Is it the intention of the Deputy to press this amendment?
Industrial Development Authority Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In sub-section (7), line 25, to delete the words "from time to time" and substitute the words "at the time of his appointment."—(Deputy Lemass).
I am not pressing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:—
To delete sub-section (9) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(9) (a) Where a member of the authority becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas, he shall, upon his becoming entitled, under the Standing Orders of that House, to sit therein, cease to be a member of the authority.
(b) a person who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, shall be disqualified from being a member of the authority.
I think this amendment will be agreed to.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain this amendment? What is the reason for it?
This is a drafting amendment. Earlier I moved an amendment which makes it clear that, in the event of a member of the authority becoming a member of either House of the Oireachtas, he shall, upon his becoming entitled under the Standing Orders of either House to sit therein, cease to be a member of the Industrial Development Authority.
There is more than that.
There is not. There was an amendment to an earlier section and this is purely consequential. It precludes a person, a member of the authority, once he is elected to the Dáil or Seanad, from continuing to be a member of the authority. He ceases to be a member of the authority after his election.
In the Bill he was precluded from being nominated or elected.
In connection with other Bills there were similar subsections prohibiting a person holding office from being nominated or elected to Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. The objection was taken that it was the wrong way of doing something that we all wanted done and it was considered that it would be better to reverse the position and when a person was elected he would cease to be a member of a particular body. There was a similar change in connection with other bodies.
A member of the authority may be nominated, but if he is elected he has to resign from the authority.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (11), line 34, to insert before "shall" the words "or officer of the authority".
I am not sure if the officers of this authority will be exclusively civil servants.
It is intended. It is possible that some who would have technical qualifications would be appointed and they would not be civil servants, but it is not likely.
The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, if there is any likelihood of persons being employed in the service of the authority who are not civil servants, they should be under some obligation.
I agree. I will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In sub-section (11), line 35, to insert before "as" the words "or otherwise whatsoever by reason of his membership of the authority or by virtue of the powers of obtaining information conferred on the authority by this Act."
It seems to me that the wording of sub-section (11) is a bit loose. It prohibits a member from disclosing any information obtained by him "in the exercise of his functions under the Act". What the full significance of that term "exercise of his functions" may be I am not quite sure, but it is inevitable that members of this authority will have numerous contacts with business people, who will discuss with them matters affecting their interests and express views upon projects that are under consideration by the authority. It is necessary to make the sub-section a little tighter, so as to provide that a member of the authority will not disclose any information which he gets concerning any matter that is under consideration by the authority, no matter how he gets it, whether he gets it in the exercise of his functions or in any other way.
I think the section is ample. It precludes a member from disclosing any information which he gets, except in the course of a report to the Minister.
Yes, except that the question may arise whether he obtained the information in the exercise of his functions or obtained it at lunch in the Shelbourne Hotel. He might have got the information at the lunch in the Shelbourne by reason of the fact that he was a member of the authority and that people would talk to him in his official capacity. It is obviously desirable that the rule of conduct should be that any information obtained anyhow, concerning matters with which the authority may be dealing, should be regarded as confidential.
Of course, a person in the position of a member of the authority, or for that matter, anyone in an official position having confidential information available to him, may hear outside his ordinary official duties the same information, or it may come to his knowledge; and it must turn on the question whether he is prepared to use the information which comes to him officially or use the same information which may come to him in some other manner.
That is true, but I was anxious to change the words "obtained in the exercise of his functions" to read "by reason of his membership of the authority". I think it is a better phrase.
It is a very neat point to decide at the Shelbourne lunch, whether he obtains the information because of his membership or because he is at the lunch.
He may be at the lunch because he is a member.
He would not be there in the exercise of his functions.
He might.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (11), line 37, to add at the end of the sub-section the words "and if a member contravenes the provisions of this sub-section he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".
Sub-section (11) prohibits a member from disclosing any information concerning a private business which might be gained in the exercise of his functions. If a member breaks that rule and discloses information, to the detriment of any private person, nothing can happen to him except, possibly, his removal from office by order of the Minister. I think the sub-section needs teeth in it, that if a member flagrantly violates the requirement of the sub-section, discloses information which he obtained in the exercise of his functions to some business competitor of a private firm, he should be liable to legal penalties, to fine or imprisonment, according to the gravity of the offence. The sub-section as it stands is weak, unless there is provision made for legal penalties as well as ministerial action.
This section is similar to a section in the Industrial Relations Act, where there is a prohibition on members of the Labour Court divulging information, but there is no penalty in the event of a member doing so. It may be that that is a flaw in that Act. There is even no power to prosecute them. It may be that it is unusual to have the restrictions on civil servants under the Official Secrets Act and not to impose similar restrictions on members of either the Labour Court or the Industrial Development Authority. On the other hand, I think they are adequately covered, in so far as that if a member discloses any information or is in any way guilty of misconduct, the Minister has power to remove him. It is true that the only penalty is removal, but I imagine that it is a penalty which would operate more effectively on the member—the threat of removal rather than the fear of other consequences.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at this from the point of view of those who will have business with the authority? It may be true that members of this board will be no more likely than members of the Labour Court to disclose confidential information revealed to them in the exercise of their functions, but it is also true that members of the public will be more hesitant in giving information to this board because of the character of the information which the board may require. In the main, the Labour Court gets information concerning business concerns at public hearings in the court and, in any event, the type of information supplied to them is necessarily related to the particular matter which the Labour Court is investigating; but a business firm proposing an extension of its activities or consulted by the authority concerning a proposal which the authority has received from some other firm, and possibly a rival, will normally be expected to give far more detailed information concerning its activities and its future plans than would be necessary in the case of a hearing before the Labour Court. They will be reluctant to give that information unless they can be doubly assured that there is no likelihood of it being revealed to possible trade rivals or in other circumstances where its revelation might be to their serious detriment. Even though it is extremely improbable that the provisions of the sub-section would ever be exercised, it is desirable to have in it what might appear to be even drastic penalties against the disclosure of information, as an assurance to those who will have business with the authority, that the information will not be disclosed.
I should say, in this connection, that the members of this authority, on appointment, all made statutory declarations undertaking not to disclose any information; and, of course, any departure from a statutory declaration involves serious penalties. Therefore, I think the point is adequately covered.
Surely Deputy Lemass should have more confidence in his fellow countrymen than that? We need not go beyond what is in the section already.
There is many an idle word spoken.
If the Deputy were appointing them himself, he would not be raising these trivial points.
And if I were bringing in the Bill myself, I would not expect the same intelligent criticism from the Opposition.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (12), line 39, to insert before the word "declare" the words "before exercising any functions as a member".
I am prepared to accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary something that occurred to me in reading through the section, something which I think it lacks. There is no provision for collective responsibility of the authority. They can act individually and there is nothing to ensure that they are collectively responsible. I understand that at the moment this body is acting individually as regards their work. There must be collective responsibility somewhere for that work.
It is a constitutional requirement for the Government.
I suggest it should be provided for.
Imagine having collective responsibility in that Government.
I have heard that suggested outside.
It is the authority that makes recommendations. The individuals cannot make recommendations; they must function as a unit. It might be that an individual would deal with a specific aspect of the matter, but any recommendation made is made by the authority.
Let me give a hypothetical case. An individual member of such an authority can indicate to a firm, which proposes starting an industry, that the Control of Manufactures Act does not apply to them and that it would be undesirable to start an industry in a particular area. An individual member of the authority may do that as an individual.
An individual civil servant might say to a person that the Control of Manufactures Act does not apply and, if the person has any doubt, he can either get a legal opinion or make further inquiries elsewhere.
There is no question of the Control of Manufactures Act applying in this hypothetical case. Indeed, it is more than a hypothetical case to my knowledge because actually an individual member of this authority took it upon himself to advise a particular inquirer that if he were to start a certain line of manufacturing industry in a particular area his action would be frowned upon. The result was that this prospective industrialist, an Irishman to whom the control of Manufactures Act did not apply, was frightened off because of the advice he got from an individual member of this authority acting on his own.
But there is a distinction between advice and a decision. For that matter an individual could go into the Department at any time in the past and get advice as to whether or not the Act applies to him. Any official is just as fallible as the Minister is and he may give the wrong advice. But the individual is entitled to make his own case and it is the Minister who decides whether or not he will get a licence under the Control of Manufactures Act.
In this case no licence was needed and no protection was asked for.
Assuming a person does not come under the Control of Manufactures Act and he wants to start an industry here, he can apply to the Minister for a new manufacturing licence. The Minister may decide not to grant it and then he is faced with the problem of either complying with the Act or accepting the refusal.
The Parliamentary Secretary is mixing up two things. I said the Control of Manufactures Act did not apply because he was an Irish national.
Then he was perfectly free to start.
He needed no licence.
Then, why did he not start?
I merely want to indicate something that can happen and something that did happen. As a result of the advice given to an individual by one member of this authority, acting on his own, he was deterred from starting a particular line of manufacture in a particular area. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that in giving advice this body will act collectively. It is an important matter.
Was it bad advice in the long run?
All the Deputy wants is that the whole board should give bad advice.
I want the whole board to act collectively.
Assuming an individual went into the Department he would find there a number of officials all dealing with different aspects of the Control of Manufactures Act. The usual procedure is to get a decision first of all as to whether or not the Act applies.
But in this case the Act did not apply at all.
Then why did he not start the factory?
Because of the attitude he met. He would not be allowed.
He was quite free to start and, if he knew the Act did not apply, he could start any time he liked.
He was told he would not get a quota for the raw materials and a lot of other things.
That is a different matter.
There are five members on this authority. They may be any five people.
Who are the five? Name them.
One is a ghost.
I am not concerned with whether there are three, four, five or any number. If there are four members, then they were put there deliberately as a compact body to act with collective authority and an individual member should not have power to advise any citizen. The whole four should act collectively.
Assuming they did act collectively and they did tell him he could not get in the raw materials, what would be the difference?
There would be a very big difference. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter, because there is a weakness in the section. These four cannot act as different units and perhaps give different advice. This is a matter that should be looked into. They are not civil servants. They can have staffs. The Parliamentary Secretary said that a moment ago. Peculiar things could happen and now is the time to safeguard against them. I merely ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter between this and the Report Stage.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 22 (a) not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The authority shall not summon a witness to attend before them or require a witness to produce any document or furnish any information without informing the witness of the purpose for which the information is required by them.
I think every member of the House received a circular communication from the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, Limited, concerning this section of the Bill. That circular intimated that a meeting representative of industrial and commercial organisations had been held in Dublin and had unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the withdrawal of this section of the Bill on the ground that the provisions of the section are unwarranted and are an unjust interference with the liberty of the individual; and calling on all industrial and commercial organisations to support the demand. The circular was accompanied by a very impressive list of trade organisations which were represented at the meeting. It at least indicates the perturbation which has been aroused in these organisations by the provisions of Section 5 and by the assumptions which the members of these organisations are making as to how these provisions will be exercised.
I would like to say that I do not agree with the views expressed by the Federation of Irish Manufacturers or by the trade organisations represented at that meeting. I see no objection whatever to legislation of this kind giving the board established under it power to secure from private firms the information it may need for the proper discharge of its functions. In so far as this Industrial Development Authority will have functions relating to prices and industrial efficiency and the obligation to investigate the effect of tariffs in relation to these matters as well as in relation to conditions of employment, rates of wages and so forth, it is necessary that the investigating authority, this new board, will have powers to compel the attendance of witnesses, the production of documents and the furnishing of the information necessary for the full and proper discharge of its duties. I think, however, that the section is widely drawn and that its amendment is desirable. I am proposing two amendments.
I propose in amendment No. 23 that the authority shall not be entitled to summon a witness or to require a witness to produce documents or to furnish information without telling the witness the purpose for which the information is required by them. I am not suggesting that it is likely that the members of this Industrial Development Authority will use the powers given to them by Section 5 to collect information that might be unnecessary for the submission of a report to the Minister on some specific matter or that they will be collecting information out of idle curiosity, but it is necessary, in my view, to allay the apprehensions or remove the misunderstandings that undoubtedly exist and I believe that it will help in that direction to insert some such provision in the section.
Speaking here as an individual connected with the production of a newspaper, if I should be summoned before the Industrial Development Authority to give information concerning the circulation of the paper or its method of contacting advertisers or purchasing paper, matters which I would not like to have revealed to other firms in the same business, I think I should be entitled to refuse to give that information unless it was made clear to me by the authority the reasons they had for asking for it and unless they satisfied me that they were good reasons and directly related to the work they were doing.
I am proposing also, therefore, that not merely should the witness be entitled to know why the authority is seeking information, but that the witness should also be entitled to refuse to give the information if he was satisfied that he could defend that refusal in a court on the grounds that it was not reasonably required by the authority in the exercise of its functions under the Act. That is why I propose two amendments. The first is to assure to any witness summoned under the section to give evidence to the Industrial Development Authority the right to know why the evidence is being sought by the authority. The second is to give him the right to refuse to give the information the authority requires if he is satisfied that he could defend that refusal in court on the grounds that the authority could not reasonably need it. If these amendments were inserted in the section, I think that there would no longer be reasonable grounds for objection.
I would like to say in this connection that it is extraordinary what a volume of protest this section has produced. One would expect that some of those people who protest against it would have remembered provisions in two earlier Acts which touch just as intimately on matters of this nature. Those Acts have almost identical sections and the section in the Control of Prices Act, 1937, was agreed to without amendment while the similar section in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, was agreed to with one minor amendment reducing the fine in respect of an offence from £50 to £10. I do not think that there was any protest on the occasions when these measures were brought before the House and certainly nothing like the amount of criticism which there has been of this section. It is extraordinary that the same section or sections phrased on similar lines could pass, without amendment in one case and without any amendment of a major character in the other.
I do not think there is anything unusual in this section but if Deputy Lemass feels strongly on it I am prepared to accept the first amendment which reads:—
"The authority shall not summon a witness to attend before them or require a witness to produce any document or furnish any information without informing the witness of the purpose for which the information is required by them."
I think it is only reasonable that a person being called before a body of this nature should be informed of the purpose for which he is required or if it is a case of supplying documents or information then the purpose for which they are required, although I may say that there are no similar safeguards in the sections in the Control of Prices Act or the Industrial Relations Act.
I think that amendment No. 23 is really the important amendment and I am glad to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept it. Without being a lawyer, I think that the second amendment is hardly necessary.
In the last analysis, if a person did refuse it would be for the court to decide whether it was reasonable or not.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I do not think that amendment No. 25 is necessary.
Not if it is intended that the officers of the authority shall, in fact, be entirely civil servants, but there is in the Bill a section which gives the Minister power to appoint such officers as he thinks fit. There is nothing there which suggests that they shall be civil servants or persons appointed to the public service under the Civil Service Regulation Acts.
I will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to cover that aspect.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
I move amendment No. 26:—
In paragraph 1, line 16, to delete "1954" and substitute "1953".
This amendment raises what I regard as an important point of principle. The present Government has brought in this Bill to establish this Industrial Development Authority; the present Opposition has opposed the Bill and has made known its intention of repealing it as soon as it can command a majority in the House to support its repeal. It is an unusual type of Bill in one respect in that it not merely purports to set up a statutory board but names the persons who should constitute that board. Normally Acts of this kind empower the Government or empower a particular Minister to appoint members to a board the establishment of which has been approved by legislation. On this occasion, however, the Dáil is not merely asked to agree to the setting up of a board but to agree that that board shall consist of James Patrick Beddy, Kevin C. McCourt, Luke J. Duffy, and John J. Walsh. It is asked also to enact that these four named individuals will remain members of the Industrial Development Authority for the period ending the 25th May, 1954.
Now, I am merely asking the Dáil to substitute "53" for "54". In doing so, I do not want to be taken as implying any assent to the principle of the Bill, to the individuals concerned or to the procedure which the Government has chosen to follow in this matter. I am proposing that change because, if the Government lasts for the full term permitted by law, it cannot go beyond 1953 without a general election. I think I am correct in saying that an election must be held under the law not later than 1953.
Do you think you will be back again?
If that Government gets back again it can do what it likes, but if it does not get back again I do not think it is reasonable for it to try and tie up their successors in this particular regard, to endeavour to enforce on them a contract maintaining in existence a board to the establishment of which they have declared their opposition, to keep upon that board four individuals named by this Government and to keep them on it at the salaries which this Government has fixed. I do not know if I can convince Deputies that that is an unreasonable procedure.
I know that when I first became Minister for Industry and Commerce I was intensely annoyed to find that, between the date of the election which displaced the previous Government and the advent to office of the Government of which I was a member—in that year there was for certain reasons a period of some weeks between the date of the election and the change of Government. —in that period the warrants of appointment of members of a statutory board had been withdrawn and renewed for a five-year period. I felt that it was a wrong thing for an outgoing Government to do, to endeavour to present their successors with a fait accompli of that kind, and while the proposed procedure is less objectionable than that, it is still an objectionable procedure, and so I would ask the Dáil in all reasonableness to insist on this amendment. It has been framed in the realisation that, if the Government lasts the full term, it will last until 1953. If it survives that election and comes back into office again, it can do what it likes in the matter of the appointment of these members. That will be its privilege, but if it leaves office and another Government replaces it, that other Government should be free to look at this position again, either to repeal or amend the legislation or change the personnel of the board if they think fit to do so. It is not fair to endeavour to tie the hands of a succeeding Government in a matter of this kind, a matter involving nomination to offices, remunerated out of public funds, of named persons.
I do not think I can agree to this amendment. I think it is only right to remark that numerous statutory appointments for a varying period continue over from one change of Government to another. There is some slight difference in the point that Deputy Lemass put of a warrant being withdrawn. This Government, when it came in, found that in a few instances people had been promoted. I admit there is a distinction between civil servants and members of statutory bodies. I suppose it is only reasonable that an outgoing Government may feel under an obligation to individuals.
A few cases of private secretaries.
I think that is only reasonable. If a private secretary or a member of the staff is serving under a Minister, well, the Minister may feel under an obligation to him, and it is only right that he should. Take the position with regard to a number of Acts. Under the Central Bank Act, the governor of the Central Bank is appointed for seven years. It is quite conceivable that a Government would come in and go out of office in a five-year period, and that a new Government would find the governor still in office and would continue the appointment. In all other cases there is a maximum five-year period. It depends on when a particular body is established whether the five-year period may fall in shortly after a change of Government or may continue for a long time. In some cases warrants of appointment have been withdrawn and further warrants issued. I suppose that, short of having a fixed period and of having the warrants continuing for that period, there is not any other way of doing it. I think a Minister or a Government should be free if he wants to withdraw these appointments to do so. In this particular case the members of the Industrial Development Authority were appointed for five years. The amendment which Deputy Lemass proposes would reduce the period to 1953, which would mean that in the normal course their terms of appointment would fall in shortly after the general election, that is, if the Government remained in office for the full five years. I do not see why there should be any discrimination against the members of the Industrial Development Authority any more than against the members of any other statutory body. If this Government desired it could withdraw the warrants of members of existing statutory bodies and remove them. I do not think it would be desirable that that should happen. I think that if a person is appointed to a position on a statutory body, well, if the Government does not wish to reappoint him, there is no obligation on it to do so. but, at any rate, the person should be allowed to continue to remain the full term.
The Parliamentary Secretary is losing touch with realities. So far as the Central Bank, the Electricity Supply Board, Córas Iompair Éireann and other statutory bodies are concerned, there is no disagreement on the question as to whether such bodies should exist. We may criticise the nominations made by the Government to some of these boards, but there is no disagreement as to whether the board should be maintained and permitted to function. In this case, there is known to exist a clear difference of opinion as to whether it is desirable that this body should exist at all or not. There is the view which I have expressed, and which is held by Deputies sitting on this side, that this body is an impediment and not a help and that it will be necessary to remove it before we can get the progress which we think is necessary. That view has been expressed and is held strongly by the largest Party in this House. It is unfair, therefore, to try and put upon that Party not merely the duty of maintaining that body in existence until 1954, but of keeping on it the persons whom the present Government have chosen to nominate as members of it.
Except this, that circumstances exist in which there is not disagreement with regard to any statutory body that I can recall. But take, for instance, a body like the Institute of Advanced Studies. There was a good deal of opposition to the setting up of that body, and so the Deputy might as well argue that the members of the Opposition, when they became a Government, would for some reason or another remove the members of the institute. I do not think any case can be made for the amendment. The Deputy speaks about strong views. The fact is that, at the moment, the majority of this House has decided to set up the Industrial Development Authority. The Government, acting for the majority of the House, has appointed certain members on it. I think it is reasonable, and in accord with practice in the case of a number of statutory bodies, that these members should be appointed for the term which is provided in the Act, and that they should be allowed to complete their term.
I must say that I am surprised by the attitude adopted by Deputy Lemass, first, on the Second Reading and now on Committee Stage. I am prepared to admit, as is everybody sitting around me—we are not so foolish as to deny it—that Deputy Lemass deserves a great share of the credit for the development of industry during the period when he held the responsible post of Minister for Industry and Commerce. He would be the last man, in the light of his 16 years' experience, to say that everything went to his satisfaction, that everything was done right and nothing was done wrong by any of those assisting him in this very important side of his work. I have a shrewd suspicion, and it is borne out by certain words used by Deputy Lemass, which I was surprised to find included in the Official Debates, that he has some kind of personal prejudice against some of the members of this authority.
We could debate their mothers' people, because they are named in the Bill. We have shown a marvellous restraint.
The deputy leader of the biggest single Party in the House should be above that kind of thing and I believe he is more broadminded than the way he expressed himself on this matter would suggest. The amendment he now proposes is in line with the attitude he adopted towards individual members of the authority when speaking in the Second Reading debate. Is there anybody in the House or outside the House—some might be found in Grangegorman—who would suggest that they were infallible? Some of the members of this authority were unknown to me, even by appearance, before they were appointed. I know one or two of them. Deputy Lemass paid a special tribute to one member of the authority and I daresay he did so because of his contacts with that very highly efficient State officer during his long period in office, and presumably he was speaking from intimate knowledge and experience of that individual.
Can he not give the other people whom he does not know so well a chance, working in co-operation with the chairman, to prove whether they are fit or unfit for their job and judge them at the end of their period on the merits of the work they have done or their failure to discharge their duties? So far as I am personally concerned, at the end of their period of office, whether it be 1953 or 1954, I shall be prepared to get up and say, if I believe it, that one member, two members, or the whole lot, failed to discharge their duties as laid down in the Bill and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the members of the House who are prepared to stand for it.
I appeal to Deputy Lemass to withdraw this amendment, it is a kind of narrow-minded amendment, aimed undoubtedly at individuals, and to give them a reasonable chance to prove that they are fit for their positions and determined to carry out, no matter what Government is in office, the duties imposed on them. It is quite possible that this Government will not go the full legal period laid down in the Constitution. It would be better from a governmental point of view, no matter what Government or Minister is in office, that men who are given the responsible duties laid down in such a measure as this should at least be free from the threat that, if and when Deputy Lemass comes in, they will simply be wiped out by a stroke of the pen, not because they have failed to discharge their duties but because he does not like the individuals and the whole set up of the measure.
I realise that, if there is a change of Government in 1953, the Labour Party will desire to recall to their service the very energetic officials whom they have so magnanimously lent to the public service.
One of the practical difficulties and realities which we must face in regard to this amendment is that the Government obviously entered into negotiations and discussions with a number of individuals who held remunerative employment and who were earning their livelihoods in a particular way. They entered into an arrangement with them that they would be appointed to this board on certain terms for a period of five years. That is perfectly clear. These four individuals accepted appointment on these terms and have been working now for quite a considerable period on the basis of the agreement entered into with them by the Government.
What authority had the Government to make that agreement?
I agree with Deputy Lemass that it is undesirable that any such agreements as those should be made. Everyone must agree that it is undesirable that any such agreement as that, which subsequently ties up the Parliament of the country, should be made, but when the agreement has been made and when the individuals have entered into this new employment, when they have burned their boats and given up their other employment, it is only reasonable that this House should honour that type of agreement made with these individuals. That is my approach to the particular section and amendment. I feel that we are, in honour, although not legally, bound to honour the agreement made in our name by the Government and that it would be wrong, therefore, to vary the period of service in respect of which the Government undoubtedly must have given them a guarantee when they were appointed.
For that reason, while there is the gravest objection, and I personally have very serious objection, to the hands of Parliament being tied in any way, I feel we are obliged in honour to agree to the period laid down in the Bill. If there is a change of Government when the period of office of this Government expires and if a new Government comes in which feels that this board is a useless board, it can discontinue the functions of the board, can set up another organisation or can restore these responsibilities to the Department of Industry and Commerce, but there would be an obligation on us for the extra period of a year or so to pay these four individuals the remuneration which the Government, on behalf of the Dáil, has contracted to give them.
On that basis, and looking at it in that way, I think Deputy Lemass ought to agree to withdraw the amendment. I hope, having said that, that what has happened in this case will not be a precedent and that at no time in the future will a body be selected in the way in which this body was selected, in advance, with their terms and conditions of service agreed on more than a year prior to the debate on the Committee Stage of the Bill which set them up. It would have been much more satisfactory if this Bill had been discussed and passed in the Dáil before anybody was selected to fill any of the posts. If that had been done, I think there would be no objection. As I say, I feel that we are obliged in honour to respect the commitments that were entered into in our name by the Government and for that reason I think we ought to let that section of the Schedule go as it stands.
I want to protest most strongly against the assertion that we are in honour bound to do anything of the kind which the Deputy suggests. The Government should not have made an agreement with these people. They made it without any consultation with and without the authority of the Dáil. They appointed these individuals to these posts 18 months ago and they are coming now to get retrospective sanction for their action. This is the first time the Dáil has had an opportunity of considering what the Government have done and it is now, if ever, that we should express our approval or disapproval of the course they took. It is surely making a farce of the Dáil to suggest that, because the Government 18 months ago did something and come belatedly now to seek approval, we are bound to give our approval. Of course we are not.
The individuals should not suffer.
If ever the Dáil is to have any control of the Government at all it is in instances of this kind that they should exercise it. The Government had no authority of any kind to make any agreement with these people. They should not have attempted to make that agreement until they got sanction from the Dáil. That has been the normal practice and up to this, so far as I know, this is the first time it has been departed from. I want to say now that they should not have made an agreement of that kind in the particular manner to which the Deputy refers. I want that agreement changed. Now that the Dáil has been asked to approve of it in that manner, I suggest that it ought not to secure that approval.
I had no intention of intervening on this section, but I should like to make this brief observation. I think Deputy Davin was correct when he suggested that Deputy Lemass did himself less than credit by his attitude to this amendment, particularly in the light of Deputy Lemass's attitude on the Second Reading. In view of his attitude on the Second Reading, it is difficult for the House, in view of the more forceful than elegant language which he used in describing one of the members of the advisory body, to divorce from their consideration of what he says the recollection of his attitude on the Second Reading.
I made no reference to these people as individuals. I would take the same line if the Deputy were on the board.
I do not want to contradict the Deputy, but I was sitting in this seat listening to the Deputy and to the inelegant but forceful phrase he used. The Deputy may not recollect it, but there are many Deputies on this side of the House who recollect the use of the words "pompous ass" by Deputy Lemass. In the light of that observation made by him on the Second Reading, it is difficult for us on this side of the House to give any weight to the consideration he advanced.
A Deputy
It is in the Official Report.
May I ask, on a point of order, what observation is attributed to me in the Official Report that the Deputy is referring to? So far as I know, the Official Reports of the Committee Stage have not been published.
Is it not better to forget it?
Is it not, unfortunately, on official record that, on the Second Reading, you described one of the members as an ass?
And a pompous one at that.
That is the Deputy's adjective.
I do not want to labour that point. These considerations are present to the minds of some of us when we listen to the Deputy making a case for the amendment. With regard to what Deputy Cowan said, I think the Government attitude in this matter was reasonably correct. If, in the view of the Government, these are the best people to be got for this advisory board, then I would have been certainly quite prepared to criticise the Government if they had been dilatory to the extent that they allowed time to pass without ensuring that the services of these men would have been available for this work—that is if, in the view of the Government, these are the most suitable men.
I do not like retrospective legislation any more than Deputy Cowan, but I suggest that this is one type of retrospective legislation for which a case can be made. The type of retrospective legislation that, I think, we are all prepared to animadvert critically upon is the retrospective legislation which seeks to cover up mistakes made in the past. I do not think that criticisms in that respect would come very well from the Party opposite, because they were experts at introducing that particular type of legislation themselves. I appeal to Deputy Lemass— I know he will not pay the slightest regard to any appeals made from this side of the House—to withdraw the amendment. I do not think he does himself credit by it and I think that, in the eyes of the members of the Dáil, he will be credited with vindictively pursuing one particular individual.
What I am asking the Dáil to do is to provide by this amendment that the persons nominated to that board by the Coalition Government, persons named in this Bill, will hold office on that nomination until after the next general election and no longer. Is that unreasonable?
It is unreasonable from this point of view, that, as I say, those four individuals have given up their employment and have taken on this whole-time job at a certain salary for a period of five years. Undoubtedly, what Deputy Lemass says is perfectly correct in regard to how the thing has been done. I want to look at it purely from the point of view of the four individuals, and I say that it would be very tough luck on them if, having been one and a half years or so in office, having been assured by the Government that they were to retain that office for a period of five years, that term should be cut short by the Dáil subsequently. When I put that forward, I am putting it forward on behalf of the individuals. I do not care who they are. I know one of the members of the board personally, but I do not know any of the others, in fact I will have to read the Bill again to find out what their names are.
I do agree that it is right that attention should be drawn forcibly, as it has been drawn, to what I think was a completely wrong procedure. The Government can only act on authority given to them by law. They had no authority given to them by law to enter into any such contract as they have entered into. If this House was asserting its rights, and only asserting its rights, it would simply refuse to go any further with the Bill at all. But it is not just simply asserting its rights. It is perfectly right that Deputy Lemass should point out, and I think it is definitely right for me to point out, that a wrong procedure has been adopted, a procedure that would be exceptionally bad as a precedent—that a Government can do anything they like and, simply and solely because they have a majority in the House, they can come and have that decision ratified by the House. I think the Parliamentary Secretary himself would maintain the right of this House to control the Government and he would also maintain that the Government must only act on authority given to it by this House. I am as strong in my condemnation of this sort of thing as Deputy Lemass is, but the thing having been done, and four individuals being affected—and it is these four individuals who will suffer and not the Government if this amendment is passed—I would support the section as it stands having condemned as strongly as I can the action of the Government in doing that without lawful sanction from this House.
I should like to remind the House that there was an Estimate provided in the Book of Estimates for the members of this authority. I think, to that extent, the House has sanctioned their appointment.
For one year.
The appointment could not have been made without the sanction of the House. I think it is by no means certain, as the Deputy alleged, that the Government have not the authority. I think the view is that the Government has legal authority to enter into a contract of this nature. I will agree that it is unusual and not generally exercised in that way in the absence of a specific statute covering an individual case, but I think there is no question of doubt that there is ample legal authority for an agreement of this nature. As Deputies are aware, the payment was sanctioned by the passage of an Estimate.
Question—"That the figures proposed to be deleted, stand"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 46.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Óg.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- ÓBriain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Spring; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In paragraph 2, to delete the words "not less than" in line 18 and in line 21.
The purpose of this amendment is fairly clear. The Schedule to the Bill sets out the terms of the contract the Government made with the individuals who are now members of the Industrial Development Authority. That contract provided for the payment of salaries at the rate of £2,500 a year to the chairman and £2,000 a year to the other members, but the terms of the Schedule require the Government to pay not less than these amounts. I propose to delete the words "not less than" so that the Dáil will, in fact, approve of the specific contract made with the Government and that any change in the rate of remuneration for these members will require sanction of the Dáil by amending legislation.
I cannot see any reason for discriminating against the members first appointed. Under Section 4 (5) the Government could, without any reference to the Oireachtas, alter the remuneration of members and this only provides that in the event of the existing members being reappointed they will be appointed on terms not less favourable——
This relates to the period to 1954.
——that they would be remunerated at not less than the figures set out. I think that, as the contracts have been entered into, it would be quite unreasonable, if not a breach of the contracts, to suggest that they should be altered.
Is it intended to increase them?
It is not intended to alter them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd November, 1950.