I move amendment No. 37:—
In sub-section (4), page 8, to delete in line 31, the words "Accountant of the Courts of Justice," and substitute the words "High Court."
This is consequential on amendments Nos. 17 and 32.
Trade Union Bill, 1941—Committee (Resumed).
SECTION 15 (Resumed).
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The section makes provision by which, under certain circumstances, moneys that have been lodged with the High Court by a trade union may have sums taken from them and paid out to certain people. These sums afterwards would be replenished from trade union funds. Will the Minister say what are the kinds of circumstances under which an order or a decree or a judgment will be issued that would enable any of the funds lodged with the High Court by a trade union to be paid out?
It seems to me that that is quite clear from the terms of sub-section (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.
It seems to me to be quite clear that the court will make an order for the payment of the money out of the deposit when it thinks that the circumstances justify its makinp that order.
Could the Minister help the House by suggesting one or two cases indicating circumstances that would bring about a situation in which a court would make an order such as that?
No, Sir, I do not think I should be asked to do that. The position is this, that a sum of money is to be deposited with the High Court. We are then to consider the case in which the court makes an order, decree or judgment, presumably at the suit of some person who claims to have been wronged or aggrieved or in some way damnified by the action of a trade union. The court then may be faced with this position, that the person to whom the court has granted that order or decree may come and say: "We have tried to secure satisfaction for the order of the court, but we have been unable to do so. At the same time we are aware that there is in your custody a substantial sum of money which would enable the order which you have granted us to be satisfied and, accordingly, we apply to you for an order stating that out of that sum of money belonging to this trade union within your custody there shall be paid such a sum as will satisfy the order which you have made." That is the purpose.
This is supposed to be a Bill which has some kind of principle in it and the House has not been helped very much to understand what principle or principles are behind the Bill. But I think the House will realise that one of the principal things in this Bill is that no trade union in future is going to be allowed to negotiate in connection with the conditions of its members unless it has a negotiation licence and is not going to be allowed have a negotiation licence until it has at least £2,000 and until that £2,000 is lodged with the High Court. So that this £2,000 or £10,000, as the case may be, and the power of paying sums out of it, as a result of an order of the court, is a very pivotal piece of the machinery of this Bill. All the Minister says is that a court may make an order when some person who considers he has been wronged or damnified by a trade union or has been affected by the action of a trade union, comes before a court, and puts the case before the court. What kind of an action by a trade union does the Minister contemplate would bring about that situation? I think in the face of penal action, at any rate, of the necessary preparation for penal action against trade union funds, the House ought to be given some kind of idea of what a trade union might do that would bring it into the position that its moneys would be paid out by a court order.
For instance, a trade union may, quite conceivably, break a contract, say, for the purchase of certain property, a contract say, entered into with a person to do certain services. A trade union might, quite conceivably, enter into a contract whereby that person would undertake to do all the printing of the trade union and, the person having fulfilled his part of the contract, the trade union might, improbably but conceivably, refuse to pay for some reason or another. Naturally, the other party to the contract in that case would have a right to go to a court and the court, just as it would in regard to other members of the community, as between the trade union and the party aggrieved by the failure of the trade union to fulfil its part of the contract, might give a decree or a judgment. In those circumstances, I think it would be merely stultifying the court if the court, having given a decree or judgment, was then to deny to the person to whom that judgment was given the right to come along and say: "We have tried to satisfy your judgment but we find that this trade union appears to have no other assets except this £2,000 or £10,000—whatever it may be —of cash or negotiable securities deposited with you. We think that the court is bound to take steps to ensure that the judgment of the court will be honoured and, accordingly, we are asking you to grant us an order which will mean that this sum which you as a court have found to be properly due by the trade union will be satisfied out of this deposit if we cannot satisfy ourselves in any other way."
Do I understand that up to the present there has been no machinery for getting a trade union organisation to pay its printing bills, and if that is so will the Minister say whether that has created a problem up to the present? The Minister also said that those funds might be used in case a trade union entered into a contract with regard to a particular premises. Do I understand that there has been no machinery for making a trade union pay its rent or pay for any property it bought up to the present? I certainly thought there was some kind of principle behind this clause, which is really like the structure that is raised upon the provisions for negotiation licences and putting in deposits, but the Minister amazes me and shocks me——
Drop that rot. Shock you or amaze you?
Keep order for God's sake.
When we ask for an explanation, we can be told nothing but that those funds can be used to make a trade union pay its printing bills, pay its rents or pay for some property that it buys.
This is an entirely new line the Minister has taken up on this occasion. It is certainly in accordance with the thoughts some of us had as to what this Bill was going to be; in other words the trade union is going to be under a sort of rule of bail, and this money is to be paid in for its good behaviour. Is the Minister going to put every organisation in this country under the same rule? What right has he to assume that the trade unions of this country are not going to pay for any property they buy, or for any printing they get done? Can he give us any instance to justify a section of this kind? It is very hard to understand what the Minister means. As I said at the beginning, it is something entirely new, and it causes us even more fears than we had up to now that he is trying to bind the trade unions hand and foot. Surely, it is an unheard of thing to suggest that the trade unions do not pay their lawful debts? I think it is a disgraceful section if that is the interpretation put upon it by the Minister, and we must assume that that is the proper interpretation.
May I try to bring the debate back to the net point on which it resumed this evening? I was asked to recount to the House the circumstances in which I thought it might be necessary for a person to have resort to the powers in this order and apply to the High Court. If Deputies had remembered the statement which I made on Thursday last when we were discussing this section, they would know that I pointed out that this section was, in fact, a safeguard for the funds of the trade union.
Nonsense.
Of course there is none so blind as those who will not see. If Deputy Corish wants to bolster up the case he is trying to make, no doubt he will close his mind to what I am saying. I did point out that this deposit belongs to the trade union. It is not paid by way of fee or anything else. It passes into the custody of the High Court, and all the income that accrues in respect of it inures to the trade union. Similarly if, for any reason, the holder of a negotiation licence may wish to surrender that licence, he can, on surrendering that licence, apply to the High Court and his deposit will be returned to him, provided, of course, that there are no claims against that deposit for fees or for other things. Because, however, this particular portion of the property of the trade union entitles the union to hold a negotiation licence, a safeguard has been_ put in here whereby a person who has received an order or judgment of the court would not be entitled, simply upon receipt of that order, to go to the accountant of the High Court and lodge that decree or that judgment, asking the accountant there and then to pay out of the funds of the trade union the amount required to satisfy this decree or judgment. Instead of putting the trade union in that position, which is the position of every other citizen of the State, of every other property holder in this State, and of every other corporation, I think, in this State—that the judgment of the High Court must be honoured where there are assets available to honour it, as there would be in the case of this deposit—in order to safeguard the position of the trade union it is necessary for a person who has secured a judgment of the High Court in his favour against that trade union to make a second application to the court before any part of that deposit can be paid out.
Quite obviously, when that second application is made, I presume that the court will put the onus upon the person who has secured this decree or judgment to prove that he has tried to satisfy that judgment in every other way open to him before he comes to the court and says: "You have £2,000, the property of the person against whom you have given me a judgment, and I ask you now to take steps to ensure that your judgment will be honoured." Of course it would be completely ludicrous that the courts of this country, having given judgment in favour of an aggrieved party, and holding in their hands substantial sums belonging to the person against whom that judgment is given, should not be in a position, if necessary, to ensure that their judgment is honoured. The whole purpose of this section is, in fact, to ensure that before those funds can be seized for a decree or for a judgment a second application will have to be made to the court to satisfy the court that there is no other resort left except to make an order that the judgment would be satisfied out of the funds in the possession of the court. That, Sir, has nothing to do with the net and, I thought, very trifling point raised by Deputy Mulcahy. In an assembly of presumably experienced public men, who have had experience of what happens outside and know there has been litigation between trade unions and trade unions, and between individuals and trade unions, it did not appear to me that there would be a person who could not conceive for himself the circumstances in which an action would be brought against a trade union.
And the High Court is to be made the sheriff?
It is no longer a Trade Union Bill.
The Minister's explanation makes it clear—if it were necessary to make it clear—that there is no type of case for which this money could not be made available after a court decision. In other sections of the Act we find the phrase "for the purposes of this Act." The deposit is being set down, apparently, to recognise the stability of unions catering for people doing trade union work. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that the deposit be related to the work they are doing? For any purpose whatsoever an action may be brought from any angle into the courts, the line of least resistance taken, and this deposit used to satisfy the judgment of the court. The Minister says that that will be done only when every other avenue has failed, and as a last resort. Is that likely, on the face of it? The obvious place to go is where this easy money is available.
That is not striking at the officials of the union or at men who may be responsible for the mistake which involved the action: it is striking at the rank and file of the members throughout the country. Under the present law, if the court messenger comes to make a seizure, certain items are respected—his essential tools of trade may not be taken away, the bed on which he is to lie may not be seized; but here is taken at one stroke the only means by which the trade union, can function at all. Automatically, when an inroad is made upon the deposit, the negotiation licence ceases to be valid if that inroad is not made good within fourteen days. This is one of the many dangerous sections in the Bill. I am trying to look at this impartially, but each and every section I read seems to bring home more and more the vindictive element behind the Bill. Notwithstanding anything the Minister might say, there is not a section which has a healthy ring about it. This is another sword held above the heads of the people.
The easiest possible way for an applicant to satisfy his claim is to go to the court where he will be told: "The money is ready for you; come and have your judgment satisfied here." After that, the union will cease to have any function by negotiation licence within 14 days, if the demand is not met. It will be robbed, of that right. If this is being held as a safeguard for the responsibility of the union to do trade union work, it should be related to the main purposes of the Bill—the regulation and the inter-relation of unions and the prevention of poaching and things like that. There seems to be an idea in the Minister's mind that the money is here for every Tom, Dick and Harry. The members of the unions throughout the country will suffer the effects of this very dangerous section.
Mr. Byrne
I consider this the most dangerous section, as it is a confiscatory one leading up to the confiscation of trade union funds. It is a weapon to enable others to take away from the licensing fee sufficient money to point to the fact that the licence is not fully in order, and if the trade union is not in a position to replenish the sums taken from the deposit they will be deprived of the negotiation licence. It is like taking from a skilled man the tools essential for his work and putting them in pawn; that is exactly what this clause does. I tried to draw attention to that here a few days ago. In my opinion, this is one of the most dangerous clauses in the Bill, and one which has been inserted, in order to deprive a union of its licence to negotiate. It is, therefore, a section which should, be withdrawn.
It is interesting to hear the Minister telling us that "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Does the Minister suggest that what he has stated confirms in anybody's mind that this is any longer a Trade Union Bill? If a union which has made a £2,000 deposit becomes involved in a lawsuit—whether it be for a coal bill or for rent—someone may come to court and get this money out of the deposit. Then, unless that union is able to pay that sum of money into the court within 14 days, the union cannot function any longer as a trade union. How can the Minister claim that this is any longer a Trade Union Bill when he insists on this clause? It is obvious that this Bill is designed simply to regiment the trade unions and safeguard vested interests from the activities of trade unions.
The Minister has stated that this section is to operate only as a last resort. As far as I can see from leading this section, there is nothing to indicate that, and I hope that, before the next stage is reached, the Minister will think it well to include an indication to the courts that this is to be used only when all other methods have failed.
I think we must leave that to the discretion of the court. That is implied here in the phrase "with or without the costs of such application." The courts will have to consider every circumstance and if an application is made vexatiously the court will be able not only to withhold the older but costs also.
The Minister seems to have supreme confidence in what the courts are likely to decide.
I have.
I remember that a Courts of Justice Commission was set up by the House some years ago, and took a great deal of evidence. Evidence was given by representatives of one of the branches of the legal profession, when it was pointed out that certain firms of solicitors initiated cases in the High Court which more properly should have been initiated in the District Court or the Circuit Court. These particular firms of solicitors did that in order to get High Court costs. That went on and was allowed to go on. So far as the evidence given before that particular commission was concerned, it was allowed to go on without any protest whatever from the High Court and without any steps being taken to put an end to it. In that way, persons or firms who owed small sums of money well within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court or the District Court were dragged into the High Court, in order that the solicitors could collect costs on the High Court scale.
This is undoubtedly an entirely new departure and is putting a responsibility on trade unions which is not put on any other section of the community or on any other organisation or firm. It is like insisting on a fidelity bond: the unions must give a cash guarantee beforehand for their good behaviour. It is idle for the Minister to say that it would be absurd to have the courts in a position that they gave a judgment and that the judgment was not satisfied. The function of the courts is to hear a case on its merits and to give a decision on the merits of the case: it is not their function to see in any way afterwards that, the damages or compensation awarded are paid. That is not a function of the courts so far as I can see, speaking purely as a layman. If this new position is taken up, every person or firm starting business in which they are likely to contract debts should, according to the Minister's reasoning, make a cash deposit before they are allowed to start, and that cash deposit should be available to be tapped any time a decision is given against them by the court. Deputies seem to be surprised at this section, but I am not a bit surprised, as it is in keeping with the whole Bill.
The courts have frequently stated that their function is to interpret legislation embodied in, an Act and not to be moved in any way by what it was intended should be there. The Minister has stated quite definitely that it is his intention that the section shall be interpreted in a certain way, and I can see no reason why he should not state that clearly and without equivocation in the section so as to make it clear. If he is not prepared to do that there may be results different from those he is leading the House to believe there will be.
This section seems to contain infinitely mare than the Minister has led the House to believe. He has stated to Deputy Benson that anybody could see by implication what is meant. Surely we are not going to carry through an important matter of this kind by implication? The Minister is aware that, in the last few years, certain Acts passed by this House have been interpreted by the judges of the courts quite differently from the way in which it was intended by Ministers that they should be interpreted. I am not saying that the Minister has not certain intentions in mind, but perhaps the implications which would appeal to the judges are not those which he has in mind.
The implication is a very serious one, as Deputy Morrissey has pointed out, as no other organisation has to place a certain amount of money on deposit in the High Court as a sort of bail for good behaviour. It might easily happen that a union would be engaged in a life and death struggle with a certain employer, and that certain unscrupulous employers would take advantage of the situation to press for some money or to get some people to press for some money due to them at that particular time in order to reduce the deposit necessary for the negotiation licence and bring the strike to a speedy end in their interest. This is a very dangerous section. Of all the sections in the Bill, I think this, if not the most dangerous, is one of the most dangerous, and it certainly brings home to my mind what I have thought all the time, that this Bill has been brought in for the purpose of handcuffing the trade unions.
I just intervene to deal with the point made by Deputy Morrissey. It is quite clear that we in this House cannot in anticipation adjudicate upon the merits of every particular case. I have stated what I believe will be the way in which the courts will act. Of course, the courts will act in a reasonable manner in this matter and say: "Since you have come to us, before any part of these funds can be devoted to satisfying the judgment, the onus is on you to show that that is the least onerous way of satisfying the judgment. If there are other assets, you will have to go and satisfy your judgment out of these." If I were on the bench I certainly would say that, but on the other hand, might have to say: "We cannot deny the right of justice to the applicant, if this union has no assets other than those in our custody." I think it would be impossible for me to draft a section which would cover all the possible circumstances in which great hardship would be done to the person who had been aggrieved by the union, and to whom the court had given a judgment, if he could not execute that judgment. I think we have to consider the rights of other individuals in this community as well as the rights of those who are trade unionists. I think the section, as I have drafted it; does afford an additional safeguard to trade unions, and I think it is sufficient, as we have confidence in the fact that our courts do justice as between individuals, to leave to the courts freedom to deal with each particular case on its merits.
It has been repeated here several times in the course of the debate that in this section we are doing something unprecedented, that it has never been required before. Of course, that does not happen to be the case, because in the Insurance Act which was passed in 1936 there is a similar proviso that court judgments in certain circumstances may be satisfied out of the money on deposit.
In respect of printing bills?
There is exactly the same provision in regard to the payment of certain debts out of the moneys lodged on deposit by the insurance companies. If those insurance companies had no other way of satisfying a judgment of the court except out of their deposit, they would be in exactly the same position as the trade unions would be. The insurance companies would have to go out of business if they were in such circumstances that they were not able to make good within the prescribed period the amount by which the deposit had been depleted upon the satisfaction of a court judgment. They are in no different position from that in which trade unions are under this Bill. Therefore, it is not true to say that this is unprecedented and aimed at the trade unions. It has been found necessary in other cases in which persons or corporations are bound to lodge deposits or money with the courts.
What Insurance Act is the Minister referring to?
The Act of 1936.
The Minister, of course, is quite wrong. There is no analogy between this and the deposits made by insurance companies. The deposits made by insurance companies are to safeguard the policy holders. If this deposit was to ensure that, when there was an official strike ordered by a trade union, the union members on strike and in benefit would be secured strike pay there might be some analogy. But for the Minister to suggest that the deposits made by insurance companies can be used for the payment of printing bills or for the rent of their offices is absolutely absurd. It just shows that the Minister is simply floundering all round the place, trying to find some explanation or excuse for the section. The only thing about it is that the Minister has floundered so much that we have certainly got a little of what is really behind the section, but certainly not enough. As the Minister is trying to induce the House to pass tills section by telling the House in a very definite way that this section is analogous to the section dealing with the insurance companies, that the deposit in their case may be treated by the courts in the same way, I should like the Minister to quote his authority for that and to quote the corresponding section in the Insurance Act of 1936.
As Deputy Morrissey has pointed out, the analogy which the Minister has drawn between this section of the Bill and the somewhat similar section in the Insurance Act, 1936, is a very unfair analogy. In fact, it is, as the Deputy pointed, out, quite absurd. I should like the Minister to answer this question: Was the deposit system introduced into the Insurance Act purely for the purpose of embracing certain companies deemed by the Government not to be actuarially sound?
I should like to ask if the members of a trade union are engaged in a dispute with an employer and, in the course of that dispute, discover that the funds at their disposal are exhausted, would it be open to them to apply for part of the deposit lodged in the courts to give strike pay to the men engaged in the dispute?
The deposit must be maintained with the courts in all circumstances.
If somebody else takes anything out of that deposit, then the trade union, which might be involved in a dispute with a very unfair employer, has only 14 days to make good the deposit, otherwise its negotiation licence will be withdrawn.
They can always pay their debts.
Will the Minister tell us when, in the history of the trade union movement, they have not paid their debts whenever they were incurred by any responsible official?
I am not suggesting that they have not.
I think the Minister's answer goes more and more to show that this section will cripple the trade unions. Deputy Hickey has asked a question the answer to which was obvious, that the deposit must be kept at the minimum figure laid down in the Bill. But that is not really the point. If a decree is got against a union in the High Court for, say, £l,000 and has to be paid out of the £2,000, which is the minimum, if that £l,000 is not forthcoming because of the fact that the union is engaged in a life-and-death struggle and must use every 1/2d. it has to give strike pay to its members, will thp negotiation licence then be withdrawn in the middle of a dispute, nd would it be illegal for the officials of that union to negotiate with the waployer? I suggest that, if the law is observed in accordance with this Bill when passed, the licence would be withdrawn because of the fact that the £2,000 cannot be maintained. That makes it absolutely ludicrous, apart from the hardship it would inflict upon trade unions.
I wonder if this can be taken as an indication of the type of legislation that, as we have been told by a Fianna Fáil Deputy, will be introduced in the future?
My very legitimate curiosity is not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister as to the purpose of this section. I am shocked and astonished that it is possible under this section for printing or rent debts, or any other kind of debts, to be recovered by making the High Court act as a sheriff to the other courts. Surely that was not the function of the High Court that was originally intended? I think the House is entitled to have a review of the type of circumstances that might arise, related to the purposes of this Bill— that is, the bringing about of orderly and, later, peaceful and harmonious relations in the industrial world. What purpose, in that connection, was contemplated by the inclusion of this section? I do not think that any funds lodged, as a result of the passing of this legislation, should be used for any other purpose than what ordinarily would be contemplated as the main purpose of legislation of this kind; that is, to get order and, subsequently, harmony and co-operation in the relations between employers and employees.
Does the Minister regard trade unions as functional or vocational bodies, and does he consider that this is a specimen of the legislation that it is considered proper to apply to functional and vocational bodies? If so, to what extension of this kind of principle are we likely to proceed? I submit that before we proceed to establish a precedent of this kind, the ground should be more fully reviewed, and we should be clearer as to the intentions of the Bill.
The general intention of the Bill does not arise. The question at issue is whether these funds should be attachable.
This section has nothing to do except to provide machinery for dealing with the main intentions of the Bill.
The principles of the Bill do not arise. That is definite. We are dealing with one section only.
The principle of this section is that, in the case of a trade union, it is called upon to lodge certain funds, and because these funds are lodged with the High Court, any order likely to be made against them in any other court may be transferred to the High Court, and the High Court shall, as it were, act as a sheriff. Nothing could be more explicit than the very limited powers that are left to the High Court when, an order having been got, they apply to the High Court. Sub-section (1) sets out:—
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.
Deputies will observe the wording "on the application in a summary manner of such person." Does the Minister regard a trade union as a functional or a vocational body, and I should like him to tell us how far the principle that is enshrined in this section of dealing with the funds of such a body is going to be extended?
That does not arise.
Is that the ruling of the Chair?
It is obvious that the question whether it is vocational is not relevant.
Am I not entitled to point out that if this section is passed, a precedent will be created in connection with the particular type of body—that the body may be one of a particular class? I am anxious to know how far this is a precedent that is likely to be accepted and expanded.
The Deputy is introducing matters that are quite outside the scope of the section.
The Minister says that a trade union which owes money for printing or rent may be taken into court by the aggrieved party and the High Court may, on the application in a summary manner of such person, pay out that money. Am I not in order in pointing out that there is a danger that the same principle will be applied to political parties at some time or other, parties serving a functional purpose in this State?
That is quite another matter.
I am not entitled to raise it on this section?
The Deputy is not, and I feel that he himself realises that.
I do not.
I am surprised that the Deputy does not.
I am interested in having your ruling on that matter. It should make it all the more easy for the Minister if the application of this section is to be seen in such blinkers. We are simply taking a trade union and we are not extending our review of the situation to any other type of body. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what kind of action could be brought against a trade union which would meet the purposes for which this section was contemplated?
The Deputy has twice asked that question. He should not repeat himself.
I do not believe the Minister when he tells us that this section is purely for the purpose of seeing whether they pay their rent or their printing bill.
I have here a copy of the Insurance Act, 1936, to which the Minister referred. He told the House that this section in the Trade Union Bill was similar to a section in the Insurance Act. The section in the Trade Union Bill was copied almost word for word from Section 25 of the Insurance Act of 1936, with this very significant difference—that the section in the Insurance Act is absolutely confined, because it says: "Whenever a court makes an order, decree or judgment for the payment of money by an assurance company or a syndicate to any person in respect of a claim under a policy issued." The whole section is confined to that one specific payment. That is the type of section the Minister wants the House to pass—this all-embracing Section 15 of the Trade Union Bill.
Does the Minister now understand me when I say I do not believe him when he tells us that this section is for the purpose of dealing with printing bills and other things, and does he understand why I press him to tell us what is the real reason behind the section? I should like to point out that the Minister has made a representation to the House which is absolutely out of accord with the facts.
That is not so. I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I must protest against that statement.
We are the people who have the right to protest. The Minister said that the Insurance Act was on all fours with what he has in this section.
I did not say it was on all fours.
So far as its application is concerned, the Minister made a definite comparison with the Insurance Act. Now he is not man enough to withdraw that.
I think it is important, for the benefit of Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who are not present to hear the discussion, that I should quote Section 25 of the Insurance Act of 1936.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Section 25 of the Insurance Act reads:—
(1) Whenever a court makes an order, decree, or judgment for the payment of money by an assurance company or a syndicate to any person in respect of a claim under a policy issued by such assurance company or syndicate (as the case may be), 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 or any particular deposit maintained by such assurance company or by the Committee of Lloyds (as the case may be) in pursuance of this Act.
(2) Whenever the High Court makes an order under the foregoing sub-section of this section, the Accountant of the Courts of Justice shall pay the money stated in such order to the person and out of the deposit specified in such order and shall for that purpose sell so much of the investments representing the said deposit as is necessary (after defraying the costs of such sale) to enable such money to be so paid.
The Minister told us that Section 15 will enable printing bills and rent bills to be paid on application to the High Court out of deposits made by trade unions in the High Court, as by Section 25 of the Insurance Act. We have asked the Minister to explain the matter and the explanation he gave was, from one point of view, flippant, but by reason of its flippancy of the utmost seriousness. He upheld words with a more definite intention and completely misrepresented the matter to the House, and unless Deputies went to the trouble of getting the Insurance Act, they would be completely misled by the Minister. I think it is disgraceful on the part of the Minister, and we ought to get some explanation or some apology if we are to continue to discuss the Bill in a reasonable way.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seáan.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Driain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smithy Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett. James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy. Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
This section gives the Minister the right to revoke any negotiation licence if he is satisfied that the holder thereof has ceased to be an authorised trade union, or has ceased to be registered as a trade union in this country, or, if not in this country, then under the laws of another country, or has failed to maintain the necessary deposit with the High Court.
Does not this raise a question as to whether the Minister may not be called upon to give a Judicial decision in these casest I think I raised this on an earlier stage of the Bill. This point was raised recently in the courts in connection with another Department of State. The judge decided that the matter raised was one in which a Minister was called upon to give a judicial decision. The question of the sum, of money to be lodged in court is one of fact, and hence no great difficulty will arise there. The question of deciding as to whether the Minister is satisfied in regard to any other cause is a very nice one. Why should the Minister depart from being an administrator, and put himself in this position of having to give judicial decisions, especially in cases in which other bodies might be brought in with a greater degree of satisfaction to all concerned? Take the case of an authorised, or statutory, trade union whose case has gone before the tribunal. Even in that case it might be held that it was not a suitable body to hold a negotiation licence. Some authority, other than that of the Minister, ought to be provided for the purpose of making the necessary alterations. In my opinion the Minister has quite enough to do as administrator without being called upon to perform judicial acts.
I appeal to the members of the House, irrespective of Party, who are anxious to maintain its control over the activities of Ministers to refuse to give the dictatorial power which the Minister is seeking for himself in this section. The section is briefly worded and would appear to be a simple one, but, in fact, it proposes to give the Minister complete power to use his own discretion in these matters if adopted by the House. It should be quite sufficient for the Minister, or for any democratically-minded Minister, to take powers of this kind, provided they were governed by the conditions laid down in Section 7. I do not want to say anything personally disrespectful to the Minister, but I submit that, so far, he has made no case for the Bill or for any section of it. He has refused to give an explanation of certain sections of it, and even admitted, in my hearing, that words, inserted originally in certain sections of it, were ridiculous. That should prove conclusively to Deputies that the Minister does not understand the Bill, and did not look into it with sufficient care before he put it before the House. If he has made no case for its introduction, and admits in speeches he has made here that he does not understand the meaning of it, surely that is a very good reason for refusing to give the Minister the dictatorial powers which he is seeking for himself in this section. In my opinion, this Bill was brought in for political purposes, or partially political purposes.
The Deputy must confine his remarks to this section.
I am making my case against it mainly on the ground that the Minister has made no case for the Bill, for any section of it, and, in particular, for this section. Apart altogether from that, I want to say that if powers of this kind are to be exercised then, in my opinion, they should be exercised by people with judicial minds. The Minister has no such mind on this or on any other measure.
Under an earlier section a trade union, in order to retain a negotiation licence, must comply with certain conditions, and if it fails to do so it automatically loses the licence. In view of that why should the Minister introduce himself gratuitously into this section? I think that the power sought here is most objectionable, no matter who the Minister might be. Why not rely on the earlier section in which the conditions are laid down for obtaining and retaining a negotiation licence? Are not the reasons set forth sufficiently clear there, and what is the necessity for bringing the Minister in here and giving him a discretion? Why confer on him the power of saying that he is satisfied that the union has ceased to be an authorised union, and put him in the position of being able to revoke the licence? I think, apart from any other reason, it is a most unwise thing to do. I think that the farther the Minister removes himself from this Bill the better the trade unions will like it. In my opinion the Minister should be equally glad to get away from the Bill, and especially this section. The trade unions, as far as I know them, would have a rooted objection to a discretion being left with the Minister in this matter. The authorised trade unions which had obtained a negotiation licence would object strongly to the Minister being introduced, into the Bill in the way set forth here.
Why was the word "may," instead of the word "shall," introduced into the first line of this section?
That is the usual form in which sections of this kind are drafted.
It is not the usual form at all. Why is the section discretionary and not mandatory? Perhaps the Minister would answer the question in that form?
It has already been, I think, held elsewhere that when "may" appears in this form, without qualification, it is virtually mandatory.
That is not so. Surely, the Minister has some other reason for the use of this word than that which he is pleased to give the House. It was not put in by accident. I am sure it was put in only after consideration and for a definite reason. I am entitled to ask the Minister, on Committee Stage, why the word "may" appears there instead of "shall."
That is the section as it was drafted by the Parliamentary draftsman.
Am I to take it that the Minister is unable to give any explanation as to why this word is used?
That is the form in which the Parliamentary draftsman has seen fit to put the section, following the decisions of the courts.
I question that that is so. Responsibility should not be pushed over on the Parliamentary draftsman in that way. The draftsman is instructed by the Department, or the Minister who is putting through the Bill, as to whether a particular section is to be mandatory or discretionary.
It has been decided in a case under the Pensions Act that the word "may" used in that context, without qualification, is practically mandatory on the Minister.
If that be so, then I say that the word "shall" should be there and not the word "may". I can only come to the conclusion that the Minister is unable, or unwilling, to give an explanation of the use of the word "may". I call the attention of the House to the form of the section and to the attitude taken up by the Minister on it.
Let us assume that this Bill comes into operation—which is a big assumption—and that a trade union, which is in possession of £2,000, pays that sum in and gets its negotiation licence. Thereupon, it becomes an authorised trade union. Let us assume that they have a printing bill outstanding and that they owe a certain amount for rent and a few things like those. That money is placed in a position in which it can be easily got at by creditors. They bring their cases to the District Court, or to whatever court is suitable, and they get decrees for £150. The appropriate court makes the necessary orders. The persons who get the orders apply to the High Court and £150 is demanded and paid out from the moneys lodged to the credit of the trade union, leaving a sum of £1,850. Let us assume that the union has had a considerable amount of difficulty in scraping up the £2,000 and that one ot the difficulties of the members in meeting the claims upon them was that they were using their funds in order to become an authorised trade union. They tended to hold off some of the claims against them until they got themselves established. Would the Minister be empowered to allow that trade union to hold its negotiation licence for six or eight months and thus give it an opportunity, during that period, to gather the sum of £150 required to bring its lodgment up to the full amount?
Can the Minister visualise the conditions in which he would use the powers given him under this section? One would think that he would use them only if he were not satisfied that the union had done everything it should do in connection with Section 7. Would he give us an idea as to the conditions in which he would use the powers which he is taking?
One other point: Assume that, as a result of judgments, money is paid out, leaving only £l,200 in the hands of the accountant. The union is unable to bring the amount up to the sum required—£2,000. The Minister revokes the negotiation licence. What becomes of the balance of the deposit? Does it remain there, or is it paid out? Under what authority is it paid out and to whom? That point does not seem to be covered either in this section or in any part of the Bill.
It is.
Would the Minister mention the section?
I do not think that the point Deputy Morrissey has raised is relevant to this section.
Why not?
Other Deputies raised points before Deputy Morrissey. In reply to the point made by Deputy Mulcahy, it is very clearly stated in Section 15 that the union has 14 days to make good any deficiency in the amount of the appropriate deposit.
Has the Minister any discretion under Section 16?
Under Section 7 it is also set out that no body of persons shall be granted or hold a negotiation licence unless a body which fulfils the conditions—that is to say, except it is registered under the Trade Union Acts in this country, or is a trade union under the law of another country, and has deposited and keeps deposited, subject to the provisions of this Act, with the accountant of the Courts of Justice the appropriate sum. Provision is made in another section for the return of the deposit—or, I presume, the balance of the deposit—when requested. That is provided for by Section 13. Under Section 13, as amended by amendment No. 32, "a, 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 the Act." That is the answer to the question put by Deputy Morrissey.
I do not want to accuse the Minister of being deliberately discourteous but he has made no attempt, in the few sentences uttered by him on this section, to explain why he seeks these powers for himself. It might be said that this section was introduced to serve some political purpose. Why is the Minister not satisfied with the powers already given by the majority of the House under Section 7? I have heard some of his own Deputies in the Lobby say, in very plain language, what they thought of this Bill and some sections of the Bill——
That has no bearing on the section. Remarks made by Deputies in the Lobby should not be referred to in discussion in the House.
If I am not allowed to deal with that——
The Chair suggests that conversations which take place outside may not be relevantly referred to.
I submit that what is said and written outside is relevant to this Bill, if we wish to relate it to it. I am sure that, with your consent, I could relate the contents of a letter written by Deputy Childers to the Irish Press to this section. The privileges of this House would not be abused in any way if I did so and I am sure you would not prevent my doing so. I could also relate, and properly relate, what is said in the Lobby, what is said in the public Press, and what is said on public platforms, to the attitude of the Minister in this case without being ruled out of order.
I have not ruled the Deputy out of order. The Chair suggested that it is not advisable or proper to refer in the House to opinions expressed by Deputies in the Lobbies. The Deputy may refer to them if it seems to him proper to do so.
For the same reason that it is not wise for Deputies to write to the papers things that they should say in this House——
That is quite extraneous.
It has a bearing on what you have just said. We are not going to be tongue-tied or hamstrung in this House.
If the Deputy objects to the ruling of the Chair, there is a method of dealing with it. He may not challenge it by innuendo.
I do not want to challenge it.
Then the Deputy should come to the section.
If you rule that what I said is out of order——
The Chair has no desire to enter into a wrangle with the Deputy. I have suggested the inadvisability of a certain course of action. If the Deputy thinks it wise to pursue it he may proceed.
I would ask the Mimster, who, I am sure, does not wish to be discourteous to the House, to explain the reason why he seeks these dictatorial powers for himself or his successors. I would certainly refuse to give any Minister the powers that the Minister seeks in this section.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Cerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (4) of Section 6 provides that that section cannot come into force earlier than six months after the passing of the Act. Section 17 makes a further provision that Part III of the Act cannot come into operation until six months after Section 6 has come into operation, and therefore ensures that Part III cannot come into operation in any circumstances until at least 12 months after the passing of the Act.
Needless to say, I do not want to see this measure come into operation after six months, or after any other period, and certainly not before some justification is given for the steam-rolling of the measure through the House, without any explanation in existing circumstances. We were told by a prominent Deputy that the Bill is only one of the number of self-disciplinary measures that will be necessary in the future, in a letter written by that very prominent Deputy to the Irish Press in the past few days.
On Section 17?
On every section——
On Section 17 only now.
——including Section IT, which is a very important section.
I will hear the Deputy on Section 17.
If you will permit me, Sir, I will read the whole letter, and you will see that the Deputy concerned dealt with the whole Bill. I did not want to take up the time of the House in going through it, however, because we are discussing only one section now. With your permission, I will read the whole of the letter later on, if the Deputy who took such a long time to write a letter, and so much trouble in thinking out the contents of it, still remains a dummy and refuses to explain what he, a back-bencher, means by saying that this is only one of a number of self-disciplinary measures to be introduced.
Surely, Section 17 is not one of those measures?
I was informed by one of the Deputies on the opposite side that none of the Fianna Fáil Party got a look at the measure before it was sent to the printer.
The Deputy must deal with Section 17.
I want to see the period fixed in the section considerably extended. I want to see the measure in its present form suspended rather than to sec it provoke the trouble which I know it will provoke, if it, and particularly Section 17, is put into operation in its present form.
If there is anything in the suggestion made by Deputy Childers in his letter to the Press to-day that other measures are contemplated and that this is part of a scheme, will the Minister indicate at this late hour whether the reason for holding up the coming into operation of Part III is in order that the work of the tribunal may be carried oat in the light of the facts then known but which are not known to us in passing this section? What are the other legislative measures the Minister intends to introduce in connection with trade union organisation, and is the Minister postponing the coming into force of Part III in order that the tribunal, when it does get to work under the rery limited directions given to it in this part of the Bill, may have the benefit of the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission and of the lines which they think the development of functional and vocational organisation should take?
On a point of personal explanation. I should make it clear at this stage that, in the letter I addressed to the Irish Press, I was speculating on my own personal account so far as the future is concerned. I am not entitled to speak for, nor have I ever received any indication of the intentions of the Government with regard to disciplinary measures. I was speculating on the future and there is no point in trying to base an examination of the Bill on a letter in which I expressed the view that something of this kind would happen in many instances in the future as part of our economic life and development.
I wonder if we are to take it from that statement that certain Deputies are not allowed to speak on this measure?
We are just as free as Deputy Morrissey is.
Mr. Morrissey
I am addressing the Chair.
That is the first voice from that side that we have heard in three days.
Mr. Morrissey
I take it that dial is the only conclusion that we can come to from the Deputy's statement and from the very marked silence of Deputies on the opposite side on the Bill and on the section. It is rather a remarkable thing—I do not think it has ever happened in the history of the House—that Deputies have refrained from speaking in the House in which they were elected to speak, and have chosen instead to write their thoughts on this measure and upon the different sections of it to the daily papers. That is a rather dangerous departure, I suggest, and if it is to be extended and continued, and if Deputies refuse to speak on a section such as this, but write letters to the Press instead, people outside will, very properly, come to the conclusion that this House is a waste of time and money.
What about section 17?
Mr. Morrissey
I have very strong views on Section 17, but I have no desire to monopolise the time of the House in putting them forward. I should much prefer to hear something from the Minister, or from some of the men who spend their time in composing letters for the Press.
This Bill is remarkable in a number of ways. Deputy Meaney wrote a letter to the Government organ last week in which he said that this Bill should be shaped by the impact of reason on reason, and he displayed his passion for that kind of shaping and reason by abstaining from attending the House. Deputy Childers has now come in with a kind of temporary freedom and has written a letter to the Government Press on the 20th June. I do not want to go through the contents of it on this section, but when the Minister becomes childishly petulant, he can also write a letter to the Press. We are asked to bring the Bill into operation not earlier than six months after we pass it. I think this is the most fraudulent section of the whole Bill, a Bill which has been steam-rolled through under false pretences. Not a single member of the Government Party, except the Minister, has spoken in favour of it, but the boys will troop into the Lobbies——
Will Deputy Norton——
I am willing to hear an interruption from almost anybody on the Government Benches.
Because you are so bankrupt of any ideas.
I am not saying that you are bankrupt of ideas.
You want to hang on to any straw you can get.
The necessity for the Bill is so obvious.
Why did you write to the paper?
If the statement of Deputy Childers is true, why do members of the Government Party say privately that they deplore the introduction of this Bill?
Name them.
I will tell the Deputy all about it.
On a point of order ——
Write a letter to the paper to-morrow about it.
——would it not be desirable if Deputy Norton would address himself to the section?
The Deputy has been interrupted, and a little allowance must be made.
On a point of order, arising out of the Minister's point of order. Is Deputy Norton not entitled to answer interruptions, even if they are not intelligent?
He is not entitled to take any notice of interruptions whatever.
As a matter of fact, Sir, I am endeavouring to handle all these interruptions in such a way as to keep things harmonious and peaceful. Most of the lads over there know that this Bill is unwanted, but, of course, they evidently believe in playing for the team. I do not believe in playing for the team to that extent. I have been asked to give names, but I do not want to embarrass anybody by giving names, although it would appear that some people want them to be given, but I am afraid that some of the people sitting over there would be very distressed if I were to give names. We are being asked, according to this section, to put this Bill into operation not earlier than six months after the date on which Section 6 of this Bill, when it is enacted, comes into operation, and I think that I am reasonably entitled to argue on this section that neither the section nor the Bill itself should come into operation at all, either six months after or 12 months after, or at any time. As a matter of fact, I hold that the Minister is trying to put this Bill, and this section of the Bill, over on this House under false pretences. Let there be no illusions about this matter. I think it will have to be agreed that nobody wants this section or the Bill itself. The Minister has stated that there was an effort on the part of the Trade Union Congress to establish some kind of co-ordination.
Now you are going to get an idea.
Well, there are some people in this House who seem to be insured against getting ideas. The Minister read for the House a memorandum. He read Memorandum No. I and Memorandum No. III of the Trade Union Congress, and he tried to give to the House the impression that Memorandum No. I had got the greatest support of that commission that was set up by the Trade Union Congress. That, of course, was not true, but that did not prevent the Minister from saying it. The Trade Union Commission of Inquiry consisted of 12 persons.
On a point of order, Sir. We are now dealing with Part III of the Bill.
Yes, Section 17 is the first section of Part III of the Bill.
Yes, Sir, but this section says that
"this Part of this Act shall come into operation on such date, not earlier than six months after the date on which Section 6 of this Act comes into operation, as the Minister, by order, appoints for that purpose".
If you consult the Official Reports, Sir, you will see that the Minister was permitted to quote Memorandum I and Memorandum Ill in connection with Section 6, and it seems to me that Section 17 clearly relates to Section 6. The Minister, of course, omitted to quote Memorandum No. 2—for very obvious reasons—and I am trying to give reasons why Section 17 should not come into operation at all, or why the Bill itself should not come into operation. In connection with Section 6, the Minister quoted Memorandum No. 1.
I do not think the Deputy is in order in going back to Section 6, since that section has been disposed of.
Surely, Sir, it has not been disposed of, in so far as its relationship to Section 17 is concerned?
Perhaps the Deputy might show the relationship?
I shall endeavour to do so, Sir. This section says that this Part of this Act shall come into operation on such date, not earlier than six months after the date on which Section 6 of this Act comes into operation, and I say that it is not necessary at all to bring this Act into operation, and that therefore it is quite unimportant whether this Part of the Act should come into operation in six months' time or in six years' time, since it is not necessary for the Act to come into operation at all.
These are matters that should have been raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and not now.
Well, then, Sir, what can I say on Section 17?
I do not think it is the business of the Chair to indicate to the Deputy what he should say. The Chair will indicate what he should not say, if he is out of order.
I am not suggesting that the Chair should indicate what I should say, but I shall give a litany of the things that I intend to say on this section, and the Chair can rule me out if I am not in order. The case that has been made for this Bill is that it is urgent. Deputy Childers, in a letter to the Press, aaid that it is very necessary. Deputy Meaney also, in a letter to the papers, said that he wanted this Bill shaped by an impact of reason on reason. I notice, however, that Deputy Meaney keeps out of the House and only comes in for the divisions.
He is waiting for the revolution, of course.
Perhaps he is, but it seems that the best that one can expect from the benches on the right is unintelligent interruptions. The Party that, we are told, stands for liberty and freedom is permitted to interrupt but never permitted to talk.
That is not so.
Deputy Killilea has not honoured the House by his presence for about six months and, after all, he is entitled to interrupt.
I challenge that statement.
Well, it was about six months' absence.
This does not arise on Section 17.
I suggest, Sir, that it would be in order to ask the Deputy to retire if he is to go on meandering about this section in the way he is meandering.
I want to ask why Section 17, which prescribes that this part of the Bill shall come into operation on a date not earlier than six months after the date on which Section 6 of the Bill comes into operation, should itself come into operation at all.
Deputy Corry rose.
Deputy Norton should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
The last time that I spoke here on this matter I could not go on because of interruptions when I was referring to the English unions.
But the Deputy is voting for the Bill?
Yes, but the Labour Party did not have the pluck to oppose the English unions.
These interruptions of a personal nature must not continue.
Might I be respectfully permitted——
Is this a point, of order?
Yes, it is a point of order, Sir. Deputy Norton has made reference by name to certain people in the course of his rather rambling and incoherent remarks.
That is the kind of intelligent interruption that we get from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I suggest I am entitled, on Section 17, to give reasons why this section of the Bill should not come into operation at all and I am entitled also, I suggest, to urge that it should not come into operation six months after, the passing of this Act and that, in the national interests, it should not, in fact, come into operation at all. The Minister made a case on Section 6 of this Bill, with which Section 17 is closely bound, that it was necessary to pass this Bill because of the views expressed in Memorandum No. I and Memorandum No. III, but the Minister very carefully refrained from quoting then Memorandum No. II. He alleged then that Memorandum No. I got the greatest measure of support in the Trade Union Congress. That is not so. Memorandum No. I received the support of five members of the commission. Memorandum No. II also received the-support of five members of the commission. Memorandum No. III received the support of exactly one member of the commission. So that Memorandum No. I did not in fact get the majority vote of the commission and Memorandum No. I was rejected at a special delegate conference of the Trade Union Congress. The Minister was anxious to quote Memorandum No. I. He was anxious to quote Memorandum No. III. Why he omitted quoting Memorandum No. II is something that I do not understand, but it is well worth the time of the House hearing one viewpoint—and I will not quote at any length—expressed by the signatories of Memorandum No. II. The viewpoint was this:—
"The proposals in Memorandum I, signed by five of our colleagues, as purporting to cover item 1 of the Terms of Reference, are, in our opinion, much too far-reaching. The suggestion that the entire trade union movement in Ireland should be scrapped and that there should be substituted, ten industrial groups is quite unworkable, arising out of the fact that many workers and craftsmen in particular are engaged in many, if not all, the proposed categories of unions. Many of these craft unions have histories going back a long way, and to suggest that the many and varied crafts in the categories or groups could be or should be combined in one union is a propojsal that could not be entertained; while agreeing that voluntary amalgamation along the lines suggested might be assisted by every possible means."
That section of that memorandum more closely represents my point of view of this Bill than almost anything that has been said in the House.
What is the Deputy quoting from?
The Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Irish Trade Union Congress which was presented to the Annual Delegate Conference which was held in Waterford on the 2nd to the 4th August, 1939. The Minister refrained from quoting that because the Minister does not agree with voluntary amalgamation. He wants instead to insist on riding roughshod over these old craft organisations that have existed in this country for a few hundred years. The Minister wants to compel these organisations to go out of existence, to sink their identity, to amalgamate with any other type of organisation they like, and while he is doing that he is permitting house unions which may be controlled by bosses, may be financed by bosses, to have an existence entirely independent of the old craft organisations. I do not know why the Minister will insist on pushing this section through the House in its present form. Why he wants to push Section 17 through the House in present circumstances is something that mystifies me. I think if the Minister were to take wise counsel he would realise that this is not the type of Bill which should be pushed through by a steamrolled majority, in present circumstances. It is unwise nationally to do it. It is unwise from a trade union point of view to do it and whoever is responsible for either the introduction of the Bill or the passage of the Bill is rendering a profound national disservice.
When I heard Deputy Norton stating that they could not get a majority of this Trade Union Congress for the Bill I wondered if he admitted that a commission was set up to inquire into the Irish trade union movement, that five signed one report, five signed a second report, and Deputy Norton could not make up his mind to sign with either of these groups, and wrote a memorandum of his own. That is why the majority was not there. Under this section the trade union tribunal shall be brought in not earlier than six months after a certain date. That tribunal is set up because, after every effort had been made, those people could not agree amongst themselves. Deputy Davin read a letter here a while ago, written to the Press by Deputy Childers. Deputy Davin suggested there was some secrecy about the Bills and all the rest of it.
On a point of order, I did not read a letter. I read a sentence from a letter.
A sentence from it, and that sentence said there were other Bills. I will read another document now, an extract from the Irish Press of Tuesday, November 19th, 1940. It is a statement made by Deputy Michael Keyes, T.D., on the new Bills that would affect trade unions. It is as follows:—
"The legislative proposals would be in the form of three new Bills which, it was understood, would be introduced early in the New Year."
Deputy Childers had done something awful because he said there were other Bills to come. Deputy Keyes was able to tell the public last November that there were three Bills on their way, and he gave practically line for line what would be the substance of this Bill as it stands.
Oh, no. I gave what was suggested then.
Fán go fóill.
"Under these proposals, if they become law," he said, "no union would be registered unless it had a minimum sum of some thousands of pounds to lodge with the High Court. The amount had not yet been decided upon, but would probably be in the neighbourhood of £2,000."
I suggest Deputy Keyes had read the Bill then. That was last November.
That is a good one.
"Employers would also register in associations with a similar lodgment.
"The organisations registered would be called ‘negotiating bodies'."
Which of us saw the Bill first?
What is the date of that?
November 19th, 1940.
That is not so long ago.
It is long enough ago, though, considering everything. The extract continues:
"and it would be illegal for an employer to negotiate with an unregistered union."
that is in the Bill, too, I think—
"Fines would be imposed on organisations for breaches of the regulations."
Here is the principal part of it:
"The Government had not taken this step," he said, "until it had given every opportunity to the trade union movement to ‘put its own house in order'. He must confess frankly," continued Mr. Keyes, "that this the trade union movement had failed to do."
What is all the noise about? Here are the people that could not put their own house in order with this damn Bill before any Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party saw it. And they negotiated on it. What Deputy Childers wrote to the Press last week, these people knew last November.
And Deputy Corry did not know?
And they negotiated on it last November and the only reason why this Bill is before the House at the present moment is because Deputy Norton could not make up his mind to sign with any one of the two fives of his commission. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. It is just as well for us to know why we are kept here and why this House has been held up for the past fortnight. It is just because Deputy Norton could not make up his mind. That is the man with ideas. He should try to make up his mind about something and not delay the House here for three or four weeks on this Bill. It is unfair. I suggest to the Minister the best thing to do with Section 17 is this: Instead of six months he should put down six days, and adjourn this Bill until next November, so that we can go on to some important business instead of trying to settle those arguments. Deputy Keyes stated that the Government had not taken this step until it had given every opportunity to the trade union movement to put its own house in order. "I must confess frankly," continued Deputy Keyes, "that this the trade union movement had failed to do." I will keep the rest of the quotation for any further occasion on which the members of the Labour Party may wish me to speak. Any time they want me later on I will give them a hand. I can hold up the House just as well as they can, although my time may be more precious to me down the country.
After the valuable contribution to Section 17 made by Deputy Corry, I think I am entitled to say a couple of words about that section and about the statement which Deputy Corry has made.
Does the Deputy want a loan of this newspaper to refresh his memory?
My memory is perfectly clear about it. I wish the Government and the draftsmen were as clear about the differences between this Bill as it is now and the proposals as explained to the Trade Union Congress people then. That statement of mine was based upon statements made by a responsible officer of the Department to responsible members of the Trade Union Congress. There is not a line in that paper that I wish to withdraw, because I gave a fair representation of what had been sent down to us, but reading that and reading the present Bill one does not need to be very well versed in draftsmanship to see the difference between the two of them. We did not hear then that a special cover would be given to house and company unions; we did not hear about the insidious effects of Section 6, which can only be aimed at undermining the trade union movement as a whole. A statement that the Trade Union Congress had failed to reconcile the differences is perfectly true, which is recorded in that report read by Deputy Norton here in the House. They had a commission appointed, and they failed to reconcile the differences. The Government came along, evidently with the best intentions, to order the trade union movement. This Bill does not order the trade union movement. Insidious sections are put in here. The £2,000 penalty was discussed here an hour ago, which is aimed at destroying the trade union the moment a litigant comes to court and robs it of a negotiation licence. That is not mentioned by Deputy Keyes in November, 1940, because it was not conveyed to Deputy Keyes or to the Trade Union Congress by the spokesmen of the Government.
The Government introduced this Bill under false pretences, and are steam-rolling it through. Deputy Corry knows sufficiently little about the trade union not to understand the Bill, but there are other members on the Fianna Fáil benches who are trade unionists, and they understand the implications so often referred to by the Minister; they know what they are voting for; they know that some of those sections are aimed at the heart of the trade union movement. The real intention of the Government is shown in Section 6 and two or three other sections. That statement in November, 1940, was based on the proposals which had then been conveyed to the Trade Union Congress.
A lot of water has flown under the bridge since then; a lot of vile ideas have got into the minds of the Minister's advisers, and the Bill as it is to-day bears little relation to the proposals they were good enough to submit to our delegates of the Trade Union Congress prior to November, 1940. Section 17 represents the executioner in the Bill, the tribunal in which is to be vested all the powers of dealing with those questions, and it is to be brought into operation 12 months from the date of the passing of the Bill and six months after the introduction of the negotiation licence. If reasonable grounds had been quoted by the Government, or a reasonable attitude adopted by them, and had discussions been allowed to continue, something might be said for it, but the Labour Party and the trade union movement can ask for nothing else than the postponement sine die of the introduction of that tribunal, in view of the insidious attempts made by the Government to undermine the trade union movement of this country.
I cannot accept the explanation given by Deputy Keyes. He said they did not know about this £2.000. He said definitely:—
"Under these proposals, if they become law, no union would be registered unless it had a maximum sum of some thousands of pounds to lodge with the High Court. The amount had not yet been decided upon, but would probably be in the neighbourhood of £2,000."
And the reasons why it could be tampered with were given to us then, but the Minister does not know them to-day.
Deputy Keyes, as reported in the Irish Press, goes on to say:—
"The organisations registered would be called negotiating bodies, and it would be illegal for an employer to negotiate with an unregistered union."
That is Section 6. Then he wound up by giving us the reasons why this House has been held here for three or four weeks to consider this Bill, because he states:—
"The Government——
You will be held here for another month.
I hate interruptions. Deputy Norton was a member of the committee of 11 men who prepared two reports; five of them signed one report, and five signed the other, but Deputy Norton could not sign either of them; he signed his own. Because Deputy Norton could not agree with either of them we are held here for a month.
You will be held for another month.
We will stick it out.
You will stick it outside.
I have started to enjoy myself.
Stick it in here instead.
This is the reason why we are here, and it is just as well to have it clear once and for all:
"The Government had not taken this step until it had given every opportunity to the trade union movement to put its own house in order. He must confess frankly," continued Mr. Keyes, "that this the trade union movement had failed to do."
That is the reason we are here— because Deputy Norton could not agree with either of the two reports.
Has not the Deputy read that before?
And he is complaining about being held here.
I say that Deputy Keyes has given a false interpretation of it, and that is the reason I had to read it again.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce himself passed that newspaper to Deputy Corry without telling him beforehand what had transpired at the conference referred to.
On a point of explanation——
I am not giving way.
All right; I will get a chance when he sits down.
If he said "on a point of order", I would sit down quickly enough. Deputy Corry has already spoken twice during the discussion——
And you have spoken 40 times all nonsense——
—— on this section, and I am very glad to hear him, no matter how he may wish to misrepresent the meaning of what he read. I am glad that Deputy Corry had the courage to stand up and say what he thinks, even though it may be opposed to our point of view. The Minister for Industry and Commerce certainly handed him that paper, and did not give him the tip as to what transpired at the confeience referred to. Deputy Briscoe, I noticed, was anxious to applaud purtions of Deputy Corry's speech. May I invite Deputy Briscoe to stand up after Deputy Corry and say here what he said to certain people outside in connection with this Bill. I realise that he is an employer, and is entitled to express the employer's point of view. Does Deputy Corry, for instance, and Deputy Briscoe — but Deputy Briscoe knows more than Deputy Corry about this——
I am putting a point of order.
Is it a point of order?
I am bewildered by the course of the discussion.
We know that for ten years.
Are we discussing Section 17 of the Bill or Deputy Briscoe's position in life?
Is that a point of order?
What should have been discussed on the Second Reading has been dealt with for the last half an hour.
I would like to ask for the Chair's decision on this matter in specific form. Am I right in deciding that there must be a tribunal of some kind, that the principle has been decided upon already by the House and that the tribunal must come into operation on a date, and that Section 17 must be read in connection with other sections of the Bill? If so, we are now discussing that it must come into operation within some reasonable time. That can be discussed by the House, and that is what we should be debating.
On a further point of order, in view of the line that the debate has taken since Deputy Corry made his first speech, and in view of what has transpired in the last half hour—to which the Minister has referred—is there any subject, from beginning to end in this Bill, that cannot now be discussed on Section 17?
On the point of order raised by Deputy Childers, would you bear in mind that Section 17 does not deal with a tribunal at all and that the I word "tribunal" is not mentioned and that the date is a date not earlier than six months—it may be six years or six decades? It does not matter whether it is six months or six years or six decades—nobody will take any notice of this Bill. Would you remind Deputy Childers that the section does not deal with a tribunal at all?
On another point of order——
In regard to several points of order which have been raised, the question in this section is only the bringing into operation of this particular part of the Bill —Part III—and nothing should be considered but the particular time, which is not earlier than six months.
Unless you agree that those who listened to Deputy Corry's speech would be entitled to deal with points mentioned in his speech, as well as the powers sought in the section. I do not know whether Deputy Corry knows or not, but I would like to let him know—and I am sure Deputy Briscoe will confirm it—that, following the conference held between the representatives of the Trade Union Congress and the Minister and principal officials, the Minister and the same Government officials subsequently several times met the representatives of the employers through the Federated Chambers of Commerce and it is very significant— and I am sure Deputy Corry has not lost sight of the fact—that during the divisions on every section of this Bill the representatives in this House of the Federated Chambers of Commerce have been themselves in the same Division Lobby.
The Chamber of Commerce representatives were in the Division Lobby with Deputy Corry.
Deputy Norton was often in the Lobby with me.
Not in suppressing the workers.
These are disorderly interruptions.
Does the Deputy know— if he does not, ho is entitled to be told, and I am sure the Minister will not challenge its accuracy—that the Trade Union Congress Executive were sent for by the Minister and his officials. They did not go with hat in hand: they were sent for and they listened very courteously to the Minister and his officials.
They listened to what was said by me?
Does the Minister want me give it again?
They listened to what was said by me?
By the principal officials.
The Deputy said: "By the Minister and the principal officials."
If the Minister was not there, he should have been. I admit that I was under the impression that he was there.
Was the Deputy not there himself?
I was not; I was not a member of the Trade Union Congress, but that does not matter one iota in this discussion. As Deputy Keyes has pointed out, there was no question of provision for house or black-leg unions in the proposals submitted to the Trade Union Congress. There are several discrepancies between the original proposals submitted for consideration to the Trade Union Congress representatives and what is contained in this dragooning measure. I thoroughly agree that the employers are entitled to their viewpoint in connection with this and entitled, if they can, to succeed in bringing the Minister back to 1825 and to legislation brought into operation in that particular period.
Would the Deputy come down to the section, from 1825?
I wish to assure Deputy Childers—and Deputy Corry, if he is interested—that I have no objection to letters to the Press by Deputy Meaney or Deputy Childers; but I think it is a reflection on this House—I say it without any personal disrespect to Deputy Childers—if he will not speak here in the House and justify the measure. It does seem a little bit out of the way to write letters to the papers about a thing he could discuss in the House. There is not sufficient newsprint available to the Irish Press.
On a point of explanation——
I am not giving way——
I did speak at considerable length on the Second Reading and gave all the views which I wrote the other day. I said all the things which should be said at that stage, and there is no need to repeat things of a general nature. On a point of order, where a person raises a personal issue, there is no use in having the matter discussed indefinitely. If that were so, I could get up and speak for half an hour about Deputy Davin's speech and Deputy Corry's speech and Deputy Keyes' contradictions about what is proposed in the Bill, and that could go on indefinitely.
If the Deputy said all the things he meant or could think of, or the things others put into his mind— and I know he has very good advisers at his disposal—surely there was no justification for writing a letter to the Irish Press during the discussion of this Bill in Committee. He has three opportunities at his disposal on every section of the Bill, to say anything further about anything that ever came into his mind since on any section. I dare say he did that unconsciously, as a new member of this House. On the few occasions that he did speak here——
Are we discussing letters to the papers or Section 17? If we are to continue to debate whether Deputies have a right to write letters to the papers, I propose to leave the House until the debate on Section 17 is resumed.
The trouble is that the debate is too much on the Bill and not sufficiently on the section.
I would like to make a point of explanation on the point made by Deputy Davin. He stated that I went over to the Minister for this paper.
I did not.
The Minister passed it to Deputy Corry.
I have a fairly good memory and this can be verified by the librarian. I went down last week and asked for that report and the librarian gave it to me and I lent it to the Minister.
On that point, I was sitting here with my colleagues——
He lent it to the Minister?
That is quite untrue.
The Minister says that is quite untrue.
I lent it.
No. I lent the Deputy that copy.
I was watching here in the last ten minutes and saw the Minister take that paper from an official on the side benches.
What Deputy Corry has said is correct to this extent. He asked me this afternoon for that copy. He knew I had it.
He lent it to you.
No.
I will not make a fuss about that. The Minister took it from one of the officials and passed it, in the last ten minutes, to Deputy Corry. It is just as well when we say something that has some relation to the fact. I would welcome any further contribution, outside the contribution Deputy Childers has given to the Press, to the further discussion on the Committee Stage of the Bill.
On the Second Reading——
The Second Reading is quite a different matter and concerns the principle of the Bill. Deputy Childers voted for that. This is a case where you have to justify, section by section, everything contained in the Bill. I have not ncard yet from Deputy Briscoe, Deputy Childers, or Deputy Corry, who is an employer in another sense, but not an industrial employer, anything in justification of the contents of some of the sections of this Bill. Deputy Briscoe, I am sure, was elected to this House by the votes of a lot of workers. Will he say that he has the approval of the organised workers who reside, in his constituency for steam-rolling this measure through by his votel?
That does not arise on the section.
I know he has democratic views on many matters, and I will not accuse him of being afraid to say what he thinks. But I would prefer that, instead of writing meaningless letters to the newspapers and wasting valuable newsprint when newspapers are on the verge of closing down, Deputies would say something in this House on this Bill.
Points have been raised on Section 17 giving reasons why this Bill should not come into operation at all and why, in fact, six years might be substituted for six months. Are we not to hear anything from the Minister on the matter? I know that Deputy Corry does not want to sit here for another month, but I do not see why the House should be kept another hour here on this Bill. We ought to be dealing with unemployment and the fuel shortage instead of dealing with this Bill, which nobody wants. We are entitled to hear something from the Minister on Section 17. Surely we are entitled to hear from the Minister why the Bill should come into operation at all. This is an important section and, as we have not heard anything from him so far, we are entitled to debate the section.
I do not know if Deputy Norton was in the House when I introduced the section and explained what the purpose of the section was. I know he was in the House during the Second Reading of the Bill and, on the Second Reading, the question was discussed whether a Bill of this sort was necessary or not. The House decided that the Bill was necessary and that, in the form in which it had been presented to the House, it should be proceeded with and discussed in Committee. Accordingly, the House wants the Bill, and, since the House wants the Bill, some date must be fixed for the coming into operation of the Bill as a statute when enacted. We have here the Government's proposals for the bringing into operation of this stuate and there has been no serious criticism of them.
This part of Bill, not the statute.
This part of the Bill; at any rate, this statute in whole or in part. We have not heard any argumeats against this part of the Bill other than those which were a rehash of the arguments used on the Second Stage. The House, I submit, is not in a position at this stage of the Bill to reverse the decision which it took on the Second Stage. What we have to do, according to the normal procedure, is to put the Bill through its Parliamentary stages until we come to the Fifth Stage, and then divide on the question whether the Bill "do now pass". I have not heard any argument against the proposal contained in the Bill that this part of the Bill should come into operation six months after Section 6 has been put into operation by order of the Minister. To be more precise, I have not heard any real argument against the provision in this Bill to the effect that Part III of the measure will come into operation at a date not earlier than six months after Section 6 of the measure has come into operation. I think there cannot be any argument against the Government's proposal in that regard, because we had an amendment down to Section 17 the purpose of which was to delete the word " six " and to substitute the word "twelve", making the earliest date upon which this part of the Bill could come into operation 12 months after Section 6 had come into operation.
On a point of order. The Minister is referring to an amendment which has not been moved and I should like to know from you, Sir, whether he is in order in discussing an amendment which has not been moved.
He is not discussing the amendment, but the subject matter of it.
Is that in order?
It is.
The amendment may be discussed?
Not the amendment.
Can the subject matter of the amendment be discussed?
In relation to the amendment.
I submit that I am not discussing the amendment.
Is the Minister entitled to discuss an amendment which has not been moved?
He is not discussing the amendment. He is referring to the fact that an amendment was put down, and he can say what the subject matter of the amendment was in order to show the intentions of the people concerned.
We cannot discuss this amendment by a side-wind. What I am pointing out is that an amendment was put down and was not moved. The merits of the amendment cannot be discussed, but the fact that it was not moved is surely a clear indication that when those persons who were responsible for putting down the amendment came to consider the terms of the existing section they came to the conclusion that all the merits were on the side of the existing section and that, accordingly, it would not be worth their while moving the amendment. It seems to me that the fact that this amendment has not been moved is conclusive that the section as drafted is the best possible way of meeting the situation which must arise when the Bill becomes law, that is to say, fixing the date upon which Part 3 of the measure will come into operation.
This section says that a certain part of the Bill shall come into operation on a certain date. While the Minister's oration on the procedure which should be adopted and as to what we are entitled to do on Part III of the Bill is very interesting, it appears to me that it would be far more interesting to have some discussion on this section of the Bill. In the course of his observations, the Minister stated that he has not yet heard any arguments against this section, which proposes to put into operation a certain part of the Bill. If the Minister had been at a conference which took place last Sunday he would have heard a great many arguments against the Bill.
The Deputy must not discuss the Bill on this section.
This section proposes to bring a part of the Bill into operation. The Minister said he heard no arguments against what is laid down very definitely here. I happened to be at a conference on Sunday last and, not alone did I find that secretaries and officials of trade unions, ordinary members of trade unions and members of the Labour Party were aginst the Bill, but that some of the Minister's own supporters who happen to be officials of trade unions spoke very strongly against the Bill and were responsible for moving a resolution asking the Government to withdraw the Bill. I cannot see how the Minister can say that no serious objections have been put forward against the Bill and that no points have been made against the Bill since the Second Stage. I think that ample reasons have been given from many sides of the House why the Bill should not be put into operation, and I suggest that this is the vehicle by which an important part of the Bill would he put into operation. That is the reason why I suggest that there should be a discussion on this particular point. It shows conclusively that the Minister is not in touch with the people who will bo most affected by this Bill. The Bill is one that should not be brought into operation at a time like this. That is one of the reasons we are speaking so strongly against this section, which will enable the Minister to operate at least part of this legislation, a part which will inflict great hardship on the workers.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 35.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel,
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman Francis.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan. Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William J.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Aifred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave. William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed : "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill".
The section says that the expression "trade union" has the same meaning as it has in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935. It seems to me that we are doing something that is entirely new in this Bill; something that was not done under previous Trade Union Acts. This Bill will legalise certain types of trade unions described as authorised trade unions, which pay the deposit prescribed by the Minister. There can be another type of trade union, an unorganised trade union which, under this Bill, will not have the protection which trade unions enjoyed under the Trade Union Act, 1871, Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. If " trade union " has the same meaning in this section as in the Arts of 1871 to 1935, why are certain trade unions, which cannot pay the deposit prescribed prevented from enjoying the privileges which trade unions had under the Acts from 1871 to 1906, and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875? Are these unions to be graded under this Bill as being in an unauthorised form and acknowledged or permitted to have all the privileges which trade unions had under Section 2 of the Act of 1871 and also the Act of 1906? Have these unions under this section all the rights they had under the earlier Acts, or what is their position under the new tribunal?
The position is quite clear in Part II of the Bill, which authorises the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment. Unless they fulfil the conditions prescribed in Section 6, 7 and other sections, they will not be authorised. I do not think there is anything clearer than that.
I cannot claim to be conversant with legal terminology but, having regard to the terms of the Bill, the section seems to me to be contradictory. I do not see how the expression "trade union" will have the same meaning when this Bill is enacted as it had under Trade Union Acts from 1871 to 1935. Surely the effect is to abolish or to emasculate the privileges they had, and to place the trade union movement in the paralysing grip of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am not sure what opinion lawyers would express on the terminology of the section as to how it harmonises with common sense.
I want the Minister to clear up the position with regard to teachers and the Minister for Education. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation, for instance,——
Has not the Deputy already raised that point on another section?
The point here is that that organisation is a trade union. Will the terms of this section apply to the Irish National Teachers' Organisation when this Bill becomes law? I want to know from the Minister if that organisation will have the same privileges as it had under the Act of 1875. It has happened in the history of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation that the members had on occasions to have recourse to the strike weapon and to withdraw their labour. I assume that under this section the Irish National Teachers' Organisation will still remain a trade union. Will the members have the privileges which were accorded to trade unions hy the Act of 1875? As there are misunderstandings about the effects of this Bill, these are points that will require explanation particularly concerning "excepted" bodies. The Minister told us already that trade unions in the accepted sense were "excepted". Where do they come in under this section? Have they the same privileges of trade unions or are they debarred because they are exempted bodies under Section 6 (3)? These points require clarification. It seems to me that this Bill has been crudely drafted and put together in such a fashion that when it comes to be worked, if it ever will be worked, so many anomalies and hitches will arise that it will have to be redrafted. If we are to try to interpret the mind of the Minister, there are bodies "excepted" but, they can elect to be trade unions within the meaning of the Act. I cited the case of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation which has been a trade union since its inception. Will it be an "excepted" body?
Was that matter not discussed on other sections—on Sections 6, 10, and 11 for instance?
I know that.
How then may it be raised again now?
What is the position now?
The Deputy has asked that question ten times and if he gives me the opportunity I will try to answer it. As you have said, this question of the position of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation was raised specifically, I think, by Deputy Davin on Section 11 or 13. I pointed out that, so far as organisations were concerned, these excepted bodies bad an option. They could either opt to remain an excepted body, subject to the disabilities imposed upon them by Section 10 of the Bill, or they could decide to convert themselves into an authorised trade union on fulfilling two conditions, first, that they should register as a trade union, and, secondly, that they should pay the necessary deposit. As Deputy Hurley has told the House, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation is already registered as a trade union under the laws of this country, and has been so, he said, for a long time. It only remains then for the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, if it wants to secure for itself the rights, privileges and benefits of Section 10, to pay the necessary deposit and to become an authorised trade union.
I am not quite certain as to what substance there may be in the points which have been raised on Section 18. Section 18 is only a definition section. It defines the expression "trade union" by reference to the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935. I think the latest form of definition of the expression "trade union" is to be found in the Trade Union Act, 1913. It states that the expression :
"for the purpose of the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906, and this Act, means any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects:"
The statutory objects are further defined in sub-section (2) of that Act where it states that:
"the expression ‘statutory objects' means the objects mentioned in section sixteen of the Trade Union Amendment Act, 1876, namely, the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and also the provision of benefits to members."
This Bill relates to the setting up of a tribunal which will hear and determine applications from trade unions, and die purpose of Section 18 is merely to provide that applications will only be received fiom bodies which among other things come within the definition of the expression "trade union" as already set out in the Trade Union Acts, and which have statutory objects. Beyond that, it does not in any way attempt to confine or restrict the existing rights of trade unions.
I am not altogether satisfied with the Minister's explanation. I want again to put it to him that while the Irish National Teachers' Organisation is a trade union at the present time it has been scheduled as an excepted body under this Bill. Can the Minister point out to me the section which allows excepted bodies to become trade unions again? The Minister, by this Bill, is putting a recognised trade union in the position of an excepted body with all the drawbacks which that position has. He says that under this section the expression "trade union" has the same meaning as it has in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935. I want to point out to him that, under that term, an excepted body is not, in my opinion, a trade union. I want to safeguard the position of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, which has a record of trade union activity over a long number of years, and which is now being relegated to the position of an excepted body. The Minister says that an excepted body, by making the necessary deposit, can function as a trade union. Where is a body, especially & trade union which has been functioning as such for a number of years and is now put into the category of an excepted body, given the right to become registered as a trade union again? Does an excepted body under Section 6 come within the definition of a trade union as laid down in the definition of that expression in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935? So far the Minister has not answered that question. I want to get a clear definite statement from the Minister as to what the exact position of a trade union, such as I have quoted, will be under the Bill.
Was not that question argued on Section 3 and other sections?
I submit that it does, not arise on this section.
This section lays down that the expression "trade union" has the same meaning as it has in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935. What is going to be the position of a body which has been recognised as a trade union and is now being relegated to the-position of an excepted body? The Minister has told us that, by making application to the tribunal and by putting down the necessary deposit, it can become a trade union again. What we have to consider is this: That a trade union is being put into the position of an excepted body, and that then, by some interpretation of the Minister's, it goes back again to the position of a trade union. I want to know from the Minister, does an excepted body as such come within the meaning of this section? Can he tell me under what section or sub-section an excepted body can, by making the necessary deposit and by doing the other things set out, become a trade union again? This is a very serious question for a body which, over a long number of years, has been a recognised trade union.
The Chair is not concerned with the seriousness of the question but with the fact that it has been discussed on earlier sections. Obviously the position of any trade union under other parts of the Bill may not be raised on a definition section with consequent repetition.
The future of this trade union has certainly some relation to the section we are discussing.
Not on the definition section which does not fix any rights.
The brevity of this section is no index at all of its importance. This section, in my opinion, is a very important one. I think that we are doing something under it the significance of which we do not appear to appreciate. Under the Trade Union Acts from 1871 to date, trade unions are reasonably well defined. They are bodies which must have certain ctatutory objects, one of which must be that they act in restriction of trade. They may act in that way with the protection of certain other Acts. What it is illegal for a body of private individuals to do in respect to a restriction on trade it is not illegal for a trade union to do.
Now, that is well established trade union law. It is the kind of legislation that was passed by alien Governments in order to give trade unions the necessary measure of liberty, which it was felt they should have, in order to enable them to wage a fight on behalf of those whom they represented. In this section we are saying that, in this part of the Act, the expression "trade union" has the same meaning as it has in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935. But in this Act we are creating an entirely new type of trade union. I do not know if the Minister has any familiarity with a point which has been put to him, and which I am going to repeat. It strikes me that he has not.
Under the present trade union law, any seven people can form a trade union. They need not be workers. They could be farmers, or people living on interest from investments, people living on rents or profits. They need not purport to work at all. In order to form a trade union they need not even be industrial workers. They could simply form a trade union on the 1st January next and sit in a landaulette until the end of the year, and still be a trade union. That is the present law. Under this Bill we are saying that those seven touring folk, if one cares to call them such, are a trade union, and that the expression "trade union" as applied to them has the same meaning as it has in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935. It seems to me that under this Bill we are doing an entirely new thing: we are creating two types of trade unions.
Has not the Deputy already discussed all that? I have a recollection of having heard references to those seven hypothetical individuals.
Not from me. I do not understand why it is necessary to insert Section 18 at all. If it were not in, we could understand what a trade union was. Here, I think, it has some occult meaning. For the first time, we are setting up three types of union— (1) the body which is entitled to negotiate and which has to put down a minimum of £2,000; (2), the body referred to by Deputy Hurley—the excepted body, the body which can get the benediction of certain folk and on that account be excepted—and (3) a type of house organisation.
The different types of unions to be established in the Bill have already been dealt with at length.
They were discussed in a different connection.
On a point of order, may I suggest that the purposes of this part of the Bill would be more properly discussed on Section 20, which deals with the functions of the tribunal? All the points the Deputy is endeavouring to make now could be made on that section.
We discussed previously the question whether house unions were desirable or not. We say they are not desirable. The kind of excepted organisation created under Section 6 is not a pleasant type of organisation either. No matter what our views on these matters are, we have three types of organisations—the union which can make a deposit of £2,000, the union which is excepted under Section 6 and an organisation which may be a house union under some other section. I do not know why Section 18 is put into this Bill. We are saying that "trade union" has the same meaning as under the earlier Trades Union Acts. If these are still trade unions—and they must be because this Bill is described as a Trade Union Bill—the meaning of the term by which they are described is the same as it was under the earlier legislation from 1671 to date. Legislation from 1871 to date, and particularly the Trades Union (Amendment) Act, of 1876, gave these organisations certain rights. Under Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, they were given certain rights so as to ensure that neither they nor their officers could be prosecuted under that Act. We are, as I have said, creating three types of organisation under this Bill. If it is stated in Section 18 that "trade union" means what it does in all the previous Acts from 1871 to date, does that also mean that these trade unions have also all the rights they had under earlier legislation? It does not seem to me to be possible, in view of the provisions of Section 10, that they can exercise the rights or do the things which they could do under former legislation. We have had no convincing explanation of the section from the Minister. We ought to be told why it is necessary to put in the section because we have all the existing law to determine what, in fact, the meaning of "trade union" is. Why are we putting in this section when, if it was not in, the existing law could be interpreted and a union could have its status defined by reference to existing legislation?
The whole purpose of the Acts quoted, from 1871 to 1935, was to protect and extend the rights of trade unions and trade unionists. This Bill is intended to restrict their rights, and it seems to me that the introduction of a section of this kind, with the pretence that they shall have the rights which they have enjoyed np to the present, is a mockery. It is inconsistent with, and in contradiction of, the whole provisions and purpose of the Bill. Formerly, trade unions were not obliged to go before a tribunal of any kind to establish their bona fides or their rights. The next section we shall discuss will deal with that matter. How does the Minister explain the insertion of a section of this kind which says that the expression "trade union" has the same meaning as it had in the Trades Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, when, in fact, it has not the same meaning? This Bill proposes to restrict and confine the rights of trade unions and trade unionists. How does the Minister reconcile that with a section which purports to continue the rights which trade unions secured under previous Acts?
It is quite clear that the Trade Union Tribunal and the arrangements for the authorised bodies work in parallel, and that, during a period of months in which this Bill is being operated, there will be a certain number of coalitions of trade unions as a result of some of them being unable to pay the deposit. At the same time, under the parallel form, certain trade unions, which claim to have a right to represent either masters or workers, will appeal to the tribunal and give reasons why they should represent the classes of workers or masters to which they are related. The two parts of the Bill are parallel, and, therefore, in Section 18, the broadest possible expression is given to the term "trade union" in order that the re-grouping of the trade union movement can be carried out. To some degree the process will be parallel and, to a certain degree, one will be a consequence of the other.
It is quite possible that one large union will appeal to the Trade Union Tribunal and submit its right to represent workers in its class. At the same time, the trade unions catering {or certain classes of workers and paying deposits to the State will maintain their right to be the authorised negotiating bodies. The Minister, in giving a wide meaning to the term "trade union", is acting in the interest of the trade union movement and affording. the unions an opportunity of putting forward their views. The section is one that ensures that a democratic and fair point of view will be maintained. I cannot see why there should be any objection to the section on these grounds at all.
Deputy Childers has not exposed the clearness of his mind in connection with the points raised by Deputy Hurley concerning the future position of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. The Minister said—quite rightly—that some of the points mentioned in this discussion had previously been raised on sections passed by a majority of members of the House. The Minister has admitted that he is, in effect, depriving the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. I suppose without any consultation, of the status which it previously held inside the trade union movement. He says, of course, that if the members of that union wish, they can apply for a negotiation licence and have their previous position restored, that it will be an organisation on the same basis as other unions which will apply for and secure a negotiation licence under this Bill when it becomes law. Will he say— and this is a plain question which can be answered—if the Irish National Teachers' Organisation makes application for a negotiation licence and pays the stipulated fee, will it, under this section, have all the rights and privileges of a trade union organisation and the protection, so far as there is to be any protection, to be given by the tribunal set up under this part of the Act? Will the Minister answer that question? Then we shall know where we are and the members of the teachers' organisation will know what their status as an organisation within the trade union movement in future is likely to be. The Minister understands the point. It has been raised before.
The trouble is that all these matters have been rediscussed, which is not permissible.
They were not answered.
It is not orderly to interrupt the Chair. Matters which have been discussed on relevant sections, are hardly relevant to this section. It defines a trade union for this part of the Act, but it does not authorise a comparison of this Bill, in reference to trade unions, with previous legislative measures.
If all these questions were asked before and were not answered, they should be answered at some juncture. We are not a lot of children to be lectured and ignored.
Possibly, but the Chair is responsible for the maintenance of order in debate.
The Chair should have some sense of fair play.
The Deputy will withdraw that remark in reference to the Chair's sense of fair play.
I do withdraw it. The remark was made under a great deal of provocation.
When this matter was raised before, we asked whether it was desirable to have three classes of trade unions—house unions, excepted bodies and these unions which are prepared to pay a minimum deposit of £2,000. We find that under this Bill these three classes of trade unions will exist. It is the first time in our trade union legislation that we have created these three classes of trade unions.
Has not the Deputy stated all that within the last few minutes?
I did, but this is supposed to be the Parliament of a democratic country, and I am entitled to get what Deputy Meaney referred to in his letter to the Press, as the impact of reason upon reason. We cannot get an answer from the Minister, although these questions have been put to him by several Deputies. We are being treated with silent contempt. Can we not get an explanation as to why this section should appear in the Bill at all? We are creating, for the first time in 70 years, three types of unions.
Not under this section.
It may be that you are right and that I am wrong, but we are saying in this section that "trade union" has the same meaning as it had in the last 70 years. I know only one meaning which it has, because there was only one type of trade union in existence. We are now creating three types of unions and yet we say in this section that they have all the meaning they had for the last 70 years. How can that be? We cannot get an answer from the Government Benches. That is not a fair attitude for anybody still professing to have any faith in Parliamentary representation or democratic government. We could understand the impatience of people in being asked——
I replied to the point raised by the Deputy when I intervened about half-an-hour ago.
Will the Minister say whether the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, if it applies for a licence and gets it, will have all the rights and privileges that are given to a union possessing a negotiation licence under this part of the Act? If he knows, will he answer that or else take his Bill and papers out of the blooming House? Deputy Corry was right when he referred to the Bill as a damn Bill.
This is a deliberate obstruction.
If there is any dispute as to what a trade union means, I suggest that the statement that it has the same meaning as since 1871 affords no guidance. Surely the Minister should give us some explanation as to why that statement appears in the Bill? We all know what a trade union meant for the last 70 years.
Cannot we be told why it is necessary to put in this section at all?
If the Minister does not understand the Bill, why does he not take a week-end off and study it?
I want to protest against the Minister's attitude and I shall have to consider whether I shall take any further part in the proceedings in view of that attitude. We are trying to get the impact of reason upon reason, but the Minister sits there and will not say a single word to explain the provisions of the section to the House. Of course, if there was a meeting in Waterford or in the Red Bank it would be explained there. This is treating the House with contempt. We cannot get a reply from the Minister to reasonable questions. It is an outrage on democratic government and Parliamentary representation.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank,
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boegan, Patrick.
- Bourko, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrisey. Michael.
- Movlan, Seán.
- Mullen Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan. Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Trnynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Broderick, William J.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Corish, Richard.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin,.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 19.
(5) If any member of the tribunal is for any reason temporarily unable to attend the sittings of the tribunal, the Minister may appoint another person to act temporarily as a member of the tribunal during the inability of such member, but no person shall be appointed under this sub-section to act as chairman of the tribunal unless he possesses the qualification required by sub-section (2) of this section.
To Section 19, there are alternative schemes for the composition of the tribunal. The Labour Deputies are, I understand, not moving their scheme. One scheme is put forward by Deputy McGilligan in amendments Nos. 41 and 42. Deputy Dockrell's scheme in amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are in essence the same as Deputy McGilligan's. The debate might take place on amendment No. 41.
Will you receive a motion from me, Sir, that the consideration of this Bill be deferred, in view of the fact that the Minister up to the present has declined to answer any of the arguments put up? In a letter from a member of the House which appeared in the Press the other day——
That does not arise now.
May I refer you to the principle announced by members of the Minister's Party in connection with the Bill?
Surely, the Deputy does not seriously move that the further consideration of the Bill be deferred in the middle of the Committee Stage?
I respectfully suggest that the proceedings in Committee have been a farce, in view of the fact that we can get no answer and no explanation of the provisions under discussion from the Minister. I say that it is a disgrace to any democratic institution that that should be so, and I am not in the least surprised that there is very little respect in many parts of this country for Parliamentary government at present.
As you have said, Sir, there are two amendments in the name of Deputy McGilligan. They propose schemes alternative to that set out in the section as to the way in which the tribunal will be appointed. There is also an amendment, amendment No. 43, in the name of Deputy Dockrell, and I presume that the three can be discussed together.
Yes.
I presume that the Minister has explained the proposals suggested by Deputy McGilligan. Personally, I prefer to move amendment No. 42 rather than amendment No. 41.
Yes. Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
I move amendment No. 42:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
One of the ordinary members of the tribunal shall be nominated in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the prescribed procedure by the authorised trade unions of masters and the other ordinary member shall be nominated in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the prescribed procedure by the authorised trade unions of workmen.
I find it hard to believe that the Minister can have any difficulty in accepting this amendment. If you want something in the nature of a tribunal in a matter of this kind, you want proper representation for the two sides most closely affected, under a chairman who will be appointed altogether at the will of the Minister. In that connection I should like the Minister to say what is the intention as regards, particularly, amendment No. 42.
I am taking myself as moving amendment No. 43. The amendment is as follows:—
In sub-section (3), page 9, line 6, after the word "time" to add the following words:—"provided that in the appointment of the two ordinary members of the tribunal, the Minister shall appoint one person whom he shall select from a panel nominated by authorised trade unions of masters and one whom he shall select from a panel nominated by authorised trade unions of workmen and also that on the resignation or removal of an ordinary member of the tribunal, the vacancy so caused shall be filled by a person selected by the Minister from the panel from which the retiring member was originally selected.
Amendment No. 44 is more or less consequential on amendment No. 43.
On a point of order, Sir, are we discussing a number of amendments together?
The Committee is discussing three amendments—amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44—together.
Has amendment No. 41 been withdrawn?
No. That amendment has not been moved. However, if the Committee wishes to discuss amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44 together, it may do so. Amendment No. 41 has not been withdrawn.
The point I wish to make on amendment No. 43 is that, at the present time, the structure of society is getting more and more complicated, and it is very difficult to get people who really understand the questions that would come before them on a tiibunal such as this unless they are nominated by persons who know the qualifications that the members of such a tribunal ought to have. Now, the masters, certainly, would feel that their representative ought to be a person who was well versed in the questions which they were called upon to decide, and I am assuming that Labour would be equally anxious to qet, as their representative, some person who would be well qualified to speak on the matters in question. My feeling is that if, on a tribunal such as this, the Minister nominated representatives without having recourse to organised unions of masters or organised unions of workers, it might very well come about that an employers' representative, or a representative of the workers, would be appointed who would really have no knowledge of the affairs that would come before the tribunal. That is the reason that I have moved this amendment. I feel that it would be well if the Minister would seek the advice of both the masters and the workers in getting them to nominate a panel of representatives from which he could select one each to go on this tribunal.
The Deputy has spoken on amendment No. 42, and he is now speaking on amendment No. 43, which is somewhat different in detail though it embodies the same principle.
Well, Sir, amendment No. 43 is slightly different from amendment No. 42, although the principle is much the same. Perhaps I have not made my point quite clearly, but I wish to make it now. As far as I can see, the only real difference between amendment No. 42 and amendment No. 43 is that I have suggested that there should be a panel nominated by employers and by workers, and that is not specifically mentioned in Deputy McGilligan's amendment. Deputy McGilligan's amendment merely talks about one of the ordinary members of the tribunal being nominated in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the prescribed procedure by the authorised trade unions of masters, and it goes on to say that the other ordinary member shall be nominated in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the prescribed procedure by the authorised trade unions of workmen. That is the only essential difference between our two amendments.
That was in amendment No. 41.
No. However, Deputy O'Sullivan has seen fit to move amendment No. 42 and not to move amendment No. 41. I am contrasting my amendment with amendment No. 42, and I am making the point that there is really only one point of difference between them.
There are some rather difficult points to be considered here, but, before entering upon a discussion of them, I should like to say that I am not wedded to the particular form of tribunal which is set out in the Bill. We realise that there is a great deal to be said as to the particular manner in which such a tribunal may be constituted. I should say, however, that it was my idea that the personnel of the tribunal should be fixed: that is to say that once people had been appointed to the tribunal they should continue to function as members of the tribunal, unless there was some very good and strong cause for their removal. I think that that has a great deal to recommend it.
I believe that when people are called upon to function in this way they should be in a position to take a very detached view of the applications which may come before them. Accordingly, I think that it would be better that they should be so detached and removed from active participation in trade union activities rather than representative of one or other of the people whose applications would come before the tribunal. In saying that, I do not mean to imply that the ordinary members of the tribunal should not be people who have not had great experience in trade unions, whether trade unions of masters or trade unions of workmen. Naturally, one of them should be a person, in my view at any rate, who has had a great deal of actual experience and who has given valuable service in workers' trade unions. Similarly, the other member should be a person who has had a great deal of experience and who has given valuable service as a representative of employers trade unions. I think it would be wise, however, that, just as the chairman of the tribunal would not be an active working member of any trade union organisation, the ordinary members also should be persons who have more or less retired from active participation in either an employers' association or any trade union, though they ought to be people who would be recognised as having rendered signal service, either to the workers' movement on the one hand or to the employers' organisation on the other hand, and, above all else, they ought to be persons in whom both sides would have confidence. As to how we are going to choose members in that way, I have a very open mind, and there is a field open for considerable discussion in that connection. I am not wedded to the idea that these people should hold their positions permanently. It may be that the organisations would prefer that the personnel should be more or less of a circulating one, and that the ordinary members should be chosen ad hoc in relation to every application that might come before the tribunal for determination. If we can discuss that in the House, I am quite prepared to accept the common wisdom of the Dáil in regard to that matter.
Progress reported.