I will put forward arguments to induce the Minister to do so. I put down the amendment to meet the point that I raised on the last occasion when the Bill was given a Second Reading here. I want to make it very clear at the outset that the only question involved is the amount of the deposit that is to be made. There is no other question whatsoever involved in it. The relations between the Minister and a particular union, or between the Minister and members of the union, will not be affected in any way by the amount of the deposit that is paid. The deposit is a purely arbitrary thing. It may be £1,000, £2,000, or £20,000, according as the House agreed, but whether it was £1,000 or £20,000, the relations between the Minister and the union, or between the Minister and individual members, would not be affected in the slightest degree. I want to emphasise this point especially, in view of some remarks made, I think, by Senator Foran on the last occasion. He said that if this were accepted it would cause a lot of bother, and I think he rather suggested that if it were accepted it would mean the divorcing or cutting off of the members in Northern Ireland. Of course, I do not know how anybody could read that interpretation into it.
I say there is no justification for that suggestion. I venture to say, further, that there is no union in this country that has done more to preserve unity between its northern and southern members than the union affected, that is, the teachers' organisation. Something like 2,000 members, that is one-fifth of our membership, are in the Six-County area. Two years ago our president was a Portadown man. This year our vice-president, who will be president next year, is a Belfast man. I may say that we have maintained and preserved that connection at some considerable sacrifice so far as our southern members are concerned because more money is expended in the Six-County area from the central fund of the organisation than comes in from the Six-County area by way of subscriptions. I want to make that particularly clear and to show that even if this point that I am raising were conceded it would not in any way affect the relations between our northern members and the members in the Twenty-Six Counties.
I do not agree with the Minister in what he said on the last occasion, that there would be administrative difficulties. I cannot see where the administrative difficulties would arise. I have studied the Principal Act very carefully. As I said in the beginning, I do not think the relations between the Minister and the unions would be affected in the slightest way. The Minister mentioned the fact that members might be passing from the North to the South, and vice versa. That may be so in some of the unions, but I do not see how it would affect the Minister's dealings with these members. I fail to find anything in the Bill that would justify that statement.
The Minister also said that there was only a matter of £200 involved and, in a matter where the deposit was something like £6,000, that was a very small amount about which to make a fuss. That may be so, but it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back. If a sum of £6,000 or £7,000 has to be found, the greatest difficulty arises in finding the last few hundred pounds. There is a special reason why that is so in this particular case. For instance, all our trustee securities have been lodged with the court and they would have been sufficient if the amount of the deposit was calculated in the way I suggest, but now this additional £200 that is necessary will have to be found in cash. I know that it does involve a certain hardship, in this way: Our union is in a peculiar position compared with other unions. It pays out something like £10,000 a year in medical benefits and in helping teachers to pay substitutes because, unlike other public servants, teachers who are ill have to pay their substitutes and the organisation has to help them to do that because the teachers are involved in heavy expenditure at a time when they most need money. It does constitute a hardship in that way. In fact, the Trade Union Bill has placed this particular organisation or union in a different position from any of the other unions. It is an excepted body, but if it continues to remains as an excepted body and does not apply for a negotiation licence it is deprived of the benefits of the Trade Union Acts and, therefore, cannot carry on its ordinary trade union activities without considerable risk to itself, to its officers and to its funds.
If, on the other hand, it does apply for a negotiation licence it is deprived of a privilege granted to any other union. It cannot apply to a tribunal and get a declaration such as other unions may get. In that way, there is nothing to prevent breakaway unions or cranks within the union starting out and forming a new union and causing disunion and disturbance. That privilege that has been granted to other unions in similar circumstances is denied to the teachers' organisation. I dealt with this point pretty fully when the Bill was going through and I tried to have these anomalies removed but I did not get very far. I tried to convince the Minister at the time. Here is an additional and peculiar grievance but I agree that it is comparatively a small point. I may say that I do not agree with the Minister's interpretation of the Principal Act. I do not think he would be straining the interpretation of it by ruling in a different way and saying that the amount of the deposit required might be calculated on the membership within the 26-county area. But if he insists on his present ruling, and says that he is compelled to rule in that way, I would appeal to him to concede this small and unimportant point. I would like to say again that there is no principle of any kind involved in it. It is really a small point as to how that amount is to be calculated.