Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1966

Vol. 61 No. 8

Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill, 1966: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

This Bill, as the Seanad knows, deals with the question of the interruption of the supply of electricity arising out of disputes in the ESB. Its provisions would become effective only on the making of an Order by the Government. The power to make such an Order bringing the provisions of the Bill into effect would be exercisable by the Government only in circumstances in which there was likely to be a serious disruption in a supply of electricity, due to disputes. It is not the type of legislation which the Government would want, nor is it the type the Government thought it would ever be obliged to introduce but the community cannot carry on without electricity and the public, I think, will not bear with a situation in which the supply of electricity is seriously disrupted or threatened.

There are obviously two possible ways in which we can secure continuity of the supply of electricity, in the event of a dispute. One is voluntary negotiation by the employees with the Board of arrangements by which the employees would give up their right to take such action as would bring about serious disruption of supplies for whatever consideration would be negotiated. We have not got this arrangement and in its absence, the Government, acting on behalf of the community, must have resort to the only alternative, that is, to seek legislative powers. The Government do not regard this as a desirable procedure, and, as I have said, they did not think that at any time they would have to introduce such legislation. I regret to have to say that circumstances have arisen which place a clear obligation on the Government to seek such powers as will enable them to act on behalf of the community in the event of a serious disruption, or the likelihood of a serious disruption, in the supply of electricity

The Seanad will be aware of the history and the facts of the situation in regard to the disruption of supplies. As I have said before, it is no revelation to say that in our western civilisation conditions of life have become so complex, that technical advances have placed us on a razor's edge, and we are daily becoming more and more dependent on the smooth flow of supplies and services which are themselves caught in a web of interdependence.

Electricity is no longer a matter of relative importance in our daily lives. The importance of electricity in the lives of the people is now absolute. An extension of the principle that a man can withdraw his labour to include the right of a trade union to call a major strike in an essential industry I have compared with putting a nuclear warhead in a conventional weapon. We have to recognise that the use of the strike weapon in certain circumstances no longer simply affects the employer or the boss in his pocket. It affects the whole community. The realities of the situation in which we found ourselves recently, and which has not been resolved, transcend any issue such as the traditional right of sections or individuals.

Does the Minister propose to recruit overseers with whips and go back to forced labour?

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

When the lifeline of the nation is in danger, if the nation cannot look to the State for protection, chaos has come. The Electricity Supply Board is an agency of the State as well as the nerve centre of our everyday lives. No one in the organisation of the Board is unaware of the havoc that a serious strike can cause.

As I have said before, it would be naive to suggest that it is necessary to place pickets on ESB installations to demonstrate to the public that there is a dispute in progress. The fact that disputes are on is brought home to everyone through the various media for the dissemination of news. Therefore, the effect and object of the placing of pickets is to disrupt the organisation so that it cannot supply people with the electricity which is vitally necessary. If that is not the purpose of placing pickets on ESB installations, they have little meaning at all.

One simple basic fact which I have repeated throughout the day in the other House is that we cannot carry on without electricity. The workers who supply us with electricity are therefore put in a unique position. They know that is the situation and, after recent experiences, every man and woman in this country knows that is the situation.

If an order is made by the Government in circumstances of a likely disruption of the supply of electricity, it would bring the Act into operation and give legal effect to the rates of remuneration and conditions of service of persons employed in the ESB. This will not prevent rates and conditions being varied as a result of determination by one or other of the statutory ESB tribunals, or by an arbitrator, or on a recommendation of the Labour Court.

The legislation would make it unlawful for the Board of the ESB to remunerate any of its employees or apply conditions of service otherwise than in accordance with what I have just said. Strikes and picketing aimed at forcing the issues of remuneration and conditions other than those determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Bill—through an arbitrator, a tribunal or the Labour Court—would be illegal, if they threaten seriously to disrupt the supply of electricity.

The Seanad is aware that the normal method of resolving differences is by way of free co-operative bargaining. The Government would prefer to see the parties in the ESB settling their differences in this way through the agreed negotiating precedures. If the parties fail to settle their differences in this way, and if there is a serious disruption of electricity supplies, or an imminent danger of such disruption, then the provisions in this legislation must be applied.

The Bill does not attempt to take away the fundamental right of the worker to withdraw his labour. Its intention is to curtail that right to a narrow front where the exercise of that right would lead to a shut-down of the electricity supplies and to bring the country to a halt. As I said, I am not talking about anything that is outside the experience of the Seanad. Twice within the past few weeks this danger has appeared. Someone has remarked that the critical nature of the situation has now become more remote, but people were affected by the insecurity, and different aspects— work, hospitals, farms—were affected.

Everyone is aware of what could happen. Everyone is aware that it could happen suddenly again. This legislation is not intended to be operated unless such a situation reappears, and then the Government would have power to make an Order to bring the provisions of this legislation into effect. Only in the event of a serious threat of a disruption in the supply of electricity would the Government bring the provisions of this legislation into effect.

This is a Bill which one supports with considerable unhappiness that we should have reached a stage at which it is necessary. However, there is no alternative because of the damage that could be done to the economy, the hardship that could be caused, and the danger to life such as existed on the previous occasion when electricity supplies dropped. As such, the Bill must be accepted as an emergency piece of legislation to meet an emergency.

What we do not accept is that the Bill in its present form is sufficiently well thought-out or adjusted to the needs of the situation to be a permanent part of our Statute Book. That is why we seek to put forward an amendment to limit the operation of this Bill, and that is why we have sought so to organise the procedure of this House as to ensure that what happened in the other House, where this was talked out, will not happen here, and that the amendment to limit the operation of this Bill to a short period to cover the present emergency situation will be considered by this House and, I hope, accepted by it.

We have to face the fact that this is a situation which should have been dealt with long ago. There has been no reason to wait until now. There are many problems in this country, but there are few in respect of which the Government have had such repeated warnings. We had the 1961 strike situation and the emergency legislation which was attempted at that time, which the Government withdrew when the situation resolved itself. The Government had there notice of a danger, a situation that should have been dealt with, that should have been considered seriously and brought up for discussion. Some kind of steps should be taken to deal with the situation so that it could be considered calmly, not in a period of crisis but in a period when the situation was not critical and when calm consideration could be given to whatever changes needed to be made finally in the existing industrial relations procedure to ensure, on the one hand, the rights of the workers affected and on the other, the security of the supply of electricity.

We had subsequent to that the Commission established by the Government to investigate the ESB arbitration tribunals and the report of that Commission, which is in the hands of the Government and but in respect of which we have heard nothing since, as far as I am aware. Again, the Government had an opportunity to deal with a matter that called for action and did nothing about it. A good many of the difficulties we face now derive from the failure of the Government to deal with that Commission's report. I have some limited experience myself in this sphere as for several years I was Chairman of the Joint Services Arbitration Tribunal of the ESB and from time to time I was aware of the dissatisfaction of the workers of the ESB with the fact that there were two tribunals, that there seemed to be a division between two categories of workers, and that one category felt that they were not being dealt with in the same way and favoured in the same way as another.

As I shall suggest in a moment, there is a factual basis for this belief. In fact, the clerical workers of the ESB did secure better improvements in their remuneration than the manual workers, and this was in part because there were two tribunals, not because one tribunal was adopting deliberately a more favourable attitude but because they adopted different criteria and looked at the problems of those two groups separately instead of together. That gave rise to a legitimate sense of grievance among the manual workers of the ESB which need not have arisen if the ESB had handled its industrial relations better and if the Government had acted on the report of that Commission several years ago and reorganised the industrial relations procedure in the ESB so as to prevent a continuance of this legitimate sense of dissatisfaction and of grievance.

I said that there was concrete factual evidence that the manual workers of the ESB were not as well treated as other workers. I will refer to this briefly, because this needs to be said, that if we are going to take away here the rights of manual workers to prosecute their claims in accordance with the normal custom in this country in regard to industrial relations, we want to be clear about what we are doing. We want to be clear that we are safeguarding their interests, which have not hitherto been looked after as they should have been looked after. We have no alternative but to pass this legislation, but it is very unsatisfactory that we should have to support this legislation at a time when these workers are in the position of seeking legitimately to improve their position relative to the position of others in the ESB who have been more favoured, and are seeking to do it by means which are legitimate and normal in this State. It is most unsatisfactory that we should be in the position that because of the extreme gravity of the consequences of effective industrial action, we have to deprive them of their rights in this matter.

The facts are simple enough. If we take the period from 1959 until the present day, during this period the clerical workers of the ESB have secured an increase in their remuneration from £895 to £1,385.

Get your facts right.

The clerical workers have secured increased remuneration at the maximum scale from £895 to £1,385. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent, about 55 per cent on the maximum. In the same period industrial, manual workers have not secured similar increases. Their increases have been less over this period, and this has, indeed, been reflected throughout the community generally, because the lead given in the matter by the clerical workers of the ESB has been followed elsewhere, so that in the community as a whole we have a similar disproportion between the increases obtained by clerical workers and those of other workers. In this period the clerical workers have increased their living standards by about a quarter while the manual workers have increased them by about 14 or 15 per cent. These are facts. This is the situation in which these workers find themselves. It is more than understandable that they should in these circumstances wish to prosecute their claim for better treatment, and it is understandable that they should have a sense of grievance when this differential vis-a-vis the clerical workers is widening.

I must say that I have the greatest sympathy with them in this claim. It may well be that the full granting of this claim straight away, because of its consequential effects on other groups, could have a very serious effect on the economy, and that the legitimate grievance they have cannot be fully set right, but only gradually. I do not know enough about the facts to be sure, but that could be the case. We have a right in this House to tell the Minister that if to meet this emergency and to protect the rights of workers we give him the temporary powers which he seeks, we expect him to ensure that these are not used to maintain the adverse situation that has grown up in the widening of the difference between the clerical and the manual workers, but that he will ensure, on the contrary, that the position of the manual workers will be examined to ensure that this gap that has appeared will be narrowed and that their position will be improved relative to the better-off workers, and that this principle of the better-off workers getting better-off and the less well-off not succeeding to the same degree is something which must not continue. We have a right to insist on the Minister giving us some assurance in this matter if we give him the powers he asks for and which we have no alternative but to grant so as not to risk lives and risk employment.

It is hard to envisage a less satisfactory industrial relations situation than has been allowed to drift over the past five years. During that period the manual workers' position has deteriorated steadily but nothing has been done about it. When they try to take action in regard to it, simply because it happens that in their particular bomb there is a nuclear warhead, through no fault of theirs but because of the fact that they are employed in a vital industry, although they have shown their desire to be moderate in the use of it, that weapon is taken away and, that having been taken away, their bargaining position is seriously weakened, and what I here fear is that once these measures have been passed for only, as we hope, a temporary period, some people all round will breathe a sigh of relief and think that it is all right, the enemy has been disarmed and we can now sit back and let the situation carry on because these people can no longer do any damage.

If we are going to remove from them their only weapon, I want an assurance that their grievance will be properly looked after and that we are not going to give perpetuity to the situation in which they are permanently behind others. I would like to hear the Minister on that. The Minister has spoken about the grave situation. He has spoken persuasively but he has told us nothing about the merits of the case. He has not even told us what is the present position of these negotiations, whether they are proceeding still—I am not up to date on this—whether they are proceeding or have broken down, what prospects he thinks there are of a settlement, but has just left it to us with the fact that there is danger of some kind, presumably because these negotiations might break down, but with no guidance as to how serious or how imminent this danger is. Considering the fact that we have been asked to accept a closure motion, we should be given more information of what the immediate and imminent situation is.

I mentioned that there was evidence that these workers have done their best to exercise their powers in a moderate way. There is strong evidence of this. The placing of pickets has been carried out in such a way as, generally speaking, to avoid the complete disruption of supplies. I have reason to believe that yesterday, in fact, the pickets were removed for a few minutes at 4 o'clock to enable the shift to be changed in the Dublin station and thus avoid a breakdown in supplies. I do not think that is generally known. Those workers get very little credit for anything they do and we in this House should record the fact that they have done that. As I say, they took steps to remove the pickets to ensure that supplies would not be interrupted. I did not get that information from any source close to the unions but from the other side but I think it is probably correct. The fact is that those workers have been very badly treated with regard to their claims over the past five years. Their strike weapon is just too powerful to be employed. There are some countries which have the death sentence where crimes are such that it cannot be imposed. Those workers are in the position that their strike weapon is so powerful that it is unusable.

The measures in this Bill are extremely severe on the trade unions. They are not severe on the workers. The fine which has to be paid has to be paid by the trade unions. The largest trade union in this country would be bankrupt if the full penalty of £5,000 was levied on each worker who did not turn up for work. It may be that something of this kind is necessary to secure the immediate safeguarding of supplies but this is something which should not be on the Statute Books other than as a temporary measure. That is why we are asking the Minister to limit its operation to the period of six months.

There are a couple of points I would like to ask the Minister, which might be gone into in more detail on Committee Stage. I want to know whether the Bill will apply to workers who will not pass pickets. Some workers may not pass pickets on their place of employment. They may not be involved in the actual cessation of work. What is the position of those workers? I seems to me that there is some difficulty in the case of a man not passing a picket. We do not know the Government's mind on this. It is one thing to apply this kind of thing to workers who are on strike but if we are going to get into the position that any union can become bankrupt overnight, when their workers will not pass pickets, even though the workers of that union may not have any hand in the stoppage of work, this is something which goes beyond the condition even of an emergency situation. I would ask the Minister to clarify this and tell us what his mind is with regard to it. Will it apply only as regards workers who are on strike in support of a claim?

Those are the points I want to make. I have spoken briefly and I have spoken even faster than customary because I know there are a number of other people who want to speak. The time has been reduced by half an hour. I hope these people who were in favour of that will be brave enough to make their contributions and will make them as short as possible so that as many as possible can contribute to this debate. I hope that several things will emerge from this such as clarification on the point of pickets and a general assurance from the Minister in regard to this question of pickets and the limitation of the Bill so that it will only operate for an emergency period and not be a permanent measure on our Statute Books.

I shall try to be brief on the Second Reading as well because as a result of the amendment regarding the closure motion proposed by Fine Gael the time for the Second Reading debate has been curtailed to give about 1½ hours to the debate of an amendment which will be quite ineffective. Fine Gael know as well as everybody here that the Fianna Fáil majority in this House will put the Bill through unamended tonight. There is no point at all in all this hypocrisy about this amendment because the Dáil have now gone and the Government want the Bill tonight. Fine Gael have agreed that the Government should get the Bill tonight. Therefore, let us have no more hypocrisy about this measure. We in the Labour Party are firmly and definitely against the Bill. We were against a similar type of measure in 1961. I must go back to 1961 because we had that frightening experience then and what did we do about it?

The Taoiseach said then that he did not want compulsory arbitration, that he was against it. We were dealing with the situation in 1961 which required an emergency measure. That difficulty was overcome and as a result a tribunal was appointed to see if we could avoid those difficulties arising in the future. Busy people were asked to spend their time on that tribunal. They considered the problems for some months. They came forward with recommendations. One of those recommendations was that the Board of the ESB and the unions should sit down and agree on conditions of service generally. There are various unions in the ESB and the tribunal recommended that they should all sit down and lay down conditions of service and rates of pay. That was a very sensible contribution towards solving a very difficult problem. There are a great number of unions involved. That agreement was worked out and it was signed. What did the Minister do in relation to the other main proposal of the tribunal, that is that the two tribunals should be merged in one? It was considered in 1961 that the two tribunals were at the root of the trouble in the ESB but what did the Minister do about this? He did nothing. Senator FitzGerald has already said that because of the circumstances of their employment the strike weapon of those workers is so powerful, because they are employed in the ESB, that it cannot be used. I suggest the ESB have behaved deliberately in those circumstances. They know the power of the strike weapon. They are not prepared to co-operate with those workers in those circumstances. We know that there are fitters employed with similar skills in other concerns and it has been agreed, and the employers have agreed, that there should be special additional rates of pay because of the skills involved.

We are inclined to think of a fitter as a man who goes along opening and tightening nuts and bolts, which is ridiculous. Fitters are highly skilled craftsmen. Their claim has been in since December, 1964, and the Board, with the Minister behind them, have dilly-dallied and behaved in this reactionary way instead of solving the problem before it came to this head. What are the workers supposed to do? Are they supposed to wait another ten years to talk effectively to the Board? One of the complaints is that they never meet the executive of the Board, only a personnel officer who goes to and fro and comes back with a message from the Board. This is insulting to the people who are attempting to negotiate a settlement.

I lay particular stress on the Minister sitting here. A tribunal was appointed five years ago to look at the problem and the Minister has not acted in the responsible way he should have. I know what the Minister for Transport and Power has been up to because I have experience of that same gentleman in other semi-State bodies. We in the trade union movement have been very conscious that one of the difficulties in trying to negotiate with employers in recent years has been because the leadership, which was originally reasonably progressive, has got into the hands of reactionary elements among the employers, among them representatives of semi-State undertakings governed by and responsible to the Minister for Transport and Power.

That same Minister tells us he occasionally meets representatives of the semi-State undertakings, the ESB, CIE and Aer Lingus, and that he talks to them about their problems. I know, and the Minister here knows, that it goes much further than that—that that Minister directs the policies of these undertakings, that they cannot do anything without his approval—yet he will say when questioned in the Dáil about them that he has no function. That has been happening. I know the people in the semi-State undertakings are embarrassed by the policies they are forced to adopt by the Minister for Transport and Power.

I shall give the Minister for Industry and Commerce another instance, of which he may be aware. The situation in CIE is that the Minister for Transport and Power has ignored completely what the Houses of the Oireachtas have said and decided. The legislation in relation to CIE lays down that that body, in conducting their affairs, shall have regard to the maintenance of reasonable conditions for their employees. The Oireachtas wrote that into the legislation—reasonable conditions of service for the employees. We interpret as reasonable what has applied or should apply in other similar employments. That Minister has come along and said, in spite of what the Labour Court or the internal machinery recommend as reasonable, that the Board of CIE must disregard that and refuse to give the conditions laid down in legislation.

That is an example of the reactionary attitude of the Minister for Transport and Power—the way he has been going on outside the Houses of the Oireachtas, utilising the semi-State undertakings for the sake of bringing pressure to bear on the trade unions, provoking strikes in many cases. This prompts the question: have the workers suddenly changed their habits, have they become different to what they were in previous years? Why all these strikes? It is because the employers have not been prepared to face up to the problems and they have been assisted and, I think, encouraged in many cases by the Minister for Transport and Power.

Here we have the situation in which the ESB are in difficulties and because of those difficulties the whole country is in a state of crisis and we are asked to approach the problem and attempt to solve it along certain lines. The lines are ridiculous. They are an insult to the House, an insult to the Government, an insult to the State. We are back again to compulsory arbitration and we are for the first time approaching forced labour.

According to the Bill, people will be compelled to work for the ESB even if they do not wish to. Is the Minister serious in suggesting that he can get Irish workers to work against their will, that their trade unions will be fined, that the workers will be fined and imprisoned for non-payment of fines, that they will be compelled to work? The Minister knows we all have within us that bit of Irish, that we are not inclined to tolerate being pressurised. We will take leadership, we will take guidance, but we have not been getting leadership from the Government. We have not been getting it from the semi-State undertakings, from the Minister for Transport and Power. I am inclined to ask what faith workers have in the Minister for Transport and Power. I think it is nil.

Now we are asked to approve this measure which will compel the workers, because of the power they have in the strike weapon, to work against their will, where the Board, encouraged and I am sure directed by the Minister for Transport and Power, act the dog and will not agree to have reasonable negotiations on this problem. Let me remind the House again that this claim was lodged in December, 1964, and that it has not been disposed of. I suppose many Senators will assume that because these men are very skilled people working for the ESB who pay such good salaries that the rate of pay is very good. In fact it starts at £13 10s 1d for a fitter working a 42½ hour week in Dublin. After five years it goes to £15 0s 2d. Thereafter, increments start —I shall not bother the House with details—and after 20 years there is a further pound, bringing the maximum wage up to £16 0s 2d for a 42½ hour week in Dublin. Elsewhere, a 45 hour week operates and the rates are slightly better, going up to £15 17s 10d after five years and then, after 20 years, there is a further pound a week. These are not extraordinary rates of pay.

Many Senators will agree that they are low rates for very skilled craftsmen working for a concern who can afford to pay workers properly and give reasonable conditions of service. That is not the whole story, and this is the kernel of the problem. These workers see a supervisor over them, a skilled fitter also, who has been fortunate enough to have been promoted. They see him getting £34 a week, paid by the same Board. He has the same skill but he is a supervisor. He also comes under the other tribunal. I do not say £34 is reasonable or unreasonable but in relation to the rates I have been talking about it is significant.

A supervisor has more than double the skilled craftsman under him—a fantastic situation. I could not find it anywhere else. Is it reasonable to tell those workers: "Look, you cannot process this claim; you cannot have your right of taking strike action; after nearly two years you still cannot go any further with this, you will have to leave it alone because your right to strike is so great it could give rise to such hardship it would be disastrous to the whole community. You will have to suffer." It is the worker here who is suffering.

I agree we should not have a situation in which the whole community should suffer. Equally, I do not agree that because of this situation you must make the workers suffer. You are seeking compulsory arbitration; they cannot take strike action and they must work. I am saying that this is a ridiculous situation. It is a step backward in regard to industrial trade union negotiations here in this country; it will not serve any useful purpose. What we want now is leadership, a word of encouragement and an appeal to these people to try to settle their differences, together with taking the Minister for Transport and Power off the employers' back. Let them go ahead and reach a settlement without the man in the background over in Kildare Street keeping his finger on them and preventing them reaching a reasonable settlement of this problem.

It is unfortunate, of course, that we have the wrong Minister here tonight. I know he is a very reasonable, nice gentleman and the man who is really behind this whole mess is not here at all. I would much prefer to be able to say these things to the Minister responsible but he is not here. However, I have to say them in relation to this measure because, as I said, we had the same problem previously and we had the Taoiseach here in this House dealing with it. Then certain action was taken and the Minister responsible has done nothing at all about it. I know he is making many speeches around the country; I do not think that has helped at all. It seems to annoy everybody when that Minister makes a speech. He is unfortunate in that respect; that cannot be helped. What can be helped is that the Government maintain a Minister in that position, who has twice brought this country to the verge of disaster and has done nothing at all about it. What did he do about the pickets? He phoned the President of Congress to ask him to do something about it. Was that when he came back from America? I am saying we have a ridiculous situation here. This sort of measure will not solve the difficulties of the ESB. What we want is to get rid of the Minister for Transport and Power, allow the Board of the ESB to negotiate properly with these people to see that they get justice and remove this grievance where you have a skilled craftsman being paid about £16 and a supervisor over him £34.

There are other important features of this Bill. I promise to be brief as I am sure many of my colleagues will wish to speak as well. They will not have much time. I am afraid that by the time Fine Gael get in on their futile amendment we will not have much time after that. I want to suggest that what is being done is in contravention of the ILO Convention; it is also in contravention of the ILO Convention regarding forced labour. I want to suggest that it is a ridiculous situation that this Government, after abiding by those Conventions, should put through this measure and, perhaps, find this brought before the Bar, the ILO or whatever is the appropriate way of doing these things in regard to the situation where people can be forced to work. I know the Minister will say: "Well look, we will not bring in this measure unless it is necessary" but we know, of course, that he is rushing this through in a situation where a strike is already in operation and where negotiations are continuing. I do not think that a hasty measure like this, ill-conceived and which will give rise to great difficulties in many respects, will help these negotiations or will result in immediate settlement.

As I said before, we are all Irishmen. Why should we hold the gun up to these people and say:—"You will be fined and imprisoned". What would help far more is if the Government were to say:—"Look, hold back on this, get ahead with your negotiations"—pulling the Minister for Transport and Power off the back of the Board of the ESB. I hope that they would, in those circumstances, settle this matter within the next few days.

May I say, at the outset, that I, and I am sure all the Members of the House, have great sympathy for the manual workers in the ESB, to whom Senator Murphy has referred. I offer them sympathy in that if there is a claim which has been pending for some time, for a just claim, and this claim does not appear to have been made, then they are being asked to exercise restraint; if that is so. They are, of course, entitled to proper remuneration in respect of the nature of the work they do. But, having said that, I must also say that they, and we here, as Members of this Legislature, have our responsibility. Our responsibilities have been conferred on us by Article 40 of the Constitution which says:

The State guarantees in its laws to respect and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

I repeat:

... to respect and, as far as practicable, to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

It was suggested this evening that it is an insult to this House, to the Government and to the State on whom that responsibility has been cast, to ask us to defend and vindicate those personal rights which are so much enshrined in our Constitution and, indeed, which are so dear and so essential to every Irishman and to every free man everywhere because the rights referred to are not just rights of property; they are rights of health and even of life itself. This matter has been mentioned many times. I do not need to repeat it now, but I do want to say that this House has that responsibility and if we shrink that responsibility now, we are failing to fulfil our obligation to the people and, I think, we are failing to fulfil our obligation to ourselves.

The greater the responsibility any man or any Legislature has to face the greater the restraint they must exercise on many occasions. I do not for a minute suggest that these 100 fitters in the ESB are not being asked to exercise great restraint but I say that this restraint is a condition of the responsibility which they have. If we as members of the Legislature or the Government or the President himself, in each office we occupy have responsibility, that responsibility is only proportionate to the restraint that we on many occasions must exercise in the interests of the community as a whole. That is not being preached sufficiently nowadays. It is not a question of workers needing leadership from anybody. The workers themselves realise, and must be reminded at all times, that they have a common responsibility with everyone else in this matter and I am sure they are more than willing to accept this fact.

If a situation arises in which the economic well-being—and that in my view is a very small consideration by comparison with other aspects of the whole country—may be completely thrown into jeopardy by the actions of a few, we have a right to ask them to exercise that restraint which their position demands of them. If the very health and life of that community is in danger, we have a right to ask them to exercise that restraint from all sides. We ask ourselves, we ask them and we ask all people to do this. There has been far too much suggestion of the black on one side, from the union point of view and the white on the other, from the employers' point of view and we see ourselves on opposite sides with opposite interests.

Senator Murphy may find possibly through tedious negotiations that the fault lies exclusively, as he says, in the fact that, to quote him, "the employers have not been prepared to face up to the problem." That may well be. On the other hand, some of the fault may lie with the workers also. It is about time employers and workers realise that they and the Government and members of all Parties have corresponding responsibility and that that national and public responsibility demands of us that we think in terms of the whole community. Even to the detriment of ourselves we must do that. This is what the Government are now asking us to accept.

The Minister has made it very clear that it is hoped never to use the power which is being sought in this Bill and it is hoped in fact that these people will exercise the restraint to which I have referred but what we must consider is that if for even one moment because of the great power which they have, severe pressure forced them to withdraw their labour and place pickets, if one life were placed in danger because of that, we here are condoning a withdrawal of labour or anything of that sort as a principle which is more valuable than the principle of life itself.

We all hope the power being sought in this Bill will never be used. I think the Minister has said this—the Taoiseach has said it—and the members of the Labour Party must appreciate this fully—and I agree with them in this: the first fundamental is voluntary negotiation but we must face the fact that any of us may have to exercise restraint. That is what we are asking those men to do. It has been said that this action is coming too late. Possibly that was not what Senator FitzGerald was implying in respect of this particular action but that much should have been done earlier to avoid this action. Members of the Labour Party reasonably enough have suggested it is coming too soon and that we should wait to see if the situation will not mend itself. We all hope that it will and I trust the Government will make every effort to see that it will mend itself but it cannot be too soon if one single picket is placed which interferes with this very necessary supply to the whole nation, with the life, the economy and every other aspect of the nation.

I am not aware—I have said this before in the House—of much that has passed in this House in the way of legislation, nor am I aware of the difficulties that have been experienced in negotiations by the ESB or any other bodies: what I am aware of now is that at this moment we are being asked to accept this responsibility in ease of the health, wealth and life of the nation and if we refuse to accept it, we are hardly worthy of it ourselves.

Several other Senators obviously want to speak on this Bill, so I shall confine my speech to two very brief essential points as I see them. First, let me emphasise that I am in favour of doing everything possible to avoid the appalling consequences of a total breakdown in electric power, provided that no violation of justice is involved. The results may well be appalling as we know from the papers, in medical circles and, as Senator Kennedy has just said, there may be deaths of infants and adults if there is no electricity to supply incubators and operating theatres.

All the same, in spite of that, I cannot support this Bill because, in my opinion, section 5 violates a primary right of every adult human being—the right to refuse to work in what he considers to be unjust conditions and the right to try to persuade his fellow workers to support him in his struggle against what he believes to be injustice. The effect of section 5, as I see it, will be to impose on some of our fellow-citizens a choice between resigning their present work or else accepting specially unfavourable conditions of service. I cannot, in conscience, support that. Obviously, as I said, the maintenance of electric power is of supreme importance but I do not think the end justifies the means, and I believe that this kind of legal coercion will only make the workers angrier and more stubborn and I personally would not blame them for it.

If these ESB workers are of unique importance to the State, why should we penalise them as we are doing in this Bill? In other spheres of economics, the more important one's work is the more highly one is remunerated. If the ESB workers can be persuaded —not coerced—to relinquish their rights for the sake of the common weal or for the sake of financial inducements, well and good, but in my opinion, it would be unjust and tyrannical—and I use the word with full recognition of all its implications —to compel them to give up these rights.

On the other hand, I do agree that workers should not be put under pressure not to work when they want to work; in other words, picketing, I think, should be restricted and restrained in certain circumstances and I would support proper legislation to that end. I would also most heartily support legislation to prevent the iniquities of the closed shop and restrictive practices of various kinds but that is another story. What is essentially at stake this evening is a fundamental civic freedom and so I must oppose this Bill.

I suggested earlier that for the first time we were engaged this evening in this House in a dangerous—I think I described it as an irregular and certainly an unprecedented—exercise. When I rise to speak here, to exercise my right as a Member of the House, I find myself in the extraordinary position that if I speak at any length, or if I try to deal adequately with the Bill, I am going to deny my colleagues on the Labour Benches and every other Member of the House the right to speak at all. Surely, that is not good parliamentary procedure? Surely, we should not be expected to deal with some of the important problems of this State at the moment in this manner and in this atmosphere?

We have before us a piece of legislation which purports to deal with a situation. I think that is the term that is used. If we look at this Bill in any context, we find that it provides no solution whatever to the problem with which it is proposed to deal. This, in the opinion of any unbiased mind, must be regarded as the most hastily prepared, the most dangerous but the most far-reaching piece of legislation that probably has ever been introduced in this or the other House.

By virtue of the circumstances I have alluded to, I must of necessity confine my comments on it to three or four of the most important aspects by way of headings rather than by way of arguments or by way of any sort of reasonable discussion. Let me point out in passing that section 2, for instance, is, in my view, and I think in the view of people who are much better qualified to pass any judgment on it, entirely contrary to the International Convention on Forced Labour, to which this country is, in fact, a subscriber.

Here, we are expected to pass—in fact we are now in the position of being obliged, with the connivance of the Fine Gael Party and the Government Party on this measure—to pass by 10 o'clock tonight this particularly obnoxious piece of legislation. It has been pointed out that this Bill solves nothing and will solve nothing by its passage through this House tonight. It remedies nothing and to anybody with any regard for the maintenance of fair democratic institutions and fair standards of industrial relations in this country, it would appear that we should not have any part in it or any part in passing it.

This type of legislation should never be operated. It should not be allowed to remain for one moment on the Statute Book in any democracy. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, this particular Bill is going to pass on to our Statute Book and we on these Labour Benches can do no more than protest. Protest we will and we will go on protesting against either the consideration or the enactment of this type of legislation whenever it is introduced in this House.

I have made my contribution and I am sure my colleagues are anxious to make theirs and for that reason I will say no more.

This power crisis really has been a blessing in disguise. It is a deplorable situation where the industry and the life of the community generally are in danger of being brought to a standstill by a strike of electricity supply fitters. But, really, examine it carefully and you will see, and I think you will agree with me, that this is one of the best things that have happened because it is time that this nonsense which has been going on in the country over the past few years was highlighted.

In the year 1964, there were 87 strikes. In the year 1965, there were 89 strikes, involving a loss of over half a million man days to industry, to the community and to the prosperity of the nation. In actual fact, the number of man days lost was 601,859 in two years, not taking into account at all what has happened since 1st January, 1966. Therefore, I say that it is a great thing that this crisis has developed because it places direct responsibility on those in authority to take action in this matter.

It is all right to come in here and preach about our responsibility to the community but the State has responsibility to the community also. It has sat on the fence in this matter. It has adopted a laissez faire attitude, that things will work themselves out; if workers go on strike, let them off; they will come back. The majority of them come back on the winning side. Therefore, the community at large is more or less held up to ransom and industry loses, money is lost to the State, we are losing markets—all because of this sit-on-the-fence policy. I agree with the suggestion that we have all got our responsibility to the community but the community also has a responsibility to itself and people in authority, in turn, have a responsibility to the nation as a whole.

There are symptoms and I have referred to them—87 of them in 1964 and 89 in 1965—which indicate that our society is ill. Whilst it is very nice to examine the symptoms of the ailment, we have to do something to get down to the root of the disease. Strike has followed strike. A war of attrition has developed between workers and employers. People have sat back and done nothing about it. The time has come, and to reiterate what I have said, this is it. This crisis which has developed has brought us to our senses at last. We have to do something.

I hope that when I sit down, I will hot be left in a position where I have not made any constructive suggestion because one thing I do detest is destructive criticism. In the Dáil last night, half an hour after a very prominent member of the Opposition had concluded his speech the Taoiseach said that be had made no constructive suggestion whatever, that his attitude towards it was entirely destructive and just critical.

I am an official of an association which is affiliated to the Irish Trade Union Congress for a long number of years and has remained loyal to the Congress although in actual fact, from our point of view as teachers, they had very little materially to give us. Yet, we felt that we owed a loyalty to organised trade unionism in the country and we have always remained loyal to the Irish Trade Union Congress although at times we have each gone our different ways and have contradicted each other on very many occasions. But, as an official of a trade union, I would have strongly to oppose this legislation because I cannot logically and in all decency ask my own people to take action on this problem or that problem if I am, at the same time, going to support legislation which will deny the right to take strike action to other people.

I have a feeling that this whole legislation was brought in here in an atmosphere of panic and that the two Houses have not done credit to themselves by the way this matter has been rushed through. I think that at the moment the legislation is unnecessary and, in view of the improvement in the situation as between the fitters and the ESB, might have been deferred so that if in actual fact it did become necessary it could be introduced.

From my experience of dealing with negotiations and so on, I am of opinion that this Bill is provocative, that it will do more harm than good, and I know there are many people on the Government side who have the same feeling, that this will do more harm than good in the long term, especially if it is going to remain as permanent legislation.

We have to make some effort to come to grips with the situation. In deference to the other Senators who wish to speak, I will conclude by saying that, in order to achieve a just social order there has to be co-operation and co-responsibility at all levels. If we are to have a cohesive, harmonious society, we have to have harmony and co-operation and I do not think we can achieve it by having tribunals here and tribunals there. We have two in relation to the ESB. They were contradictory. They never came together to see how they would deal with the various classes within the ESB itself.

This is the suggestion I have to make —that all those people who have conciliation machinery at the present time should be allowed to maintain it and those who have not got it should have some form of direct negotiation with their employers and managements, and, when matters break down at conciliation level, all disagreements in the matter of claims should be referred to a national council for wages and salaries. This should be a broad council of about 15 people, chosen because of their experience in various fields of activity, taken from all levels of society, from the various disciplines, from agriculture and from industry. It should be such a broad board because we have a feeling that, where there has been an appointee by the Government, an appointee by employers and an appointee by trade unionists——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The time is up. In accordance with a previous decision of the House, I am now obliged to put the question.

May I finish the sentence?

Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 11.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Cole, John C.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenehan, Joseph R.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Quigley, John B.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Brosnahan, Seán.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • Jessop, W.J.E.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • McQuillan, Jack.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
  • Stanford, William B.
Tellers:—Tá Senators Browne and Farrell. Níl: Senators McQuillan and Murphy.
Question declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The House has already resolved to take the Committee Stage of this Bill today.

Bill considered in Committee.

SECTION I.

I move amendment No. 1:

To add a further subsection as follows:

(7) This Act shall continue in force until the 31st December, 1966, and shall then expire.

This is an amendment to provide that this Act shall expire on 31st December of this year. In this Bill, we are dealing with an emergency situation. The best remedy available to the Houses of the Oireachtas at the present time to cope with this situation is what is provided for us by the Government, in the judgment of the Government, and that is the remedy they propose. It seems to me that it is the only remedy, whether it be a very good one or a poor one, available to us in the circumstances.

There are, of course, things that should have been done and I believe that still can be done in order to avoid the operation of this Bill, when enacted. I do not see any reason why, when the country was faced with so grave an emergency as the cutting-off of all electricity supplies, the Taoiseach, who has time to go to so many meetings, who has time to address so many chambers of commerce, who has time to attend so many dinners and who has time to waste on all that kind of thing, has no time to call in the representatives of labour and management to discuss this problem with them. When there were votes to be got out of it, the Taoiseach was to be seen by the representatives of labour and management in the formulation of the National Wages Agreement that led to the 12 per cent increase. There were votes for that in the Taoiseach's two by-elections. However, the Taoiseach has not busied himself with this problem, as far as the public are aware. I would hope that the Taoiseach, with his great skill, considerable powers of persuasion and the authority his office commands, even if he himself does not command authority in modern times——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator to confine himself to the question of the duration of the Bill, particularly in view of the curtailed time for discussion.

There are these remedies available. I hope that, before this Bill is operated at all, recourse will be had to them. Remember that what we are discussing here in this Bill as it is presented to us is a piece of permanent legislation. I think it is an impudence on the part of the Government to ask Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, within a confined space of time which it is in their power to limit, to pass into permanent legislation a restrictive measure of this kind.

It is quite clear that the Government have allowed this situation to develop. They wanted it to develop to the stage where they could then come in and, for all time, have a piece of legislation on record which they could apply in order to deal with the situation which was arising in the matter of electricity. There is no need for this legislation to be permanent in form. The purpose of this amendment is that if this legislation is to be applied, it should operate only for the limited period up to the end of this year.

I should like to hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce why it is necessary to have this permanently on the Statute Book. This legislation was either thought out in a hurry in order to deal with an emergency situation or else it represents the considered view over a long period of the Government. If it was thought out in a hurry and has only been got together in the past few days, then the Government should not ask the Oireachtas to pass this legislation, which has been hastily thought out, into permanent form. On the other hand, if the Government say that that is not the position and that this Bill represents what they have been thinking over a long period, then I suggest it is rather a disgrace on the part of the Government to bring in a piece of legislation allegedly to deal with the present situation and are now using the guillotine to have it enacted into permanent form. I do not think this House should agree to that and therefore I think this amendment should be accepted.

There are many precedents for legislation enacted for short periods. We have the innocuous legislation in relation to the relief of rates, which is passed every two years. We have the financial legislation in relation to housing grants which was passed for only two years, and when that piece of legislation expired, a new Bill had to be brought in. In a case of this kind, I do not see why the House should be asked to pass a measure which was drafted in a hurry, without consultation with labour and management and without giving adequate time to the Houses of the Oireachtas to consider it. Remember that the Offences Against the State Act was operated against people who picketed outside Dáil Éireann. It was operated against young girl telephonists from the Post Office who were going to shake the foundations of the State by walking outside Leinster House. That piece of legislation was enacted in 1939 in circumstances in which a war was pending. It was enacted in a hurry. It was a bad piece of legislation and it has been condemned time out of number by every political theorist and politician.

What about 1932 and 1939?

I am talking about peace-time legislation.

They had the CID going around the country in 1929 and 1930 when they tried to bludgeon us down.

I am sure that will contribute greatly to industrial peace and to the advancement of the economy. Forget about the past and look to the present and the future. I am not concerned with the kind of talk the Senator is indulging in.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Quigley, on amendment No. 1.

That piece of legislation was passed in a hurry. It was bad and repressive legislation. It abrogates the right of the individual. We on this side of the House want to ensure this evening that this particular Bill will continue in force for only a limited period, in order to deal with an emergency. I can see no justification for asking for its enactment as permanent legislation to deal with what the Government apparently anticipate will be a recurrent situation. It has been drafted in a matter of days, hastily and indeed badly in many ways, but certainly hastily drafted, and the time for its discussion has been limited by the various motions passed in the Dáil and in this House. I hope the Labour Party and other Members of this House will ensure that this piece of legislation will not be enacted within the next few days as permanent legislation.

This is a very clever piece of politics. Fine Gael want to show that they are voting for the measure and then they want to turn around and show they are against it in some way. Senator O'Quigley and Senator Garret FitzGerald know quite well that they have already voted for this legislation to be put through the Seanad tonight. They know the Dáil is not sitting. The Government, with the support of Fine Gael, want to get this into operation. The amendment is quite simple. It says that the Act shall continue in force until 31st December and shall then expire. The Labour Party do not favour the Act continuing in force until 31st December, 1966. The Labour Party do not favour the Act being in operation at all. Therefore, standing firmly on the principle of being against it all the time, we are opposing the amendment.

I consider this amendment completely irrelevant.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair has accepted this amendment.

Under subsection (6) of section 1, we have full power to annul any orders made under the Bill. Consequently, there is no point at all in discussing this amendment.

I want to deal with this particular point. It is perfectly true there is provision for us to deal with orders as they arise; but the point we are making is that we do not believe this Bill is the last word on the subject of how to deal permanently with the problem of industrial action in the ESB. We feel this matter of the form of the legislation and its provisions should be reconsidered after this emergency and so as to leave ample time for the emergency to be got over and for the Government to deal with it, we are providing a period of six months. I am surprised that the Labour Party should want to oppose this amendment and make this legislation permanent. Their attitude in regard to this Bill has been rather peculiar.

We are just against it.

To endeavour to talk it out and prevent its being discussed earlier on by raising procedural issues did not suggest they were considering their responsibilities seriously. That they should vote in favour of this legislation being permanent shows an entirely frivolous attitude to the legislation. Our position on this is clear and consistent. The Bill is necessary at this stage because of the danger of the present situation. But it should be limited to the shortest period possible simply to give us time to think this matter out as to how it should best be dealt with. Therefore, we are pressing the amendment on that basis. Judging by the results of the last vote, if we had the backing of the Labour Party, we would come near to pressing it so far that the Government would have to recall the Dáil. But in view of the lack of that backing and the attitude of the Labour Party, the possibility of preventing this legislation from remaining in operation permanently, is removed from us. We are left now in the situation where we will have this legislation on the Statute Book indefinitely. This is regrettable. It is regrettable that we ever should have it at all. We have no alternative in that matter because too much is at stake. For a Party who take their responsibilities seriously to vote against a measure when by so doing we might disrupt the country's economy and endanger life is something we are not prepared to do. But we are also not prepared to vote on this as a suitable permanent measure for dealing with the problems of the ESB. We will vote for the amendment, whether or not we get any support from the Party who purports to represent the interests of the workers.

I take it the effect of the amendment is that the Bill will come into operation immediately and remain in force until 31st December, 1966? That being the case, I am totally opposed to it because under section 1 of the Bill, the Act does not come into operation at all, even if it is passed today "save as and when and for so long as is provided by the subsequent subsections of this section". Under subsection (2) the Act comes into operation when the Government make an order. The subsection reads:

Whenever and so often as the Government are satisfied that, in consequence of a trade dispute, there is a serious disruption of electricity supplies or imminent danger of such disruption, the Government may by order declare that they are satisfied as aforesaid and appoint a day on which this Act shall come into operation.

It cannot possibly come into operation until an order is made. In turn, the order cannot be made by the Government, unless and until it is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

And until the Act is in operation.

The Act does not come into operation until the order is made. "This Act shall not come into operation...." That is plain language. It is as clear as noonday that the Act shall not come into operation or be in operation until such an order is made.

Therefore section 2 cannot apply and an order cannot be made?

Senator FitzGerald has spoken already. I did not interrupt him and neither did anyone else in this House. I expect from him a similar courtesy. I have given him reasons why, in my view, this amendment should not be accepted. The wording of the amendment is that the Act shall continue in force until 31st December, 1966 and shall then expire. "Continue in force" and "come into operation" are, in my view, one and the same thing.

I cannot agree at all with the Senator who has just alleged that the subsection to be added is in substitution for anything already in the Bill. The continued inclusion of subsection (2) covers the point relative to the Government making the order. Consequently, the addition of the subsection clearly sets out that it is the intention that the Act shall continue in force until a particular date and shall then expire. After the expiry of that date, the Government will not have the power to make further orders relative to the enactment of this Bill. We are particularly strong on this in view of the fact that this was regarded by the Government as being such a hot number that it was not even circulated to the Members of the Oireachtas after it had been drafted.

Surely the Senator did not expect them to circulate it last week during the Presidential election?

Senators

That was our mistake.

I was not even going that far.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair wishes to point out to Senators that by continually interrupting, they are shortening the time they have made available to themselves for discussion of this measure.

While that is true, Sir, the latest interruptions have been most rewarding because they have indicated an addition to the list of mistakes the Government are making. They regret that the mistake made by the Taoiseach on this occasion was that this Bill was not circulated in due time. Since 1961, the Minister for Transport and Power has sat down on the job and has failed to implement the assurances that were given and to create the conditions that could have averted the necessity for this kind of legislation.

This is a panic measure introduced in circumstances of such great secrecy that its circulation was confined to Party Leaders up to a certain hour. There was almost as much panic, almost as much secrecy, attached to the circulation of this document as there was on the only other occasions with which I can compare it, when the Oireachtas had to be hurriedly convened in order to recognise the sovereignty of King George VI or the abdication of King Edward VIII.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair fails to appreciate how that arises.

To return to this amendment, the advantage of this subsection, if we are to regard the legislation as necessary, as we do regard it in the circumstances of the moment, is that this panic legislation will not remain permanently on the Statute Book. Nothing whatever was done between 1961 and 1966 by way of preparing the public, preparing the parties vitally interested, whether employees or employers, for the situation. The Press had no opportunity of passing comment one way or another on the contents of this Bill and the electorate, the general public, got no opportunity whatever of advising their elected representatives as to what they would wish them to do.

Therefore we had to make an ad hoc decision in relation to this panic measure. It has not been examined properly as the time has not been available. No opportunity has been provided for amending it in the way that permanent legislation would require. The intention of this amendment, therefore, is to bring the operation of this measure to an end on 31st December of this year.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Has the Minister anything to say?

I hate to interrupt the Senators. What the amendment would appear to seek to do would be to decide that in every situation of crisis in regard to electric power there should be emergency legislation, or as Senator FitzGerald said, that this legislation should be replaced by another form of permanent legislation to deal with such a crisis. The way this Bill is drafted, it will not be active unless, in the presence of a trade dispute in the ESB which is likely to cause a serious disruption in the supply of electricity, the Government make an order. If there is no serious disruption of electricity supply this Bill never becomes operative.

Rather than look forward to a possible change in the legislation or rather than depend on a series of emergency measures, I have hopes, and I expressed them today in the Dáil, that we shall get back to the much more desirable voluntary negotiation of an arrangement which would give us security in our supplies of electricity. This is what we must aim at, because, as Senators have pointed out, our community is in a bad way if we can look forward only to fighting one another in these matters.

I do not think this amendment would add anything to the Bill. Indeed, by suggesting that we must either come again with permanent legislation or that we must have emergency legislation in times of crisis, the Fine Gael Party are overlooking the possibility of a voluntary arrangement negotiated by the workers and the Board of the ESB.

If the Minister is hopeful of a voluntary arrangement and if there is any reality in that hope, is it not quite clear that this would be only temporary legislation and that he ought to write it into the Bill? Does he think for a moment that he is going to show his bona fides to the people who he hopes will make this voluntary arrangement by putting this legislation on the Statute Book, or is it that he does not believe he would be able to get a voluntary arrangement unless he has this big stick to wave over them?

It is written into the Bill that unless there is a dispute which disrupts electricity supplies, the Bill will never be operative, so you may as well never have it if we reach a situation where a voluntary arrangement is negotiated.

But the big stick is there.

This Bill can be brought into operation only if there is a serious disruption of supply.

This Bill, no matter what the Minister says, is intended to be in force in 1967, 1968, 1969 and so on. If the Minister really believes it is possible, as I think it ought to be, to reach a voluntary arrangement that will ensure the continuity of electricity supplies, it is quite clear that he ought not to hold any big stick over the employees, and that he ought to accept the amendment.

On this amendment Senator Garret FitzGerald suggested that the attitude of the Labour Party was peculiar in dealing with the Bill both in the other House and here. I do not know how he could arrive at that conclusion. I think even the most neutral observer, having listened to a very able advocate like Senator Garret FitzGerald, can come to only one conclusion. Senator Garret FitzGerald pointed out, in a way that few people are competent to do, that this has been going on since 1961. The speeches made in 1961 by the Taoiseach in this Chamber and in the Lower House are word for word the speeches made in both Houses today by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and by the Taoiseach in the other House. They are exactly the same: "national interest", "danger to public health", "the danger of somebody dying because of failure of electricity supply". They used every hare they could. "Frighten the general public" was the attitude of the Taoiseach and his Ministers.

Senator Garret FitzGerald pointed that out, and he also said that five years have elapsed and nothing has been done. He proceeded in a factual way to point out that the pay of the fitters involved approximates to £16, while that of the supervisors who are in a similar category, except that they are supervisors, is around £35. He also said, and rightly so, that as a result of the deliberations of the Committee which was set up recently to inquire into the strata and the pay of the clerical grades of the Civil Service, presided over by another expert, it was discovered that the rates of pay, for instance, of clerical officers, particularly in the ESB, has jumped 50 per cent between 1959 and the present day, while that of the manual workers— and these are the people accused of holding the country up to ransom—has risen by only 15 or 16 per cent. He made the case that the fitters were downtrodden, badly treated, and yet were doing special work. What is his solution to their genuine case? His solution is to support the Government in putting these workers further down.

Now, his one claim at this moment, becauses he realises it is a very bad line to take, is that perhaps there is a way out for Fine Gael. Perhaps, he thinks, we can hoodwink the 40,000 workers who voted against the individual who shall be nameless in the recent Presidential election, the 40,000 who are not Fine Gael and who will never be Fine Gael, but at least he wants to hoodwink them. I do not know why this is making Fianna Fáil happy. Between now and 9.30, both Parties will go into the Division Lobby at least five times and vote on this and I do not think they should be fighting with each other at this stage.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McQuillan, without interruption on amendment No. 1.

Whether you want the big stick over the heads of the workers for six months or want the big stick permanently over their heads is the point. Fine Gael want it for six months and Fianna Fáil say they want it permanently in legislation. As far as the Labour Party are concerned it is quite clear that Fine Gael are trying to have it both ways. It is seldom that I have spoken for Fianna Fáil—God help me——

Here is a real emergency situation. These are extraordinary times.

We have something to be thankful for.

At least Fianna Fáil are blunt and in this legislation there is no deviation. They say: "We are going to use the big stick. We know that these workers turned against our man in the Presidential election and we will teach them a lesson." That is what they are at. The Fine Gael Party want to say to the people "You voted against the Fianna Fáil nominee. This is only for the time being. We have to take steps to see, as the Taoiseach said, that all these other things are put right." Why is it that this country, which has now signed a Trade Agreement with Britain, and expects to go into the Common Market in the near future, be one of the few countries to bring in this type of repressive measure?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should be careful to confine himself to the substance of the amendment which is concerned with the duration of the Bill.

And with this country.

I take it that as far as the section is concerned that would be a matter for a separate discussion?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Provided it is reached in time.

This is looked upon as an amendment to section 1?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When it is disposed of, section (1) will be taken unless 9 o'clock has been reached.

Usually we can have two separate decisions——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There can be no discussion on the Committee Stage after 9 p.m.

It is not 9 p.m. yet.

The Senator is the man to talk it out.

I see no reason why the amendment and the section could not be discussed together up to 9 o'clock at least.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The position is that the amendment is at present under discussion and if the amendment is disposed of the section, section (1), will be the subject of discussion.

All right. If it is a question that the Fine Gael Party want to express their views on this amendment I am not going to delay them. I would prefer to keep my remarks for the section itself. I am merely pointing out to them at this stage that they have already supported a motion of closure——

The Senator's own Party agreed to it in the Dáil.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McQuillan on the amendment without interruption.

They have supported a motion of closure and all the whitewashing attempted now to save themselves is not going to alter that position, that they have deprived us and others, as public representatives, from discussing these sections until we have clarified them in our own minds and, as far as the public is concerned, letting them know their full implication.

It is what the Senator's Party agreed to in the Dáil.

We did not agree to it in this House. I understood that as far as this House was concerned it was up to the Senators to run their affairs without reference to the other Chamber.

If the Senator let us we would.

We all want a continuation of the supplies of power but we want to provide those supplies without the use of this repressive legislation and the only amendment that I would like to see from Fine Gael at this stage is one which would boot out this legislation completely.

If the Minister accepted this amendment tonight and a similar crisis occurred 12 months from now, then obviously another Bill would have to be introduced which, in effect, means that this amendment is meaningless. The Fine Gael Party are not unaware of this. The purpose of the amendment is very obvious. Fine Gael are anxious that the Labour people who voted for their candidate last week should continue to vote for Fine Gael in the future and any misinterpretation of this action tonight might deceive the Labour voters. On the other hand, the Labour Party only lent them those votes last week and they want them back. They would not go into the Division Lobby at any price——

One way or another you will get none of them.

When the workers study the reasoning behind this measure, and study the reasoning behind Fine Gael's attitude and Labour's attitude, I believe we will get them because they will appreciate that this Bill has been introduced to protect the workers and to prevent hundreds of thousands being put on the roadside tomorrow or next week as a result of an ESB strike. We heard Senator McQuillan talking about the differences between Tweedledum and Tweedledee and sitting here for the past hour the only conclusion I could come to was that here we have Tweedledee and there we have Tweedledum.

Far from dumb.

Dumb enough.

If we accept this amendment we would be faced with the situation that we would have to introduce legislation again on any occasion on which an emergency would appear to arise. This legislation has given rise to considerable publicity and outside this House it has in many cases created an atmosphere of tension and of expectation and it is not in the interests of the House, or of the workers involved, that we should go through this same situation again should an emergency appear to be imminent and should we have to rush to introduce further legislation. We must remember that the Minister has definitely indicated here and in the Dáil that it is not hoped ever to implement this legislation.

It is negative legislation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps I should mention again that the time for debate has been curtailed and continuous interruptions are going to shorten the time for effective contribution.

It is important that this job which we are doing now should be over and done with once and for all, and we should not rush or be forced to rush into legislation whenever any further emergency appears to arise. That is not in the interest of the workers. Having said that rather relevantly, I would now follow one point Senator McQuillan made irrelevantly. It is not a majority of 100 workers who voted for de Valera but 10,000.

We are still on this amendment to section 1. We do not favour this amendment and Senator Garret FitzGerald wants to twist that into saying that the Labour Party want the continuation of this legislation indefinitely. That is not so. We are against the section. We do not think voting on this amendment is any help. I do not think that at the rate the debate is going we will get an opportunity of voting against the section. We are certainly not voting for this amendment and if we can reach the section before 9 o'clock, we will be voting against it.

I do not want to delay the House too long. I think I find myself in a position between Labour and Fine Gael and that is not an illogical position anyway. I do not like the Bill. I disapprove of the principle of it but if it is to be enacted, it should not remain in force indefinitely and consequently I would vote for the amendment.

I do not agree with the point of view that it is too much of a business getting such legislation through if a crisis should occur again. I think the oftener this fuss is made the better if there is a crisis, and if there is a crisis, there should be seen to be a crisis and we should have all this fuss all over again, if necessary, every couple of months until the more basic solutions of this difficulty are arrived at.

Each Order which would bring the Bill into operation would be placed before each House of the Oireachtas to be discussed by them. The Bill contains the mechanism for having the House recalled for discussion each time to effect this legislation.

On the amendment, my attitude is that you could not fix a date when we will not want this. You cannot say definitely when our supplies of electricity will be secure. I still have hope that we will be able to make secure continuity of supplies of electricity by some arrangement of voluntary negotiation. I cannot fix a time for that.

The Minister should realise that this legislation will not be needed the day after Fianna Fáil go out of office.

I should say the day we get a voluntary arrangement which will ensure continuity of supplies of electricity, the Government will repeal this.

Hear, hear.

The position is that this permanent legislation is being enacted to deal with an emergency situation. It is unfair of the Government to ask us within a limited time to enact permanent legislation to deal with an emergency situation and that is what this amendment is about. The Labour Party have a duty when legislation is going through this House to improve it. There is a lot of bad legislation we all know brought in here by the Government. We do not like a lot of it but we try to improve it.

Give us a chance by not voting for the motion.

The practical fact of the matter is this Bill is going through and it is necessary that we should try to amend it. It is the duty of the Labour Party here this evening to try to make this better.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senators should address themselves to the amendment.

I suggest they will not help by making a bad position worse.

One point I should like to make in relation to this amendment is, first of all, we are in a situation where if the Minister gets this Bill through and it becomes effective he will tomorrow, or within the next couple of days, put this Bill into operation? If he will, our argument that it should terminate on 31st December holds good. That is why I think our suggestion should be accepted, particularly by the Labour representatives, that is assuming the Minister will put this into effect as soon as he can reasonably do so. It is all very well to talk about this Bill becoming effective at some unnamed future date, and so on, but why are we here today? We are here because the Government have decided apparently to put this Bill through and, as has been said, to use it as a big stick on those who intend to take strike action. Assuming the Bill comes into effect before the end of this week, our amendment that it should continue only until 31st December is certainly a practical suggestion. It seems then that at least we will have put a time limit on this type of legislation which has proved to be so objectionable not only in this House but outside it.

As Senator O'Quigley has mentioned, there are other Acts and it is a pity there were not some amendments like this when they were going through. We would feel happier now if that had been done.

It amuses me to watch the antics of Fine Gael who are trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They are now trying to rectify in the minds of labour people all over the country the stand which they have already taken up and which they find is not too favourable to themselves now.

It would be useless to put this Bill through if this amendment were carried because it would mean you would have to bring in a similar Bill each time any similar crisis arose. We know that it is only in the event of a crisis that this legislation will be used.

Will that be tomorrow?

I am not quite sure, but somebody on the Labour side said there would not be much use for this if Fianna Fáil were not in office. I would be in total agreement with him because when Fianna Fáil were not in office, there certainly was not the same amount of electricity being used because 95,000 people were out of work anyway. We would not like to stand here and allow a few people for their own personal advantage, irrespective of how strong their case might be, who could succeed by orderly negotiation because they occupy key positions to try to force the pace and deprive thousands of people of their livelihood.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is afraid the Senator is talking rather out of context.

I wonder could we get an extension to allow him to continue?

That would depend on the Chair. Certainly I agree with what my colleagues have submitted in relation to this Bill. I shall conclude to oblige you, Sir.

We just do not seem to have our position clear on this. We do not feel this should be limited to six months and new legislation brought in when each emergency occurs. Senator Jessop suggested alternative legislation. If the Minister succeeds in getting a voluntary solution to this difficulty, then we hope to get permanent legislation and not rush it in 30 hours. We are not satisfied and I am not satisfied that this is the best solution. We would like to see that the Government would in six months, if the need for such a Bill arises, reintroduce legislation to which we would give adequate consideration. If in fact this Bill is retained in its present form, in an emergency what will come into operation is this Bill, whether or not it is the best solution to the emergency. That is our concern. I think from the speeches on the other side and from what the Minister has said that there is a genuine misunderstanding of the point we are making.

Our point is a valid one and a fair one. I regret we have not the support of the Labour Party and other people in our efforts to shorten the life of the Bill.

For whom the bell tolls.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 27.

  • Carton, Victor.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Jessop, W.J.E.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • O'Quigley, John B.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Rooney, Éamon.

Níl

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Cole, John C.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenehan, Joseph R.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Yeats, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Senators McDonald and Rooney; Níl, Senators Browne and Farrell.
Amendment decared lost.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Since it is now after 9 o'clock, the Chair will proceed to put the questions appropriate to the Committee Stage. If the Committee Stage and the Report Stage are finished before 9.30, there will be time for debate on the Fifth Stage.

Will there be time for people to speak?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, on what is in the Bill but only until 9.30.

As regards the tellers, I think the people who said "Níl", and they were from the benches here, should have someone as tellers.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair was under the impression that all parts of the House on its right hand said "Níl". Does Senator O'Quigley wish to change the tellers?

Question put: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
The Committee divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 19.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Cole, John C.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenehan, Joseph R.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Brosnahan, Seán.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • McQuillan, Jack.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
  • O'Quigley, John B.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Rooney, Éamon.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl, Senators McDonald and Rooney.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 2.
Question put: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
The Committee divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 9.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Cole, John C.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenehan, Joseph R.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Quigley, John B.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Brosnahan, Seán.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • McQuillan, Jack.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl, Senators McQuillan and Murphy.
Question declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

As it is now 9.30 p.m., it is necessary to put the remainder of the Committee Stage in the form of a single question.

The question now is: "That sections 3 to 12, inclusive, stand part of the Bill and that the Title be the Title of the Bill".

It is a scandalous misuse of democracy.

I propose that we take section 3 of the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The question is now being put, that the Committee Stage be concluded.

Question put.
Tá, 36; Níl, 8.

Ahern, Liam.Boland, Gerald.Brennan, John J.Browne, Seán.Carton, Victor.Cole, John C.Conlan, John F.Dolan, Séamus.Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.Egan, Kieran P.Farrell, Joseph.FitzGerald, Garret M.D.Fitzsimons, Patrick.Honan, Dermot P.Killilea, Mark.Lenehan, Joseph R.McDonald, Charles.McGlinchey, Bernard.

McGowan, Patrick.Malone, Patrick.Mannion, John.Martin, James J.Nash, John Joseph.Ó Donnabháin, Seán.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Quigley, John B.O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).Ormonde, John.O'Sullivan, Denis J.O'Sullivan, Ted.Ryan, Eoin.Ryan, James.Ryan, Patrick W.Ryan, William.Yeats, Michael.

Níl

Brosnahan, Seán.Connolly O'Brien, Nora.Crowley, Patrick.Davidson, Mary F.

Fitzgerald, John.McAuliffe, Timothy.McQuillan, Jack.Murphy, Dominick F.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl, Senators Murphy and McQuillan.
Question declared carried.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 8.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Cole, John C.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenehan, Joseph R.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Quigley, John B.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Brosnahan, Seán.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McQuillan, Jack.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl, Senators McQuillan and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 9.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Cole, John C.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenehan, Joseph R.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Quigley, John B.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Brosnahan, Seán.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • McQuillan, Jack.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl, Senators Murphy and McQuillan.
Question declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The House has received in proper form a notice of motion for Early Signature.

Top
Share