When the debate was adjourned, I was indicating that, for a number of reasons, it was felt that the interests of apprentices, employers and trade unions and the interests of the country at large could be better served if this problem of apprentices were tackled on the lines the Minister himself indicated as the correct approach in a letter to the trade union movement about November, 1952. I understood he indicated that all parties agreed that some form of overhaul was necessary and that in his view, that overhaul, as well as improvement in the existing machinery, could best be dealt with on a basis of voluntary co-operation rather than by mandatory legislation. As I mentioned before— and I do not want to unduly stress the point—it appears the Minister has now departed from the point of view stated by him and the point of view with which every responsible person in the country would agree. When you come to the problem of training apprentices for skilled trades and for crafts, what is necessary above all is that the understanding, voluntary co-operation and assistance of the workers already in the trades will be forthcoming, co-operation which I believe cannot be obtained by any form of mandatory legislation.
On Section 48, the Minister referred to the obstruction of employers in carrying out the directions of the apprenticeship committee or the council. On that point alone, surely the Minister and every Deputy realise that if, in the employment of any employer, there are one or two craft workers of a certain craft and one apprentice, the apprentice cannot obtain adequate training in his trade, except with the voluntary and wholehearted co-operation of the craftsman. There is no means known to man that can compel a skilled craftsman to train, guide and advise the lad whom he is supposed to train in the skills of his trade, if he does not feel like doing it, and no Order of a Minister or of any committee will have any effect. If a case arises where such a skilled craftsman does not give wholehearted support, will there be recourse to inflicting penalties under the penal clauses?
To come back again to what is fundamental here, in relation to the council, there is provision, first of all, for the appointment of a chairman by the Minister. You will note that Section 10 provides that the chairman shall be described as a director. With all due respect, I think that is a mistaken approach if one hopes to get co-operation from a representative group of trade unions and from employers. We find that the representation will be four persons whom the Minister considers to be representative of employers, four persons whom the Minister considers representative of workers, and three others who will be selected on the basis of being representative of some educational body or other and who will be appointed in consultation with the Minister for Education. Therefore, you have four employers, four workers—if we accept for the moment that they are properly representatives —three representatives from an educational authority of some kind, and the chairman.
The present bodies looking after apprenticeship and other matters between employers and workers operate on the basis of equal numbers from each side. In the case of the joint labour committee set up under the Industrial Relations Act, there is provision for a chariman appointed by the Minister and independent members. The employers and workers are equal in number, but no decision of that body is entirely binding on the workers. They only fix minimum standards, minimum rates of wages, minimum hours of work, minimum overtime rates in the industry for which the joint labour committee operates, and there is nothing to prevent the organised workers in the industry seeking, as they do, and obtaining, as they do in many cases, better rates of wages, better hours of work and better conditions of employment than those set down in those Schedules.
This council, or comhairle, as it is described here, will be given an almost overriding authority and being set up in that way, it will appear to the representatives of the skilled workers or craft workers to be a council in which the dice is loaded against them the whole time.
The Minister mentioned the fear of the trade unions that opening wide the gates to allow a higher proportion of apprentices into various trades would be looked upon with suspicion because it would be regarded as an effort by certain unscrupulous employers to endeavour to carry on their own section of the industry with cheap labour. I agree with the Minister that that suspicion would be there and that suspicion would be strengthened in the light of this Bill and of Sections 10 and 11.
In Sections 25 and 26, it is proposed that there be educational and age qualifications. We are all agreed that it is essential to increase the general educational standards of our people. However, we do not appear to be going about it the right way. Here we have a proposal to make an educational standard for skilled tradesmen, while many hundreds of skilled tradesmen down the years have demonstrated that although they might be lacking to some degree in formal education, their ability to carry out their work expertly in their own trade has not in any way suffered. The fact that a lad's formal educational standard may not be very high does not necessarily mean that he is not a first-class mason or carpenter, a first-class butcher or tradesman.
It must be remembered that these qualifications will be decided, not by the mutual consent of representatives of the employers of industries and the direct representatives of the workers concerned, but by a committee mainly comprised of three categories—those who, in the Minister's view, represent the employers; those who, in the Minister's view, represent the workers; and somebody brought in from the educational field.
In Section 35, there is a suggestion that an apprenticeship committee might be empowered to determine the number of apprentices to be permitted in any particular area. The present basis of operation, which is accepted generally by responsibly employers, is that the ratio of apprentices shall be such as to ensure reasonably that the apprentices who devote their time to the particular trade will have some hope of employment at that trade. We know that in recent years, of course, that position has gone completely out of balance, because of the reduction in employment in the building industry. We know there is little definite hope amongst those who served their time in that industry that they will be able to work as skilled craftsmen in their own country.
I should like to ask the Minister whether in farming this Bill consideration was given to the question of training apprentices for work outside the country. If we are to depart from the recognised voluntary efforts, we would like to know whether the Minister has in mind any question of endeavouring to see that more lads are apprenticed in industry than can be absorbed in a reasonable time in our own country.
I notice that in Sections 38 and 39 the Minister has set out various principles governing the examination of persons undergoing an apprenticeship period. In sub-section (2) of Section 38, the Bill says:
"The conditions governing entry for examinations under this section shall be determined by the apprenticeship committee concerned after consultation with the Minister for education."
It goes on in the next section to set out the conditions in which certificates will be issued to those who qualify for the trade by passing two examinations. What the trade unions are concerned with is whether the apprentices will get employment, not certificates; and it is because of their overriding concern with this phase of the matter that they have gone on record, I understand, and informed the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that as far as their constituent bodies are concerned, they feel that this Bill should not be passed.
If the Minister sincerely desires that any difficulties or problems in connection with the training of young workers be removed and if he sincerely desires the active co-operation of the trade unions, both in the Irish Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions, surely even at this stage he should pay them the compliment of accepting that they have a primary interest in the matter and agree to defer consideration of this Bill until after he has had discussions with representatives of those bodies?
The Minister, of course, can put the gun to the heads of the members of the House. There is no doubt about it he has got a majority and he can carry the Second Stage and the subsequent stages just as he will. He can put it on the Statute Book but I feel if it goes on the Statute Book, either in its present form or as amended on the Committee Stage, and is not a Bill that is welcomed by both sides of industry, it will be of no positive value in dealing with the problems outlined by the Minister. While sections of the Bill propose that in certain cases penalties of £2, £10 or £20 can be enforced, nobody can enforce co-operation.
I think the Minister was sincere in 1952 when he said that he felt that the problem could best be dealt with by the parties concerned. I have no doubt that in the light of the developments within the trade union movement since 1952, and particularly in the light of developments in the last 12 to 18 months, the Minister will be doing a good day's work if he decides not to exercise the powers he has in persisting in this legislation.