Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1974

Vol. 276 No. 3

Trade Union (Amalgamations) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. O'Leary

This section provides that the instrument of amalgamation or transfer of engagements shall not take effect until registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies acting in accordance with the procedures laid down in this Bill. The registrar may not register an instrument before six weeks at least have elapsed since the application for its registration was lodged with him. The purpose of the six weeks delay is to permit time for any member of the union concerned who may have a grievance, to lodge an appeal against amalgamation with the registrar.

Of course, the registration could be delayed for more than six weeks while the registrar was considering any complaints made by members. Again, this buttresses the procedure whereby the union member is informed fully beforehand of facts and that afterwards sufficient time is given for the registrar to consider the complaint.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. O'Leary

This section will enable a union to ignore any more stringent requirements in their rules while at the same time protecting members' interests by ensuring that they receive adequate notice of amalgamation and transfer.

Mr. Dowling

Many unions have a section that deals with amalgamations. One union made available powers to the executive council to set in motion the necessary procedures to carry out the amalgamations. It also specifies that at least 60 per cent of the fingamatio ancial members of the union cast their votes and that there must be a majority of at least 20 per cent in favour of the executive council's proposals or such a prescribed majority as laid down by any Act of the Oireachtas.

The Minister has dealt already with the question of numbers and the elimination of the impediments that were in previous legislation but this empowers a merger to take place irrespective of anything there may be in the rules of the trade unions concerned. There may be some very good reasons for various provisions in the rules of trade unions. For that reason the complete elimination of these rules to satisfy, possibly, the larger of the two unions, would be a matter requiring considerable thought. We would like the Minister to elaborate on how he proposes to deal with the problems that might arise as a result of changes in the rules of a trade union.

Sometimes a rule is implemented for a specific reason. For instance, when I was contesting a post in the union of which I am a member, there was introduced a rule whereby a Member of the Dáil or Seanad was debarred from holding a full-time appointment in the union and also to debar a full-time official of the union becoming a Member of the Dáil or Seanad. In the event of an amalgamation it might well be that one side might wish to retain some of their rules. Could this question not be the subject of discussion between the unions concerned in any merger rather than to eliminate the rules that might be of concern to a few members in the larger unions involved?

Mr. M. O'Leary

What we are endeavouring to do is to ensure that each person voting is in full possession of the facts, that fair criteria are adopted to ensure that as many people as possible vote and that there is recourse to the registrar should any injustice occur. As these provisions are laid down in this Bill, we are anxious to streamline the rules relating to amalgamations and mergers. Deputy Dowling is right in saying that there are different rules within the various unions, rules that were not drawn up in anticipation of mergers. The adherence to the requirements of our legislation would ensure justice and fairplay. Therefore, section 2 to 6 should be the dominant ones to apply in all cases of mergers.

Talking of the earlier amendments, we see there are safeguards built in to ensure that all can take part in voting in a fair and reasonable manner, that the vote should be secret, that there should be notice beforehand and that there should be recourse to the registrar in the event of there being any ground for complaint that these requirements were not adhered to.

The unions' rules may not have been very clear. Deputies are aware that one of the big problems in the area of amalgamation is the vagueness of rules in that area. If the law has been vague, it has impeded progress in this area of amalgamations and mergers but it can be said that the complications have been compounded by the rules of the unions which have been unfair in some respects on the question of deciding whether to merge. It is in consideration of these facts that we seek to have this section substituted for all existing rules. I am confident that sections 2 to 6 safeguard the individual and insure justice for all those taking part in a ballot.

Mr. Dowling

Some unions have rules which make provision for amalgamation or mergers but they also have a section which deals with the alteration of rules. This Bill would appear to conflict with the right of a union to alter their rules.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I must emphasise that this Bill is concerned with one problem only. The rules of a union face in all directions. They cover such questions as relations with other unions, with other employers, with the State, with the objectives of the unions with inner rules as to how offices should be decided, with limiting the role of the annual conference and many other questions but this Bill is concerned only with laying the groundwork for amalgamation and mergers.

The Bill is the product of discussions with unions, with the TUC and the ICTU and with employer interests. It is designed solely to serve the purpose of facilitating those unions and associations who have a desire to merge and amalgamate. That is why it is considered that sections 2 to 6 are an adequate safeguard against both minority and individual rights in a union and that these provisions should supersede existing union rules where these are vague or where they may impede an honest attempt at merging.

Mr. Dowling

Does that mean that workers would have to forego their rights in relation to union facilities as a result of a merger?

Mr. M. O'Leary

No. We have been over this ground before. The provisions of sections 2 to 6 guard against any abuse of power either by the union or the majority in the union. They guard against all possibilities of abuse—all that can be humanly conceived. No legislation can guard against all contingencies. This Bill solely designed to facilitate mergers and amalgamations, has been drawn up in consultation with the unions and their centre who would be most anxious to avoid the problems mentioned by the Deputy. I think it gives adequate safeguards to individuals.

Mr. Dowling

Does section 7 not conflict with section 8? Does section 7 say that sections 2 to 6 shall apply to every amalgamation or transfer of engagements notwithstanding anything in the rules of a trade union concerned and then section 8 gives power to alter rules for the purpose of transfer of engagements?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We shall come to that but it deals with different matters.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 12, to delete "the committee of management or other governing body" and substitute "a Delegate Conference".

We think the words "the committee of management or other governing body" should be deleted and instead that we should substitute "delegate conference". A committee of management or governing body could be a very small body which would have the right to make changes that might not reflect the collective will of the majority of the union members. It is important that the Minister should try to protect the collective will of the union in regard to decisions. Here the decision is left to a committee of management or other governing body. These are very vague terms. Does the Minister mean the national executive of the union or its executive or just an ordinary committee of management selected on an ad hoc basis? A committee of management can mean many things, even management in relation to union property. Does it mean a committee of management and the governing body would jointly decide or that either would make the rules?

In any case, we feel this should be done on a much wider basis, that it should be done by a delegate conference where the collective will of the union as a whole might be more fully expressed. That would be more in keeping with what is required here when the rules, which are such an important part of a trade union, are being altered. It is only right that each member should have some say either through a delegate conference or on some wider basis than that indicated in section 8.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Section 8 is different from section 7. This refers to rule changes that may be necessary in the union which accepts, the acceptor, in a merger. "The committee of management", if there is a higher authority does not exclude it as the section makes it clear that it is the committee of management or "other governing body". That would not rule out the annual conference if that was the relevant governing body.

Mr. Dowling

Would the Minister not think it wiser to include the wider delegate conference instead of "committee of management or other governing body"? This would avoid referring back to a delegate conference possibly later and would shorten the period of time spent in deliberating rule changes?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The standard term used as far back at 1871 is "committee of management". I think it is put in a better form here. There is no possibility of some executive making a decision without recourse to their annual conference on any particular merger or amalgamation. Full authority is given to "or other governing body". I think that properly safeguards what the Deputy is worried about. It does not take away from the right of the governing body at the annual conference.

Mr. Dowling

My point is that the basis is not wide enough, that a small group of people could make the changes under this section. The Minister mentioned the 1871 Act. This is one of the problems of our legislation; we are referring back to Acts of 1871 whose phraseology is not very acceptable and does not entirely give the interpretation required.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Perhaps I did not explain sufficiently that we are departing from that formula. In the 1871 Act they say "committee of management" only and we add "or other governing body". That broadens the matter and guards against the idea that it is the executive committee alone who make the decision. We make clear that it is the governing body which would differ from union to union but in most cases would be the annual conference.

Mr. Dowling

Then, would it not be better to put in "annual delegate conference" because in most cases it would be the annual delegate conference, rather than use a vague term which might mean the same thing?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We cannot write a school essay when it comes to enshrining rights that must last for some years. A known form of language is used to include the things the Deputy is anxious to include in the decision-making process. "Or other governing body" includes the annual conference. There is nothing big at issue here. The legislation does what the Deputy wishes it to do but perhaps in different language. I am sure we shall not worry too much about the language.

Mr. Dowling

Would it not be better to eliminate any ambiguity?

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is no ambiguity.

Mr. Dowling

There is. The "committee of management" is not a generally accepted term today.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It may not be but there is a problem here. If I looked over the list of 90 or more unions in the country. I imagine I should find one committee known by a particular name and it would mean I would have to go around all the unions and have a special schedule to the Bill to say that this means x, y, and z. That is the difficulty when you use formulations that do not have the advantage of past usage to indicate their exact significance. I agree it would be wrong if we simply had "committee of management" but by adding "or other governing body" we ensure that it applies to all the cases we know.

Mr. Dowling

There is a committee of management in my union to deal with the hall or the premises. Could that committee make a decision? That is the only committee of management there is. If the wording was "and other governing body" or if some wider basis were specified, perhaps it would tend to mean the executive power governing the union, not the delegate conference. Does the Minister not agree that "delegate conference" would be the acceptable term?

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is standard phraseology used as far back as 1871.

Mr. Dowling

This is one of the problems. The parliamentary draftsman uses standard phraseology going back to 1871. I agree with the Minister that it is sometimes hard to interpret. We should get away from this type of phraseology and up-date it to conform with present day requirements and what is accepted generally in terms of executives or managements or specify some particular body so that there would be no vagueness in the legislation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is no vagueness. It does suffer the disadvantage that it possibly is not quite the formulation the Deputy would favour. I can assure him it does the things the Deputy wishes it to do. Here we have a difficult task of wedding formulations of past practice with modern ideas. I hope that is what we do here. "The committee of management" is a phrase used as far back as 1871. We have added to that the concept of a governing body which widens the scope of decision-making in the union. This becomes as near the universal as it is possible to have in legislation of this kind.

Mr. Esmonde

This is only an enabling section.

Mr. Dowling

I understand that. If it were just "governing body" it could possibly be interpreted as the governing body of the union, which would be fairly acceptable. What is meant by a governing body?

Mr. Esmonde

This is the day to day management committee of the union doing ordinary administrative work. It says "to give effect to the instrument of transfer". You must have an instrument of transfer. It has been voted on already. This follows. It is the committee that is authorised to sign on behalf of the union, say, when they have decided to merge. "Management committee" is a well known phrase. It is used in club law and this is where the unions get their phraseology in their book of rules.

Mr. Dowling

But this is not a football club; it is a trade union.

Mr. Esmonde

Yes, but under old rules this would be the generic description of the particular committee.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is no problem for the union members who are accepting the other union members. Their position remains. Their rules may require to be changed before they can legally accept the other people who wish to merge with them. The Deputy's picture of a scheming minority seeking to bring about a limitation on the rights of other members cannot be utilised in this case.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister will agree that a committee of management can be three or four or five persons. Surely three, four or five persons would not constitute the collective will of the trade union concerned?

Mr. Esmonde

That does not arise because the decision has already been made. This is a question of implementing what has been decided.

Mr. Moore

Would the Minister not agree that somebody might come along, because this is somewhat ambiguous, and ask the court to define what is a governing body, whether a delegate conference is more important than the management committee. They may say: "This must be decided by a delegate conference and you have not called one." This could happen.

Mr. Esmonde

No. Deputy Dowling's reading of it is that "Delegate Conference" in capital letters is setting up another legal animal that is not there already.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy may again use the example of this minority who are never short of plans for coming sideways at the law. I have not been as long in the trade union world as Deputy Dowling and he may have been more unfortunate than I have been in his associates. Generally, they are not quite as Machiavellian as Deputy Dowling appears to have known them to be. I would ask Deputy Dowling to look ahead at section 8 (3) which reads:

This section shall not apply in the case of a trade union the rules of which expressly exclude the application to that union of this section.

So section 8 (3) can exclude section 8 (1).

Mr. Dowling

What about section 7?

Mr. Wilson

Is section 8 (3) an invitation to existing trade unions to change their rules or does it only apply to a new union that has been formed? Are they being invited to put this in if they so choose?

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is an enabling provision. The union which accepts the other union may have to change its rules so we must have this clause enabling them to do it.

Mr. Wilson

Can they do it at any time? Can they do it a week before it is necessary to accept the other union?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes.

Mr. Dowling

Does that not conflict with section 7?

Mr. M. O'Leary

No, because this refers to the union accepting. The facts are against the Deputy on this occasion.

Mr. Dowling

Would the Minister not agree that "delegate conference" is more acceptable in present day circumstances than "committee of management". Can the committee of management be three people? Would it be reasonable to allow three people to decide to change the rules of the union?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The whole purpose of the legislation is to break away from the situation where you have many rules with no possibility of merger or amalgamation even where the will to embark on that course is present. With the in-built guarantees in this legislation there will be no victimisation or injustice for any of those involved. This section simply enables the union accepting the members to give a decision making their acceptance legal. The phrase used is "committee of management or other governing body". By the addition of "governing body" we widen the area of decision and yet I would not wish to change the language of it because it has a long history and over the years has meant precise things. The Deputy's suggestion would place us in the danger which the Deputy and I wish to avoid that we may not be certain exactly what we mean.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister must agree that "delegate conference" is in more general use in trade union affairs. There are certain terms used throughout the trade union organisation that are generally understood by the members. The Minister is relying on an 1871 Act.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Legal terminology always lags behind common usage.

Mr. Dowling

Will the Minister ensure that in future legislation we will move with the times.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am all for moving with the times.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, to delete lines 29 to 31.

Section 9 provides that union members may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies in regard to the passing of a resolution approving an instrument of amalgamation or transfer of engagements. Section 9 (1) (b) provides that one of the grounds for complaint may be that where the vote on a resolution approving an instrument of amalgamation or transfer is taken under the rules of the union the manner in which it is taken was not in accordance with those rules. My suggestion is to delete lines 29 to 31.

Mr. Dowling

To delete (b)?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dowling

Subsection (2) of this section reads:

(2) A complaint under this section lodged with the registrar after the expiry of the period of six weeks beginning on the date on which an application for registration under section 6 is lodged with him shall not be entertained.

Does the Minister consider six weeks long enough?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes. You must set an upper limit, and I think six weeks is adequate.

Mr. Dowling

Subsection (12) says:

An appeal shall lie to the High Court on a point of law against a decision of the Registrar under this section.

Who pays for that appeal by an ordinary member of the union?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The appeal to the High Court is on a point of law. Therefore this would be a purely technical appeal. The legislation itself has got in-built guarantees in the form of requirements to be fulfilled. Such appeals to the High Court, being on a point of law, would be very rare, and the award of costs in a High Court case is a matter left to the discretion of a judge. If the Bill were to provide that costs in cases brought under this subsection were to be met by the State, there would be the possibility of frivolous appeals being made to the High Court.

Mr. Dowling

It could be an ordinary member of the union bringing this appeal as distinct from a trade union. Would the Minister expect the ordinary member of a trade union to pay the costs?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The ordinary member has a right of appeal to the registrar on all matters of substance.

Mr. Dowling

If he is not satisfied with the decision of the registrar and appeals to the High Court on a point of law?

Mr. Esmonde

You could have a crank.

Mr. Dowling

Just because of a crank, it is unfair that the ordinary member of a union who feels he has a legitimate case should have to pay his own costs.

Mr. Esmonde

If you underwrite costs you are encouraging people to raise points because it will all be paid for.

Mr. Dowling

A person can feel he has a genuine case.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The substance of any complaint will be dealt with by the registrar having regard to the criteria laid down. If the procedures laid down are fully complied with there does not seem to be any possibility of an appeal beyond that.

Mr. Dowling

Then why is it written into the Bill?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Provision must be made for a point of law. All legislation has an appeal to the High Court on a point of law.

Mr. Moore

Surely under common law a man would have this right anyway?

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is right.

Mr. Moore

Then why do we spell it out?

Mr. M. O'Leary

You cannot have it both ways. Deputy Dowling says one thing and Deputy Moore says another.

Mr. Moore

Not necessarily. We are seeking the truth. The Minister mentions the High Court, but surely a person can go to the Supreme Court on a point of law.

Mr. M. O'Leary

He would not go direct.

Mr. Moore

No. He would go to the High Court first and, not being satisfied, he would go to the Supreme Court?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes.

Mr. Moore

We are being generous with people here, allowing them to do this.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is important that it should be spelled out. This is a common procedure in all industrial relations legislation.

Mr. Moore

I do not think they will thank us for our trouble on this point.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I agree.

Mr. Dowling

Is the Minister aware that in a previous merger men mortgaged their houses to pursue their legitimate grievance through the courts. I can visualise a situation in which an individual member of a union would pursue a case to the bitter end. Just because, as Deputy Esmonde says, some crank might take advantage of this, that is given as a reason why the State should not pay. If a union member has a legitimate case he should be compensated and not be put at a disadvantage.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Surely the High Court will give him his costs if he has a just case.

Mr. Dowling

If he does not get his costs in the High Court——

Mr. M. O'Leary

If the case is as just as the Deputy makes out, after all the steps we have written into this legislation, and finally the High Court turns against him——

Mr. Dowling

If he is advised by his legal advisers—and they are sometimes wrong—that he has a good case and takes it to court, does he pay his own costs then if he loses?

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is a convention about wrong advice from legal advisers.

Mr. Dowling

This is in relation to a merger or an amalgamation. As a result of considerable High Court expenses a man might have to sell his house.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think the Deputy can take it that if he has a just case he will not be at a loss, because the court will give him costs.

Mr. Dowling

He does not have to win the case to have a just case. Many a man went to court with a just case and did not win it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy is straining the quality of mercy.

Mr. Dowling

If a person has a legitimate claim and is told by his legal adviser—and I do not know whether he would have to support that man or not——

Mr. Esmonde

That principle would have to be applied to every legal activity.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is a separate question as to where a man who receives wrong legal advice should get legal costs from. Certain conventions obtain in that area.

Mr. Dowling

Are there any facilities to assist a union member in pursuing a legitimate claim?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The whole legislation is on the side of such a person, seeing that in the case of a merger his rights are fully protected. If he is not satisfied that the procedures are complied with he has an appeal to the registrar.

Mr. Dowling

Then there is the right of appeal to the High Court. What the Minister is saying is that, if an ordinary trade union member wishes to pursue a grievance to the bitter end, the State will not assist him.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Not under this legislation, but it would be a most extraordinary case indeed——

Mr. Dowling

Extraordinary things happen in court.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is it agreed that section 9 stand part of the Bill?

Mr. Dowling

I am seeking further clarification from the Minister.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy has had the clarification.

Mr. Dowling

Could the Minister say if under the other section of the Act, which provides for grants towards exceptional expenses, this would be regarded as an exceptional expense?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would draw the Deputy's attention to subsection (10):

In the course of proceedings on a complaint under this section the Registrar may, at the request of the complainant or of the trade union, state a case for the opinion of the High Court on a question of law arising in the proceedings, and the decision of the High Court on a case stated under this subsection shall be final.

Mr. Dowling

That is not what subsection (12) of section 9 says.

Mr. Esmonde

He gets that extra provision.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am pointing out that even in the appeal to the registrar he has the opinion of the High Court.

Mr. Dowling

But this is against the decision of the registrar. Would the Minister clear up that point?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I cannot clear up what is an absurdity.

Mr. Dowling

There is another section dealing with exceptional expenses. Would a man be able to claim legal costs under that section?

Mr. M. O'Leary

No.

Mr. Dowling

If he wants to pursue a legitimate claim then against the registrar he will have to do so at his own expense. Is that the case?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Whatever the Deputy says.

Mr. Dowling

Fair enough.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(2) Where any land of which the ownership is registered under the Registration of Title Act, 1964, becomes vested by virtue of this section, the registering authority under that Act shall, upon payment of the appropriate fee, register the appropriate trustees in the appropriate register maintained under that Act as owner (within the meaning of that Act) of the land."

This amendment provides that the property of each of the unions involved shall pass to the new union, without any conveyance, assignment or assignation. The property will vest in the appropriate trustee as defined under section 10 (3) when the instrument of amalgamation or transfer has taken effect or when the trustees have been appointed, whichever is the later. This is a complicated area of real property legislation and it refers to the question of registering land to ensure minimum difficulty in the transfer of such land. That is why this amendment is necessary, so I am advised, to cover cases where registered land is a factor.

Mr. Moore

Subsection (2) provides:

Subsection (1) shall not apply to property excepted from the operation of this section by the instrument of amalgamation or transfer.

Under what section is property excepted?

Mr. M. O'Leary

This excludes that property not mentioned in the instrument of amalgamation or transfer.

Mr. Moore

Suppose they own three houses?

Mr. M. O'Leary

If the instrument excluded house A, then that would be excluded. It is possible in the case of a merger that X property might be excluded from the merger or amalgamation as part of the discussions.

Mr. Esmonde

There might be a covenant against assigning or dealing with property at all. One has to allow for these things.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dowling

In section 12 it is provided that the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, with the consent of the Minister, make regulations for carrying this Act into effect. Is there no way in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce could be made completely responsible for carrying this Act into effect? I know the Registry of Friendly Societies is tied up with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but it seems to me ridiculous that there should be a provision whereby the Minister for Labour may, with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, make regulations for carrying this Act into effect.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We are, of course, the best of friends.

Mr. Moore

You might not always be friends.

Mr. Dowling

Is it possible some new body could be instituted so that the Minister would have complete control?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy has raised an interesting point. To speed the passage of this legislation I thought it better to put this provision in this form because the power to make regulations in regard to friendly societies is vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce by virtue of section 2 (1) (b) and section 13 (6) of the Trade Union Act of 1871. This power was not transferred to the Minister for Labour when a former administration set up this Department in 1966. I agree it would be preferable that there should at least be a division in the Registry of Friendly Societies dealing solely with this. I shall undertake to bring in at a later stage—it is not that important now—an amendment removing these powers from the Ministry for Industry and Commerce to whomsoever will be Minister for Labour, so the Deputy need not worry when he is over here in the years ahead.

Mr. Dowling

It will not be too long.

Mr. M. O'Leary

A matter of ten or 15 years and then the Deputy will be able to pass his own legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 11, in the name of Deputy Dowling, and amendment No. 12, in the name of the Minister, are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, line 10, to delete "exceptional" and substitute "reasonable".

What does the Minister mean by "exceptional" expenses? Do these cover the entire area of delegate conferences, legal advice and all the other fairly expensive things involved in a merger? Exceptional circumstances would be circumstances presumably of a rather exceptional nature to be determined by some legal person. If the Minister substituted "reasonable" I think that would be a better word to use.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think the Deputy is trying to achieve the same thing as I am attempting to achieve here. I examined the Deputy's amendment to see if "reasonable" would be a better word to use, but I am informed that if it were substituted, I would have to satisfy myself that the expenses were in fact, reasonable in the sense of being good value for money. This is a task upon which I should not care to embark. Any action on the part of the union exceptionally connected with the merger or amalgamation will be covered by this word "exceptional". It will cover legal expenses, printing, postage, legal advice and the compensation of redundant trade union officials, should such redundancy occur, and "exceptional" is the best way, I am advised, to meet all these particular expenses consequent on merger or amalgamation.

Mr. Dowling

They are all reasonable expenses. There is nothing exceptional in them.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have given the Deputy the advice available to me. "Reasonable" does not have the same accuracy in this context as "exceptional". Indeed, "reasonable" would put the unfortunate incumbent in the Ministry in the position of having to decide whether or not something was good value for money.

Mr. Moore

Would the Minister stipulate what are exceptional expenses?

Mr. Esmonde

That would be limiting.

Mr. M. O'Leary

"Exceptional" conveys what the Deputy wishes to convey.

Mr. Dowling

Is this particular wording in keeping with the 1871 Act again?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We have always kept our sights on the 1871 Act and the 1941 Act. They were not as charitable then as we are, not as generous at any rate.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister is using the same yardstick.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Oh, no.

Mr. Dowling

Would exceptional expenses not be expenses out of the ordinary?

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is what one would think. "Exceptional" would appear to mean that in common English usage. In the legal sense used here "exceptional" relates to the expenses of the merger or the amalgamation.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister has already stated that "exceptional" would appear to be something out of the ordinary. We are ordinary people and we interpret it in the ordinary manner.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Every phrase in this Bill relates to the preceding clause and every clause used in the legislation is limited by the preceding clause. The whole thing is a logical sequence from one clause to the next. "Exceptional" can be understood only within the context of the legislation.

Mr. Dowling

How would the Minister define "reasonable"?

Mr. M. O'Leary

As I say, on advice "reasonable" has a less accurate import than "exceptional".

Mr. Dowling

Is the Minister relying too much on the lawyers? We suggest the substitution of "reasonable" for "exceptional". This would give the Minister a better yardstick to work on.

Mr. Esmonde

It might exclude legal expenses. Does the Deputy think they are not reasonable people?

Mr. Dowling

They are reasonable all right. I would ensure that they were looked after. Will the Minister give further consideration to this?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I will be honest with the Deputy. I will give it further consideration but I do not see much possibility of changing it.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister feels I am right and, therefore, he will give it further consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, to delete lines 11 and 12 and substitute "were incurred by that trade union or those trade unions as a result of, in the course of, or in contemplation of such amalgamation or transfer".

Mr. Dowling

The amendment refers to expenses incurred as a result of, or in the course of, or in contemplation of such amalgamation or transfer. If a person is contemplating an amalgamation will he get financial assistance?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I told the Deputy how generous we are. This is part of what might be required for the purposes of encouraging an amalgamation or merger. Part of the encouragement must be to underwrite the cost of employing consultants. A union might be considering a merger or amalgamation and might not understand some of the problems associated with it and might say they did not see much advantage in merging or amalgamating. If the State underwrote the cost of employing a consultant, he might be able to persuade them that there was a serious advantage accruing to their members and to those of the other unions should they merge and amalgamate. We are prepared to underwrite that cost. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that that is covered.

Mr. Moore

Suppose they try it once and fail, and twice and fail, and three times and fail, will the Minister go on paying?

Mr. Esmonde

That is covered.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Does the Deputy mean if the quality of the consultant's report——

Mr. Moore

Suppose for some reason they decided not to amalgamate after they had probed the matter on two or three occasions?

Mr. M. O'Leary

A union could look at the consultant's report and decide not to go ahead, but that report will be part of the background material which will be used on some occasion for an amalgamation or merger.

Mr. Moore

There is no limit on the number of times they can try this?

Mr. M. O'Leary

No stated limit.

Mr. Dowling

Supposing they did not use consultants and they were just contemplating?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We would not pay them for contemplation. We have no way of measuring contemplation.

Mr. Dowling

That is what is stated here: ", or in contemplation of such an amalgamation or transfer".

Mr. M. O'Leary

Coming back to the Deputy's friends the lawyers, that is another legal way out.

Mr. Dowling

If it indicated that consultants would be paid it would not be as ambiguous as it is. A person has only to contemplate an amalgamation

Mr. M. O'Leary

We talk about incurring expense. "In contemplation" means in preparation. That would be a substitute for it.

Mr. Moore

Would the Minister accept meditation?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy must be referring to presidental contemplation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following section:

(1) Notwithstanding Part II of the Act of 1941 and section 2 of the Act of 1971, a body of persons which is a trade union under the law of another country and has its headquarters control situated in that country shall not hold or be granted a negotiation licence under that Part unless, in addition to fulfilling the relevant conditions specified in section 7 of the Act of 1941 and section 2 of the Act of 1971, it fulfils the condition specified in subsection (2).

(2) The condition referred to in subsection (1) is that the trade union concerned has a committee of management or other controlling authority every member of which is resident in the State or Northern Ireland and which is empowered by the rules of that trade union to make decisions in matters of an industrial or political nature which arise out of and are in connection with the economic or political condition of the State or Northern Ireland, are of direct concern to members of the trade union resident in the State or Northern Ireland and do not affect members not so resident.

(3) This section, so far as it applies to an existing holder of a negotiation licence, shall come into operation on such date as the Minister fixes for that purpose by order.

(4) In this section—

‘the Act of 1971' means the Trade Union Act, 1941;

‘the Act of 1971' means the Trade Union Act, 1971.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 14:

Before section 17 to insert a new section as follows:

"Any serving trade union official who loses his employment or who suffers a worsening of his terms or conditions of employment as a result of an amalgamation of trade unions under this Act shall be paid compensation."

This is a fairly straightforward issue. The Minister said earlier that there is adequate provision in section 14 to ensure that reasonable expenses may be paid in the case of people who suffer a worsening of their conditions or become redundant as a result of an amalgamation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What the Deputy seeks in his amendment has been covered in my description of section 14.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 15:

Before section 17 to insert a new section as follows:

"The members of an amalgamating trade union, which has not got a political fund, shall, upon becoming members of an amalgamated union with such a fund, be deemed to have opted out of such fund."

This is a most important amendment. It is self-explanatory. We should not put the onus on a trade union member to declare himself on a political basis. If he is a member of a union which had not got this fund, I believe he should be deemed to have opted out of the fund.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This Bill contains no specific provision in relation to political objectives or funds of trade unions. These questions are dealt with in the Trade Union Act, 1913. The effect of that Act is that, if a member of a trade union does not wish to contribute to the political fund of his union, he has right to contract out or opt out. The adoption of Deputy Dowling's amendment would involve a reversal of the position obtaining at present and would mean that a member would have to contract into the fund of a new amalgamated union. I cannot see any good reason for this change in a situation which has been unchanged since 1913. Therefore, I do not see the point in accepting the amendment. The union member always has the right under the 1913 Act of opting out of a political fund. I do not think we should reverse that situation.

Mr. Moore

After 61 years does the Minister not think that we should avail of Deputy Dowling's amendment to alter that situation? There is something wrong if a person must opt out of a thing rather than opt into it. While the machinery for opting out is fairly simple, why should a man have to do this irrespective of what his political opinions are? The Minister should avail of this opportunity to change that Act, or he should promise that in the new comprehensive Trade Union Bill, which we hope will be coming before the House soon, he will delete such a provision so that each trade unionist will not have to opt out and, if he wants to subscribe to the political fund of the union he can opt in. Not only would this prove his loyalty to his ideals but he would have to go to the trouble of opting in.

If a person wants to opt out at the moment he goes to the Department, asks for a form and fills it in. If he does not do that, he has to pay money to the political fund. This is grossly unfair. Deputy Dowling's amendment should be supported. It is wrong to say that a man must pay unless he opts out. There may be claims from other organisations who will say: "You must pay to our political fund unless you opt out." This raises the question of how free a man is.

The Minister said this morning that not since 1917 had legislation to deal with trade unions been introduced here. This archaic Act became law four years earlier. Each successive British Government has changed their Act several times. We do not want that.

The Minister should be reasonable and accept Deputy Dowling's amendment. This would be seen all over the country as a demonstration of the Government's awareness of the need to show that they are impartial in this matter.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There are only nine trade unions in this country with political funds. If the Deputies have strong views on this matter, they put down amendments in the general area of trade union legislation rather than this specialised Bill which deals with mergers and amalgamations of unions. Since it is not appropriate to the present legislation, I appeal to Deputies not to seek to incorporate it in this Bill.

Mr. Moore

When will the Minister bring in the new Bill.

Mr. Dowling

I do not see this the same way as the Minister. In my view the political fund should be abolished. We know of difficulties experienced in the past by people who did not opt out. It is regarded in some places as protection money.

If a union amalgamating with another which has a political fund felt so strongly in the past that it was necessary to ensure that their union was not associated by means of a political fund with any political organisation, their views should be respected in the merger. I am a member of a trade union which has no political fund. If they merged with a larger union which had a political fund it would be an impediment from my point of view in voting support for that merger. If I were to say I wanted to opt out, I would be exposing myself to some unscrupulous shop steward or section secretary. There are very genuine trade union officials in many unions with political levies. Nevertheless, those levies have been used as a yardstick to blackmail people to do certain things. Where mergers are concerned, we should have a positive undertaking from the Minister that if one of the unions has not a political fund they will not be forced into a political fund and then have to opt out.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That situation does not obtain. As I said already, there are only nine unions which have political funds. We are dealing with a problem of 80 or 90 unions. It is not particularly germane to the objectives of this legislation to consider special legislation to deal with the political funds of unions. We are dealing here with mergers and amalgamations.

To reiterate—the question of the political fund of unions is covered in the 1913 Act. Under that Act, if a member of a trade union does not wish to contribute to a political fund, he has to contract or opt out. The Deputy's suggestion would be a reversal of that procedure. Now we come to the situation where one union without a political fund amalgamates with a union which has such a fund. Under the 1913 Act the members of the amalgamated union of the new totality must be given an opportunity of voting and passing a resolution on the adoption of political objectives and funds by the new amalgamated union. That surely meets Deputy Dowling's objections. Where one which has, unites with one which has not, there must be a vote by all concerned to see if they wish to have a political fund. That obtains now under the law. I suggest, therefore, that there is not enough substance in this legislation for Deputy Dowling's misgivings.

Mr. Dowling

I do not agree. It is the larger unions which have the political funds.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We cannot deprive the unions of that.

Mr. Dowling

No, we cannot deprive them under this old British Act of 1913. In my view this is a new ball game. We have here the situation where people decided over the years against a political fund now merging with a union which has a political fund. They must accept the rules of the bigger union so far as the political levy is concerned. They must pay or opt out. If it is against their principles to pay, during the period which will elapse before they can opt out, they must pay the political levy. As the Minister knows, they cannot opt out immediately. This can only happen at certain periods of the year. Under those circumstances, a person would be forced to pay the levy against his will until such time as he can opt out. Where a political fund is involved in a union merging, they should be deemed to be opting out. If that were embodied in the Bill it would mean that members' principles would not be damaged by this hurtful situation.

The Minister should indicate that he is prepared to accept this amendment which will not cause any undue grief to the larger unions. If there are members of the new union who wish to pay the levy, it will be easy to make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. M. O'Leary

As I have explained, a vote must take place in existing legislation where members of one association who do not have a political fund have the right to vote in the new amalgamated union about whether they should have a political fund. That is their right and will not be impaired by this legislation. In all cases union members, even where political funds exist, have the right to opt out. There are only nine unions with political funds. To assist in exorcising any nightmares which Deputy Dowling may have, the amounts of money involved in the political funds at the disposal of candidates standing for election are very small. I sympathise with the Deputy. There is a serious situation here whereby private funds can be at the disposal of candidates in elections and this may, in fact, devalue the whole electoral process. I would remind him that the unions with the political funds under the law under the Registry of Friendly Societies must publish their accounts in that area at least once a year.

If that example was followed by the many private interests which have supported political candidates over the years to the extent of hundreds and thousands of pounds, sometimes involved in organisations for that purpose, our political life might be healthier and things abroad, such as Watergate, might not have occured. This is quite apart from the legislation before us. It is an interesting debate but not appropriate to this legislation. I appeal to Deputy Dowling whom I know has strong feelings on this matter to reserve those feelings for a better and more appropriate time. I would be happy to meet him in an equal spirit of change in this area when we come to, as I think we should, amend all of the mistakes of the Electoral Act, 1963.

In my opinion that was bad legislation which, unfortunately, was agreed by all Members at that time. It puts no ceiling on expenditure in elections and that appears to go against the spirit of one man one vote at elections.

Mr. Moore

If the Minister persists in preserving this operation it may well act as a disincentive towards amalgamation. Some unions may decide not to amalgamate because they will have to pay the levy to the political fund.

Mr. M. O'Leary

They do not have to pay the levy.

Mr. Moore

But they must opt out. If this was dropped they could do what they wished. This point could defeat a genuine move for amalgamation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

If Deputies opposite are anxious at any time to amend electoral practices I will be the first to join them because I feel they are in need of serious amendment. However, this legislation is not the appropriate vehicle for a discussion of that kind. Under this legislation members of unions may vote on the desirability of having a political fund and may at all times opt out of a political fund if one exists. There is nothing to be concerned about in the present situation.

Mr. Moore

In his new Bill would the Minister agree to have a special section deleting this from trade union legislation?

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is a two-way process and is a debate for another day. The political fund of unions is used in open support of political candidates at elections. There is full disclosure of such accounts and the entire expenditure involved is pretty small by election standards of expenditure. Speaking as a candidate supported by a union at elections I would be prepared to enter into any serious debate leading to a change in the law, a change which would force into the open all subscriptions from all sources at elections. The entire principle of secret assistance given to candidates from private sources is against the whole spirit of democratic performance at elections. That is a debate for another time.

Mr. Dowling

Assuming that a merger between a small union and a large union takes place in the middle of January, if that small union opted out would they have to pay, before the end of that year, the political levy?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I presume the Deputy knows what the average political levy is. In my own union it is about 1p per month. It is so small that the paperwork involved in its removal from the union's rules would hardly pay for it. The levy exists in a number of unions but it is a small sum when compared with what I think is spent by private sources at elections. It is subject to full disclosure. The individual who does not wish to participate in the political funds of a union can opt out. He has that free and democratic choice. Such a choice is not given to the consumer who must pay private companies for their expenditure at elections. There is no possibility that the person who buys goods from Mr. X or houses from Mr. Y can prevent money passing from that private source to a political party. That right is with the individual union member.

Mr. Dowling

If a merger took place in the middle of February would a person who did not in the past pay political levy have to pay it?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Such a person, if he wishes to opt out, can do so immediately after the merger. If a fund exists only on one side a vote will have to take place. If the vote disappointed a member he could withdraw from paying the levy. I do not see any grounds for worry on this matter.

Mr. Dowling

This is a matter of principle. The small amount involved might be considered a large price to pay for one's principle. People who have opted out at any price would consider it a large price to pay. We could have a union, after prolonged discussion, deciding not to have a political fund but when they merge with a larger group with a political fund the result of the ballot would be a foregone conclusion.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The associations of people involved in unions who have political funds see the necessity of having a fund to support particular candidates at elections to forward the interests of that particular association or union. They exist in a situation where there is no investigation of the amount of cash private interests spend at elections in influencing candidates, nor is there any check in this House as to which Deputy is supported by which private company.

Mr. Dowling

This is a different matter.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am in favour of changing the law in this area and when we come to that day I will support the Deputy in any needed reforms.

Mr. Dowling

This is a different situation.

Mr. Esmonde

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Mr. Dowling

I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister. The Minister has covered a wide field but my point is appropriate to this debate. There is a principle involved. There is the question of the wider aspect when the rules change. The Minister knows that where large unions, with a political levy, merge with a smaller union, without a political levy, the smaller group have to fall into line with the majority decision. The individual members then have to go to the secretary, complete a form and have it signed. Such members would have their names posted in the hall to indicate they were opting out. Such notices are on display to the general membership who would be aware of the political associations of these people.

The Minister is under an obligation to provide protection for union members who have principles such as I outlined. I feel strongly about the political fund and I feel that members of unions should have the right to subscribe to any political party. There is no provision made for supporting Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil in the form of a political levy. This is unjust and in some cases it is regarded as protection money. I am aware that persons who, when they wished to opt out of paying the political levy, went to their shop stewards were told that in the event of lay-offs or other difficulties they would not have the same protection as the member paying the political levy.

That type of approach certainly has soured many people. It is blackmailing the individual into the retention of the political fund. When this situation arises I feel we should at least expose it or have it corrected. As Deputy Moore has said, it may be an impediment to a merger. We go all the way with the Minister in eliminating all the impediments. Whether they be in relation to the time factor, voting procedure or anything else, we have met them in full. We do not feel it unreasonable to ask the Minister to meet us on this simple issue, that in the case of two unions amalgamating, the union with no political fund would be deemed to have opted out, because they had not got it at the time of the merger. They are forced into a situation which means they are now in the fund—notwithstanding the fact that they did not wish to be—and they are going to opt out. Surely this is unreasonable and places a large burden on a group of individuals. As the Minister has said, the amount they receive is fairly small and the paper work is fairly substantial. Therefore there should be no real reason why the Minister would not agree to this simple amendment of the Bill and I would ask him to reconsider this matter.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The only point for legislation—to answer a point made here—is that where there is need for such a change, one considers it. But existing legislation gives the individual person who does not agree with a political fund the right of opting out. He may opt out of his obligation to subscribe to a political fund or levy in his union. Also, where such does not exist—and coming within the amalgamations and mergers terms—he has the right, in a general vote, to determine whether or not a political fund should exist in the situation after amalgamation where one union does not have a political fund.

Both of these are covered in existing legislation. That is why I cannot see how the point arises. I sympathise with the Deputy in a common feeling that we should look at the whole area of expenditure in elections. I have taken part in by-elections in which I have seen on the part of certain political parties—I am referring now to the past—as much money spent in the three weeks of a by-election campaign as was in the entire political funds of all the unions of the country for one year. In principal I am against the idea that the democratic decision of a people in a constituency in a general election should be swaved by funds from private sources. Our legislation in this area is seriously at fault. But that is an argument and a battle for another day. The political fund and levy we have under the unions at present at least has the virtue that its amount is fully disclosed each year, that there is full accountability to the executives and governing bodies, full notification to the Press of those who benefited from the funds of the union. However we cannot in the existing situation ask the unions to abolish their political funds when others are free secretly to support politicians in elections to carry out what they think should be carried out in the economic arena.

Chiefly my objection is that it is not appropriate to this legislation. That is why I would ask the Deputy to look at the rights which exist at present under the 1913 Act which amply meet his concern about members being forced to pay into funds to which they feel no loyalty. There are full rights in the existing situation for them to protect their scruples in this matter. I do not know of any examples but I would imagine it is a matter for lawyers, certainly a matter for the courts, if the Deputy can substantiate the charges he has made here that it is being used as a form of blackmail, that people who sought to contract and opt out of political funds have been issued with the kinds of threats mentioned by the Deputy.

Mr. Dowling

That is quite untrue.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am not aware of such threats. I would imagine it is a matter for the courts if such were delivered, because the person who wishes to opt out is fully protected by the law at present.

Mr. Moore

The Minister in his last statement has opened up a whole new dimension in this Bill. I want to see this Bill go through quickly but I am forced now to take issue with the Minister on his most recent statement.

First of all, Deputy Dowling and I are not interested in the matters the Minister has just mentioned. We feel that this political levy—as it will be operated under the new Bill—will be a disincentive to amalgamation. We asked the Minister to remove this in an endeavour to help him. But the Minister does not see the point that, if he does not accept Deputy Dowling's amendment, we will have the situation of, say, trade union A, wanting to amalgamate with trade union B. But they see that, if they do so, they will be forced to opt out of a levy. Therefore, why can the Minister not start off with a clean sheet and say: "A and B have amalgamated. Therefore there is no onus on a man to opt out. If he wants to support a political levy, let him opt for remaining in?"

Why did the Minister, Deputy Dowling, Deputy Esmonde or I join a party? Because we believe in these parties and went to the trouble of joining them. But it would be very peculiar indeed were somebody to say to me: "You are a Fine Gael supporter." Were I to ask: "Why?" he might reply: "You have not opted out of being a Fine Gael supporter." That would be altogether ridiculous. Yet we are going to make these people pay money. I agree with the Minister that there are about nine unions only who operate these funds. In my own union it amounts to about 40p a year, I think, at present. I do not pay it; I have been excused from it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Did the Deputy opt out?

Mr. Moore

I did, yes.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There you are.

Mr. Moore

Yes, but the Minister should not forget what I had to do.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Was the Deputy victimised or blackmailed, as Deputy Dowling said?

Mr. Moore

I went over to the Department of Industry and Commerce at the time and asked for the appropriate form to opt out of a union. First of all, the official whom I met looked at me strangely. He then retreated into the archives and produced a yellow-coloured old sheet and said: "That is it" and flung it there. Having deciphered its contents and signed it, I opted out of the union. I want to say, in fairness to the union, that nobody took exception to this.

Mr. M. O'Leary

And it did the Deputy no harm in his own party that he opted out?

Mr. Moore

I shall come to the parties afterwards. Certainly it did me no harm in my own union.

The Minister continued then to a discussion of the broad outline of support for political parties at election times. I am with the Minister—that we should probe all gifts given to political parties from private individuals and so on. At the same time the Minister is denying us an opportunity of discussing this by not bringing forward new legislation on which it would be more appropriate so to do. The Minister is doing more harm to his own Bill in that, by not accepting Deputy Dowling's amendment, he is putting up a barrier to possible amalgamations between different unions. If there are only nine unions having this political levy, and therefore only nine unions out of which one would have to opt, the Minister will see that the other 84 unions may well turn their faces against amalgamation. If the other 84 unions have no political levy at present why should they amalgamate with a union which has, so that their members may be forced to pay this political levy to an organisation in which they do not believe? The Minister should accept the suggestion of Deputy Dowling here, who has put a lot of thought into this matter, who is very experienced in trade union legislation, who in a big-hearted way is endeavouring to help the Minister's Bill through quickly. Then in the future, when the Minister introduces his new Trade Union Bill, we will be given an opportunity of discussing the many facets of the financing of political parties, whether it be done through a party affiliated to the trade union movement, affiliated to a certain party, or whether we want to take, say, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or other parties of the future. I am all for the probing of these subscriptions from private individuals or concerns.

I do not say there is anything wrong with them but the point is that the Minister has raised this so much on this Bill that he must now give us an opportunity to go at length into how a political party may be financed, should a trade union have a political fund, should a member opt out or opt in or is it reasonable that a man should have to go through the exercise of opting out of supporting a political fund in which he does not believe. These are all questions which need to be answered. We are dealing with the Bill in relation to the amalgamation of unions and we are not going into the broader aspects of this matter. I suggest to the Minister, in order to save many more hours of discussion on this Bill, that he accept Deputy Dowling's amendment and then say to his colleagues that he intends to bring in a new Trade Union Bill which will deal very widely with all aspects of the financing of political funds. He could give this and the other House an opportunity of probing how political parties are financed and if there is anything wrong with the way this is done. We could then change it. I suggest the Minister cannot come in here and throw out innuendos about private subscriptions to political parties and not give the House a chance of legislating on the alleged abuse which he has intimated.

It gives me no pleasure to go on to discuss this very simple and worthy amendment of Deputy Dowling. This amendment would be acclaimed by trade unions, whether or not they pay a levy. As the Minister said, the total money from this levy does not amount to much. We are not arguing that it does. Deputy Dowling and I feel there is a matter of principle involved here. Surely legislation must deal first of all in principles. We also feel that if the Minister does not accept Deputy Dowling's amendment it will harm the Bill and make it a less useful incentive towards the amalgamation of trade unions.

We have got 93 trade unions and congress and everyone will agree that is too many. We know we have got to encourage these unions to amalgamate. You cannot expect them to amalgamate unless they are offered good legislation and good incentives. There are a few very good things in this Bill but I suggest that the Oireachtas should be careful to remove something which is not good in it. Deputy Dowling's amendment is an admirable way for doing this and I cannot see why the Minister will not accept it.

I know the Minister sincerely hopes that this Bill will be availed of by the 93 trade unions as a means of coming together and amalgamating. I do not know what the ideal number of trade unions is. They have got such a small number in West Germany, Denmark and on the Continent generally that, perhaps, we could study this and even suggest that X number of trade unions would be suitable to look after the interests of half a million industrial workers. We are not serious about this if we refuse to accept a reasonable proposal like Deputy Dowling's amendment which would take out one of the abrasive matters in the trade union movement, that is, that a person must opt out.

I do not know why the farmers in the British House of Commons who passed this Act in 1913 had this in. British Governments changed this and there has been a tug of war over there between both sections where one Government changed it and the next one changed it back to its original form. I believe we can be superior in our deliberations on our legislation in perfecting a Bill so that it will do what the Minister and the Government want it to do. We, like the Government, want this Bill to be an encouraging instrument in reducing the number of trade unions from 93 to a manageable number. While the Minister says he wants to encourage trade unions to amalgamate, by retaining the political levy part of the Bill, he will discourage them from amalgamating.

The Minister in his role of trade union official before he came into the House knows that 93 trade unions do not make for industrial peace. Some of the strikes we have had in the past have been caused by the multiplication of unions. Does the Minister intend to give this Bill the full scope to be the effective instrument he wants it to be to encourage the trade union members to say that 93 trade unions are too many, that they must get together? There are many fields where the trade unions could get together. The slogan of the Minister's own union, of one big union, is an admirable one. This is an ideal we should seek after but we will not get it if, in fact, the ground for this total amalgamation is so loaded against certain people that they will not amalgamate. We should try to find out what the trade unions will agree on rather than what they will disagree on in order to encourage this new movement of amalgamation.

I believe if the Bill is to be availed of by the trade unions it may well be a big step on the road towards industrial peace. I do not believe we have the worst record for industrial strikes but I believe we could improve our standing at the moment. It is up to us to ensure that the legislation we put forward has all the abrasive ingredients removed and any trade unionist, whatever his political outlook may be, can say, that he totally agrees with the amalgamation of his union with another union or several unions. He will not say this if before he amalgamates he sees the ground already laid whereby he may have to do something which he had not to do in his own union, that is he may have to go to the Department of Labour and ask for a form that he should opt out of paying a political levy. I agree with the Minister that the money taken in this way is not very great but this political levy is a matter of principle for many trade unionists and they do not want to pay it. Why should they have to go to the trouble of opting out? If a man believes in this thing let him opt in, let him back up his convictions with his actions and say that he believes in paying the political levy, that he will pay it cheerfully.

I know the Minister wants this Bill to be a contribution towards amalgamation and towards a more well-ordered and peaceful industrial sector but he is only harming his own legislation by being so dogmatic on this point and refusing to accept Deputy Dowling's amendment which would vastly improve the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I suggest that we have gone over and over again some of the points raised. There has been a great deal of repetition, some of it on my part, and I would now ask Deputy Dowling to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Callanan

I do not like this provision about opting out. I have experience in another walk of life where a levy was put on people for the benefit of another organisation, a very worthy one. I was the one man to object to the stopping of this money because I thought the first thing we should do was to give an option. It is not very easy for a person to go along and say he will not pay. It is a thing people do not like to do. Very recently I met a member of my political organisation who is a member of a trade union and who pays a political levy. I asked him why he is paying it and he said: "You would never know what backlash there might be".

I am not saying there is a backlash, but some people have the opinion that if a levy is there and if they do not pay it there may be the danger of a backlash. Collect such a levy by all means, but give the option to a person to pay or not to pay. I think this is the point of principle that is in Deputy Dowling's amendment—that a person should opt in instead of having to opt out, having to fill a form and declare openly. We in politics do not mind declaring openly, standing up and being counted, but there are hundreds of people who do not want to stand up and be counted. They are paying this levy and they are paying levies to other organisations against their will.

This involves the principle of freedom of the individual. In this respect I am talking about all payments, all extractions from people throughout the country. These should be purely optional. I thoroughly agree with the Minister in regard to companies backing this or that political organisation, but in this matter we are passing legislation. What can one do if a company decide—it is not likely to happen—to back the likes of me? What can you do with them if they gave me £1,000 to fight an election—what could this Parliament do about it? However, in this legislation we can lay down the rule that a person has the right, if he wants to pay a levy, to opt in, but in principle it is not right that he should have to sign a form to opt out. In many organisations throughout the country there are these extractions instead of voluntary contributions. Deputy Dowling's amendment would provide for opting in instead of opting out.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Very briefly I would say to the Deputy that one cannot prevent companies from paying out certain moneys if they so wish. One can arrange that there be a ceiling in electoral expenses by law as is provided in other countries. We departed from that here in 1963 and I think it was a mistake. That is a debate for another day. I allow that all of these matters should be looked at in their totality—how we support political parties, how their expenses are maintained, how elections are run. That is all of the one piece.

The legislation before us simply deals with mergers and amalgamations. A person who has a conscientious objection to participating in a fund is already protected by the law. Deputy Dowling has said there have been instances of blackmail and of threats received by individuals. If there have been such cases, then he should come forward with them. I am not aware of any such threats or blackmails. Deputy Moore's case is not the only one. I know of many people throughout the country who, because of honest disagreements, have withdrawn from political levies and are still good members within those unions, retaining full trust and leadership capacity within those unions. There are only nine unions having political funds. For these reasons, for the major reason that this is not a subject matter for this legislation, I suggest Deputy Dowling withdraw that amendment.

Mr. Dowling

Deputy Moore pointed out that we wish to eliminate any irritant to people coming together in mergers. A political fund in our estimation could cause and might cause a considerable problem for people who have fairly strong views. Up to this point in the debate the Minister had been very reasonable, particularly on arguments put forward by this side of the House. However he has been exceptionally biased on this aspect. He endeavoured to widen the scope of the debate and to discuss matters far removed from the subject of mergers.

It is not just good enough to say there are other factors involved in relation to election funds that must be discussed. There are factors in relation to every aspect of our lives that must be discussed from time to time in the House, that need to be updated. I will not deal with the broader questions of subscriptions to political parties. The Minister indicated there are only nine unions involved here. I will now give statistics in this respect which are very important. Deputy Moore suggested that the number of unions we have here is too great but he was not able to say what would be a reasonable or proper number.

In his Second Reading speech the Minister told us that the West German Trade Union Federation cater for 6,400,000 people in 16 industrial unions. Here there are nine unions where there are political levies. In the ESB there are 21 unions, representing 11,000 employees. Assuming that the nine unions which pay political levies were in the ESB, there would still be a fair number of unions there who might want to amalgamate and might feel that the political levy was an irritant. In CIE there are 33 unions representing 21,000 workers, and the same argument applies. In Guinness's there are 18 unions representing 2,200 employees.

Assuming that the nine unions were in this group of 18 half of them would be unions with no political funds and, therefore, they might consider this an irritant. Gouldings have 12 unions representing 700 employees. One can see that in sectors where there is a substantial number of unions, bodies like CIE, Guinness and the ESB, this might be regarded as an irritant. People may have second thoughts about mergers if they have to bury their principles in order to have such mergers. In the case of a merger I would want the position clarified to my own satisfaction and that of my union.

The Minister has been very unreasonable and he has shown himself to be absolutely biased against this amendment. He has thrown in all kinds of red herrings and has endeavoured to widen the debate to include matters far removed from the question of union mergers. I am quite sure that if we considered other industrial firms we would find that the multiplicity of unions is a matter of grave concern on occasions. It does not always lead to harmony and there is delay in trying to obtain the views of 18, 21 or 33 unions. It is our wish that we should have more mergers but our legislation should ensure that with regard to amalgamation the wishes and principles of members are respected. This is necessary and desirable.

The Minister has dismissed the matter of the political fund but I cannot do the same. It may be a small matter but equally it may be an issue that will cause members to have second thoughts about mergers. Where a union is divided on a merger, when it comes to the final ballot people who feel deeply about the principle involved here might sway the union away from a merger. We cannot look at the general union situation. We must look at the individual situation because, in the last analysis, it is individuals who will vote on whether the union merges. If one person is aggrieved about the political fund he may be the deciding factor in burying the merger but if the irritant was not there that person might give his blessing to the merger and vote the other way.

It is much more personal than the Minister thinks. There is a principle involved, one that some people feel deeply about while others may not be too concerned. Some may act to suit their own convenience or to keep on the right side of certain personnel in the unions. On occasions some people have requested the necessary forms to opt out but they did not receive them. When they inquired they were told they would get them the following week but eventually they reached a stage when they got fed up asking for the forms. It is very easy to divert a person's attention from the political fund to some other aspect but the fact remains that the situation in connection with this matter is distasteful.

It has been pointed out that members of unions have a right to subscribe to any political party if they wish to do so. I do not begrudge the Minister the few shillings he got during the last campaign—probably he did not get enough—but nevertheless it is a serious matter where one man can be irritated to such an extent that he alone can prevent a merger. This might happen in the future.

I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment so that we may get on with the job. We have removed various factors that we considered might impede amalgamation of unions. The matter we are discussing might possibly be regarded as more serious than the questions of voting strength or percentages which we discussed at an earlier stage. It is the vote of the individual that may be the deciding factor, not the vote of the union as a whole. If one person is so irritated about the political fund he may be in a position to prevent the merger. Surely it is reasonable to ask the Minister to accept our amendment and thus remove a factor that might be the cause of preventing a merger taking place.

Mr. Moore

I have listened to the Minister and Deputy Dowling and I think I can see a way out of the present impasse. The Minister has taken exception to the fact that certain private firms give gifts to political parties. Deputy Dowling and I consider that a man should not have to opt out of paying a political levy. The Minister has suggested he would welcome the opportunity of discussing the broad implications of individuals contributing to political parties. I am in agreement with him on that.

I suggest that the Minister takes Deputy Dowling's amendment as the basis of a larger amendment and that where two, three or four unions have amalgamated and where a political levy fund has not existed one should not be created. I am sure the Minister will be able to prepare an amendment that would prohibit private firms from contributing to any political funds unless they state publicly what they are doing and give people who wish to contribute the option of doing so. This may sound complicated but it is not. All of us want this Bill to be an instrument for the encouragement of the amalgamation of unions. Deputy Dowling, myself and others consider that if the amalgamated unions are allowed to create a political fund that did not exist before the amalgamation this may deter thousands of trade unionists from agreeing to amalgamate. There is an onus on the Minister to remove this barrier towards amalgamation. The Minister has the opportunity of doing so by accepting Deputy Dowling's amendment. He will also be able to put into practice his own suggestions for the prevention of private firms contributing to the election funds of the political parties.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.