Vol. 44 No. 10
I beg to move the motion standing in my name:—
"That in the opinion of the Dáil every proposal for a protective tariff should include provisions to secure that fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment observed in the protected industry."
Rubbish!
I think the ignorant interruption by Deputy Coburn that a motion asking for fair wages and fair conditions of employment in protected industries is rubbish will be noted with care by the working class people in Louth.
The working class people will take you at your full value anyway.
I invite the working class people of Louth to take particular notice of the fact that on moving a motion asking for fair wages and fair conditions of employment in protected industries, one of their representatives seemed to think that fair wages and fair conditions of employment are rubbish.
Go ahead now.
The Deputy will have an opportunity of explaining that to his constituents. I would prefer that this motion which asks for fair wages and fair conditions of employment in protected industries should apply not merely to protected industries but to all industries, because industrial development, which takes the form of low wages and bad conditions of employment, can never be the kind of industrial development which will give us efficient industries on the one hand or well-paid working classes on the other hand. If there is going to be any real future before the country from the point of view of industrial development, it seems to me and to my colleagues on these benches that a highly efficient industrial position must inevitably, if we are going to reach any measure of industrial prosperity, go hand in hand with decent rates of wages and fair conditions of labour for those engaged in the industry.
While, however, I would prefer that the motion covered protected and non-protected industries, there is, I think, a special case to be made in relation to the protected industries, because there you have an example of the community, through its elected representatives, being prepared to protect industry against foreign competition and against sweated conditions. That measure of protection inevitably involves expense to the consuming population. If, therefore, the consuming population is willing to protect an industry at the expense of the community it should do so only when it has guarantees that, just as the industry desires protection against exploitation elsewhere, it should not undertake the exploitation of its own workers itself.
When we come to consider the whole question of protection and the whole question of the community being prepared to subject itself to additional expense in order to assist our industrial development, we must ask ourselves for what reason and for what purpose the community is doing so. The question I want to ask in this House is this: Is the community undertaking a scheme of protection for our industries in order to see grow up here an industrial position which exemplifies itself in the form of low wages, bad conditions and huckstering industries, or does the community want to see largescale industrial development, decent rates of wages for the members of the community engaged in those industries and decent conditions of labour for the people who work in those industries? I believe the members of the community do not agree with Deputy Coburn's views: that fair wages and decent conditions are rubbish, but rather that the members of the community want to see industries develop which will pay decent rates of wages and observe decent conditions of labour to enable the workpeople engaged in those industries to enjoy a decent standard of life.
But what has been happening not merely for the past six months—though perhaps in an aggravated form for the past six months—but for the past eight years in the matter of the grant of protection to our industries here shows clearly that, in the minds of many manufacturers in this country, protection means one thing and one thing only. In their view, protection means protection for their bank balances and protection against foreign competition. Those manufacturers who go to Government Buildings every other day in the week looking for protection against their competitors elsewhere, and incidentally looking for protection for their bank balances, are apparently not prepared to concede the same measure of protection to the human beings engaged in their own industries.
This State has now got to ask itself whether, in assisting industrial development, it wants to assist a scheme of industrial development based upon low wages, based upon bad conditions of toil and upon the exploitation of juvenile labour in those industries. In connection with the latter, I should like to mention, and I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce will agree, that the outstanding characteristic of industrial development over the past eight or nine years has been a pre-disposition on the part of employers to employ juvenile labour, not because of any moral regard for juveniles or with any desire to train juveniles to become well-paid citizens; but rather because they realise that in juvenile labour they have a commodity to which they can pay low wages. Not infrequently employers appear to see an advantage in employing juveniles in an industry because they have not to pay National Health Insurance contributions or Unemployment Insurance contributions in respect of the juveniles so employed. They believe, too, that juvenile labour is labour which is easily dominated. They realise that juvenile labour is the kind of labour which it is difficult for trade unions to organise. Because of the fact that that kind of worker can be dominated and is so timid that it is difficult to organise him or her, they realise that trade unions will find it very difficult to raise the rate of wages or improve the conditions of labour in respect of that type of labour.
We have got to ask ourselves to-day whether we want to encourage industrial development which takes the form of notoriously low wages and of notoriously bad conditions. Employers will say, and Irish employers are probably notorious for saying it, that they cannot compete with their competitors unless their rates of wages here are lower. They want tariffs in one case, they want prohibition, if possible, in some cases, and while they want the community to protect them against competition elsewhere, they themselves are not prepared to extend any measure of protection to the human beings they engage. The State here has got to say whether it stands for a scheme of industrial development which takes the form of low wages and bad conditions, or whether it wants a scheme of industrial development which takes the form of decent rates of wages and decent conditions of labour.
I hope the Ministry will indicate that they are standing for a scheme of industrial development that will enable us to pay the highest possible rate of wages to our workpeople, and extend to that the best conditions of labour, because it is only in that way that industry can be encouraged to consume its own produce, and that we can build up in this country a healthy industrial position. It is only in that way that we can extend a decent standard of living to our own work-people.
Now possibly—it is not an unfair question—some Deputy may ask: Is there any need for the Government to ensure that fair wages are paid and fair conditions of labour observed in a protected industry? Lest any Deputy should be disposed to ask that question I want to supply some information which, I hope, will show Deputies the unhealthy kind of industrial development that is going on in the country to-day. Let me take, at the outset, the manufacture of hosiery. There are approximately 2,000 workers engaged in that industry. The total average weekly earnings of the factory workers in that industry amount to the scandalously-low sum of 17/9 per week. In the case of the out-workers employed in the industry the rate of wages amounts to the still more scandalously-low sum of approximately 3/-per week. Let me pass from that industry to another industry which, during the past few months, has secured extensive protection as a result of the tariff policy of the Government: that is the boot and shoe industry. Here there are approximately 1,000 wage earners engaged, and the average wages for all employees in the industry amounts to 26/9 per week. Passing from the boot and shoe industry, one comes to the clothing trade. We find approximately 5,500 workers engaged in the wholesale clothing trade, and that the average weekly earnings of all the wage earners in that industry amount to 21/6 per week. Passing from the clothing industry, we come to some industries which have been protected more recently. Let me take, for example, the paper bag trade. Here, while the hand-workers' wages are relatively fair, the machine workers are very badly paid, and receive a wage of from 10/- to 15/- per week.
Lest one should imagine that that was an isolated example, we can go on. Take the sugar confectionery trade. In that industry we find, on the authority of the unions endeavouring to organise the workers in the trade, that the tendency is to employ juniors and to retain juniors, and to suspend or dismiss senior workers. Then we come to the mattress-making industry, and we find that in two firms recently girls were taken on at a wage of 6/- per week and put on journey-women's work, and that attempts have been made to put women on men's work. Passing from that, we may come on to the sack-making. In a firm operating in the Free State at present, wages range from 8/- per week to 20/- per week, and the latter wage is only paid in a few cases. The general standard in that particular firm is from 12/- per week to 15/- per week for senior workers and this has only been reached about a fortnight ago by an increase of from 1/- to 2/- per week.
There has been a good deal of fuss in the news recently about the waterproof clothing industry. One would be inclined to imagine, if one did not know the history of the industry, that the millennium had arrived with a number of firms engaged in this industry. Here we find that a very large number of juveniles are taken on, ostensibly as learners, and paid the munificent wage of 7/-per week. In one firm, typical of the trade, workers are being employed from 7/- per week to 27/6 per week, and only a few workers earn the latter wage. Girls employed at the 7/- a week are put on skilled operations and are expected to perform that work on the miserable sum of 7/- per week as wages.
Under the first series of customs duties a tax was imposed on the importation of commodities already packed. It was believed that that tax would result in providing employment for our own people here. It has provided employment. It has provided, I think, a considerable amount of employment; but just look at the kind of employment it has provided! The employees in this industry are chiefly young girls, and the wages range from 10/- per week to 12/- per week in the majority of cases. We pass on from that to packing in the druggist trade. We find here that people are employed at rates of wages of from 5/- per week to 25/- per week. Employees of several years' experience are paid from 15/- per week to £1 per week. Twenty-five shillings per week are paid by two firms, and the union catering for the workers in that trade is compelled to admit that this wage of 25/-, in the circumstances, is an exceptionally high wage for the industry as a whole.
If anybody has any doubts as to the kind of workers that the galvanised ware and tinplate industry are employing, we have this illuminating example—that girls are employed in the galvanised ware and tinplate industry, to such extent as it exists, at the delightfully high wage of 5/- per week. So that, running right through these examples which I have quoted, you can see that there is the clearest possible evidence that the whole tendency of those people whose bank balances and industries have been protected, is to pay the lowest possible rate of wages, and get the highest possible rate of protection.
Deputy Coburn, who said that decent wages and decent conditions are piffle——
Are you going to press your motion to a division?
I will, if the Deputy agrees to stay in the House for a few hours once a month. He has not been here for a fortnight. Deputy Coburn will be interested in the fact——
I know the workers better than you do.
And they know you. In a town in the constituency represented by Deputy Coburn.
We are not discussing how often the Deputy comes.
However, as I was saying before, Deputy Coburn will be interested in the fact, or he should be interested in it, that in a town in the constituency which he claims to represent, there are workers employed in the boot and shoe industry who are not paid the agreed trade union rate of wages and that the tendency in that industry is to employ operatives between fifteen and twenty-one years of age, not for the sake of the operatives, but simply because it is possible for the employer to try to exploit the present economic crisis and to employ those workers at very low rates of wages. I find, in the same town which Deputy Coburn claims to represent, that approximately 45 per cent. of the workers engaged in the boot and shoe industry in that particular town are paid less than the recognised rate of wages agreed to between the boot and shoe manufacturers and the union catering for boot and shoe operatives. In the same town, boys and girls are paid the starting wage of from 5/- per week to 6/- per week. Any attempt to improve this condition, I suppose, will be described as "piffle" by Deputy Coburn. The youths in that industry aged 15, 16, 17 and 18 years of age are paid 17/-, 18/- and 20/- respectively. They proceed upwards in age with a wage which is approximately below the standard rate of wages recognised by the union for operatives in that industry.
In another firm, not far from Deputy Coburn's constituency, we find that a factory was started in which a few expert operatives were engaged, intermixed with local labour, and the rate of wages paid is from 4/- per week to 10/- per week. The trade union representative, who interviewed one of the principals of the firm, found that the principal admitted that he would have to pay a good rate of wages to the skilled operatives, "but," he said, in the usual patronising way of some employers, "local labour is available and it is very cheap."
I think now, sir, that it can be readily realised by the House that so far as the boot and shoe industry is concerned, one can say that there is something very rotten in the State of of Denmark.
But the evil does not apply merely to places in the vicinity of Deputy Coburn's constituency. Even in the south of the country, even in Cork, we have operatives engaged in the boot and shoe industry who are paid rates of wages below the rate agreed upon by the union and by decent employers in the industry. Running right through these cases, which can be substantiated by the trades union organisation endeavouring to organise these workers and by the personal tests of the organisers, who have specially investigated the matter, we can see clearly evidence that the whole tendency of our new industrial development is towards low rates of wages and bad conditions of labour. I want to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to say very definitely and without any equivocation on behalf of the Government, whether he stands for that kind of industrial development or whether he stands for a scheme of industrial development which will take the form of decent rates of wages and decent conditions of labour. There are employers in this country of course who believe that it is quite a patriotic thing to work for an Irish employer even though you cannot buy bread or purchase the necessaries of life on the miserably low un-Irish wage which many of the employers pay.
The Ministry has got to ask itself where it stands in this matter. Does it stand for industrial development on the line of sweated conditions of labour, which will make this country another India, Japan or China, or does it stand for an industrial development which will provide decent rates of wages and decent conditions of labour for workers in an industry? Speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, and not merely for myself, I would say that any scheme of industrial development which is purchased at the price of scandalously low rates of wages and bad conditions of labour is a scheme of which we would be well rid. If we are going to have industrial development, let us have decent rates of wages. I have no doubt whatever that if a decent employer can pay decent rates of wages, many of the huckstering employers who are paying these coolie rates of wages can well afford to pay decent rates of wages. The Minister has got to ask himself whether he is to stand with the employer who is prepared to pay relatively decent wages or with the huckster who wants always to pay coolie rates of wages, simply because he imagines that he has a supernatural ordination to engage in industrial development while he expects Irish workers to tolerate the coolie rate of wages which he chooses to pay. I hope that the Ministry will definitely say that in this matter they will stand for an industrial development which will not only give us a strong industrial position, which will not only help to extend industries, but which will at the same time help to employ people at a Christian rate of wages instead of the coolie unchristian rate of wages which I think I have proved conclusively are paid in many industries to-day.
The rates of wages which I have quoted and the examples which I have read out are not rates which would enable people to lead a decent Christian life. Fancy exploiting the labour of young girls for 48 hours a week to the tune of 1¼d. per hour! We have heard of labour exploitation in China and we might understand it if we did not excuse it, but even here in Ireland we have Irish employers exploiting juvenile labour to the tune of 1¼d. per hour. That wage is an unchristian wage, a wage which will never promote healthy industrial development in this country. I hope that the Ministry will say definitely that they do not stand for such a scheme of industrial development, but that they stand for a scheme of industrial development which will give to our work-people the best rate of wages that it is possible for the in- dustry to pay, and so enable our Irish workers to enjoy a decent standard of life, to enjoy the God-given heritage of bringing up their families in that frugal comfort which is an inalienable heritage of the working class in every country.
If the Ministry say that they accept the principle of the motion they will have done a good deal to curb the rapacity of employers who want to carry on industries at the price of sweated conditions and coolie rates of wages. They will do much to call a halt to the sweating of Irish men and women which is going on to-day, and they will be doing something at this stage to put our industrial development on the right road, which will mean decent conditions for our work-people instead of the road which we are travelling to-day, the road which means bad wages, bad conditions of labour, and a low standard of living for the people engaged in our industries.
I second the motion.
I rise only for a moment to point out that Deputy Norton's speech has very little bearing on his own motion and to express the hope that he will say a word or two more to elucidate his motion. This motion is not framed so as to ask for a vaguely benevolent expression of opinion on the part of the Ministry. The motion reads:—"That in the opinion of the Dáil every proposal for a protective tariff should include provision to secure that fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment observed in the protected industry." That is a perfectly definite proposal, and I think we should have some indication from Deputy Norton as to what provisions he has in mind or the way in which they would be framed in connection with protective tariffs. There is no such thing as accepting the principle of the motion without accepting also the view that some sort of machinery should be arranged for giving effect to the proposal contained in that motion. It is a motion which proposes something interesting and something new and I do not think Deputy Norton should run away from it at this stage. I hope it is not too much to put him that question and to ask him whether he is prepared to throw some more light on what exactly he has in mind and what machinery he proposes should be set up.
I am supporting Deputy Norton's motion, and I must compliment him on the moderate and temperate manner in which he approached this very serious matter. It has been common knowledge for some time past that most, if not all, of the highly-tariffed industries in this country—most of them have been read out by Deputy Norton—are not giving the operatives in these industries decent conditions and decent wages in the way envisaged by many of the people who supported the present Ministry during the last election. We had a lot of rosy promises held out that if and when this Government would come into office a number of industries would be tariffed. A very short time ago, within the last couple of weeks, to be accurate, speaking in this House, I drew the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the fact that in many cases employment was given in these tariffed industries to juvenile labour to the exclusion of adults. I pointed out then that in my view, and in the view of many persons capable of judging, one of the principal reasons for engaging child labour was to enable the particular employer to escape the responsibility of having to pay National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance.
The system appears to be that the employer applies for a tariff. The tariff is agreed on, and the employer then engages juvenile labour, and proceeds with the manufacture of one or other of the commodities referred to by Deputy Norton. When the operative reaches a certain age at which that operative should be insured the operative is discharged. I have never yet been satisfied since the introduction of these indiscriminate tariffs that the people who were at the back of the tariffs intended to pay a living wage to their operatives. We have that fact amply testified to by Deputy Norton in the statements he has read out to us. I should like to read the mind of Deputy MacDermot. Deputy MacDermot seems to feel or think that this motion leaves a whole lot to be said, or rather leaves a whole lot unsaid by Deputy Norton. Deputy MacDermot asked what about the machinery that should be set up to put into force the terms of Deputy Norton's motion. Well, I do not think that Deputy Norton is called upon to suggest the machinery, but, even if he were, the machinery is present, and I would suggest to Deputy MacDermot that he should make himself acquainted with the facts of what occurs in the industrial life of this country without asking a question which I really consider to be a silly question. Machinery is present in the form of employers' federations, and in the form of trade unions. We had in this State and still have——
The Deputy misunderstands my point. I was referring to the machinery necessary in this House for coupling the protective tariff with the provisions——
Well then, I should like to correct Deputy MacDermot somewhat further. If the trade unions and the employers agree on a rate, machinery is already present in the form of trades boards. The trades board still operates in the shirt making industry. I do not know whether it operates in the case of the boot-making industry, but I am aware that it does operate in one or two industries in the country.
Now, sir, the figures set out by Deputy Norton I feel to be authentic. He must have gone to a good deal of trouble to collate these facts and figures. The motion is one, I think, that should commend itself to all Parties in this House, and particularly to the Fianna Fáil Party who gave many promises during the election, especially to the working class people who were unemployed at the time, and many of whom—if not the greater number of whom—are still unemployed. It was indeed a very attractive programme to tell the electors of this country that if and when they were returned to power they would protect certain industries and establish factories galore. Now we see the result of some of those promises. With Deputy Norton I feel it would be far better for this country if those industries were not established at all; if there are in this country groups of persons who believe that because they are able to invest a few thousand pounds in a small factory they should get rich quickly on the exploitation of junior male and female labour, then I think it were far better that those industries were not established at all. I have always held the view that is embodied in this motion, that if and when industry is tariffed the workers in that industry should at least share in any profits made on it. As a matter of fact I have always felt that the labour of those people should be the first charge on that industry. I am not one of the persons who believe that we can get along in this country without capital in some form or another. I hold the view that in this country we have as good employers as in other countries. We have also just as bad employers as there are in other countries.
I do submit to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance that they might give this motion their serious consideration, in view of what can only be regarded as the very alarming facts put before the House to-night by Deputy Norton. I see no reason to doubt these facts and figures, and I feel that the Minister in the interests of the people concerned— the operatives in these industries— would be doing a useful day's work for the State if he gave effect in some way or other to the terms of Deputy Norton's motion.
Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass) rose.
Of course this does not mean that the Minister is concluding?
The Deputy must be better aware of the procedure than that. The Minister has not moved the motion.
The motion before the Dáil asks us to subscribe, not merely to the principle that fair wages and fair conditions of employment should be observed in protected industries, but also to a particular method of securing that end. I think that most Deputies who give the matter consideration will agree with me that, apart altogether from the question of the desirability of the principle enunciated by the motion, to suggest a method of giving effect to that principle would seem to be administratively impracticable. The difficulties which exist in this connection and the misunderstanding that possibly gave rise to the form of the motion are suggested in one sentence in Deputy Anthony's speech, where he talked of the normal procedure in securing the imposition of a protective tariff in respect of a particular commodity. Apparently in Deputy Anthony's mind the normal procedure was for a group of employers to make a case to the members of the Executive Council, and bring whatever pressure they could in support of that case, and induce the Executive Council to agree to the imposition of a tariff in consequence. That is neither the normal nor the usual procedure. Under the last régime there might be some justification for that contention, in view of the fact that a protective tariff could not be imposed until an application had been made and considered by the Tariff Commission. This Government, however, did not proceed in that manner. I do not want to suggest that the need for protection in particular cases or the circumstances existing in particular industries were not brought to the notice of members of the Government by interested parties, but, in the main, the duties which we imposed, and the scheme of protection which we devised, were hammered out in the light of known resources here, and the desirability of securing the production within this country of a large range of goods which formerly were imported. In some cases there are particular circumstances, in that employers and industries now protected might even have been opposed to the imposition of that protection, but even in those cases if the Government were satisfied that development was possible and should take place, and that the imposition of duties was an effective means of securing that development, they took action regardless of the opinions expressed to them. The normal procedure and the proper procedure for the imposition of a protective duty is examination in a Department of State, and following that examination the preparation of a financial resolution for the Dáil. Now that procedure, I suggest, could not be adapted so as to embody the proposal in the resolution. I take it, however, that Deputy Norton is not so much concerned with the manner in which the principle behind his proposal is put into operation as the operation of that principle for its own sake. With the principle and motion I am in full agreement. I do not think that all the statements that have been made by the two Deputies who supported it are strictly accurate, nor do I think Deputy Norton, and more especially Deputy Anthony, were wise in making some of the sweeping generalisations they did from the facts at their disposal. Deputy Anthony spoke about it being common knowledge that most, if not all, employers in protected industries were not paying a decent wage. I do not think that is true.
What about the figures Deputy Norton used?
Deputy Norton read out figures in relation to ten industries, but Deputy Anthony went much further and said that these figures were justified, and in doing so I think he has increased and not diminished the difficulty in getting the necessary action taken to redress anything that is to be redressed. It was implied, certainly in some of the statements made by Deputy Norton, that there were decent employers, and he asked the Government if it were prepared to stand behind and support those employers who were paying decent wages as against those who were not.
I said the same. I said there were decent employers in this country.
I am questioning the wisdom of Deputy Anthony's statement, that most, if not all, were not decent employers. I do not think that is so.
In tariffed industries only.
In tariffed industries and in any other industries. I want to get the Dáil to have this situation cleared, so that there will be no confusion in the minds of Deputies, or no doubts as to the type of action that is necessary. I think it will be agreed generally that it is desirable that the wages prevailing in any industry should be settled by negotiation and agreement by organised representatives of the employers and the employees. Where it is possible to get general conditions and wage rates in an industry settled by agreement, relations between both parties are much more likely to be harmonious than if conditions are imposed in any way against the will of either party. In respect of industries which are organised, from a trade union point of view, the position is that the regulation of the conditions of employment and rates of wages is a matter primarily for trade union action. In some industries, it is possible that there are what I might call "scab employers," that is one individual firm or two or three firms which do not pay the general rate of wages, or observe the same conditions as are paid or observed by all the other firms engaged in that industry. These firms naturally have an advantage over those that maintain the better conditions and consequently have the effect of making it impossible for those employers, who are anxious to maintain the level of wages and the better conditions to do so because the scab firms, if I may call them, are in a position to cut costs and wages and to take trade from those firms they are in competition with.
That brings us straight to the relation between wages and costs. To a large extent, the low rates of wages that prevail in some industries are due to the general demand for cheap goods from these industries. Circumstances arose here in the past which resulted in industries here being subjected to the fullest competition from firms outside the country—firms where the standard of living was much lower than here—and forcing these native firms of ours to reduce their costs in a variety of ways, and particularly by reduction in the wages of their workers in order to maintain an existence. A habit grew up in consequence of these conditions which still persists despite the fact that State action is now being adopted to remove the competition to which I have referred—the habit is that of low prices amongst our people. I hope it is clearly borne in mind that, in respect of a number of industries to which reference has been made, any substantial rise in the standard of wages must necessarily also mean a rise in the selling price of the goods produced.
Does that necessarily follow?
Not necessarily. I admit in certain cases it may be due to excessive profit taking on the part of individual employers——
What about the Control of Prices Bill?
I think on the whole it will be found that does not operate to any substantial extent. Certainly no proof of it operating has been forthcoming.
Has the Minister definite information on that point, that firms give a low rate of wages as a consequence?
The Deputy is misunderstanding me. I am not talking about an individual firm in an industry in which conditions are generally satisfactory. That scab firm, as I have called it, deserves little mercy and should be brought into line in the interests of the other employers in the industry who are trying to maintain better conditions of work.
The whole tendency in industry since the war has been, wherever possible, to replace a male worker by a female worker, and to replace an adult worker by a juvenile worker in quite a large range of industries. The Deputy spoke as if that were a tendency that developed in this country alone. I think it has, in fact, developed less in this country than in most others, but there it is. And apart altogether from the fact that it is a world-wide tendency, we here have got to deal with it. It is quite correct that there is in some industries a disposition on behalf of employers to utilise juvenile labour because of the reasons stated by Deputy Norton, and it is, nationally, I think much more desirable that one adult, particularly one male adult, should be employed than that two or three or more children of fifteen or sixteen years of age should find work at a rate of wages which are usually paid to such juveniles. The manner, however, in which that tendency can be corrected, and the step that would have to be taken to that end, would require very careful deliberation and planning before it could be initiated, because the dislocation that might result from any sudden change might have consequences of an undesirable kind, might easily result in the disemployment of adults engaged in such a capacity.
Deputy Norton referred to the conditions prevailing in a number of industries. He was referring, particularly, to this industry in respect of which juvenile employment is most present. In that connection I warn the House against placing undue reliance upon average figures. Average figures have, in fact, little significance. The position in respect of any particular industry may easily be affected by the employment of a large number of apprentices or learners or people only being taught, and paid less than the normal rate of wages. In the boot and shoe industry, for example, there is, at the present time, a considerable development taking place. There is, of course, a trade union, or two or three trade unions, catering for the employees in that industry. Some, if not most, of the boot manufacturers in this country are paying rates of wages agreed upon between themselves and the trade union representatives. In a number of factories recently established it should be borne in mind that the local workers employed are all learners. They are all people taken in for the purpose of being trained in the industry. They are, in some cases, being trained by workers brought in from outside. If they are not receiving the recognised rate of wages, agreed upon at the conference held between the association of employers and employees, it may be due to that fact. In quite a number of industries to which Deputy Norton referred there is the Trade Board rate.
Deputy Anthony referred to the Trade Boards. The position in respect of these bodies is somewhat anomalous at the moment. The Trade Board system was devised by the British Government with a view to the needs of British industry, and was applied to this country, at the time, before the establishment of the Free State, and was continued in operation here following the establishment of the Free State. From time to time various people gave consideration to the question whether that particular system, which regulates the conditions of employment in a particular industry, was suitable to our needs. I have given very careful consideration to the question since this Government came into office, and certain calculations have been made which are now being examined from the point of view of their practicability. Trade boards, of course, can only be established in respect of an industry which is, in the opinion of the Minister for the time, unorganised. If the workers in a particular industry are, as a whole, members of a trade union and consequently organised, the trade boards are not needed. These trades are able to make agreements with their employers or otherwise, and the Trade Board cannot be established. I do not think it would be considered desirable that the Trade Board system should be extended so as to cover industries which are organised in that sense. Personally I think it would not.
Coming back to my original point of view, it is much better to get conditions of employment fixed by agreement between organised bodies of workers and employers than in any other way. Where the Trade Boards have been operating there is a minimum wage, and there is power in the Department of Industry and Commerce to enforce that minimum wage there of course. During the past few months certain action has been taken, and other cases are pending at the moment, to enforce that particular wage in a particular case where attempts were made to evade it. It became clear, as a result of my examination, that if we were to decide that the Trade Board system was suitable to the conditions of this country certain amendments to the Trade Board Acts would be necessary, tightening up the organisation, making it somewhat more effective than it proved to be in the past two or three years. It is intended to prepare the necessary legislation in order to give effect to that tightening up of the Trade Board legislation in the event of no better system emerging as a result of our examination. I do not think any better system is possible. If Deputies come to consider this question, and the question of the rates of wages prevailing in unorganised industries, I think the first thought that will occur is the best system to regulate conditions in that industry would be to bring together equal numbers of representatives of the employers and the employed, with a neutral chairman, and let them fix the minimum rate of wages. That seems to be the natural kind of organisation in order to achieve our purpose and that is, in effect, the principle of the Trade Board system. There are alternatives to that which may be practicable and desirable. I do not wish to express an opinion upon them, because, as I said, the matter is coming up for examination. Meantime, we are trying to regularise the position, as I say, with the machinery at our disposal. With respect to a new industry, such as the packing industry, when it came into existence, a Trade Board did not exist and there is some difficulty, at the moment, in bringing that into existence. These difficulties, if they are to be found in connection with the Trade Boards, will have to be removed by legislation, and that legislation I hope to have introduced at a quite early date. I think that very few people will deny that it is desirable first that we should get the greatest possible volume of adult employment, and second, that where juveniles are employed in a particular industry they should have conditions of work and rates of pay which, in the opinion of reasonable men, would be satisfactory. I think it will also be admitted that we should take action in order to secure development along these lines without undue delay. In view of the fact that, to a great extent, industrial development is only taking place here now it would be better to get on the right lines at the beginning rather than to allow an evil to grow up which it would be hard to remove at a later date.
In respect to some of the industries referred to by Deputy Norton there is a tendency to employ an undue number of people who are described as learners, at very low wages and to utilise these people for the ordinary productive work of the factory concerned. These so-called learners never get an opportunity of employment at the full rate that would operate if ordinary conditions prevailed. I mean that when they are finished their period of tuition they are dispensed with and new learners at a low rate taken on in their stead. That is something which is, of course, on the borders of illegality, and in particular cases where it was clear that the borders have been crossed during the past three or four months the Department has taken very drastic action to deal with the persons responsible.
Will the Minister indicate what action was taken?
In one particular case the factory was closed down, in other cases there were prosecutions. I would, however, warn Deputies against the danger of placing too much reliance upon average figures. It may be that in particular concerns there is an undue number of these learners or that in a particular factory unduly low rates are being paid, and, of course, these would all come into operation to depress the average over the whole industry. It is, I think, for example, unfair to give the impression that the boot and shoe industry as such is not paying proper remuneration to its employees. I think Deputy Norton and other Deputies, who know the circumstances, will admit that there are certainly individual firms in which the conditions of employment, in all the circumstances, must be described as satisfactory. There are other factories in respect of which some improvement could take place. In such cases, the policy of the Department of Industry and Commerce would be to utilise its existing powers to put pressure upon these firms in order to bring them up to the level of the better firms, rather than to have them, as a result of their operation, tending to depress the conditions prevailing at the upper end of the scale.
I did not attempt to get any report from my Department covering the conditions over all the industries of the Saorstát for this debate, because I think it is much more desirable that the attention of the Dáil should be directed to the principle embodied in this motion rather than to the conditions prevailing in any particular industry. The principle in the motion is that State action should be taken to secure that fair conditions operate in protected industries. Deputy Norton, I think, stated that he would prefer that whatever action would be taken should apply to all industries. That seems to be the obvious course. My reaction to that principle is that in respect of those industries which are organised, those industries the workers in which have their trade unions to protect their interests, it is not desirable that any State organisation should be set up to replace these trade unions or to take over their duties in the matter of negotiation with employers. But if it is desired and if proposals are put to me by any organisation which is entitled to speak on behalf of these trade unions which would have that effect, either in whole or in part, in respect of individual concerns or industries, then these representations can be considered. In respect of unorganised industries, I think the State has a very direct obligation to take action. That obligation was recognised very many years ago by the British Government and was recognised by the late Government here when the trade board machinery was brought into operation. The question, therefore, we have to consider in that connection is whether or not that machinery is sufficiently effective. I feel that it can be argued, and it has been argued by quite responsible people in touch with the industries concerned, that the trade board machinery, however suitable it may have been to the conditions in industrialised England, is not equally suitable to the conditions here.
Is not that the argument of the employers?
No. Quite definitely. that argument was put by officials who came to me as representatives of particular unions. I am not accepting that contention without further examination. In any case, even if it were decided that the trade board machinery is the best one—and, at the moment, if I had to decide to-night whether it is or not, I would decide it is—I feel that a certain tightening up of the machinery can take place. Certain legislative provisions which operate to render it less effective than it might be can be removed. In any event, certain legal difficulties which have arisen must be remedied by legislation in the near future, and that legislation is being prepared. It would have been introduced before this but for the fact that I desire to have the larger question examined, rather than that we should deal with particular parts of the problem piecemeal. I do not know if there is any other point which has been mentioned with which it is necessary that I should deal. I am quite prepared to recommend to the Dáil that the resolution should be adopted, subject to it being understood that the principle of the resolution is the main part of it, and that the particular machinery by which the principle can be given effect to is a matter for consideration and determination in the light of the administrative difficulties involved. I think the matter of the machinery is quite a minor one. The principle is the main question, and if that is accepted, as I am sure it will be accepted, by the Dáil, then the particular steps to give effect to it can be brought here for consideration when opportunity offers. It is my intention to make an opportunity at as early a date as the legislative programme will permit, and the actual proposals can be hammered into shape in the form of a Bill.
The Minister says that there are certain firms which he is satisfied are not paying satisfactory wages or giving satisfactory conditions to employees in tariffed industries and that he has brought pressure to bear upon them. I should like to ask if under the existing law it is open to him to bring pressure to bear upon them outside the Trade Board Acts?
No. At present, outside the Trade Board Acts, we have no power whatever. The only pressure we can bring to bear is that of representation—the actual pointing out to these firms that they were depressing conditions in the industry as a whole and that if they persisted in doing so it might be necessary for us to get power.
So there is no pressure open to the Minister except representation and the operation of the Trade Board Acts at the moment?
No legal power.
I feel a great amount of sympathy with Deputy Norton in the motion he has tabled. It was rather astonishing to me to hear the figures quoted by Deputy Norton in the course of his speech, and it seems a ludicrous thing that any Minister, sitting on that Front Bench and representing the Department of Industry and Commerce, is not in a position either to accept or reject the figures that Deputy Norton has quoted. Either the figures that Deputy Norton has quoted are true or the figures are false, and yet the Minister for Industry and Commerce finds himself in a position, like Alice in Wonderland, that he does not know whether they are true or false.
I did not say that.
I gathered distinctly from what the Minister said that he could not accept as correct, in certain instances, the figures quoted by Deputy Norton. He was asked, in an interruption by Deputy Anthony, as to whether they were correct or incorrect and he did not commit himself. Will the Minister now say whether they are correct or incorrect?
I will try to make it clear to the Deputy. I said that I did not endeavour to get a report covering all the industries in the Saorstát——
Will the Minister answer my question?
And I warned Deputies against taking an average figure.
Is that an answer to my plain question? Are the figures quoted by Deputy Norton correct or incorrect?
I do not know.
That is just what I expected. That is just what one expects from a Minister for Industry and Commerce of the calibre of Deputy Lemass. He does not know. That is the way in which he is setting out to establish industries in the country.
When I say that I do not know, I am speaking personally. I have not the information here with me but I could get the information to-morrow, if I wanted it. It is in my Department.
Surely it is self-evident that, when a motion of this sort and of the importance to the ordinary plain people of the country as this motion is, was put down for discussion this afternoon, it was the bounden duty of the Minister to come to the House with some facts or some figures at his disposal, in order to enlighten the House as to the merits or demerits of the whole question.
That has nothing to do with it.
He confesses here, like a child at school, that he does not know anything about it.
That has got nothing whatever to do with it.
It is a matter of opinion whether it has or not. If sweated wages are being paid, this motion should be passed. If sweated wages are not being paid, it puts the motion in an entirely different category altogether, and we should obtain the information from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to enable us to come to a proper conclusion in the interests of the workers, in the interests of industrialists, and in the interests of consumers as to what are the facts of the whole situation. Anybody who has watched the policy of industry and commerce that has been operating since the new Government took office can come to only one conclusion and that is, that they are putting their foot in the whole business, that they are setting up a number of uneconomic industries that will never solve the unemployment problem, that they are setting up a number of industries in this country that are unsuited to the manufacturing and other interests of the country. I remember, some time ago, speaking to a man from Dundalk. I had heard that there were quite a number of factories started in Dundalk, and I said to him: "Your part of the country will be doing particularly well at the moment; I see that you have several factories down there." He said: "Four or five Jew men have come down and they give the girls five bob a week. Is that what you call a factory?"
Deputy Coburn says that that is only piffle.
Would the Deputy repeat that?
I am not going to intervene in any dispute between Deputy Coburn and Deputy Norton and I do not know whether the statement is correct or not.
It is not.
But if it is true that these wages are being paid, the Dáil ought to take some notice of it, and, before this debate concludes, the Dáil should be informed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether the wages quoted by Deputy Norton, in respect of various industries, are correct or not. Deputy Norton quoted 17/9 as the average wage per week in the hosiery industry and he referred to some type of workers called "out workers"—what they are I don't know —whose average wage was 3/- per week. He referred to the boot and shoe industry and quoted the average wage paid as 26/9 and, in the clothing industry, the average wage paid was 21/6. The Minister says he stands for the payment of proper wages, but he refused to accept the principle of the motion that Deputy Norton has introduced, and, in fact, at the moment, I do not know whether he is accepting that motion or whether he is rejecting it. He tells us, in one portion of his speech, that the whole scheme adumbrated by Deputy Norton is utterly impracticable, that while State action has been taken with regard to dealing with the competitive element in the manufacture of goods in this country, it is a totally different matter for the State to come in and interfere with the fixation of wages, but, before he sat down, he took the sting out of the statement, and said that he was satisfied to accept some boiled-down version of the motion, provided so-and-so and such-and such were left to his discretion as Minister for Industry and Commerce. I want to ask Deputy Norton this plain question—is he going to stand for that or is he not? Has this motion been introduced in the interests of the workers of this country or is it only a sham motion——
That is the point.
——to be read to-morrow in the newspapers as one of the great efforts the Labour Party is making on behalf of the people they claim to represent in this House, when we all know for a fact that, if Labour exercised its power to-morrow, the people on those benches opposite would automatically disappear?
Do you want to get back again?
Our position, so far as getting back again is concerned, is this, that we fear there has been so much harm done to the country that it does not matter who gets back. The damage will not be repaired for, perhaps, a generation. If Deputy Norton wants that information, he has it for what it is worth. So far as the getting back of our Party is concerned, they are in no way anxious about it, although we know that Deputy Norton is particularly anxious to prevent them getting back.
Hear, hear!
What we are anxious about is whether this is a genuine motion, sincerely introduced, or is it merely a plan to gull the working people of this country. If this is a genuine motion, the lukewarm acceptance of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to-night should not be accepted by any self-respecting Labour body in this Assembly. I put the question frankly and plainly to the Labour Party here: Are they going to accept the meek and mild manner in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce proposes to deal with this very highly important Labour question? I move the adjournment of the debate
