Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 May 1941

Vol. 25 No. 14

Public Business. - Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order—Motion to Annul.

Mr. Foran

I move the motion standing in the names of Senator Lynch, Senator Campbell and myself, as follows:—

That the Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, 1941, tabled on 14th May, 1941, be and is hereby annulled.

We, of the whole Labour movement throughout the country, regard this order as the culmination of an apparently definite effort on the part of the Government to enslave the workers. Everything contained in this order deprives the working class of rights won by years of suffering and sacrifice on the part of the people. To our mind, this is the most reactionary order introduced since the setting up of the native Government. The workers are very disturbed about the whole trend of Government policy so far as it affects them. By this order, the Trade Disputes Act, wrung from a Conservative Government in Britain, goes overboard. That was one of the greatest and best safeguards the workers had won by legislative effort. By this order it is shelved. The trade boards also go into oblivion. How long this position will last entirely depends on the Government. The trade boards were established to deal with sweated industries and unscrupulous employers who were exploiting juveniles and women who had not the protection of trade unions. That protection goes into oblivion. The Agricultural Wages Board, set up by the Government themselves—a board to which the agricultural workers might make application to have their wages and working hours improved—also disappears. The Wages Board ceases to function.

We see that the Government is introducing a Trades Union Bill in order to model trades unions in the way they would like them. The Conditions of Employment Act—a measure for which the Government got great credit and which was very much appreciated by the working class—goes overboard also. The Seanad will realise that the working class, so far as they are concerned under this order, are without any protection whatever. In many arguments the Minister and the members of the Government have denounced the vicious spiral. A spiral, apparently, is vicious only when it trends upwards: it is not vicious when it shows a downward trend. There is nothing to prevent an employer or a body of employers from reducing wages and changing conditions but the power of the organised workers, which the Government intends to interfere with in another manner. This is all very ominous so far as the working class are concerned, and they are very disturbed. I challenge the Minister on this statement: there is no section of the community which shows more consideration for the emergency than the working class of this country.

The average increase since the emergency began does not exceed 4/- per week, and everybody here will realise that the cost of living has gone very much higher than that covers. The pursuit of prices by the workers— which the Minister and the Government so very strongly denounced—is not evident there. There is ample evidence, on the other hand, that the working class appreciate the emergency and are prepared to make sacrifices in order to meet it. And this is their reward— Emergency Order 83. Legislation by order has been denounced time and again by the members of this Party. When the previous Government were in office they introduced a kind of Emergency Powers Bill, and some of us in this House visualised a time when a Government would use an Emergency Powers Order to persecute and penalise the workers of the country. That time has come; the order is there.

These are law-abiding citizens, these are people whose rights are concerned under the Constitution and, by an order laid on the Table of the House— not by any Bill or measure that we could criticise, amend or alter—the rights are torn from them which have been secured by generations of effort and sacrifice. That is a deplorable condition of affairs brought about by a native Government. That is one reason why we are opposed to legislation by order.

The efforts of the Government are entirely misdirected. If they wish to secure the co-operation of the workers in industrial matters, they should take them into their confidence more and recognise their difficulties. It is futile to talk of controlling wages while we leave prices practically untouched— and that is the condition to-day. It matters not to us whether our wages are £10 or £1 per week: what really matters is what we can get for that money for ourselves and our families and what standard of living we can maintain. If the Government can ensure that this standstill order will not worsen the already bad conditions of the working class, then we have no complaint and we are with them wholeheartedly. We submit, however, that by this order they are definitely worsening the conditions of the workers all over the country—agricultural and industrial. Consequently, we think that this order should be annulled or restricted in the light of its possible effects. Its repercussions throughout the country may cause a disturbance in the conditions which, happily, have prevailed up to the present.

I suggest—and I think the Minister and the Government generally will have to agree—that at no period in this country has there been less industrial strife than since the emergency arose. The workers have shown their appreciation and recognition of the Government's difficulty. They have not pressed unduly for increased wages or taken advantage of the position to exploit the community in general. No; they have been satisfied with about half the amount they were entitled to in increased wages to meet the increased cost of living. This is a standstill order only in so far as going up is concerned; retreating or returning is not an offence under it.

If any employer gives an increase in wages he is liable to a penalty of a fine of £100. My knowledge of employers generally is that even if the £100 fine were not there, they are very reluctant at any time to give an increase in wages, but with this menace of a £100 fine over their heads they are not very likely to give any increase in wages. There is nothing in this order to prevent the employer worsening conditions. For instance, it is mentioned in the order that in the event of a man or woman, as the case may be, having a certain wage, it is an offence to take on another and pay him a higher rate, but, remember, it is no offence whatever to pay him less than the former employee had.

This order is almost all-embracing. Few can escape the net of the schedule, and I am not going to waste time in pointing out the few that have escaped the net. One very noticeable one is the undertaker. I do not know whether that is intended. The whole matter is an extremely grave subject for the workers of the country. Only last Sunday, at a conference held in Galway, many of the Labour people who attended there, who are Government supporters, were very vehement about the attitude of the Government in connection with this order, and some of them got in touch with their Deputies and Senators to impress on them what it meant to them.

There is a number of Senators in this House who have been nominated by the Government Party as Labour men. I put it to them that they can hardly support an order that is going to enslave the working classes of this country. I have already pointed out how they are going to be enslaved by this. I am sure it would be very interesting if they would tell us how they could possibly justify their support for an order of this nature. In conclusion, I wish to say that this is the most reactionary order that has ever been put through this House since its inception. I sincerely hope the Government will reconsider their whole attitude on these matters, because at the present time we want co-operation; we want goodwill; we want common support, in order that we may carry on through the emergency. Nowhere will that support be more heartily given than by the working classes of this country, but I submit, to put these people in chains, as it were, is not the way to get co-operation. The workers can be led. They are not going to be driven. This order is certainly driving them with a scorpion.

Mr. Cummins

I beg to second the motion. I take it that one of the functions for which this House was established was to prevent hasty or indiscreet legislation. It has attempted to do that and it has succeeded in some instances but, I think, on no previous occasion has it been faced with a duty along these lines in a matter so serious in its repercussions as the motion under discussion. When the Emergency Powers Bill was given to the Government fears were expressed by the Labour members that the over-weening ambition of a Minister, the desire for a petty triumph, political or otherwise, might lead him into indiscretions. It was never thought that the first indiscretion, the gravest of indiscretions, attempted to be perpertrated would have its reactions on the workers, the wage-earners, the bulk of the population of this country. At a time when there was full appreciation of the necessity for co-operation with the Government in the trying period through which it was passing, at a time when the Government should do everything to strengthen and encourage such co-operation, it is astounding to find them embarking upon this policy of slave-making.

I do not think words can be found to sufficiently emphasise the evil that will be done if this legislation by order is persisted in. It takes a wise and discreet Government to exercise all the powers that were entrusted to this Government when they were given the Emergency Powers Act. Unfortunately, they are not long in possession of them when this thing is launched as a thunderbolt. It is a war upon the working class and the standard of life of the working class. It is incomprehensible that men who surely had studied the history of the trade union movement and its Christianising influences since the middle centuries should have taken the preliminary steps to set back that movement and to throw the workers of this country into the condition they were in before they joined their unions. If, when they are intending to do this, they could show us that the standard of life was not being lowered, that a continuing lowering process would not take place in the standard of life of the workers in proportion to the increased spiral of prices, if they could only give us one consoling suggestion as to how the difficulty of the lowest paid class of the wage-earners would be met, then there would be some toleration for this.

We on these benches are not promoters of strikes. We are not desirous of creating a breach as between the workers and the Government or the workers and the employers, so long as we get a fair deal. But, when a fair deal is not forthcoming, then the forces we speak for will get out of our control. The leaders of big unions cannot guide those unions in the way that discretion would be the lodestar of their efforts. At a time when this country is at peace, proposals are launched that have not been suggested in war conditions. It is not a war measure. It is an emergency measure. I would ask the Minister to be very careful and I would specially appeal to this House, in pursuance of one of its chief functions, to prevent this act of hasty legislation which will have a very disturbing influence throughout the whole country, not alone in the big centres of population but in the rural areas. I would ask the Minister to withdraw or to modify this very dangerous order.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

This is a very complicated order and, although I am pretty used to this kind of thing, I do not profess to understand it properly. It is really more complicated than the average Bill and it proceeds in the usual manner by saying the Minister may make orders under this order. I wonder would it be too much to ask the Minister if he would make at the beginning of the debate an explanatory statement as to what the order actually means and how it is going to work so that the debate may proceed upon understanding lines subsequently? I think that if we had that from the Minister there would be no objection to the Minister speaking again.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

The purpose of this order apparently has been very much misunderstood. It is not an attack upon the standard of the workers of this country nor of the wage earners. It simply states that in our situation, with the realisation that the supply of commodities available is likely to become short, where prices are likely to be raised and where there is going to be competition between the stronger and the weaker for their accustomed share of the pool, we should all, in regard to our actual purchasing power, stand fast. Because we do not wish that anyone should try to get the better of his neighbour—and that, unfortunately, is the natural tendency, and one which is not confined to the employer class but is found among the workers themselves—and because we wish that one man should not try to get the better of his neighbour in these circumstances, we have made this Order. There is nothing in the Order to induce an attack upon the workers' wages, and there is nothing in the order that implies that anybody should try to reduce the money value of the wages which any worker or any class of worker receives. The main purpose of the order is to see, first of all, that the remuneration should stand at its present level. It has never been contemplated that with workers organised as they are there would be any attempt by any understanding employer to drive down wages.

Mr. Hayes

But the order is a restriction on an increase of remuneration.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely, a restriction on the increase of remuneration.

Mr. Hayes

It is not a stand still, but it is a restriction on increase of remuneration.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

There are other forms of remuneration. Let nobody say that this order relates only to wages. It relates to all forms of remuneration whether secured by way of dividends or whether secured by way of fees or by way of wages and it says that in the present circumstances no such increases shall take place. Now, I think the purpose of the order is clear. It is simply this that in view of the general attack that is going to be made upon the standard of living in this community as a whole, that everybody will be prepared simply to stand fast at this particular moment. Any person who tries to detach himself from his neighbour, anybody who says: "Well, when the standard of living, as a whole, is going to decline, is going to be depressed, I must hold myself apart from the rest and my standard of living must remain untouched," is not standing fast. He, in fact, is retreating.

He is breaking the ranks, he is precipitating a panic which would inevitably lead to economic disaster for the whole of us and, therefore, all we are asking with regard to this order is that we should all at this moment, and for the next three or four or five months, as this crisis is building up, stand fast. I am quite prepared to say, in relation to the general body of the workers of this country, that they have realised their responsibilities in this matter during the past 12 or 14 months. They have behaved with commendable restraint. That is, as far as the general body of the workers is concerned, but I cannot say that applies to everybody because there have been some instances, for one reason or another, perhaps largely because circumstances were particularly favourable, that the remuneration of some persons has been linked with the standard of living and that they have secured compensation in whole or in part for any increase which has taken place. You have, as I said in the other House, certain occupations in which the workers have secured increases in remuneration as high as 12/- or 13/- a week—in others, and they are the great bulk of the workers, they had secured some increase, and it has been of the order of 2/- or 3/- per week. You have still other occupations in which they have secured no compensation whatever.

The point of that is this. Those who were fortunate enough to secure the higher rates of compensation secured them at the expense of the rest of the community and at the expense of people who are not able to help themselves in the present circumstances. For instance, you had an undertaking which manufactures an article whose selling price depends on its labour cost and, if the labour charges in that undertaking go up, in consequence of that increase the price of that commodity goes up to the whole of the community. It is obvious that the person who has got that increased remuneration in that industry, whether it is in the form of wages or dividends or directors' fees or in the form of salary, has got it at the cost of the rest of the community. You have at the other end of the scale many people who are in precarious employment, people who are facing the day when, because of the fact that the supply of raw materials and other essentials for their industries is running short, are going to be thrown out of their employment. They cannot come along and say to their employer: "Well, you must compensate me for the rising cost of living." They have got to hang by the skin of their teeth to their job at what they were getting at the outbreak of war or what they may have been getting 12 or 14 months ago. It is quite obvious that the person getting increased remuneration at one end of the scale is getting it at the expense of the person at the other end. That is the situation we are facing up to. If we are going to allow this position to get out of control when we are faced with a dwindling pool of commodities, and of manufacturing commodities in particular, and a dwindling ability, a dwindling capacity, to keep that pool full and when we have everybody trying to get their accustomed share out of that pool, and when their ability to get that share depends on their purchasing power in terms of our currency, if you have one or other element in this community able to secure an increase in remuneration to satisfy an intensified urge to retain their former share in that pool, while other people, who are not in the same fortunate position, have to content themselves with a standardised purchasing power, then the man who can, by reason of the fact that he stands at a key position——

Mr. Douglas

I think the Minister has misunderstood what he was asked for. The House is anxious to have an explanation of the meaning of various sections of the order.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Well, of course, it is not exactly the procedure one is accustomed to in the Seanad.

Mr. Douglas

We do not want to create a precedent at all.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I know the Motion here is that the order be annulled. That does not give me very much opportunity of explaining the Order.

Mr. Douglas

Surely, if some people are going to be expected to vote that the Order be not annulled, it would be no harm to have explained what it means.

Liam O Buachalla

I was going to suggest since a good deal of the Order is quite clear the people who want explanations might name the sections that they want explained, and that would facilitate the House. The order is quite clear to me, in any case.

Mr. Douglas

In that case we could go on with the debate.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I was asked what was the purpose of the order and I took it I was asked to explain the purpose.

Mr. Hayes

No, Sir. I do not object to the Minister speaking a second time, but I would like to say that what I wanted was the Minister to go through the order and explain certain sections. For instance, one order has already been made under this order.

Mr. Hayes

It applies to what?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Limited liability companies. That is the only order made out of this order, bringing them all within the terms of the order and prescribing their rate of dividend should be in accordance with the standard rate, that is that they should not be distributing a higher rate than they have been distributing during the three accounting periods prior to this order.

Mr. Foran

May I ask the Minister is there anything in the order to prevent the making of great profits and putting them into reserves?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Nothing whatever, and of deliberate intention.

Mr. Foran

I merely asked the question.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

It is very difficult to deal with it in that way. I am sorry that the Senator did not make that point in his speech because I would have been able to deal with it.

Mr. Foran rose.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister, having consented to explain should be allowed to explain without cross-examination.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps in accordance with usual procedure I may be allowed to deal with the order, article by article. Article 1, Part 1, of the order merely prescribes that the order may be cited as the Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order No. 41. Article 2 is a definitive article. It states that the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce; the word "employ" means employ under a contract of service, and the word "remuneration" includes remuneration paid either for time work or for piece-work, remuneration paid for overtime and remuneration consisting wholly or partly of commission calculated on a percentage or other basis.

Article 3 prescribes that the expression "the operative date" means the date on which the order is made. Article 4 prescribes that each of the following employments shall be a scheduled employment for the purposes of this part of the order, "subject to the operation of an order made by the Minister under paragraph 2 of this Article". The employments in question are the manufacture of wearing apparel, the production (otherwise than by way of agriculture) of any commodity which is used as food or drink by man——

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

That is the whole Schedule on the last page—manufacture but not distribution?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. The list also includes the manufacture of tobacco; the manufacture of textiles, the manufacture of articles made wholly or mainly of textile material; the manufacture of soap, candles, polishes, paints, distempers, varnishes or fertilisers; the manufacture of articles made wholly or mainly of metal; and, in fact, as Senator Hayes has said, all the articles which are scheduled on the last page.

Mr. Hayes

There is an addition to those?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, employment in the service of any railway, air-transport, or canal company, employment in the service of any person in whom is vested by statute or otherwise the ownership, control, regulation or management of a harbour, employment in the service of any person carrying on any undertaking for the supply of electricity or gas, employment in the service of any person carrying on the business of banking, employment in the service of any assurance company, etc. The whole purpose of that is simply to ensure that where the labour costs in industry would have an adverse reaction on the cost of living, nothing shall be done within our control which would operate to increase the cost of living of the community as a whole. That is the general purpose of these three sections and the Schedule.

Mr. Hayes

Other orders may be made, of course?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Other orders may be made providing for exemptions or additions to these sections. In fact, as particular points emerge for consideration, other orders may be made modifying this Schedule according as it appears equitable that the Schedule should be modified.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

Can these additional orders be discussed in any way by either House or is the passing of this order to exclude any other order made under it from discussion?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I should like a little more information on that point but I would say that, in my view, they could be discussed here in this House.

Liam O Buachalla

By way of motion.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

By way of motion, in the same form as this has been discussed. On that point, Section 2 of Article 4, prescribes that the Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit by order declare that any employment specified in the Schedule shall cease to be a scheduled employment for the purposes of this part of the order. Section 4 of the Article prescribes that for the purposes of the Schedule certain bodies shall be deemed to be local authorities. Article 5 defines the word "employee" and states that "employee" means any person of the age of 14 years or upwards, who is employed in any scheduled employment. Paragraph 2 goes on to declare that the Minister may whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order declare that any particular class of persons employed in any scheduled employment shall be an excluded class. Paragraph 3 of Article 5 states that a person who is the director of a company shall be deemed for the purposes of this Article not to be employed by that company. That is merely because the position of directors is dealt with in another part of the order, but the directors of a company are exactly in the same position as the employees of a company. Their remuneration cannot be increased either. Article 6 prescribes that no employer shall pay to an employee, who is in his employment on the operative date, any remuneration at a rate higher than the rate which was the remuneration of such employee on the operative date—that is to say, that he cannot increase the wages of his employee, unless, of course, the employee gives him a greater return for the rate of wages which he has been paying.

Mr. Foran

Can he pay him less?

Seán MacEntee

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

There is nothing in this order that makes it illegal, but the assumption is that in present circumstances there will not be general tendency to pay him less than he is receiving at the present moment.

Liam O Buachalla

He must get the minimum rates?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

The statutory minimum fixed in many instances is exceeded. In many cases the rates are above the statutory minimum. The main thing is to preserve the statutory minimum as a minimum. The provision of the statute guarantees that anyone getting more than the statutory minimum will continue to be paid at the existing rate whatever it may be. The remainder of that article is to make sure that the general principle will be observed, that the existing rate of remuneration will still be adhered to, but that it will not be increased. Section 7 merely prescribes that the Minister may require employers to keep such records as the Minister thinks fit —that he will keep a full record of the wages paid to all employees.

Mr. Hayes

Is it contemplated that persons employed by the Department of Industry and Commerce will do this work of inspection, or is it the intention to employ other people from outside to do it?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

It is believed that the present inspectors could do this work. Section 8 prescribes that the power of trade boards to fix, cancel, or vary minimum rates of wages is suspended, but any rates of wages fixed by a trade board which were obligatory immediately before the operative date shall remain in force. The minima prescribed by the trade boards will still stand as in the case of other remunerations. This article also prescribes that no rules in relation to the minimum rates of wages or the minimum rates of wages for overtime shall be made by the apprenticeship committee under Section 8 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1931. But any rules in force immediately before the operative date shall continue in force. Section 3 of this article sets out that no agreement shall be registered under Section 50 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, in the Wages Agreement Register on or after the operative date. Section 4 sets out that no rules shall been made by the Shops Wages Board, under Section 46 or 47 of the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938, on or after the operative date, but any such rules which are in force immediately before the operative date shall continue in force. Senators will appreciate that so far as the registration of agreements under Conditions of Employment Act is concerned this article will have little effect. No rules have been made by the Shops Wages Board, and the number of agreements are definitely very few.

Mr. Foran

Whose fault is that?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whose fault. I am merely stating the fact. Article 9 provides that the provisions of the Trades Dispute Act, 1906, shall not apply to any Act done in contemplation or furtherance of a strike which is designed or calculated to cause an employer to contravene Article 6 of the order. The purpose of that is that you cannot give the protection of the law to an action which is designed to make an employer break the law. If the Government makes an order which has the force of law it cannot give protection to those who seek to have that law broken.

Patrick Hogan

Mr. Hogan

Is the Minister sure that does give the employees the right to picket where an employer wants to reduce wages?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I am not sure it does but I will look into that to see it does not create that position.

Patrick Hogan

Mr. Hogan

The Minister only wants to prevent men striking for raising wages. Does not that section make it illegal for men to strike and picket?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

If the Senator having read this article thinks that that is the effect of it I shall look into it, but that is not the purpose.

Mr. Hayes

Surely that is not the purpose?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I am prepared to examine this provision to see it will have no greater effect than was originally intended. I do not want it to have a depressive effect but rather to ensure that we all stand together and that all those who have responsibility for trying to get the nation through the present crisis bear their share of sacrifice, and see how the situation develops, and how to meet it. I do not want it to have the effect of depressing the standard of living.

Mr. Campbell

If after the coming into operation of this order an employer closed down his business and then opened later paying a lesser rate of wages is there anything in this order to compel him to raise the wages to the original rate or, alternatively, would a trades union be precluded from taking action? That is a device that might be adopted?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I agree it is possible that device might be adopted, but I suggest it is one is not likely to be adopted in present circumstances. If a person closes down his business in present circumstances he stands to lose his own remuneration and its goodwill.

Mr. Campbell

That is no answer to my question. An employer might adopt that device.

Mr. Douglas

A great many employers may not be able to help closing down.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

If, for instance, they have not supplies.

Mr. Campbell

But if an employer shuts down as I suggest, would he be entitled to re-engage his staff at the lower rate of wages or, alternatively, could a trades union take action?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

There is nothing in this Act to prevent a trades union seeing that workers are paid the present rates of remuneration.

Mr. Campbell

Again I say that is not an answer to the question.

Mr. Foran

We are not concerned only with trades unions and workers who are members of trades unions. What about the unorganised men or women? An employer may have certain stocks and close down to dispose of these stocks and his staff. If on reopening he employs people on a lower rate of wages cannot we have the right to strike?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

The only limit imposed on the right to strike in present circumstances is a strike to compel the employers to break the order. The order lays down that he will not pay more than he is paying at present. Accordingly, if there is a strike to compel an employer to pay existing rates of wages, I do not think he is affected by this order at all.

Mr. Foran

Only to the extent of a fine of £100?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think that he is affected by the order at all.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

He starts out anew.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

I am prepared to consider every point with an open mind to see whether there is a flaw in the order which would allow the courses which Senators have suggested to be pursued. I am prepared to see that these courses are not adopted, but our intention, when the order was being drafted, was that nothing more would be done than to say: We shall have to stand at the level at which everything is at the present date until such time as we can see what steps are necessary to ensure that the sacrifices which will have to be made in the future will be shared equitably as between those in privileged positions and those not in a position to protect themselves at all.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

Suppose we convinced the Minister that this order was defective, would there be any remedy?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

We could amend the order.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

By another order?

Mr. Hayes

Or you could cancel this order?

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. The order merely lays down a principle and I am quite prepared to admit that a number of aspects of the matters dealt with may not have been foreseen.

Sir John Keane

As this debate is taking the form of a conversation, may I suggest to the Minister that he should consider the introduction of legislation to take the place of this order in due course. Nothing done under the order would be invalidated, but the whole matter would be put in proper form by legislation.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

There are objections to that course. This order is clearly designed to deal with an existing emergency. If we proceed to put through legislation, we have to make it either permanent or temporary. If it is to be temporary, we have to fix the date at which it will cease to operate.

Nobody knows, as yet, what that date should be. Again, legislation is not so susceptible to amendment as this order is. The order deals with a situation which may change from day to day. If we introduce legislation, we shall have to pin ourselves down to a definite principle. Everybody will have to accept the principle and we shall then have to consider the details of its application and freeze them in the form of law. It is open to Senators to say that we could amend that law afterwards by Emergency Order, but it would look a silly thing to put up what purported to be a permanent structure and then proceed to tear it here and there to make it fit the circumstances of the time. It is better to proceed the way we have proceeded—by way of order which is, of its nature, elastic—and try to meet all the difficulties as they arise when we give practical effect to it. That is why we have proceeded by way of order instead of by way of legislation.

Mr. E. Lynch

What is the emergency with which this order is intended to deal?

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

That is hardly a fair question to put to the Minister now.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps I might be permitted to follow the course suggested by Senator Hayes—go through this order article by article, listen to the points made in the debate and, then, try to answer them as briefly as possible.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

I did not suggest that the Minister should do as he proposes to do now. I should feel guilty and sorry to suggest that he should read out every article of the order. I suggested that he should tell us the general purpose of the order. The questions which have been put as regards one portion of the order and the answers which have been given have left our minds fairly clear as to what that portion of the order means. I want to rid the Minister of the misapprehension that I wanted to put him to the labour of reading out the whole of the order. The portion of the order dealing with dividends is fairly clear. The purpose I had in mind in intervening has been served and I am grateful to the Minister.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

If that is the position, I am quite satisfied.

(Sitting suspended at 6.50 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.)

James Tunney

Mr. Tunney

I intend to support the motion and, in a few words, to request the Minister to withdraw the order, if at all possible. The first reason is that I feel there is no need for the order. As a worker who has worked in every branch and amongst every section of the workers in this city—the organised workers—and as one who understands the rural workers also, I feel that they realise their responsibility quite well. The Government need have no fear that they will do anything drastic. As Senator Foran has stated correctly, since the war broke out and despite the fact that the cost of living has increased out of bounds, the number of strikes and amount of labour trouble have been very small.

If the Government were to go to the workers to-morrow and request them to make a sacrifice, even to the extent of giving up some of what they have, I am quite certain that 95 per cent. of them would be prepared to do that in the national interest. However, they resent the idea of being driven to do something. The Minister has stated that now is the time when all should stand together. I am quite sure he is aware of the stand the workers have taken here right through the troubled times of the last 20 years. At every critical period in this country's history, the workers were always ready to make their sacrifice and to take their stand on the proper side. One need only visit the suburbs of this city in the evening time to see the stand the workers have taken to-day. They are in the Local Defence Force and the Local Security Force; after their hard day's work they are prepared to engage in regular drill and do that without reward. They are prepared to give up their lives, if necessary, for this country.

There is another reason for requesting the withdrawal of this order. The very fact that this order is there gives too much of a chance to certain enemies of this country—enemies of the Government and enemies of the working class —to make propaganda like this: "Is it not too bad? We were to give you an increase on the 1st June, as we understand the way in which the cost of living has gone up, but the Government has made an order and will not allow us." There is a bad type who would do that—those who never gave anything to the worker but that which was dragged out of them.

From every point of view, it is a pity that the Government should make this order and I hope that the Minister will see his way to withdraw it. I am glad he has stated that he is prepared to examine it in detail and at least modify it. I intend to vote for the motion and press for the withdrawal of the order. I would be more content if there were no question of a vote and if the Minister would give the House an assurance that he would amend the order.

The workers had to fight hard and make sacrifices for what they have to-day. It was only after years of sacrifice that they came to their present position here. They realise now that the fight has been lessened and that the greatest amount of sympathy they have got has come from the present Government. This order comes now as a shock to the workers and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will withdraw it.

Liam O Buachalla

One hardly can contemplate this motion without a great deal of sympathy for the movers of it. I am sure we are all agreed that it is moved with the utmost sincerity and out of a belief held by the movers that an effort is being made to dragoon the worker in one way or another. At the same time, we should not allow our sympathies to screen from us the facts and truth of the situation. While I, personally, have a good deal of sympathy with the movers of the motion, I can only say that, on balance, I have more sympathy for the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think they are entitled to a great deal of sympathy, and for these reasons, that these people are in a better position to realise what is involved and what is at stake. They are in a position better to appreciate the importance and the urgency of this order, and because, further, the unpleasant duty devolves on them to draw up the order and to promulgate it.

I do not think that, other than to express my own conviction that the order is a proper one and is called for, I have anything more to say that is new. Some of the points raised already certainly would tend to entice one to digress and proceed to discuss various theories and entice one, maybe, to turn to a review or criticism of others, but I do not think that would be very helpful. I do not think it is called for. These discussions might be interesting but, however much one might enjoy them, I do not think this is the place or this is the time for them.

In this country, as I suppose in every country, the community is made up of various classes. It is unfortunate that we have to use the word "classes," but we have just got to use it because there is no better word available just yet. The community is made up, as we all know, of the capitalist, the middle-man, the rentier, the worker, the unemployed, and that unfortunate element of the community that has permanently to depend on the State and other institutions for whatever income it enjoys. Each of these classes is affected by this order, some of them affected directly, some of them indirectly, but each of the classes is affected by the order. The ultimate object envisaged is the well-being of the whole community. That is the ultimate object of the order. It does seem to puzzle some people, or we are led to believe it puzzles them, that the restricting of increases in incomes of both capitalists and workers in the present emergency is in their best interests, but such is the truth. I agree at once that the effect of the order is to restrict liberty, and the restriction of liberty is against our grain, but restriction of liberty in this instance may well enable us to enjoy later on a greater measure of economic and social freedom than might be possible should we be unwilling to forego some of our liberty to-day. At the same time, I, for one, am not convinced that the mass of the Irish people, workers and capitalists alike, feel that any great injustice is being perpetrated on them by this order. People interested in the problems of the workers, people studying social conditions, are quite well aware how often workers, admitting that they speak as individuals, declare their willingness to forego some of their liberty or some of their freedom if the foregoing of such freedom would lead to greater security. I admit that in these cases they speak as individuals but, nevertheless, taking a fair number of individuals as statistical samples, one is entitled to come to the conclusion that they represent the mind of the whole, and I am convinced that the workers, left to themselves, do not feel that their freedom is endangered in any way.

The object of this order, as I understand it, is to prevent hardship due to a possible dislocation of industry and commerce or, at least, its object is to postpone such dislocation for as long as possible. Anybody watching events and studying these problems will realise that very serious developments are taking place, developments that, whether we like it or not, are going seriously to affect economic conditions in this country. Our overseas trade is seriously affected. Income from that trade is contracting. Income from what investments we have abroad is contracting also. But the outstanding fact that emerges is this: that supplies of very many commodities, supplies of raw materials, are decreasing in quantity. As a consequence of this, there will be a tendency for prices to rise. Those in employment, especially those people in what may be called utility services, as well as all those who are sufficiently organised or sufficiently strong, will endeavour to counter the rise in prices by demanding increases in their remuneration.

And this can only lead to one result, a further rise in prices and again a further rise in wages. Anybody familiar with production accounts, trading accounts or profit and loss accounts of many of our businesses will be familiar with the great importance of the item of wages in these accounts. Now an increase, an important increase at any rate, in this particular item of wages must be transferred. The increased cost of production, because that is what I have in mind, must be obtained some way. There will not be much chance of getting general economies inside a business, so it will eventually be sought to pass the increased cost of production on to the consumer. Now this must lead to great economic friction resulting eventually in the inability of the public to purchase the commodities at the prices demanded, the prices that are essential to meet cost of production. This in turn must mean the slowing down in the demand for industrial services of all kinds, raw materials, capital goods, labour, and so on, with complete loss of employment for many and worsening of conditions for those who are left in employment. As I have said, those people in sheltered positions or those people who, through organisation or otherwise, are able to defend themselves against rise in prices, certainly can do so for a time, but only for a time, and they can do it also only at the expense of the other more or less defenceless members of the community, and it is the purpose of this order to secure firstly the interests of the workers themselves, and secondly of the non-workers, and for that reason especially I welcome the order. If there were some way of enabling those elements relying on fixed incomes to compete for their share in the pool of commodities things would be all right. If there is no way of doing that it is obvious that these people are open to suffer grave injustice. Now the preventing of such injustice is the duty of the Government and hence this order.

I may say in passing that the operation of this order will ensure that certain people will not be allowed to get away with undue profits. Now in certain quarters there appears to be a certain anxiety to have a definition of the term "reasonable profit." It would be very, very hard to get agreement on this point. Economics is not an exact science. It is not an experimental science, and that being so, while there is a very great measure of agreement on many matters, there will be disagreement on some, and on what is a reasonable return on capital there would certainly be very grave differences. But considering the sheltered position which most industries have in this country under our industrial revival policy, the amounts that have been fixed in this order are, to my mind, very reasonable and very fair. Now it is not my intention in fairness to the Cathaoirleach and to the House to discuss individual cases, but, in passing, I might remark that we have heard a good deal in public about the profits in certain industries, bacon curing, milling, shoe making, braid manufacture, and so on. In some cases returns as high as 25 per cent. have been paid, and people may rightly declare, and I, for one, have no hesitation in declaring, that it would seem that undue rewards have been taken. Now at the same time I do not for one moment agree that the making of these high profits or of high profits generally implies what is commonly known as profiteering. As a matter of fact, it is with the utmost pleasure that many of us have been watching the growth in efficiency of management, of technicians and of labour in our industries. This efficiency is what has led to these profits being made. To me these profits were a barometer, the reading of which gave me the utmost satisfaction. Given normal conditions, given fair play on the part of labour and capital, I think we can say that it is not impossible in this country to establish a sound industrial arm. To get back to the point, capital is called upon to make its contribution as well as labour.

There may be cases of hardship. I should be very surprised myself if some such cases are not revealed, but on the whole reasonable business men, reasonable industrialists, having their own particular interests as well as the interests of the nation at heart, will not allow agitation or propaganda to get the better of their commonsense. Labour may feel uneasy at the possibility of some elements being in a position to profiteer. I believe certain increases in prices may reasonably be expected, but I do not think that there is much danger of profiteering. The operation of this order, together with proper vigilance and activity on the part of the Prices Commission, should effectively prevent any tendency in that unfortunate direction. At the same time I would say that the Government will be very wise to keep a close eye on developments. Rationing in this country in regard to foodstuffs can have only very limited importance but, should it appear necessary at all, I certainly hope that expedients such as price-fixing or Government control will be adopted. It is very difficult to say what the future may have in store for us, but I think there is one thing of which we may be sure. That is, if we can manage to escape the extensive destruction of life and property which is such an appalling feature of this war, more so than of any war that has been fought so far, we should be able to get back to a sense of proportion and values and to develop an economic and social order more in consonance with our national resources and our national genius. The facts are simply these, that this country can produce flour——

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

At a very high price.

Liam O Buachalla

It can produce milk and meat. Ireland can produce materials for good houses and comfortable hearths. Ireland can produce good, warm and colourful materials for clothing. Irish playing fields and the Irish fireside are still capable of giving us good clean recreation and entertainment. A hundred and one things may disappear from the lists of imported articles. They may even disappear from the lists of commodities produced here. Our trains may move somewhat more slowly than they move to-day. Other forms of transport may become rare but, notwithstanding all these things, I for one am far from believing that the change will be disastrous. Granted the will, granted good sense on the part of our people to accept necessary changes, granted a spirit of co-operation, that change in my opinion would be most beneficial. I think it was the Minister for Supplies who told us on one occasion recently that if our economic and social difficulties cannot be solved within the system then he would be prepared to go outside of it. For my part I like that approach to our problems. It gives one hope. Would to God that our people to-day were sufficiently educated to its importance.

Mr. E. Lynch

The last speaker told us that economics was not an exact science. I have always heard that economics was the dismal science and, certainly listening to the last speaker, I have been convinced beyond all doubt that it is. I was also interested in what the Minister had to say in the opening part of his remarks, prior to the tea adjournment. He gave us some of his reasons for the introduction of this order. Listening to Senator Buckley, my mind went back to the Biblical phrase, that the hands were the hands of Esau, but the voice was the voice of Jacob. We have listened to Senator Buckley putting forward what, I submit, was a replica of the statement put forward by the Minister.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

Might I ask on a point of information who is Jacob? It is not clear to me.

Mr. E. Lynch

He does not live on the South Circular Road. In both statements we have been given what are supposed to be arguments in favour of this order. We are told that it is for the purpose of ensuring equality of sacrifice, arising from the lessening amount of raw materials available for industry. We have been told that unless this lessening amount of raw materials is dealt with in the manner set forth in the order, we shall reach a calamitous state of affairs in this country in the near future. I cannot accept that. I consider that that argument is completely fallacious. If that is the reason for bringing in this order, then why are not these raw materials equitably rationed amongst those who have to use them? That would ensure equitable distribution and it would obviate this standstill order on wages which anybody who seriously studies the order, must realise will fail and have no effect. Rationalisation of the cost of industrial raw materials would effect the purpose which we are told lies behind this order. Furthermore, if with the order there was a collateral order dealing with the cost of living, by those two methods then, the end desired by the Government might be attained, and there would be no necessity for the order in its present form. Now I think that is the basic argument of the Minister and his economic supporters in this Chamber, and I intend to show within the limited time at my disposal that the attack which the order makes on the workers will have a serious effect both economically and socially in this country. Besides, I hope to prove that the order is inequitable and harsh in its incidence.

In studying this order I accidentally came across an historic precedent which might be of some interest to this House to hear because the order—outside of this precedent—is probably unprecedented. To find the first precedent for an order of this character limiting wages, we have to go back to the time of Edward III to the edict passed in the year 1349. In that year a statute for labourers was passed by Edward III stating that he had been advised by his prelates and nobles— notice it was not the trades unions— that the workers of that particular time would have to take the same wage as was paid in the twentieth year of his reign, and by that ukase he made a standstill order affecting the workers of that particular time. The Minister may, or may not, take comfort in the fact that he is in association with such royalty, and has such a royal precedent for his harsh and heinous order, but I doubt if the workers of this country, in this supposedly enlightened and democratic age, will get the same comfort and satisfaction from an order which plunges them back into the savage conditions of the Middle Ages. Now I think the workers are entitled to more consideration from this Government than they are getting under this Act or this order. We have had many grandiose promises in regard to conditions, but, strange to relate, instead of having our conditions of employment improved, we find that we get an order of this character, and if Edward III chastised the villeins and serfs of 1349 with whips, it seems our Government intends to chastise us with scorpions.

Now Governments should be particularly solicitous of the interest of the workers. They are the poorest and lowest paid section of the community. They are the most defenceless section of the community, and a moral obligation is imposed on every Government to look after the interests of that defenceless section primarily. That is not done by this order, which affects all alike, as if the interests of all those concerned from wage-earners to coupon-clippers and dividend hunters were the same. We know they are not. It is wrong to inflict an order, or in other words to employ a guillotine to deal with the interests of the wage-earners and those other people alike. Another thing which this order does is this: it interferes radically with the personal contract of service which the wage contract is. It may be said, in reply, that the State has a right to interfere in all and every matter concerning the citizen, but still there is a sanctity about the contract of service, the rate at which the worker will give his service for the remuneration to be paid for those services, which is different. But here in this order the contract is absolutely abrogated and the worker has no longer a right to vary that contract in an upper direction, and consequently the contract of service is interfered with. In this matter again we find that the workers of Ireland have from the 7th May been plunged back into the condition in which the English workers found themselves in the 14th century. Now it is questionable if the Emergency Powers Act gave authority to deal with the matter comprehended by this order, and certainly that Act would have received different attention from us if it were thought that economic matters of this character vitally affecting the livelihood of so many wage-earners would be dealt with in this manner.

It is no answer to say that sacrifices must be made alike all round. There is no comparison between wages and salaries and dividends. In regard to wages, we must remember that they are spent fully on essential commodities to maintain the worker in his daily occupation, and anything which depresses the standard which he enjoys unquestionably affects his ability to carry on and to work. The labourer has a wage only, but that is not so in regard to the remuneration taken from industry in the way of dividends or salaries. Any limitation placed on dividends, or salaries, while it might affect in some minor way some luxury of those enjoying dividends or salaries, does not in the same way affect them as it does the worker because the worker only receives that bare amount which keeps him from week to week as a worker in industry.

How, then, can it be said that the order makes the sacrifices equal all round? It does no such thing. Where this order affects wages, it will seriously affect the health and comfort of the workers, the basic foundations of the community. That will result from the way in which it reacts on the economic conditions of the workers. To say, therefore, that all must contribute alike in this emergency, which has not been defined—I asked before tea if "emergency" would be defined, and it was not—is, in my opinion, a piece of sophistry. The employers may forego some luxury. They may take their car off the road. They may give up some pastime or pleasure and, in that way, meet the situation. But the worker cannot give up anything, because everything he receives is essential to his life and to the lives of those dependent upon him.

One would think, from reading the schedule to the order, that wages were on a majestic and munificent scale in this country and that they could bear this impost. Wages are not of that high character. Since mid-September, 1939, through a rapid rise in the cost of living, real wages have been seriously reduced. Food, as represented by wages, when it becomes limited, brings about the deterioration of which I have already spoken. Consequently, it has the retroactive effect that the social services are again called upon to a greater degree and taxation and rates must be again increased to meet the greater call which the low wage-content of industry necessitates.

The schedule to the order embraces a very large number and a vast variety of workers. If we take the average wages for 1939, we find that, far from the inflated wages which some people say the workers enjoy, the average was round about 50/-. It was not 60/-, 65/- or 70/-, as some people would lead us to believe. The cost of living since mid-September, 1939, has gone up by 26 per cent., and, to that extent, real wages have deteriorated. It is real wages with which we are concerned, and not nominal wages. As Senator Foran said here this evening, it does not matter whether workers are paid £10 or £1, it is the amount of commodities the wage is capable of bringing into the home that is important. The operation of the cost-of-living figure has considerably reduced nominal wages. On analysis, you will find that real wages to-day, as a result of that, are on an average nearly 40/-. Certain increases have been secured in some industries, which increases must be added to that figure. These increases are not as large as the Minister indicated, both in the Dáil and here this evening. In his statement in the Dáil, which he repeated here this evening, he said that wages had been increased by 9/-, 12/- and 13/-.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

In some cases.

Mr. Lynch

Wages may have been increased in some cases by these figures, but the number of them is small. While it is difficult to give a correct assessment of increases-I am drawing somewhat from my own experience in saying this—it will not be inaccurate to say that, instead of wage increases being 9/-, 12/- or 13/-, they would be nearer 5/- and 6/-, and that only in a limited number of occupations. Quite a large section of workers have not received any increase whatsoever in their remuneration to meet the increased cost of living. I can leave to the imagination of the House the effect of that steep and stupendous rise in the cost of living where it operates on wages which have not been increased or which have been increased only by 5/- or 6/-.

There is another case of hardship under this order. I refer to some new factories established in recent years. The employees, in order to get over initial difficulties, agreed to work at a lesser rate of wages than that at which they would work if these initial difficulties did not exist. Some of these factories have now got on their feet, or are about to get on their feet, and will be able henceforth to run economically. Under this standstill order, the workers in these factories will not now be able to secure any increase in their wages although they have shown great consideration in that they refrained from asking for a standard rate in these industries during their growing and formative period. That is one grave inequality caused by this order. Perhaps the Minister did not consider the existence of such factories when he was making the order. If he inquires into the wages paid in some of these industries, I think he will find that they have been low because the workers desired to afford the factories time during which they could get on their feet. The employees of these factories will be severely and harshly dealt with and, to that extent, the order is unfair and inequitable in its incidence.

Let us look at the order from the other side. Under the order, dividends can be paid at the rate of 6 per cent. by such a factory over a period of three years where dividends have not yet been paid. The equality of sacrifice does not seem to operate there. Let us take one glaring and outstanding case of a similar character—that is, the case of the railways in this country. We all know the economic conditions through which the railways have passed in the course of the past few years. We all know that the railwaymen have been particularly solicitous for the interests of those railways and desirous of keeping them operating. We know that they have forgone large amounts in wages in that effort. The figures which I am about to quote will give some idea of the sacrifice which railwaymen have made since 1921 to sustain the railways now to be affected by this order. In 1921, the peak rate for porters was 66/6. Then, by the process of reduction, this was lowered to 49/-, a difference of 17/6 per week. That affected no less than 8,000 workers on the railways here. Taking this reduction from the year 1921 to the current year, railwaymen have contributed over £7,000,000 towards the continuation of the railway system.

Since then, the Irish Railway Wages Board was formed. We know the function of that board and what it endeavoured to do. In 1926, cuts were employed to reduce the wages of certain of the lesser paid categories by from 4/- to 6/3 per week, and these still operate and have amounted to £2,000,000. The reductions granted by the board, which terminated last year, would equal £500,000. The recent increases granted—2/6 to the G.S.R. employees and 5/- to the G.N.R. employees—would correctly be described as part of the operation of the cuts. Taking the G.S.R. employees, the 2/6 increase leaves a number of men in Dublin with a rate of 41/- and in other parts of the country at 36/6. This compares very unfavourably with the conditions enjoyed by the directors, despite the "equality of sacrifice". It would amaze anybody to learn what the directors are paid in comparison to the ordinary railwaymen. Furthermore, despite the huge remuneration received by the railway director—I understand it is a sum of about £18 per week— they also, since 1938, have secured an increase of 29/-, where the average railwayman has secured 2/6 per week.

One would hardly feel that Order 83 is seriously intended to apply to these grades of railwaymen, whose sacrifices amounted to £7,000,000 and in respect of whom there is a claim for an increase of 7/6 which, if granted in full, would amount to £180,000, leaving a very large margin still unrestored. Further, while the companies have refused—as apparently they have done—a demand for 7/6, that demand was pending before the Railway Wages Board; but the board is now inhibited from dealing with it. There again, as in the case of the new factories, the workers who were anxious to meet the railway companies and to sustain the railways, and who over a long period of time contributed this large sum of money out of their wages to that end, are now, when the railways are making a little money, stopped from receiving any portion of that increased revenue. Surely there is a gross injustice to the workers in these particular industries and occupations.

Again, there is the case of other railway companies whose headquarters are in England. They have agreed to wage increases for their employes in that country, which automatically would pass to their employees in this country but, under the operation of this order, these companies cannot now pay those increases. I trust the Minister will take serious notice of these anomalies—as, unquestionably, they are anomalies. He said this evening that he has power to withdraw or amend the order. Perhaps he would look into the matter in the light of the facts I have just given. The low wages content would be affected by the increase in the cost of living and, as time goes on, that wages position is bound to be adversely affected by this order.

I would like to give the House a slight idea of what is considered a satisfactory dietary for certain grades of persons, such as the inmates and staff of certain poor law institutions, and also the amount necessary to maintain a soldier. Comparing the two, it will be seen to what extent the wages of the industrial worker fall below the necessary minimum and how he and his dependents are physically prejudiced by that. In the Dáil report of the 23rd April, 1941, the cost of maintaining a soldier was given as about 10/- per week. This figure is based on wholesale buying, which the ordinary worker cannot avail of. The cost of maintaining inmates and staff of the Dublin Union was 6/9¾. We may take, as a moderate estimate between these figures, 7/- per adult. If we take an average family of two adults and three children and allow 7/- for the adults and, say, 6/- for the children, we will find, on the basis of the dietary I have mentioned, that 32/- a week is required as the minimum— bought at wholesale prices—to maintain this type of family. We must add something to that for clothes, light, rent, fuel and sundries. If we add a figure of 24/-, I do not think it would be over-munificent to that family. Thus we get a figure of 56/- per week to meet the maintenance cost of that particular family. When the wages are below that figure the health of the industrial workers is bound to be affected.

The Trade Journal for March gives some statistical information in regard to the persons engaged in certain industries, including transport, food, textiles, etc. These relate to 1939. There have been advances in the cases which I have instanced—probably about an average of 5/- or 6/- per week.

What do we find? We find that in the manufacturing industries, employing 100,000 persons, men and women, the average earnings per week, when employed, amounted for men to 59/4, and for women to 31/6. But more significantly in connection with this order, over 52 per cent. of the men's wages when employed were 60/- per week, 38 per cent. were below 50/- per week, 24 per cent. were below 40/- per week, and 11 per cent. below 30/- per week. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all those people have had the advance I have spoken of, from 1929, say, of 6/- per week, and we find that 38 per cent of our employed workers are in receipt, when working, of less than sufficient to provide for a family on a scale shown to be necessary to maintain them on a healthy subsistence level. Surely that is an argument, and a serious argument, against the operation of this order. When you consider that the amount spent on clothes, rent, light and fuel are fixed expenses, the only adjustment that can be made is on the other side, namely on the food side.

We were told that the cost of commodities was rising and that it was due to that rising cost—I understand it is called the spiral—that this order has been made necessary. But is it not a fact that very largely the increase in the cost of living, in relation to these commodities, has occurred outside of this country and consequently the costs affected, or which can be affected, in this country are small in comparison? Therefore, the order, which is restricted to the jurisdiction of this country, cannot seriously affect the rising cost of commodities and, consequently would not have the effect which the Government intends that it should have. In England, instead of the English Government following the precedent of the Statute of Labourers of Edward III, which, I think, they had a greater right to do than we have, they set up a tribunal to deal with wages demands from day to day and wages demands are being heard and adjudicated before that tribunal day in and day out. Surely that would be a far more sensible way of dealing with the issue than bringing along a standstill guillotine measure such as we have here in this order.

Furthermore, the position of the workers is going to be much more seriously menaced in the future because we have been told that with the declining quantity of raw materials and the rationing of raw materials, it would be necessary to work short time or rotational schemes of employment. These schemes of employment are bound to cause a further deterioration in the economic life and condition of the worker. I think we can only face with alarm the position in this country in the approaching winter when the worker is prohibited from adjusting his wages within industry. I think also that limited wage expenditure is bound to affect very seriously that element of the community that depends on the expenditure of wages for its existence, namely, the shopkeeping community. Again, that in turn is bound to affect the economic position of the farmers who have agricultural goods to sell, but who cannot sell those goods when the wages content has gone down.

All those reasons are, in our opinion, sufficient to cause the Minister serious pause, to think seriously over this order. He has heard it analysed and, I presume will hear it further analysed in this House this evening from various standpoints. I trust that, having heard the debate here this evening, and probably seeing the difficulties of the situation which were not obvious to him before, he will withdraw or annul this order. I make a very serious appeal to the Senators present here this evening, of all Parties, and especially those of other Parties who have a labour interest in this House, as we have, that they have a duty to the people they represent to see that this order is annulled. It is harsh and unfair and inequitable. It will not do what it purports to do, and it would be the greatest wisdom if it were annulled or withdrawn.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

Senator Lynch, speaking from the Labour Benches, said, after Senator Liam O Buachalla had spoken, that the professional economists were somewhat dreary. I do not know whether the Trades Union Congress economists are anything more cheerful than the professional university economists. By my rearing and associations, my natural sympathies are with labour, and when I read the order I did not like it. When I heard the Minister this evening I liked the order still less because he revealed to me that the order, in certain respects, was worse than I originally thought it was. But if I have to listen to another speech like Senator Lynch's, I will certainly go into the Lobby with the Minister, or any Lobby, to assert my disgust with the complete failure of that particular Labour speech to face up to any of the problems we have to deal with now. This solution of the Minister's may not be the right solution, but Senator Lynch did not give us any notion at all. He said that the order would be analysed this evening. He did not analyse it. He did not take any step at all towards analysing it, and one wonders whether he has given any consideration to the making of anything but the kind of speech we usually hear, which can be used in support of everything from the Labour Benches, no matter what it is, and which shows no variation. It does not show much grasp of the problem to be solved. When Senator Lynch was talking about the 14th century, I wondered why he did not tell us when Edward III's order about labour was annulled and whether he really believes that the workers were subjected to savagery in the Middle Ages, as contrasted with their magnificent treatment, let us say, in the 19th century or during the industrial revolution.

However, on this particular order, when I got it, the first thing that struck me about it was that there were parts of it with which I could agree and other parts with which I could not agree; that it was a very difficult thing to understand and that it would be more satisfactory if it had been introduced as a Bill. I think the Minister's argument, that it could not have been a Bill because it had to be temporary is completely answered by any Parliamentary experience we have since 1922 and, indeed, by all Parliamentary experience.

There is nothing to prevent the Minister from bringing in a Bill and making it temporary, but certainly I think the Minister's own knowledge of this order has been improved by his attempt to go through it and explain its provisions as on a Committee Stage. There is no doubt that, instead of making this order and laying it on the Table of the House to come into operation within 21 days, some effort might have been made to get the opinion of both Houses and see whether we could get some agreement about it. We discovered from the Minister's explanation to-day that this order was made under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Surely that is clear on the face of this order.

Mr. Hayes

Yes, it is, but what I was coming to was this: in this order the Minister can make other orders, and he can make these other orders to any extent he pleases, and it has to be ascertained whether the other order would be subject to discussion in this House or in the Dáil. I want to put it to the Minister that this is not so. This order is submitted to this House under Section 9 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, which says:

"Every Emergency Order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made",

and that if an annulling resolution is not passed within 21 days it shall have the force of law. Section 10 says:

"...every Emergency Order and every instrument made, granted, or issued, or direction under an Emergency Order shall have the force of law",

so that it appears to me that the Minister can proceed to make any order he pleases, bring under its application any class of employment, and that it will not only have the force of law, but it will be removed from any form of Parliamentary debate. I do not know whether that is the position, but I suggest that it is a very wrong position that the Minister should have that power. When this Act was being passed, I think I commented upon it and said that I did not want this particular Act, which was given to the Government in the small hours of a Sunday morning, if it was to be used against labour, and I do not give to labour the absurdly narrow meaning that my friend Senator Lynch gave it. It is now being used to regulate labour, but this order apparently gives power to make endless other orders which are not to be subject to discussion. That is one thing which seems to me to be undoubtedly wrong. There is another question: I wonder can the Minister do anything to remedy that position by inserting a proviso—he probably can— that any order adding to the schedule must be laid on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and if not annulled in 21 days to have full force of law. He probably could do that, but it is not my function to tell the Minister how he can get out of a legal difficulty. That is a consideration of the method. Now, there are two parts in the order; it deals with wages, not as the Minister says, to effect a standstill in wages, but to ensure that wages cannot rise. There is a very definite danger that they may fall, because with our economic position and our overseas trade declining, it may very well be that people may be afraid of unemployment and be willing to accept a smaller wage rather than lose their jobs. I know that, from a trades union point of view, the trades union leader is more interested in the man who is working than the man who is idle.

Mr. Hayes

I know what I am talking about. I think the trades union leader is more interested in the man who is working than the man who is idle but as a matter of cold fact anybody who has lived in a working-class house knows that a man who has a constant job, who is sure of his job at a particular wage is in a much better position than the man who has a supposedly high wage, but is not sure of his job. For instance take the difference between the man who has a constant job in the engineering branch and a man who has a high wage per hour in the building trade. It is an unreal wage and is not as good in fact. Now there are in abstract economics, Sir, very good reasons for standstills in wages and dividends but the dividend part of this order is not very necessary. The Minister, I am sure, understands the matter and he will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the provisions of the Budget make the dividends part of this order pretty well unnecessary. Even the dividends part of it does not seem to be very well thought out because for some businesses any one is aware that 6 per cent. is small but for certain industries it might be very big. We can all imagine the case of people who, by hard work and efficiency, had been creeping up from dividends of 2 per cent., 3 per cent. and 4 per cent., and now they find they cannot go beyond 6 per cent. I think that might be very unfair.

I do not accept, and I do not think the House accepts, the division of the world into two classes, the people who work for their wages and the people who live on dividends and salaries and spend them on luxuries. Surely, we have progressed far enough to make such a division an absurdity as if we did not know that working people ever spent anything on the pictures and the racecourse. That is an absurd division, and we all know that it is absurd. The defence for the wages part of this order is that it is a way of preventing the cost of living rising, for if wages go up the cost of living goes up. Workers who are well organised, and who, because they are well organised, are comparatively well paid, will do better than any other class. The cost of living will rise with disastrous results to our trade and our currency and to unemployment and the very badly paid and unorganised workers will suffer. There is a case in the abstract, therefore, for preventing the rise in wages and in the cost of living, but I want to say that the position must be considered equitably and justly from the point of view of the people of all kinds. The Minister phrases it that everybody must stand fast; that everybody should stand together. There is not much use of a man with £1,000 a year telling the messengers with £2 5s. a week or 35/- a week: "Listen, boys, we will have to stand together," unless he is going to do something to share with them. I can understand very well that the well-paid people should not be allowed to take the community by the throat and say: "We want more, we don't care who gets less," but, at the same time, when you talk glibly about standing fast you must have some advertence to the people you are addressing.

Now, as has just been pointed out, the cost of living here has risen from the beginning of the war only one point less than in England. From the beginning of the war to mid-February, it had risen by 27 points in England and by 26 points here. The most remarkable thing about the figures is that the rise in the cost of food in England has been 24 points and the rise in the cost of food in Eire has been exactly the same. The rise in the cost of clothing is much less here than in Great Britain, but taking food, clothing, fuel, light, rent and sundries, the two totals were practically identical.

Frank MacDermot

Mr. MacDermot

Is that because food has been subsidised in England?

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

I am just coming to that. Probably it is. The total figures are 27 points in England and 26 points here. The objectionable feature of this order is that it is introduced in May, 1941, more than a year and a half after the war began and that it practically stands alone. The Government, in this matter as in other matters, have pursued a policy of doing nothing at all about certain problems and then suddenly, getting into a great panic, they believe that by putting an order into operation, they have done something to solve the problem. I want to suggest that this, done by itself and done at this stage, is not going to be effective. In England the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a promise in the Budget that he would keep the cost of living down to its present figure, that he would keep it between 125 and 130, that is 25 or 30 points more than before the present war began. As well as that, he is subsidising essential commodities. There is also in operation there a very drastic system of rationing. Here we have not got a system of rationing, except in so far as the lowly-paid purchaser is rationed by his inability to purchase. We have no subsidy either for essential commodities.

It will be remembered that, speaking in this House to a motion in my name asking for the preparation of a general register of consumers, I said that we should have rationing of essential commodities and that, accompanying that, we should subsidise certain essential commodities so that persons in the lowest wage categories would be sure of getting at least some share of them. At present, they do not get any share of them at all sometimes. I know that the cost of living in this country in certain matters is entirely outside the power of the Government to control, but the increase in certain items which go to make up the cost of living is due to Government action long before the war. If vigorous steps had been taken to control the cost of living I have no doubt that it would not have gone as high as it has gone in this country. If it is impossible to prevent a rise, then, at any rate, there should be a subsidising of essential foodstuffs for people who are in receipt of very low wages.

Another point that has to be remembered is that in England the question of family allowances is being considered. I do not know if these things have been considered here but, in the circumstances in which we are placed here, we know that the people who are the worst paid are generally those who have the largest families and they are the most valuable people in the country from the point of view of the survival of the country. There certainly would appear to be a very good case for the introduction of family allowances in this State. Nothing has been done in that direction. What has been done is that this order has been introduced in a very drastic but not in a very carefully-considered manner. As regards family allowances, it must be remembered that they have been already recognised in the income-tax code. The income-tax law recognises, not sufficiently adequately perhaps, that the income-tax payer is entitled to certain relief in respect of his family, that he should get a certain remission in respect of members of his family under 16 years of age who are dependent upon him or over 16 years of age if they are still being educated. Similarly unemployment assistance benefits recognise family allowances and so does the system of unemployment insurance. Therefore the principle has been recognised. It would be valuable at present to enable people to feel that, when they were being asked to stand together, at any rate they were being thought of and that steps were being taken to keep them from starving.

Senator Douglas on one occasion here proposed a tribunal—I do not know if the Labour Party were very enthusiastic about it—to which labour disputes might be referred. If such a tribunal were in existence, it might be possible in this order to say that no applications for wage increases would be considered from people above a certain level, but that applications from people under that level could be made to that tribunal. That might be feasible, but the order as it stands seems to me to be bad because of its form, because it gives a power to the Minister which I think nobody ever contemplated when the Emergency Powers Act was passed, and passed unanimously, as far as I remember.

Michael Hayes

Mr. M. Hayes

I am sorry if I am mistaken in that, but it was passed by a big majority. Certainly, when I was voting for that measure in that particular emergency I made the reservation that it would not be used for an action of this kind. The power which the Minister seems to enjoy under this order is something which nobody contemplated at that time. The order itself is very unsatisfactory in the absence of other measures which might be taken before it or concomitantly with it. I do not share the view for a moment that the Minister is a monster, or that he is out to menace the workers. I do not think that is so at all. I think the Minister is making a well-meant, but not a well thought-out or very successful, effort to accomplish a particular economic state of affairs which would certainly inflict injustice on a large class of workers. It is not only manual workers that are affected; there is a very considerable number of people, very poorly paid, who are not organised in labour unions at all, whose positions and whose wages are in a very precarious position.

What I am afraid of is that the order aims at preventing something which in any event will not happen. I do not know what kind of person in this country at present is in such a flourishing position that he could contemplate an increase in the wages of his employees. We know that in England the position is quite different, because an immense amount of money, £10,000,000 a day, is being spent on war expenditure. Here we are in a very lamentable position—this is an argument for the Minister. Remember, during the last war we made plenty of money. In the last war we succeeded in being on both sides and in making a good deal of money. This time we have an organised State and we have declared our neutrality but, although we are not making anything out of the war, we have incurred a great deal of expenditure as if we were in it. That expenditure has had to be incurred in a country which has not a corresponding rise in production. The resulting hardship presses very severely upon people who have very low wages. It seems to me that the most important consideration at the moment is how to keep them in their employment at present wages. There is little hope of being able to get them more.

Actually Senator Lynch did not suggest how their situation could be materially improved except by direct State subsidy, because, if it could not be improved in normal conditions—in times of peace—it is very difficult to see how it could be improved under present conditions. There should be, I think, some advertence to the position of the lowest paid workers, those people who have been referred to as the defenceless members of our community, the people who are not organised and are not particularly vocal. Whether they are vocal or not, they are citizens of this State, and if they are oppressed by an order which they feel throttles them it will have a bad effect. The order, I suggest, is bad and will not effect its object unless other steps are taken.

Dr. Robert James Rowlette

Dr. Rowlette

I think every member of the Oireachtas, every member of this Seanad, is slow to hamper the Government in any steps they think proper to deal with the present difficult situation. Certainly it is with considerable hesitation that I criticise the order now before us because we are slow to do anything which might make matters more difficult for the Government. When we passed the emergency legislation we gave the Government very effective and far-reaching powers but it is our duty to keep a close scrutiny on the orders issued by Ministers which are subject to annulment by this House. It is specially our duty when the Government has been given these powers, as Senator Hayes reminded us, by a large majority in both this and the other House. I think we ought to contemplate—that we ought to ask ourselves and the Government— whether such an order as this really falls within the ambit of the powers which we gave them some months ago. I cannot see myself that, in any way, this order justifies itself under the powers given by that Act. The Minister has given reasons why he does not think it wise to deal with the matter set out in this order by means of the Bill. I do not think any member of the House was convinced by the claims he made. He said that there was an obvious advantage in having an order, because all the matters contained in it could be covered by one debate and he would not be hampered in having to deal with the matter clause by clause. I do not agree.

It would be better if we were able to deal with this clause by clause, and able to move amendments as to a Bill. Amendments have an influence on the mind of a reasonable Minister, and he might see points in amendments that he could not see in a general debate like this. I think a measure such as this is eminently one which should be considered in the form of a Bill, and not as an order. Actually the order is in operation before this House could consider whether it should be annulled or not. I have heard no reason whatever that if this policy of legislation by order is to be adopted in a case like this it should not be adopted generally in both Houses. Where you have legislation by a Bill you have amendments and the matter is subject to reconsideration by the Minister. Justifying this procedure the Minister said that it was more elastic in the form of an order than in a Bill. On that argument he could justify suspending practically all legislation while the Emergency Powers Act is in force, and having the whole law of the country for the time being established by order.

Certainly the particular policy embodied in this order seems to me to deserve greater consideration than can be given to it by a debate of this kind. It definitely establishes a new principle of direct interference by the Minister in existing contracts between different groups of citizens in the country; between the employers and the employed. In one clause it definitely authorises the employer to break a contract. That is the extraordinary clause in the order, which gives permission to the employer to break a bargain he has made to pay income-tax or portion of it. This clause 6 (4) says:—

Where an employer, in accordance with a contract of employment or established practice pays the income-tax chargeable on the remuneration of an employee and the standard rate of income-tax for any income-tax year ending on or after the 5th day of April, 1942 exceeds the standard rate for the income-tax year ended 5th day of April, 1941, then, notwithstanding such contract or practice the said employer shall not pay for the said employee in respect of income-tax chargeable for any future year on the remuneration of the said employee any greater sum than the sum he would have paid if the standard rate of income-tax for such future year had been that in force for the year 1940-41.

Under that clause the Minister takes the right to himself to interfere with existing contracts between groups of citizens. Even in a Bill powers of that kind would require great consideration, but here it is enforced in an order before either House has had an opportunity of considering it at all.

We all sympathise with what the Minister states is his main object or the main object of the Government. That is the intention to keep down prices. We all admit that if wages soar prices are likely to soar too, and that a vicious circle, or the vicious spiral to use a phrase heard on several occasions here, begins. But there are two sides to this question. The Minister proposes to act very radically with regard to keeping down wages, but one is entitled to ask if anything effective has been done to control prices. So far as we know the machinery in operation to control prices here is very ineffective, and gives little security to the ordinary purchaser so far as the price of any of the commodities necessary for maintaining himself and his family is concerned. There is little control over the price of those commodities necessary to give what the Taoiseach has called frugal comfort. Until the Government are able to put forward some scheme by which we can hope effective control of prices will be established, I do not think they should put forward this order to control wages.

The Minister referred several times to the general principles of the order. The only time he stated a general principle was at the beginning when he suggested that the principle of the order, or the main intention of the order," was that "remuneration would stand at its present level." He was challenged on that and it was pointed out that while the order prevents a rise in wages there was nothing in it to preserve wages at their present level. Therefore the statement that that was the intention of the order has not been supported by the text of the order itself. I cannot believe that those who drafted the order got instructions to produce an order which would keep remuneration standing at its present level and did not embody that in the text of the order. The order before us seems to be directed to ensuring that wages would not rise above their present level. When the Minister was challenged— by Senator Foran, I think—about the order keeping wages at their present level he avoided repeating the phrase, and I hope has abandoned a phrase that was quoted so glibly in that way, just as the term "standstill order" had been loosely used.

It is not a standstill order; it is a no-progress order, which is a very different thing. It does not prevent recession from the present position, but it does prevent progress. In my opinion, this matter is not one which should come before the House in the shape of an order. It should not be dependent on the activity of any member of the House or any Party in the House to have attention drawn to points in the order.

That leads me to make one further remark with reference not only to this order but to the many other orders which are placed on the Table of the House. It would be a great help to the House if some machinery were adopted as a regular part of its procedure for considering the several orders made by Ministers and placed on the Table of the House. At present, it depends on the industry and activity of some members whether or not the attention of the House is called to an order which is something more than a mere bit of administrative machinery. Some members of the House will remember that, a few years ago, when a Government commission sat for a few months to consider the formation of a Seanad, at a time when there was no Seanad in existence, and the duties which that Seanad should perform, several members of the commission were anxious that the Seanad should undertake this special duty of watching Ministerial orders and drawing the attention of the House to anything they thought worthy of special discussion. I cannot remember at the moment whether a recommendation to that effect was made in any of the reports of that commission. At any rate, some members thought that the Seanad should make that an addition to its ordinary working machinery. I am not convinced that this measure deserves the acquiescence of the Seanad and, therefore, I support the resolution proposed by Senator Foran.

Mr. Douglas

One of the main reasons why the last proposal made by Senator Rowlette has never met with very much support is because you can only talk about the orders and cannot amend them. So far as a minority is concerned, they cannot defeat them. Therefore, the enthusiasm for talking on something which cannot be cured is diminished. Even if the Minister were persuaded, he would have to withdraw the order and introduce a new one.

It would take a great deal to persuade him to do that, though I agree that it might sometimes happen. That is one of the reasons why a matter such as that included in this order should not be done by means of Ministerial Order. The strange thing is that the Act which gave the Minister power to do this is a temporary Act. It remains in force only for the period of the emergency. Although the Minister can do this under the Act, he says that he would find it quite impossible and impracticable to introduce this as a temporary Act for the same length as the Act which enables him to do it by order. I suggest that that is absurd and that it should be perfectly practicable to introduce a step of this kind by means of legislation.

So long as we are working under our present system—that is to say a system under which the Minister, with a certain number of civil servants and no consultative council to advise him, acts—I think it is most unsatisfactory to deal with controversial and difficult matters by means of orders which cannot be amended. If you had a properly-constituted economic council, a good deal might be said for dealing with a matter of this kind by order, because it could be examined and amended before it was actually issued. Then, Parliament might only deal with the principle. In this case, all the guidance the Minister can get is from civil servants. Estimable and hard-working as most of them are, only one or two of them will have had practical experience of working a business. Consequently, with the best will in the world, they cannot see the snags which are very often found in Bills when discussed in the Dáil or in this House. That is one reason why I do not like this order. That is one reason why I shall be personally compelled to support this motion, although there are certain things in the order I like. There are, of course, certain things I dislike, too.

I believe that the Minister was merely guessing when he made a certain remark here about these orders. I looked up the matter since then. The Minister cannot himself make an order under the Emergency Powers Act. It must be made by the whole Government and it must be signed by the Taoiseach. This order purports to give the Minister power to amend it. He can amend it by taking out certain industries or adding to them or in a number of other ways. There is no provision in the order or in the Emergency Powers Act whereby it would be open to Senator Foran to propose to annul the further order made by the Minister under this order.

Orders made under the Emergency Powers Act have the same effect as Acts of Parliament. They are not simple administrative orders. They are the law of the country and many of them are drawn up, as this is, in the form of an Act of Parliament. They are interpreted in the courts as Acts of Parliament. It is no use for Senator Hayes, though I agree with him, saying that we never visualised legislation of this kind being enacted under the Emergency Powers Act. I am sure what he says is true, but the fact is we were all in a hurry. We were facing what looked like a very grave emergency, with the possibility of war, no matter what steps we took. It seems to me that we did not take adequate steps to secure that only matters necessary for the safeguarding of the country in the emergency were to be given effect to in this way. We gave almost carte blanche to the Government and we may as well face that fact. We must either vote for the rejection of this order or vote for it. I cannot vote for a measure of this kind, dealing with industry and labour, which gives the Minister carte blanche. A provision should have been introduced in the order that any subsequent orders made by the Minister would be laid on the Table of the House and that they could be annulled within 21 days. There is no provision for their being laid on the Table and there is no provision for their being annulled.

The debate to a large extent has seemed to be unreal. Circumstances have forced me to spend a very large portion of my time in the last two or three months, not only in the business in which I am occupied but in industries with which I have no personal connection, trying to arrange co-operation for the purpose of getting supplies. There may be a few exceptions, but the problem will not be the danger of increased wages but of how to carry on at all and pay anything approaching a respectable wage. Here we are at this stage introducing what seems to be a standstill order. I agree with Senator Rowlette's criticism that, strictly speaking, it is not a standstill order at all. The real problem is how to keep employment going on. For all practical purposes, this is only a pious Resolution. It is far too late to be effective as regards the cost of living. The very fact that it is far too late explains the fact that it will be of necessity unjust.

I cannot see—and I have never been able to see—that you can take a man with a family and a wage of 50/- a week and tell him that he cannot have any increase, that he must stay where he is no matter how the cost of living changes. It is perfectly possible to say that when a man gets £6, £7 or £10 a week or £1,000 a year. He has something which he can cut without danger to the community. When you come to the minimum level, you cannot cut without danger to the State and to the people as a whole. Right from the beginning, when meeting employers and others, I have maintained that while we must resist in the general public interest any increases in wages or in dividends, there is a point where you cannot afford to do it, and where there is to be an increase on the basis of the cost of living there must be a limit, and the increases must be restricted to those below a certain wage.

I am trying to look at this matter, not from the labour or the employers' point of view but from a wider point of view. There have been increases in a number of cases and where these have occurred the Minister is allowing it to continue. As long as this order stands and the emergency continues, it will be impossible for those on a low wage —one which cannot be cut without reaching starvation level—to receive any increase and no one will be able to find a remedy, even with the best will in the world. Some trade unions and some industries were too ready to give general increases all round. It is a pity that, if the Minister intended to take steps on those lines, he did not take them a year ago.

It is no use producing an order simply as a foot rule that applies to everything. This places in exactly the same position the person working on an absolute minimum and the person in receipt of a good wage. It provides that an industry paying a very high standard of dividends can go on paying them if it is able to do it— though I think that the Minister's successor in the Department of Finance has probably taken steps to make that almost impossible. An industry or trade paying a very low dividend—say 2½ or 3 per cent.—will be allowed to pay up to six. But the person with a wage on a low standard will not be allowed to get an increase. When this is found out, it will not help us on the employers' side or those on the workers' side. It seems to me that it is foolish to set down the same standard for all. If you put your capital in a well-established company, which has been in existence for a considerable time and which has big reserves, and you get 5 per cent. on it, probably you are doing extremely well. If you put your money into a mine—as an industrialist put it to me a few days ago—which is a gamble, probably you get nothing for several years and 6 per cent. would not be reasonable even then. The capital has been risked and it might have been lost. By this order the Government is trying to apply the one rule all round, and I do not believe it will be satisfactory from the point of view of the employer or of labour.

Most industries will find it hard enough to carry on and, from that point of view, I do not think any of them care very much what is in this order. As Senator Rowlette, I think, pointed out, this is not a standstill order. There will be reductions, of course. Does anyone imagine that all the directors' fees payable last year will be possible this year? Of course not. The Minister could not have provided a standstill order that should apply both ways: that would not have been possible. This is a bad way of trying to deal with directors' fees. It would have been perfectly reasonable if the Minister said that no company should pay a larger sum in directors' fees than it paid in the previous period. Let us take a case in point. Supposing a managing director dies and one of the other directors who may be paid £100 per annum is proposed to take his place, that would not be possible under this order unless he is willing to work for £100 per year.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

That is not so.

Mr. Douglas

That is how I read it. It provides definitely that no director may get more than he is getting: there is no provision for paying more. However, that is only a detail.

Patrick Hogan

Mr. Hogan

The same thing would seem to apply to an apprentice becoming an operative.

Mr. Douglas

If it is a case where there is a practice of a standard increase per annum, that is definitely provided for. If a managing director has an agreement by which he is to get a percentage of profit, that agreement would stand. As far as I can understand the order, no agreements are interfered with except those in two classes—one which provides for an increase based on the standard of living, which may vary, and the other where there is an agreement for the payment of salary less income-tax. Both those are now cancelled. As far as these are concerned, I do not wish to be taken as disagreeing with them.

I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to reasonable and proper steps taken to prevent increased wages at the present time, except for those people who are on a very low standard, one which cannot go on without danger. I am in favour of a limitation of dividends. I think it is almost criminal that any industry, at the present moment and in the light of present dangers, should pay more than a reasonable amount in dividends. As much as possible should be kept in reserve and made available to try to maintain the industry. I am not at all satisfied that the same rule should apply to all industries alike. Equally, I am not satisfied that the same rule should be applied in the case of all workers.

I notice paragraph (3) of Article 5 provides that:—

A person who is a director of a company, whether he is or is not employed by that company in any other capacity, shall be deemed for the purposes of this article not to be employed by that company.

It is that paragraph which makes me believe that a managing director who gives all his time is not an employee of the company. If he is not an employee he is presumably only a director. Therefore, he is governed solely by the sections that apply to directors. However, I do not think that point is of much importance, for the simple reason that managing directors will have to cease to be managing directors and be called managers. I think that is bad, because the larger proportion of them should be directors. The old system under which large boards of persons took small part in the business is not really a good one.

I may be asked what solution I have for these problems. I put forward, after a very considerable amount of thought, a detailed scheme in this House, which would not have prevented discussions between employers and trade unions or employers and employed, but which would have set up a tribunal empowered to arbitrate and to refuse a settlement if it was satisfied that it would increase the cost of living to an extent which the country could not stand. In other words, I wanted an independent tribunal which would represent the interest of the consumer. I believe that after some experience, after giving it a chance to work, by that means you would get a far wiser and better check, while allowing the ordinary relationships to go on, with the restrictions which I advocated with regard to the operation of strikes and lockouts. I do not want to go back over the speech I then made. That was a very considerable time ago. It was treated sympathetically by the Minister and, as far as the House was concerned, with silence by the Labour Party, although, individually, responsible people in the Labour Party—I do not mean members of this House—told me there was a great deal in it with which they would agree, although there were other things they would criticise.

In this order there is a tribunal. The tribunal is to be set up under complete control of the Minister. Every person in this tribunal can be removed by the Minister at will at any time and immediately. What is the tribunal to do? A few, what I may call, tuppenny-ha'penny things. I cannot find any provision that this tribunal can deal with the question of wages. I find no provision that if there are certain people whose standard is too low they can go to the tribunal and ask for an increase. But you can go to ask that the directors' fees should be increased. Or, if a company has not a pre-war percentage standard then it cannot pay any directors' fees and presumably cannot pay a managing director either unless the tribunal agrees. It is rather vague. A managing director is not an employee; he is a director. You cannot pay him without going to the tribunal. That means that if a company which has not a pre-war standard is not satisfied with its present managing director or happens to be in the position of a new company looking for one, it cannot make a contract with him. It may have to correspond with him in another country, or wherever they are going to get him. We get many experts from outside. The company cannot fix with him until it has gone to the tribunal.

Seán MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Where is the Senator going to get any outside person, in the present state of the world, to come here? Is he not making an entirely fictitious case?

Mr. Douglas

I can give the Minister one or two cases of persons who have come.

Mr. Foran

Some are anxious to come.

Mr. Douglas

I am quite satisfied that in many industries people could be found and not very long ago people were found and did come here. I can privately tell the Minister, if he likes, one or two cases. They did not come from very far away, I admit. What I am stating is that when you enter into negotiations with a person whom you are proposing to appoint, all the good of your tribunal is that you have to say to him: "We will not be able to tell you what we can pay you until we have arranged with you and put it to the tribunal." That is a small point of not much importance, but I think it is a silly way of dealing with it. That is all the tribunal we have got, instead of a tribunal to deal with a larger question of real importance.

I would like to see a limitation of dividends. I believe that you cannot apply it by just one rule, but I see no reason why dividends should be substantially larger or, where sufficiently high at present, should be any larger at all during this emergency. I completely and absolutely disagree with the kind of line drawn by Senator Lynch, who sets off a person who enjoys dividends against a person who receives a wage, quite forgetting that in many cases persons who receive dividends have not as much even as a wage-earner and that most pensions and pension schemes are actually paid out of investments which have to pay dividends. As we are working on the present system, a great deal for the benefit of all classes, poor and rich, depends on the payment of moderate dividends. This is not to say they have got to be increased during an emergency such as this. It is not practical politics even if it were desirable, but at any rate it is not desirable. In the same way, I am in general agreement with the Minister's outlook towards attempts to get unfair increases in wages during this time.

What I really object to is, first of all, the method; secondly, the fact that the Minister is taking powers over and above Parliament to make changes, which I do not think he ought to have done; thirdly, I think he is ignoring the fact that, if and when possible, the people who are on a lower standard ought to be allowed a little increase, at any rate, to make up for the cost of living; and, fourthly, I believe the details of this could be much better worked out if it were referred to a Committee of this House or a Committee of the Dáil, or even, possibly, to a body like the Employers' Federation, with representatives from the trades unions. I could draw attention to several other details, but I think I have said enough.

Prof. Michael Tierney

Professor Tierney

I am very chary of intervening in a debate on a subject that is concerned with economics. Being myself neither what could be described as a wage-earner nor a drawer of dividends, I may be, perhaps, regarded as rather outside this whole controversy; but as I propose to vote for this motion, I do not like to do so without saying something as to my reasons. One point, which I think is of great importance, has emerged from this whole debate, and it is that, apparently, the Minister has taken powers under this order to do various things without there being any possibility of these things being reconsidered, after they have been done, by the Oireachtas. If that is so, I do not think it is right that these powers should be given. There should be, at least, some opportunity for Parliament to discuss these matters, even after action has been taken, and to secure that if a Minister, no matter how good he may be, does things which it considers inadvisable, he should be checked in his actions. It is a most dangerous thing, to my mind, for Parliament to hand away all its powers in that respect, and, Heaven knows, we have given powers enough to the present Government without abdicating completely.

Like Senator Douglas, and like most of the speakers in this debate, I have a great deal of sympathy with the endeavours of the Government to prevent any spectacular rise in wages or dividends or anything in the nature of that spiral to which there has been so much reference. But there are two points I would like to make on the subject: one is that there seems to be extremely little danger, as the situation is developing, that any such spiral movement will take place. On the contrary, instead of being faced with anything like a vast expansion of wage-earning or dividend-earning possibilities, we are far more likely to be faced with a contraction in all these things. While we are faced with that position, industries closing down or in danger of closing down, business generally inclined to dry up, we proceed, on the one hand, to impose heavy taxation and, on the other, to introduce one-sided restrictions of this kind without having any full, clear-cut or imaginative policy to deal with the whole situation. That is one point of moment. I am greatly afraid, though I am by no means an economist, and am looking purely from the commonsense point of view, that the whole notion that we are passing through an inflationary period is an illusion; that we are much more likely to be faced with a period of restriction and that the Government should be trying to expand our business as far as possible in the circumstances, trying to find substitutes for our industries, trying to put life and vigour into trade. It is, of course, perfectly true that this is not an easy task.

It is simple for a speaker to get up and say the Government ought to do this and the Government ought to do that, but what puzzles me and rather disheartens me and I think disheartens quite a number of impartial people throughout the country is that there seems to be very little sign on the part of the Government of any attempt to attend to the positive side of this problem. What we have got is for one thing, heavy taxation, taxation which even 20 or 15 years ago would have been looked upon as being out of all proportion to the resources of the country. On the other hand, we are getting this sort of restrictive legislation and what effect can it have except further to dry up business and trade and enterprise, upon the expansion of which, in this critical period, the lives of many of our citizens may depend. It is because I see so much attention being paid to the negative side of the problem and very little attention being paid to the much more difficult, positive side that I do not like the notion of the Government taking this step at this particular time. I know, of course, it is easy again to say that there should be a positive step and something to counterbalance this clamping down of wages, and it is easy to say, "control prices," but the actual work of controlling prices, as anybody who has paid any attention to the matter knows, is a difficult proposition. That is true. On the other hand, there is very little evidence that anything at all is being done, especially in the case of the people who can least afford to pay anything extra.

Take two cases; take the price of turf to the poor here in the City of Dublin. We have all been told that the poor are being charged one penny a sod for turf in Dublin. And again we all know the fantastic prices which are charged for vegetables in the City of Dublin. We all know that the benefit of these prices is not going to the primary producer. We all know that there are certain organisations, certain people in the city who are able to draw out of the difficult circumstances advantage to themselves. There always will be organisations and machinery of that kind, but I refuse to believe, as one impartial citizen, that it is entirely impossible to deal with this matter, that something could not be done for the poor, and that there could not be some counterbalancing of this very drastic order curtailing all rises in wages. There has been a great deal said on the advisability of proceeding in the fashion in which the Minister has proceeded in this matter, and on that I am afraid I cannot sympathise with the criticisms that have been levelled at the Minister. To my mind a procedure by order like this is the proper procedure. You cannot legislate about matters of this sort in a time of crisis which, as the Minister has pointed out, may only last for a few months. You cannot deal with it by the cumbrous process of legislation, and I would not insist that the Minister should adopt that method. On the other hand I do feel that when we are resorting to measures of this kind they should be resorted to if at all possible by some sort of non-Party agreement.

I have already spoken several times in this House on the necessity for some kind of non-Party Government, and I think this is a matter on which, especially before drastic regulations are issued, some steps should be taken to see whether we could have a Government that would be representative of all sides in both Houses. In order to do that sort of work I suggest not merely should we have non-Party Government, but it should be done on the very best economic advice that the Government can get. If we could have a non-Party Government and, side by side with it, some sort of council or committee of economic advisers who would take a complete view of the whole situation and would relate action in one field to action in another, I would have a great deal more confidence that the matter was being properly attended to. What I am afraid of is that we have here a narrow Party Government proceeding in this terrible crisis in the traditional Civil Service fashion. The great defect of the Civil Service in a crisis like this is that, while it is extremely efficient and capable and honest, its efficiency lies in a negative direction. The great capacity of the Civil Service is to prevent anything out of the ordinary being done, and I can see behind all these regulations, and behind the recently introduced Budget, the same Civil Service outlook.

To my mind in a situation like the situation in which we find ourselves, we may need all our resources, intellectual, physical and moral, and we need more than that outlook. I do not think we will get through it anything like as successfully, by means of this Civil Service outlook and this negative procedure, as we would if we could see our way to set up a non-Party Government, and take into counsel people who are able to extend their views over the whole economic field. It is because I feel that, although I sympathise very strongly with the Minister, that I cannot see my way to support the order.

Sir John Keane

I move the adjournment.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28th.

Top
Share