I do not quite see the relationship between Deputy Dockrell's amendments and his remarks as to the desirability of having more flexible regulations applied to refreshment houses than to ordinary shops. The Deputy referred to the possibility of a waiter serving a customer with soup, and then deciding that his hours of work had expired, and knocking off, leaving the diner without the rest of his dinner. That situation could arise whether the waiter's hours of work are 48 a week, as is provided here, or 56 or 60 hours a week as provided in one amendment. The only point that arises on that amendment is whether the hours of work during which persons are employed in refreshment houses should be 48 or 56 in the week. The Deputy proposes 56 hours in the case of Dublin and 60 hours in areas outside Dublin. It is difficult to know on what ground that proposal is made. I do not see that we can make any distinction between the work involved in refreshment houses and the work involved in ordinary shops. In respect of a certain class of refreshment-house work, it could be said that it is more onerous or even more unpleasant than other forms of shop work. It is, of course, recognised that the main difference between "refreshment house" as defined in the Bill and the ordinary shop is that in the case of the ordinary shop it will be the practice of the proprietor to make the hours of trading coincide with the hours of employment. If the employment of assistants is confined to 48 hours in the week, the hours of trading will, in practice, be 48 hours, whereas in the case of refreshment houses much longer hours of trading are not merely the practice but are desirable. I do not know that there would be any general approval of the idea to restrict unduly the hours of trading in refreshment houses, certainly refreshment houses of the kind that cater for tourists, to which Deputy Brasier referred.
It has to be recognised, however, that the principal class of persons affected by Deputy Dockrell's amendment are persons employed in licensed premises. It is true that the amendment affects hotels, refreshment houses, cafes and tea-rooms, but from the point of view of number, I should imagine that employees in licensed premises are the principal class concerned. At the present time they have in Dublin an agreement with their employers, an agreement which, I understand, is enforced by a very strong trade union organisation, limiting their hours of work to 56 in the week, but the hours of trading permitted by law are, of course, considerably longer than 56, and the employers had to adjust their arrangements so as to enable their staff to be disemployed at times when their houses were open for business. I do not see that it is going to constitute any considerable difficulty for them to adapt themselves to the circumstances that will arise when the 48 hours becomes law. It may involve, in the case of some of the larger houses, the employment of additional staff, if not on a whole-time basis, at least on some basis which will enable the full complement of assistants to be there when required.
I have been informed that certain discussions have taken place between the trades unions concerned and the representatives of the employers to see how arrangements to that end might be made. In rural districts I do not imagine that there would be very great difficulty in operating the 48-hour week, having regard to the other provisions of the Bill, because in licensed houses it is very rarely the case that business is brisk all the day round, and each day of the week. In most licensed premises there are certain times, or special days in the week, when the services of an assistant are required, and the employers will have little difficulty in fulfilling the law in relation to the hours of employment of an assistant and, at the same time, securing the services of an assistant when the circumstances of the business call for it.
Now, in relation to restaurants and hotels, I think the same circumstances arise. We will have to make certain modifications in Section 19, which deals with spells of employment, in order to meet the circumstances of hotel waiters and similar employees who are, in fact, ordinarily employed in spells. They are employed for the breakfast period and then have a period off before lunch, and another period off before dinner. In relation to this class of worker also there should, I think, be no difficulty in adopting a 48-hour week. Certainly, many classes of hotel workers are more urgently in need of the protection of legislation of this kind than shop assistants or other persons affected by the Bill, because some of them work exceptionally long hours and are paid at exceptionally low rates.
I do not think that Deputy Dockrell has made any case for the amendment, nor do I think there is a case for putting the workers in those premises in a different position, in respect of the maximum hours worked, from persons employed in retail shops. I gave the matter consideration. There was a natural temptation for me to leave the licensed trade outside the scope of this measure because the licensed trade, in respect of hours worked and conditions of employment, has already been the subject of legislation. That legislation is administered by another Department of State, so I thought I might have a good alibi if I left the trade out of this Bill. Their hours of work, right to, holidays and certain other provisions, were all fixed by statute as far back as 1912 or 1913. Consequently, I might have been justified in leaving the trade outside the scope of this measure altogether, but I felt that it would be difficult to defend that, however plausible the arguments that one might produce, seeing that we were instituting the general practice of a 48-hour week for workers employed in retail distribution. I should require much stronger arguments than any I have heard, either from Deputy Dockrell or from organisations of employers who have made representations to me on the matter, before I would be prepared to make any exception to that rule.