To my mind, there are two anomalies in this section. The first is in sub-section (2). Power is given to a shop to stay open on a half-day, either before or after a statutory holiday. In the companion Bill the employee must get a half-day except during the Christmas fortnight. That is the only concession made. It seems to me that the result of that is to favour a shop where relatives only are employed, because in the case of a shop employing assistants, it will either close, or, if it stays open on the statutory holiday, a day in lieu must be given, which will, of course, add considerably to its costs, whereas a shop which is manned entirely by relatives can stay open on the half-day without having to give any concession to the assistants in respect of the other half-day. That is a point the Minister might consider.

The other anomaly arises in sub-section (5), where the Bill says that a shop carrying on an excepted trade and also any other trade, may stay open to deal with the excepted trade, but may not deal with any other trade. When Deputy McGowan raised the point of the standard half-day, the Minister said it was impossible to allow a shop to stay open for an exempted trade and not to allow it to deal in the other trades. I admit that the number of excepted trades is very much smaller than the number of exempted trades, but if it was impossible in one case, why does it become possible in the other?

There are two points. It will be necessary, I agree, to examine the provisions of this Bill in relation to the Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) Bill to ensure that there is no conflict between them. It is true that we permit a shop to remain open on the weekly half-holiday immediately preceding or following the public holiday. My recollection of the provisions of the Shop Assistants Bill is that it permits of an employee being deprived of his half-holiday in a week in which a public holiday occurs.

Only in respect of the Christmas fortnight, I think.

I will have that matter looked into because, in any event, it will be necessary to keep in mind what I said here earlier, namely, that the majority of shop proprietors would desire to avail of the concession given in sub-section (2) in the week preceding a bank holiday rather than in the week in which the bank holiday occurs, where that bank holiday occurs early in the week — on Monday, as frequently is the case. I thank the Deputy for drawing attention to the point, but, as I say, it will be necessary to ensure that there will be no conflict in that regard. It is true that, in relation to excepted businesses, we permit of shops remaining open for the purpose of these businesses even though they may also engage in other businesses in respect of which they should be closed. We put these excepted businesses in a different position from that of the exempted businesses, recognising that there may be that difficulty of enforcement to which I have referred. We are prepared to face it in relation to these businesses, and that is the only excuse I can offer for the difference in treatment and for the apparent departure from my own argument. In relation to these four businesses, we have to recognise that possibility, but we are prepared to recognise it rather than to require premises doing these businesses to close merely because they carry on some other trade. That is why I was disposed to resist another amendment moved by Deputy Dockrell which sought to give power to add to the list of excepted businesses as distinct from the exempted businesses.

Has anyone adverted to the situation which is going to arise when a fair day in a rural town falls on the named half-holiday? As I understand the Bill at present, a shopkeeper is obliged to declare that a certain day shall be a half-holiday every week. In rural Ireland, in certain towns, the monthly fair is a movable feast, falling on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday, as the case may be. Suppose you fix Wednesday as your half-holiday and the monthly cattle fair falls on Wednesday. It becomes manifestly impossible to close all the shops in the town on that day. Is there provision made in this Bill for altering the half-holiday if that contingency arises?

As a matter of fact, the position of the shopkeeper in that respect is rather improved. Under existing law, following a local inquiry, an order is made fixing a particular day as the half-holiday and that day must be the half-holiday. It cannot be changed except in certain circumstances. Under this Bill, the individual shopkeeper is allowed to pick his own half-holiday. He can only alter it by giving lengthy notice and informing the Guards, but, nevertheless, it is left to himself to determine what the half-holiday will be, so that there is a slight loosening of the regulations in that regard, a loosening which has been objected to by the Labour Party, but which is necessary in order to give effect to the provisions of the Bill. The position in that respect is slightly better and certainly no worse than the existing position in respect to the weekly half-holiday.

He may have it on Monday in one week and on Wednesday of the following week?

Not quite that, but there is provision for changing the half-holiday.

This is serious. What is going to happen if the cattle fair falls on Wednesday? Are you going to close all the shops in the town?

What happens at present?

There are very few rural towns in which such an order operates.

There are quite a number.

None.

Yes, there are.

Where?

There are a very large number of towns in the country where they have a weekly half-holiday.

That may be, but there is no town where you have these fairs fixed by Charter in which the coincidence occurs.

The position is that the half-holiday is fixed by order and cannot be changed. If the date of the fair is movable, then I am sure precautions will be taken by those concerned to ensure that it is not held on the half day.

These fairs are fixed by Charter.

At present the half-holiday is fixed by law and cannot be changed.

It may be that there are certain towns where the half-holiday is fixed by law.

In every town where there is a half-holiday it is fixed by an unmovable order.

No. In Ballaghaderreen there is a half-holiday for ten years, and it was fixed by nobody but by the will of the people.

I do not know what the position is there.

In Ballaghaderreen, Castlerea, Ballymote, Collooney, Ballisodare, and other towns of which I could name a litany, the half-holiday was fixed by nobody. Under this Bill the half-day will be fixed for everyone in all towns. In certain towns the fair is fixed by Charter. It is not held on the third Wednesday, or the first Thursday, but is fixed like Easter, on a date to fall after such and such a seasonal event. The old fairs relate to the holidays of the Church. For instance they fall on Candlemas Day, Lady Day, or a day near Easter. To alter these fair days would involve many towns in incalculable loss. It is hard for anyone who was not born, and who has not lived in the country, to realise what immense importance attaches to established fairs. If they are changed great injury might be done to these fixtures. In Ballaghaderreen five cattle fairs fall this year on Wednesday. Last year there would have been only one fair on that day, and next year there might be none. From what I gather, this Bill permits shopkeepers in towns to alter the half-holiday from the established day to another day only once in three months.

It permits each individual trader to fix whatever half-holiday he wishes, and to alter it on giving three months' notice. It does not fix a universal half-holiday in any town.

What happens in the towns to which I referred? Three or four of the larger shops chose a day and there was such a suspension of business that everyone was obliged to follow. Once these shops closed nobody came to town on that day. Let us assume, as in the case of Ballaghaderreen, that the half-holiday is on Wednesday. If the fair is going to fall on Wednesday, the shops in Ballaghaderreen must have the right to have the half-holiday on another day. My suggestion to the Minister is to provide that where fair days periodically clash — fair days established by Charter, if you want to get something which would be recognised judicially — with the declared half-holiday in such towns the merchants can have the half-holiday another day in that week. I mentioned Ballaghaderreen as an illustration, because I know the circumstances there. Wednesday is the ordinary half-holiday. Might it not be arranged, where a fair fixed by Charter falls on a Wednesday, that the half-holiday could be held on a Monday? Unless you make a provision of that kind you are going to cause great hardship in these small towns and, in fact, you might upset their economy and destroy their trade. I have no hesitation in saying that the refusal of such discretion to the merchants of Ballaghaderreen would involve the town in the loss of thousands of pounds in the year.

It cannot be done in the precise way the Deputy indicated. He has not appreciated the change made by the Bill. We are not fixing the weekly half-holiday for any town. We are obliging each shopkeeper to close for a half day in the week chosen by the proprietor of the shop. There is no question, therefore, of making an Order as to the date of a fair in a particular town applying to all shops because, in fact, the majority of the shops may not have chosen that day for the half-holiday. There is provision by which the proprietor of a shop can, on giving three months' notice, change the date. He cannot change it more than once in three months.

Would you amend the Bill so that merchants, when fixing the half-holiday, may also declare their intention to have the holiday on a particular day; and further declare that in certain weeks there would be no half-holiday on Wednesday, but that it would be given on the previous Monday. If that right is given to each individual shopkeeper, it meets the difficulty I have in mind.

I will look into the point. It is most undesirable to give the proprietor the right to change from time to time.

You can restrict that by providing that it would only apply where shopkeepers can prove that the fairs are fixed by Charter.

I will look into it.

I move amendment No. 33:—

In sub-section (2), page 9, line 11, to insert after the words "any business" the brackets and words "(other than the business of selling by retail intoxicating liquors)".

This is similar to another amendment, the purpose being to keep the regulating of the hours of trading in licensed premises subject to the licensing laws and not to this Bill.

Is it proposed where a place is allowed to remain open for the sale of liquor that if they sell other goods which are ordinarily offered for sale this applies?

No. It is an exempted trade, not an excepted trade.

I move amendment No. 35:—

In sub-section (1), page 9, line 23, to delete the words "nor an existing closing order".

I think it was mentioned that provision is made for the preservation of orders under an Act which will be repealed by this Bill. Take the position in Mullingar, where a closing order was made under the 1912 Act affecting certain classes of trade. That was done by the express wish of over two-thirds of the traders. I presume that order will continue in force when this Bill becomes law. That order brought within its grasp some of the trades which are now termed "exempted trades".

Is there not a weekly half-holiday there?

Yes.

This section does not repeal the weekly half-holiday. It repeals a series of closing orders. What we are here providing is, that where a shopkeeper engages in an exempted trade, and only in an exempted trade or trades, then no existing order shall be deemed to apply to it. But if he carries on, in addition to an exempted trade, some trade not exempted, then, of course, the orders do apply. I think that is logical and obvious. The proposal is to exempt these trades from the scope of these orders for reasons which are different in the case of each individual trade. If they are exempted, then it is not within the Minister's power to come and reverse that decision again.

The Minister is not going to enforce closing orders on the business of selling newspapers, periodicals and magazines.

No

I am prepared to accept this amendment in principle, but I would ask Deputy McGowan to allow it to stand over to the next stage.

As I have informed the Deputy, this amendment is out of order as it anticipates a debate on Part IV of the Bill.

Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle would permit me to say that the Bill as it stands appears to be defective in this regard: that where it permits trading on Sunday it does not give power to regulate the hours of trading, and I think some adjustment will have to be made to enable that to be done. I think that is the point the Deputy is aiming at in his amendment.

We can take the amendment as not moved, the Minister undertaking to look into the point.

I move amendment No. 39:—

In sub-section (1), page 10, line 5, after the word "days" to insert the words "and in relation to different shops".

In effect it is only a drafting amendment.

I do not think there is any necessity for it. If the Deputy looks at the provisions of paragraph (a) he will see that the power he proposes to give is already there.

I move amendment No. 40:—

At the end of sub-section (2), page 10, to add the following new paragraph:—

(d) where any such order has been made it shall not be lawful for any person otherwise entitled to carry on business to sell or offer for sale any of the goods sold in the shops or in connection with the businesses to which such order relates after the hours specified in such order.

I am not quite sure of the point that the Deputy is getting at in this amendment. I have accepted and framed the Bill on the principle that, where a shop engages in a mixed business, it must comply with the Hours of Trading Order which prescribes the earliest hour of closing for any of the Businesses carried on. If that is what the Deputy is trying to achieve I agree with him. I am not sure if the amendment is necessary, but I am prepared to look into the point.

I move amendment No. 41:—

At the end of sub-section (2), page 10, to add the following new paragraph:—

(d) such order where it relates to the sale of fruit shall not fix in relation to such sale an hour for closing earlier than that fixed by any order dealing with the sale of confectionery, tobacco or smokers' requisites.

I take it that what the Deputy has in mind is the case of tobacconists and confectioners who sell fruit, but he is overlooking the fact that, as the Bill stands, an early-closing order cannot be made in respect of tobacco and smokers' requisites. Consequently, the amendment is not in order. If an order were made withdrawing from the list of exempted businesses the business of selling tobacco and smokers' requisites then such order would have to be laid on the Table of the House, when the Deputy would have an opportunity of dealing with the matter. It is most unlikely that such an order will ever be made. Consequently, the need for the amendment will not arise.

On the section, am I to take it that a hawker selling fruit from a basket, or commodities from a basket, from door to door may not sell those commodities outside the hours of trading?

Not unless they are exempted commodities. If the Deputy will look at the list of exempted commodities, I think he will find that it covers all the commodities that the street hawker sells — fruit, sweets, mineral waters, and so on.

Flowers?

Yes.

And fish?

Yes.

I take it that it is the Minister's intention if some unthought-of commodity, which is the normal ware of a bona fide hawker is brought to his attention, to extend the exemption to cover it?

It is very hard to draw the line between the type of person that we mean when we ordinarily use the phrase "street trader" and a travelling shop—the person who is selling certain classes of goods from a stall. It is, apparently, the desire of all parties that the latter should be subject to the same restrictions as the ordinary trader. We are getting over that point, I think, in the main by means of these exemptions. The exemptions do cover the ordinary type of street trader. There is power to add to the list of exemptions should cases arise. There are certain types of hawkers and it is desirable that they should be subject to the same restrictions, in respect of hours, as the trader who works from premises. It can be said that it would be unfair to the trader in premises if they were not subject to the same restrictions. So far as I have been able to discover, under the Bill as it stands the ordinary street trader is exempted, but the travelling shop — the person who engages in the sale of drapery goods and articles of that kind at a fair — is covered by the Bill.

What about turf and tin cans? Remember that the hawker in rural Ireland is not the hawker with which the Minister is familiar. In rural Ireland the hawker will sell tin pannikins, caps for pipes, etc. These are his ordinary wares. As I read the Bill, he will be prevented from operating. Then what about the country boy coming into a town with a cart of turf? The usual practice is that, if you are a turf man, you bring in a cart of turf and walk through the streets until somebody comes out and stops you and buys the turf from you. Is that provided for?

If an order were made in respect of turf, it would apply to that person.

You can imagine an order being made designed to close up in a town coal warehouses which ordinarily handle turf for the Turf Disposals Board. It would be highly undesirable if that operated to prevent the farmer's son from coming in with a cart of turf and offering it for sale in the town.

It would not prevent him from coming into the town and offering the turf for sale. It would prevent him from coming into the town and offering turf for sale at 7, 8, 9 or 10 o'clock. He would have to sell the turf during whatever were the recognised business hours. That is, assuming that such an order were made covering turf which would be restrictive of hours. If there is no order made there is no restriction. If there is an order made it would operate to prevent that person selling turf at a time when any other trader is prevented from selling turf.

In towns with which I am familiar many of us are coal merchants and, presumably, our premises will be required to close within the ordinary hours. Insomuch as we are coal and turf merchants, will that operate to prevent a farmer's son coming in at 6 o'clock of a summer's evening and selling a cart of turf?

It may.

It ought not to.

That is a matter which should be taken into account when the question of making an order is under consideration.

A country hawker is what is popularly known as a tinker, and sells hardware of one kind or another. Is it intended to stop him? That would be a great hardship.

I do not say it is intended to do it. There is power to do it, but there is also power to exempt. These are questions which will have to be considered when the question of making an order in relation to these particular trades arises. There is provision for publication of the order and for the making of representations by anybody in relation to a particular trade.

You have power to close hardware shops and still let tinkers operate?

There is power to distinguish between classes of shops. If we made an order covering the sale of a commodity, it would in practice have to apply to everybody selling that commodity. It would be impossible to make any useful restriction which would not be unfair to somebody.

That is a difficulty of administration. You have made provision in the schedules and doubtless excluded certain businesses that otherwise you would have included because you do not want to catch the poor of Dublin who make a reasonable living out of hawking these commodities in the streets.

That was not the main consideration.

I presume that operated on the mind of the Minister. He did not want to close up the hawkers of flowers and fish, though he might have closed the fish and flower shops if the consideration had not operated on his mind. What I am pressing is: that he ought to bear in mind a similar consideration when dealing with the rural hawker. I cannot imagine that he is going to apply these orders to shops in a town and exclude hardware shops. Supposing he does apply the orders to hardware shops, he is going to prevent every tinker from vending his wares.

In prohibited hours.

That is a great hardship. If the Minister knew as much about the country as most of us know, he would agree that it is a hardship. The tinker has to sell his tin cans wherever he can make his way in and do his dealing wherever he can get the opportunity. It is grotesque to suggest that the man who is battling with the wolf at his door should be forbidden to sell tin mugs after 6 o'clock because the hardware shops are closed. It is a terrible wrong to inflict grievous hardship on very humble individuals because we cannot be bothered to make provision for their particular difficulty. If this presents great difficulty administratively, I would be very anxious to give the Minister a very wide discretion.

It is not a question of administrative difficulty. It is a fact that every Deputy who spoke has pointed to the necessity for ensuring that any order made in relation to any trade should apply to everybody in that trade. The unfairness would be if it did not. That was the primary consideration in preparing the Bill in this form, just as in preparing the schedules it was not the position of certain classes of street traders that was in mind, but the nature of the commodities. The commodities which the Deputy mentioned are exempted from the operation of these closing orders because they are perishable commodities or of a special kind in respect to which it can be said that there was no public interest to be served by requiring the shops to be closed, and perhaps a public convenience to be met by allowing them to keep open. These were the primary considerations. If, in relation to hardware, or any other class of commodity, you contemplate the possibility of a small trader being exempt, then everybody here will say that that is going to be unfair to those who are compelled to close. Everybody has been saying that right through the whole debate and pressing the necessity for ensuring that every order made in relation to any trade has universal application within that trade.

I feel about this so strongly that I will be glad if the Labour Party will intervene and offer their solution of the difficulty. We are all familiar with the problem of the mendicant and we are fairly sympathetic.

The man who makes the tin cans is probably an industrial worker under the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936.

He is a bloated capitalist employing no labour and he will get no sympathy from the Labour Party. I want to make this case. We have the mendicant, commonly known as the beggar, who circumvents the Civic Guards by selling studs or something of that kind. Is there no means of protecting that person? Under this Bill, he immediately becomes liable to a statutory penalty.

He must display the prescribed abstract of the Act.

I put it to you that that is the kind of thing the bureaucrat forgets completely. You cannot possibly know them if you do not live amongst them. It may be absurd to argue that one ought to consider these people, but it really is not. If the Minister lived in a country town, as most Deputies do, he would know that he had three or four very good friends amongst that class—familiar friends who have come in collecting twopence or threepence on one day per week. They come most religiously on that day and would be ashamed to come on any other day. They have a regular route. They are old friends and they circumnavigate the regulations prohibiting their activities by selling studs or bootlaces or something of that kind, so that if a Civic Guard came on the scene you can grab a pair of bootlaces and protest that you were engaged in a commercial transaction; that there was no eleemosynary element in operation at all. I know that it sounds absurd to be talking about these things, but these people will be guilty of a statutory offence if they offer these commodities, and they will be caught.

It all leads to this: that I want the Minister, if it is administratively possible, while catching all the shops, not to apply this to the really impoverished hawker. I do not believe any Party wants the hawker, who is maintaining a family out of the business of carrying about these wares and disposing of them from house to house, to be caught by the Bill. We do not want to close the shop that employs labour and leave open the shop that employs nobody. But we ought to draw the line. The bureaucratic view is that it is administratively impossible to draw the line; that you cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs. That is all very well for Merrion Street or Lord Edward Street, but when the eggs happen to be personal friends of long standing, then you take a more personal interest in their fate. I strongly urge on the Minister that this is a matter he ought to look into. I put it to Deputy Tom Kelly, who is familiar, I have no doubt, with the street hawker in Dublin, that if you caught some of these people under this Bill and prohibited them from trading outside the hours fixed for shops, you might inflict very grievous hardship on a hard-working and respectable people.

What about tinkers who sell horses?

I have yet to meet a shop which caters for horses. We do not sell horses across the counter. We sell them on the fair green.

There is an odd ass behind the counter.

Tinkers sell horses.

I do not know what the legal position is in regard to the small side-heading to the section.

This part of the Bill, Part III, relates only to hours of trading on week-days. The next part deals with hours of trading on Sundays.

The other point was that sellers or manufacturers of vacuum cleaners have a habit of sending their representatives around to different houses in order to try and sell their articles. I take it that they would come under this section. They can demonstrate, but they cannot sell?

Quite.

Although signing on the dotted line might constitute a sale.

Would the Minister look into the case of hawkers and mendicants?

I do not think there is any way of excluding them from the Bill. I am quite sure they will not be affected any more than they are affected by the existing Orders.

There is no Order prohibiting anybody from selling outside a shop.

The existing Orders apply in any place where a retail trade is carried on.

Why, the very fact that it applied to a place where a retail trade was carried on spared the hawker. He did not carry on his trade in a place of business. He was an itinerant.

A shop is deemed to be wherever the retail sale is made.

Does the Minister speak advisedly? Did the old Closing Order for shops affect an itinerant hawker? I do not think it did.

No more than this Bill does.

Surely, that is the whole difference. In this Bill you deliberately aim to do what you did not do under the old Closing Order.

The existing Closing Act applies to any place, not being a shop, in which a retail trade is carried on.

You did not catch the itinerant hawker under the old Order.

I know I did not, but he was supposed to comply with the law.

I do not think he was.

Oh, yes. It applied to a retail trade carried on in any place, not being a shop.

If the Minister speaks advisedly——

These are the terms of the Acts.

I understood that that was interpreted as not catching an itinerant vendor. I think you are catching him here and you have deliberately exempted him from certain schedules.

I do not know how it is possible to do it.

I move amendment No. 48:—

In sub-section (2), page 12, line 19, to insert after the words "any business" the brackets and words "(other than the business of selling by retail intoxicating liquors)".

It is a similar amendment to that which we already inserted in another part of the Bill.

I move amendment No. 50:—

In sub-section (1), page 12, line 32, after the word "area" to insert the words "the population of which does not exceed five hundred."

The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the exemptions, which the Minister takes power to make, to towns with a population not exceeding 500. As the Bill stands, it would be possible to secure exemptions without any limitation. It seems reasonable that, whatever special circumstances might be urged in respect of small towns, such exemptions should not have general application.

I think the Deputy will have to rely upon the good sense of the Minister or his fear of the Dáil when he comes to present his Orders to it, because there is no safeguard against his abusing his powers other than the Dáil. The particular device which the Deputy has put forward could be easily evaded. In order to evade it the Minister, instead of making one Order applying to one area, could divide that area up into sections, each with a population of less than 500, and issue a series of Orders for each section. In the end the result would be the same. I can assure the Deputy that the object of the section is to deal with exceptional circumstances in outlying districts, principally along the west coast, where a considerable amount of business is done on Sundays. People have to travel long distances to towns and usually do their business after Mass on Sundays. That arrangement saves them the trouble of having to travel twice a week, and it is undesirable to compel them to do so. It is only in a few areas along the west coast that that situation obtains. So far as I am concerned, the power of exemption would only be exercised to meet such cases. The only safeguard the House can have against an abuse of power is that the Minister, when proposing his Order here, will have to justify it. I do not think there is any other way of doing it. You cannot get a watertight definition of all circumstances under which the power would be used which might apply in every case.

I take it that amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53 stand together. The main purpose of these amendments is to provide powers to regulate the hours of trading on Sundays in areas in respect of which an exemption order is made. A reasonable case can be made for that, and I am prepared to meet it by an amendment to the Bill.

I move amendment No. 54:—

In sub-section (3), page 13, line 3, to delete the words —"post office business."

This section would enable certain post offices to carry on business on Sundays. It is difficult to see what case can be made for that.

The only case I have to make for the Bill as it stands is that it is undesirable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have power to make regulations for the conduct of Post Office business over the head of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I think if there is a case to be made for the closing of a post office, that case must be made to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. If he agrees with it, he has power to do that without statutory backing at all. It is useless to have the power in the hands of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, because it is certain he will not use that power unless the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs concurs and, if he does concur, it is not necessary for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make an Order. It is the general practice in legislation of this kind not to give one Minister power to make Orders which directly react on the administration of another Minister's Department. There are exceptions to that rule, I grant you; there are exceptions in the Conditions of Employment Act, for example. Here, the logic of the position is that the power will not be used except the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs concurs. If he does concur, then the power is not necessary.

I move amendment No. 56:—

At the end of the section to add a sub-section as follows:—

(2) Nothing in this section shall—

(a) be construed as rendering unlawful the attendance of a barber or hairdresser on a customer in the customer's residence or the holding of an auction sale of private effects in a private dwelling house, or

(b) apply to the sale of newspapers.

This is an amendment which is designed to secure that the provisions do not apply to prevent the attendance of a barber or hairdresser on a customer in the customer's residence, or the holding of an auction sale of private effects in a private dwelling-house, or to prevent the sale of newspapers. It is necessary to have this amendment in, for the purpose of clarity and consistence. A similar sub-section is in the Bill at the end of Part II and Part III dealing with trading on week-days. It is necessary to have this amendment in this part of the Bill also, dealing with Sunday trading.

I move amendment No. 57:—

In page 13 to delete the words in the third column and substitute the words "the whole Act to the extent that it is not already repealed."

This is really a drafting amendment. In the wording of the third column of the Schedule reference is made to the provisions of the Shops Act, 1912, which are in fact repealed by the Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) Bill.

They are not repealed yet. That is the whole point. The Deputy would be quite correct in his amendment if the other Bill had been passed, but not merely has the other Bill not been passed but it is impossible to say when it will have been passed, or when it will have been brought into operation, because it does not come into operation until an Order is made, and it may be possible that this Bill will come into operation first. The joint effect of the two Bills would be to make this repeal in any case.

I move amendment No. 58:—

In page 13, to delete line 23.

This is simply a drafting amendment. Line 23 refers to the business of selling by retail intoxicating liquors. In the Schedule, this is an exempted business, and as such under Section 15 of the Bill it is an exempted business to which the closing on weekly half-holiday does not apply. Section 17, however, includes in paragraph (b), sub-section (5), amongst excepted businesses the selling by retail of intoxicating liquors. It seems unnecessary that the same business should be described in Section 17 as an excepted business and in the Second Schedule as an exempted business.

The Deputy is correct in describing this as a drafting point. It may be entirely unnecessary to have it in the Schedule. I will have the matter looked into.

I move amendment No. 59:—

In page 13, line 24, after the word "refreshments" to insert the words "for consumption in the premises."

A part of what Deputy McGowan has said in relation to his amendment applies also to this one, I think. No. 2 in the Schedule refers to the business of selling refreshments. I think there is not a sufficient definition there. What is the business of selling refreshments? Does it mean refreshments sold for consumption on the premises, or what does it mean? I think it is not sufficiently clear as it stands, and I doubt if it is necessary at all.

I will have that matter looked into also. It may be necessary to retain both Nos. 1 and 2 here, despite the provision in the relevant section as to excepted businesses. The intention here was to exclude from the weekly half-holiday provision the business of selling refreshments for consumption on the premises, and if it is necessary to insert those words I will have them inserted to make it clear. There is no doubt that that is the intention. If the sale of refreshments is otherwise than for consumption on the premises I think the weekly half-holiday provision should apply.

I move amendment No. 60:—

In page 13, line 26, to delete the words "or magazines" and substitute the words "stationery, cheap books, novels and magazines".

This is to make sure that the definition is not too narrow, and that this includes what has been provided for in amendment No. 6.

I think the provision is a reasonable one. We could not, in an Act, include "cheap books." I do not know whether that would apply to their price or their character. In any case there would be a difficulty in definition. It is clear that shops ordinarily engaged in the selling of newspapers, periodicals or magazines, also sell those books, stationery, and novels, and the exemption should cover all those articles. If the Deputy will leave the amendment over I will have the matter looked into.

On behalf of Deputy O'Brien, I move amendment No. 61:—

In page 13, to delete line 27.

The amendment proposes to take away the exemption granted to the business of selling tobacco or smokers' requisites.

I am strongly opposed to that. The Deputy will understand that in the other Bill we are giving shop assistants the right to a half-day. There is, therefore, no question of the shop assistants being affected by an amendment of this kind, but the public convenience is affected. A further consideration which the Labour Party might bear in mind is that the restriction of hours of trading in tobacconists' shops and other places has led very largely to the substitution of human assistants by automatic machines, and I do not think we should encourage that.

The same argument applies in this case as in connection with some previous amendments. It is simply for the protection of a man who does employ shop assistants, and has to face unfair competition.

I move amendment No. 63:—

In page 13, line 34, to delete the words "meat, fish".

I think the same case has to be made on this amendment as was made by Deputy McGowan on previous amendments. It seems to me that there are altogether too many exemptions in those Schedules. For instance, in regard to the sale of fish, what case can be made for not having a half-holiday? Why should those things be exempted? Having regard to the fact that practically every shop of a certain kind has a department selling those commodities, it seems to me that those exemptions render the whole Act practically useless.

I would not agree as to that. Of course, they are included in this list of commodities here under paragraph 9 because they are perishable articles. I think there is no doubt that meat, fish, and so on are perishable articles and the exemption given under paragraph 9 is to articles of a perishable nature. I have no very strong objection to the deletion of the words "meat and fish" from paragraph 9 of the Second Schedule, but I think it is better to leave it as it is. We have got to bear in mind the position of these street traders in meat, fish and so forth, who would be affected by the Order. So far as I know, it is not an unusual practice for shops selling these commodities to close for a half-day. In any event, I would prefer to leave it the way it is instead of making it a statutory obligation in relation to these commodities. Again, it is only a question of whether any public good is to be served by the Order. The shop assistant gets his half-holiday. It is provided under another statute that the shop assistant should get his half-holiday, and here the only question that arises is as to whether any public good would be served by obliging the shop itself to be shut. That brings up the question of whether or not the trader is affected adversely, and I do not think he is, to any extent, in relation to these goods. For these reasons, I should prefer to leave the matter as it is and to classify these articles as perishable commodities and let the situation remain unchanged in view of the fact that we have protected the shop assistant with regard to his hours anyway.

In that connection, Sir, I think the Minister minimises the effect on what one might term the legitimate business people — good employers and so on — employing assistants. I think the Minister minimises the effect upon them, and incidentally on the assistants of such employers, of giving loopholes to the person who either does not employ assistants or who employs members of his own family on the one hand or is generally a bad employer. I think that this element of competition — and I am sure no one knows it better than the Minister — in shop business is a very important element, and that if you are going to compel one employer to work under conditions which are not imposed upon another, you are putting him at a definite disadvantage. I think that in the interests both of the good employer and of his assistants it is desirable that these exemptions should be reduced to a minimum. In the case of the meat trade, the Minister has pointed out that at present there is a custom in the trade in Dublin and in most large centres of having a half-holiday. I suggest that the existence of that custom makes it clear that there is nothing impossible about enforcing a half-holiday all round, and when it is taken into account that the purpose of this kind of legislation is to bring a bad employer into line with a good one, I think that the meat and fish trade at least should be taken out of this Schedule, and I think that in doing that the Minister would be acting not only in the interests of the assistants of the good employer, but that, in the long run, he would be acting in the interests of his Department as well. While it is true to say that the assistants are protected by the other Bill, I think the Minister will agree that it would be much easier, from an inspection point of view and from the point of view of his Department, to enforce the observance of the half-holiday where the shops close rather than having to depend on the employer himself to close the shop. It simplifies the whole thing if the shops are closed, and in the interests of the Department as well as of the shopkeepers and assistants I think that the Minister should limit these exemptions as far as possible.

I am somewhat in sympathy with the Deputy's point of view and if he would leave his amendment open I would consider the matter. However, I am sure that he will understand that some consultation would be necessary with regard to the people concerned. I think the exemption, however, applies to the whole of that paragraph.

Yes.

As regards Amendment No. 64, it is not clear what the amendment refers to. Possibly there is some mistake in the numbering. The amendment is: "In page 13, to delete lines 34, 35 and 36." It seems to refer to two lines of one paragraph and not to the third. I shall have the drafting point examined.

I move amendment No. 65:—

In line 35, after the word "confectionery" to insert the words and brackets "(including confectionery contained in toys and novelties)."

With regard to Deputy Dockrell's amendment, No. 65, I think that it is a reasonable point and I shall try to meet the Deputy on that. It is true that the articles he mentions in his amendment are to be regarded as confectionery, and I shall have an amendment prepared to deal with the matter.

With regard to this Schedule and the amendments to it, Sir, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that there has been a printer's error in the numbering of the lines on page 14, and, therefore, it is not clear to which particular lines these amendments refer. In view of that, perhaps the Deputy concerned with the amendments might leave these points over.

I move amendment No. 72:—

In page 14, line 7, after the word "selling" to insert the words "on production of a doctor's certificate".

This matter of the chemist's, in relation to the Bill, has been discussed before, and it raises the question of making a distinction between legitimate chemists' business — between urgent chemists' business, which might be done outside ordinary opening hours — and the general business of the chemist of selling all sorts of things that are sold in other shops. I think the Minister, probably, would accept this amendment.

I could not agree to this. If there is any case at all for exempting a chemist from an Hours of Closing Order, it is the general case because of the class of goods he sells, and not merely because somebody wants chemical supplies ordered by a doctor. The chemist's supplies might not be ordered by a doctor and yet be just as urgent as if they had been. Therefore, it could apply generally and not in a specific instance of this kind. I considered this question of the application of the Bill to chemists very carefully. I have had many representations from chemists, some asking for complete exemption from this control and others asking quite the reverse. A very large number of chemists have, in fact, urged that the hours of trading legislation should apply to their business. The usual argument is that they want to close, but they cannot close because their competitor across the street will not do it; but if the competitor closes they are only too willing to do so. I found it hard to make up my mind, and in the end I came down to the point to exempt them from the hours of trading regulations altogether. Perhaps the matter might be further considered before the Bill is passed.

Generally speaking, I think the attitude of the State in the matter should be that they do not see any public need for requiring these shops to close at particular hours. We have protected the interests of the chemists' assistants, limited their hours of work and given them the right to a half-holiday and so forth. Having done that, I think we have gone the limit of our obligations in the matter. I would have no doubt on this point, that we should exempt the chemists, were it not for the representations which some chemists have made. That is the only thing which has shaken my view, and I am anxious to find out to what extent that view is held by all the chemists. When I find out their opinions, we might be prepared to modify our view in that connection. At any rate, there is power by Order to take the chemists out of this Schedule if, in the course of time, it appeared desirable to do that.

I suppose one could not get unanimity in any trade, but undoubtedly there is a section of the chemists who think that if they are to keep open only to supply the needs of sick people, their sales would not justify keeping the places open. There is also that argument for the Minister to consider.

That is the position as the Bill stands; they can keep open for the sale of medicines, but not for the sale of lipstick and things of that sort.

It is not merely a question of the two points of view prevalent amongst the chemists. Is there not also the point of view of the sick man?

There is an exemption in a case of emergency; where anything is required to meet an emergency a shopkeeper may sell it without infringing the law.

It may not be the case of a doctor prescribing in some emergency; a person may call in and it might be difficult to determine the emergency.

The Bill would allow anything in an emergency; that is different to opening the shop for trading.

The amendment that has been proposed would allow that and would also provide for a doctor's certificate. I think on the whole question of the chemists the Minister should seriously reconsider the matter. The case that is being made for the exemption of the chemists' business is very largely exaggerated. The occasions upon which a chemist is required in an emergency are very rare. On the other hand, a person might require a surgical operation in an emergency, or a particular kind of medicine in an emergency which ordinarily a doctor would be able to make up. The chemists open on Sundays and on half holidays when other shops are closed. No matter what restriction you try to place on them, what they are in fact doing is selling the type of things that are stocked in other shops, and they are really in competition with other trades. There is a good deal of exaggerated nonsense about this question of emergency in regard to chemists' shops, and the Minister should seriously consider the matter.

I do not think the Deputy's solution is a good one. The case for the general application of the Bill to chemists is on a different basis. I mean, taking power to make Orders in relation to chemists, even though such Orders may not be made except after public inquiry or something of that kind.

I move amendment No. 73:—

In page 14, to delete line 9.

The purpose of this amendment is to take out of the Schedule the reference to post office business. It is reasonable enough to argue that a post office should be left open until 7 or 8 o'clock at night, but I think it is unwise of the Minister to deprive himself of the power of making an Order.

What the Minister for Industry and Commerce is doing is deciding that it is none of his business and that the hour of closing in the post office is a matter to be decided by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. If the Deputy has any case to make, it is to him he must make it.

There are two points to which I should like to refer. I raised one point on a previous stage. It is as to whether the term "smokers' requisites" is sufficiently exact. To my mind a smoker's requisite would be anything which a smoker might require.

As a smoker.

If he says "I require a motor car," under the provision he could get it. I think the term wants to be defined a little more accurately than that. I raised the matter on a previous stage, and the Minister said he would look into it.

That definition is in the existing Act, and it has stood the test of time. I think it is satisfactory enough. I do not think it could be held that the term covers anything except what a smoker would require for the purpose of smoking.

The only way out of that would be a test case. As regards my second point, would the Minister not consider including in this Schedule the business of selling motor, cycle or aircraft supplies or accessories for immediate use? There are a certain number of garages in which they carry on a 24 hours' service.

I will consider that. Of course, the fact that that business is not mentioned here does not mean that an Order may not be made in relation to it. If there is a case for exempting this business from the provision in respect of Sunday trading, it will be carefully considered.

Third Schedule agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Businesses Exempted from Provisions as to Sunday Trading.

1. The business of selling by retail intoxicating liquors.

2. The business of selling meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises, or (in the case of meals or refreshments sold on railway premises) for consumption on the trains.

3. The business of selling table waters, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery, ice cream, tobacco or smokers' requisites.

4. The business of selling medicines or medicinal or surgical appliances when carried on by a chemist.

5. The business of selling newspapers, periodicals or magazines.

6. The business of selling motor, cycle, or aircraft supplies or accessories for immediate use.

7. The business of selling meat, fish, milk, cream, bread, confectionery, fruit, vegetables, flowers or other articles of a perishable nature.

8. Post office business.

I move amendment No. 76:—

In page 14, line 17, to delete the words "tobacco or smokers' requisites".

The purpose of the amendment is to take away the exemption in regard to these articles.

As a smoker, I refuse to shut tobacconists' on Sunday. It would be a most unchristian thing to do.

I move amendment No. 77:—

In line 16, to delete the words "sweets, chocolates, sugar."

There may be some necessity to extend or clarify the definition under paragraph 3. I am having it examined.

Amendment No. 80 deals with the same thing.

I move amendment No. 81:—

In line 20, to delete the words "or magazines" and substitute the words "stationery, cheap books, novels and magazines".

I accept that amendment.

I move amendment No. 81a:—

Before line 21 to insert the following figure and words:—

"6. The business carried on at a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform."

I am prepared to accept that — the amendment to be redrafted.

I move amendment No. 82:—

In page 14 to delete lines 23 to 25;

that is, to except the business of selling meat, fish, milk, cream, bread, confectionery, fruit, vegetables, flowers, or other articles of a perishable nature. I do not know that any great case could be made for that paragraph. There may be, in certain isolated towns, a case made for opening a butcher's shop on Sundays. I have seen this in one or two cases myself, but, taking it as a general point of view, it is very unusual to see a butcher's shop or a fish shop open on Sunday.

The only question that arises is the exclusion of these perishable commodities from Sunday Closing Orders. In some areas it is the custom for the people to deal in such shops on Sundays. The point to be considered is what is the best public policy in the matter. I do not think it can be urged that these businesses should be precluded from the possibility of being carried on on Sundays. Circumstances might arise where excluding them would cause considerable public inconvenience. That argument applies with different force to the various commodities just mentioned. It would be a great inconvenience in certain congested areas in Dublin if milk shops and such shops were closed on Sunday. It would not be convenient to buy these goods on the previous day. In addition, I would ask the Deputy to bear in mind the position of street traders who deal in these matters on Sundays and who should not be precluded from doing so. I think the best course to take is to permit such a trade to be carried on. I do not think there is any alternative.

To some extent I agree with the Minister, but I am afraid that the fact of this permission in the Bill is more of an incentive to people who would otherwise not open on Sunday, to open.

I could hardly accept that. If there was a profit to be made out of opening such shops on Sundays they would be open before now, and if they are not open now they will not be opened in the future. The sole reason as to why shops open to sell a particular article is that there is a profit in it.

Has the Minister anything to say about eliminating meat and fish?

I have had representations made to me about fish and meat shops. I know that selling meat and fish in cities and large towns on Sunday is very rare, but there are parts of the country where butchers do the bulk of their business on Sunday mornings. It might be desirable to promote a change in that practice, but we have to recognise the existence of the practice. There is power in the Bill to apply the Closing Order eventually if it is desirable to do so.

As the thing stands, it really represents a lot of the business the grocer does. A great deal of what he sells is of a perishable nature. As the Bill stands, that paragraph practically exempts the whole grocery and allied trade. There are very few grocery shops that do not sell one or other of the commodities mentioned in this paragraph.

The fact that they sell one of these commodities does not exempt them. A shop is exempted from the obligation of closing on Sunday only if its business is confined to the sale of the exempted commodities or to the sale of an exempted commodity. If it sells any commodity that is not exempted, then the shop is not entitled to remain open.

They could remain open for the purpose of selling an exempted commodity.

They could not.

How can they be stopped?

It is made an offence. They can be stopped by a prosecution. If a shop stocks a commodity which is not exempted, then it cannot be open, and the selling of that non-exempted commodity is an offence. A shop is only entitled to open if everything in the shop is an exempted commodity.

I accept the principle of amendment No. 84.

On the question of the post office being open on Sundays, does the Minister really mean that that is a matter that cannot be got over?

The Deputy can try his hand with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Can there be any case made for the post office opening on Sunday? In certain towns the public are only allowed to send telegrams early in the morning. The majority of country post offices open on Sunday simply for the purpose of attracting people to come in and buy other commodities.

If they sell a non-exempted commodity they commit an offence.

Is the Minister's point that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is the only one who can close a post office on Sunday?

I think the Minister's point is in favour of the man who forgot to buy Sunday's tobacco on Saturday.

If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs tells a post office to open on a Sunday and if they stock non-exempted commodities, how does the matter work out?

They are entitled to open on Sunday but if they stock non-exempted commodities they are not entitled to sell them. There are four excluded trades and they cannot sell non-exempted commodities. The post office is in a very special position that entitles them to open for trade as a post office even though they have non-exempted commodities in stock.

Is the position that an exempted shop can open but that it is an offence to sell any other commodity?

Quite so.

An exempted shop cannot open if they sell other things that are not exempted?

Yes; that is so.

One way of getting around this Bill is to get a post office in the country.

Yes, but there can be no more than one post office in the ordinary country town.

I should like to say a word on the general question of introducing amendments in view of our experience in connection with the previous Bill — the Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) Bill. Amendments were withdrawn conditional on the Minister looking into the subject matter of them. I presumed that the Minister's amendments would appear first.

I shall give the Deputy plenty of time.

We would require to see whether our amendments were dealt with so that we would be able, if necessary, to put amendments down. In the case of the Shop Assistants Bill, we have had to put down amendments without seeing the Minister's amendments.

The Deputy did so under a misapprehension. I had no intention of taking that Bill until Deputies had an adequate opportunity of seeing the Government amendments. These amendments are not yet circulated. I do not know when they will be available but Deputies will have an adequate opportunity of seeing them before taking the Bill. Clearly, the Bill cannot be taken until some days after the Government amendments have been circulated.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until Thursday, 3rd February, at 3 p.m.