Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1976

Vol. 288 No. 11

Industrial Relations Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete line 36 and insert the following:

"(d) paragraph 2 (2) shall not apply.".

The draftsman has advised me that this amendment was necessary to pinpoint the particular paragraph of the Second Schedule which will not apply in relation to the joint labour committee for agricultural workers. Paragraph 2 (2) of the Schedule states that before appointing a representative member of the committee, the Labour Court shall so far as it is reasonably practicable consult any organisation of employers or, as the case may be, workers concerned. This arrangement has been superseded by the procedure set down in section 5 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I asked the Minister on Second Stage and this morning to consider deleting the word "fisheries" from the Bill in order to put the emphasis on agriculture. My reason for doing so was that there should not be a tie between agriculture and fisheries. I see no necessity for incorporating fisheries in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could explain the necessity for allowing this to continue?

There is no way I can change the Minister's title. While we could have a debate at another time about whether there should be a separate Ministry for Fisheries, it does not come within the purview of this Bill. The Minister's title incorporates Agriculture and Fisheries.

If in the next week the Taoiseach decides to reorganise the various Ministries and to include Lands with Agriculture, would the Minister have to come to the House with an amendment to alter the Bill?

I am advised I would not.

If the Minister would not have to do that, why use the title Agriculture and Fisheries? We have a Minister for Agriculture but it is the Parliamentary Secretary who deals with fisheries. This would appear to me to be a matter entirely for the Minister for Agriculture only. The necessity is obvious for the appointment of a separate Ministry for Fisheries.

I agree there is so much work to be done by this Government that we could do with the addition of a few more Ministers in the Cabinet. It is an interesting question but it does not arise on this Bill.

In other words, the Minister is not going to listen to this suggestion.

The title of the Minister with whom I shall consult is Agriculture and Fisheries.

If it is changed tomorrow morning to the Department of Agriculture and Lands, what happens?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. I do not think the Deputy is making a very serious comment.

This has happened in other Bills.

We are discussing the Industrial Relations Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, to delete line 37, and insert the following:

"6.—(1) The Agricultural Wages Acts, 1936 to 1969, are hereby repealed.".

This amendment is of a drafting nature in order to clarify the Acts passed in 1945 and 1969 which amended the Agricultural Act, 1936. They are included in this repeal.

The Minister referred to two Acts passed in 1936 and 1969. Were there any Acts in between those years?

There were some in 1945 which I think related to holidays.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

As the Minister has said, the Agricultural Wages Acts, 1936 to 1969, are hereby repealed. In paragraph 20 (b) of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936, an officer of the old Agricultural Wages Board had power to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purposes of inspection or for the enforcement of that Act. I should like to know from the Minister if the officers who are being retained will have this power, or will they derive such powers from the Labour Court because, although it is a power an official would use with discretion and sparingly, the people who have been involved in this work have found it was a very important power to have in reserve because at times an employer might be tempted to chase an official from his premises and give him no hearing. He could not do so under the Principal Act and I am wondering if this is covered in the new legislation.

That power is carried over. It is the usual formula to enable the inspectorate to see that wages, hours and conditions of work are adhered to and carried into practice. Certain minimal powers are required by the inspectorate.

The existing officials will become officials of the Department of Labour who will now be administering it instead of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries—they will be transferred, I take it, to the Department of Labour? Is there any need for any further cover by law?

Will the Minister explain what happens pending the coming into force of the first employment regulations under the new Act?

It is a carry over. Until this legislation goes through both Houses the orders of the Agricultural Wages Board will apply. Immediately after the passing of this legislation the JLCs will meet immediately and begin the task of setting up the hours, wages and so on. Until that has been finalised the wages board will continue.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with the posting of notices by employers and it states that section 49 (2) does not apply to agricultural employers. In estates where a number of people are employed, how does the Minister intend that they will be notified or kept informed? I should also like to know if this omission affects section 49 (3) of the 1946 Act.

It was an offence not to display notices setting out the hours, wages and conditions and if such notices were not displayed the employer—the farmer in this case—could be fined. It would be an unenforceable situation to insist that every farmer would display such notices in every farmhouse, possibly in the kitchen or in some out house, throughout the country. It is one of those regulations that could not be enforced and obviously the most expeditious way of informing workers of their rights would be to advertise in the local papers or elsewhere or to post notices in local employment exchanges. By these means we will ensure that agricultural workers will be informed of their entitlements. Of course the inspectorate will be at work throughout the country and will be in touch with the local JLCs to ensure that the regulations are brought to the attention of both the workers' and farmers' representatives and that they are carried into practice throughout rural Ireland.

I can understand that, but does section 49 (3) still apply?

We have dropped section 49 (2) and section 49 (3) automatically does not apply.

We have a Bill before us and it relates to the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It refers to subsection (2) of the section I mentioned but there is no reference to subsection (3).

We think it is enough. The employer has to keep records—that is the realistic objective. Obviously it would be a serious matter if there was failure to keep such records because then we would be depriving the inspectors of any basis on which to make a decision on whether the regulations were being implemented. That would be a more serious offence than not posting notices, which can be done by the insertion of advertisements, but we could not absolve the farmer of his obligation to keep records because we would then be depriving the inspectorate of any possible means of discovering infringements.

We are very articulate in this House about procedure and about the jargon we use in these Bills. I cannot see under which heading or section of this Bill we are providing that notices be published in newspapers, provincial or national.

I can assure the Deputy I have listened carefully to every query he has put, and I will do my best to give adequate answers and I in no way resent the Deputy putting relevant questions. I hope he is not oversensitive. He can rest assured we will put notices into all local newspapers where that is necessary. The reason why items of this kind are not covered in legislation is because there is a whole area of legislation which is more properly a part of regulations and this is more properly a part of regulations. It is common practice for all joint labour committees to advertise fully in newspapers settlements reached. Since we are not going ahead with public display in public premises obviously there will be need for even wider dissemination locally of settlements.

The Minister need have no anxiety about my being oppressed. That sort of thing is far removed from my character.

I thought the Deputy was suffering from a sense of oppression.

As a matter of fact there is only one thing that would oppress me if I were that type of person and that is the state of our economy as a result of the mishandling of it by the Minister and his colleagues. That is by way of an aside. Where are the regulations, for my guidance and the guidance of the House generally? The Minister talked about common practice and procedure. The Minister must remember that in this particular joint labour committee we are departing in a rather important way from established practice. There is the danger that an employer may deliberately avoid becoming aware of a certain situation. Remember all the workers will not be organised. There must be a safeguard with regard to publicity to avoid any possibility of a worker in a remote rural area being penalised until such time as an inspector calls. That could be a long time afterwards and that worker may be unaware of any increase in wages or improvement in conditions. Surely there should be some provision to cover widespread publicity in provincial newspapers.

It is the practice to publish widely all joint labour committee decisions in the national press and that practice will be adhered to in this case. Full use will be made of all local papers. If the Deputy wants the statutory authority he will find it in the 1946 Industrial Relations Act in section 43 (2):

As soon as the Court makes an employment regulation order, it shall publish notice of the making of the order and the contents thereof in the prescribed manner.

Will agricultural employers have to keep records for submission to an inspector?

Is that subsection not rather vague? What is the prescribed manner?

It is probably dealt with in the Schedule.

It seems to me it refers to advertising rather than to the contents of the advertisement. We must be specific in this. At the moment joint labour committee notices are published in factories and so on and the information is available to the workers. The situation here is quite different and there must be some safeguards to ensure that the information is available on the hills of Donegal, to use Deputy Brennan's phrase, and in the valleys in Cork. Is there a prescribed manner?

Certainly Deputy Brennan is aware of the construction of these advertisements. They have been published for nearly 40 years now. They set out the wages and so on. That is the prescribed manner.

But there is a substantial change now.

Where is the change?

A change from tradition. We, as a party, believe in moving forward. We are not like the present Minister sitting on the structure that exists. We want to be specific. We want to ensure that everybody will know, particularly people in remote rural areas where the national press is not read but the local provincial papers are.

I have already said the local provincial papers will be used. This is the practice now. This joint labour committee will differ in no way from the others.

But it does. I am not being awkward.

The Deputy is entitled to his opinion, but he is wrong.

It is different because these workers will never be completely organised.

That is the case in many joint labour committees.

But not to the same extent.

A joint labour committee is set up in areas where workers are not fully organised and that position is quite common in all joint labour committees.

Not to the same extent because you may have an agricultural worker working for a farmer in a remote townland with little or no access or communication with colleagues. There is a distinct difference. Joint labour committees already operating deal with specific types of industry. This is a new venture. Deputy Brennan made the point this morning that there were workers who were not aware that legislation was being introduced, who were not concerned about its introduction and who were not aware of any need for it. I can well believe that to be the case and that there will be throughout rural Ireland many people who will not know——

Deputy Brennan painted a picture here this morning of total contentment reigning among agricultural workers, with no need for such a joint labour committee. I question whether that is the true picture of Irish agricultural workers.

The Minister is misrepresenting the situation there again. I submit that the Minister should, on Report Stage, insert a provision specifying how these advertisements will be carried, what newspapers will carry them, so that the message can be got across to people who may not bother reading national newspapers. It is all very fine to say that this is operated already, but if the Minister's argument stands up now, should it not have fallen this morning on section 5 of the Bill, simply because joint labour committees are operating already?

What is the Deputy's argument about section 5?

I am attaching it to the Minister's argument in regard to section 5, which was that this joint labour committee was distinct from others.

Relating to its establishment.

Relating to its establishment exactly. Now we are talking about its operation. I submit there is also a difference in its operation.

That is the Deputy's opinion.

It is a genuine opinion. There is a danger that communication may not be clear.

I can assure the Deputy every effort will be made to communicate fully the decisions of the joint labour committee.

The Minister can only give that assurance in respect of his period of office.

The joint labour committee operates under the Labour Court, whose virtues the Deputy was extolling all morning.

If that be so, can the Minister tell me where it is laid down for them how the advertisements will be carried.

I have already referred to section 43 of the 1946 Act.

Section 43 is very vague in that respect. I asked the Minister to define for me what was meant by "prescribed manner" in section 43 (2). The Minister has not done that yet. What is the prescribed manner?

I told the Deputy, publication in newspapers.

Does it cover all provincial newspapers?

I have already told the Deputy it covers all the newspapers——

Will the Minister have a list?

I will get the court to supply the Deputy with a list of newspapers.

No. I will accept from the Minister personally.

The Deputy can surely accept it from the court.

I will accept it either from the Minister or from the court.

I will get the court to communicate with the Deputy what the practice is in relation to the communication of notices to newspapers.

I thought the Minister would have known it.

I do not believe in needless interference with the Labour Court, and the Deputy knows how careful I am about that, and his question is one to be addressed to the court.

Again the Minister is being abrasive and arrogant because he is being asked for information that he does not have. Therefore, he is trying to throw something back that I said this morning. There had been no interference to the same extent as has been carried out by the present Minister for Labour. This is widely accepted not only in Labour Court circles but in trade union and employment circles generally. It is fairly well established that he would like to weaken the powers of that court.

What contact has the Minister with Labour Court circles?

I do not think it is fair for the Minister——

I think it is unfair of the Deputy to quote Labour Court circles in this political fashion.

It appears to the Chair that both the Minister and the Deputy are moving away from the section.

It is the Minister who is moving me away from it.

The Chair has mentioned that the Minister and the Deputy are moving away from the section.

I will come back to it. I think the Chair has always found me co-operative. I have been asking the Minister to explain to me "prescribed manner". If that information is not available to him, I will accept it from him or his office any time he sends it. I did not ask him to ask the Labour Court for it, but I think that as a Deputy I am entitled to ask what provincial newspapers have normally carried these notices for the joint labour committee.

I will ask the Labour Court to supply the Deputy with the information.

There again I have not referred to the Labour Court except on the Minister's provocation. Am I in order in asking the Minister to supply me with the information from his Department?

The Deputy does not seem to be aware that this is the province of the Labour Court, in whose activities we should not intervene. I will certainly ask the proper authorities in the Labour Court to supply the Deputy with that information because it is within their competence and authority, not mine.

The debate is becoming repetitious.

I merely asked for information from the Minister——

I will arrange that the Deputy will get it.

Once more I would ask the Minister what is meant by "prescribed manner" which appears in the 1949 Act. It is up to him as Minister for Labour to tell me that. I will take it privately or otherwise, but I would like to know between now and the Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 6:

6. In page 3, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.—(1) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that for the speedy dispatch of the business of the Court it is expedient that there should be added to the Court another division or other divisions he may, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1969, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, provide for such an additional division or divisions.

(2) A division of the Court provided for under this section shall consist of a deputy chairman of the Court (who shall be chairman of the division), a workers' member and an employers' member, and sections 3 (b) and 3 (c) of the Act of 1969 shall apply in relation to such a division as if it were a division under that Act.

(3) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section he shall appoint a deputy chairman of the Court, and sections 4 (4) to 4 (7) of the Act of 1969 (as amended by this Act) shall apply in relation to a deputy chairman appointed under this Act as if the references in those sections to a deputy chairman were references to a deputy chairman appointed under this Act.

(4) A deputy chairman (whether appointed under this section or under section 4 (4) of the Act of 1969) shall be paid such remuneration (by way of either fees or salary) and allowances as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, determines.

(5) Section 4 (5) of the Act of 1969 is hereby repealed.".

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and, by agreement, may be taken together.

On Second Stage I referred to the increasing burden of work imposed on the Labour Court as a result of new legislation passed in this House in recent years and the extra legislation we have in prospect. There is the legislation on unfair dismissal, anti-discrimination and the equal pay legislation. There is also the equality of opportunity legislation which has already had a First Reading in this House. In addition, there is the burden imposed by the involvement of the court and its personnel in the arbitration bodies of the public service. All of these duties involve the court in additional work, and there has been a demand for some time now by those who use the court that the court be given an extra division in addition to the three already there.

The Bill before us gives us an opportunity to ensure that, parallel to the work we do for the agricultural worker, we also provide the court with an additional division. This legislation here adds to the workload of the court significantly. This is the largest number of workers to be covered by industrial legislation since the Labour Court was founded in 1946. Approximately 30,000 additional workers will now be dealt with under the common industrial legislation which applies to workers in towns and cities. This means additional work will be thrown onto the court itself and that is why I am looking for this fourth division.

The normal provisions as to the appointment of members of the court will operate in respect of this new division. Appointments will be made by myself, the workers' and employers' representatives being nominated by their respective organisations. That is the fundamental reason for this new division.

It was suggested this morning that we should give this extra division the responsibility of dealing solely with agricultural workers, but in my view this might not be the wisest thing to do. I would prefer to leave the court to make its own arrangements, to leave it the maximum flexibility in apportioning their various divisions to categories of workers as they see fit. This is a better system than nominating an extra division for particular work. In my opinion, the Oireachtas should interfere as little as possible in the actual operation of the court. Therefore, I would not be in agreement with that suggestion.

Although we are adding extra numbers of workers and there are exceptional conditions obtaining in agriculture which should be respected under the new joint labour committee arrangement, having workers and farm interests involved in its decisions will ensure that the decisions will relate closely to actual conditions in agriculture. I do not think we require the extra assurance that the court will need a division which will be solely concerned with agricultural workers.

Amendment No. 7 which amends section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and which describes the membership of the Labour Court, is consequential on my proposal in amendment No. 6 to take power to provide for the appointment by order of additional divisions of the court. This section requires modification in the light of the proposal to take enabling power to appoint additional divisions of the court.

How will the personnel for the new section be recruited? Will it be from the civil service or from both sides of industry?

Does the Deputy mean the secretariat personnel?

No, the court itself.

The appointment of the chair will be done in the usual fashion, and nominations from organisations will be as usual.

There has been relative peace and harmony in this section of the industry up to now. Agricultural workers were reasonably happy. As the Minister knows their wages are frequently the criteria used for county council workers' wages.

Now that this new section of the court is being set up, does the Minister anticipate that these workers will have recourse to the court? It cannot be denied that there has been very little industrial unrest in this section of the community. Does the Minister anticipate an increase in industrial unrest in the future? We are making provisions for workers who may be exploited. I doubt if there is any worker anywhere who is exploited today in this section. Does the Minister anticipate that these workers will have recourse to the Labour Court for wage demands?

I do not see why there should be any disruption of the close harmony the Deputy assumes exists in agriculture. The basis of representation on the joint labour committee will ensure that farm and worker interests work together for the benefit of the industry. The Deputy said there has not been trouble in the past and asked will there be trouble in the future. All I can say is that I do not think that enlightened agriculturalists want their prosperity based on the kind of peace where people have no recourse but to accept a wage lower than that being given to comparable workers. The undoubted result of the setting up of the joint labour committee will be to close the gap by agreement between the conditions obtaining in industry generally and those obtaining in agriculture. I have no reason to believe that that development will lead to a great deal of unrest. Those interested in agriculture will welcome this legislation.

I would be sceptical of the Deputy's contrasting the state of harmony and believing this was the position we should always live with. He must remember that in many cases in the past workers had to accept a very low rate for the job and were left with very little money for their old age. The Deputy knows that in a minority of cases agricultural workers led broken lives and received very little compensation in the course of their working lives. This Bill is a small measure to right that neglect. It is a bad comment on our Legislature that in an agricultural country there has been no recorded debate and no substantial legislative measure to deal with their condition since 1936.

Agricultural workers were discriminated against by omission in many Acts. I refer to conditions of employment, safety of employment, which apply to factories and workshops, the use of machinery and so on. When I left the Department I considered that one of the priorities for legislation was to ensure that the wages of agricultural workers were kept in line with the rapidly rising cost of living. If the Agricultural Wages Board were doing their work they should have ensured that that was happening. I hope that, now they have been made part of the Industrial Relations Act, any of them who may feel they are exploited will find themselves protected by this. I hope that many of the traditional means of employment, many of the old systems will not be interfered with and that the joint labour committee and the Labour Court will comprise personnel with understanding of the peculiarities of agricultural employment.

I think of casual labour where a farmer employs a man on one or two days a week, of the swopping of days among farmers, the co-operative system, the meitheal, where ten or 12 go together to do a piece of work. These traditional systems had a social side as well as being useful working arrangements. I trust these will not now be brought into the realm of industrial day-to-day thrust and parry and be given new meaning and that the peculiarities attached to agricultural employment will be recognised by the personnel whose duty it will be to deal with it. When I advocate this I am sure they will be conscious of that need.

The reasons put forward by the Minister for a further division of the Labour Court are understandable, but what is not understandable is why it is only at this stage that the necessity for legislating in this respect was discovered. The Minister outlined a number of developments as a result of which extra work will be placed on the shoulders of the Labour Court. For that reason the necessity for an extra division is understandable. Mention has been made of the composition of that extra division and the possibility of relating it entirely to the agricultural joint labour committee. I understand why this may not be possible but I appeal to the Minister to ensure that there is an agricultural slant and knowledge and understanding of the agriculture situation by the Labour Court.

The Minister said this morning that assessors could easily be appointed, as was recently done for a report on the footwear industry. I hope the assessors appointed to advise on agriculture would not mislead the Minister in the same way in this area as they misled in regard to the footwear industry. Therefore, one must be a little doubtful about the complete dependence by Labour Court members on reports of assessors. I would prefer to have a proper knowledge and understanding of agriculture among members of the court itself. The appointment of assessors will serve a purpose, of course, but I would also encourage, and I presume I am pushing an open door here, that the appointees—I will not quarrel with them; this is completely different from the joint labour committee—would be of people with knowledge of industrial relations both on the workers' side and on the employers' side. That is extremely important in this division which will cover not only the agricultural workers and problems from the joint labour committee that we are now setting up but will also cover many other areas. I know that would be the Minister's wish and I would give my full support to these appointments being from people who have the capacity to create good industrial relations and to understand the human problems of the situation which will probably be more relevant in this area than perhaps in others.

Perhaps there were people who were to an extent exploited. This is to be condemned and I trust there are few if any of them left today. In certain areas there are people who would be affected by strict following of regulations and orders and for that reason I am concerned about the human and flexible approach.

Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"9.—The Act of 1969 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 2:

`2.—(1) The Court shall consist of a chairman (in this Act referred to as the chairman), a deputy chairman or deputy chairmen and ordinary members.

(2) The number of deputy chairmen shall be equal to the number of divisions of the Court less one.

(3) The number of ordinary members shall be equal to twice the number of divisions of the Court and shall be divided equally among workers' members and employers' members.' "

Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"10.—Section 5 of the Act of 1969 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (8):

`(8) The Minister shall grant and pay to Joseph Stapleton Quigley, upon his retirement without re-appointment from membership of the Court, a gratuity of an amount equal to one year's salary at the date of his retirement.' "

This amendment provides for the payment to Mr. Quigley of a gratuity of one year's salary on the date of his retirement from the Labour Court. The Industrial Relations Act of 1969 provided that a gratuity of £3,000 be paid on retirement. This sum represented approximately one year's salary at that time. The amendment is necessary to ensure that Mr. Quigley, who retired on 31st January, 1976, receives a gratuity of the same proportion as was envisaged in the Act of 1969. Mr. Quigley served as an ordinary member of the Labour Court from 23rd September, 1962, representing the employers and retired on 31st January, 1975, I hope that we can quickly agree to this provision without too much discussion. I do not think it is a matter of contention.

The Minister has my full co-operation in a matter such as this. Might I ask the Minister why he was not already covered? Will any other members of the court be in similar circumstances in the future or was this man in a different situation to all the others?

It would require an amendment of this kind if people came to retirement. That is the way it was framed in the 1969 Act. I would have to give consideration at some stage to whether, in order to avoid a situation of this kind in the future, we should have some enabling legislation that would cover all the members adequately and properly rather than having individual cases coming here of necessity and having to tack this kind of section on to a Bill in relation to an individual.

I would consider that a more desirable approach to the situation. I do not think it desirable that on each occasion we should have to come here and have an amendment to provide payment for an individual member who has given service to the court and has obviously qualified. There will be one obvious difficulty. Periods of service in the court would probably vary considerably. This man has been there since 1962, approximately 14 years. Others will be there for different periods.

The problem in his case arose because he was not entitled to a pension because he was late coming into the court and the matter was exceptional. This would not quite arise in terms of other people in relation to their eligibility for pension.

Because their service would be long enough. Are there other members in a similar position?

I understand there is nobody else who will not qualify for a pension. Most others will qualify for a pension. We generally accept those put forward by nominating bodies. The age was a problem in this case but it was accepted.

I would not regard age as a hindrance if a man, within reason, was suitable to be a competent member of the court. Do I take it from what the Minister has said that this is the last amendment of this nature that will be necessary in relation to the existing members of the court?

I think so.

Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"11.—(1) The Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts, 1950 to 1975, are hereby repealed.

(2) This section shall come into operation on the commencement of regulations under the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, providing for the application of that Act to agricultural workers.".

The purpose of this amendment is to repeal the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts of 1950 to 1975. It is my intention to bring agricultural workers within the scope of holidays legislation applying to other workers. I propose to do this by way of a regulation under the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, which will come into effect at the same time as the repeal of the legislation. The Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts are at present administered by the Agricultural Wages Board and this is consequential on the abolition of that board. I do not think there is any matter of contention in it.

I take it that the Minister is referring to annual holidays and paid holidays throughout the year? Will the repeal of this mean that the same holidays will apply right through?

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Before we finish the Committee Stage I would like to take the Minister back to section 7 and our discussion on it. Would he consider writing in something regarding the circulation of notices and the advertising of notices for Report Stage? Would he try to find some desirable inclusion in the Bill in view of the fact that section 49 (2) is being taken out?

I do not wish to be unhelpful to the Deputy and understand his concern to see that the regulations are notified to all who will benefit from them, but I do not really see the necessity for a specific provision here. It is already covered by statute: there is this necessity to communicate in public the results of joint labour committee decisions in all newspapers. I have already undertaken to arrange that the Deputy should be informed about the practices which occur in the wake of joint labour committee notices at present.

Could I have the permission of the Chair in the event of having it examined further and feeling it desirable, to submit an amendment for Report Stage? Could my notice now be accepted of an amendment that may be submitted if the need should arise? Is that in order?

I wish to inform the Deputy that he cannot give notice of an amendment until the Report Stage has been reached. When the Report Stage comes the Deputy may give notice of an amendment on the Report Stage.

I understood I could give notice now.

Acting Chairman

The Chair thinks it is not necessary but the Deputy can do it on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 2, line 6, after "1969," to insert the following:

"TO REPEAL THE AGRICULTURAL WAGES ACTS, 1936 TO 1969, AND THE AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (HOLIDAYS) ACTS, 1950 TO 1975,".

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

Acting Chairman

Next Stage?

Acting Chairman

Is that agreeable to the Opposition?

This is very highhanded. I was not informed that we were taking Report Stage now. In fact I was given to understand we were not.

I heard the Whips saying we were going to continue with this Bill today. My intention is to proceed with all Stages of this legislation today.

This is the first I have heard of it.

(Dublin Central): The Deputy wants to put in an amendment.

I have asked for permission to put in an amendment on Report Stage. Earlier on in the Bill I asked the Minister——

There is nobody preventing the Deputy from putting in an amendment.

Of course there is. How does one draft an amendment when one is in the House? Furthermore, I asked the Minister earlier on if he would between now and Report Stage give me the details or explain the prescribed manner in which notices were advertised. I understood him to say he would.

I have the information and I will be able to give it to the Deputy on the Report Stage.

Acting Chairman

The Chair understands if the Deputy is prepared to do so at such short notice he may propose an amendment.

Yes, but I want to clarify something first. This is the first indication I have that the Report Stage is being taken now. I may stand corrected in this because I will have to check with the Whip, but I understood that immediately after this Stage finished the Broadcasting Authority Bill was coming in and we were not going on to Report Stage of this Bill this evening. The Minister, in the usual arrogant fashion of Ministers in this House at the present time, irrespective of what anybody else thinks— the Opposition or anybody else do not matter any more—is going ahead with this Bill. I may not be the most co-operative person in the world but I can assure the Minister and the House that if he seeks to roughride, or even endeavour to do so, he will get absolutely no co-operation.

The Deputy's imagination appears to be somewhat oppressed today. I am anxious to see that this joint labour committee is established as rapidly as possible. The longer we delay in this area the later will be the establishment of the joint labour committee. I am anxious to see it get to work as quickly as possible so that some of the conditions of agricultural workers and the problems they face, which have been referred to frequently in this debate, should be corrected as soon as possible.

Oppression is not part of my make-up at all. It is probably what the Minister is suffering from at the present time. One can well understand this with the number of unsolved problems facing him and his Department. If I can get verification that it was expected that all Stages of this Bill would be taken this afternoon I would have no objection to doing it. I want to be clear on the procedures that were agreed between the Whips. It was my clear understanding that we were taking only the Committee Stage of this Bill, that it was being followed by the Broadcasting Authority Bill and then by the conclusion of the budget debate. This was my clear understanding.

My understanding was that the Bill would go through all Stages.

So we have Report and Final Stages now in the Minister's estimation?

That was as I understood it.

Is there a time limit on the budget debate this evening?

Acting Chairman

There is.

Can I have that time?

There is some arrangement. I am not clear on the details of it.

What is the time limit?

Acting Chairman

The final Opposition speaker in the budget debate starts at 6.15 p.m. and a Government speaker replies at 7.15 p.m. If we cannot get agreement on this issue now, we will have to have a vote on the matter.

We will not waste the time of the House by voting on that issue. I was not aware that was the position. If the Minister says there is an urgency about the matter I am quite prepared to accept Report Stage now.

That was my understanding of the position.

On a point of order, I have been told the Minister said there was some agreement whereby he was to get Report Stage of this Bill to-day. I want to put it on record that there was not.

I said that was my understanding of it.

Committee Stage was ordered for today and there was no agreement other than that.

Again this is typical of the way we are being treated by the Government. We are being told part of the story. From the beginning I was given to understand by the Chief Whip, who is always pretty reliable, that we were taking Committee Stage of this Bill. Of course Report Stage would follow. I asked for certain information from the Minister on Committee Stage and I wanted that information prior to Report Stage. I also asked if he would look at a possible amendment before the Report Stage and at all times he conveyed to me that there must be a time lag. He conveyed this to me by his promise to let me have the information which apparently he did not have available to him at the time. He has it now. This is rather surprising. From the tone of the debate it appeared to me that there would be a time lag of a day or an hour or something like that between Committee Stage and Report Stage of the Bill.

In the interests of fair play we on this side of the House are entitled to be informed exactly what is happening. As well as saying it was his understanding that we were now taking Report Stage, the Minister said he was taking Report Stage now with the usual jackboot tactics. The Minister has not used those tactics before and I am surprised at him.

The Deputy appears to misunderstand the position. It was my understanding that I was to proceed to Report Stage. The Whip understands otherwise. I do not claim any authenticity for my understanding of the position. I understood that I was to go through as many Stages of this legislation as possible today. There is no great matter of disagreement between us. The legislation is designed to assist a large number of people. The longer we delay on it the greater will be the delay in setting up the joint labour committee. I see no reason why we should not go ahead to Report Stage but, if the Deputy objects to that procedure, on the basis of our discussion, I cannot see what there is to object to in this procedure.

There is one matter on which I want to take the Minister to task. He did go further than understanding. He said he was going ahead with Report Stage irrespective of what we thought.

No, I said that was my understanding.

The Minister went a little further than that. Let us be fair. I am quite prepared to cooperate.

(Dublin Central): It is typical of the Fianna Fáil Party—co-operation for the common good.

It is a fairly straightforward Bill. I see no objection to taking Report Stage. If it helps the workers to have it discussed now, I agree to go ahead to Report Stage. It would be advisable that the Minister's Chief Whip should be informed of the fact that this information was not conveyed to us at any time. This does not help in achieving co-operation among Members on both sides of the House.

Acting Chairman

The Chair appreciates there was some confusion and also appreciates Deputy Fitzgerald's position.

Agreed to take Remaining Stages today.

Top
Share