Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 12

Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1976: Allocation of Time: Motion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders:—

(1) the Dáil sit later than 5.30 p.m. today and that business shall be interrupted at such hour as all proceedings on the Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1976, have been concluded;

(2) in the case of the Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1976—

(a) the proceedings on the Second Stage of the Bill, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. today by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion;

(b) the Committee Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the Second Stage and the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9 p.m. by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion; and the Question to be put from the Chair shall be "That (any amendments set down by the Minister for Labour and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill) the Bill (as amended) is hereby agreed to and (as amended) is reported to the House";

(c) the Fourth Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the Committee Stage and the proceedings on the Fourth and Fifth Stages, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.15 p.m. by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion; and the Question to be put from the Chair shall be "That (any amendments set down by the Minister for Labour, including any requiring Recommittal, and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and Recommittal and Fourth Stages are hereby completed and) the Bill is hereby passed".

I wish to explain briefly to the House the reasons for this motion and to say something of the background to it which has brought about its necessity. We have not had a time allocation motion or a curtailment by the Government of the time allotted to business of the House since about this time last year. Nor has there been any need for such a curtailment. In the ordinary way, as the House knows, business is disposed of regularly and expenditiously enough in the absence of some kind of confrontation. We have not had any confrontation in this regard in recent times and, consequently, this is the first time that a motion of this nature has been moved since early in July last.

The reason for the motion being moved lies in the nature of the Bill itself and in the inability of the Opposition to agree to a time within which the debate on the Bill would conclude. Through informal talks with the Opposition Whips I understood first that the Bill might not take very long and I had hoped that when it reached the Dáil eventually it would be part only of a normal day's business and that other work also could be undertaken. I took that to mean that the Bill would be agreed in principal by the Opposition but when it was circulated yesterday they considered it and concluded that they would have to oppose it. When I heard that sometime in the middle of yesterday afternoon I went to the Opposition and suggested that we might agree a time limit within which the debate would end. I could not get agreement from them but, then, I very seldom get agreement along these lines. I suppose they do not wish to tie themselves in regard to time but the House will understand that for whatever reason Fianna Fáil's inability to agree to a time limit leaves the Government in an awkward situation—either they go ahead not knowing when they will have the Bill they have promoted or they introduce a motion of this kind, the latter being a disagreeable alternative.

In this instance the Government are well-known to have made their minds up in regard to the necessity for this Bill. The necessity for its passage in a short time is evident. I hope that somebody else will explain to the House why the Bill would be no use or why at least its utility would be very much less if it were debated with intervals between the Stages in the way that is usual. The necessity for the Bill lies in the nature of the dispute concerned. If the Bill were to be debated in an open-ended way, with the usual week between Second and Committee Stages, it would be of no use. Therefore, we had no alternative but to limit the time for discussion of it. I regret that we have moved into this posture so suddenly after a period of fairly co-operative and civilised relations. However, since we are in this posture the Government consider they have a duty in the national interest to ensure that the Bill is law by the weekend. That means that it must pass through this House today and through the Seanad tomorrow. Consequently, we are left with no alternative but to ask the House to approve this time allocation motion.

Before saying anything about the times mentioned in the motion, I might mention that yesterday evening, having told the Opposition we were obliged to introduce this time allocation motion and that we would extend the time of the ordinary Thursday sitting by five-and-a-half hours so as to minimise complaints that the Bill was being rushed, I inquired about the situation in a regard to pairs and was told that the position which is being asserted now by the Opposition—whether it has existed in the past, I have not enough experience to say, is to refuse official pairs applied for and to dishonour ones already promised. The Government were in the situation yesterday evening that several Deputies, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and other Deputies were either abroad or on their way abroad on public business of importance. I want to emphasise that there was only one absentee from the Dáil yesterday, absent for a personal reason and the Opposition had very generously promised to pair him. But only one of the Deputies on this side of the House was absent for an unofficial reason.

Mr. J. Lynch

Sorry, is this relevant to the subject matter of this motion?

Mr. Wilson

Sanctimonious waffle.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kelly

The result is that——

Mr. J. Lynch

On a point of order, I am asking you, Sir, to rule whether the subject matter of pairing is relevant to the motion before the House?

An Ceann Comhairle

The mover of the motion is entitled to make his speech in his own fashion.

Mr. J. Lynch

Within the rules of order. Anything goes, Sir; fair enough.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion is before the House.

Mr. Kelly

I do not want to labour the point, Sir, because I know you do not like discussions on pairing in the House but I must point out the difficulty the Government are in when they find that legislation is essential, and is urgently essential, when arrangements on which they had previously relied—and had every reason to rely on—are now being disregarded and dishonoured.

The national interest is in danger, too, as is perfectly evident. If the Government were to acquiesce in this new tradition now being asserted, it would be the case that the judge of the national interest from now on would be not the Government elected for this job but the Opposition. We could not and will not asquiesce in that arrangement whatever the difficulties may be for us if it were going to go ahead. But I hope it will be understood that, in this moment of acute national difficulty, the Government, after lengthy and mature consideration, have decided that this Bill is the appropriate way to deal with it. We are being impeded by this obstacle, gratutiously and spitefully thrown in our path. Nobody expects the Opposition to accept legislation they do not like but to leave us in a situation——

Mr. J. Lynch

I am afraid, Sir, you have allowed a very bad precedent for the rest of the day and it is on your own head.

Mr. Kelly

That urgent and important legislation is a risk because of the dishonouring of arrangements which are normal in this House is something of which, if I belonged to the Opposition, I would be ashamed.

Mr. Wilson

That fellow must be here by now.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Kelly

I want to say something brief about the times mentioned in the motion. The Dáil, if the motion is passed, will sit until 10.30 p.m. this evening, which is 5½ hours longer than its usual Thursday sitting. I did not consult the Opposition on this because I felt that once the pairing arrangements had broken down, we were for the moment, at arms length. But I took it that the opposition was based on the principle of the Bill and so I gave the greater part of the day for Second Stage and a smaller part of the day for Committee Stage. Even now we will willingly change those hours if the Opposition would prefer more time to be given to Committee Stage and less to Second Stage. The Report Stage, I hope, will not be regarded as ungenerous with an hour.

That, Sir, is the reason for the motion. I am sorry that it has been necessary. I hope that the necessity of it will be understood and that the matters I have just mentioned, which represent a mere spiteful obstacle in the Government's path of doing their job, also will be understood.

Mr. J. Lynch

A few minutes ago when I intervened on a point of order —the point of order being that the mover of the motion was irrelevant in bringing in matter that was not related at all to the subject matter of the motion—your ruling was, Sir, that —these are your exact words "the mover of the motion is entitled to make his statement in his own fashion". I take it, Sir, that that ruling applies to those who speak on the motion as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will be generous in that regard.

Mr. J. Lynch

You will have to be, Sir, because you have created a precedent. I want to say, first of all, that what the Parliamentary Secretary said about pairing is completely without foundation. As I understand it, pairing is arranged between the Whips on a day to day basis. There were no pairing arrangements made for today because today had not been reached. Secondly, even if pairing had been made, it has been the practice of this House for as long as I can remember that, on a guillotine motion, any pairing arrangements are not on. They are suspended for the purpose of the guillotine motion because a guillotine motion is a restriction of the rights and duties of an Opposition.

Even though I could talk about the price of fish, as far as I can understand, on this motion, I shall try to be as relevant as I can. I want to discuss it against the background, firstly, of the apparent desire of this Government to terminate this session of Dáil Éireann next week and against the background of the gross mishandling by the Government, and in particular by the two Ministers concerned, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour, of the whole range of wage increases and, in particular, the national wage negotiations.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Lynch

Ever since January of this year. I will take the first background first. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach conveyed to our Whips that it was the desire of the Government to terminate this session next week, on the 30th June, next Wednesday, in effect. We gave the usual indication about an Adjournment debate. Even though that has been denied to us on several occasions—let me correct myself— on a few occasions, when the Dáil adjourned at the end of a session apparently there is a threat now it is going to be denied us on this occasion as well.

Mr. Kelly

I made no such statement. It is not true.

Mr. Lalor

The Parliamentary Secretary said it to me.

Mr. J. Lynch

But that is not the point I am making. My Chief Whip informed me that the Chief Whip of the Government indicated that, in certain circumstances, an Adjournment debate might be denied the Opposition. That is my information and it has been borne out just now by Deputy Lalor. So much for that, Sir.

We indicated as well that, in the present state of the economy and in particular in the present state of the dispute between the Irish Bank Officials' Association and the Associated Banks, and more particularly in view of the fact that as of now we do not know whether there will be a national wage agreement or not—because the effective balloting on that will not take place until during the first week of July—in all these circumstances we indicated to the Government Chief Whip that we thought it was wrong that they should persist in their intention to adjourn the Dáil for the summer recess next week. I fervently believe that if they do persist it will show a gross degree of irresponsibility in relation to these delicate matters and particularly in relation to the function of Parliament on such grave matters affecting the economy. It has been the practice of this House to continue up to the end of July, if necessary. Naturally we, like Members of the Government benches, would like to adjourn as early as possible but we do not believe in shutting down shop and, in effect, the Government running away from the problem or from the exposure that they are entitled to get in the event of the breakdown in the national pay agreement negotiations and, indeed, they are still negotiating.

I said that this motion had to be viewed against the background of the grossly inept handling of the national pay negotiations. The Minister for Finance in his budget said the object of the budget strategy was based on a pay pause and this was repeated the very next day by the Taoiseach. Since then the Government have changed feet several times. The pay pause was abandoned. A fixed modest sum was suggested, and that was amended as well, with the result that very few trade unions know exactly where they stand in relation to the national pay agreement on which they will soon be balloting and neither do they know where they stand in relation to Government policy on this matter.

The Minister for Labour is just back from Geneva. I should like to take this opportunity of publicly congratulating him on having been elected president of the recent session of the International Labour Organisation. As far as I know, the International Labour Organisation, having elected a president, also elects three vice-presidents, one representing employers, one representing trade unions and one representing the Government side. Any one of the three, or all three in turn, could have presided over the concluding days of the International Labour Organisation session in Geneva thereby permitting the Minister for Labour to come home and, if necessary, process this legislation on a number of days last week and this week as well. Because he chose not to come we are now faced today with a guillotine motion on a serious Bill, a Bill which was circulated only yesterday and the full implications of which could not possibly be reasonably examined either by the Government or the Opposition, even if the Government had the Bill, as they obviously had, for several days and, for that reason, we are now faced with rushing this legislation through.

From my own experience I have a fear of hurried legislation. Time and time again we have seen legislation fully processed in this House requiring amendment in the Seanad. We have seen amendments properly moved and made in the Seanad and approved of by this House on their being referred back to us. The whole purpose of the dual chamber is to ensure that legislation is properly examined, amended where necessary and, above all, that a reasonable time is given to a full examination of all the implications. For all we know, there may be in this Bill constitutional problems. I do not know and I am not suggesting there are but, for all we know, there could be and because of the limitation of time, it is not possible for us to get legal advice.

I do not want to go into the subject matter of the Bill, which will be shortly before the House, but we indicated yesterday the reasons why we are opposing the Bill. The main reason is the gross mishandling by the Government and by the Ministers concerned of the whole range of pay rise negotiations. We indicated that we opposed it because we thought it was precipitate, in other words untimely as, indeed, was the intervention of the Minister for Finance on last Thursday, so untimely that it is my belief the Government hastily got together on Friday morning in order to justify the Minister's untimely intervention by introducing this Bill. This is a contention Government speakers can refute if it is wrong.

We said also that we regarded this legislation as selective. I want to say publicly here that we have not been given and neither do we hold any brief on behalf of the Irish Bank Officials' Association or on behalf of the associated banks. The Irish Bank Officials' Association is a trade union but it is not affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. There have been wage settlements in the past 12 months which in a number of instances clearly breached the then existing national wage agreement. However, the trade unions involved were members of or affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. No legislative action was taken in those cases. I suggest, therefore, this legislation is selective for two reasons: no action was taken in respect of other trade unions whose agreements breached the national wage agreement and the Irish Bank Officials' Association does not happen to be a member of or affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

It was suggested in our statement that the parties involved—the Irish Bank Officials' Association, the associated banks and the Government— should take no action that would precipitate the closure of the banks and we urged all three to maintain the status quo so that it might be possible to come to an agreement. We urged the maintenance of the status quo until such time as we knew the outcome of the ballot on the national wage agreement which will be known on, I think, the 4th or 5th July. I suggest that was not an unreasonable request. The Government responded with what might be interpreted as a compromise on their position.

The statement made last night has been interpreted as indicating the Government might have second thoughts on an agreement that may be come to between the banks and their officials, even if it does somewhat exceed the norm it is hoped to set by a national pay agreement. If that is the case there is every reason why this legislation should be postponed, at least until next week and, preferably, until the outcome of the ballot on the national pay agreement is known. As of now, we have no norm by which to establish whether or not whatever emerges, if something does emerge from the renewed talks between the bank officials and the banks, will accord to the norm.

We have, therefore, in this hurried piece of legislation what is in effect a pig in a poke because we do not know what this legislation will permit. The Minister will have power to implement the legislation by order and this House will have no means whatever of assessing the Minister's assessment and therefore no means of knowing whether any agreement between the banks and their officials accords to the national norm, if it does accord and, if it does not accord, whether it is reasonably acceptable. This House will have no say on that issue because the Minister alone—I suppose with the advice and approval, after consultation with his colleagues, of the Government—will act and we, in the Opposition, will be denied the opportunity of expressing our view on what I believe is one of the most serious issues facing the country. The Dáil will have adjourned and the Bill will be on the Minister's desk ready for the signing of an order at the Minister's will and pleasure.

These are the reasons we are opposing this Bill and these are the reasons we are opposing this guillotine motion. It is the duty of the Opposition at any time to oppose a guillotine motion. I cannot understand the whimpering of the Parliamentary Secretary about impediments being placed in his way, about unpleasantness arising. The Government have created this unpleasantness, if it is there. They delayed this Bill because the Minister for Labour, apparently, was not here. They want to rush this Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas. They wanted agreement to have it finished by 5 o'clock and not having got that agreement we are now obliged to finish it by 10.30 tonight. The Seanad will be similarly obliged to finish it by some hour tomorrow evening.

This shows scant respect for Parliamentary democracy and even less respect for the rights of the Opposition in both Houses of the Oireachtas. If there have been any recriminations imported into this debate or if they will ensue in the course of the debate the blame must be laid at the feet of the Parliamentary Secretary for the incriminatory tone in which he introduced this motion and the freedom he was allowed in importing extraneous matter. We are, therefore, opposing this guillotine motion and we will reserve our right afterwards to what extent we can ensure that today at least Parliamentary democracy will prevail.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

The speech of Deputy Lynch is a complete justification for the Government's time allocation motion because during the time he was speaking he made several statements which are unhelpful in the present very delicate situation in relation to incomes. It is fair to ask why the Opposition chose this time to oppose a Bill of this nature having regard to the fact that the same Opposition have already supported the Government in two previous Bills dealing with the same group of persons.

Mr. Colley

Quite different ones.

Mr. R. Ryan

It is not a complex Bill. It is one of the shortest Bills we have had.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

On a point of order, does it not appear that the Minister is discussing the Bill rather than the guillotine motion? If so, would it not be advisable that we get on to discuss the Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

While I have said I would be generous in respect of the debate on this motion, it is true to say that anything said should not anticipate debate proper on the Bill when it comes to be discussed. References to the Bill ought to be avoided.

Mr. R. Ryan

I agree but we have heard a contribution from the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party saying that the Bill was complex, that it was difficult, that it was one on which they might need some advice from Constitutional lawyers and so forth. I want to point out that the Bill is of a kind similar to previous Bills which received the Opposition's support and that even a person of very limited education would have no difficulty whatsoever in comprehending the Bill.

The need for the Bill at this time is also obvious. On other occasions, when Bills of this nature were before the House, the overall national pay position was not as critical as it is at present. We heard from Deputy Lynch and many others on the Opposition benches repeated contributions over the last couple of years about the need for moderation in incomes. They have chastised the Government for what they say is a certain lack of control in this area. They have endeavoured to blame the Government alone for considerable slippage on the incomes front and, yet, when the Government introduce a Bill of this nature, having had Opposition support on two previous occasions for similar legislation, the Opposition change their tactics entirely at the time of the most delicate and difficult incomes situation ever facing this country and certainly the most difficult one of the last three years.

Mr. Brennan

That is saying something.

Mr. R. Ryan

The national wage agreement has yet to be voted on by the special delegate conference. It is not possible for any person to anticipate what the outcome of that meeting will be. However, we know that a very responsible union have said that whatever people might think about some of the provisions in the agreement it was unlikely that it would be possible to exceed the cash terms of the national pay agreement as negotiated. The country is faced with a situation in which one group are insisting on getting very substantial increases above the cash terms. If people who are not in as privileged and secure positions in our society were to see others using their muscles before the special delegate conference to obtain an enhancement of their incomes well above what is negotiated, it is not unlikely that whatever reason exists in our community might evaporate altogether.

It is, therefore, highly desirable that Oireachtas Éireann should express a sense of collective responsibility, should discharge their obligations to the community, by expressing anxiety about potential developments in the area of remuneration for bank officials. The legislation is empowering legislation. We can deal later on with that when we come to deal with the provisions of the Bill. The party at whom the legislation is directed are free to continue their negotiations. We hope they will do so and that they will conform to the kind of common sense which every sensible person in this country should not only exhort others to practice but should themselves practice as well.

The Opposition are, no doubt, affected by the fact that public support for them appears to be dwindling at a time of considerable difficulties for the country, at a time when an Opposition might be expected to improve their position. Perhaps that is the explanation for the change in tactics. Perhaps that is the explanation for endeavouring to oppose this legislation and for trying to complicate the situation. Perhaps they feel they have not been creating enough mischief and they should try to create mischief now at a time of very great difficulty. I ask them to consider whether or not they will command much public respect when they display themselves at the end of the session as a party of contradiction.

Deputy Lynch spoke about the proposal to bring this session of the Dáil to a conclusion at the end of June. Opposite me I see many faces of people who have spoken to me and to many of my colleagues on this side of the House expressing their delight that at long last Dáil Éireann was going to have the good sense of bringing its summer session to a conclusion at the end of June instead of doing it at the end of July and sometimes in August in such a manner as to prohibit Members who have young families from enjoying even a few days with them during their school holidays. Would it not be far better for the Opposition to accept that what is happening in relation to the termination of this session is something which was long desired by all Members of the House on either side and, indeed, is also desired by the hard working staff of the Oireachtas and by the press gallery——

Mr. J. Lynch

The Minister is playing to the gallery now.

Mr. R. Ryan

——both of whom are entitled to have some consideration given to their affairs and their families as well? The fact that the session will terminate earlier than hitherto will mean that the Dáil will resume earlier than previously. The real reason, I suppose, for the Dáil session extending to the end of July and into August in the past, is that the financial legislation came before the House in April and May. Now, with the budget in January and the Finance Bill following shortly after that, there is no need to carry on the proceedings of the Dáil and the Seanad right through July in order to get the Finance Bill passed. Even that old excuse no longer exists.

The termination of proceedings of this session next week has, of course, nothing to do with the time allocation motion we are dealing with here. The Government's decision in relation to the Bill is governed by the circumstances in which a necessity has arisen to introduce the Bill and that necessity is the fact that a large number of people will have to consider between now and 3rd July what should be their stance in relation to the proposed national agreement. In that situation it is not asking too much of anybody that they would back the Government in this empowering legislation which need not be brought into effect if whatever is negotiated between the parties negotiating at present conforms to what other people are being asked to accept. Clearly, we have to move now rather than move after 3rd July.

Everybody knows that if we did not move this legislation today and bring it through the Dáil and Seanad, no matter what happens on 3rd July the Taoiseach would receive a telegram from the Opposition asking him to reassemble the Dáil in order to discuss the extraordinary position that could arise in this area, which would not conform to what other people might be disposed to accept. The much more sensible thing to do is to make it clear at this stage, calmly and without any bitterness, that what is appropriate for everybody in the country should be accepted by all.

I noted the remarks of the leader of the Opposition which re-echoed the remarks of Deputy Colley and others in relation to my speech of last Thursday. It is an extraordinary thing when a man is accused of making an untimely intervention, of behaving like a bull in a china shop, to use the words of Deputy Colley, because he actually quotes speeches and annual statements of bank directors exhorting the country as a whole to exercise incomes moderation——

Mr. Colley

If the Minister thinks that is our criticism, there is no hope for the country.

Mr. R. Ryan

If it is considered that was an extraordinary intervention, it seems to me that some people believe that the right way for a Government to rule is to do nothing and to say nothing, to let everything drift. On this occasion, as we have done twice before in the life-time of this Dáil, we are moving the legislation to prevent a very nasty situation developing. I earnestly suggest that even at this late hour the Opposition might redeem whatever is left of their tattered reputation by thinking again and by giving support to this legislation which is so important and critical. The national interest is at stake and we ought to rise above party jealousies and any personalities.

Mr. Colley

The longer we spend on this guillotine motion the less time we will have to debate the Bill and, therefore, I do not intend to delay the House very long on this matter. I had intended to confine myself entirely to the motion before the House but in view of what has been said there are two things I want to say now.

First, I should like to make it clear that in the view of this side of the House in an urgent and gravely important matter of this kind the natural desire for Deputies, staff and members of the Press Gallery to go on their summer holidays cannot take precedence over this measure before us and the implications involved.

Secondly, the Minister for Finance has endeavoured to suggest that this party supported two similar Bills to the one now before us and that for some obscure reason we are changing our tactics. As will be revealed in the course of discussion of the Bill, there is no truth whatever in that allegation. This party supported consistently every effort to sustain national pay agreements. We allowed and created the climate in which a national pay agreement could be entered into in 1970 and early 1971 in the teeth of the opposition of the Deputies opposite. We have consistently supported national pay agreements since and we have supported this Government when, contrary to all their former protestations, they brought in measures designed, in effect, to support with the force of law existing national pay agreements in relation to bank employees. The Bill now before the House seeks to give the Minister for Labour the power, if he makes an order under it, to impose a statutory wage freeze and nothing else. That is why we are opposing the Bill and we will spell it out in detail later.

The matter before the House is the guillotine motion. I want to point out that in three years this Government have imposed the guillotine on far more measures in this House than was ever done by every Fianna Fáil Government since 1932.

Mr. Clinton

What about the Marts Bill?

Mr. R. Ryan

There were 41 guillotine motions on the Marts Bill.

Mr. Colley

In their three years in office this Government have imposed far more guillotines on far more measures than all the Fianna Fáil Governments together. That is a measure of the approach of this Government.

Mr. R. Ryan

Perhaps it is a measure of the Opposition's misconduct.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister should cut out the lecture. A despicable character.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us not have personal abuse.

Mr. Lalor

I named nobody. The Chair recognised him.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not compound it.

Mr. Lalor

I am sorry.

Mr. Colley

In addition to having imposed a guillotine on far more measures than any Government in the history of the State, this Government imposed a guillotine on measures that were not even introduced and circulated, of which the House did not know the contents. It may be of some interest to note that in a discussion on the Bill relating to prices and incomes in 1970, which sought to regulate incomes, prices and other matters by statute, there was a long discussion in this House on Second Stage. It went on for weeks and in the course of the debate the Minister for Defence criticised the Minister for Industry and Commerce who had spoken for five-and-a-half hours on Second Stage. In addition, many of his colleagues now sitting on the Government benches took part in the debate at great length. That was a matter which, to quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, was "in the view of the elected Government of the day a matter of grave national importance". However, the Deputies opposite chose to exercise their democratic right to speak at considerable length on it. Was there any attempt by the Government at that time to introduce a guillotine? There was not.

This Government are repeatedly displaying their fascist interests, intentions and insticts. Whenever there is any sign of opposition their immediate reaction is to impose a guillotine and force it through. We had a further example of that today —we have many of them—from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. His reaction is quite unconscious in the way it comes out. His reaction which could be heard today would suggest the Opposition were unreasonable—the idea that we were going to oppose the Bill, that we would not agree to its going through in one day. It was very naughty of us, considering the record of those Deputies over there who time after time engaged in filibusters. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs prides himself on the number of hours he spent debating one word. Was there a guillotine imposed by the Government of that day?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

There was. There were two guillotines.

Mr. Colley

No. This Government, at the drop of a hat, without any regard for the interests of the country, of the measure to be debated, of their importance to the economy, of their importance to the industrial relations climate, impose the guillotine because the Minister for Labour could not come back and because we all have to go on our summer holidays. So far as we are concerned, that is a disgraceful performance and we intend to record our abhorrence of it in the division lobbies.

Mr. Lalor

I have no intention of holding up this debate but, in order to clear up a point, and in view of some of the remarks made, it is proper that I should make a contribution. I want to join with the last speaker in drawing attention to the fact that it seems to be wrong for the Opposition to find any fault with the Government. That appears to be the approach taken by the Government Whip this morning. The Parliamentary Secretary thanked the Opposition for their co-operation over the past 12 months. This worries me because being thanked for co-operation which is plunging the country into an abyss, led by the Minister for Finance, is very doubtful praise indeed.

The impression the Parliamentary Secretary gave was that he had been given the impression by the Opposition Whip that we would not be opposed to the Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provision) Bill, 1976, and that the Bill would be cleared very quickly. I want to disabuse him of that idea.

We were, as we are very regularly now, indebted to the Press and the radio for information which is issued obviously through the Government Information Service. I tried to get the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach on Tuesday morning last with a view to finding out what the position was about the banks Bill. Coming up to town I heard on the radio that it was being introduced later on that day, that it would be circulated on Wednesday, that it was hoped Second Stage would be cleared this week, and the final Stages dealt with next week. I was carrying on on that information and on that understanding. I got nothing from the Parliamentary Secretary to disabuse me of that view until yesterday when he indicated that all Stages of the Bill would be required. Now we have a guillotine motion.

Last night after one of the votes, the Parliamentary Secretary asked me what our approach would be to pairs today. I said I could not reply to that until I knew what the Government were doing today. At that stage he informed me he had been in contact with Deputy Browne and that there would be a time motion. I said: "If there is a time motion, you know what my reaction will be. Pairs are off." Deputy Browne reminds me there were none on. We are working pairs on a day to day basis. I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary may tell me on a Tuesday morning: "A Minister is away. He will not be back until Thursday. We will need pairs for three days."

This should not be raised as an issue by the Parliamentary Secretary this morning because it is an understood thing. It has often been stated that a guillotine motion breaks right across the rights of the Opposition, or of any Deputy, and therefore, we have excluded it from pairing arrangements. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary was in any doubt about our views in that regard.

The Minister for Finance made an extraordinary contribution. I do not know why he spoke at this stage. It confirms a view we have that he needed to get in with a statement before the Minister for Labour because the two of them might not see eye to eye on this issue. It was rather remarkable that the Minister for Finance should talk about the summer recess and suggest something about a telegram from the Opposition calling for the reassembly of the House. At all stages there has been a responsible approach from the Opposition. I am surprised the Minister for Finance should accuse us of thinking of the gimmickry they used to carry on when we were in Government when during the holidays we had the leader of the Labour Party suggesting the House should be recalled because of a housing crisis, and now we have 5,000 more unemployed in the housing industry.

Mr. Kelly

One thing which struck me about the contributions from the other side is the fact that neither the Leader of the Opposition, nor Deputy Colley, nor Deputy Lalor, referred to the allocation of hours in the motion. There was not a word of complaint along the lines that we were not allowing enough time for this Bill, or that they were being deprived of an opportunity to speak their minds and let the people know what they felt. Not for the first time I suspect the genuineness of the opposition. Again, not for the first time I suspect it is merely an attempt to embarrass and annoy the Government which, perhaps, is the Opposition's job. It is no more than that, and ought not to send anyone running for his headline sized type to cry "jackboot" or "gag".

Mr. O'Kennedy

I wonder have the Press taken that lesson. I wonder have they taken that dictation.

Mr. Kelly

That is not being imposed.

Mr. O'Kennedy

They had better behave themselves.

Mr. Kelly

That is not one of the things being complained of here this morning. There has not been a word said about the hours envisaged in this motion, or how anybody is being deprived of a full opportunity to debate this Bill. What there has been is the usual whinging and whining, and mewling and puling, about parliamentary democracy. Every time we had a motion about procedure—and we have had three or four closure motions—there is this wail about parliamentary democracy, and the end of democracy here as we know it.

Last spring, in February, four of the front bench heavies, low budget heavies, came in and solemnly denounced the Government for introducing experimental sitting hours. That was the end of democracy as we knew it. When we had closures, not just of a blanket kind as we had last year, but closures on one item, that was the end of democracy. That was fascism rearing its head. That is called crying wolf. The day a real fascist shows his head in this House, and not just somebody who is misunderstood as that, that vocabularly will be so devalued that the cries from Fianna Fáil will be written off as being just as worthless as they were in the past. All this talk about the end of democracy when we are trying to get a serious piece of national business done expeditiously cuts no ice with me and will not cut any with the public.

It is important to remember this about the way this House works under this Government. We can be accused, perhaps, of several things but most certainly not of being lazy about the Dáil. For the first time since 1922, in the last calendar year, 1975, this House sat for more than 1,000 hours. and that is the longest year's business on record. We have given more time to public debate and infinitely more time to Private Members' debate than any previous Government did. Therefore, if there is one thing we cannot be accused of it is being lazy about the way we run the Dáil. But there is such a thing as order and regularity in business, and the Government did decide in early April that the Dáil would, barring accidents, adjourn for the recess at the end of June. Because all kinds of private arrangements depend on that on both sides of the House, I immediately went to the Opposition, with the Government's permission and told them that. I said: "People on your side of the House who want to make their arrangements can take it as being as good as certain, so far as anything can be predicted, that the Dáil will adjourn on 30th June". I can tell the House I did not see a single long face or hear any reference to the national interest being prejudiced by any such fixed rising date. I did not have the same experience as I had last year when there were Opposition Deputies stopping me in the corridor and saying: "When are you going to let us go. My wife will divorce me." That was coming from Opposition Deputies with whom I am on the kind of speaking terms which would enable such a conversation to take place.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kelly

There was nothing but jubilation in Fianna Fáil when I told them the Dáil would rise this year on 30th June. Again, all this sanctimonious talk now about democracy being damnified if we rise next week cuts no ice with me. If the national interest requires the recall of the Dáil, the Dáil will be recalled double quick, and this Government is the one to do it. But unless the national interest positively requires it, or unless Government business on which an important statutory deadline rests is not completed by the end of next week, the intention still is that the House will rise at the end of next week.

That intention has nothing whatever to do with the banks Bill. The banks Bill, even if we still had an open-ended rising date, would still be under this closure motion for the reasons I have given. The Leader of the Opposition made a good effort to confuse the two things, to implant in the mind of someone who would not give it much thought before rushing off to tell others through one medium or another that the reason this Bill was being put through in a day was to let us go on our holidays. I want to deny that and to say absolutely and unreservedly that the one day we are devoting to this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the intention of the Government to rise on the 30th June.

The closure motions we have had in previous years were just as much to be regretted as this one is, but we were heartily provoked. Again, I had people meeting me in the corridors, including Opposition Deputies—not many, I admit; there are not many who would make so free—Press people, staff of the House and so on, who would say: "Why do you not guillotine this Bill? We will be here until Christmas otherwise." We were being invited to close down debates which were being kept going in 1974 by deliberate obstruction, and in 1975 by an insufficient control and a lack of decision by Fianna Fáil as to who was or was not their Finance spokesman. In 1975 one individual backbench Opposition Deputy cost this House, single handed, three weeks' time by immense contributions, sometimes running to an hour-and-a-half on a single amendment.

Mr. Wilson

Is he not entitled to speak?

Mr. Kelly

Of course he is entitled to speak, but if we on this side were to show a similar lack of control in the way we do our business, there would not even be weekends off for the House let alone recesses. That is why the House ran so long last year. At the end of June or the beginning of July we introduced a blanket closure which covered 14 or 15 items and which ensured that the business would draw to a conclusion on 31st July. There were the usual cries about the end of democracy, but I sat through that month and I have a distinct recollection of what happened. Items for which there was a certain amount of time did not even absorb that much time.

I recall the House having an unconvenanted sos for ten or 20 minutes because the Opposition could not think of enough to say to absorb even the limited amount of time allotted for a particular item. I remember one front bench Deputy on the other side, whom I will not name, complaining when dealing with a motion on the subject matter of his particular brief that he had been given no opportunity that session to debate it. He had not been in the House the previous week when the Estimate for the Department he was supposed to be watching was under debate. But that did not stop him complaining three days later that he had not been given an opportunity to debate the matter when he found himself caught in the vice of a short allocation of an hour-and-a-half for a motion. That is why I do not take these complaints very seriously and why I invite the House and the public to draw the conclusion that the Opposition, in making these noises, have their tongue in their cheek and do not mean what they are saying.

The Leader of the Opposition made allegations in regard to the way business is done between the Whips. The situation in regard to the possibility of an Adjournment debate is—Deputy Lalor is there and can contradict me if I am wrong—that the Opposition did not at any stage request an Adjournment debate. The first mention of it was made by me when I said to them about a week or ten days ago that the business was going through so smoothly that we might be able to give the 29th and 30th June to an Adjournment debate. That is the first time those words were mentioned between us this session. I suggested it; they did not come demanding it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kelly

Deputy Briscoe might not have been here and might not have heard this. I had to listen to the allegation by Deputy Briscoe's leader that the Opposition had demanded an Adjournment debate—that is not true —and that I had threatened it would not be given; that is also not true. What I did say was that the arrangements for next week were at risk, as they are at risk.

Mr. Lalor

And that we might have to do without an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Kelly

That is one of a series of possibilities.

Mr. Briscoe

On a point of order, what the Parliamentary Secretary says the Leader of the Opposition said is incorrect. What he said was that the Parliamentary Secretary had threatended——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Kelly

The Leader of the Opposition gave the distinct impression that I had held a stick over the Opposition: "Either you do what I say or there will be no Adjournment debate". I did not do that.

Mr. Lalor

What am I to conclude when the Parliamentary Secretary says to me: "We might have to conclude without an Adjournment debate"? I took it as a threat.

Mr. Kelly

Our discussion yesterday about this was of the shortest and most cursory, because we had much more on our minds, and I hope all that will still be discussed between Deputies Lalor, Browne and myself. To give the public the impression that I threatened that there would be no Adjournment debate by way of punishment for not falling in with our wishes in this Bill is wrong.

On the question of pairing, Deputy Lalor was at least man enough to admit implicity that there was no reality in what the Leader of the Opposition has said about pairing on a day to day basis. It is true that pairing for personal purposes—a man may want to go to a funeral or fulfil an important business engagement which cannot wait—is done on a day to day basis. However, a Minister who has to go abroad cannot be paired on a day to day basis. I am tired of all this sanctimonious talk, hoping that the public will not take enough trouble to find out what is going on. We have been operating here for almost three-and-a-half years with a very small majority, and the smooth and regular operation of the pairing operation is vital to us, and would be vital to Fianna Fáil if they were in Government. Any question of pairing on a day to day basis does not arise in the case of people on public business who have to go abroad. At the stage when this confrontation arose we had several Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries abroad or about to go abroad and I had to make what arrangements I could to try to undo that situation at enormous personal inconvenience to them and enormous public inconvenience in regard to the tasks which they are doing.

Mr. Browne

We had the same trouble.

Mr. Kelly

I have no patience with this "Holly Joe" talk blaming me for the heated tone for which I am blamed.

Mr. Wilson

The Parliamentary Secretary tried to make Deputy Staunton vote when he was paired with me but he would not do it.

Mr. Kelly

When Deputy Lynch speaks like that about the way we run the business it is as though he were kicking me under the table at a party and then accusing me of spoiling the party when I complained and then resuming the kicking. It is not worthy of Deputy Lynch. It is not worthy of the Leader of any Opposition, to take that line in regard to the doing of Government business. I think Deputy Lynch was once a Whip himself and he must know that no Government could conduct its business in that way, and I do not think Fianna Fáil would have submitted to it either. The motion as I have had to explain is necessary and the necessity is regretted. I note that in the debate which took place not one word was said to the effect that the time being allocated here today would not be enough.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan, O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerald.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Barret, Sylvester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.