(Dublin Central): Deputy Esmonde made one statement with which I thoroughly agree. He said all negotiating procedures have not been exhausted. All negotiating procedures were not exhausted when the Minister for Finance made his irresponsible statement last Thursday. The final stages of any negotiations are always delicate and any hindrance or any statement can upset the balance and destroy weeks of work. I have had some experience of negotiating with trade unions. I know how damaging it can be for one person around the table to make an irresponsible statement. It can do untold damage. I am convinced—and bank officials and other members of our society have all stated the same thing —that the statement by the Minister for Finance last Thursday was completely uncalled for and could do nothing but damage. The banks were not due out on strike until next Monday. If the Minister for Labour wanted to reach some decision he had plenty of time to implement any legislation he required. As we know, only one day's debate is being permitted for this important legislation.
We are discussing this Bill as if it had something to do with prohibiting the strike. It will not prevent the strike in any way. It has nothing good, bad, or indifferent to do with the strike. Strike notice was given a week ago. We should know exactly where we stand. This Bill could encourage the strike and make militants out of moderates, of whom there were quite a number a week ago. I agree with Deputy Esmonde that a substantial number of bank employees were not keen to go on strike three or four weeks ago. The Minister's irresponsible statement has made militants out of some of them.
I am not sure what the purpose of the Bill is. We were not told the banks would breach the national norm. The bank officials had gone so far, and I do not know how much farther they would have gone. What negotiations had the Minister for Labour and his Department, or the Minister for Finance and his Department, with the banks' associations? What knowledge had the Minister for Labour before he introduced this legislation? My feeling now is that the strike will take place. There was every hope of a settlement being reached when the Minister for Finance made his statement last Thursday.
We on this side of the House are concerned about the national economy. On two occasions before, as Deputy Gene Fitzgerald and Deputy Colley pointed out this morning, we supported such legislation, but it was entirely different from this Bill. At that time there was a wage agreement and any group of people who were negotiating knew what the norm was. Now, as far as I can see, the bank officials are operating in a vacuum. It would be very difficult to know how far they could go.
I would much prefer if this Bill had never come into the House. There have been statements on both sides of the House expressing concern about the economy and asking the banks' association to withdraw their strike notice and pointing out the dangers that could be inflicted upon the economy. If we had that type of a debate here without this Bill, it would show everybody concerned that we were conscious of the state of the economy. Whether this is the Minister's Bill I am not sure, but I do not think he has helped the situation by introducing such legislation when it could have been avoided. I believe that many members of the association involved in this do not actually know what this Bill contains.
This Bill could very well be misrepresented. Many people are wondering if this is the first step towards a wage freeze. Very shortly people will be balloting on a national wage agreement, and I think it is the desire of everyone in this House that a national wage agreement should be accepted as soon as possible. If there is one thing damaging to the economy it is longdrawn-out negotiations in any agreement. Many of these agreements expired from three to five months ago and when eventually a national wage agreement is signed there will be retrospective payment. It is of vital importance to industries to know exactly where they stand. Everyone knows what effect that will have on costings, which have to be adjusted from time to time. Therefore, I would hope that agreement would be arrived at as soon as possible. Unfortunately this Bill contains sections which would lead many people throughout the country to wonder what is in the Minister's mind. There could be dangerous implications in it which may influence the decision of unions when they come to vote in a few weeks' time.
If a strike takes place it will have serious repercussions on many industries, tourism and various other activities. What we are considering here is whether this Bill will avert a strike. What is it doing to stave off the strike which is imminent? While we are delighted with the new appointment of the Minister for Labour and while it may have been necessary for him to be in Geneva, I believe the Minister should have been in this country over the past four or five days urging both sides to come to an agreement, pointing out the effect a strike would have on the economy. He should have been fully engaged in the affairs of his Department involving a national issue such as this. This is the most important national issue that has come before this House in the past few years. If the Minister had used his energies fully, this Bill would be unnecessary. I am convinced that you can never make people work by legislation. This legislation now before the House has, in my opinion, embittered many members of the banking fraternity. I would be the last to encourage a strike in any way, but there were many moderates among the bank officials over the past three or four weeks and I believe this Bill has hardened their attitude towards the whole situation.
If it is the aim of the Government to keep all sections within the norm of a national wage agreement—and there is nothing wrong with that—such legislation as this should be introduced when there is no dispute arising. Bringing it in when a particular group of people are involved creates a very difficult situation. Maybe the Minister for Labour should be updating our whole negotiating machinery and looking at the whole structure of wage negotiations, but what is attempted in this Bill is a dangerous procedure.
I am not sure if this procedure is necessary. I do not see at any time that the banks were exceeding the national norm. I do not believe they had done it up to three days ago. They certainly had not done it when the Minister for Finance made his statement. This Bill may have encouraged the bank officials to go on strike, but it is not necessary because the banks had exceeded the national norm where the Minister was concerned. Therefore what is the Bill doing? The Bill is making it more difficult to come to an agreement.
With proper negotiations on both sides I believe we would have arrived at a solution. But we get the Minister for Finance in Rathmines a few days ago preaching the virtues of people he criticised about four weeks ago. When people at the IMI conference in Killarney and other leading members of industry pointed out to the Minister the incompetent handling of the economy and what was necessary to rectify the situation, the Minister tagged them as profiteers, but he had no hesitation in putting forward their virtues and saying how right they were when he wanted to prove his case. That is downright hypocrisy.
Deputy Esmonde admitted the necessity of this Bill in view of the grave national economic situation we have today. This is a very sensitive area and we should be very careful to ensure that something is not read into this Bill which would jeopardise the whole trade union conference and the national wage agreement we are all hoping for. I sincerely hope that there is agreement this evening. We made a responsible statement saying that both the banks and the Government should withdraw their threats and get down to reasonable negotiations. I hope that can still be achieved. But I do not believe for one moment that you can legislate to get people working or to regulate them properly. That must be our last resort if we are to get proper trade and industrial relations.
I regret that we have to bring in this type of legislation, but I will regret far more if this country is plunged into a bank strike which will wreck our whole economic structure. After the last bank strike, a certain number of people exploited the situation, a number of small companies went bankrupt, and to a certain extent it fuelled inflation. This will all be repeated. A bank strike will also damage our tourist trade. Thousands of people in this country travel with travellers cheques and that would create a lot of problems. There are numerous other side effects which it will have on the economy.
I believe the situation was mishandled. I am convinced that the Minister for Finance should not have made his statement last Thursday. I also believe that the Minister for Labour should have engaged himself fulltime over the past four or five days in bringing the parties together and pointing out the consequences of their actions. That would have been more beneficial to the House and to the country than bringing in this Bill, which makes no effort to stop the strike.
There is confusion in regard to what the Bill contains. The reason that arose was because the Minister when introducing the Bill at no time referred to any section of the Bill, which is the normal procedure in relation to Bills. There was no explanatory memorandum. It was just given to us with a very brief statement from the Minister. It is a complex but very important Bill, which will affect the future of this country, particularly over the next 12 months. If a bank strike should occur I would lay the blame fairly and squarely on the Minister for Finance for making an irresponsible statement and on the Minister for Labour for not using all his energies in the past four days in trying to avoid this situation.