill, and in that way I am afraid if this motion is pressed it will lead to confusion. Other Senators here may be aware, as I am, that when originally contemplated this Bill was intended to be introduced as an ordinary Bill by a private member of the Seanad. When I heard of that intention I was very much surprised. In the first place, this Bill was primarily designed to regulate and protect particular trade interests, and as such could not come at all within the category of a Public Bill. In the second place, I think the people who come forward to ask for facilities of that kind might be asked to pay a little for the privilege they seek.
The Oireachtas has set up rather elaborate legislative machinery at considerable cost, and I do not think it should be open to any group of private individuals, seeking to forward their own interests, to utilise that machinery gratis. Our Private Bill procedure was provided for that purpose, and I can see no reason why any exception should be made in favour of any particular promoters. There is another point: when a Bill is introduced as a Private Bill it has to be advertised, and in that way it is brought in a special manner before the notice of the public, and any member of the public who thinks his interest is endangered by this private proposal can lodge a petition. If that petition is found to be in order he is entitled to be heard by counsel and can give evidence before the Committee. These are two obstacles that exist in the case of Private Bills, and these two obstacles, namely, expense and the risk of petitions from members of the public, do not exist in the case of ordinary Bills. There, again, Private Bill procedure provides for drastic examination of the details which are not generally provided in the procedure of ordinary Bills.
It is true that there is a possible procedure by which Private members' Bills after a second reading could be referred to a Select Committee which should have special powers to hear counsel and to examine witnesses. The fact is that that has never been done in connection with any Bill in this House, and the promoters who brought this Bill in as a Private Bill had surely no reason to anticipate that such a course would be taken in this instance. There was one attempt made to follow that course and that was in the case of the Accountants Bill introduced by Senator Douglas himself. The Senator no doubt adopted that course because he thought in the public interest it was the right course and his motion to-day shows that he is consistent in that respect, but the fate of that Bill was not encouraging to people who have the protection of their trade interests in mind. In my judgment if that was introduced as a Private Bill it would have received Second Reading and would have been sent to a Committee for examination, whereas in fact it was rejected. Let us suppose this Bill was brought forward in that way. Is there anybody here has any doubt that it would not have survived half an hour's discussion? I venture to think it would have been unanimously rejected on the grounds that it was a Private Bill and should have been introduced under Private Bill Procedure. I do not know what are the reasons that operated in the minds of the promoters of this Bill in changing their intention as to the character of this Bill. I have been told that they got the best possible expert advice on this subject and that they came to the conclusion it should be brought in as a Private Bill. In that it seems to me that they showed their bona fides, they submitted to the additional obstacles provided in the public interest. And I do not suppose for a moment that any of them thought that by introducing this Bill as a Private Bill they were evading the objection now raised that it would be infringing public rights. But now having adopted what is the normal procedure in this House and having spent their money upon this Bill we are asked by this motion to determine that their money has been wasted, and that they must resort to abnormal procedure. That seems to me to be rather a harsh course for the House to pursue without very grave reason and much graver reason than has been advanced here.
On the question of the infringement of public rights, I shall have something to say later, but at the moment I would like to emphasise what Senator O'Hanlon said about previous Private Bills which have been under discussion in this House. He mentioned one, I will mention a few more. The House will remember the Bank of Ireland Bill when it was before us a few years ago. Does anyone suggest that that did not affect public rights? Of course it did—not of the same character as the public rights affected here, but still some very important rights, and if it were possible to draw comparison between these different rights I would say that they were much more important public rights than those dealt with here. There was, then, no motion from any quarter of the House asking that the promoters should be refused permission to proceed with their Bill, and those who did think public interests were in danger and sought to protect them— Senator Connolly will remember this —had to avail of the facilities provided by Private Bill procedure.
I admit that it was an awkward process, but it was availed of and amendments were secured which, I think, were generally considered rather useful. I do not see at all why a similar thing could not be done in connection with this Bill. It would be open to anyone when the Bill came back from Committee to put down amendments that could be referred back to the Committee for consideration.
Take another Bill—the Dublin Port and Docks Bill. Surely that Bill affected public rights. Everyone in Dublin and its neighbourhood will have to pay extra rates as a result of the enactment of that Bill. Again, shipping passing up and down the Liffey will be restricted in its movements because of that Bill. And so of almost all other Private Bills. The difficulty would be to find the Private Bill that does not affect some kind of public rights in some respect. I say that in the majority of cases they affect public rights to a far greater degree than they affect private rights. In fact, the term "private," as it is applied in this connection, relates more to the procedure adopted than to the character of the Bill. It means that a Private Bill is peculiarly of the kind suitable for detailed and exact examination such as cannot be afforded under the ordinary procedure of the House. If that be true of any Bill, I submit it is true of this Bill. What the House is asked to do in this case is merely to give the promoters a chance of proving their case. I think to refuse that would be a very grave error and an injustice to people who have complied with all the formalities provided by the Oireachtas.
Now it is suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn and introduced as a Private Member's Bill. Senator O'Hanlon has dealt with that. Senator Douglas suggested, as an alternative, that a new Private Bill might be introduced omitting the objectionable provision with regard to public rights.
A Private Member's Bill.
The Senator suggested, in the first instance, that a Private Member's Bill might be introduced and then be treated as a hybrid Bill. Senator O'Hanlon answered the arguments made in respect to that. I think I was right in stating that Senator Douglas did suggest as an alternative that this measure might be introduced as a Private Bill, omitting the provision to which he objects with regard to public rights. I think the Senator agrees with that.
I was not advocating anything. I simply stated, when asked what would be the effect and the position if this were passed, that either of these two courses could be adopted.
The Senator suggested that as a possible alternative. In what respect would that help anyone? If this Bill is treated as a Private Bill it will go to the Private Bill Committee and be examined in detail. It will be open to the Committee either to delete that provision altogether or to amend it drastically. If that were done, the Bill would then be in exactly the form in which it is suggested, as an alternative course, it might be introduced. Therefore, I do not think we would be in any better position if that course were adopted, whereas we would be, I think, establishing a hazardous precedent and giving a twist to our procedure that would be very undesirable unless after very long and careful consideration. Moreover, it would involve extra expense on the promoters. That would be a hardship on them. I am not so much concerned with that as I am with our methods of doing our own business.
As to the special infringement of public right, I have here a letter from the solicitor to the promoters which I would ask the permission of the House to read. Perhaps I ought to explain how it is that I happen to have this letter. I do not know any of the promoters, but yesterday I had a communication from their solicitor, Mr. Arthur Cox, asking me to see him. I did so. He told me he was anxious that the House should be informed that the promoters were anxious and were prepared to agree to radical alterations in the clauses that are objected to. I suppose the proper course to have adopted would have been to have a communication of that kind sent to the Leas-Chathaoirleach, whose absence we all so much regret. I promised to convey that information to the House, provided it were given to me in a statement which I could read out. This is the letter I have got:
In the interview which we had to-day I mentioned to you, as agent for the promoters of this Bill, that I had seen my clients regarding the objections which had been suggested to certain of the provisions contained in it.
I understand that these objections would relate in particular to the penalty clauses in Section 22.
The promoters have authorised me to state that they will be prepared at the Committee Stage of the Bill to agree to a radical alteration of the clauses to which objection has been taken with a view to meeting what I understand has been expressed to be the opinion and wishes of Senator Douglas and other Senators.
Apart from Section 22, no doubt other matters may arise in the Bill to which alteration might be suggested, and I am authorised by the promoters to state that they are fully prepared at the Committee Stage to consider any such points which may be brought forward.
I hope Senator Douglas will agree that that letter goes a long way to meet his objections. I said at the beginning that it was rather unfortunate that this point should have arisen on this Bill. Senator Douglas has made it clear that he is raising this objection as a matter of principle and not in any sense in special opposition to this Bill. That being so, I would suggest to him that, in view of the length to which the promoters are prepared to go, he should not press this to a division but should let the Second Reading take place and the Bill go to Committee. I suggest to him that he might take another opportunity of raising this question on a detached motion, perhaps one for the revision of Standing Orders, which I am glad to see he is in favour of. If that were done I think the House would avoid establishing a bad precedent in a particular case, and that justice would be done to the promoters.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am not an advocate of this Bill in its present form. There are several of its provisions that I would like to see altered. I would have confidence in any committee to which it was sent by this House to say that it might regard the preamble as not proved or to make amendments to it. Then if the Bill came back from the Committee to this House it would still be open to Senators to put down amendments that were thought desirable. Finally, it would always be within the power of the House to reject the Bill in its final form if it was not according to the wishes of the majority.
I desire to support the amendment, because I think that the Bill in its present form interferes with public interests and deprives the public of certain rights. The effect of the Bill, if it were to go through in its present form, would be to re-establish the old guilds or corporations which, in the case of all trades, were in existence at one time. I do not know for how many centuries they existed. Their object was to create sheltered trades. Only the people belonging to these guilds or corporations were allowed to practice their art or mystery, as it was called. No outsiders were allowed to come in. If this Bill were to go through in its present form it would mean that the restrictions that prevailed under the old guilds or corporations would again come into force. It is a matter of public interest whether or not sheltered trades should again be set up, as happened in the past. That, to my mind, is the important point.
This is the first case in which this question has been introduced. If this Bill were passed then there would be nothing to prevent other trades from coming in and having legislation passed to have the occupations with which they are concerned made closed and sheltered. Would that be for the general good of the body politic? I think that is a question that ought to be decided, not in a Private Bill but by a Public Bill. In connection with this particular Bill, if the system of the old guilds is in this case to be introduced again, then I think the promoters should bring the surgeons under it. This aims at a reintroduction of the guild or corporation that controlled the calling of barber-surgeon. That guild or corporation was one of the earliest to be established. I think its charter dated back to the time of the early Edwards. I do not know whether my friend Senator Gogarty would wish that his profession should be joined up again with the art or profession dealt with in this Bill.
There has been a good deal of undeserved criticism of this House and of its methods. For instance, we have been criticised for lack of initiative in promoting Bills, and if this motion goes through is there anybody, corporate or discorporate, connected with private or public interests in the whole country that will ever come to the Seanad with a private Bill? We are simply showering red tape on the unfortunate barbers. I heard of people who, when asked how they would like their hair cut, answered: "In silence," which would go to show that not the least loquacious citizens are barbers. If we get a reputation for involving in red tape, and holding up private legislation through the difficulty of defining what the public interests are, it will further strengthen the criticism which has been quite unfairly levelled at this House. It will lay us open to the charge, apart altogether from our lack of initiative, of creating a certain amount of confusion. No Bill, private or public, can be said not to involve the public interest in some way. At this stage I do not wish to discuss the merits of this Bill. I do not see why Senator Douglas should object to vocational interests. He was one of the people responsible for introducing into the Constitution vocational Ministers, and here are the barbers throughout the country wishing to connect again with the old and honourable tradition of barber-surgeons, but Senator Douglas, with his democratic outlook, divorces them from that privilege. The Senator should be the least of all members in the House that such a proposal should come from. It would clear the air if we acknowledged the fact that Senator O'Hanlon has presented for our consideration, that no Private Bill can be devoid of ramifications affecting the public interests.
Senator Guinness referred to the introduction of the old guilds, and thought it was a very dangerous proposition to introduce in respect to hairdressers. The Senator will not forget that in recent months three Bills were passed through this House doing for particular professions what is now being sought for this occupation, as I call it. There was under discussion in the Dáil recently a Veterinary Surgeons Bill, while a Dentists Act and Acts dealing with the medical and legal professions have already been passed. They have all set up guilds which have been established in authority by legal enactment. The point I am forced to consider is that all these Bills were brought in and discussed as public Bills.
I am in a difficulty, relieved somewhat by Senator Hooper's statement. I believe that the promoters of this Bill have been acting perfectly bona fide. They had at first the view that it ought to be a Public Bill, and they proceeded accordingly. They were then authoritatively advised that the Bill should be a Private Bill, and they took that advice and altered their procedure. If they are put in a special difficulty at this stage it may seem that this House is not dealing fairly with them. But for that consideration I am very strongly of opinion that this Bill, and any such Bills in future, ought to be dealt with by the Public Bill procedure set out in the Standing Orders. Even on the Standing Order quoted by Senator O'Hanlon, I think I am fortified in that view. The Standing Order provides: “Every Bill promoted for a particular interest ... otherwise than in the interests of the public policy shall be treated as a Private Bill.”
Senator O'Hanlon said that the promoters did not advocate this Bill as being in the public interest. I think the Senator was mistaken. Every Senator received a circular from the promoters, and I will quote from that circular: "This registration Bill is necessary in the public interest as well as in the interests of the hairdressing profession.... The full resources of the Hairdressers' Board would be applied towards elevating the tone of the profession in the paramount interest of the public health and welfare."
One or two other minor quotations go to support that view. As I read the Bill it should appear rather in this way: "From and after a certain event (i.e., the establishment of a registry) it shall not be lawful for any person whose name is not on the register to practise as a hairdresser." That is the vital passage and the principle of the Bill. We are dealing with what is of public concern. I can now, if I wish, without any breach of the law, set myself up as a person prepared to shave every member of the Seanad for pay. I am now sought to be prohibited from doing that. Is not that a public matter? Are we not dealing with public interests? Is not that primarily in the public interests? Then they say: We are prepared to make provision for the proper ordering of the hairdressing "profession"—if we concede the word at the moment—by establishing an organisation which will make it sure that the public will be properly treated, though prohibited from choosing the hairdresser who shall cut their hair and shave their faces. They say: "We will establish a body of people prepared to do it efficiently and well." One of my complaints about the Bill, which presumably will have to be amended— although I do not intend to deal in detail with the principle of it—is that there is nothing to ensure protection for the public either financially as to prices, or as to hygienic conditions. Hygienic conditions, I think, are matters of public interest, to see that the public are well served by establishing some sort of regulation of that trade. I think it is right that the public should be protected, but I do not see that they are going to be protected in the Bill as it stands. Therefore you have public interests right in the front of this Bill.
Senator Hooper said that the provision regarding prohibition of the existing public right is one that the promoters are prepared radically to alter. The Senator assures us they are prepared to agree to a radical alteration in regard to that, and, in view of the stage to which the Bill has been brought, under conditions that one might say involve the good faith of the House, I am inclined to urge on Senator Douglas that he should not proceed with his amendment in this case but in this case only.
While I agree that the whole question of Private Bills ought to be reconsidered—I made this point on the Bank of Ireland Bill—what are and what are not private Bills, what is the best procedure, and how the public are to be protected against the chance passing of a Private Bill which radically affects public interests, I am inclined to agree that this Bill ought to go to second reading, and I will reserve some comments for that stage with the proviso that I am not to be taken as setting a precedent in regard to other Bills of this kind which may be introduced in the future.
I just desire to say that I think it is extremely improper to bring before the House a statement made by a solicitor. It is quite possible that that might be brought before the Committee when the question came up, as that would be the time for the people who brought forward the Bill to bring up a matter of that kind. It should not have been brought up here on Second Reading. I cannot see, from what Senator Johnson has said, that the public faith of the Seanad is involved in this matter one way or another. The people involved consulted certain solicitors and lawyers, and adopted a certain mode which they thought advisable but the Seanad is not concerned with the advice which these lawyers gave. We can do what we like. We are not bound to follow that in any way, and it would be extremely wrong to put that point forward as a reason for passing the Bill.
I am not much concerned with the procedure under the Bill, but I am concerned with its essential aspects. It seems to be legislation gone mad, an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the subject inasmuch as he cannot get his hair cut how, where and by whom he likes. Are hairdressers going to be placed in this privileged position? I think there is far more danger in a chiropodist treating your corns than in a man cutting your hair. If you are going to put hairdressers on a register you will have the chiropodists and other persons coming along and also asking to be put on a register. Looking at the essential merits of the Bill, is it not legislation gone mad? When I was a young fellow I used to get my hair cut by a policeman because I could not get it properly cut by anyone else. I can conceive a local barber in a small country town being put on the register because he filled up certain forms, though, in fact, your hair might be better cut by a coachman, a chauffeur or somebody else. Let us look at this question from the point of view of common sense and throw out the Bill.
Before considering the amendment we ought to bear in mind this important fact, namely, that machinery has been set up by the Oireachtas to deal with the introduction of Private Bills. They have to be lodged in the Private Bill Office and have to be examined by the official appointed for that purpose. Before such Bill comes here, there has to be a certificate produced from the Examiner to the effect that the Bill complies with the regulations laid down in Standing Orders in regard to the introduction of Private Bills. In my view, if we pass the amendment, we would be stultifying the whole position of the Private Bill Office. We have the certificate of the Examiner stating that all the regulations laid down in Standing Orders have been complied with by the promoters of the Bill and, that being so, I think that the House must refuse to accept the amendment. I do not want to go into the merits of the Bill at the moment. I have certain views in regard to them and as to whether the Bill should or should not be passed, but that is not the question at issue. The question at issue is whether the House should accept the certificate of the responsible officer to the effect that Standing Orders have been complied with. In my view we must accept it and I think that Senator Douglas would be well advised to withdraw his amendment and to allow the Bill to be considered.
I think that on this occasion before we agree to give the Bill a Second Reading we must be satisfied with its principles.
Cathaoirleach
We are now on the amendment and you will get an opportunity of discussing the principles on Second Reading.
On the amendment, I am inclined to support Senator Douglas. Apart altogether from the points he raised, I think that some of the clauses of the Bill are so extraordinary that it would not for one moment be likely that the Oireachtas would agree to pass it into law. Furthermore, if you are prepared to legislate for this particular trade you must consistently be prepared to legislate in a similar manner for every other trade, and before you get anything done by anybody you must first ask him to produce his certificate from some organisation or another. I find that hairdressing in the definition section of the Bill is defined as "the performance of any such operation on the head, face, scalp or hands." By that definition "hairdressing" includes shaving.
Cathaoirleach
Perhaps the Senator would not mind deferring those criticisms until we dispose of the amendment, as he will have ample opportunity on Second Reading.
I would like to make it clear at the beginning that in anything which I have done in this matter I had no wish in any way to penalise the promoters of the Bill. Both Senator Hooper and Senator O'Hanlon raised a number of matters which I did not intend to raise at all, such as the relative advantages and different treatment of public and Private Bills. As there may be a certain amount of misunderstanding, I am afraid that it is necessary for me to deal briefly with some of the matters raised by them, but before doing so I would like to reply definitely to the statement of Senator Farren, which is. I think, entirely erroneous. We are not discussing whether the Examiner did or did not correctly examine the Bill. Nothing that I said questioned the correctness of his examination. I tried to make it as clear as I could that the nature and position of the Standing Orders were such that all kinds of Bills would come in under them. The position in regard to Public Bills is that the most Private Bill you could have could be introduced as a Public Bill. There is no Standing Order to prevent it. If a Senator is foolish enough and can get a sufficient amount of consent to bring in a Public Bill for the purpose of stealing a piece of land next door to his house, he could do it if he had only the Standing Orders to consider, but, of course, the Seanad has sufficient sense to prevent it and it would not happen.
I think, with respect, I may say that there is no specific authority in either Chairman, of himself, to say what is or what is not a Private Bill. The House decides that. My object in putting down this amendment was to establish for the future—I am not much concerned with this immediate Bill—that where you are taking away the ordinary rights of the people it would not come in under Private Bill procedure. There is a very great difference between Limerick and the whole of Ireland, important though Limerick be. In a sense, the point raised by Senator O'Hanlon illustrates what I am trying to point out to the House, namely, that there is a clear precedent again and again that a Bill promoted by a section or corporation in any area is regarded as private unless they ask for powers affecting the whole country, which would make it public. In the case of Limerick it would be private because you have a precedent there. There are precedents, both here and in Westminster, which establish that principle beyond question. We are told by Senator O'Hanlon that there is no essential difference. I did not intend to go into that but if I do not refer to it people might not understand what I was driving at. There is a very considerable difference. In the first place, it does not meet the case to say, as I pointed out, that a Public Bill would be treated as a hybrid Bill. Even a Government Bill might be treated as a hybrid Bill, if the Cathaoirleach thought fit under Standing Order 32. If it were so treated you would get it through, and the expenses would have to be borne by the persons interested in the Bill.
A Committee on a Private Bill can reject it. Without amending it they can say that the preamble is not proved. That is a perfectly proper procedure on a Private Bill, but in a matter of public interest they cannot do so. The Bill is sent to the House and must go back to it. That is the difference between the two. An important point to which I want to refer is Senator O'Hanlon's statement that a person can send in a petition against this Bill and get his case stated. Senator Johnson, in a somewhat humorous way, explained that at present he would be entitled to act as barber to members of the Oireachtas for profit if he thought fit. How much comfort is it going to be to him when he is told by Senator O'Hanlon that he can employ counsel before the Committee at very considerable expense in order to preserve that right? You cannot reasonably expect every man in this country whose rights are being taken away to employ counsel. Small shops can, if they like, combine, though I am not sure that they will have enough sense to combine and employ counsel, but they could do so, whereas the public could not. I mention this to show that there is a very definite distinction. It might be taken from a certain amount of the debate that you could have no Standing Order to decide the matter, that it is almost impossible to decide. It is impossible to answer that kind of argument, because someone may say that you can never make a distinction. I am satisfied that you can, and that distinctions are being made satisfactorily.
Senator Hooper said that we would be altering our precedent. With great respect I totally disagree. This is the first time, in my belief, that a Bill has been introduced as a Private Bill asking for such powers. There has been a number of Bills, such as the Dentists Bill, the Veterinary Surgeons Bill and others, introduced as Public Bills. They have all been regarded as affecting public interests. There is a difference in degree. I accept that. There has, however, been no precedent for a Private Bill which sought to take away powers from all citizens in the country, and I want to avoid making such precedent in the future. As to the suggestion of Senator Johnson, I think I am correct in taking it that the statement of Senator Hooper means that, in so far as prohibiting everybody from acting as a hairdresser, Section 22 will be amended.
A Senator
Deleted.
You cannot quite delete it, because there will be certain portions of it in other parts of the Bill. If, however, it can be amended so that that portion of the Bill will be taken out, I will, if the House will allow me, withdraw the amendment, because I will have made it clear to any persons in future who may introduce a Bill of this kind that they will meet with opposition on a Private Bill. I have no wish to carry this amendment for the sake of getting a majority, because it would make no difference. They could come back again, and Standing Orders, with the consent of the House, could be waived. That, however, would mean a great deal of trouble. Senator Moore said that there had been no bad faith on the part of this House in regard to the Bill. That is perfectly true. So far as members here are concerned, they were not aware of what happened before, but they were aware, as Senator Johnson has said, that there were genuine doubts and that there had not been precedents before. We are also aware that the promoters of the Bill made great efforts to find out how they could introduce the Bill, and they were advised that this was the best although the most expensive way, although ultimately I do not know that there would have been much difference in the cost. I am sure that Senator Moore is right, that there was no bad faith on the part of this House, but, having regard to the fact that there were no precedents established, I do think that it would seem hard to have allowed this Bill to go through as a Private Bill. Senator Hooper's statement was a little vague. He assumed that the Bill is to be amended to the extent that it will not prevent any small man from acting as a hairdresser, but will restrict him from describing himself falsely as a member of an association. If that amendment is not made in Committee I shall, in some form or other, come forward again on the Report Stage and see whether the House is not prepared to support me. Having regard to all the circumstances, as stated by Senator Johnson, I will not press the amendment.
On a matter of personal explanation, may I say that I do not know what the amendment means beyond what the words convey? I am not the interpreter of it, and have not had instructions from anybody to interpret it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
I think that the House ought to be acquainted with the purpose of the Bill and with some of the facts in regard to it. Senator Sir John Keane expressed a view that is very much my own in regard to the Bill as it appears. I want to make it clear that we are not agreeing to the Second Reading of the Bill with all its implications. There is a very great deal indeed to be said in favour of any industry or any occupation or vocation organising itself and being organised by the State, with privileges and with responsibilities to the public. I think in furtherance of that idea there is no harm, and perhaps there will be eventually good in having this particular occupation organised both in respect of employers and employees, with responsibilities imposed upon them. I think those responsible will have to be subject to the authority of the State in one form or another. It is perfectly true to say that in many countries and in most of the States in the United States a similar provision in regard to the licensing of barbers or hairdressers prevails. It is made in the public interest. There is a public liability on those hairdressing establishments to follow certain courses and have certain conditions attached to their establishments.
The warning Senator Sir John Keane gave reminded me of a cutting I took out of a newspaper a little while ago, which contained a telegram from Reuter from Budapest. It appears that a plea for an increase in duty on safety razors was sent to the Minister for Finance by the Society of Barbers in Budapest. The barbers complain that the great reputation which some makes of razors have acquired has resulted in a great many people shaving themselves who have no need to. Self-shaving, the barbers declare, is contrary to the principles of "civilisation." It did appear to me when I read the Bill that we were getting very near the position in which the practice of self-shaving, or shaving your neighbour, was going against the principles of civilisation by impinging upon the monopoly rights which the barbers seek to obtain. But there is a point I want to emphasise, that this Bill seeks to establish for the hairdressing profession a monopoly without imposing upon themselves any liability to the public.
I think if this Bill goes to Committee it is the imposition of liability to the public that will have to be given great consideration. I have in my hand certain laws of the States of the United States touching upon this very question, and amongst them is the Public Health Law of the State of New York. It is provided there that all kinds of conditions will have to be observed by the barbering profession. Incidentally I find one of the regulations not touching the barbering profession only but every restaurant, lodging house, hotel, factory, school, store, office, building, railway trolley, or station provides that a lavatory or wash-room attached to these establishments shall not be allowed to have a towel for common use. At the time I read this I was reminded of the buildings of the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State, and the very frequent exhibition of a common towel, and I thought to myself it would be very well if the Minister for Finance, who is very keen upon economising public expenditure, would at least provide for a state of sanitation in the lavatories of this establishment similar to what the State of New York imposes upon every factory, workshop, or public building, of any other kind. That is undoubtedly out of order, I am sure, but it might be very valuable.
The laws of Missouri, for instance, regulate the profession of hairdressers, cosmetologists and manicurists A cosmetologist is defined as any one who engages in one of the following practices: "Arranging, dressing, curling, singeing, waving, permanent waving, cleansing, cutting, bleaching, tinting, colouring or similar work upon the hair of any person by any means ... Any person who with hands or mechanical or electrical apparatuses or appliances or by the use of cosmetic preparations, antiseptics, tonics, lotions or creams engaged for compensation in any one or any combination of the following practices, to wit—massaging, cleansing, stimulating, manipulating, exercising, beautifying, or similar work, upon the scalp, face, neck, arms or bust or removing superfluous hair." That is an Act of Parliament, but our present Bill gives us no definitions as comprehensive as that. In an Act of the State of Illinois I find a particular reference to a beauty culture law. It is made an offence for any person unauthorised to apply cosmetics to the human body by massaging, stroking, kneading, slapping, tapping, stimulating, manipulating, exercising, cleansing, beautifying or by means of devices, apparatus or appliances; arranging, dressing, marcelling, curling, waving, etc. I do not know whether it will be necessary to introduce into this Bill all this great variety of definition, but it gives one an idea of the stimulus that is being applied to the hairdressers of this State when one finds that in all the States of the United States this kind of thing has been enacted. While to me it appears very humorous, there is a very serious side to it, and that is that concurrent with this kind of licensing there are these very strenuous and definite prohibitions in the public interest and certain very important liabilities imposed upon any person dealing with the hair or the face or body of the public in a general fashion. I think it will be a very good thing indeed if by means of this Bill, or any such Bill, we can ensure that similar obligations are imposed upon those practising hairdressing in this country for the public health's sake. If they are given anything in the nature of special privileges there should be some check upon the prices they charge the public.
I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, for a number of reasons. I feel it would be desirable that all trades and skilled operatives should be formed into guilds and that black-leg labour, as such, should not be tolerated, but it is specialising legislation to countenance a Bill in the interests of one particular trade rather than having them all governed by general legislation. This Bill really sets out to create a monopoly in a particular trade. Perhaps I am wrong in calling it a trade— trade or profession, shall we say. In the peculiar circumstances that prevail in this country it would mean that every barber operating in any village in the country would have to be approved, made a member, and comply with all the regulations set down by this organisation. I feel that would be very drastic indeed, and I feel we would be placing in the hands of a monopolistic organisation in Dublin or elsewhere control which is not justified over a business.
Senator Johnson has referred to the conditions that prevail in the United States. I agree with all he has said to this extent, that such measures as he has mentioned are really not drawn up in the interests of any particular trade but are governing public health administration. I do not think he would contend—nor that the hairdressers themselves would contend— that the United States Government, either in the Federal administration or the State administration, would attempt to make all the different trades close corporations. In so far as that is being done, it is being done by the American Federation of Labour, and not to any great extent at that. I feel there is no justification for a Bill of this type to be put through even a Second Reading. Both Houses should not be put to the trouble of appointing a special committee to consider it. As I say, I believe in the guild system, but I believe that if we are going to adopt the guild system whereby certain conditions will be laid down for labour, and certain protection given to the public, these should be fundamentally basic laws covering not only hairdressers but every other trade.
I should like to state a few reasons why we should not give this Bill a Second Reading. I regard it as a Bill of considerable public interest. There are thousands of shaving and hairdressing shops and, to me, this Bill appears to be a monstrous interference with the liberty of the subject. It might be all right in the case of a person living in a city who had plenty of money and who could go in and have a haircut whenever he liked. But that is not the position of a very large proportion of our population. A large number of our people live in isolated houses and cottages, and some of them reside in small villages in which there is no hairdresser. All sorts of people follow the occupation of hairdressing and, under this Bill, that practice would be stopped altogether. I think that that would be a very great hardship on the people who carry on hairdressing in this fashion and who are serving the convenience of the local public, and that it would also be a hardship on the people who are enabled in this way to have their hair cut. If this practice were ended, we should have the people going about with their hair about their necks and their shoulders. This Bill is an interference with the conveniences of daily life. The medical profession is represented here and nobody in this House has argued that a measure of this kind is necessary in the interests of public health. I hope, therefore, that the House will not give this Bill a Second Reading.
I agree largely with what Senator Connolly has said. Is it desirable that a monopoly should be established for a particular trade? If this Bill goes through, it will establish a monopoly for a particular trade. If we are to create monopolies for trades, it would be very much better, in my opinion, that, as Senator Connolly has pointed out, we should have a Bill dealing with monopoly of trade in general—in other words, establishing the old guilds—than that we should deal with particular cases. If this Bill is passed, it will be the thin end of the wedge and it will be establishing a principle which the body politic—the whole nation—does not approve of.
I withdrew my motion on the understanding that this Bill was not going to create a monopoly. I intend to vote for the Second Reading on that understanding. We have waived the point made in my motion. We are treating this as a Private Bill. The provision as to public interest is to be taken out of it. The case of the hairdressers has not been stated by anybody here. Nobody here is briefed to state their case, and it cannot be stated until the Bill goes to Committee. If the Bill is referred to a Joint Committee, that Committee will hear their case and may possibly hear petitions against the Bill. They will have power to say whether or not the preamble of the Bill has been proved. This House will have power also to reject the Bill. What Senator Guinness stated was stated on the assumption that the Bill remains as it is. On that assumption, I would have voted against the Bill because there was a fundamental principle in the Bill which there would be no use in sending to a Committee. The understanding is that that is not to remain. We have never, so far as I remember, rejected a Private Bill on Second Stage. The promoters will have to pay the costs of stating their case and, on the understanding in respect to the principle which I have referred to, I think the House ought to let the hairdressers state their case to a Joint Committee which would also hear objections to the measure.
I intend to vote against this Bill. We have merely here a letter from the solicitors for the promoters stating that they are open to accept amendments to the Bill. In my opinion, this is only getting in the thin end of the wedge. Matters will come to such a pass that we shall not be able to do anything except through an organisation. Do the promoters of this Bill not consider that there is a public outside the city of Dublin, with old-established customs which we are very careful of? There was a great outcry in the country against the Veterinary Bill. It was stated that, after some time, an owner of a horse or cow could not treat his own animal. I am afraid that we are reaching a position in which the father of a family will not be allowed to cut the hair of his children. There is a general opinion in the country that legislation here has gone mad, and I think there is something in that view. I intend to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
We have been one and a half hours discussing this Bill. I do not suppose that anybody has cast his eye over the various clauses of this remarkable measure. I am opposed to this Bill, and I am in favour of rejecting it on the spot, without sending it forward for Committee consideration. I do not want to have the time of the House wasted in considering a measure with such obvious defects as this Bill suffers from. As my friend Senator Toal said, this measure involves a violation of the ordinary liberty of the people. The Bill proposes to set up a board of gentlemen who are hairdressers in Dublin, Limerick, Cork, or whatever centre they may reside in. It is then proposed to have a register, and this Board is to determine whether people who have been earning their living up to the present by hairdressing are to be put on the register or not. They then propose to make regulations as to the fees to be paid by people who for the past four or five years have been earning their living by cutting and trimming hair and shaving people all through the country. Once they are established they propose to exclude any person who has not been five years working at the trade. Finally, we have penal clauses dealing with persons falsely describing themselves as registered hairdressers and prohibiting the practice of hairdressing by unregistered persons. The section states:
"From and after the establishment of the Register under this Act it shall not be lawful for any person whose name is not on the Register"—if they wish, the name of a person need not be put on the register unless he has been working as a hairdresser for five years before the passing of the Act, although he may have a wife and children depending upon him—"...to practise or hold himself out whether directly or by implication as being prepared to practise hairdressing. Provided that any person who does not himself practise hairdressing may carry on the business of a hairdresser if all the operating staff employed by him are registered hairdressers. Any person acting in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5, and a further fine not exceeding £3 for every day on which the offence is repeated after conviction."
I ask members of the Seanad to consider the position of an ordinary farmer or a country boy who comes into a market town. He cannot get his hair cut and cannot get shaved unless the person who is in the town is a member of this organisation. Any person who practises haircutting in the country, unless he is attached to the organisation, would be liable under this Bill to a fine of £5, and also a fine of £3 a day. A circular was sent to Senators in which reference was made to ancient history and the position of surgeon-barbers and other professions. We are told that the surgeons were constituted a profession. There was a public reason for that. A man's life depends upon the surgeon's knife. The same applies in the case of dentists. They have been constituted a profession in the public interest, because extracting teeth is a very dangerous operation and likely to endanger life. To our own knowledge it has often endangered the lives of people. One very eminent man lost his life as the result of teeth being extracted.
There is no public necessity served by constituting these hairdressers a profession. There has been a lot of very false history quoted for us in connection with these hairdressers. The fact of the matter is that in ancient times the surgeon was a churchman and, as Senator Douglas reminds me, so was the lawyer. Sometimes when you observe the most eminent of the surgeons you can discover a sort of monastic modesty. Sometimes it is not apparent, but there are instances when you can recognise it. The fact is that barbers who cut hair and who shave their fellow-men have always had a very respectable calling, just like coalmen and chimney sweeps, and other classes of men of that description. They may say they belong to a great profession, coming down from ancient times. There occurs to my mind a little verse from the literature of the period when, as we are told, barbers were a great profession. In it the following words appear:
The barber and the coalman had a fight;
The barber beat the dusty coalman white;
The sweep, indignant, heaved his ponderous sack,
And, with vengeance, beat the barber black.
You have there three respectable callings associated with each other in very intimate relation and in the perfect equality of a fight. We have here a body of men looking for professional status—whatever they mean by that. I am against privilege of every kind, and I am in favour of absolute freedom for the ordinary person who wants to get his hair cut or his face shaved by another person. Therefore I am opposed to this Bill.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- Right Hon. Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- James G. Douglas.
- Michael Duffy.
- Michael Fanning.
- Thomas Foran.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- James MacKean.
Níl
- John Bagwell.
- William Barrington.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- R.A. Butler.
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- James Dillon.
- The Earl of Granard.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- William John Molloy.
- Colonel Moore.
- Sir Walter Nugent.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M.F. O'Hanlon.
- L. O'Neill.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Michael Staines.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Tellers—Tá: Senators Douglas and Hooper. Níl: Senators Comyn and Bagwell.
Question declared lost.