asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of the widespread problems created by the closure of the banks, he will initiate talks for a settlement of the dispute.
27.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bank Dispute.
26.
Mr. O'Leary
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether any efforts have been made, or will be made, by the authorities here to mediate on the present bank dispute on the same lines as those attempted in Belfast by the authorities there.
28.
andMr. Jones asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will take some steps to bring an end to the present bank strike as a matter of urgency.
29.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of the serious disruption of commerce owing to the bank strike, he will take immediate steps to try to end the deadlock between the parties concerned.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29 together.
In January, 1965 the banks and their officials established a Joint Industrial Council, the Chairman of which is a conciliation officer of the Labour Court.
The Constitution of the Joint Industrial Council sets out agreed procedures for resolving disputes between the banks and their officials and I am not proposing to intervene in this matter.
Mr. O'Leary
In view of the efforts being made in Northern Ireland, can the Minister say if there is anything practical he can do at this stage to bring the parties together?
Does the Minister feel that he could offer any help to the community operating such things as marts, people who receive cheques from creameries and so on, to keep these people going?
In answer to Deputy O'Leary, the conciliation service in the Six Counties is attached direct to the Ministry and here the conciliation service has been attached to the Labour Court since the 1946 Act. As I said, a conciliation officer is chairman of the Joint Industrial Council and he is in constant touch with both sides. This is the explanation why action in one place takes the form of action by the Ministry and not here. I have no reason to believe, and I do not think that any Deputies have reason to assume, that Ministerial intervention has any magic formula for success.
That may be right, but has the Minister any legal power or authority to request the Labour Court to intervene? Has he any power to ask the two sides to meet the Labour Court?
Actually, in regard to the machinery set up by the banks the constitution of the Council to which I referred has procedures for direct negotiations between the parties, which took place in this case and were not successful; then there was the consideration of the dispute by the Council, which was not successful in effecting a settlement, and finally, after that, there was the step by which either side could request the setting up of a tribunal. Neither side has asked that the dispute be referred to the tribunal as provided under the constitution of the Council. There is adequate machinery to solve the dispute if there was any indication on each side, or on either side, of wanting to solve it. The machinery is quite adequate and there is no question of someone going in.
No one, least of all the Labour Party, wants the Minister or the Government to intervene in an industrial dispute but surely it would be a good thing if the Minister could indicate to the two parties that they should have recourse to this tribunal or, if necessary, have recourse to the machinery of the Labour Court?
As I say, the machinery is there. If either party wants it, all they have to do is ask. It is not binding unless both agree
Is the Minister not aware that the difficulty is that the side that makes the approach is regarded as the weak side?
That is right.
For that reason, these approaches are not made. There should be some authority to come in and make the approach.
The Deputy seems to have the idea that there should never be a strike, that there should always be somebody coming in stopping it.
No. Few people are concerned at the present time because there is a bank dispute but repercussions may come later on, and surely the Minister and the Government would not lose face if they made a simple request that these two parties should have recourse to the tribunal or have the Labour Court intervene?
There is no question of losing face. The chairman of this Council is an experienced, skilful officer of the Labour Court who is in constant touch and if there was any indication from either side that a settlement could be reached, the machinery is quite adequate. Deputies cannot assume that Government intervention is the answer.
Mr. O'Leary
The position is that this seems to have the appearance of an extremely long dispute. As Deputy Corish said, there does not appear to be any public alarm over this dispute, but it could be very damaging in its long-term consequences. Is it the position that the employers' side do not wish this matter to be referred to the Labour Court? Is it true that they are sticking their employees to the Council?
This is an agreed Council. Either side could ask for this procedure. Under the constitution of the Council, either side could ask for the tribunal and this has not happened. You could say that the machinery has not been used.
Are we to take it that the Minister will do nothing until one side or the other decides to go to the tribunal?
I should not like to take a frozen position on this.
I am glad to hear that.
It is not the absence of machinery or the absence of somebody asking; it is the absence of the possibility of solution in the present state of the dispute.
Does the Minister appreciate what has been said by one of my colleagues that it may well be that if either side decides to make this approach for the tribunal, it might be regarded as a sign of weakness? It might be a happy solution if the Minister made a request to both sides.
I do not think it could be assumed to be a sign of weakness.
The Minister does not know much about disputes.
Surely the Minister realises the seriousness of this strike, that it may paralyse the country? Surely he realises that Mr. Wilson——
This is a statement, not a question.
I want to ask the Minister are the Government prepared to give a lead before the country plunges into anarchy or will they abdicate? Are they prepared to give a lead and bring the two sides together? Mr. Wilson did it in England with success before the general election.
The Government are concerned with providing machinery by which disputes can be negotiated.
None of it seems to be working.
It is not a question of the machinery. In the absence of goodwill, there can be no settlement. The sooner Deputies start talking sensibly, the sooner we will get a sensible attitude in the country.
Give a lead in Government or else abdicate; otherwise we will have anarchy.
What side will the Deputy come in on?
I will go in on the middle.
(Interruptions.)
Unless Deputy L'Estrange behaves in an orderly manner, I will have to ask him to leave the House.
People on the other side of the House should not be talking about wreckers.
Would it not be the sensible thing for the Government to resign and leave us to clean up this mess?
It is hard to have order when you have anarchy.