Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jun 1941

Vol. 83 No. 12

Trade Union Bill, 1941—Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the amendment:
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following words:—
"The Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to the Trade Union Bill, 1941, until such time as the Report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation and the evidence presented to that Commission have been presented to the Dáil, so that the legislative proposals may be considered and discussed in the light of the evidence placed before the Commission and the Commission's Report."—Deputies D. Morrissey and Mulcahy.

When the House adjourned last evening, I was endeavouring to indicate the hardships which would be inflicted, by the imposition of this Bill, on trades unions of a minor character. I was endeavouring to show the long and meritorious service given by many of these small unions, and I was pointing out the ruthless method now being employed to drive them out of existence without regard to whether their service had been meritorious or not. Nothing but a hard financial test is to be imposed—whether they can plank down £2,000 as a minimum. That is one of the things contemplated by this Bill, and it will create disorder of a graver character than it is hoped to remedy. So far as the Minister's case, in building up an argument for this Bill, went, it was more or less hypothetical. Nobody could claim that the trades union movement has been without blemish. No organisation in the world is without some flaw or blemish, execept, perhaps, the front Government bench. We do not claim infallibility for the trades union movement, but we would be prepared to suggest that careful analysis of the operations of trades unions in recent years would show that they have displayed a keen regard for the circumstances in which the country found itself. The minimum of industrial dislocation has taken place. I think that our record in that respect compares favourably with that of any other country in the world. Now, the Minister proposes to drive out of existence small unions which have contributed very largely to the maintenance of industrial peace.

He is not satisfied with that. So far as I see, he is going to rob the country of many other useful bodies who are giving their services for the promotion of industrial harmony. Take the position of trades councils under this Bill. The trades councils in the various cities are not an appendage of any of the unions or labour organisations. They consist of representatives of the different unions who come together for consultation and counsel. I can speak more particularly of my own trades council—the trades council of Limerick. I have been a member of that trades council for many years and I know its history before I was a member. It has a very honourable record in settling industrial disputes. Hardly a week passes in which it is not engaged in negotiation with employers and employees. Sometimes the disputes involved are of a minor type; sometimes they are big disputes. The trades council has been complimented many times by people who count for preserving our city from industrial strife. Under the terms of the Bill it will not be possible for them to do that any more. Section 6 of the Bill provides that it will be an offence for any body of persons to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment unless such body is the holder of a negotiation licence. I do not know if it will be possible for a trades council to procure such a licence. If the Bill goes through in its present form, you will be robbing yourselves of some of the best negotiators and best instruments for the implementation of peace in industry this country possesses. The trades council of which I speak has a long and honourable record. Apart from negotiating in industrial disputes, when a lead was called for in 1920 in protest against the permit system, Limerick Trades Council played an honourable part in declaring a show-down throughout the whole city, giving an indication of what it could do in the way of dislocation, as it had shown what it could do in the service of industrial peace. They demonstrated the power of the citizens when the whole city was shut down for a fortnight as a protest against requiring people to procure permits to go to their daily work. Since then, their work has been in the reverse direction. Almost daily, they are engaged in this meritorious work of peace-making and they will now be put out of action by the operation of Section 6. What happens in Limerick will happen in Dublin, Cork and the other centres where trades councils are functioning. They are bodies to which representatives of trades councils come for consultation and advice. Their services are always welcomed by employers in endeavours to settle disputes before they mature. It is a very serious step on the part of the Minister to bring to an end machinery which is doing such useful work.

Under the same section I should like to know what will become of the Railway Wages Board. Under Section 6, certain named organisations are exempted from the necessity for obtaining a negotiation licence. The fact that some bodies are named would indicate, by implication, that any body not so named must have a negotiation licence. The Railway Wages Board came into operation in 1924, more or less to give effect to Section 55 of the Railway Act of that year. It is a voluntary negotiating body, consisting of an equal number of representatives of the railway companies and of the railway operatives, with the addition of independent persons. The independent members comprise Judge Wylie, the Secretary of the Labour Party, the Secretary of the Belfast Trades Council, the Chairman of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, and the Chairman of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce. They have been functioning on behalf of that very big industry, the railway industry, with magnificent success, operating a delicate machine. Apparently, under this section they are no longer entitled to continue. I hope I am wrong in that, but I cannot read anything into the section that will allow the Railway Wages Board to continue to operate, and I think they will be an illegal body if this Bill goes through as it is presented to the House by the Minister. If the Minister contemplates bringing the Railway Wages Board under the executioners' axe and driving them into the limbo of lost things, with the small unions, I, as a railwayman, should like to ask the Minister does he think he is putting sufficient machinery into this Bill to guarantee continuity of the type of industrial peace we have been having. He visualises a happy era when this Bill comes to be a cure-all for all the evils. I want to suggest to him that, before he strikes away all the remedies we have at present and the machinery we have, he ought to be very careful that it is not going to be a reverse process to what he hopes, and consider that we may be entering a much worse position than we are leaving. The Minister did not put down definite reasons against the existing movement. I wish to say—and I think Deputy Morrissey sounded the same note last night—that it may well be that we are walking into a seat of trouble in this Bill. That is a responsibility that must be shared by the country as a whole. If the Minister and the Government are making a mistake in doing that sort of thing it is the country will suffer. I think we on these benches and every other Deputy in the House are perfectly entitled to issue a note of warning to the Minister that before taking this plunge he ought carefully to weigh in advance what are the alternatives he is putting in place of the machinery he is tearing up.

I fail to agree with previous speakers that there was room for some alteration in the trade union movement. With the growing up of the machine age, as I said last night, certain alterations took place in the conduct of the trade union movement, and there was certain rivalry between unions. There may have been individual cases of friction, but, taking all in all, if we hope to continue as a democracy—and I hope that is the desire of the Government as well as other parties in the House— we ought to have democratic institutions. I think in comparison with any other democratic State in the world we can say we have not been any worse, but that we have been much better than most.

Time and again we have had pointed out to us the number of days lost because of industrial disputes. Figures always seem colossal when tabled in that fashion. But I always notice that the statistics of days lost through illness and through unemployment that was deliberately manufactured because of inattention by the Government themselves have not been tabled side by side with the days lost in dislocation in industry. It would be very interesting to set down the number of days lost by the employable people of this country through the negligence of this Government and their predecessors in not providing suitable employment for the people willing and able to work in the country. No attempt has been made to find work for these people because, we are told, of the absence of currency to connect the men to the work that is there to be done. It is all very well to pile on the agony and to exaggerate, as has been exaggerated, the friction existing in the trade union movement. The Minister spoke last night of certain unions' representatives refusing to sit in conference with others. Is the Minister not proposing to do something like that himself? Certain unions thought there were sufficient unions dealing with a particular type or class, and if existing unions refused to co-operate with break-away unions, as they are called, is there any great crime in that? The Minister seeks now to limit unions to a small number in the hope of getting more orders and measures.

I am greatly afraid that sufficient consideration and thought has not been given by the framers of this measure. Considering the time it is being introduced, I wonder what case can be made for risking the dislocation which I suggest is likely to follow and for not giving us in advance any assurance—I wonder if the Minister can give us any assurance—that he is going to give us back machinery which would function equally smoothly in carrying on the affairs of industry of this State. I suggest this is not the time; that there is not sufficient urgency to warrant the introduction of this measure. There are many things of more vital importance that ought to be interesting the Government and engaging their mind at this juncture but they seem to have an obsession for tinkering and tampering with existing institutions, particularly the institutions of the workers that have been built up, as I pointed out, by careful and arduous toil by the present workers and their forefathers. It comes very ill from the Fianna Fáil Government, professing democratic and Christian principles, to uproot the traditions that have been carried on under alien Government and in spite of grave opposition. There is nothing in the trade union movement of which the trade union leaders or members have any reason to be ashamed. They have played their part in the national struggle and they have played their part in trying to maintain decent standards for the workers of this country, sometimes under very adverse conditions. At a time when they should be expecting the co-operation and support of a Government whom they have largely contributed to put into office they get back this sword of Damocles over their head, to cut right across some of their best traditions— the right of free association, the right of selection—which were theirs in the past and which they claim to-day.

Until such time as a case can be put down and substantiated in black and white that the trade union movement has failed to do its part faithfully, I think the Government have no right to interfere. As I said last night, they are opening a door to a type of union which is detestable in the minds of Irish workers, known as a house or company union. Under Section 6 any individual or couple of individuals becomes an accepted body immediately and automatically. They do not want any licence. They can go and negotiate with their employer. That is all right when you are dealing with big firms and big industries, and one can understand certain exception being made, but there is a wide open door through which the whole purpose of the Bill can fall—that any individual or couple of individuals can come along. There is no necessity for a licence on the part of the chief or the employers. But a union must pay their £2,000 or £4,000, as the case may be. It is definitely putting a premium upon the smashing up of trade unionism. Whether that is the intention or not, I do not know but the net result is the same—that the Government are putting a premium upon non-unionism. I suggest that in the long run that is not going to be good for industry in this country. We have not been told that the other Bill following this is going to mark the culmination of their desire to have us brought into a corporative state or some other institution of a continental character. I think we ought to be told now what is the nature of the following measure because, if we are going to continue on democratic lines, I suggest this measure is going the wrong way about it. If there is going to be a reorientation of Government policy I think we ought to be told what is at the back of the Government's mind, what is the nature of the following Bill to which this is only the preamble.

I am supporting the amendment by Deputy Morrissey, not because I am particularly in love with that but because I am prepared to use that or any other instrument to divert the Minister from what I believe is a foolish, unwise, and unwarranted policy in pressing this measure at this juncture.

I wish to ask the Minister how this Bill will affect organisations other than unions of employers and employees? I am particularly concerned with organisations of farmers which have been registered under the trade union rules. Such an organisation could claim to be concerned with the fixing of wages and conditions of employment inasmuch as the prices which farmers obtain for their produce, are in a sense, their wages. If therefore an organisation of farmers which has for its main function the securing of reasonable prices for farm produce is affected by this Bill, I should like to know whether it is possible for such an organisation to obtain a negotiating licence under the Bill. If it is not possible, will such an organisation be allowed to remain registered as a trade union?

During the last two years there has occured in Athlone the type of inter-union conflict which has been mentioned by the Minister. The workers in the two factories there were in one trade union, but they became dissatisfied and joined another trade union. The two unions then engaged in a fight for their privileges. They were both Irish unions, but at the end of a certain time they had not succeeded in achieving very much. A very clever organiser of an English union then came into Athlone and the great majority of the workers in these two factories joined the English union. The workers would have preferred to remain in an Irish union, but they did not desire that anything should mitigate their capacity to negotiate intelligently, firmly and reasonably with their employers in the factories. The employers in the factories, on the other hand, would like to have a permanent stable situation amongst the workers, so that they would be able to achieve wage agreements of a stable character, knowing that the workers in their respective grades fully understood what their leaders were doing, and that there was complete co-ordination between the local branch of the union and the central branch. Many of the workers lost hundreds of days work through these strikes. There was a certain improvement in conditions in one factory, but I doubt whether the increase in wages would have for a long time compensated for the loss of wages during the strike. That is a typical example of what is going on all over the country.

I think myself we have discussed this Trade Union Bill rather hurriedly without, perhaps, going into the historical background of the whole of the relations between labour and capital. We have not thought much about trade unionism in this country. For a number of years there have been no important legislative measures in connection with what I might describe as combinations of workers. We have remained outside the main stream of developments in the world at large and this Bill has come at a time when very few people have had an opportunity of considering our position in so far as legislation governing combinations of workers is concerned. It is quite obvious that the Trade Union Bill has given rise to a great deal of fear and speculation as to what it means. It is quite obvious, too, that the people who express these fears perhaps have not realised that we are very much like many other nations in respect of our labour difficulties and that a great deal has taken place in the world outside which has not taken place here due to our own internal difficulties. In actual fact, I think it can be said without exaggeration that, comparing ourselves with the principal successful democracies in northern Europe, we made very little progress in legislation governing the relation of workers and employers, governing the arrangements for negotiating trade disputes and governing the arrangements for the enforcement of collective agreements. We have made less progress than any successful genuine democracy in northern Europe during the last 10 years. In other words we are very much behind in our legislation, and for obvious reasons. We have had many other things to consider; we have had disputes amongst ourselves and industrial development proceeded at a high speed during that period. We were not able to consider the larger issues involved. I say that in all sincerity, having read four volumes of the International Labour Office year books and a number of other volumes issued by the International Labour Office in Geneva.

As everybody knows the trade union movement has developed roughly in two phases in this country and throughout Europe. There was first the phase when it was desirable that any form of combination amongst workers should take place, so desperate was the necessity to procure better conditions for workers. That growth in combinations of workers continued until the period after the Great War, 1914-18, when it became obvious that the growth had created a problem inevitable in the circumstances, and that trade unionism in its absolutely free form, uncontrolled by the State, in a great many ways protected rather than regulated by the State, was bound to create difficulties. These difficulties arose first of all owing to the demand for increased wage levels arising from the rapid change in prices following the Great War. Again, trade unions in many countries took on a political hue, and began to be associated with Communism or some other form of doctrine outside their main object— that of making collective agreements with employers. The crisis of 1931 made the position still more serious. At a time when it could hardly be expected that wages should increase, the growing strength of the larger unions led them to demand increases in countries that were severely affected by the trade depression, and in these circumstances strikes were inevitable. Following upon that all the evils that have arisen in this country arose throughout Europe.

The action that has been taken in Europe to control the trade union movement, generally speaking, has been of several types. There was first of all the formation of the Corporate State, developed by a dictator in his own sphere, and deliberately enforced without any consent being given or asked, so far as the great body of the workers were concerned. There have also been a certain number of Corporate States formed by the workers and employers sharing to a certain degree in the voluntary formation of the corporatives. That is the case in Portugal, where the Corporate State was not enforced dictatorially, and where workers and employers collaborated in forming it. In other States legislative measures have been introduced restricting the activities of trade unions, reducing the number of trade unions to a fixed number, compelling all workers to belong to such trade unions or in some way rationalising the trade union movement. It might be interesting for the Dáil to appreciate what has been done, generally speaking, during the last four years in that regard, from a cursory examination of the reports issued by the International Labour Office. In 1935-36 in the democratic state of Latvia, the number of unions was reduced to the fixed figure of 32.

In 1936-37 in the case of New Zealand an Act was passed on 8th June, 1936, called the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration (Amendment) Act, whereby a defined limitation was imposed upon the number of trades unions which could be formed. In Latvia, standard trade union rules were proclaimed by the Government. A chamber of labour was formed, and no trade unions not recognised by the chamber of labour were allowed to exist. In Bulgaria the number of unions was reduced to 11. In Latvia, a further regulation was made that trade unions could only exist by permission of the Minister. In 1938-39 a still greater spate of legislation was passed, with the object of controlling the trade union movement. In the Argentine, an Act was passed completely to control the trade union movement. In a number of other South American States very drastic regulations on the same lines were made. Three countries in Europe passed legislation all in the same direction. While all that was taking place we were not in a position to alter our trade union legislation, for the reasons I have already given. As a result, whereas in other countries the number of strikes and lock-outs and the number of days lost in working time tended to decrease, particularly in many of the more intelligent democracies in northern Europe, our figures show a constantly deteriorating tendency.

I do not think there is any need for me to give the full figures, because they are well known to all Deputies here, but I would mention in passing that the figures given in the Irish Trade Journal for 1940 do not show any great decrease in the number of working days lost through strike action, so that the period of industrial peace certainly had not arrived in 1940. I should like to mention one figure which is serious if one works out the percentages—the number of persons on strike in any given year per 10,000 of the population in the country. Taking the years 1933 to 1935 inclusive, we find that in the case of Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands there were less than 10 persons on strike per 10,000 of the population. In New Zealand, Norway and Czechoslovakia the figure was 20, while in Ireland, Belgium and Sweden it was 30 or over, so that we were in the worst category so far as the numbers on strike were concerned. When you allow for the fact that we are an agricultural country, and that those figures include the whole of the population, and not merely the population working in industry, it will be seen that our position was and is very serious.

There has been a certain amount of opposition to this Bill based on fear of the consequences. While I think that those fears are quite genuine, I do not see how we can refuse to recognise the extent to which we are a people who are subject to indiscipline and subject to faulty organisation in our institutions. I do not see why it would be unwise to face those difficulties now. If anything, when this war is over, it will be perhaps more difficult to carry out legislation designed to restore order among organisations negotiating wage agreements. It will certainly be more difficult than it was before. Perhaps one of the reasons why we have not had to deal with this question before is the fact that our economy has existed in a comparatively stable form. Neither our employers nor the workers have had up to now to consider minutely the question of costs in industry, the question of output in relation to wages, or the question of output and wages in relation to our agricultural economy. We have had exports of a comparatively non-competitive type, because of the wealth of Great Britain and the fact that 40 per cent. of our exports consisted of cattle, for which there was a permanent market. We have had the benefit of what up to recently was a comparatively stable currency area, in which we escaped all the effects of constantly changing values which create such chaos in the working out of trade agreements. We had the benefit of enormous savings which tended to mitigate the effect of the increased costs which have arisen from the change in our economic policy. As a result, in spite of the huge increase in industrial development, and the high tariff walls for the purpose of encouraging industry, we have been able to get along without the necessity for considering costs, the necessity for avoiding lost time, and the necessity for producing articles at even a half per cent. lower production cost which might mean the difference between an industry living or dying. It is just as well that the public should realise that that day was disappearing even before this war started, owing to ever-increasing competition between ourselves and those who supply the English market, and that if we are even to preserve the very extensive industrial development which has taken place it will be necessary for far greater consideration to be given to the whole question of avoiding waste, ensuring that wage agreements will be loyally carried out, that there will be no conflict within industry, ensuring that excessive demands will be made neither by employers or workers in so far as the rewards of industry are concerned. Anyone who had any knowledge of industry before the war was fully aware that in industrial life in this country there was a great deal of necessity for curing the inevitable reactions which arise from any new policy. One of those necessities was the prevention of strikes and the prevention of excessive rewards for either employers or workers. The whole of that work is still left to be done in a very large degree. One of the first essentials in order to bring about industrial peace and harmony is quite obviously to rationalise the trade union movement and employers' organisations.

It is obviously essential to face that situation. Waiting until the war is over, when we will have to face all the difficulties which will inevitably be caused by changing price values and changing markets, and then attempting to cure the trade union movement and the employers' organisation movement, to my mind is absolutely fatal. It is far better to do it now when at least we have time to consider those things; when at least we have time to consider whether the legislation will be successful. As far as I can see from reading the International Labour Office Year Books, trade union legislation hardly ever succeeds the first time. I notice, on examining these reports, that year after year there have been amendments and alterations. Quite evidently the fears expressed by certain Deputies here that the Act may not work out in the best way, that evils may be created, that there would be unions dispossessed of the powers which should exist, may be justified. I have no doubt that this Act will give rise to a series of consecutive Acts all dealing with that same problem, and that there will be orders and regulations in connection with the Act for a number of years before a stable position is reached. I have no doubt that there may even be adverse reactions. We may have to face many difficulties before the whole of this very difficult problem is solved, but that does not make me desire to delay an examination of the whole problem. I think also that we ought to realise that it is quite evident that the Minister will have to go further in the direction of legislation governing the relations of workers and employers if we are to achieve full success. It is quite evident that, coupled with the grouping of trade unions according to a rational basis, done voluntarily, instead of compulsorily and without due regard to the workers' interests as has been the case in many countries in the last ten years, there will have to be arrangements designed by the State for the negotiation of wage agreements, the manner of negotiation, the manner in which industrial disputes can take place, and legislation governing the withdrawal of labour and the conciliation in industry.

There will equally have to be further legislation to make it possible to have collective agreements which can be enforced in a certain industry and in a certain area in a manner superior to that now in existence under the Conditions of Employment Act. These two other problems will have to be tackled, and, unless they are tackled, the evil of the company union referred to by certain Deputies will undoubtedly exist. Unless it is made much easier than it is now to form collective agreements in an area or in an industry, and unless propaganda is carried out, and action taken to persuade groups of employers and workers to take advantage of such legislation as exists at present, the Bill will be incomplete.

Lastly I should like to suggest to the House that democracy in its old form is dying in this world slowly but surely.

Not so slowly.

Perhaps even more quickly than some of us would like to see it die. It is quite obvious that certain sacrifices of liberty will have to be made by the whole community of this State if we are to withstand a movement which will inevitably have its repercussions on this country, and which may be inflicted upon us because of the rules which govern our economic relations with other States, and which will make it necessary for us after this war, no matter who wins the war, to increase to an ever greater degree economic control over the private lives of citizens. If we fail to face this problem, if we fail to recognise that, no matter who wins the war, we face an ever-growing degree of economic control, either through international economic regulations or through something far worse, and that unless we face it in relation to labour questions as well as to every other question, we shall not be serving the interests of democracy. If we have to, as the French say, reculer pour mieux sauter, we had better do it. We had better ask the people to give up the extreme liberty they have had in this country in industrial relations, if we are to continue the trend of the movement in its present form, and if we are to avoid having still more serious strictures imposed on our workers. In other words, if we are to preserve the fundamental right of the combination of workers, the fundamental right of association, and the fundamental right to carry out wage agreements with employers, we must at least ensure it will be done in a disciplined way. To my mind, it is utterly hopeless to postpone the issue. It must be settled here and now. Otherwise we shall find ourselves facing an avalanche, facing a kind of panic move towards dictatorship of every kind which may sweep us and every other country into its net. We must at least put our house in order in advance, and this Bill is one of the ways of doing it.

A lot has been said about the necessity for doing things in a disciplined way. If, to follow Deputy Childers' last words, we are to put our house in order and to do things properly, we ought not to be doing the work we are doing to-day in the way in which we are doing it. Deputy Childers has spoken of International Labour Office publications. I should like to see a little more attention paid to the annual report of the International Labour Office by members of the House than is paid, but it is not Fianna Fáil policy we would be reading in these pages, and I do not think we would be seeing this country held up as an example to other countries as to how to operate and how to work. We could learn a lot from them, but the more I see and the more I know of people in other countries, the greater conceit I have in regard to the men and women of my own country, if they are allowed to do their work in the ordinary way in which they would do it, without all kinds of political shibboleths and political fears, warnings and insinuations being scattered amongst them to distract their judgments and dissipate their energies. If we are going to give the time which Deputies say we have to a discussion of this matter, and if we are going to deal with things unhurriedly, thoroughly and in a disciplined way, I think it would be much more useful for us, instead of poring over documents published by the League of Nations, or reports published by any other country, to see what has been extracted from the experience of those other countries that would be useful to us. I say that these things have been sifted and examined by the Vocational Organisation Commission. It has been pointed out already that leaders of the trade union movement, employers and others have gone before that commission and given their evidence.

The Minister has trotted out a series of several charges against labour organisations in this country, the main charge he makes against them being splits and divisions. Did any set of people split and smash up labour more effectively than the representatives of the Party who form the present Government? For years, in order to draw people from the support of organised labour to their own particular trade union, from one end of the country to the other they declared that the trade unions in this country were rotten and that their leaders were rotten. Then, when, in 1932, they required Parliamentary support from the representatives of Labour, they tolerated their support for a time until they got their majority in this House, but, in comparatively recent times, we have heard the Minister's predecessor telling the Labour Party that what Labour in this country wanted was better leaders, and that he would show them how to get those better leaders— not the type that the Minister thought Labour leaders in this country were.

Surely, emerging as we are out of the political futility of the last 20 years —as we thought we were emerging and as we, in fact, were—which has created all kinds of absurd divisions, scattered men's minds, energies and resources and cost us men, money and opportunities, we ought so to conduct our business in this House that people can bring their natural minds to bear on the discussion of things and get all the necessary information they require to enable them to discuss these matters intelligently. Can anyone say that we are discussing the problem with which this Bill deals in any kind of a reasonable way?

The Minister spoke last night and rather suggested that one of the reasons that made him throw up his hands about the trade unions being able to do anything ultimately by themselves to improve the situation, was the report of some commission that had been set up by the Trades Union Congress. The Minister, I think, stated that the report of that commission was published in April, 1939. At any rate, subsequent to the issue of that report, the Vocational Organisation Commission was set up, and although there was a reasoned amendment down, facing the Minister in this particular case, he made no reference at all as to why the Vocational Organisation Commission, with evidence given before it, was ignored in the presentation of this Bill. He made no comment at all as to why this Bill was introduced without it, or gave no explanation of why it could or should be introduced without it. The terms of reference of the Vocational Organisation Commission are:

"The commission shall examine and report on: (a) the practicability of developing functional or vocational organisations in the circumstances of this country; (b) the means best calculated to promote such developments; (c) the rights and powers which should be conferred and the duties which should be imposed on functional or vocational bodies; and, generally, the relations of such bodies to the Oireachtas and to the Government; and (d) the legislative and administrative measures that would be required."

The Most Reverend Dr. Browne, Bishop of Galway, was made chairman of the commission and the commission was set up at the beginning of 1939. After it had done some of its work, and after the Trades Union Congress met, I think, in Waterford, in August, 1939, some of the speeches made at Waterford rather suggested that Labour looked askance at the Vocational Organisation Commission and the way in which it was carrying out its work, and the chairman, Most Reverend Dr. Browne, made certain communications and certain statements to the Press which to us, at any rate, indicate that the commission has considered very carefully, and is considering very carefully, the question of trade unions. In a statement to the Press, published on the 14th October, 1939, the Chairman of the Vocational Organisation Commission, dealing with some criticism, or some suspicion of criticism, that arose from the Trades Union Congress Report, said:—

"... but in reality trade unions are vocational organisations. They have been the great champions of what is the basic principle of vocationalism—namely, that men have a right to organise in defence of their means of livelihood The Labour movement has also been the constant champion of the principle that the economic life of a people should be planned, regulated and co-ordinated. The practical question on which the modern world is gathering experience is how this regulation is to be done, and by whom. If it be by a State machine of bureaucrats deciding everything without even consulting owners or workers, we are not far from Totalitarianism or the Servile State."

He pointed out—and I wish to draw the attention of Deputy Childers to this—that the commission examined memoranda on vocational organisation in Belgium, France, England, Sweden, Holland and New Zealand, and that a further memorandum on Russia and the position of trade unions in that country was in course of preparation. He went on to say:

"There were also memoranda on the situation in over 20 countries in regard to National Economic Councils, Conciliation and Arbitration and Labour Courts. All these were prepared by members of the commission."

Emphasising that trade unions were vocational organisations, he appealed to the workers generally, and to trade union organisations and others connected with Labour throughout the country, to take an interest in the commission's work and to reply to the questionnaire issued to them on behalf of the commission. As I say, in considering this matter, I should like to see all that information—compiled specially by Irishmen and women, with regard to experience in other countries, sifted by them, considered by them, and reported upon by them—placed at our disposal here in considering a Bill which implies and, no doubt, plans changes as big as those which this Bill is going to bring about.

And I want to know why we are not allowed to have that information.

Take it easy.

I did not hear the Minister.

I am asking the Deputy not to be so indignant.

What were the people of this country struggling and fighting for during so long a period to set up parliamentary institutions here if some of the things are to be dealt with in the way in which we are dealing with this matter now? I think it was at the Solicitors' Debating Society of Ireland, here in Dublin, in October last, that the chairman of the Vocational Organisation Commission in addressing that body on the cost of war, referred to the cost of strife in other directions and said:

"After all, the greatest need in time of war was to prevent strife, and that particularly useless form of strife—industrial strife."

He went on to say:

"We denounce the use of violence and force, and if we do, we should denounce it all round and substitute for it the reign of reason. But the only way in which men can make reason reign is around the council table."

Are we introducing the reign of reason into parliamentary institutions here when we get a Bill like this, spoken to by the Minister and then have the silent blow of 77 votes going to strike down any reasoned kind of discussion here, and the discussion carried on here forced to be a discussion for which definite information—accumulated for public purposes and at public expense and by services given gratuitously by Irishmen and women in order to help on their country, and which bears on our business here—is withheld from this House? What are we? What is it but brute force and violence when, through 77 votes behind the Minister's speech on this particular matter, you have the finish in the Lobbies of the voices that have been attempting to talk here in the realm of reason? I dislike having to speak like this on a serious matter, but I cannot but be indignant at the way in which the Minister treats matters; I cannot but be indignant at his turning this Assembly into a Chamber that, instead of being a Chamber where the voice of reason is heard, is one that does excite our indignation and that does excite our anger. There is cause for anger and for indignation. Even leaving the past aside and facing our problems with our natural approach to things—an approach unspoiled by any feeling that opportunities had been lost or that differences had existed in the past—forgetting all that and starting off before this emergency arose, the problems that confronted the parliamentary institutions of this country were great enough to spur us all to try to make this House a House of reason, but with this emergency down on top of us the responsibility to make this House a House of reason is much greater than ever it could have been before. As I say, they were great enough then, and although Ministers pretend that they appreciate these things we want the actions of Ministers to show some of that appreciation as well as their words. The whole thing that we are doing here now is contrary to what both members of the Government and the Taoiseach have indicated they think about the situation.

When the emergency came, the question arose as to whether the members of the Vocational Organisation Commission were going to carry on with their work, and the Taoiseach went down to speak to them on the 6th October, 1939. He indicated that there was not the slightest doubt that the present situation was going to mean a considerable upset in the present industrial organisation. He pointed out that no matter how long this war was going to last it would end sometime, and that very often adjustments made in wartime create problems in the post-war period which will be much more serious to solve. He said:—

"Our anxiety is that you should push your labours as rapidly as you can to termination, not diminish or suspend, but to proceed, if possible, more rapidly than up to the present to try to give us recommendations of a permanent structure here, to enable us to get rid of some of the evils which everybody admits exist in the system of organisation that we have."

I am quoting from the Irish Press of Friday, October 6th, 1939. He warned them that the State should not have too much thrown on its shoulders. He said:—

"The trouble is that, when the State begins to interfere at all, it begins to interfere more and more and is driven by force of logic and circumstance to interfere more and more until, in the end, there is a task set the Government which it is not able to perform."

The Minister thinks that he can wipe out by this legislation 34 out of 48 unions, and that he can set up a chairman and two other men and teach the whole labour world how it can run itself in peace, harmony and discipline within increased powers of production. I wonder does the Minister ever take the present situation seriously? Does he take his responsibilities seriously, or does he know what is going on in any kind of industrial life outside the walls of his own office?

The Taoiseach does not believe in centralisation. So much was he thinking of the desirability of avoiding centralisation that he wanted to think in terms of parish organisations. As Deputy Morrissey points out, under the auspices and the patronage of a parish organisation in a Tipperary town a trade union of 500 men worked for the last few years and brought absolute peace to an area that very often went through very distracting days. At a time when the Head of the Government is thinking that centralisation is so bad that we have to get back to parish organisation, the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduces a Bill which wipes out an organisation brought about in a spirit of charity and co-operation, an organisation that has brought peace to one town at any rate, that carries on its work in an evangelistic spirit, and that has brought the force of its example before people in other towns and counties. That is to be knocked on the head by this measure, and we do not know why.

I do not know sufficient about this Bill to understand what is at the back of it, or what will result from its being put into operation. My complaint is that in a serious matter such as this the business is being handled in the way in which the Minister is forcing the House to handle it. That is my protest. The Vocational Education Commission decided that its deliberations could best be done in private. They set up a committee for the purpose of carrying out a certain amount of publicity. It might have been because of the volume of their work that that publicity was not carried out, and we can well understand that their work was very voluminous. We are told the Government have not read a scrap of the evidence—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance told us that the other day.

I do not know anything that could be more bureaucratic than the drafting, in some place or another, of this Bill, the presentation of it by the Minister, the subjecting of the House to the discussion of it in the kind of blinkers in which we are discussing it, and then the appointment of three men, entirely the Minister's nominees, to do the rest. Discussing vocational organisation, Dr. Lucey of Maynooth, in the Catholic Social Week—I am quoting from the Irish Independent of February 22nd, 1940—is reported as saying:—

"A spirit of mutual understanding and collaboration and a strong regard for the common good, without which vocational organisation was but a sham, could not be infused into the leaders of Capital and Labour overnight by governmental decree."

That is what the Minister is trying to do. And again, in reference to some remarks by previous speakers, Dr. Lucey said:—

"Most Catholic sociologists preferred the vocational system which grew naturally from below to one which was imposed from above."

And again:—

"The vocational society which Christian Corporativism sponsored was the union of all who belonged to the same profession, trade, or branch of industry. The Catholic social movement's proposal was that every occupation without exception should have a special organisation of its own, representative of all classes and parties engaged in it, and charged with the task of promoting the good of the occupation as a whole."

There is no section of people throughout the Labour movement who will deny that a very large number are thinking carefully and earnestly, and in a constructive Christian spirit, of what kind of organisation we ought to have in this country for certain things.

I have always said with regard to the Taoiseach that he will pass through this world without knowing what kind of national institution he wants to set up in this country. I do not think he will ever set up better or more dominating institutions than he found when he came into power, but that is another matter. There are all kinds of smaller organisations to be set up lower down. We have organisations that are the growth of years. Some, as was pointed out last night, have come from the old craft days. We do not know whether it is intended that the spirit of craftsmanship in relation to trade unions is going to be wiped out. There is nothing to show that there is any care for craftsmanship. There is nothing to show what is meant by particular classes or whether dozens of particular classes cannot be in the same union. I think the details of this Bill and what might come from it or might result from it or why it is there are all nothing compared to the question that the presentation of this Bill here faced us with as a Parliament. That question is: why are we being asked to decide this when Parliament has already set up a special body to examine the position of trade unions, among other matters? It has been given a wide-flung job that it could not do without examining and making recommendations in regard to the position of trade unions. It has already done an enormous amount of work and carried on much needed labour.

Why should this Bill be thrown in here now and Parliament asked to discuss it, with absolute silence behind the Minister—nothing but the Minister's voice and the one voice that has been raised, that of Deputy Childers and that Deputy's voice not as clear as Deputy Childers' is capable of being? I would like to ask even Deputy Childers why we should be impressed by his interest in the volumes that he quotes from when the whole thing has been thoroughly reviewed, and is no doubt in a position to be thoroughly reported on, by a selected body of our own people, some of the most qualified, most energetic and most talented people that could be found. Why is that being ignored? It is more than a blow at trade unions and trade-unionism: it is a blow at Parliament and at parliamentarians. That is why I think the House should refuse to consider this measure now. If the Minister has any explanation to give as to why the Commission on Vocational Organisation is ignored, we are prepared to hear him; but I have not the slightest idea that he could be convinced in any way.

I do not wish the Minister to feel particularly that I was speaking with a feeling of indignation in this House, but I am not ashamed that he would intervene to say that I ought to calm my indignation. I think we ought to be indignant that, having set up national institutions to regulate the affairs of our country, mere Ministerial decision —if it is decision—mere Ministerial blundering, blindness and ignorance, should reduce them to the condition to which the Minister is reducing Parliament if he pushes this Bill through without giving us a chance to discuss it in the full light of the information that is available, and that has been carefully gathered, authorised by the State, by the efforts of a very large number of nationally minded people.

In supporting this amendment, I wish to express my surprise that the Minister should bring in this Bill, which is to be passed through this House. Having listened to the debate since it started, I am inclined to ask how many of the Fianna Fáil Deputies have given consideration to the effect of this Bill on the peacefulness of the country and upon our trade unions. Deputy Childers—who, I am prepared to say, is making every effort to become familiar with the condition of the workers and employers—has made a great case for this Bill. He has told us of all the days lost by labour owing to disputes, but it would be very interesting if he could give us some approximate idea of the number of days lost by those who are not allowed to work at all in industry. If we have idle days because of the differences between trade unions and employers, is it any wonder when one considers the position in the country? To-day we have, face to face, two classes—on the one side, we have that small and compact and accumulating group which holds within its grasp the economic life of this country, and on the other side we have the enormous mass of the workers who have no economic security whatever, and are struggling for a mere existence, and even unable to obtain that at the moment. Is it any wonder that we have this turmoil of which Deputy Childers complains?

I wonder if the Minister has given any thought to the small unions which have been in existence for perhaps 100 years, and which have felt the economic position in the country as keenly as anybody else. These organisations have made certain provisions for their members, such as superannuation after a certain number of years in the union. If these unions are put out of existence because of a demand for £2,500, what provision will be made for their members who are compelled to transfer into some other organisation? That applies to a good many unions which this Bill is likely to affect. These were given to understand that this Bill would be of great advantage to trade union organisations, as it would make for perfection; but in Section 6 of this Bill the Minister is deliberately encouraging workers not to recognise trade unions.

As Deputy Keyes has pointed out, we have certain employers who will go to any length to get workers away from trade unions, and even give them employment as an inducement to break away, so that a particular combine or firm can control labour within an industry. Notwithstanding that, the Minister is prepared to facilitate them all. I want to tell the Minister and members of the Fianna Fáil Party to go very slowly in dealing with this Bill. The trade union movement was born of necessity, and those engaged in it to-day are thinking as seriously of their conditions and the future of their organisation—and they wish to perfect their organisations,—as keenly as any members of the Fianna Fáil Government.

As Deputy Mulcahy said in quoting Dr. Lucey, it is much better to travel on these lines rather than to propose a change from the top. I think the time we are passing through is not the time to introduce this Bill. There will be a vote on it in the near future, and I would like to know how many members of the Fianna Fáil Party have listened to the important points raised in this discussion. Are they simply to walk into the lobby and vote for this Bill irrespective of its effect on the working classes? That is not what Government is for. As Deputy Mulcahy pointed out, when this important organisation has been set up to deal with vocational organisation, we should have an opportunity to discuss their recommendations before a Bill of this kind is introduced and passed through this House. I hope the Minister will not force a vote on this Bill until we have that information. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into matters dealt with by Deputies Norton and Keyes, but I wish to say that this Bill is far more involved than the Minister and many members of the Government seem to realise. I suggest to him to accept the amendment and allow the matter to rest until we have the information sought in the amendment.

This Bill certainly is one that requires very serious consideration, and I resent the suggestions made by Deputy Mulcahy and by Deputy Hickey that its matter has not received very serious considerations by Deputies on this side of the House Over many years—whether members of this House or members of the ordinary public—we have had occasion to complain and to feel very sore on account of the numerous strikes we had all over the country. Not only those of us in the public who may be interested as employers or who may be interested as ordinary citizens, but also a great number of workers themselves, on many occasions have bitterly complained of the necessity that forced such numerous strikes and caused in many cases very undue hardship on the workers themselves.

That is a situation which no Government could allow to continue without taking notice of it. These labour organisations should be protectors of the workers, because strikes inflict great hardship on them and on their families. In reviewing most of the legislation that we have passed here in the last 20 years, we find that there was a necessity to destroy many of the old ideals. We found transport in the hands of numerous people, with the result that there was chaos which brought about great dislocation as well as inconvenience to the public. It was then necessary to pass an Act co-ordinating the various services and to put transport under the control of one or two concerns. Similarly, we found insurance institutions operating from so many sources that the security of the public was not sufficiently safeguarded. The State interfered there and amalgamated all the groups under the control of one or two bodies. The same applied in other directions, to national health insurance, to the marketing of eggs and the handling and curing of bacon. Practically every line of industry had to come under survey and the same rule applied.

It is important to remember that the vast majority of workers that I call day to day wage-earners comprise many "so-called farmers". Will the Labour people tell me what steps they ever took to ensure that that class were looked after? All that has been done has been done in certain cities and towns with large populations where trade unions were established. I do not think they can claim that they undertook the hard and laborious work of safeguarding the interest of scattered labourers who represent the greater number in the smaller towns.

The town workers were organised to fight for them.

I do not know. I know that the Labour people have not looked after the interests of scattered workers in the country.

I submit that that is not so.

That is my view. I say that this Government ensured that workers in towns, when given employment on housing or sewerage works, got a standard wage and were protected from having to accept the cheapest rate from contractors. I do not think it is at all fair to suggest that Deputies on this side have not given very careful consideration to the Bill or looked after the workers' interests. We have looked after their interests and we have a clear conscience in that respect. I support the Bill because I believe it is in the best interests of the workers, in the best interests of industry generally, and in the best interests of the community as a whole.

The charge is not that individuals have not given some care to the Bill, but that Parliament is not allowed to do so. I ask Deputy Maguire to cast his mind back over his speech to see if he has given Parliament any reason in support of the Bill. After all, it is Parliament that has to pass the Bill. It is not what goes on at a secret Party meeting or within the still greater secret minds of members of different Parties that counts. It is what is put forward in this House. Our objection takes two forms. From the evidence put before us we could get no reason for the precise terms of the Bill, and no reason for thinking that this Bill, which I will admit is meant to cope with some difficult questions, may not raise greater difficulties than it pretends to solve. Deputy Maguire and other Deputies may have satisfied themselves that the Bill is not going to do that. I think he will be the first to admit that he has not given a single reason, beyond his own belief, that on the whole the Bill will do good. I admit that the Deputy is quite genuine in believing that the Bill will do good, but he did not give a single argument in support of that belief. He spoke of the neglect of the Labour Party to organise workers in the country. I do not want to defend that Party; it can defend itself. How does this Bill organise workers in the country? Does it in any way contribute towards looking after the organisation of workers there?

Perhaps the Deputy will tell me the section?

By preventing unreasonable strikes.

What contribution is this Bill going to make to the better organisation of farm labourers or as Deputy Maguire called them "so-called farmers"? I know that the Deputy means very small farmers. The only contribution that this Bill makes towards their better organisation is that it will stop strikes in the towns.

Where are there irresponsible strikes brought about in the country by organisations which do not exist?

Deputy O'Sullivan must know that strikes which take place in the City of Dublin affect workers in remote parts.

All that this Bill can do then is to stop certain irresponsible strikes in cities, and that that will lead to the better organisation of farm labourers! I cannot see that the Bill will lead to any such results.

Not necessarily.

Yet that is one of the few arguments brought forward in favour of the Bill! Deputy Maguire said some interesting things. He pointed to the trend of modern development and how in connection with transport it was found necessary to hand over control to a few individuals.

The Deputy did not tell us the Minister's views about that.

By analogy the argument is that we stop labour troubles by having control in the hands of one or two individuals. Perhaps that is the purpose of the Bill. I do not know whether it is or not. Deputy Maguire's argument makes that the purpose of the Bill. The Bill itself would seem to aim in that direction. There is a great deal more validity in that portion of Deputy Maguire's speech than in some of the other portions. The appointing of a labour dictator! Because if that is not the immediate result, that is the ideal towards which this Bill aims.

Will that be the way to bring about industrial peace in town and country? It may be that you will not have the same number of labour troubles and the same number of strikes, but, when you have a strike, it is going to be nothing short of civil war. Is that the ideal that Deputy Maguire or any other responsible member of the Fianna Fáil Party would care to sponsor? I ask him to consider the force, not of my arguments but of his own arguments which, in this matter, I think, may be perfectly sound.

He spoke of the necessity of destroying and getting rid of a lot of our old ideas. It may be necessary for us to modify considerably old ideas in changing circumstances, but if he will notice we, in this particular matter, have followed his leader, the Taoiseach, more closely than he has, because this idea of a vocational organisation of society is an effort to re-introduce old ideas and to keep alive such of these ideas and of these institutions as are not already dead, and, where they are dead, to try to revive them. Now, that may or may not be a sound line to follow, but it is undoubtedly the only excuse for the setting-up of the Vocational Commission to which our amendment makes reference. That must be what was before the mind of the Head of the Government when he set up that commission. What else was before his mind when he did that? Surely, nobody will tell me that it was merely in order to provide a panel for the election of a Seanad? I presume he had a more serious purpose than that when he set up a commission of able men to investigate fully, not the provision of a better electoral body for the Seanad, but for the better organisation of the country. And what organisation could there be in his mind more important than a trade, industrial or commercial organisation? Perhaps the Minister, or the Deputy, would tell me what else was in the mind of the Taoiseach when he set up this commission, except the organisation of industry, trade and commerce—teaching and so on—and other callings and types of work?

We have had reason to complain that when the Government sets up commissions it is generally slow in publishing their findings. I do not think that even Fianna Fáil Deputies will question its slowness in that respect. I think we can name a number of commissions in which we are all interested. Members in every part of the House are interested in them. What we have to complain of is, that it is exceedingly difficult to get the Government to publish the findings of those commissions. When the findings of a commission are published, we have to complain that it is extremely hard to get the Government to act on them. But here we have a Government introducing a Bill that may easily cut the ground from under the findings of one of the most important commissions it has set up, because it will not wait for the report of that commission before it introduces legislation. The introduction of this Bill may make the work of that commission a mockery.

I ask the Minister and the Deputy: can they foresee any other result of this Bill except the disappearance of a large number of small craft trade unions? It may be that it is the small craft trade unions that occasionally cause strikes. I am not at all denying the problem that the Minister has to face, but what I am asking the House to consider is: is this the best way to face it? Anybody looking over labour problems for the last 100 years would not be fair if he focussed attention altogether on one side of these disputes, on the immediate harm that strikes cause. I would ask Deputies to remember this, that the advance in labour conditions over the last 100 years has in no small measure been due to strikes. There is no good in blinking our eyes to that particular fact. However humanitarian we may be, we know that, were it not for the strike weapon the condition of labour in the different countries would be very different from what it is to-day.

And so the Deputy wants more of them.

If the Minister has a serious contribution to make to this debate he can make it. He will have another opportunity of doing so. Does the Minister deny that the improvement in labour conditions over the last 100 years in the countries that we are familiar with is not, to a large extent, due possibly to the strike weapon. Does the Minister deny that?

There is nothing in this Bill to interfere with the legitimate use of the strike weapon.

Then the Minister might follow my argument. I am pointing out that reference was made in a speech here to strikes and to the evils which they cause. That is one side, but only one side, of the problem. I have still to be convinced that, because a union is a small union, it is necessarily irresponsible. I think that some of the most responsible people you have in this city and country are members of such small unions. I think they are much more responsible than the members of this House, if the members of this House are going to pass a Bill of this kind without any investigation into the conditions that prevail, into the aims that we want to bring about, or into the policy or effects of the Bill.

Now, small unions may, occasionally, be a nuisance. Anything can be a nuisance under certain conditions, but is it wise to wipe them out? Is not that going to be the effect of what you are being asked to do here? Is not that the purpose of the Bill? Is there any other purpose in the Bill except to wipe out small unions? Is not that the main principle of the Bill—what we may call the spirit of the Bill? That is what the Bill means, and that is what we are discussing on its Second Reading. That is the aim of the Bill. We are going to pass this Bill at the very time when there is a commission sitting to investigate this whole question of craft organisation. Now, is that commonsense? Is it proper treatment of that commission? That commission may complete its work, but why should it continue its work after this slap on the face? That is a matter for the dignity of the commission. They may still think—I hope they will—that they may give useful service, that they may provide useful information for the public, and may, therefore, continue their labours, but certainly a Bill of this kind is no inducement to them to continue their labours. The whole question on which they have been asked to advise the Government, on which they have been asked to accumulate information and to busy their expert minds, has been suddenly decided without the least reference to them. We have had, in this House, many examples of Governments waiting and waiting after commissions had reported, but here we have a Government plunging in to decide important and delicate matters without waiting for the report of a most important commission on this particular matter. Because if it is not on matters of this kind and analogous matters that the commission is expected to give relevant information, on what is it expected to give relevant information? This is a Bill that has been carefully considered by the Fianna Fáil Party and by the individual members of that Party. I presume they also approve of the commission which the leader of their Party set up, and, apparently, in the labours of which he, personally, is deeply interested. Have they tried to reconcile the twofold attitude taken up, one by the Minister in introducing this Bill, and the other by the Head of the Government in setting up that particular commission? I cannot reconcile these two different attitudes. To me, they seem to cut each other's throat. Anybody who knows the conditions of labour and of life in any country must admit that there are problems. How far, in trying to solve these small problems, are you going to create much more dangerous problems? That is one reason why we should like to have a little more thought given to this Bill. We are anxious to know if the Government regard this commission as serious or if they have decided beforehand that they are going to throw its report aside. What that commission will have to say about the reorganisation of society will have important bearings on the reorganisation with which we are now dealing.

The whole trend of modern industrial development is to do away with the old craftsman. We regret that but, if we regret it, why help it on? If you do away with these small unions, are you not really helping the disappearance of craftsmanship? They are bodies which keep craftsmanship alive, so far as it can be kept alive. One of the results of this Bill—perhaps an unintended result—will be the disappearance of craftsmanship.

Consider the amount of good that these small trade unions do. It is not always a question of wages with them. They have also to consider the welfare of their members. Do members of the House forget that these small unions are, in many respects, friendly societies, carrying on work that used to be carried on by similar organisations in previous ages? You are putting an end to that work.

For the sake of a problematical advantage, is it worth while incurring the great danger which will ensue if this Bill becomes law? The Bill contemplates one big organisation, embracing practically everybody in the country. I think that Deputy Maguire was right in suggesting that that is the trend. You will have an organisation then that even the State may not care to confront. That may be the intention of the Minister but I doubt if it is. That may make this Bill palatable to a number of people but it is a danger to the country as a whole. The Bill will hit a number of skilled tradesmen. What chance have local organisations, who know local conditions, of keeping alive, with the fee imposed by this Bill on any trade organisation? What chance has any local body of tradesmen of paying that fee? It will mean the abolition of these unions. Is that wise? Is wisdom always in the centre here? Is there no wisdom in the ordinary body of trained, skilled workers? These are problems to which I should like both Deputies on the opposite side who are supporting this Bill and the Minister himself to give their attention. They furnish the reasons why we are doubtful that the Bill will bring good results. I am putting the matter as mildly as possible because I do not believe that strong language will bring us anywhere.

It may be perfectly true that it is necessary to bring our Labour organisation up to date but let us be sure that the lines on which we are proceeding are sound. An effort to reform without knowing what you are aiming at will bring you trouble rather than salvation. For that reason, I ask the House to support what is, after all, a very reasonable and reasoned amendment. Have Deputies who listened to the debate got any information which would induce them to support this Bill? Is it proper, while a commission is sitting whose report must deal with this matter, simply to ignore the commission and regard its work as mere window-dressing? Perhaps it is meant to be only window-dressing. If that is the view of the Party opposite, they are right in supporting this Bill. But if they regard that commission seriously, the proper course for them is to vote for the amendment.

This Bill is a peculiar one. It might have been well if the Bill had been brought in two or three years ago. I should be inclined to support most of the principles contained in the Bill. But with the Commission on Vocational Organisation sitting and with the emergency through which we are passing, it is hard to understand why the Government brought in the Bill at all. The principles involved in this legislation are those on which the Vocational Organisation Commission will probably report. Otherwise I should like to support this Bill. In this country we have too many local trade unions of different kinds which upset, to a certain extent, the social life of the rural community. The Government would be well advised to withdraw the Bill and agree to the amendment which has been put down.

I am sure that the Minister and members of his Party were well advised by people in labour circles in connection with this Bill. I am satisfied that they did not draft this Bill without knowing the opinion of the labour people. For the good of the country, I think they should have agreed to leave the Bill aside for a little while. I am afraid that somebody made a terrible error and that there is hardly a man on the Fianna Fáil Benches who would not like to see the Bill put aside for the time being. In other circumstances and other times I might support this Bill, but in existing circumstances I cannot do so. I think the report of the committee that is at present sitting is necessarily involved in connection with this matter. There is no reason for putting this Bill through, and I would ask the Minister and his colleagues to withdraw it, or at least to postpone it until some other time.

I think it will be generally agreed that this Bill contains some good features, while there are sections in it that in the ordinary sense have to be opposed by representatives of the workers. The Minister in his opening speech was rather unhappy in his references to the causes that led up to the introduction of this Bill. He gave me the impression that only one section of the people was blameworthy in so far as strikes were concerned, that is the workers. I do not think the Minister was fair, because there are always two sides to a question, and possibly, as regards many of the strikes that occurred in this country, the blame could have been laid on the shoulders of the other party to the strike as much as on the shoulders of the workers. I think that was imprudent of the Minister. If he wants to get support for the task on which he is engaged, that is not the right way to approach it—simply blaming one side more than the other.

I do not think—and I am saying this with a certain amount of responsibility —that there is any necessity for the introduction of the Bill at this particular time. I have as much experience of the workers of this country as the Minister, or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I know the hardships the workers of this country have to endure, and I also know that they are as fine a type and have as much intelligence as the workers of any other country. I cannot see why the Bill should be introduced at this moment. If, as the Minister states, the incidence of strikes was the chief factor that induced him and his Government to introduce this Bill, I would ask the Minister how long it is since we had a strike in the City of Dublin and since we had a strike in urban or even in rural areas. I think it is a question of the Minister being late. Whatever might be said about strikes having occurred frequently, say, ten years ago, certainly they have not occurred recently. I might say, without offence to the Minister and to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, that nine or ten years ago and, possibly, 13 or 14 years ago, when they were in opposition, they made no mean contribution to many of the strikes that occurred in this country. Fianna Fáil and Labour were synonymous terms during those years, and when men like myself possibly made ourselves very unpopular in advising the men, using the same lines that the Minister, to a great extent, adopted in his speech, we were told we must step aside. Fianna Fáil and Labour were going hand in hand at that particular period. Now, when the child is getting rather unruly, Fianna Fáil is going to stifle the child of its own creation.

The Minister spoke about strikes. What about the strikes that occurred during those years when the old firms of this country had to meet those strikes? If you take some of the old firms in this country, Jacobs, Guinness, and so on, very few strikes have occurred in those firms. I have a shrewd suspicion that the new bosses that have come into this country through the introduction of tariffs are not going to have labour interfering with their work. They are not going to brook any interference whatever. They are going to come down with a big stick, with a sledge hammer, and say to the workers of this country: "We are going to make you fellows toe the line." As a member of a trade union since I was about 15 years of age, as one who has had to work hard, as one who always held the opinion that in so far as the settlement of strikes was concerned the men themselves could settle the strike with their employers much more readily and much more easily than by bringing it outside, whether they were members of a trade union or not, I resent the Minister's statement last evening that the workers of this country are so far bereft of reason and commonsense that they would go out of their way to do anything that would unduly interfere with the national economy of the State. Whilst agreeing that possibly mistakes may have been made by members of trade unions—and who is it that has not made a mistake? —I say deliberately that this is not the right time to introduce this Bill. I say that honestly. The Minister is introducing this Bill at a time when there is no such thing as clear thinking. People's minds are unhinged owing to the unfortunate position that exists all over the world at the present time. That reason alone should be sufficient to induce the Minister to withdraw the Bill and introduce it at some other time, if indeed it ever would be necessary, because I believe the leaders of trade unions in this country have more or less learned their lesson these last few years. I refer especially to the officials who have charge of the funds belonging to the members of the different unions. They do not go into a strike for the sake of striking. Strikes, in so far as unions are concerned, are very costly things and it behoves the heads of unions to conserve the funds that have been subscribed by the members. A large part of the funds are apportioned for certain things, to meet certain eventualities in the future as regards benefits and so on. Generally speaking, the Minister can rest assured that the workers of this country are just as reasonable as the workers of any other country, if handled properly. But you have got to handle them properly. They are just the type of people who, if rubbed the wrong way, can be as nasty as any other section. That is the danger I see in this Bill.

The Minister in giving his reasons for the introduction of this Bill stated that there were too many unions in this country. Anybody who studies Section 6, sub-section (3), can only come to one conclusion. That section has convinced me, at any rate, that instead of doing away with unions it will create a regular mass of unions in this country. The employees of any particular firm which carries on negotiations for the fixing of wages are an "excepted body". In other words, if any employer in the City of Dublin has ten, 15 or 20 men, working for him, all those men can have a union of their own, so to speak. The only difference is that under this section they have not got to apply for a negotiation licence.

One can visualise the number of employers in Dublin, not to mention other cities and big urban centres, who can have their own unions on their own premises. In the City of Dublin alone you could have hundreds of unions under this section, comprised of 15, 20, or 50 members, according to the number of employees working in a particular firm. What is the use of the section then limiting the number of unions where the question of the fee comes in? That section in my opinion is drafted very cutely. It is a rather clever section. It is one of the subsections that one would gloss over. What does it really mean? It means in effect that the Minister is calling on any 15 or 20 men employed by an individual employer to get together, form a union and work for their own employers and to have absolutely no communication with other workers outside. In other words you are going to get back to the days of the fellow who used to lick up to the boss, the days when men were afraid to say "yea" or "nay" lest they might be sacked. The Bill will also lead to story-carrying because if a union is limited to 15 or 30 men working for the one employer, one man will be afraid of another. If one of them is seen talking to a trade unionist outside, some other employee may inform the boss with the result that that man will be dismissed. I knew a certain employer who would not employ a man if he knew he was a member of a certain union. I think of all the objectionable sections in the Bill that is the most objectionable. Why should ten or 15 employees because they happen to work for one employer be exempt from the provisions of this Bill?

There are other sections in the Bill dealing with the question of the fee which are very objectionable. Unions are called upon to make a deposit of £2,000. Does the Minister not know that that section is going to wipe out many of the oldest unions in this country? Remember that the men who built up this country, so far as the workers are concerned, were the men who started unions 50, 60 or 70 years ago. The trade union movement might have not been as popular then as it is now and the organisers were not as well paid then as they are now but, according to the Bill, you are going to throw aside the unions which these pioneers built up and cast them on the scrap heap. I have in mind one instance, that of a union in Dundalk, the Dundalk Labourers' Society. At the moment that society is not very strong numerically but the founders of it were pioneers in so far as the Labour movement was concerned in that town. The Minister knows that well, since he was there himself. The principal members of that union are ordinary labouring men but by their grit, determination, and perseverance they were able to build a hall at a cost of £1,500 or £2,000, a hall which could not be built to-day for less than £5,000. If this Bill becomes law that society will cease to exist. There are other unions in the same category.

I strongly contend that the members of such a society are as much entitled to be exempted from the provisions of this Bill as the ten or 15 employees of any particular employer in Dublin or any other city or town. The section, if it means anything, means that you are going to have in this country one or two big unions. In so far as unskilled workers are concerned, we might as well face up to the fact that it means that you will only have two big unions—the Irish Transport Union and the Amalgamated and General Workers' Union. Does the Minister think that he will have any greater guarantee against strikes in the future if this Bill is put into operation? That is a question I should like him to answer. I am not casting any reflection upon these two unions. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to cut out any union, but, having regard to the claim of the Fianna Fáil Party to be the only real exponents of true nationalism in this country, it is a funny thing to find in this Bill a section which safeguards the interests of English unions—the Amalgamated and General Workers' Union and all the other unions operating in this country who have headquarters in England. It is strange that such a measure should come from a Party which has stumped this country for the last 15 or 20 years as the real patriots—"Sinn Féin abú; we, ourselves, alone." Mind you, if you were cutting out these unions I would strongly object to that proposal, because, as I say, I have been a member of a union since I was 15 years of age. We were not so well organised in those days and we were glad when a man came from England to organise us, but I cannot help being struck by the fact that the present Minister went out of his way to ensure that these unions should function here while, at the same time, he makes sure, under sub-section (3) of Section 6, that an old society like the Dundalk Labourers' Society has to go out of existence because in his opinion there is no further use for it. Strange things do happen.

Possibly the Minister is sincere in regard to the reasons he gave for the introduction of this Bill. I can quite appreciate that he has had a good deal of trouble but, as I said, a great deal of that trouble has been brought by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party upon themselves. That is no adequate reason for bringing in a Bill of this kind now. I am personally convinced that all the Bills you pass will be of no avail until you have good will and co-operation between employer and employee. That is the one idea I have preached for the last 30 years. I had not to wait to hear it from Fianna Fáil. That is the real safeguard against the recurrence of strikes. We want to get more co-operation between employer and employee. I would say that it is in the interests of the Labour Party themselves to work for such co-operation. They have a duty to perform to the State in that regard. Similarly, employers should do something to promote co-operation between themselves and the workers. That is the only way we can succeed in this little country. When all is said and done, what have we here—when you take Dublin and a few other cities and towns out of it-only green fields? I often smile to myself when I think of all the rules and regulations made here to govern work which does not exist. My idea would be first to get the work and then make all the rules and conditions you like afterwards, instead of making rules and conditions to put shackles on everything which tends to the betterment of this country. I think it is a silly thing.

You are not going to do any good through the medium of this Bill. The biggest mistake the Minister ever made is to think he will. Besides, he is running the risk of creating greater dangers in this country. The workers of this country are fine fellows, but you have got to handle them well. I do not know whether the Minister has got the psychology necessary to handle men, and to tell them the right thing at the right moment. You can turn them the other way about if they get the idea into their heads that you are out to filch away from them some rights which they have been accustomed to enjoy and for which they have fought hard and long. That is the danger I see in so far as this Bill is concerned.

If I had wanted to follow the example of members of the Fianna Fáil Party, I could have made great play with this Bill already. Every trade unionist who met me had the idea that this Bill would do away with trade unionism, lock, stock and barrel, I said it would do nothing of the kind; I was doing a good turn to the Minister behind his back. I said: "Wait until the Bill is introduced and you will find it is not going to do away with trade unionism at all." As a matter of fact, they have been giving a lot more credit to the Government than I think they possess in so far as moral courage is concerned. It would take a great deal of moral courage on the part of the Government to introduce a Bill to take away the rights of the workers in this country. That would simply mean cutting their own political throats. I do not think they would have that courage. But there are certain sections in this Bill which will achieve the same object—the object of taking away the rights of the workers. It is a sort of peaceful penetration. I think on the whole there is absolutely no necessity for this Bill. I am one of those who had as much to do with Labour as anyone else. I often said hard things to them during my long association with them, but I am firmly convinced that Government interference in those matters at this particular time will not do any good, but will do much harm.

I think that the Minister and the other members of the Government have been more or less misled by the stories they have heard from their back benchers. I think it was a Deputy from Sligo-Leitrim who took a great interest in labour recently, in strikes and so forth. One can see a connection there. Some people have become connected with Irish industries, and, through lack of experience, they think that nothing should happen to interfere with their profits. They mean to see that nothing does happen. As one who would like to see things going well here, and who has worked hard for harmony, I am strongly of opinion that this Bill will not fulfil what is expected of it. As I said before, you will want goodwill; you will want co-operation as between all sections of our people, and that will not come through the medium of this Bill. The Minister will find, as time goes on, that the net result of this Bill will simply be that the Minister for Finance, when making out the annual estimate for expenses, will have to add a few thousand pounds more to pay the members of this tribunal which will be set up to settle disputes as between employers and employees. It is enough to make one smile to think that we must have a B.L. of so many years standing, and the other members of that tribunal, to try a simple dispute which may occur between employers and employees. It reminds me of a case recently where five judges of the Supreme Court and six leading counsel had to determine whether a bread cart was a shop, and there was a difference of opinion between the five judges of the Supreme Court.

I am afraid the Deputy is misinformed. It has not got to the Supreme Court yet.

Indeed it has.

The Deputy is not far wrong. I have a memory.

It has not been decided yet. The Deputy said the judges of the Supreme Court had decided it.

The Minister said it had not gone there yet.

I meant it had not been decided.

There was no unanimity there. You cannot make this or any other country prosperous by legislation. In my opinion this Bill will not cure the evils which the Minister says exist. I say they may have existed, but do not exist at the moment. Any evils which do exist will vanish overnight, so to speak, because the hard times through which we are passing cannot fail to have an effect not alone on the leaders of trade unionism, but on the rank and file. The workers of this country are intelligent, and can see how things are going at the moment. They are all facing up to the situation which exists at the present time. They have all answered the call which the Taoiseach has made in regard to increased tillage and the provision of fuel. It is because I know that that is happening in the country, and that the people are beginning to co-operate, that I think this Bill will do no good at all, but will do a lot of harm in so far as trade unions are concerned. Everybody knows that the smaller unions will automatically go out of existence in time, and there is no necessity for the Minister to cut them out. I do say that that section in itself is a most objectionable one— the section which exempts ten or 15 or 20 employees in a particular firm from having to apply to the Minister for a negotiation licence. I am not much interested in the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission; I use my own commonsense in those matters. I have mixed with the workers all my life, and I know what they are. I am convinced that there is no necessity for this Bill, and that the Minister would be wise not to proceed with it, especially considering the dangerous times through which we are passing, and they are dangerous. The situation at present existing in this country will require very careful handling, and it is not through the introduction of Bills of this kind that we are going to handle that situation. For the reasons which I have honestly put forward, I think the Minister would be well advised not to proceed with this Bill any further.

There is no use in trying to deny the fact that all over the country we have nonsensical strikes at different periods. We have had them in Cork a few times, and we had an example of one union coming up against another and holding up the building trade of Cork for months. They fought each other, and no question of wages or the rights of workers entered into it. At the same time, the Minister will need to step very carefully in this matter. Practically 70 per cent. of labour in this country is unorganised and, when I speak of labour, I refer to small farmers and agricultural labourers, who are all labourers in their own way. This Bill is going to form two or three big labour organisations, and the higher organised these bodies become, the more the fellow with no organisation will get the boot, and, God knows, we as agriculturists have got enough of the boot already. That is one reason why the Minister will need to step very carefully. Deputy Childers alluded to another reason when he spoke of two Irish unions in Athlone which were swallowed up by an English union which came in there. That union, controlled from England, is now going to tell Deputy Childers what wages he shall pay his employees in future. Under one section of this Bill a union with its headquarters in Britain, and completely controlled by Englishmen, would have the power at one stroke entirely to disorganise our whole transport system here. The point is that a body is permitted to come in here as a negotiating body, if it has an office here. They can put the O'Connell Monument, with an office address, on their letters and they are thereby permitted to come in as a negotiating body. Such bodies are going to wipe out small unions like the Irish Rail and Road Federation, and those Irishmen who were plucky enough to go out and organise themselves into small bodies against this big English union, are to be compelled to go back into the English union, whether they like it or not. That is the serious position I see. I certainly have a very decided objection to labour in this country being controlled by Britain, or by any organisation with headquarters in Britain, because I can see what can very easily happen. It would not be the first or second time that it was in the interest of Britain to disorganise things and to cause strikes or trouble here.

Irish labour should be controlled here in Ireland without permission being given in a Bill to British unions to come in and lay down the conditions under which Irish workers are to work or refuse to work. It is all very well to talk about the Irish Transport Workers' Union. It does not control transport in this country. Transport in this country is controlled by the Union of Railwaymen and its associated bodies. We are going to find ourselves in a very queer position if half a dozen English paid agitators— and these are the people who can put down the money and the Minister need not fear that his figure of a couple of thousand pounds is going to stop them because they can put down £50,000 if necessary—can come in here and completely disorganise transport. I, for one, cannot see any reason for the inclusion of that section in the Bill.

Will the Deputy vote for it?

He will vote for it, of course.

Deputy Corry will do what suits himself.

Mr. Byrne

He will pair and run away, as he did before.

If I were as contemptible a rat as Deputy Byrne is, I would go and drown myself.

Mr. Byrne

He will pair and run away.

Is that expression of Deputy Corry's in order?

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

Deputy Corry must withdraw the expression used towards Deputy Byrne.

Mr. Byrne

I do not care to have a withdrawal from the Deputy, except out of respect to the Chair.

You are just like a ringmaster in a circus.

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

The expression used must be withdrawn unreservedly.

I withdraw it, but I am thinking of it.

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

The expression must be withdrawn without comment. Does the Deputy withdraw the expression?

I will not withdraw the expression. I see no reason why I should do so. The Deputy is the most contemptible rat I ever saw, and he should not be in any public assembly.

What is the Minister going to do now?

Mr. Byrne

The Deputy will run away from the Bill as he did before.

You are a dirty little rat, and you have the impertinence to come in here and interrupt another Deputy when he is speaking.

Mr. Byrne

The Deputy——

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

The Chair is dealing with this matter, Deputy Byrne. Deputy Corry, having refused to obey the ruling of the Chair, will withdraw from the House.

Certainly. I would rather leave the House than withdraw for that rat, who comes in here and talks about the poor of Dublin.

Mr. Corry withdrew.

I think it was obvious to everybody that the Minister was not disclosing to the House or to the country what really was at the back of his mind in connection with the activities of trade unions. Everybody could see when he was speaking that he did not want to disclose the real object of the Bill. I feel, after listening to Deputy Maguire, that Deputies were inclined to think they were entitled to draw that inference and that this Bill will perhaps be followed by others which will curtail the activities of the trade union movement in this country, and, like other Deputies, I am of opinion that the time is most inopportune for the introduction of a Bill of this kind. One would think that the most urgent problem facing this country to-day was the placing of people in employment, instead of the Government asking the House to devote its time to dealing with a Bill of this kind.

A couple of Fianna Fáil Deputies, Deputy Corry and Deputy Maguire, have spoken and both of them devoted the whole of their speeches to discussing strikes. One would think that trade unions were enamoured of strikes. The last thing a decent trade union wants is a strike and the last thing the ordinary worker in this country wants is a strike. The strike, however, is a necessary weapon and resort to it has been necessary in order to bring people to a realisation of the bad conditions under which workers were living for a number of years.

It is only as a last resort that the strike weapon is used. Deputy Corry, who has just sat down—or perhaps it would be better to say, who has just gone out—referred to, what he styles, agitators. Up to quite recently, everybody who had anything to do with the trade union movement in this country, whether as organiser, secretary, president, or anything of that kind, was referred to as an agitator. Strange to say, some of the people who were loudest in their denunciation of agitators in this country were very glad to have them when national emergencies arose at different periods during the past 20 years, and very glad to have the benefit of the advantages of the movement here that were created by other people who were denounced as agitators.

One can only infer from the speeches made by Deputies Maguire and Corry that they know very little at all about the trade union movement in this country. They appear to think that strikes are engineered and manipulated by the officers of the trade unions in this country. They are not aware, of course, that it is the rank and file themselves who decide whether or not there is to be a strike. Any decently conducted trade unions in this country or in any other country—and as far as I know, most of them here are decently conducted—take a ballot of their members as to whether there will be a strike or not. Deputy Corry, when he refers to English agitators, or other agitators, coming in here and creating chaos in the transport industry, does not appear to know what he is talking about, as usual. He has a very low estimate of the intelligence of the working class of this country if he thinks that anybody, he be agitator or anything else, could come in here from England or any other country and create such agitation and confusion in the minds of the people of this country that they are prepared to strike just in order to upset industry here. That is a common fallacy here—that the workers are driven by the officers and committees of the trade unions, and that it is the committees and officers who initiate and manipulate all the strikes that are carried out in this country.

Deputy Childers, when speaking, referred to the situation in Athlone. I am not familiar with what happened there. I do know that on some occasions in this country there have been disputes between unions which have been responsible for bringing about a cessation of work, but Deputy Childers went further and said that that is typical of what is happening all over the country. I think Deputy Childers should have given us some proof of that. I travel as much of the country as he, and I cannot see that what happened at Athlone—or at least his description of what happened—is at all typical of what is happening in the various parts of the country. His speech would lead anybody to believe that he is, not alone anxious to get this Bill through but anxious that there should be further legislation in order to prevent strikes altogether. As a matter of fact, he practically said that we have to look forward to freedom being curtailed after this war is over. He said that in a sentence immediately after he had dealt with strikes, and one could draw no other inference but that he expects that the Government will go further and bring in another Bill to curtail the right of the workers to strike. I can tell the Deputy that if that time arrives, he will find that the workers will not take it lying down.

I said nothing of the kind whatever.

Deputy Childers has a nice way of putting things across, but a certain inference can be drawn from his remarks, and that is—particularly when coupled with Deputy Maguire's speech and also with the veiled speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce—that this is only the beginning of a series of Bills that are to be introduced to curtail the rights of the workers of this country. Within the last fortnight, tribute was paid to Pope Leo XIII for his Rerum Novarum, and it certainly comes very badly from this Government to bring in a Bill of this kind to synchronise with the tribute paid to that Pope within the last fortnight. It is obvious, from Deputy Maguire's speech and also from Deputy Corry's speech, that neither of them is very fond of trade unions. Deputy Maguire complains that nobody has made any effort to look after the small farmer and the farm labourer.

Well, I am a member of a union which has spent thousands of pounds within the last 25 years in an effort to secure that the farm labourers of this country would become organised. That particular union organised very successfully a large number of farm workers all over this country over a certain period. During the period they were in that organisation they benefited considerably from their membership of it although, being such a scattered body, it was very hard to keep them in an organisation. But one cannot understand at all why Deputy Maguire introduces that particular type of debate into a Bill of this kind. One wonders how the passage of this Bill will help in the direction that he indicated in the course of his speech. It is very hard to understand the mentality that put forward this point of view and yet is prepared to support a Bill of this kind.

As far as I am concerned, I am one of those who have always been in favour of industrial organisation, and in fairly large unions, but I do not think this is the way to bring it about. My colleagues and others here have referred to comparatively small trade unions which have been in existence for a long number of years. Apparently, these unions will suffer if this Bill passes through the House. I am wondering if the Minister has taken such things into consideration as superannuation benefits, death benefits, sick benefits, and things of that kind, which those smaller craft unions have had in operation over a long period of years. I am wondering how the members of these unions will suffer, because if they are unable to find the amount of money which is necessary to enable them to register as trade unions, I suppose their membership in the old organisation will lapse, and it surely follows then that any benefits they had accruing to them will lapse also. I wonder has the Minister thought as to what might happen if this Bill becomes law and the trade unionists of the country refuse to recognise the law? Mind you, it would not be the first time that the people of this country refused to recognise the law in a matter of that kind. I am not one of those who would advocate that there should be disregard of the law, but this is a very serious matter, and the Minister has been warned, and warned repeatedly, during recent months, that the trade unionists of this country do not want the Bill.

In every constitutional manner possible they have come together in meetings of their unions and of the Trade Union Congress, and they have very definitely stated that they are not in favour of the Bill. They have communicated those decisions to the Minister, and I think he ought to take some cognisance of those decisions. I can understand a situation whereby certain manufacturers in this country— especially the newer brand of manufacturers—and other organisations, more important in the Minister's eyes than the workers of this country, might come together in conventions and pass resolutions saying that they would not have certain legislation, and I think I would be right in saying that the Minister would think twice and would have a good deal of hesitation before putting into operation any legislation which would affect them as this Bill is going to affect the trade union movement in this country.

I do not think I have any more to say on the matter other than to ask the Minister again, like everybody who has spoken from this side and from the Fine Gael Benches, to withdraw the Bill. It is not at all an opportune time. I believe that the trade union movement is as anxious as the Minister to have more co-ordination and co-operation in the trade union movement. They do not want spasmodic strikes; they do not want certain strikes such as we have had in times gone by; but I think the Minister will get more by sitting down and asking for the co-operation of the trade union movement rather than by forcing upon them legislation which they do not want and which they are not going to take lying down.

It is rather hard to discover what will be the effect of some of the provisions in this Bill. Some speakers seem to suggest that other complementary Bills are envisaged. If so, we are at a considerable disadvantage in discussing only one portion of the plan. However, I hope that the Minister will make that clear when he is replying. I assume that certain bodies are covered under this Bill, but my reading is that as long as they do not negotiate wages and conditions, they will be perfectly free to carry on their activities in other portions of the sphere for which they have been brought into being. In Section 6 the word "employer" is used. I take it that is used in its widest sense, and covers a company, a firm, a management committee of an exhibition or a bazaar. If so, then the whole employing class is covered. There are certain terms used in this Bill, and it is rather hard to understand why they have been brought in. In Section 7, trade unions are spoken of as authorised trade unions. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why he uses that term.

There is another matter that is not quite clear. Apparently, a negotiating licence goes to any body that is an authorised trade union, whether of masters or of men. The real crux of the matter seems to be, who is going to organise the industry? Apparently, under the provisions of the Bill, one or two large bodies can organise that section of the labour field for which they will be given authority by the tribunal which will be set up. One wonders what will happen to the other unions, masters or men, who are not given the power to organise.

Apparently, what all those bodies are forbidden to do is to go out and get fresh members. Is it the purpose of the Bill that they should be bodies which will be dying slowly from year to year? They will not be allowed to take any fresh members. They have not got the right to organise. When they have not got that right, I take it they can get a negotiating licence, but perhaps in some cases they will not even want to get a negotiating licence. It is very difficult to understand what situation will be created.

Under Section 6, which has come in for a good deal of comment, it seems that an employer can negotiate with his employees. Presumably, those men may belong to a larger union. I take it they are not bound to disclose that, and, in fact, I am not sure that the officials of the larger union would not be present at the negotiations. If so, I think matters will proceed very much as at present.

I shall postpone further remarks until the Committee Stage and, even though the Minister may think that some of the points I have mentioned are Committee points, I think it is desirable at as early a stage as possible to get the full force of the Bill disclosed so that we may know exactly where we are.

Mr. Byrne

I desire to oppose the Bill because I see in it a tendency to drift towards a dictatorship in this country—whether for good or evil is another matter. However, this measure seeks to take complete control of the liberty of the workers and place it in the hands of the Government. I deeply sympathise with any of those Deputies who, because of Party affiliations, will be forced against their will to vote for such a coercive measure.

There is no regard in the Bill for the small trade unions that in days gone by have done very valuable work for their members. A number of these small trade unions will be crushed out by this Bill, if it is accepted in its present form. I earnestly hope it will not. A number of these small trade unions have provided pension schemes for their members. There is nothing in the Bill to safeguard those pension rights.

In my opinion, Sections 20, 21 and 23 are the three most objectionable sections. They deal with masters and men and aim at building up one trade union in certain trades with the masters. I am long enough in public life in this city to know that there were two masters' organisations in nearly every business that we deal with. One of these masters' organisations paid a little more wages than the other and because that masters' organisation was able to carry on it forced the other masters' organisation that was not anxious to pay a good wage, to do so.

As a result of good trade unionism and the workers' loyalty to their trade unions, they have secured many reforms and many advantages. The right to organise and to join what union they like, whether it consisted of 100, 200 or 2,000 members, was always there. The Minister is taking that right from them under this measure and the Bill is building up the most objectionable type of trade union, the house union. The house unions will be able to organise their members to get certain conditions for themselves and other similar workers engaged in the same type of business outside. If they are in smaller unions they may not be able to get those terms, while if they are in a bigger union the bigger union may get better terms for the workers. The house union cannot aim to get those terms, as they were not members of the same organisation. The Bill is most objectionable and is coercion in its worst form. I am not one of those who try to cover up my feelings by saying that everybody knows we have too many strikes in this city and who, because of that, try to justify the passing of this Bill, as if this Bill would prevent those strikes.

I thought some time ago that it would have been desirable for the Government to form some kind of tribunal or court so that, where masters and men differed, experts would be brought in, guarantees would be given that there would be no lock-out or strike, and those experts would make recommendations and the strike weapon would not be resorted to until the recommendations were considered by such a tribunal. I earnestly hope that the House will not pass the Bill in its present form. The heat brought in by one or two—especially by one individual who tried to cover it up and at the same time would not make up his mind whether he would vote for or against the Bill—is quite explainable and, I should say, excusable.

I know the value of trade unionism. I know how reasonable men who are leaders of unions can be, and the masters also, when you get them round a table. From what I have seen of both kinds of negotiators, I often have thought that there is no reason for strikes in this city or in any part of the country, because in the long run, when you got them down to a table, they were all sensible men. It is a pity that, in some cases, we have seen strikes go on for two or three months at a time which could have been settled easily on the same terms had somebody—a Government tribunal, for preference—got both sides to sit down and see the justice of each other's points of view and each other's claims.

I remember that in this city, before trade unionism came to what it is to-day, dockers were working for less than £1 per week of 60 and 72 hours. They were organised then and, as a result of that organisation, men were paid reasonably good wages. I wish they were better: they should be better, to enable them to meet the rapid increase in the cost of living. On that point, I see the Minister is allowing the cost of living to go up rapidly and is trying to tie the purchasers down to a rate that will not enable them to buy the essentials for their families. I hope the Minister will withdraw the Bill and that, if he has to bring in a new one, he will do it on the lines suggested by the various speakers. That will do much good to the country and not the harm which I am confident this Bill will do.

Before going into general matters in this Bill, there are one or two points I should like to ask the Minister about, even though this is not the Committee Stage. He might give us at least a brief explanation, so that amendments may be considered in their proper perspective. I feel perplexed as to the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 6. When I first saw the Bill, I took it to mean that this was a special allowance that had to be made to meet the case of firms like Messrs. Arthur Guinness & Co. When I read on further and came across some other points, I realised at once that there was a danger that it could lead to a development of what are here described as house unions. I related Section 6 to Section 10, and saw that Section 10 takes away the protection of the trade union law from all but authorised trade unions which have negotiation licences.

If that section is to be read in that light, then the house unions which might carry on negotiations with an employer as to the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment could not strike to enforce their demands or, if they did, they would find themselves classed as the old 1800 type of conspirator. If that is the situation, then, of course, part of the danger to the house unions is avoided, but there is a danger still remaining. These people still will be able to carry on negotiations, but in the case of an employer with a big staff of workmen, who may know that the people cannot go on strike to enforce their demands, it may be possible for him to get lowered conditions accepted by those people and thus break the solidarity of the trade union movement. The Minister might tell us his intention with regard to the relationship between Section 10 and Section 6, sub-section (3).

There are one or two minor points. I notice in Sections 11 and 14 that the holders of negotiation licences, where they are registered as trade unions, must keep their register of members open free of charge. That is a discrimination against the trade unions which is not on all fours with the ordinary situation in regard to companies. I do not know why an ordinary small charge for the inspection of registers is avoided. In the next sub-section, paragraph (4), I wonder why a person is deemed to be, for the purpose of this Bill, a month longer a member than he is in fact. If a person is expelled from a union, he is deemed to carry on his membership for a month. I do not know whether the clue is in Section 14 but, if it is, it seemingly is for this purpose: it keeps a union at a false numerical membership for the purpose of enforcing a deposit of a particular type, even though the membership in fact has gone below the point at which the deposit would be lowered and, therefore, a rebate demanded.

Deputy Coburn has referred to another point, that is, as far as the Bill is concerned, it appears to recognise two types of union—one called "authorised trade unions" and another, given in part 3, described merely as "trade unions"—they are trade unions which may get a determination in their favour. There appears to be no relationship between "authorised trade unions" and "trade unions". It appears possible for a trade union to obtain a determination in its favour, if it is one of two trade unions, under Section 23. After the determination, one of the trade unions it affects may be failing to keep its deposit up to the proper amount and lose the negotiation licence. Although it falls from the higher rank of authorised trade union it may, nevertheless, be a trade union which has a determination in its favour. I should have thought that there would be some relationship between the position of trade unions registered or putting up deposits. In addition, there are some small points arising mainly out of Section 21 (4) where there is peculiar phrasing:—

"Where a determination is granted under this section that two or more trade unions alone shall have the right to organise workmen of any particular class, no application shall subsequently be made by any of such trade unions to the tribunal in relation to workmen of that class until at least 12 months after the first determination, and, if a determination is granted on any such subsequent application, it shall operate and be stated to revoke the first determination."

What does such trade union mean?

Whatever that means, it is quite clear that after the first determination, after 12 months have elapsed, any trade union can apply repeatedly. Apparently where determination is not in favour of two or more, but is in favour of one, the defeated trade unions can apply over and over again even within 12 months. These are Committee points that I should like the Minister to let us know about, particularly the relationship between Sections 6 (3) and 10 as to the clear-cut distinction between "trade union" and "authorised trade union". The position generally is whether the Bill should be passed as put before the House or whether if any Bill is required, this is the time for it. As I understand this Bill has been in incubation for five years. The problem presented itself to his predecessor five years ago, and two and a half years was occupied by those intimately connected with trade unions considering whether a measure of this type could be brought in to do away with abuses that apparently surround the trade union movement. After two and a half years those intimately connected with the trade unions split, six being in favour and six against, one not voting.

The Deputy is wrong there. Six were in favour of a radical change and six in favour of some change.

And one did not vote. How many were in favour of the change contemplated? Thirteen people met for two and a half years and possibly took evidence. They certainly considered what were referred to as abuses in the trade union movement, and in the end it was not possible to get a determination from them in favour of a radical change. After that lack of decision had become apparent the Minister pondered for two and a half years and this measure was brought in. The time is to be noted. It is brought in at a period when— whatever might be the abuses or turmoil caused in the industrial world at another time—it is not possible for any abuses to occur at present, because the Minister has power under the Emergency Powers Order, and he has used that power frequently, and sometimes unjustly, to iron out everybody flat. In the circumstances the Minister thinks that the time is appropriate to introduce this measure, which has not the support of anyone in the trade union movement, and which meets only with half-hearted support from his own political followers. What was the argument for bringing it in? As I listened there were some phrases constantly used, "trade union jealousy" and "inter-union rivalry" all tending to the argument about the ambitions of leaders who apparently foster trade union rivalry and disputes. Having to his satisfaction made a case that there was trade union rivalry which led to some disturbance the Minister proceeded by an easy stage to a new point.

There have been statistics from time to time published by the Department of Industry and Commerce as to the number of working hours lost to trade and industry through strikes. Calculations have been made of the wages lost to employees and the profits lost to employers through strikes. Certain strikes are so notorious that they are known by name. There was reference to the building strike and to a big transport strike. I should think, if the Minister had a case to make, that a very large proportion of the working hours lost was lost through inter-union rivalry, he would have told us what was the percentage in any year— 1937 was the worst year—for instance, in 1938-39 for which statistics have been published.

The Minister could have told us the number of hours lost in 1938-39 which he could definitely fasten on trade union rivalry and not on the ordinary method of forcing an advance of wages or for a bettering of conditions. The Minister did not do that, or tell us that it was notorious in the public memory that strikes that arose from trade union jealousy lasted so long that they wrought havoc. Having made a case to his satisfaction that trade union jealousy lasted so long it down to the ambitions of the leaders in the movement, he made an assumption that the lost working hours or the inter-union rivalry or the loss of profits and wages were due to small unions, and that the disappearance of these small unions would mean the disappearance of inter-union rivalry.

As far as my memory can pick up on things, I only know of one notable strike that was presented to the public—how far it was propaganda I do not know—in the last three or four years that could be said to be due to inter-union rivalry, but it certainly was not due to rivalry between two small unions. The Minister's argument was that there is a trade union rivalry due to the ambitions of leaders and that whatever loss of hours there has been in trade and industry, as well as monetary loss, is due to the same cause. A plan is put forward in this Bill. The plan of the Bill is simple. It is the forcible amalgamation of certain unions. As I understood the Minister's statistics with regard to certain unions, he enumerated 48, grouped in certain ways, and 14 of these would come into categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the schedule. Thirty-four unions are on the lower level. Because their numbers do not exceed 2,000, these unions are required to make a deposit of £2,000 each. If they are not able to find the £2,000 they will disappear or be amalgamated with larger unions. Some unions will find themselves in a higher category. The plan is one of forcible amalgamation of certain small unions without the case having been made that it was the small unions were responsible for the inter-union rivalry and loss. The deposit is only an outcropping of the plan. It is worth while noticing just how much there is a jump backward in history in what we are doing in this Bill.

Prior to 1800, those who associated for the purpose of trying to get better conditions in industry were regarded as conspirators, and were hit hard by the law against conspirators; but somewhere about 1806, when those who made the law adopted a more benevolent attitude towards those who cohered for the purpose of getting strength in their trade agreements, they removed the latter form the category of criminal conspirators and allowed them a certain amount of trade freedom. We are now deciding that those who cannot pay a particular deposit are going to become the old 1800 type of conspirator once more. If they attempt to cohere or to call strikes, or in any way offend against the law, they will get the ruthless severity of the old law of pre-1806. If the Bill succeeds, what will the result be? We will wipe out of existence some number of the 34 smaller unions. Probably a whole lot of the others we will terrorise if they attempt hereafter to organise. If they have sufficient strength behind their organisation to be impelled to call a strike, or to interfere in any way, then they are going to be subject to the ordinary law of tort, to get hauled before the courts and be punished in the ordinary way for a breach of the law. Suppose that succeeds, we are going to have harmony in the labour world. I had not heard of the application of the Kilkenny cats' fable to industry until this time, but apparently, as the Minister contemplates the situation you have trade union leaders with fierce ambitions which lead them to poach upon each other's territory, to call strikes, and to impoverish their numerically small numbers in order that they may get greater strength by weakening some union whose members they will afterwards draw. By forcing these ambitious people into the same union, you are going to get harmony. It is a strange plan. You remove the scrapping match, so to speak, from outside the scene, and you put those people behind the scene of their unions, and you fondly hope that from that situation there is going to be harmony: that the ambitions of the leaders will be cooled once they are all drawn into the same union. Apparently it is thought that in such a situation all rivalry and jealousy will cease, and that those ambitious leaders will settle down to complete peace and amity.

But supposing that does not happen. Suppose that some of the small unions still want to exist as a body on their own, and try to make arrangements inside a big union. As far as I know, it is possible to do that. Suppose they have some sort of a federal system inside the big union. It would be hard to understand the leaders of the big union taking their orders from a small group, but if an ambitious leader holds himself out as saying that it is going to be operated in that way, he may succeed in getting a number of the small unions to amalgamate with him. If that should happen, is it not going to be very much harder to get agreement with that leader behind the scenes than it would be from the groups that have been forced into a union with him because of the impact of this law?

Supposing they do not federalise and are driven into one of the big unions which swallow up a lot of the smaller craft unions, and there comes a point at which the interests of the smaller unions are at stake, if the leaders make some agreement which is directly against the interests of the smaller groups, what is going to happen? It will mean a break away or, possibly, an amalgamation of some of the smaller unions, leading possibly to the overthrow of some folk who had previously filled executive positions. Does the Minister think that what is envisaged here of having a smaller number of big general unions and a whole group of house unions springing up under sub-section (3) of Section 6 is going to make more for industrial security and peace than the present situation?

Reference has been made to the setting up of a commission composed of those intimately concerned with trade union problems. That commission deliberated for some time. They were presented by the Minister's predecessor with a problem. Whether they accepted his view of the circumstances, I do not know. In any event, they retired into some sort of seclusion and carried on their deliberations. Possibly they took some evidence. It may be that they went to some of the smaller unions and heard what they had to say, but at any rate that commission came back eventually in disagreement. If the abuses that the Minister has referred to are as bad as he makes them out to be—the rivalry and the jealousy of leaders, the devastating conflicts, devastating in their effects upon the employees—is it not an amazing thing that all that did not drive those 13 people to prepare some better type of a coherent plan to end what the Minister says is a glaring scandal?

We do not know what evidence those people took, or what they deliberated upon. The Minister quoted certain excerpts from the terms of reference given to them. He quoted one passage from what appeared to be a statement of one of the 13 people, but, so far as the Dáil is concerned it does not know what went on during the sittings of that commission. It does not know how far those 13 people accepted the Minister's placing of the problem. It may be that the commission came to the conclusion that a radical reorganisation was required, or that the problem was not as serious as the Minister thought it was. At any rate, there was the clash of mind upon mind, but we are entirely ignorant as to what went on before those people. The one fact presented to us is that, as against what five years ago seemed to be a problem founded upon a glaring abuse, 13 people intimately connected with the trade union movement did not come to any agreement as to a plan for ending it.

I can well understand the fears that are voiced here by certain of those who are particularly fitted to speak for the trade unionists of the country. They say that this Bill is only the thin end of the wedge. Anyone reading the newspapers knows that there are certain people who are what may be described as newly-become bosses in the country looking for more power with regard to employees. Deputy Childers, apparently, let us in behind the scenes in regard to one of his occupations to-day. He stands here with one foot in the Fianna Fáil Party. He had better be careful that his foot does not swing to the outermost rim of the circumference of the Party because, if so, he may find himself dislodged. He has another foot in the industrial camp. He told us to-day that it was not possible for industrialists any longer simply to pass on costs to the consumer. Costs have got to be reckoned with at the moment. The consumer has to be regarded, not because there is any real regard for him amongst some people whom Deputy Childers associates with in another capacity, but because the times do not allow of the fleecing of the consumer to the extent that it went on some time ago. In recent years in this country it looked as if the Government deliberately thought that, so far as Government policy was concerned, there was a lack in their economy: that we had not those great families that France and America have, that we had not the fully fledged boss of the American economic organisation. They set out to create these people. Now, having created them, there is bred in the minds of those who are anxious about the interests of employees a fear that this may be merely the first step and that, if this is taken easily and without any great commotion, some more serious effort will be made to curb the right to strike, which is merely attacked indirectly, if it is attacked at all, in this Bill. Those who have these fears can point to other things—the notorious situation revealed by a public commission regarding the Rank business, the bacon curers and the various monopolists who were definitely allowed to savage the community. We do not know what percentage, if any, of their ill-gotten profits went to their employees, but it is plain that, for years past, the Government has looked with complacent, if not affectionate, eye on people who, having got protection to do good to the community and who, as in the case of the bacon curers, were put in a position of trust with regard to the handling of certain funds, decided that the trust could be neglected and that all that was good in the game was money. They made good and got away with the money, with the Ministry looking on complacently. Having regard to that movement, built up over five or six years, and leading to these results, when you find some of the leaders of that group vocal—and loudly vocal—about the necessity for curbing the instinct of the workers to get a share of what they see going, there is, naturally, bred an apprehension that this is only the beginning.

I wish the Ministry had done two things—that they had presented to this House the facts and evidence upon which it could be said that there is a problem facing this community in industry and that, having stated these facts and got something like public acceptance of them, they had then approached Labour to see if it would not be possible, by conciliation methods, to get some better way of handling the ordinary industrial dispute than that which is contained in this measure. Strikes are good sometimes. As presented by thoughtful writers, who analyse these strikes afterwards, as Deputy Corish said, they are generally bad for the employee. The strike weapon is regarded by reputable trade union leaders as something to be kept in reserve and used only when nothing else is likely to be of avail. The lightning strike is, of course, a dangerous side issue.

Many men in this country and in other countries have exercised their minds as to how peace in industry may be achieved or made easier of achievement. Attempts have been made in this country along certain lines. In recent years, joint industrial councils have been established. In some of the trades in which these joint industrial councils have been established, there has not been a dispute for five, six or eight years. These councils have been inaugurated under the best auspices, with employer and employee agreeing, drawing up something like a code of regulations to which they agree to adhere and with some accepted person given the task, if there is a dispute, of finding out the cause of dispute and trying to reconcile the parties. The joint industrial council has proved its value here, as elsewhere, but it has not gone very far in this country. Men have exercised their minds here, as elsewhere, as to the possibility of having some sort of industrial council or court. I should hate to see industrial courts brought in in the way this measure has been brought in, with the Government introducing a proposal of their own, putting it forward on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and hoping to rally their supporters to help them to push it through in the division lobby.

I have seen statistics as to what strikes cost and an evaluation made as to what the workers got as a result of the strikes, with calculations as to the wages they lost and how that amount was met by strike pay. It is easy to come to a conclusion that it would take years of the better terms to make up to workers what they lose by a six, nine or 12 months strike. The workers themselves have seen this, and have been impelled to take part in industrial courts, but these industrial courts were only a rough-and-ready business. They should be thought out and that can be done only by agreement between the two parties of importance, the employers and the employees. If industrial courts were proposed here, it should be easy enough, founding upon the data accumulated by the joint industrial councils, to get in clear and simple terms particulars of legislation that should be passed to establish them and of the matters that would be referable to them. Of course there would have to be labour legislation. Certain things would have to be laid down in law as being the rights and privileges of people in employment. There would have to be certain restrictions put upon the greed and avarice of certain people of the employing class. The lines upon which they proceeded in other countries were simple enough. If a body such as these 13 men who met in seclusion— persons intimate with trade union conditions—were called together to see if there was any possibility of their agreeing upon the matters that would be put in a code, and, once they got their rights established by legislation, if you could get two or three acceptable persons to sit as a court, it might be possible to get at least an approach to mediation and conciliation in industrial disputes. Most of the countries which have these industrial courts got them quite easily. Once you get a decent code of labour legislation and acceptable people appointed as a tribunal to judge the impact of these laws, you generally get the workers to agree that they will do away with at least the lightning strike, that a period of two or three months will necessarily be enforced once a dispute has occurred, and that there will be a definite period of weeks or months in which no dispute will break into a strike or lock-out unless there is a reference to the tribunal and some report from it. The workers have their rights if the tribunal delays too long in giving its report, and the employers have their rights also.

These things can be considered only in agreement with labour. If there is any sincerity in what trade unionists have said from time to time in this country—that they regard the strike as a devastating weapon which they would be glad not to have to use— then it would be well at least to get them to come together and see what other machinery can be devised to end that particular situation. It can be seen afterwards how far they have come and, if there was a breaking-off, what was the point at which that break-off became unavoidable. If, instead of this half-baked business which we have before us and which is not likely to lead to much good when forced on the labour movement, the Minister, withdrawing this Bill, were to pause for a while, give himself the cooling-off time which is recommended in the case of industrial courts, and see what can be done by approach to trade unions to get some sort of conciliation machinery with acceptable people to whom disputes would be referred under labour legislation, then we might make some approach to industrial peace and better security for trade in the country.

We have arrived at a situation in which most employers regard a strong trade union as a good thing, not merely regarding it, as they used, as some necessary type of evil. They have come to regard a strong negotiating body on whom reliance can be placed and whose word can be trusted as a valuable thing to have around and near them. I think most people looking at trade unions would also have the feeling that the small union, the union that was founded as really an outcropping of the old guild, the union that is based upon craft, is of special value. In a small country the unions that are based in that way are necessarily small in numbers and they are the ones that are going to fall by the roadside under this measure or else will be forced into amalgamation they do not desire with people who have not very much in common with them in the way of interests.

We are proceeding to do this at a time when there is a war that is breaking up the moulds in which society has set, while still people's minds are in confusion as to what way the new moulds are going to be set. People are clamouring, in any event, for something better than what went before and the minds of most people who are clamouring in that way seem to be set on a sort of decentralisation, getting back to the old idea, harking back to the old craftsman and giving these people something more in the way of self-government in industrial circles. We cannot wait until we see how these things are being formed. At a time when there is no necessity for it, when there is no abuse—for whatever there was of abuse can certainly be disregarded now because of the power the Minister has otherwise— a measure is introduced which is certainly going to have the effect that the small number of smaller unions we have in this country will lose their identity and become merged in larger bodies.

Mention was made here of Rerum Novarum, a 50-year old document and a conservative document nowadays. It was a big document when it was produced and it seemed to be a call and an inspiration to workers. It would not be regarded as such now except by those who cast themselves back to the time it was written. Then you can associate greatness with it. This Bill goes back far beyond Rerum Novarum. It goes back beyond 1800 so far as it brings certain things back again into the country.

One wonders what is the case for it. If there is a case, it has not been made to the House, and if there is so complete and glaring a case with regard to abuse as apparently the Minister thinks there is, then it would be wise, even now, to say a few words to recall the notable strikes to the public and the unworthy jealousies of the trade union type that brought them about, so that the people might have some idea that the Minister has some sort of case for this Bill.

There is not much consolation to be drawn from this Bill at all, but there is one point. At the time the Seanad was being set up one heard with astonishment of a group called the Ballingarry Cottage Tenants' Association. Nobody had heard of them before that.

An offshoot of Fianna Fáil.

Nobody had heard of them as a group before the Seanad came along. They had a secretary, but if they had a treasurer he had no funds.

They collected £11 in two years.

They got in the Seanad election what would be the equivalent of a negotiation licence. They were able to negotiate for a seat in the Seanad and from that microbe —or rather to disinfect the country as against such microbes in the future— the Vocational Organisation Commission was established. The Ballingarry Cottage Tenants' Association will presumably disappear for the purpose of this Bill; they may exist for the purpose of Senatorial representation hereafter, but, in any event, they and other abuses that were noted at the time led to the establishment of the Vocational Organisation Commission. That Vocational Organisation Commission is sitting and has sat for a long time. I thought it was a bad sign when it seemed to take permanent residence and got a name-plate for itself. It looked as if it intended to sit for a long time. But one hears it is moving towards the end of its labours. In any event, it has taken evidence and one hears now and again expressions of hope that a report will be forthcoming. They have certainly dug down into the roots of trade unionism, possibly from certain aspects or viewed from certain angles. They have taken evidence and they are collecting opinions. They are allowing grievances to be ventilated before them. They are allowing abuses to be pointed out to them.

They are getting counter-evidence against, say, the existence of these abuses. I am sure this idea of trade union rivalry and jealousy and the ambition of leaders has all been brought before them. People have got a chance of rebutting the case, if there is a case, that has been made against them, and there is some idea of conciliation in bringing people of opposing views to meet and state their evidence. I understand they give a statement of the evidence from one to the other so that it can be rebutted. They are accumulating some data with which the public can eventually be enlightened. If there is abuse, the public can be educated to that. Public opinion will be taught, and public opinion will have something upon which it can think, by which it can be formed, and a good public judgment eventually will be given.

Here we are in the middle of this war. As I say, society is being broken up. The Vocational Organisation Commission is sitting to try to find out what way we are to mould society in whatever future there is in store for the country. In respect of a problem that is at least five years old, and about which the Minister has deliberated for at least two and a half years, at a time, as I said before, when, if there ever was abuse, that abuse can cause no trouble at the moment because of the powers the Minister has under the Emergency Powers Orders, the Minister decides that this ill-considered, unproved and unwanted Bill should be brought in, certainly against the wishes of every person who has spoken on it from the trade union side. As far as this House is concerned, he has got the support of two people who remained in the House and of one who had to leave, as well as himself. The rest of the opinion that will probably flock to the Lobbies has not been able to put up an argument in favour of this measure, stating that there is a necessity for it at any time, stating that this is an opportune time to have it brought in.

I think the Minister, in view of all that has been said, should give himself the opportunity to bring in a better measure, should, as a result of what has happened in the House, send to those who are responsible people in the trade union movement, asking them if they could not put before him whatever evidence they have already put before the Vocational Organisation Commission, with a view to seeing whether a better case could not be formed as a result of that. We would then see whether the Minister, having got the assistance of the evidence given by those people before that commission, would still proceed with this measure.

I mentioned the Ballingarry Cottage Tenants' Association. They are a light element in this matter and I want to refer to one other very light matter also, the Constitution of this country. There is an Article in the Constitution which allows workers in this country the right of association. It is one of the paragraphs in the Constitution under the heading of "Fundamental Rights". The people are guaranteed the right freely to associate for their lawful purposes. Of course, it is quite true that there is a reservation in the same Constitution; that right was enshrouded in the phrase that the exercise of this right is to be regulated by law. As far as I remember the Constitution, it is also stated with regard to these laws that they are to contain no religious, political or class discrimination. This measure, to my mind, does contain a discrimination that very nearly approaches class. It is going to divide unions on the basis of the money that they have and, as the Minister has told us, it will put 34 of them on the road, trying to find lodging accommodation with some other big union.

I have said nothing of the sort.

I am taking the implication. There are 34 of a particular strength of membership. If they have not the funds to put up £2,000— that is all I mean—then they either become conspirators in the 1800 sense or must amalgamate with some other union. If that is not class discrimination I should like the Minister to give us a definition of what class discrimination in regard to trade unions is. As I said before, that is by way of light-hearted comment. Nobody cares at the moment as to what guarantee is given by the Constitution because the courts have already decided that all the fundamental rights are in the grip of the law. If we pass that measure people need not trouble to go to the courts in order to get their rights established there. The Dáil is supreme and if you pass this, the Constitution is at an end as far as the right of association is concerned but those who passed the Constitution thought fit to put in something, a fundamental Article, about the right of association and before the Government blindly rush through a measure of this sort based on the mere discrimination of the amount of money which a union is prepared to put up, they might have considered that Article. They might have shown some honour by those who thought about the Constitution and who rushed it through. They might say: "If the courts do not give the people rights, we can give them rights here and we shall be very careful that no measure we bring in will impinge on any right which people enjoy in their organisations." If the Minister is not going to do that, will he make a case, and show by statistical and other information the strength of his case, in regard to the existence of the trade union rivalry that has led to this measure being brought in and tell us that he hopes, and has good reason to hope, that once this measure is put through all this rivalry will cease, that the ambitions of these leaders will be curbed and that peace will reign at last in industry?

In my opinion this measure is long overdue and the workers and general public owe a debt of gratitude to the Government for taking steps to end the trade union strife and strikes which have so often hindered production, caused public inconvenience and brought misery and suffering into the homes of the workers involved. I wish to congratulate the Minister on the lucid manner in which he dealt in detail last evening with the various provisions of the Bill. I have listened to a number of speeches in opposition to this Bill and the more I have heard of the points that were put up against it, the more I am convinced that under this Bill the workers above-all are bound to benefit.

We have heard a lot about forcing out the small unions and driving them into the big unions. It is quite possible that some unions will go under as a result of this Bill. What of it, if the worker will benefit? To my mind, this Bill was designed with a view, among other things, to give to the workers certain benefits which they could not get under the present system or with the present large number of unions operating in the country. Deputy McGilligan has asked if the Government approached Labour. I cannot answer that question. As far as I am concerned, the only worker I would recognise is the ordinary worker because, to my mind, the unfortunate labourer in the country who has joined up with trade unions has got but little to say about trade union policy. If a plebiscite of the workers were taken, without any interference from their so-called leaders, I have no hesitation in believing that there would be a vast majority in favour of this Bill.

Why not get the Minister to do that?

You cannot very well do it while you have the official Labour members threatening this, that and the other thing because of certain measures introduced for the benefit of the ordinary worker. I cannot understand the opposition to this Bill, particularly the opposition of the Labour Party. Surely we must all recognise that in unity there is strength and that the smaller the number of trade unions the stronger will be their position to fight for rights and conditions for the workers. It follows that the stronger the union, the better the fight it can put up, and there is no reason why trade unions themselves should not have resorted, long before now, to some system of amalgamation or coordination of the various unions into one or two organisations. Instead, they were satisfied to look on at inter-union strife, with strikes, as a result of that strife, taking place day after day, hindering, as I pointed out before, production and bringing misery and want to the workers. The only real reason that I could see why members of the Labour Party should oppose this Bill is that it is quite possible that some white-collared men in the unions may lose their jobs.

Having listened to the debate, I do not see one strong point made to support the demand that this Bill should be withdrawn. On the contrary, practically every argument put up by the Opposition just shows the necessity for the Bill. We may be told that this is a time of emergency. We know it is. But emergency or no emergency, that is no reason why the Government should not do what they think right and proper.

Mr. Morrissey

Hear, hear! In every case.

Undoubtedly, in every case. In introducing a measure of this kind we undoubtedly will make matters easier both for employers and employees.

I am not too concerned about the employers' side of it. I am more concerned about the employees. Some of the speakers last evening mentioned that some of those unions paid certain benefits to their members. I think that is a very commendable thing, and I see no reason, if some unions become stronger, why the benefits paid to their members should not be greater than they are at the moment. Taking all the aspects of the matter into consideration, I wish to congratulate the Minister and the Government on having the courage of their convictions and putting this measure through the House.

You have listened to this debate, Sir, as I have listened to it, and I wonder if the same thought has struck you as has occurred to me— whether this was the Legislative Assembly of this nation, or whether it was merely a kindergarten. It seemed to me that such was the whole tenor of speeches made in opposition to this Bill, that this House is not competent to consider a measure of this sort; that this House, which includes seven representatives of the trade union organisations, which includes on both sides and in all Parties members of trade unions, which includes in its personnel people who are actively engaged in industrial organisations of every sort, is unable to consider a measure such as is now submitted to it. Deputy McGilligan has just told us that the Dáil is supreme, but the amendment he supports is designed to make the Dáil inferior to the Commission on Vocational Organisation.

Do not talk nonsense.

The amendment is indeed a very touching tribute, coming from the members of the Opposition, to the wisdom and good judgment of the Government which set up this Commission on Vocational Organisation——

What was it set up for except to inform the Dáil?

——but I think it is a very hollow tribute, because after all I do not really believe that the members of the Opposition expected that their amendment would be seriously considered by the House. I do not think they expected us to accept the principle which is contained in this amendment.

As far as I can see it is this: that we should suspend all legislative activity, that we should resign our functions and go home, allowing the Commission on Vocational Organisation to carry on in our stead.

That is really kindergarten stuff now.

The Minister should be out watching the cats with the Taoiseach.

I know that Deputy Mulcahy hates to be caught out, but we have to examine the implications of this amendment, this precious amendment, despite all the thunder there has been in regard to it. Why, Deputy Mulcahy almost split the welkin with indignation because of the fact that here we were proposing to do something without having heard the considered judgment of the Commission on Vocational Organisation upon the matter. It is all very well to find excuses for opposing a reform, but surely the Opposition could have found a much more plausible excuse than that?

What was the commission set up for?

Surely they could have found one that would carry more weight with the general public.

What was the commission set up for?

How was this House, which has been dealing with labour matters, dealing with matters affecting the conditions of employment of workers, dealing with matters affecting the organisation of agriculture, and dealing with matters affecting the judiciary, able to carry on—how indeed was this Oireachtas able to do anything at all from 1922 until this Commission on Vocational Organisation was set up in January, 1939?

What was it set up for?

I will come to that in a moment. But, Sir, I wish that Deputy Mulcahy would contain himself. After all, he had his outburst, and now that he has relieved the pressure upon himself he ought to allow me to speak.

I submit that this is an occasion for more than an outburst from the Minister.

Sir, if I am not allowed to deal with this matter I shall have to sit down.

The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.

He would like to sit down.

The Deputy can take it now; he is going to get it.

That is a terrible threat.

I can see what is coming.

The members of this House, whatever Deputy Mulcahy's opinion of them may be, and I gather his opinion of his fellow-members is not very high——

From what does the Minister gather that?

Whatever Deputy Mulcahy's opinion of his colleagues in this House may be, my view at any rate—and I am sure if everyone here looked into his heart it would be found that it is the view of every member of the House—is that we are just as competent as the members of the Commission on Vocational Organisation to consider this matter.

Again, we ask why it was set up?

We are practical men, who have lived, and worked, and earned a living, who have lived with every aspect of this problem, one or other of us, and who are charged with the duty of dealing with it. We in this Dáil can provide for the organisation of the Army, the largest vocational organisation in this country; we can provide for the keepers of the peace and the protectors of life and property; we can provide——

For the maintenance of mental patients.

——for the teachers and preceptors of youth, a vocation if ever there was one; but, according to the members of the Opposition, we are unable—unfit, possibly—to determine whether the bodies which propose to negotiate in regard to wages and conditions of employment shall make rules and shall lodge a deposit as a token of their representative character. That is all there is to the Bill. Remember, we can provide for a vocation like the military vocation, for a vocation like the police vocation, or for a vocation like the teaching vocation, but, according to Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Morrissey and the members of the Labour Party, who are always talking about the merits of representative Government, we cannot decide, we are unfit to decide, unless we have the assistance of some other body set up under this House——

That is not a fair way of putting it.

——whether organisations which set out to negotiate in regard to wages and conditions of employment, things which the man in the street almost does every day, shall keep rules, or whether they shall lodge a deposit as a token of their representative character. That is, in fact, the sum and substance of the Bill, and it is because Deputy Mulcahy apparently thinks this House is unfit to do that that he has put down this amendment.

We were told by the Deputy in the course of his speech that, because the Government will not assent to that proposition, we are degrading Parliament. On the contrary, I think that if we were to accept the principle of this amendment, which is that the Dáil should refrain from remedying evils or removing abuses until the Commission on Vocational Organisation had reported upon them, we should, as I said before, be degrading Parliament and ought to adjourn and go home, and hand our functions over to this new body, which, in Deputy Mulcahy's opinion, is competent to supersede the whole Constitution. We are charged under the Constitution with this duty and the commission is not charged with it.

Abolish the commission.

So little did Deputy Mulcahy know about the terms of reference of the commission that he had to send out for them, and it was only when he got them in the course of his speech that he got some inspiration. Of course, he did not comment on the terms of reference of the commission. However, I am not going to worry about that.

But when did the Opposition, which plumes itself upon the alertness with which it safeguards the interests of the common people, wake up to the fact that it was necessary to await the report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation before proceeding with this measure? The Bill was printed by order of the Dáil on April 30th and was circulated to members on the following day. It has been in the hands of members, including Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Morrissey, for a month, and it was only at the expiration of the month, when it was anticipated that the Second Reading of the Bill would be taken on the following Wednesday, that the motion was put down by the Opposition.

Was it not time enough?

Apparently it was a last moment inspiration—just an excuse for obstructing a reform which the whole country is waiting for——

"Clamouring for"—why not say it?

——which trade unionists no less than industrialists want——

Certain trade unionists. Now the Minister has let the cat out of the bag.

——and which the common people of the country, who are more to be regarded than either section—for it is the common people who have suffered because of the evils with which the Bill proposes to deal—very ardently and very generally desire.

How does the Bill deal with these evils?

The Opposition know well that this Bill will make a much needed reform, and that it is a measure which will redound to the credit and prestige of the Government——

That should be in the schedule.

——and, therefore, they are determined to block that reform lest the Government should get the credit for it.

Of course, they are very cunning in the methods they adopt.

The Minister is much more subtle.

They do not propose to oppose the principle of this Bill. That is not their method. They do not contend that a reform is not necessary because they could not. Even Deputy Morrissey in moving the amendment spoke of the turmoil and strife caused here by rivalries of one sort or another inside the trade union movement. Deputy Doyle made the same admission, and so did Deputy Norton.

What did I say?

You admitted that a rationalisation of the trade union movement in this country was long overdue.

I never used the word at all.

What is meant by rationalisation of the trade union movement?

Strangulation.

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

He is misrepresenting me.

Of course I am not. What did the Deputy say except that he wanted this thing to be done by voluntary amalgamation? What is amalgamation but another way of saying rationalisation?

Webster is speaking now.

Bringing together the unnecessary unions and making them into one strong union. Deputy Norton knows as well as I that the one thing which every responsible Labour leader in this country feels is essential is that there should be some discipline, some order inside the trade union movement. Neither the members of the Labour nor the Opposition have chosen to oppose this Bill on the ground of principle, because they could not for a moment deny that the reform which the Bill seeks to make is long overdue. Deputy Norton could not deny it in face of the proceedings of the commission of inquiry set up by the Trade Union Congress itself.

Deputy Norton says that this will not achieve it.

After all, he has not been able to think of a better way of doing it.

I should have asked you to do it.

Well, somebody has to do it somehow.

It is not started yet.

As I say, the Opposition are not opposing the Bill on the grounds of principle. They are availing of a subterfuge in order to prevent the Government doing something which they know will be heartily welcomed by the great majority of the people.

You will be very sorry for it.

And on what grounds? On the grounds stated by Deputy McGilligan, whose words were that they "had heard faint expressions of opinion that a report might be forthcoming" from the Commission on Vocational Organisation which might affect this issue. It is making an unwarranted assumption, in fact, that anything in the report of the commission would in any way affect anything in this Bill. Moreover, there is nothing which this Bill purports to do which would in any way prejudice the fair consideration of any report which may come from the Commission on Vocational Organisation. In fact, this Bill does not interfere with the general corpus of the trade union law at all. It merely makes certain regulations which will ensure that the uncontrolled and sporadic trade union organisation of labour, which has gone in this country over the past 100 years or so, will now be done in a regular way, and will be undertaken by men who have, at any rate, the resources which will make their organisation sound and secure.

What about the house unions? They are not expected to have the resources.

I did not interrupt the Deputy. I know he hates to have a case made against him——

Mr. Morrissey

It is not very much trouble now, if that is the case.

——but he might be patient sometimes. What are the objections to the Bill? It has been said that it may affect small unions, craft unions and trades councils. Of course it will affect them. It will affect all of them in some measure.

Mr. Morrissey

It will wipe them out.

Those which are not fit to survive as independent entities will either have to go completely out of existence or will have to unite, in some way or other, with other trade unions or with other labour organisations. We hear a great deal of talk about the feeling of solidarity and of comradeship inside the trade union movement, but judging from the sort of speeches I have heard in this debate from those who purport to speak for Labour—and I deny that they speak for Labour—one would think that one labour union regarded another as untouchable, that a member of one union would not associate with a member of another union—not even if his bread and butter depended on it—that this or that little union, with all its own peculiar little characteristics, regarded itself as being superior to every other and that there would be no possibility, if two such unions were unable, out of their own resources, to provide the necessary deposit, of their coming together to co-operate with each other even in order to remain in existence. But those who make the case for these small unions—jealous of their existence, jealous of their rights and privileges, jealous of their own prerogatives, are substantiating the case I am making for the Bill. They know that it is this very jealousy between these small unions and large unions, no matter which they may be, that has been the cause of a great deal of the industrial unrest and the unnecessary industrial strife in this country.

Of course, as I say, it is intended that this Bill should affect every union, not merely the small unions, but the large ones. It is intended to compel them to take stock of their position, and to see what arrangements they can make with their fellow-members of the trade union movement for their survival as organised trade unions. Otherwise, there would be no purpose in the Bill. Those who make this plea for small unions, for craft unions and for trades councils, are in fact making a plea for the existing condition of affairs, even at the very time when they admit that the existing condition of affairs should not be permitted to continue. Well, I am in agreement with them on that head, and this Bill is designed to make it more difficult for the existing condition of affairs to continue.

A point is being made also about these small unions which have superannuation funds. I think that any superannuation fund worthy of the name would at least be able to make the deposit of £2,000. The deposit remains the property of the union which makes it, and the income accruing from that investment accrues to the trade union which owns it, and would be available for meeting its superannuation obligations. In fact, I think that so far as those trade unions which have superannuation funds are concerned, one of the effects of this Bill will be to give a greater assurance to their members than they have at the present time that the obligations and liabilities of the superannuation fund will be met.

How does it do that?

Because, at any rate, it shows their members quite clearly that there is at least £2,000 there to meet those obligations.

It has to be there in any case, and this Bill does not make it any more evident.

It does make it more evident because it will be lodged with the Registrar of the court. On the other hand if it is there, then this argument against the Bill, based on the argument that superannuation funds will be in jeopardy, falls to the ground.

Then the Minister's first statement is wrong?

Now, the point has been made against the provision in paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Bill—that it is likely, it was said, to encourage the formation of house unions. I deny that that is going to be the effect of it, but before I come to deal with that aspect of it, let me say this: that this particular paragraph merely preserves the natural right of an employer and his workers to get together and to discuss the affairs which most immediately concern them—the terms of contract which they have entered into with each other—and I do not think we would be justified in imposing any barrier between an employer and his employee in coming together and discussing that.

Mr. Morrissey

Why have any trade unions at all?

But because that saver is there for the natural right of the individual, I deny that the Bill as a whole does anything to encourage the formation of house unions. Section 10 is an integral part of this Bill and Section 10 quite clearly reserves to the authorised unions, and to authorised unions only, the protective privileges of the various trade union Acts. If the Deputies who have made this point about house unions had studied the Bill, instead of trying to misrepresent its terms, at any rate they would not have fallen into that gross error. They would have grasped that Section 10 states that the various protective clauses in the various trade union Acts, 1871-1875, and the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, "shall apply only in relation to authorised trade unions which for the time being are holders of negotiation licences and not otherwise."

Another weapon for the boss!

No, it is not.

Of course it is.

Well, let me deal with that point. Deputy McGilligan made it much more forcibly and logically than Deputy Norton is trying to make it now. Section 10 of the Bill, as I said, reserves to the authorised trade unions and to no others the privileges conferred on them by the Acts of 1871, 1875 and 1906. Now, it was argued by Deputy McGilligan, and it is again asserted now by Deputy Norton, that this section may be used by employers to exert undue pressure on workers. If so, then it cannot be argued that it is going to encourage the establishment of house unions since the fact that they would so lay themselves open would surely discourage the formation of such unions. Furthermore, there is nothing in this Bill which would prevent the members of house unions joining an authorised union and putting themselves in exactly the same position as their fellows in such unions, and availing themselves of the protection of Section 10.

The fact of the matter is that, so far from inducing the formation of house unions, those who are directing house unions will speedily become aware of the fact that if they want to take action, or if they feel it is necessary to take action in order to compel an employer to meet them fairly, their remedy is to join an authorised trade union.

But suppose some do and others do not, under intimidation from the bosses, what is the remedy?

That does not deprive those who are members of the authorised trade union taking steps which authorised trade unions are in a better position than the house union to take.

The Minister should join a trade union for a week and then he will know something of what he is now trying to talk about.

I think the Deputy ought at least try to conduct himself. A Deputy was requested to leave the House because he could not conduct himself and I do not see why Deputy Norton should not take that lesson to heart.

If I am guilty, it is because of intense provocation.

I think it is quite clear that the Deputy cannot have it both ways. The only way in which this Bill could encourage the formation of house unions would be by giving them all the privileges which attach to authorised trade unions. Under Section 10 these privileges are definitely reserved to authorised trade unions and no others. We have been told by Deputy Norton that no evidence has been adduced to show that this Bill is necessary. Here is evidence, coming, I think, from sources which ought to be acceptable even to Deputy Norton, even though the Deputy may have his own peculiar views about other members of the movement of which he is a prominent member. I have noticed that the trend of some of his interruptions is to dissociate himself from the common fry, perhaps from the type of people who wrote this in a considered memorandum. I have here extracts from a memorandum signed by five members of the Commission of Inquiry which the Irish Trade Union Congress set up.

Does the Minister propose to put a copy of that in the Library?

I will put the document I have in my hand—the whole of it—in the Library.

If the Minister is going to quote from a document, the entire document should be put in the Library so that the implications of the whole of it may be understood.

Would the Minister like to hear the opinions of those five people?

I have already heard Deputy Norton's opinion.

On a point of order. If the Minister purports to quote from a document, he should place the whole of that document in the Library.

So far as the document I have in my possession is concerned, I am quite prepared to place it in the Library.

The Minister is purporting to quote from a published document.

It is not a published document.

He is about to quote from a document and I submit that he should not be allowed to quote from it unless he undertakes to place the whole of it in the Library.

I am quite prepared to put all of the document that is available to me in the Library.

I ask for a ruling that the Minister will not be allowed to read what purports to be an extract from a document except he undertakes to put the whole of it in the Library.

If the Minister quotes from a document, it must be made available to other members of the House.

He is merely dealing with portion of a document and he is probably taking the quotation out of its context. I have read the whole of the document.

Then perhaps the Deputy will place it in the Library if he is not concerned, like Deputy Mulcahy, to withhold this evidence from the House?

Is the normal ruling to be applied in this case? The Minister is going to quote from only a portion of a document; he has only a fragment of it and he wants to quote that fragment in order to bolster up the bad case he is making. He should undertake to put the whole document in the Library. Will he be allowed to quote only portion of the document?

I propose merely to refresh my memory, and I will give the arguments as set out here.

That is going behind the decision of the Chair.

Must I be cribbed, cabined and confined, simply because this evidence is unpalatable to Deputy Norton?

If the Minister claims that the document is a privileged document——

Mr. Morrissey

He is not claiming privilege.

I am not, but Deputy Norton is claiming privilege because the Deputy has admitted that he has the document in his possession.

I will give the Minister a spare copy of it to-morrow if he desires.

I will content myself by asking Deputy Norton one or two questions. Will Deputy Norton or any other Deputy who has had an opportunity of perusing this memorandum——

Mr. Morrissey

That is getting behind the ruling of the Chair.

Will Deputies be allowed to reply to the Minister's questions?

No, because these are rhetorical questions.

If the Minister quotes from a document, it must be made available to the members of the House, unless the Minister claims it to be a privileged document.

I am not going to quote from any document. If responsible members of an organisation say——

Mr. Morrissey

Give the names. How do we know they are responsible?

If those persons say that some recasting of the whole trade union movement in this country is desirable, is any Deputy prepared to say that is not evidence that some action is necessary with regard to the existing position of trade union organisations?

Mr. Morrissey

How do we know they have stated that?

The Deputy can find that out.

Mr. Morrissey

Where?

I am not answering any questions—I am asking them at the moment.

Will we be allowed to answer any questions the Minister asks?

They would not be worth answering.

Will any Deputies acquainted with the Irish Trade Union Congress and the reports of that body deny that it has been said that the position of the Irish trade union movement, as represented by the Irish Trade Union Congress, cannot be considered satisfactory?

On a point of order. The Minister is deliberately reading from the document before him.

I am entitled to read my notes.

You ought to re-write them first.

Is there any Deputy who has had an opportunity of perusing the reports of the Irish Trade Union Congress——

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is still reading.

——prepared to deny that it has been said that the position of the organised trade union movement as represented by the Irish Trade Union Congress cannot be considered satisfactory, either from the point of view of the members organised——

Mr. Morrissey

On a point of order. Is it not usual, when a Minister quotes from a document here, that the authority should be indicated? Will the Minister please give the House the authority from which he is quoting?

I am merely asking questions.

Mr. Morrissey

On a point of order. I say that the Minister is deliberately quoting from a document from which the Chair has already ruled he has no right to quote. In accordance with our custom here, the Minister should indicate the authority from which he is quoting.

The Chair did not say that the Minister had no right to quote from the document, but if he quotes from a document it should be made available to members of the House.

Can you not see him reading from it?

We did not build up an Irish Parliament in order to make it a sort of circus ground for the clowning of the Minister.

The Deputy talked to-day about splitting the Irish trade union movement. Does he remember when he tried to split the Irish Army?

Is that the sort of stuff we will get for the trade union movement?

That is the sort of stuff you will get from me any time Deputy Mulcahy behaves in the way he has behaved.

That is dangerous talk in this country at a time like this.

And a bad expression to use in the middle of an emergency.

Deputy Mulcahy used an expression which, if he had remained in the House, the Chair would have insisted on his withdrawing as being offensive. As the Deputy has not remained, the House should proceed and let the Minister conclude in an orderly way.

Is it in order, when a ruling has been given from the Chair, to allow any member of this House, whether he be Minister or backbencher, deliberately to flout that ruling, as the Minister has persisted in doing for the past ten minutes?

The Chair will protect itself. It has to maintain order and cannot tolerate those who create or endeavour to create disorder. The incident should be allowed to remain closed and the Minister should be allowed to conclude.

I am sorry that, in the heat of the moment, I used an expression to Deputy Mulcahy which I would like to withdraw. The responsible members of the Irish Trade Union Congress have themselves put on record evidence which proves the necessity for a measure of this sort. They agree with me that the position cannot be considered satisfactory, either from the point of view of the numbers organised or the manner in which the whole trade union movement is split up into some very small and often opposing unions. They agree with me that the position of the trade union movement is not improved where many of the unions are identical in character or where two, or sometimes three, unions cater for the one craft or calling. They agree with me that the elimination of inter-union disputes—if nothing else were secured— will bring relief to all concerned. They agree with me that such disputes do a tremendous disservice to trade unionism and militate against that progress which should now be manifesting itself in the movement. I challenge any Deputy in this House, on other stages of this Bill, to refute the statement which I have made as to the agreement in view which exists in regard to the present condition of the trade union movement.

They are opposed to this Bill, and I told the Minister so.

They may be opposed to it, but they agree that something must be done.

But not this.

That may perhaps be so, but they agree that something must be done. The Deputy says: "But not this." But what else? They have not been able to do anything, and someone must do something.

The Minister is doing it in the wrong way.

The trouble with the Deputy is that he believes that the Government does everything in the wrong way, but he has not a sufficient number of people in this country to agree with him in that view.

There are a couple of vacancies—one in my own constituency.

The Minister must be allowed to continue.

The Deputy has made a point that something should be done, that the reorganisation should be carried out by voluntary amalgamations. Under this Bill, if certain unions cannot make a deposit and if the members wish to continue as trade unionists, these unions must amalgamate. The Bill does not specify with what other union any particular union must amalgamate. That is left entirely to the discretion of the union affected. It may be presumed that the unions know their own requirements best and will make the arrangements most appropriate to their circumstances. Therefore the amalgamation will be voluntary, though the Bill certainly does induce them to amalgamate. It does, in fact, provide the remedy which Deputy Norton suggests for the present situation, only that it ensures that the amalgamations will take place before the position becomes worse. Deputy Keyes raised the question of the Railway Wages Board and seemed to think that it might be affected in some way by the Bill. The Railway Wages Board sits as an arbitration board and does not seek to conduct negotiations. Accordingly, I do not think it will be affected in any way by the Bill, but I propose to look into that and other matters and the probability is that I shall introduce an amendment to Section 6 on the Committee Stage which will provide for additions, by order, to the number of excepted bodies, so as to cover, if necessary, the point which Deputy Keyes has made.

Another Deputy raised the question of farmers' organisations seeking to fix prices. They will not be affected by the Bill, which only deals with bodies carrying on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment.

Deputy Norton made the argument against the Bill that it was only one of a series. All I can say is that this Bill stands by itself to make a reform which is necessary, and which I firmly believe will be sufficient to remedy the root causes of much of the abuse of trade union privileges which has inflicted hardship on the community. I believe further that this Bill will make for a greater feeling of solidarity and discipline in the unions. That is the main thing necessary. Whether other Bills will be necessary or not depends entirely on circumstances, but this Bill stands by itself, and the Deputy can relieve his mind of any fears in regard to any other Bill, if this Bill does what it is hoped it will do, and that is to remove one of the main causes of industrial unrest in this country. We have been told that this is not an opportune time to introduce the Bill. The Deputy who said so has admitted, as I have said often, that the evils are there, that they are growing progressively greater, and are likely to continue to grow, as long as nothing is done to remedy them.

So is unemployment.

This affects more people than unemployment and it is something which I think we can cure. If the evils are there, surely it is not too soon to attempt to remedy them.

Say that in Gloucester Street or in the Gardiner Street Labour Exchange.

I am saying it now for what use can be made of it by the Deputy in Gloucester or in Gardiner Street. What remedies have been suggested for the situation? We had Deputy O'Sullivan's eulogy of strikes, and Deputy Mulcahy wanting to keep small unions in existence. Deputy Mulcahy's objection to the Bill is that small trade unions will tend to disappear, and that everything ought to be done to preserve them. If the Deputy were logical he would go further and demand that the larger trade unions should be split up into a number of smaller trade unions, until we had separate trade unions for every town or, in fact, a soviet in every parish. We neither want strikes nor soviets, and since we feel that the possibility is that if we do not get trade unions to put their house in order, we may ultimately have strikes or soviets in every parish, we have introduced this Bill. With regard to the point raised by Deputy McGilligan on Section 21 (4), I shall look into that matter. I am afraid the wording is not too clear and might bear the interpretation the Deputy suggested, but that was not what we intended.

I think we have had what has probably been a sham battle here to-day. Quite obviously the Opposition were not opposed to the principle of the Bill and neither was the Labour Party. The Labour Party are not against the Bill but they are in favour of the amendment. The amendment really pretends to shelve the Bill until some unknown date when circumstances may be quite different from what they are to-day, and the Commission on Vocational Organisation may submit to this House more information than is already available to the generality of members. I do not think there is any force in that suggestion. We are all practical men, many of us being trade unionists and others employers. Whether we are workers or employers we can all call to mind many inconveniences and many hardships inflicted on the community by strikes which sometimes might have had good cause, but for which on occasions there was no justification whatever. I believe this Bill will tend to minimise the number of unjustifiable strikes, and for that reason I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

Question put:—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 50; Níl, 40.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question declared carried. Main question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 39.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Cealiaigh, seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Allen; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 18th June.
Top
Share