Skip to main content

Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 1941

Vol. 84 No. 3

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

SECTION 14.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

I move amendment No. 33:—

Before sub-section (2), page 7, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) If any trade union required to send a statement under this section fails so to do or sends a statement which, to the knowledge of such trade union, is false, such trade union shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £100.

For the purposes of determining the amount of the deposit to be lodged by an authorised trade union. Section 14 provides that within one month after every third anniversary of the date upon which the deposit under Section 7 of this Bill has been made, the trade union concerned will send to the Minister a statement of the number of its members on every such anniversary. The section further provides that, if it is necessary to increase or reduce such deposit by any amount in order to make it equal to the appropriate sum, such trade union shall, not later than two months after such anniversary, increase such deposit by such amount or apply for the return out of such deposit of such amount (as the case may require). The Bill as introduced contains no sanction against a breach of that requirement. This amendment provides, accordingly, that if any trade union required to send a statement under this section fails to do so or sends a statement which, to the knowledge of such trade union, is false, such trade union shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £100.

Mr. Esmonde

This, amendment deals with authorised trade unions, registered and unregistered?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Esmonde

I raise the point again, that an unregistered trade union according to this amendment is to be deemed guilty of an offence. I pointed out yesterday that such a trade union is not a legal entity.

Mr. MacEntee

That is an important point, and I shall take it up with the Parliamentary draftsman.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister withdraw the amendment in the meantime? Obviously, he cannot put in a section of this kind prosecuting an organisation which has no corporate existence. Such an organisation cannot be prosecuted as an organisation — the only way would be to discover the people re-sponsible for this misfeasance, and in that way get the names and then prosecute. It is intended, apparently, not to prosecute the individuals, but to prosecute the union as a corporate body: but as it has no corporate existence will the Minister withdraw the amendment until he gives it more consideration?

Mr. MacEntee

To withdraw the. amendment would be to accept without question the validity of the point which Deputy Esmonde has made and, while I am prepared to concede that theie may be something in the point, nevertheless the House will understand that this Bill has been drafted by competent lawyers and that I cannot, of my own volition, accept that they have erred. Accordingly what I propose to do is to ask the House to accept the amendment now and, if necessary, to introduce a further amendment on the Report Stage.

Mr. Esmonde

I did not raise a point with regard to authorised trade unions but with regard only to authorised trade unions which are not registered either because they are outside the country or are an excepted body.

Mr. MacEntee

The House will remember that, under a previous section, we asked the House that authorised trade unions not registered in this country should name a person who will accept service and also provided that the deposit may be availed of for the payment of judgment debts. So, from the practical point of view, if we can ensure that the service will be properly made on the agent of the authorised but not registered trade union in this country, then, with the further machinery which we have under Section 15 I think we can make the penalty effective even against a body which has not been registered.

Mr. Esmonde

Section 15 will have to be amended, if my point is correct. I will deal with that later.

Mr. Norton

There is nothing like making whoopee with other people's money. That is what we are doing in this amendment. By its terms, it regards as similar offences failure to send a statement and sending a false statement That seems to be rather curious reasoning. One can understand that failure to send a return might be due to some kind of inadvertence or some kind of pleasure of business causing delay, or it might mean that the necessity for making a statement was overlooked. That is one type of offence, which nobody ever regards as very criminal The Department every day in the week reminds people that returns that they ought to have in on Midi a date are still outstanding and ought to be sent in. Departments themselves, even in their relations with other Departments, are not too prompt in furnishing returns of that kind. That is one type of offence. That is the kind of thing that happens when you are dealing with human beings; it is just an expression of human frailty. This section, however, also deals with sending in false returns, which is an entirely different type of offence. Obviously, it ought to be made "knowingly false."

Mr. MacEntee

That is in the amendment: "false to the knowledge of the person making it."

Mr. Norton

Quite. There are two types of offence here punishable by a fine not exceeding £100. One is failure to send in a return which, as I say, may be due to inadvertence, to pressure of business, or to the fact that the matter was completely overlooked. Even Ministers can sometimes forget things and overlook things. But there is another type of offence scheduled with failure to submit a return, and that is knowingly making a false return. How, by any process of reasoning, can you group these two offences together and say both are of equal gravity? Surely, knowingly making a false return is a different type of offence from failing to send in a return.

Income tax authorities, for instance, send out reminders to folk who do not send in their income tax return in time. It is not an uncommon thing for a potential taxpayer under the income tax code to get two, three, or four notices to send in a return. The income tax authorities do not treat that in the same kind of way as the making of a false return for income tax purposes. Here, when you have got the money of the trade unions, and the money is safely deposited in the High Courts, it is proposed to make "whoopee" with the money and to fine a trade union £100 for failing to put in a return, and we treat that offence as if the union had deliberately made a false return. How can the Minister justify that kind of equality between the two kinds of offence under the section? I cannot see how the Minister can say that failing to send in a statement is of equal gravity with making a deliberately false statement. In this section they are treated as similar types of offence.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister in the section does not say any one of the things ascribed to him by Deputy Norton, because the Minister does not purport to adjudicate on the gravity of the offence. Certainly failure to send in a return may be a very serious offence, if it arises from wilful refusal to obey the law. It may be a minor offence if it arises out of circumstances not fully within the control of the person who fails to make the return, or if it arises simply because of a minor dereliction of duty on the part of some officer of the union. But the proper body to determine the gravity of each particular offence is the court. All we are doing in this section is to say that, no matter how grave the offence may be, the penalty shall not exceed £100.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Or how trivial it may be?

Mr. MacEntee

Or how trivial it may be. But we rely, as I suppose the House does and as I suppose the community in general does, upon the fact that under the law justice is done in this country as between persons, and that people are not drastically punished for trivial offences. That is the answer.

Apart altogether from that, this fine can only be recovered after a summary conviction. Government Departments are reasonable in these matters, and if it can be shown that the failure to make a return has been due to pressure of business, or overwork, or to a minor dereliction of duty on the part of some officer of the union, then I am sure proceedings would not be taken, and, if proceedings were taken in these circumstances, I am sure they would be scouted out of court by the tribunal. There is nothing in the point which the Deputy made. We are not trying to equate one class of offence with another; but we are trying to say in relation to both these offences — the failure to make a return, and the making of a false return — that, no matter how grave they are, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is £100.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister seems to overlook the fact that this House is putting two offences on the same basis and intimating, through this piece of legislation, to the courts that the Legislature's intention was that it should be looked upon as equally serious whether it is merely an omission to send in a return or making a false return. If an official of a trade union does not send in the return until a day beyond the time allowed according to this section, that is an offence so serious as to merit a penalty up to £100. No court could look upon that as being a trivial offence in view of what is set out in the section. No matter what the Minister may say, actually what we are doing is to provide the same penalty for deliberately putting in a false return and for the case of an official of a trade union who, instead of sending in the return within one month, allows one or two days over that time to elapse.

Perhaps the Minister could also tell us about another small point in his proposed amendment: "which to the knowledge of such trade union is false". What does "to the knowledge of such trade union" mean in that sense? Does it mean to the knowledge of the secretary or of the executive committee, or of the trade union as a whole?

Mr. MacEntee

The officers and the committee of management of the trade union, surely.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That again may be the Minister's opinion; but what we have to ask ourselves, before we pass a section like this, is how this will be read by the courts. "To the knowledge of such trade union" seems to be an extraordinarily wide term to put into a section.

Mr. Davin

It is proposed under this section to impose a penalty up to £100 if, to the knowledge of a trade union, some statement found to be false is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the section. I am not surprised at Deputy Norton laughing at the Minister's definition of those who represent a trade union. The Minister says the committee of management will be the responsible authority in a case of this kind. The more we discuss this Bill, the more we learn of the Minister's lack of knowledge of the contents of his own measure. Will the Minister now give us a definition of what he means by a trade union, so far as responsibility for compliance with the law is concerned, in this particular amendment?

If the Minister studies the rules of the different trade unions that may be concerned in a case of this kind he will find that the responsible people would not always fit into that phrase, "committee of management." Would it be the president, would it be the president and the secretary combined, would it be the trustees, or would it be the executive elected annually by the members? What party would be likely to be held responsible for the failure of the trade union to comply with a ridiculous requirement of this kind? The offence, as Deputy Morrissey pointed out, could be regarded, even by the Minister or by a judge or any impartial person deciding the question, as a very trivial offence, but, whether trivial or serious, the fine is going to be £100. It is just the same as the Minister expecting that £2,000 will be handed to him by some of the organised bodies that have been in existence in this country for 150 years. If they do not fork out the £2,000, they disappear.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter was discussed at length on another section.

Mr. Davin

If they have not got the money, those organisations pass out of existence, and their insurance rights ——

An Ceann Comhairle

That aspect was discussed on another section, and the Deputy may not pursue it.

Mr. Davin

The Minister and the Chief Government Whip alleged in the House, and privately, that we are engagced in deliberate obstruction in connection with the discussion of this Bill here. If the Minister will not explain the sections, if he will not explain what he means in this case by the phrase, "to the knowledge of the trade unions," then we are going to carry on this discussion until the Minister gives some understandable explanation.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a footy point. This sub-section concerns only the trade union as a corporate entity, if it complies with the requirements of Section 7, is registered under the Trade Union Acts of this country, has lodged the deposit and is the holder of a negotiation licence. We do not mind whom the trade union holds responsible for failure to make a return, or for making a false return; we are not concerned with that, because it is a matter for the internal discipline, and organisation of the trade union. All we are concerned with is that the holder of a negotiation licence, which can only be a trade union and not an officer of a trade union, shall make this return. Our concern is that whoever is the responsible agent will make the return. If the return is not made to the knowledge of the trade union, to the knowledge of the responsible officer, the officer deputed by the trade union to discharge that duty on its behalf, then the trade union is going to be liable.

There is no question here of levying fines upon individual members of the trade union. There is no question here of making officers of the trade union responsible. We are making the trade union as a corporate body, itself responsible under the law for the act of its own officers, and if those officers fail to make the return, or make a false return, then the union must deal with them and we do not enter into the matter at all.

I do not think there was anything in the point made by Deputy Morrissey either. He said that we are proposing to impose a fine of £100, irrespective of the gravity of the offence, upon a person who makes a false return or tails to make a return. That cannot possibly be read into the section. The Deputy suggests that in all cases, irrespective of the circumstances, the trade union will be tilled £100. What we are saying is that, before a fine can lie imposed, we must take proceedings before a court of law in this country and the judge on the bench will have an opportunity of considering the offence alleged and all the circumstances connected with it and of assessing for himself the seriousness or the trivality of the offence and imposing a fine accordingly.

We are only saying in this section that no matter how grave the offence may be, the fine shall not exceed £100. It is entirely within the competence of the court to decide that the offence is of such a trivial nature that no fine will be imposed. The judge on the bench may even rebuke the Minister and say the proceedings should never have been brought. We are not, in this section, prescribing, as the Deputy suggests, that irrespective of the gravity of the offence or the circumstances connected with it the trade union will have to bear a fine of £100.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That was not what I said. I did say that we were conveying to the court as clearly as we possibly could that any offence under this section, either as it stands or as it may be amended by the Minister, was to be regarded as a serious offence and we were marking that by indicating a fine of £100.

Mr. MacEntee

It may be in certain circumstances a serious offence.

Mr. Norton

This is a frightful exhibition of pitiable floundering by the Minister. When he was asked to indicate the responsible party he said, in the first instance, the officer.

Mr. MacEntee

I was asked who was supposed to have knowledge.

Mr. Norton

The Minister was asked to indicate who was likely to have knowledge——

Mr. MacEntee

And I said the officers.

Mr. Norton

The officers, the Minister replied, and he added quite quickly, the committee of management.

Mr. MacEntee

And the committee of management.

Mr. Norton

The officers and the committee of management — they are supposed to have knowledge. What happens if ten of them have knowledge and one has not, or if there is an executive of 14 persons and eight have no knowledge, while the remaining six have?

Mr. MacEntee

That is a matter for the courts.

Mr. Norton

We are passing legislation, and later the courts may be asked to interpret it on a point of law. Surely, we ought to make it as clear as possible to the courts, and it is not too much to expect that we should use ordinary intelligence in the drafting of amendments. The Minister must know very little of the way in which trade unions carry out their business or he would not have said what he has said. Trade unions make returns of one kind or another, some of them routine returns relating to affairs of management, to income, to expenditure, to affiliation with other bodies, and to payments made on the basis of that affiliation. That is all purely office routine. Those returns may be signed by a member of the staff or an officer of the union, but to imagine that a whole executive council would be gathered from the four provinces to examine the statement that was being submitted, and to go back over the detailed work which the office staff in a trade union would do, in order to find out if they had miscalculated in regard to one member, would be equal to taking leave of one's senses. That sort of thing never happens.

The Minister suggests that the committee of management are to be responsible. What seems to be implied is this — that it the Minister wants a return to be made, the committee of management are to be brought together and they are to be asked to check up on the entire membership of the union in order to see that the actual membership is represented by the figure compiled by the office staff or by an officer of the union.

Does anybody imagine that to be a practical proposition? Some unions might have an executive of 20 people, and they are asked to furnish returns of membership. Are these 20 members to get at the register or card index and check them to ascertain whether in fact the figure proposed to be furnished is the correct figure? No one in his senses would propose that an executive of a trade union should do that, and yet, according to the Minister, they would be guilty if they knowingly made a false statement. The wording seems to imply that all on the committee of management must check the register of membership.

Let us take the case of one trade union with 40,000 or 50,000 members, and try to bring a little practical experience to the working of such a large organisation. The entire executive, according to the Minister, is responsible for ensuring that the return is not knowingly false. Does that impose on each of the members of the executive the obligation of counting the membership? In other words, counting 40,000 names to see if that is the correct membership. In the course of a wearying task of that kind one member might discover 39,500, and another, owing to fatigue and exhaustion, discover 39,600 and others varying figures. Is not that what they would have to do if they wanted to arrive at some measure of agreement, in order to discharge the obligation placed upon them, that the return should be knowingly true, in view of the penalties for submitting a knowingly false statement? It is clear to me that no thought has been given to such circumstances when a careless amendment of this type was tabled. If the Minister only knew a little more about the manner in which returns of this kind were furnished, he would realise that it is impracticable to impose a requirement of this kind on members of the executive of a union. Yet, if the statement is knowingly false, the union will be punished, because the members of the executive, according to his requirement, are required to check the records individually so as to satisfy their consciences and so that, in relation to the unions, they may discharge their responsibilities conscientiously by making a correct return.

The mentality revealed in Section 14 is entirely different from the mentality revealed in Sections 11 and 12. In Section 11 the union and officers of the union are made responsible, but in this case the entire executive is made responsible. The Minister talked about unions fixing responsibility as to who was to make the return. That is not legislation. We are supposed to be passing legislation. The unions may decline to fix any responsibility. I think the amendment discloses gross carelessness and inexperience. The word "gross" does not even describe the position. On the point made by Deputy Morrissey, it is perfectly true to say, in relation to this amendment, that we are classifying failure to make a return as an offence comparable with knowingly making a false statement.

Mr. MacEntee

It might be a worse offence if it arose from wilful and deliberate refusal to obey the law.

Mr. Norton

Why not say all that in the amendment? What is the purpose of keeping that in the recess of your mind. Could not the courts be told that is what the legislature had in mind? Why is not that put into the amendment so that the courts could be guided in ascertaining the nature of the offence before having to impose a fine. In the amendment it is clearly indicated that by failing to make a return within the prescribed period, which may be due to an accidental omission on the part of a union, an offence can be committed — if, for instance, a union sends in a return a day late. In that case it would be possible to sue a union and it minht be liable to a fine not exceeding £100. I cannot understand by what process of reasoning the Minister and his advisers came to the conclusion that failure to make a return, which might be due to inadvertence, was in the same category as knowingly making a false return. The Minister said that the courts would have power to equate the punishment to the gravity of the offence. In this section we are telling the courts that, as far as the Legislature is concerned, failure to make a return has the same significance as knowingly making a false return. We all know of cases in the courts in which judges expressed the opinion that they would like to act in a certain way, but the legislation was there and they had no power to amend and must decide the law as laid down. Judges have frequently commented on the fact that they were obliged to do certain things under Acts of Parliament and that it was a matter for the Legislature to amend the Acts.

This is providing another piece of that type of ambiguity, and gives another opportunity for judges to say, as far as the Legislature is concerned, that failure to send a return is, in the viewpoint of the Legislature, an offence comparable with the offence of knowingly making a false return. The Minister ought to take back the amendment and replace it with one which would have some sense. If he wants to have any amendment he might have one which would not impose on members of the executive of a union the obligation of counting the membership records, numbering perhaps 40,000 and in some cases 20,000.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not repeat what he has already said twice.

Mr. Norton

The amendment discloses inexperience of what happens in unions, and the manner in which unions and their officers conduct their business. If the Minister had more knowledge of that work he would not put in an amendment of this clumsy character.

Mr. Esmonde

I think the Minister is up against a really serious difficulty. I made the point already that as an unregistered unauthorised trade union is no longer an entity it cannot be guilty of an offence. If the Minister looks into that matter I think my statement will be borne out. A point also arises regarding authorised registered trade unions. If there has to be a conviction, some person or some organisation must be before the courts capable of being convicted. Now, that was apparently present to the minds of the framers of the Trades Unions Act of 1871. I refer the Minister to that particular Act as a guide in dealing with this matter, because Section 19 of it actually deals with legal proceedings. That section states the courts in which offences may be prosecuted and fines recovered. That supposes that offences were created by that particular Act. They were, in fact, created in one case under Section 12, but Section 12 did not deal with the creation of the offences of a particular trade union, but dealt with the officers of a trade union. Section 12 of the Trades Unions Act of 1871 reads:—

If any officer, member or other person being or representing himself to be a member of a trade union registered under this Act...

They were dealing there with trade unions that were registered under the Act, and, therefore, I submit to the Minister that there is even a doubt that a registered trade union can be guilty of an offence. I think a very serious point arises in connection with this matter. In answer to the powers which the Minister would have under Section 15 of recovering from the deposit, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to that section in connection with this particular point since the Minister has already mentioned it. The Minister would have power to recover from a deposit in the courts under a judgment, but the judgment would have to be obtained in the case of an unregistered trade union against certain individuals in persons who would be amenable. Therefore, I think that, as regards a registered and a non-registered trade union, this difficulty about the word "offence" arises. That difficulty exists wherever the word is mentioned in this Bill. I submit to the Minister that it is a very serious point, affecting a number of sections and affecting the procedure of the whole machinery which the Minister had in mind in dealing with offences for breach of the liabilities imposed on trade unions under the Bill.

General Mulcahy

I think Deputy Esmonde has replied very fully to the Miniater's suggestion that the points raised by Deputy Morrissey, and further elaborated by Deputy Davin, were nonsensical and meaningless. From the beginning, it was apparent to anybody reading the Bill that there was no philosophy behind it. Since discussion opened on the Bill, it has been quite apparent that there is no plan behind it. The minor amendments now before the House show that the incongruities in this Bill are of a kind that must inevitably arise where there is neither a philosophy nor a plan. As in this case, where the amendments have come along as afterthoughts, these incongruities have become more and more marked. The Minister has indicated that the crimes that may be committed by commission or omission under Section 14 may be very serious indeed. But, it was only as an afterthought, that he considered it necessary to apply the term "crime" to those matters that now loom so large in his mind. Can we have any explanation as to why this afterthought has now turned up, by reason of which it is proposed to ask for power to inflict a penalty up to £100 in a case that is brought into court?

That is what the Minister proposes in respect to this section, but it is well to point out that in the original print of the Bill, there did not appear to be any necessity at all for prescribing punishment of any kind. As the Minister has now come to the conclusion that it is necessary to provide for a fine of £100, would he tell us how he arrived at that figure? May I refer back to Section 12, and to what is required in the case of a recorded trade union? Under sub-section (1) of that section, paragraph (f) such a trade union is required to give notice in writing to the Minister of every change in its rules and constitution, of every change in its committee of management or other controlling authority, of every change in its trustees, and of every change of its secretary or other principal officer, and if it fails to do any of these things it renders itself liable to a fine not exceeding £5, and in the case of a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding £1 for every day, and so on. But under Section 14, a trade union which fails to send in a statement of the number of its members within one month after every third anniversary of the making of a deposit, shall render itself liable to a fine of £100. Under Section 12 a fine of £5 is provided for failure to do the things set out. In the case of Section 14 no penalty at all was provided when the Bill was introduced, but now under this amendment it is proposed to provide for a penalty of £100 for crimes that could not have been seen when the Bill was being drafted. I think we should have some explanation from the Minister on this.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether the Deputy wants that point to be treated seriously or not. Quite obviously, Section 14 relates to offences in which it is clear £10,000 may be involved. It would be a serious matter in such cases to understate, perhaps by some thousands, the membership of a trade union, and accordingly the penalty is fixed at what I think is the moderate sum of £100.

General Mulcahy

May I refer the Minister——

Mr. MacEntee

I did not interrupt the Deputy. I cannot accept at all the validity of the point which has been made by Deputy Esmonde, that a trade union cannot be sued, or that there is nothing even in the Act of 1871——

Mr. Esmonde

I did not say that. It cannot be convicted.

Mr. MacEntee

It can be convicted under this Act. There is nothing in this which states that a trade union cannot be convicted, and nothing in the law anywhere, so far as I know, except for certain things, none of which arise under this Act. It is true that a court cannot entertain legal proceedings concerning an agreement between members of a trade union, or an agreement for the payment by any person of any subscription or penalty to a trade union, or any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union to provide benefits to members or to furnish contributions to any employer or workman or to discharge any fine imposed upon any person by sentence of a court of justice, or any agreement between one trade union and another, or any bond to secure the performance of any such agreements. These are the only things in respect of which the law prescribes that proceedings cannot be taken against a trade union. In respect of all other matters which may affect a trade union, so far as I can see and so far as I am aware, there is no prohibition. In any event, the amendment we are proposing would enable proceedings to be taken against a trade union for recovery of a penalty.

The point has been made: whom are we going to sue? I think the position is quite clear in Section 9 of the Act of 1871.

Mr. Esmonde

The point is, whom are you going to prosecute? The Minister does not appreciate my point.

Mr. MacEntee

—

"The trustees of any trade union registered under this Act, or any other officer of such trade union who may be authorised so to do by the rules thereof, are hereby empowered to bring or defend, or cause to be brought or defended, any action, suit, prosecution, or complaint in any court of law or equity."

General Mulcahy

What is the Minister quoting from?

Mr. MacEntee

The Trades Union Act of 1871.

General Mulcahy

What section?

Mr. MacEntee

Section 9. This is part of the law of the land and it is cited in response to the interruption of Deputy Davin on Section 1 of the Bill, in respect of which we had a division.

Mr. Esmonde

Section 9 deals with the trustees of unions.

Mr. MacEntee

It states that they may be sued.

Mr. Esmonde

The trustees, not the union.

Mr. MacEntee

Are they not officers of the union? They may be sued and proceeded against as representing the union, and so may other officers. Is not that the whole point the Deputy is making — whom we are to proceed against?

General Mulcahy

That is contained in that section, but not in the Minister's amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

As the law stands, it is quite clear that provision is made for that. When there was a case in court some years ago as between a trade union registered in this country and a trade union not registered here, against whom were proceedings taken? Does the Deputy want me to believe that the law does not make any provision for the institution of legal proceedings against a trade union? I think that it is abusing the confidence of the House to expect anybody to regard that as a serious point.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Do not be too sure.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to come back to the speech made by Deputy Norton. If I were to accept Deputy Norton's speech as accurately describing the conditions which exist in the Irish trade union movement, I should have to regard the administration of that movement as appalling. I do nothing of the sort. Deputy Norton's speech reflects very discreditably upon the whole Irish trade union movement. What has he told us? We know that, under the law, trade unions have already to furnish returns as to their membership and to lodge accounts with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, which accounts are supposed to be duly audited. Yet, the implication running through the whole of Deputy Norton's speech was that the responsible officers —the committees of management or executive committees or whatever they may be called — of the trade unions do not take any trouble whatsoever — the Deputy thought it would be too much trouble if they were to be summoned together to consider what steps should be taken in this regard to ensure that the returns which the unions are already bound under the law to furnish are true returns. That was the sum and substance of Deputy Norton's speech, though I do not repeat his remarks at as great length as they were made.

I was asked who were supposed to have knowledge of a trade union's affairs, and I said the officers and committee of management of the trade union. I ask those people who are really concerned for the reputation of Irish trade unions to note Deputy Norton's remarks. Deputy Norton, speaking as Leader of the Labour Party, as secretary of one Irish trade union, and as a person enjoying the confidence of the Irish Trades Union Congress, told us that it is too much to ask that, in relation to a union which may have as many as 40,000 or 50,000 members, and which may have property the value of which runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds, the officers and committee of management should have any knowledge of the union's affairs, and should be in a position to make regulations for the control of their employees which would ensure that returns would be put in at the proper time, and that when put in they would not, at least, be knowingly false.

[Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present.

Mr. MacEntee

I was saying that the sum and substance of Deputy Norton's speech was that, in the case of a trade union with a membership of 40,000 or 50,000 and holding property to the value of £100,000, it would be too much to ask the officers and the committee of management to take steps to ensure that their employees, when called upon to furnish returns under the law, would furnish those returns in due time and would, at least, take care not to furnish returns which were knowingly false. That is the picture which Deputy Norton wishes to believe, that is the representation of the conditions in Irish trade unionism which Deputy Norton wants to give to the House and to the country. I am beginning to wonder whether much of the opposition to this Bill does not arise from the fact that there are certain people who want that condition of affairs in Irish trade unionism — if such a condition exists— to continue. This section does not provide, as Deputy Norton alleges, that the officers and committee and management of a union must make returns which they have personally checked or which, to their knowledge, are true and exact. It merely means that they will not make themselves a party to a fraud on the State, that returns will be prepared with due care and in accordance with the regulations made by the union for the control of its officers and that, if they are satisfied that they have been so prepared with due care, they will not then deliberately falsify them and send in inaccurate returns. That is the sum and substance of the proposal contained in this amendment.

Mr. Davin

After listening to the Minister's speech, one can easily understand why it is that he cannot get more than half a dozen of his own colleagues to sit on the Government Benches to listen to him — to listen to the piffle he talks about something he does not understand.

Mr. Allen

How many members are on the Labour Benches?

Mr. Davin

It is quite evident from the language used by the Minister that he himself admits he does not understand the position he is trying to put right by a dragooning measure of this kind. The Minister talks about tens of thousands of pounds, as if the taxpayers were likely to lose that amount if a fine of £100 were not imposed upon somebody. The taxpayers will not be involved to the extent of 1d. so far as the administration of this measure is concerned — if it ever comes to the point at which it will be administered. It may cost a good deal more than money to administer this measure——

An Ceann Comhairle

"This Measure" is not being discussed, only amendment No. 33.

Mr. Davin

——if the Minister is going to "try it on" with the trade unionists of this country. The Minister when asked in the beginning for an explanation as to what was meant by the words "to the knowledge of such trade union," stated that in his opinion it was the committee of management. He later went back on that and said it was the trustees of the society. Then he comes along and says it is the corporate body, meaning the whole membership of the trade union. Will he study the rules — I am sure he has not done so — of any one of the trade unions affiliated to the Trade Union Congress which is likely to receive a negotiation licence under the Bill as it now stands? If he does, he will find that the management of a trade union is provided for in the rules and that the responsibility for doing the work is delegated by the union to a working committee or executive and the executive provides certain officers or sub-committees of the executive. That is why those who know something about the internal organisation of the trade union movement are anxious to find out from the Minister what he means by the words "to the knowledge of such trade union." We are anxious to find out so that when this Bill finally passes, if it ever does, civil servants who will be called upon to administer this measure — God help them — will know who are the persons who are responsible for giving effect to the requirements of the various sections of the Bill.

It is also desirable, I think the Minister will admit, that the judges in our courts should understand the intention of members of this House in regard to the different requirements of the section. I admit that it would be very hard to understand the intentions of Deputies in regard to the requirements of the section, when we know that up to the present not one member of the Government Party has spoken for or against the measure, or on any section, except the Minister. He has driven all the other members of the Party out of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must now return to the amendment.

Mr. L. Walsh

It is no credit to the Labour Party that there are only two members of the Party present on the discussion on this amendment.

Mr. Davin

I have put a question to the Minister——

Mr. Walsh

It is your duty to be present.

Mr. Davin

For the sake of clarity it is in my opinion necessary that more understandable language should be employed so as to define the responsibility of members of a union in cases of this kind. The majority, if not all of the members of unions affiliated to the Irish Trade Union Congress, only hold what one might call one statutory meeting in the year. They only hold one meeting in the year, at which the officers are appointed.

Mr. L. Walsh

There is another way of doing it.

Mr. Davin

It is a good job that you do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Walsh

If I did, not know any more than you know about it, I would say that I knew nothing about it.

Mr. Davin

Unions, like every other democratic body in the country, are obliged to hold by rule one annual meeting. They elect an executive at that annual meeting and appoint their officers.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not repeat himself.

Mr. Davin

I want to know whether in the case of a union that does its business according to the rules, who will be held responsible for failure to comply with the law in the case of this Bill? In any well-organised body the administration is carried out by the officers appointed——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will resume his seat. He is not dealing with the amendment, and he is repeating himself.

Mr. Davin

I shall refrain from observing the reason why I have been called upon to resume my seat.

An Ceann Comhairle

The reason is obvious. The Deputy has not been discussing the amendment.

Mr. Keyes

The latest contribution of the Minister to this discussion is characteristic of his other contributions and may well be dubbed a "MacEnteeism." Instead of making any attempt to answer the reasonable request to explain the vague and obscure phrasing of the section, and the reasons for the difference in the provisions dealing with penalties, in cases of failure by the trade unions to fulfil the requirements of the section, the Minister in reply to the various speakers from these benches and from the Fine Gael Benches, launches into a further attack on Deputy Norton. He has put certain words into the mouth of Deputy Norton and has suggested that an attack has been made by the Deputy on the Irish trade union movement. Nobody but the Minister would have dared to make such a deduction from the speech of the Deputy. Deputy Norton has said right through this debate that trade unions are being run in an efficient manner and that they administer their affairs better than the Minister administers his office. He has invited the Minister and his officials to go to any trade union office to see how business is administered there. Yet the Minister in one of his usual ebullitions of bad temper sought to misrepresent the statement made by the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair would like to hear the Deputy on amendment No. 33.

Mr. Keyes

I am speaking of the Minister's contribution to this discussion and his contribution was as valuaable as his contributions usually are. He studiously sidetracked the position with an attack on another Deputy but his implications and his deductions will carry as much conviction as did his diatribe in the Press to-day when he told the public about the bold, bad boys in Dáil Eireann who had not sufficient respect for the institutions of Parliament. Whatever bad habits anybody in this House may have contracted, were learned from the Minister. I do not see any hope of getting any explanation from the Minister of the matters raised on this amendment because he does not seem to know anything about them and it is futile to ask him. It is futile to ask him as to why there should be this differentiation between Section 14 and Section 12. The Minister sees nothing wrong in having the same serious penalty for an offence which may be due to a slip or due to a certain laxity in not posting certain notifications of an alteration in membership to the Minister's office and for a deliberate offence of altering the membership by increasing or decreasing the numbers. That offence is put on the same par as a trivial offence due to an oversight. The Minister sees nothing wrong in asking the House to pass legislation of that kind. It is only when somebody has suffered this heavy penalty and when the courts are asked to interpret these sections that the necessity for amending legislation will become apparent. Yet when somebody asks for a clarification of these sections we are treated to the tirade which we have just heard from the Minister on this matter.

Mr. Esmonde

I should like to impress on the Minister for the last time the necessity for reasonable clarity in connection with the question of conviction for an offence. The Minister has quoted Section 9 of the Trade Union Act of 1871 as being part of the laws that would assist him or the State in taking any prosecution that might be necessary against a trade union. If the Minister is advised that that section which he has quoted empowers him to bring proceedings for a penalty against the trustees of the union——

Mr. MacEntee

Or any other officer of such trade union.

Mr. Esmonde

——I have nothing further to say, but I submit that the Minister ought to put that point up to his legal advisers, because in my humble opinion Section 9 deals only with civil matters, and does not empower any criminal proceedings to be brought. I do not venture to give any legal opinion; I venture to make only a submission to the Minister. If he is satisfied that this Section 9 will come to his assistance for the purpose of implementing this amendment, well and good. I have nothing further to say in that case, but I submit that, in the interests of what the Minister intends, he should ask his advisers to reconsider it.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to make my position quite clear. Deputy Esmonde, during the course of this debate, has made some very valuable suggestions which I am prepared to consider, but the fact that I do attach some importance to his opinion does not at all imply that I agree that 'his suggestions are well-founded, and certainly does not give the right to a body of lay lawyers in the House to proceed to accept them as if they were judicial decisions.

Mr. Esmonde

I made it quite clear that I did not wish my opinion to be accepted, but that I was merely making a submission as a member of the House.

Mr. D. Morrissey

And the fact that the Deputy has behind him years of experience as a trained lawyer counts for nothing against the Minister's opinion. The Minister was quite careful not to say that he had been advised that the point raised by Deputy Esmonde was not valid. He said: "I am satisfied, so far as I can see." The Minister's opinion on a matter of legal interpretation is about as valuable as mine, and that has not very much value. This section, like every other section of this Bill, is very important, and we have pointed out matters in this section and in the amendment which we think are of the gravest importance. We are doing our best in our very limited way — if that phrase will please the Minister — to put before him the fears of people outside who will be directly affected by the Bill and the Minister's answer on every conceivable occasion, whether to Deputy Norton, Deputy Esmonde or any other Deputy, is that it is all nonsense, that it is a foolish point or that it is piffle. I suggest that is not the way in which the Minister should deal with the matter, and it is not the way in which he ought to speak to the House.

Arising out of that, when we, finding it impossible to extract from the Minister the information we seek, persist in asking for further information in order to get an answer, we are accused of obstruction. The Minister goes to a great deal more trouble to build up a letter for the newspapers than he is prepared to go to in order to give that information to the representatives of the nation dealing with the Bill here. I have tried from the very beginning, from the First Stage of the Bill, to tell the Minister — I know that the Minister has not very much use for my opinion, nor apparently for anybody's opinion but his own, but the fact is that we are entitled, and not only entitled, but it is our duty, so long as we are members of the House, to give our opinions on every section of every Bill — how terribly serious this matter is. I have tried to be helpful and I went to the trouble of framing a reasoned amendment for the very first discussion of the Bill we could possibly have, but the Minister, instead of answering the points made on Section 14 and on the amendment he has put forward, beyond dismissing them as the merest nonsense and piffle, proceeds to attack Deputy Norton for making a statement which Deputy Norton never made. I am not concerned with that. Deputy Norton is well able to look after himself, but what I do object to is the Minister's taking that line, instead of trying to meet seriously the points made by Deputy Esmonde, Deputy Davin, Deputy Norton and other Deputies.

The trouble with the Minister is apparently that he thinks that, in relation to this section dealing with the preparation of returns and fines to be inflicted, he knows far more about the internal administration and control of a trade union than Deputy Norton or Deputy Davin, and apparently far more about what is likely to be the legal interpretation of the section than men trained in the business and engaged in it all their lives. To say the least of it, that line of approach to argument put up is not very helpful. So far as I know, there is no member of the House who, either on this section or any of the following sections, has any desire whatever to obstruct. We are opposed to this Bill but we know that we cannot prevent its passage into law. We are opposed to the section and to the fine set out in it, and the only thing we can do, when we cannot prevent its passage finally into law, is to try to make it as innocuous as possible, to try to make it less dangerous and less harmful, and we do not want the House, in ignorance of what it is doing, to pass an amendment to empower the courts to impose very heavy and substantial fines, when, as has already been pointed out by Deputy Mulcahy, the very idea of this amendment came into the Minister's mind long after the Bill had been introduced and discussed by the House. If I were to follow the Minister's line of thought, I could make suggestions, which would perhaps be dubbed unworthy, as to why this amendment is brought in. I could make those suggestions, and I probably would not be very much wrong, but I refrain from making them.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 33.

Tá

Níl

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.

Amendment declared carried.

Question proposed: "That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

General Mulcahy

On the section, Sir. I asked the Minister, in relation to this £100 fine — the necessity for which, or the necessity for any fine, was only thought of after the Bill had been in circulation for some time — why a fine of that particular kind was necessary in relation to the return within one month, after every third year, of a certain list of members for each trade union, when, under Section 12, a fine of only £5 with a continuing fine of £1 a day was the thing that was to be done in the Bill as it was drafted in respect of the possible failure of a trade union, that was a recorded trade union, to give notice in writing to the Minister of every change in its rules and constitution, of every change in its committee, of every change in its trustees, and of certain other changes. The Minister's attitude was that my point was frivolous, that I could not understand this, that under Section 12, fines to the extent of thousands of pounds, which might run up to £10,000——

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, Sir——

General Mulcahy

What is the point of order?

Mr. MacEntee

Am I permitted to make this point of order to the Chair? We have already considered and settled this question of the amount of fine on the amendment which the House has just discussed.

Mr. Davin

No.

Mr. MacEntee

I am making a point of order.

Mr. Norton

The Minister will be writing another letter to the Press tomorrow.

Mr. MacEntee

I am making this point, that the House has just adopted an amendment to insert a new sub-section which reads as follows:—

If any trade union required to send a statement under this section fails so to do or sends a statement which, to the knowledge of such trade union, is false, such trade union shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

The House has already decided on that matter, and I am now suggesting that Deputy Mulcahy is repeating a discussion which took place on the amendment.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister tell me what the point of order is?

Mr. MacEntee

The House has already decided that there shall be a fine.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think Deputy Mulcahy was referring to that particular matter at all.

Mr. Norton

The House has not passed the section.

General Mulcahy

A point of order has been made to the Chair. It is alleged that it is a point of order. Can I be told what the point of order is? I do not recognise it as one.

Mr. Davin

It is an attempt to browbeat the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think Deputy Mulcahy was referring to the same matter the Minister alleges he was referring to.

Mr. Norton

On a point of order, even if he were, is not this the position: we have inserted an amendment in Section 14 but we have not yet passed Section 14, and it is still within the competence of the House, having put in an amendment to Section 14, to reject the entire section and are we not perfectly free to discuss the entire contents of Section 14?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The discussion now is on the section, as amended.

Mr. Norton

And we are entitled to discuss the whole section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

So I take it.

Mr. Norton

Somebody ought to explain that to the Minister.

General Mulcahy

I hope the Chair will find some way of protecting the House during the rest of this measure because while charges are being made against various Deputies in the House of obstruction of one kind or another, nobody is more responsible for the waste of the time of the House than the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy get on with the point?

General Mulcahy

Yes, Sir. £100 is set down here as an afterthought, as the extent to which a fine can be levied on a trade union which does not on or within one month after every third year supply a list stating the number of its members. I asked the Minister what was the necessity foe fixing a fine as high as that figure and I asked him why the difference in the size of the crime should be so marked between failure to send in that list every third year and the failure of a recorded trade union to send in to the Minister changes in its rules and constitution. The Minister's answer was that it was frivolous and fantastic. I cannot hope to extract a reasonable, answer from the Minister because I am forced to recognise that he has not a reasonable answer to give, but what I want to say is this: Section 14 provides that, under certain circumstances, up to £100 of the funds lodged with the High Court by a trade union may be "pinched" by the State. We all must recognise that one of the primary functions of the State is to act as a policeman and to prevent the property of any person being taken improperly or immorally by any other person, to protect people in the possession of their goods and property. Every penny that is the property of the trade unions to-day has been subscribed in small amounts by workers who earn their money by the sweat of their brow. Trade union funds represent savings out of money provided for the upkeep of their families and put into these funds for the improvement, not only of their own condition but, he has been readily recognised, particularly in the development of modern Catholic doctrine on the State, for the betterment of society generally. If, under this Bill, the State is going to require that certain of their funds shall be put into pawn, it is up to Parliament, at any rate, to see that they cannot be lightly frittered away and cannot be lightly seized. I think when the Minister, who first drafted Section 14 without any penal clause, now comes before the House and says he wants a penal clause in that section and wants a fine put into that Section up to £100, he should give some kind of explanation. I do not know that any explanation would warrant the putting in of that penal fine against trade unionists and their funds. I think the fine should be much smaller, if any fine is wanted, but I want to protest against the Minister asking Parliament, for whatever reason —particularly for reasons not given— to so turn its back on its duties that these accumulated funds which, as I say, have been built up from the savings of working men for the betterment of themselves and for the betterment of the State, could by any process be lightly robbed. That is the protest I make against this section as it now appears, and I would like the Minister to become as voluble in dealing with the matter directly as he was prepared to become in trying to prevent me saying what I have said.

Mr. Norton

In Section 14 (1), it seems to me there is a rather unusual type of provision. The section says:—

(1) On or within one month after every third anniversary of the making by an authorised trade union of a deposit under this Part of this Act, such trade union shall send to the Minister a statement of the number of its members on such anniversary and, if it is necessary to increase or reduce such deposit by any amount in order to make it equal to the appropriate sum, such trade union shall, not later than two months after such anniversary, increase such deposit by such amount or apply for the return out of such deposit of such amount (as the case may require).

If one were dealing with any ordinary type of legislation, instead of with this Bill, one might understand that, where a reasonable requirement was imposed that a deposit should be kept at a given figure, it was necessary in a reasonable period of time to ensure that the deposit was in fact kept to that figure. I do not of course agree with the deposit scheme in this Bill at all, nor with the Bill at all. It seems to me that if a union which was required to make a deposit of, say, £4,000, found after a lapse of time that its membership had so fallen that it was required to make a deposit of only £2,000, it therefore had to its credit a sum in excess of that prescribed by this Bill, but it seems to me that, unless the union made application for the refund of that sum within two months, it could not get it back. It could not get it back, if it applied within three months, because according to the terms of this section it is mandatory on the organisation to make application to have its own money sent back to it within two months. I do not think it matters very much when the union makes application. The money belongs to the union. It can leave it there if it likes. If a union which should have lodged £2,000 has in fact lodged £4,000 who is upset by that? The courts should not be; the Minister cannot be. If the unions say: "well and good, we will leave it so; we do not want to get that returned to us," why should we compel the union to make application for its return within two months, and compel it, presumably, to forfeit the amount due for return unless in fact it makes application within two months? I do not understand why it is necessary. Of course, I hope the unions will not make any deposits at all, and that this section will be largely dead timber, but assuming that anybody would make a deposit under this section it does not seem to me to be reasonable that they should have to make their application within two months or run the risk of forfeiting the excess amount.

I have a similar view to Deputy Mulcahy in respect of the punishment to be imposed on unions for not making the return provided for in this section. Under Section 14 (2) as amended, the unions are to be liable to a fine not exceeding £100 in certain circumstances. I think £100 is a savage punishment for omission to send a return. It may be that, if the union is two or three days over its time, and, for instance, the Minister does not like the union or does not like its officers —and that is quite a probability — an action could be instituted against the union; you would have summary jurisdiction in the action, and the judge would be told he could impose a fine up to £100. That does not seem to me to be a fine which is justified by the offence of failure to submit a return. In other sections we deal with other types of offences, and the maximum fine is £5. In this case, under this hasty amendment, which was not thought of when the Bill was introduced, and which was slapped in, in a clumsy way, after the Bill had been circulated, we are providing for a fine of £100. What is the purpose of requiring payment of a fine of that amount when in other sections dealing with what one might describe as comparable offences, it they could be described as offences at all, the maximum fine provided for is £5? Would the Minister tell us why it is necessary to be so savage in Section 14, when the same type of savagery and ferocity is not carried into the other sections?

Mr. Linehan

There is a point here which strikes me as rather peculiar. Let us assume that a trade union had lodged a sum of £4,000, and that it discovered on the anniversary in question that its membership was so reduced that it was entitled to get £2,000 back. If they were lazy enough or negligent enough not to send in a return which showed the reduced membership, and which would enable them to get back £2,000, they would be liable to a fine of £100. They would be liable to that fine because they did not do something which would benefit themselves.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There is one point in regard to this section as amended which strikes me as being rather strange. I take it that, as the Bill now stands, a trade union would be liable to a fine of £100 if it does not send in its return, but it does not become liable to a fine if it does not increase its deposit. Now, I should imagine that the increase in the deposit would be rather the more important of the two. What is the Minister's method of dealing with it?

Mr. MacEntee

It is a very simple one. If the Deputy will turn to Section 7, he will see that it is a very salutary section.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Surely, that is the original deposit.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy should read Section 7 (1) (b), and Sections 7 (2) and 16.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It cannot hold the negotiation licence, but it is not fineable.

Mr. MacEntee

Oh, no; it is not fineable, but it loses its licence; that is all. I am not going to deal with the point raised by Deputy Norton as to whether a fine of £100 is appropriate to the offence covered by this section. I dealt with that, and Deputy Norton was not in the House.

General Mulcahy

The Minister did not say anything that had any bearing on it.

Mr. MacEntee

I dealt with it as fully and adequately as it deserves.

General Mulcahy

Oh, yes — as the Minister thinks it deserves.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, after all, perhaps my opinion has some weight.

Mr. Norton

The Minister will write another letter to the papers to-morrow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to speak without interruption.

General Mulcahy

The Minister does not allow us to do it.

Mr. MacEntee

I have said that I will not address myself to the point as to whether the sum of £100 is adequate to the offence, as I have already indicated on the amendment that in my view it is a very moderate penalty for the offence of failure to make a return. A point has been made here, for which I really cannot see any foundation at all in the text of the Bill. It has been suggested, I think, by Deputy Norton, that, if a trade union fails to apply within two months for a refund of the deposit which it had made that might be in excess of the appropriate sum, it is liable to be fined £100. I cannot see anything of the sort in the amendment.

Mr. Norton

I did not say that at all.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy read the amendment?

Mr. Norton

Deputy Linehan said that.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy must have confused other members of the House, because I think Deputy Linehan also was under that impression.

Mr. Linehan

I was under that impression because the reduction of the membership is a condition precedent to the getting back of the money.

Mr. MacEntee

Oh, no. The only condition is that the union will be fined if it makes a false return or fails to make a return. It is not going to be fined if it fails to apply within two months for the return of the deposit, and it is not going to forfeit the deposit either if it fails to apply within two months, because under amendment No. 52 which we passed last night, again I think in the absence of Deputy Norton——

Mr. Norton

If you were permanently absent we would be better off.

Mr. MacEntee

Am I going to be permitted to deal with this question? Paragraph——

Mr. Norton

If you do not misrepresent people you will.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep order white the Minister is speaking.

Mr. Norton

Not when the Minister is making misrepresentations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will get an opportunity of correcting misrepresentations.

Mr. Norton

I want to discuss the Bill. I cannot spend the whole evening correcting misrepresentations by the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must be guided by the Chair in their conduct.

Mr. Norton

I am very easy to guide in that way. The Minister started off by saying that I said that, if a trade union did not make an application for a refund, it was liable to a fine. The Official Records show that I said no such thing. It was Deputy Linehan who made that statement.

Mr. Linehan

And not quite that statement.

Mr. Norton

Even Deputy Linehan owns up to it, yet the Minister, though corrected on that point, goes on to misrepresent me. I will pass over that kind of nonsense, as I am too familiar with it from the Minister. If the Minister were only as good at understanding that this is an unwanted Bill which he insists on bringing in and dissipating the time of the House in discussing, as he is at misrepresenting people, it would be very much better for the country. In Section 14 (1) it seems to me that the union must make an application for a refund of any surplus deposited with the courts within two months after the third anniversary upon which it made the deposit.

If, for instance, a union makes a deposit with the courts on the 1st January, 1942, then on the 1st January, 1945, it must decide whether, on the 1st January or within a month of the 1st January, it will make an application for a refund of, say, a surplus of £2,000 which may be standing to its credit in the courts. If it does not make that application within two months, it seems to me that it cannot be made until a further three years have elapsed. It is triennially, apparently, that applications are made. Must the union wait for another three years before getting a refund? Why not make the application possible after three, six or 12 months? Apparently, this is only reviewable triennially, but what is the idea in insisting on a trade union making application within two or three months? Why should it not be allowed to make a choice as to when it will make the application? If the money is there, it belongs to the union; and if it is surplus it should be possible to get it back. Surely we are entitled to an explanation for the insistence on this?

Mr. MacEntee

Let the Deputy read the amendment passed by the House yesterday.

Mr. Norton

It has nothing to do with the amendment passed yesterday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will put the question.

Mr. Norton

Will we get an explanation? A Virginian Parliament was never worse.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 38.

Tá

Níl

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 15.

(3) Whenever the Accountant of the Courts of Justice, in pursuance of an order made by a Court under this section, pays any money out of a deposit maintained with him under this Part of this Act, he shall forthwith determine the balance remaining of such deposit (investments being calculated at their current market value) and, if such balance falls short of the full proper amount of such deposit, he shall give to the trade union concerned notice in writing of such deficiency and of the amount thereof.

(4) If, when a notice of deficiency of deposit is given in pursuance of the next preceding sub-section of this section, the trade union concerned, not more than 14 days after receiving such notice, deposits with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice a sum equal to the amount of the deficiency stated in such notice, the sum so deposited shall be added to and treated as part of the said deposit and such trade union shall be deemed to have maintained such deposit at its full proper amount.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 34.

To delete sub-section (2).

This section provides that where a court makes an order for the payment of money by a trade union, which is the holder of a negotiation licence, the High Court, on the application of the person in whose favour the order has been made, may order such money, with or without the costs of the application, to be paid out of the deposit maintained by the trade union under this part of the Act. An order, decree or judgment given against such a trade union will not be payable from the deposit unless formal application is made to the High Court for this to be done and the High Court considers it is desirable that the amount should be paid out of the deposit. There are a number of amendments down in my name to the section — amendments Nos. 34, 35, and 37 — and all these are consequential upon amendments to Sections 7 and 13 which have been adopted by the House.

Mr. Norton

Are we to understand that the reason for moving to delete sub-section (2) is that the person, having got an order in the form of a decree or judgment for the payment of money by a trade union, it is the desire of the courts that, before this money is paid out, the person in whose favour it is given should go back and ask the court to make an order requiring that the money be paid out of the deposit? Is the person to go to the court for redress and, having got redress in the form of some monetary benefit, does the person, if the subjection is deleted, go back and ask the court to have the money paid out of the deposit? Is that the case the Minister is making?

Mr. MacEntee

That is quite clear from sub-section (1):—

(1) Whenever a court makes an order, decree, or judgment for the payment of money by a trade union which is the holder of a negotiation licence to any person, the High Court may, on the application in a summary manner of such person, order such money (with or without the costs of such application) to be paid to such person out of the deposit maintained by such trade union under this Part of this Act.

The purport of that is to make it possible for the High Court to make an order, but it also provides that the High Court will only make it upon a second application.

General Mulcahy

What is clear from that? If the intention of the amendment to delete sub-section (2) is only made clear by the clarity of sub-section (1), then we will have to ask the Minister to deal with the section itself, particularly sub-section (1). What are the circumstances in which the court will make any order, decree or judgment, or that money will be paid by a trade union? What are the circumstances in which any such order will be made? What are the limits to the amount of money included in any such order? We are asked to contemplate that some court may make an order for a certain payment of money by a trade union, and the House should be told what are the kind of circumstances in which the court would make such an order when it would eat into a trade union's funds.

Mr. MacEntee

Once again, it is quite dear that the Deputy is not dealing with the matter seriously. When the court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, makes an order, decree, or judgment for the payment of money by a trade union, which is the holder of a negotiation licence, I presume that it will be satisfied that the person has rightfully established a claim against the funds of the trade union, and the court has the further power, if the person can show that there is no other means of securing the damages or the amount which the court has awarded to him, to allow him to recover that money out of the deposit which is already in the custody of the courts. It seems to me that that is a perfectly reasonable section. I am not going to say to the court when it may or may not make such an order, because, after all, the court is the judge on the merits of each case, and, if it is satisfied that a person can get justice against a trade union in no other way except by securing some part of the deposit which the trade union has made, I certainly am not going to try to bind the hands of the court in that regard.

General Mulcahy

Could the Minter give us two sample cases in which a person would have a claim in the courts against a trade union?

Mr. Davin

Is there any precedent for this kind of legislation?

Mr. Norton

It is an endeavour to do them out of the deposit.

Mr. Dillon

When I hear about the deposit of the trade union, my mind turns to the position of the insurance company which is required to make a deposit with the High Court for the secuiity of its policyholders. I take it the deposit which the trade union is required to make with the registering authority is designed as security for its members. Let us assume the deposit in some given case is £10,000. Suppose a person recovered £8,000 in a suit against that trade union and did not find it convenient to levy on the trade union premises or such other assets as the trade union might possess, does the Minister wish to give the court discretion to release £8,000 from the deposit which he stipulated the union should make as a condition precedent to registering the union as a negotiating body, or does the Minister say to the House: "I propose to let the court do that, but if I find myself confronted with a situation in which a union which I required to lodge £10,000 had suffered its deposit to be reduced to £2,000, I would immediately consider the question of cancelling that union's registration licence?" If the Minister makes it a condition precedent that the union must have £10,000 on deposit, it is scarcely credible that he would rest at ease if that were reduced in any way. I assume he would say to the trade union: "I will wipe you out if you do not restore the deposit to the original amount." That is what the Minister has in mind?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Byrne

I do not think the House has fully realised the importance and the dangers of this clause. Even when the sub-section is removed, and I think it is being removed for the purpose of preventing a discussion of its contents, supposing somebody, through a frivolous or other action against the trade union, secures high damages——

Mr. Davin

What is the Minister saying now? Does he realise he is interrupting Deputy Byrne?

Mr. Norton

Deputy Byrne should be protected against the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing the amendment, and his remarks are quite in order.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. The Deputy is discussing this matter on the assumption that sub-section (2) is not going to be deleted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may continue.

Mr. Byrne

I suggest that the reason the Minister is agreeing to delete the sub-section is in order to prevent a discussion on its dangers, what it intended when orginally drafted. What was really in their minds was, that they wanted to confiscate trade union funds. That is what it would have amounted to. The Minister discovered in time, through his advisers, that an attack could be made on them as this clause would mean confiscating trade union funds. Even the next sub-section leaves that danger there. It is known that very big damages were got against a trade union by an individual some years ago, although it might have appeared at the time laughable. Supposing a trade union had a deposit account with the Government equivalent to the amount of the damages secured against it, under this clause the person getting the damages could apply to be paid out of the deposit or out of investments lodged as security for the deposit. If you notice, the sub-section sets out "shall forthwith determine the balance remaining of such deposit (investments being calculated at their current market value)." A trade union might have deposits worth £20,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now discussing sub-section (3).

Mr. Byrne

I want to hinge on it my argument on the sub-section that is being eliminated. If this sub-section goes and the other one remains it means that the funds of the society, all their investments, can be sold at current market value. They may be reduced in value from £20,000 to £10,000. The Minister will be giving some claimant an opportunity of requesting the court to make an order against deposits that at one time were valued at £20,000 and at the date of the application they might be valued at only £10,000. I was involved in a case quite recently in which a sale took place of securities valued at thousands and they were forced to sell them at half their value. A claimant may get a judgment against a trade union, no matter how ridiculous the case may seem, and that claimant can get the court to make an order to sell the deposits or investments at current market value. Those two sub-sections should go, and indeed the whole Bill should go, because it is rotten.

Mr. Davin

It is confiscation.

Mr. Byrne

It is confiscation, pure and simple.

Mr. Davin

Is it in order for Fianna Fáil Deputies to laugh when we cannot get them to speak?

Mr. Dillon

Where a trade union gets fined, is it contemplated that the prosecuting authority would proceed against the funds by seeking an order from the court to release sufficient of the deposit moneys to pay the fine, if it could not get at the funds in any other way? Is that what is in the mind of the Minister? A trade union is not liable for tort in certain circumstances. It is scarcely likely that it is going to make itself liable for rent. There could only be proceedings against the trade union, as such, on contract over a criminal offence. Does the Minister intend to protect a person in contractual relations with a trade union or does he mean to make effective the penalties provided for in the code?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps it would be better to deal now with the amendment. The matter the Deputy is dealing with could be considered when we are discussing the section.

Mr. Norton

You cannot delete this sub-section light-heartedly, because we must see what portion of the plank is left after sawing off part of it. I am prepared to agree to the deletion of sub-section (2), but I want to see how much of the plank is still left. I should like the Minister to tell us, on sub-section (1) — sub-sections (1) and (2) hang together — what kind of person should be able to get a decree against a trade union. Deputy Dillon and others appropriately asked, can the landlord of a trade union premises go to court and say: "The union is in arrears with its rent and is taking no notice of my letters asking for payment, and therefore I have decided that, as the High Court holds £20,000 as the deposit of that union, I should be permitted to garnishee portion of that deposit"? Will he go to the ordinary court and explain that it is a contract debt and that he is suing for payment of what is due? Is the landlord provided with two remedies, first to take a chance in the ordinary court of recovering what is due, and secondly, can he go to the High Court and ask for payment out of the £20,000 lodged there belonging to the union? Is that the type of person contemplated to get after trade onion deposits, or are these deposits to be kept solely for the payment of fines imposed under Sections 11 and 12, and the still heavier fine which can be imposed under Section 14 as amended? Will the Minister clear up that position?

Mr. Linehan

It is proposed to remove sub-section (2) if the amendment is carried, but sub-section (3) hangs on that sub-section. Between discussion of the section and the Report Stage will the Minister consider whether or not a fine could be recovered under this section?

Mr. D. Morrissey

I wish to put another case to the Minister. There was a dispute here some years ago between one of the largest unions and one of its most prominent members which resulted in very costly and long-drawn-out litigation. That litigation was undertaken, notwithstanding the fact that the members of the union were absolutely opposed to it. So much were they opposed that a special conference of all the delegates of the union was called in Dublin in order to safeguard funds which had been subscribed, and every effort was made to prevent the case going to the courts. Deputy Hickey and myself were amongst four delegates appointed from that conference to negotiate with both sides in an attempt to stop the litigation. Notwithstanding our efforts the case went to court and a decision was ultimately given, but it so happened that it was not the members of the union but the individual on the opposite side that suffered. The decision might as well have been against the union as the damages and costs amounted to thousands of pounds. If a similar case were to arise to-morrow, would a person awarded damages and costs be able to satisfy them under this section? It seems to me that he would, and if that is so it is very unfair to the members of the union.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not appreciate the point of view of the Deputy. If it is admitted that a court may make an order for the payment of a decree against the trade union, surely it would be putting the court in an entirely ridiculous position if, having under this Bill substantial funds belonging to that union, it could not make an order for payment to a person in a position to prove — as I presume he would have to prove — that in no other way could he secure the satisfaction which the court adjudged him to be entitled to, than by getting possession of some of the funds which the court, under this Bill, had in its possession. I think if we agree that in certain circumstances, a trade union may be liable to an action for damages it would be a ridiculous position for the court to be put in relation to litigants or people seeking justice at its hands that, though there was held up in front of them a substantial sum of money belonging to the person whom the court had adjudged to have damaged them in some way, the court was to be precluded from giving satisfaction to those who came before it seeking satisfaction.

Mr. Linehan

Did not the Minister state that in certain circumstances it would be unfair if that happened?

Mr. MacEntee

I may have said "in such circumstances".

Mr. Linehan

In any circumstances.

Mr. Norton

Suppose I am an employee of a union and that for some reason it will not pay me, say, £4 a week. Surely the normal method of recovering the £4 is by suing the union?

Mr. MacEntee

In the courts. That is provided for under the section.

Mr. Norton

When the court makes an order it will pay out of the deposit.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Morrissey

It orders payment.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is under a misapprehension—

"(1) Whenever a court makes an order, decree, or judgment for the payment of money by a trade union which is the holder of a negotiation licence to any person,..."

The first thing a person has to do is to go before a court of suitable jurisdiction to make good his claim. The next question that arises is whether he is then going to apply to the High Court for an order.

Mr. Morrissey

That is not in the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

It is quite clear. There has to be an application to the High Court for the specific purpose of getting an order to pay out the money. First of all the person has to get a decree or judgment from a court of appropriate jurisdiction, and having got that — and I presume having tried to satisfy that order in the ordinary way — he has to go to the High Court for an order that the money shall be paid to him out of the funds of the trade union.

Mr. Linehan

No. If I have a judgment against a trade union for £10 in the District Court I can then go to the High Court.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy were in that position, and went to the High Court, and said that he had been given a decree against a union, and that he now wanted an order that the amount should be paid out of the deposit, does he not think that the High Court would think twice about it? Would he not be asked what steps had been taken to satisfy the decree, seeing the deposit was there for a certain purpose? As long as it is retained here, it entitles the holder of it to a negotiation licence. It would be a very serious matter if that negotiation licence were to be withdrawn, and, therefore, would not the court say: before we give an order — I assume this is the line the court would take— we must be satisfied that you, the applicant, have taken every reasonable step to secure satisfaction out of the other assets of the trade union.

Mr. Norton

That might be all right if the Minister were the judge, but we are not writing into this Bill any instructions to the judge to reason in the way the Minister has done. As Deputy Linehan has said, it would seem that if a person gets a decree in, the circuit court or the district court he can apply to the High Court and say: "I got this decree at the last district court and I want the decree met now out of the deposit which this union has under your control." It will be no function of a judge under this Act to reason in the way the Minister has done. The judge can make an order to meet that judgment out of the funds at the disposal of the court. He is not obliged to say to the person who holds the judgment: "If you proceed to take the money out of this £2,000 deposit you will imperil the negotiation licence of this trade union." The judge is only concerned with the fact that here is some person who turns up with a decree for £10 or for £1,000. Having got that decree, that person is in a position to reduce the amount of the deposit held under the court's control and to imperil the negotiation licence of the trade union, if it has one. Is it intended that this deposit should be attachable for ordinary shop debts, or should it be reserved for any of the offences which may be committed under this Bill? Can a landlord, for instance, go in and sue for his rent out of the deposit; can a trade union employee go in and sue for his wages out of it, or can any of the traders who do business with trade unions from time to time and who may get a decree in court against some particular trade union go to the High Court to get satisfaction for their debt? I did not think it was contemplated making these deposits attachable for ordinary debts. This is the first time that we have been able to set that from the Minister.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 35:—

In sub-section (3), page 8, to delete in line 20 the words "the Accountant of the Courts of Justice", to delete in line 21 the word "a" and substitute the words "the High", to delete in line 21 the word "pays", to insert in line 22, before the word "out" the words "is paid", to delete in line 22 the words "with him", to delete in line 23 the word "he" and substitute the words "the Accountant of the Courts of Justice", to insert in line 23 before the word "balance" the words "value of the", and to delete in line 24 the word "investments" and substitute the word "securities".

This is consequential.

Mr. Benson

I want to protest against the form in which this amendment is being put before the House. It proposes to make eight changes in the wording of the sub-section, and takes ten lines in which to do it. The original sub-section consists of only eight lines, and I put it to the Minister that it would have been much clearer for everyone to understand, much simpler, and would mean a great saving of time if he had deleted the original sub-section altogether and substituted a new one for it.

Mr. MacEntee

The ways of the lawyers are mysterious, and I cannot control them.

Mr. Costello

Do not put it all on the lawyers.

Mr. Dillon

I think that Deputy Benson's point is an extremely good one. It would be perfectly idle for any Deputy to pretend that he could understand what the sub-section will mean when it is amended by the Minister's amendment. It would take a quarter of an hour to read it.

Mr. MacEntee

I shall read it in much less than a quarter of an hour.

Mr. Dillon

It seems a silly thing to amend a sub-section in this way. What difficulty would there have been in deleting the section and substituting a new sub-section? The draftsmen, or whoever is responsible for such matters, ought to have been told that. We would be grateful to the Minister if he would read the sub-section as it will appear in the event of his amendment being carried.

Mr. MacEntee

The sub-section, as amended, will read:

(3) Whenever, in pursuance of an order made by the High Court under this section, any money is paid out of a deposit maintained under this part of this Act, the Accountant of the Courts of Justice shall forthwith determine the value of the balance remaining of such deposit (securities being calculated at their current market value) and, if such balance falls short of the full proper amount of such deposit, he shall give to the trade union concerned notice in writing of such deficiency and of the amount thereof.

I agree that it would have been better to have deleted the section, but, as I have said, the ways of lawyers are mysterious.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 34.

Tá

Níl

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Everett.

Question declared carried.

Progress reported.

Top