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

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I move:

That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the proceedings on the four stages of the Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1976, and on the motion of concurrence with the earlier signature of the Bill by the President, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.30 p.m. today by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively the Questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion, and that the Question to be put from the Chair to bring the proceedings on the Committee Stage, Report Stage and Fifth Stage to a conclusion shall be "That any amendments set down by the Government, and not disposed of, are hereby made to the Bill and the Committee Stage and the Report Stage are hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".

Mr. E. Ryan

The history of this Government has much in common with the French Revolution. They started full of hope and, possibly a certain amount of glory in their own eyes and they are now drawing to a squalid close in a spate of hysterical and indiscriminate guillotining. It seems that there is no longer any real plan, pattern, or thought in regard to Parliamentary business in this House. I will not comment on what is happening in the other House. It is really disgraceful, the way the Seanad has been asked to deal with Parliamentary business in the last few years. We never know when the Seanad will meet again, or what business the House will have, and there are constant changes in relation to the business that is promised and the business which we do not get. I cannot really blame the Leader of the House or the Whip, because it is quite obvious that they are as much at sea as the rest of the House. So we have this kind of stop-go approach to Parliamentary business. The Seanad is sometimes waiting for weeks for business, then we find ourselves with a number of Bills which, almost always, must be put through at once. There is constantly the question of early signing orders, constantly the situation where Bills which have been hanging around in Ministers' offices and in the other House for months, sometimes for years, when they reach this House must be completed in a day or two, and more and more often a guillotine is being applied. The Government's approach in regard to Parliamentary business is completely inefficient. It shows the Government's utter incompetence to carry on Parliamentary business, to put business before this House and to get Bills and other measures through the two Houses.

Therefore, when we look at this Bill coming before the House today, and when we look at the situation in which the Government are asking the Seanad to put this Bill through in a matter of a few hours, it would be wrong to say that we are surprised, because that is what the Seanad has come to expect from the Government. The Seanad no longer expect Bills to reach the House in an orderly fashion with a reasonable length of time to consider the various stages and to have a proper discussion on them. More and more, we find that this is the norm and what should be the norm hardly ever occurs.

We are dealing now with a Bill which is or should be relevant to the national wages agreement, to the economic situation, and the question of wages. This situation, which has existed for the last six months, is a situation for which the Government are responsible and about which they have done virtually nothing apart from making a few half-hearted efforts to deal with it. Once their bluff was called they retreated very rapidly. Once again we have the situation where, at the last moment, the Government are trying to rush something through. They are trying to do something now and, as always, are trying to do it in a matter of hours rather than in an orderly fashion over weeks and months as they had plenty of time to do. It is quite obvious from the urgency with which this Bill is being put through, that it is merely a gesture. The Government will adjourn the Dáil next week and before they beat a hasty retreat from the Dáil, they want to put through a Bill of this kind just to show that they really mean business, and that in this kind of situation they are willing to put through a Bill. It is only an empty gesture, which highlights the fact that the Government have not faced up to the problem of inflation, to the situation of wages agreement, or to the really drastic problems facing the country.

We have a situation in regard to the operation of a Government, which have lost control of the economy, of their own members, and have now lost control of Parliamentary business. Consequently, it is not surprising that this Bill and this guillotine motion should be before the House. All we can do is oppose the Bill and do our best to ensure that a normal pattern is restored to this House. It must be obvious to everyone that this Bill does not have to go through the House today. There is absolutely no reason why the Bill should be completed today. If the Government want to make this futile gesture of passing the Bill, then it can be passed before the Houses adjourn for the summer. However, as has already been pointed out, it would be much more conducive to a settlement if this Bill did not go through, and if it was merely ready to go through. Those who have any faith in the Bill must concede that, in so far as it has any merit, in so far as it will be of any help in solving the real problems facing the country, it would be better if the Bill did not go through for another week or two.

The idea of forcing it through the Seanad, the idea of having a gullotine, that it must finish at half-past four today, has no merit, no justification and no sense, when it could be calmly considered in relation to what is happening elsewhere. If the Government felt that it was really necessary, it could be put through next week or the week after. Leaving aside for the present the merits of the Bill, there is no merit or justification whatsoever in this guillotine. The justification for it is not apparent to anybody. It only shows that the Government have, in fact, lost their nerve in this respect and in every other respect. It is an hysterical attempt to rush through a Bill, which in itself has very little merit. Even at this stage the Government should reconsider the necessity of having a guillotine motion and should allow the debate on the Bill to proceed in an orderly fashion. They should consider the problems thrown up by this Bill and the problems still facing the country instead of rushing this Bill through in an hysterical indecent fashion.

Mr. R. Ryan

Having listened to Senator Ryan, I am not certain which side he is on, whether it is the side of the angels or the others. He complained about what he called the lack of Government control of the situation and yet he proposes to oppose this measure which will empower the Minister for Labour to exercise control if there is a lack of control by the people involved in the banks situation. I am sure the Senator will agree with me that there is a clear contradiction.

Mr. E. Ryan

The Minister does not know where I stand?

Mr. R. Ryan

He suggests the Bill is being introduced with indecent haste although he knows that strike notice was served on the 14th of this month to take effect next Monday. He seems to feel that the Government should wait, apparently, until midsummer or later before taking action to deal with a situation which the country does not want. The mass of our people do not want to see any particular sector, particularly a sector which happens to enjoy security and comparatively reasonable terms of remuneration, obtain income increases which, by any standard, are excessive and which far exceed——

Mr. Lenihan

Is the Minister in order in discussing the merits of the Bill on the motion?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The motion before the House deals with the time at which discussion on the Bill should conclude. The Minister has right of audience in the Seanad but I would ask everybody involved in the debate to confine themselves at this stage to the actual motion. The merits of the Bill come under item No. 2 on the Order of Business.

Mr. R. Ryan

I will endeavour to observe the rules of the Chair and to maintain decorum. I am emphasising that the country at large want to see action to prevent an undesirable situation developing.

Mr. Lenihan

This is an appearance, if I may say so.

Mr. R. Ryan

This is an enabling measure which need not come into effect if reason is displayed by the people who are involved in this very, very awkward and undesirable development on the banks front. The country does not want to see a bank closure. People have made that perfectly clear over the last week or more. Because some people apparently have an incapacity to think, they often use my good self as the whipping boy and we have had a clear example of this in attacks which were made on me because I dared quote exhortations issued by the banking community which urged everybody to exercise restraint in income demands. It has been suggested that this has, in some way or other, exacerbated the situation.

The facts should be put on record and the diary noted: strike notice was issued on Monday, 14th June after there had been a rejection of an offer which was well above the terms of the proposed national agreement. That notice was given on Monday, 14th to take effect on the 28th. In the meantime, it became clear that the banks proposed to make a further unacceptably high offer which was well above the norm which could be operated in our economy this year.

Mr. Lenihan

What has that to do with the motion?

Mr. R. Ryan

It has been suggested that the legislation is not conducive to a settlement. A settlement can always be obtained to every dispute by agreeing to whatever is demanded but a settlement of such a kind as is being demanded in this case would do very, very serious damage to the economy and would let this whole incomes structure run riot and out of control. I gather from what Senator Ryan said that he considers that the Government should not allow that situation to develop, that the Government should adopt all measures possible to prevent that happening. In this legislation the Government are offering the remedy which was supported by Fianna Fáil twice in the last two years from the Opposition benches and is not out of line with what they proposed on another occasion when they were in office.

Mr. Lenihan

This Bill is not tabled in the context of the situation that arose.

Mr. R. Ryan

This Bill is asking that the norm which may be accepted by the community in the national wage agreement will be applied on the bank pay front. It is exactly on the lines of the previous measures and, therefore——

Mr. Lenihan

It is not; that is not true.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The debate is tending very much to deal with the subject matter of the Bill and the need for it rather than the motion.

Mr. R. Ryan

The point I am making is——

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister is coming in here to insult the intelligence of the House by debating matters which are not being debated.

Mr. R. Ryan

Deputy Lenihan never misses an opportunity to use extravagant language but sometimes he might improve his own reputation by refraining.

Mr. Lenihan

Come back to the motion. The Leas-Chathaoirleach is here directing you to come back to the motion.

Mr. R. Ryan

The time being allotted here is more than adequate having regard to the fact that the principles underlying this legislation and the mode of operating this legislation have been debated twice already within the last two years and have been debated on three occasions previously in both Houses. There is nothing new, nothing radical or anything which requires very deep research. Clearly, when the crisis is arising on this front in this week, now is the time to act and not after the horse has escaped. It is too late then to be locking the door.

Mr. Lenihan

The horse has galloped well away.

Mr. R. Ryan

That is, apparently, what the Opposition want. Once again I have to repudiate in the Seanad suggestions that are being made that the Government are responsible for delays in production of legislation in the Seanad. The Opposition in the Dáil speaks at far greater length on all measures before the House than the Government. Much legislation would have reached this House much earlier——

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister is abusing the privilege of this House. Nobody said anything in the course of this debate about delays in bringing in legislation.

Mr. R. Ryan

With respect, Senator Ryan spoke at very great length and said that this Government had displayed a total inability in relation to the production of legislation.

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister is losing his head here today in a grossly hysterical fashion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

A little order on all sides would help the debate. The Minister is in order to reply to whatever Senator Ryan raised but it is not customary to criticise the operations of the other House.

Mr. R. Ryan

I was about to make that point because Senator Ryan was very, very critical of the way in which the other House handled legislative measures which the Government put before it. He is correct in saying——

Mr. E. Ryan

On a point of order, I specifically said that it was not in order for me to talk about the other House. I criticised the Government for not bringing business before this House.

Mr. R. Ryan

I have said, and the Senator knows, that the Dáil has sat longer hours under this Government than at any previous time in its history and that was to process legislation brought before it by the Government. On many occasions I pleaded in the House that sufficient time be given to the Seanad to discuss legislation but other people decided that the Seanad would not be given that time. The Government are not prepared to come to this House and put up with criticism for delays which have been caused by others. I suggest once again, and this is about the fifth time I have done it, that the Fianna Fáil Senators would do better to speak to the members of their own Oireachtas party in the other House in order to get the legislation here earlier. Of course, none of that is relevant to this piece of legislation——

Mr. Yeats

Hear, hear.

Mr. R. Ryan

——which is emergency legislation to deal with an emergency, which the whole country recognises as an emergency, even if the Opposition do not. I do not know what on earth is the thinking behind their efforts. At one time I know they endeavoured to court popularity and do whatever they thought the majority of the people of Ireland wanted, but apparently now they are in such despair that they do not have much ambition left. The majority of the people want to see sanity on the pay front in respect of banks and everywhere else as well, and they want to see inflation defeated, and this measure, as soon as it is passed, will enable that to be done.

The Bill is an enabling Bill. In itself the passage of this Bill would not mean that the Bill would be applied by the Minister for Labour. Therefore, it is still open to the people involved in the bank dispute to continue their negotiations in a reasonable and calm manner and I suggest that that could best be done with the withdrawal of strike notice and by continuation of negotiations to produce a formula which would conform with the national norm. If that is done, the stay which it is suggested the Minister for Labour could apply would be lifted and everybody would be happy, business could continue normally, the banks could remain open and our economy can avoid all the destruction and all the unhappiness and all the unease which will otherwise be inflicted upon it. This Bill attempts to achieve that objective.

Mr. Lenihan

The sort of performance we have just had from the Minister for Finance illustrates the reason why this Government are drifting into chaos, because this type of unrestrained outburst which we had is a sample of his attacks earlier in the year in the European Economic Commission. We had a further example of it last Thursday week in his intemperate remarks, as published in the newspapers last Friday. His intemperate remarks——

Mr. R. Ryan

Quoting others, that is all I did.

Mr. Lenihan

——exacerbated and aggravated a very delicate and sensitive situation. Of course, everybody wants to see this unfortunate industrial dispute ended. I would make an appeal to all the parties concerned to ensure that the negotiations taking place now are successful, but the reality of the matter is that this Bill has nothing got to do with the successful outcome of the negotiations that have been taking place as and from 10.30 in another room elsewhere in this city. The reality is there of the parties concerned meeting under the aegis of the Labour Court.

This Bill is an empty formula. This Bill is a charade. This Bill is another example of Government by bluff and bluster, as I said in an earlier debate, and the guillotine motion that we discussing here is part of the same charade. It is a flexing of Government muscle; flexing muscles in public by pushing motions through the Dáil, pushing motions through the Seanad, motions to chop debate. That will not settle this industrial dispute or any other industrial dispute and flexing muscles is not the way to run the country or deal with the economy. It was the Minister present who rightly said the horse has galloped away. The horse of inflation is galloping away at the rate of 20 per cent this year. The Minister is seeking to close doors that should have been closed two years ago in his handling and management of the general economy. It is bluff and bluster to come in here with a guillotine motion at this stage when the real parties are meeting elsewhere and the real action is taking place elsewhere and when whatever happens in this House on this Bill is a total irrelevancy. The Minister is aware of that and it brings Parliament and the whole meaning of Parliament into disrepute to bring in irrelevant legislation that has nothing got to do with the issues at hand and to bring in a guillotine motion to chop debate and push that legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. The public should be told loud and clear in straight language that that is what it is all about and I propose to say it here and repeat it right through the course of this day.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

That is not necessary.

Mr. Lenihan

The guillotine motion and this Bill have nothing got to do with the real issue of the industrial dispute between the banks and their employees. The Minister is well aware of that and the only contribution that the Minister has made to this whole matter was an intemperate outburst last Thursday week that gravely exacerbated the situation and hardened attitudes in regard to this dispute.

Mr. R. Ryan

Which of the quotes I quoted was intemperate? Was it from the Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks, the Northern Bank or the Central Bank?

Mr. Lenihan

The whole notion of the Minister for Finance intervening with any outburst or any words in a matter of this kind when delicate negotiations were going on, which obviously is the only way to settle the dispute.

Mr. R. Ryan

Which quotation was an outburst?

Mr. Lenihan

I am not talking about the outburst, but remarks by the Minister for Finance at a delicate stage of a pending dispute and a pending closure of the banks were highly unwise and have gravely aggravated the situation.

Mr. R. Ryan

I should have done nothing and said nothing?

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister for Finance had ample channels to go through. There are the appropriate negotiations for a settlement of an industrial dispute of this kind. There are ways and means of doing this sort of thing, not parading the matter in public. But this Government have an unfortunate habit of parading their thoughts in public when in fact this is a matter on which the Minister for Finance might expend his energies privately and quietly through appropriate channels and in the right way. If energies were bent privately and quietly 24 hours in the day every day towards the solution of this matter it might be solved now. It will not be solved by ministerial outbursts. I suggest that ministerial outbursts of any kind in the course of any industrial dispute can do nothing but gravely aggravate the situation. Indeed, this week we had the spectacle of the Minister for Labour, the appropriate Minister, spending most of the week in Geneva——

Mr. Yeats

A very nice place.

Mr. Lenihan

——as President of the International Labour Organisation, I suggest that that function, presiding over debates in Geneva, could have been delegated during this week to somebody else.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is well outside the scope of the motion.

Mr. Lenihan

It was here the Minister should have been during this week, here conducting the diplomatic and private, properly secretive and confidential, negotiations that might have led to a sensitive and delicate handling of the matter and brought it to a successful conclusion. But the guillotine motion that we are now discussing has been caused by the fact that the Minister for Labour was not here to introduce the Bill on Wednesday. The Minister for Labour had to hustle back from Geneva on Wednesday and take his Bill a day late and accordingly it is now a day late here, and a guillotine motion had to be introduced because of the absence of the Minister for Labour in the earlier part of the week. That is one of the reasons why we are having a guillotine motion today—because he chose not to be here to handle the Bill in the Dáil on Wednesday. He chose instead to relax in Geneva, presiding over some fuddy-duddy meeting that could have been handled by any of his deputy presidents.

These are the facts. Along with the Minister for Finance intervening with an outburst, we had the Minister for Labour fiddling away his time in Geneva instead of dealing with emergency legislation. Of course, I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister for Labour in hopping on planes. He has problems in that respect. But at the same time, Geneva is not in the Far East. Geneva is in Europe and Geneva is easily accessable as far as Dublin is concerned and certainly a little haste by the Minister for Labour to return here to his chores of handling the industrial disputes of the country might have meant a more orderly parliamentary debate of this matter. It would have given an extra day at least of parliamentary time because the Bill was available on Wednesday morning and could have been taken in the Dáil on Wednesday by the Minister for Labour were he not fiddling away in Geneva.

So we finally got the Bill, anyway, on Thursday when the Minister for Labour deigned to arrive here poste haste by plane and announced dramatically in all the media that he was coming back to handle the growing problem of the bank dispute. So on Thursday we got the Bill and the Bill is chopped through the Dáil and on Friday we have the Bill being chopped through the Seanad. We are going through a completely meaningless farce.

This is the reality of the matter. We are going through a completely meaningless farce. Far from contributing to the solution of this very difficult and intractable problem, he is undoubtedly adding further fuel to the fire. There is no question about that. With the Minister's intemperate remarks on the introduction of the Bill and the guillotine motion, we have a fine example of playacting, of Nero fiddling while Rome burns while the real fire brigade operation is taking place in another room from 10.30 this morning and will, hopefully, lead to a successful outcome. Whether this Bill is guillotined or not is irrelevant to the, we hope, successful outcome of these talks.

There is one other aspect I should like to mention. The real action is, hopefully, the conclusion of the national wage agreement; and the Minister is well aware of this too. There is a delegate meeting of Congress scheduled for 3rd July to consider the ballotting that is taking place at the moment on the part of the various unions. That is where the real action is taking place. Why is this Bill being rushed through while the unions at the moment are balloting, hopefully in a positive way, on a national wage agreement, which, hopefully, will emerge at the Congress delegate conference on 3rd July? That is where the real action and issue lie. Why was this Bill brought in at all? Any Fianna Fáil legislation of this kind was brought in on the basis of a national wage agreement, the implementation of such an agreement and, hopefully, the adoption of such an agreement.

What the Minister said earlier is untrue. This legislation is basically and fundamentally different from Fianna Fáil legislation brought in to deal with the problem of wage agreements. This Bill has nothing to do with the national wage agreement. This Bill, as it stands before us, seeks to hold the bank officials to the agreement concluded on 4th July, 1975.

If such was required, a far more realistic approach by the Government would be to await the outcome of the conference—which will be finally decided tomorrow week—then consider whether this legislation would be necessary. The Minister will answer that the bank strike will take place on Monday and he could not await the outcome of the national wage agreement talks. That point is valid only if this legislation would be effective in dealing with the situation that hopefully may not arise but may arise on Monday. This legislation can do nothing about it. If, through misfortune, the talks going on at the moment do not succeed and we proceed to a strike action situation on Monday, what can this legislation do about the matter? Is this not the reality of it all?

The only legislation of this kind that can be seen to be effective in the minds of the public, is legislation introduced in the context of the national wage agreement. Such was the only type of legislation of this kind we ever introduced in the Oireachtas. This legislation is meaningless. It will not affect the matter one way or the other. As I said earlier, the real action is taking place elsewhere. Hopefully, the discussions taking place elsewhere will terminate successfully, there will not be strike action on Monday but there will be a positive response to the ballot on the national wage agreement and then we can proceed on that basis. This Bill does not contribute one iota to the successful conclusion of the discussions which I desire and I know he desires. This Bill is irrelevant in that context.

It is deplorable that Parliament should be reduced to debating irrelelent legislation that cannot affect the situation. Passing guillotine motions to bring in ineffectual legislation is the sort of thing that brings parliament into disrepute. It beats Banagher for madness. It is like the mad tea party in Alice in Wonderland or something of that kind. This is the reality of the situation. If we stand back and look at the matter clinically and coolly, we will see that this legislation and motion in no way help towards the successful outcome of talks. That is a fact. The whole thing is a complete charade, a complete removal from reality. The introduction of the Bill, together with the Minister's verbal intervention last Thursday week, has done, in my view, positive harm.

What we want to see working out can, hopefully, be worked out in the course of the present discussions taking place and by a positive response by the trade unions in the ballot on the wage agreement. They are the matters that count. Abusing this Parliament by bringing in unnecessary and irrelevant legislation that can do nothing to affect the constructive outcome in regard to the events I have mentioned is only bringing this Parliament into disrepute. We should only bring in legislation that is meaningful, that can affect events, that can positively affect people and improve situations. That is what legislation should be about. That is what legislation was meant to be about. It was not meant to be used to abuse parliament by bringing Government action of bluff and bluster into the legislative process, huffing and puffing from Geneva to Dublin, and huffing and puffing legislation through the Dáil on a Thursday and through the Seanad on a Friday, to pass legislation and get an early signature of the President to a Bill that does not matter a thrawneen in the ultimate solution of events and matters. That is the reality and the Minister knows I am telling the truth. There is nothing extravagant in what I am saying. It is absolute factual, truth.

The sooner this Government get down to governing and not putting on an appearance of action, an appearance of government the better. That has been going on now fairly successfully for the past three years. There is no question about it. The massive appearance of activity has been there, hopping on and off planes, from Bangkok to Geneva to Dublin, and a great waving of flags, a great deal of headline-making and speech-making. The reality behind the facade is very sad. The reality is total failure in regard to the economic management of the nation, and in regard to handling industrial relations. It is going to be left to the good sense of the trade unionists of this country to pull this Government out of the trouble into which they got themselves. The good sense of the Irish trade union movement is what really matters in this context, not the Government. That is the reality.

Mr. Lyons

I am not going to delay the House very long. I support the motion. Senator Lenihan talked about a charade. If the motion is a charade, Senator Lenihan's contribution is a farce, and not all the huffing and the puffing come from the Minister's side. I disagree entirely with what Senator Lenihan said—that the motion before the House will not have any impact on the present situation. On several occasions Fianna Fáil spokesmen said that the Government took no action, or if they took action, they took too little and too late. If certain things happened a couple of years ago we would have no inflation and our economy would be running on sound lines. The people have given in the last few weeks their opinion of whether or not the Government were huffing and puffing or whether they were doing things in what might be described as the proper way.

However, there is no need for panic. The speeches being made by the Opposition will do more harm in the present situation than anything the Minister for Finance might have said or done during the past week and for which he has been taken to task by the Fianna Fáil spokesmen today. The Government have shown that they are prepared to take action in a situation such as was envisaged and which we hope does not occur in relation to the banks' dispute. We all hope a settlement will be arrived at which will be satisfactory to all parties concerned and which will not endanger our economy to any greater extent than exists at present. We all want to see this settlement instantaneously but we also want to see a Government prepared to take action and outline action, not alone in relation to this dispute but as a guideline to other things and other disputes that may be in the offing.

I dislike guillotines as much as anybody else. Parliament and the Opposition have the right to criticise in every way any legislation, but criticism and waffles such as we heard today will do no good in this type of dispute. It would be better that it did not occur at all. Too much debate on the state of an economy does not do much good. The media at all levels are discussing every aspect of our financial and economic problems and the people know more about it sometimes than the Members of the Dáil and Seanad because they have the time to read and listen which many Members of the Oireachtas have not. There is nobody who does not know all the facts of inflation and, indeed, all the lies about inflation that are being circulated as well. There is no panic. If one walks around and listens to people in the street, in the pubs and elsewhere one will find that there is no panic. Our people, in the main, are better off than ever they were before. I do not know if Fianna Fáil realise this, but this is an absolute fact. The decision in the two by-elections has shown that our people realised this state of affairs.

We could spend all day talking like the Leader of the Opposition, that this is unnecessary, it is a charade that will serve no purpose and so on. We could stand up to justify it but there is no need for a debate on it. The proper action was taken. Everybody, the Opposition and Government side know that holidays are about to come and that even Members of the Oireachtas are entitled to holidays. If one looks into their hearts one will see that everyone agrees that it would be far better to be down the country making hay than to be sitting here listening to the kind of waffle we have heard so far. I support the motion and I hope the debate will be much shorter than we envisage.

Mr. Yeats

The Bill to which this motion relates is, as has already been said by Senator Lenihan, quite irrelevant to the real needs of this position. We are opposing this Bill, and the motion that is consequent on it, because it is wrong in principle. It deals with one small section at a time when the entire wage situation of this country is in shambles. If there is one man who, above all others, is responsible for the appalling position in which we find ourselves, particularly on the wages front, it is the Minister for Finance who has just retreated from the House. He has made it by his own actions, inside and outside his budget, almost impossible to persuade the workers to agree to any kind of a national pay award.

The Minister for Finance is no longer with us and we are glad to see the Minister for Labour showing an interest in this matter, but the Minister for Finance attempted to suggest that those who oppose this Bill are in some way encouraging a strike in the banks. That is entirely wrong. Our objections to this Bill, and to this motion, are the very opposite. The only criterion with regard to a Bill such as this, that the Minister for Labour, the Minister for Finance and the Government should have had regard to but did not, is: does this Bill make a strike more or less likely? One of the reasons we oppose it and this motion is that it makes a strike much more likely. The concept of this discriminatory Bill is being opposed by the banks, on the one hand, and by the bank officials on the other. We hope that by the weekend there will be a settlement in the bank situation, but if there is it will not be because of this Bill; it will be in spite of it.

This was rushed through the Dáil yesterday, is being rushed through this House today with guillotine motions framed in the most rigid terms. What is the hurry? Why not wait until after 3rd July when we will know what the position is? What is going to happen if the wage agreement fails, as seems only too likely? What are these norms the Minister is going to lay down for this one section? Is he going to continue to lay down some kind of notional norm of wage increases for this small, numerically speaking, section of the population and allow everyone else to have a sort of free-for-all or does he intend to be that for whatever reason the other sections? The answer appears to be that for what ever reason the Minister, and the Government, do not want to have any democratic control over whatever they do after July 3rd. It seems that a concerted effort is being made to prevent the Oireachtas, or more particularly, Dáil Éireann, from sitting after 2nd July, after the decision has been taken with regard to the national pay award.

Next week, for example, in the Dáil the Government are going to attempt to push through eight Bills, a trustee order, a large number of Estimates and have an Adjournment Debate also—a ludicrous method of legislation, the only purpose apparently being to ensure that by the time the national pay award is agreed, or not agreed, the Dáil will be out of the way and the Government will not have to pay any attention to these democratic forms which they apparently dislike so much. The adjournment of the Dáil and the adjournment of this House this year, if the Government have their way, will be earlier than has ever happened before, certainly for many years. Senator Lyons says that one would prefer to be away making hay in this nice weather rather than here. Of course, anyone would. But Senators and Deputies have duties to perform and one of their duties appears to me to be that at a time of great national crisis, particularly the great national crisis that will eventuate in the event of the pay agreement not going through, we should all be here in order to discuss the situation that will arise and to hear whatever proposals the Government may have. The Government are attempting to railroad this Bill through, a Bill which is calculated to make a strike much more likely. They want to railroad through a large mass of other legislation in the same way in order to ensure that Oireachtas Éireann will not be sitting at a time when a decision is finally made on the pay agreement.

The haste with this Bill is clearly undesirable. The Bill itself, of course, is undesirable, but we will deal with that later. It is calculated to make agreement much more difficult to reach. It is not needed today. It is not needed this week. Now that its terms have been announced by the Minister, all those concerned know the thinking of the Government. He could perfectly well wait a few days; better still he could wait until after July 3rd. In the event of the pay agreement being turned down on July 3rd, this Bill will become utterly meaningless. It will merely give the Minister the power to impose a wage freeze, but that is all. It gives no guidance. There will be no guidance at all as to what kind of a decision with regard to wages in the banking industry could be allowed or would be allowed by the Minister. The Bill, which is already relevant, will become utterly meaningless. If it were left over until after July 3rd there would be a much better chance of reaching an agreement.

Dr. Browne

Listening to the Minister, one does not know whether he is using the device referred to by Senator O'Higgins, the Leader of the House, of a university debating point or whether in fact he believes what he is saying. He protested his innocence when accused by Senator Lenihan of being a very important influence on the question of this dispute in relation to the bank officials. But it is quite obvious without bothering with what he said that, following his statement on Thursday week last, that the negotiations were simply broken off. What he had said or whatever he meant to say, the implications to the banks and to the bank officials was that all further negotiations were unimportant or irrelevant because he was taking the man-of-steel line. The line taken by the banks at the time, which appeared to be likely to concede to the officials something of their demands—legitimate demands, in my view—would not be tolerated by him. This had not the effect he thought it would have because the immediate and understandable response was a total break-off and the strike for next Monday.

The Minister cannot exculpate himself or his Government from the crisis situation which was precipitated by his speech. Further proof of that, indeed, of the influence of the Government and the Minister in this situation, is the very fact that when it was made clear—and I am sure it was made clear, not only publicly but privately—to Mr. McDermott that further negotiations on a particular line leading to a settlement, leading to an increase in the pay of the bank officials, would be acceptable to the Government, we had the inevitable climb down from the silly position taken up by the Government on this issue. This has eventuated in the discussions which are now taking place for a settlement on a situation which has not changed at all.

The only thing that has changed are the conditions under which they are now being asked to reconsider the whole matter or the possibility of productivity deals and so on. These possiblities were always there. Nothing has changed except the Government's decision that they cannot stand on this issue of the bank officials going on strike on Monday, because obviously it is the final crisis to end all the crises of this Government in three deplorable years of misgovernment. For that reason they have simply deferred the day.

I do not know if you remember the Admiral Byng affair, when the French Admiral said: "Why is Admiral Byng hanging from the yardarm"? The reply was: "He was hanged pour encourager les autres". This Bill is directed at the national wage agreement. We have this position where, to his eternal disgrace—I hope he is conscious of that as a trade union official and as a member of the Labour Party committed to public ownership of the banks, the present mis-called Minister for Labour, Mr. O'Leary—they are now faced with the very serious likelihood of having to bring in a national wage freeze, not simply a bank officials' freeze. That is why this is an attempt to tell the people who are now considering what they will do at the July TUC delegates' conference what they are to do in relation to the national wage agreement. It is a last desperate attempt to stave off the final pay-off, which I think most of us believe is going to come anyway, no matter what they do, in relation to what is euphemistically called the free-for-all.

When it applies to workers it is called a free-for-all. The ordinary profit private-enterprise system is not called a free-for-all when it applies to profits and dividends. It is only a free-for-all when it applies to people who are selling their labour, which is the only thing they have to sell. The general puffing and blowing implicit in this Bill and the absurd proposal that we are limited to discussion until 4.30 this afternoon is bringing into our business a measure of chaotic, precipitated, ill-considered activity which has dominated the whole pattern of this Government's actions throughout their lifetime.

Relatively recently the present Minister for Labour said that there could be no question of a wage freeze. Now he is bringing one in. I hope there is a little bit of resistance, whatever is left, by the Labour leadership in the present cabinet, that there is at least some shame left among the Labour people who are in this cabinet. The idea that trade union officials should bring in a wage freeze has been anathema throughout the whole history of the trade union movement. Nobody has spoken more violently against wage freezes than the present Minister for Labour, Deputy O'Leary, in relation to Deputy Colley's time and Mr. Lemass's time. Now one of our own Ministers in the Labour Party is bringing in this obnoxious anti-Labour, anti-working class law under this Bill. This situation brings an air of the same confusion into our activities because of the precipitate way in which we have to discuss these measures and it has quite obviously conditioned the whole activity of the Government since its formation.

Mr. McCartin

Normally inside the space of a year we do not like to repeat the same words. A year ago, when legislation of this nature was introduced I said that if the increased payment being sought or given, or which might be given to workers in any industries was the direct result of their competence and efforts to improve that industry and to make more of it, I would be very hesitant about legislation that might curtail their profits. This, like so many other situations, is an effort by people who find themselves in a strong position to take more than they have earned or worked for.

Even on this side of the House we should examine our conscience about legislation like this. If one goes around the country, it does not take a very astute politician to realise that there is plenty of support for the sort of action the Government are taking. Therefore, the Government feel strengthened in their resolution to carry on with this legislation. We should also be aware that the bank officials are not the only people in the State who have demanded more than their fair share from time to time. Governments have not, unfortunately, always found themselves with the same political trump in their hands that they have in relation to this Bill. We must be especially careful about this sort of legislation since we know quite well that this sort of pressure must be applied selectively and not always with even-handed justice.

I have met people in the organisation that proposes to go out on strike in a few days who are violently opposed to the line that their organisation is taking. In supporting the Government and the Minister for Labour, Deputy M. O'Leary, I speak on behalf of a large number of people in the organisation of bank officials who say that this decision did not originally come from the rank and file but was made by people who had a mandate of old in different circumstances and then for the sake of solidarity and all the organisation tactics, ploys, and ideals that we hear so much about they must show solidarity when they come together and are asked for their opinion after decisions have been made. I would say to these people that there is no point in their saying that they will not close their banks, that they will turn up for work, that they do not believe that what is being done is right. Those people should be more vocal in their organisation and should not allow it to get into the hands of people who delight to fish in troubled waters.

The situation in which we find ourselves is that increasingly such decisions as this are being made by a very small number of people who, in an effort to justify the very big salaries they get, are continually stirring up trouble and seeking to promote a spirit of unrest not only among employees but in other sectors. They show no real concern for the living conditions, the environment, social conditions or housing conditions in which members of their organisation find themselves. They want to have it to say that they were tough and fought and succeeded in getting an increase of £4 a week. They do not care if the people who got it go home and spend the last penny of it drinking whiskey and die of some disease as a result. They could not care less. The attitude is they want to be seen to be tough negotiators fighting on behalf of their organisation. The best people in our country are too busy doing their job well to take note of the situation in which they find themselves by allowing power to slip from their hands into the hands of a small number of people who undertake to negotiate on their behalf.

National wage agreements worked well for a comparatively short period. They are a good idea in one sense but not in another. I have always had reservations about them. All men are not created equal. In spite of my Christian belief that every man is as good as I am and no man is better, if I go out to play football or do some other thing I must admit there is a better man on the field than I am and no matter how I feel about it, he will be the star and I will not. When two men go in to do a day's work and one works twice as hard as the other, the man who lazes his day, wastes time, breaks his tools and equipment and spoils his opportunities and those of his comrades should not be paid at the same rate as the man who does a hard, honest day's work. National wage agreements continue the dangerous concept in which the lazy man gets the same rate of pay as the man who works hard.

This is relevant to the subject we are discussing. As I said at the outset, I would not support this legislation if I firmly believed that the people who were seeking better conditions and higher remuneration had actually worked for it, earned and deserved it. I would not believe that they should be held down to the lowest common denominator. If a settlement is reached the Government, who have taken this action and have kept a firm hand and a close watch on the situation, will deserve some of the credit. Many people in the organisation that is about to go on strike believe that the Minister is doing exactly the right thing by bringing this legislation in here today. It is a pity that they should leave it to people like me to express this view for them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator FitzGerald, I understand, has spoken already.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I moved it. I understood I had a right of reply in doing so.

Cáit Uí Eachthéirn

I am objecting to this on principle because no section of the community should be singled out for harsh treatment. Everybody should get the same crack of the whip. This is legislating for one section of the community as against other sections. It will worsen a very bad situation and it is ill-timed. The Minister should have waited until he sees how the national wage agreement will work out.

I agree with Senator Browne that this is intended to frighten other sections of the community into not trying to get their just increases. Even yesterday dozens of price increases were sanctioned. I cannot understand how people will make ends meet if prices are increasing and wages will not increase accordingly. For that reason, on the very principles alone, this legislation should not be supported.

Mr. Dolan

I want to say a few words in particular with regard to the fact that the Government are introducing a guillotine motion. This is at least the third time I can remember that the Government have come along with a guillotine motion in this House to try to stifle discussion and prevent the elected representatives from making their various contributions. That is very bad form so far as the national Parliament is concerned. There should be free and open discussion on any Bill that comes before us. There should be ample time to discuss it. Those Government Ministers who have been talking about open Government and all the freedoms they were going to give to the people, on many occasions already have come into this House and the other House and have succeeded by weight of numbers in stifling proper discussion on matters such as these. This is very relevant in this House where there are 11 Members selected by the Taoiseach and put in on top of the rest to make a very clear overall majority. The result is that any time they feel like it they can guillotine any discussion in the House. That is wrong. This House was set up under the Constitution and it has a very important part to play. It has been conceded by both Ministers and Members that the contributions and debates have been of a very high standard down the years. In an important issue such as this it is fundamentally wrong that the first item we have this morning should be a guillotine motion.

Senators were requested to attend today; they knew what business was before the House—that does not happen very often—and it was wrong of the Government to have interfered. They should have allowed the debate to proceed in the normal way. Perhaps they were afraid of the unpalatable things which might be said of their performance. The fact that there is a Bill to curb wage increases is an indication of the approach of the Government to remuneration, to prices and to the economy in general. Every sector— whether the employed or the unemployed is being burdened with extra taxation and with weekly, if not daily increases in the price of practically every commodity used in households. The value of money is decreasing so rapidly that any increase given will be gobbled up in inflation. As usual, the Government will lay the blame on the poor Arabs, never admitting that they are responsible for the state of the economy. I will speak on the Bill when it is before us but at this stage I want to protest strongly against the action of the Government in introducing a guillotine motion on this important subject.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I was slow to rise because I assumed having listened to the last two speakers that the three other remaining Members of the Fianna Fáil Party would read from the same text which has been read to the House throughout this morning's discussion. This passion for rational discussion of the details of Bills which so marks the contributions of Fianna Fáil: to the debates in this House can be discovered from examination of the Committee Stages of many Bills. I remember a Bill which was before the House not too long ago and until it had reached section 120 I was the only contributor to the debate, apart from the Minister concerned. Suddenly, a mischievous thing in me said to Fianna Fáil: "They divided on this section in the Dáil, you know. Are you interested enough to pay attention to it now that it is before the Seanad"? A contribution was then made. However, the contribution did not relate to the section. What have we been doing this morning? According to my calculations, before I stood up we have devoted over one-third of the time available for debate today to a proposal to reduce the time available for discussion.

Mr. Yeats

There is plenty of time available; it is a question of the time the Government make available.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Senator Yeats made his usual contribution with many words which I put into my own little copybook for use on other occasions. He made his contribution and I sat silently through it. Would he kindly do the same while I make mine? I ask Senator Yeats to do that.

Mr. Keegan

The Senator is being provocative.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

With respect to that Senator, let him be as resistant to provocation now as I was when I had to listen to the complaint about inability to discuss a Bill which was described as irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, what do Fianna Fáil want to discuss? If the real decisions are being made elsewhere, if this is all a charade, why participate in it? This is very unfortunate language from people who talk about this as a motion damaging democracy to use the phrase which Senator Noel Browne generally uses and which he used again today. The Senator usually talks about a charade but the charade he is referring to is the charade of democracy.

I intend to make only one point. I do not know what the historian will finally say was the rightness or wrongness of introducing this measure. I merely face the fact that all Ireland knows we are faced with the possibility of a damaging bank strike on Monday. I pray with all those on this side of the House that it does not take place but I wonder if much thought was given on the opposite side as to whether any of their contributions would be helpful in that matter. Senator Ryan, to my surprise, said that we were in the strange situation of the French Revolution, where we started off with great glory and were now dithering down to disgrace. It is a strange position for a member of a republican party to be complaining about the French Revolution. If the Government are inaugurating something equivalent to the French Revolution in Ireland, thanks be to God, if it will have the final effect on Ireland the French Revolution had on the whole world. But I doubt if that is quite the image that I would take from the actual performance. It was a strange contribution to come from Senator Ryan, a Senator who normally makes very useful contributions.

The Bill was described by Senator Lenihan in his repetitious speech, which he threatens to repeat on the two other motions that are yet to come before the House, as an empty formula. The Senator could remain extremely silent about empty formulae, he could be silent on the whole Bill if it is an empty formula. If it is an empty formula we can pass it and forget about it.

There are sections in the Bill which require serious attention. The Bill is an enabling one and contains only one important element which has not been referred to by any Senator who has contributed, that is, the Title to the Bill which is:

"Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, An Act to provide in the national interest——"

Mr. Yeats

Propaganda.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Senator Yeats will not remain silent, despite his experience in the Chair for a long period of time. He should remember that he is not entitled to make remarks of that kind when I am making a contribution on the desirability of getting quickly to a discussion and letting the House hear from the Senators. Is it the proposal that they would spend so long at Second Stage that they will not debate any section of Committee Stage? I must confess I was depressed because it is desirable and in the national interest that the Seanad should hold itself forth as a worthy institution, capable of good discussion of real merit and not be a poor reflection of Dáil Éireann, as it has proved this morning from the contributions of people I am looking at this moment. That is not good for the country nor is it good for the country if there is a French Revolution situation such as Senator Eoin Ryan graphically described it. We do not see a Napoleon emerging from the Fianna Fáil Party. It is not good for the country that Fianna Fáil are such an unpresentable party; that dismayed though many of the people are with the harsh conditions in which many of them must live, dismayed and baffled by the choice of the correct solution, they cannot see in the only Opposition party any possible alternative to this Government. They will see it as a less possible alternative after this morning's debate and if this debate continues throughout the rest of the day that view will be reinforced.

To me as a democrat who believes that democracy is not a charade, that is undesirable. I recommend to the House the guillotine motion which has been proposed.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 10.

Tá

Blennerhassett, John.
Boland, John.
Butler, Pierce.
Codd, Patrick.
Connolly, Roderic.
Daly, Jack.
Deasy, Austin.
FitzGerald, Alexis.
Fitzgerald, Jack.
Harte, John.
Kerrigan, Patrick.
Kilbride, Thomas.
Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
McAuliffe, Timothy.
McCartin, John Joseph.
Mannion, John M.
Markey, Bernard.
Moynihan, Michael.
O'Brien, Andy.
O'Toole, Patrick.
Prendergast, Micheál A.
Russell, George Edward.
Sanfey, James W.
Walsh, Mary.
Whyte, Liam.

Níl

Brennan, John J.
Browne, Noel C.
Cowen, Bernard.
Dolan, Séamus.
Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
Hanafin, Des.
Keegan, Seán.
Lenihan, Brian.
Ryan, Eoin.
Yeats, Michael B.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and J. Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Dolan and Hanafin.

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Item No. 2: Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1976— Second Stage.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps if we adjourn until 2 o'clock——

Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 25 Jun 1976