Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 1 Sep 1961

Vol. 191 No. 16

Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961—Committee and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Subsection (1) of Section 1 provides:

This Act shall, subject to subsection (2), continue in operation until the expiration of six months from the passing thereof.

Subsection (2) of Section 1 provides that "The Government may by order declare that this Act shall expire on a specified date ..." I do not know what the Taoiseach has in mind, but this is the occasion for finding out. On the assumption that this tribunal is set up and, as a result of its functioning, it comes to a decision that the wages of the electricians should be so much per hour, and assuming that a settlement of the strike either follows that decision, or assuming a settlement is reached before ever the tribunal is set up, what does the Taoiseach intend to do with this Bill? Will he keep it alive so that the tribunal may inquire into the procedures for the regulation of the wages of the E.S.B. staffs or will he find some other way of doing that and allow this Act to lapse?

I do not think it will be necessary to keep the Act in existence. The tribunal will function until it reports. If the dispute is settled, then the Act is dead.

If to-night, or over the week-end, the dispute is settled, I take it the Government will instantaneously make an order saying the Act is dead?

I take it there is a general desire that this tribunal of inquiry into the procedures of the E.S.B. should be established so we will keep the Act alive until that is done.

I take it the Act does not have to continue in operation until the tribunal reports?

One cannot kill an Act by order.

Section 2 relates the Bill to the present trade dispute, and only to that.

The Bill is one we would all be glad to see dead, since that would mean it was no longer necessary. I want to ask a specific question. Has not the Minister for Transport and Power authority under his general powers to carry out any inquiry that may be necessary to determine whether the procedures of the E.S.B. as furnished by the Acts at present in operation are being adequately used? The whole burden of complaint generally is that they have not been so used. Why should we embark upon the setting up of new machinery when we are informed by everybody intimately concerned in these matters that one of the great evils of the present situation and one of the contributing factors to the present situation is the fact that existing machinery has not been used to the limits of its useful capacity?

I suggest it ought to be possible to speed up whatever inquiries may be necessary into the present working of the E.S.B. in this particular aspect and if, in the course of those inquiries, it emerges that there are lacunae in the existing provisions, that would be the appropriate time to introduce legislation to remedy any such defects. Why should we keep this Bill in existence for no other purpose than to conduct an inquiry which, I submit, is part of the proper function of the Minister for Transport and Power?

An inquiry by the Minister for Transport and Power would satisfy nobody. It is obviously necessary to link in with this inquiry representatives of trade unions and other interested parties. In that sense it must be comprehensive.

What happens the existing machinery?

It is still functioning. Until quite recently, I was not aware that there was any dissatisfaction at all with regard to its method of functioning. Had that dissatisfaction been expressed, some investigation would have been made before this. There is another question which arises, that is, the extent to which State bodies should participate in wage negotiations in which private employers are also involved. It is the practice of the Government—it is the more usual practice of State Boards—to allow these matters to be settled by negotiation between private employers and trade unions. Whatever rate is so arranged, is accepted automatically by Government Departments and State bodies which employ analogous labour. I understand that in this particular case the participation of the E.S.B. in the Joint Industrial Committee was at the desire of both the unions and the private contractors. Whether that is a good arrangement is a matter I think should now be examined. It is clearly one of the matters which will arise for examination in this investigation.

I understand one of the difficulties that arose was that heretofore the E.S.B. used inform representatives of employers and trade unions of any proposal to alter wages but in the case of the award made some months ago, they failed to inform the representatives of the employers.

I do not know about that, but I gather that it was because of a general desire that the E.S.B. joined in this Joint Industrial Committee. They might well have taken the line taken by the other State companies and said that they would not be involved in the negotiations but that the out come of any negotiations would be accepted by them. Having regard to the divided views in trade union and other circles, I think the position should be carefully considered now by a commission of some kind. I do not think an inquiry by the Minister for Transport and Power would satisfy anybody.

The difficulty is that the machinery was available but there was no obligation on the E.S.B. to utilise it to its fullest extent.

The Councils set up under an Act of this Dáil are independent of the E.S.B. They were set up with that power by a statute.

You could set up a commission every month to inquire into any aspect of our national activity.

The Government do not need a Bill of this kind to set up a commission to find out how the E.S.B. arranges its wage negotiations. That could be done if we never had a Bill of this kind.

It could be done by a motion under another Act.

It could be done without any motion at all.

But not with the powers we propose to give this tribunal.

What we want to find out is the way in which the E.S.B. negotiates in the matter of wages. The position is chaotic. Anyone who makes inquiry will find that that is so. That chaotic method of handling the matter has led to this crisis now but you could easily find out by a direct inquiry what the facts are. The facts will not change whether there is a judge in charge of the inquiry or whether the Minister makes the inquiry. Any person of intelligence could hold the inquiry. You do not therefore need this Bill to use against electricians. You do not need it for the purpose of this commission of inquiry. It will merely inquire into the procedural arrangements. Therefore this Bill ought not to be kept a minute longer than necessary and it certainly should not be kept for the artificial purpose of setting up a tribunal——

I have just said that. It will not be necessary, once the tribunal is set up. It will function under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act and it will not be necessary to keep the Act in operation.

The Minister for Transport and Power should be able to inquire whether wage claims have been dealt with and whether the machinery for negotiations is adequate.

The Minister for Transport and Power has no such function.

It is about time we gave him some function.

That is one question this tribunal will deal with. It is the Deputy who was mainly responsible for depriving him of any such function.

Surely all the testimony we have leads us to the belief that we are in our present dilemma as a result of a slow accumulation of a sense of grievance relating to the increase given to the clerical grades by the E.S.B. some months ago and alleged subsequent disparity in the differentials as compared with the differentials that existed in the past. This testimony is universal, the dissatisfaction of other grades of employees in the E.S.B. that when they put forward claims they were not expeditiously passed through the appropriate machinery provided under the Electricity Supply Act for the regulation of the relations between employer and employee in the Electricity Supply Board.

I am not accepting that as so. It is a matter we should find out, if it is so. I would not be so dogmatic about it.

The Taoiseach will agree that these complaints are commonly canvassed and that one of the complaints is that before this specific dispute had exhausted the machinery provided under the E.S.B. Act the E.S.B. took the initiative of passing it over——

The E.S.B. had nothing to do with that. It was the manual workers' tribunal that took that decision. The E.S.B. had no control over it.

Anyway, these allegations are all there.

It is the tribunal took the decision to go to the Labour Court. That is an independent body. It is not subject to the control of the E.S.B.

The E.S.B. is responsible for the generation of electricity.

It is not responsible for the Councils which were set up by law in this House.

It is responsible for the control of labour relations and of the machinery for labour relations. Either of two things happened: Either that Board came to know months or years ago that its available machinery for settling disputes was insufficient or else it was not using its powers. In my submission, if we have a Minister for Transport and Power, one of the things he ought to know is: is the E.S.B. satisfied with its own labour relations machinery? If it is not, what steps ought he to take to move the Government by legislation to improve the labour relations in the E.S.B.?

Alternatively, if he hears there is labour unrest in the E.S.B. I submit it is part of his function to inquire forthwith what is going on, why is there labour unrest in the E.S.B. Is it that the unions representing labour in the E.S.B. are putting up claims which are not being promptly and effectively dealt with by the machinery? I think the Government and the Oireachtas are entitled to assume that if we maintain a Minister for Transport and Power, if there is some irregularity of that kind going on, he will tell the Government there is action wanted here and not allow things simply to drift on until we get into this kind of situation in which we are passing ad hoc special legislation to deal with what the Taoiseach describes as a national crisis. I do not think I am unreasonable. I have tried to be moderate and restrained throughout this discussion but in my judgment Section 4 of this Bill constitutes a very grave reflection on the effectiveness of the Minister for Transport and Power.

He has no function of any kind in relation to labour matters at present. He is prevented by the Electricity Supply Act of 1927 from having any function of that kind but the question whether he should have any such function is a matter for consideration.

We are faced with the possibility of the cessation of available electric power through a breakdown in labour relations in the E.S.B. In the name of Providence, what function has the Minister for Power in this country other than to safeguard and insulate the community against such a possibility?

This section deals with duration.

Yes. We are making the point that you should not keep this Bill in being——

It is a very moot point. I do not know what would be the views of the Labour Party on the desirability of giving any Minister functions in regard to E.S.B. labour relations.

Surely he ought to know what is happening.

And if things are going wrong he ought to keep the Government advised. If there was a necessity to come to Dáil Éireann the Government ought to have come to Dáil Éireann six months ago seeking a remedy and not wait for the present situation to arise. I suggest the Taoiseach ought to examine his conscience, that he should ask the Minister for Transport and Power if he were doing his job in allowing the whole community to come up against a situation which necessitated his calling the Dáil by telegram to deal with the acute crisis which, in my submission, ought never to have been allowed to arise.

Now that Deputy Dillon has got that Party political point over, can we get on with the Bill?

That is a most uncivil reply. There has been very little Party political activity in this House today and the Taoiseach ought to be profoundly grateful for the fact. If there had been, he might find himself in a very much more awkward position than he is.

There was nearly being a merger here. That was the danger.

The things we do for Ireland !

The strike of electricians has produced this situation we are discussing today and is responsible for the special meeting of the Dáil called by telegram. That puts it in a special category. The last time we were recalled by telegram, it was to appoint Edward King of England when the Prince of Wales broke the Act of Succession.

The Deputy is wrong in his history, too.

Anyway, as regards the way in which the electricians have been treated here today in passing this emergency legislation, we must consider the possibility of this strike being settled against that framework. Of course, he can pass a dozen of these Bills but you cannot get a kilowatt of electricity produced if the electricians say: "We are not going to be treated in this fashion; we are going to get this thing negotiated peaceably over the table", which I think is the proper way. The Taoiseach is anxious to set up a commission to inquire into the procedural arrangements for determining wages, salaries, etc., and says that if this electricians' business finishes, the Bill goes by the board but how long will it be before we are here again with a Bill somewhat similar to this? I understand that the maintenance men in the E.S.B. have had a claim in for nearly 12 months and have not yet got a single offer.

We cannot discuss that.

I want to avoid coming back again for this kind of performance. The maintenance men have had a claim in for nearly 12 months and they cannot get a decision from the E.S.B. They have not got even an offer from the E.S.B. You might get the electricians' strike settled with no offer to the maintenance men. The maintenance men may then be out and electricians will not pass the picket.

The Deputy is aware that the E.S.B. have given an undertaking to deal expeditiously with all claims.

Why did they not expedite the hearings long ago?

Let us not try to make difficulties.

The Board are appointed by the Government. Why were they allowed to sleep on the job while the business was boiling up?

I am not here to defend the E.S.B.

The E.S.B. ought to be told where they are wrong. I do not think they need a commission to do that. I think they should be told to do the duty assigned to them.

The Taoiseach said he is not here to defend the E.S.B. He is here to defend his Government. I want to put it to him that a Minister for Transport and Power has a clear duty to inform the Government if it appears that the E.S.B. are not using their powers in the best interests of the community. If it is true that it was because of a delay on the part of the E.S.B. in putting much of this material through their ordinary negotiating machinery that it boiled up into the present crisis, surely we are entitled to look to the Minister for Transport and Power for some explanation of his failure to inform the Government and prevent the situation arising.

Let us find out if it is true first.

In the meantime, restrict the operation of Section 3 to one month.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1), page 2, line 30, at the beginning of the subsection, to insert:

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

I want to suggest three amendments arising out of the speeches made here to-day for the purpose of removing some anxieties and some misunderstandings that have arisen. Two of the amendments arise because of speeches made by Deputies of the Labour Party and one is to meet a technical point with which Fine Gael are concerned. The intention of this amendment is to make it clear that action under Section 3 will not be taken unless it is clear that no settlement by negotiation is likely to emerge and the power crisis that we fear is, in fact, imminent. One can understand that there are uncertainties about this situation which make it possible to be precise as to what may happen. I understand that discussions are going on to-day but whether they will lead to results or not, I do not know. Certainly, it would be my anxiety and the anxiety of the Government to leave everything that holds out a prospect of a settlement by agreement to operate and to proceed otherwise only in the event of its being clear that it was not possible to negotiate and we were up against the crisis.

If this power crisis was on, you could have 50,000 or 100,000 workers out of jobs. We could have hospitals without supplies of electricity. There could be no bread; there could be no lights in the streets and there would be an entirely different atmosphere here. We decided to move in advance of the crisis rather than wait for it to develop. If this Bill does not succeed in getting an end to that situation and we have to meet again in such a critical emergency situation, Deputies will appreciate that our duty as public representatives is to ensure that something is done. I have been deluged with telegrams and letters asking that something should be done. The difficulty of doing anything effective in these matters which will meet with everybody's approval is not appreciated. I want to make it clear that action under the section will not start unless two situations exist: first, it is clear that negotiations have ceased and that there is no hope of settlement by negotiation and, secondly, that the power crisis which would produce the hardships anticipated is actually upon us.

Will we discuss these amendments separately?

The second amendment is to subsection (3), page 2, lines 35 to 37. It is to delete all words after "final". Deputies appear to think that under the subsection penalties could be imposed on workers. There is no such intention. The other amendment relates to subsection (6). I gather that there is some thought in the mind of some of the Fine Gael Deputies that a situation could arise where the two or four members of the tribunal, other than the chairman, might be all agreed upon what the rate should be but that the chairman would not agree. That is extremely unlikely. If they are in such agreement, their decision will be the decision. These amendments are all amendments that occurred to me arising out of the discussion to-day and they are all likely to be acceptable to the House.

The first amendment says:

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

The Taoiseach tried to give the impression that the Government have not yet considered that there is imminent danger. This question is still open.

We are literally proceeding on a day to day basis. Each morning, I have received a report from the E.S.B. as to what the prospects were for that particular day. It never went over to the next day except perhaps today. They made it clear that they would not anticipate any sudden failure of power on a large scale over the weekend. This situation will come very suddenly.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to certain industries in which a sudden cessation of power could do enormous damage to their plant, if it were running at the time. He mentioned the problems of a number of mining undertakings which could be put out of business permanently if they became flooded and had to face the cost of de-flooding afterwards. There are, of course, other anxieties of that kind which all Deputies must share. When this situation started, we set up a committee to consider what would be the consequences of a total power failure and what we could do about it. I must say I was quite frightened by the consequences as envisaged by that committee and the comparative powerlessness of the Government in such circumstances to do anything useful.

The time is very short and the Taoiseach has already spoken twice.

For that reason, I want to say to the Deputy that this danger can come at very short notice. I am not even undertaking, on behalf of the Government, that it will be possible to give a day's notice. It may come within a shorter period.

The amendment says that "if the Government consider", so and so will be done, but if you look at the top of the Bill it says that this danger is here already.

"Whereas, in consequence of a trade dispute involving certain electricians, there is serious danger of a cessation of electric power"—so that, in fact, the Government have decided that the serious danger is here.

The Deputy will appreciate from his contact with the Trade Union Congress that if their advice had been taken and the dispute confined to the workers who made a claim, these dangers would have been substantially reduced, and that could happen.

I do not want to go into the ins and outs of it. I am trying to get this properly. The Taoiseach is painting a most catastrophic picture of a sort of end-of-the-world scene so far as this country is concerned, if there is a complete failure of electric power. Are they entitled to risk all that for the sake of 1d. per hour for 2,500 people in a year in which the E.S.B. is £1,000,000 better off than it was? This amendment is all eyewash. It simply means nothing. The Government have made up their minds that there is a serious danger of a cessation of electric power. If anybody is satisfied with that, he is too simple to be in public life.

It is to remove misunderstandings of our intention.

As Deputy Norton said, the Taoiseach has painted a picture of what might happen if there is a cessation of electricity supplies. He said that if that happens, they propose to implement this Bill.

A cessation of electricity supplies and a complete failure of negotiations.

Yes. Provided that happens, the Taoiseach has the cure.

I am not offering a cure.

The Taoiseach is offering some sort of cure and it is contained mainly in Section 3.

Some prospects of getting finality.

If there is a complete breakdown in supplies, the Taoiseach says they will implement this——

I said earlier that if that happens, almost certainly the Dáil would have to meet again.

What does the Taoiseach hope to achieve by this section?

Some alternative method, if negotiations fail, of bringing the matter to finality.

I do not think he should risk the antagonism of people by this provocative section.

I do not think it is a provocative section. It is being represented as such, but if they read it again, they could see that is very much in their interests.

I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of the proposal, but does the Taoiseach think that by appointing a tribunal with a chairman and two or five members and saying that the determination of the tribunal shall be final and by saying that it shall not be lawful to pay any more or less, that he will relieve the situation?

I think that, in these circumstances, an impartial judgment of what is a fair rate would be very helpful.

I think that could be done without legislation.

If it is so, we could apply this all round.

No; normally, the process of negotiation is preferable. May I intervene to say that this is the Government's suggestion for handling this situation and nobody has put forward an alternative suggestion?

We have. I believe that the Taoiseach as head of the Government could resolve it.

Nobody has put forward an alternative as to how to relieve this situation, if negotiation does not settle it.

Negotiation has not been tried fully.

We are discussing Section 3 and the three amendments submitted by the Taoiseach, as far as I know. I want to raise a point, which I raised in the Second Stage and which relates to subsection (4). Is it the intention when an individual electrical contractor is at present paying a man £12 5s. 0d. a week and the situation arises that the tribunal——

The Bill applies only to workers involved in the present dispute. It is confined to them.

Only to the electricians.

Only to electricians.

Supposing there is a worker, who has gone out on strike——

This relates only to electricians involved in the present trade dispute.

Supposing there is a worker who has gone out on strike and who has been receiving from his employer, as a result of his ability or diligence, say, £12 5s. a week and the award for this grade is £12, are we proposing to put his employer under a statutory obligation to reduce that to £12? I do not think anybody wants to do that.

Nobody wants to do that, nor does this Bill want to do it.

I am drawing the Taoiseach's attention to it. I think this Bill makes it illegal to continue that wage.

Obviously, electricians on strike at present are getting less.

That is not necessarily so. In fact, there are some who are actually getting more. I do not think it is the desire of anybody to put a statutory obligation on an employer to reduce that man's wages and whatever is necessary to avoid that consequence should be done.

There is no ambiguity at all. It is clearly related to electricians involved in the present dispute.

Irrespective of electricians involved or working for the E.S.B., if an employer did pay an increase or an amount greater than that brought in by the tribunal, would he be contravening this Bill?

Yesterday when I met the Committee of the Trade Union Congress, I asked their advice as to whether it would be preferable to confine that section to the electricians employed in the E.S.B. or to electricians involved in the dispute no matter where employed and it was their advice that the section be left in its present form.

That might be regarded as another standstill Order.

It was to avoid the possibility of divergencies appearing between two categories of electricians. I assume that was their reason. I am quite prepared to put it either way but my advice from the Congress was to leave it as it is.

It is a fact that the employers and electricians will be bound after tonight——

No, not after tonight; nobody will be bound after tonight. There will be nobody bound after tonight——

Then why bring in this at all?

——and not unless the section is brought into operation, which I hope it will not be.

Take the first amendment. Do the Government consider this danger of cessation? We are putting that into a Bill which starts: "Whereas, in consequence of a trade dispute involving certain electricians, there is serious danger of a cessation of electric power ..." Having said all that for the foundation of the Bill, we then see it will not be brought into operation, unless the Government consider there is imminent danger. What is the meaning of that?

I shall withdraw the amendment, if you like.

It is a waste of good paper.

I produced the amendment to meet what I thought were the unfounded anxieties of the Labour Party Deputies. If they do not want it, I shall withdraw it.

Then we get on to the section.

If it is not imminent.

Is it the difference that it is only as soon as the danger of——

The danger is there, but we do not know the imminence yet.

The imminence has to some degree been there for a fortnight and maybe for six months. It has not galvanised the Minister for Transport and Power into any activity up to this stage. The Government will appoint a tribunal to be composed of three people. They will appoint them—no consultation with anybody.

There will be, of course.

They are not bound. The Government can appoint on their own.

That is right.

Then the tribunal meets. The decision is to be final. Then we go to the penalties section. Later, we are told it will not be lawful for any employer to pay any wage higher than the rate determined.

Is that offered as a solace—that they cannot pay lower? Is the whole effort not to get a strike settled where the men are claiming one penny, I understand, more than what has been recommended? All this sob stuff about people in iron lungs in hospitals, and so on, did not apparently weigh in the balance with the Minister for Transport and Power to get him to see whether the machinery for wages negotiation in the E.S.B. was working and did not get the Government to do anything until the last moment and then to see, by ballot—and they offered to ballot on condition that the men went back to work.

The Deputy is being mischievous. He is trying to muddy the waters and to perpetuate the dispute. It is a scandalous performance.

Mr. Ryan

It is a scandalous performance from the Government side of the House.

We cross-examined the Minister for Industry and Commerce today and it emerged that notwithstanding the Taoiseach's intervention and suggestions to him, he had to agree that all that was secured at the last meeting of the group was an agreement to recommend: it was conditional.

Acceptance, yes, and——

They accepted they would agree to recommend.

And direct the men to go back.

And the men would not have it. The acceptance was conditional before the ballot was taken. The men would not have that.

I did not impose that as a condition on them at that stage.

They had obviously no power to settle: they had power to recommend. The Minister says it was an agreement to recommend —conditional—and it was not accepted. Does that mean we are at the end of things? Why should the men not be allowed to ballot on whether they would take the money?

I did not impose the obligation.

Nobody is saying the Minister did.

Who stopped them? The union changed their decision.

Have they been given a chance to ballot on the latest offer made to them? They have not. At least I have now got some satisfaction in respect of it. An individual was to be set up as chairman of a court of three and was to be given the deciding voice. We now have a situation in which if the two representative members agree then the chairman does not come into it at all. That is better than a situation in which some one person would be entitled to say what the award would be. I shall come to the offences section later.

Better wait until we get to it.

Shall we get to it before half past six?

This Bill gives very widespread powers to the Government. Some of us support the Government in the hope at least that they will bring this unfortunate dispute to an end if the normal channels of negotiation fail. I do not believe they will, as yet.

If the Government get these powers, all of us want to see that they shall apply justly to all parties concerned. I want to refer to Section 3 (1) which gives the Government power to set up a tribunal of three members with one chairman. In the event of disagreement, the chairman will decide what rate shall be paid to the electricians. I should like it to be perfectly clear that the rate suggested by the chairman to the Governmnt shall not be less than the rate already recommended during the course of the negotiations and shall at least be comparable to the wage rates in negotiations on salaries and wages in other comparable instances. I think we should at least have that rather than give the chairman complete power to offer anything he likes.

The present situaation has made it essential to seek emergency powers. The country cannot afford to allow an emergency of this kind to develop or proceed. I have in mind in particular the dairying industry which at the moment is largely dependent on electricity. If the cows were not milked it would be one of the most cruel things that could happen in this country and it would bring down the anger of God upon us.

This does not arise.

What does Section 3 (3) mean—"The determination of the tribunal shall be final ..."

It will make one award and dissolve.

If it is not accepted, what will happen?

It must be accepted.

Mr. Ryan

The workers will be put in jail.

The Deputy may make as much mischief as he likes but it is not true.

The Deputy should not have voted for the measure.

Mr. Ryan

The Deputy did not vote for it.

If the Taoiseach suggests, as his amendment, that the words following the word "final" be deleted, does that not presume that Section 6 will fall by the board under which offences against the tribunal's recommendations are to be imposed?

No. Section 6 deals with offences. These offences must relate to the powers given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to control supplies in the event of a power failure. It would mean, for example, the immediate stoppage of flour production and baking in Dublin. The Minister would have to step in to control the supplies of available flour to secure equitable distribution. If there was blackmarketing in flour we must give the Minister power to control and provide penalties.

Is there, therefore, no relationship between the penalties section——

There is, of course.

Wait now. Is there no relationship between the penalties section and the section dealing with the award that would be determined by the tribunal—no relationship at all?

Not at all. It is a general section relating also to the need to control supplies in an emergency.

Will the Taoiseach say what relationship there is between the penalties section, Section 6, and Section 3?

We have one penalties section in the Bill. It applies to any offence under the Bill.

In connection with Section 3, is the Taoiseach prepared to provide, in another subsection or section, that the penalties in Section 6 do not apply to offences under Section 3?

It does, of course, apply to it. It applies to subsection (4) of Section 3.

In what circumstances does the Taoiseach visualise a man being fined £100?

The obligation in subsection (4) is on the employer solely, on the employer and nobody else.

May I raise another question on Section 3 before the time passes? The Taoiseach, I take it, believed that Section 3 as in the Bill:

The determination of the tribunal shall be final and its terms shall be accepted and observed by every person affected thereby,

meant something.

I am prepared to cut these words out. I am prepared to move to cut these words out.

The Taoiseach believed the combination of these words meant something, Now he has agreed to knock out more than half and is going to let it stand:

The determination of the tribunal shall be final.

I want to know what he is giving away by the deletion of the other words.

I am removing a misunderstanding.

There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding as far as workers are concerned.

The main purpose of the amendment is to remove a misunderstanding which got into the Bill. Now we are left with a subsection which says:

The determination of the tribunal shall be final.

What is going to happen? The tribunal will sit. An award will be made. The chairman will say: "There it is now, lads. That is your pay for the future." The men on strike will say: "We went on strike against that rate of wages and we are going to stay on strike." This will not get them back to work.

Why does not the Deputy assume for one moment at least that it could be the other way round, that it is the employers who will object to paying the wage?

The difference is that I do not believe these methods will solve anything. I believe if you get the unions and the employers over in the Cabinet room in Merrion Street, you will settle these things.

People far more competent than I in that field are trying it out at the moment.

The Taoiseach knows the whole chequered history of this country. A Bill of this kind will not make people work or break a strike, if they do not want to do it. They are more likely to be reasonable around the table than by these methods.

May I again say that I will give them every possible opportunity to be reasonable up to the last minute? I do say that if at the last minute there is a power failure, there is an obligation on the Dáil and the Government to do something to protect the public.

This Bill will not do it. It is all right if you do it, but this Bill will not do it. This Bill will not get them back. How are you going to get them back? By conciliation and by talk.

I hope so.

That is the method, then. This Bill will not get them back and it is a mistake for the Taoiseach to imagine that this is a substitute for reason, especially in a country with our chequered career in that field.

Goodness knows, we followed the road of negotiation and conciliation up to what appeared to be complete impasse.

Could I ask the Taoiseach a question concerning subsection (3) of Section 3? "The decision shall be final." If the decision is an award and it is not accepted, that, presumably, repudiates that decision. Under Section 6, subsection (1),

Every person who contravenes (whether by act or omission) or attempts to contravene any provision of this Act or any order made thereunder shall be guilty of an offence.

Then the section sets down penalties for that offence. Is that so? Will the penalties relate to refusal to accept the decision?

The words relating to the acceptance of the terms are being deleted by an amendment which I have just read.

Suppose somebody says: "They shall not be final because we will make our decision which will be final"?

The intention is that the decision of the tribunal will be final. If there is any objection to subsection (3), I will take it out altogether. It is of no importance.

What is of no importance?

Subsection (3).

The point raised by Deputy Dr. Browne is a point that worried me. In connection with the Taoiseach's remarks on subsection (3) of Section 3, I quite understand the Taoiseach is endeavouring to clear up suspicions or misunderstanding by the deletion of some words of subsection (3) and to leave it "The decision of the tribunal shall be final." The point raised by Deputy Dr. Browne is one I was going to put to the Taoiseach. If a person affected by that decision adopts the attitude: "That may be the decision of the tribunal but I am not going to accept it and I am going to agitate in ways which heretofore were lawful to try to get an increase", does that person not come under the penalties section?

I do not think so. I will remove the possibility by changing my amendment to delete subsection (3) entirely.

That has nothing to do with it.

That is meeting the point Deputy O'Higgins made.

Mr. Ryan

Scrap the whole Bill and it will be.

I am prepared to move to delete subsection (3).

Does this section suspend the operation of the Trades Disputes Act?

No; that would require special legislation.

The saga of the ten little nigger boys will have nothing on this Bill.

I am the most reasonable man alive.

Mr. Ryan

Will the Taoiseach now consider deleting subsection (4)? Under subsection (4), it is not lawful to pay any more than the amount fixed by the tribunal. What happens then if the workers organise to try to persuade an employer to pay more? They will be committing an offence under this Bill and will be subject to the fines and the penalties and imprisonment. The Taoiseach is trying to pretend that they are not subject.

They are not subject.

Mr. Ryan

The Taoiseach's opinion will not be quoted in court.

You can quote this one as authoritative.

This is an improvement on some of the opinions we have been getting from that source lately.

The tribunal fixes an award. Employee X accepts it. Employees A, B, C and D decide to come together to get X to break his contract with the employer. Is that an offence?

If a group of employers get together and say: "We will not pay that rate of wages", that is an offence. That is the only offence set out in the section.

I am talking about a group of employees who get together to picket places, to go on strike, and use every means to get a man who is in to come out. Is that unlawful?

Not under this Bill.

It used to be under the Trades Disputes Act.

May I remind the Deputy that under an Act he passed in 1927 no electricity strike is legal? The Deputy made any strike in connection with electricity supply illegal.

Where did you get that advice?

Section 107 of the Electricity Supply Act.

You have not even got the section right. It is Section 110 of the 1927 Act. It is there. It put the electricity supply on the same footing as gas and water supply. That is there. What do you want this for?

So far as I am concerned, that old provision is a dead letter.

And this will be the same.

Mr. Ryan

Has the Minister for Transport and Power any opinion on this matter?

Amendment No. 1 agreed to?

No; wait now.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister for Transport and Power wants to intervene.

The first amendment is to insert these words——

I thought you were withdrawing that?

While I may explain the situation to the Deputy, others may misunderstand.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete subsection (3).

Is amendment No. 2 agreed to—as altered, to delete subsection (3) altogether?

Are you not putting the subsection, as amended—the whole subsection?

Amendment agreed to.

Is amendment No. 3 agreed to?

To delete subsection (3)?

No; that is amendment No. 2, as altered.

Now, I take it, you are going to put Section 3?

I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (6), page 3, line 7, to add after "tribunal" the following:

"unless the members other than the Chairman are unanimous, in which case their determination shall be the determination of the tribunal."

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Is it the intention to have a judge as chairman?

As far as I am concerned, anybody who will be generally acceptable and who could be seen to be impartial will be all right. While I understand that theoretically it may be undesirable to use a judge, in practice, in our society, the only people who are not liable to be involved in any personal way in any business interest that might be concerned with a trade dispute are judges and that is why we have, in fact, been compelled to use judges in these cases.

Under the new amendments, will it be mandatory on the worker in a dispute to accept the recommendations of the tribunal?

There is no obligation placed by this section on anybody except on the employers.

Does Section 3 now consist of six subsections?

Sir, would you mind putting Section 3 now?

This is dealing with employers only, not workers?

I am putting the question: "That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 93; Níl, 14.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Belton, Jack.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, James.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Coburn, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Donegan, Batt.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Toole, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Russell, George E.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hogan, Bridget.
  • Johnston, Henry M.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lindsay, Patrick.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Manley, Timothy.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moloney, Daniel J.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Byrne, Tom.
  • Carroll, James.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Everett, James.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Norton, William.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl, Deputies Casey and Larkin.
Question declared carried.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

Sir, will you be good enough to put Section 6?

Question put: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 14.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Coburn, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Donegan, Batt.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hogan, Bridget.
  • Johnston, Henry M.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lindsay, Patrick.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Manley, Timothy.
  • Medlar, Martin
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moloney, Daniel J.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Toole, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Byrne, Tom.
  • Carroll, James.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Everett, James.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Norton, William.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Casey and Larkin.
Question declared carried.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 89; Níl, 13.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, James.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Donegan, Batt.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony G.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hogan, Bridget.
  • Johnston, Henry M.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lindsay, Patrick.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Manley, Timothy.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moloney, Daniel J.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Toole, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Russell, George E.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Wycherley, Florence

Níl

  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Byrne, Tom.
  • Carroll, James.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Everett, James.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Norton, William.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl; Deputies Casey and Larkin.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 7.10 p.m. until Wednesday, 8th November, 1961, as previously ordered.
Barr
Roinn