Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1966

Vol. 223 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill, 1966: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

To add a further subsection as follows:

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

As Deputy Cosgrave made perfectly clear yesterday, we in Fine Gael felt that, in the crisis which the dithering of this Government allowed to develop, it was necessary that there should be powers to protect the community as a whole. He made it clear that we in Fine Gael had in mind the people whose lives and whose livelihoods would depend on a continuance of electric power: those who were in iron lungs in hospitals, babies in incubators in hospitals, people about to undergo urgent operations. On the other hand, we had in mind the farmers who are committed to milking machines and who would not be able to milk their cows in the absence of electricity, and who, as I am sure many Deputies are aware, found themselves in grave difficulty when power was cut off some three weeks ago. We also had in mind the necessity to keep perishable goods in cold storage so that they would not rot and that food would not be lost. We also wanted to ensure that the 180,000 people engaged in industry depending on electric power would not have their livelihoods taken away from them.

For all those reasons we felt, even though this crisis had developed because of the dithering of Fianna Fáil, it was necessary that even at this late hour, there should be power to cope with it and to ensure that damage would not be done. Yesterday Deputy Cosgrave made it clear—and we want again to reiterate it today—that this is not the time, at a moment of crisis, at which permanent legislation should be enacted to deal with what is undoubtedly a delicate problem. We believe this matter should be considered in the calmer atmosphere that will, we hope and trust, prevail when this crisis has passed. We believe it should have been considered by the Government in the calmer atmosphere that arose after the 1961 crisis, and in the five years which the Government had to deal with it since. So far as anyone can see they did nothing whatever to deal with it in that period.

Accordingly, we suggest that the proper way to deal with the situation is to give this power to the Government —and it is only to the Government that it can be given—for the moment, but to ensure by limitation on that power in point of time that the Government will come back to the Dáil and put before it and the country a proper comprehensive scheme to deal with these problems, as they should have done in the past five years.

A time of crisis is never the time to deal with a matter such as this. A time of crisis begets necessarily in our view, certain guillotine arrangements for the purpose of discussing and putting through a Bill to deal with these difficulties, but certainly under the threat of a guillotine motion, and in the circumstances in which we have had two days for discussions on this Bill, is not the time to enact permanent legislation to cover such an intricate and delicate aspect of labour relations.

The two days, yesterday and today, during which the discussions took place were perhaps the maximum period that could be allowed in the difficulties of the moment, difficulties which, as I have said already, are of the Government's own making. It is nonsense to believe that something thrown up suddenly to the Dáil as its first business, with a guillotine motion hanging over it, will be discussed, considered and examined home in the manner in which permanent legislation should be examined home.

The amendment gives the Government six months grace. Personally I doubt if they deserve that grace after their fumbling futility over the past five years, in the words of Deputy Cosgrave. Someone must be given power to bring to the House a proper comprehensive scheme to cover our labour relations, and to give the Taoiseach, for example, an opportunity as he indicated to the House yesterday of going back in black and white on what he said previously against a Ministry of Labour which, incidentally, was one of the things we put forward in our policy a year ago.

We had it four years ago.

(Interruptions.)

The difference about that is that the Congress of Trade Unions——

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

——are a body whose views all of us in every Party examine. I do not suggest for a moment that we did not examine the views of Congress before we provided our policy for a just society. We examined the views of everyone. We do not shut out any side. We believe in examining both sides of everything.

You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

We believe in facing up to our responsibilities, in acting up to our responsibilities, in showing by our actions that we are not afraid of facing those responsibilities, and in taking in this House and in the country what we consider to be the right course. In our view, the right course is to surmount the present crisis by some means. The only means by which it can be surmounted is the Bill which the Minister has brought in. Equally, we believe that the right permanent course is to consider this matter in a calmer atmosphere with full discussion in this House. It is the task of the Minister after a full discussion with both sides, with the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to come to this House with a calm, proper, permanent scheme. It is to enable him to have one more chance of doing that—and he should have done it before—that this amendment is proposed.

During our contributions on Second Reading, we endeavoured to point out that so far as the Labour Party are concerned, and so far as the Labour Party represent the trade union movement, we regard this as a reactionary measure and something which we cannot tolerate in any circumstances. The title of the Bill is: "An Act... to prohibit certain strikes against that Board ... to prohibit picketing in connection with those strikes..."

We are dealing with section 1. The whole essence of the Bill that we object to, and the most sinister part of the Bill, are contained in this section. Subsection (2) provides:

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

Not only in the case of a trade dispute is this power given but the House is now endeavouring to give power to the Government whereby if in their prognostications they feel that in six weeks or in six months there may be a trade dispute, they can act under this section. They can carry it on down and impose penalties which are set out here.

Lest anyone might get the impression that this piece of legislation is being brought before the House to deal with this particular dispute, that is not so. If this House is misguided enough to pass this Bill into legislation, it will be written into the legislation of this House for all time, for all ESB employees, fitter mechanics, electricians, lorry drivers, clerical workers, office boys, draftsmen or executives, that the Government will have power to compel them——

On a point of order, are we discussing the amendment, or the Bill, or section 1?

Amendment No. 1 is before the House.

I am discussing section 1 in conjunction with the amendment.

So far as the amendment affects section 1.

Surely the amendment affects the whole Bill?

The amendment tabled by Deputy Sweetman reads:

To add a further subsection as follows:

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

That is a time limit on the provisions of section 1.

It refers to the whole Bill.

May I speak on the amendment?

Or do we have to walk out.

I should like the guidance of the Chair.

The amendment has been moved by Deputy Sweetman and is before the House.

Time is running out.

Deputy Booth made an observation.

They are playing for time.

Deputy Booth is entitled to make the observation he made.

Perhaps I am particularly stupid. I do not think I am but the amendment has been moved by Deputy Sweetman. It is an amendment to section 1 and I am entitled to refer to section 1 when dealing with this amendment. I propose to do so.

I did not make any observation to the Deputy.

Deputy Booth did.

Deputy Booth asked a question and I answered him.

Was I in order?

I was endeavouring to make a case that this piece of legislation is not designed specifically to meet the immediate problem. The number of people who are out at the moment and who are in certain difficulties, every member of the ESB, will be subject to this legislation. The Government can decide, even in anticipation of a dispute, to freeze the wages of the clerks, the executives, the lorry drivers, the electricians, the draftsmen and the fitters and if those people are brave enough or strong enough to stand up to that type of treatment, they will be dashed into court. We have seen the fines that will be placed on them. As I said on Second Reading, I do not care who is advocating this Bill in this House or who will implement legislation like that.

Hear, hear.

The trade unions of this country in their responsible manner will not stand for this. You can take them into court and you can fine them. You can impose those penal fines, which they will not pay, on them. Therefore, as I said, the Government had better start building gaols if they think they can implement the provisions of this Bill.

They can be implemented.

That kind of thing did not do you any good.

Will the Deputy please address me?

It is not Paisley you have here.

Will the Deputy please address his observations to the Chair?

Deputy Sweetman's amendment proposes that this Act shall continue in force until 31st December, 1966, and shall then expire. We in the Labour Party regard that as a completely milk and water amendment. It is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. If the Fine Gael Party agree with the principles involved in this Bill, they should be brave enough to say: "We support our conservative colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party. We believe that the Labour Party and those who advocate the cause of the trade union movement in this country are wrong."

I am very disappointed that the best effort the main Opposition Party could bring in here was this amendment. They agree that this Act shall continue in force until Christmas, until Santa Claus comes along, and perhaps something may happen in the meantime and they will be able to change suit again and change this with the support of the Labour Party. We know we are taking a calculated risk and that the support we are giving our case in relation to this whole business will not give us the greatest support in this country. We know that and we have discussed it amongst ourselves but we were brave enough, unlike the Fine Gael Party, who put in this milk and water amendment, to say that what we believe in we will stand up for. We will fight it. We will take it to the people. We will bring it before our own supporters. We will put it before our own trade unionists and whenever the opportunity comes, when it may be tested by public opinion, we are willing to stand or fall on the principle of what we are doing here today.

Mr. Barrett

Having regard to the fact that no Deputy in this House yesterday, outside the Government Front Bench, the Leader of the main Opposition Party, Deputy Cosgrave, and the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Corish, had seen this Bill, and having regard to the fact that within a few hours it will become law because of circumstances entirely outside the control of this House, and almost due entirely to the manner in which this Government have dealt with the problem of the ESB over the years, I commend Deputy Sweetman's amendment to the House. The proposals contained in this Bill are revolutionary in many ways. They remove many safeguards of the workers and various other things to which this House agrees reluctantly.

There is nobody, even those behind the Government's Front Benches who do not agree that the Bill has its shortcomings and that it has the element of panic running through some of its sections. If there has to be legislation, if legislation of some nature, is absolutely necessary, according to the Government, to deal with industrial relations, this is not by any means the ultimate and it should not become a permanent feature of our legislation. This House, for that reason, should indicate plainly to history that this Bill became an Act reluctantly, by the reluctant will of this House, by incorporating the amendment suggested by Deputy Sweetman.

We on this side of the House and many of those who sit behind the Government Front Benches would agree that a great deal of the objections to this legislation arise entirely from the Minister's failure to deal with the problem over the years. The Minister boasted yesterday about what he said six months ago down in Ennis. If the Minister realised the difficulties at that time, what did he do about them? He did nothing at all. He sat down and hoped something would turn up. In common with every member of the Government Front Bench, he was afraid he would be unpopular in relation to something which has now transpired. Now the Government at the last minute are coming in with this type of legislation. We in this Party have said that we reluctantly agree with it and Deputy Sweetman's amendment makes it quite clear that we do not wish this to be permanent legislation. It is in strict accordance with the best democratic principles of this House that we should propose an amendment of this nature and say: "Look, the Government as people who should know, and as the people eventually will find out, with the experience of the past year or so, at the invitation of the Fine Gael Front Bench, should realise that there is a situation which requires the legislation".

Deputy Sweetman's amendment makes it plain that the legislation we require at the moment is only a temporary measure for six months to deal with anything that may transpire in the meantime. Surely, during that period, the Government could make up their minds to produce proper industrial relations legislation for which this House and the country hope. I commend the amendment of Deputy Sweetman to the House.

It is important for us to get down to reality and have regard to the fact that the trade union movement and this important group of workers have been put in the dock for something that can be described as the negligence of the Minister for Transport and Power. I do not think it can be over-emphasised that the claim which has brought about this Bill is not a new one. My understanding is that it is almost two years old. That being so, surely the Minister for Transport and Power, who to all intents and purposes is responsible for the operation of CIE, the ESB, Aer Lingus and so forth, and who precludes us from asking questions about these bodies, should have concerned himself about this pressing matter and not put a group of workers in the dock? If the Government did not call on him to do so, he should have resigned because he has been found to have been negligent in his duty as a Minister of State.

These are the facts of the situation. Nobody wants to have a strike. A strike is created not by one side but because of a difference of opinion between two sides. Listening to all the drivel that has gone on today and yesterday, it is obvious that the people who have engaged in it have not the faintest idea of what is going on in the matter of negotiating or trying to negotiate with the ESB. The Minister for Transport and Power should be called on to make a case indicating whether everything is right within the confines of the ESB as a negotiating unit.

What about the amendment?

Martin Murphy, go back. I am making the point that everything is not right and I am concerned with this point because of the amendment. The amendment only seeks to buy time until the end of the year, to wait for Santa Claus, as Deputy Casey said. Bring in all your oppressive measures and the trade union movement will reject them.

Hear, hear.

Do what you like and the trade union movement will reject it, but in the final analysis, we must take stock of the situation. The fact is that the Minister for Transport and Power, who should be supporting this Bill and who just sits beside the Minister for Industry and Commerce—he might not do even that if he had not been told to do so——

The Deputy's remarks should be directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has charge of the Bill.

As a matter of fact, I am directing my remarks to you, Sir. I am conscious of the fact that you are the Chair and I am submitting that this is a very serious situation— a very, very serious situation. If one draws a salary from any quarter in the State, whether it be as a porter or a messenger, one must account for oneself. As you know, whenever we try to ask questions in relation to the running of the ESB, we are precluded.

This does not arise on the amendment.

It has very much to do with the amendment and with the section. We are only buying time.

That does not make the statement relevant.

I am making a point in connection with the section and the amendment. We cannot afford to put this on the long finger. We have got to get down to the heart of this thing. We must realise that in the case of the ESB, the people who are charged with responsibility for negotiating with the various unions must not first of all be conditioned. As has happened now, this was sent to the Labour Court who sent it back with the advice: "Try again." I realise the seriousness of a situation that results in a power cut-off. We have a body in the Labour Court whom we entrusted with the responsibility to do all they could. What did they do? They turned it back and advised that it be looked at again. What in heaven's name are men expected to do when they get that kind of answer?

We are dealing with human beings. I am still talking about this long-distance idea of waiting until December. We cannot put this off and the Government must face up to their responsibilities and produce ways and means for the worker to make his representations and not to have the people to whom representations are made conditioned by statements by the Taoiseach or anybody else. That is the unfortunate situation we face at the moment. Instead of holding an inquest on this group of 100 workers and the people who support them, we have got to charge the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if he wants to take it, and the Minister for Transport and Power who should take it, with full responsibility for this chaos.

Instead of having a Bill like this, it would be much more proper if we had an inquiry as to what happened on the first day the power was cut off unnecessarily. We should not have the Minister for Transport and Power making a phone call to the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions asking him to do something about it. We have Ministers and their Fine Gael cohorts playing with the thing. The Minister for Transport and Power went away and was away——

I did not. I got back in time to be able to intervene in the strike as far as I was able. Let the Deputy not tell a lie like that. It is a lie.

Was the Minister back at a quarter past eight?

I got back before the decision was made to pass pickets or not.

What time was that?

Look it up.

His colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, had a strike on his hands and he did not go away. He had the good sense to stay.

The negotiations took place——

What did he do? On the Sunday evening he rang up the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

I assumed——

He stupidly assumed that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were all playing cards in the one house. That is an indication of the man's responsibility.

And ability.

Fortunately, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have regard to the loyalty of their constituent unions and they succeeded in stopping the pickets from going on. The pickets did not go on. What did the Minister for Transport and Power do in the interim? What has he done since? Nothing.

This is an amendment to limit the operation.

We are talking about time. This lovely amendment gives me the opportunity of saying——

This amendment is merely related to the operation.

May I point out to you, Sir;

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

Let the Deputy confine himself to the terms of that amendment.

I am making the point to you and, through you, to this House, that in so far as time is concerned in this amendment, we have lost a lot of time and goodwill. From my experience, I can say it is not the first time and I hope it will be the last time the Minister for Transport and Power will be afforded the opportunity of doing something in relation to a serious dispute in this country. I am mindful of the fact that he ran away from it when there was a bus strike; he has run away all the time but I hold that we cannot wait for time any more and, instead of putting the people who are involved in the claim in the dock, it is about time everybody had a look at himself. Let the Minister have a look at himself; let the Minister examine and satisfy himself, or indeed, his Cabinet as to whether or not he did what he should have done. Let us also have a look at the ways and means employed in the ESB by the people who are authorised to negotiate with the trade unions. I want to make this particular point; I have had personal experience of it. Something must be done by way of ensuring that people who are authorised to negotiate on behalf of the ESB, as a board, with the trade unions know how to negotiate and forget the long finger.

Is the Minister not going to say anything?

We on this side of the House said we dislike this legislation and that we are only prepared to support it because of the extreme seriousness of a complete close-down in the ESB, because of the fact that lives and the livelihoods of many people in this country would be endangered if we were to have a continuance of this close-down.

It has just been said that a group of workers are being put in the dock. We on this side of the House never said that that group of workers have been put in the dock. We have not said that the workers concerned in this dispute are wrong. I have a lot of sympathy with the fitters in this dispute but I think the proof of our dislike of this legislation is the fact that we have put down this amendment limiting the time of its operation. The need for this unfortunate last-minute legislation has come about because of the Government's dishonesty and irresponsibility——

And you are voting for it.

——in creating an atmosphere of affluence and prosperity in the country. Of course, everybody blames the people, then, for trying to get what they believe is there, whether or not it is there. I am not blaming the workers in most of these disputes, or in many of these disputes. There are irresponsible managements; there are upstart employers; and I know that there are, perhaps, irresponsible and misinformed employees as well.

And stupid Ministers as well.

You are bound to get all these things and all these things go to make up a strike. But, in the circumstances of the present time where we have such turmoil in the country and where we have such extreme danger from a possible complete close-down in the ESB, a cooling-off period, such as is suggested in this amendment, is essential. This does not put any group of workers in the dock, as suggested. We have been accused of buying time. We are buying time; I think it is important at the present time that some further time should be given before this absolute chaos, this complete danger to the people's lives, as described by Deputy Sweetman— infants in incubators, people with heart trouble, bronchitis and all the livelihoods of the people and hardships — is caused by a complete close-down.

I very strongly recommend to the members of the Labour Party that they change their attitude to this amendment and see in this only a temporary measure.

Mr. O'Leary

A face-saver for Fine Gael.

We do not want any face-savers on this side of the House. We are well able to stand on our own feet and the sooner the members of the Labour Party realise that the better. I will say in this House what I think, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I am not afraid to say that, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at present, I am prepared to support this legislation for a temporary period but for a temporary period only. Because of the gravity of the situation, it is important that the House should support this amendment.

I want to intervene for a moment because some very ridiculous charges have been laid against me by Deputy Mullen in this connection. The Labour Party know perfectly well that the intervention of Ministers in regard to negotiations which take place between employers and workers would be intensely resented, that it has never been the tradition and that the system of free collective bargaining is supposed to operate, making use of such tribunals and the Labour Court as exist at the time. The Labour Party know perfectly well that if I were to enter into every particular situation that arose in the ESB and said: "Hurry up and do this", or "Delay this or that", I would be starting a bush fire of which we would never see the end——

Jack Lynch did.

It is perfectly foolish for Deputies to suggest that, with all the contentions involved, a Minister should simply enter quickly into any dispute. What I have done is to examine and report to the Government, in conjunction with the Minister for Industry and Commerce—he being in charge of industrial relations—the general machinery of the ESB. The Minister has already reported on that to the House—that it was found impossible to combine the two tribunals, because trade unions and representatives of the workers on both sides were not agreeable to the suggestion. Then knowing that there appeared to be continuous delays in settlements because there was first one or other of the statutory tribunals to be met, that an appeal could not be made direct, that members were going to the Labour Court and as a result there were various verdicts given by the Labour Court in contradistinction to the statutory tribunals, I finally recommended —and the Minister for Industry and Commerce agrees— that the two tribunals be abolished and the main appeal court will be the Labour Court, there being tribunals reserved simply for domestic purposes.

The answer to the Labour Party is that I have studied these matters but for a Minister to intervene, particularly in any one issue in present circumstances, could very often do far more harm than good.

I want to ask the Minister for Transport and Power is it correct that during all the negotiations with the workers' side there was not a single man of the board of directors of the ESB present? In other words, it was done through a secondary channel. Do you think that is correct? Do you think that that is the way to talk to workers, through a third person? Does Fine Gael think that is right?

They work through the personnel manager.

Why not through the directors?

I think there are too many complicating matters.

The Board of CIE, of the ESB and of Bord na Móna have this habit of not talking to the workers. We have an answer to that. You can pass this legislation. You can pass it with Fine Gael help, but we will not work it. Whether there is a picket on or not, my union and other unions will not pass that line and you will have nobody to work there. Inside two weeks your ESB station will be shut down completely, even if our lads went to bed and stayed there. You will have to bring in Germans and it will cost you much more. It will cost you double or treble to pay these people.

In the last ten minutes of this debate——

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy is not on a point of order. He can listen to the truth. I am telling the Chair that our people are not going to work whether there are pickets on or off. We will not have pickets but we still will not work and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his colleague— God forgive me for saying it—his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, will find that you cannot work this country without the people in it and the people are the working people. The farmers taught you that and we are going to teach it to you now. Fine Gael may say: "Adjourn this until Christmas" but we are not adjourning it. This is a fight to the finish. We are going to win; we have our minds made up, and the people are not going to work until they get a just and fair settlement.

There is one comment I wish to make, that is, that it is terribly important that we should realise exactly what we are doing here today. It is particularly important that Fine Gael should realise what is being done. The democratic rights of a comparatively small number of people are being taken away. This amendment would suggest to me that Fine Gael have come to the conclusion that democracy is all right when it suits but when it does not suit, it should be suspended. It sounds very nice to say we suspended it for a limited period. I wonder if they have really thought about what is being done, that the democratic nature of our Parliament is being undermined in order to cover up for the incompetence not only of a Minister but of the Board of ESB. I know that the Minister is waiting to get in and I wish to be brief, but I do wish to say that workers should think back over any legislation that has been introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government which was intended to cure either our economic ills or matters affecting industrial relations. They will find that in every measure so introduced, only one section of the people have been asked to pay the piper, irrespective of who was to blame and irrespective of what incompetence led up to that situation.

It has been repeated time and again during this debate that this claim was served in 1964, over 18 months ago, and that no effective action was taken by the Board to try to negotiate a settlement. Three weeks ago we found that in order to set the stage for the introduction of this type of legislation —which was contemplated by the Minister and the Cabinet for quite a long time—and in order to condition the minds of the people and stampede them into a panic, which apparently has been done with Fine Gael, electricity was cut off in this city. No justification has been advanced for that action. The Minister, as well as Fine Gael, have been shedding tears for the people in hospitals, children in incubators——

Day-old chicks.

There is no doubt that this action was completely unnecessary and completely unjustified and was only taken to try to condition the people's minds for this type of legislation which is going to take away the democratic rights of a section of our people. The workers should be warned that despite what the Minister and the Cabinet say, this is the thin edge of the wedge. It is the ESB workers today but who will it be tomorrow?

Where will it end? Irrespective of whether it is popular or not, we in the Labour Party will not get this off the ground. We intend to oppose it here in every possible way open to us. I wonder if the Minister has considered if his legislation will cure this ill. Perhaps the Minister has not considered the possibility that we might be in a worse fix because people might not like their democratic rights being taken away. People might waken up to this and realise what is happening and they might, like the farmers, take action to bring pressure on the Government to make them realise that they do not rule by Act of God but by the will of the people. I would appeal to Fine Gael, if they believe in democracy, to realise that democracy is for all time and not just a question of convenience. You cannot suspend it: you either have it and protect and cherish it or you throw it out of the window.

Yesterday we were told that it was imperative that this should be finished last night but by agreement, it was decided that it should be finished today. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were prepared to have it finished in quick time. I do not think we need have any qualms of conscience about depriving anybody of time to speak because we wanted it to be left open for discussion until everybody who wanted to speak had spoken. Therefore if we are discommoding somebody by not allowing him in at this stage, we have no apology to make. There is just one minute to go until the question is put and in that minute I want to say that we had intended to oppose this Bill section by section. We did not get an opportunity of doing that because of the way it went but that does not mean that we are any less opposed to it than we would be if we were opposing it in that manner.

As far as the Fine Gael amendment is concerned, it shows that the people who framed it have no idea about how the trade union movement or labour relations should be carried out. The fact that they suggest that by putting this back until next Christmas, between this and Christmas the trade unions could be put to gaol and driven out of existence as the Bill suggests, if they think that is how things should be done, they are sitting on the wrong side of the House; they should be sitting across the House with Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Mullen wasted almost one and a half hours.

(Interruptions.)

They did not want to discuss the Bill. They are glad it is going through.

I am putting the question: "That sections 1 to 12, inclusive, stand part of the Bill and that the Title be the Title to the Bill".

My amendment must be put first.

The amendment falls at 4 o'clock.

You can always vote against the Bill.

At 4 o'clock the questions——

Will Deputies please listen? The House decided yesterday that at 4 o'clock today all discussion on the Bill would cease and that the question would be put from the Chair.

That is right—that all the questions pending would be put and that is the closure motion.

No; there can be no further discussion.

We do not mind whether it is put or not but the motion as passed yesterday referred only to an amendment by the Government that could be put.

The amendment cannot be put at this stage.

Surely the Deputy can vote against it?

The Deputy does not have to tell me what to do.

I am putting the question: "That sections 1 to 12 stand part of the Bill and that the Title be the Title to the Bill".

Question put and declared carried.

I am putting the question: "That the Bill be reported without amendment".

Question put and declared carried.

I am putting the question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration".

Question put and declared carried.

I am putting the question: "That the Bill do now pass".

I wish to raise a point of order. Under the motion which was passed yesterday, the phrasing was: "The proceedings on the five Stages thereof and on the Money Resolution in Committee on Finance and on Report in connection there-with, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4 p.m. on Wednesday by putting from the Chair forthwith the questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion." The motion then goes on with a proviso and I suggest that the Questions necessary to bring the matter to a conclusion include any motion before the House at the time and that the proviso refers solely to new amendments not then before the House. The proviso deals with new amendments which could be put on the Order Paper after the time of conclusion. I submit that the business to be concluded includes any amendment then before the House and my amendment was then before the House. If that is the appropriate ruling, the Chair was bound to put the amendment at one minute to 4 o'clock. I also submit that the Chair should have put each section separately and not in bulk as was done.

My feeling is that if Deputy Sweetman's submission is upheld, the Chair is not now entitled to put any other of this business to the House at this stage because it was not done at 4 o'clock.

I have considered this matter as I anticipated that something like this might arise. I was advised on the matter and I have to rule that the proviso attached governs the ruling that was given already and I must so rule in accordance with the ruling given already.

You are aware that with a guillotine motion when there is a reference back on an Estimate, the reference back is put first?

I am ruling according to the ruling already given.

Will the Chair give a ruling as to whether or not the other matter can be put? The resolution passed was that the business be brought to a conclusion at a particular hour by the motion being put by the Chair at a particular hour. It is now 15 minutes after that hour.

I am putting the question: "That the Bill do now pass."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 111; Níl, 19.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Byrne, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Don.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Fahey, John.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sheridan, Joseph.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, James J.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Patrick.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lindsay, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Lyons, Michael D.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Murphy, William.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tully, John.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Casey, Seán.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Norton, Patrick.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl, Deputies Casey and Treacy.
Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn