Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 1975

Vol. 286 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1975: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Moore

Before the adjournment I asked where this type of special legislation stood. This Bill affects the Irish Bank Officials' Association. Suppose another association opts out of the national pay agreement and refuses to accede to the wishes of the Minister in this respect, will we have more legislation to deal with that case? This could bring industrial and human relations into chaos and disrepute. This is what we are doing here today. For the second time in our history we are dealing with these officials through legislation. I suggest that this is a reflection on the Government, and especially on the Department of Labour, because this patchwork legislation is trying to stop a gap here and a gap there, but there is no overall plan.

Will the Minister give any guarantee that in a few years' time he will not bring in similar legislation, which will infringe on the liberty of the individual, to deal with any section of the community? Section 5 deals with penalties and reads:

A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000...

It is also stated that he shall not be liable to imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. In most civilised countries if a person cannot or, on principle, will not pay a fine, he can opt to go to prison. If this Bill becomes law—and there is nothing we can do to stop it unless the courts find it unconstitutional—the law will demand the full penalty. The bailiff may come to the guilty person's home, take any part of his furniture or property and sell it to pay the fine.

A charitable bank official may have been a member of the local parochial friendly society and loaned money to them. If he is found guilty the law can demand that the local society worker give details of the money which the bank official loaned the society and that money can be taken to pay the fine. This is not a figment of my imagination; it is written into section 5 of this Bill. In the interests of decency and democracy the Minister should remove that section in so far as it affects parochial societies. In my view, this is penal legislation because the law sets out to ensure that every last penny loaned by the bank official to the friendly society can be taken to pay his fine. In his generosity this official may have loaned the money to the society to build a parochial hall or for other charitable work, but the State says that that money must be taken back to pay his fine. It may be said that many people of the calibre of a bank manager do not invest in friendly societies, but that is not so. If this Bill becomes law a bank official may transfer his funds outside this country where, if he is found guilty, the Minister cannot touch it. Of course, unless he lives under very spartan conditions, he will have furniture and his house which can be seized and sold to pay his fine.

It must be remembered that the fine can be of £10,000 for each day on which the offence continues. This is not democratic legislation. Section 5 (1) (b) reads:

... on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000, together with, in the case of an offence under section 3 or 4 of this Act which is a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £10,000 for each day upon which the offence is continued.

The best thing a bank manager who may fall foul of this Act can do is to transfer his money to South America or even nearer home where the laws prohibit the Irish Minister demanding that this money be sent back to Ireland to pay the fine of £10,000 for each day upon which the offence continues.

This is absurd. The man is alleged to have paid out money beyond the income limit set by the Minister. At the moment we have rampant inflation and every section feel their incomes are not adequate. I am not making a case for any officials to cash in on a general wage increase. If these men and women are insisting on this it may be because we have such archaic industrial relations machinery. When no guarantee can be given to people that the value of the money they earn will hold its value for any length of time they look for various ways to increase their incomes to enable them to live according to the standards they have been used to.

I do not know of any offence where a fine of £10,000 a day is imposed. How could any person pay £10,000 a day? If a man owns a house, even in the most affluent suburb, and if he has saved money during his lifetime, could he pay £70,000 a week for very long or £3,650,000 a year if it went on that length of time? What happens when the State have taken everything from that man and have left him standing in the suit he owns? His family have suffered because their home and savings are gone. The wife of the official and their young children may well have to go on to public assistance so the State will have to start paying out money to keep those people.

I suggest that the Minister should go back to the Government and draw their attention to this absurd piece of legislation which we will probably pass tonight. After the full penalty of the law has been inflicted on the erring bank manager or official and if it goes on for a 28-day month the man will have paid £280,000 in fines. As I said, very few people have that type of money. The State then decide that, having taken everything off that man, they might as well go to somebody else in the bank and tell him that he also was part of this and must pay the fine as well.

I do not believe the men who drafted this Bill or the Minister who brought it in have read it properly. It comes down so heavily on bank officials that it defeats itself. We must protest against this, even though we know that the majority of the Members of the House will pass it. I have no power to say to the Minister that this must not be done but I can ask him, rather than having us look ridiculous before other democratic powers, to amend the section I am talking about. Section 9 is not much better, but certainly in section 5 we could have a dreadful fine imposed.

We can picture the circumstances in which this man has paid out this money. He is dragged before the courts. People may say that had the bank officials obeyed the law this would not happen. If we do not protest, who can say that there will not be some other section involved in this tomorrow? Is the Minister prepared to say now that, while he will not allow any person to be paid over the maximum allowed under the national wage agreement, he also will not allow anybody to be paid under the amount laid down in the national wage agreement?

We ask the Minister to bring some kind of order and sanity into his dealings with the banks because, while it is the banks we are dealing with today, it could be some other section of workers tomorrow. The Minister could then come in with a similar Bill, change the name of the association and—to show how generous he was— say that a man need not go to jail. It is laid down in the Bill that a man who is fined because of an offence under this Act shall not be liable to imprisonment. The person will be driven to imprisonment in another way. He will be made a pauper by having his home, savings and all his property taken from him.

It will never be said of the Minister that he sent a man to prison because of legislation be brought in but, as Deputy Dowling said earlier, even though it is not written into the Bill, the most junior member of the bank staff could go to prison. If he refuses to do certain things he could, under the ordinary civil law, be charged and sent to prison. While the Minister spells out in section 5 that a man may not suffer imprisonment Deputy Dowling has proved that under the ordinary civil law he could go to prison on charges arising from an alleged offence committed under this Bill. That may sound rather ambiguous, but the whole thing is ambiguous. If it is meant to promote good relations it is a hopeless failure.

We have no guarantee that in another three years or even three months' time the Minister, because of his blundering in this field, will not have to come back again with new legislation. We still boast that we uphold the right of free negotiation but there is no such thing. When any future national wage agreements are being planned the Minister may well bring in the representatives of wage and salary earners and tell them that because of the state of the economy that this is the most that can be paid. To show that he is being fair to everybody, from the lowest paid worker to the highest paid executive, he may tell them he will ensure that nobody is penalised and that everybody gets a fair deal. People are now likely to say, because of the Minister's mishandling of his Department during the last three years, that they will force the issue to the ultimate.

Again, the lower-paid worker will suffer if there is any disruption in the bank service—it is not necessary to have the banks closed—because such a strike would not help the economy to grow. We may well say to the bank people: if the Minister is proving irresponsible there is no reason why we should all lose our sense of responsibility and even at this late stage I would ask them also to accept the guidelines laid down even if they are not great guidelines because I fear that if the Minister continues his rake's progress untold damage will be done to the economy and to the trade unions in general. While I do not know whether the Irish Bank Officials' Association is registered as a trade union or not, if it is in the context of a workers' organisation it probably is and we may see some other association being similarly penalised at the rate of £10,000 a day.

We have always considered the higher bank officials to be in the better-off section but can one imagine a man in an institution smaller than the bank suffering the same penalty of £10,000 a day and lasting very long? He could not last at all. Having seized the man's goods and his meagre savings, what could the Minister do then? He would not have paid his fine. Would the Minister then come along with some other idea to ensure that this vicious piece of legislation is fully implemented and make people toe the line? The Minister's handling of the matter is shown in this Bill. Last Friday when the Minister saw the bank officials he said he would withdraw the Bill if they did certain things.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Does the Minister see things correctly now? Perhaps he has come round since.

Mr. Moore

Perhaps he does or, perhaps, that is wishful thinking on our part. We hope he will come round because if this absurd Bill goes through and if the Minister thinks that there are many people who can afford to pay £10,000 a day, he will have a rude awakening. Perhaps one or two individuals may be able to last for a very short while but if they could afford that kind of money, they would not tie themselves to working in a bank.

What annoys me about the Bill is the hypocritical attitude by which the sacredness of the individual is being upheld by saying that he cannot go to prison. You can bankrupt the man, penalise his wife and children but in the sacred name of democracy, according to the Minister, he must not be sent to prison. If the law exacts its full penalty and the man is impoverished, the State must help his wife and children to prevent them from starving. This is what the Minister would describe, perhaps, as socialism in the 1970s a phrase we heard ad nauseam from the Minister when he was on this side of the House. If that is socialism in the 1970s, very few will want to have anything to do with it.

The Minister should drop this hypocritical stand and stop raiding the coppers of the parish fund—he would have power to do that under this legislation. If some of us feared an Orwellian situation would arise, we have proof here that it is on the way. When Orwell wrote 1984, he took that as the year in which Big Brother would appear and tell us all how to run our own lives. We have entered the year of Big Brother in 1975 and this Bill can only be seen as a vital part of the Orwellian situation. We must point out what the Bill contains. The Minister has admitted that he was somewhat confused about whether the Bill applied only to the Irish Bank Officials' Association or whether it could apply to other organisations. I believe it applies only to the Irish Bank Officials' Association but tomorrow or next week it could be some other association or trade union.

In most countries there is a battle between democracy and certain subversive elements but in this case the State is joining in with £10,000-a-day fines and the Minister demanding the full penalty, an initial fine on indictment of £10,000 and after that £10,000 per day.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Detailed argument should be reserved for Committee Stage.

Mr. Moore

I accept the ruling of the Chair but section 5 here states—I shall read it just once more to get it on the record—in subsection (1) (b):

on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000, together with, in the case of an offence under section 3 or 4 of this Act which is a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £10,000 for each day upon which the offence is continued.

Did we ever think we would see such fines in this country? With that, I shall reserve further comment for Committee Stage. I had hoped the Minister would pay the House the courtesy of sitting here for the debate: perhaps it shows his contempt for the House when he is not here and, indeed, the contempt of the Government for this legislation, because the whole afternoon, while the Fianna Fáil benches had quite a number of Deputies sitting there waiting to speak, there was but one or two on the Government benches.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Moore

Perhaps the Committee Stage would bring in other Deputies on that side, but one can understand their distaste at having to sit here and even give tacit support to this Bill. If it is in order, I want to suggest to the Minister that he might well bury this Bill and do some constructive thinking. He could ask himself why the bank officials are proving so difficult, why they are being so obdurate. Is it because they feel they have a tremendous case? Is it because they feel they must maintain their standards, which they have achieved over the years, at a certain level? Most of us, in any job we are in, try to do the same thing. We do not give in easily if our standards are being lowered.

I suppose the Minister can make a good case by saying that the economy is in such a frightful mess at the moment, that that is necessary. Maybe it is necessary, but what is more necessary is that the Minister should retain some sense of proportion and not show anger at being thwarted by a body of organised workers, to whom it must be very galling that he paraded his great principles here when in Opposition and now shows that he can propose rather vicious legislation.

It may well be taken by the mass of the people that it is only the bank officials that are involved, that they are well paid and so on. That is today. Who knows whose case it will be tomorrow. The Minister in his brief used the usual clichés and platitudes, the rejuvenated uprising economy, GNP and so on. That may sound impressive but it all adds up to the Minister indulging in wishful thinking that something will happen in the next year which will obviate the necessity for him to have a look at the next national pay agreement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with that now.

Mr. Moore

It is mentioned in the Minister's brief, but I shall not pursue it. What I do say is that he should reconsider this for the sake of future Ministers for Labour who will follow him—very soon, I hope—and who will have to take out the poison which this legislation has put into the wells of industrial relations. We as a democracy should not have to look back and say we acquiesced in this matter. We on this side of the House are very mindful of the state of the economy and we certainly will not do anything rash to worsen matters for the people. At the same time, we must warn the Minister that we cannot go on watching his incompetent performance, for which he is not being penalised but for which many of the people are being penalised. If we are to have any hope of industrial or, as I would prefer to call them, human relations, then the big stick must be withheld, and we must appeal to the people concerned, particularly the bank officials to take cognisance of the fact that the economy is in a bad way and that if any organisation are to draw the wrath of the Minister upon them they may well have to have this type of legislation introduced in their case.

I would suggest to the Minister that the bank officials should not be made the victims of this incompetent legislation. I appeal to the Minister and his colleagues to take this Bill back now, to try to bring in some commonsense legislation and drop the absurd fines which are envisaged here. There is provision for a £10,000 fine per day, while in the same section there is a threat to raid the coffers of the provident and friendly societies in order to take the money from the bank officials because the banks have erred in the opinion of the courts, in paying out a wage or salary greater than that which the Minister thinks is adequate.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

We have had a discussion on the Second Stage of this Bill, this measure which circumstances forced me to reluctantly bring before the House. There has been no wish on my part to single out bank employees for any special treatment. Rather, it has been my attempt in my contacts with them to pursue an argument and to get their acceptance to the proposition that bargaining concluded in their area with their employers should be in general conformity with bargains agreed upon by other categories of workers, in this case the national agreement. I accept that they are not signatories to the national pay agreement and that, therefore, what they concluded in their area should not be subject to every detail of the national pay agreement. In the economic situation facing us, it is quite clear that the incomes of all groups must relate to one another and must conform to a general orderly pattern. I do not believe that legislation in the area of relations between employers and employees is any substitute for agreement. It is not. In my meetings with the bank officials I repeatedly expressed my conviction that voluntary agreement was far superior to any kind of settlement brought about as a result of legislative intervention. That has been my position throughout, and was my position when I met the bank officials at our last meeting on Friday, when I offered to withdraw the legislation on their undertaking to transmit their claim to the court for adjudication and to abide by the Labour Court's decision. In the event of such undertakings by them I was to scrap all legislative proposals. They did not find themselves in a position to accept that approach.

As Deputies know, it has been my endeavour in this area to banish the problems associated with the past, a past that was characterised by a great deal of Government intervention. The previous Government were very perturbed in relation to settlements in the bank sector. It has been my ambition to close that chapter and to see the pay agreements of the bank officials and the national wage agreements operating side by side. We had achieved the happy position that the current agreement of bank employees as well as that of the previous year were leading in the direction of general comparability with the settlements under the national wage agreement, but this trend was upset because we did not succeed in getting the same kind of response from this sector that we got from those who were covered by the national wage agreement. It is solely because we were unable to get this response from the IBOA that this legislation is necessary.

Deputies raised various questions and I shall endeavour to deal with these as quickly as possible. Deputy Fitzgerald said that by not paying increases employers were escaping the provisions of the national wage agreement. That is a view point, but there is a provision within the present agreement whereby employers can plead inability to pay but the inability must be justified before the Labour Court. Also, the employer must disclose his financial statement to the technical assessors appointed by the Labour Court. Therefore, it is not correct to say simply that there is a means within the present agreement of evading one's obligations. The agreement comprises a carefully laid down procedure to ensure that only in cases of justification can increases be withheld.

Deputy Fitzgerald made the point also that this measure is being undertaken by the Government without due consideration being given to all its possible effects. While the Deputy is entitled to his opinion, the facts contradict that viewpoint. He suggested that perhaps I could use section 24 to deal with the problem. In this regard I would ask him whether any previous Minister for Labour has used section 24 more frequently than I have used it. On average, I have resorted to it about once a month. The possibility of having recourse to section 24 was offered to the IBOA, but there was no agreement on their part to this course. Therefore I deny that this measure is a product of any hasty action on our part. Rather it is a response forced on us by circumstances. We have not singled out this category of employee for special treatment. Deputy Dowling persisted in making a point that he made a couple of years ago when we discussed this Bill first: he sees this legislation being linked directly to a Bill brought in by his own party—the one dealing with the ESB situation. The Deputy is making a comparison between what are two totally different instruments, and the difference is that there is no penalty in the present Bill in so far as employees or their unions are concerned. This legislation which was drawn up in 1973 is on the lines of the general legislation that is in operation under the Wilson Government in Britain, that is, the reserve powers which they are using and which have no penalties directed towards employees or their unions. The penalties in this Bill are directed against the employer, and in view of the heavy nature of the fines proposed it is doubtful if the banks could afford to break the law.

Deputy Dowling makes the point that those who would break the law in this way could be jailed. If the Deputy were to break the law by assaulting some passers-by on his way home or by any other misdeed, he, too, could be jailed. This Bill confers no immunity on anyone in so far as jail is concerned.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister seems to be enjoying the thought of people having to go to jail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would urge the Deputy not to contract Deputy Dowling's disease of not seeing what is in a Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am merely making the point that the Minister seems to be relishing the thought of people being jailed.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would not enjoy the prospect of anybody being sent to jail, but it is not the intention of this Government or of any of its predecessors that, if one breaks the law, jail is possible.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I was not contradicting the Minister on that point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to make his statement.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Deputy Dowling asked whether the Bill would apply to credit unions. In this regard I would refer him to section 2, which defines banks and their subsidiaries for the purposes of the Bill and does not include credit unions. The Deputy referred also to the question of authorised officers. These can be officers of any Department of State and they can be identified by their warrants of appointment.

To allay any other worry the Deputy might have about their possible appointment. I should like to tell him that they would be appointed by Departmental competition. They would probably be appointed on the same basis as the inspectors of the present JIC. If the Deputy's imagination is troubled by jackbooted commissars walking into the banks throughout the country, coming in and pinioning people to the wall, leading them off to untold torture in various dungeons, he can let his imagination rest. That will not happen.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

What was my imagination?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy was worried about my relishing jail for others. I can assure him that I do not relish jail for anyone.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I merely conveyed an impression——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Deputy Dowling spoke at length about sheriffs and Christmas presents, including batteringrams. I think he used the phrase "parcels of battering-rams". In view of the cost of postage at present it would be rather expensive to send a battering-ram by post. The question was also raised regarding savings on bank charges and I have made such a suggestion. The central power of this Bill is that the Labour Court would adjudicate on a particular claim—I will not have that power under this legislation—and, if there were any savings accruing to the banks as a result of such adjudication, I have suggested that consideration be given to the question of abolishing charges on current accounts. That is a matter to be considered when the Labour Court have adjudicated and, at that stage, one would hope for some response from the bank authorities.

Deputy Tunney referred to the question of authorised officers but I think I have answered that. He also spoke about confidentiality. Of course, such officers would be civil servants and would be bound by the Official Secrets Act. Therefore, there would be no danger of any confidential information being disclosed to other persons. Deputy Tunney asked the question what other workers have accepted modification of their agreement. The answer to that is that the majority of workers, certainly all those covered by the national wage agreement have accepted voluntary modification of the last two phases of the agreement. It is because we have been unable to get that kind of agreement on the part of bank officials, because of their refusal to accept a voluntary modification, that we are forced on this legislative measure.

Deputy Tunney wondered what banks are covered. Section 2 defines what is meant by the term "bank". It covers all banks that hold licences under the Central Bank Act, 1971, and it also covers the subsidiaries of such banks. The Deputy asked if the banks got the anomaly claims being made by teachers, civil servants and others. That is really a question to be answered by the IBOA as they conducted negotiations with the banks. There is no specific mention in this legislation of increases based on anomalies.

Deputy Tunney asked if it was proposed to take action in relation to the 1974 banks agreement. That is a very good question because it gives the lie to those who say that this is precipitate action, hastily conceived, all the usual epithets that are applied when one is forced to take a given course of action. The hurlers on the ditch crowd in at that stage and say it is too soon or it is too late, that it is precipitate or is unwise. However, it is the job of the Government in any eventuality to take a decision, subject to all the frailties or the possible mistakes such a decision may be heir to. The accusation cannot be levelled at us in this case that we have been ignoring the problem in the last year or two. The 1974 bank agreement was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and they adjudicated it to be in accord with the national wage agreement. I have made this point to officials of the association in my discussions with them. In order to be fair to them I agree with their assessment. They have said they are not signatories to the agreement and I accept that.

They have said that comparisons of their agreement and the national wage agreement in any one year would not give their true position and I accept the justice of that point of view. I am in agreement that we would have to look at both the 1974 and the 1975 agreements because it is only when both agreements are taken in combination that we see that they are roughly on course with the present national agreement. This course was quite satisfactory until the question of amending the national wage agreement arose. As Deputies know, that occurred after the Government initiative last June when other people amended the agreement.

Deputy Tunney made the point that an offence by the banks would ipso facto lead to breaches of the law by bank officials. I do not see the logic of this argument. Banks will be guilty of offences if they break the norms laid down by the court after passage of this legislation. The banks would be breaking the law and there would be an order declared which would ensure that the proper penalties would be visited on anyone who breaks the law in this connection. If the banks are guilty of such offences, it does not follow that the officials would be guilty of any offence. The question was asked if the legislation applies to house associations not connected with the IBOA. The legislation applies to all banks who are holders of a licence for the time being in force under the Central Bank Act, 1971. To Deputies who might be worried about this, I would emphasise that this legislation does not apply to tontine societies. I think it was Deputy Moore who suggested it might.

Mr. Moore

It does apply. The Minister might check section 5 of the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It does not apply to tontine societies. Deputy Moore also raised the point that I should send the Bill to the Supreme Court. There is nothing to stop Deputies opposite or anyone else doing this. I do not propose to send it there because I am happy enough that it does not conflict with any constitutional provisions. However, I emphasise the point that it is the right of any person to refer any piece of legislation to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Moore

We are not in the Minister's position.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I can assure the Deputy I would not bring forward any legislation that I thought would conflict with constitutional provisions but it is always possible that the court might think otherwise and any citizen can refer any piece of legislation to the Supreme Court for a check. As the Deputy knows, the Government have indicated in relation to a piece of legislation we will be discussing tomorrow, the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill, that we are quite happy to see it referred to the courts to test its constitutionality. Opposition to any Bill should not be based simply on reference to the courts. Deputies should be aware that anybody can do that at any time. It is the appropriate thing to do where there is any doubt about any piece of legislation.

Mr. Tunney

It costs money.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Those were some of the questions raised.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister did not answer the question about equal pay.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We will go through the Bill section by section. We went right through this Bill two years ago. I would ask Deputies to bear in mind that the Bill is completely in accord with the provision which had their support two years ago. I understand this measure has their support tonight. We went through every section of the Bill on the last occasion without a division. I look forward to a similar reception for this Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister did not answer the question about equal pay for women and the effect of this Bill on that question.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It does not deal with equal pay.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister told me equal pay had already been introduced in the banks. Has he checked that?

Mr. M. O'Leary

No. I have had other meetings.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I do not think that statement is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Before we go on to Committee Stage, could I appeal to the Minister to postpone the Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not be in order just now. We must proceed to Committee Stage.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

You realise, a Ceann Comhairle, that we are taking it by agreement. We have very little time between Second Stage and Committee Stage. Is there any point in asking the Minister to postpone the Bill and go back to the conference table with these people?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I appeal to the Deputy's sense of responsibility on this matter.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister will never find that my sense of responsibility is lacking.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order to have such a disputation now.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have already said I am ready to drop the Bill instantly if there is any sign of a voluntary agreement on their side.