I would like to remind the Dáil that the reasons assigned by the promoters of the 1925 Bill which passed through the Seanad were that it was going to give effect to an agreement. That was accepted by the Seanad almost unquestioningly. The Bill was passed through the Seanad as one might expect from its influential beginning. Its sponsors there were Senator Douglas and Senator Brown, and it had, very naturally, the support of Labour Senators. I doubt, however, that the Seanad were in full possession of the facts when the Bill passed through their House. It was introduced in the Seanad after the principle of the Bill was rejected by a plebiscite held under the 1912 Shop Hours Act. That Act was good enough for England; it should be good enough for Ireland. Trade Unionism is as highly organised in England as it pretty well can be, and I do not think that in this country we should try to outstep it.
The issue on which the plebiscite was taken in June, 1923, was early closing versus late closing. For early closing there were 262; for late closing or against early closing there were 392. The minority of 262 consisted of voters, several of whom had three votes as compared with one in the majority against early closing. That we can understand because in the minority were all the larger merchant drapers. That put an end for the time being to the movement for early closing.
In 1925, without any change of opinion, certain Senators brought in a Bill and said they claimed the support of the Seanad to give effect to an agreement between employers and employed, with the result that I have already quoted. I ask how could that be stated. It was quite plain that a very large majority in June, 1923, were against early closing. There was, to some extent, I admit, an agreement, but it was an agreement with an association with a membership of 27. If we count the number of people affected by this Bill, in Dublin alone, it would be something like 900, and for less than 30 people to say they speak for the trade is a claim that has really no foundation.
There is another point. The Seanad has amended this Bill. It has done very well, I must say, for the employees but it will bring disaster upon the smaller shopkeepers. Under the 1925 Act the small shopkeepers could keep open up to 7 o'clock on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and up to 7.30 on Saturday. The Seanad cut down the Bill we sent up by lopping one-and-a-half hours off the Saturdays. They allowed the lopping off that we did here to make the Bill acceptable to go through, that is, that instead of being allowed to remain open until 7 o'clock on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, they must close at 6 o'clock, except on Fridays, when the hour is fixed at 6.30.
Some time ago Senator Farren introduced a Bill to give effect to an agreement between the barbers and their employees. He was defeated in that, because the Minister for Industry and Commerce declared it was his own intention to bring in a Bill at a later stage that would practically regulate the working hours of all employees. At any rate Senator Farren's suggestion was not accepted. We will have to face that situation when the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduces his legislation, but we should like to be placed on level terms with other people and not be placed in a prejudiced position as we will be if the Bill becomes law as passed by the Seanad. If the Dáil consents to abandon any portion of the Bill, as it left this House, that will be used as an argument against the small shopkeepers. Put him on the terms you did here, even restore the nine o'clock hour, where the Seanad amended it to seven-thirty and then you will put him on equal terms to negotiate, but if you are dissuaded from doing that, by any argument whatsoever, you will be putting the small shopkeeper in a disadvantageous position. For that reason I ask you, no matter what talk there may be of negotiations or anything else, to reject the amendment sent down by the Seanad.
