I beg to move:—

To delete the section and to substitute the following new section therefor:—

"This Act shall be construed as one with the Shops Act, 1912, and all words and expressions to which special meanings are assigned by that Act shall respectively have those meanings in this Act."

This amendment is one that was suggested to me from three distinct legal sources. I believe the effect of it would be to aid very considerably in the administration of the Act. I may say that Senator Brown, who drafted the Bill originally, is of the opinion that it would be a considerable improvement. This amendment makes it perfecly clear that the phrases in this Act will have the same meaning as in the Shops Act of 1912.

I think we are entirely justified in raising an objection to the hasty way in which this Bill is being taken. It was introduced here less than a week ago.

We are on the Committee Stage now, Senator, and you cannot discuss the principle of the Bill. You can only speak on the amendments.

I want to point out that this Bill has been rushed here. The whole procedure has been so hurried that the introducers of the Bill have even had to put forward a series of amendments. I think we ought to postpone the consideration of those amendments for at least a week.

The proper way to do that would be to propose that the Committee Stage be adjourned until whatever day you suggest.

I move that the consideration of this Bill be adjourned until this day week.

Is it in order to move the adjournment of the Committee Stage without notice?

I would not like to venture an opinion on that without first looking the matter up. There is a provision that enables the consideration of matters to be adjourned on the motion of a Senator; I am not certain whether that is limited in its operation or not. I think there is a Standing Order in connection with the matter. It seems to me the point raised by Senator Douglas is right. The only motion that can be made for suspending the progress of a Bill comes under Standing Order 76. That only applies to the Second Stage or the Fifth Stage.

Later on the Senator will have an opportunity of moving a motion of this kind and then it can be tested.

Could we know what this means?

A good deal of legislation has been passed on this subject. There are at least one or two Shops Acts already passed. The object of this amendment is to show that it is not to be taken as setting any of them aside. The advantage is that all the definitions in the former Acts will apply to this Act. It is really a sort of formal thing. There is nothing behind it.

I beg to move:—

To delete the word "Township" wherever it occurs and to substitute therefor the words "Urban District."

This is also an improvement in the Bill and it was suggested from the same legal sources as in the case of the first amendment.

I beg to move:—

To add at the end of the section the words "Howth Urban District."

This is not a matter of very great importance. It has been suggested that in order to make the area complete Howth should be included. Most of these amendments have been suggested from a legal source.

Would I be in order in suggesting that we add another area?

You could move an amendment to this amendment.

I move that we include the whole Free State.

I suggest that that is outside the scope of the Bill.

I think that is so. Of course the Title of the Bill would have to be amended if that suggestion were adopted. The Bill itself only purports to deal with the closing of the shops in the County Borough of Dublin and in the surrounding urban districts. If we were to extend it to the whole of the Free State, it would be more or less on the same lines as the amendment by Senator Sir John Griffith in connection with the Shannon electricity scheme, which I was compelled to say was out of order.

I suggest that the Senator is moving this as a token of contempt and that should not be allowed in respect to any Bill.

I would not go quite so far as that, Senator.

He would not vote for it if he got a chance.

I do not think the Senator is justified in saying what I should do or what I should not do. There are many things I can do.

You might do anything.

Would the Senator tell us if there is a draper's shop in Howth?

A draper's shop is very difficult to define. I am told there is soft stuff and hard stuff in drapers' shops.

Personally I have very little feeling in the matter. I do not know of any shop in Howth, but I could not guarantee to the Seanad that one might not be started. It is really immaterial to me, but I think it would make matters more satisfactory. I am sorry the amendment suggested just now was not in order; I should like to have heard Senators arguing in regard to the application of this matter to the whole Free State.

I beg to move:—

After the word "open" in line 32 to insert the words "for the serving of customers."

The object of this amendment is to ensure that nobody will be penalised for having a shop open unless it is open for the purpose of serving customers.

Would we be justified in proposing to extend that slightly further, so that all business premises be closed?

You are trying to justify the suggestion of the Senator.

I beg to move the following amendment:—

After the word "seven" in line 33 to insert the words "o'clock."

This is a mere drafting amendment, and I hope it will not offend the aesthetic taste of Senator Fitzgerald.

I beg to move:—

Before the word "before" in lines 35 and 36, wherever it occurs, to insert the word "next."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

I beg to move:—

After the word "be" in line 38 to insert the words "guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be."

That has the effect of bringing it into conformity with all the other Acts in which penalties are provided and have been passed. That has been pointed out to me from a legal source.

I move:—

After the word "conviction" in line 38 to insert the word "thereof."

This is consequential of the previous amendment.

I beg to move:—

New section. Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—

"5. The provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Shops Act, 1912, as modified by Section 21 of that Act, shall, so far as those provisions are applicable, have effect as if reenacted in this Act and in terms made applicable thereto."

The effect of this amendment is to bring this Bill beyond yea or nay into conformity with the general Shops Act of 1912. It was my opinion, and it is still my opinion, that if the section was not inserted a provision for carrying out of the closing hours would be obligatory on local authorities as under the Shops Act of 1912. This is in order to make it perfectly clear that the carrying out of the Act shall not be left to various individuals trying to enforce it but shall be left to the local authority, subject to the same provisions as under the Shops Act of 1912. Perhaps I should point out that the Shops Act is the main Act governing the hours of the shops all over Ireland at the present moment. If necessary, I can go further.

I am not too sure that this is a wise amendment. I will tell you why. You have already incorporated an amendment stating that this Act and the Shops Act shall be read as one. In my opinion, by that amendment you purport to incorporate all the provisions of the Shops Act of 1912, whereas by this new section you deal only with two sections of the Act. It would be argued hereafter very strenuously that the effect of the new section, including specifically two sections, shows that you did not purport to include the other provisions of the Act. I think you should consider whether you should not modify that amendment.

We would only require these two sections for the particular purpose which I have in view. I am acting entirely on advice in this matter.

New Section put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

To delete the word "owners" in line 48 and to substitute therefor the word "employers."

The owner of the shop, of course, in many cases might not be the person doing business, and it is merely to ensure that it shall be the person employing the people concerned.

I beg to move:—

In Section 5, line 47, to delete the words "at any time during the week."

I think the Act as it stands might hit people in small towns who are engaged in the drapery business. I think the Act should state that it shall not apply to a shop where the persons employed are members of the owner's family dwelling in the building of which the shop forms a part or to which the shop is attached. Of course, I do not know how the amendment will affect the area to which this Act applies, but it might possibly affect the country afterwards.

Perhaps I should say that I am rather glad that Senator Love raised this point on this section, because the only section of this Act on which I find any strong difference of opinion amongst those advocating it, is as to whether any person at all should be exempted. Since the Bill was introduced I have received visits from two or three small traders who welcome a general closing at 7.30. They were afraid that if there was any exemption it might be abused. I am quite certain that if Senator Love's amendment were carried it would lead to a considerable amount of feeling amongst those people. I am informed on first hand authority that there are cases where assistants employed in large firms get out at 1 o'clock on Saturday and work later on with their relatives and enable them to carry on business late on Saturday night. That is one case that should not be exempted. I want to exempt the bona fide small shop, where no large amount of business is done, and where a woman with her family, or a man with his family, carries on a small business which runs on sometimes to quite late at night but which does not interfere with the trade generally. I am afraid if you take out the words suggested by Senator Love the Bill would not be acceptable to the interests on behalf of whom it is being promoted. It would also have the effect of endangering the passage of the Bill. As far as the larger firms are concerned, they would not object to Senator Love's amendment. It would make no difference to them; in fact, they would rather approve of it, but from the point of view of the smaller people I would not be inclined to accept the amendment.

In this section the duration of the Act is put down as three years. I had the satisfaction of voting for the first of these Acts in 1912, and I am very much in favour of the principle embodied, both on hygienic and moral grounds. These are most beneficial Acts. I notice that this Act is to expire in three years. I would like to have the opinion of the Seanad as to whether we should not extend it much longer. Why should it not be for five years? If this Act expires in three years, I presume that a new Act will be introduced, but the operation of this Act will be found so satisfactory that everybody would like to have it made more or less permanent. I suggest that the period of the Act be extended for five years. To have the opinion of the Seanad in the matter, I beg formally to move that the word "three" be deleted in line 2, Section 6, and that the word "five" be substituted.

I have not the slightest objection as to whether the duration of the Act should be three or five years, in view of the fact that it is my personal opinion that before very long the whole question of the Shop Hours Act will have to be reconsidered. It was with a view to that—it obviously could not be considered now —that I put down three years, but I am quite agreeable to the suggestion of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde.