This is just the commencement section.
Private Business. - Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1973: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
What is envisaged?
It is envisaged that the proposed measure will be a temporary one. This section provides that the Act will come into operation. It just sets out the temporary nature of the Act. It is my intention to introduce the Bill forthwith, unless there is a change in the situation, as I mentioned on First Reading.
The section makes reference to "national agreements", in the plural. This looks like retrospection. It is not "national agreement" or any particular agreement, it is in the plural. The Minister could, if he was dissatisfied with the past, take action under this section.
The Deputy will agree that I have made it quite clear that in my view what is past is past. I am relating all of this legislation solely to the present dispute.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (2) (a), to delete lines 39 to 44 and substitute the following: "prohibit the payment by those banks, on or after a date not earlier than the commencement of the order, of the increases aforesaid and the implementing or continued implementing by those banks, on or after a date not earlier than the commencement of the order, of the amendments or variations aforesaid."
This is just a drafting amendment. In this section the draftsmen considered that to make it absolutely clear they wished to add this amendment. It is to prohibit the payment by those banks, on or after a date not earlier than the commencement of the order.
I should like to ask if this amendment is designed to meet the point that was raised from this side of the House on the Second Stage to the effect that it appeared that sections 3 and 4 were, on their face, retrospective although the Minister said that it was not intended to apply them retrospectively. I understood the Minister to say, on the Second Stage, that he would consider this matter and introduce amendments. On the face of it, it would appear that this amendment is designed to meet the point that was made. If it is, it seems that the effect of this amendment would be that although the Bill would apply to agreements negotiated prior to the passing of the Act that there would not be any prohibition of payment which might have been made on foot of an agreement in contravention of the national agreement until the Minister makes an order. No matter what the terms of a prior agreement the effect of this would be that the Minister could not prohibit payment on foot of it prior to the date of the order. Am I interpreting the amendment correctly?
I understand that the problem raised by the Deputy during the Second Reading on the retrospective element is not what the draftsman is aiming at. This is not the situation being met by the draftsman here. When we come to the section which deals with the retrospective element I will explain the matter more fully.
If that is not the purpose of the amendment what is its purpose?
The problem was that the draftsman felt that perhaps in a current situation payment had been made prior to a certain date it would be possible to argue that it was not covered by legislation. That is the exact situation that this is meant to meet but it does not refer to retrospection. The general problem of retrospection referred to by the Deputy in the Second Stage Reading is not covered in this section.
I understood the Minister to convey that the object of this amendment was to deal with the case where payments had been made.
In the current situation.
In the current situation prior to the making of an order?
Prior to the passage of this legislation.
If that is correct, and my interpretation of the amendment is correct, what the amendment is saying that even though in the current situation a payment might have been made before the passing of the Act the Minister is specifically taking away from himself power to interfere with that. He is saying that he cannot deal with anything that occurred earlier than the commencement of the order. Let me take a hypothetical case: if an agreement was concluded today before the Bill goes to the Seanad, and if payments were made today, and the Minister was to make an order from tomorrow, he could only operate from tomorrow rather than today.
Yes, but I am stressing that it is in the context of the present negotiations.
Why is the Minister taking from himself the power in the current situation to deal with payments which might have been made in contravention of the national agreement before the commencement of an order?
Does the Deputy mean in the past?
No, I am talking about the current situation.
I am extremely anxious to feel that my powers, in so far as possible, are circumscribed in this legislation. I have no desire to have wide powers in this area at all. I have stressed from the very start that the legislation is aimed at correcting a problem which has arisen in current negotiations. Therefore, in this legislation I am anxious to curtail any excessive powers that may be given me. I do not wish to have these powers and I am limiting myself to the narrowest compass of action that I regard as necessary in the present situation.
I realise that this is a delicate situation and I do not want to probe too deeply. I should like to ask the Minister is there any element of constitutionality or legal necessity involved in this amendment?
The draftsmen appear to think that that is, more or less, the situation.
The amendment, as I understand it, is to take any doubt of retrospection out of section 3.
No, as I have explained, the element of retrospection is in the next section and I will discuss it there.
To be quite honest, I am not too clear, from the Minister's explanation, what the amendment does. On reading the Bill, I was of the opinion that it circumscribed the area in which the Minister was permitted to take action and the definition section, which we have just passed, refers to the two past national agreements.
If the Deputy is worrying about retrospection, section 4 (d) covers this area, I think, and, when we come to that, I will discuss the question of retrospection with the Deputy.
The Bill does appear to have all the provisions necessary for retrospection; the definition section refers to national agreements and says:
"the National Agreements" mean the Employer-Labour Conference National Agreement made on the 21st day of December, 1970, and the Employer/Labour Conference National Agreement made on the 31st day of July, 1972;
The words "national agreements" occur. We have passed that section. However, we have no objection to the amendment.
The Deputy is aware that all the action contemplated here is the Minister "may". I have made it quite clear that I have bound myself; I have said this does not relate to agreements made in the past.
We accept the Minister's assurance on that, but the Bill in its present format would appear to do otherwise than what the Minister says.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This is an important section from the point of view of any curb the Minister may put on the banks in relation to agreements. In regard to the reference to the Labour Court, is the Minister making provision for any machinery by which he will know that agreements are being made? Has he established a listening post in College Street?
The Deputy is aware that this is one of the innate difficulties of the situation and this legislation is designed specifically to make listening posts unnecessary.
I wonder if that is correct since the Minister will have to make an order to bring this into operation and surely some listening post will have to tell him.
I am sure the Deputies opposite are more aware of the difficulties involved than I am. This legislation is designed to obviate that kind of necessity. As Deputy Colley says correctly, finally we can only make an order relating to a certain figure.
I take it it would be an offence if an agreement were negotiated, even though it was not in breach of the national pay agreement. If the banks did make an agreement and did not notify the Minister it would still be an offence. If it were not they could plead they did not notify because they believed they were not in breach.
I do not think it is an offence under our legislation.
I take it any agreement they make should be referable to the Labour Court but, if they did make an agreement and did not notify the Minister, what then?
But the legislation has a provision in relation to a stay on all wage movements.
I know the difficulty inherent in all this. The banks may tomorrow complete an agreement between the IBOA and the banks' staff negotiating committee and the Minister may not know anything about it.
Yes, but under this legislation we will have power to impose a stay.
To which section is the Minister referring when he says that?
I think the stay is in section 3.
The Minister has power to impose a stay when he finds out that something has happened but, suppose he does not find out; there is nothing in the Bill to compel the banks to notify the Minister they are about to make an agreement.
That is unnecessary since I can impose a stay immediately after the passage of this Bill.
A stay on the current situation.
For a period of six months.
Is that provision in the Bill?
Yes.
Could the Minister give us the specific reference?
It is in the section we have just amended.
Would the Minister not be better off if he had power to require the employer to notify?
That is not necessary in view of the power given to me to impose a stay on the current situation.
Could the Minister be a little more specific and tell us where the power to make a stay order is?
It is section 3 (2) (a):
... the Minister may by order under this section prohibit the payment by those banks of increases of the remuneration being paid to those employees at the commencement of the order and the making by those banks of amendments or variations of any other terms or conditions of employment of those employees in force at such commencement.
This gives me power to impose a stay for six months pending clearance by the Labour Court. It is designed to meet the situation referred to by Deputy Brennan about having a listening post in College Green or somewhere else.
I do not think it quite meets the Minister's difficulty or the points raised by Deputy Brennan. All this will enable the Minister to do is to make an order which will, in effect, hold remuneration at the level at which it was at the date of the making of the order pending a Labour Court investigation and report and the procedure that would follow from that.
Yes.
As I understand the point raised by Deputy Brennan, and this is not a hypothetical matter because we are speaking from some experience, an agreement could be concluded without the Minister's knowledge. It is less likely, I know, that actual payments would have been made on foot of it, but it could be argued that the level of remuneration of employees on foot of the agreement concluded without the Minister's knowledge was X and the current level is Y, the new level. As I understand it, the Minister's intention would be to hold the remuneration at X pending the Labour Court investigation. Under subsection (2) (a) it seems to me all the Minister could do would be to hold the remuneration at the level at which it is when he makes the order and this makes the question of notification to the Minister much more crucial. The purpose the Minister has in mind may not be possible by the making of a stay order.
The Deputy may have, possibly as a result of experience, a poor estimate of bankers' morality. I have been anxious not to arm myself with any excessive retrospective powers of legislation. At the same time, as in the last amendment, I was anxious to see—and I discussed this with the draftsman—that we had the minimum retrospection that would be necessary related to the present settlement and negotiation. That is why we had the previous amendment. I do not think what the Deputy suggests is realistically possible. It is a way-out possibility I suppose, but I do not think we will see a situation in which the banking authorities will take the course he suggests. This will be the law as soon as we pass this Bill, and they would be in breach and would be subject to the rather heavy penalties envisaged later on in this legislation, heavy penalties even in bankers' language.
I am not sure if the Minister has got the point which I am trying to make. Maybe I have not made it very clearly. It is this. Bankers would not be subject to any penalty if, in fact, they had concluded an agreement and the Minister made an order. They could conform to the order at the level at which the new agreement provided for it. They would not be committing any breach of this Act and would not, therefore, be liable to any penalty. I understand that the Minister's anxiety is to make it clear that he wishes in this Bill to deal only with the current situation.
When I refer to experience the Minister will recall that on Second Stage I referred to the conclusion of what I might call the first agreement in this saga between the banks and the IBOA. Speaking from recollection I said that it could, perhaps, be said that that agreement was concluded in secrecy. There is no doubt at all that it was concluded without the Department of Labour or any other official organ being aware of what was happening until it was too late. That being so, it is not unreasonable or hypothetical to raise the point at this stage when we are dealing with the same parties.
The point I am trying to make is that it would appear under subsection (2) (a) of section 3 that it could happen that an agreement would be concluded to provide for a higher level of remuneration than at present, a level of remuneration which could well be in breach of the national agreement, and that the Minister would find himself in the position that he would be making an order which would, in effect, be holding remuneration at the new level and not at the old level which, presumably, is the purpose. If I am wrong in that, that is all right, but if I am not I would suggest that the Minister should give even more serious consideration to the suggestions made from this side about obliging the parties to inform him of an agreement before it operates.
Section 9 might help the Deputies because under certain other Acts our authorised officers have certain powers of entry, examination of documents, and so on. This might meet the legitimate points raised by the Deputies opposite arising from their experience of the problem.
That is if you are lucky?
On the question of being able or unable to ascertain when something is happening between the banks and the IBOA, would it not have been better to make this a more positive section which would require all agreements to be submitted to the Labour Court? The Minister has power under section 24 of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act to submit any agreement to the Labour Court. This does not do much more than what is already in the 1946 Industrial Relations Act. It would be a positive section if it provided that all agreements negotiated by the banks should be submitted to the Labour Court. I take it that the Minister's reassurance on the question of retrospection means that if the banks complete an agreement today he can do nothing about it.
We have discussed this with draftsmen to ensure that in the current negotiations we have the power of dealing with retrospection within the current negotiations.
The Minister is dealing with people with whom Deputy Colley and I had to deal and he is depending a lot on their being a reliable body. We were slightly disappointed on that score. We asked them specifically not to do something and they actually did it. We are dealing here with one of the most astute negotiators in the game. I am sure the Minister found it as distasteful as I did to have to take any action. It was only because we did not find that element of responsibility which one would expect in the higher echelons of industrial activity if one might put it that way—they regard themselves as being in that category—that we took action in the hope that it would not be necessary to implement it. Since the Minister has taken action, the machinery with which he is arming himself is not adequate to deal with the situation. There are ample escape routes in this legislation. One of the weak points is that negotiations may take place and a new agreement may be implemented and the Minister cannot penalise anybody for it.
Deputy Brennan says from his experience that this is undoubtedly a difficult problem to deal with. In effect, I believe we have sufficient powers to deal with that situation even if there was the lack of good faith to which the Deputy refers: the powers of the stay on the conditions at any particular time, the on or after retrospective provisions relating to the present negotiations. Take that in the context of section 9, which we will be discussing later, which gives us power of examination of documents and we have what adds up to authentic information on the state of wages at any particular time.
In supplement to what Deputy Brennan has said, I agree with his comment but would qualify it by saying that our view of what may be a display of responsibility may not coincide with those of the parties concerned. It would be legitimate in one sense for negotiators, for instance on behalf of the bank employees, to say that they are showing a sense of responsibility if they achieve the best deal they can for their members.
Furthermore, I would not wish anything that was said to give the impression that we believe that the parties involved would willingly break the law. The point we are trying to make is that they may well succeed in doing what the Minister is trying to prevent them from doing without breaking the law. For that reason I should like to pursue the matter further. Subsection (2) (a), lines 38/41, reads: "...the Minister may by order under this section prohibit the payment ... of increases of the remuneration..." Deputy Brennan points out that this has now been amended but I think the point still applies. The amendment reads:
... prohibit the payment by those banks on or after a date not earlier than the commencement of the order, of the increases aforesaid...
My reading of this subsection at the moment is that the Minister may not prohibit the payment of a level of remuneration which is in operation at the commencement of the order. I would like the Minister to tell me is that correct, that he cannot prohibit payment of remuneration which, in fact, is in operation at the commencement of the order and, secondly, is it possible, under any provision of this Bill, for the Minister to have the commencement of the order made retrospective or does the commencement of the order date from the making of the order?
In answer to the Deputy, at the very start of that section we state:
Where any banks, whether before, on or after the commencement of this Act, pay or agree to pay increases of remuneration to any of their employees or amend or vary or agree to amend or vary any other terms or conditions of employment of any of their employees...
That appears to me amply to cover the possibilities raised by the Deputy of payments today, yesterday or this week, in relation to the current dispute. As I said from the start, I have been reluctant to give myself excessive powers that would relate to settlements of the past few years in the banks. That has not been my concern. What is past is past. I repeat, it is in relation to the current negotiations that I have been anxious to see that they accord with the national agreement.
We discussed this with the Parliamentary draftsmen to see that the legislation we would carry would not be weakened by its inability to cover any stages in the present negotiations. We think we have armed ourselves sufficiently in this area with legislative power. We have discussed it with the draftsmen. They have agreed with our interpretation of it. But, if the Deputies are still uneasy that I do not have sufficient power here, I will discuss it further with the draftsmen during this Committee Stage or will have discussions take place and on Report Stage will come back to this point again. I think I have sufficient power but if the Deputies can persuade me at this stage that I do not have, I will be ready to meet them. I think I have ample power.
Just to clarify the position, am I right in thinking that, as the Minister sees it, the power he has is to prohibit the payment of any increases even though they might have operated before he makes the order, the only limitation being that the prohibition cannot date from earlier than the order? In other words, they might be receiving increases but those increases will have to stop and they will revert to their previous level of remuneration?
There would be a series of transactions. As the Deputy knows, this Bill gives us ample power to deal with series of transactions in the present negotiations. I think that is covered in:
whether before, on or after the commencement of this Act.
I have ample powers of inquiry and information through section 9 under which an authorised officer may enter in and find what the current rates are.
The Minister states that he would be prepared to consider tightening it. If he is satisfied that the Bill when enacted will give him the power necessary to do what it sets out to do, that will satisfy us. Apart from the Minister's assurance that he will not go beyond what is happening currently, I have doubts whether that is made clear here. If he has sufficiently strengthened the legislation to ensure that it will not be retrospective or that any question of retrospective that was implied is removed, then I would say that he may also have removed the power to take any action in relation to an agreement which may be negotiated before the Bill becomes an Act.
I think I have sufficient legislative power to deal with that, as I have explained already.
All right, if the Minister is satisfied.
I should like to make it clear that we accept what the Minister says, that he intends to operate the powers given here only in relation to the current situation and not to what we call the previous two agreements. We certainly accept that. I cannot appreciate that there are enormous drafting difficulties involved if one wants to set that out, say, in section 3 but I think one would have to start from scratch and approach it on a completely different basis.
The only point I want to make is that whatever may be the Minister's intentions and whatever he may do, the fact remains that on the face of it section 3 would allow the Minister, if he so wished, to deal with the previous situations. Section (c) is so drafted that he could do so, the only limitation on him being that introduced by the amendment which would mean that he could not reduce remuneration retrospectively: he could only do so from the date of the commencement of the order.
The point I am trying to make is that on the face of it section 3 would enable the Minister to deal with the previous agreements. We accept that he does not intend to do so for his own reasons and that he is satisfied that he has powers under section 3 to deal with the current situation. We accept that. If he is satisfied, then it is not for us to push him any further in it but I do want to place it on record that our view is, whatever the Minister's intentions may be, that section 3 is so drafted that it would enable the Minister or another Minister for Labour to deal with the previous agreements if he chose to do so.
I am completely in agreement with Deputy Colley. The section states:
Where any banks, whether before, on or after commencement of this Act, pay or agree to pay increases of remuneration to any of their employees...
(b) the Labour Court shall, if the matter is referred to it—
(i) consider it and determine, in like manner as if the matter were referrable to it under the procedure in the National Agreements for resolving disputes relating to matters covered by those Agreements and had been so referred to it, whether the payment or making of the increases, improvements or variations is, or (if they have not been paid or made) would, if they were paid or made, be, at variance with the provisions or purposes of the National Agreements and of this Act, and
"National Agreement" is defined as that made on the 21st day of December, 1970, and the agreement made on the 31st July, 1972. I think it is explicit that if the Minister, or some other Minister, as Deputy Colley has said, wishes, he can.
I would remind the Deputy that it is permissive; it is "may". I have made it clear how much I have circumscribed my own area of action.
May refer to the Labour Court but the Labour Court shall.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I understand the Minister wishes to move an amendment to section 4 and that the amendment has been circulated.
This amendment I got on the telephone.
We agreed to waive all notice of amendments and if there are any amendments that occur on the other side that, as we agreed on Second Reading, can improve the purpose of the Bill, we will be happy to have them.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (iii) (f), lines 12 and 13 to delete "When making an order under this section the Minister shall have regard to the terms" and to substitute "An order made by the Minister under this section shall accord with the relevant terms".
Section 4 (3) (f) reads:
When making an order under this section the Minister shall have regard to the terms of any report or recommendation of the Labour Court relating to the matter.
I was anxious to ensure that there would be no misunderstanding, that I was not arbitrating on wage levels and I was anxious to ensure that it was the Labour Court who would examine in this area and that I simply carried out the recommendations of the court. The purpose of the amendment, that an order made by the Minister under this section shall accord with the relevant terms of any report or recommendations of the Labour Court in relation to the matter, is to ensure that the Minister is not the person who makes the decision in this area but that he carries out the will of the Labour Court.
Is this a replacement?
Yes. It is simply to make the point of section 4 (3) (f) more explicit.
It is a wise amendment.
I understand what the Minister has in mind and I sympathise with the views he has expressed. As he is aware, the report from the Labour Court in a case such as this could embody certain specific recommendations in regard to terms of remuneration but with regard to certain conditions of employment the Court might recommend further consideration of these matters in some other forum or with certain guidance that might be brought in. The effect would be to delay for some period a decision on certain aspects of the agreement the Labour Court were examining. If that happened, would the terms of this amendment make it difficult for the Minister to make a report? If the Labour Court said it was necessary to do something else before a decision might be made on a particular point, would the Minister find himself in a position that he could not make an order which accorded with the report of the Labour Court? I wonder if there should not be another word in this amendment? I am sure the Minister will appreciate I am just thinking on my feet at the moment because we have had this at short notice. I wonder if the following might not meet the situation: "It shall accord with the relevant terms of any report or recommendation of the Labour Court in so far as this is possible".
The Deputy has raised a real problem. When I spoke to the draftsman about this matter, I asked him to incorporate the phrase "shall accord". The Deputy has rightly pointed out that the recommendation could include disparate elements difficult to put into form. However, the advice I had when I raised this matter was that the phrase "relevant terms" would appear to cover us in that eventuality. It is the opinion of the draftsman that the phrase "shall accord with the relevant terms" will have the effect the Deputy is anxious to achieve.
If the Minister is satisfied, it is not for us to push him.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Although I am not an expert in draftsmanship, I think section 4 is superfluous and is a duplication of section 3. One or other of these sections could be taken out of the Act and it would not materially affect the legislation. They both tend to do the same thing except that section 4 has not the reference to the Labour Court that is contained in section 3. Section 3 also contains other provisions, but I am sure the draftsman had his reasons. The explanatory memorandum states:
This section provides that where (a) any banks whether before, on or after the commencement of the Act pay or agree to pay increases in remuneration or improve or agree to improve any other conditions of employment of their employees and (b) the Labour Court determines in a report furnished to the Minister that the increases or improvements are at variance with the provisions or purposes of the National Agreements or this Act, the Minister may by order determine the remuneration etc. in respect of the period to which the order relates. The Minister may also prohibit the payment of increases in remuneration, etc. in excess of those determined.
This section is the key part of the Bill. It gives me power to determine the levels of remuneration having regard to the report of the Labour Court on the matter. I sympathise with the Deputy in his impression of the duplication which he states exists. However, it is a complex piece of legislation and I am informed that this section, which is the key part of the Bill, is essential and it is necessary to put it in this form.
Has the Minister considered if an amendment of section 4, somewhat similar to the amendment he moved in relation to section 3, is necessary?
I am informed that the words "on, before or after" cover me in that situation.
If the Minister is so satisfied——
I shall be very rueful if I find this legislation is not as satisfactory as I think it is.
I should like to observe with regard to section 4, as I did in relation to section 3, that while we accept the Minister's statement that he does not intend to use this Bill in relation to anything other than a current situation, nevertheless, on the face of it this Bill could be used by the Minister or by any other Minister for Labour in relation to the previous agreements between the banks and the IBOA. I am not saying the Minister intends to do this; I am merely saying that, on the face of it, this Bill would enable him to do so.
Once again, I must inform the Deputy I regard this as purely a temporary piece of legislation. When the need for it disappears, I shall be the first to rescind this measure and ask for permission to do so. I hope this legislation will not remain for long on the Statute Book and that it will become an unhappy memory. I do not welcome any such legislation being introduced. However, as I am sure Deputies opposite will agree, there is a need for it in regard to the present situation and it is to meet that unique set of circumstances that the legislation is necessary. I emphasise that the retrospection sought here and in the previous section relates solely to the series of transactions involved in the present negotiations between the banks and their employees.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
During the Second Reading debate on Tuesday I stated that the legislation prepared by the previous Government contained provision for imposing penalties on the IBOA and employees which could lead to imprisonment. Deputy Colley took issue with me on this and while I concede that the word "imprisonment" did not occur in the text approved by the previous Government, there was provision for fines on workers or trade unions. Therefore, I was wrong in saying that imprisonment was envisaged in the text of the Bill approved by the previous Government.
I would point out that while the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act, which was mentioned so frequently by Deputies opposite during the Second Stage debate, did not make provision for imprisonment of workers, it contained provisions for fines. These fines were directed against the unions. Unhappily what happened on that occasion was that trade unionists found themselves in jail. It will be seen, therefore, that while that Bill contained no reference to imprisonment, it resulted in workers going to jail. That is why, in relation to the present Bill, while it was necessary to intervene legislatively, I considered that it would be both undesirable and ineffective that any fines or penalties be directed against the bank officials or their organisation. Therefore, we are not proposing any penalties for workers or trade unions either by way of fines, seizure of property or otherwise in this Bill. This is the difference that I wish to emphasise and I withdraw the suggestion that there was a reference to imprisonment in the original Bill. In drafting the present Bill it was my wish to avoid any possibility of any trade unionist or worker being penalised.
Regarding the original Bill, I recollect distinctly considering at the time the position the banks would be in if penalties were directed against them only. I take it that in bringing in legislation of this nature, the first consideration is that it be effective, otherwise, there is only a pretence at doing something that would not be effective.
As I said on Second Reading, the banks will now find themselves in a situation whereby they face negotiations with the IBOA and will be forced to concede certain changes in pay and conditions. If they do not agree to such changes they face industrial action in the form of a strike whereas if they agree to the changes, they may find themselves in breach of the national agreement and, consequently, subject to penalties.
In the interest of rendering this Bill an effective piece of legislation and in ensuring that negotiations would be conducted in a more responsible way by both sides, penalties should be imposable on either side. It would be a unique situation if the people who carry on the negotiations and who create the conditions were not to be penalised. I do not think there is any parallel for that in any legislation. As Deputy Colley has pointed out, these people will negotiate in the belief that what they are doing is right and is not a breach of the national agreement since they are not a party to that agreement and that what they are doing should be nobody's business but their own.
I hope that nobody on either side of this House would wish to interfere in any arrangements being made between employer and employee regarding conditions and pay so long as any such agreement did not have serious national repercussions in so far as that it could upset the national pay agreement which event could lead to such a serious situation that nobody would benefit. This is the reason for this extraordinary piece of legislation which is opposed entirely to the ideals and principles of those who regard free collective bargaining as being sacrosanct.
To have that legislation without the penalty being shared equally is, to my mind, a political ruse and takes from the effectiveness of the Bill. It is all right to say that the banks are well able to pay these fines and that it may not look too bad even if their people go to jail but the line between the people involved in the negotiations is very thinly drawn. I cannot see the difference between the people who constitute what is known as the banks's side and those who constitute the official side, which side goes along the line to managerial level. I do not think there is any parallel for that slender line of demarcation in the whole history of trade unionism. Here we are taking action that is not to penalise the people concerned but which is to prevent them form doing something that would upset a matter that is of tremendous importance to the whole national economy, namely, the national pay agreement. It is only fair, and also essential to the effectiveness of the Bill, to ensure that negotiations would be conducted with particular regard as to whether the Labour Court would hold any decision to be in accord with the national agreement. That can be assured by providing that penalties be applied to both sides.
Regarding the reference to imprisonment, what is to happen if proceedings are taken against any corporate or incorporate body or individual acting in the name of any such body specified in the Act? The Bill provides for the seizure and the sale of property. If the person involved barricades his door, what happens? Is he not taken off to jail? Is that not the natural sequence of events in the ordinary process of the law? That is nothing more nor less than what happened in the ESB case. Or do you stop at that? Do you go back home and say: "Sorry, boss, we could not get your goods so you may go. The buck stops here." This is something which I should like the Minister to explain fully. If a person or body refuses to pay a fine and an attempt is made to seize property, if the attempt is resisted does the normal process of the law take its course? If it does that person or persons may ultimately find themselves in jail.
The Deputy said that this section, the heart of this Bill, is a political ruse. Our experience in industrial relations would suggest that penalties directed against employees or their trade unions are both ineffective and undesirable. The big difference between our Bill and the Bill of the previous administration is precisely in this area. There are no penalties directed at the employees' organisation in this Bill. Deputy Brennan said that both sides are equally guilty. In my reading of the situation the employer is the person who makes the final decision in relation to any pay claim.
Deputy Dowling on the Second Stage was struck by the misery that might occur for people in the bank. I assure the Deputy and others that the penalties arising from breaches of the national agreement under this Bill relate only to employers—the banks, their directors, secretaries, members of committees of management. The only case in which a bank official might be found guilty of an offence under this Bill would be where he obstructed or impeded an authorised officer under section 9 in the exercise of his powers. Under section 9 the authorised officer would have the power to look at wage and salary records.
Clearly the purpose then of our legislation is not to prohibit normal industrial action by bank officials. This legislation is not designed, as was the Electricity Act, to deprive bank employees or any other section of workers of their right to withdraw their labour. That is an absurd objective to have in any legislation. I am not aware of any legislation that could bring about a situation where you could force any individual or group of individuals to work against the exercise of their own free will. That was the disastrous culmination of the Electricity Act, that it sought to take on that impossible task. I do not know the answer to that kind of situation. There is no legislation under the sun that can prevent a man from withdrawing his labour. Similar provisions allowing authorised officers to come in and look at records are contained in the Industrial Relations Acts of 1946 and 1969. Officers of the Department of Labour may require the production of wage sheets and so on. It would only be in the case of a person obstructing such an authorised officer in the carrying out of his duties in looking for such records, and it would be only physical obstruction that could lead to legislative action being taken against such a person who was not an employer. All of the penalties are directed against the employers —the secretaries, the directors, members of the committees of management. I would emphasise that point.
In this section we are getting into never-never land largely due to the doctrinal difficulty of the Minister and some of his colleagues to which I referred on a previous occasion. The first piece of never-never land we get is the Minister's assumption that employers are the only people who should be held responsible for the terms of an agreement which is in breach of the law. What we are talking about here would be, under this Bill, a breach of the law. He takes the view that the employers are the only people who should be responsible in that regard because they make the final decisions. The Minister knows as well as I do that this is never-never land especially when you are dealing with employers who are wealthy, who are making substantial profits. Of course, unless there are restrictions on them, they will make a settlement for what is the least cost to them and the least cost to them may well be far above and beyond what is legal under this Bill but it is cheap to them because they avoid a close-down. Of course, in any negotiations on salary and wage agreements both parties do their best to achieve their own objectives but it is a fact, in relation to the banks, and this is one of the reasons why we have had all the difficulty we have had in recent years, that the power in these negotiations rests with the officials and not with the banks. That is why we have had all the difficulties. The Minister knows this as well as I do but for doctrinal reasons he comes in here and says blandly that if there is a breach of the law the parties are not equally guilty, that the employer is guilty because he makes the final decision. I submit that that can only be described as never-never land talk.
Before I forget it I want to thank the Minister for his acknowledgment that what I said the last day was correct, that the legislation which the former Government had approved in relation to this situation did not provide for imprisonment. It did not provide either that people could not withdraw their labour but it did take the view, in the event of a breach of the law by reason of an agreement entered into between the banks and the IBOA, that then both parties to the agreement logically are in breach of the law, not one party. The Minister cannot seriously hope to convince anyone of the proposition that two parties to an agreement which breaks the law are not equally guilty. It is quite clear that it is a doctrinal difficulty, a mental block or political expediency that is preventing him acknowledging what logic tells him is correct. He says that is the difference between this Bill and the Bill prepared by the previous Government. Of course it is because we take the view that if there is to be legislation which in particular circumstances, such as obtain here, lays down what is or is not in breach of the law then the parties to agreements which breach the law are guilty of an offence and should be treated accordingly.
The Minister brings us further into never-never land when he provides in subsection (2) (a) as follows:
A person who is fined upon conviction of an offence under this Act shall not be liable to imprisonment in default of payment of the fine....
I am as aware as the Minister is of the difficulties that arise here. To make this Bill effective, which is presumably what the Minister is trying to do or otherwise we are all wasting our time, he should provide for penalties against the banks and, in particular, against the officials' association. If the officials' association conclude an agreement with the banks in breach of this legislation they will be equally guilty, and should be treated accordingly. They are not people without substantial resources; they are not as substantial as the banks but, nevertheless, they are substantial and I can see no reason why, if they are parties to an agreement, they should not be equally liable, and their resources equally liable as those of the banks who are equally guilty.
The point that I am making is that the Minister, having spelled out that a person convicted of an offence would not be liable to imprisonment in default of payment of a fine, went on to provide that the court may, by order, direct the payment of the fine to be secured by the seizure, entry into possession and, where necessary, sale of the property of the person by the appropriate sheriff or county registrar. What does the Minister think is going to happen in cases of this kind? Is he not aware that there are far more precedents in this country for resistance to sheriffs than there are for workers going to jail for non-payment of fines in relation to industrial relations offences?
I want the Minister to tell the House clearly what he thinks will happen if, on foot of this section, a sheriff who goes to seize property, or to enter into possession of a house, is resisted. There is ample precedent for such a situation. What does the Minister expect will happen then? As Deputy Brennan asked, will the sheriff go home saying: "Sorry, I cannot do anything about it"? Therefore, is complete defiance of the law, and the courts, going to be successful or will the law take its course in the normal way? Will a person who so resists be dealt with in the normal way by being put in prison?
There is no declaration by the Minister in subsection (2) such as he has put at the top of it to alter the situation. It does not enable the Minister to run away from the responsibility, unpleasant though it is. The responsibility of bringing in legislation which will be effective, and will be enforced is the Minister's. If he does intend to bring in such legislation he should spell out to us what precisely he thinks will happen in the kind of circumstances I have outlined.
I think it rather unlikely that the bank directors will engage in the kind of resistance contemplated by Deputy Colley. Sheriffs do not have a long history of animosity towards bankers and I do not think we are going to see this spirit of resistance grow up amongst bank secretaries and bank directors in the future. They are law-abiding people and do not have, whatever the public might think in their understandable prejudice at times when they look at their bank balances, any desire to go against the spirit of the law.
Deputy Colley, and Deputy Brennan, mentioned that these fines may not mean a great deal. However, in any one year that the banks insist on breaking the law and disregarding the legislation passed by the Oireachtas money to the tune of almost £4 million could be exacted by the courts from the bank directors. This is big money, even in banking terms. The legislation is directed to add a heavy constraint on the bank managements, ensuring that they do not breach the national agreement in any way.
Deputy Colley spoke of my doctrinal aberration in the kind of legislation I have brought in in this direction. I would put it, perhaps, more charitably by saying that I have addressed myself to a solution of this problem. I have not lost myself in ideological never-never land. I have addressed myself to how we get compliance with the terms of the national agreement in the current situation. As I have explained throughout, it is a temporary piece of legislation, as is this section.
I understand that the present wage claim of the majority of the bank employees could be met in full under the current national agreement. Naturally, I would endorse any immediate payment to employees whose claims could be met under the agreement. According to the officials' association secretary these claims could be met under the national agreement. As I approach this section, and other sections, I must ask who would deny that the history of legislative intervention by the Oireachtas over the past few years stretches back to the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act, which attempted to make it illegal for work people to withdraw their labour. I was opposed to that legislation and recently, when talking about it, I described it as being absurd. I repeat, that was absurd legislation.
This present statutory instrument which we seek, seeks to make it impossible, or as impossible as we can make it, for the bank directors, the employers in this case, to break the national agreement. The final and ultimate responsibility for ensuring satisfactory staff relations rests with the management in every industry in our country. Whether we like it or not, that happens to be the present current situation. Since I recognise that I believe that legislation must, in the last resort, lean heavily on the managements, on the employers, who may break the agreement.
Deputy Colley has stated that he feels the employers are equally to blame but I suggest to him that the history of legislation directed against the second negotiating party in a case like this, even where, as in his legislation, the idea of imprisonment was expressly excluded and instead rested on fines and other penalties, should discourage us from any experiments of that kind again.
Have we any experience of that kind of legislation?
The Deputy's party did attempt it in the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act where he imposed fines against the workers in that utility industry. Though in that legislation he excluded the provision of imprisonment he did, however, impose fines on such workers. The intention of the legislation was to keep workers at work. The legislation said: "You must remain at work and, if you do not, you break the law." Fines were imposed to compel the workers to remain at work.
The Minister talks about our experience. Has the Minister any experience of the legislation passed putting people in breach——
That was one case and I am talking about the whole area. In organisational terms, who can say what the difference is between a trade union organisation and its members? That would be higher theology.
There is quite a difference in resources.
The Deputy will agree that legislation directed against individual workers is both undesirable and ineffective. My aim is to bring the banking authorities to a true recognition of their obligation both to the people and to the economy and that is why I propose to make it very difficult for them irrespective of how copiously Deputy Dowling may weep about the penalties imposed against bankers. The penalties have to be large if we are to force management in this very powerful industry into abiding by the terms of the national agreement. In my desire to be practical I have to make the penalties very large. I doubt if we will find those in control of the banks coming into conflict with the law we make here. Banking authorities are law-abiding people.
The Minister has said nothing to convince me in regard to the one-sided effect of the penalties proposed under this measure. Neither has he answered Deputy Colley's question as to whether people may ultimately find themselves in jail. He says the banking authorities are responsible people; in other words, they will pay up and not allow things to reach the point at which property might be seized. In the same breath he says millions could be involved. If a man knows he will not go to jail I do not see why he should not afford £1 million.
If the bank director obstructed the seizure of his property he would obviously be in contravention of the ordinary laws of the land and he would have no immunity.
He would go to jail.
It is conceivable that he would under the ordinary laws of the land.
So we were right all the time.
This Bill gives no immunity to bank directors who break the ordinary laws of the land.
And to say otherwise is to mislead. They may ultimately find themselves in jail. The Minister made a great deal of play about the alleged difference in this legislation as compared with the legislation to deal with the ESB strike. The situation in the case of the ESB was much more serious from the point of the national interest. It could have crippled the economy. It could have led to a loss of lives. The Minister might find himself any day in a similar position with chaos facing industry and he would have to take the same distasteful steps. In the present situation the proposition is to penalise people for negotiating around the table and reaching an agreement.
And, having reached agreement, they can be penalised.
The Fogarty Report said that the bank strike was not as serious as people might think, even from the point of view of the economy. It was not nearly as serious as an ESB strike, or a bakers' strike which could result in people dying of hunger. The ESB legislation was absolutely necessary in the national interest and, if the same situation arose tomorrow, it would be necessary all over again. Nobody will die as a result of a bank strike. Those involved will find work in Britain and elsewhere. Their credit will be good. They will have their cheque books and, when the strike is over, they will get a bonanza by way of agreed overtime to clear off the back-log. The only person to be penalised is the employer, if he gives in, and, if he does not, he will be penalised too. We all agree that, however distasteful the legislation may be, it must be passed in the national interest if there is no other way of protecting the national agreement, but let us not try to pretend it is something nice while the ESB legislation was something ugly.
There is a difference. It is, of course, the employers who must take the ultimate responsibility. The object here is to make it impossible for the employer involved to breach the national agreement. I have no reason, as I said, before, to believe the bank authorities will break the law. They have a record as law-abiding people and I am sure they will obey both the spirit and the letter of any legislation passed here.
Did they obey the Minister?
I am talking about the bank authorities. They obey the law. If they break the ordinary laws of the land then, like all other people, they will be in breach of the ordinary laws of the land and the courts will have to deal with them. I do not regard that as realistic or even remotely possible. I believe that the bank authorities will obey any legislation we have here in common with any other citizen.
We do not want to go into the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act. I do not think we should spend our time scoring points. In our industrial relations system, whether we like it or not, the management are the people who have to make the final decision. This legislation is directed towards making it impossible for banking management to breach the national agreement. It is a temporary measure and, if today or tomorrow, both sides of the current negotiations would meet and agree to pay out the sums of money that could be paid out immediately to the majority of the bank officials—and I understand that the claims of the majority even in the context of the present negotiations could be satisfied in full in compliance with the national agreement—this would be a big improvement in the situation. We have a genuine difference here. Deputies opposite believe that equal penalties should be applied to both management and employees. I believe that to apply these penalties to the employees or their organisations would be undesirable and ineffective.
Unlike the Minister I am not convinced that penalties directed against the officials' association in this case would be ineffective. The Minister could be right, but it has not been demonstrated because it has not been tried to my knowledge. It was the one we intended to try if we had to bring in this legislation. The principle whereby the Minister claims that, in the event of an agreement being concluded which is in breach of the law, only the employers' side is guilty in law is a proposition which I cannot accept and I doubt that very many people could accept it. The thinking behind it is based on political expediency and will be seen to be such.
It is a sad day when you hear a Minister in Dáil Éireann saying, in effect, that he does not believe that certain things will happen—things which would be extremely embarrassing for him and his colleagues—because, in effect, he is depending on the respectability and law-abiding attitude of the bankers. That is no way to approach legislation. I suggest that the situation may not be quite so cosy and respectable as he anticipates. He seems to think that what would be involved in bringing about a situation where a banker would have to go to jail would be something like physical assault. Of course it need not involve that at all. It could be just plain obstruction. It could be simply the bolting of a door, and nothing else. I want the Minister to consider this. If he were a banker——
I wish I were.
——and if he saw legislation like this going through which picked him out and let off scot free the people who had put a gun to his head, and if he could see a way whereby he could avoid the consequences of what he would regard as a most unfair picking out of him, and the creation of a legal offence which was not one in his view, would he not take any chance he could which would probably result in his not having to suffer in any way financially or otherwise.
If a person looks at this and sees, "a person who is fined upon conviction of an offence under this Act shall not be liable to imprisonment in default of payment of the fine..." that puts him in a very happy position for a start because, even if he reaches a situation such as the Minister has described where he might become liable to imprisonment because of, say, obstruction of seizure by a sheriff, I would guess that he would rely fairly heavily on that to try to ensure that the court did not send him to jail.
He also knows that, with this kind of situation developing, the Minister will be in chaos if that happens. The Minister thinks it will not happen because he thinks bankers are respectable and law-abiding. Bankers are human too. If they think they are being very seriously discriminated against, as they are in fact in this Bill, even they may be prepared to go a certain distance in order to demonstrate the discrimination being operated against them in this Bill, and to demonstrate to the Minister the ineffectiveness as well as the unfairness of the approach he is adopting under this section.
I do not know whether this will happen. I cannot say with certainty. But I can say that the Minister cannot say with certainty that it will not happen. I believe that the whole approach demonstrated by the Minister and the Government in this section is one of—I think Deputy Brennan, on a previous stage, referred to it as cowardice—political cowardice and not facing up to the responsibilities of Government. If you have the responsibility of bringing in this kind of legislation, objectionable as it is, you should accept the responsibility and carry it through, and not pretend you are accepting responsibility and when you look at the fine print find that you are trying to get out from under.
This is my view of the Minister's and the Government's approach in this legislation, particularly in section 5 which relates to penalties. The whole approach involved in this section will be ineffective as well as unjust. I warned the Minister on Second Stage that, since the whole object of this legislation is to support the national agreement, it was his duty to ensure, as far as he could, that when he had to bring in this legislation it would be effective. This section, in my view, demonstrates clearly that the Minister is going through the motions, but is not, by any means, trying to ensure that the legislation will be effective.
The sheriff is mentioned in one section. It appears to me that, if the banks decide to pay, the Minister for Labour will run out of sheriffs. It also appears that the banks are subject to penalties but the people pursuing their claims are not. The Minister indicated that there was no question fo penalising the workers or the trades unions and they are free to withdraw their labour. I accuse the Minister of endeavouring to create a situation here.
He understands fully that, where two parties are involved and one is pursuing a claim and is unable to have it met, the next step is industrial action. The Minister is suggesting to the bank officials' union that they should withdraw their labour, that they still have this course open to them, and thereby create a serious financial crisis. Is there any reason behind this line of thought? On the one hand, he has imposed penalties to ensure that the claim is not met and, on the other, he tells the people who are pursuing the claim that they are free to withdraw their labour. The Minister cannot have it both ways, as Deputy Colley and Deputy Brennan have already stated. He must look at the situation right across the board.
This is a serious matter. I do not know if it is aimed at breaking down the financial structures here by inducing people pursuing their claim to withdraw their labour, which they are free to do.
I hope there is no withdrawal of labour. I hope the wish of both Deputy Brennan and Deputy Colley will be realised and that the national wage agreement will be maintained. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He knows well, with his experience in the trade union movement, that when people are pursuing a claim, if the claim is not met, they must resort to industrial action. He has told them that they are free to do so and perhaps this is the step they will take. I do not know why the Minister has indicated this. This is a very serious matter. If the Minister has something in mind, if he is endeavouring to create a bank strike, then he has gone a good way towards doing that this morning.
Paragraph (a) of section 5 provides for a fine not exceeding £200. Assuming a man has a bank overdraft and has no property, how does the Minister propose to obtain the £200? A man can have an overdraft and can have substantial property. How does the Minister propose to collect the fine? Is he going to resort to paragraph (b) of section 5 and introduce the battering ram and have the sheriff knocking at the door of every bank manager?
The introduction of the sheriff here is probably in keeping with the Minister's outlook. The battering ram and the sheriff have been firmly built into this Bill and a new situation will develop in Irish life. The Minister should broaden the scope and decide that the situation must be rectified in some way other than by the means he has outlined here. This section does not do justice. The Bill is a dirty Bill, as has already been stated. The Minister should come down to earth. He is clouding the issue. This piece of bluff that he has presented will not be effective because of the reasons stated by Deputy Brennan and Deputy Colley.
I am sure the Minister is aware that this section will not be effective. One could think of a number of possibilities. One possibility has occurred to me during the course of the discussion. If tomorrow morning the bankers were to inform the officials that they would agree to the officials' demand on condition that the officials would support the bankers in their action, what would be the position then? You could have a nation-wide strike on your hands. The Minister knows that he is using the banks as a stop-gap to prevent violation of the national wage agreement. If the bankers get the support of the officials, is it the bankers who will be imprisoned or will there be a nation-wide strike of all trade unions?
I can see the Minister's point here. In this legislation he is pleading simultaneously to both parties to be sensible in their negotiations. There is the possibility that the bankers will plead with the officials that they cannot meet their request even though they want to do so. They could say: "Let us come to an agreement. We will do it on condition that the officials will support us in our action." I could see a nation-wide strike in that case of all trade unions. I would like the Minister's views on that. This is a very dangerous section. It is ineffective. There are many possibilities arising out of it.
I agree with Deputy Wyse in his interpretation of section 5. This is a self-defeating section. The Minister admitted today for the first time that bank people could go to prison under this Bill. If he sends a bank official to prison because the official has broken the law in making agreements outside the national wage agreement, I cannot see the bank officials' association standing by and not agitating for the release of that man and protesting in the most vehement way. The Minister will then find that he has not avoided the trap that he sought to avoid by not penalising the bank clerks but has, in fact, succeeded in uniting the two parties.
Reference was made to the ESB incident a few years ago. That is not a true analogy. At that time there was an unofficial strike. ESB men continued to work and men were sent to prison for not paying the fine imposed for picketing. Most of the men were still at work but there were some men picketing. As I stated at that time, I deplore the idea of sending any worker to prison for this type of action. In this case the Minister has sought not to be accused of sending workers to prison. I regard the secretary of the bank as a worker. If the Minister sends him to prison he will unite the parties behind that man and cause a great deal more chaos than now exists with the threat or suggestion of a strike.
If it is not too late, I would suggest that the Minister should reconsider the section. Otherwise, there may be a breach of the national wage agreement, a strike, and somebody going to prison. There was a prolonged bank strike some years ago. If there is a strike brought about as a result of section 5 it will be a much more bitter confrontation and it will do a great deal more damage than the last bank strike did.
Section 5 provides for a fine not exceeding £10,000. In other words, it is not a mandatory fine of £10,000. Suppose, for example, that the banks decide to ignore this Bill. The judge may decide that £10,000 is excessive and he may impose a fine of £100 a day or £200 a day until the position is put right. The banks might decide that they could afford this. As far as I can see, the Bill does not do anything.
Other speakers have stated that if the bank officials decide to go on strike because they cannot get an increase, their argument is with the Government, not with the banks. What the Minister is trying to avoid is a bank strike. This Bill appears to be a big bluff. I should like the Minister to explain how he believes it will solve the problem we are facing at the moment in relation to the increases being demanded from the banks by the officials.
Without unduly labouring the provisions of section 5, I should like to remind the Minister about the one-sided effect of penalties. He may think he is not infringing on the principle of not penalising members of trade unions but to tell the officials that he will penalise their bosses is an indirect, back-door, sinister method of getting at the people concerned. The Minister might as well have come out openly and told both parties that they would share the responsibility equally if they entered into an agreement and that the Government would impose fines on them either as bodies corporate or as persons acting in the name of corporate bodies. Nobody would have taken offence if that had been done. The method adopted by the Minister is a sinister way of attempting to prohibit agreements being freely negotiated and it amounts to the same thing. It may appear not to breach the high principle of not moving against members of trade unions but it is merely a subtle device that will have the same effect. I am not opposing the section but I do not think it is the way to do it.
I thank the Deputy for his assurance that he will not oppose the section. In reply to Deputy Wyse, there is no legislation that could prevent people withdrawing their labour. No such legislation exists and I am not aware of how it could be drawn up. This legislation is designed to meet, in a practical fashion, the situation that exists between the banks and their employees. I emphasise that the penalties arising from breaches of the national agreement under this Bill relate only to employers, namely, the banks, their directors, secretaries and members of the committee of management. I do not think the doors in question would succumb to the battering-ram of Deputy Dowling's imagination. I believe that the controllers of our banking system are law-abiding people and that they will obey the law in letter and in spirit when we pass the legislation. In my assessment of industrial relations, especially in the current situation, I am afraid that the banking management are the people who, in the last resort, decide on the end result of any series of negotiations. Our legislation is directed against any decision on their part that would breach the national agreement. I thank Deputy Brennan for his co-operation.
In this legislation, the Minister is pleading for commonsense and we agree with that. He knows that the legislation, to a certain extent, will be ineffective. I cannot understand why the Minister anticipated a breakdown or a violation of the national agreement. Why did he move this legislation now?
That is more or less a fundamental question that was cleared weeks ago. It was considered necessary.
I should have thought it would be better to see how negotiations were proceeding and to be kept informed on their progress. Everything in the Bill hinges on section 5 but everyone must know it is ineffective. I can see the officials rallying around the bankers on this matter and it will cause considerable embarrassment to the Minister if the officials support the banks in violation of the Bill. I am sorry this has been done now because I think the Minister should have waited to see how negotiations proceeded between the parties concerned.
I should like to put one question to the Minister. Would he not agree that every employer will welcome such legislation in order to have his hands forcibly tied from unreasonable claims? Is it not the position that in a sense the Minister has brought the Government into a direct battle with members of the Irish Bank Officials' Association? Will not every employer welcome this kind of protective legislation?
I do not know what employers or employees will welcome. In reply to the Deputy's question, I can do no better than repeat what I said on the Second Stage, namely, that the legislation embodies no general principle of intervention by the Government in free collective bargaining. It is a temporary measure, designed to meet a unique situation. There are no general lessons in this legislation for employers in general or for employees in general. It is designed solely to meet a unique set of circumstances known to us for the past three years. The situation was known to the Opposition when they were in Government and they were preparing to deal with it in legislative form. An election intervened and now the Government propose to deal with the situation with the distinct difference of approach that we do not propose penalising the employees and their organisation. That is the only difference between us. Our course is more practical and is designed to reach a solution. Our legislation is designed for the purpose of reaching a solution to the present dispute.
The Minister mentioned that there is no provision in this Bill that in any way would inflict hardship or impose penalties on the workers. He made a distinction between the workers and the bank managers and specified that no penalties would be imposed on the workers. At the same time, he indicated that these people were free to withdraw their labour and that no penalty would be imposed on them. Therefore, they would have nothing to lose by going on strike. The Minister is creating a very serious situation in this regard. There may be good reasons why the Government want legislation of this type and why they are anxious to tell the bank officials that it will be all right for them to go on strike in pursuance of any claim. The Minister is aware that the logical reaction of any group whose claim would not be met would be to take strike action particularly when they have been given to understand that they have nothing to lose. As I see it, the Minister is extending an invitation to these officials to take strike action. There may well be very sinister reasons for this attitude on the part of the Minister. It may be that the banks are causing some embarrassment now. It may be that the Government wish to nationalise the banks. Perhaps there are a number of matters uppermost in the minds of Ministers in regard to the banks and that they wish to create a certain situation within the banks, a situation that is one-sided. From the national point of view it would be undesirable to have any break in the continuity of the banking services. We are all aware of the problems that were created by the last bank strike but it is appalling that the Minister would sow the seeds of the withdrawal of labour in the minds of the other party concerned who are not mentioned in the penalty clause.
As Deputy Briscoe pointed out so rightly, this is the type of legislation that every employer would wish to have at his disposal. A precedent is being created by these proposals. Perhaps we will have more of this sort of thing in the future. The question of imprisonment is very important. The Minister admitted this morning that, under this proposed legislation, people could be sent to prison in so far as circumstances could develop as a result of actions that might be taken which would result in their imprisonment.
Before moving from this important section, I should like to ask the Minister briefly if he has considered whether this legislation will lead to the very necessary improvement of relations in the bank between employer and employee. We went to considerable trouble to have the situation examined after the last strike. The terms of reference at the time were not such as to probe into the cause of the strike but to find out what was wrong within the whole structure of industrial relations in the banks. A long and very well probed report ensued. This report makes useful reading. It provides a very interesting background to what can go wrong when huge commercial concerns grow into complexities without having the proper structure built in to meet the rapidly changing conditions.
The Fogarty Report indicated how improvements would have to be made if the situation was to improve. When we discussed the matter with the banks, the one thing that impressed me was that the banks considered they were moving towards implementing some of the recommendations of the Fogarty Report. They also made a claim with regard to productivity, to public amenity and to general improvement and the bank considered that there was rationalisation——
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but the Chair wishes speakers to confine their remarks to the section under discussion.
Perhaps I can develop this matter further on the question "That the Bill do now pass". If I were not prevented by the Chair I would like to have indicated in detail that this type of legislation, because of the one-sided nature of the penalties, does nothing to help towards improving relations within the banks. If anything, it has a divisive effect in this regard in that it will leave dogs tied and stones loose. The only hope that one can have in regard to the Bill is that (1) it may not be necessary to invoke the powers being sought and I would hope that everything possible would be done to ensure that this will be the situation or, (2), that if the powers provided here must be invoked, that they will be invoked only for a very short duration. Of course, in the event of their not being another national agreement, the Bill would be obsolete.
In relation to the penalty clause, I would hope this would not have the effect that I can foresee it having, that is, of disrupting further relations that were improving, which needed to improve and which were the cause of all the trouble in the past. The Fogarty Report showed the weaknesses on each side in the banks dispute.
Some aspects of the penalty clause of this Bill are appalling, apart from the penalties in relation to finance, for instance, in subsection (2) (a) we read that:
A person who is fined upon conviction of an offence under this Act shall not be liable to imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, but the court by which the person is convicted may by order direct that payment of the fine be secured by the seizure, entry into possession and, where necessary, sale of the property of the person by the appropriate sheriff or county registrar and may by order provide for such subsidiary and ancillary matters as may be necessary to secure such payment.
Sheriffs all over the country have now been alerted to meet this new situation. We go a little further and find that the property includes the man's home. A man's home is no longer safe. One would have thought that at this stage of our enlightenment people would not enter a man's home either by crowbar or otherwise. They will raid building societies, friendly societies or other places where a man may have money deposited and his family will suffer as a result. It is appalling that a man's home is no longer safe, that the sheriff has now been alerted by the Minister for Labour to be ready in the event of the banks deciding to pay. Badges will be issued to new sheriffs because there will be a substantial number required to meet this situation. The appalling factor is that the home is no longer safe. I can see an extension of this, as time goes on, to include other people who want to make payments which are outside agreements. Their homes will be at risk. This is a serious situation and one that will not win any admiration for the Minister. The Minister has now clearly indicated his line of thought, with his sheriffs, his crowbar brigades and the seizure of homes. Perhaps he would give some consideration to leaving out the home of the individual.
Will credit unions be included in the bodies to be interfered with?
No, because there is no dispute with credit unions.
But if a person has put money into a credit union?
No, this Bill is related to the negotiations between the banks and their employees.
Does that mean that if the official has his money in a credit union it will not be touched but if it is in a building society it will be seized?
I do not know where the courts will go in search if somebody does not pay the fine. That would be a matter for the courts.
Could it apply to credit unions?
No, the penalties apply only to bank directors, to the secretaries, members of management committees of the banking system. These are the only penalties imposed.
But if they had their money sunk in a credit union?
I do not know where bank directors put their money but I think the bank directors will obey the law.
On summary conviction there is a fine of £200. If a man had an overdraft how would you deal with him?
If a bank director had an overdraft?
Yes. Some of them probably have. It is quite possible that such a person would have acquired large amounts of property and would have an overdraft. On summary conviction how will the money be extracted?
That is a very far-fetched hypothetical case. I do not know a great deal about bank directors or how they deal with their property.
On summary conviction land would not be touched?
This would be a matter for the courts.
Summary conviction does not include the seizure of land. If a man had an overdraft and——
The penalties apply solely to directors, secretaries and so on, not to the employees.
Some person is concerned with the payment. Is that not so?
Yes. Earlier on today we said that if somebody acting for the board of directors refused to hand over records or material of that sort he would be subject to a fine, but it was made quite clear that it was only in the event of further action being taken by the person concerned, that is breaking the ordinary law of the land, that it could possibly lead to any further penalties. The penalties apply solely to the management side. The Deputies opposite say we should apply it equally to the employees but we have gone over that very thoroughly.
The employees have been told they can go on strike.
I have explained that there is no law that I know of— perhaps the Deputy can help me, just for interest sake, because I would not think it desirable—that can be passed in a democracy that would prevent people going on strike.
The Minister did indicate that this course was open to the employee.
It is open to anybody in the country to withdraw his labour at any time.
Would there be any special reason why the Minister mentioned this, particularly this morning? It has sown a seed in the mind of the other side that industrial action is the next step.
After the diligent harrowing by the Deputy opposite there is no need for me to sow any seeds.
I think there is some special reason why the Minister mentioned this.
Somebody mentioned credit unions. The Bill reads:
"property" includes shares, debentures, and rights or interests in shares or debentures, securities of the Government, securities of any local authority and rights in respect of money lent to or deposited with any industrial and provident society, friendly society or building society.
It would, I take it, include credit unions?
Again this is a question for the courts and it applies only to bank directors and members of management committees.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
This section merely provides that a body corporate or a non-incorporated body may be prosecuted for an offence under the Act.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides that where an offence is committed under the Act by a body corporate or by a non-incorporated body with the consent or approval of or due to the neglect of that body's officials, those officials will also be deemed to have committed an offence under the Act and will be liable to prosecution.
Under this section the typist in the manager's office or anybody concerned with what is regarded as management could have fines or penalties imposed on them. The gist of the case that we have been discussing under section 5 is emphasised by the fact that these personnel are subject to the rigours and penalties being imposed and could very well find themselves more exposed to the likelihood of whatever action might be taken. When tempers become frayed one can easily visualise rather nasty conflicts taking place between staff and the law.
This only highlights the fact that only one side is involved in the penalties. I do not wish to hold up the passage of the Bill. We do not regard it as our job to help the Minister to make it a better Bill. It may not be relevant at this stage but there are amendments which could have been produced when the Bill was being prepared and would have made tremendous sense and logic. If the Minister is satisfied that this is the best way to go about it, then so be it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This section, and the following one, have always led to lengthy debates when Bills of this type were being piloted through this House because they involve the appointment of authorised officers to probe into the private affairs of a firm. In this case banks are involved. Many confidential records are held by banks. One could talk for days about the wisdom of this action or the calibre of the people to be appointed as authorised officers but I am prepared to accept, having sat in the Minister's seat for so long, and having had to appoint authorised officers in relation to other Bills, that the powers being conferred will not be abused.
I do not wish to be pretentious about this or to act the filibuster but these powers always tread on dangerous ground. A Minister who appoints authorised officers to probe into the private records of any company, or bank, should see that those powers are not used unnecessarily. There can be trespass on the private affairs of individuals, and in this case on the financial records, by people who are appointed by the Minister. However, I am prepared to accept that these powers will be used with the utmost caution and only if they are absolutely essential.
The public would resent very much any abuse of these powers. In recent years banks have ceased to be the private institutions they were once looked upon. One cannot hide in the ledgers as they could in the past. If one wishes to hide money now one has to go to Switzerland or some other country. Authorised officers with all the powers that must be given them to enable them to encroach on the private affairs of people are an essential part of legislation of this type. It is not possible to make legislation effective unless such powers are taken. I am sure the Minister will not hesitate to give the usual assurances today that these powers will not be used except when it is absolutely essential, and then only to the extent that is necessary without probing into the entire privacy of an important institution which holds so much of the public, and individuals, private and confidential records.
I give that assurance unhesitatingly.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Minister if there is not a danger under subsection 2 of this section, which states that if any person obstructs or impedes an authorised officer in the exercise of his powers that person shall be guilty of an offence, that if a bank porter refuses to open the door to the authorised officer he might find himself in prison. Would a bank porter be put in jeopardy by refusing to carry out certain directions by the authorised officer? I believe the Minister should write in some guarantee in this regard.
Already, under the Employment Regulation Orders, for example, the Industrial Relations Acts of 1946 and 1969, under which inspectors of the Department of Labour may require the production of wages sheets in connection with the enforcement of registered agreements and employment regulation orders, any person who obstructs or impedes an inspector is guilty of an offence. We are simply continuing what is in other Acts. In other words, any person who is guilty of obstruction of an authorised person as in other Acts comes under the ordinary law of the land. No new power is sought here.
Would a porter find himself going to jail?
Without this legislation being passed at all and under other legislation any person, high or low, who breaks the ordinary law of the land could find himself paying a penalty of a court.
Paying a penalty yes, but not imprisonment.
For anybody who breaks the law of the land there is always the possibility, by a series of events, that he will end up in jail. I should like to repeat that there is no new power sought in this legislation.
I am glad to hear the Minister admitting that today; he would not admit it the last day we discussed this Bill.
I will repeat, I am like a long-playing record, that there is no penalty in this Bill directed against employees, or their organisation.
It is imposed under this subsection and it may be in other legislation too.
The section refers to the obstruction of an authorised officer and as I pointed out, in existing legislation related to other areas of the nation's life similar provisions are included.
I am sure it could not be argued that it was obstruction if a person refused to help.
It would be an offence for any person not to comply with the legitimate request of an authorised officer.
That is already in existing legislation.
That refers to any employee. The point Deputy Moore was making was that, despite the Minister's denials that somebody would not go to prison under this Bill, in extreme circumstances that could occur.
Nobody can break the law with immunity. This legislation involves no penalties against the employees or their organisation. Neither does it give anybody carte blanche to break the law and, if someone breaks the law, he must suffer the penalty of doing so. We do not save anybody from the penalties imposed if he breaks the ordinary law of the land.
I accept that, but there is nothing to stop a director putting the onus on the most menial employee of the bank.
I doubt if any person, however highly placed, could force another to break the law.
Matters could be arranged in such a way that an employee would be instructed not to give access to certain papers or records and that employee would thereby be put in jeopardy, first of all, of breaking the law and then suffering the consequences.
The Minister has made it fairly clear that even the cleaner, apart from the porter or any other person, could go to jail.
The window cleaner.
Even the window cleaner. It is clear the imprisonment clause does not prevent people going to prison. The Bill creates a situation in which people can be sent to jail. It is very important that bank porters should know that they are now at risk. To what extent imprisonment or other penalties can be imposed I do not know. What would happen if one of the security services officers had some document belonging to a bank? There would be an obligation to protect that document. What is the situation if the document is elsewhere than in the bank? The Bill does not specify.
I repeat there is no new power sought in this Bill. If any citizen breaks the ordinary law by the obstruction of an authorised officer then he is subject to the ordinary penalties that that law imposes.
Then every member of the bank could go to jail.
I admire the Deputy's extravaganza. It is very entertaining but it has no relevance to the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill puts every worker at risk.
The Deputy's imagination a while ago painted a picture of battering rams being used against the bank directors' doors and now he is worried about the bank cleaners. I assure the Deputy once more there are no penalties in the Bill directed against employees.
But, as a result of the Bill, the bank porter could go to jail.
No.
Is the Minister serious when he says there are no penalties that can be imposed against an employee of the bank under this Bill?
There are no penalties. The penalties are directed against the directors, members of the management, and that is where the difference is. Obviously Opposition Deputies would suggest there should be penalties against the employees.
No. We are not suggesting that. We are trying to protect the employees.
Earlier this morning Deputy Colley was at pains to point out that legislation should be even handed and the fault in our legislation was that it was one-sided. It was a legitimate point to make because it is directed against the directors and not against the employees.
If the Minister says it will be an offence for any person to do something that does not specify that the person committing the act must be a director or an employee; it will be an offence for any person not to comply with a legitimate request of an authorised officer. Surely all the employees of the bank will be liable to prosecution.
I have explained that there is no deliverance from obeying the ordinary law of the land and any person who breaks the law of the land must suffer the consequences.
Surely, as a result of this Bill, bank employees will be open to prosecution.
No.
Of course they will be. The Minister must not be reading the same Bill we are reading.
One section states "shall not be liable to imprisonment in default of payment" which means the bank officials could not be imprisoned. Is that not true? On the other hand, we are told that the porter or the cleaner could go to jail. On the one hand, there is protection for the bank officials but other people, including trades unionists, are at risk.
Where does it say that?
Subsection (2). It says that a person will be guilty of an offence and, if he is, he must be punished under the Bill.
Surely if a manager obstructs he will be liable to go to jail too.
Of course he will be.
That is the very point. I thank Deputy Belton.
On the other hand, there is immunity for the owners of the bank.
I thought Opposition Deputies were on the side of the bank owners earlier on.
Under the particular section the penalty is imprisonment for the official.
There is no penalty of imprisonment for the official. I will leave the Deputy with his prejudices.
We are told that a trade unionist who obstructs can be sent to prison. On the one hand, we have immunity for the bankers and, on the other hand, we have a situation under subsection (2) whereby any trade unionist will be liable to imprisonment. We found out earlier that the bank manager or the owners of the bank could go to jail if there was continuity of an offence but, written into the Bill, is immunity from imprisonment where bankers are concerned. It is not written in for the trade unionists and they are not immune to the same degree. They would be carrying out the instructions of their employers and, for doing so, they would be liable to imprisonment, but the man who gives the instructions is immune from imprisonment.
The Minister says these are not new powers. Somebody who breaks the law goes to prison. That may very well be the case, but when you bring in a Bill——
We are dealing with section 9.
Section 9 (2) extends the type of offence that can be committed because it gives power to require bank employees to produce documents or records. It goes on to say that it will be an offence for any person not to comply with these requests of the authorised officers. Surely if the Minister is to be absolutely straight on this matter he must agree that, by the introduction of this Bill and particularly in section 9, Part II, he is extending the scope under which prosecutions can be brought or under which somebody can break the law. Therefore, to say that this is not extending the powers of the existing law is incorrect.
We are not creating any new offence. This is a routine section in any Bill. It was a section in the Employment Agencies Bill brought in by Deputy Brennan when he was Minister. It is in numerous pieces of legislation on the statute books.
It did not apply to banking officials before.
There are no penalties against the employees or their organisation in this Bill. There are against the directors. We have a difference on that.
How does the Minister visualise that the authorised officers will be appointed? Will they be appointed by the Appointments Commissioners or taken from the staff of the Department?
They will already be officials of the Department or any other Government department. They will be appointed by the usual means.
Will they be officials of the Civil Service Commission?
They will already be officials. We will give them warrants.
Who will select them?
I suppose I will.
The Minister will have responsibility for selecting these officials himself?
I do not think it will be necessary.
It is important to get that on record.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
This is a very generous section. It saves the bank official from being penalised. If he complies with the terms of the Bill he will not be penalised. I take it that the section means that bank officials may not take legal action against the bank for their failure to implement an agreement.
Yes.
It is very generous.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for the laying of orders made under this Act before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as possible after they are made. If a resolution annulling the order is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within 21 days after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly.
It will not be by way of resolution? It is just an order?
Yes.
Might it not be better to provide that it would be done by a resolution which could be debated?
Even the annulment would give us a chance of debating it.
Sometimes we escape the 21 days statutory period for the annulment. We are not opposing the section. That is only a detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The sheriff has got his Bill through.
There is no Robin Hood here.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
We all deplore the fact that it was necessary to bring in this Bill in the national interest and as a last resort. Having gone through this tedious and hateful procedure in my time, I appreciate what was involved here. As I have already said, the Press endowed the incoming Government with a special kind of genius which I thought might manifest itself in this first trial when negotiations had to take place, but the remedy is as before. No particular genius is brought to bear on this serious problem. We are faced with ugly legislation which none of us likes but we must admit that it is in the national interest.
The national pay agreement must be protected at all costs because, if it is not, it could lead to a serious situation. We found ourselves in that situation a few times. As I mentioned already, and I do not want to labour or repeat it, on two other occasions this type of legislation came before the House. One was the ESB case, where the country was in a serious state. The other occasion was when we were failing to get any agreement or sanity brought into ever increasing demands. We brought in the Prices and Incomes Bill. After long and happy discussions—which ended on a happy note—with ICTU representatives, they gave an undertaking to see the first national agreement through and we withdrew that legislation. It was in the national interest, too, because it sought to do exactly what the national wage agreement did. I am certain that, if we had not taken steps at that time and brought the legislation to the point of being processed in this House, we would never have got the first national agreement. I say that in all seriousness because I am convinced that it is true.
It brought about a very happy situation. I remember that, on the occasion of our sitting in with Congress representatives, I said we would be accused of a complete about face and they assured us that that should be the least of our worries. Indeed it was. What we were doing was in the national interest. We were scourged here for it and by the Press, too, as a weak Government who changed their minds. After due consultation we got the necessary assurances, and what is more, assurances we felt would be honoured and which were honoured as far as humanly possible. That was the start of the first national pay agreement. For that reason we have a special interest in this legislation. I hope that the little genius in the present Government which has not yet manifested itself may come to the fore and bring about some solution to this problem that will obviate the necessity for this ugly legislation to be implemented.
The legislation covers banks only. I do not want to start any hares that have not been already aroused but it might have been left a little bit more open in its scope because there might be others that it could deal with also. The banks are not the only people who are contravening or in breach of the national agreement. The difficulty here is, when you have free collective bargaining, to know who is in breach of what because it is their private right and privilege to make an agreement, to negotiate it freely between management and employee and to continue it. Nobody need know. You depend on the grapevine to find out.
The Minister in this Bill has provided no machinery for knowing what will happen in the banks. Unless he has a listening post in College Green he must depend on the banks coming to him and saying: "We are now going to breach the national agreement. We are warning you." Perhaps they will but there are, as we know ways and means of finding out these things. I say with all due respect to the Department of Labour that there was not much going on on the industrial relations front or the pay front that they did not know about. For that reason I am not making any great bones of the fact that there is no machinery provided in this legislation to ascertain at any particular time whether an agreement is on foot or not.
I should like to say to the Minister with regard to this Bill, which is directed at the banks only, that the Labour Court or some body set up by the Labour Court could, perhaps, have a look at the Fogarty Report and see to what extent any agreement being made is an attempt to bring about the type of relationship and the structures that are recommended and pin-pointed as being necessary in that report. This would leave the situation in the banks where you would have harmony, good relations, better output and, indeed, greater facility for the public and, generally, an institution of which the State could rightly be proud.
The commercial banks do an important job. They are a very important factor in the national economy, not indispensable; in fact, people came from other countries to see how we survived the bank strike for so long. Other countries were interested to know how a country could survive when the commercial banks were on strike.
The remarkable complexities of our monetary system were underlined by some of the happenings during those strikes. I knew people who paid their debts and overcame their difficulties and had no money at all, simply by using cheque books. They were able to carry out deals and to leave the necessary security to clear the cheques when they were presented after six months. There were many others who went to the wall. It was an interesting study but not a situation which the nation would wish to face again. Neither the banks nor the IBOA gained by it even though the officials had the privilege of earning very special overtime rates in clearing the huge backlog subsequently. It was a serious threat to their health and one which no conditions of employment legislation would tolerate.
I would hope that relations between the banks and their officials could be allowed to improve and that the Minister and the Department, even in enlisting the support of the Labour Court, would do everything possible even at this stage to obviate the necessity to implement this legislation. Then we will all be happy and everybody will be pleased.
I do not envy the Minister the task of attempting to do that but commonsense should now prevail and attitudes could change and perhaps certain assurances could be given that to bring about conditions in the banks, as visualised and pin-pointed and recommended in the Fogarty Report, would not be a breach of the national pay agreement but something which everybody would welcome.
There was an element of productivity in the last agreement. There was evidence that it was leading to rationalisation which, in the last analysis, would be to the benefit of the banks. While it would be an improvement to the existing officials, it could mean less employment in the banks in future. With the huge amalgamations now taking place and the competitiveness that has crept into banking, where you actually have banks advertising, banks indirectly getting into the hire purchase business, the whole complexity of banking has grown far beyond any of the structures that were originally provided to deal with changing circumstances. This is one of the things highlighted in the Fogarty Report. These things should be kept in mind when we are going out to penalise anybody.
My final word is that a Bill which leaves the stones loose and the dogs tied is not the proper type of legislation. The bank people now find themselves in the position that if they do not accede to the request of the IBOA they may find themselves faced with industrial action and if they do accede they may find themselves faced with penalties from the Government. That would be an extraordinary situation and I hope it will not arise.
I wish to thank Deputy Brennan and the members of the Opposition for their approach to this Bill which, as Deputy Brennan said, attempts to meet the requirements of the national interest in the present case. Like Deputy Brennan, I would hope that it will not prove necessary to use the powers given to me under this legislation. I understand that the present wage claim of the majority of bank employees in the present negotiations could be met in full and in compliance with the national agreement and I would recommend to both sides that agreement should be found on the legitimate salary aspirations of the majority of employees and that payments should be made to that majority as soon as possible under the national agreement and that, in relation to the salaries of the minority and that part of their salaries on which there is dispute, this could be further considered and at least put aside from the present area of contention. However, in the national interest it has been necessary to proceed with the legislation. I thank Deputies opposite for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.