I regret I was not here earlier. Has the Minister established that this refers to all banks?
Private Members' Business. - Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1975: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
It refers to all banks in Ireland and their subsidiaries as defined under the 1971 Central Bank Act.
What about the merchant banks?
They are covered. The definition is in section 2.
Accepting that the commencement date of the Act will be when it goes through both Houses, when is it proposed that the expiry date might be?
Six months.
Six months is the duration of the Bill from the commencement date.
We are now getting into the area of regulations but I have powers to extend it. I kept the other Bill in operation for no longer than was necessary. I then scrapped it. I need not have come back to the House if I had kept the 1973 Bill in operation. I could have introduced it by order. I refused to do that. I let the Act lapse and that is why I am here on this occasion. We went through this section by section two years ago.
I do not think that is relevant. A different situation arises now for many reasons. The Bill is being introduced for the second time. From everybody's point of view, it is important that we should go through it section by section and ask relevant questions. What is the date of expiry?
That is uncertain.
Less than six months?
Or more.
It can be more.
Yes.
Surely the shorter legislation of this nature is in existence the better for everyone.
That is what I did before. I have no reason to think I will do anything different on this occasion. This depends on a number of factors we do not know now and there are many circumstances which may or may not arise.
Rather than having cross fire about it, could we have some guarantee from the Minister that it will not be longer than six months?
Would it not be very foolish to give a guarantee about a future one cannot foretell? It will lapse or expire on the earliest possible date.
While the Minister may say it is very foolish to give a guarantee to a Deputy over here, I can assure him that we are becoming very concerned about the type of legislation he is introducing, and may continue to introduce. This is directed at a group of people. There is no guarantee that, within one month, two months, or three months, similar legislation will not be introduced by the Minister against another group of people. We deem it our right as Deputies to try to protect the interests of those people against what the Minister described when he was over here as a totalitarian type of Government. Do not blame us.
Is the Minister suggesting there could be and would be an extension of the Bill if industrial action were taken by the workers or the persons concerned? On that basis, the Minister would keep the Bill in operation while industrial action was in progress?
It is unfair to pursue this argument which asks me to adjudicate on circumstances and happenings which I have no way of foretelling.
The only circumstances in which I could see an extension of the Bill would be if industrial action were taken by the organisations concerned. Is that the only basis on which the Minister would prolong the life of the Bill?
If industrial action was taken?
If they went on strike.
I prefer not to join the Deputy in foreseeing how the Bill would be used. Its provisions are plain and we can go through them section by section.
This is a very serious matter. If prolonged industrial action were taken, would the Minister extend the life of the Bill because industrial action was taken?
Industrial action on what basis? If we are to start crystal ball gazing let me hear the Deputy's scenario.
If the officials went on strike——
About what?
——and remained on strike for nine months, would the Minister extend the Bill to cover the period the men were on strike?
On what basis would they be on strike?
If they decided to take industrial action on foot of their claim, will the Minister extend the Bill for a period longer than six months if the dispute lasts longer than six months?
When an agreement is reached and goes to the Labour Court, the Labour Court send back to me what, in their considered view, is the settlement which most accords with the national agreement. This legislation says that is the settlement. That is what the Bill is all about.
The Bill finishes at that point? There is no further need for it?
There has to be acceptance of that.
If there is acceptance, there is then no further need for the Bill?
I said that the moment there is agreement I will drop the Bill, as I did before.
If there is not agreement, the Bill can go on indefinitely?
Yes.
In respect of the agreement finalised in June, bearing in mind the Minister's regard for what he calls the national agreement, would it not have been possible for him to have referred that agreement to the Labour Court to see if it were in conformity with the national agreement?
The problem for us is that there was no follow through in the next phase of the agreement on a reduction of some kind, the same kind of reduction other workers had taken. That is where the problem arises.
Is the Minister saying the problem does not arise from the 1974 or 1975 agreement?
They would have been quite on all-fours with the national agreement had there been an amendment made. I explained that in my opening speech.
We are getting away from section 1.
Did the Minister ask the Labour Court for a report and recommendation which could have been put to the employees and on which they could have voted instead of the Minister bringing in this legislation?
We met the employees and put that point to them and they were not agreeable to that course. The Deputies may question all night but they will not find on the Government side any sign of not wishing to get a voluntary agreement. All the necessary steps were taken.
Is the Minister assuring me he asked the Labour Court to investigate the 1975 agreement in respect of the amendment to which he referred and to make recommendations to him?
I asked the officials if they were willing to take such a course and they were not.
The Minister asked the officials, not the Labour Court.
I asked the people concerned and they were not willing.
I will take the Minister's word on that.
We must deal with section 1.
There are a few matters the Minister might explain. They may be trivial. The definition section defines "the National Agreements" as the 1974 and 1975 agreements. If the banks were not in breach of the 1974 agreement why has the Minister made the Bill retrospective? Secondly, how does the Minister know whether or not they are in breach of the agreement when he did not invoke section 24? That would be the official way of ascertaining whether there was a breach. Did he use his own judgment?
No. We had an examination of the two agreements and we were satisfied they were in accord. In regard to retrospection, we have to take the 1974 and the 1975 agreements into account before we can come to a fair appreciation. It would not be fair to the employees to take any one year.
According to section 1, if they were in breach of the 1974 agreement this legislation could be retrospective in its penalties. The section says:
"the National Agreements" means the Employer-Trade Union National Agreement of the Employer-Labour Conference ratified on the 7th day of March, 1974, and the Employer-Trade Union National Agreement of the Employer-Labour Conference ratified on the 22nd day of April, 1975, and revised on the 24th day of September, 1975;
It is the actual revision the Minister is concerned with here.
The Deputy is referring now to section 2. We will go through the Bill section by section. We are on section 1.
I cannot discuss section 1 without adverting to the definitions. I suggest section 2 should be where section 1 is.
We must go through the Bill section by section and we are now on section 1.
We could always give the Chair notice of amendment on the next Stage.
My colleagues asked a hypothetical question with regard to industrial action. There is nothing in the Bill to cover the situation if the bank officials decide as a protest to go on strike against this legislation. The Bill makes no provision for what may happen if a strike occurs.
I am not suggesting any legislation against strikes.
As Minister, I had the experience of bringing illegal strikers to court and those concerned were put in prison and that immediately led to hunger strikes and the usual Rosary outside the jail gates——
Which Act of the Minister's was that?
This is not relevant to the section.
I am trying to envisage what could happen when workers decide to take industrial action in the teeth of legislation. The Minister is powerless to deal with the ensuing débâcle. One has to move rather gingerly and with the greatest caution, because legislation is the last resort if we cannot find another peaceful way of coming to agreement. There is nothing in this Bill to deal with that sort of situation. I would not like to anticipate the very unpleasant situation that might arise. Does the Minister contemplate action should this eventuality occur? I am still not quite clear about the agreements. They are deliberately in the plural. The agreement of 1974 is definitely included. If the Minister found the bank officials were in breach of that agreement he could take retrospective action.
In this definition section we point to national agreements. We deliberately have national agreements in to be fair to the bank officials. One must consider in combination the agreements of 1974 and 1975 and only by taking them together will one appreciate that the officials this year sought to recoup for themselves the relative loss they incurred in 1974. To be fair to their argument—and I have made no bones about the fact that this is the only fair way to see it—one must take together the 1974 and 1975 agreements they negotiated. In our examination in the Department of Labour we took together the 1974 and 1975 bank pay agreements. When they were taken together they were comparable to the combined 1974 and the unrevised 1975 national agreements. The problem is that it is the unrevised national agreement of 1975.
The problem arises in that while we achieved on the part of those covered by the 1975 national agreement a revision of the third and fourth phases, we did not get a similar response in the case of the bank officials and that is why this legislation is necessary. The Deputy referred to the position in the aftermath of possible strike action. In the legislation with which he was identified, which I opposed, there was provision outlawing strike action; certainly it deprived the people concerned of the protection of the 1906 Trade Union Act. From the benches opposite I opposed that measure on the grounds that it was impracticable, as it turned out to be. The Deputy knows that people ended up in jail and later taxis was sent to take them from the jail because the provision was seen to be inoperable. No democracy can ensure that people will not go on strike if they feel sufficiently frustrated about any situation and they must be free to withdraw their labour. No legislation can prevent them from doing so.
This Bill has no clause in it preventing strike action. If the IBOA take strike action this year, or next year, after the passage of this Bill they will still enjoy the protection of the Trade Union Act, 1906.
The Minister has admitted that any legislation is useless, or powerless, in the face of strike action. At its best the Bill is only a gesture to show the determination to keep all parties in line over the agreement. I am not satisfied that the inclusion of the 1974 agreement was in the best interests of the officials. The Bill states: "If the Minister is satisfied that in order to maintain, in the national interest, general adherence to the national agreements——" There is no indication there that if they did not get all they should have got under the 1974 agreement it should be taken into account in the 1975 agreement, that the two of them be taken together. The section refers to adherence to these agreements but not to the benefits that may be derived from the possibility of their having been below the maximum they could have received under the 1974 agreement.
The Minister has been critical of what he described as the bank officials unpreparedness to co-operate but I would be obliged if the Minister would say whether the bank officials requested there should be renegotiation under Mr. Dermot McDermott.
This section has regard to the commencement and expiry date and it is not in order to inject other extraneous matter into it.
I understood we were dealing with section 1, which refers to general adherence to the national agreements.
With particular reference to commencement and expiry.
The Minister has indicated that in the matter of national agreements and the Labour Court, he believes he has exhausted every possible avenue for negotiation. I should like to know if there was a request from the officials to have this matter renegotiated under Mr. McDermott and, if so, what was the Minister's response to that request?
It was a proposal that came from such a meeting under the chairmanship of the conciliation officer of the banks' JIC and it was turned down.
Was it the Minister who turned it down?
No. the employees turned it down.
In relation to the extension of the Bill, the Minister has indicated that the organisation would be protected in their right to strike but this has been nullified by the fact that if they go on strike the employer cannot meet their demands. The right to strike, in fact, is a farce so far as this Bill is concerned. We are legislating against the employee. He can stay on strike for as long as he likes in pursuance of his claim but——
Does the Deputy advocate a new law that when a strike takes place we should have legislation outlawing the strike?
No. I want to know if it a fact that the Minister will extend the Bill if industrial action is taken?
I have refused to follow the Deputy into this crystalball gazing.
Is the right to strike a farce or a fact in the Bill?
There is nothing affecting the right to strike in the Bill.
The Bill is a nullification of that right.
There is no penalty for going on strike.
Will the Minister say, in the event of industrial action being taken, the Bill will not be extended beyond the six-months' period?
It will not be kept in being a day longer than necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister knows that the situation arising under this section is confined to four banks, the Associated Banks. The association with which the Minister was negotiating caters for the officials in those banks and not in any of the many banks mentioned in this section. There is a subtle reference to banks generally in this section although the Minister knows that the area of operation would be confined to the four banks. The Minister is being subtle in this regard. He is acting against the employees in a subtle indirect sort of way because the association concerned negotiate on behalf of the staffs of those banks.
What implication will this Bill have in regard to the situation whereby this association also negotiate with the banks in the Northern part of our country, in view of the fact that successive Ministers there have been lenient to the officials and treated them in a special category class because of the overlap that exists here? Did the Minister take that into consideration? Did he take into consideration the problems that may be created by the transfer of employees from North to South and vice versa?
It will apply only to the banks in which IBOA members operate. It does not apply to other categories in the banks, porters, cleaners and so on who have accepted the amendment to the third and fourth phases of the national agreement. This legislation would have no effect on them. We would not want to think that all bank employees are being covered, only those who did not give voluntary agreement to the amendment of the national pay agreement. As I said, it does not apply to porters, cleaners and other grades most of whom are not enjoying extraordinary high wage rates —other trade unionists who accepted the amendments to the third and fourth phases.
Does the Bill cover employees of merchant banks, banks who employ officials other than the IBOA?
It would apply to any bank in which the IBOA have members.
In other words, this legislation is directed entirely against organised labour. Is the Minister happy about that situation?
I have been doing my best to explain to the Deputy that the Bill will not apply to all those with whom we have managed to get voluntary agreement.
I am talking about the categories that might be described as officials in different banks in this city and throughout the country. Is the Minister confirming to me at long last that in respect of bank officials this legislation applies solely to those who are organised?
I have been referring to the agreement between the Banks Standing Committee and the IBOA.
So it does not apply to those who are not organised?
It applies to that particular agreement.
We will talk about the Minister's concern for the national agreement. In the case of bank officials employed in banks where they are not organised is it the Minister's intention to have the banks in question apply the national agreement in full to those unorganised officials?
The Bill will apply to the agreement between the banks and the IBOA.
It is directed at organised labour only.
If they all left the association, can they get their increases? It is an easy way out.
Only organised officials are being discriminated against.
The moral is, do not join a union.
What would the situation be in the case of an official who is an IBOA member working in one of the Allied Irish banks in London?
It is confined to the national territory.
If they were members of the association working in London, would they be subject to this restraint?
Before the Minister answers that query would he elucidate the definition in section 2?
"bank" means the holder of a licence for the time being in force under section 9 of the Central Bank Act, 1971, and any company (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963) which is, or if every such holder were a company (within the meaning aforesaid), would be, a subsidiary (within the meaning of the said Companies Act, 1963) of any such holder;
There is the phrase "every such holder". Should "every" not be "ever"? What exactly is the Bill trying to cover there? Is it the houses which are commonly used as shortterm finance companies, subsidiaries of the commercial banks, doing bridging loans and so forth? One would think it relates to any company.
It is a subsidiary.
My interpretation is that it refers to merchant houses attached to most of the commercial banks.
The intention is to deal with all the subsidiary banks.
But effectively those do not come under this at all. Effectively, only four banks are involved.
It relates to the agreement between the IBOA and the Banks' Standing Committee—all who are covered by that agreement.
This will cover only a narrow group of banks?
Whichever banks an IBOA member works in.
In other words, the point made by Deputy Tunney is valid.
I do not accept it at all.
I am still not happy about the word "every" in the section.
The draftsman is satisfied.
It does not make sense to me. Some senior counsel might find——
The section states:
"bank" means the holder of a licence for the time being in force under section 9 of the Central Bank Act, 1971, and any company (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963) which is, or if every such holder were a company (within the meaning aforesaid), would be, a subsidiary (within the meaning of the said Companies Act, 1963) of any such holder;
Assuming that the bank owned a hotel, would the hotel be regarded as a subsidiary of the bank?
Of course it would.
And would the Companies Act apply to it?
No, the regulation I will be drawing up will apply solely to those covered by the agreement drawn up under the bank's JIC.
That is not what the Bill says.
There are regulations but they should be taken with the Bill.
Will the Minister amend this section to make it clear that a hotel is not covered?
No, this is just a draftsman's——
Therefore, there is something wrong with the section?
Is the section agreed?
We did not get a reply to that question: if a hotel could be regarded as a subsidiary of the bank under the Companies Act would it apply?
I am saying that the Bill, if we get it through both Houses, will apply to those covered by the agreement between the banks and bank officials normally associated with the bank's JIC.
Might it include hire purchase finance houses?
Of course it will if they are subsidiaries of banks.
Is the section agreed?
We are endeavouring to make the Bill as good as possible. Would the Minister say are hire purchase companies covered by this?
If they were members of the IBOA. In the case of subsidiaries mentioned here which are in the hire purchase business, it would apply to them. I have got to repeat that point because Deputies insist on seeing this Bill applying to the world and it does not.
But the Minister, on his own admission, is saying that the people he is really after are those in the organised bank officials' association.
I have done my best. I may have failed abysmally but I have been explaining to Deputies since early today that the reason for this legislation arises because of the inability of the bank officials, comprised in the IBOA, to reach agreement with the Banks' Standing Committee. That is what the Bill is all about. Our regulations will apply solely to that agreement and I will keep on repeating that this is the area of action of this legislation.
Let us hope that the next Bill after Christmas will not be to deal with some other organised group of workers.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This is one of the two sections which I believe represent the main approach of the Minister. Subsection (1) reads:
Where any banks, whether before, on or after the commencement of this Act, pay or agree to pay increases of remuneration to any of their employees or amend or vary or agree to amend or vary any other terms or conditions of employment of any of their employees so as to provide improved or more favourable terms or conditions of employment for them—
(a) the Minister may refer the matter to the Labour Court,...
This section, and section 4 are all embracing. In effect they mean that in regard to any improvement in working conditions detected by one of these inspectors to be appointed by the Minister and reported to him the Minister may, if he so wishes, then decide to refer this—even if it is of a trivial nature—to the Labour Court to have the matter investigated.
Again, on this section, might I ask the Minister how this stands with regard to equal pay which, despite the Minister's statement this evening, has not yet been enacted in full in the banks but will on the 1st January next? Will we have an anomaly here? If equal pay is implemented on the 1st January next can we, under this section and section 4, have one of these inspectors reporting to the Minister and the Minister getting the Labour Court to investigate the fact that the banks have implemented equal pay? We want the Minister to explain to us how he will get over that anomaly. Which comes first? It is my understanding that the newer legislation supersedes the former where they are contradictory. I submit there may be, and probably will be, a contradiction in terms there. If we relate it back to section 2 and its definition of "bank", the bank can be all embracing, plus its subsidiaries. Deputy Dowling made the case a moment ago that a hotel could well be a subsidiary of one of the banks. It could be a hire purchase company, or any place else where equal pay has not yet been implemented but will be on the 1st January next. If equal pay is implemented does it mean that the Minister, his inspectors or his Department may invoke section 3 of this Bill to have the matter investigated by the Labour Court and what will be the outcome?
The point is that the general legislation is necessary here to ensure comparability with the national wage agreement. There is nothing in the national wage agreement that militates against advance towards equal pay. Therefore, this legislation does not concern itself with the issue of equal pay. It is a Bill designed, if you like, to ensure conformity with the national wage agreement in one area. Therefore, it constitutes no danger to the principle of equal pay, whether totally realised or otherwise in the banks.
While I appreciate the point the Minister is making if he reads the Title of the Bill and then reads section 3 in relation to that Title it would appear that when the banks pay or agree to pay increases of remuneration to any of their employees that can be referred to the Labour Court for investigation. There is nothing there that refers to the national wage agreement or otherwise.
I can assure the Deputy that the comprehensiveness to which he refers here is necessary in the circumstances. There have been unhappy experiences in the past of attempts to see that settlements in this area conformed to the national wage agreement. In view of that the comprehensiveness of this section is necessary and I am indebted to the draftsman of past Administrations for its comprehensive nature here. It is necessary in the circumstances. Of course, I have made it clear that I will not be determining wage rates in this area. That will be for the Labour Court. The Labour Court will simply adjudicate for some weeks and, once they come out with their assessment of the situation, that would be the authoritative regulation.
Could the Minister give an assurance to the House, if there are significant wage claims——
I cannot give any assurance to the House because this is a matter that the Labour Court will be investigating.
This is a very serious matter. We spent a considerable time discussing the Equal Pay Bill passed in this House. Now the Minister tells us that its implementation in this case will be a matter for the Labour Court.
I said no such thing. I said that the question of deciding whether wage rates or agreements here related to the national wage agreement would be a matter for the Labour Court; not for me but for the Labour Court. I do not presume to inquire into what sort of recommendation the Labour Court will come up with; that is their business. The Deputy must respect the independence of the Labour Court.
If there are people in the banks, or subsidiaries of the banks, not in receipt of equal pay at present but who will become entitled to it on the 1st January next, will the Minister ensure that those people will be able——
Nothing in this Bill when enacted will prevent them getting whatever they are entitled to.
Therefore they would be entitled to get equal pay without reference to the Labour Court?
Under this section any movements in income would be a matter for the Labour Court.
Is the previous Bill in connection with equal pay of no importance?
I have just said that this Bill does not deal with the issue of equal pay at all and does not in the least constitute any danger to the principle of equal pay.
Therefore they will get equal pay if they are not in receipt of it at present?
I have tried to make this point repeatedly—that this legislation is conceived solely as an answer to the situation in which we did not get a response to amending the third and fourth phases of the national wage agreement. I do not accept that this section is comprehensive in its nature but I have made it crystal clear, time after time, that I sought simply a limited intervention in this area by means of this Bill, that the court will adjudicate and that I am motivated solely by failure to get the same amendment that we got on the third and fourth phases of the national wage agreement. By no stretch of the imagination can the Deputy say that equal pay is endangered by this Bill.
I am sure the Minister will accept from his experience here that what a Minister intends is one thing but what appears in the Act is another thing. That is what will guide people and will be interpreted later. After much pressure the Minister has been specific about one matter, that is, that this legislation is intended solely for bank officials who are members of the Bank Officials' Association. If that is so, why in section 3 does he refer to employees generally? Earlier he told us that all other employees were well behaved and had nothing to fear. Why does he not specifically name the organised labour within the banks as the organisation for which the legislation is intended? He told Deputy Dowling that it was not a matter for him to adjudicate and that he will take the recommendation of the Labour Court. Section 3 (1) (b) (ii) requires of the Labour Court to—
...furnish a report thereon to the Minister together with such recommendations (if any) as it thinks proper,
This leaves a way out for the Labour Court. But suppose the Labour Court in its wisdom decides to give a report but not to make any recommendations, is provision being made here that in such circumstances the Minister can decide, adjudicate and make decisions? If not, why is there a provision that the Labour Court might not issue any recommendations?
An order will be laid before the House which will set out in detail to whom the Bill applies. It would be impossible in a Bill of this kind to draft all the grades and employees to be covered by it. To try to do that would be a vain endeavour and the usual procedure will be followed here. An order will be laid before the House, which will set out to whom this measure will apply. The Labour Court recommendation must be obeyed by me.
In his wisdom the Minister has not provided for the situation where the Labour Court will not make any recommendation. Under section 3 (1) (b) (ii) the Labour Court shall furnish a report but need not make any recommendation.
I will be asking them for recommendations
But will the Minister insist on the Labour Court making recommendations? My interpretation of this section is that they need not necessarily make any.
This wording has been used since 1946.
I thought the Minister was innovative and that what applied 30 years ago would not be good enough for him.
I am not a believer of novelty for its own sake
That is not what the Bill says.
What does it say?
It says that the Labour Court shall furnish a report thereon to the Minister together with such recommendations, if any, as it thinks proper. Will the Minister delete "if any"?
Section 3 (2) (b) reads:
An order under this section in relation to any matter shall if it is not revoked, expire——
and it gives a number of alternatives, the last being——
(iv) six months after its commencement, whichever is the earliest.
This means that the maximum time for which this order can stand is six months, yet on section 1 the Minister refused to give a maximum expiry date for the Bill.
It can be extended.
Can this section be extended too?
It can be extended for as long as we want. If I cannot do that, I have made a very big mistake.
We are becoming more totalitarian.
I can assure the Deputy that we are not. I have been so democratic that I scrapped the last Bill.
A very real fear is that when somebody in the Minister's position gets away with something for six months the danger is that on the next occasion it might be for 12 months or longer. As the old saying goes: if you give a man an inch he will take a mile
The Deputy is thinking of the last Administration.
This is the operative section of the Bill because it lays down the procedures which are: the Minister asks the Labour Court to examine any agreement made by the banks and bank officials and report to the Minister. If action is required the Minister takes the action thereafter. How does the Minister ascertain if this is necessary? Does he send in an authorised officer to look at the books?
If the Minister feels that a wage agreement by the banks is in breach of one or other of the national wage agreements he may ask the Labour Court to examine it, the Labour Court shall report and the Minister takes the necessary action. If he decides to take no action, that is published in Iris Oifigiúil and any previous order he made becomes nullified. In such a case, how could he examine it again?
Section 3 (1) (c) states:
if, having considered the report of the Labour Court in relation to the matter, the Minister decides not to make an order under section 4 of this Act in relation thereto, he shall, as soon as may be, cause notice of his decision to be published in the Irish Oifigiúil and, if an order was made under this section in relation to the matter, thereupon it shall, for the purposes of the entitlement of any employees to whom it applied to any increases of remuneration or amendments or variations of any other terms or conditions of employment, be deemed never to have been in force.
I confess I cannot understand this. If an order was made by the Minister previously it is nullified by his not making an order now. It might be regarded as completely extraneous matter in referring to the equality of women and equal pay. If wages were found to be in excess of the renegotiated national wage agreement and that increase only brought female staff into line with the requirements of equal pay for women, would the banks still be made rescind the agreement and not pay that amount to the female staff? I am not a stickler for decorum but the Minister did not stand once when he answered any of our questions.
I am sure all of the Deputies over there have had their tea but I am surviving on chocolates since lunch hour. I will stand if the Deputy insists on decorum. Section 3 gives me power to put a stay immediately on the Bill once it is passed before reference to the court. We then refer to the court and if the court decides that there is no infringement under the stay I have imposed on the wage increase I can then rescind it. That is the sense of subsection 3 (1) (c).
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
We agree to this section because of the time-limit that always seems to be imposed on Bills that this Minister brings into the House. I am not blaming him for this but there seems to be an urgency in relation to all those Bills. We could equally make the points on section 4 that we have made on section 3. The terminology used is very harsh. Despite the assurances given by the Minister, I recommend that such terminology should be reviewed in the light of present-day circumstances. It is archaic. This should be examined with a view to having it simplified.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed:"That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This is a pretty tough section. I have been trying to follow the Minister's argument all day in relation to the conviction on indictment. This is aimed at the bank directors and management if they pay a figure over and above the stated amount. The Minister has been trying to take the heat off himself by saying that they had not hit at the worker or organised labour. This is a glaring case where they have. They are not going to fine them but they will make absolutely sure that by imposing a fine somewhere else the money will not be paid to these people.
The Minister is trying to argue that there is no penalty in the Bill for workers but, of course, there is. This is why we pointed out earlier that we were not in favour of such legislation, that we preferred a different approach to industrial relations. We abhor the idea of a fine being imposed because of increases granted. It is the banks who will have to pay this money. This is basically the people's money which they have paid into the banks in small and large investments and other accounts. What back-up can the Minister give us to the statement he made during the Second Stage debate that if there was a savings he hopes it will be passed on to deposit accounts and to borrowers by a reduction in bank charges? Would the Minister elaborate on that statement? I asked him during the Second Stage if he had conveyed his own idea to the banks because I believe he mentioned on radio yesterday that this was his considered opinion. It cannot be unless he has conveyed it to the banks and made them aware of the situation. I hope he will explain in detail what steps he has taken and what progress he has made.
In relation to subsection (2) (b) of this section, will the Minister clear the point about the local tontine society which may not cause a tremor on Wall Street or College Green? At the same time, we should establish if the parochial tontine society will be a victim of this Bill. Subsection (2) (b) says:
...in respect of money lent to or deposited with any industrial and provident society, friendly society or building society...
I say that a friendly society is a tontine society. Could we have that spelled out?
Only in the very unlikely event is it possible to see any of those penalties imposed. They are brought in here to be a deterrent and to ensure that it is impossible for anyone to break the law with impunity. We wished to ensure that the penalties were punitive. I wish to point out that the £10,000 per day is the maximum.
That is pretty generous of the Minister.
It is a reasonable enough maximum. The tontine societies are not covered by this legislation and are not intended to be referred to. Let us assume, first of all, that a bank director broke the law or that the person in charge of the assets broke the law. The fines would be levied on his property only in the event of his having property in a credit union. This is not the most likely place that a bank director would have assets. It is only in such an unlikely event that his assets or his property would come under this. Only if he had assets in such a strange quarter or in a tontine society would his property be levied. I do not know how many bank directors are members of a tontine society or have assets in them. That is the point—only in that case would his property be levied and only that section of it in the tontine society.
I can see the Minister's inspector going into North Strand Tontine Society and finding that the bank manager had put £10 there. The Minister would be in trouble if that happens.
I should like the Minister to elaborate on the matter of bank charges.
The fact is that only after a Labour Court adjudication on what might appear to be an appropriate wage level in accordance with the national agreement would it be apparent whether there is a saving or not to the banks involved and only at that stage will there be any action on the suggestion about bank charges. Perhaps the bank authorities should look into that suggestion at that stage.
This section is most repulsive in its present form even though one agrees that the penalty section must include penalties. Earlier, I referred to this as the battering-ram section. I want to explain why and ask the Minister to explain what is involved. The section says:
A person who is fined upon conviction of an offence under this Act shall not be liable to imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, but the court by which the person is convicted may by order direct that payment of the fine be secured by the seizure, entry into possession and, where necessary, sale of the property of the person by the appropriate sheriff...
It appears that if the person convicted does not pay the fine and endeavours to secure himself against the sheriff he will be convicted under another Act and can be imprisoned, according to the Minister. I ask the Minister to modify this so as to ensure that in the event of a man's house being seized by the sheriff and sold the wife and children will not be victims of this vicious section as it now stands.
We do not have any rights regarding the sale of the wife.
I can understand that little or no consideration was given to the problems of the innocent parties, the wife and children when the Minister inserted this provision. The Minister will probably run out of sheriffs if action is taken in this way. I hope the section will be modified. Property includes a variety of things other than what one would normally think of as property, shares, debentures, rights or interests in shares or debentures, securities of the Government, or securities of any local authority and rights in respect of money lent to or deposited with any industrial and provident society, friendly society or building society. Could the Minister explain the extent of the implications of this?
Section 5 (1) (a) states that on summary conviction a person found guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £400. Assuming a bank official purchases a large section of land and for that purpose it would be quite likely that he would have an overdraft, where will the Minister extract the £400 if the man has no property other than land? He cannot take land. What will he do in that case? Will the Minister modify this section?
I should like to modify it but this is meant as a deterrent to ensure that the law is complied with. I think the law will be complied with and that the various eventualities envisaged by the Deputy will not arise. In the unlikely event of the law being infringed and these penalties becoming due, one would expect that if an offence were being committed that the management of the bank would not allow an official acting on their direction to pay a fine out of his own assets. The funds of the bank would probably be employed. That is a very unlikely event because the penalties are heavy and the reason why the law is being invoked is essentially rational. I do not visualise this section becoming a reality.
While what the Minister says is commendable, he might be making the same mistake as is made in earlier sections. It is not enough to say that because of the way in which he anticipates certain developments, it may not occur. We must be concerned with the actual wording of the Bill and what will appear in the Act. It is a little unusual to have in any section that to which it does not refer. I think he is catering for a certain emotion and endeavouring to quell what he regards as a possible emotional reaction by saying: "We will not put anybody in prison." Having regard to his alternative, it might be better if he did. I do not see any virtue in saying: "We will not send you to prison but we will take the roof from over your head." That is precisely what is here. You cannot take section 5 in isolation. I think you must couple it with what is in section 7 where it speaks specifically about officials as against the inanimate things called banks. Is the Minister serious in saying that of the two he thinks it preferable to remove the penalty of imprisonment—even though it might never arise—and to substitute instead a provision saying: "We will take the roof from over your head?" Is there any merit in the latter as against the former?
Personally, I would prefer them to take my assets than to go to jail.
The Minister has no house; he is a good socialist.
That is not right.
Could the Minister give some protection to a person who has been summarily convicted and fined £400? We might have the "sheriff of broken jaw".
Did you say broken ribs?
No, broken jaw. This sounds like Custer's last stand in some aspects. I can picture the sheriff riding up with his posse to get £400 so he takes some very valuable article from the house which would make £4,000 and sells it for £400 just to pay the fine. This is more injustice to the person. Could the Minister not tie it down to taking an article commensurate with the fine imposed. We are being frightfully punitive in this section. A convicted person must have some protection under the law. This Bill reminds one of taking a hammer to kill a fly on the baby's head. The Minister is just bashing in relentlessly. Might I ask if the Minister has seen the bank officials this evening?
No.
This is not relevant to section 5.
I question the Minister's right to take power to interfere with debentures or Government stock.
In the unlikely event of section 5 having to be enforced, a person's assets would be counted impartially in assessment of fine which at maximum would be £10,000 but which could be less than £10,000.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Section 6 provides:
Section 382 of the Companies Act, 1963, shall apply to banks that are not companies within the meaning of that Act as it applies to banks that are such companies.
That seems to cut across a section we have already passed in regard to subsidiaries. It is only a detail but one or other of the references seems to be superflous.
That arises because the Northern Bank, the Ulster Bank and Allied Irish Banks are all companies within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963. The procedures of section 382 of that Act in relation to the prosecution of companies under that Act on indictable offences applies to these three in the sense that they are companies under that Act, but the Bank of Ireland, I am informed, was established by charter and is therefore not technically a company. To facilitate prosecution under section 3 (a) (ii) of the Act, the provisions of the section extend to companies which are not companies within the meaning of the Act.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section where the individual is affected instead of the bank. The Minister has been making a point about not having imprisonment. That would be much easier for this poor devil if he runs into a situation where a £10,000 a day penalty is being imposed on him and his furniture and so on is being taken bit by bit. Even with a man of very strong financial standing, the longest he would last would be four or five days. What happens at the end of that time?
The penalties are designed to be effective and to act as real deterrents. It should never become necessary to have these sections implemented. The penalties involved are too onerous to be contemplated even by banks. The intention of the legislation is to deter a bank from making any accommodation which infringes the terms laid down by the Labour Court.
It is a good job the Minister is not Minister for Justice.
He is getting more like Simon Legree every day.
Basically what the Minister is saying is we can never see ourselves faced with section 7.
Such a Bill has been introduced here before and I think has contributed to correcting certain problems that arose at that time. One cannot be so hopeful in the present instance, but we passed a similar Bill through all stages after long debate the last time. I said then I never foresaw the possibility of the provisions being implemented. I do not foresee it now.
Section 7 provides:
Where an offence under this Act is committed by a bank and is proved to have been so committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any person, being a director, member of the committee of management or other controlling authority thereof, or manager, secretary, or other officer...
Assuming that a typist was acting as secretary, would the typist be guilty of an offence under this section? It goes on to provide:
...that person shall also be deemed to have committed the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
The typist surely would not be in charge, even in these days.
It is quite normal to have a typist as secretary to a committee.
We are talking about somebody who would have charge of the pay policy of the bank and would make a decision——
That is not what it says here. It says: "any person, being a director, member of the committee of management or other controlling authority thereof, or manager, secretary or other officer..."
We are talking about a person who makes major decisions that would infringe the provisions of this legislation.
"Member of the committee of management".
Anyone who would be making a decision of this major character is covered by the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
How many officers would be appointed?
I do not think there would be any need to appoint officers.
What guarantee will there be that the officer will extract only information that is proper?
We have covered confidentiality under earlier sections.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This section enables an authorised officer to do a number of things. He may:
(a) at all reasonable times enter premises of a bank,
(b) require any person, being a director or a member of the committee of management or other controlling authority of the bank or an employee thereof, to produce to him any records, books or documents which are in the person's power or control and which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing to be records, books or documents containing information of the kind aforesaid and to give him such information as he may reasonably require in regard to any entries in any such records books or documents,
(c) inspect and copy or take extracts from any such records, books or documents.
Is there not a danger that we are giving a great deal of scope to a group of people that are appointed by him to investigate the confidential records of members of the public? I think it could be said that by long-established tradition people generally have relied on banks and bank officials as being their closest confidants, and confidentiality was preserved.
I appreciate that for other reasons some Ministers have certain rights in relation to information from these officials but when ascertaining the remuneration of bank employees these investigating officers will have access to other confidential information. I am not saying that the banking system is perfect but I am concerned that the long-established confidentiality of the general public in the banking system and in bank officials, in particular, may be endangered by the provisions of this Bill.
This is the sort of section that is objectionable in any legislation. All of us have had experience of it at some time. I remember the debate on the Dangerous Substances Bill when, as the Minister responsible, I heard a great deal of opposition from the other side of the House in respect of the type of provision being discussed here. A provision allowing for inspectors to visit business premises for the purpose of investigating accounts is undesirable. Undoubtedly the Minister will assure us that the provision in this instance will be used with the greatest possible discretion and that the people appointed will be sworn to secrecy and so on. However, in so far as the banks are concerned the provision is particularly objectionable because of the degree of privacy and confidentiality which exists between the bank and its clients. It is sacrosanct that the banks retain this privacy and confidentiality.
I reiterate what my colleagues have said and I appeal to the Minister to think again about this section. He may say that he is concerned only with data that is relevant to this legislation but he must accept, too, that once it is known that civil servants have the right to enter a bank for the purpose of ascertaining information, there is the danger that moneys which would be deposited normally with the banks to which this legislation refers would be channelled into other banks, especially since the investigating officers would be in a position to ascertain the amount of deposits, for instance. This situation could lead ultimately to a certain amount of unemployment in the banks concerned. The Minister is aware of the sensitivity that exists in relation to an examination by any third party of money which people have deposited in banks. The section provides that the Minister can direct civil servants to authorise themselves to go into banks for the purpose of extracting certain information. Can the Minister indicate the manner in which he will guarantee that only specific information will be extracted?
This power exists already. It is a power that is necessary if this legislation is to be effective. The inspectors will be civil servants and, consequently, would be vowed to secrecy under the Official Secrets Act. The power is there in respect of other industrial relations Acts. The information which will be considered necessary will be confined to the purpose of ensuring that the banks are complying with the legislation.
Section 9 says that:
(1) An authorised officer may, for the purpose of obtaining any information which the Minister may require for enabling him to exercise his functions under this Act, do any one or more of the following things:
(a) at all reasonable times enter premises of a bank,
(b) require any person, being a director or a member of the committee of management or other controlling authority of the bank or an employee thereof...
Therefore, if the inspector did not catch the typist within the terms of section 7, she would be caught within section 9. Subsection (2) of that section reads:
(2) If any person obstructs or impedes an authorised officer in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) of this section or does not comply with a requirement of an authorised officer under the said subsection (1), that person shall be guilty of an offence.
That can include typists, bookkeepers, porters or cleaners. The Minister went to great length to indicate that under section 5 the banker would not be liable to imprisonment in default of a fine but in relation to this section the Minister has admitted that if the staff such as those I have mentioned break the law by refusing to carry out orders given to them by officials of the bank in regard to the protection of the bank's property, they can be found guilty of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, not under this Bill but under another Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The unpleasant aspect of this Bill is that we have been given little opportunity of going into it in greater detail. I have pointed out that the Bill is unacceptable to us and we cannot see the necessity for it. I am satisfied that if the people concerned had been approached in a more competent and less domineering way, and had section 24 been used in time, a solution to this problem would have been found long ago. I trust that the Bill is not the beginning of a series of legislation of this nature. While the Minister has been given the utmost co-operation from this side on this occasion, I can assure him that that situation will not continue in the event of legislation of this kind being introduced continually. The failure of the premium employment programme can be attributed to the legislation being rushed through this House because of a guillotine motion.
The Minister is anxious to get the Bill tonight. Is he satisfied with the technical structure of the Bill? Are there a few points he might like to look at?
I thank the Deputy for his suggestion. We have been through the Bill extensively before now, whatever other things may have been rushed. This is the second occasion on which this Bill has been discussed by the House and, subject to the last discussion and having regard to the intervening period, I am satisfied that the provisions of this legislation will be adequate.
Question put and agreed to.