When the House adjourned on Friday last, I was trying to elicit from the Minister if this amendment were to be the be-all and the end-all of his intentions as far as the craft unions are concerned because the amendment to my mind gives no concession whatever in the direction that has been pleaded from these benches for the continuance and preservation of these very deserving institutions of which we have already spoken. Their only crime is their small membership and the paucity of their funds. I had hoped that the Minister would give some indication that he was prepared to yield in some respect to the representations made to him. I hope he will now indicate that the appeals that have been made are going to have some response from him, so that he will not jeopardise the continuance of these unions that have rendered such heroic service to their members, that have never put themselves in a position of stirring up strife in the industrial life of the country and that are on that account entitled to get some consideration from the Minister. I hope he will ensure that they will not be put out of action, that they will be allowed to retain their status as trade unions and that this impossible burden of £2,000 which can only be described as a hammer to put them completely out of existence, will not be inflicted in their case. These unions cannot be suitably absorbed in the general unions and if the impossible conditions set out here are imposed upon them, it will mean their extinction or their transformation into that detestable form of union known as the house union or the company union, unions in which they will have no right to assert their claims and in which their employers will be complete masters. The amendment is no better than the Schedule in that respect. I should like the Minister to give us some indication as to whether it is still his intention to steamroll these small unions out of existence.
Trade Union Bill, 1941—Committee Stage (Resumed).
I entirely support the representations of Deputy Keyes in regard to craft unions. I am sure the Deputy would include in these representations all the small unions. The amendment the Minister has before the House is simply eyewash and nothing else. If the amendment is figured out, it makes only a kind of intermediate relief in various steps between the substantial deposits provided for but it does not change the principle behind the Schedule. Deputy Keyes says he hopes that the Minister will do something about these small unions. The Minister actually admitted in the ebb and flow of the discussion on Friday that he would do something about these unions, but he did not indicate what precisely he was prepared to do. He said that he would be prepared to consider the position of these old established small societies. I submit that it is immoral to make the deposit so big that its only effect can be to wipe out a union. The Minister gave us some idea of his philosophy— whether it is a deeply felt philosophy— or just a passing philosophy which runs to his lips in debate I do not know—when he referred on Friday to a union's ability to safeguard the interests of its members, to cater satisfactorily for its members and to help its members. I wish he would tell the House what he means by "serving the interests of its members" because he enunciated the philosophy that a union's ability to cater satisfactorily for its members was proportionate to its financial resources. He repeated that several times and that led up to his making this further statement:
"I think when we decide that we have to reduce the number of unions, to get rid of these unnecessary or inefficient elements in the movement, that a salutary and very convenient way, at any rate, and I think the only practical way, is to require trade unions to make a reasonably substantial deposit."
So that here we have the position that the Minister based the capacity of a trade union to serve its members on the size of its purse. He said that there are too many of these unions and that if some of them have to be got rid of, what he called a rough-and-ready way, and later a salutary and very convenient way, is to insist on a deposit of such a size that that deposit will be the machinery for weeding them out.
I had previously moved that the House should do away with this deposit entirely, but the House disagreed with that. I submit that the deposit should only be a formal matter now. Generally the Minister's attitude has been to impress on the House that this is an experimental proposal, and that whatever happens the whole proceedings before the tribunal will be experimental. Assuming that the tribunal will be a group of persons capable of examining this whole question, and capable of helping to mould the trade union movement in the country into the effective and useful kind of organisation that we should all like it to be, should there be any test of a financial nature imposed on trade unions, that will wipe them out before they reach the tribunal? Who then is going to decide that a trade union is not useful, is not efficient, or is not necessary simply because it has not a purse? The Minister apparently has taken up that position.
I submit to the Minister that the Government as a whole should reconsider its decision if it has been taken in that particular way. I think that they should look into this matter again, and if they are going to be the only people who will have an opportunity of looking at it again, see whether it is advisable to determine the usefulness of a union by the length of its purse. If this Schedule is passed we accept the position that the usefulness and the efficiency of a trade union are determined by its purse. I should like to have some idea as to what the Minister meant by the expression, "catering for the members of a trade union," because apparently there has been amongst some Irish workers a tradition that they have been able to cater for the members of particular crafts without piling up a big purse. I want to know if that tradition is going to be killed, as I think it will be killed by this measure. The Minister as well as other Ministers have preached to Irish industrialists and Irish workers that they must become more efficient. I know of no better way in which industrial workers can be made more efficient than by promoting a love on their part for their craft, a desire for the development of their technique and by their own personal application to the advancement of that craft without being distracted by any desire to build up the power or the purse of their union. I think the Minister is entirely wrong, and he was showing some signs of a glimmer of reason behind the facade of the arguments he put up when he indicated that he was prepared not only to reduce these substantial deposits, but also to consider the position of the small unions. The whole scheme in relation to the deposits is entirely wrong.
If the Minister persists in steam-rolling this Bill through the Dáil, particularly with what is under discussion included in it, he will probably create a glorious opportunity for some of his friends who are eminent lawyers to challenge the whole scheme before the courts in relation to its application to the Constitution. I am in the habit of reading, as far as I have time to do so, the daily newspaper reports, and particularly the leading articles when they deal with political matters. I read with interest a leading article in the Irish Press yesterday. The leader writer presumably wrote on behalf of the Minister and probably at the request of the Minister when he said that, as a result of the Minister's week-end rest, he was prepared to give the trade union movement an extension of the probationary period in which unions would be able to settle between themselves the issues which he did not want, if he could avoid it, to settle, under the terms of this dragooning measure. He is prepared to extend the period of time for doing certain things. Time alone will tell whether that will be necessary. If the leader writer wrote on behalf of the Minister, it represents a little bit of an advance on the attitude that the Minister adopted on last Friday and the preceding days.
The Minister gave his benediction, both before and after he became a Minister, to many of the small unions that are to-day affiliated to the Irish Trade Unions Congress. He did so by speeches, and by communications which he addressed to the officials of some of the unions that are going to be wiped out under the penalty clause contained in the Schedule.
If my memory does not deceived me, I have already heard those words verbatim from the Deputy on this Schedule.
I doubt if you heard them verbatim.
Well, with, perhaps, one per cent. deviation.
Last Friday the Minister was asked by Deputy McGilligan what was the basis on which he fixed the amount of the deposit and I was certainly surprised when I heard him stating that the figure was fixed on a rough-and-ready calculation. I asked the Minister whether, before he fixed the figures in the Schedule, he made any examination of the annual reports submitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by the secretary of every trade union that is going to come under the whip. I can hardly believe that the Minister, who gave his benediction to the establishment of certain small unions at a particular period and for political purposes, would now, when he has the power, wipe out the same unions by the penalty clause in the Schedule. I have read the reports of some of the unions submitted to the Registrar and I know at least one union, that the Minister strongly advocated and supported when he was a Deputy for County Dublin, that could not put up the minimum amount fixed in the Schedule. According to the last report submitted by the secretary of that union to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, not alone have they no money, but they have intimated that they are deeply in debt.
Did the Deputy not discuss that matter also on Friday last?
I did not get an answer from the Minister and I am pretty certain that he did not, up to last Friday at least, look up the reports submitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Can he say now that he has examined those reports submitted by secretaries of unions that will be wiped out under this Schedule? If he has examined them, why did he tell Deputy McGilligan that the figure fixed by him is on a rough-and-ready calculation?
I did not once use the word "calculation."
You made use of the words "rough-and-ready basis." I do not want to misrepresent the Minister, but if he examined the reports submitted by the secretaries of small unions to the Registrar of Friendly Societies he could not possibly give that explanation—he could not do it consciously, at any rate. I know he was irritated to a certain extent and his attitude rather indicated that last Friday but, perhaps, now that he has had a rest over the week-end, he will be in a position to give a more acceptable explanation in relation to those figures.
I never subscribed to the idea that it was necessary to have a large number of unions purporting to cater for the interests of any group of workers in any industry, but the Minister's desire to bring about an amalgamation or an absorption of unions will not be achieved by the dragooning tactics set out in this portion of the Bill. This is the portion of the Bill that contains the deadly penalty clause, deadly so far as the small unions are concerned. Under it the majority of the small unions will disappear, and they are purely Irish unions. The amalgamated unions have a big membership and, if they recognise this measure when it becomes law, they will easily be able to provide the sums named in the Schedule. I think I am entitled to know from the Minister whether the sum fixed in the Schedule as a condition for making application for a negotiation licence is based upon his knowledge of the membership and financial standing of the Irish and the amalgamated unions.
The Minister on Friday, during the discussion on this amendment to the Schedule, elaborated a point of view which he put forward for the first time on Thursday night— that unions, in order to exist in this country after the passing of this legislation, will not only be required to pay the deposit set out in the Schedule or the amendment to it, but will also have to satisfy the tribunal, or some other authority, that, after providing the deposit, whether it is £2,000 or £8,000, they are financially sound and have a good financial surplus to safeguard, as the Minister put it, the interests of their members. I was not surprised to hear that expression from the Minister. I was less surprised when it was repeated by him on Friday. From the beginning I stated that, in my opinion, certain interests were behind this Bill, and behind this Schedule, because so far as wiping out unions, which is the aim of the Bill, is concerned, the Schedule is the effective part —although that has been denied— for lopping the heads off unions. When one listened to the Minister talking about unions, whose effectiveness, so far as the members are concerned, has to be measured by their financial resources, one cannot help recalling the Minister's couple of hours of humbugging here on Wednesday or Thursday night, when he kept playing off, or trying to play off Irish unions as against English unions, and got so wrapped up in the whole thing that he thought it desirable, apparently, to attack certain prominent trade union officials who are English. The position, of course, is, as Deputy Mulcahy very rightly described it, that this eye-washing amendment is not going to have the slightest effect on the amalgamated unions. There is not one amalgamated union operating here that will not be able to meet these conditions, but many purely Irish unions will not be able to meet the amounts set out in the amendment, and because of that they are going to be wiped out. We are told that in future unions are to be judged by their financial resources. All that is set out in the amendment as to the deposits that will be demanded and the scrutiny that is apparently going to take place into the financial position of each union, if it is unable to put up the deposit, is being done on the plea that all the trouble with inter-union disputes was caused by small unions. That is not so. Any person who deliberately says that that is so is saying something that is not true.
On this Schedule I say it is unfair that this House should be asked to impose conditions on small unions which they are unable to meet, and so wipe them out. The House is being told that that is desirable—and not only desirable but essential—because these small unions, which will be unable to put up the deposit, have been responsible for the trouble and the turmoil. I now challenge the Minister to say if the inter-union trouble which has taken place, particularly in the City of Dublin, in the last four or five years, was not caused almost exclusively by big unions that will not be affected by this amendment. If you want to wipe out small unions, not only in the City of Dublin, but unions that have been very effective throughout the country, then do so openly and above board. Do not try to do it under the cloak of pinning on them sins of which they have not been guilty. It is known not only to the Minister, but to every official in his Department, and to every trade unionist and to most of the citizens of Dublin, that the major troubles in this city, industrial and inter-union troubles, were not prolonged by small unions, but were caused by some of the biggest unions. The Minister knows that.
Can we hear anything from the Minister now in reply to the points that were made?
Even on the last stage the Minister might talk.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- 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.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
On the Schedule, Sir——
When amendment No. 84a was introduced, it was pointed out by the Chair that the amendment practically replaced the Schedule. It was suggested that one debate should cover both. There was no demur to that suggestion.
You, Sir, expressed, probably very justifiably, your anxiety that the discussion on the amendment would not be repeated on the Schedule. I have no desire to repeat the discussion on the Schedule, but to ask the Minister two questions.
Very good.
On the last day the Minister indicated to the House, when we were discussing the amendment, that the Schedule as originally prepared was a rough and ready decision. Now he has given us an amended Schedule which is less rough as it was less ready, but he indicated two things with regard to his mind when he was discussing the amendment, first, that he would be prepared to consider the position of the old-established small societies. He also indicated that in certain circumstances he was prepared to reduce the £2,000 deposit to £1,000. I would like to ask the Minister what is the position with regard to these matters and whether he proposes to introduce amendments on the Report Stage in one or other of these directions or in both?
As you reminded us, Sir, we discussed the Schedule on Friday last at some length and I have already given the Dáil an indication of my mind in relation to these matters. I do not think there is anything I can add at this stage.
Upon that point, on Friday last the Minister intimated to Deputies, if the House expressed certain opinions which were expressed in certain sections of the House, his willingness to amend the deposit clause in the Schedule. In the course of the debate the Minister lost his temper and then said, because certain people said something which ruffled him, his whole mind was altered and that he had, therefore, decided to withdraw the earlier offer. I can understand the Minister getting into a temper. As a matter of fact, apparently, that is a very normal condition with the Minister. But that is a temperamental problem and not a legislative problem. It does not seem to be a reasonable kind of procedure that a Minister should come into the House on Friday, make an offer, make it in very nice tones, and then in the course of the debate get ruffled and say the whole offer is withdrawn because he lost his temper. That was the Minister's attitude on Friday last, but legislation should not be fashioned in that way. Deputy Meaney wrote a letter to the paper and said that he wanted this legislation shaped by an impact of reason on reason, that he wanted it shaped by thoughtful views. There was some sound sense in Deputy Meaney's letter, even though he did not contribute very much to the shaping of the legislation when it was passing through this House. If the Minister will not listen to reason from this side of the House, in any case, he ought to pay some regard to what Deputy Meaney wrote to the Irish Press. Deputy Meaney felt that a Bill of this kind should be fashioned by an impact of reason on reason. This Bill is being fashioned by the Minister's temper— by the Minister's bad temper—not even by good temper.
The Minister's conduct is not at issue at the moment; merely the Schedule to the Bill.
I think Deputy Mulcahy has really shown the relevance of this because the Minister made an offer on Friday last and, in the course of the debate, got ruffled and, because he got ruffled, said, "The offer I have made is withdrawn." But the basic facts remained undisturbed between the time the Minister made the offer and the time he withdrew the offer. Legislation surely should not be fashioned in that way because the Minister cannot keep his temper. Will the Minister say now what set of circumstances induced him to make the offer and why he withdrew the offer? If the Minister still says he has withdrawn the offer, then we can only conclude that the trade unions in this country are being asked to pay a minimum deposit of £2,000 because this country has a Minister for Industry and Commerce who, during the debates in this House, cannot be relied on to keep his temper for more than a few minutes.
May I put the situation as it appears to me? My temper has got nothing to do with this Bill but statements have been made on the part of the Opposition after I had indicated that I was prepared, if it would meet the wishes of the House, to consider some reduction in the minimum amount of the deposit which might meet the case of these old established trade unions. I said I would consider that if that would meet the point of view that had been expressed. I made that offer, not because I think that the minimum amount of the deposit is too high or likely to be too onerous so far as the trade unions which I think can usefully function in this country are concerned, but simply to meet a point of view that had been expressed by the Opposition. The response to that offer on my part, to meet what was the point of view of the Opposition, was a flat rejection. I was told by one of the leading critics and opponents of the Bill that he did not want any deposit at all: that nothing would satisfy him except a nominal deposit. He suggested a sum of £5. It was quite obvious that, in these circumstances, there was no use in giving effect to the proposal I had made to meet, not my own point of view at all because I was not convinced by a single argument, but to meet the point of view of the Opposition to this Bill. I cannot see, in these circumstances, that there is anything I can say on this stage which will cure that situation.
After the admission made by the Minister, one can hardly conceive of anything, which one could even think of, that would be likely to help the situation. He says he is prepared to meet the wishes expressed by certain members of the House although he is convinced there was nothing whatever in the point of view they put forward, that there was no justice or reason in the arguments put forward which would lead him to reduce the deposit below a minimum of £2,000. One gathered from the Minister's statement that he had heard nothing on any stage of the Bill which would shake his determination to get it through in the form in which he had introduced it. I want to put it to him that under paragraph (1) of the Schedule the imposition of this £2,000 deposit is going to have the effect of wiping out a very large number of small unions which are now doing, and have been doing for a considerable time, very useful work. Members belonging to all Parties in the House are conversant with the activities of those unions in small towns. They cater for town workers, for agricultural workers, and for road workers, and in a quiet way they have been able to do very effective work for their members. They have been able to do that without having behind them the vast financial resources which the Minister desires. In addition, they have to my own personal knowledge, been able to do very good work for the community. On many occasions their efforts have helped to avert strikes. When this measure is put into operation not one of these small unions will be left, because not one of them will be able to make a deposit of £2,000. There is no prospect before them, therefore, except to be wiped out.
I want to suggest to the Minister that the big unions, with the big financial resources, that he has in mind will not be over-anxious to cater for the type of workman whose interests were looked after by these small unions, so that what is really going to happen is that those men will become completely unorganised and disorganised. They will have no legal right to negotiate with employers in a small town or village with a group of farmers in the country, or with the county surveyor or the assistant surveyors in the county council area. In my opinion the Minister, under this proposal, is not only going to inflict a grave hardship on those men, but is going to do them a grave injustice. I think he is unwise, to say the least of it, to be creating the precedent that if anything good is to be done for this county and its people it must have big financial resources behind it. The Minister should remember that we had many organisations and societies in the country all of which proved their effectiveness at a particular time in our history. If their effectiveness had to be determined by their capacity to put down a deposit of £2,000, they would not have remained very long in existence. I hope that the new theory embodied in this Schedule will not be persisted in. If the Bill goes through in its present form, then I say a large number of workers, particularly in the rural areas, are going to suffer severely. Grave hardship and injustice are going to be inflicted on them.
I am always prepared to consider an argument reasonably put, as it has been in this case to-day by Deputy Morrissey, and as it was put by certain other Deputies on Friday. I want to say again that I do not think that the minimum sum set out in the Schedule is going to inflict any undue hardship upon responsible trade unions. If, however, there are others, familiar with this problem, who take a different view, I am prepared to meet them, to some extent, and, accordingly, I will, if necessary, put down for Report Stage an amendment to reduce the minimum amount required, but that amount must still remain a fairly substantial one. I do not expect, in the time available, that I shall be able to deal with particular cases under this amendment, so that I shall just have to fix a certain standard to which even the smallest and oldest unions will have to conform. That is a usual condition in legislation. We cannot legislate for particular cases.
Will the Minister say whether, when the offer that he has made is put into legal phraseology, it is likely to have any relation to the membership of a union or its financial standing—to anything that can be called a common-sense proposition? If the Minister has not already looked up the reports submitted by these small unions will he say if he is prepared to examine them before bringing in his amendment on the Report Stage?
I have nothing to add.
While the Minister is in such a reasonable frame of mind, I would like to say, in connection with that suggestion of his, that we are all anxious to be helpful. Perhaps we might have some co-operation on that little idea started by Deputy Morrissey —of having a little school of Parliamentary deportment so that those who have not Parliamentary manners might learn them, and so help to conduct business. We hate to be putting the Minister into that frame of mind that he got into from time to time during the debates on this Bill. We would like if he could help us to avoid doing that, and would even be prepared to sit at anybody's feet to learn.
The Deputy might learn by observation.
The Minister in the discussions on this Bill has been hugging a kind of delusion that it has been designed for the purpose of assisting Irish trade unionists. During the discussions last week the Minister in a Napoleonic way announced that he was going to put the English trade unions in their place and make them subject to our law. He spent quite a considerable time lacerating a well-known and highly thought-of secretary of a trade union—the National Union of Railwaymen.
Not on this Schedule to the Bill.
No. At the same time, I am sorry to say that the Minister did that. I think it was a frightful piece of Parliamentary bad manners, but I pass over that. The Schedule lights up the whole Bill.
But does not justify discussion of the whole Bill.
I do not want to discuss the whole Bill. In this Bill there are various stages for the trial and extinction of trade unions, but the Schedule may be described as the execution chamber. It is the place where they are all lopped off, one by one, unless they can produce the cheques required by the Minister. The Minister has sought to try and justify this Bill on the ground that it is one to help the Irish unions, but everybody knows perfectly well, everybody who has any experience of the trade union movement, that this Bill will do incalculable harm to Irish trade unions, that is, to organisations of Irish trade unionists with headquarters in Ireland. In the main, with our sparse population, those are small organisations. Their financial resources, except in a few instances, are not extensive, but, nevertheless, they have managed to do a vast amount of very useful work for their members. They have raised the standard of living of those workers, and it seems to me that that is much more important than the kind of legislative embroidery which is turned out by this institution. Putting more food on the tables of the workers, giving more food and clothing to the men, women and children of this country, is much more valuable, it seems to me in building up a small self-reliant nation, than a lot of the nonsense on which time is wasted in this House.
We must look at this Bill through the Schedule, which is the most vital part of the whole Bill. The Minister tries to pretend that this Bill will help the Irish unions. He knows perfectly well that Irish unions, in the main, are very small organisations. Deputy Cooney can confirm that. He has not said one word on this Bill, although he knows perfectly well that what I am saying is true. Deputy Cooney represents trade unionists in the City of Dublin, and he knows perfectly well that, in the main, the small unions are the Irish unions. Those organisations will find it extremely difficult to raise the necessary deposit. They are not well endowed with funds, and, under this Bill if passed in its present form, they will cease to exist. I want to put one question to the Minister, and I will do my best not to annoy him in putting it. Is it true that under this Bill a small Irish organisation with a membership of 500 or 1,000, if it cannot pay the £2,000 deposit which is provided for in this Schedule as a minimum, will be compelled to go out of existence unless it amalgamates with another organisation with which it does not want to amalgamate in the forcible way envisaged in this Bill? If that is the effect on that organisation, would the Minister tell me what good purpose will at any time be achieved by putting that small organisation out of existence, and why it is necessary to introduce legislation of that gritty, sandy type at this time when one would think that good statesmanship and a telescopic view of our national problems would induce people to see that it is not desirable to throw spanners of that kind into the machinery, but that it is necessary to promote national unity and goodwill? Will the Minister kindly answer those questions?
If the Deputy will look at the Bill, as amended, and as it is proposed to amend it, I think—I say I think; I am not so sure—he can answer those questions for himself.
Surely there is nothing wrong in asking the Minister a question?
The minimum deposit here is £2,000. The Minister's amendment does not deal with the problem under £2,000; it deals with the problem over £2,000. I have asked a question in relation to the £2,000. If a small Irish union cannot pay it, must it go out of existence? When the only other union in that industry is an English organisation, that is one with headquarters across the Channel, must the Irish union go out of existence and amalgamate with the English organisation?
Was not that debated on Section 7?
I do not think it could be debated on Section 7 so extensively as to prevent a reference to it on the Schedule.
The Schedule simply fixes the amount of the deposit to be paid.
And again I say, on the Schedule, that to fix a minimum of £2,000 is most unfair, and is injurious to the interests which the Minister pretends, artificially I think——
The Deputy has so argued without being pulled up by the Chair. It is a different thing to question now the interpretation of Section 7.
The point I am putting is this. The Minister talked at length —I do not want to go over the whole ground again—about an Irish carpenter who was a member of the Irish National Union of Woodworkers, and we all know the background in which that kind of argument was set. There are two carpenters' organisations in this country; one is the Irish National Union of Woodworkers, and the other is the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers with its headquarters in Manchester. That is the organisation against which the Minister the other day almost invoked the Offences Against the State Act, and in regard to which he made a number of references which I think might, with prudence, have been avoided. If the Irish National Union of Woodworkers cannot pay the £2,000 under this Schedule, I want to find out from the Minister whether they must go out of existence. I want to know from the Minister must they go out of existence, and must they amalgamate with the organisation which the Minister said sent an ultimatum to the Irish Government and threatened to make war on this State? That seems to me to be implied in this Schedule. That seems to me to be the inevitable result of passing the Schedule in its present form. The Minister pretends that he wants this Bill to help the Irish unions. My interpretation of the Bill is that it will put that small organisation out of existence and compel it to amalgamate with the other organisation. I want to ask the Minister this question. Deputy Cooney ought to be asking him this instead of me. Will that small Irish organisation be compelled to go out of existence if it cannot pay the £2,000? That is the net question, and the answer is either "yes" or "no." One word from the Minister will not delay the Bill much further. The position is, of course, that the Minister does not want to answer. He knows that the Irish organisation will be put out of existence and compelled to go into the other organisation.
The general display by the Minister in so far as this Bill is concerned has been very unsatisfactory throughout. His obvious reluctance to reply to criticism, and his reluctance even to explain the various provisions of the Bill, as well as the general air of impatience which he has displayed, have reduced some of us to such a state of timidity——
Why not say "tears"?
——that we are almost afraid to address ourselves to the problem. So far as I can see, no adequate explanation has thus far been given as to why a minimum deposit of £2,000 should be extorted from the small unions.
Surely, that is not on the Schedule?
I do not know what the Minister is muttering about. If he wants to intervene, surely he ought to adopt the regular procedure of the House and stand up. As I said, no adequate explanation has so far been given. It is readily recognisable that the object of extorting this £2,000, or attempting to extort it, as a deposit from a number of unions, is to wipe out those unions. That is a matter which has been universally condemned by the Opposition in this House, and it is a matter which the Minister may feel certain will be opposed more forcibly and more determinedly by a much stronger opposition outside the House. Apart from the smaller deposit—if it may be so described—of £2,000, no explanation is given as to why sums varying from £2,000 to £10,000 are being insisted upon as deposits. I would ask the Minister not to be so sparing in his words. Admittedly, there have been prolonged discussions on various sections of the Bill, but that is just as it should be by reason of the fact that the Opposition is intensely interested in the measure, and that the measure has created nation-wide interest.
There is one inquiry I should like to make before the question is put, and that is in reference to paragraph (1) of the Schedule, which says that where the number of members does not exceed £2,000 the deposit shall be £2,000. Is the Minister in a position to give the House any information as to the number of such organisations in the country with a membership which does not exceed 2,000?
No, I am not in a position to say that.
The Minister says "No"—that he has no idea. Well, may I say—without wanting to be in any way offensive at all—that it seems to me that that would be one of the essential pieces of information that the Minister should have sought before he fixed on this sum of £2,000? I am afraid—from my own, if you like, rather limited knowledge—that a very large number of organisations, with a membership of less than 2,000, are going to be affected by this Bill, and therefore the Minister should be in the position, in my opinion, to give the House some idea of the number of organisations in this country with a membership that does not exceed 2,000.
Deputy Childers knows that.
Surely, it is an unheard of thing for a Minister to sit back and refuse to answer a question, particularly a pertinent question on such an important matter as this. The Minister has stated that he does not know the number of organisations that will be affected by this Bill.
That was not the question that was put to me.
That is what I understood.
My question had reference to paragraph (1) of the Schedule.
Surely, the Minister should know the number of unions that will be affected by this particular section. I think it is unheard of for a Minister to sit down here in the House and refuse to answer an important question. After all, this is part of the Bill which will determine how many trade unions there are to be in this country in the future, and how many of the small unions will be absorbed by unions which the Minister went out of his way, last week, to attack, and his refusal to answer such an important question shows that he has not studied the Bill.
On a point of order, Sir. Deputy Corish was not here on Friday when both the Schedule and the amendment to the Schedule were debated at some length.
That is not a point of order.
I understood, Sir, that an arrangement was made then whereby there would be one debate on the amendment and on the Schedule, as amended. Now, we are proceeding again to go over the ground already traversed in the debate on the amendment.
I am asking the Minister a question.
On the point of order. I did suggest that, as the amendment practically replaces this Schedule, one debate might cover both the Schedule and the amendment. There was no demur to that proposal. In the discussion, several Deputies referred to the amendment and to the Schedule. There seems to be a duplication of debate now. Deputies are within their rights, but it certainly is duplicating the debate.
May I submit, Sir, that on the point I made to the Minister, which was afterwards developed by Deputy Corish, my question was confined to paragraph (1) of the Schedule, which was not affected by the Minister's amendment at all?
Might I suggest, Sir, that the main factor contributing to the duplication of debate is the Minister's silence and refusal to answer questions, as a result of which arguments have to be made twice and reasons reiterated in the endeavour to get from the Minister information which the House requires.
I suggest that if the Minister were to break his silence, this debate could be brought to a more speedy conclusion. The Minister refuses to answer questions; he refuses to answer such a pertinent and important question, in relation to this Bill, as the number of trade unions that will be put out of existence as a result of the passage of this Bill—that is, if it is passed; but it is not in operation yet.
The Minister does not know the number of trade unions in this country with a membership of under 2,000?
The figures are issued annually by his own Department.
I was not asked that question.
I am asking the Minister now. Will he state the number of trade unions in this country, affiliated with the Trade Union Congress or otherwise, with a membership of under 2,000?
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- 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.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
Can we discuss the Title?
I have no recollection of any discussion on a Title to a Bill.
I have never heard of a Bill like this, either.
I do not see how there could be a relevant discussion.
I think it is an inappropriate Title and I want to give the Minister reasons why the Title should be altered.
No amendment has been tabled, and none of the amendments passed affected the Title.
It is just a euphemism for an entirely different operation. While this Bill purports to confer licences on certain persons to register, the real purpose of the Bill is to smash the small organisations which cannot pay a minimum of £2,000. In the main, the small organisations which will be smashed are Irish organisations comprised solely of Irish trade unions, having headquarters in Ireland. The bulk of them will be put out of existence by this Bill, which has such an apparently innocuous title. I suggest the title should be:—"A Bill to make war on small Irish trade unions and put them out of existence," because out of existence they will go under this Bill.
The Deputy spoke about euphemism. A Second Reading speech may not be made under the guise of opposing the Title. The Title is in accordance with the Bill or it is not.
May I point out that it is not in accordance with the Second Reading speech which the Minister made? I want to call attention to the anomaly.
The Deputy could scarcely go much further and be relevant.
The Title is not in accordance with what the Minister said on the Second Reading.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- 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.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Corish, Richard.
- Davin, William.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
This day week.
In view of the fact that the Minister, shortly after introducing this Bill, put down a number of amendments, and in view of the fact that, while the Bill was being discussed on Committee Stage, the Minister was still producing amendments, would he not consider leaving the next stage over until a later date than next week, so that we might have a look at the Bill in the light of the amendments made, and give the Minister an opportunity of putting in further amendments which experience of the debates may suggest as necessary or desirable? In that way, we might have a much more cordial discussion on the next stage than the type of discussion we had during the past fortnight, because of the Minister's generally scattered thoughts on the subject.
The Minister has not had any scattered thoughts in regard to this Bill, but some sections of the House put down amendments to the Bill and then did not move them. In the course of the debate, representations were made upon the points covered by the amendments and I indicated that I should consider them. The Bill was very fully discussed in Committee. Every aspect of it has been elucidated in the House and the amendments which I propose to put down—they are, as a matter of fact, in draft—will cover all the points raised. There is no reason why the discussion should be interminably prolonged. We have already spent three weeks on the Committee Stage and, in the light of that, I think that it is reasonable to fix this day week for the Report Stage.
This Bill has provoked more controversy in the country than any measure I know of since the emergency arose—and quite unnecessarily.
Hear, hear!
This measure is not of urgent public importance and I do not think that the Minister has made the case that it is. Apart from that, nearly every member of this Party, other than myself, will be engaged at the annual congress of the trade union movement next week. That body will have a good deal to say on this measure and what it means to trade unionists. If the Minister has any desire to accommodate the members of this small group, he might take that into consideration and agree to the postponement of the next stage until this day fortnight. That will not delay the final passage of the Bill or the trouble which may, subsequently, arise as the result of its coming into law, to any great extent.
The point made by Deputy Davin is quite reasonable. The Trades Union Congress is a body which has the right to speak for trade unionists. It might be helpful to the Minister and to the House if the Report Stage were deferred until the Trades Union Congress would have an opportunity of voicing its opinions on the Bill, particularly as the Minister has, on more than one occasion during the debate, told the House that the majority of trade unions and the majority of those who make up the Trades Union Congress were in favour of the Bill.
I intervene merely to correct the statement made by the Deputy. The only figures which I gave to the House in relation to the Trades Union Congress had reference to the voting upon the resolution proposed by Mr. Marchbanks at the special session of the Trades Union Congress. I indicated that, on his motion, 21 unions voted for the adoption of Memorandum No 2, and 18 against.
I am speaking of a different occasion from that which the Minister has in mind. On at least three other occasions, the Minister assured the House that the majority of trade unions and of those who made up the Trades Union Congress were in favour of the Bill.
May I draw attention to another aspect of the matter? There has been public criticism of the small number of Deputies who took part in the division on Friday last. That was the seventh day of Committee discussion on the Bill and I was personally responsible for sending a number of Deputies home to do work there which was more urgent than the work to be done here.
Is that an explanation of the absence of members of the Deputy's Party?
Your supporters would have done the same if they were allowed to do so.
If I may address the House——
On what?
On the proposal which has been put before us.
I thought the Deputy was talking about the absence of members of his Party.
I should have been very glad if the Minister, who was for a long period Minister for Industry and Commerce, had chosen to help the House during the discussion of the Bill. He might have had some contribution to give. Here we are in the busiest portion of the year, so far as the business of the House is concerned, and so far as the work of a large number of Deputies is concerned, and we have spent seven days on this measure. I do not know whether the Minister expects the Seanad to sit through August to deal with this Bill or whether that House will postpone consideration of the measure until autumn. That would be the reasonable course. With so many interests involved, with so many misunderstandings, and with so many people now awake to the implications of the Bill, we shall have a heavy discussion on Report Stage. When we consider how it has been discussed in this House, the Bill will probably be subjected to very considerable discussion in the Seanad. It is unreasonable from the point of view of Parliamentary time, on the one hand, and from the point of view of work in the country and the general run of seasons on the other, that a measure of this particular size and importance should be imposed on the House at this particular time of the year. If this Bill is not to be discussed in the Seanad during the month of August, then I submit that there is no great rush about it and that the Report Stage might be postponed until after the Recess. However, that is another matter.
From the point of view of discussing it next week, the Minister has pointed out that a large number of amendments were put down by one Party in the House and not moved. So far as this Party is concerned, those amendments were on the Order Paper, and we anticipated they would be discussed. As the amendments were not moved and no decision of the House was taken on them, after seven days' committee work here a very considerable amount of thought has to be given by this Party to the amendments to be put down for the Report Stage, if, as I understand, the Labour Party maintain their attitude with regard to amendments on the Report Stage, because of the reasons they expressed in the House, and will not move any amendments. In the first place, there is a considerable amount of work to be done on the Report Stage. In the second place, there is the point made with regard to the Trade Union Congress meeting next week. In the third place, there is the point made by me, that we cannot expect a measure of this size and importance, with all the discussion which has ranged round it, to be dealt with by the Seanad before the Summer Recess. Therefore, I submit to the Minister that, if he wants to get the Bill through the Dáil before the Summer Recess, there may be a case for that, but that he could take the Report Stage the week after next.
The Deputy admits that on Friday he sent his Deputies home while he held the fort himself. He challenged a division on every possible section, and he spoke on every possible section, sometimes three times. He has done that in regard to every section and every amendment to this Bill. There are 28 sections in the Bill, which is a simple measure. He has spoken on most of these on two, or sometimes three, occasions and duplicated that performance in relation to every amendment.
On a point of order. Do I take it, Sir, that the House will be free to discuss the speech which the Minister is now making and the accusations he is making?
The only matter before the House is the date for the Report Stage.
Mr. Morrissey
I submit, on a point of order, that if the Minister is allowed to continue making these accusations, the other members of the House can claim a similar right.
The Minister is discussing Friday's speeches.
The time of the House has been wasted by a deliberate policy of obstruction such as has not been witnessed in this House for a considerable number of years. We have had divisions challenged on every amendment; we have had divisions challenged on every section; we have had divisions challenged on purely formal sections; and we had a division challenged to-day on the Title, and, as the House is aware, every division occupies at least 15 minutes. To-day we are told that, because Deputies have other business to attend to, the business of the Government is to be held up. I put it to you again, Sir, that it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to take the Report Stage of the Bill on this day week.
With regard to the personal point the Minister made that I stayed here on Friday holding the fort, I first spoke on Friday in a formal way at ten minutes to two. Early in the morning I made one remark, but only by way of elucidation of some point. There were so many Deputies here on Friday to discuss matters and so much to be said, that the business was not concluded by 2 p.m. Never in the course of this debate during the seven days of Committee did I challenge a division on any of these things.
Might I point out that the submission made by the Minister, that a postponement of the Report Stage was being sought because Deputies have other business to attend to, is a misrepresentation? The main contention put forward by Deputy Davin for the postponement is that the Labour Deputies have to attend the Trade Union Congress which will be dealing with matters closely related to this Bill. That is a reasonable request, and, if the Minister does not accede to it, his refusal can only be regarded as a continuation of his obstinacy and his unyielding attitude throughout.
The Minister made precisely the same case in regard to the taking of the Committee Stage of the Valuation Bill. That Bill was introduced in 1938. The Minister said it was a very valuable Bill which would confer enormous benefits on the smaller ratepayers who would have their rates reduced because the valuations were to be lumped on to the wealthy folk and, consequently, they would ride away with small rates. That was in 1938. The Bill has been on the Order Paper for three years, notwithstanding the enormous benefits it was to confer on these people. This Bill confers no benefit on anybody. Nobody has asked for it, nobody wants it, except the Minister and some of his advisers and, perhaps, the bosses. Trade unionists have not asked for it; the workless have not asked for it; the emigrants have not asked for it; people faced with rising prices have not asked for it; folk who cannot get supplies have not asked for it. Why, then, is the Minister pressing a Bill of this kind which nobody wants?
In any case, on its face, it cannot come into operation until six months after it is enacted and, as the Minister indicated during the Committee Stage, he is willing to arrange that it will not be brought into operation for a longer period. What is the urgency about this Bill which nobody wants? Why can we not deal with something more serious? What is the purpose of having the Report Stage next week? If the Minister imagines that he will get the Report Stage next week, I can tell him that he will not get the Report Stage for a few weeks. What is the purpose of holding up the Dáil and the Seanad before the summer recess trying to pass a Bill which nobody wants and which, even when passed, you know perfectly well you cannot implement, because you dare not?
Surely the Minister is sufficiently reasonable to accede to the request made to him for another week. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I ask him to agree to that request.
If it is proposed to take the Report Stage on this day week, can we get an assurance that the Bill will not interfere with the other business ordered for next week, namely, the Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Bill?
Before the House is asked to decide on this, might I ask the Minister when the Bill, as amended, will be reprinted, and when the Minister's amendments for the Report Stage will be available to Deputies? That is a very important point.
The Bill as amended will be available on Thursday and the amendments proposed will be available on Thursday evening or Friday morning.
Does the Minister propose to recommit the Bill?
I am not saying that.
This is the dictatorship we are having here.
The Minister indicated that he would introduce a number of amendments. Does he intend to recommit the Bill on the Report Stage? It is usual to indicate that at this stage.
I do not think it is necessary.
The Minister indicated that he hopes that the Ministerial amendments will be available on Thursday evening or Friday morning.
In accordance with the Standing Orders, if they are not available in time the Report Stage cannot be taken.
It is very essential for Deputies who are interested in this Bill that they should see the Ministerial amendments, as they may have to put down amendments to them.
Then they will be late.
Before this is finally settled I should like to ask the Taoiseach does he understand what the position is, that the Trade Union Congress is meeting next week and that this is a Bill which has been very contentiously discussed here in Committee for the past seven days? Does he propose that the Dáil should sit next week to discuss this measure further whilst the Trade Union Congress is meeting?
The House is not in Committee and the Deputy can only speak once on the motion.
We may the ourselves with orders and decisions of one kind or another, but our intention, as it is the intention of all Parties in this House, professedly at any rate, is to bring about harmony and understanding throughout the whole of the trade union movement and amongst the people who are likely to be brought into it as a result of this Bill. Our intention is to promote harmony and the further development of industry and production for the general well-being of the country. Surely we cannot do our work in this way and expect that there will be harmony and understanding throughout organised labour or confidence amongst organised employers?
The question is that the Report Stage of the Bill be taken on Tuesday next, 15th inst.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- 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.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Earnest E.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.