I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, at the end of the section, to add the words and figures:—"the expression ‘Night Work (Bakeries) Convention, 1925,' means the convention, concerning night work in bakeries, adopted on the 8th day of June, 1925, at the Seventh Session of the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations."

This amendment defines the Convention in the terms used in the preamble to the text of the Convention itself.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 2, before line 18, to insert the following words:—"the expression ‘representative of employers' means such association or all such associations of employers as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of the employers in relation to whom the expression is used or, where in the opinion of the Minister there is no such association, persons who are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such employers."

I am accepting amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

I move amendment No. 5:—

Before Section 2 to insert the following new section:—

(1) A prosecution for an offence under any section of this Act, other than Section 9, may be brought at the suit of the Minister;

(2) A prosecution for an offence under any section of this Act may be brought at any time within whichever of the following periods latest expires, that is to say:—

(a) three months after the date on which it is certified in writing sealed with the official seal of the Minister that evidence sufficient to justify the institution of such prosecution came into the possession or procurement of the Minister, or

(b) six months after the commission of the offence.

(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to proceedings which a member of the Gárda Síochána is authorised to bring under Section 9 of this Act.

This Bill is designed to give effect to the Night Work (Bakeries) Convention of 1925. Under the Bill when it becomes an Act certain actions may be offences. It seems to me that there is no provision in the Bill to enable the Minister to initiate a prosecution for offences under the Bill. The object of the amendment is to enable the Minister to bring a prosecution in the case of offences under the Bill, except in the case of Section 9, where provision for dealing with that matter is contained in the section. I think the Minister ought to have the powers set out in the amendment. It seems to me that he has no such comprehensive powers in the Bill as submitted. The Bill will probably be improved by giving the Minister these powers within the Bill, which would then be self-contained from the standpoint not merely of making the regulations, but of enabling the Minister to take action if these regulations were transgressed in any particular.

The intention is that the Gárda will prosecute and that the prosecution will be instituted at the suit of the Attorney-General. As the Act will be administered by the Gárda, who have powers of entry and investigation, we consider it unnecessary to appoint a special staff of inspectors— because that is what it would amount to—to deal with this particular matter. We are quite satisfied that the matter of prosecution can be well and efficiently looked after by leaving it in the hands of the Gárda and following the usual procedure.

Is the Minister satisfied after legal advice that the powers conferred upon the Gárda in Section 9 will also enable the Gárda to prosecute under other sections and for infringement of regulations made under other sections?

I have not taken specific advice on the point. I take it it is covered.

Will the Minister say on what grounds he says it is covered? It seems to me that the power under Section 9 is a limited kind of power.

Where does it say in Section 9 that a prosecution can be instituted by the Gárda?

The legal adviser to the Department is satisfied that it is not necessary that it should be specifically mentioned.

Then the Minister did take legal advice?

Somebody took it.

And the Minister is relying upon it.

I move amendment No. 7:—

At the end of sub-section (1) to add the words "and in respect of different specified areas", and in sub-section (4), page 3, line 10, after the word "year", to insert the words "and either for the whole of Saorstát Eireann or for a specified area", and on page 3, at the end of the section, to add a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) Whenever the Minister has, under this section, power to make regulations in respect of specified areas the Minister may be such regulations specify such areas in such manner as he may think fit.

The amendment enables the Minister specifically to fix different periods for different areas, but within the limits laid down by the convention.

Amendment No. 9 is out of order and cannot be moved.

On what grounds?

I think the reason has been conveyed to the Deputy.

It may have, but I do not happen to have seen it.

It has been conveyed to the Deputy. The provision is specifically mentioned in Article 2 of the Convention. The purpose of the Bill is to give statutory effect to the Convention.

The object of conventions is to ensure that certain minimum standards are established, but if a better standard is established the Convention can, in fact, be implemented in that way. This seems to me to be a rather peculiar provision in a Bill applicable to a country such as this. There do not seem to me to be any special peculiarities as regards climate between one portion of the country and another, or seasonal variations that would necessitate the inclusion of a provision of this kind. Would the Minister say on what grounds this particular section is included? It seems to me to be meaningless in a Bill which is likely to have its application here.

I see no reason why it should not be included. The fact that we cannot see at the moment what the circumstances are, need not necessarily mean, when we are giving statutory effect to a convention of this kind, that we should not retain powers of relaxation such as these, should they become necessary.

Would the Minister say what the circumstances are in which he conceives it would be necessary to advert to the climate in a particular portion of the Free State?

The climate or any particular season.

Could not the Deputy more usefully raise this question on the section?

I do not want to press it, though I think it is dead timber in the Bill.

Has the Minister envisaged the situation likely to arise in rural Ireland where he fixes one period as night for one district, and another period as night for another district? Let us assume that, in the first district, he fixes the period of night from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. on the following morning, and that in an adjoining district he fixes the period of night from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. That means that the bakers in the second area will bring out their first batch of bread one hour before the bakers in the first area. Under modern conditions bread is carried considerable distances from town to town, and any one familiar with the bakery trade knows that the advantage accruing to a baker who arrives first at the door of a potential purchaser in the morning is very great indeed. Has the Minister considered the situation that will arise if by statute the bakers in one area are precluded from offering their bread in their own area before their rivals from another area can come in and offer bread which has been baked during a different night period to that fixed for the first area? Would the Minister not consider fixing the one night period for all parts of rural Ireland in order to avoid competition of the kind that I have described arising?

I think it is most likely that there will not be wide variations in the periods fixed for different areas in the event of different periods being fixed for different areas. The amendment which enables the Minister to fix different periods for different areas is being put into the Bill in response to a request made by Deputy Mulcahy, that the requirements of different areas should be adverted to. The Minister, before making Orders of this kind, will, of course, have to enter into consultation with the representatives of the trade, both employers and employees, and I think it is most unlikely that periods will be fixed which would in the nature of things interfere with the efficient carrying on of the industry, assuming that the principle of the abolition of night work is agreed upon.

The Minister does see the point that if he were to fix for the Boyle area 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., and for the Castlerea area 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., the Castlerea bakers will have all the trade of the Boyle area before the bakers there will have power to send out a single loaf from their bakeries.

There is power to deal with a situation of that kind should it arise, but, as I have already pointed out, the amendment has been put in more or less at Deputy Mulcahy's request. It may not be necessary to use this power at all.

The problem to which Deputy Dillon has referred does not arise merely as between two districts in rural areas. The problem is one that may arise between an area in a rural district and the City of Dublin. Quite a fair amount of bread, which is produced in the country, is supplied to the City of Dublin and with considerable advantage to the poor of Dublin. The fact is that very often they are able to get their bread cheaper from the country than they can get it in Dublin. It could easily happen if the Department overlooked a circumstance such as that that the country bakers supplying Dublin would be penalised. I think that the Minister, in acting upon this provision, should give careful attention to it to see that the healthy competition that exists between certain rural towns in Ireland and the cities should be maintained.

Amendment No. 11 is out of order.

Might I ask why this amendment is not in order having regard to the fact that it is identical with the relative section in the Conditions of Employment Act which has already been passed by this House? In view of that, in putting down the amendment, I am not, I hold, creating any new precedent.

It is unnecessary, as the employment of women on industrial work is prohibited by Section 46 of the Conditions of Employment Act.

I am raising this question not on the ground of necessity for the amendment, but because of the reason which the Chair has given for ruling it out of order, that I am seeking to create a precedent.

Not exactly on that ground. The fact that terms similar to those embodied in the amendment are contained in another Act of the Oireachtas does not operate to make the amendment relevant. The purpose of the Bill, as the Deputy knows, is to implement the Convention, and the Chair is of opinion that the amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and introduces extraneous matter.

Am I to take it that the Chair is ruling that a Bill ratifying a convention must, in fact, be limited to the terms of that convention, and that any addition to strengthen or extend the scope of the convention cannot, in fact, be made in the Bill?

The Chair has not ruled on that point. The Chair is of opinion that this amendment is not in order.

We ought to have been told that a fortnight ago.

Under Section 5 the Minister is empowered to consult with representatives of workers and representatives of employers in respect to the regulations which may be made to do exceptional work in baking. I would like to ask whether in that connection the Minister proposes to adhere rigidly to the governing considerations which apply under the Conditions of Employment Act?

I cannot answer that question without notice, I am afraid.

May I take it that in making the regulations the Minister will recognise the fact that the Conditions of Employment Act will not be invaded in a backward direction?

I suppose we will have to pay attention to the fact that the Conditions of Employment Act is there and that it sets up a certain standard generally. I do not think I can say any more than that, not having gone into the question as to how this convention might be affected by that Act. I have not gone in detail into it because the matter will only arise when we are in consultation with the representatives of the employers and the employees.

Will the Minister endeavour to preserve the minimum standards set out under the Conditions of Employment Act?

I am not giving any undertaking.

Question agreed to.

Section 9 seems to be very drastic. Let us envisage the situation that may arise. Take a lock-up bakery in connection with which the bakers go ordinarily at five o'clock or six o'clock in the afternoon. At three o'clock in the morning a member of the Gárda Síochána arrives at the door of the bakery and demands admittance, but there is nobody there. The proprietor or the manager of the bakehouse may live some distance away. He must get up and open the bakehouse and admit the Gárda. Then he goes home again. Is any such drastic provision necessary?

The Gárda has to be authorised in writing by an inspector of the Gárda Síochana, and we have to presume that the inspector is a reasonable officer who will carry out his duties in a reasonable manner.

Is it necessary to give the member of the Gárda Síochána a right to enter at any time of the night on premises in which he suspects baking is being done?

I cannot see any other way of dealing with the matter. The object of the Bill is to prevent night work in bakeries. We ask the Gárda Síochana to administer the Act, and I fail to see how we can operate it unless we give them these powers.

I would be prepared to waive my objection to what seem to be extremely wide powers provided the member of the Gárda Síochána is in a position to prove that he had reason to suspect baking was in progress. I suggest that the inspector of the Gárda Síochána ought to be obliged to prove that he had some reasonable ground for believing that baking was going on before he gave a warrant to the Gárda to enter the premises at two o'clock in the morning. At present no police officer is entitled to enter a premises on an ordinary search warrant unless it can be proved that he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that some breach of the law was being committed, and a Gárda must satisfy the officer responsible for issuing the warrant that he had reasonable grounds for suspicion. I submit that a similar obligation should be imposed on the officer of the Gárda Síochána who gives what is the equivalent of a search warrant under Section 9 (1) of this Bill.

I do not know whether there is any precedent for the amendment the Deputy suggests. I am informed that this provision is similar to the provisions in the Factory Acts generally, under which inspectors visit and inspect premises.

At any hour of the night?

We have to assume that the member of the Gárda Síochána who has to be definitely authorised in writing by an inspector will have reason to suspect that the provisions of the Act are not being complied with.

Put that in and I have no objection to the section.

I will consider it. I do not know that it is necessary. If I find that the section is on a par with other similar legislation, similar powers, I think it will not be necessary to make any amendment.

But the Minister observes that this gives power to enter premises in the middle of the night, and in order to do that the Minister puts on the member of the Gárda Síochána an obligation to get the equivalent of a search warrant. The member of the Gárda who is out to detect a misdemeanour must satisfy the person charged with the responsibility for issuing a search warrant that he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that such a misdemeanour is being or has been perpetrated. All I want is that the officer of the Gárda is placed under the obligation of showing that he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that baking is in progress in the premises that he wants to enter in the middle of the night.

Question agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:—

To delete the words and figures "Night Work (Bakeries) Convention, 1925," line 7, and substitute the following words and figures, "convention, concerning night work in bakeries, adopted on the 8th day of June, 1925, at the seventh session of the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations".

This is to amend the Long Title in accordance with the description of the convention—giving a more precise description of the convention which the Bill is implementing.

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Is there any objection to taking the remaining Stages now?

Not from this side of the House.

Can the Minister give any general indication as to when the Bill is likely to be brought into operation?

I cannot say.

Is the Minister going to implement it next year or this year? Does he know that?

No.

Then there is no urgency in passing this Bill. I move that the remaining Stage be left over until next November, seeing that the Minister does not know when it is going to be brought into operation. I object to the Fifth Stage being taken now. Might I put this point? There is objection to taking the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

But there is nothing to prevent its being taken now if the majority of the House so desires.

Are we going to have a motion to take the Fifth Stage now? There is no agreement to take it now, and Standing Orders would prevent its being taken.

I understand that the Opposition expressed agreement to take the Fifth Stage now. I can only assure Deputy Norton that we will try to implement the Bill as soon as possible.

Having extracted that from the Minister we now reach the Fifth Stage.

Honour is satisfied. His face is saved.