Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Nov 1965

Vol. 218 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Remuneration of Clerical Grades. (Resumed.)

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expendient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say:

(1) the relativities that are appropriate between the rates of remuneration payable to recruitment clerical grades in the employment of the principal State-sponsored bodies, including Aer Lingus Teoranta, Bord na Móna, Córas Iompair Éireann and the Electricity Supply Board, and to corresponding recruitment grades (other than departmental grades) in the civil service and the service of the local authorities, with due regard to the staffing structure and the circumstances of each employment and to the interests of the national economy.

(2) the absolute levels of pay for the grades mentioned that with due regard as aforesaid, are appropriate as the basis for the application of any future general increase in pay.

—Minister for Finance.

Mr. Larkin

Before the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with some aspects of the work of the proposed tribunal from the point of view of the speed with which any tribunal could hope to evaluate in any responsible way or arrive at a conclusion as to what would be an appropriate salary scale for clerical workers in two different undertakings where there operate varying conditions of recruitment, varying salary scales, and where the work of the different clerical officers might differ in some degree. If an examination were to take place of two such clerical officers on the basis of job evaluation in accordance with the accepted principles, it could extend over several months. Yet we are told here that the tribunal is to examine the position as between semi-State and State-sponsored bodies and report back by 1st March.

Immediately it appears to me, particularly having heard the Minister's introductory statement, that there is no real determination to carry out any full-scale examination. If that were to be done, it would not be a question of a period of less than four months. It could be counted in terms of years, not months. Many people outside who are associated with the grades of employees concerned are very familiar with the process called job evaluation. Something very different is being attempted in this House. As Deputy Corish has said, to arrive at a real conclusion, we must examine the record of this Government in their approach to salary and wage increases, their approach to the claims made from time to time by responsible organisations on behalf of workers, whether white-collared or manual.

We do not have to go very far back to find what this Government's approach has been in this connection. The year 1959 is not so long ago and many people in the House will recall the attempt made by the Fianna Fáil Government then, under the guise of consideration for the economic position of the country, to impose a standstill on the legitimate aspirations of the workers to secure increased salary scales and wage rates in order to provide themselves with proper standards of living. We know, because the facts are there, that the Government's attempt then ended in miserable failure. They did not convince the people of the country that their intentions were in any way sincere.

We recall that within a few months of the publication of the Government's high policy document, Closing the Gap, the then Minister for Finance stated he felt it was an opportune time to inject increased purchasing power into the community. All this was within a few months of the attempted standstill on salaries and wages. Even in the life of the present Dáil and immediately prior to this Dáil we can recall the publicised views of leading Government spokesmen that prices should find their own level, that as far as private enterprise was concerned, there should be the god of profit and nothing else. Yet, within a few months again, having denied over a number of years that they had any trust or belief in the efficacy of an attempt to control prices, they brought in a Prices Bill of sorts.

In discussing this motion, we are entitled to ask whether it is, as it appears to be, another proposal to impose a standstill, to interfere with the normal processes of negotiation and arbitration. In his speech the Minister complains that at some stage there have been adjustments in clerical officer rates following proceedings at conciliation and arbitration level. The adjustments that have taken place followed very prolonged discussions and examinations of the cases made on behalf of the categories of workers concerned. Those representing the employers at the conciliation and arbitration proceedings made every effort to resist the claims for increased salaries and when adjustments did take place, they were made only after a complete and thorough examination in each case. Is this not the proper method of dealing with such claims?

It would appear that that is not the view of the Minister for Finance at this stage, because he wants to stop that procedure at this point. I do not know how many claims are outstanding at present, and the Minister did not give us any information in this regard. The only information he gave us was that conciliation proceedings going on in respect of certain small sections would be allowed to continue. But what about conciliation and arbitration proceedings in the State-sponsored bodies? Will they be allowed to continue? The Minister did not say. He mentioned a small number of State-sponsored bodies, which, as Deputy Corish pointed out, represent only a minute percentage of the total number of State-sponsored bodies whose employees may be affected by this.

The Minister is well aware of the terms of the agreement reached for the ninth round wage adjustment. He is aware that, apart from providing for an increase of 12 per cent, there was provision in a number of cases enabling conciliation and arbitration to take place in exceptional circumstances. In respect of all the cases cited by the Minister today, there is no doubt that the adjustments in wages and salaries over and above the 12 per cent were in accordance with that particular paragraph in the agreement. The Minister must be aware that there are many other cases still open.

The Minister indicated in general terms that it would be the intention of the tribunal to examine and report on the absolute levels of pay for the grades mentioned and that their findings shall apply to the application of any further general increase in pay. Does that mean that the tribunal will be asked, after a cursory look at the situation, to recommend in respect of each of these employments that there shall be a ceiling or floor at a particular point of time, irrespective of any other circumstances, and that that will be the basis for any further adjustments in salaries, such adjustments being related only to adjustments in the cost of living? If that is the intention, the tribunal are being asked to do something that is impossible and something that will not be accepted by the clerical workers of State-sponsored bodies.

In his speech to the House, the Minister went further. Apart from imposing this on direct employees of the State, he indicated that the State-sponsored bodies, who normally have the right to fix the salary scales of their employees, will be asked to impose a standstill on their employees. It may be taken that there will go out to those who have paid reasonable salaries to their clerical staffs a request from the Minister for Finance in the following terms: "No increase. There is a tribunal being set up which will decide the rates of the recruitment grades. Until that tribunal meets and makes their decision, there shall be no increase."

Today I had an indication of the type of problem that will arise. I met the Minister for Education this afternoon in relation to an application which is before his Department since 1961. It concerns the salary scales of certain classes of clerical workers employed by vocational education committees and an application for the establishment of a conciliation and arbitration procedure under which these employees could have their cases argued and possibly settled. I was told today that the Minister was sympathetic to the proposal but he was afraid it would be inappropriate to agree at present to the establishment of such machinery to deal with the legitimate claims of these people because of the tribunal proposed to be set up by the Minister for Finance. How many other workers in the public employment will be affected in a similar way? These are the circumstances we have to take into consideration when discussing this motion.

I was both amused and intrigued by Deputy Booth's contribution this afternoon and I am sorry he is not here. I never listened to such piffle in all my life. He is on record for years as being opposed to price control. He is certainly not a lover of the workers; he does not like the idea of their obtaining proper wages and salaries. Nevertheless he wants to query every other Party in the House on their attitude. The attitude of this Party has always been quite clear. All down through the years, we have been agitating for some attempt at a planned economy. Fianna Fáil are only recent coverts to this concept and to the need for endeavouring to plan the economy of the country in the interests of its development, industrially, commercially, agriculturally, and so on. We are on record down the years as being in favour of locking the stable door before the horse bolts. Fianna Fáil are now engaged in the fruitless exercise of locking the stable door long after the horse has disappeared. That is what they did when they produced a form of price control machinery some few months back, a control which should have been introduced in March or April of 1964.

It is quite clear at that stage, following on the negotiations at national level for an increase in wages and salaries, that that was the time to take steps to curb unjustified increases in prices and to establish machinery to ensure that, if stability were achieved, it would not be departed from and the position of the ordinary salary and wage earner and the small businessman would be protected. Fianna Fáil made no attempt to do that. They said quite clearly at the time that they did not believe in price control; they did not believe there was any possibility of controlling prices. They believe there is only one way of controlling prices; let them rip. We know what has happened in the field of house purchase since 1964. Prices have ripped.

In the middle of this year, Fianna Fáil suddenly woke up and decided they would have to do something. But the damage was done. Now they are back to their old attitude: "There are problems; we will settle the problems; the first thing we will do is try to secure that wage and salary earners do not get any increases; we will curb expenditure by doing our best to ensure that, in many cases, inadequate levels of salary and wages will be maintained and will continue to be maintained."

I do not think I have much more to add. Had the Minister come to the House and said: "I think the time has arrived for us to examine in a reasonable way the operations of the conciliation and arbitration tribunals over a period and get some report on those operations after a full and detailed examination. In the meantime we do not propose to interfere with the good work some of these bodies are doing," he might well have got the sympathy of this House. But that is not the Minister's attitude. Quite clearly, the sole purpose of this motion is to impose a standstill on salaries and wages of clerical staffs in State and semi-State employment and, it is hoped, on clerical staffs also in private employment, until March of next year, March of next year when we will be approaching the Budget. This is done in the hope that the benefits of the imposition of such a standstill order will flow over to the manual worker. For these reasons and because this motion will interfere to a major extent with the operations of collective bargaining, we, on these benches, oppose it.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Corish has already given our viewpoint in relation to this proposed tribunal and our reasons for opposing the establishment of such a tribunal. The substance of our criticism lies in the fact that we regard this measure, as well as other measures over the past few months, as piecemeal measures aimed at an incomes policy. We believe the very essence of an incomes policy should be long-term planning over a period of years rather than panic measures to try to control wages at any particular time. From the outset we have always had a suspicion, and the suspicion has been borne out by events over the past few months, that what Fianna Fáil mean by an incomes policy is a policy that concentrates on merely curbing wage increases. The proposal to establish this tribunal abundantly bears out that suspicion.

We have said repeatedly that we believe in an incomes policy which makes an honest attempt at controlling all forms of income within the State and ensures that incomes, all incomes, increase according to a definite plan. We do not accept an incomes policy which concentrates purely on wages, an incomes policy which is obsessed with the wage factor in our economy and excludes consideration of any other factor.

We have been told by Fianna Fáil Ministers on many occasions that theirs is a pragmatic Party. It appears to me their attitude on an incomes policy is pragmatic in the extreme because their policy changes from month to month. A short time ago, they had not much time for price control, but, when they introduced price control machinery, we supported them because we had always supported the idea of some kind of price control. We considered the machinery overdue. We believed the time had passed in which the machinery could have been effective, but we supported its introduction.

We have now a measure introduced designed to control one section of wages. It is an ill-conceived measure. What precisely is meant by saying that this tribunal will examine absolute levels of pay? Does that mean that, having determined what an absolute level should be in this particular sector, and having made that determination in the short period suggested for examination by the tribunal, that decision will be binding on all future wage claims? Surely that is what is meant by saying there will be an absolute wage? If, at any time in the future, there is a demand for a wage increase, will not the decision of the tribunal have a bearing on the amount people can expect to get? That is just one angle. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this proposal.

We have said repeatedly that the sphere of industrial relations is not one that is susceptible of any gimmick measures. That is what this proposal would appear to be at this particular time. If one could get one's timing right, see that wages went at a certain level, that prices went at a certain level and that profits went at a certain level, one could expect the co-operation of the trade unions towards a planned incomes policy. But it is sheer hypocrisy to look for co-operation based on the kind of crazy system whereby we have a little bit of halfhearted legislation on prices one day, a little bit on wages another day. It is futile on that basis to say to the trade unions: "We want your help to plan incomes. This is our incomes policy."

Despite the troubles our economy is undergoing, these measures the Government have brought in betray a lack of sincerity on their part in bringing in, or trying to bring in, some kind of planning to our economic life as it applies to all forms of incomes. What yardstick can the Government or this tribunal bring into operation when it comes to talking about the relativity of the wages involved in this? Have any answers been given to inquiries as to whether there will be comparability with regard to outside employment, commercial concerns and so on? Will there be any comparability of grades within the service itself? Any ordinary member of a trade union or anybody working for a living in a factory will tell you that this matter of job evaluation, measuring the content of a job and deciding the wages appropriate to such a job, is a very difficult task and one that, if it is to have any hope of success of acceptance by the people involved, must be gone into most carefully and conscientiously. It is obvious that in the period left for this investigation, it is not possible to have the honest and painstaking examination necessary to gain the respect or the acceptance of the people involved.

I accept that there has been extreme confusion in regard to the method of working of the different forms of arbitration that have been going on within the Service, but surely the remedy suggested here is, to say the least of it, careless in the face of the facts and is one that can give no hope or assurance for the future of a solution to this problem? In Britain, there is a method whereby the Pay Research Unit makes an investigation every five years or so and compares actual gradings within the Service with outside employment. It is a regular piece of machinery that is used. Here we think our problems can be solved by setting up a tribunal in a flurry of publicity and at a time when there is a great deal of querying in the community about the economic conditions in the country. Against this kind of unsatisfactory background and with the short period of investigation which is possible, we set up this tribunal and expect it to be acceptable to the people involved.

It shows a lack of awareness of the problems involved as they apply to these employees to go about solving them in this manner. We can only say that in recent months, in fact, over the past two or three years, the results of Government interference in the area of industrial relations have not been too helpful to those involved. One could, in all charity, only describe many of the interferences of the Government in this area over the past two or three years as just mindless bungling, and this latest piece of legislation becomes one to add to the list on the background of facts I have given.

Mr. J. Lynch

Not facts—these are just allegations.

Mr. O'Leary

They are facts. The Minister will have time to answer. We had to sit here today while one of your colleagues from Dún Laoghaire talked about his business.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am inviting the Deputy to give some facts.

Mr. O'Leary

I am doing my best to give them, and the Minister will have the opportunity of giving his version. This latest attempt is another instalment of Fianna Fáil pragmatic, short-term reply to a situation that we consider needs real planning and not these bungling attempts at providing an indication that this Government are trying to do anything about an incomes policy.

If improvements were needed, and we accept that improvements could have been brought in in this matter of the settlement of wages in the public service, it could have been done through a rearrangement of the system of arbitration whereby the parties concerned meet. This would have given greater hopes of success than coming in in this bureaucratic fashion and setting up a tribunal that is given impossible tasks, arduous tasks, that, in the nature of the job they are asked to do, they cannot do.

Therefore, as Deputy Corish has already said here today, our Party have no alternative but to say that, looking at these facts, looking closely at the provisions for the setting up of this tribunal, it cannot have our support. It cannot have the support of a Party committed to real planning in our economy, not gimmick planning and not half measures or short-term measures. It requires far deeper study than can be given in this instance. I have stated what the position is in Britain where there is comparability with outside employment. That is a long-term job which this tribunal could not undertake, and that is another reason why we shall be forced to vote against this proposal of the Minister.

Mr. Cluskey

As has been clearly indicated by previous speakers on the Labour benches, we are opposing this motion. We oppose it because it is obvious that it is the thin end of the wedge and it is a prelude to a standstill order on wages and salaries, without any attempt being made by the Government to control the incomes of other sections of the community. We should like to know what the Minister is trying to control? What about profits and dividends? Do they not count? Are they not to be controlled? Is it only the working classes who must rally round the flag? Are measures to be introduced by the Government for other sections? We had a very belated introduction by the Government of a measure of price control, something which for a long number of years, and even up to a few months before they introduced it, they regarded as a heresy. The Taoiseach has stated publicly that he has no confidence in it and does not believe that it can be effective. Is this the carrot the Government are holding out to the workers, this control of prices which they have stated time and again they do not believe in?

First of all, we are starting off with the Civil Service and the semi-State bodies. Who will be next? Will there be just a general standstill order? Not with our co-operation. If there is any good in this suggestion, it is the indication that the Minister can rely on the support of the Fine Gael Party. That will be good from one aspect. It will show the workers where their interests lie, as far as political Parties are concerned. If there is to be a line-up between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, it could not, in my opinion, come on a better issue, or make things clearer to the workers as to where the political Parties stand, when an attack, a blatant attack, is made to try to put a standstill on their incomes without any effort to control any other section of the community.

In the price control measure introduced a short time ago, provision is made that, unless reintroduced, it will expire after six months. One wonders what is the connection between that particular clause and the fact that we are now approaching the tenth round by way of a National Wages Agreement. Is there any connection? Is this the sweetener for the workers, that we have now introduced price control and they must restrain themselves, but no one else is asked to restrain himself? Does the Minister not think that if this sort of thing is necessary, it would be worthwhile or advisable to introduce an overall incomes policy? They claim that it is not possible but six months or 12 months ago, they were claiming that price control was not possible and now they are boasting that they have introduced it and are operating it. Will they not introduce an overall incomes policy? We in the Labour Party will support such a measure but we definitely will not support this.

Why is it necessary to introduce this tribunal, in view of the fact that discussions are at present going on between the FUE and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with a view to having a national agreement for the tenth round? Are the Government of the opinion that the last national agreement did not work? We are not of that opinion. I think it worked very well and saved a tremendous amount of industrial disruption that could have arisen if there had been a free-for-all. Given proper terms, a national agreement could work again. Have the Government lost faith in a national agreement and do they want free-for-alls? They mentioned that the justification for this tribunal is that there has been leap-frogging but as far as the higher grades are concerned, as far as the judiciary and the secretaries of Departments are concerned, there was no leap-frogging: they just took one long jump and ended up with a damn sight more than the man——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

In fairness, the Deputy should leave the judiciary out because they were not involved.

Mr. Cluskey

I think they were.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I think they are on the seventh round.

Mr. Cluskey

Some round. There is one thing in the Minister's statement, and in the statement issued by the Government Information Bureau on 15th October, of which perhaps the Minister would tell us the meaning. Today he said on page 2 of the speech that "the tribunal would also be asked to report on what absolute levels of pay for the grades concerned are appropriate as the basis for the application of any future general increase in pay." Quite frankly, I do not know what it means. I suspect what it means, but I do not know, and I should like the Minister to give us some indication of what it means.

Mr. Treacy

The reason for the opposition of our Party to this measure is the creation of a tribunal of this kind. Mark you, the word "tribunal" has a nasty connotation in the minds of Irish people.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Hear, hear.

Mr. Treacy

We have heard this word used in the past in regard to the setting up of tribunals which could be said to have been guilty of crimes against humanity——

Mr. J. Lynch

Let us keep to the motion, please.

Mr. Treacy

—and from which emerged decisions and actions which this generation will find great difficulty in living down and which engendered quite a lot of bitterness in days best forgotten.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this motion.

Mr. Treacy

Very well; I am indicating what the word "tribunal" can mean to many Irish men and women of today. I am concerned about the creation of such a tribunal which is to take unto itself the power and responsibility to fix salary scales and conditions and I am concerned that, of necessity, it must have the effect of undermining the Labour Court. The Labour Court was already concerned that it was not empowered to deal with some unions which have come before it in regard to salary scales because the people involved allegedly were State servants in some capacity or other. The Minister would be unwise to do anything which would undermine the integrity and responsibility of this great body which has done so much to bring industrial peace and harmony amongst workers and employers. It has achieved a lot of good and now the Court are gravely perturbed as to what their future is to be.

Mr. J. Lynch

Who told the Deputy that? Is the purpose not to expand the integrity of the Court?

Mr. Treacy

I am expressing the sentiments of the Chairman and other members of the Court when they referred to impending legislation and the establishment of a tribunal to deal with Civil Service salary scales. The Minister must be aware of that.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am not aware of what the Deputy says.

Mr. Treacy

He has heard that the responsible officers of this Court commented on this type of legislation. Apart from the Labour Court, there are many joint industrial councils which have been doing great work, adhering to the principle of free negotiations, and which have brought peace, harmony and goodwill into their respective industries. The Minister is doing no good at present in deciding to put civil servants into a tribunal of this kind.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not mention anything about civil servants.

Mr. Treacy

Obviously, any State employee is likely to be called a civil servant or semi-State employee. The Minister may haggle with me if he likes, but they would like to think of themselves as such. This is clearly an attempt, our Party feel, to bring in a wage freeze generally, and whatever success may attend the Minister's efforts in bringing the staffs of State bodies under this kind of tribunal, I prophesy that the Irish labour and trade union movement will never accept a wage freeze of that kind. Thank God, that body, 500,000 strong, has resisted in the past every attempt on the Minister's part to fix wages, place a standstill on them or apply a pay pause as they sometimes call it, and their resistance was successful. It is sufficiently strong at present to resist successfully also. Willingly to accept the establishment of such a tribunal and see the principle of free negotiations set aside would be to accept that we were entering into a totalitarian era where the rights of individuals and groups in our society were being challenged.

Too much sacrifice has been made to win the right for Irish workers to band themselves together in appropriate organisations and thank God, these rights are adequately safeguarded under our Constitution: the right to free speech, the right to assembly and the right to band together to win their just rights. Whatever good has come about in this country has been very largely attained by the strength and power of the Irish trade union movement. We have no fears. We appreciate that attempts will be made here to implement anti-working class legislation, but we are confident that the movement for which we have the honour to speak has such an outstanding tradition, such great moral strength, that it will survive any attempts to deprive workers of the right to negotiate freely and come to an amicable settlement. If there is unrest at present, if there is a depression and something of an economic crisis, it is certainly not the fault of the people the Minister now seeks to pin down. It is obviously the responsibility of the Government and due to mismanagement of governmental affairs in recent years.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Hear, hear.

Mr. Treacy

This is the result of the turnover tax, of the spiralling of prices which naturally led to demands for further wage increases and the result of a general attitude of indifference to the economic situation on the part of the Government. The Minister's Party take some credit—they certainly sought it and got it in many quarters, to my knowledge—for the 12 per cent increase in the last round of wage and salary increases and it is not good enough for Deputy Booth or anybody else to say that the Taoiseach suggested it should be less. He did suggest it should be something like eight per cent but when the 12 per cent was eventually agreed upon, he took full credit for it and said on Radio Éireann that the workers had now got that increase and could——

Mr. J. Lynch

Would the Deputy quote where the Taoiseach said he took credit for it?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Does the Minister remember his letter?

Mr. J. Lynch

What letter?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The letter he wrote to every voter in Cork coming from "Jack Lynch" which was roneoed and photographed?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, but there was nothing about claiming credit——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister also sent it to Tadhg Manley, regretting he could not call upon him.

Mr. J. Lynch

But there was no claim about having effected the 12 per cent wage increase in it.

Mr. Treacy

The Party took credit for it all over the country and secured votes on the strength of it in two by-elections. We are pleased that price control has belatedly come but it would be far wiser for the Minister to embark on a proper incomes policy than to be fiddling with an economic crisis of this kind.

The Labour Party's attitude must be clear in this matter. We are firmly opposed to interference with the fundamental rights of Irish workers to negotiate freely their conditions and salaries. I accept the view of Deputy Booth when he said we have not got an economic crisis at present. One could imagine such measures being introduced in an emergency situation, such as something tantamount to war. The Government Party spokesmen will say there is no economic crisis, no need for panic, and consequently the establishment of a tribunal of this kind is unjustified at present.

If we are to convince workers of that class that they must pull in their belts and make some kind of national sacrifice, it must be clear that all sections of the community are doing likewise and we must have a clear incomes policy, involving not merely prices and salary scales in a particular category of workers such as this covers but an incomes policy covering profits, prices and then wages. When that happy day comes, the Labour Party will be supporting the proposition but I want to make this reservation: we can see the difficulty at present of achieving an incomes policy in Great Britian, even under a Labour Government. There does seem to be some real hope of attaining such an incomes policy, in spite of the difficulties being experienced. I personally feel that the Irish working classes, and particularly the Irish trade union movement, of necessity must look with distrust and suspicion on the invocation of any measure of this kind as an incomes policy promoted by a Government not representative of those classes.

Mr. J. Lynch

We represent more of them than the Labour Party.

Mr. Treacy

As in Britain, I believe you will not achieve an adequate incomes policy in this country until such time as it wins the full approval, support and accord of the Irish Labour Party in Government.

Mr. S. Collins

One is always a little sceptical of late conversions and it is interesting to see the Government, in their present turmoil and in this mess of their own creation, now beginning to think realistically on some of the necessities that have been obvious to any clear economic thinker for quite a period of time. One is inclined to think that the effort enshrined in this motion is coming very late and at a time when the Minister's predecessor in office had practically thrown in his hat and subsequently thrown in his hand in amazement at the consequences of the increases which he had given and of the impact of the decision to give those increases on the general economy.

Now we are facing difficulties in this country. While I do not subscribe to the belief of Deputy Treacy that it is impossible to achieve a really good incomes policy in this country on the lines of that in Britian, we must realise that the basis of our economy is different and that the strength of our community and its needs are different from those of Britain. We in Fine Gael have been preaching the necessity for an incomes policy in relation to this country.

Mr. J. Lynch

For how long?

Mr. S. Collins

For a lot longer than you woke up to the fact that the boat was being swamped.

Mr. J. Lynch

Three weeks before the election.

Mr. S. Collins

I feel that this extended gamble of the Fianna Fáil Government that everything would come out right is now coming home to roost and that we have not yet got the whole story of all our difficulties here. Over all the years I have been in this House, we have been preaching the gospel that we have to fit the practicality of our economics to the development of our agriculture in order that it would carry our main export earnings, and we have always preached that we should get rid of impractical industry and help in every possible way industry suited to our agricultural development, industry that will be supplied to a large extent from our raw materials at home.

Now we are up against the difficulty of a recession in England, of over-spending on ridiculous imports, a difficulty that has been allowed by the Government to be blown up to the size it has now reached. And it is the people who can least stand the shock, the junior type official of the State or semi-State body, not the people who got the bigger increases, who are to be pegged back now. It is not the person who is best able to bear the impact of this short-sighted policy who is to have his earnings pegged. That is why I am critical of this effort of the Government.

Why do they always want to hit the small man? Why do they always get out after the people whose goodwill and co-operation are necessary to rescue us from this present mess? That is why I am always suspicious when Fianna Fáil announce some new economic theory. If the necessity is there, and perhaps it is, for the type of investigation envisaged by the Minister we ought to face the reality of equating the burden to the people who can best bear it. What I am afraid of from this tribunal is that it is not the people who have £70, £80 or £100 a week who will be pegged. These people have got generous and reasonable increases but there is a great difference between the percentage increases given to people in receipt of £80 and £90 a week and the unfortunate man who has £11, £12, £13 or £14 a week who is generally the man with a large young family to look after.

We in Fine Gael realise that there is a necessity for a critical analysis of the present situation and a necessity to arrest the growth of impractical imports over a wide range, but it is also time the country realised that the Government must be nailed on the fact that most of our present difficulties were foreseeable and could have been checked before they reached the proportions they have reached today. I have sympathy with the Labour point of view that is critical of this type of tribunal, and this action of the Government seems to me to be precipitate and unbalanced. It is time the Irish people realised that this whole economic difficulty, despite Government statements that everything was going well, could have been foreseen and avoided by reasoned and sensible planning.

It is not targets we want in this country. It is integrated, responsible planning within the capacity of our economic expansion to bear that is needed and that must go back to the expansion and development of a variety of acceptable agricultural exports. I say quite deliberately to the Minister, who has not the real responsibility for what has happened because he has taken over this office recently, that he must look back on the words of his predecessor who confessed that he was appalled and amazed at the impact on the economy of the increases in relation to the Civil Service secured as a result of certain properly conducted arbitration.

We do not want palliatives of a minor nature. We want the Government to face up to their responsibility to get us out of the financial wilderness into which they have led us. There will have to be a global review of the economic situation. Isolated arbitration boards will not cope with the problem. To get the country out of its difficulties, we require increased production and increased exports. We must cut down quickly and sensibly the flow of imports which should never have been allowed to develop. In order that all these things can be done, it is vitally necessary to secure the goodwill of the worker in the factory or on the farm. The co-operation of the tradesman and the labourer must be readily available if we are to tackle the housing problem. The co-operation will not be forthcoming if the Government direct their efforts to a wage freeze or restriction on the working section of the community instead of directing them at the people best able to carry temporarily the burden of restrictions.

I dislike this particular type of board and this particular type of attack because it is the thin end of the wedge in an effort to make people whose wages have not been adjusted in the manner in which senior persons' earnings have been adjusted feel that they are the victims of circumstances. The pattern of restriction must be spread over all equitably. Until that is done there will not be the fusion of spirit and effort that is required if we are to clear the economic morass that has been created either by Government neglect or lack of thought or, as I believe, lack of capacity in the Government. It is time the people realised that the air of prosperity, created on the basis that all would be well tomorrow, has been dissipated. The gamble has failed. The recession and strain which our economy have to bear now are the responsibility of the Government and of nobody else.

Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Lynch)

I want to say at the outset that the purpose of this motion is not to establish a wages standstill, not to interfere in any way with free negotiation of wages and salaries and not to interfere with the conciliation and arbitration machinery. If I may start with the first speaker, Deputy O'Higgins opened the debate and, naturally, traced the history of events which he alleged led to the introduction of this motion and, as is to be expected from a lawyer and an advocate of his ability, he highlighted the events that he thought were most favourable to his own side and glossed over any aspect of the case that might be in any way helpful to the opposing side.

He referred back originally to the White Paper issued early in 1963 entitled Closing the Gap. At that time the Government did foresee pressures mounting for increases in wages, increases of a size that were thought to be incompatible with the cost of living increases then incurred or with the rate of increased production and productivity in the country and the purpose of that White Paper was to counsel restraint in wage increases, to point out the difficulties that such increases would create in relation to our competitiveness, particularly in the export field, to counsel also restraint in incomes and profits of all descriptions. I want to say that specifically because there is a paragraph in that White Paper related to profits and incomes.

That White Paper served a very good purpose and succeeded fairly well in holding the situation from the early months of 1963 up to the late months of that year. There was, it is true, in the meantime, the introduction of the turnover tax which inevitably had an effect on the cost of living by reason of increases in the prices of certain commodities. In the meantime, productivity had increased but in the meantime also, the pressures for increased incomes mounted to an even greater extent. It was at this stage that the Government foresaw the danger of haphazard wage demands and haphazard negotiations, with the strongest unions going after the weakest quarry and thereby setting standards that perhaps could not be applied equitably over the whole field of employment in the country.

I do not think anybody will deny —in fact I think members of the Labour Party admitted—that this was likely to be the case in the latter end of 1963 and it was at this stage that the Taoiseach asked if the two elements in the Employer-Labour Conference could come together and work out a national wage increase that would be generally applicable. I think Deputy Booth indicated broadly what the offer on one side was and the claim on the other. They were pretty wide apart and, as a result, their first meeting failed to come to any agreement. In the meantime, the Government, through the Taoiseach, indicated what it was thought would be a fair increase, having regard to the increase in the cost of living and having regard to the increase in productivity achieved and likely to be achieved over the period that a national agreement would remain in force. Even then, when the two sides came together to see if they could agree on a percentage all round increase, they failed and it was on the further exhortation of the Taoiseach that they ultimately hammered out the 12 per cent wage agreement. Deputy O'Higgins has claimed that the Taoiseach and the Government sought credit for that 12 per cent increase.

Mr. Corish

The Taoiseach did not disapprove of the percentage increase arrived at.

Mr. J. Lynch

No, but he did say subsequently that, having regard to its size, we were in effect anticipating an increase in productivity yet to take place. He expressed the opinion that the agreement would outlast this period so that the productivity increase would catch up with the wage increase. The Labour Party, rightly so, were careful to point out that the Taoiseach did not give this 12 per cent increase—that it was a negotiated increase.

Mr. James Tully

As one of the negotiators I am well aware of that.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy T. F. O'Higgins has been saying the Taoiseach took credit for this increase. He alleged also that in a letter I circulated to the electorate during the Cork by-election I claimed credit for the 12 per cent increase. That is completely unfounded. I never did it. I always upheld the point of view of the Labour Party that this was a negotiated agreement. Nevertheless, it had its effect on prices.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

On prices? On votes in the first instance.

Mr. J. Lynch

Perhaps, but the votes cast in the February by-elections in Cork and Kildare in 1964 were fully reflected in the general election 14 months later in both constituencies and were enhanced in Cork, and there was no 12 per cent wage increase before the general election. Whatever price increases had taken place were already in effect. Deputy T.F. O'Higgins is not right in saying that the 12 per cent increase was solely responsible for the Fianna Fáil victory in the Cork by-election.

Coming to prices and price control, we had on the Statute Book the 1958 Prices Act, and I should like to remind Labour Deputies that none of them here and none of the predecessors of their new Members raised his voice against the adequacy or inadequacy of that legislation when it was going through the House. I read very carefully the records of that debate and nowhere could I find a protest.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is not being fair. He must have missed out some of the debate. When the Minister was asked what would happen, whether the legislation was to be put on the shelf——

Mr. J. Lynch

If the Deputy goes to the Dáil Library and takes out the Second Reading debate he will not find any comment from a Labour Deputy. If he does, I shall be only too glad to withdraw what I have said.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister should read the whole debate.

Mr. Corish

Until July last when the Minister got the new Act, there was no attempt to use the 1958 legislation.

Mr. J. Lynch

During my time in the Department of Industry and Commerce, I established Prices Committees under the aegis of that Act to examine the prices of certain commodities in respect of which complaints were made about increases. In some cases, the report stated that the increases were justified having regard to increases in wages, raw materials and so forth. The trade union movement was represented on those committees and there was no minority report. The reports were not published but I published in each case a very broad summary of the recommendations of those committees. Let me remind Deputies again that there was on each committee a very able representative of the trade union movement. In some cases I succeeded in holding down prices. Therefore, it is not true to say that however effective the 1958 Act was, advantage was not taken of it. Advantage was taken and to good effect.

Mr. James Tully

Martin Corry's sugar and Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis petrol were two examples.

Mr. J. Lynch

They are two examples.

Mr. Corish

There were not many more.

Mr. J. Lynch

There were some. I do not accept that the fact that price control is given more teeth at one period as against another means that price control in that fashion is good for the economy at all times. Deputy Cosgrave in 1958 said he did not believe in price control in normal times, only in times of emergency. Not only did he say it in 1958: he has repeated it since several times.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He is quite right.

Mr. J. Lynch

I agree, but there are times when price legislation requires teeth. That kind of effectiveness is not in the best interests of the economy at all times.

Mr. Corish

So long as they are false teeth.

Mr. J. Lynch

The logical outcome of price control is the fixing of maximum prices and, as I said in the House, the fixed maximum often becomes the minimum price. In many cases the element of competition in any trade in respect of any particular commodity——

Mr. James Tully

Would the Minister explain that again?

Mr. J. Lynch

I am sorry; a maximum price tends to become a minimum price. In respect of one commodity which I was asked to investigate through Departmental machinery, I found that if I fixed a maximum price, the price at which the unit was sold would be much higher than the price at which it was being sold.

Mr. Corish

What about competition?

Mr. J. Lynch

Once a maximum price is published, people tend to sell at that price.

Mr. Corish

Is the Minister talking about a particular commodity?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, a particular commodity was investigated.

Deputy O'Higgins spoke about the Fine Gael prices and incomes policy. He referred to it in detail and spoke of its effectiveness. I have read it several times to see if there was anything new in it and having listened to the Deputy today, I sent for the only available copy I have of the Fine Gael manifesto which deals fully with their prices and incomes policy. I can only find generalities but no indication of what policy should be enacted. It is only a broad analysis.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

There is an indication of the type of machinery.

Mr. J. Lynch

It advocates full consultation with the Government. The Government's fiscal powers can be used to ensure that excessive profits are brought to account, the manifesto states. That is done at the present time in the Budget. The only thing new in that document is the suggestion of introducing a dividend equalisation tax.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Minister suggest that the Fine Gael and the Government's policies are the same?

Mr. J. Lynch

I should like to ask the Labour Party and Fine Gael what they mean by an incomes policy. Labour Deputies spoke as if an incomes policy could be written out, presented to the Dáil and passed. They must know well that an incomes policy is something that must evolve, something the Government cannot create.

Mr. Corish

Nobody suggested it was so simple. What we have tried to do is to lay down general principles as to which incomes should be part of that policy.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The first time it was ever introduced was by the Fine Gael Party, long before the Labour Party in England heard of it.

Mr. Corish

They were before Wilson.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputies please let the Minister speak?

Mr. J. Lynch

That would be a good idea. I was saying before the other debate started that an incomes policy is something that must evolve. It is something for which a Government alone cannot be held responsible for formulating, and it is wrong that it should. It is something that should come from all sides of industry, employers and other workers and other interests within the economy. As well as all that in our context the National Industrial and Economic Council would be a body that could make a very useful contribution to the evolution of an incomes policy if such can be brought about.

I said at the start that this motion is not intended in any way to interfere with free collective bargaining for salary increases at present. The desire is—if I may use Deputy O'Leary's phrase, which I jotted down—to try to abolish this extreme confusion that has been created in the different arbitration schemes. That is true. I have been asked why I picked out this particular category, the recruitment grades in the Civil Service and in the related bodies, the ESB and others. It is because it is in these grades that the greater degree of leap-frogging is taking place.

To give an example, an increase was recently negotiated for the lower ESB rate. That was specifically related by their Tribunal to the increase in the executive scale. This, in turn, was influenced by the increase granted to clerical officers, which was related to the existing outside rates. That is the kind of vicious circle we find ourselves in. That is the kind of situation I hope this Tribunal will bring order to. The intention is not to isolate these clerical grades for this purpose.

Mr. Cluskey

To what was the increase given to Secretaries of Departments related?

Mr. J. Lynch

They were related generally to the increases given at the lower level. They were percentage increases. These levels have negotiated increases by comparison with outside employment. These increases are related to the higher up grades. I can assure the House that the higher up grades will not get out of hand. If there appears to be a necessity for the Tribunal to examine the relativities in these grades, that can be done, too. In the meantime it is necessary to make a start somewhere in order to control this confusion to which Deputy O'Leary very honestly refers and which obviously exists.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister has my permission to quote from other parts of my speech also with as much freedom. He should not be so choosy.

Mr. J. Lynch

I quoted what the Deputy said. I hope I did not misquote him. He accepts there has been extreme confusion in the different arbitration schemes.

Mr. O'Leary

I also said that I think this is not the way to deal with it.

Mr. Mullen

What was the justification for the higher increases?

Mr. J. Lynch

They were given by reference to the increases negotiated for clerical grades and so on. In addition, there were status increases negotiated. Unfortunately, this leap-frogging took place. If one party gets a status increase by reference to the level of wages of another category, that status element disappears when the other group seeks to maintain the differential. That is the kind of leap-frogging that has taken place. I tried my best to allow each Deputy develop his argument, but apparently there is a concerted effort on the part of the Labour Party not to allow me develop mine.

Mr. Corish

No, it is purely spontaneous.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not intervene with as much as one word when Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Corish were speaking. I allowed them to develop their arguments. I admit I said a word or two to Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Treacy. That was all.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Deputy O'Leary was provocative; I was not.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy O'Higgins was not provocative! There has been a variety of arbitrators. That has been the problem. No matter how erudite or learned an arbitrator is, he may of necessity have different views of the quality of work of different categories and of the categories whose salaries he is investigating compared with other arbitrators. That has given rise to this leap-frogging.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Is that an ingredient in it? I am concerned to know does the Minister say the fact that there had been and are different arbitrators is an element in the leap-frogging.

Mr. J. Lynch

I suggest it is. I am accepting that the men who have been appointed are able men——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I appreciate that.

Mr. J. Lynch

——but they are subject to the human weaknesses we all have. By reason of the strength of the argument or by reason of some subconscious attitude within themselves they may apply different standards to different categories of workers which may be out of line with what other arbitrators would think. It is desirable, having regard to the confusion which has arisen, that the arbitration system might come within an expanded Labour Court, a Labour Court that would have more members.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister appears at the moment to be saying something he did not say on the introduction of the motion. I suggest we consider the motion before the House. We should not be asked at this stage to consider anything else.

Mr. J. Lynch

Surely the Deputy must allow me to reply to the points made? I think I am being very much ad rem to what was debated here today. I think Deputy O'Leary and some other Deputies made a point that there have been a lot of arbitration schemes and different arbitrators and that there has been confusion as a result. I am suggesting it would be most desirable that we should have one form of arbitration, not necessarily one arbitrator, but an arbitration system that could come under the umbrella of an expanded Labour Court, a Labour Court with more authority, if you like, to ensure that standards and relativities would not get out of line.

I was asked what the constitution of this tribunal will be. At the moment I have not made up my mind. As Deputy O'Higgins said, the Act under which I moved this motion provides that the Government appoint this tribunal, but I want to assure the House that there will be no attempt whatever at loading this tribunal in any way or, to use Deputy O'Higgins's word, to create a star-chamber out of it.

I want to say in reply to Deputy Corish that I did have a meeting with the Employer-Labour Conference. I did say to them at the time that I envisaged drawing, say, two members from the workers and two members from the employers' side of the Labour Court, perhaps one from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, one from the Federated Union of Employers, one economist and a chairman.

Mr. James Tully

Did the Minister consult them or did he just tell them this was what he proposed to do?

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not discuss it with them. I asked for their comments and I made certain comments.

Mr. James Tully

But the Minister had his mind made up.

Mr. J. Lynch

Just a moment. As a result of an observation made by one of the trade union representatives, I said that, in the circumstances, perhaps the type of tribunal I had envisaged could be altered to conform more with his point of view. He suggested that one member from either side of the Labour Court would be sufficient, with more membership from outside, and I said that I had not made up my mind and that I was quite open to being convinced that the suggestion he made was better than the one I had made.

Mr. James Tully

Did the Minister give an opportunity to the trade union members to go back and find out what they wanted to do or did he just take the one man, who was called in, and let him give his opinion without consultation with anybody?

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not call in only one man. I asked the Labour-Employer Conference to come to my office and I told them the Government had decided to put forward this motion and I gave in great detail the reasons why the Government thought this motion should be brought before the House and a tribunal set up. I did not give them an opportunity to——

Mr. James Tully

Consult.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not give them an opportunity to object, but I asked them if they had any comments they cared to make there and then.

Mr. Corish

In other words, there was no discussion.

Mr. J. Lynch

There was discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is becoming a kind of cross-examination. Surely the sense of fair play of Deputies should allow them to permit the Minister to make his speech and give him an opportunity of answering?

Mr. Corish

There is no attempt to badger the Minister.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister is one of the most courteous and patient Ministers in the House.

Mr. Corish

One of the most good-humoured.

An Ceann Comhairle

His good humour should not be imposed on.

Mr. Mullen

I was trying to make the Minister responsible to the Cabinet. That is all.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not try to get the Congress to do anything. I told them what the Government had decided to do. I told them the proposal to introduce a motion to set up the tribunal and what I envisaged might be the personnel of the tribunal. I received some observations on the personnel and I received some observations on the desirability of doing this at all. I did not suggest they were obliged to adopt any suggestion I made and equally I was not obliged to adopt any suggestion they made. I am not suggesting that I received their approval of what is being done in this motion.

Mr. Mullen

They had no prior knowledge.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister will agree this was done without consultation.

Mr. J. Lynch

I have dealt with that as clearly as I can. Surely I should be allowed to proceed? That deals with the personnel of the tribunal.

I was asked whether evidence could be given. Of course evidence can be given. In this connection I might, perhaps, deal with the suggestion that it would be impossible for a tribunal of this nature to conduct the type of job evaluation or work study required in order to establish the relationships between the various categories of employment that will come under the purview of the tribunal. Evidence can be given. I know that in almost every category of employment that would be under consideration claims have come before conciliation and arbitration; the type of work done has been put forward as a reason why an increase should be given. I suggest, therefore, that in most cases there has already been a reasonable degree of job evaluation done. In many cases there has been a very close degree of job evaluation done and there will, therefore, be evidence available already in the hands of the types of clerical workers represented to inform reasonably fully the tribunal.

In this connection, I might say that the existing tribunals are constantly being asked to undertake this exercise in regard to individual employments and usually comparisons with analogous employments outside are brought in. At present one arbitrator is expected to cope with all that in a short time. The difference between this process and what is now being proposed is that such comparisons are made at present in the absence of representatives of the analogous bodies, representatives of either management or workers, and it will be possible in this tribunal to bring in evidence of the type of work being done by the categories of workers referred to; in other words, if a particular branch of clerical workers, who come within the ambit of this tribunal, want to refer to comparable employment outside, they can give full evidence of it. The tribunal, if they so wish, can call evidence from these outside categories, whereas, at the present time, such evidence is given of outside employment without any reference at all to management or workers.

I have been asked what is meant by absolute levels of pay for the grades mentioned. In the first place, if the tribunal satisfactorily establishes differentials, that in itself will set levels. Unless there is some very significant change, it is, I think, in the interests of stability and of the economy as a whole that these levels should be regarded as norms not to be departed from in future. The word "absolute" is used in this sense and should be, I suggest, so interpreted. In elaboration of this, I might say that, in the case of any percentage wage increase in the future, if the tribunal think category A should have a basic salary of £x and category B a basic salary of £y, and if £x is in excess of what category A now enjoys, any percentage in the future would be related to £x rather than to their previous salary. If £x is their present salary and the levels the tribunal suggest are something less than £x, then increases would be based on that less £x in future. That is not to say that £x or minus £x is to remain for all time.

Mr. Corish

This means, in effect, that the tribunal will fix the basic level on which future increases will be given?

Mr. J. Lynch

They will suggest what they ought to be. They do not fix anything. They are not fixing anything.

Mr. Corish

Who fixes it?

Mr. J. Lynch

They will suggest what the relationship ought to be. These will be suggested levels, suggested relativities. They will not be fixed relativities. They will be a guide in future negotiations to the people involved in these negotiations and in arbitrations.

Mr. James Tully

If they are not accepted, what happens? What is the point of the exercise?

Mr. Cluskey

If the workers say: "They are not acceptable to us", what happens?

Mr. Corish

May I read a sentence from the statement which the Government Information Bureau issued on 15th October:

The tribunal would also be asked to report on what absolute levels of pay for the grades concerned should be accepted as a basis for the application of any future general increase.

This means that the tribunal may recommend that such-and-such should be acceptable as a basis for the application of any future general increase?

Mr. J. Lynch

There will be no method of enforcement. This is an attempt to bring this confusion to an end. The tribunal, when it examines the various categories, will make a report; that report will be published in the usual way, and that report as such has no statutory effect. This is an attempt to bring some order into this leap-frogging, to help people generally to establish relativities so that they will be a guide in the future to whatever salary increase ought to be applied.

Mr. James Tully

The Government will accept it and the local authorities will accept it; then the only way out is to break the law by having a strike.

Mr. Mullen

And the arbitrator will enforce it.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am not supposed to be cross-examined in this manner.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure Deputies want to know what the Minister has to say.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

They ought to listen to me. The only way of knowing what the Minister has to say is to let him say it. Deputies ought to give the Minister, from a sense of fair play alone, the opportunity of making his case.

Mr. Larkin

I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but would this mean that the recommendations of such a tribunal would determine decisions to be made by an arbitrator subsequently?

Mr. J. Lynch

No; they will be intended to act as norms.

Mr. Larkin

And the arbitrator, irrespective of the arguments made, will say: "That is the guide and that is what I will so order."

Mr. J. Lynch

That is not the case. They will be suggested norms on which future proceedings can be conducted.

I think I have answered, or at least tried to answer as well as I could, and having regard to the interruptions, the specific questions put to me in the course of the debate. As I said, this is one of the measures the Government have taken to deal with the present economic situation. The Government do not intend to do more than is necessary. It has been suggested that the measures are piecemeal but the reason they are piecemeal is that they are being introduced and put into effect according as the Government see the need for them. There has been the need to bring some kind of reason to the type of leap-frogging that has been taking place and I suggest it is in the interest of the workers concerned themselves to ensure that any increases they get in the future will be of real value and that they will not be eroded by this winning of increases by other people in relation to what has been given to former recipients of increases, thus leading to this interminable inflationary situation that such a process can bring about.

Mr. Larkin

May I ask one question in relation to the statement the Minister has made? He indicated that he did not propose to interfere with conciliation and arbitration proceedings, collective bargaining, and yet in his opening statement he said——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a statement, not asking a question.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister said in his opening statement:

Pending receipt of the tribunal's report, it would clearly be contrary to the national interest that its findings should be anticipated.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a second statement. I cannot allow that.

Mr. Larkin

I am reading a statement the Minister made:

The Government have, therefore, decided to defer and to request other employers in the public sector to defer, until the tribunal's report is available——

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to continue.

Mr. Larkin

——the granting of any pay increases to groups whose rates are to be the subject of investigation by the tribunal or to directly related groups.

Does that not constitute a standstill on salaries?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Mr. J. Lynch

Would you give me a chance to answer that?

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall give the Minister the opportunity of replying. I merely wish to bring the matter to a conclusion in some way.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Corish said that, by and large, the 12 per cent National Wage Agreement has been honoured and has been effective in regard to the vast majority of workers. The 12 per cent wage increase is destined to come under review during the early months of next year with the date for the new agreement being set as of first June or July. The groups to which I have referred in this motion have received various eighth round and ninth round increases. They have also received status awards that have been given to the various categories, except in some few categories whose cases are now before arbitration and these arbitration cases will be permitted to go ahead. The Government will not go to conciliation on any new claims until this tribunal has reported. They have asked, and they have no means of enforcing this, other employers to defer consideration of applications for wage increases in the meantime. If it was true, as Deputy Corish says, that the National Wage Agreement, by and large, has been honoured, as it is not due for renewal for six months and as this tribunal will be expected to report by 1st March, then no grave hardship is going to be inflicted on anybody, and in no sense can this be regarded as a standstill.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 89; Níl, 17.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl, Deputies Cluskey and O'Leary.

Question declared carried.

Tá
Allen, Lorcan.	Cronin, Jerry.
Andrews, David.	Crotty, Patrick J.
Belton, Paddy.	Crowley, Flor.
Blaney, Neil T.	Crowley, Honor M.
Boland, Kevin.	Cunningham, Liam.
Booth, Lionel.	Davern, Don.
Boylan, Terence.	de Valera, Vivion.
Brady, Philip.	Dockrell, Henry P.
Brennan, Joseph.	Donnellan, John.
Brennan, Paudge.	Dowling, Joe.
Breslin, Cormac.	Egan, Nicholas.
Briscoe, Ben.	Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Burke, Joan T.	Fahey, John.
Byrne, Patrick.	Fanning, John.
Calleary, Phelim A.	Faulkner, Pádraig.
Carter, Frank.	Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
Carty, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
Childers, Erskine.	(Dublin South-Central).
Collins, James J.	Foley, Desmond.
Connor, Patrick.	Gallagher, James.
Coogan, Fintan.	Geoghegan, John.
Cosgrave, Liam.	Gibbons, Hugh.
Costello, John A.	Gibbons, James M.
Cotter, Edward.	Gilbride, Eugene.
Creed, Donal.	Gilhawley, Eugene.
Crinion, Brendan.	Gogan, Richard P.
Harte, Patrick D.	Lyons, Michael D.
Haughey, Charles.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
Healy, Augustine A.	Meaney, Tom.
Hillery, Patrick J.	Millar, Anthony G.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).	Molloy, Robert.
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.	Mooney, Patrick.
Jones, Denis F.	Moore, Seán.
Kenneally, William.	Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Kennedy, James J.	Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
Kitt, Michael F.	O'Connor, Timothy.
Lalor, Patrick J.	O'Donnell, Patrick.
Lemass, Noel T.	O'Donnell, Tom.
Lemass, Seán.	O'Hara, Thomas.
Lenihan, Brian.	O'Higgins, Michael J.
Lenihan, Patrick.	O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
L'Etrange, Gerald.	Ryan, Richie.
Lindsay, Patrick J.	Smith, Patrick.
Lynch, Celia.	Sweetman, Gerard.
Lynch, Jack.	Wyse, Pearse.

Níl
Casey, Seán.	Murphy, Michael P.
Cluskey, Frank.	O'Connell, John F.
Corish, Brendan.	O'Leary, Michael.
Coughlan, Stephen.	Pattison, Séamus.
Desmond, Eileen.	Spring, Dan.
Kyne, Thomas A.	Tierney, Patrick.
Larkin, Denis.	Treacy, Seán.
McAuliffe, Patrick.	Tully, James.
Mullen, Michael.