Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961. - Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961—Second Stage. – Seanad Éireann (9th Seanad) – Friday, 1 Sep 1961

Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961. - Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Taoiseach

When proposing this Bill to the Dáil, I began by giving a brief account of the history of the dispute with which we are now concerned. I considered it was necessary to do that for the information of Deputies and it is necessary to repeat that history to some extent here because otherwise it would be difficult for Senators to understand the confused and involved nature of the situation that confronts us. It was said in the Dáil that the history of the dispute which I gave should have started much further back than I attempted to go. I began my account to the Dáil with the recommendation issued by the Labour Court in this dispute between the two trade unions that cater for electricians employed in the electrical contracting industry and the employer members of the National Joint Industrial Committee for the industry.

I suppose it is true to say that in this instance, and probably in relation to every trade dispute, the underlying causes could only be ascertained by going quite a long way back in time. However, I do not think it practicable to undertake such a comprehensive analysis for the purpose of deciding what is the appropriate course to take now. In effect, the dispute with which we are concerned began when the recommendations of the Labour Court were rejected by the unions concerned, rejected without being submitted to a ballot of the members and in circumstances which involved the beginning of a strike at comparatively short notice.

The Congress of Trade Unions tell me they endeavoured to intervene at this point to secure a delay in the issuing of strike notice, but unsuccessfully. The strike began on last Monday week, August 21st. In the normal course of an industrial dispute, the striking unions place pickets on the premises of employers with whom they are in dispute and pickets were placed on the premises of the E.S.B., including their generating stations, and other workers employed by the E.S.B. in these premises and at these generating stations in connection with the production of electricity refused to pass these pickets.

Shortly after the dispute began—on the same day, in fact—the Irish Congress of Trade Unions interested itself in the dispute. Arising from their activity and from discussions which they had with the Minister for Transport and Power, who was dealing with the matter on that day, pending the return to Dublin of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a proposal emerged that the parties in the dispute would get together. The Minister for Transport and Power asked the E.S.B. to participate in these discussions on the suggestion of the Congress of Trade Unions and on the understanding, which was put forward by the Congress, that the pickets on the E.S.B. premises would be withdrawn.

That same night a meeting of the Committee of the Congress which comprises representatives of unions with members employed by the E.S.B. —there are approximately 18 such unions—authorised the Congress to issue a decision to the effect that the dispute in the E.S.B. should be confined to the workers directly concerned, that is, to the members of the Irish Engineering Industrial and Electrical Trade Union and the Electrical Trade Union (Ireland). In explanation of that direction given by the Congress, it was stated that the Congress had been requested to take steps to arrange a meeting between the parties.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who had returned from the west to Dublin immediately on hearing of the dispute, intervened the following day, Tuesday, August 22nd., and he had meetings that day with both representatives of the employers and the unions concerned, as well as with the Congress of Trade Unions. Following upon all these discussions, the Congress of Trade Unions that evening published an announcement which was signed by the representatives of all the non-electrical trade unions instructing their members to return to work as the Electricity Supply Board had given them an undertaking that, immediately on resumption of work by the members of these unions, any wage claims served on the Board on behalf of these workers, that is, manual workers represented by these unions, would be dealt with expeditiously by the Board.

In the meantime, the employers and representatives of the electrical unions had entered into negotiations in accordance with the procedure of the National Joint Industrial Committee under a chairman designated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He had designated for that work the Chief Conciliation Officer of the Labour Court. In consequence of these developments, the electrical trade unions issued a statement that evening to the effect that discussions had been opened under the chairmanship of the Chief Conciliation Officer, that a basis for negotiation had been agreed, and accordingly both unions directed that all strike pickets should be withdrawn immediately, pending the termination of these discussions.

The negotiations continued into the next day, Wednesday, August 23rd. There was some confusion during that day regarding that direction to withdraw pickets from the E.S.B. stations and it was not until the night shift went on duty that there appears to have been a full return of these workers to their posts. On the evening of Wednesday 23rd., however, it was reported to the Minister for Industry and Commerce by the Chief Conciliation Officer who had been presiding over the negotiations that an agreement had been reached in the negotiations. It appears that the maximum offer which the employers' representatives were prepared to make was an increase to 5/7d. an hour on the rate recommended by the Labour Court—which had recommended 5/5d. an hour—the new rate to be related to the adjusted hours of working which had been recommended by the Labour Court and which, I gather, have never been in dispute at all between the employers and unions.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce considered that he should press the unions to submit that offer for the consideration of their members, without expressing any personal opinion on the merits of the offer—indeed during all these negotiations, he endeavoured to avoid getting involved in the actual details of negotiations —but on the ground that it was an offer which he thought should reasonably be submitted to the members of the unions to be decided on by a ballot vote. The union representatives agreed. They gave an assurance that there would be a ballot but said that they could not undertake to recommend acceptance of the offer, nor could they give an assurance that the withdrawal of the pickets would be maintained.

It was agreed between the Minister and the unions that the unions would permit electricians to take any action that might be necessary to enable essential supplies to be maintained. On the following morning, the pickets reappeared at all the premises and the E.S.B. reported that manual workers were again refusing to pass the pickets. There is perhaps some confusion as to what happened then. Some of the evening newspapers on August 25th contained statements attributed to the officers and executives of these electrical trade unions that they had rejected this pay increase of 8d. per hour and had advised their members to reject it, even though a ballot was proceeding.

Subsequently, the representatives of these unions denied in the course of negotiations with the employers' representatives that they had issued any statement of rejection prior to the commencement of the ballot or that they had recommended their members not to accept the offer. The result of the ballot became available on the following Monday, that is, the Monday of this week, and it was reported that there was a substantial majority against acceptance of the offer. The Minister accordingly asked both parties to meet him on the following day. He asked them to come invested with plenary powers and, in the case of the unions, he suggested that, if necessary, in order to assist in bringing matters to finality, they should bring their entire executives to meet him.

On Tuesday, the Minister met the parties separately and put forward a suggestion that an effort should be made to resolve this dispute on lines that had proved acceptable in the case of the C.I.E. dispute earlier in the year. In fact, the proposals which he made for a tribunal were based on what had been agreed to in connection with that dispute.

Three conditions arose, however, in that regard. The first was that the union executives would agree to recommend the findings of the tribunal for acceptance by their members. The second was that a ballot on the recommendation would be conducted by the tribunal and the third was that on the establishment of the tribunal the men would report to work immediately and that all pickets would be withdrawn pending the result of the ballot.

The employers' representatives indicated, when the proposition was put to them by the Minister, that they were prepared to accept that arrangement and undertook to bind themselves in advance to accept the findings of the tribunal. The unions' representatives who did not have all the members of their executive present on that occasion said that they had not a mandate to agree to these proposals.

The proposal was for a tribunal of five, with on the workers' side, representatives of the Congress and of the striking unions, and, on the employers' side, representatives of the E.S.B. and of the private contractors. The union representatives felt that it was undersirable to bring in on the tribunal the Congress of Irish Unions. The Minister accepted the proposal that the two workers' representatives should be drawn from the two unions involved in the dispute. They also agreed that the ballot should be conducted in accordance with their normal procedure but with a representative of the tribunal present.

The representatives said they could not recommend the resumption of work or the withdrawal of pickets while the tribunal was meeting or the ballot was proceeding because they did not consider they could effectively secure the compliance of their members with any such recommendation or directive. The employers' representatives had made it clear that they regarded the condition of return to work and removal of pickets as an essential condition of their agreement to bind themselves in advance to accept the findings of the tribunal.

The Minister did not press that point, however, with the unions and suggested that they should adjourn at that stage and consult with their executives and come back the following morning, which they did. When they came back the following morning, they said they could not agree to that condition. The Minister indicated that he would modify that condition to the extent of asking the unions to urge their members in the public interest to return to work while this process was going on.

The union representatives also said they were not prepared to recommend acceptance of the findings of the tribunal. All efforts to secure alteration in that view failed while, on the other hand, the employers' representatives were adamant on the acceptance of these two conditions. At that point, the Minister changed his approach. Instead of concentrating upon devising a method by which the process of ending the dispute could be started, he himself decided to participate in the negotiations. He asked the unions whether an offer of 5/8d. an hour would be recommended by them to their members and whether they would be prepared to instruct their members to report to work and to direct the removal of pickets pending the result of a ballot on that figure.

The Minister then withdrew from the meeting with the unions and after consideration the unions informed the Minister they were prepared to recommend to their members acceptance of the rate of 5/8d. an hour and to instruct their members to resume work, pending the result of the ballot. After some difficulty, the Minister persuaded the employers' representatives, whom he summoned to meet him, to agree to these terms. When they had agreed, it looked as if the dispute had been resolved and the announcement to that effect was made—the announcement indicating that the unions were recommending the acceptance of these terms and instructing their members to return to work by starting hour the next morning.

What happened after that is a matter upon which we have no very direct information except that conveyed to the Minister by the officers of the union. Apparently, when the union executives went back to their offices, they got a critical reception from members who had assembled there and ultimately this statement was issued:

On receipt of information by the strike committees that the members would not return to work until a decision was made on the ballot vote, messages were sent to the executive. The executive accordingly at a special meeting considered this position and they decided in the interests of all concerned to inform the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the arrangement is withdrawn and also to notify the parties to the strike.

That statement was issued by the Electrical Trades Union which is by far the larger of the two unions involved in this dispute catering for this category of tradesman. The executive of the other union have indicated they are prepared to go on with the agreement into which they had entered but that because of the development in the case of the Electrical Trades Union, they are not taking any further action in the matter. That was the position on yesterday morning.

Yesterday afternoon, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions endeavoured, I understand, but without success, to get the executive of the Electrical Trades Union to reverse its decision again and to reinstate the agreement. During the course of today, the Congress has been trying to get negotiations reopened. I said in the Dáil that we were not very hopeful of succeeding. The latest report is that, while some progress may have been made, that is still very much the position.

I mention the events of today because they are relative to the rest of my statement. When the Government met yesterday morning to consider the situation, it appeared to us that the prospect of settling this dispute by any process of negotiation would have to be regarded as ended, at any rate for the time being. It is of course a situation in which time is a most important factor. A failure of electrical power either generally or over a wide area of the country could develop at very short notice indeed. It was then that we decided to ask the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach to convene meetings of the Dáil and Seanad to consider certain proposals in regard to it. We felt that, apart from any question of proposals by the Government, the elected representatives of the people who are seriously threatened in this situation should have an opportunity of expressing their view.

However, we prepared certain proposals for consideration and these are embodied in the Bill before the House. To some extent, they have been modified or, at any rate, our intentions in regard to them have been altered, as a result of events during today and as a result of statements which were made in the Dáil today, to which I gave very careful attention, particularly where they appeared to imply some misunderstanding of the Government's intention, and amendments were made by the Dáil, at my suggestion, in the Bill which has been circulated to the House, to which I will refer later.

The first proposal contained in the Bill is the establishment of a tribunal on the general lines of that which was under discussion between the unions concerned and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the duty of determining what rate of remuneration should in all the circumstances apply to the persons involved in the dispute.

I am sure Senators will appreciate that when that method of bringing a dispute to an end is adopted, it must give some assurance of finality and that, of course, was the point on which the negotiations apparently broke down, but the Bill would provide for that by giving the force of law to whatever rates of remuneration of these electricians the tribunal might determine.

In that regard, first of all, it is clear that certain misunderstandings arose as a result of which amendments were made in the Bill. These amendments are for the purpose of clarifying the Government's intention, which has been strengthened by the course of events today, not to utilise that device of a statutory tribunal to determine the appropriate rate of wages in this instance at all while there is any prospect of a settlement by a process of negotiation and so long as the danger of a stoppage of electric power is only imminent.

I do not know to what extent the intervention by the Congress of Trade Unions at this stage can, in fact, be effective in securing the reopening of negotiations or achieving agreed proposals. Senators will, I am sure, appreciate the difficulty of the situation. On Wednesday night, all those concerned in the negotiations, the representatives present of the trade unions and the representatives of the employers, after some reluctance and hesitation, had all agreed upon terms to bring the dispute to an end. The fact that these terms did not become effective is a factor in the situation to which we must have regard and must obviously put in the mind of everybody concerned some doubts as to the possibility at this stage of getting negotiations reopened at all or, at any rate, if reopened, successfully concluded.

There are certain aspects of this proposal I want to refer to because of statements made in the Dáil and to ensure that neither members of the Seanad nor members of the public will be under any misunderstanding as to the nature of the proposals we are putting forward now or as to the Government's viewpoint regarding the settlement of trade disputes of this character in general.

I, personally, do not believe in the practicability of any system of compulsory arbitration as a method of resolving trade disputes between either State boards or private employers and their staffs. I think today's debate in the Dáil, if it served no other purpose, will help in bringing home to people, who have been over a long period talking glibly about the desirability of a system of compulsory arbitration, its complete impracticability, apart altogether from the question of its desirability.

We are not in this Bill proposing for the electricians involved in this dispute or for the employees of the E.S.B. generally or for any other category of employees any system of compulsory arbitration. We are putting forward here a suggestion, the best that occurred to us, for resolving a critical dispute, a dispute that could have most critical consequences for the country as a whole and which might well involve grave hardship for people who are not in a position to defend themselves against the consequences of it, to be used only when all other methods of resolving that dispute have proved ineffective.

Apart altogether from any views I may hold on the practicability of compulsory arbitration, still less do I believe in any system of Government control of wages or, indeed, any system which involves the arbitrary determination of the remuneration of workers. So far as I personally am concerned, I will resist proposals of that character, no matter from what quarter they may come. I believe—and in this matter my belief is sustained by my own experience over a very long number of years—in the process of settling rates of remuneration of workers of all categories by a process of free discussion and negotiation. If this Bill appears to contemplate any departure from what is normal practice, anything contrary to these views which I am now expressing, I justify it merely as a last resort in a situation which cannot be resolved in any other way, a situation which involves grave danger for the whole community, and as a temporary device for dealing with that situation.

It is proposed, further, to set up another tribunal or committee or board of inquiry to examine procedures of the Electricity Supply Board for settling the remuneration of their staffs and for dealing with disputes concerning their conditions of employment.

May I say the first tribunal, if it ever functions at all, will be concerned with the wages of workers involved in the dispute, not necessarily the employees of the Electricity Supply Board only? I confess that I had at first thought that the function of the Government would be limited to proposing that arrangement merely in regard to the workers of the Electricity Supply Board who are, after all, the people who are involved in the public service that we want to have maintained and that we should not bring within its scope similar workers employed by private contractors, but when I met the Congress of Trade Unions yesterday and asked their advice upon that point, they pointed out to me the practical difficulties that might be created by trying to segregate one category of these workers from another. Consequently, Section 3 of the Bill is framed to cover all these workers.

Professor Hayes

Section 4.

The Taoiseach

Section 3. Section 4 relates to the Electricity Supply Board only.

Professor Hayes

Yes.

The Taoiseach

It arises out of the suggestion that the Electricity Supply Board have been either not properly utilising the machinery available for the resolution of disputes concerning the manual workers whom they employ or that that machinery itself is to some extent defective. Wherefore, we have proceeded on the assumption that matters concerning the employment of staff by the E.S.B., as of other State companies, should be left entirely to the boards of these organisations and that there should be no power of intervention in that regard by the Government or by any member of the Government.

The original E.S.B. Act of 1927 set up the E.S.B. with sole responsibility in that field and making it quite clear that the Government had no power to interfere or function to supervise, to veto or consent to what the Board had done. Later, as Senators may know, some 20 years ago, we enacted legislation which created certain tribunals, tribunals which are independent of the E.S.B., to deal with matters affecting conditions of employment of employees of the Board. There are two such tribunals, one relating to clerical workers and the other to manual workers. These bodies are completely independent of the E.S.B. and are not subject in any way to its direction.

In the course of the debate in the Dáil, it was suggested—I think, very unfairly—that the Minister for Transport and Power was in some way guilty of a dereliction of duty in not knowing that there was some discontent among the trade unions catering for E.S.B. workers in respect of the Board's methods of regulating staff matters or the functioning of these organisations that we have created. First of all, that allegation is unfair because it is quite clear on the face of the Act that the Minister had no function in that regard and, indeed, I should think that no trade union concerned, as well as all other reasonable people, would regard it as desirable that the Minister should be brought in with any function as regards settlement of wage rates or conditions of employment of staff of the Board.

It is unfair for the second reason that until this dispute started—I have checked this matter since the Dáil debate concluded—neither he nor any other member of the Government received from any trade union or from the central Congress a single suggestion that there was any such dissatisfaction or any cause for inquiry or much less for a change.

I said in the Dáil that if we had received any such suggestion, that there was ground for dissatisfaction or even that complaints were being discussed among trade union executives, we would have made some inquiry in the matter long before this. However, apart altogether from what justification there may be for such complaints or criticisms now being voiced, I think it is no harm to have another look at the whole process of dealing with staff matters in the E.S.B. and the processes and functions of the institutions they have set up and specifically at the complaint that they involve delay in the processing of complaints or claims.

I think it is a good idea to do that and a good idea also to bring into that investigation not merely the officials of the Department of Transport and Power or other civil servants but representatives of the trade unions involved. That is the tribunal which we are contemplating setting up here, a tribunal which will consist of some number of members including representatives of the unions with members in the E.S.B. as well as other people, that will go, in a general way, into the whole processing of E.S.B. matters, and make recommendations, if they wish to do so, to the Board regarding changing their procedure or to the Government regarding any change in the law relating to these tribunals they think appropriate or desirable.

I was concerned that the feeling might be created that the establishment of such a tribunal of inquiry into the procedures of the E.S.B. would be used by the Board, or could possibly be interpreted as meaning that other claims relating to other classes or disputes regarding conditions of employment in respect of any other categories of workers would have to be put back until this investigation was completed, and so there is a subsection in the Bill to remove any possible doubt in that regard, that the setting up of this inquiry does not affect in any way the processing of these claims in accordance with existing procedure whether that procedure is statutory or otherwise.

It is proposed also to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce certain powers to deal with scarcities that may develop in the event of an actual breakdown of power taking place, either generally or in particular areas. I warned the Dáil not to think of the Minister being able, by the issue of a number of statutory orders, to remove any danger of public hardship. I think that would be completely illusory. I mentioned as an example in the Dáil that all flour mills and all bakeries operate on electricity and failure of the electricity supply would create immense difficulties in bringing an essential article of food into distribution. I think it would be necessary for the Minister straight away, as soon as that situation arose, to intervene to ensure that available flour supplies, whether in bakeries or flour mills, would be made available and fairly distributed so as to ensure that everybody would have an opportunity of obtaining them and he would have to have powers, of course, with penalties to prevent what our experience tells us could well develop in that situation, a black market and attempted profiteering. I merely mention that by way of illustration.

We set up a committee as soon as this dispute started to list all the difficulties, hardships and problems that would arise in the event of a failure of power. While in one or two respects that examination showed that the situation was not as serious as we had at first assumed, in other respects it showed it could be very bad indeed. It would be so serious in other respects that, personally, I was frightened by the prospects. I was frightened also by the clear inability of the Government to do anything to prevent real hardship developing in these circumstances. Even though, as I said in the Dáil, we must have power to do whatever it is possible to do, I should not like the Seanad to think that power can be effective in preventing very genuine hardship in these circumstances.

I do not know whether this can be effective or not. My idea is that if, having tried the process of negotiation, to the point where it is clear that a settlement of the dispute by that process will not be possible, and if we are up against a situation in which we know that a breakdown in power supplies has occurred or is so imminent as to be likely to happen in a very short time, I think the public expects the Parliament of the nation or its Government to do something to bring that situation to an end. The suggestion which we put forward in such an eventuality is that there shall be this tribunal. May I make it quite clear that there is no intention on the part of the Government to do an injustice to anybody? We contemplate a tribunal which would be determined to produce what would be regarded by everybody as a just and equitable solution of the difficulty and to try to make the decision of that tribunal effective for a limited time, a cooling-off period during which the whole inquiry into the procedure of the E.S.B. in these matters would be going on.

If that does not work, if there were, in fact, despite anything we can contemplate doing now, a complete failure of power, the Government might regard it as necessary to get the Dáil and Seanad to meet again for the purpose of considering alternative ways of protecting the public interest. We are now discussing this situation without this emergency having happened. I felt in the Dáil that there was a tendency to suggest the Government should not have moved until the emergency was actually upon us. I think we should have been guilty of a dereliction of duty in the circumstances that arose after the breakdown of the arrangements made on Wednesday last, if we did not take this action now.

If we do ever have to meet—I hope we do not—in circumstances in which public power supplies have broken down, we shall approach this problem with a somewhat different attitude from that of our approach today; we shall be less concerned with theoretical considerations and more with practical means to bring the situation to an end.

I said also in the Dáil that I believe it is true of the electricians involved in this dispute, as it is of every other body of craftsmen I have had anything to do with, that there is no desire to be at loggerheads with their employers and still less a desire to reach a situation in which, by their action, they are imposing hardships on their friends and neighbours or their fellow workers. I feel sure that is so. However, we have here a situation which has developed like a Greek tragedy. No settlement has emerged, despite a lot of goodwill on both sides.

The only purpose we had in framing this Bill was to devise some method which would bring the situation to an end in circumstances where all the usual methods of settlement had failed. I do not know that there is anything more I can say to the Seanad regarding the Bill at the present time. I feel quite certain that the general body of opinion among the people expects from the Government in this matter a great deal more than the Government can effectively do, but I feel just as sure the public would be seriously of the opinion that the Government and the Legislature would have defaulted if we had done nothing at all and allowed the situation to develop while we remained inactive in the emergency it could produce. I am not suggesting that this Bill is certain to cope with this situation but it seems to me to be the minimum we can propose at the present time. I still hope that, whether through the intervention of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or otherwise, this dispute will be resolved by negotiated agreement.

Professor Hayes

I do not want to put an extra strain on the Taoiseach but would he tell us the effect of subsection (3) of Section 3?

The Taoiseach

That is deleted.

Professor Hayes

What is its effect?

The Taoiseach

I moved to delete it in the Dáil because it seemed it would be misinterpreted. It also seems it was not necessary to the Bill so I suggested it should be taken out altogether.

That criticism was not expressed by me. It was expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Mr. Murphy

The Taoiseach said it today and he said it again tonight. Let me finish my point without the hyena laughter. It was said this was not submitted to a ballot vote of the people concerned and that in respect of the more recent offer, again the union had refused to bring it to a ballot vote. Remember that in between there was an offer of 5/7d. I think it was offered last weekend. That was submitted to a ballot vote of the people concerned. There are different views as to whether it is the proper thing for negotiators and executives to accept responsibility and fight on as far as they can for the best wage increase for their members or whether each offer and each view should be referred back to the membership for a ballot vote. There are different traditions and different practices in trade unions. I want to make this point and to underline it. One of the offers was submitted to a ballot vote of the people out on strike and was decisively rejected.

The Taoiseach

May I explain to the Senator that when I referred to the fact that the recommendation of the Labour Court was not submitted to a ballot vote, it was the time element I was drawing attention to? As I understand it, the trade union executive met on Saturday and decided to proceed with strike action on the Monday. It was the fact that there was so little time between the decision to reject the Labour Court award and the beginning of the strike that produced the sudden situation that involved all the subsequent actions.

Mr. Murphy

I think we can conclude from what happened that the people dealing with the Labour Court recommendations did know the views of the people they represented. That was clearly shown by the fact that a much improved offer was decisively rejected at a later date. Do not let us get any idea that these people were behaving irresponsibly or that they did not know the mind of the people they represented.

The Taoiseach did say that the ordinary people affected by this strike, the people out on strike, were decent, ordinary workers. That is quite true. The point I want to underline to Senators is that there can be no question of there being any conspiracy among the people out on strike, or the people who supported them by refusing to pass the picket, to damage the economy or to bring the whole place down in ruins. They are pursuing a perfectly legitimate wage claim, a perfectly legitimate ambition to better their state, to better their wages.

In connection with that, I should like to refer to what I think is the background to their views on this. The real kernel of this situation, and what is dealt with in this Bill, is the dispute with the E.S.B. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions in its statement today criticised the employers—notably the E.S.B., I must presume—for their failure to accept their responsibilities in the first instance. The electricians are fighting for the best increase they can possibly get. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. They are fighting for it in the context of an employer who, within the past 12 months, agreed to give increases to other groups of workers.

The E.S.B. about last December or thereabouts agreed to improve the salaries of the salaried staff generally. That was done by negotiation; there was no question of its going to the Salaried Staff Tribunal. They did then what they were perfectly justified in doing and what I think was right— they improved the salaries of the salaried workers generally. The maximum salary for a grade A clerk, which is the recruitment grade, was up to then £895 per annum. It was increased by the Board of the E.S.B. to £1,050 per annum, an increase of £155 or practically £3 per week.

I am not attempting to criticise the Board of the E.S.B. for doing that. A lot of credit is due to them for facing up to the responsibility of meeting a properly substantiated claim and for agreeing to the increase. They did that, I think—and I am open to correction on this—in circumstances that a new chairman of the Board had been appointed. The membership were left, rightly or wrongly, with the impression that this was done, if not with the knowledge, then with the blessing of the Government. The E.S.B. Board did the proper thing in respect of a big group of its employees. It gave increases which, I think, restored the 1939 standard of living of these people. These increases were subsequently followed by increases to the salaried staffs of other semi-State organisations.

In those circumstances, it would be hard to blame the main group of the manual workers, the skilled craftsmen, from supposing that the E.S.B. would be very well able to afford a substantial increase for them but that they would not, in fact, be very willing to agree to that increase. Again, rightly or wrongly, the impression is left that the E.S.B., as such, are not unwilling in this direction but are being held back by the other parties to this machinery, the other firms who are parties to whatever they call this Council. That may or may not be right, but I am saying that that was the sort of background. The skilled craftsmen saw other groups of workers get a substantial and well-merited increase and were of the opinion that, in those circumstances and in the circumstances of the published accounts of the Board, which showed the Board were better off by some £1,000,000 this year as against last year, they also should get a substantial increase, and they are perfectly right in fighting to get as much as they can. The labour movement generally supports them in that aim.

Here we are dealing with compulsory arbitration and, whether Fianna Fáil like it or not, that is the only label that can be attached to this Bill. An amendment was made to Section 3 in the Dáil but the deletion of subsection (3) of Section 3 does not take the teeth out of this measure. We are asked to provide here that a tribunal will be set up, if and when the Government think it essential to set it up. The tribunal will establish the rate for electricians and it will be illegal for any employer to pay more than that rate. It will also be illegal for anybody to advocate or press for a higher rate.

Let me come back again to the real point of principle in this piece of legislation, that is, that the House has been asked to agree to the principle of compulsory arbitration where the Government thinks it is essential. I am opposed to that. I do not think it will work in this instance. It is a very dangerous thing for the future. It will be bad for the development of industrial relations and I hope the Taoiseach and the Government will not proceed further along those lines.

Mr. Browne

I second the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator second it in detail?

Mr. Browne

There is very little I have to add to the speech made by Senator Murphy but I can speak as one who played some small part in trying to resolve this dispute between the electrical trade unions and the E.S.B. I was a member of the E.S.B. group who attended the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 22nd August with the two striking unions in an effort to bring this dispute to an end.

The chairman of our group, the E.S.B. group, pointed out very forcibly to the Minister that the whole policy of procrastination pursued by the Board in recent times in the day to day affairs in relation to staffs was causing resentment. Because of that the Minister secured an assurance from the Board that immediately on resumption the matters complained of would be expeditiously dealt with by the Board. You may ask why the directive of the E.S.B. group of unions which was given to the non-electrical members was not given effect to. From our contacts we found that the E.S.B. employees complained bitterly about the policy pursued by the Board.

I am satisfied, from my long number of years connected with the trade union movement, that this dispute will not be resolved by the introduction of the powers the Taoiseach proposes to put into operation. Compulsory arbitration will be resisted by the trade unions. I am conscious of the fact that we have reached a critical stage in this dispute but it is the growing resentment towards the policy pursued by the Board that has brought about this position. We are proud of our record in the trade union movement. How many strikes of that kind have been brought about in this country? Read the papers dealing with affairs in Britain. Our airports are free from industrial disputes. What about our major industries? In the bacon curing and flour milling industries there has not been a dispute for the past 30 years. That is the record of the trade union movement. I would ask that this matter be considered further. Compulsory arbitration will not be accepted. This dispute can only be resolved by good will on both sides and the Government's best efforts should be directed towards bringing that about.

Professor Hayes

As I said before— unfortunately I did not advert to the fact that Senator Murphy had an amendment down—this Bill presents us with a very unsatisfactory position. The Taoiseach has, of course, responsibility as head of the Government. Senators who have just spoken for the amendment were speaking for the trade union movement. There are others of us who do not have the responsibility of Government although we respect and understand their responsibility and who have not the duty of speaking for the trade union movement, although at the same time we are very far from being enemies of that movement and recognise it is an important element in our community, that it must exist and have certain scope.

Having said that, and speaking from the point of view of ordinary people, one must at once say that this method of presenting a Bill is unsatisfactory. There may be an explanation for it. The Bill was introduced in the Dáil this morning a little after 11 o'clock It has been amended substantially so that we have now before us a text which is not in fact the correct text of the Bill we are discussing. In order to find out what we are discussing, we have to put the typed amendments in with the printed text of the Bill. We have no opportunity to read what was said in the other House when the amendments were being proposed and accepted. There is another element and in justice to the Taoiseach let it be said that this method must be peculiarly unsatisfactory to him because it has kept him at Parliamentary work almost without respite or rest from 11 o'clock this morning. In these circumstances, it is difficult to give this very important measure the consideration it deserves.

As a member of the front bench of the Opposition, I had the advantage last night of seeing the text of the Bill and it seemed to me the teeth of the Bill were in subsection (3) of Section 3. Senator Murphy spoke of the Bill having teeth. It seemed to me —I may be wrong—that taking out subsection (3) of Section 3 extracts the teeth of the Bill. That is my first impression. The only question that arises then is that if there are teeth left in the Bill, what person or persons are the teeth going to bite? I have no responsibility as an employer but let us consider subsection (4) of Section 3.

It provides:

It shall not be lawful for an employer to pay to any person to whom the determination of the tribunal applies wages at a rate other than that so determined.

That seems to be the only concrete thing in this Bill which would indicate any person or persons against whom the Bill is to be used.

Mr. Murphy

Subsection (2).

Professor Hayes

Section 2 does not seem to make it clear.

Mr. Murphy

Subsection (2) of Section 6.

Professor Hayes

I was coming to that. Section 6 is a section which provides for the nature and the punishment of offences. It provides for offences, prosecutions and punishments. The Taoiseach did not advert at all in his speech to that. In the first place, subsection (4) of Section 3 seems to be directed against an employer who pays a particular wage. Speaking entirely as a private citizen and not as an employer, it seems to be a serious and unwarranted interference with the rights of a private citizen in the control of his own business to say that there are rates of wages which he must not pay. Presumably, he cannot negotiate with anybody for the payment of wages if the tribunal has found they must be at a particular level.

Trade unions—I hope to come to them in a few moments—have a very important function to perform. Like every other institution, trade unions have their defects and one of the defects is that they provide for a level which tends to be the lowest level for all members. It has been found necessary—and it is only just and right— that some people should be paid more than others. A provision in this Bill that makes it an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment to pay a particular person a particular wage is extremely unsatisfactory and undesirable. There may be reasons for it but I do not quite see what they are.

With regard to Section 6 and the question of the teeth in the Bill, I am not clear as to what Section 6 means. Does Section 6, for example, in any way operate so as to repeal the Trade Disputes Acts and the rights of trade unions under them? Does it leave the right of picketing? At any rate, whatever one's opinion might be, I do not think that should be done at this particular stage but one would like to know before one agrees to pass a Bill what its precise meaning is. I do not know what the meaning of Section 6 is. It appears to be very drastic. Against whom is it directed? Against what kind of offence or person is it directed? As a person with some knowledge of trade disputes, I do not quite understand against whom it is directed.

There is this to be said. If this is a measure for compulsory arbitration, it is a measure which deals with only one particular dispute. Now that it has been amended and explained, I have some difficulty in agreeing with Senator Murphy that it really is compulsory arbitration. It is not compulsory arbitration as generally understood. I am at one with the Taoiseach, Senator Murphy and the seconder of the amendment that compulsory arbitration—the imposition of compulsory arbitration by law—is a highly undesirable thing. It is not only undesirable but it is also impracticable. It has been proved in other countries—and it could be proved in this country—that it is not a practical proposition to make people work if they choose to withdraw their labour and continue to withdraw it. Various schemes have been devised in other countries but I am not so sure that they have worked. They have not worked in Australia, a country of which I made some study for a particular purpose.

There is a threat, is is alleged, in this to trade unionists but also, unfortunately, there is a threat in the present dispute to ordinary people. That is the difficulty. Without allocating the blame, there is the threat to the employment of people whose employment depends upon the supply of electricity. There is a threat to hospitals and other institutions. There is a threat to an immense amount of agricultural produce which is in refrigerators. There is a threat to creameries and flour mills. I am afraid it is true that the Government have a duty to do what seems good to them in that situation. I should love to think that the threat could be removed and the situation resolved by negotiation. There was some indication today that that might be done at the weekend. There is the amendment inserted in subsection (1), of Section 3 which says:

If the Government consider that there is imminent danger of a cessation or serious curtailment of electric power arising before the settlement of the present trade dispute.

I wonder—I do not know whether the Taoiseach wants to answer the question—whether that is inserted so that the Government may, in the light of new circumstances, allow other methods to work without setting up a tribunal?

The Taoiseach

That is correct. There are only two circumstances where action will start. One is where negotiation has failed and where there is no prospect of the resumption of negotiation and, the other, where a failure of power has taken place.

Professor Hayes

That is an important amendment and a concession to the notion that something may be done to make this Bill unnecessary. With regard to the threats and to principles, I think all of us have sufficient experience to act as we think fit without being very thin-skinned as to whether somebody is threatening us or not. I do not understand how it is proposed that this Bill should work. I know that in certain circumstances, whatever else it might produce, it might not necessarily produce a solution of the problem.

With regard to the history of the dispute, I listened to the Taoiseach this morning in the Dáil and I listened to him carefully this evening in the Seanad. There are things in the history of the dispute not quite clear to the outsider but I do not think that any good purpose can be served by going into them.

Trade unions have a very useful and necessary function to perform. For a variety of reasons, I have been and will always be in favour of trade unions. They protect the interests of their members. One very important function they have to perform—it is a very useful function in the State—is that they provide a body of persons with whom friendly and intelligent negotiations can be conducted. When they cease to do that and if they cease to do that, they break down and then the negotiation machinery needs to be reconstructed.

I agree with the implication of Senator Murphy's speech that when negotiating machinery breaks down—it would appear to have broken down at least in this case—impatience and force cannot reconstruct the machinery. Even if compulsion were to succeed in one particular case, it still leaves a grave problem unsolved. Our aim should be to secure consent to a system of conciliation and arbitration for public utility services which would secure continuity of supply and would ensure that the present kind of situation would not occur again. This business of insisting upon principles and that you must always have power to reject an award is something which could be abandoned if a particular agreed system of conciliation and arbitration could be devised. It seems to me that is something which could be done.

In the circumstances of a country like this, as small as we are, in a community as homogeneous as ours is, in a place where employers and workers can talk to each other, as they can here, and where we depend so much on power from the E.S.B. and from its stations, it should be possible, and be the aim of the trade unions and the employers and the E.S.B., to devise a system of that kind so that nobody would be allowed to say, whether correctly or not—I do not want to say anything provocative myself—that the public are being held up to ransom. The present difficulty shows a necessity for some such system. If this debate, and the debates in the Dáil, and the concessions made by amendments to this Bill, could hasten the arrival of such a system, then they will have been worthwhile.

I do not know whether the Taoiseach, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the Minister for Transport and Power, have ever given thought to such a scheme. The Bill itself is obviously the product of an emergency and of sudden thinking. The fact that there were second thoughts this morning shows that. The case which Senator Murphy makes, and which was made in the other House also, about the dilatoriness, or the alleged procrastination, as it was called, of the E.S.B. is something which to the ordinary person suggests that if such a grievance existed, it should have been known to the Minister for Transport and Power or the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I know that the Taoiseach is right when he says that there are certain tribunals which have their own powers and over which Ministers have no power, but at the same time inquiries could have been made about the E.S.B. and about these tribunals. I fail to understand why no inquiry was made before this situation burst upon us. My own experience, in a pretty long life, of strikes and disputes, is that they rarely occur for the precise reason that is given at the moment. Trade unionists agree on that. They occur because of some state of affairs which is unsatisfactory all round. I am at a loss to understand why there was no knowledge of the state of affairs which appears to have been responsible for this rather peculiar situation.

Another matter which as a skilled worker myself I have noticed is that the differential between skilled and unskilled workers is disappearing. There was a time when a skilled worker had twice as much wages as a non-skilled worker. That differential is disappearing and disappearing in more realms than in this realm and that may also give rise to trouble. There is, as I say, the desire to settle the whole problem and I think very little reflection has been given by the Government to what are the genuine difficulties in this case. The whole question of negotiations between State bodies will have to be considered and the repercussions on the general wage of action by independent bodies, repercussions far beyond those which the directors of some of these bodies think of at a particular moment.

The present problem is a grave and pressing one and I feel that if the Government in their wisdom want to do this, and feel that this is the first step, and feel that it will have the result of averting a cessation of power and light, then the scheme should be supported. I am prepared to support it myself and I feel that it may result directly or indirectly—and I think the Taoiseach hopes as I hope that the effect will be indirect rather than direct —in establishing peace in the present dispute. What we would all like to see happening is that when that peace has been established, there will arise a general scheme for dealing with matters of this kind, that is, for essential services, and which will prevent a recurrence of crises such as this and which will ensure that the general public will be relieved from the threat of unemployment and death.

There is no doubt at all that a cessation of electric power would mean very serious danger to life, not only from the point of view of sick people, people who have to be operated on, and people in hospitals, but in many other ways as well. While this scheme should be given an opportunity to work, to see what could be done about it, it will give a lead to an indirect solution of the whole problem. My principal hope would be that it would lead to a solution of the general question of essential services controlled by Government Boards.

Mr. P. Crowley

A great deal of what I intended to say has already been said by two other speakers who spoke on behalf of the trade union movement. However, I feel it is my bounden duty to endorse emphatically what they have tried to convey to the House and to the Taoiseach in stating so clearly as they did that nobody inside the trade union movement at the moment can be convinced that there is any necessity for what we can only describe as a panic measure of this kind. We are not convinced that the necessity for it has arisen and in fact we challenge any statement to the effect that it has arisen. This strike has gone into its third week and for the past two weeks we have heard certain people warning us of the dire consequences that were going to flow from the continued operation of the strike even for another 24 or 48 hours. What has happened? Nothing.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Is the Senator disappointed that nothing has happened?

Mr. P. Crowley

On the contrary, I think the trade unions must be congratulated for making sure that nothing has happened. One of the spokesmen on the Government side this morning—I listened to him in the Dáil—said that the Government had given grave—I think that was the word he used—and serious consideration to the necessity for introducing this measure. I do not doubt that statement but I want to ask the Taoiseach: are the Government being fair either to this House or to the other House in expecting us to give any sort of grave or serious consideration to a measure of this type? I came into the House this morning to get a copy of the Bill but I did not get it. Nobody could have it. I fully realise that, from the programme laid down for today's business, nobody could have it, but nobody had a copy of the Bill before 11 o'clock. Is it suggested that serious consideration could be given to a measure of this type in those circumstances? I think it could not be. It is entirely uncalled for on the part of the Government to expect that this House should now permit the measure to go through, without at least considering the propriety of that type of procedure. I am aware that the programme adopted has been excused on the ground that we are dealing with an emergency. There is in fact no clear or definite evidence, that anybody can point to, of an emergency up to the present. Let us be clear and honest about it; there is not.

I do not propose to accuse the Government either of delay or of dragging their feet in dealing with this measure. On the contrary, I propose to suggest to this House that, if anything, the Government are moving far too quickly in this matter and are not permitting the trade union movement an adequate or a fair opportunity of dealing with the situation that has arisen in this dispute.

I do not attempt to excuse or condone some of the things that have happened; I am passing no judgment on them. I do not contend that any sane person can ignore them completely. The fact is that tonight we are still told on behalf of the Government that the Government are well aware that the trade union movement is even at the present moment endeavouring to deal with the situation in its own way. Until such time as the trade union movement is satisfied that it can no longer deal with it and that the position has got out of its control, I humbly submit to the Taoiseach that a case has so far not been made for the introduction of a measure of this kind.

I submit the trade unions need the help and understanding of every section of the community. I can assure the Taoiseach and the Government that they will resent and in fact resist any attempt to take from them under any pretext any of the fundamental freedoms or any of the rights they have won for themselves at such sacrifice and cost to every one of their members.

We are told that this Bill will have a short life. Its introduction is defended on the score that it is intended to deal only with what is described as an emergency and that it will die on the expiration of the maximum period of six months. Even on that basis, however, I want to point out that the Bill itself rests on compulsion. It is branded already as a repressive measure. It was rightly described as such in the other House today.

I want to endorse what my colleagues have said, namely, that no self-respecting trade unionist in this country could accept the obnoxious compulsory arbitration on which this Bill rests. That is where the objection lies. Unless and until we can be assured that we can deal with either this or any other situation by some means short of that type of compulsion, quite clearly the Government can expect opposition and are bound to get opposition from the trade union movement as a whole on such a measure.

As briefly as I can, I want to make some reference to criticism from quite unexpected quarters in some instances of what have been called the inordinate increases—I do not think these are the actual words used in the other House today—alleged to have been granted some time during the past 12 months to the clerical and supervisory grades of the E.S.B. There was the extraordinary suggestion that that accounts in some measure for the strike of the manual staffs. What are the facts? I happen to know them.

The facts are that up to the end of 1959 the salary scales and incremental incentives which formed the pattern of conditions of employment in the E.S.B. had fallen so far behind—the whole pattern of salary conditions generally in both industry and the professions in this country had fallen so far behind—that, in a matter of months, the Board itself willingly and with the co-operation of the unions concerned faced up to the problem of recasting the whole pattern of remuneration in these cases. Does anybody suggest that they did wrong? On the contrary, I submit that it was a gesture of nothing more than self-preservation on the part of the Board.

I am personally acquainted with a number of former employees of the Board who resigned from the service of the E.S.B. because of grievances over their conditions at the time. I have heard responsible officials of the Board say quite responsibly that if they had not done so, they would not have been enabled either to retain existing staffs or recruit new staffs on the standards of remuneration that were at that time being paid to their clerical and supervisory grades.

In this House tonight, we heard another speaker make the statement that the people of this country want compulsory arbitration for the E.S.B. at the moment. How a statement of that kind can be made in this House and be allowed to go unchallenged is more than I can understand. I want to remind the speaker concerned and everybody else concerned that no later than this morning the trade union movement in this country, representing no fewer than 500,000 of our people, have gone clearly on record as most emphatically and definitely saying "No" to any type of compulsory arbitration.

Another aspect of the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of the Taoiseach is Section 3 (4) which has already been under fire this evening. It provides:

It shall not be lawful for any employer to pay to any person to whom the determination of the tribunal applies wages at a rate other than that so determined.

I think the Taoiseach was listening, as I was myself, to a statement this evening in Dáil Éireann by a responsible member of the House, who, I am sure, knew what he was talking about, to the effect that there are people engaged in the electrical trade in this country who are paying rates in excess of the best figure that has so far been offered to the E.S.B. employees. Are we to take it quite seriously, as a House, that, on the passing of this measure, those people who have been paying those rates——

The Taoiseach

The award can relate only to electricians involved in the present trade dispute.

Mr. P. Crowley

There are more electricians involved than those employed in the E.S.B.

The Taoiseach

I know. Surely people being paid higher rates are not in dispute with their employers? This applies only to those in dispute.

Mr. P. Crowley

I am quite satisfied if that is the case. I want to address an appeal to the Taoiseach and to the Government seriously to reconsider the step they have undertaken by the introduction of this measure. I do so in no spirit of malice. I assure the Taoiseach that any section of the trade union movement which I have had the opportunity of consulting today on this matter—and I have tried since this morning—are not only resentful of but up in arms against the suggestion in the Bill, the principle to which I have already alluded. It is not the principle of arbitration, I think, to which objection is being taken. As I am quite sure the Taoiseach is well aware, many types of arbitration are freely operated by various sections of the trade union movement but it is done on a voluntary basis. Here, objection is taken to the imposition of compulsory arbitration. I appeal to the Taoiseach and to the Government at this very late stage at least to give the matter further thought and consideration.

Mr. McGuire

I agree generally with what Senator Hayes has said about this Bill and with his attitude to it. The amendment deals with the danger of a cessation of labour before the end of the dispute. I feel, I hope rightly, that this amendment suggests an element of pause. Although every ordinary channel that is possible and practicable has been tried to solve this dispute, Senator Murphy has suggested that there is one channel that has not been tried, that is, a ballot free from the duress of having to go back to work. Therefore, the element of imposition that, perhaps, appeared in this measure in the first instance has been removed by this amendment. That is a very sensible thing to do and the Taoiseach should be congratulated on agreeing to this amendment.

It is agreed that the system of collective bargaining should be relied upon as far as is humanly possible. We all subscribe to that proposition but we must realise, and, indeed, we all do realise, that there is in this present E.S.B. case a very difficult situation, where, to paraphrase the words of the Taoiseach, every form of negotiation machinery and device was exhausted. It seems now that "nearly every" are the words that should be used.

This is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. There was a somewhat similar situation in other cases in recent times in which all forms of negotiation machinery were tried and exhausted. I may say as an employers' representative that in many cases that do not come to the light of day somewhat the same position has arisen in ordinary industry and, to say the least of it, the patience of employers is becoming rather exhausted. It is terribly important that something should be done and indeed must be done to introduce order, commonsense and finality into collective bargaining.

It is up to the trade unions and organised employers to see that order, commonsense and finality are introduced into industrial relations and industrial disputes. If this is not done, no Government can be blamed— neither this Government nor any other Government, even a Labour Government—for trying to do what trade unions and employers will not do for themselves.

Perhaps this case will lead to some satisfactory solution being found by trade unions and organised employers. Discussions have been initiated by the F.U.E. with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. In the light of all that has happened in the past and is happening in this case, these organisations should take it upon themselves to set the house in order. I can say on behalf of the employers of Ireland that we are ready and willing to do such a thing so that Governments will not be forced to take action such as we have in this Bill today.

That needs to be said. It is all very fine to come in here and say there is compulsory arbitration and compulsory everything else. The stage has been reached here where the system of collective bargaining has practically broken down. I do not blame any Government for trying to do what the Government are doing here today. The ball is firmly back in the hands of organised employers and trade unions to settle the matter for themselves.

Mr. Donegan

This measure which, unfortunately, comes before us is a result of negotiation on the basis of a demand, in 1961, for what is in comparison with industrial wage rates obtaining in the rest of the country and the rest of the trades, a high rate and, in fact, a high offer. That does not mean that I would not wish to see such a high rate, or even a higher rate, paid, but the legislation we are dealing with at the moment is a result of a relatively higher rate than is paid in any other trade in this country. You can ascribe that, if you want to, to the failure of the Government and previous Governments of all kinds to bring the normal rate for tradesmen to a satisfactory level. Whatever view you take of that, be it a political view or an individual view, does not really matter because the situation exists. By comparison with other trades, we are talking about a relatively high rate on the basis of either the offer or the demand.

In support of that statement, I would mention that I am a member of a joint labour committee for the provender milling industry. In fact, the lowest rate in the provinces is fixed by that committee on which members of the trade unions have a say as well as employers. The decision, taken by independent members, was that for a 47½ hour week a wage of £7 would be paid in certain parts of the provinces and for a 45 hour week in Dublin city a wage of £8.5.6 would be paid. One must take it that skilled people in other trades have settled for those wages. The result as far as a minimum wage is concerned of the joint labour committee's deliberations is binding and the minimum, in fact, always means the maximum. The fact is that in other trades skilled tradesment are working on the basis of what amounts to compulsory arbitration for a much lower rate. That is a statement of fact, not of opinion. If one were to go to the absolute end of the scale on the other side, one could quote the skilled farm labourer, who, in my view, is a more skilled person than an electrician, who would go out of work this moment if he did not have perquisites which he need not have, whose wages are at the horribly low figure, a most unsatisfactory figure, almost starvation level, of £5 13s. 6d.

One must regard this as a reflection of our success or failure as politicians in this House and the other House, on all sides. We must also remember that the cost of this award, at whatever rate of offer or demand, means nothing, that in relation to the cost of a unit of electricity for power or light, it could not matter less. We must regard it, then, as entirely and absolutely, policy decision. I have quoted other rates. One can see that it is a policy decision, on the basis that if this rate were paid, then there would be a snowball, that other industries and occupations would be moved up, and that the policy decision both by the employers and by the Government is that it is not possible to do that. That is how I view the matter. I may be right; I may be wrong.

There was also the point that there would be complete paralysis of the country, if electric power ceased. There must be a cessation of electric power, if the present situation continues for any length of time. One can mention, for instance, the harvest. That is a sphere in which I am involved. No matter how dry corn may be, it must be artificially dried. There is no modern drier that I know of in this country that does not operate on electric power. Therefore, one must regard the harvest as largely lost if there is a cessation of electric power.

I know the unions have agreed that they will provide in individual cases and exceptional cases for hospitals and even dairies where cows must be milked by electric power. I wonder is that an undertaking that can be honoured? If, for instance, as a result of lack of electricians, power were to fail at a certain large generator, could that pledge be honoured? Could we have implemented in the hospitals, in the dairies and in the mills where grain must be taken in, where the farmer must get his wages for at least six months of the year in one instance, this guarantee or pledge that power will be available? I doubt it, because I think the situation would be that if one or two or three large generators stopped because of the present position, no matter how much the electricians or individuals themselves desired to provide electric power, in certain cases it would be impossible to do it over a long breakdown period.

Therefore, I come to the question as to whether 1,000 people have the right morally to paralyse the industry, upset normal living standards and create exigencies for the people of the country and I must conclude, having deeply considered it, that as long as they are paid wage rates which are higher than those prevailing—I do not think the argument as to whether the rates are adequate comes into this—they are not morally entitled to do so. Therefore, I feel this legislation brought in by the Government is proper.

I regret that the Government have had to do it; it is a dreadful thing that in a country where freedom is so prized, compulsion is necessary but I think it is necessary that anyone in public life, no matter what results may follow as regards his efforts or advancement in public life, should come forward and say what he thinks on occasions like this. If that does not happen, I do not think we have the right people in public life.

In conclusion, the whole pattern of life today for employer and employee —more so, I think, in the case of the employer—is the subjugation of the individual. The advent of the Common Market will, I think, emphasise even more that subjugation of the individual. The individual employer some time ago might be in a position to make certain products, to pander to individual local tastes, and the individual employee might be in a position to make individual arrangements or decisions in regard to his employer. That now, I think, is gone and the position is that as the world grows smaller, the employee and the employer will, as individuals, be subjugated entirely. You may say that is undesirable but whatever way you say it, it is so. When we join the Common Market, our position will be that we shall have common wage rates and levels and employers will have to produce products at common prices.

I think, in fact, that where an offer has been made which is considerably above the ordinary wage in this country for skilled men and where those skilled men are in a position of power, we cannot accept, as a free nation, the fact that they can hold us up to ransom. As a public representative, I feel I would not be doing my duty if I did not declare on what side I stand and, as far as I am concerned, I believe the Taoiseach and the Government had no choice in this matter but had to face up to it in the way they have.

Mr. O'Quigley

Before we adjourned for the recess and concluded what we thought was to be our last meeting, I had expressed my distaste for legislating in the dark because we had a number of Bills sent up to us on which we were supposed to pass judgment without ever reading them. I venture to suggest that if we were not legislating in the dark, we were certainly legislating in the twilight but I never thought then that we would find ourselves legislating in the shadows of darkness with the Taoiseach in the undignified position of flitting about grasping a will-o'-the-wisp in the hope of preserving electric power supplies for the country.

It may seem strange that since 1957, for the first time in the history of this country, we have had a Minister for Transport and Power but to me, at any rate, it is not strange that we should find ourselves in this position because of the presence in that Ministry of the present Minister for Transport and Power. The Minister sat mutely in the Dáil today like the harp that once through Tara's Hall, hanging his head and never uttered a word in relation to a matter that so vitally affects the nation that Parliament has to be recalled. There was not a word from the most voluble Minister in the Government, the Minister who is going around telling the people of the tremendous prosperity they enjoy and how they should run their affairs.

The Taoiseach

May I explain that I asked the Minister to stay out of the debate and to leave the matter to myself and the Minister for Industry and Commerce?

Mr. O'Quigley

The Taoiseach was wise not to make a bad situation worse by permitting the Minister for Transport and Power to speak.

The Taoiseach

The Minister for Industry and Commerce deals with labour matters.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister for Transport and Power deals with power matters and in this Bill we are dealing with electric power. There has not been one word from the Minister for Transport and Power in relation to this matter. He has been guilty of the gravest dereliction of duty and there is no gainsaying that. We were here dealing with the Electricity Supply Bill in November, 1960, and the Minister for Transport and Power became extremely heated at the suggestion that some figures that he gave were incorrect and created a very unpleasant scene in this chamber. In the course of that debate, Senator Quinlan suggested, and I endorsed his suggestion, that after a lapse of 33 years since the establishment of the first and finest of our semi-State bodies, its working should be reviewed. The references, for Senator Quinlan and myself, are at columns 192 and 201 of Volume 53 of the Official Report.

The Minister for Transport and Power in the glib way in which he tosses off any suggestion made by anybody else other than himself, had this to say at column 221:

Senator Quinlan also suggested that it might be time to appoint a commission to examine the work of the E.S.B....

How prophetic in view of the provisions of Section 4 of this Bill!

I am in very close touch with the chairman, in whom I have the utmost confidence,

said the Minister for Transport and Power,

and with the directors. We meet regularly and discuss every phase of the work of the E.S.B. without any interfering in the conduct of the day-to-day operations of the Board. I discuss with them all the future trends which are likely to arise in regard to generation and consumption...

Now we have the Minister for Transport and Power meeting the officials of the E.S.B. and the directors and chairman regularly and he did not know that for a period of 12 months, there was a claim in by the electricians and, coming on to June, July and August, that this dispute was looming up. If he knew, he did nothing about it. If the Press reports are correct, we have still further evidence of the lack of knowledge on the part of the Minister for Transport and Power whose special function as Minister is to see to the maintenance of power supplies in the country.

Mr. Carter

Is this an attack on the Minister for Transport and Power or an objective speech on the Bill?

Mr. Barry

I think it is unfair for the Leader of the House to distract the attention of the Leas-Chathaoirleach from the speaker.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think the speech is in order.

Mr. O'Quigley

If Senator Carter has a point to make, let him stand up and make it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Bill deals really with measures to ensure due supplies of power in this case.

Mr. O'Quigley

A change of Minister at this stage might be the perfect solution. However, the Irish Independent of today prints a statement issued by the Electrical Trades Union (Ireland) last night and, not to be outdone in generosity and kindness, the Irish Press has, in black type, what one would think was a very fair statement from the E.T.U. But, of course, as in the case of everything in the Irish Press where the Government's vital interests are concerned, you do not get anything like the whole story. Indeed in this case, they have taken upon themselves not to give us the full version of the E.T.U. statement as published in the Irish Independent:

What has not yet been explained to the general public by the E.S.B. or by the Government is that the dispute, so far as the Board is concerned, is still in the hands of the E.S.B. Manual Workers' Tribunal. This Tribunal, set up by Government legislation in 1942, has done a fairly good job over the years in dealing with manual workers' disputes. On this particular dispute, which is the first of its kind, it has evaded its responsibilities and, as far as it is understood, the Government has not pressed them.

Now that we have a dispute on our hands and a statutory tribunal set up by the Government what has been done about settling it? Why has the Minister for Transport and Power not seen that the tribunal considered the case and took steps to cure it? If that were not done by the tribunal, why did the Minister not take steps to reorganise it?

I should like to hear what the Taoiseach has to say about that. As the Minister for Transport and Power is in daily communication with the E.S.B., one would imagine he would see to it that this particular tribunal, set up by legislation, would take steps to bring this dispute to an end. If that had been done by the Minister for Transport and Power, we should not now be here considering this distasteful piece of legislation. This is now the only thing that can be done because of a dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister for Transport and Power. If the Minister for Transport and Power had been alive to his duties, this piece of legislation would never have had to be introduced.

The Taoiseach has told us this evening, with the usual conviction with which he speaks, that he does not believe in compulsory legislation. I place no credence whatsoever on that statement, made ad hoc. The Taoiseach, with the same kind of assurance, made a similar statement in respect to the food subsidies in Waterford and was believed. Of course he did the very opposite to what he said he would do. I do not believe for a moment that the Taoiseach could not justify another bout of legislation of this kind later. This legislation will prove most distasteful to all employed persons in this State because the echo of the wages standstill order of 1940 still rings in the ears of all workers who were in employment at that period. This legislation is of the kind which the former Deputy Morrissey found on his desk when he assumed the office of Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1948. It was put there by the Taoiseach, Deputy Morrissey's predecessor in the Department of Industry and Commerce.

That is why this legislation, even though the circumstances are very grave, must be distasteful to every person employed and to the general public as well who know the unrest that will follow this kind of measure. Frankly, I do not understand this Bill. I do not know if the Taoiseach himself understands it, with the very considerable intellectual powers he has. At one stage, it appeared to me that the proposed tribunal would deal with all electricians. Then the Taoiseach said something which suggested to me that it was confined to the determination of rates of wages to electricians employed by the E.S.B. and in the generation of electric power. The Taoiseach made two statements which are in conflict.

The Preamble to the Bill refers to a trade dispute involving certain electricians and says:

There is serious danger of a cessation of electric power.

Then Section 2 of the Bill says:

In this Act "the present trade dispute" means the trade dispute referred to in the Preamble to this Act.

I should have thought that the trade dispute referred to in the Preamble is one which involves the cessation of electric power. That is what it appears to me to mean. The Taoiseach also suggested that the rates of wages would be confined for determination to the tribunal suggested in the Bill which seems to suggest that this applies to all employers of electricians.

In a case of this kind, if the Taoiseach and the Government had asked for powers essential in a vital public service, one would have less hesitation in giving such powers in relation to that public service than what we appear to be doing in this Bill—giving powers in relation to all electrical employers and employees. There is some sense in limiting it to a vital service but I do not see any sense in proposing that the Bill will cover all electrical employees and employers. Perhaps that is convenient from the point of view of trade union machinery—it might avoid further negotiations in relation to electricians employed otherwise than by the E.S.B.—but we are dealing here with a matter which is very fundamental from the point of view of not only the rights of the people of this country but the rights of trade unions as well. The Bill, in so far as it goes beyond what is absolutely essential, that is, the electricians employed in the E.S.B., is wrong and unnecessarily comprehensive.

Senator Hayes referred to the teeth being drawn from the Bill by the deletion of subsection (3) of Section 3. We have an elaborate series of sections setting out what is to be done to those who commit offences under this Bill. The first offence is failure to attend under the compulsory powers contained in Section 21 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1946, referred to in subsection (5) of Section 3. Any witness summoned to attend this tribunal who fails to do so or who, attending, fails to answer questions or produce any document shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10. Therefore, if the trade unions, in the exercise of their rights, decide they will not have anything to do with this tribunal, straight away, once the summons has been issued, they leave themselves open to a fine of £10.

The second matter is that "Every person who contravenes (whether by act or omission) or attempts to contravene any provision of this Act or any order made thereunder shall be guilty of an offence." One of the provisions is that: "It shall not be lawful for an employer to pay to any person to whom the determination of the tribunal applies wages at a rate other than that so determined." It will not be lawful for employers to engage in discussions with one another if they are losing their employees in emigration. It will not be lawful for them to discuss a wage increase because they will be guilty of an offence.

One wonders if this Bill is intended to be taken very seriously. It seems to me there is a vital defect in the Bill in respect of any prosecution it might be intended to take. Nowhere is there any provision whereby the tribunal to be established under Section 3 will promulgate by order, by notice published in Iris Oifigiúil or in any other way, what the wages are to be. It is absolutely essential before any prosecution can be taken in all these cases to have a specific method of publication so that everybody is fixed with notice, whether he sees it or not, of the findings of a particular tribunal.

One finds in Section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act that Section 4 of the Documentary Evidence Act, 1925, shall apply to every order of the court. That is the section which deals with the proofs of the orders of the Labour Court. If people contravene an order of the Labour Court, they can be prosecuted successfully by the invocation of Section 19, which brings into operation the Documentary Evidence Act, 1925. But there is no provision whatever in this Bill for the proof or promulgation in any shape or form of the orders or whatever will be the determination of the tribunal fixing the rates. Consequently, nobody, in my opinion, can ever commit an offence because there never has been any publication. If a tribunal fixes a rate of wages and I become an employer in three weeks' time, I know nothing at all about that rate of wages. It will not be published in Iris Oifigiúil. It will not be an order laid before each House of the Oireachtas. It will not be found on sale in the Government Publications Sale Office.

One wonders if that is left out advisedly. Under this section every person who commits an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100, a further fine not exceeding £20 for every day an offence is committed or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both; and on conviction on indictment sentences up to five years in respect of a Bill to last only six months. These are all kinds of gimmicks being introduced to give the impression the Government are very seriously concerned with a Bill under which it cannot effectively prosecute anybody for any offence that may be committed, with the exception of attendance in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1946.

As I have been reading the papers, I understand, and I rely on the summary given in one of the papers today, that not alone is the question of rates of pay involved in this trade dispute but also the number of hours per week. I have not heard the Taoiseach say it is agreed, and that there will be no doubt about it, in the event of the legislation becoming law that the hours per week are going to be whatever has been agreed. If that is not so, this tribunal cannot do anything because it cannot fix a rate of wages except in relation to a certain number of hours per week. There is no provision whatever in Section 3 to empower the tribunal to deal with the hours per week. It merely empowers them in subsection (1) to determine the rate of wages to be paid to electricians. You could determine in theory that an electrician be paid maybe twice the rate per hour if he were to work twice as hard as he works at present, but you must have some fixed number of hours upon which the tribunal can operate before it can fix the rate of wages.

I think the Taoiseach, having considered these matters, will be earnestly hoping and praying he never has to invoke this Bill because, if he does, I think the tribunal will find itself with a very incomplete set of terms of reference and unable to act. For that reason, it appears to me that the suggestions which have been made that this Bill should not be enacted into law immediately might upon that ground be adopted by the Government with profit and to avoid further embarrassment.

As far as I can see, the Bill opens up a very doubtful chapter in the history of trade union relations in this country. I am informed that a vital group of workers in the employment of the E.S.B., the boilermen, are at present in dispute with the E.S.B. over their conditions of service and rates of pay. Their employment is vital to the maintenance of electric power. What is to happen if the boilermen, having gone through all the processes, stage a strike? Are we to have more legislation of this kind? That is the kind of chain reaction we may be setting off in this legislation. While the Government, having got themselves into the fix they have, should be helped in the way they suggest to get themselves out of the mess, I earnestly hope that the trade unions and the employers will save the day and that this unfortunate piece of legislation will never have to be implemented. While the Taoiseach says this legislation is not a precedent, I say it is a precedent. Those concerned with constitutional rights, the rights of trade unionists and indeed the rights of employers, can only hope it will never be used as a precedent and that its memory will be erased as quickly as possible.

Miss Davidson

The real danger in this Bill, as has already been pointed out, is the threat it contains of compulsory arbitration. Once the Oireachtas permits this Bill to become law to deal with a situation that is in no sense a national emergency, the headline will be set and the Government in power, no matter what Government that may be, will have their precedent for dealing with all future disputes which may arise concerning industrial relations. I am aware the measure applies only to the present dispute with the electricians and that it will die within six months of its passage. That is no help at all.

It was a relief to hear the Taoiseach say that he did not agree with the principle of compulsory arbitration and the fixing of wages by Government action. He also said that he would oppose such proposals, no matter from what quarter they came. He said, too, that the Bill would be used only when all other measures had failed. That is the view of the present Taoiseach. It is a personal view. A different Taoiseach, a different Minister for Industry and Commerce, a different Government might not hold the same view in similar circumstances. Should a similar situation flare up, no matter what the circumstances, the headline will be set for the introduction and passage into law of an Act to deal with any and every strike in any and every industry.

This measure lays the foundation for the erection of a machine designed to crush the fundamental rights of trade unions and trade unionists and to compel workers to have their wages and conditions of employment fixed for them by legislation. That would be the death knell of free negotiation between trade union and employer and would, indeed, be the first step in the overthrow of trade unions. The Bill is more than objectionable. It is a real menace to the workers. The present situation, though serious, does not call for any such far-reaching legislation.

Senator McGuire spoke of the need for finality in collective bargaining. I do not quite know what that means. There can surely be no finality in negotiations for higher wages while there is no stability or finality in the cost of living. It shocked me greatly to hear Senator Donegan complain that certain types of workers, who have succeeded in getting better wages than have the unfortunate agricultural workers, should be penalised by having a Bill introduced which would put an end to their efforts to raise their living standards. Senator Browne who has participated in the negotiations assures us that the threat of this Bill is preventing an amicable settlement. Because of that, I would ask the Taoiseach to withdraw this threatening measure and appeal once again to both sides to endeavour to reach a just and speedy settlement.

I do not mind about that. I tried to do it myself in 1955 and I am commending the Government's judicious measure in anticipation of something they saw happening and as a passing remark, I think it is fair enough. I agree with my colleague, Senator Donegan, that it is extremely hard for a person outside a dispute to be a real judge of the matter but from what I have heard about the rates per hour in real terms pre-war, the figures that have been mentioned in this dispute recently are reasonable. Let me explain what I mean by that. I am in no position to get to a closer accuracy than five per cent, and that would amount to 2d. or 3d. an hour. 5/- an hour is 60 pence and five per cent of that is 3d. I say that because the Minister for Industry and Commerce shook his head. I am only explaining if you approached this matter from my theoretical applied economics basis, you cannot expect to get closer than 2d. or 3d. an hour. It would be foolish in the extreme for anybody to attempt to get closer than that, if they were outside the dispute. Therefore any outside person arguing about a penny is just not being reasonable.

Section 3 of this Bill really makes a fixed price for labour. When Senator Murphy referred to the concomitant measure prohibiting emigration which indeed on one occasion was invoked by one of the Government Departments in relation to one section of its employees, I felt the question of a fixed price for money might well arise. If this Bill were seriously intended and were put into operation seriously, I am afraid there would be a lot more emigration than we have today.

It seems to me we have in this Bill under Section 5 all the paraphernalia we had during the war and that inevitably makes one ask the question: is this war? I do not think it is. There is a great deal of shadow-boxing in it. The Taoiseach uses the phrase "cooling off period." It reminded me of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's "pause" and the word "pause" was used by somebody else. It may well be that it is no harm to have a cooling off period but of course the cooling off period can be brought about in different ways. It could be brought about by the cessation of negotiations for a few days. As I say, there is a great deal of shadow boxing which reminds me of the dispute of the Minister for Health, when he was Minister for Local Government, with the binmen of the city of Dublin. While the dispute was on, he went round pounding them into a pulp. Then he made a good settlement with them and the minute he made the settlement, he proceeded to pound them again, having given them more or less what they wanted.

I agree with Senator Crowley that we have not the kind of crisis in relation to this measure which is at the back of the procedure in calling the Dáil and Seanad here by telegram. I appreciate the efforts made by the Taoiseach and the Minister. I know both of them to be reasonable men. I can say the Minister for Industry and Commerce is known to everybody to be an extremely reasonable man. I can understand their going to bed one night feeling they have settled the strike but when they get up the next morning and go in to their colleagues, I can visualise the colleagues saying to them: "Let us give them the works." I can visualise these colleagues of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying: "Give them the works. You had it all settled last night. You worked very hard." Certainly I have great sympathy for both the Taoiseach and his Minister for Industry and Commerce in the way the thing happened.

My colleague, Senator Donegan, suggested that if there were a shortage of electricity, all the harvest would be lost. That is one of these farmer's phobias that we are always up against in this country. When they had power cuts in Britain, they did not occur all day. They would not occur all day here. The farmers may have to stay up all night as they have to do with a sow when she is farrowing. They stay up to dry their corn. I do not think it would kill them to lose their sleep once in a while.

The Senator made use of the expression: "holding us up to ransom". Frankly, there has not been up to the present any holding up of the country to ransom. I am going to vote against the Bill because I feel it is premature I am doubtful whether it is constitutional but I am not going into that matter. I certainly think the State interferes with a right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Professor Quinlan

I want to make a few brief comments on the Bill. I came here today fully in sympathy with the general feeling of resentment and frustration that is all over the country at this. I may say that the country at large regard it largely as blackmail. That may be going too far but that is the attitude in the country at the moment. I can see very well the predicament of the Government and their efforts to do something about the situation. As the debate developed, I was struck by the obvious sincerity and helpfulness of the Labour Senators here who in their very responsible position seem to have the major share of this crisis in their hands.

The Taoiseach said — and quite rightly — that this marks a crisis in the trade union movement where apparently the authority of the movement itself has not been accepted down the ranks. Consequently, that is a very grave issue. Added to that there are two other crises as far as I can see. First of all, there is the crisis of the break down of collective bargaining. There is too much of the approach that employers can be assumed to accept and employees to reject. We must face the fact that collective bargaining has broken down. Any idea of collective bargaining starts from setting up a perfectly fair tribunal, a tribunal whose recommendations will be fair to all. Consequently, that is an institution that we need to look into very carefully to see how it can be improved and, above all, how it can be got over the present crisis.

The third crisis is the position of our semi-State bodies. Because of their immense size and their monopoly position in our economy, they are completely vulnerable to strike action. It does not matter a great deal to them whether they resist or not because they in turn pass on the increased charges to the community at large. That means that our semi-State bodies are in a different category altogether from private enterprise groups.

I can understand the fear of our respected Labour members in regard to any effort to curb this principle of collective bargaining and to make for compulsory arbitration. I put it to them that in their heart of hearts, being the responsible members of their organisation, if they themselves had the full selection of the tribunal that gave the award they would think the finding of that tribunal should be binding on their members. If in our present circumstances, perhaps our unfortunate circumstances, members are not satisfied with the award of such a fully constituted and impartial tribunal, they are quite free to withdraw their services and transfer them to England or elsewhere, if they wish. I know that the sons of small farmers and the sons of our rural workers are only too eager and anxious to get a foothold in some of the trades which, I believe, are far too restricted in their intake of numbers today.

That just highlights the fact that you cannot simply take the stand, which seems to be taken, that compulsory arbitration seems to suggest that the tribunal would be loaded against the workers. I do not think that any Irishman worthy of the name would contemplate such a tribunal. A tribunal should be of the most impartial and best type that can be devised. I do not think anybody would ask for less. Consequently, we must face that crisis when it comes. If it has to be a choice between compulsory arbitration and shotgun arbitration, I know where we will stand. That is the situation that arises in these semi-State bodies, those large monopolies, where a few at the centre of things can dictate the whole policy. As was pointed out, electricians can ultimately bring the country to a state of absolute crisis in the distribution of power. These in turn can be used by any other group associated with that industry who wish to take strike action. The electricians must go out in sympathy with those. You have these crises occurring over and over again. It is like what we had in the beet factories a few years ago when a few sugar interests were able to hold the country up to ransom.

We have got to recognise the problem. We have also got to recognise the fact so eloquently and forcibly put by Senator Donegan. In our present state, with the average wage in industry somewhere about £8 10s. or £8 15s. a week and the average wage in agriculture certainly under £6 a week, we have got to recognise that any groups that are substantially above the average level are in a relatively privileged position and, consequently, we should be very slow to use the weapon of strike action and, above all, to use it from these privileged positions that have developed in our semi-State bodies.

I am somewhat worried about the provisions of the Bill. I am worried about the case made by the Labour Senators. I feel that the Taoiseach should delay the bringing in of this Bill as long as possible so as to make every effort to settle this dispute before we can get down to serious planning for grappling with the three crises which I have enumerated. It is only in a calm atmosphere, when everybody can count his losses and gains, that we can really sit down and see how such a tribunal as proposed here should be set up and how its decisions should as far as possible be made mandatory. I say "as far as possible" and I mean that, having set up the most perfect tribunal possible, we want to see that its findings can achieve what they should achieve. When that day comes, if we come to consider this in a calm atmosphere, I am certain the workers concerned will be able to reckon quite clearly that any increase they have forced through their strike action is not all pure gain and that it will take a long time to make up what they have lost through striking. They too will see the necessity for having some more automatic means of adjustment, some means of adjustment that by and large is tied to some index in the community.

The point made about companies putting claims on the longer finger is only too true and the State itself is one of the greatest offenders in this respect. I know of cases where their employees have queued up for a year or more awaiting their turn at the arbitration tribunal. All that leads to discontent and disgruntlement. Above all, we should accept the principle that if one group is entitled to an increase due to an increase in the cost of living, or to the over-all prosperity of the country, that should be given as quickly as possible to all groups without their having to come and force their claims one after the other. The agricultural community have received no increase but it can be shown that their income today is away under what it was four or five years ago because they are not in the position of having four sugar cooks to ensure what would be adequate prices for their product.

I would appeal to the Taoiseach to do everything possible to bring this dispute to a satisfactory end before contemplating the setting up of the tribunal and other measures that may be necessary to chart it on a more even course. From tonight's speeches I feel the Taoiseach will have the greatest help and assistance from our very highly esteemed Labour members in this Seanad.

The Taoiseach

I have nothing further to say to the Seanad other than the remarks I made when introducing this Bill. I should like the Seanad to understand that as far as I am concerned, and I am sure this applies to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and everybody in the Government, we produced this measure with very great reluctance indeed. Senator Murphy's suggestion that we were thinking in terms of some political advantage is so absurd in my judgment, both as to the political situation and the character of the Bill, as hardly to require comment. Personally, as I told the House already, I was so gravely upset by the prospect, which every day appeared likely to emerge the following day, of a complete failure of power and the hardship it would cause for our people that I went to bed for the first time on Wednesday night last with that sense of strain and urgency removed by the reported agreement that evening. I do not know in what mood the Minister for Industry and Commerce went to bed but he was awakened very quickly to be told the agreement he had negotiated had broken down again. I must say he spared me until half past seven the next morning before ringing me up to give me the bad news.

Nothing could give me greater pleasure if within a few days I could make the order, as provided in the Bill, to annul it again, to put it in the wastepaper basket, a dead letter. That will be done if there is a settlement of the dispute by any process of negotiation which anybody can start. Some effort is being made in that direction at the moment; if it succeeds that will be the end. If it does not achieve the result and there is no prospect of getting into a situation that will avoid these hardships to our people, some other measure must be taken. It seems to me to be our duty as public representatives to protect the people against this possibility. If this Bill does not succeed, we will have to meet about it again.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Seanad divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 7.

Tá

Ahern, Liam.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, John J.
Carter, Frank.
Carton, Victor.
Cole, John C.
Colley, Harry.
Connor, Patrick.
Crowe, Patrick.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Dillon, Gerard B.
Donegan, Patrick.
Dowdall, Jane.
Farnan, Robert P.
Fitzsimons, Patrick.
Hayes, Michael.
Hayes, Seán.
Lenihan, Brian.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
McGuire, Edward A.
O Ciosáin, Eamon.
O Donnabháin, Seán.
O'Dwyer, Martin.
O Grádaigh, Seán.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Quinlan, Patrick M.
Roddy, Joseph.
Ruane, Thomas.
Ryan, Eoin.
Sheridan, Joseph M.
Walsh, Laurence J.
Walsh, Louis.

Níl

Browne, Edward.
Crowley, Patrick.
Davidson, Mary F.
Murphy, Dominick F.
O'Donovan, John.
O'Keeffe, James J.
Tunney, James.

Tellers: Tá: Senators Ó Donnabháin and T. O'Sullivan; Níl: Senators Miss Davidson and Murphy.

Amendment declared lost.

Main motion put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 1 Sep 1961