Committee on Finance. - Trade Union Bill, 1941—Committee (resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

There is not a quorum. Will the Minister send for his heavy artillery for the second time?

I understand that the House agreed to wait for the Minister and Deputy Norton.

Then the Minister should understand that if the Government want to steamroll this measure through the House he will have to keep a House. There are only five Fianna out of 75 behind the Minister.

Deputy Norton has not come back yet.

It is your job to keep a House. There are only five Fianna Fáil Deputies out of 75. Call in the heavy tanks.

Is there a quorum present?

Does the Deputy put that question definitely?

Yes.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present: House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 29.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • , Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Costello, John A.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:— Tá, Deputies Smith and T. Crowley; Níl, Deputies Keyes and Everett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 12.
(d) such trade union shall keep at the said office such register of members open free of charge for public inspection during ordinary business hours,
(f) such trade union shall give notice in writing to the Minister
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.

I formally move amendment No. 28:—

In sub-section (1), page 6, to delete in line 28 the words "free of charge for public inspection", and to insert at the end of line 29 the words "for inspection by any person having abona fide interest therein and paying such fee not exceeding five shillings as such trade union determines.”

As I have already indicated in respect of amendment No. 23 to Section 11, I propose on the Report Stage to bring in a further amendment in the terms which Deputy McGilligan has suggested.

What terms were they— or perhaps Deputy McGilligan will explain them?

I refer to the amendment suggested by Deputy McGilligan to define the class of persons.

Getting them into categories and limiting the inspection.

Amendment put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 29:—

In sub-section (1), page 6, to delete line 39 and substitute the words "of every of the following changes not later than twenty-one days after the making thereof, that is to say:"

It provides that certain conditions which are set out in paragraph (f) will be fulfilled within twenty-one days after the making of any changes.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 36.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • Loghlen, Peter J.
  • Flynn John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cole, John J.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Corish Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Murphy, Timothy J
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Everett.
Question declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Minister has already admitted that certain ridiculous things that could be done under previous sections should be rectified. Paragraph (g), of sub-section (1), provides that:

"a person who ceases to be a member of such trade union shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue to be a member thereof for one month after such cessor.

Those who have studied the rules and regulations of trade unions under the existing law know quite well that it would be impossible for a member of a union to continue his membership after he had gone into business on his own. Take the drapery trade, for example. Say that a member of the union catering for that trade opened business on his own as a merchant draper. He at once ceases to be a member of the union. Why should it be compelled to keep on its register the names of persons who had resigned or who had died? I do not know what the purpose of this particular paragraph can be, and whether the Minisster, in view of what he has previously said, proposes to allow it to stand. It is not necessary for me to point out any other defects in the section. Obviously, on the admission of the Minister, the section should either be deleted by him or more fully explained by him.

This section is really repeating Section 11.

There are certain additions such, for example, as paragraph (f).

Paragraph (a) refers to the inclusion in the rules of the conditions of entry into membership of persona resident within the State. I thought that limitation was going to be carried right through the section, but it is not. Under paragraph (c) the trade union is to maintain a register of its members at its office in this country. That is to say, all its English members as well as the members who are resident within the State. I do not imagine that was meant.

There is one aspect of the section that I would like to refer to. In this section a member of a trade union is to be deemed to be a member for one month after his resignation, his expulsion or death. A number of trade unions provide benefits for their members. At the moment I am thinking of mortality benefits. Under this section, if a man's membership of a union is terminated voluntarily, or otherwise, or if he dies, then the union for one month after will be obliged to meet all its obligations to him in regard to benefits. It will be obliged to pay mortality benefit to that person although, to all Intents and purposes, he has ceased to be a member. I think the Minister should give a further explanation to the House as to why he is insisting on this provision, that a person should be deemed to be a member for one month after his membership has virtually, and for all practical purposes terminated.

I do not know whether this whole section is seriously intended or not. I do not believe in passing legislation if it is not intended to carry it into effect. What this section really amounts to is that the Civil Service is taking over absolute control of the secretarial side of trade union activities. Heavy penalties are laid down in the case of failure to notify the Minister promptly of various changes in membership, etc. Assuming that the whole section is seriously intended, then I want to suggest that it is going to be read through Civil Service spectacles. I do not want to say one word against civil servants. They are the last word in efficiency on paper. The hall-mark of the efficient civil servant is that he is a man that has every record to the minute and every report made to the very tick of the clock. A man that, in practice, may be most successful, experienced and efficient, but that is not so prompt with his diary and his reports is, according to Civil Service standards, most inefficient. In the ordinary administration of trade unions, societies and organisations, it is the actual day-to-day work that is of the utmost importance rather than the time-table record. Does the Minister seriously intend to impose a penalty of £5, and £1 for every day of a continuing offence, in the case of the trade union secretary who is late in notifying him that a new member has joined, that a member has resigned or died, or that a member has been suspended?

I do not believe the Minister intends to do that. Why, therefore, retain such a provision in the Bill? If it be not seriously intended, Parliament should not be asked to pass it.

The only reason why anybody would have any sympathy with the section is on the assumption that a Government Department will blink the eye at irregularities: that, in fact, this requirement will not be carried out. I suggest to the Minister that is a bad headline to set for the civil servant because, as I have said, the civil servant believes in absolute efficiency on paper. He is a very successful man in his own atmosphere and surroundings, but take him out of these surroundings, and he is like a rabbit in a river — he does not know in what direction he is going or what he is aiming at, although in his own territory, he is most efficient. In this Bill the proposal is to inject Civil Service control into the ordinary outside work of trade unionists. That gives an absolutely incompatible mixture which will produce a poisonous product. I would say this for the Minister, and those who have drafted this section, that they have drafted so many words which hang together nicely, which sound legal but, in fact, are meant to mean nothing. If the Minister means to carry out the sections that contain penalties for failure to comply with the regulations, then I believe this will be properly regarded as a most brutal measure. If, on the other hand, these sub-sections have been put in in the hope that, occasionally, a trade union here and there will toe the line and that the idea is, "Well, it is all to the good to have one or two toeing the line in up-to-dateness but we are not going to be too drastic with those who do not", then that is another matter. We should not make a humbug of legislation by putting down things and pressing penalties and intentions that, every sensible man knows, the Minister does not mean to carry out. It is a tremendous mistake for anybody arranging business for those under him to lay down hard and fast rules which he knows they are going to break through every time they come up against a hard case. Thousands of times a year the average trade union will fail to comply with some of the conditions laid down here. Are we going to get a fine of £5 each time an offence occurs and a continuing fine of £1 for each day the offence lasts? I do not believe that. Because I do not believe it I think it is very unwise to ask the Dáil to pass it.

On the other hand, if it is seriously meant, is it intended to mulct trade union officers—men, perhaps, in their first job, inexperienced, untrained men, without previous practice in administration, part-time men and, perhaps, badly-paid men? If it is intended to mulct them for every failure to comply with the conditions set down here in a maximum fine of £5 and a continuing fine of £1 for every day while the offence continues, I should like an estimate of what it is likely to cost a middlingly successful secretary in any of the big trade unions where, accordins to the membership, there is the average percentage of deaths, the average percentage of resignations and occasional suspensions, and where those might not be promptly notified, for insurance if he is wisely to make provision for the penalties under this Bill?

I think that Deputy O'Higgins has misunderstood this section. There is nothing in it which binds a trade union secretary, or the officer of a trade union, to notify the Minister when a person ceases to be a member, whether by reason of death or otherwise. All that this section proposes — it cannot be argued that we are asking too much — is, in the first place, that the trade union "shall include in its rules or constitution provisions specifying the conditions governing entry into and the cesser of membership of such trade union by persons resident within the State". Surely, that is an elementary provision with which trade unions must, I think, comply under the existing law. Secondly, it is provided that "such trade union shall have and maintain an office within the State for the purposes of this Act, and shall give notice in writing to the Minister of the situation of such office and of every change thereof". Only one intimation need be sent to the Minister. We all know that these offices exist, and all that will be necessary will be a formal notification to the Minister as to where the office of the union is situate. Thirdly, it is provided that

such trade union shall maintain at the said office a register of its members (including former members——

I am prepared to consider an amendment in relation to this:

... other than those whose membership ceased before the grant of such negotiation licence), and such register shall, as regards each such member, show (i) his name and address, (ii) the date of commencement of membership.

Will the Minister read sub-paragraph (iii) of that sub-section?

I am coming to that.

"(iii) where his membership has ceased, the date of the cesser and whether it was caused by death, resignation, suspension, expulsion or otherwise".

Surely that is the sort of record that any properly organised and properly conducted trade union, such as we contemplate existing hereafter under the provisions of this Act, ought to keep for its own purposes. All we are asking is that it shall keep that record not merely for its own purposes but for general purposes.

You will fine them if they do not.

Why not let them be dealt with by their own boss?

We, also, have an interest in the accuracy of this record. The appropriate sum to be paid under the schedule is determined by the membership of the unions and it is of vital importance to us, for that reason and a number of other reasons, that there should be an accurate record of the members of the union. The next paragraph reads:

"where his membership has ceased, by suspension or expulsion, the date of the order directing and a reference to the rule or other provision authorising such suspension or expulsion".

With trade unions, as we can visualise them in the future, becoming more and more important bodies within the polity of this State, that is, in my view, an essential provision.

Paragraph (d) of this sub-section has already been amended and it will be still further amended to meet certain suggestions made by Deputy McGilligan. It merely provides that a trade union shall keep at its office a register of members open during ordinary business hours free of charge, not for public inspection, but for inspection by certain specified classes and categories of persons. Paragraph (e) provides that

"such trade union shall, from time to time, as occasion requires give notice in writing to the Minister of the name of a person whom it considers suitable for accepting service of documents on its behalf and any document whatsoever may be served on such trade union by enclosing it in an envelope addressed to such person at the said office and by delivering such envelope at the said office or by sending it thereto by-post".

That has nothing to do with the obligations of trade unions beyond ensuring that each trade union will give the notice prescribed by this paragraph to the Minister of the name of a person whom it considers suitable for accepting service of documents. A further proviso is added here, as amended by the House, that, if there is a change in the rules or constitution of a trade union, or a change in its committee of management or other controlling authority, or a change in its trustees or in its secretary or other principal officer, such change shall be notified to the Minister within 21 days after the making thereof.

Sub-paragraph (g) provides that "a person who ceases to be a member of such trade union shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue to be a member thereof for one month after such cesser".

We are dealing under this section with very wealthy and well-organised bodies — with bodies whose reserves run, in some cases, into millions of pounds — who certainly employ, not ill-educated or inexperienced persons, but very able men as their officers and their representatives in this country, and whose business is, in general, very efficiently conducted. I cannot see, in asking a union of that type to comply with the requirements of this section, that we are doing anything really unusual or unreasonable or anything that is not fully within the capacity of the unions concerned to comply with.

I think, as I have said, that reading paragraphs (c) and (f) it would be perhaps possible to get the impression. that we are requiring the particular union to furnish the Minister with these particulars in relation to cesser of membership. That is not the purpose-All we wish to ensure is that the union will enter these particulars on its own register for several purposes, one of them being for the purpose of enabling-us to compute what would be the appropriate sum to be deposited by the union under Section 7 of the Bill.

Deputy Murphy raised a question as to the positions of unions under paragraph (g), in relation to mortality benefits, in so Jar us persons claiming mortality benefit would be affected by the proviso that a person would be deemed to continue to be a member of the union for one month after he had ceased to be a member by reason of his death. I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the paragraph because the person is only deemed to be a member of the union "for the purposes of this Act" and the Act does not in any way deal with the provident funds of a union or with any benefits in the form of mortality benefits to which a person may be entitled. I shall, however, in view of the fears which the Deputy has expressed, look into the section and, if necessary, I shall move an amendment dealing with the point he has raised on the Report Stage.

I do not see any reason to modify my views as a result of the Minister's statement. My objection, as expressed, was to the effect that if the secretary or an official failed to notify the Minister of certain things —departures, deaths, resignations, etc. —he became liable to a penalty and then to continuing penalties. The Minister points out that these only arose if he failed to register in his own register the particular things referred to. That is merely a difference of degree, of such a slight degree that it is not worth mentioning. As I read it first, it appeared to be a case of writing a letter and posting a record. Everything I said is true with this alteration, that the penalty remains only if he does not make a record. He is not bound, apparently, to post the record. Who are the responsible people where there is slackness in the keeping of a register? I think the officer responsible for the register comes under the lash to the extent of the penalties outlined, but then, in a vague kind of way, the section says that any other persons who may be held to be responsible are liable to these penalties. Are they all to be brought before a court for the court to find who is responsible, or is there to be a Departmental inquiry to find whether every member of the committee, or only special members or individual officers of the trade union, are responsible as well as the secretary?

Sub-section (2) reads as follows:

"If any authorised trade union in respect of which this section applies fails to comply with any requirement of this section such trade union and such of the officers thereof as consent to or facilitate such failure shall each be guilty of an offence under this section and shall each be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £5 together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £1 for every day during which the offence is continued."

The offences are mainly failure to register properly. Let us assume that there is failure on behalf of a clerk or secretary to keep the register properly over a period, that the management is not all that it should be and that that runs along over a period, that then some inspector of the Minister examines the register and he finds that hundreds of members have resigned and that the entries are not there. Is he going to bring every officer of that particular union before the courts for the courts to assess who amongst the whole lot of them is responsible and what degree of responsibility rests upon each one of them? In all honesty, I believe that if that is the intention, the only way to carry it out is to plant a civil servant in the headquarters of every one of these unions.

The Minister, in discussing this section, made use of an argument which I do not believe he would be prepared to stand over for every other section of the Bill. He asked us to remember that this Bill applies to trade unions which are very wealthy bodies, some of them having millions of pounds. One of the objections I heard raised to the Bill on the earlier stages was that it was going to apply to the little unions with a small amount of money as well as to the wealthy unions. Is it now announced to the Dáil that the policy of the Minister is that the only unions that will continue to exist are the unions that control or own millions of pounds? Is that the policy of the Government? If that is not the policy, and if that is not the intention, then half the argument that was advanced in support of the section has to go by the board. It cannot be both ways, and I leave the choice to the Minister.

I am afraid the Deputy has not grasped the full purport of the section. The section with which we are dealing relates only to authorised trade unions not registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, that is to say, what are commonly referred to here as the English unions. I do not think, notwithstanding what the Deputy has said, that there is anything unreasonable in asking these unions to keep a register of their members here in a form to comply with the requirements of this section. As I pointed out these unions are wealthy bodies and their officers control very large funds. I am quite certain that they are managed very efficiently, that every reasonable business check is kept upon the collection and the expenditure of their moneys and that their accounts ate duly audited by reputable persons. In order, then, that that audit should be properly conducted, surely the union must have a record at the beginning of the financial year of the actual membership, of every person who is a member of the union, and if by any chance some of these persons cease, from one or other cause, to be members of the union, whether it be because of death, resignation or expulsion, there must be a record made in the books of the union of the fact that these persons have ceased to be members and of the reasons for their having ceased to be members. All we are asking is that, in addition to stating whether the cesser was caused by death or resignation, if it has been due to suspension, expulsion, or otherwise, the rule and the date of the order directing the suspension or expulsion will be recorded as well.

The suggestion has been made that we are imposing an undue and unusual burden upon these unions, but under the law of their own country since 1871, these unions are bound to furnish certain particulars. Section 16 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, sets out:

"A general statement of the receipts, funds, effects, and expenditure of every trade union registered under this Act shall be transmitted to the registrar before the first day of June in every year, and shall show fully the assets and liabilities at the date, and the receipts and expenditure during the year preceding the date to which it is made out, of the trade union, and shall show separately the expenditure in respect of the several objects of the trade union, and shall be prepared and made out up to such date, in such form, and shall comprise such particulars as the registrar may from time to time require; and every member of, and depositor in, any such trade union shall be entitled to receive, on application to the treasurer or secretary of that trade union, a copy of such general statement, without making any payment for the same.

Together with such general statement there shall be sent to the registrar a copy of all alterations of rules and new rules and changes of officers made by the trade union during the year preceding the date to which the general statement is made out, and a copy of the rules of the trade union as they exist at that date.

Every trade union which fails to comply with or acts in contravention of this section, and also every office of the trade union so failing, shall each be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each offence."

What is more, we are already obliging our own trade unions, the trade unions registered in this country, to comply with the provisions of that section and to furnish all these particulars. All we are doing in the section is to put the English trade unions in the same position as the Irish trade unions under the law of this land, with suitable modifications to meet their particular case.

This section, as Deputy McGilligan said, is a repetition of the previous section, with certain additions. It is, in my opinion, the very worst form of regimentation of the unions. One could understand the necessity for a Government requiring this kind of information if it applied to bodies suspected of acting illegally or conducting their business in an un-businesslike way——

Is the Deputy suggesting that the Irish trade unions are acting illegally?

No. The Minister did not indicate, as he indicated on the previous section, to what extent he was prepared to amend sub-section (d) of Section 12.

I propose to bring in a similar amendment.

The Minister indicated that he was prepared to amend that requirement in the case of Section 11.

I have already indicated to the House that I propose to bring in a similar amendment to Section 12.

Have you an amendment to Section 12?

On Report Stage, we are bringing in a further amendment. The House has already adopted an amendment to Section 12, amendment No. 28.

The amendment the Minister promises is to clarify this matter ofbona fide interest?

And to impose a charge of 5/-?

For the purpose of allowing some gentleman approved by the Minister to make an inspection of a union register.

The House has already adopted an amendment to that effect, amendment No. 28.

And the Minister proposes to amend sub-paragraph (d) of Section 12 in the same way?

The House has already adopted amendment No. 28, which was an amendment to Section 12 upon the same lines as the amendment already adopted, amendment No. 23, in relation to Section H. I indicated in the debate on Section 11 that I proposed to bring in a further amendment to define the persons whom we regard as having abona fide interest in the inspection of a register, and I propose to bring in a similar amendment in relation to Section 12, so that the unions concerned in Section 11 and Section 12 will be in the same position, so far as-inspection of their registers is concerned.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Bill becomes law and is recognised by the unions catered for in the section, I am convinced, from my knowledge of over 30 years as a trade unionist, that there-will be still more than one union left catering for the same group of workers, probably in the same industry. If that is so — and I am sure the Minister will live long enough to see it happen — does he not think it very undesirable that this right of inspection of union registers should be allowed at all? If there are two unions, or more than two unions, catering for the same group of workers in the same industry, we will have one of these coining along, making a payment of 5/- and demanding the right to inspect the register of the other union catering for the same group of workers. It is bound to lead to irritation and confusion. It is my opinion, for what it is worth, that poaching for members of trade unions from other trade unions will go on as long as the Minister is alive and trade unions are allowed to operate in this or in any other country. The Minister smiles, but——

I was thinking of the inducement the Deputy is offering to trade unions to get rid of the Minister.

Is the Deputy offering sudden death?

Oh, no. I am sure the Minister will live long enough after the Bill becomes law to realise that he is not going to push this down the throats of the trade unionists of the country. Time, however, will tell. There will be a certain amount of trouble created by the situation I suggest. I have already pointed out that existing unions affiliated to the Irish Trade Union Congress which are likely to be affected by this section have a membership of anything from 20,000 to 40,000. Is it right or proper that any gentleman approved by the Minister, and willing to pay a fee of 5/-, should be allowed to walk into the office of a union which holds a negotiating licence on 1st January and conduct himself and his business in such a way as to toe able to remain there for the 365 days of the year, pretending that he is engaged in the examination of a register? Will the payment of a fee of 5/-, and the rubber stamp of the Minister, approving of a gentleman of this kind, enable him to carry on in this way? I suggest that it will, and I suggest that it is a roost ridiculous section to leave in the Bill.

This sub-section (d) is one of the subjections in the Bill that is certainly likely to cause considerable annoyance and irritation, whether it is applied in the case of Section 11 or Section 12. It just gives a certain amount of latitude to busybodies who will be authorised by the Minister to conduct this investigation. It is the kind of authority that, in my opinion, should only be given to detectives when they suspect that people are likely to act illegally. With regard to sub-section (g), I know of at least one union that is likely to be concerned with the operation of Section 12, where, when a member goes from one grade in the service to another, he ceases to have the right to claim that the union shall act on his behalf in negotiations or in any purposes, he is expected to retire from membership of the union concerned. That is the rule of the union and that is an agreement between the union I have in mind and the employers with whom the union negotiates on behalf of certain classes of workers. Is it the intention of the Minister, under sub-section (g), to compel the union concerned, in cases of the kind I have in mind, to keep the member on the register a month after he has been promoted from one grade to another, as a result of which, in accordance with the rules of the union, he ceases to have any claim on the union to act for him in any capacity?

I think that if the Minister studies the rules of a number of trade unions he will find the same condition in the rules as they exist. Does he, therefore, propose to compel the unions concerned to alter their existing rules. and will he make that a condition of their getting a negotiating licence? What is the idea, in any case, of compelling a person who had been employed as a draper's assistant to continue to be a member of an organisation catering for such workers after he has become a merchant draper or an employer, or after he has resigned from the union in accordance with the existing rules? Will the Minister deal with that point? I think the Bill is bad enough, without making it ridiculous.

I should like to stress the point raised by Deputy Davin with regard to abuses under the previous section and this section in connection with the examination of registers. Deputy Davin seemed to think, and I am inclined to agree with him, from my knowledge of the matter, that that right, given in this and the previous section, is likely to be used mainly, if not altogether, in connection with poaching activities. The Minister, in one of his statements yesterday, said that the jealousies and rivalries of the smaller unions were mainly responsible for industrial unrest in this country in recent years. That statement is not true. I am not suggesting, for a moment, that it is deliberately untrue, but it is not in accordance with the facts. I do not say that the small unions were blameless, but one of the principal reasons for industrial unrest and inter-union rivalry and inter-union fighting was poaching. Anybody who knows anything about the trade union movement knows that. Let me tell the Minister, if he does not know it before now, that that poaching was not carried out, or even attempted as a matter of fact, except in a very small way, by the smaller unions — such inter-union rivalry or inter-union jealousy as there was — and the real industrial upheavals that flowed from that and from the irritation caused by continual poaching and, if I might use the expression, cross-poaching, were mainly amongst the bigger unions. The Minister seems to be amused.

No. I was about to suggest double-cross poaching.

Well, perhaps that is a better way of putting it. I want to take up Deputy Davin's point, however. I can quite see whichever is the proper Government Department having the right-and perhaps it is desirable that they should have the right if this legislation becomes law-to examine registers, but does the Minister think that a 5/- fine is going to stop the big unions in this country —those operating either under Section 11 or Section 12, if they are passed without amendment — from using that for the purpose of poaching and creating irritation and, from that, creating industrial unrest? I have not been convinced by anything the Minister has said that, even in its amended form, this particular sub-section in the Bill is a desirable one. I think it is one that is going to cause more trouble and more jealousy, and it will certainly cause more bitterness between the unions.

Let me say this in conclusion. If the Minister even yet thinks that by passing this Bill into law, including this section and the other sections, and wiping out thereby the smaller trade unions, he is going to bring about peace in the trade union movement in this country and have fewer industrial. upheavals, then he is going to be very sadly deceived. I said to him previously that sections like Section 6, Section 10 and this section are not going to remove an evil which, admittedly, is there but will bring about a far greater one with far more disastrous consequences.

Section 12 of this Bill is, indeed, an ideal twin of Section 11, nnd there has been more muddled thinking in connection with Sections 11 and 12 than in connection with all the rest of the Bill. Quite clearly, whoever was the author of these sections might usefully have been sent into a trade union office for 24 hours with a view to learning something of the manner in which trade unions do their business, because these two sections disclose a deplorable lack of knowledge by the Department of Industry and Commerce which, Heaven knows, ought to know sufficient about trade unions that are doing their job efficiently to be able to draft a Bill based on some intimate knowledge of the manner in which trade unions perform their duties. Section 12, of course, is different from Section 11 in certain respects, inasmuch as it deals with a union which is not at present registered under our legislation. A certain position, I think, is arising out of a case in which Deputy Costello appeared, I believe, with success from his point of view.

And from yours.

Well, I am not expressing an opinion on that, but I think the position was that organisations with headquarters across Channel were not, in fact, legal entities here at all. That has been the position. That is the position to date, but a different position, probably, will exist when this Bill is passed. Section 12 gives these organisations corporate existence here, but is it not possible that it is giving everybody else corporate existence or legal status here? I suppose it is possible for that revolutionary organisation, known as the International Workers of the World — a body which is fairly active in the United States, and an organisation with cells, as they describe them, elsewhere — to come into this country, pay £2,000, get a negotiation licence and proceed to function under our laws?

Is the Deputy thinking of inviting them here?

Is there any limit to the infantility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce? The more I hear of his interruptions, the more manifest it is to me that he should not be allowed out without an old governess to hold his hand.

Perhaps he would prefer a young one.

Maybe he would, but if so I think she would have a very trying time with him, and certainly she would not wish to be deemed to be in his employment a month after she desired to leave it. I was saying that there is an organisation in existence, known as the International Workers of the World, who are whole-hog supporters of the doctrines of Karl Marx, as expressed in his bookDas Kapital.

The new system?

He spoke, very mistakenly, I think, in favour of that kind of international trade union organisation — mistakenly, as I say, but nevertheless he believed in it. They were a very revolutionary body, with Marxian ideas, and as far as they could ensure it, they carried on an international trade union organisation with, as I say, cells in whatever countries they could establish those cells. Suppose, for instance, they decided that they could possibly establish a branch of that organisation here, suppose they could get the necessary £2,000, would it not be possible for them, under Section 12, to make an application for a negotiation licence and, having produced a certificate that their headquarters were in Moscow, or Leningrad, secure a negotiation licence under this Bill and be duly registered under this Bill as a body entitled to carry on negotiations here, even though an Irish organisation, with headquarters here, all of whose officers were here, whose ideals were wrapped up in our conceptions of culture and liberty, would be prevented from carrying on any such negotiations because it could not pay the £2,000, for instance, which that international organisation was capable of paying? It seems to me to be possible for that to happen under the Bill.

Is that possible under this section?

Absolutely, Sir.

No, Sir, it is not possible.

We could register an Assyrian or Iraquian organisation under this Bill.

Under this section?

No, Sir, there is nothing about registration in this section.

That seems to be the case.

The position, Sir, is that if any body comes in and pays £2,000 and does these things, automatically, that organisation functions under Section 12. We have got a considerable number of Hebrew folk in this country. Suppose, for instance, a Palestinian organisation decided that. they would organise racially instead of vocationally and decided that in the interests of Jewry, it would be-desirable to have a Jewish trade union here, and suppose they proceeded to organise Jews in a trade union here, with headquarters in Palestine, and were able to pay — as Jewish folk usually are able to pay — £2,000, with very little difficulty, is it possible for that organisation to be registered under this section and to function under this section and to do all the things that probably it has to do under this section? If that is so, has any consideration been given by the Department of Industry and Commerce to that development? I do not suggest that Jews ought not to be allowed to organise racially, if they desire to do it, but let us hope they would have the sense to organise as a class and not as a race because, just as you can find Irishmen exploited by Irishmen, so I suppose you can find Jews exploited by other Jews. What I want to know is, has any consideration been given to the possibility that we are permitting the establishment and the operation here of either a Hebrew organisation on the one hand or a Muscovite organisation on the other hand? I do not know what the Minister's view would be on Hebrews or folk from Islam, but I imagine, judging by his willingness to label everybody an agent of Moscow, that he would see red in a few moments at the possibility of a Muscovite organisation being established here, because he does not like Russian folk in 1941 with the same enthusiasm as he liked them during the civil war in 1922.

That is harking back a bit to contentious matters.

The Chair knows the bad manners the Minister was guilty of yesterday evening.

The Chair does not officially or unofficially know any such thing. Sufficient for the day is the contention thereof.

I am satisfied with that stricture on the Minister.

Russia is pretty popular now.

There are other paragraphs in this section that might be adverted to. It is a very long section. It takes up a whole page. One would imagine that in a whole page the Department would be able to express what exactly it wanted done and would be able to draft a section in a less clumsy and cumbersome way. I want to get back again for a few moments to the meddlesome fellow who is entitled to go into a trade union office and, on payment of a fee, proceed to maul the main union register. I do not know for how long he is permitted to do that for 5/-. If a fellow goes into a trade union office, proves that he has abona fide interest — whatever that may be I do not know — and can manage to pay the 5/- and get in — he can say his purpose is to look in the membership of that organisation for one Patrick Murphy and he may only know Patrick's age — would he not be entitled to go through the whole register and look for this Patrick Murphy, to call people along and say: “Is that the Patrick Murphy that used to work in such a place? His age is about 56.” If when the office was closing at 6 o'clock that evening he said: “I have not finished this inquiry yet. I have not found Patrick”— would he not be entitled to come back the following morning and resume the search? It seems to me, once he paid the 5/-, until his inspection is completed, he could keep coming back every day in the week. It is not 5/- per day. It is not 5/- an hour for inspection. Once he goes in and says: “I want to try to trace Patrick Murphy” until his quest for Patrick Murphy is ended successfully for him or until, in sheer despair, he abandons the search, it seems to me that inspection is one continuous inspection and that it is not really interrupted by the fact that the office closes for the day. The Minister is taking care that it is not 5/- a day he is paying for inspection. Even supposing it was 5/- a day, I think it is a meddlesome thing to permit a person to go into a trade union office and there examine the records in this way.

It seems to me the Minister might very well have followed the beaten track used by much wiser legislators than he, that is, to leave well enough alone. Trade union rules and trade union practices provide that anybody with an interest in the funds can inspect the records at union headquarters. Trade unions constantly permit members to do that. They ought to do it. There should not be any objection to their doing it, but when you get some "meddlesome Michael" coming along who wants to find out exactly what way union records are kept, and goes in there for mischievous and malevolent purposes, then I think the State ought not to have legislation to permit that to happen. We are doing it, and we are causing endless mischief. If there are breaches of the peace, and if there are damaged faces as a result of people wanting to insist on their right to get in under this section, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and those who advised him on this section will be solely responsible for that undesirable development.

I want to try to get the Minister to say on Section 12 what he could not be induced to say on Section 11. On Section 11 it was pointed out to him that a union had to keep a register of its members, including former members other than those whose membership ceased before the grant of such negotiation licence. So that, if this section is passed, and the unions take any notice of it or of the Bill generally, they will have to proceed to compile a list, in register form, of all their members at head office, if not already there. Some unions will keep that register under Section 11 and other unions will keep it in respect of Section 12, but there seems to be no limit as to when a register can be cast and a new register constructed, because under the section, if, having compiled a register, a member or a dozen members die, their names must be kept on the register 50 years after they are dead, if this Act is not amended by some sensible Minister following its enactment. What is the use of insisting on unions keeping a register of members who have been dead for 50 years? Would the Minister give us any indication as to what is the reason for insisting on keeping a record of that kind?

The Minister thinks — again he does not know the facts — that unions in any case write the names into a book, and that, as the took will be there, there is no great purpose in erasing, either with a rubber or with ink, the name of Patrick Murphy, who died 50 years previously. He does not know that some unions do not keep those registers in that fashion. They keep a membership record on a card index system, which is reckoned by many unions to be the best method of keeping records, and to be the best method of facilitating efficient office organisation. Most people consider — I am one of them— that a card index system is the best method of keeping a pliable record of members. Suppose an organisation keeps a card index system, which I think is a very efficient method of recording membership particulars, is it to store up all the cards of all the lapsed, all the dead, all the resigned, and all the expelled members, and keep those for all time? What is the purpose of asking them to do it? I should imagine that those documents were waste after a member had died. There is no purpose in preserving those relics of deceased members, yet under this Bill they must be preserved. But here is the humorous part of it, if it did not carry such penalties with it. If a union does not keep for 50 years the record of a deceased member, then it fails to comply with the requirements of the section, and that union and such of the officers as consent to or facilitate such failure shall each be guilty of an offence under the section, and shall each be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £5, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £1 for every day during which the offence is continued. Suppose I am a secretary to a trade union and, when a member dies, I say: "Cast that index card. We will not have occasion to refer to it further." Suppose it is cast a month after a member dies. Ten years afterwards somebody discovers that, in fact, I have been casting those cards. Am I made liable, for that offence under this section, to a fine of £5 on myself, £5 on my union, and £1 for every day during which that card was deposited in a dustbin instead of being kept as part of the union equipment at headquarters? Putting into a Bill a section like that, which gives you those idiotic results, seems to me to be a poor compliment to the intelligence of folk who drafted a Bill of this kind without any knowledge of the internal organisation of trade unions. I would make another appeal to the Minister. Would he tell us on Section 12 why it is necessary to do that? Would he tell us how peace in industry is preserved or encouraged by insisting that a union should keep the card of a dead member for 50 or 100 years after his death?

Now we come to Section 12 (1) (g), and we gee back to this anachronism of a person who says: "I do not want to be in the union, and I am leaving it. I am leaving it because I am retiring from industry altogether, and consequently will not be eligible for membership of the union"; but that person is compelled under Section 12 (1) (g) to remain, for the purposes of this Act— whatever that means — a member of the union for one month after he says: "I am going." You may very well get the case of a person who says to the union: "Well, I have been a member for ten years. I have decided to go to the United States." He leaves on 1st June. He is probably in New York by 10th June, but under this section that person is still a member of a trade union in Dublin, say, although he is then 3,600 miles, away, and has not a notion of ever coming back again. Why cannot that person cease his membership when he wants to cease it? Take the case quoted by Deputy Davin; it is quite a common thing for a draper's assistant who has worked at that occupation for a number of years to accumulate a certain sum of money and go into business for himself, and be a master draper in miniature, at all events an employer of labour so far as the union is concerned. Because he is an employer of labour, and because he is not eligible to remain in the union, he wants to cease membership of the union, but, for some furtive reason which the Minister will not disclose, that person is obliged to remain in membership for one month after he himself desires to be excluded from the union. Why is it necessary to keep him in membership? What national interest is served, or what good trade union purpose is served, by keeping that person in membership? If, however, the union says to him: "We are not going to take any notice of this section; it is absurd to permit you to remain in membership," is the union liable to a fine if, during that month, that additional month during which he must be kept in membership, it fails to comply, for instance, with any of the formalities which are required to give notice to such a member, who, having intimated that he does not desire to remain in membership, ceases to pay contributions, and in fact is only a member under duress, that is to say his membership is only forced upon him, and forced upon the union, neither the member nor the union desiring that that type of membership should be continued? I should like the Minister to tell us candidly what are the reasons which prompt the retention in this Bill" of sections which have no meaning, which only indicate a muddled and confused state of mind, and which indicate the hasty and ill-timed manner in which the whole thing was approached by the Department.

I should like to point out that the Deputy spent 20 minutes on a fanciful argument about the possibilities of a revolutionary organisation like the International Workers of the World forming cells here; about the possibility of gentlemen coining from Palestine, Iran and Iraq, and forming racial trade unions here. The Deputy must be even more innocent, more devoid of a knowledge of the laws of this country than I believed him to be, because gentlemen of that calibre could not come here unless they had secured a permit from the Minister——

I did not suggest that they were coming in at all.

Oh, yes; the Deputy did. The Deputy talked about gentlemen coming from Palestine.

Let me put the Minister right on that. What I suggested was that those organisations with headquarters there might, in fact, be able to get members here. I did not say it was necessary for them to come here.

Does not the Deputy think it would be essential that the Minister should be satisfied that they were in fact trade unions under the law of their own country, and that, if the situation which the Deputy described was likely to arise, the Minister would have no difficulty whatever in asking the Legislature to deal with it by an appropriate amendment of the law? Therefore, the whole case which the Deputy built up in the 20 minutes or half an hour during which he was putting forward that fanciful argument falls to the ground. There is nothing in it, just as there is nothing——

In the Bill.

——in most of the arguments which the Deputy used against the Bill. To use the Deputy's own phrase, I think they were more appropriate to a nursery governess than they were to a Deputy speaking in the deliberative Assembly of this country. I never heard more childish prattle in my life, or so many arguments which indicate the utter bankruptcy of the attitude which the Deputy has taken up.

The bankruptcy has reached a new high level in this country.

I have indicated already in relation to the previous amendment — and I think in the Deputy's hearing — at the opening of the discussion on this section, that I am prepared to meet further the situation in regard to the inspection of the register. I think the amendment already adopted by the House is one which will afford the unions concerned the greatest possible safeguard against vexatious applications for inspection. I am prepared, if necessary, to go further, and, if the Deputy wishes, to have a fee of 5/- an hour or 5/-a day. Again, he expressed fears in regard to this gentleman who has nothing better to do than to come and pay this 5/- and spend the rest of his mortal life occupying the offices of a trade union during ordinary hours of business.

It is possible.

I do not think it is possible. I am perfectly certain that a proper interpretation of the section is that when a man leaves the office after looking at the register he has completed the inspection and if he wishes to go through another inspection he must pay another fee. However, as I have said, I am perfectly prepared to meet any reasonable demand to modify or more precisely express this. If the Deputy wishes to have a fee of 5/- per hour or 5/- per day, and if that will allay the Deputy's fears, I will put it in.

It does not make any difference.

It does not.

Because nobody will take the slightest notice of it once the Bill is passed.

So long as the fee is within the ability of an ordinary person having an interest in the funds of a trade union to pay, it does not matter. If we were thinking of other than members of a trade union — if we were thinking of rival organisations— we could make the fee £100.

An employer could do this?

What does matter is the phrase used in the amendment already adopted, where I confine the right of inspection to a person withbona fide interest. Then, if a person comes along who wishes to act vexatiously, to plague the office by asking for unreasonable inspections, the persons who own the register can take up anmother attitude and say it is not a bona fide inspection, and then refuse to grant it.

And then they may be guilty of an offence under this section.

No, because the onus rests with the person claiming the inspection to prove that it is abona fide one.

Would an employer be a genuine applicant?

An employer might have abona fide interest. I am not going to decide whether he has or not; the courts must adjudicate on it. Unless people bad a very real interest in securing the inspection of the register, they would not be prepared to undertake the risk of litigation simply in order to secure that inspection. Therefore, I say that, so far as the fears which have been expressed in this debate are concerned, that the right of inspection would be subject to abuse, I think that the amendment which I have put down and which has been adopted by the House affords the unions concerned greater safeguard. However, in view of the criticisms nude here, I am prepared on the Report Stage to give the House a further opportunity to consider this matter, by bringing in an amendment specifying the categories of persons who will be permitted and will have the right, on payment of a fee, to inspect the register. I have also indicated that, so far as the maintenance of the register of the names of deceased members is concerned, I am prepared to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage which will give the House an opportunity to consider whether or not we should impose a time limit on that. I have said — and I think it is true — that there are trades and trade unions who do impose certain restrictions upon membership and upon entrance into those trades and occupations. Those restrictions are family restrictions, providing that persons becoming apprenticed to a certain occupation shall be the sons of near relatives of persons engaged in that occupation and who are already members of a particular trade union or guild.

What organisations are those? Who are they?

I think, accordingly, there is something to be said for that. I will not contend, for instance, that in the case of an organisation like the one with which Deputy Norton is associated, it is necessary that a postman should be the son of a postman, but I do know that the practice has grown up in regard to skilled occupations, to try to restrict entrance to those occupations to an hereditary basis. I am not prepared to say — nor am I conceding — that that is a, good principle, but it is one which has been adopted by certain sections of the trade union movement. I do not wish to interfere with the principle: I would rather that that sort of thing be dealt with inside the trade union movement itself.

Does the Minister know about the Apprenticeship Act?

I am not trying to make a change, but from that point of view, there is something to be said for keeping a register in a permanent form. As I said, in the case of some organisations it is not necessary. A register can be kept quite easily upon the card system and the cards can be cast when a member dies or for some reason ceases to be a member of the organisation. There are other organisations, however, and particularly old-established trades and trade unions, where records may be of some historic interest and where I do not see any great harm in asking the unions to keep a perpetual and continuing record of the members.

This is a matter for interpretation and I propose to ask the Minister's help. Before he invited Deputy Norton to join in the kindergarten, he stated in reference to the Deputy's argument, that associations of the kind referred to in the beginning of the Deputy's speech actually did not come within this section.

I think not, Sir. I did not.

Well, it does come within this section?

I did not say that, either.

He is right whatever he says.

Then it does come within the section, and he did not say so — though it does.

I will not permit Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan to ascribe to me a statement which I did not make, nor will I be cross-examined as to a statement I did make.

The Minister is there to be cross-examined.

He is not.

That is what the Committee Stage of a Bill is for —to examine and cross-examine the Minister. If the Minister will allow me, it is quite clear that the organisation referred to by Deputy Norton does come within the section. If it fulfils these conditions, that it is registered, that it is a trade union under the law of another country and that its headquarters control is situated in that country, that it has deposited and keeps deposited with the accountant of the courts the proper sum. it obviously does come within the section. The Minister did not say so; but if the House will cast their minds back on the Minister's speech he said that if such a body did try to establish itself here the law could be amended, which obviously shows that this section does embrace it.

Neither this section nor the Bill itself could possibly be amended in such a way as to make them acceptable to the trade union movement, but the Minister for his own sake, for the purpose of saving his own face, should make such amendments as will make the Bill understandable to those who might like to read it, if and when it becomes law. The Minister admitted — and I was rather surprised to hear him admit it — that an employer could be regarded as abona fide person who could pay 5/-, receive the rubber stamp of the Minister, walk into the office of a trade union with a negotiation licence, inspect the register and stay there as long as he liked under the amendment proposed by the Minister. Now an employer — and probably many such employers will be found in the country after this Bill becomes law — who might be anxious to establish a house union might have a great interest in finding out who are the members on the register of a particular trade union. Such an employer, if he got into the premises of a trade union on payment of the small sum of 5/-, could cause considerable trouble afterwards and perhaps make use of the information he would get from a trade union register for the purpose of victimising some of his employees. We are getting back to the period of 1825, and Deputy T. Kelly, I am sure, will be alarmed to learn that.

He is not alarmed at anything you say, anyway.

The Deputy told us that he has a clear recollection of everything that happened during the 73 years he has been on this earth. But he has not any knowledge, except what has been handed down to him, about what happened in 1825. I know that he was in personal and constant touch with some of the ablest and most patriotic trade union leaders this country has ever known during a long period of his life. A number of these people were associated with Deputy Kelly in the old Sinn Fein movement and in the Gaelic League.

The Deputy is not keeping to Section 12 now.

I can recollect a period about 34 or 35 years ago when I first listened to the melodious voice of the Deputy on the hustings at Inchicore.

I object to nay past being referred to here. There is no necessity for it.

I was one of (he small audience in those days that used to applaud the speeches of Deputy Kelly.

Is this in order?

The Deputy must come back to Section 12.

I did not think Deputy Walsh would object to my saying something good about Deputy Kelly. I am saying this for the purpose of inducing Deputy Kelly to get on his feet and tell the Minister that, for his own sake and for the sake of the Party, he should withdraw these ridiculous sub-sections.

The Deputy must come back to the section.

The Minister promised that he would bring in certain amendments on the Report Stage to make this Bill more readable and more understandable to anybody who may be interested in reading the full text whenever it is passed, if it is ever passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas and becomes law. He can be absolutely certain that, if this Bill ever becomes law, it will not be recognised by the trade union movement in this country and he will require all the artillery he has at his disposal and all the machinery of the State to force some sections of this Bill down the throats of the trade unions who have fought over a long period of years for the right to organise and to protect their interests.

Section 12, as amended, is the question before the House.

It is impossible to understand Section 12, as amended, because the Minister has not given any definite and clear-cut explanation as to the way in which lie proposes to amend, for instance, sub-sections (c) and (d). I think it is it fair question to ask if he proposes to compel the trade unions covered by this section to change their rules as a condition of getting a negotiation licence. Does he intend to compel the trade unions, which under their existing rules can require certain people to leave the union when they go from one grade of work to another in certain industries, to alter that procedure and to amend their rules as a condition of getting a negotiation licence? I think the Minister thoroughly understands what I am at in that respect.

I want to say again to the Minister, and I say it quite sincerely, believing it to be quite true, that this whole idea of making it easy for a busybody to have access to a trade union office and to inspect the register on payment of a fee of 5/-, which enables him to go in and out of the trade union office for a period of a year, will cause considerable irritation and trouble. If the Minister thinks that the unions will be reorganised in such a way as to make it impossible for two unions in future to cater for the same group of workers in the same industry, then I admit that what I am saying is not likely to happen. But I believe it is certain, if this Bill becomes law and if it is ever recognised, that there will be more than one union and more than two unions still entitled to cater for the same group of workers in an industry. If that is so, poaching, which is quite common in every country where you have competing trade unions, will continue to be carried on, and this sub-section (d) will enable that to be carried on with greater liberty in future than it is at present. The reason I say that is that no union would allow an official of any competing union under existing circumstances to get into their office and examine their register or card index of members.

The Minister is making this lawful under Section 12 (1) (d), and by doing so he is going to cause more trouble and give more encouragement to the policy of poaching, making it more possible in the future than it has been in the past. If the Minister accepts my contention in connection with this particular aspect, what does he propose to do to prevent poaching? Does he think a fee of 5/- a day is going to prevent an official of a union, who may have a personal or selfish interest, from going into the office of a competing union? This is a kind of licence that is not tolerated in connection with the operation of any other registered society that I know of. If the Minister wants to make the Bill understandable to those who may read and endeavour to understand it afterwards, I advise him to cut paragraphs (c) and (d) out of Section 12.

I take it that this section, as distinct from Section 11, is intended to deal with trade unions that are not a legal entity in this country by reason of the fact that they are trade unions capable of registering and yet are not registered in pursuance of Section 6 of the Trade Union Act of 1871, or else by reason of the fact that they are deemed to be unregistered trade unions, being unions operating outside this country. If such trade unions have no legal existence, and if it is the purpose of Section 12 to deal with trade unions that are not a legal entity, I suggest that the words in sub-section (2), stating that such trade unions shall each be guilty of an offence, have no meaning by reason of the fact that the group of individuals concerned have no legal existence. The difficulty might be got over by convicting the officials.

I think the Deputy is right, and I shall deal with that matter on the Report Stage.

Paragraph (e) of sub-section (1) of this section appears, on a perusal of its terms, to be somewhat peculiar. Reverting to paragraph (b), it appears that this particular unregistered trade union must have an office within the jurisdiction of this State for the purpose of the Act. Paragraph (e) deals with the service of documents. I want to know if it is for the service of documents for the purposes of this Act only, or for all purposes?

For all purposes, I should say.

On the construction of the paragraph, it is not for all purposes. Taking paragraphs (b) and (e), this provision as to service of documents can only be construed as limited to the service of documents for the purposes of the Act. The next point is that there is no particular sanctity given to documents served in this manner. You may serve them, but the section does not say anything about what is to happen when you have served them. It reminded me, when I spoke to Deputy Linehan about it, of a question put in a law examination paper by a well-known professor: "Can an action be brought for such-and-such a thing?" The student who replied "Yes" got full marks, because you can always bring an action, whether you succeed or not. This section says you can serve documents by post, but it does not say anything about the effect of the service. Perhaps the draftsman might add something to the effect that when the document shall be so served it shall be deemed good service for all purposes?

Thank you, very much.

A third point is that under this particular section an unregistered trade union, which by definition is a trade union constituted outside this country, may name a person whom it thinks suitable as a person to accept service of documents. Take the case mentioned by Deputy Norton. If a trade union thinks Comrade Stalin is an appropriate person to accept service of documents, there is nothing in the section to prevent the trade union from saying so, so that a document may be addressed, under this section, to Comrade Stalin in some office along the quays. Whether or not that is good service, I do not know. What is the effect of service of documents by registered post at an office along the Dublin Quays directed to Comrade Stalin?

Mr. Byrne

I see in this section the danger that any boss's tout can search the books in order to trace the activities in other directions of certain employees. I think the whole measure is out to shackle the trade union movement, and it is certainly going to do a good deal of harm. Apparently the Minister has paid very little attention to the advice given by the members of the Labour Party. On more than one occasion he sneered at them. I think a little more attention should be paid to the objections that have been raised by them to the various sections in this Bill. So far as I can see, the Bill is beyond any amendment that would give satisfaction to them. Those men have done splendid work in the past——

Is the Deputy discussing Section 12?

Mr. Byrne

I am dealing with the section. I say that any tout can examine the list to see whether a certain employee is a member of the trade union and he can use it for other purposes than those intended by the Government. I do not think the measure should be allowed to pass as it stands and I ask members of the Fianna Fáil Party to reconsider their position and submit their points of views, whether privately or publicly, immediately to the Minister. If he refuses to listen to them, they should put them before the Executive Council.

With regard to paragraph (e), I think the real point arising from what Deputy Costello said about the service of documents could be very easily got over if the Minister amended the paragraph to read like the previous paragraph dealing with where the offices must be. From a legal point of view, so far as service of documents is concerned, there is one thing wrong with paragraph (e) and it could be covered if the Minister adds to it that the person on whom the document is served must be a person within the jurisdiction.

I am glad that Depute Costello and Depute Linehan mentioned those matters.

Is the Minister replying to the points that have been raised?

I have indicated that I am grateful to have those points brought to my attention. I shall deal with them on the Report Stage.

Is the Minister going to deal with the points raised on paragraph (d)? Will he deal with the references to a Muscovite or a Hebrew organisation, with headquarters in Moscow or Palestine, functioning here?

Let the Deputy be serious, if he can.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 36.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Hartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughlan, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistriin, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seaán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Everett and Corish.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 13.
(1) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in...

I move amendment No. 32:—

In page 7, to delete lines 2 to 46 and substitute as follows:—

"relation to deposits made with the High Court in pursuance of this part of this Act, that is to say:—

(a) every such deposit shall be made with the privity of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice and shall, when made, be under the control of the High Court;

(b) any such deposit may, in lieu of being made wholly in money, be made wholly or partly by the deposit of securities authorised by rules of court for the investment of moneys under the control of the High Court;

(c) where any such deposit is made wholly or partly in money, such money shall, at the request of the depositor, be invested in such securities so authorised as the depositor shall specify;

(d) the income derived from the securities in which such deposit is for the time being invested shall be paid to the depositor;

(e) the said securities or all or any of them shall, at the request and cost of the depositor, be varied into any other securities authorised as aforesaid and specified by the depositor;

(f) the depositor may at any time apply for the return, in whole or in part, of the deposit or so much thereof as has not been paid out in pursuance of an order of the High Court under this part of this Act;

(g) where such application has been duly made, the deposit or so much thereof as has not been paid out as aforesaid shall be returned, in whole or in part, in accordance with such application upon or as soon as conveniently may be after the expiration of six months from the making of such application and, immediately after such return, the Minister shall be informed thereof;

(h) the following matters shall be governed by rules of court and no order of the High Court shall be required in connection with any of them, that is to say, payment of income from the securities in which the deposit is invested, the variation of such securities, and the return of the deposit."

This amendment is, to some extent, consequential on amendment No. 17. It provides that the deposits may be made by authorised trade unions in the form of money or in authorised investments or in both. It also provides that the accountant of the courts of justice shall, when a deposit is made in money, invest such money as requested by the depositor. Paragraph (d) provides that the income derived from the authorised investment shall be paid to the depositor; paragraph (e) provides that the accountant of the courts of justice shall, at the request and cost of the depositor, vary such investments-on the instruction of the depositor; paragraph (f) provides that the depositor may, at any time, apply for the return in whole or in part of so much of the deposit as has not been paid out in pursuance of an order of the High Court under this Act; paragraph (g) provides that the accountant of the courts of justice shall return so much of the deposit as has not been paid out six months after application for its return has been made, and shall inform the Minister immediately; paragraph (h) provides that the following matters shall be governed by rules of court and no order of the High Court shall be required in connection with any of them, that is to say, the payment of income from the securities in which the deposit is invested, the variation of such securities and the return of the deposit. All these provisions will represent an easement for the trade unions concerned.

The Minister put, apparently with some care, Section 13 into this Bill, but now, without any discussion in the House and with no advertence to any difficulties that might arise in connection with it, he proposes to scrap it entirely and to substitute a new one for it. The new section indicates a departure, in many notable respects, from the section originally introduced. Would the Minister say what inherent defects there were in Section 13, as printed in the Bill, and tell the House what is the explanation for the sudden change indicated by its deletion, and the substitution of the new section?

By reason of the modifications which this amendment will make in the procedure laid down in the original section, it will he possible for trade unions to secure the payment of income from the securities in which their deposits are invested, the variation of such securities and the return of deposits without an order of the High Court. Under the section as it originally stood, such an order would be required to do any of these things.

This amendment reflects a remarkable improvement on the original section in the Bill. If the Minister showed the same sweet reasonableness in connection with other sections, the measure would, I think, get a very much better reception from the House. In the original section it appeared to me that the right was being given either to the Minister or to the Accountant of the Courts of Justice to regulate, to some extent, the manner in which the investments would be made, whereas under this new section that right is being conferred entirely on the trade union. I think this new section represents the best effort that the Minister has so far made to improve the measure.

Will not the position be this, that if we do not vote for this new section we are back again on the old one?

The Minister has made the point that if this amendment is not made, it is possible that income from investments will not be paid without an order from the courts. As I read paragraph (d) of the new section, the phrase there would appear to be mandatory on the accountant to pay the income from the investments to the depositors.

I am advised that these provisions will represent a considerable easement of the position.

Under paragraph (f), which speaks of the return, in whole or in part, of a deposit, would the Minister say does the word "return" there mean the return of the money or the deposit, as the case may be?

The return of the-deposit.

So that the Minister has no control over the deposit?

Under paragraph (g) it is provided that:

where such application has been duly made, the deposit or so much thereof as has not been paid out as aforesaid shall be returned, in whole or in part, in accordance with such application upon or as soon as conveniently may be after the expiration of six months from the making of such application...

That paragraph would seem to imply that a period of six months must elapse, from the date of the making of the application for its return, before a union can get its money back. Would the Minister say what is the necessity for stipulating a minimum period of six months in a matter of this kind? According to the way this paragraph is drawn, it might very well take 12 months before a trade union organisation is able to get its money back. Why fix a minimum waiting period and not a maximum waiting period?

With regard to paragraph (h), if the matters set out there are to be governed by rules of court it is quite possible that these may require an order of the High Court before a payment out will be made. The Minister said that the matters referred to are to be governed by rules of court and that an order of the High Court will not be required to do any of them, but if the rules of court state that such an order is necessary, where is the Minister then? Paragraph (a) provides that every deposit shall be made with the privity of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice and shall, when made, be under the control of the High Court. The money is then, if it is governed by rules of court, in exactly the same position as money that is paid into the courts for the benefit of minors. If the money has to be paid out on their behalf, application will have to be made to the court and an order made for payment out. I want the Minister to be quite sure that there is not a definite contradiction in the last paragraph, which says that all these matters are to be governed by rules of court and that no order of the court is to be required in connection with any of them. If, by the rules of court, under which the money is lodged, an order is necessary for payment out, then where are you? You say in the last paragraph that no order is necessary while you also state that these matters will be governed by rules of court. Where are you in these circumstances?

If Deputy Linehan asks me where I am, I say I do not know. We took this matter up with the accountant of the High Court of Justice, and he consulted the Rule-Making Committee. I gather that he suggested that this was the most convenient and least expensive way of handling the matter — least expensive from the point of view of payment of income accruing from the securities in which the deposit is invested.

Assume that I am interested in a trade union and I suddenly hear that the governing body of the union intend to take their money out. The accountant of the High Court is prepared to pay back portion of the deposit without an order of the court, as the Minister suggests he can do. As a member of the union, I object to that money being paid out and I come into court and say I am exercising my ordinary equitable rights, that money of which I am part-owner is on equitable deposit, held in trust for certain specified objects, and that nobody has any authority to pay that money out without an order of the court, since it is governed by the rules of court. Once the money passes through the hands of the accountant of the High Court, I cannot see how it can be paid out without an order of the High Court.

A question was raised about the delay of six months in paying the money out. That is intended to allow for an application under Section 15, if such application is required. There may be something in the point Deputy Linehan has raised, and I shall look into it and if necessasy deal with it on Report Stage.

Why fix a minimum waiting period of six months before a union can get its money back?

Supposing an order or judgment is made for payment of money by a trade union and there is money in the custody of the court to meet that judgment, I assume that the court, before it would return the deposit or any part of it, would satisfy itself that, in fact, there was no other claim against the deposit.

One could understand that but this provision seems to enable the court to spend six leisurely months in dealing with the application of a union for refund of its money. If the phrase were "as soon as convenient", one could understand it. In that case, the court would have power to give back the money in a month or two months or three months. In this case, you say to the court: "You can sleep on this application for six months and, even then, you need not be energetic because you have a minimum period of six months and can attend to the matter at your leisure after six months." Why prescribe the six months?

Is it intended to have a six months' waiting period in any event?

That would seem to be the effect of the section.

Is that intended? Could it be construed that the money can be paid out upon the making of the application or after six months from the making of the application?

Looking at paragraph (g), I doubt whether it would be possible to construe it in that way.

Apart from the interpretation of the series of phrases, what was the intention? Was it to have a six months waiting period in any event?

The idea was to give a sufficiency of time to ensure that, before the money was paid out, no order or decree or judgment of the High Court against the union would be unsatisfied.

Would not another reason be that some members of the union might object to the payment of the money and would require an opportunity to make their objection?

I do not think that a member of the union could object to the money being paid out to the person returned as the proper person to receive payment.

There might be a change of control.

You provide that the money is to be paid to the depositor, who is the authorised officer of the trade union. Suppose that an application is made and that money is ready for payment. For some good reason, I, as a member of the union, think it would be wrong that it should be paid to the depositor. In these circumstances, I think that I would have good legal reason to step into court and object to the payment out of that money.

The trade union is the depositor.

The union would have to apply through its proper officer and the court would have to be satisfied that the application came from the proper person.

If the matter is to be subject to the rules of court completely, that is all I want.

I am not sure that paragraphs (f) and (g), taken together, do not defeat the object which, apparently, the Minister has in mind. To a certain extent, the period of six months is provided for the purposes of enabling satisfaction to be made with reference to the order of the court for payment out of the deposit. If you look at paragraph (f), you will find that it provides that the depositor may, at any time, apply for the return of the deposit or so much thereof as has not been paid out in pursuance of an order of the High Court. That does not provide for the contingency where, after an application is made, an order of the court is made directing portion of the deposit to be paid. Paragraphs (f) and (g) would suggest that the application should be made in anticipation and that would so to speak, freeze the order of the court. I think that paragraphs (f) and (g) do not carry out the Minister's intentions.

The Minister is quite unable to give us any intelligible explanation of Section 13. Apart from such guesses as we can make as to the: intention behind the amendment to Section 13, we are really in the dark as to what is intended by the Minister-We must rely on such shadowy conclusions as we can derive from our own judgment. Paragraph (g) prescribes a minimum period of six months for payment out of the deposit even if the money is available, is easily realisable and there is no lien on the deposit in respect of any other judgment. We are still at sea as to the precise meaning of that sub-section or any of the. other sub-sections. To me, the amendment tabled to Section 13 is just as objectionable as Section 13. In order to protect the interests of their members, trade unions will, in future, have to deposit £2,000 with the High Court. I do not believe that it is fair to make a union deposit £2,000 with the court, or with the functionaries of the court, in order that it should be at liberty to defend the economic interests of its members. The gist of trade union organisation, to me, is that the union should be a legitimate body, formed for the purpose of protecting the economic interests of its members, that it be efficiently and democratically controlled, and that it comply with such requirements as trade union law, designed to promote trade unionism and not to strangle it, prescribes.

In this section we are making provision for the deposit by trade unions of moneys which they may have accumulated for the purpose of protecting the interests of their members We are going to put on each union an obligation to put up a minimum of £2,000 and this £2,000, which should normally be available to the union for defending the economic position of its members, is to be frozen in court. It is not to be available to the union but is to be available to such folk as may desire to prosecute the union in respect of any of the offences which are catalogued in this Bill.

On a point of order, the principle of the deposit has been decided on Section 7. Section 7 provides that an authorised union must deposit, and subject to the provisions of the Act, keep deposited with the accountant of the courts of justice, the appropriate sum. I am submitting to you, Sir, that the matter of the deposit has already been decided on Section 7.

I objected to the whole of Section 7 and it must be read in conjunction with every other section.

The question of the amount of the deposit does not enter into this section. This section deals with the question of machinery in regard to the deposit.

The amount does not matter to anybody except the union. They are to be the milch cows in this matter.

Would it not be possible on the Schedule to discuss the amount of the deposit?

There are some amendments dealing with the Schedule. Perhaps the Deputy would postpone his remarks until we reach them.

As I understood the Minister, he was trying to establish the case that because we had passed Section 7, which deals with the deposit, we were thereafter precluded from discussing the amount of the deposit or the way in which it could be separated.

No, only the general principle of having a deposit.

The general principle has already been approved of by the House but the question of the amount will arise again on the Schedule. The question with which we are now dealing is the machinery by which the deposit is to be made or held in court.

I object to the moneys which trade unions have accumulated for the benefit of their members being put into the hands of any folk in any court. This Bill provides that these moneys are to be deposited in the High Court.

The House has already decided that the money must be deposited in the High Court.

Will you, Sir, protect me from the interruptions of the disorderly Minister? Otherwise I shall be compelled to do what he did this week —to gather up my papers and to leave the House in a sulk. I do not want to compete with the Minister in conduct of that kind.

I am ruling that the question of the deposit has already been decided, and I am waiting for the Deputy to relate his remarks to the section.

I am doing my best in the face of a barrage of disorderly interruptions. Section 13 very clearly provides the machinery under which the deposits provided for in the Bill are to be made with the High Court. The deposits are to be made by the trade union with the High Court and this section provides the machinery to be complied with, in making the deposits and the method of verifying the deposits. It is intimated that the deposits need not necessarily be in cash, that they may be made up wholly or partly of securities. Once a deposit is made, if you subsequently make an application to set it hack, you must wait for a minimum period of six months and you may have to wait for two years. My objection to that machinery is that I do not think it is necessary that the High Court should get this money from trade unions.

The House has already decided that question.

A trade union may be a trade union and have no money at all. It may very well have spent all its money in the service of its members, in financing a strike against injustice, but as a result of this Bill such a union cannot function at all unless it deposits this money in the High Court, and unless it keeps there, from time to time, the minimum deposit required by the Schedule. My objection is that the money which trade unions have been able to accumulate over the years is money which should be available to them to finance any of their legitimate trade union activities. It should not be frozen in the High Courts but should be made available to the members. The Minister might very well consider the question of not making the cheque book the sole test of legitimate trade unionism in this country. That is what the Minister is doing. He is insisting that wealth, the accumulation of property and securities, shall be the title-deed of an organisation to be regarded as a legitimate organisation. Even if a trade union may not have an abundance of money, they may have sufficient assets to satisfy the distraint of any court in the land, but the Minister is not prepared to take the word of the union or their auditor on that matter. He is not prepared to be satisfied by an examination of their accounts. He wants to go further and, Shylock-like, he insists on getting from the unions a minimum deposit of £2,000 so that a garnishee order may be obtained against the union if, for any reason, it infringes some of the crazy regulations made under this Bill. I do not think that is right or proper, unless of course one wants to do what the Minister wants to do, to strangle trade unions under the Bill by requiring them to make this deposit. A trade union can have all the attributes, all the standing and prestige of a recognised labour body and still be unable to make the deposit. It is unfair, if it is in a position to guarantee that it is capable of fulfilling any obligation moral or financial that may be imposed upon it, to require it to make a deposit of £2,000 with the High Court when making that deposit means that the trade union may be depriving itself of money which it needs to finance legitimate trade union activities.

The Deputy's remarks are out of order in relation to this section. The principle of the deposit has already been decided by the House. It was discussed for hours yesterday on Section 7.

Am I not entitled on this section to give the reasons why it should not be necessary for a union to deposit moneys in the High Court, that, in fact, it is not necessary that they should be asked to give a cash bail for their good behaviour? Am I not entitled to suggest that there are other methods by which its capability as a trade union can be tested?

The House has already adopted one method under the Bill. I must rule the Deputy out of order on this section. He has gone quite a long way on it now.

I do not think I got far enough with it.

That is the difficulty but I think I must have the last word.

I am glad you, Sir, are having the last word. So far the Minister has been arrogating that privilege to himself.

May I point out that in paragraph (h) the words "rules of court" are spelled with a small "c" whereas the words "High Court" throughout the amendment are in capital letters?

That will be put right on reprinting.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 30.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Hartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughlan, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistriin, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mullen. Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seaán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Broderick, William J.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies Keyes and Everett.
Amendment declared carried.
Question —"That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put.
The Committee divided:— Tá, 59:Níl, 33.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadgh.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrirk J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daiiel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Broderick, William J.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peader S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donovan Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins Thomas F.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Everett.
Question declared carried.
Progress reported; Committee to sit, again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Thursday, 26th June.