Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1937

Vol. 69 No. 7

Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) (No. 2) Bill, 1937—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that this Bill be now read a Second Time.

This Bill is the second of a series of measures for the regulation of conditions of employment which the Government intimated its intention of introducing and having enacted. As Deputies will remember, the first measure dealt with the conditions of employment of industrial workers. This Bill is intended to enact somewhat similar provisions for the benefit of persons employed in retail distribution, either as assistants in shops or in wholesale houses. At the present time, the hours of trading in shops and the hours of conditions of employment in shops are regulated to some slight extent under two Acts—the Shops Act of 1912 and the Act of 1913. When we were devising legislation for the amendment and the extension of those enactments, we contemplated producing one Bill to cover both the matters dealt with in the Bill now before the House and the better regulation of hours of trading. For legal reasons, however, into which it is not necessary to enter now, it was decided subsequently to divide the measure into two parts and to introduce two separate Bills—one, the Bill now before the House, and the other the Shop Hours Bill, permission to introduce which has been given to the Dáil but which has not yet been circulated. I had hoped to have the two Bills before the Dáil at the same time, but some delay has occurred in the completion of the second measure and it will not be available before next week. It is, however, desirable that the intention to produce that second Bill should be borne in mind, both in relation to the measure we are now discussing and to the position under existing legislation.

The main provisions of the Shops Act of 1912 provided, firstly, for a weekly half-holiday for each shop assistant, and the closing of every shop at 1 p.m. on one day in every week. Under the existing law, there is no statutory regulation of the hours of work of adults, but the Act of 1912 restricted the employment of persons, under 18 years of age, to not more than 74 hours in every week, including meal-times. That Act also provided for certain intervals for meals, and it empowered local authorities to make what are called closing orders—that is, orders fixing the hours at which certain classes of shops must close in the evening, provided that at least two-thirds of the occupiers of shops affected by the order gave their consent to it. The Act, of course, provided that the closing hour must not be earlier than 7 p.m. except on the weekly half-holiday. Shops carrying on the business of the retail sale of intoxicating liquor were not, and are not, required to close for a weekly half-holiday, but assistants employed in such shops must be granted, under the existing law, a half-holiday every week, and, furthermore, they are secured 14 consecutive days' annual holidays, and it is provided that they must not be employed, except at permitted overtime, for more than 72 hours in the week, exclusive of meal times. The amount of permitted overtime is 90 hours in each year.

I do not think it is very generally realised that the application of existing legislation to the Shops Act of 1912 is very limited. In rural districts, for example, the only two provisions which stand are those which prohibit the working of young persons for more than 74 hours in the week and that which provides for seating accommodation for female assistants. In towns and rural areas closing orders may be made, and there is a weekly half-holiday only in cases in which orders have been made to have the premises closed at an early named hour. The Shops Act, 1913, to which I also referred in its relation to this country, contains provisions regarding the hours of employment of persons employed in premises other than licensed premises in which is carried on the business of the sale of refreshments. The adoption of the provisions of that Act is optional. Its main provisions are a maximum week of 65 hours, exclusive of meal times, 32 whole holidays on a week day in every year, 26 whole holidays on Sunday in every year, the Sunday holidays to be so distributed that at least one out of every three consecutive Sundays shall be a whole holiday. It is the intention to repeal both these Acts.

The present Bill deals with the restriction of the employment of juveniles, the restriction of working hours, meal times, holidays, regulation of wages, and arrangements for the health and comfort of members of staffs of shops. The other Bill on the Order Paper, which will come before the House at an early date, will deal with the question of closing orders and hours of trading. It is, I think, necessary at this stage to state to the House what precisely we are trying to do by legislation of this kind. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, like the first Conditions of Employment Act, will have general application. It is not intended to convey my opinion, or the opinion of the Government, that in any particular class of business the hours of work and the other conditions of employment should be as expressed in the Bill. Some shop assistants at the present time may enjoy better working conditions than those for which the Bill provides, and other shop assistants may come to enjoy better conditions in the future. What we are endeavouring to do by this legislation is to give workers employed in these shops a statutory right to minimum conditions; in other words, to fix a certain standard below which conditions in any shop cannot fall.

Deputies may feel, and may be inclined to urge, that in some occupations, or for some classes of workers, conditions better than the minimum conditions provided in the Bill should operate. They are entitled to that view. But, in legislation of this kind, it is necessary to deal with circumstances in all trades and in all areas, and, because of its general application, provide merely for those improved conditions which can be made immediately operative. If shop assistants by negotiation with their employers, or by general agreement otherwise, can secure better conditions than the minimum conditions which the Bill fixes, they are, of course, at liberty to get them and enjoy them. The existing minimum conditions provided by law are those which I have stated and, in the light of modern conditions, everybody will, I think, agree that they are completely inadequate. That is why we have to endeavour to raise them. Deputies who have studied the Bill will have noticed that we are proposing to raise them very considerably indeed.

The Bill in the first place extends the definition of retail trade to include the business of a dyer and cleaner, the business of lending, for reward, of books and periodicals, and the business of pawnbroker. I am sure everybody will agree that there is no good reason why persons employed in such establishments should not enjoy the same conditions as persons employed in ordinary shops. What is, perhaps, of more importance, the provisions of the Bill are also being extended to wholesale establishments. The main provisions of the Bill are, firstly, the restriction of the employment of juveniles. It is proposed that no person under the age of 14 may be employed, and that the proprietor of a shop employing a person under the age of 18 years must satisfy himself as to his or her age. It is also proposed to take power to limit or prohibit the employment of juveniles in shops.

The next part of the Bill deals with working hours and meal times. It is proposed to limit the normal employment of adult shop assistants to 48 hours per week. It is necessary to provide for some elasticity and, consequently, there are provisions for working permitted overtime embodied in the Bill. These provisions will require, I think, careful consideration from the House when we have the Bill before us in Committee. It may be acknowledged at once that it is somewhat difficult to provide completely satisfactory provisions for dealing with this question of overtime. It is desirable, undoubtedly, that permission to work overtime should be given. The Bill provides for certain maximum limits of overtime and also that persons employed by way of overtime in excess of normal working hours must be paid at the overtime rate. It is, however, necessary to ensure that, when making arrangements to provide for the working of overtime and for the elasticity which is necessary in relation to the conduct of most business concerns in the matter of hours of working, we do not merely ensure that longer hours are normally worked, even at a higher rate of wages. The purpose of the measure is to effect a general reduction in hours of working in shops to a normal 48 hours in every week. The provisions dealing with overtime can perhaps be more adequately discussed in Committee, but I will welcome the assistance of Deputies in improving them if, in fact, they do permit of improvement. I trust, however, that in coming to consider the matter Deputies will bear in mind all the considerations which are involved.

Special provisions are made in the Bill as regards juveniles. It is proposed that a juvenile must have a rest of at least 11 consecutive hours between two working days and that, subject to certain necessary exceptions, this interval shall include the hours from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. There are some necessary exceptions, for which special arrangements are contemplated. These exceptions are in connection with the collection and delivery of milk, bread and newspapers, and also in connection with the catering trade and employment in theatres. It is proposed further that the hours of employment in shops may not be divided into more than two spells, and that the period between any such spells shall, subject to the provisions relating to the interval for meals, be not more than four hours in duration. Intervals for meals are provided so as to ensure that no person shall be engaged for more than six hours without at least an interval of 20 minutes and that there shall be at least three hours between each meal interval. Certain necessary exemptions are provided, as will be seen from the Second Schedule to the Act, and in all cases there must be an interval of an hour for the principal meal. We have provided in the Bill the same sections as appeared in the first Conditions of Employment Act to ensure that where hours of work are reduced, as a result of the enactment and coming into operation of this measure, wages shall not be reduced in consequence. I shall say a further word in that matter when dealing with the section of the Bill relating to the regulation of wages.

Part IV of the Bill deals with holidays. For the purpose of holidays shops are deemed to be divided into two classes, the first class including what we may term ordinary shops, and the second class what are described in the Bill as special-trade shops which include refreshment houses, licensed premises and shops which trade on Sunday. In ordinary shops, shop assistants throughout the country will be entitled to a half-day in every week. So also will assistants in the shops trading on Sundays, but not assistants in refreshment houses or licensed houses. Assistants in ordinary shops will be entitled to leave with pay on six named bank holidays or to days in lieu of bank holidays, but none of the three classes in the group which are described as special-trade shops will be so entitled. As an off-set to this, assistants who do not receive a half day will become entitled to two days leave on week-days in every month, or to 26 days in every year of continuous employment.

On the question of annual holidays, the ordinary shop assistants will be entitled to six consecutive week-days with pay while those in special-trade shops will be entitled to 14 days, to make up for the absence of leave on bank holidays. The 14 days will, of course, include two Sundays. The time of the annual leave is, as in the first Act, at the discretion of the proprietor, but at least 14 days' notice of the time of leave must be given either in writing to each shop assistant or by the display of a notice in a prominent position in the shop. In some cases it may be necessary for the ordinary shop-keeper to open his premises on Sunday, and in such cases, in common with the proprietor of the special-trade shop, he must compensate his shop assistants by giving them a full day's holiday on the following week with pay, if they work for more than four hours on the Sunday, and a half-day if they work for less than four hours.

I referred to the fact that the Bill makes provision similar to that in the first Conditions of Employment Act, designed to ensure that where assistants' hours of work are reduced by the enactment of this measure, his earnings shall not be reduced in consequence. It is necessary to recognise that the enforcement of that condition will in some cases occasion difficulty. It is, I think, generally agreed that in many classes of shops and in parts of the country, the wages and the conditions of employment of shop assistants are very unsatisfactory. It is, I think, necessary to do more than merely to provide that assistants will have a statutory right to ensure that their earnings are not reduced with their hours, because it is well to recognise that many assistants may be deterred for one reason or another from exercising their legal rights in such matters. Furthermore, there is in any event, I think, need to provide some machinery for the examination of wages paid in shops where complaints are made, and for the fixation and enforcement of minimum rates of wages. It is, therefore, proposed to establish a shop wages board, a board which will consist of a chairman and two ordinary members. The chairman will be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He will also appoint the two other members. One of these must be a person who, in his opinion, is representative of the proprietors of shops, and the other person representative of the members of staffs of shops. The provisions for the appointment of that board are set out in the Bill, and Deputies can see there what is proposed. The procedure which is contemplated is this: When the Minister for Industry and Commerce receives a complaint that wages are unduly low, and where he is satisfied, on the face of it, that such complaint is well-founded, he will refer the case to the board, and request them to fix minimum rates of wages for any particular class, or members of staffs of shops situated in a particular area. The board will, after investigation, make rules fixing the minimum rates of wages, and the Minister may either confirm or modify these rules. Applications for the amendment or the revocation of rules fixed by the board will be referred to the board for further consideration. It is intended that any person can bring the machinery into operation. It is, perhaps, to be assumed that in the ordinary case complaints as to unduly low wages will come from the persons aggrieved, but it is not intended to confine the making of complaints to such persons.

The next part of the Bill deals with the arrangements for the health and comfort of members of the staffs of shops. It is proposed to make it mandatory on the proprietors of shops to provide suitable and sufficient means of ventilation and to maintain reasonable temperatures. Provision is also made for the maintenance of suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences, and for the provision of suitable and sufficient lighting. Suitable washing facilities must also be made available for the use of employees, and, where meals are taken in the shop, suitable facilities for the taking of those meals must be provided. The provision for the supplying of seats for female employees, which is contained in the existing law, is being retained by this Bill, with certain improvements. This part of the Act, which deals with the arrangements for the safety and health and comfort of workers will be enforced by the local sanitary authorities, and it is proposed to give them certain powers of exemption which I think it is necessary that they should have.

I have given this brief review of the main provisions of the Bill for the purpose of indicating its scope. I do not think there is much likelihood of disagreement in the Dáil as to the principle involved in the measure. The Bill is designed to secure, as I have said, better conditions of working in shops, and to give to shop assistants a legal right to those better conditions. The Bill, as I have pointed out, makes a big advance upon existing legislation, and particularly I would draw attention to the fact that apart from the new provisions regarding holidays, and bank holidays, the Bill will apply in its entirely throughout the whole State to all shop assistants. We can perhaps discuss the different provisions of the Bill more suitably in Committee, but these particular aspects of it I would regard as essential and, in fact, constituting the principle of the Bill; first, that there should be general application to all shop assistants; secondly, that, apart from the provisions dealing with health and comfort, the Bill should be enforced by the central authority, and not—as in the case of existing legislation—by local authorities; and thirdly, that there should be the general fixation of maximum working hours, and the general provision of a statutory right to holidays with pay.

Those are the main provisions of the Bill, and, subject to the maintenance of those parts of it, it is a measure in the improvement of which I will be glad to have the active co-operation of every Deputy in the Dáil. Experience has taught us that in the framing of measures of this kind it is particularly difficult to provide for all possible contingencies, and to avoid leaving loopholes which can be availed of by unscrupulous employers in order to avoid their obligations under it. It is usually only when a measure of this nature has been in operation for some time that one begins to perceive clearly whatever defects there may have been in it. We have had the experience, of course, of the operation of the first Conditions of Employment Act, and, in so far as that experience was of value to us in preparing this measure, it has been availed of. That Act will require amendments in many matters of detail, as experience has shown, and I have no doubt that, no matter how carefully we persue this measure, time will reveal the necessity for amendments here too, but it is obviously desirable that we should try to avoid that probability as much as possible, and, therefore, I shall be very glad to have the assistance of all Deputies and Parties in examining the detailed provisions of this Bill in order to ensure that, as far as human wit and ingenuity will allow, defects will be eliminated at this stage. Subject to the outstanding features of the measure, to which I have referred, there is no part of it in respect of which I am not prepared to bow to the better judgement of members of the Dáil in matters which they think would constitute an improvement of the measure. I, therefore, move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister towards the close of his speech, told us that this Bill was a big advance upon existing legislation, but I do not think that the comparing of this piece of legislation with existing legislation is of very much use, because, after all, the ordinary relations between man and the State are very little regulated by legislation. What, I would have expected the Minister to do was not to deal with existing legislation but rather more to deal with existing social conditions. I had rather expected, too, that the Minister would show us how this Bill will deal with the abuses that may exist, and what are the abuses that do in fact exist. I am sure that in certain portions of this country you will find that in certain shops the assistants are badly treated and overworked. I am quite certain that that is the case, but before the Minister introduced this Bill into the House I should have liked the Minister to let us know, after he had made careful inquiry, what are the abuses which ought to be dealt with and ought to be curbed by legislation, and what is their extent. We would then be in a better position to conclude as to whether this Bill will, in fact, deal with existing abuses, and whether it will on the whole make any advance in the social conditions of the workers, or the great majority of them.

It is very difficult for anybody to deal with a problem until one knows the extent of that problem. It is very difficult to consider a piece of legislation unless one knows what precisely are the evils, and the extent of the evils, with which one is coping. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the classic definition of wisdom, which is "apportioning means to ends." When we come to a piece of legislation of this kind, we would like very much to know the end which the Minister has in view, what are the difficulties, the evils, which he is endeavouring to improve, before we can judge very correctly whether the means he has taken in this Bill are satisfactory means. So far as I can judge from the Bill, it makes very little difference as far as properly regulated shops at the present moment are concerned, and so far as the great majority of shops in the country are concerned, I think it makes no difference at all.

The question of overtime and the 48-hours week might at first sight appear to be a very considerable alteration in existing conditions, but I do not think, on mature consideration, it does appear to be very much of an alteration. The ordinary shop, and certainly the country shop, does its main business on certain days in the week. The market day in the country town is, naturally, the day upon which the largest amount of business is done. without any extra hours even on market days, I think the employer will be able, without any change of his existing habits, to carry on without any overtime at all. On the market day he may want his employees to work a 12-hours day. Of course he can do that without any trouble, because he can work on his ordinary week-days eight hours a day, give the four hours compulsory weekly half-holiday, and apply the remaining four hours to the market day, and, if he likes, under this Bill it will be possible for him to have a 12-hours day on the main day or market day.

It appears to me that there is one danger that this Bill has got. There are certain periods, as everybody knows, in which shop assistants are not required to the same number as they are required at other periods. There are very lean periods in the year. In a country shop July and August are months in which there is very little in the way of sales going on. It is much the same in the cities. I am informed that in the cities the habit in the majority of shops is that they dismiss employees during the lean periods of the year and take them on during the rush periods. In the country shop the same people are kept on during the rush period and during the lean period. In certain shops, under this Bill, there may be a tendency to put employees on half-time during the summer months, or possibly to dismiss some hands during the months in which there is very little work to be done, and then chance taking in temporary hands around Christmas-time and other really rush periods.

It does seem that this Bill presses very much harder in its overtime provisions upon the good employer than upon the bad employer. There are some employers paying a very small rate of wages. The quarter increase on the overtime rates as far as the bad employer is concerned will be less than the increase which the good employer will have to pay. If one man is paying—I am just taking a rough figure—at the rate of 2/- an hour, and another man is giving 1/- an hour, the extra quarter will be higher on the man who is paying 2/- than it will be upon the man who is paying only 1/-. In the case of the man paying 2/- an hour he would have to pay 2/6 for the overtime, while the other man would have to pay only 1/3.

There is one particular feature about this Bill, and that is that it is adding enormously to the number of inspectors who are going around this country. It is a most unpleasant thing to have every single item inspected, to have inspectors coming in at this and that minute. If this Bill is going to be fully operated and efficiently operated, there will need to be an enormous number of inspectors. I admit that the big shops will require comparatively little, if any, inspection, but the small shops, the country shops and the scattered shops, will require an enormous amount of inspecting. There might be some machinery devised by which the Bill could be operated without having the tremendous amount of inspection which is visualised here and also the great number of forms which the Bill indicates the shopkeeper will have to fill up. For instance, he may have to fill up a form for the time every workman works. He has to serve notice in writing on the workman as to the holidays he is going to get and the specific days he will be allowed. Certain notices have to be posted up in the shop. He may have to have a notice varying every week. It seems that the machinery of the Bill is very complicated, and that machinery may become a very great nuisance to the shopkeepers, especially the country shopkeepers.

There is one thing that I could not quite understand, and I would like the Minister to make it a little clearer for me. If we take Section 30, sub-section (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), we see there two provisions setting out the holidays to be given to members of staffs of refreshment houses and licensed premises in lieu of weekly half-holidays. Each member of the staff must receive not less than two whole holidays on week-days in each month, nor less than 26 whole holidays on week-days during the year. Are those meant to be cumulative? Must he get two whole holidays on week-days in each month—24 holidays—and 26 whole holidays in the year, meaning 50 in all?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

When I read it, it was not clear to me. Does it mean that he never can get a consecutive week's leave or a fortnight's leave?

Mr. Lemass

These holidays are compensatory holidays for shop assistants who do not get half-holidays. Every shop assistant gets a half-holiday, except persons employed in these shops, and in lieu of half-holidays they get two whole holidays in the month or 26 in the year.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

As well as these 26 whole holidays, do they receive their 14 days holidays?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

They receive 14 days in addition to the 26 days?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, that is the annual number.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Am I correct in saying that employees in these shops are to receive 40 days leave with pay in the year?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. These 26 days are in lieu of the half-holidays.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

In lieu of the half-holidays there are the 26 days, so they get on the whole 40 days leave in the year?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

A great deal of this Bill is a matter that should be dealt with section by section. We are now on the principle of the Bill. We are on the general principle of protecting people who are rather defenceless in certain instances, people who are at the mercy of bad employers, and so far as that aspect of the Bill is concerned, we, on this side of the House, are completely in accord with the principle that conditions that are unfair or unjust, or conditions that make human life practically unliveable in this country should be alleviated and abolished by law. We are, therefore, completely in agreement with any legislation which prevents any human being unduly or improperly exploiting another. Any Bill like this will have our support. Any Bill that prevents people from taking advantage of a position in which one is placed to make the life of another human being not merely unliveable but almost unbearable will have our support. In questions where legislation of this kind is required I am entirely of the view that it is the duty of the State to provide such legislation. My only objection to this particular Bill is that it seems to me that the system of inspection will lead to unnecessary trouble. I believe that the Bill is altogether too cumbersome for dealing with the problem with which it proposes to deal.

Mr. Norton

I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is an effort to grapple with the problem which because of years of neglect has tended to become a very serious one in the lives of those who have chosen the shopkeeping industry for their livelihood. The position is well known to Deputies here who have taken the trouble to inquire into the system which prevails in many places whereby many people are unscrupulously exploiting their shop assistants. There are cases in which shop assistants are compelled to work 70 to 80 hours a week. They get no holidays and receive a rate of wages that is utterly incapable of supporting them in anything like reasonable comfort. I have before me a letter which was sent to me by a priest some time ago. That letter was sent by a shopkeeper in Dublin to a girl in the country who answered an advertisement in one of the daily newspapers. That girl was seeking employment in a grocery and dairy establishment in the city. The letter from the prospective employer informed the prospective employee what she would be required to do, should she be considered suitable for the position. The prospective employer then went on to state: "The hours are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; you get a weekly half-holiday, and you are free every second Sunday from 11 a.m. You are not allowed to be out after 6 p.m." That was pretty clear seeing that she would not be off until 7 p.m. Then the letter went on to say that the wages started at 10/- a month indoor. That is, fourpence for a 12-hour day. Then the letter added: "Should you decide to take up the position please send any references you may have and references from the parish priest." References from the parish priest and other references for a position at 10/- a month.

Mr. W. O'Brien

From what publication is the Deputy reading?

Mr. Norton

From a well-known publication—the Labour News. It is because of a situation of that kind and of the fact that the position revealed there of exploiting the assistants is typical of the general exploitation that takes place that we are supporting this Bill. It is because of the exploitation of workers, and particularly of female workers, in small shops that I specially welcome the introduction of this Bill as an effort to meet a serious problem in the shops life of the country.

There are, of course, very honourable exceptions to the condition of affairs described in that letter. Many big shopkeepers have agreements with their workers through the trade unions. They observe these conditions of working and they pay decent wages. To these employers this Bill will not make any change. In fact, many of the larger shops observe conditions better than the maximum conditions set out in this Bill. I am sure that the decent employer in the industry will be only too glad to see ensured that the smaller shopkeepers, those who exist largely by the payment of a low rate of wages and the employment of their staff during long hours, will be compelled to conform to the minimum standard of wages and conditions which may help to alleviate the hardships from which these employees suffer and to raise the conditions to the level that should be maintained to-day.

My complaint about the Bill is that it does not go sufficiently far. I do not know why the Minister excludes from the Bill commercial employees. In respect of international conditions these have always been linked with shop workers. I think it would have been a simple matter for the Minister to have extended the scope of the Bill so as to have made it applicable, not only to shop workers but to employees in commercial offices. The Minister makes the exclusion of these—the exception to which I have alluded—even more difficult to understand. He purports to regulate conditions in respect of the shop assistant. Curiously enough, what he terms "the shop assistant" is not defined in the Bill. He also excludes messengers and porters employed in the shop. Why it is necessary to exclude messengers and porters, while including within the scope of the Bill other employees, is not very clear to me. The Minister has narrowed the scope of the Bill considerably. He ought to have included workers in commercial offices. I say that because when the International Labour Office at Geneva set out to regularise conditions they have always linked these two classes together— shops and commercial offices.

There is one provision in the Bill which is very welcome. That is, the provision that the Act will be enforced by the central authority. Everybody who noted the manner in which previous shop legislation had been enforced by the local authorities will welcome the departure indicated in this Bill. In many other shop Acts the intention of the Legislature was rendered utterly abortive by the inclusion of a provision by which it was to be enforced by the local authorities. That was particularly the case with the Act of 1912. Local authorities should have ensured that these Acts were administered properly, but in many cases the provisions of the Act were defeated by the employers in cases where the local authorities were not possessed of the requisite zeal to ensure the enforcement of these very necessary legislative measures.

Therefore I welcome the change to enforcement by the central authority from enforcement by the local authority. The enforcement of shops legislation by the local authority has proved a thorough farce, and I hope that administration by the central authority will correct many of the abuses which have inevitably grown up by the failure of the local authorities adequately to use their powers in respect of the legislation which they were required to enforce. I notice that the administration of that portion of the Act which deals with health and hygiene is to be left to the local authority. I suggest to the Minister that if the local authority, because it is the sanitary authority, is to be entrusted with the enforcement of that section of the Act, power should be taken to require the local authority to report periodically to the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to what it has done to ensure compliance with the law. If the local authority is permitted to enforce the provisions of the Bill in respect of health and hygiene without any supervision by the central authority, I am afraid the enforcement will be of the haphazard type and that no effective steps will be taken in many cases to ensure that the conditions prescribed in that portion of the Bill will be effectively administered. The Minister should make sure that there is an obligation on the local authority to indicate to him annually what it has done to enforce that part of the Act. There should be some speedy way of dealing with a local authority which fails to carry out its duties, and power should be contained in the Bill to compel the local authority to discharge the functions imposed upon it under the relevant portion of this Bill.

The question of the hours of shop workers is dealt with in this Bill, but I am sorry to say that one cannot get a proper understanding of what is aimed at without a knowledge of the provisions of the Shop Hours Trading Bill, which has not yet been circulated. Deputies, in discussing the provisions of this Bill, particularly with regard to the hours of work, are under a very serious handicap, because they do not know how long it will be possible for shops to remain open. Consequently they do not know how long it will be possible for workers to be employed under this Bill. For instance, it is provided that, while the normal maximum working week is to be 48 hours, it will be possible to employ a worker for 11 hours per day provided the maximum of 48 hours in the week is not exceeded, so that you may have a situation in which a worker will be employed for less than the normal working day on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for perhaps the normal working day on Thursday, and for 11 hours on Friday and Saturday. The Minister will, I think, agree that, if that situation were to arise, it would be very undesirable, and that the State should direct its powers to curbing that abuse. Any worker employed for 11 hours a day is virtually denied all social intercourse on that day. If a situation were to arise under this Bill whereby a worker would be employed for 11 hours on two days a week, shop workers would have a very serious grievance. It should not be possible for any employer, while complying with the provisions of this Bill, to require his employees to work 11 hours on two days a week. It may be that no shop will be permitted to open for 11 hours. It may be that the maximum hours of trading will be 10, so that an abuse of the kind I have mentioned could not possibly arise. We do not, however, know how long a shop will be permitted to open, and we do not know whether it will be possible for a worker to be employed 11 hours on two days a week. I think that the Minister might have given us some idea of what he intends to do in respect of shop hours for trading purposes. If a situation of the kind I have mentioned can develop under the Bill, I think the House should deal with the matter before the Bill is passed. Under the Conditions of Employment Act, the maximum number of hours a worker can be employed on any one day is nine. In this Bill the maximum is 11 hours—a substantial increase on the number provided in the Conditions of Employment Act. Why the change of policy? Obviously a very serious abuse could arise under the Act if it operates in the manner I have described.

There is provision in the Bill in respect of overtime, but it differs very substantially from similar provisions in the Conditions of Employment Act. For instance, it is possible for the employer to work a person up to a maximum of 60 hours per week—48 hours normally and 12 hours overtime. The employer is not required to secure permission from the Minister or from any departmental inspector to do that, nor does he require even the concurrence of the employee. The employer may decide that he is going to work overtime, and, if he does so he can employ a worker up to 60 hours a week.

That is a most unsatisfactory position and I do not think that employers who are shopkeepers ought to be permitted that freedom in respect of overtime. After all, the management and administration of a shop is not a class of employment in which overtime arises without being foreseen. A shop may be busy on a fair or market day or when there is a big football match or some other outstanding event, but that is the only occasion on which it is normally likely that overtime would be necessary. These events can be foreseen and a shopkeeper ought to be limited in resort to overtime. Some rigid restrictions should be imposed. The restrictions should be, at least, as rigid as those under the Conditions of Employment Act. Instead of making the conditions more rigid in the case of shopkeeper-employers, where the necessity for overtime is not as great as in industry generally, the Minister proceeds to loosen the position and to provide facilities for resort to overtime which are not available to ordinary industrialists, even though the industrialist might be able to show a stronger case for laxity in respect of overtime. I do not know why the employer in the shop-keeping industry should be allowed greater facilities in this respect than the industrial employer, and I hope the Minister will close that door to a possible abuse under the Bill.

Another section deals with the possibility of resort by employers to split hours of trading. It is provided that where an employer resorts to split hours, the employee must be allowed a minimum of four hours between the end of one spell of employment and the commencement of another. I do not know what object the Minister seeks to achieve by putting in that minimum. If it were a maximum, one might understand it, but as a minimum, the only effect of the provision is to spread out the working day of the employee to inordinate lengths. For instance, under this split-hours system of trading which will be legalised under the Bill, it is possible for an employer to open his shop at eight o'clock in the morning and employ a worker until eleven. He can then close for a minimum of four hours and reopen at, say, four o'clock in the evening and work him until 12 o'clock at night. When he has done that, he has only worked the employee 11 hours. It is permissible for him to work employees for a maximum of 11 hours per day and, by an ingenious scheme of spreading out 11 hours among a number of employees, to carry on trading between 8 a.m. and midnight, with the exception of a gap period during the day. It may be that under the other Bill the Minister does not intend to permit shops to open over that span, but until we see the Bill we do not know what the provisions are, or what the Minister's intentions are and we must try to construe this Bill in relation to the possible abuses which may arise under it. It is a most undesirable provision in this Bill that split hours of trading, with a four hours minimum, should be permitted because it is calculated to encourage employers so to arrange their trading hours that some of them will be open when their rivals are closed, and by pirating in the industry to get a clientele which would not be available to them if they were carrying on fairly in relation to their competitors. However, that is a matter, like many of the other matters, which can be dealt with on the Committee Stage.

It is provided in the Bill that in the case of employees of special trade shops, they may get 14 days' annual holidays, which includes Sundays, the difference between the six and the 14 days being in respect of bank holidays to which they are not normally entitled under this Bill; but in respect of the other shops carrying on a general business and not in this special trade group, the ordinary provisions in respect of holidays is six days per annum. On this question, it might be desirable to advert for a few moments to the adequacy of six days' holidays for workers generally. I know that six days' holidays with pay is provided for in the Conditions of Employment Act, but when that Act was being discussed here I urged that a higher minimum than six days should be provided. I understood that the Minister was rather reluctant to provide that higher minimum at that time, but that he was sympathetically disposed towards considering the question at a later stage. I think six days' holidays is abnormally low for a worker in regular employment. Where a worker is engaged in regular employment, 52 weeks in the year, a period of six days' holidays is entirely inadequate, if the object of holidays is to provide a worker with recreation, with some opportunity of recuperating and repairing ragged nerves so that he may look forward to being able to withstand the physical ravages of another year's employment. I think the Minister, in respect of this Bill and in respect of the control of the Conditions of Employment Act, might well so amend the legislation as to make it possible for workers to obtain not less than a fortnight's holiday with pay each year. What he is being asked to do in that connection is not unknown in many European countries, and the Minister, I think, ought to give some indication of the mind of the Government in respect of paid holidays to workers. Six days' holidays with pay is altogether inadequate and, at a time when the value of holidays is being recognised more extensively than formerly and that value is more apparent than formerly, I think the Minister ought to provide a minimum of a fortnight's holiday with pay. The Conditions of Employment Act should be amended to conform to this legislation.

There is a section in this Bill dealing with public holidays and it is rather striking—whether it is by accident or design, I cannot say—that there is nothing in it which makes it unlawful for an employer to permit an employee to work for him on a public holiday. I cannot understand why that omission has been made, but it seems to me that if it is desirable that an employee should obtain leave from employment on a public holiday, it is equally desirable to ensure that it shall be unlawful for an employer to permit an employee to work for him on such a day. I have searched the Bill to find any such provision, but I can find no provision which makes it unlawful for an employer to permit a person to work for him on a public holiday.

There is another section which deals with weekly half-holidays, and here again there is a rather strange innovation as to when a half-holiday begins. It is provided that in the case of special trade shops, the weekly half-holiday begins at 3 o'clock in the day, or on the termination of the fifth hour of employment. Take the case of ordinary workers who attend for work at 9 o'clock in the morning. They are usually allowed a weekly half-holiday at one o'clock, but in the case of some of the shops in the special trade category the weekly half-holiday does not begin until 3 o'clock, or at the end of the fifth hour of employment. That seems to me to be calculated to deprive the worker of a substantial benefit. The weekly half-holiday which begins at 3 o'clock in the day is not a weekly half-holiday as popularly understood in employment. I think, therefore, the Minister ought not to put in that special provision which will have the effect of depriving workers of half-holidays commencing earlier than at the alternative times suggested in this Bill.

For instance, some of the shops affected by this provision would be licensed premises, say, in the City of Dublin, where the premises close at 2.30 and where the worker at present may get a half-holiday commencing at 2.30. Under the Bill, he could not get a half-holiday until 3 o'clock, or until he had rendered five hours' service in the shop. I think the proposal in the Bill in that connection worsens considerably the present position, particularly as the tendency to delay the grant of the half-holiday reduces the value of the privilege to those who are entitled to it. These points, however, and many others to which I have adverted, are points which could be considered on Committee Stage. I am glad to hear the Minister assure the House that he would welcome co-operation in improving the provisions of the Bill. I think there are many provisions which can be substantially improved, and I think the Bill can be made a much better charter for shop workers than it is at the moment.

I hope, when amendments with that object in view are moved, that the Minister will show on the Committee Stage the same desire for understanding and co-operation that he expressed on the Second Stage. However, I suggest that this is a Bill which requires very careful consideration in a number of respects, and that he ought to allow adequate time between now and the Committee Stage, so that it can be thoroughly studied and its provisions and ramifications fully appreciated, when Deputies would have the opportunity of submitting amendments calculated to improve it. Apart from some blemishes which are obvious, I think the Bill goes a substantial distance to remedy a situation which has tended to become more and more acute. I feel satisfied that in many respects it will bring substantially nearer, for unorganised shop workers, relatively tolerable conditions, which they have never enjoyed since they had the misfortune to enter the shop-keeping business.

Mr. Dockrell

I welcome the remarks of the Minister, and most of all I welcome his statement that he desires to have a certain amount of flexibility, as when dealing with such diversified businesses and interests it is very difficult to bring them within the provisions of a Bill of this kind. Deputy Norton seems to think that some people will start by working 11 hours one day and 8 hours another day. If there are people like that, I suppose the sooner they are driven out into the open the better. Possibly this Bill will bring to light some strange cases of trading. Beyond doubt, everybody would welcome a standard of conditions which would be applicable to the industry, because traders now faced with unfair competition, in the way of keeping open late, find that the only way to meet that competition is to keep open late or to let the other fellow get away with the swag, just as if he had committed a burglary. From that point of view I think we can all appreciate the remarks of the Minister. Some points in the Bill require explanation, but they can be better brought up on the Committee Stage. At the same time, some points that are obscure cannot be raised too soon, so that if they cannot be cleared up on the Committee Stage they will be cleared up at a subsequent stage. Is it clear that those conducting Sunday trading in shops, refreshment houses, and licensed houses need not allow public holidays or days in lieu there of? I think the Minister answered that question, the answer being that they need not allow them, as the increased provision of 14 days compensates for that. In Section 11 I notice that the Minister is going to lay orders before Dáil Eireann. Does that mean that there is not going to be a Seanad? In connection with Section 46, what are the deductions an employer would be deemed to have made? That is made clear in connection with insurance, unemployment and pensions, but then there is a reference to the Truck Acts. There are other deductions, and I am wondering if they are to be made illegal; for instance, where an employee might have entered into some arrangement for benefit? I should like to have that position defined. Another question arises where a day may be any number of hours up to 11. Presumably different hours may be worked different days to suit a particular trade. Where a whole holiday is given, how many hours must be deducted from 48 to arrive at the number of hours that may be worked during the rest of the week? Is it a case like the one under the Conditions of Employment Act?

I am surprised that a question has not been raised regarding relatives. Everybody has relatives and, whether employed in shops or any place else, I cannot see why they should be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. Somebody asked: "When is a human being not a human being?" and the answer was: "When he is a relative." I do not know if it is the desire that relatives should be allowed to work hours that are considered to be injurious to other employees. That brings up another question, that a proprietor of a shop might have a relative living in in his house who, while he was having a meal, merely attended the shop and did some trivial work there. That case would have to be provided for. I am not clear as to what is meant by "a member of the staff" and by "shop work." What is the difference? Is "shop work" mentioned merely to bring in ancillary work? In that respect it appears to exclude messengers and people engaged on deliveries. Is the object there to bring them under transport? If so, that is fairly logical. I am not very clear as to what is meant by "a retail shop," but I suppose we can go into that in Committee. I take it that messengers and van men are not members of the staff. However, the Minister can deal with the question when replying. On Section 18 (5) what is the meaning of the words "subject to the provisions of this section"? Evidently they qualify the Minister's power of amendment of the hours, as the sub-section is the only one giving the Minister power to vary the hours. That should be made clear. There is another question which, I suppose, is of more interest to hotels than to any other section. Do hotels wholly and entirely come within the provisions of this Bill? Hotel proprietors contend that the hours and holidays suitable for shops working a five and a half day week are not suitable for hotels which are compelled by law to be open for 24 hours on 365 days of the year. For instance, does the chamber maid who takes up a morning cup of tea to a resident in a hotel come under the Bill? The hotel proprietors say that, at certain times of the year, the provisions of this Bill would require such an enormous addition to their staffs that they could not obtain them nor house them if obtained. Section 29 deals with refreshment houses and licensed houses. Since the half-day allowed in ordinary shops is not deducted from the 48-hour week, are the whole of the holidays under Section 30 to be deducted from the 48-hour week in which they are given, or are they outside the 48-hour week?

On the question of annual leave, the implication of sub-section (2) of Section 33 may be far-reaching. Does this mean that a small confectioner's shop which on two or three days of the year, say on public holidays, puts a few tables in the garden and serves cakes and lemonade, comes under the regulations for refreshment houses for the purpose of annual leave? These are a few points that I would like the Minister to deal with. If he can answer them, well and good; and if not, he can bear them in mind. I suppose that we will give the Bill more detailed examination on the Committee Stage. I would like to join with Deputy Norton in saying that there should be as long an interval as possible between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage to enable people to examine the Bill carefully. There is a certain class of individual who does not seem to wake up to the fact that there is a Bill before the House until it has got its Second Reading, and that it is intended that the Bill should go through and become law. He then realises that he had better examine it, and see if all the provisions in it are clear as they apply to him.

Mr. Moore

Should that type of person be considered at all by the Dáil?

Mr. Benson

The Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, enunciated three principles which he says are maintained in it. With those principles I am in entire agreement. I suggest to the Minister that at least one of them is not contained in the Bill, and that is the one of general application, for, as Deputy Dockrell has pointed out, the provision in paragraph (a), sub-section (2) of Section 4, to my mind definitely makes the Bill not of general application, because it rules out a shop manned by relatives entirely from certain portions of the Bill, at any rate. The Minister may argue that it would be difficult to enforce the measure in a shop which is staffed entirely by relatives. I suggest that it would be much more difficult to establish the fact that various members of the staff are, or are not relatives, than it would be to make them conform to all the provisions of the Bill. The same thing, of course, is repeated in sub-section (4) of Section 7, and in sub-section (3) of Section 9, but in that case the regulations govern the proprietor, and not the members of the staff.

In the case of the definitions, the Minister mentioned that the business of a dyer and cleaner had been included in retail trade or business. But he must surely be aware that probably 90 per cent. of the cleaning and 100 per cent. of the dyeing done in this country is done in factory buildings, and yet under the terms of this Bill, as I read it, these buildings become shops, although under the definition of "Members of staff" the members of the staff are not members of the staff at all except one or two kept for the purpose of dealing with customers who come to the factory. I take it that the Minister's object was to include the different receiving offices or shops dotted throughout the country to receive work for dyers and cleaners. If that is so, I suggest that some words should be inserted in the definitions which would not include the actual factory where the work was being carried out. I do not think that the Minister meant for a moment that it should. Deputy Norton spoke of the four-hour interval and referred to it as a minimum. The Minister in his introductory remarks referred to it as a maximum. I suggest that a minimum of four hours would be more beneficial to the worker than to be sent away for one hour which could be of no use to him. The worker could make some use of the four-hour interval.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

Many of the points raised in the discussion on this Bill were what may be described as Committee Stage points. At any rate, they related to matters which I think can be more effectively discussed in Committee than in this stage. There are some of them, however, that I would like to refer to now, for the reason that what I have to say may facilitate Deputies in their examination of the Bill, and perhaps enable them to make up their minds as to the type of amendment that they would like to submit on the Committee Stage. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney said that it would be more valuable to compare the provisions of the Bill with existing conditions than with the provisions of the existing law. That is undoubtedly true, but I think it would be impossible for any person to give, in any reasonable time, a review of existing conditions, because they vary widely as between one class of shop and another, and as between one area and another. I do not think it would be possible to attempt it at all. Generally speaking, it can be said that the larger shops in the towns where any considerable number of employees are engaged have observed conditions at least as favourable as those in the Bill.

As was pointed out by, I think, Deputy Norton, some of these employers have adopted conditions of work better than those provided for in the Bill. There are classes of shop assistants employed in the larger stores who get a fortnight's holidays and who may, perhaps, even work shorter hours than those specified in the Bill. Undoubtedly, however, there are other shop assistants who have not holidays, who never got holidays, and who work very long hours indeed. We are not trying to bring every shop assistant up to the conditions of those who are now enjoying the very best conditions. What we are trying to do is to bring all shop assistants up to what we regard as a reasonable level. I think I can say, from my own experience and my examination of the problem, as well as the examination of those in my Department, that, as a result of this Bill, working conditions will be improved in the great majority of shops, whether in respect of hours of work, the holiday provision or otherwise. In fact, there was a certain confusion displayed in some of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's observations, because, although he stated that he thought that conditions in a great majority of shops would not be affected by the Bill at all, nevertheless he went on later to discuss the possibility of employers adopting tactics, as a result of the enactments of this Bill, which would be detrimental to the interests of the shop assistants—such as putting them on halftime during the seasons affected by this Bill, and so on. I do not think that that danger is very great. There is one essential difference between the conditions under which assistants in shops work and those in which industrial employees work, and that is that the personal ability of the shop assistant is a very frequent source of greater income to his employer. It must be remembered that an industrial worker, operating a machine, cannot work faster than the machine can work, and that, generally, the difference between the most and the least efficient worker operating a machine is not very great; but the difference between a good shop assistant and a bad shop assistant is very great, and, consequently employers, very frequently, are prepared to pay more to such good assistants or, at least, to offer better conditions of employment. Therefore, because that personal element enters into the relations between employer and employee in shops, conditions are, on the whole, considerably different to those which obtain in industrial employment.

Nevertheless, I believe there is need for this legislation. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney asked what abuses were we aiming to amend. The abuses we were aiming to amend were: unduly long hours, lower wages, or the absence of holidays. Now, to the knowledge of all Deputies, I am sure, these abuses are prevalent in some classes of shops, although they do not exist at all in other classes of shops. The purpose of this Bill is to remove such abuses wherever they exist. If it could be said that in the majority of shops such abuses did not exist, then the Bill would not be necessary; but it is because the abuses actually do exist and because, in respect of some trades at any rate, they are fairly extensive, legislation of this kind is required.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, however, also contemplated the possibility of a large number of inspectors being required to administer the provisions of this Bill. That was the objection I understood him to make, and it would be an objection if they were likely to be required. I understood him to speak of the number of inspectors that would be required for the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill by the central authority, but it is not contemplated that they should be enforced by the central authority alone. Under the Bill it is provided that any offence under any section of the Act—other than the part of the Act dealing with arrangements for health and comfort of members of staffs of shops mainly—may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister as prosecutor. That section was put in for the purpose of giving the Minister power to prosecute, and therefore giving the Minister power to comply with the conditions of the Bill. I have been advised, however, that there is some danger that that section would be held to be restrictive and that it might confine the power of prosecution to the Minister, in fact. That is not intended. It is intended that the safe guard shall be there that the Minister, as well as anybody else, should have that power. It is necessary, of course, that the Minister should have that power at his disposal in order to enable him to carry out the requirements of the Act and to enforce its provisions, but I do not think that machinery need be of a very elaborate nature. Of course, there are shop inspectors employed mainly, I think, in a part-time capacity by local authorities at the present time, and probably shop inspectors in a whole-time capacity will be required in the future; but I do not think there is any contemplation, as has been suggested, of the employment of a very large number of inspectors to make the lives of traders intolerable under the conditions that will obtain under this Bill. After all, in the majority of cases that will arise under this Bill, the default will be due either to failure to give holidays, or to failure to pay whatever minimum rates of wages may be prescribed, and possibly, although it is not likely, to the failure to limit work to the prescribed hours. I say that it is not likely, because we have got to keep in mind the fact that there will be another Bill, associated with this Bill, which will prescribe the maximum number of shop trading hours; and, although I admit that it can happen, I think it is not likely that traders will keep their people employed during protracted hours. The occasion, undoubtedly, can arise in certain cases where it may be necessary to work longer hours, but it is not the regular practice. In any event, however, the person aggrieved in such a way by an employer will be in a position to enforce his rights himself, or through his trade union (if he is a member of a trade union), through an ordinary member of the public, a member of the Gárda Síochána, or through the Minister or his Department, by asking to have his grievance inquired into. Deputy Norton asked why commercial establishments were not included. It is rather difficult to know what type of establishments were meant by that query.

Mr. Heron

Offices.

Mr. Lemass

I have no doubt that what he had in mind was the case of offices and banks and insurance companies, but I would hesitate to extend the scope of this Bill to cover such offices. It may be that it is necessary to cover such offices, but I do not think the need is as pressing in such cases as in the case of shop assistants. In any event, I, personally, have not examined that position in sufficient detail to enable me to say that no difficulty would arise as a result of the general application of the provisions of this Bill to such per sons. When I introduced the first Bill, I explained that we contemplated covering, in due course, every class of worker that, in our opinion, required protection by Bills of this nature. I mentioned that we were starting with industrial workers, going, secondly, to shop workers, and then to transport workers; and I included under the category of transport workers such persons as are mentioned here, such as persons employed in collections and deliveries. The hours of employment of such workers, obviously, must be different from the hours of those who work in establishments of the kind already referred to. It is necessary that there should be a code of legislation in that regard and we will get that code of legislation completed at some time, although the drafting difficulties are somewhat greater than I anticipated they would be and progress is slower than I had hoped for. However, I have intimated that, because of that difficulty in perfecting comprehensive codes to cover the various classes, I was proposing to take a short cut in relation to these provisions, and that provision is the holiday provision.

Although it may take some time before we have devised the full scheme of legislation contemplated to cover transport workers and those who work in mines and similar occupations, there is no reason why those persons should be deprived of the benefit of the holiday provision in the interval, and consequently I am having prepared, and hope to have introduced before the next holiday season, a short measure which will confer the benefit of the annual-holidays-with-pay provisions of this Bill to those workers who are not covered under this Bill or the existing Act. If it becomes necessary to go further than that in order to deal with abuses that may arise amongst persons employed in offices, then further legislation will be required. But I think, before we turn our hands to that particular task, that the circumstances of those engaged in transport and in mining have prior claim; at any rate, I think that, in relation to them, the need for such legislation is probably more urgent.

Deputy Norton referred to the possibility that local authorities would not completely carry out their duty under Part 6 of the Bill, and suggested that there should be some arrangement under which those authorities would report to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on their activities under that part of the Bill. As Deputies are aware, it is not possible to divide the work of government into water-tight compartments. There is always a certain amount of overlapping between one department and another, and, in relation to that part of the Bill, the overlapping is obvious. Local authorities are controlled by the Department of Local Government. Furthermore, matters relating to public health are under the control of the Department of Public Health, and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health ordinarily deals with these matters. If local authorities neglect any of their statutory duties, it is the Minister for Local Government who has to deal with them, and if reporting is required, the reporting would be to the Minister for Local Government. But I do not think that Deputy Norton's fears are well-founded, because these local authorities have functions in relation to public health which will involve the inspection of these premises, in any event, and it is a simple matter for them to extend the scope of their inspectors' instructions to cover matters dealt with in that part of the Bill. The general supervision which the Department of Local Government exercises over the conduct of local authorities will, I think, be sufficient to ensure that the work will be well done, and, if not, the complaints of the persons who are aggrieved thereby can be made known to the Department of Local Government or to the members of the appropriate local authority, to ensure that any neglect is made good.

Deputy Norton said that "shop assistant" is not defined, and some other Deputy, I think, referred to the same matter. There is a definition in the section of a member of the staff of a shop and that definition is fairly comprehensive, although it is necessary to point out that it relates to work done within the shop; but subject to that limitation, it covers persons "employed wholly or mainly in connection with the serving of customers or the receipt of orders, or the despatch of goods or the unpacking or packing of goods"—and this, I think, covers Deputy Benson's point—"and is not industrial work within the meaning of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936." I think the Deputy referred to the case of dyers and cleaners who do industrial work in factories. If that work is industrial, it comes under the earlier Act, not this.

Mr. Benson

The premises are still a shop under the definition of retail trade or business.

Mr. Lemass

If retail trade is carried on, it is a shop, and those persons employed in the premises in connection with the shop are covered by this Bill. But persons employed to do industrial work, as defined under the earlier Act, are regulated under the earlier Act and not under this.

Mr. Benson

The whole factory is a shop.

Mr. Lemass

I will look into that point. I would not like to argue it now.

Mr. Heron

Will the Minister say if a clerk employed in a shop is covered under the definition?

Mr. Lemass

If the person is employed in the shop wholly or mainly in connection with the serving of customers, the receipt of orders, the despatch of goods, or the unpacking or packing of goods, he is covered. A clerk might be employed in some other capacity than dealing with orders, but a clerk who is there to deal with orders and look after that end of the firm's activities would undoubtedly be covered.

Mr. Heron

Is there any reason for excluding any clerk?

Mr. Lemass

I am anxious to ensure that we do not extend this into too wide a field. It is necessary to have a dividing line somewhere. We want the Bill to deal with persons employed in shops. You can get away from the shop into the accountant's office or some other branch of activity carried on by the same firm. It is necessary to have some limitation, and I am prepared to discuss the limitation in Committee. We do not want to get too far, at any rate further than is necessary, in order to prevent the possibility of abuse. As to the definition of shop work, those Deputies who were here during the passing of the Bill will remember that when the 1936 Conditions of Employment Bill was before us we spent by far the best part of the three or four months we were in Committee on the Bill discussing the definition section, and I think that even after two or three attempts we still had amendments to make in it. This definition section is fortunately not as formidable as the corresponding section in that Bill. Nevertheless, it is a part of the Bill that will repay detailed attention, because Deputies know by experience that, very largely, the effectiveness and scope that a measure of this kind has depend upon the accuracy of the various definitions used.

Deputy Norton, appropriately enough, said the consideration of this Bill must be influenced by the knowledge that there is another Bill dealing with hours of trading, but he was not quite right in saying that it was necessary to have the other Bill before us in order to judge of the effectiveness of any of the provisions here. The other Bill will deal with the closing orders. It will not, in itself, fix the hours that shops may remain open for trade. At present closing orders may be made by local authorities if they get the consent of two-thirds of the traders affected and subject to certain limitations. We are taking that power from the local authorities and giving it to the Government, and the making of the necessary provisions to enable the orders to be made either of general or local application. But the Bill itself will not fix hours, and, therefore, its publication would not increase the knowledge of Deputies as to what is intended. But they do know that such a Bill is there and that the orders, although they may vary from district to district and from trade to trade, will nevertheless ensure, in relation to each district and trade, uniform hours.

I think those Deputies who have been speaking about the exclusion of relatives from the scope of the Bill have probably in mind the possibility of shops manned by relatives of the proprietor remaining open for business when other shops must close, rather than any question arising under this Bill. That other Bill will deal with that and ensure uniform hours of closing, whatever the hours may be. This Bill deals with rates of wages, holidays and hours of work, and we exclude from it certain defined relatives if, and only if, these relatives are maintained by the proprietor and dwell in his house. If we had not got that exclusion, we would have to provide where a husband was running a shop and was assisted therein by his wife, that his wife should get a week's annual leave with pay. That, as a policy, might be quite ideal, but I do not fancy the prospect of the Department of Industry and Commerce enforcing it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Does a wife come under the definition of a relative?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, for the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not think you have so defined it.

Mr. Lemass

In this Bill a wife is a relative.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not think that that is at all clear.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Norton referred to the question of overtime, and I did also in my opening remarks, because this is a part of the Bill which may cause most difficulty in practice. I may be wrong in that, but I have the feeling that the provisions in relation to overtime will require careful consideration. The Deputy is wrong in saying that there is a difference in the method of approach in this Bill as compared with the Conditions of Employment Act. The only difference is this: In the Conditions of Employment Act we had two classes of overtime, permitted overtime, that is, overtime which the proprietor of a factory could work without seeking any special permit. That is the same type of overtime that is contemplated here. I think it would be completely impracticable to require the proprietor of a shop to seek a permit to work within reasonable limits. There are some 40,000 shops in the country and the operation of a provision of that kind would be impossible. We have, however, fixed certain maximum limits and we say that within these limits overtime may be worked, subject, of course, to the payment of overtime rates. We had a similar provision in the other Act, but we also provided for the granting of a special licence to work overtime in excess of the permitted limits in certain trades or on certain occasions or to meet extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.

Deputy Norton also referred to the annual holiday provision and urged that it was insufficient. That is a matter upon which I do not want to express a personal opinion at the moment. I think it is sufficient for us at present to provide a statutory right to six consecutive days' annual leave. I know that certain shop assistants, particularly those in the larger shops, get, in the normal course, a longer annual holiday. I have no doubt that they will continue to get that, and I should like to see the period longer, but in relation to a large class of persons who have never had this right before, and for whose benefit we are enacting this measure, I think we are going far enough if we fix the statutory minimum period which must be given at six consecutive days. I would not be disposed to agree to an extension of that period, because an extension of it might lead to an extension of the period granted under the Conditions of Employment Act last year and, while it might be urged that a longer statutory annual holiday for shop workers would not cause any grave economic disturbance, a longer paid holiday for industrial workers might have a reaction on costs at the present time that would be undesirable. At the same time it is well known to Deputies that many industrial workers do get a longer holiday than that provided for in the Bill. The tendency has been for employers to agree with their workers to extend the holiday period. It has been done quite recently in relation to a number of occupations.

Deputy Dockrell shot a number of questions at me, but I am not going to answer all of them. Deputy Dockrell's questions usually require mature consideration before one can reply to them. There were just one or two points to which I should like to refer. I have referred to some of them already, such as the question he asked concerning the definition of assistants, and the reason for the exclusion of relatives. Orders under this Bill can be annulled by a resolution of the Dáil. The Deputy asked why that section should not provide for the possible recreation of the Seanad. I have no doubt that, if it is considered desirable, there will be some general measure which will have the effect of restoring the power of the Seanad in relation to this and other Bills, just as there was a general measure excluding the Seanad after the Seanad was abolished. Whether it will be desirable or not, is a moot point. I do not want to get into a constitutional point now, but I have always had the feeling personally that the power of annulling Orders which the Seanad had was a very wide power indeed. It was rarely exercised but, in fact, it was a more drastic power in relation to matters of prime importance than the power which the Seanad had in relation to Bills, because when the Seanad rejected a Bill, the Bill was merely delayed, but when they annulled an Order, the Order was annulled for all time, and there was no power left with the Dáil to retrieve the situation. This question of whether the Seanad should have power to annul an Order is one which the Constitutionalists will, I am sure, in due course discuss, but in any case, whether or not we shall have such legislation consequent on the re-creation of the Seanad, I think this Bill must remain in its present form.

So far as hotels are concerned, the Bill refers only to the catering end of the business, that is to the serving of refreshments or the sale of intoxicating liquors. It does not cover any class of hotel employees other than those who are engaged in these particular activities. There again I can see a difficulty. We may have to consider that matter further, to ascertain whether any ambiguity is going to arise between the status of two hotel employees, as to whether one is mainly employed upon one type of work or mainly on another. It may be desirable to deal with that if an examination of the section should prove it to be necessary. I do not wish to deal with a number of other points that were raised. The Bill is primarily one which can best be discussed in detail, section by section, particularly when there is no opposition expressed to any general principle in it. There has been no opposition to it. I am prepared to give whatever time the Dáil considers reasonable between this and the Committee Stage, but I am anxious if possible to get the Bill enacted this session. It is not essential that it should be passed this session, but I should like to get it passed, because it will be a considerable time after the Bill has been passed by the Dáil before it can be brought into operation.

The Bill provides that it will become law upon a date appointed by Order and that different dates may be appointed for different parts of the Bill; but judging by our experience under the earlier Act, it will take some time before all the necessary regulations and consequential steps are taken after the Bill has been enacted, and before it can be brought into full effect. In fact, under the 1936 Act, the time was so long that we finally took the bull by the horns and made an Order, deciding to acquiesce in certain breaches of the enactment for a period until we could cover the circumstances of the different industries by Orders of one kind or another, so as to ensure that the holiday provision would operate last year. I do not want to see that situation arising under this Bill. It is obviously undesirable, and therefore I should like to get the Bill passed as early as possible, so that we can bring it into operation at some reasonable date next year which will give us ample time to make the necessary provisions for its enforcement, and so on. If Deputies will agree that next Wednesday week for the Committee Stage would give them ample time to prepare amendments, I am prepared to agree to that; but there is just a possibility that it might be advisable —if we could get the parliamentary time—to have the Committee Stage next week, because it is only when we discuss it in Committee that the amendments which will become necessary will be obvious. Then, of course, some further period will be necessary before those amendments can be prepared and produced for Report. If, however, there is a general desire that a fortnight should elapse before the Committee Stage, I am prepared to agree to that.

Mr. O'Brien

I would ask the Minister not to have the Committee Stage earlier than this day fortnight.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for this day fortnight.