Earlier today, a Cheann Comhairle, Deputy O'Leary referred to the fact that members of the Fianna Fáil Party held a meeting in a room in Leinster House last night and that certain items were discussed. It is a sad state of affairs when a political Party cannot meet and discuss their own business without having people listening outside the door to their conversations.
Trade Union Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
That is not true. Nobody wanted to know what was going on.
There was no way by which any Deputy could have known what we were discussing last night other than by listening at the door of one of the rooms here in Leinster House. The Deputy heard what was on the agenda for the meeting. A letter addressed to a Deputy of Fianna Fáil was given in mistake to a Deputy of the Labour Party and he had not the honour to return it to the Deputy as is normal procedure.
It was returned.
If a letter went astray one would imagine it would be returned unopened.
It was an open letter.
Deputy Tully has indicated that the contents of a letter addressed to the Fianna Fáil Party was opened by the Labour Party and the contents read out. That is what the Deputy said. Deputy O'Leary today indicated that he knew the type of discussion we had last night in a room in Leinster House.
We know the Deputy is ashamed of the meeting but an open letter was handed to somebody. The letter said that a meeting was taking place.
It was addressed to another Member of the House. One would expect the Deputy would have the honour to return it to the person involved without opening it. It is a diabolical situation when we have such irresponsible people in the House that they will open letters.
I said it was a lie. It was open.
The Deputy must withdraw the word "lie".
It is untrue and should be accepted as such.
It was examined by somebody other than the person with authority to do so. Nevertheless, this letter did not contain the information that Deputy O'Leary imparted to us as to our activities in a room at Leinster House. We had a very good laugh when we read the Labour Party programme——
The Deputy is not used to reading programmes.
It was one of the matters——
The Minister for Industry and Commerce sent a copy to each Member.
The Minister did not send me a letter.
The Deputy is not in the inner circle.
Maybe I am not. I want to place on record how much I deplore this type of tactic. I know there are honourable men who would not read another man's correspondence. It seems they are not in the Labour Party.
There are more honourable men on the Labour benches than there are in the Fianna Fáil part of the House.
Last night, if the correspondence was not read, they were listening outside the door.
The Fianna Fáil Party will be moving out of that corridor very shortly and having meetings in their own corridor.
Deputy Tully should allow Deputy Dowling to make his speech.
Is he making a speech?
It should be referred to the rights commissioners.
We might refer it to the responsible committee of this House yet. It may be necessary.
Deputy Dowling's speech now——
I had a look at the Deputy's this morning. We listened with great interest to the wonderful speech of Deputy O'Leary.
The Deputy has not anything to say for himself.
I have. I want to comment on some of the remarks Deputy O'Leary made. He dealt with the balloting procedure as embodied in the Bill. One would think that the trade union organisations were not in favour of the type of balloting arrangement indicated in the Bill. I would say that this is a democratic type of process where one can ballot in secret, not in the manner Deputy O'Leary has indicated. The secret ballot is the most effective ballot and should produce the desired results. The people would not be intimidated by agitators or other personnel who have a particular motive. It is a desirable inclusion in the Bill and one welcomed by all responsible trade unionists. The only trade union official I have heard so far speak against it was Deputy O'Leary. I meet many trade unionists and they have all favoured this particular inclusion in the Bill. It is one that will meet with the general approval of all responsible people. It adds to the democratic set-up of the trade union organisation.
Deputy O'Leary dealt with the workers' democracy policy in some little detail. I should just like to make a few comments in so far as he associated the remarks made by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave, and the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. He spoke about the sick system we had in this country. The Deputy spoke of the sick system of industrial relations that would be cured by the implementation of the workers' democracy policy. The Deputy indicated that the system had what he called pneumonia. The introduction of the workers' democracy policy might mean we would be suffering from Hong Kong flu or Cuban cancer in our industrial relations system. I do not think that would be a cure for the ills that are at the moment contaminating the system of industrial relations. The Deputy spoke about the wonderful participation in industries. Some time ago he confused or disturbed the workers' minds by indicating that Aer Lingus would be one of the industries where this would be tried on, together with the Sugar Company. Many members of Aer Lingus have come to me and said that if I could in any way impede the Labour Party from once again interfering with or strangling Aer Lingus, perhaps I would do so. It is not the first time. I wonder why Deputy O'Leary picked out Aer Lingus as one of the two concerns where they could try out this policy. The Deputy spoke about it here today. No wonder a worker in Aer Lingus, Guinness', the Sugar Company or Pierce's would be concerned about future employment under a Labour Government. There is every reason for workers to be concerned. We know the mess that was made of a particular concern before and this concern would be a guinea pig again for the implementation of the workers' democracy. I do not know about Guinness'. I do not know how Guinness' or Pierce's or the Sugar Company get around this, but it certainly has disturbed the minds of the workers as to their future. Men cannot plan and are concerned about their ability to do so if this policy is forced upon them.
I want to do my part and to say to the trade unionists in Pierce's, the Sugar Company, Aer Lingus and Guinness' and the other companies threatened by the implementation of the policy of the workers' democracy that it has failed in so many places over such a long period.
I do not intend to say much more. Once again I want to indicate my approval of the contents of both of these Bills and to say how glad I am that we have here a fairminded Minister who has done so much in such a short time for the benefit of the workers and who will continue to bring in legislation to benefit Irish workers. It is easy to see why the criticism has come from Deputy O'Leary, as criticism always comes from Deputy O'Leary of responsible persons who are making an honest effort and are showing up some of his colleagues in a very poor light indeed. As I pointed out earlier, every single measure that aided the workers was enacted by Fianna Fáil. We will enact more such legislation despite Deputy O'Leary and his colleagues.
I ask the Minister to abolish the Act dealing with the ESB and to abolish the political levy which has inflicted on so many people so much hardship by way of intimidation. I am sorry the Minister did not embody in this legislation a provision to abolish the political levy. It had some meaning in the past but now that certain unions have aligned themselves with political Parties, the whole thing has become undesirable. I do not see why a Fianna Fáil, or for that matter a Fine Gael, trade unionist should have to make a contribution to a union which opts to pay the political levy. My contacts with trade unionists are many and varied and I can tell the Minister that both Bills have the blessing of responsible members of trade unions. They know that under the Minister's guidance no harm will come to them through any legislation enacted during his term of office. They know such legislation will be progressive and in their interests.
It will be agreed universally by all shades of opinion that some sort of legislation is necessary to take us out of the, shall we say, industrial chaos in which we find ourselves at the moment. In a competitive age such as this, no country can afford an industrial row, and certainly no country can afford an industrial row such as that which has existed —we hope it will end soon—in this country during the past few weeks.
It is well to bear in mind that when you have industrial chaos and the wide disturbances which we have had recently, the greater hardship mainly falls on those who are least able to bear it. In the competitive age in which we live, it is necessary for every country to produce as cheaply as possible if they wish to stay in world markets and to be able to maintain and sustain their exports. No matter to which section of the community one belongs, one must be disturbed seriously by the conditions that exist in industrial relations here today.
I personally welcome this legislation. At the outset I must say I do not think it is strong enough to cure the situation we are faced with at the moment. There are two major features in the two Bills. One is an endeavour to prevent wildcat strikes and the second is to try to set up some form of compulsory arbitration. The latter is subject to a lot of factors. First of all, I should like to deal with the issue in regard to the stopping of wildcat strikes and of minority strikes. All will agree that minority strikes are a distaster not only for the community at large but for the trade unions themselves.
Legislation tends to produce groups and the registration of groups and, to a certain extent, to make trade unions official. Because we are living in changing circumstances—we are in the twentieth century and things have changed during the years—we appreciate that it is necessary to have some official recognition of trade unions for the protection of the unions themselves but also for the protection of the public as a whole.
This legislation, as I read it, suggests that it will not be possible for a strike to take place without the consent of the majority of the union—the members will have to vote and there must be a majority decision whether to take strike action or not. The legislation further provides that the leaders of trade unions can themselves decide to reject the majority opinion of the unions concerned if they consider it to be undesirable to accept it. I do not object to that because if you have responsible people in control of trade unions they should have the responsibility, and not only the responsibility but the right, to accept the opinion as to whether a strike should take place.
I think it is there that this legislation falls down. The Minister seems to be creating a situation whereby only a majority can vote for a strike and whereby the majority decision can be controverted by the trade union leaders, but the Minister does not give the trade union leaders a constituted authority: the legislation provides only that the leaders may take certain action. This leaves the problem of trade union leaders themselves being put in a very ambiguous position. Supposing they decide, knowing the ill effects of so much industrial unrest— and they may have inside information that the majority of union members themselves may not have—to controvert the majority decision of the union, these leaders will be in the position where, short of being bound by law, they can be deposed, kicked out, the following day.
I should like respectfully to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this is one of the disasters of the trade union movement in this country at the moment. I have been conscious of it in a small way. I have been brought in as arbitrator in small industrial disputes—small men are asked to deal with small matters and I am not claiming to have dealt with national matters such as the Minister has done. When a settlement is made somebody else decides that the settlement is not just and equitable and the workers decide to go on strike again. Because they go on strike, the trade union is placed in the position of either not recognising the strike or of having inter-union trouble, and at the least excuse it is turned into an official strike. This has happened not only in the instances I am referring to: in some cases I went back again and the disputes were settled. But that is happening nationally and as such it is a serious matter.
To have successful legislation here we must recognise the fact that the trade unions play a very important part in the life of the country. They are associated with and built into our economy, just as they are in other countries. If we are going to recognise that fact, as we must in a sound democracy, they will have to be made secure and their officials will have to be given that authority by legislation. The Minister may say that there are 125 unions and it would not be very easy to do it. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong in my surmise that this authority does not exist in the Bill, this binding authority to make a trade union leader a legal official so that he cannot be discharged just because he takes a decision which he believes is for the good of the union. The ordinary safeguards would naturally exist, of course, so that if a person is no longer considered suitable to hold that office he would be removable under the different conditions that obtain in every Bill that is passed.
That is the only way that you can get secure and binding agreement, by giving the elected officials of trade unions the right to take decisions which will be upheld. This raises a matter in regard to legislation which deals with labour problems. It is a delicate matter, because there is always a great deal of ambiguity in the phraseology used in Bills like this, and somebody comes along and says that the workers' rights are being attacked, but at the same time, even assuming that trade union officials are given that authority to which I feel they are entitled, there would have to be some form of penalty to make it binding. If I might refer for a moment to recent legislation enacted in the British House of Commons by the Minister's counterpart, the Rt. Hon. Barbara Castle, who is responsible for trade union relations there, certain penalties were included in that legislation. There is no point in living in an atmosphere of wishful thinking and hoping that simply by passing laws, laws that are, mark you, not very clear, these will be in any way binding from the point of view of stopping a trade dispute. Therefore, if the Minister wishes to take a strong hand and he will have to do so—he has been in the Department of Labour now for four years without doing anything, although I appreciate that he has been trying to negotiate without any real success and is now back in square one and that is why he has brought in this legislation—and if he does bring in legislation it should be effective legislation. In my view this legislation, relative to the majority rule, does not go far enough.
Another matter within the Bill is the question of trying to resolve disputes. It is fair to say that there are many people involved in the present dispute who are out of work and who do not want to be out of work but they have to be because of the existing set-up in the trade union movement. They do not like to pass the pickets. I am not an expert on union regulations but I think it is against regulations for them to do so. The Minister is introducing what he calls the rights commissioners and I take it that the rights commissioner will have the function which the Labour Court originally had. In other words, he will be a conciliation officer. As far as I know, the Labour Court has no function except to try to bring the parties together and to try to get them to agree. This has been going on for three weeks and I think that ultimately they will be successful but whether that will be the end of industrial unrest or not is another matter. The idea is to have a rights commissioner who if asked by both parties may intervene but if one party objects the functions of the commissioner as far as settling the strike is concerned cease to exist. It seems to me that this is rather meaningless. It is not bringing us a step forward towards having peace and harmony restored to the unhappy situation in which we find ourselves at present. The Bill also says that if the dispute is not resolved by the rights commissioner then subject to both parties agreeing, the matter goes to the Labour Court. Apparently the Labour Court then is going to have the function of settling the strike or imposing a settlement. That seems a very roundabout way of meeting the situation.
I have contacts with many working class people who are in trade unions and they are seriously disturbed about the present situation. They hope above all that there will be some form of compulsory negotiation introduced which will settle industrial unrest. Unless this is done we are going to finish up economically in a very much worse situation than that in which we find ourselves at present. Only a few weeks ago the Minister for Finance indicated that the economic situation was not too healthy but now we have passed through three weeks of industrial unrest and a great many firms have ground to a halt; as a result the workers have received no wages and there has been no production. That is a national loss and we cannot afford to that sort of thing. We cannot afford to go on on those lines and if the Minister is bringing in legislation he should bring in legislation which has some real meaning.
One serious lack in the Bill is something to provide for a system similar to the American system of a cooling off period before a strike takes place. I suggest that we should introduce a cooling off period when it has been decided to have a strike. As we are hoping to do away with unofficial strikes, which are no benefit to anybody, we should have legislation providing for this cooling off period. In the United States this cooling off period is 90 days. Very often when there is a strike pending in the United States, where they have national strikes which grind not only the whole economy but the whole administration of the country to a halt, it has often happened that the threatened strike did not take place because the people involved got together during that period and discussed the matter properly. The Minister could easily introduce legislation to that effect and I do not think that there would be very much opposition to it from the trade union movement. There could be a cooling off period beginning from the time the conciliation officer was approached. Unless the Minister makes it mandatory on both sides to the argument to take the matter to the conciliation court, which is the rights commissioner, before striking, then the whole exercise will be absolutely valueless.
At the moment the position is that one side says "No" and the other side says "Yes"; you are as you were before and the factory door is closed and the strike goes on. All this results in hardship not only to the workers themselves but to the people of the country as a whole—particularly the poorer sections—and also affects national production which is so essential to all of us.
For that reason I suggest three things to the Minister, first, that he should make it binding on both sides before striking to go to the rights commissioner; that he should make it not mandatory but possible for the freezing or cooling-off period to be at least six weeks to prevent a recurrence of what we have just been through. I further suggest that he give the trade union leaders the right to be made official, in other words put them in the position that they could take a decision that they believe to be right and in the interests of the workers they represent without being deposed. That is one of the major troubles today.
It would be of great help if the Minister were to tell the House the exact constitution of the Labour Court at present. I do not blame the Labour Court for any of the difficulties they have had to face because they are, as they were described recently, a filleted institution. They are not given any power. They were created—I think in 1946—for the purpose of settling strikes but with absolutely no fundamental power to do so. I believe the constitution of the Labour Court at the moment is that it is something that comes into effect only when it is needed and only comes into being when industrial relations break down. I believe the chairman of the Labour Court is a civil servant—of that I am not sure— but if I am right in that surmise I should like to put to the Minister that a civil servant is not necessarily the best person to know what is going on around him.
I do not know what the other members of the Labour Court are or whether they are all civil servants or if the members come from the Minister's Department or from the Department of Industry and Commerce. I note that in the Minister's opening speech he indicated that the Labour Court would be set up on wider lines. I think many would agree with me that, if we are to have a Labour Court, and the new Labour Court under this new legislation—provided the dispute gets as far as the Labour Court—is going to be a binding court, it should be widely representative of every section of the community. The personnel should be wholetime and should be people chosen entirely outside the political arena.
I do not like mentioning names but it seems to me that you would naturally require a representative of the trade unions to begin with. It is quite obvious to everybody who that representative should be. In the recent dispute, to my mind, that gentleman has stood out with tremendous courage. It seems to me that if he would accept a full-time appointment on this board he would be highly desirable as he would have the experience, the understanding and goodwill necessary to establish good industrial relations. We should certainly have somebody from the employers' side with wide experience in industrial work. I am not terribly keen on lawyers myself. I found they were rather costly people to have anything to do with but we would require somebody with legal training because so many quibbles and doubts and legal problems will arise.
The court should be, perhaps, considerably larger than that. I am not very keen on a High Court judge presiding over it. High Court judges may be all right in deciding law or evaluating facts from witnesses and in trying to decide which witness is telling the truth and which is not when controversy arises, but I would be in favour of a much bigger Labour Court, one of at least seven or eight men of outstanding ability, people fully conversant with facts. You would require somebody either concerned with finance or economy. I should prefer a financier to an economist. I always think that if you get in an economist to do anything you are getting into dangerous waters right away. I think they should be fulltime officials. They should be asked to serve the country in that court. They should be well paid and fully pensionable no matter what it costs. They will represent an outside point of view which is always helpful. They will be people who in the past have been associated with trade disputes on both sides, people who will be concerned in the stability of the State.
I welcome the Bill. Perhaps, I have been pretty outspoken but it is time that somebody was outspoken. I do not think the Bill goes far enough. I think we are at the stage when we are introducing legislation which actually has been forced upon us by the unhappy state of affairs here. The Minister should introduce a Bill which is really binding to protect all sections of the community because each of us is in this fight for economic survival.
I do not wish to say much about this Bill except to comment on the timing of it. I think the Minister chose this time particularly in which to introduce the Bill. Perhaps, we should look at the situation which exists today. We have seen these strikes but I do not think any effort is being made to diagnose the problem that exists. It is merely a struggle by the worker to survive in the face of a rapidly rising cost of living that makes life almost intolerable for the worker and his family. We cannot overlook the fact that wages today are inadequate to cope with the incessant demands made on the family. This is the basic problem. Almost 40 per cent of our workers are earning less than £10 a week. I do not know whether the Minister has ever endeavoured to ascertain how far £10 a week will go with a family. It is virtually impossible to make it stretch to meet subsistence level. I have seen these problems where people cannot cope and I have often wondered why they did not seek an easy way out. But they go on hoping.
This is the problem: that a man must fight for his rights, must fight to seek a normal week's wages. That is what workers are not receiving at present. I do not think we can legislate on matters like this. We need a whole new approach to the matter. I do not think the legislation in the case of the ESB solved any problem. I do not think the Minister could honestly say it did, any more than this will solve it. The Minister knows what the Donovan Commission reported in Britain. They dismissed the idea of compulsory secret ballots. Most unions have secret ballots and I do not see the need for compulsory ones. I do not think this Trade Union Bill will achieve anything. The Minister and his Department would be better employed in promoting a greater respect by employers for human dignity, for the dignity of the worker.
Management has a great deal to learn. Methods are outmoded. There is lack of dialogue between workers and management. That is the basic problem today. What is worse is the indifference and apathy of the employer towards the worker and the refusal to examine into a fault on the part of management. What is national production in aid of? It is in aid of the citizen so that he may enjoy a better standard of living. We must respect the rights of workers and the dignity of workers. The solution to the problem lies in worker participation. That was emphasised by the late Pope John in his encyclicals. The worker must be respected. In this Christian country there is no respect for the worker. There can only be respect for the worker when the worker is given more and more participation.
The Labour Court has done a great deal of work and I pay tribute to the Chief Conciliation Officer, whom I meet so often and whose only ambition is to bring about an end to strikes. He is a tremendous person. Nothing matters except bringing strikes to an end.
I do not agree with the previous speaker who said that this Trade Union Bill does not go far enough. I do not think the Bill will bring about greater industrial harmony. We want harmony in industry, but this Bill will not bring harmony. The Minister should emphasise that employers must not seek excessive profits and that they must be prepared to share profits with their workers. Not until that happy situation envolves will we have that industrial harmony so essential to progress.
I was pleased when the Minister said yesterday that he would be happy to see the Minister for Labour coming to this House frequently with Bills, taking one step at a time on the road to progress and reform. It is very important that we should bear that in mind. One cannot have radical, sudden and revolutionary changes in systems and traditions built up over the years. Not all trade unions are afraid of change, but all are very, very proud of whatever traditions they have established. I belong to a trade union which will be celebrating its golden jubilee this year. We would be very loath to smother our identity in that of a larger union. Some commercial travellers who joined bigger unions have regretted doing so because they find they do not get the individual and specialist attention their trade requires.
The provisions in the industrial Relations Bill are excellent. In the Trade Union Bill there are some provisions which cause me some concern. Section 9 provides that an individual may put a picket on his place of employment. There are cases in which there is only one craftsman or one commercial traveller employed in a factory. There could be several entrances to that factory and it would be necessary, therefore, for his union to employ people to do picket duty. People using any of the entrances to the factory should be aware that there is a dispute in progress.
The Minister said that Part IV of the Bill would not interfere with existing unions. I have not had an opportunity of studying the 1941 Act, but there is nothing in this Bill which would protect unions with less than 500 members. I am sure an assurance will be forthcoming. It would be a good idea to have an explanation on the record. My chief concern with regard to the group negotiating licence is that it seems to me that, if a majority of the workers in a particular industry decide they want to form a group and have a group negotiating licence, this group will be the body authorised to speak on behalf of all the employees, including craftsmen and others with specialist abilities. I believe that an individual who goes to a vocational school, studies a trade and serves his time is entitled to more wages than a man who has not learned any special skill. As I see it, the position under this group negotiating licence will be that, when the group is formed, the majority of the workers will decide whether or not what is offered to the craftsman is adequate. In this way the small unions catering for specialist people will lose some of their power. They will be unable to negotiate in the way they have been negotiating up to this.
A strike by the Irish Commercial Travellers' Federation is very rare but, when a strike is necessary, we want the right to pursue the strike, as we did in the past, and we would expect the support of the other unions, the same support as we got in the past. Two or three years ago the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at their annual delegate conference decided, as a matter of policy, that if you are going to enter into a dispute you must serve on Congress and on your local trades council one week's notice of your intention to serve one week's strike notice. Where this Bill provides that notice may be sent to the Labour Court when a majority decision is taken to have a strike it should, I think, also be provided that this strike cannot be pursued for a period of two weeks—not 90 days, as Deputy Esmonde suggested. At least let us give Congress power to implement their own decision on the matter. This is what Congress wants and, if this is done and if it is incorporated into their own rules, then there can be no objection to our writing it into this Bill. The Minister might consider putting down an amendment to section 14 in that regard.
With reference to Deputy Belton's remarks last night, I should like to say that most of the trade unions which have their head offices and executive in England have tried to encourage their branches in this State to set up their own executive and become autonomous in their own right. I believe the reason many of them will not do this is that they know there are vast resources of money in the main unions, and they want to have them available to themselves in the case of long disputes. I do not know whether it would be constitutional to insist on these unions basing themselves here.
I agree with Deputy Belton that it would be a good idea if that were done because I remember, in a strike which took place in the centre of the city here in the furnishing industry some years ago, the workers had agreed to accept the employers' offer, but it took something like ten to 14 days to get executive sanction from England so that they could go back to work. The ballot papers had to come here from England, and they had to go back to England to be counted. To my mind, that is an inefficient way for a trade union to run its business, and it is not very helpful to the general trade union situation here.
Some reference was made to the lower paid workers. I believe there is only one way of solving the problem of the lower paid workers and bringing about a situation where they would have a steadily increasing take home wage packet for a 40 or 42 hour week. The only way is to set out a minimum wage, to lay down a minimum wage by law. I do not care how low it is to start with. It would have a part to play in the political scene. The Government in office would see that the minimum wage was adjusted in a fair and equitable way to improve the lot of the workers. It could become a political instrument like the social welfare services. People talk about their social welfare record when they are looking for support at elections. The minimum wage would assume the same aspect.
I do not care how low the figure is to start with. Let us start somewhere. That is the only way we can get more money for these people without setting off spirals of claims to protect the differential which is the cause of the present engineering dispute. I admit that many of the officials in the craft unions guard the differential most jealously. If a craftsman in the ESB gets a rise in wages the craft unions will make sure that the same rate of wages will apply in private industry. I understand that the maintenance of the differential with the ESB scale has a lot to do with the present difficulty in which the country finds itself.
I believe the conciliation officers should be appointed on a fairly permanent and pensionable basis. There is little doubt that there can be a better understanding of problems when they are dealt with by the same man or group of men over a long period. I have been told this by people engaged in negotiations although, occasionally, someone says: "There is one fellow and I hope I never get him." Over a period of time these people get to understand the various problems and they should not be, as Deputy O'Leary said, merely carriers of messages from one room to another. They learn and understand the problems, and they can use their initiative to help the two sides.
Another matter I am concerned with is that, while I agree that the workers have a right to organise themselves for their own protection, the employers have also organised themselves. There are several employers organisations, and there is the Federated Union of Employers. In the craft strike at present in progress, I know of two or three manufacturers who would gladly have settled this dispute privately with their own employees and their unions but they felt that they belonged to the FUE and, if they had paid their subscription and had people carrying out negotiations for them, they must more or less take instructions. To my mind the FUE have decided in this case that they would probably get the best terms by making the strike as extensive as possible, and the unions followed the same course. It is the general workers who are now going back to work who have been rational. In one instance I know of something like 200 workers out of work because one maintenance man is involved. The employer would gladly pay that one maintenance man even more than the union demand in order to keep his factory open because he is losing export orders as well as home orders.
It has yet to be demonstrated to me that the FUE insistence on all settlements being dealt with as a group is a good thing. I think it is a bad thing. Before the war when a company had a good balance sheet and was making a profit the workers said they wanted a share. It was not done on a national basis, or group employers basis, or on a collective negotiation licence. It sometimes seems that the bigger the units in the negotiations the harder the line that is taken.
I was very pleased to note that the Minister is fully aware of the tremendous legal expenses which can be involved in the amalgamation of two unions. The classic example was the IEIETU and the ETU, now the NEETU. I understand from some people who worked on those negotiations that the expenses involved were such that, had the unions known before the negotiations started how much they would be, the negotiations would never have got off the ground. The Minister has made provisions for this in this Bill. I am quite sure that adequate assistance will be made available to the unions concerned.
When Deputy O'Leary was talking last night about the Labour Party policy document he admitted to me that every resolution at the Labour Party Conference was passed. Every resolution at last year's annual delegate conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was passed, with one exception, and that was referred to the executive committee. Furthermore, delegates to functions of this nature are somewhat intimidated because there is an enormous crowd of people present. It is seldom that one hears criticism of any of the proposals. This is a bad thing. Perhaps the trade unions themselves would have a look at this and see if they can get more dialogue and controversy on the various matters.
Listen to who is talking.
That is all I want to say. However, I should like this assurance and I should like to be able to get, before the Second Stage is over, some type of assurance that the craft unions and the small specialist unions, regardless of what any worker in any group of industries or manufacturing concerns may say, will be entitled to retain the rights they now have. If they are not allowed to do this a very serious strain will be placed on Congress when the craft unions and craftsmen find themselves outvoted all the time by the general workers. They could bring about a situation which we never want to see in this country again, namely, that there will be two congresses. I hope there is nothing in this Bill that might tend to bring about that situation.
I want to echo what Deputy Patrick Belton said in opening this debate and in the most moderate language I can command. I do really think the time has come when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions should say to the Trade Union Congress in London: "None of your unions function in France. They do not function in Germany, in Belgium or in Sweden. Do wake up to the fact that, although Ireland is a neighbour with a history of long friendly relations with Great Britain since Great Britain left this country as an occupying power, it is not appropriate for British trade unions to be functioning in Ireland as relics of a system that has survived from pre-Treaty times. It gives rise to incongruities and to problems which must be as troublesome to the Trade Union Congress in Great Britain as they are to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and to the community as a whole in Ireland."
I recognise the problem. It is that many of these small relics of past history are, in fact, what Deputy Lemass described as the wealthy craft unions and that the members here are, not unnaturally, reluctant to cut themselves off from the almost unlimited funds of the unions in Great Britain. However, all Parties ought to bear in mind the fact that busy trade union officials dealing with these craft unions in England which have large memberships scattered over a wide variety of industries, have very little time and, indeed, very little equipment to understand the industrial problems which are arising in Ireland. Very naturally, they are inclined to delegate all matters of decision to the local officials here and the strike pay involved is peanuts to the immense resources of the union. Therefore, there is no particular urge on the senior officials of the union in Great Britain to interest themselves at all intimately in the industrial disputes in which their members are participating except to pay the strike pay whenever it becomes due, being virtually indifferent to the issues involved in the pay dispute proceeding here.
As we have learned so painfully in our recent past, such disputes could bring on this country something tantamount to catastrophe. It would be a mistake to imagine that this is a peculiarity of the Republic here. Of course, we all have present in our minds the fantastic situation obtaining in Vickers Shipyards in the north-east of England where plumbers were out on strike for four or five months because the fitters objected to their brazing pipes. They naturally reached a modus vivendi. They all went back on Monday whereupon the fitters all came out on Tuesday and Vickers Shipyards are now at a standstill for over six months because the plumbers and the fitters cannot agree on who should braze the pipes.
It would be a very great mistake for Members of this House not to have some measure of understanding for what superficially appears to be a grotesque situation. These demarcation strikes often assume externally a very absurd pattern. It is a source of astonishment to us that, in England, the Trade Union Congress and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions cannot devise effective arbitration procedure which would avoid disputes of this kind. I think both Congresses are probably moving in that direction and I believe that it is in that direction the solution of that problem will be found. Unless some consultation between the two Congresses can bring it about, I do not think any satisfactory solution of the present position, of unions functioning in this country whose headquarters are located in Great Britain, can be found. The Minister should consult with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and, indeed, with the Minister for Employment and Productivity in England, Mrs. Barbara Castle, and, through her, with the Congress of Trade Unions in Great Britain as to whether in a friendly and cooperative spirit that particular problem can be solved. I do not wish to dwell on the qualities of foreign Ministers but Mrs. Castle seems to be a very able woman and is doing her best. However, it may take some negotiation. It is not an easy problem. I fully realise how intricate it is. I believe, ultimately, it will appear to both Congresses that the desirable thing is that the Congress functioning in Ireland should have its headquarters here and its effective authority sited within our own country.
I want to say something that I think has been overlooked to some extent. I think the Minister for Labour would make a very considerable contribution to the acceptability of the proposed legislation if he placed some more emphasis upon it. I did not come down in yesterday's shower and I have been employing men directly or indirectly for the last 45 years and I feel that the blame for a great deal of bad labour relations in this country rests squarely on the shoulders of employers.
I want to try to diagnose the reason for that. In family companies, family firms, which are becoming scarcer and scarcer, the number of trade disputes that reach the point of strike are minimal. One very rarely finds a strike occurring in a business where the proprietor and the workers are familiar friends. There may be rows and ructions and threats of strikes, organisers arriving and people "lepping" around but one rarely finds pickets out and the whole paraphernalia of a trade dispute in progress. So, we are really dealing in this context with the large employer, the firm controlled by a board of directors. I have discussed this with a number of men who are busy as directors of companies responsible for the employment of large numbers of men and women. It is surprising the frequency with which I have got the answer: "The boards of directors are too busy to deal with personnel matters."
I want to suggest to the Minister for Labour that one of the most constructive things he could do would be to ask his colleague Deputy Colley, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to meet the FUE and to say to them: "Listen, gentlemen, I ask you to start a movement among directors in this country which would provide that there would be, where there are more than a certain number of employees, not only a personnel manager but a personnel director and you should not stop there. On your weekly and monthly agenda a variety of topics are set forth for discussion and decision by the board, the last of which is, almost invariably, personnel. In practice what you do is resolve the specific problems presented to the board by the various divisions of your enterprise. It comes to lunch time or it comes to tea time and there are one or two items left on the agenda, one of which is personnel, and you say: `Oh, let Jack Power or Tom Burke'—whoever is the personnel manager—`deal with that and, if there is any trouble, he can come back to us'."
That is fatal because the aim ought to be to prevent trouble developing. When the trouble has developed it is usually too late for the board of directors to take any effective action. I would seriously suggest that one of the most valuable reforms that could be constituted would be to persuade the FUE to carry conviction to the minds of boards of directors of large concerns employing considerable bodies of men that the first item on the agenda should be personnel and that there should be one director directly responsible to the board for personnel matters; that before they could proceed to the consideration of any other business a responsible board of directors would require themselves to be satisfied that, not only was there no trouble in existence, but that there was no trouble looming on the horizon in the personnel division and, if trouble was looming, that they would regard it as their indispensable duty to tackle that trouble forthwith and, if necessary, to have in the personnel manager.
Here is a point to which I would draw special attention. I believe a responsible board of directors with a competent personnel director and a competent personnel manager should be satisfied that that personnel manager is on terms of sufficiently intimate acquaintance and friendly co-operation with the officers of the trade union with whom he has to negotiate to be in a position to say: "Mr. Farrell"—or whatever his name is—"is the trade union organiser responsible for our factory. Can I bring him in here so that we can discuss together the possibility of trouble that threatens to develop?" It is a source of continuing astonishment to me that subconsciously, or sometimes consciously, the personnel establishment of a firm regards itself as the perennial enemy of the corresponding trade union official, whereas in fact a competent personnel officer or manager ought to be on terms of the most intimate correspondence with the organiser who is organising his factory. The board of directors ought to be in contact with the general secretary of the union if they feel the situation between their personnel manager and the union organiser in their factory is getting to the point of being at loggerheads.
I believe that, if you could prevail on boards of directors to impose that discipline upon themselves of placing first on their regular agenda the problem of personnel and of having a personnel director who is a member of the board fulfilling the obligation of being able to say to his fellow directors, before he agreed to participate in the general work: "There is no personnel problem pending at the present time," a very substantial number of trade disputes would never even reach the stage of acrimonious argument, never mind strike and picket.
I find myself in some disagreement with Deputy Esmonde when he speaks of the desirability of conferring legal tenure on officers of trade unions. I hope I do not offend against propriety if I recall to memory someone whom I can only describe in any respect as a great man in his own sphere, which was trade union organisation, the late James Larkin, at whose obsequies we were present yesterday. I do not think it is irrelevant to our present problems to tell a story in his regard. I remember when I was Minister for Agriculture I was persecuted with what was called a house union in the Botanic Gardens. It was there from time immemorial, but I found that if I made an agreement with the house union on Monday two or three fellows would arrive on Wednesday and we would go back through the long delay of further negotiations in the knowledge that any agreement we reached was subject to disruption by the most irresponsible individual in the union. It was up in that lobby, I think, I met Deputy Larkin and I said: "Look, Deputy, would you mind going up and organising the workers in the Botanic Gardens?" He looked at me with some surprise and said: "Are you serious?" I said: "Perfectly serious. If you go up now right after this Division you will be as welcome as the flowers in May, because I am weary trying to make an agreement with the set-up they have there now and I would like to have an experienced trade union negotiator make a satisfactory agreement with them." And he did so on behalf of the Workers Union of Ireland.
I found him an extremely tough negotiator, and here is where I want to differ with Deputy Esmonde: after he would negotiate the outline of the agreement he would say to you perfectly frankly: "Now, remember, I am the paid servant of the members of my union and I have got to bring that agreement back to the members of my union. Unless and until they endorse the terms of that agreement, I cannot sign any agreement with you, because anything I sign I will stand over." He would go off then and submit the agreement to the members of his union and if the members of his union authorised him to sign the agreement, he would come back and sign it and you could hang your hat on it.
I remember the first time we signed an agreement together, there was an odd fellow, and within a week of the agreement being signed he announced he was going on strike. The Workers Union of Ireland said they would not support him, that he was in breach of his agreement, that the agreement was a valid agreement which the union had made; whereupon he bought a tent and set up the tent outside the Botanic Gardens and announced he was going to fast until death. When the union heard this they said: "Let him fast and when he gets tired of fasting he will fold up his tent."
I made some inquiries then and found out the poor fellow had been knocked about by the Black and Tans and knocked about in the Civil War. He had a long history of what we could rightly call delicacy. In fact, in the Botanic Gardens the devil a much he did except mosey around and potter. Here is the point I want to make: the fatal mistake I could have made in that delicate situation was to go behind Deputy Larkin's back and settle directly with the member who had let him down after he had fully consulted the union members on whose authority he had signed the agreement. That is a mistake that is too often made.
I told Deputy Larkin the case history of this man and said to him: "In the light of that case history, between the two of us we ought to be able to accommodate him." He was perfectly sympathetic to the man's case. He said: "As far as I am concerned as secretary of the Workers Union of Ireland, I am prepared to stand over the agreement we made." I said: "Will you ask that fellow to come in and see me?" I well remember the poor fellow coming in to me and addressing me at length. Eventually I said to him: "We will find you a job in here as a paper carrier." He said: "No. That would involve me in walking up and down stairs. I only work on the flat." I remember saying to him: "We will find you a job on one floor carrying papers and you will have to go up only one flight of stairs when you come in or, if you like, you can take the lift." With perfect reluctance he spent the remainder of his days tripping everybody up on the first floor of the Department of Agriculture, and peace was restored. The important thing was that it was done with the knowledge of the union; it was done through the union, on the understanding with the union that it was an act of grace and that so far as they were concerned they stood by their bargain. But, there was a corresponding obligation on me to stand by my bargain; if I had asked the union to organise the workers or if I had accepted the fact that the union had organised the workers, I should not deal with them individually. My obligation was to deal with them through the organisation that they themselves had chosen to deal with me.
These are aspects of industrial relations that the employers are only too frequently inclined to overlook. If you have an effective trade union, if the people who work for you want to be represented in their discussions with you through that trade union, and you find that trade union acting in a responsible and honourable way, then there is a corresponding and very heavy obligation on the employer to deal with that union and not to go behind the union's back.
I think Deputy Noel Lemass is totally wrong when he says the Federated Union of Employers habitually involve the whole country in a strike that ought only to affect one individual. That is nonsense. I have known several cases in my own experience where officers of the Federated Union of Employers have come down to advise an employer who was negotiating with the trade unions perhaps for the first time and who was quite unfamiliar with the usual give and take of trade union negotiations, in order to avoid the peppery and inexperienced employer getting into handgrips with the trade union organiser because the trade union organiser was using the language of trade union negotiation, to which the peppery employer was wholly unaccustomed. However, he had by him an experienced member of the negotiating side of the Federated Union of Employers who was able to say: "Do not get fussed. This fellow is only blowing off steam to show the delegation he has with him what a tough customer he is. Let him blow and puff away for a while and he will come down to earth, as they always do."
When negotiations are opened—I do not think Deputy Kyne will disagree with me—and when a trade union organiser comes with a deputation of the workers, he is usually inclined to use tough, rough language and all the boys are edified at the boss being told off. Then it is suggested that they should all have a cup of tea or "rud eile", and by the time that has been consumed, everybody gets down to talking in a realistic way. That brings me back to my original remark. The firm without competent personnel management and a representative of that personnel management on the board of directors is buying labour trouble for itself. Those two precautions are not enough unless the secretary of a company insists that the first item on the agenda shall be "personnel" and that not until that has been satisfactorily disposed of will the board of directors proceed to other business.
There is no use talking about the urgent necessity of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions taking whatever steps are necessary to remedy the fantastic situation of the multiplicity of unions functioning in this country. Nobody knows better than the Congress itself the utter confusion that weighs down the British industrial economy at the present time. In Great Britain you have to go very far back to understand how that whole complex of trade unions grew up. We have no such long tradition here at all. What has happened to us is that we have taken over from the British unions and inherited the difficulties of a trade union system the result of an industrial history in which we had no part at all.
I do not underestimate the problem confronting the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in trying to resolve their difficulties. These difficulties relate to the principles of small unions in seeking to maintain differentials. If anybody else gets something, then the differentials must be reviewed and new contracts negotiated. Let us not underestimate the differences here. The Minister has offered financial help. One of his many problems here, I should imagine, would be this. You have a small union with its office and permanent officials. They have got into the habit of being trade union officials and it is not always easy for them, after ten, 15 or 20 years as trade union officials to go back to the bench and resume their previous craft.
I do not think the Minister should hesitate to say that, where there is an amalgamation of trade union associations, the country at large should allow him pay the officials of the unions who will be affected. He could then say to the unions concerned: "If you cannot fit them into jobs in the larger union, I will pay them and I will do so for the rest of their lives." This is a diminishing charge and a perfectly legitimate capital cost to be borne by the community in order to carry such an organisation through its amalgamation procedure.
I remember, when the late Deputy Bill Norton—the Lord have mercy on him—was Tánaiste and Minister for Social Welfare, we had two bus drivers who belonged to some obscure British union and who were the cause of a strike here. The late Deputy Norton, a man of immense ability and great courage but of extraordinary common sense, did something about this. I remember him saying to the Government at that time: "No matter how utterly irresponsible it is, the situation is such that unless you can get those two fellows fixed up we are in for a long, tedious, industrial wrangle out of all proportion to the actual problem. Nobody wants those people; it is one of those sticky things. It is the only way out of this. You have to pay those two fellows to stay at home." I remember him being abused and denounced as being a combination of Stalin and earthworm. The truth was that the late Bill Norton was faced with this great dispute which had held up the whole country and complicated the economy. The fact is, where reason is suspended and those two fellows had got to get their pay, if we did not give it to them we would have been in for blue murder. I think Deputy Kyne remembers that.
Of course.
The country was facing immense trouble at that time. I do not think the problem has occurred since. As far as I know, those two men joined an Irish union and went back to corresponding employment. It seemed an awful thing to do but it was typical of the practical wisdom of that most remarkable man, the late Deputy Bill Norton. I venture to say it is typical of what I imagine could be the approach of that great trade unionist, the late James Larkin. He had very great commonsense, wisdom and integrity. The death of both those men has left not only the trade union movement, but Ireland, the poorer by their passing.
I am astonished that in the drafting of this Trade Union Bill the Minister could possibly have left so glaring an ambiguity as that in section 14. Who are the members of the union who are qualified here? Supposing there was a dispute in a place which employed four carters who were members of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union and the question was if there was a strike on would it be the whole Irish Transport and General Workers Union who would be canvassed? Would everyone be involved even though only those four men went out on strike? Subsection (1), paragraph (a) says:
the rules of a trade union shall be deemed to require that, before the service of a strike notice, a majority of the members of the trade union entitled to vote and voting in a secret ballot conducted by the trade union shall approve of such service;.
Who are they? Is it the four carters or the entire members of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union?
My intention is that the practice obtaining at the moment would continue so that their union would decide in any particular instance who would be entitled to vote on any particular issue. This is what they do at the present time.
There is no statement here which says they are members of a trade union.
What I want to make sure is the State is not saying it is their decision. It is the union's decision.
We want to be as liberal as we can but we must not legislate to the point of absurdity. In the dispute involving the four carters is it the members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or the members working in the firm who would be involved?
At the moment the unions decide this themselves and we will leave it to them.
It is usually the people in the firm.
Does this usually embrace members in the same town which may comprise three or four firms?
It varies. The unions decide and we will not interfere.
The reason the Minister is doing this is that it introduces the principle of secret ballot in regard to strikes. I assume there will be discussions by the Minister and the trade unions between now and Committee Stage so that all those problems can be considered.
There would be no point in the four carters holding a secret ballot.
The intention is to allow the unions to make as many decisions as possible.
Arising from observations by Deputy Esmonde, I have made some notes. He said you cannot by legislation make a man work.
Hear, hear.
Wait a minute. There is an addendum to that and I am not so sure it will be so warmly received. Hitler did it.
Not by legislation.
What about the concentration camps?
Hitler hanged them and Stalin shot them.
That did not make them work.
I think he did make them work because, having hanged some and shot some, the next step was to send people to a labour camp for re-education. We live in a free society and I wish to make it quite clear that I regard the free trade union movement as being an integral part of the kind of freedom under which I wish to live and I want to protect the right of a trade union to picket the premises where its members work and where there is a legitimate trade dispute.
It is an illusion for people to be flirting with the idea that a picket is an archaic, Victorian anomaly in our day. A peaceful picket is a perfectly legitimate instrument of industrial dispute and anybody who imagines that that instrument can be struck from the hand of trade unions by legislation of this House is chasing rainbows.
What we ought to concern ourselves with is to work out with the Congress of Trade Unions how we are to prevent the promiscuous picketing of industrial premises without reference to the trade union in wildcat strikes. I have great sympathy with the feeling of the ordinary worker in this country who says "I will not pass a picket," full stop. I was reared in the Land League tradition and the Land League tradition was "I will not speak to a man who has grabbed land," full stop. That could be on occasion carried to extremity. I knew of the case of a man who was boycotted and I remember my father often telling me of how it was the wrong man who was boycotted. But there were certain irresponsible elements in the Land League at that time who said "Whether it is the right or the wrong man, it will have to go on" and my father had to go down himself and break them up.
Sooner or later we will have to face the unpopular measures needed to distinguish clearly between the wildcat strike with the unauthorised picket and the official strike with a controlled picket. Some people say to me that if we try to do that we will make every unofficial strike an official one. I am not so sure that that would not be a good thing. I do not think the trade unions would like it; they would say that we were passing over to them responsibility for every lunatic in the country. However, I would feel like saying to the trade unions that it is their baby. If an agreement is reached between the employer and the trade union and if, say, six lunatics continue to parade up and down outside the premises concerned, it is only right that the employer should say to the trade union "I am asking not only that you get men to pass the picket but that you get six men to do their jobs".
If a union has negotiated tough and rough and strong for its members and if it has gone back to its members and said "We recommend this agreement to you", and if they go back to the employer again and say it is not acceptable and the union officials go back to the members with a new proposal and the members say they will accept that and the officials then ask if they may go back and sign that in the names of the members and they say "yes" and they go back and sign it in their names, not only have the trade unions got an obligation to honour their undertakings but if, say, six or more members, despite the agreement, continue to strike, the unions, as I have said, are bound not only to ask their men to pass the picket but to get six fellows to fill the jobs of those six who are walking up and down outside.
We accept that.
It is very important that the country should know that that is the attitude of responsible trade unions.
That is the attitude.
Deputy Kyne is correct but the number of people who do not know that is surprising. I believe that trade unions should go to wildcat strikers and say to them that the fact that they walked out does not mean the union is behind them and that if they have a grievance they should bring it to the trade union and have it investigated.
Now I say something that will put the trade unionists into orbit. Deputy Tully always goes into orbit when I mention this. One of the reasons for the industrial trouble in this country is that the trade unionists will not pay their own officials a decent wage. I have had cases in my own constituency in which the man sent down to negotiate the settlement of a perfectly simple trade dispute was not fit for his job and if an experienced trade union man had been sent down he would have rounded up his members in the district and told them to go back to their jobs while he would see the employer and discuss the matter and there would have been no need at all for a strike. I have seen fellows parading up and down for a fortnight or three weeks and on one occasion I rang up the union and was told that the responsible organiser had gone on his holidays and I was expected to sit down and wait for this fellow to come back from his holidays. I can see Deputy Tully's colour rising at that, but, while it is by no means the general rule, it does happen.
If Deputy Dillon says so I will have to believe it, but I find it terribly hard to believe. The Deputy must deal with a queer kind of trade unionist.
I remember ringing up the headquarters and asking about it.
Something was wrong.
I believe it could be called——
——a breakdown in communications.
It was more than a couple of days on that occasion. It was a fortnight.
A fortnight? It could not be that.
That was a long time ago. All I am saying is that if the Federated Union of Employers have their share of responsibility, so have the trade unions.
We accept that.
I am not at all sure that it is not a good thing for a wildcat strike to be turned into an official strike. The unions should discharge their responsibility in regard to it and not simply wash their hands of it by saying that they made an agreement and that there is nothing they can do about it.
I heard American industrialists in the recent past talking about investing money in this country and going into orbit at the idea of secondary strikes. I asked what they meant by secondary strikes. They said what they meant was, where one firm gets involved in a strike, the carrying on of picketing of another firm which is not involved in the strike at all. To this moment I am not quite clear what they meant.
You can get that on a lock-out. It is quite common where one newspaper goes on strike for the others to lock everybody out.
The matter of the secondary strike seemed to impinge on their minds to a most extravagant degree. I remember listening with indignation when they told me we should emulate the example of the Danes and the Swiss. I felt constrained to say to them: "The first thing you have to learn is that you are living in a foreign country, although we speak the same language as you do. We are not Danes nor Swiss and have no desire to be either." I told them that if they recognised that they were living in a foreign country they would find the trade union movement of this country is a very rational body indeed. I think a fellow born in either South Carolina or Alaska, although he speaks English, does not speak the kind of English we speak in this country. They should come over here and ask either the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or the Minister for Labour to get a good personnel officer. If they did that they would clarify 90 per cent of the nightmares that seem to haunt their minds; but if they bring an efficiency expert from Pennsylvania and plant him in Kilmacow to establish labour relations with the local branch secretary of the General Workers' Union, there will be seismic reactions.
The last thing I want to say tonight is this: we are passing legislation here to try to promote industrial peace. I want to ask any rational Deputy in this House when a trade union negotiate a wages settlement with any firm in this country and when we are making up our minds in Dáil Éireann that four per cent of the wages agreed with the trade unions will be taken from the members every year by inflation, how in the name of Providence are we to get enduring industrial peace?
There is an objective method of measuring this. Two countries in the free world performed in the last 20 years virtual economic miracles. One is the Federal Union of Germany and the other is the Union of the United States. If you examine the record of the two countries you will find astonishing facts. During a period of phenomenal expansion in their gross national product or national income the stability of prices, up to three years ago, was practically absolute. As the curve on the graph of the gross national product rises the cost of living remains virtually in a straight line up to 1965 or so. As that gap between the rising curve of the gross national product and the flat line of the cost of living grew, so there grew the layer of cream on the top of the milk available for redistribution in social services among all sections of the community, and increased wages and a higher standard of living. Then America got involved in the Vietnam war and tried to carry on the war with her left hand and, with her right hand, the increasingly heavy burden of the domestic social services requisite to resolve her peculiar urban problem. The gap began to close. The cost of living began to go up and immediately the USA found themselves in economic difficulties. The dollar became shaky and now all sorts of restrictive measures are becoming necessary.
About Germany now: the whole world is drawing exports from Germany into their economies and the whole world is finding it more and more difficult to compete on the domestic German market. Because the German people had the constant absence of inflation, they had been able, with perfect regularity, to negotiate rational wage agreements and maintain and steadily improve their family standard of living, whereas people, notoriously in Great Britain, have been caught in this infernal spiral of inflation.
I can pinpoint the day when it began here. It began with the turnover tax, with Deputy Seán Lemass's fraudulent purchase of two by-elections in Kildare and Cork. Having lost an election in Dublin, he deliberately, for political motives, launched the inflationary spiral for the purpose of purchasing election victories in Cork and Kildare. From that date we have never looked back. We have gone from one escalation to another in the inflationary spiral which will ultimately strangle us if it is allowed to continue.
In Great Britain it is not so easy to pinpoint where the spiral of inflation began but now, in retrospect, there can be little doubt that the point of no return for them was reached when the Labour Government failed to devalue after their election. They postponed devaluation until three years later, when they were forced to do it, instead of taking that action as a foresight, to remedy the problems they inherited from the Tory Government.
I wish to warn the House that all this legislation, all these good intentions, will get us nowhere at all so long as the stability of money is not restored. How many people in this House realise that since 1948 the value of the pound in this country has declined by 10/-? When we pay a farmer today 2/- or 2/4d for a gallon of milk we are, in fact, paying the equivalent of 1/- or 1/2d 20 years ago; when we pay a pensioner 65/- a week we are giving him the equivalent of 32/6d 20 years ago; when a workman is paid £20 a week he is getting the equivalent of £10 a week 20 years ago.
But that is not the end of it. Now we are faced with the declaration by the Government that they intend so to operate the economy that there will be an annual inflation of four per cent. Do they realise what that means? It means simply that in another 20 years the pound of today will be worth about 10/- or less. What is even more tragic —and it is a constant source of conscience-pricking to me—is that we launched national loans when we were in office at interest rates of 3½ per cent per annum and we always stood up here and recommended them as good securities for the people to put their savings in. In fact, the people who subscribed to them have been living on their savings ever since because instead of giving them 3½ per cent per annum we have been taking 10/- per cent from them during the entire period of the loans. That is common theft, and what maddens me is that nobody who knows how to manage money, no wealthy person, has suffered the loss of a penny, because anybody who possesses sufficient funds has placed his money in equities or in the ordinary shares of large companies which have increased in value with the depreciation in money values.
The only man who is suffering is the wage earner, the person with an industrial insurance policy, the person who has put his money into national savings, into trustee savings banks or into the ordinary commercial banks. I know no well-to-do person who has engaged in any such operation. He realises the formidable problem of inflation, because the truth is that while inflation is going on other things are happening.
When you open the Irish Independent or the Irish Times and you read that holdings in the London Stock Exchange have gone up 1/- or 1/6d, it gives you a warm, comfortable feeling, whereas if you read that there has been a slide in the London Stock Exchange by half a crown, you are in a depressed state for the rest of the day.
There is no doubt that a trade union official who negotiates for an increase is regarded as better than the man who succeeds in holding the line in stable currency. The average fellow is happy when he has plenty of airgead, money, to rattle in his pocket. He is relatively indifferent to the fact that the half crown today would not buy 2/6d worth 20 years ago. What he likes is the money.
It is the duty of the Government to save society from the kinds of problems which they have, and these Bills are in part directed at restoring the value of money. However, until you do something better, the effect of this will merely be a palliative. The more simple things are and the more universally agreed they are, in one sense the more dangerous they are because the Government will continue to slide on the thin ice of inflation until eventually they plunge us into the world of inflation, and, then, the greater the danger for a country like this becomes. England is unlikely to perish, the US and Russia will survive, but a small country struggling to stay free, and democratic, is threatened with no greater peril than uncontrolled inflation.
Is that not the reason we are demanding more money?
Yes. Deputy Kyne is an honest, straight and able Deputy. When he asks that question it illustrates more than anything I can say the measure of the danger in which we stand.
One appreciates that the Minister had to introduce these Bills but at the same time one must appreciate that the trade union movement generally is in need of aid, as was expressed by the President of the Trade Union Congress. The need for the Minister to introduce these Bills makes me a little sad because those of us who believe in democracy and in free enterprise agree that there should be as little as possible State interference in the lives of the people. Taking notice of what is happening and trying to help out as best he can, the Minister has introduced this legislation. Few of us here believe that legislation is an end in itself: it can only help people to do things; it can create conditions where people can work better for the common good.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 25th February, 1969.