Deputy Norton has submitted an amendment which has an affinity with the amendment offered by him in Committee, which was defeated. The proposals differ, however, in method, as no statutory obligation would be placed on the Minister by this amendment. As the matter arises out of the Committee discussion, the Chair will allow the amendment to be moved.
Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill, 1941—Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment standing in my name:—
In page 4, to insert before Section 5 (2) (d) the following new paragraph:—
(d) the said articles shall provide that the rates of pay, hours of work and other conditions of employment of the employees of the company shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be from time to time made between the representatives of such employees of the one part and the company of the other part.
Yesterday, I endeavoured without success to extract from the Minister some assurance that, as the sole shareholder in the Slievardagh coalfield, he would ensure that steps are taken to provide that the workers engaged in the exploitation of the deposit would be paid fair wages. I suggested that the ordinary fair wages clause, which has been put in a number of Acts up to the present, and which regulates the fulfilment of contracts between the Minister and private employers, should be inserted in this Bill, so as to give the coal miners who will be operating under this Bill a guarantee that their wages will be fair. The Minister sought yesterday to resist the amendment on the grounds that we could trust the State. He believed, apparently, that in those matters the State would always see that justice was done. But, as I pointed out yesterday, our experience of the State is such that we are not justified in accepting the Minister's view that the State has any such high standards of rectitude or high standards of economic justice. I showed that in many respects the State could be an unscrupulous employer, and in many cases a meddlesome interferer even with the wage standards which private employers sought to extend to their workers.
That amendment was defeated yesterday, and I now submit this amendment to provide that in the articles of association of the new company provision shall be made that the rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employment of the employees of the company, shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be made between representatives of such employees of the one part and the company of the other part. If the Minister believes that the employees of the company should have fair wages, there can be no possible objection by him to agreeing that this amendment should be accepted, so as to put on the board of the new company an obligation to regulate the hours of work, rates of pay and the other conditions of employment in accordance with agreements made between representatives of the workers on the one hand and representatives of the company on the other hand. It is not binding the board to comply with any minimum rate of wages.
This amendment is not imposing on the Minister any obligation to interfere directly in the management of the company. It is merely endeavouring to ensure that there will be placed on the directors an obligation to see that the principle of collective bargaining—a principle, by the way, which Ministers for Industry and Commerce in every country usually stand for—is recognised by the company in its dealings with its employees. We have a Constitution which talks about the State doing its best to ensure that persons shall by their vocations have the wherewithal to live the kind of Christian life that is envisaged in that Constitution.
We have declarations from the Government of their desire to ensure that persons who work in industry should do so under fair conditions. Here is an opportunity whereby the Government can show that declarations of that kind are not so much mouthings but that they represent a genuine desire on the part of the State to set minimum standards of pay and to ensure the observance of proper conditions of employment. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment.
I am not prepared to accept the amendment. The Deputy has suggested that the State has, on occasions, acted the part of the meddlesome interferer in regard to commercial undertakings and conditions of employment. I think the acceptance of an amendment like this would be an instance of that interference in excelsis. The suggestion is that a certain provision should be included in the articles of association. It would be, in my opinion, completely out of place in the articles of association of the company. I do not think you would find a parallel for it in any of the normal articles of association.
The proposed amendment carries the implication that the directors of this concern are not prepared to deal with these matters in the ordinary way of business, or that, if they did enter into an agreement with the representatives of the employees, they might not keep such an agreement. I think that the suggestion is preposterous. I cannot quite understand Deputy Norton's attitude in this matter. He, with a number of others, is clamouring that we should develop the natural resources of the country, and then he endeavours to tie up the hands of the directors of this concern in every possible way and to heap all sorts of odium upon them.
How have I tried to heap odium upon them?
The Deputy may be certain that the directors will be responsible, reputable men of capacity, intelligence and commonsense and I fail to appreciate his outlook in regard to this matter. He seems to be stuffed full of suspicion. He does not seem to be prepared to give those men credit even for ordinary commonsense. I am not going to associate myself with that point of view in regard to them.
Might I ask the Minister, if he is so satisfied that everything will be all right in relation to wages and conditions of employment, and that these people will act as honourably as he suggests, what harm is there in putting into the Bill a statement that the board will be expected to carry out agreements entered into between the representatives of the employees and itself?
I am not in a position to answer that now.
It is merely because he has been asked from these benches to do so.
Does the Minister, as the sole shareholder in this undertaking, intend to do anything to ensure that fair rates of wages will be paid to the workers, and what steps does he intend to take towards that end?
The Deputy may ask a question, but may not speak twice on the Report Stage.
I am asking a question.
It should not be a multiple question.
As an employer, does the Minister intend to discharge his moral obligation to ensure that the workers will be paid a fair rate of wages? What is the Minister going to do in respect to his function as a shareholder?
The Minister's function will be to see that this company does its job, and in that connection he will have to entrust the management of the concern to the board of the company. I am certain that they will do their best and that they will do what every other reputable company would do in regard to these matters.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Broderick, William J.
- Broderick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Linehan, Timothy.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Hickey; Níl: Deputies Smith and S. Brady.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Minister rather intemperately told us yesterday, when we sought to have a provision inserted for the payment of fair wages, that we were actuated by a desire to obstruct the development of the Slievardagh coal fields. We had the Committee Stage yesterday and within 24 hours the Bill is passing through the House. That is the extent of the obstruction which has confronted the Minister, and that is the extent of the allegation the Minister can make against us. The Minister's statement furnished an index of his mentality in this matter. Anybody who stands for fair wages in this country is an obstructionist, according to the Minister. Ministers for Industry and Commerce in every country are charged with the creation of minimum standards of wages and the observance of fair conditions of employment. Here we have the paradox of a Minister for Industry and Commerce who regards as an obstructionist anyone who stands up to make a case that the workers engaged in this coal-mining operation should be paid fair wages. So far as I am concerned—and I want the Minister to be perfectly clear about it—I should rather see the Slievardagh coal field closed for ever, and never developed, than to see workers employed there under sweated conditions of labour.
I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact, of which he is doubtless aware, that on the Fifth Stage of a Bill discussion is limited to what is in the Bill. Amendments defeated in Committee may not be re-argued on the Fifth Stage.
I was not proposing to travel over that ground.
It struck me that the Deputy was referring to a fair wages clause. The Chair certainly got the impression that such was the trend of his remarks.
That was really an unconscious misinterpretation of my intention. We are giving the Minister this Bill and we are giving him £100,000 with which to develop the coalfield. We have a remarkable kind of Minister who, although he is getting the Bill and £100,000, does not care what wages are paid to the workers.
That matter does not arise at this stage.
Is not the sum of £100,000 set out in the Bill and is not the Minister the sole shareholder under the Bill? I am criticising the Minister as a shareholder. He is in the Bill— unfortunately all through it. I am not going to develop that point at any length. What I want to clear up is the misrepresentation by the Minister, that it is obstruction if you stand up and try to get fair standards of wages adopted——
The Deputy made his case on the question of the fair wages clause.
I had the right to make one speech on the Report Stage. The Minister, when replying, indicated that we were obstructing the passage of the Bill. I had no means of making a further speech. I humbly submit that I am entitled to correct that misrepresentation by the Minister that we are obstructing the Bill——
The Deputy was given an opportunity to explain his position.
On what?
The Deputy began his speech by replying to an allegation that he was holding up this measure.
You will agree that I have had a few interruptions since I commenced and I have not been very long speaking.
The Chair is merely endeavouring to ensure that debate is confined to what is contained in the Bill. It is not permissible for the Deputy to deal with what was said on a previous stage on an amendment which was defeated by the House.
If you permit me a few minutes, I have no intention of spending much time on this stage or travelling outside the ambit of the Bill. Under the Bill, the Minister is a shareholder. He refuses to accept safeguards for the workers. When we sought to have these safeguards inserted, he suggested that we were obstructing the passage of the Bill. We are not. The Bill is now about to pass and the Minister is the sole shareholder. He is given £100,000 with which to develop the coal deposits, and I think he is bound to take steps to ensure that those employed in the mine will receive decent rates of wages. It would be better if the mine were never developed than that people should be employed there at rates of wages which would outrage every decent conception of standards of employment. That is the only point I want to make. The Minister is getting his Bill and he has responsibilities which he ought to discharge.
Is what the Minister said here not contrary to what he said elsewhere last night?
Question put and agreed to.