Deputy Donegan is entitled to make a statement at this stage.
Private Members' Business. - Electricity (Special Provisions) (Repeal) Bill, 1967: First Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That leave be granted to introduce the Bill.—(Mr. Cosgrave).
Is he entitled to make a statement if there is opposition from the Government? We assume that the Government wish to accept this.
I am opposing this. That is not my statement.
On the last occasion leave to introduce was opposed.
This is the first Stage?
This is the First Stage, but we are resuming the introduction.
I am entitled to make a statement?
A short statement.
We in the Fine Gael Party believe that this legislation should not remain permanently on the Statute Book, particularly at this time when an effort is being made, and necessarily so, by the Minister for Labour to set up co-ordinating arrangements between trade unions and management to bring about better labour relations and better productivity. To continue to keep this Act on the Statute Book at this time is a mistake. The very heavy penalties set out in section 9 are not in line with general thinking in the country today and the effort being made by all responsible politicians and people to see that in the sphere of worker management relations, there are fewer trade disputes. In a State company it is wrong to have permanent legislation under which a person on summary conviction, can find himself subject to a fine not exceeding £25 and in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £5 for every day the offence is committed. If a trade union is guilty of the offence, the penalty is far greater. Subsection (4) (b) prescribes a penalty on conviction on indictment of a fine not exceeding £5,000 and in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £100 for every day the offence is continued.
We believe sincerely that if we are to have a just society, then we have to have workers, employers, the Minister for Labour and everybody concerned in this field coming together to do their work in a free atmosphere. If at the same time the Government have, even in respect of a State company providing such an essential service, such legislation standing permanently on the Statute Book, then the climate of goodwill so necessary will not be forthcoming either from management or workers. The Government could give a lead by creating the better climate so desired by all.
How many speakers are allowed now?
The Chair is permitting two Members from the Fine Gael Party who are promoting this Bill, one Labour Deputy, and the Minister, who is opposing it, to speak.
I oppose this Bill. The House remembers the circumstances of the introduction of the Act to which Deputy Donegan referred. I justified it at the time on the basis of ensuring the supply of electricity. It is hardly necessary to recall the atmosphere at the time. The supply of electricity had in fact been interrupted with consequences that nobody in this House wanted. The measure was enacted with the support of Fine Gael and was opposed by the Labour Party. I understand the Labour Party's point of view; I understand my own; but Fine Gael wanted to support it and not support it. This is a follow-up to that decision.
The Congress of Trade Unions came to me and asked me to repeal this legislation. From their point of view, this Act was unreasonable. We had a discussion. I put my position, which I believe to be reasonable. This was to be a negotiated agreement. I said that if by any other method we could ensure, or reasonably ensure, the continuity of electricity supplies for the consumer, I would ask the Government to move to repeal the legislation. Arising out of that request by Congress and our discussion about it, discussions have been taking place with the management, the unions and an officer of my Department and with Congress as well. These discussions are still going on. I have not yet received any document, any agreement or any evidence that there is now available an alternative method of reasonably assuring the continuity of electricity supplies. It is only logical for me to await such reasonable assurance before repealing the Act brought in to protect the continuity of supplies. If it were necessary to protect the continuity of supply at one time, then it is necessary to protect it at all times. I think I am logical, the Labour Party are logical, but the Fine Gael attitude of removing it now without anything to put in its place is not logical.
Our position from the beginning has been pretty clear and consistent. We did not believe the rights of the employees concerned could be put in cold storage for any particular period. We did not believe the right to withdraw your labour, which is accepted in this State, could be abrogated for any period, however brief. Therefore, when this Bill came up in the first place, we opposed it, not in any spirit of wilful opposition but because we felt it was tampering with the voluntary nature of employer-employee relations here and that the negotiations resulting therefrom would set back rather than improve the possibility of better industrial relations.
At this moment of time the present Minister for Labour, even if a late convert, is now definitely converted to this point of view. We have been glad to note that various stringent measures. which earlier in his career he wished to promote, are now being quietly dropped. We are glad of this conversion. We would say it is a realistic appraisal of the position.
It is because he likes the trade unions.
The function of all interested and concerned to see a better climate existing between employer and employee must be to improve the organisational structure, to make sure that negotiation procedures are such as to avoid disputes which need not occur. That is a modest proposal but it is an intelligent and realistic approach to some of the problems that arise. From the start, we have noted that it is not our job to try to end economic clashes that may take place about what part of the national income the various sectors of the economy should take. We want to bring about structural improvement and to ensure that the proper structure is there to make negotiations effective and speedy. We pointed out that part of the problem in the ESB was a defective negotiating procedure. In the course of the debate, we made several constructive suggestions for improvement of the machinery then existing between management and employees in the ESB. The problems that have arisen in the ESB can be settled under the ESB negotiating procedure and we suggest that the machinery should be fully availed of and, where defective, should be improved. We pointed out at that time that the separation between the management workers and the clerical workers should be ended and that negotiations take place on a global basis within the ESB.
The Minister has said in his short statement that the particular problems which arose in the ESB at that time were settled because he brought in the Bill. That is not in accord with the circumstances at that time. In fact, negotiations which had been going on during the time this Dáil was discussing the Bill finally solved this problem. There is no substitute for this kind of negotiation, and we have pointed this out repeatedly. I suppose that because most of our support comes from the section of the population who work for a living, no Party in this House has greater awareness of the importance of industrial relations than the Party to which I belong.
There are no wizard solutions to these problems. There is no substitute for honest negotiations between employers and workers. We believe that the voluntary system of negotiation must be maintained and improved wherever possible. There should be no tampering with the system of collective bargaining. We have consistently supported improvements to the Labour Court machinery, but will always resist any tampering with the voluntary system of arriving at decisions acceptable to both sides in the Labour Court. We do not make any alibis for our stand against this measure. We opposed it at the beginning and we shall oppose such measures in the future. We do not think it is helping to improve relations between the Board and its employees, and we do not think the waving of a big stick by any Minister for Labour will improve industrial relations.
The purpose of this Bill has been explained by Deputy Donegan. I do not think it is necessary to amplify greatly what he said, except to say that the time to establish workable machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes, for the regulation of wage or salary claims and generally for the discussion of a settlement of conditions of employment is not when there is a crisis or when there is a cessation of supplies such as was threatened when the Act was passed in 1966.
In the circumstances in which that piece of legislation was passed, we felt there was a possible risk to the lives of people, particularly those in hospitals who might be in need of immediate action through operations or facilities such as iron lungs and so on. We made it quite clear that that piece of legislation could be justified only in very exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances which were then anticipated as likely to arise have now passed.
I do not think it is correct to say that the investigation which was initiated at the time by the Minister and which was regarded as established for the purpose of dealing with the problem of certain categories of ESB employees has been finally put on a permanent basis, or that there is available machinery which would enable the matters which were in dispute to be discussed in a rational and reasonable fashion. It seems to us, therefore, that now that the undertaking concerned is in calm waters, certainly compared with the conditions that existed at that time, this is an opportune time to consider in a rational way, without any rancour and without the immediate threat which appeared to exist then, the establishment of permanent workable machinery.
We believe that this Act which was passed in particular circumstances to deal with a potential immediate threat could only be justified in exceptional circumstances. In normal circumstances it is not desirable to have legislation of that sort. If such legislation can ever be warranted for particular undertakings, it should be considered divorced from the situation such as occurred at that time. If there is any justification for providing powers of the character contained in this Electricity (Special Provisions) Act, then these powers should be divorced entirely from any immediate threat or from the pleading which is naturally associated with the introduction of special legislation. At the time we assented to the enactment of this legislation, it was on the understanding that the measure could only be regarded as a temporary one.
Therefore, after allowing adequate time to pass and allowing the circumstances which then existed to pass, we decided to introduce this amending Bill for the purpose of repealing the legislation. I believe we can consider the matter now in an atmosphere different from that which existed when the earlier Act was passed. The establishment of conciliation and negotiation machinery has, of course, been a gradual growth.
This is a rather long second statement on this short Bill.
I can finish on this. The establishment of this machinery has been a gradual growth, has been extended and has potentialities for further development. It is for these reasons we believe this measure should be enacted to repeal the Act which was passed in 1966.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá: 51; Níl: 66.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burton, Philip.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Norton, Patrick.
- O'Connell, John F.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Patrick.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies L'Estrange and T. Dunne; Níl: Deputies Carty and Geo ghegan.
Question declared lost.