asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that the British Railways Wages Board made on March 9th, 1942, an award granting an increment applicable to certain grades of the clerical and wages staffs of the Great Western Railway Company and of the L.M. & S. Railway Company resident in Ireland; whether he received from the parties concerned an application for permission for the railway companies concerned to pay this increment to the railway workers in Ireland affected by the award; and, if so, the date on which he received such application; whether he will say if it is his intention to permit the payment to those workers of the increased remuneration awarded them; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in granting the permission sought.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Railway Workers' Increment.
I am aware that the Railway Staff National Tribunal (Railways of Great Britain) made a decision on the 9th March, 1942, granting increments applicable to certain grades on the clerical and wages staffs of Great Western Railway Company and of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. On the 17th October, 1942, I received from the parties concerned a joint application for permission for the railway companies concerned to pay this increment to railway workers in Ireland. Under the provisions of the Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order, as amended by the Third Amendment Order of the 26th August, 1942, the payment of the increases mentioned is not permissible in this country. It is open to the parties to seek, by way of wages and bonus order applications under Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order, increases in the remuneration of the workers concerned. I have asked the parties to submit applications for this purpose.
Is it not correct to state that the Minister only asked the parties to submit applications after this question was put down——
They were only asked to do so within the last few days.
——although the application was made on the 17th October last?
The parties concerned were aware of the position.
Is the Minister fully aware that this is an increment which is usually given in normal times—a stagnation allowance—and that it has no relation to the emergency or the cost of living?
I could not accept that at all.
Is the Minister further aware that this is in operation in the Six Counties, where the cost of living is lower than here?
Whatever the circumstances may be in Great Britain, or even in the Six Counties, they cannot affect our policy here, which must be based on our particular circumstances. That is the principle upon which the Government has been proceeding. In so far as this application for increase in remuneration comes under Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order, I presume that the parties were aware that no invitation was necessary, and that they could have submitted their applications on their own behalf, without an invitation. I have explained the position to them, and suggested that that particular method should be availed of.
Is it not a fact that the Wages Standstill Orders, No. 83 and No. 166, as amended, relate or are intended to relate only to bonus applications arising out of the cost of living?
No. The Order prohibits increases in remuneration except in accordance with the provisions of the Order.
Is the Minister aware that this is an increment which is given to the lower-paid members of the staffs here in normal times?
If the increment is not prohibited by Order No. 166, I have nothing to do with it. I presume that the fact that the parties communicated with me on the matter is an indication that they believe that this is a type of increment that is prohibited by that Order, and that such increments can only be secured in accordance with the Order.
Is the Minister satisfied that an application of this kind cuts across the intentions of the Order?
That seems to be the case, in view of the provisions of the Order.
Is the Minister legally advised as to that?
Yes, but in the last resort the legal decision as to what is the exact significance of any piece of legislation is given by the courts, and not by the Minister or the Minister's legal advisers. So far as my legal advisers are concerned, what they give me is an opinion, and it seems to me that in this particular case there is very little doubt as to the correctness of their opinion.
Does this cut across the intentions of the Orders?
I am advised that it does.
Will the Minister say whether he does not think that in a case of this particular type it means inducing outside employers to differentiate adversely against their employees in this country as compared with their employees in Northern Ireland or Great Britain? Has he considered that aspect of the matter?
Certainly, but the Deputy must not lose sight of the fact that the control now being exercised over remuneration is in relation to the emergency, and that it will operate only for the duration of the emergency. Quite obviously, the circumstances operating here during the emergency are entirely different from those prevailing in Great Britain and Northern Ireland where, in fact, the railway companies increased the remuneration of many classes of their employees for the express purpose of preventing these employees leaving their employment to work in munition factories, and elsewhere, where high rates of wages were temporarily prevailing. In these areas there were special circumstances which resulted in the decisions that were made by the railway companies, but the circumstances here are entirely different.
Does the Minister not realise that the quantitative aspect of this problem is a small one here, but that it may be very inadvisable that a policy should be induced in the case of outside employers by which they might differentiate adversely as regards the payments they make to their employees in this country as compared with the payments they make to their employees outside the country?
That is a very general question.