I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purposes of this measure can be very briefly stated.
Apprenticeship Bill, 1958—Second Stage.
Before the Minister goes any further, I understand he has received representations from at least one of the two Congresses, or perhaps from both, suggesting that, in view of what they have stated, he might withdraw this Bill and approach it from another angle. Has the Minister decided against that?
I shall deal with that now.
Very well. I want to save the Minister the job of making a speech.
The Bill provides for the establishment of machinery by which it is hoped that the existing defects in our apprenticeship arrangements may be remedied. I think most Deputies will agree that the three-fold aims of a good system of apprenticeship should be to ensure that (1) sufficient numbers of boys and girls of the right type are attracted to the skilled trades; (2) these apprentices are given an adequate opportunity, by thorough training on the job and by technical school instruction, of acquiring the knowledge and the skills which it is desirable that they should have; and (3) there is adequate supervision of apprentices so that they may make good use of the opportunities with which they are provided.
The present position regarding apprenticeship in this country is not satisfactory. I think that fact is widely known and I doubt if anybody will dispute it. There are, it is true, some apprenticeship schemes in existence which are, in the main, quite satisfactory. The broad picture throughout the various trades, however, is that the vital problem of recruiting and training future craftsmen is dealt with either in a haphazard manner or in a way which is prejudicial to the long-term interests of the trades themselves and the community as a whole.
Personally, I regard this as a most important issue, bearing upon the whole future of national economic development. Faulty apprenticeship can result in poor and inefficient workmanship which can adversely affect, if not altogether eliminate, our ability to compete in export markets. I think everybody now realises that our industrial programme has reached a stage where further expansion depends on our ability to find export outlets for some of the goods we produce.
We cannot hope, in the foreseeable future, to compete with the larger and more industrialised countries for export markets in mass-produced goods. We have, it is true, industries which have long export traditions and I am aware that they are making every effort to step-up the volume of their exports. However, the main hope of achieving a significant expansion lies in finding overseas markets for speciality products. Some of our industries producing goods which require a high degree of skilled workmanship are already achieving success in that direction. The markets, and a substantially increased volume of exports of that kind, are there to be won. If they are to be won in the face of growing competition, every effort must be made to bring the industries concerned to a high pitch of efficiency. One of the first things that must be done is to ensure that they will not be short of highly-trained workers in the critical years that lie ahead of us.
This problem of apprenticeship, the inadequacy and unsatisfactory character of our apprenticeship arrangements, has been under consideration for many years. Indeed, it has been allowed to go too long unremedied. It was reviewed some years ago by the Commission on Youth Unemployment. The existing legislation on the subject is the Apprenticeship Act, 1931. That Act was based entirely on what I may call the principle of voluntary co-operation. No trade has been brought within the scope of that Act, unless those concerned asked that action to that end should be taken. Following the enactment of the measure, efforts were made to secure the consent of a number of trades to accept designation under the Act. The results were most disappointing.
The Act has now been in force for 27 years and it has been applied to only four trades: (1) furniture making; (2) house painting and decorating; (3) hair dressing and (4) brush and broom making. There are, of course, a number of other trades with voluntary schemes, some of which appear to be reasonably satisfactory. It is clear, however, that the 1931 Act has failed to make any significant impact upon this important question of ensuring an adequate supply of properly trained craftsmen.
The operation of the 1931 Act was considered carefully by the Youth Unemployment Commission. The commission came to the conclusion, which it stated in its report, that fresh legislation was required. They envisaged the establishment of a national apprenticeship committee, the setting up of statutory apprenticeship schemes for more trades and the provision of more effective measures for the training, instruction and testing of apprentices. I think it can be said that the main recommendations of the commission are incorporated in this Bill.
As I have said, there are some progressive trades in which employers and workers have co-operated wholeheartedly in the task of providing satisfactory apprenticeship schemes. If other trades were to follow the example of these progressive ones, if both sides were to come together and undertake the overhaul of the existing apprenticeship arrangements in a serious and liberal way, there would be no need for this Bill. Voluntary co-operation would be the better way, if it could be worked. The experience of the 1931 Act, however, has shaken confidence that it will work.
For many years now, attempts have been made, without avail, to secure reform from within the trades. It is clear that we can no longer adopt a policy of laissez faire on this subject. We must make a fresh effort to provide a framework within which satisfactory schemes of apprenticeship can be evolved by the combined efforts of all concerned — workers, employers, vocational education authorities and the State — and that is what this Bill sets out to do.
The provisions of the Bill are given in detail in the explanatory memorandum which was circulated with it. I think that at this stage it is only necessary to emphasise the main features and the ideas underlying them. It is intended that the Bill should apply mainly to craft trades. Agriculture, the dairying industry and the professional and clerical occupations have been left outside its scope. It would not, I feel, be practicable to apply the type of apprenticeship schemes envisaged in the Bill to a large and loosely-knit occupation like agriculture, and, so far as the dairying industry is concerned, there is already in operation a scheme of the Department of Agriculture for training in butter and cheese making. It is, I think, obvious that the Bill would not be appropriate for professional and clerical organisations.
One of the major defects of the Apprenticeship Act, 1931 will be removed because the initiative in the matter of setting up statutory apprenticeship schemes will be vested in the central apprenticeship authority to be known as An Ceard Chomhairle which will be established under this Bill. The Chomhairle will be under the direction of a full-time officer, the Director of Apprenticeship, who will be in a position vigorously to promote the principles and practices of sound apprenticeship. The other members of An Chomhairle will severe on a voluntary basis and will be representatives of employers, workers and educationists.
Deputy Norton referred to communications which have been addressed to me by the Trade Union Congresses. I received these communications yesterday. The Congress of Irish Unions described the Bill as an unwarranted interference with the rights of trade unions to negotiate with the employers concerning apprenticeship arrangements. The Irish Trade Union Congress, while conceding that improvement in apprenticeship arrangements is necessary, referred back to certain discussions which I had with them in 1952 when I expressed a desire to seek a solution to the problem by voluntary co-operation rather than by legislation. They urge that I should try that method now.
With regard to the communication of the Congress of Irish Unions, I am not quite sure what they meant by the adjective "unwarranted." I think it is most unlikely that they were challenging the authority of the Oireachtas. Therefore, I assume what they meant was that action by the Oireachtas in this matter of apprenticeship is unnecessary. The reply to the Congress of Irish Unions must be that the problem—this urgent and important problem—cannot be left to the trade unions alone if that means, as it has meant up to this, doing nothing about it if they do not wish to tackle it.
The reply to the Irish Trade Union Congress is that reliance on voluntary co-operation has got us nowhere. It is true that I tried in 1952 to get some progress by that method, but I did not succeed and, as Deputies are aware, nothing has happened since 1952. Nevertheless, the principle of the Bill is that voluntary co-operation will still be the motive force towards progress. It is not intended that the provisions of the Bill will be applied automatically to all trades in which formal apprenticeship is the method by which future skilled workers are trained. An Chomhairle will have power to carry out an examination of the methods used in any trade for the recruitment and training of apprentices. Trades which operate satisfactory schemes will not be interfered with by An Chomhairle. Other trades will have an opportunity, in consultation with An Chomhairle, of putting their houses in order in so far as their apprenticeship arrangements are concerned. Any trade which does so will be left outside the scope of the Bill.
It is my earnest hope that many trades will avail of this opportunity, because I am in full agreement with the view that the best apprenticeship schemes are those evolved as the result of close co-operation between responsible workers' and employers' organisations which recognise that they have a duty to the community as a whole as well as to their own trades. That is why it has been provided that trades with apprenticeship schemes which are, or which can be made, satisfactory will not be designated for the purposes of the Bill and that satisfactory schemes operated by individual employers or groups of employers within a designated trade may be excluded from certain provisions of the Bill.
We must, however, provide for the eventuality that certain trades may not be willing or able voluntarily to remedy defects in their existing apprenticeship arrangements. Where that is so, nobody at the present time has any function or authority to do anything about it. On the enactment of this measure, An Chomhairle will be the authority and will step in in such cases. The trades will be designated for the purposes of the legislation and apprenticeship committees will be set up to co-operate with An Chomhairle in regulating their apprenticeship schemes.
It is possible, of course, that there may be instances in which it will not be possible for An Chomhairle to establish an apprenticeship committee, or where a committee, through lack of co-operation between workers and employers, will neglect or fail to do its duty. In such circumstances, An Chomhairle will be empowered to act as or for an apprenticeship committee, although I freely admit that the task of imposing an apprenticeship scheme on a trade which is unwilling to accept it will be a formidable one.
When a trade has been designated, An Chomhairle will constitute an apprenticeship district or districts for the trade and, if possible, establish an apprenticeship committee for each district so constituted. Apprenticeship committees will include representatives of employers, workers, and educational interests under an independent chairman and all the members of these committees will be appointed by An Chomhairle.
Much of the emphasis in the Bill is on the training and instruction of apprentices. In order to be eligible for employment as an apprentice in a designated trade, candidates will have to be enrolled on the Register of Candidates and they cannot be enrolled unless they comply with certain minimum requirements as to education and age which will be laid down by An Ceard Chomhairle.
In connection with apprenticeship problems, many people think, when they are mentioned, only of what is called the "closed" trades, where recruitment of new entrants is believed to be entirely or mainly confined to relatives of existing craftsmen. In that problem I think we must be realistic. It is very natural for the sons of craftsmen to follow their fathers' trade. It is a practice which has very many advantages. I certainly have no desire to discourage it. On the contrary, I believe it should be facilitated. There will be nothing to prevent an employer from selecting a boy whom he knows personally or who is related to a skilled worker in the trade or employed by him but it will not be possible to recruit boys whose only qualification is relationship to the employer or tradesman. Each apprentice entering a trade should be required to receive the basic education considered necessary to enable him fully to assimiliate the training and instruction given to him during the course of apprenticeship. It is to that end that this Bill has been framed.
Each apprenticeship committee will make rules specifying in detail how apprentices are to be trained by their employers, and if, in the case of any particular trade, An Chomhairle considers it necessary that special advice and assistance should be provided to raise the standard of training, it will appoint supervisors for the purpose. If it is found that an employer is persistently neglecting to train his apprentices properly, arrangements can be made for the transfer of the apprentices to a more conscientious employer.
It is the intention that, in time, all apprentices will be required to attend courses of instruction in technical schools. If a boy is to reach a high standard of craftsmanship, attendance at a well-defined course of technical instruction must form part of his training. The technical school cannot displace the workshop as the principal means of training, but it is an essential adjunct where the apprentice's knowledge should be broadened and stabilised. It would be a mistake, however, to make water-tight compartments of these two aspects of the apprentice's training. Success will depend largely on their effective co-relation. An employer will have to co-operate in this feature of his apprentices' training by giving them time off without deduction of pay to attend any day courses selected as suitable by an apprenticeship committee.
Suitable tests of the apprentice's progress are an essential element of a well-ordered apprenticeship scheme. To give an apprentice an opportunity to acquire knowledge and skill is not enough. It is equally important to ensure that he makes good use of the opportunity. Employers will be required to make periodic progress reports to the apprenticeship committee on how the training of each apprentice is proceeding. Apprentices themselves will have to keep records of the training they receive, and each apprentice will have an opportunity of undergoing proficiency tests, one midway during the course of training and the other towards the end. Apprentices who have completed their training satisfactorily and have passed their tests will be given certificates by An Chomhairle, and it is hoped that, in time, possession of this certificate will come to be regarded as the hallmark of a good tradesman.
I think that these provisions should be welcomed by workers in the various trades. They provide an opportunity for raising the status of the various craft trades. The craft to which a boy claims entry at the expiry of his period of apprenticeship will suffer if the boy's training is scamped and the status of the craft will decline if standards of skill are permitted to be lowered.
There are provisions in the Bill whereby An Chomhairle can award scholarships and other prizes to apprentices of outstanding merit, and it is hoped that these powers will serve as an added inducement to apprentices to take a keen interest in their own training. Linked in with these provisions is the power given to An Chomhairle to collect fees from apprentices, which, it is intended, should be used in part to finance the payment of scholarships and other awards. It is intended that any fees so collected should be of a reasonable amount to be determined with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is provision also for exemption from the payment of fees in cases of hardship.
A very important provision from the training aspect is that contained in Section 44, providing for the payment of grants to employers in designated trades who train their apprentices satisfactorily. I think it is well recognised that the training of apprentices involves an employer in the expenditure of time and money and that, on completion of their training, apprentices can, and very often do, leave their employers for someone else who reaps the benefit of time expended by the first employer. I consider that there should be practical recognition of these facts, and so the Bill provides for the making of direct monetary grants to suitable employers.
These grants will be given only to those employers who train apprentices in accordance with rules made under the Bill. An Chomhairle will recommend the trades in which such payments would be appropriate, the emphasis being placed on craft trades making a positive contribution to national productivity. The amount of the grants will be subject to the consent of the Ministers for Industry and Commerce and Finance, and it is not proposed that they should be paid in respect of apprentices in State or semi-State organisations.
Another vital question which is being tackled in this Bill is that relating to the intake of apprentices. There have been complaints that, in some trades at least, trade unions place undue restrictions on the number of apprentices entering the trades each year, thereby creating an acute and artificial shortage of skilled operatives. On the other hand, it is often argued on behalf of the trade unions that they must protect the interests of their members by ensuring that the intake of apprentices is such that it will not lead to the employment of apprentices as a source of cheap labour, or result in the deliberate creation of a pool of unemployed craftsmen. It will be the task of An Chomhairle to examine closely the arrangements in each trade for the intake of apprentices.
What is needed is a fair balance in regard to intake and this Bill provides an arrangement under which such a balance can be struck. An Chomhairle will not leave a trade undesignated unless it is fully satisfied about the arrangements for the intake of apprentices in that trade and, where a trade has been designated, the intake of apprentices will be determined by the apprenticeship committee in consultation with An Chomhairle. The idea is that the workers and employers will sit down with the other members who will represent the general public interest, and work out each year the number of apprentices which will be taken into the trade in that year with a view to ensuring that there will be a sufficient supply of skilled workers for the trade in the years to come.
There is re-enacted in the Bill a provision contained in the Apprenticeship Act, 1931 whereby an apprenticeship committee may direct an individual employer to take a specified number of apprentices into employment. It is the intention that this power should be availed of only as a last resort, when all other efforts by the committee to ensure a reasonable intake of apprentices to a trade have proved fruitless. It is necessary to have such a power to deal with the cases of employers who refuse to accept a reasonable share of the burden falling on a trade in respect of the recruitment and training of future craftsmen, or who, while willing to meet the committee's wishes in regard to the number of apprentices to be employed, are prevented from doing so by a trade union. When a direction about numbers is given to an employer by an apprenticeship committee it will be an offence for any person to prevent the employer from complying with the direction.
Under the Apprenticeship Act, 1931, apprenticeship committees were required to make rules regulating minimum wages and maximum hours of work. It will be noted that this requirement is not repeated in the present Bill. I hold the view that a requirement of this kind is not appropriate to a Bill dealing with apprenticeship.
Wages and other working conditions are more appropriate for settlement by direct negotiations between employers and workers' organisations with the assistance of the Labour Court where that is necessary. If apprenticeship committees were empowered to deal with such matters under this Bill, it would be very likely that much of the time would be absorbed in these matters and they would spend less on their real tasks of regulating the intake and training of apprentices. I should mention here that the 1931 Act will be repealed when the four trades which availed of it to set up statutory apprenticeship schemes have been brought within the scope of the new legislation.
An Chomhairle will have power to make rules defining the type of employment constituting apprenticeship in a designated trade. Apprenticeship committees will make rules dealing with the period of apprenticeship and will be required to keep registers of candidates for apprenticeship and registers of apprentices. All rules made by an apprenticeship committee will be required to be confirmed by An Chomhairle before they have the force of law, and penalties are provided for breaches of rules made, and for failure to comply with directions given, by An Chomhairle or by an apprentice committee.
Does a designated trade potentially include the retail distributive trade, or shops?
So far as the Act is concerned, a trade may be designated. A trade may be designated where An Chomhairle consider a formal system of apprenticeship desirable and provided it is not in an excluded occupation, such as agricultural workers or clerical workers.
"Clerical" does not include shop assistants?
An annual grant will be paid to An Chomhairle out of voted moneys towards the expenses incurred by it in the discharge of its functions, and the staff required, including inspectors for enforcement purposes, will be provided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
It is estimated that the cost of operating the measure will rise from, say £5,000 in the first year, to about £50,000 in the tenth year.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am prepared to admit that there may be scope, perhaps considerable scope, for improvement in the Bill. I have already asked all interested organisations for their observations, and I will welcome constructive criticism and advice and proposals for improvements from any quarter. I propose to arrange, too, that there should be a reasonable interval between the Second and Committee Stages so that the views of all interested persons and organisations can be given the most careful and serious consideration. The only thing I am not willing to do is to drop the whole effort to improve our apprenticeship arrangements. I do maintain that legislation is required, and required urgently, to enable our apprenticeship arrangements to be modernised with the object of ensuring an adequate supply of skilled labour for our industries. I am confident that, given goodwill and co-operation from all concerned, the Bill now before the House does provide a suitable framework within which the problem can be tackled. Therefore, I commend it to the House.
This Bill follows fairly closely the recommendations which were made in the Commission on Youth Unemployment Report in 1951, and also empowers An Chomhairle to continue whatever arrangements have been found satisfactory under the 1931 Act. Quite a number of provisions can probably be dealt with more appropriately on the Committee Stage but there are a few matters with which I should like to deal on this stage. One of the important questions considered by the Commission on Youth Unemployment, with which most Deputies are familiar, is the problem which a great number of people have in finding suitable employment.
In the main, most of our people are obliged to seek work without any training. Those of them who get some training either get it when they are working in a temporary capacity associated with some industrial undertaking or firm, or through whatever training it is possible for them to get while attending courses of technical instruction under the vocational educational schemes.
Our own people who seek work within the country are our prime concern but we are also obliged to consider those who will be forced to emigrate in search of employment. Nobody will deny that, no matter how vigorously or how successfully economic policy may be operated here, in so far as one can look ahead a great number of people will seek employment abroad. In modern conditions those who go abroad in search of work have far better prospects available to them if they have the skill, training, knowledge and experience which will enable them to work in some capacity other than ordinary unskilled work, in which in the past so many of our people were obliged to engage. For the moment, however, let us deal with those who work here.
Under the system of protection which has been provided here for industry, both directly and indirectly, and which has enabled industries to be established, or those established to progress further, the State and the community have conferred a benefit on a number of people, the industrialists and the workers engaged in the industries. In turn, I believe that the State and the community are entitled to expect that that protection will be utilised to the fullest possible extent and that there will be no unnecessary restriction placed on entry to a trade or industry by those who are fortunate enough to be in it themselves.
I agree entirely that if it is possible to get a voluntary scheme working with the co-operation and goodwill of all concerned that should be explored to the fullest extent. Up to the present the experience of the 1931 Act has shown that, whatever the causes may have been, it has not been particularly successful.
It is obvious that in modern society a high degree of skill and training is required for almost all industries. In this country protection and assistance have gone far and the community, therefore, has a right to expect that no artificial restrictions will be imposed. One can well understand the obvious reluctance of those employed in an industry to have that industry swamped with a large number of trained personnel with no obvious outlet for them in the trade to which they have been apprenticed. On the other hand, quite a large number of them, if they do not get employment and if the available vacancies are already filled, will be obliged to seek work elsewhere.
The Commission on Emigration and population referred to that matter at paragraph 449 and said that some witnesses were definite that technical and vocational education, by developing the aptitude of younger people and providing them with skilled training, enabled them to take better advantage of employment opportunities and was therefore a deterrent to emigration. They went on to say: "While this may be true it is no less desirable that the educational standard of those who emigrate should be raised so that they are not confined to the more arduous and menial forms of employment through lack of adequate education".
Most of us are familiar with the position which so many of our people who emigrated in the past had to face. One of the few assets they had in the United States—and in Britain more recently—was that they spoke the same language as the majority of the people but with that possible exception, the only other asset they had was their ability to work hard and their determination to get on. In recent times many of them have had better training, better education and consequently better prospects. Here at home, with the development of industry the attitude which existed in the past will not be adequate or suitable for the circumstances or conditions of the future.
I agree that if it is possible to get a voluntary arrangement that possibility should be explored to the full but most of us, I think, are familiar with the restrictions which are imposed on entry into certain trades. I have in mind a particular trade where there is not merely adequate work available and sufficient business to keep the trade going for a very long period ahead. I refer to the printing trade. I know of a case where a man was obliged to take his son out of school in order to ensure that he would not lose his chance of being apprenticed. If he waited for the normal time to finish his primary education he would probably miss his opportunity and another chance might not occur. It should be possible to prevent a situation such as that operating to the obvious detriment of the boy who was obliged to leave earlier than is normal, because his father, who was himself a skilled craftsman, did not want him to miss the chance and knew that if he did not avail of it, it would not recur.
Adequate training and instruction of apprentices are vital if we are to have available here skilled personnel with the knowledge needed in most workshops and factories. In that respect I expected that the Minister would make some reference to the recommendation which was made in the Report of the Commission on Youth Unemployment where it was recommended that the school-leaving age should be raised to 16 and that, as a first step, the age should be raised to 15. While most educationists who have studied the question are, I think, satisfied that whatever defects—and there are many —our system may have, the standard of education here is comparable to that provided elsewhere and that in fact it compares quite favourably with that obtainable either in Britain, the United States or on the Continent. Nevertheless, those who have considered the matter are satisfied, I think, that the school-leaving age should be raised, the first step recommended being that of raising it to 15 with the ultimate age limit, 16. In that connection, experience has shown that our people are capable of acquiring quickly a high degree of skill in whatever course of training they are given.
During the emergency years, quite a number of soldiers who completed a term of service in the Army subsequently joined the British Army and it is true to say that the majority of them, in a very short space of time, attained non-commissioned rank. In the comparatively short period of service which some of them had here, they had attained sufficient skill and training and shown such aptitude for that type of work that, when they received a further short period of training, in most cases they were appointed to non-commissioned rank, probably more quickly than those who had not the same period of training here.
That led the Army authorities to the view that a period of apprenticeship should be included as part of the Army training for those who wished to do it and the Transport Corps established an apprenticeship school in recent years at Naas. It had the two-fold object of providing skilled personnel for the Army and, in addition, it enabled those who would leave the Army at the completion of their period of service to have a skilled trade. One of the criticisms which were always made of the Army service was that when a man left the Army he was fit for nothing else. He had probably passed the period in life when it was possible to train or adapt him for any other type of employment or he was past the normal age when people show an aptitude for acquiring knowledge and skill in a trade. Consequently it was decided to equip these people in some particular manner. I believe it is working most satisfactorily. These people will be trained as craftsmen. They will have further opportunities of promotion available to them while in the Army. In addition, when they leave the Army, they will be skilled in a particular trade and that skill will enable them to become useful members of civilian society with advantage to themselves and to the community generally.
From our point of view this measure is very welcome. It further increases the opportunities available for training apprentices, for equipping them with the skill and technical knowledge necessary to them for employment in industry. It provides opportunities for the acquisition of that knowledge so essential if they are to take their place in a community which is more complex to-day than it has been at any time in the past. Technical skill and technical knowledge are all-important in this era of scientific and technical development. Indeed, technical and scientific knowledge is to some extent the be-all and the end-all of most people to-day who seek to advance themselves.
If it is possible to improve the position on the basis of voluntary effort and co-operation I have no doubt that everyone concerned will be anxious to see that development extended. On the other hand, I believe the community is entitled to expect full co-operation between employers and trade unions, in conjunction with the vocational educational authorities, to ensure that the aim of these three bodies and the State, wherever the State may enter in, is achieved. The aim is to have available here a system of education and a system for training apprentices which will enable the ability and the skill available to be utilised to the maximum extent so that those of our people who have an aptitude for technical skill, technical training or technical knowledge will have the opportunities of acquiring those skills and training for which they have an aptitude.
Subsequently, then, if it is possible to absorb these people into employment here that will be not merely to their advantage but to the advantage of the community as a whole. On the other hand, if they are forced through circumstances outside their control to seek employment elsewhere they will be equipped with the knowledge and training so essential for them if they are to face successfully the stern and difficult battle that all who go abroad must face. They will be better equipped than if they had not that skill and training.
I should be glad from that point of view to learn whether the Government contemplate raising the school-leaving age in view of the very insistent recommendations made by both the Commission on Education and the Commission on Youth Unemployment. Both those bodies recommended that the school-leaving age should be raised as a first step to 15 and ultimately to 16 years of age. These matters cannot be considered in isolation. The question of education, both primary and educational, is involved in this question of training apprentices and the matter should therefore be considered as a whole rather than that we should consider solo the question of apprenticeship arrangements under the measure at present before the House.
Everybody concerned with the promotion of craftsmanship and technical skills is vitally interested in any proposal, legislative or otherwise, designed to confer a wider measure of craftsmanship and technical skill on our people. That holds good irrespective of whether our people will find employment at home or are compelled, through economic or other circumstances, to seek a living elsewhere. Education and craftsmanship are the lightest possible commodities to carry and, whether one's economic destiny is set in Ireland or in Australia, weight of technical knowledge and education is no impediment to work. Rather does it ensure that the person so equipped starts in not holding the hod or pushing the barrow but at a pay level which is calculated in most cases to give him a security which the unskilled cannot command.
I must confess I do not understand the Minister's approach to this matter. The Minister seems to have had second thoughts on this question of apprenticeship legislation. The existing Apprenticeship Act was passed in 1931. This is 1958. Twenty-seven years have flown since the previous legislation was enacted. That fact would seem to establish prima facie the case that there is no real urgency in 1958 for legislation of this kind. In 1952, when this matter was discussed by the Minister and the Congresses, the Minister took the view that it was better to endeavour to get a voluntary scheme rather than have a scheme imposed by the Government or by the Legislature. The Minister was wise then. I cannot understand why he is now being so imprudent as to introduce a Bill of this kind without first endeavouring to secure the co-operation of the two Congresses and the Federated Union of Employers in working out an agreed scheme.
In 1952 the Minister took the view that that was the better kind of approach, that it was the type of approach likely to succeed and that it was the type of approach which would give an apprenticeship scheme carrying with it the approval of the two main operative parties, the employers on the one hand, the trade unions on the other. The Minister now comes along and introduces this Bill, a Bill which bears a fair stamp of dictatorship in some of its sections, and blandly tells the trade unions that he has abandoned any attempt at co-operation— although the Minister has not tried co-operation—and intends instead to put this Bill through the Dáil with the aid of his majority.
The Minister is running into difficulties. This Bill will boomerang. The Minister may find that this will be an "Apprenticeship Folly" as the years go by. One cannot operate apprenticeship legislation without the goodwill of the employers and the trade unions. It is fatuous to think that we can get a Bill from officials in a Department, drafted by a parliamentary draftsman, when none of those participating in the conception of the Bill and in its drafting ever served one day's apprenticeship to any trade. It is fatuous to imagine that they can impose a scheme of that kind on employers on the one hand and trade unions on the other. It just cannot be done. Any Bill which is designed to do it will be wrecked on the rocks of practical experience.
So far as the trade unions are concerned, I believe that they recognise the necessity for overhauling our apprenticeship legislation, that they realise that the 1951 Act was ineffective, that they realise that it is necessary that there should be a much more modern approach to this problem of apprenticeship but, at the same time, they have this well developed idea that in the matter of training an apprentice they have a point of view because it is their members who will train the apprentice. It is not the employer, not the Deputies of this House, not the drafters of this Bill; it is the craftsmen on the job who will train the apprentice. The employer will not train him. Nobody will train him except the journeyman tradesman who is on the particular job. It is because of that that unions are vitally concerned in a matter of this kind. The Minister would have been well advised, even if it took another six or 12 months, to have endeavoured to develop co-operation between the unions and the employers in this matter.
The unions themselves prefer co-operation. They prefer a voluntary scheme. They are not the only body which prefer co-operation and a voluntary scheme. The Federated Union of Employers have told the Minister that they think that this matter would best be dealt with through co-operation between the unions on the one hand and themselves on the other hand. In other words, the two vital bodies which would operate an apprenticeship scheme satisfactorily have said to the Minister: "In our opinion we can make greater progress if there is co-operation between us and an agreed scheme worked out between us." Yet, in the face of that testimony, which is on record, the Minister comes along with a scheme which represents agreement with nobody and which is merely the immature conception of whatever brain or thought is behind the Bill.
Let us hear the Minister on what was necessary in respect of apprenticeship legislation. The Minister wrote to the Congresses in 1952 referring to previous correspondence with the Congresses and to the replies which he had received. In the course of a letter to the Congresses the Minister stated:—
"The Minister has reason to feel gratified that all parties appear to be agreed on two fundamental points, viz.: (1) that the existing systems of apprenticeship stand in need of reorganisation and overhaul and are capable of improvement in many directions."
In other words, two bodies had said to the Minister, that the scheme of apprenticeship is in need of overhaul and that the scheme is capable of improvement in many directions. He had not to argue the point with them. They were both accepted. They said: "We realise these needs exist."
The Minister goes on and says:—
"(2) that it is better, if at all possible, that the remedies for the existing defects should be found through voluntary co-operation than by way of mandatory legislation and Government intervention."
On 3rd November, 1952, the Minister was preaching the obvious advantages of devising a scheme on the basis of voluntary co-operation. He has now switched completely from that point of view and has told the unions and the Federated Union of Employers that he now apparently prefers the mandatory legislation and the Government intervention which he deplored in 1952. In fact, so convinced was the Minister then of the virtues of voluntary co-operation that he went on to say:—
"As he made clear in May 1952, the Minister would much prefer that organisations of employers and workers should themselves work out the solution to the problem of apprenticeship. He is, however, prepared to assist these organisations in every possible way to arrive at a satisfactory solution, and in order to bring to fruition the promises of co-operation which he has received, he proposes to arrange for the holding in the near future of joint discussions between representatives of the two Congresses and the Federated Union of Employers with the object of securing agreement on the steps now to be taken to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion."
He added:
"The Minister appreciates, of course, that it may very well prove necessary to have a series of discussions and he will be prepared, if the parties concerned so wish, to provide a chairman and secretariat to assist in the deliberations. On the other hand the Minister is also quite prepared to leave the discussions entirely to the parties concerned, if they so desire, provided he can be assured that every effort will be made to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion."
The significance of that letter is that it demonstrates that at that stage the Minister believed that success could best be achieved by voluntary co-operation, that he felt gratified that the unions and the employers accepted that point of view. So keen was he to achieve that co-operation that he offered to provide a chairman and secretariat for the discussions and he indicated that he would much prefer that co-operative kind of approach rather than mandatory legislation and governmental intervention.
When the Minister stood there, he was right. That was an excellent and sagacious point of view for the Minister to take. So long as he was prepared to approach the problem in that way, he could get the goodwill of the employers and the goodwill of the unions. The Minister has changed all that now and has, instead, given the unions and the employers the mandatory legislation and governmental intervention which apparently he was reluctant to recommend in 1952.
It may be asked why these discussions did not take place in 1952. The Minister knows the situation in that year and the atmosphere which existed in that year between the two Congresses. The House knows it also. The Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions accepted the idea of co-operation, accepted the idea of discussions between themselves and the Federated Union of Employers but, because of an atmosphere and a set of circumstances, into which we need not probe at this stage, it was suggested that the discussions should take place separately between the C.I.U. and the Federated Union of Employers and between the T.U.C. and the Federated Union of Employers.
One can see how easy it was to destroy the possibility of fruitful co-operation when two entirely different sets of discussions were taking place, the discussions, perhaps, at one conference vitiating, in part or entirely, the discussions which took place at the other conference. Because of these circumstances, unified discussions, that is, on the basis of the Congresses on the one hand and the Federated Union of Employers on the other hand, were not possible in 1952, and, indeed, were not possible for some time later. But now they are possible because the unity discussions between the T.U.C. and the C.I.U. have reached a stage in which I believe it will be possible, and I think both organisations have so indicated, or will indicate to the Minister, that it will be possible for the joint committee, the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation, which represents C.I.U., on the one hand, and the T.U.C. on the other hand, to undertake to explore this whole field with the Federated Union of Employers, in an endeavour to get the agreed scheme to which the Minister was so attracted in 1952.
I ask one question at this stage. Is it not worth while, even now, trying to get these discussions under way? Is it not worth while now trying to get the employers and the Congresses together, to work out a scheme, their adherence to which will, I think, ensure that the scheme has a more prosperous life than anything which is likely to emanate from this Bill if the Bill is opposed, as it will be opposed, by the trade unions? I would suggest to the Minister that, even at this stage, he ought to suspend further discussion on the Bill to see how far it is possible to achieve that agreement between the two bodies. Then, having got agreement between the two bodies, the Government could embody such of this agreement as commended itself to the Government in a new piece of legislation which would be likely, as I have said, to give a greater measure of satisfaction than this Bill, when it becomes an Act, can ever give.
I still think the Minister is unwise in pressing this Bill through while he has within his grasp, and can get tomorrow morning, a guarantee that the two Congresses will unitedly meet the employers' representatives, who are likewise anxious to meet the Congresses in order to work out some mutually agreed scheme. Why should we, in the face of that possible agreement, commit ourselves to giving a Second Reading to this Bill? It is beyond me and, as I said, I think the Minister is running into trouble on this business. I think the Bill will boomerang on the whole question of apprenticeship.
What I am afraid of is that, realising how deliberately unbalanced the Bill is towards them, the unions will decide themselves that they will fix the number of apprentices in each trade, and a situation may develop in which the new position will be worse than the position we are endeavouring to remedy to-day.
Deputy Cosgrave quoted a case to-day in which he deplored the fact that a man was obliged to take his son from school, rather prematurely, in order to get him into the printing industry. The father was a printing craftsman and there was a vacancy in that father's employer's shop and, in order that his son might not miss the apprenticeship, he had to remove him from school. What Deputy Cosgrave did not realise is that, under this Bill, the father would have no chance at all of getting his son into the shop because the selection of apprentices will be in the hands of employers, and the unions will not be able to operate what they do operate to-day in the printing industry, a one-for-one arrangement. In the printing industry the employer takes in one apprentice and the next vacancy goes to the union who select their own nominees. Under this Bill that arrangement will go by the board. That mutual exchange between employers and trade union representatives in the printing industry, and in a number of other industries, will go completely by the board.
I do not know whether the Minister, on reconsideration, is prepared to withdraw the Bill and give co-operation and consultation a chance. I am a firm believe in the efficacy of both these approaches, and I do not believe anyone's face would be seriously smudged, or his reputation seriously impaired, if the Government were to withdraw the Bill at this stage in order to give an opportunity to the possibility of getting an agreed scheme. But, on the assumption that the Minister will not do that, there are a couple of points I want to raise.
Firstly, I want to say I am opposed to the Bill as it now stands. I think it is an unfair Bill. I think it will not operate satisfactorily and we are making sure of that by relying now on mandatory legislation and governmental intervention which, in his letter in 1952, which I quoted, the Minister deplored so much then. Mandatory legislation and governmental intervention in this field have not earned for themselves a higher reputation in 1958 than they had in 1952 and they had no very high reputation then because the Minister deplored the fact that he would have to have resort to either mandatory legislation or governmental intervention.
There are some aspects of this Bill on which I should like to comment. I think it is quite unfair and quite out of balance that an unbalanced committee, which will control apprenticeship, should be entitled to define or designate by law any trade to which the apprenticeship legislation will apply. In other words that committee, which will consist of four representatives of employers, four representatives appointed by the Minister who are supposed to represent trade unions, and three people representing education, are to be permitted to have exclusive rights in the designation of trades for apprentices.
I do not know why they have been prevented from designating trades other than craftsmen. The Minister, in his speech, said that it was the general intention to cover crafts, but whole sections are being excluded. The whole field of agriculture, of butter making, cheese and the dairy industry are excluded. All professional occupations are outside its scope; all clerical occupations are outside it, and it looks to me, according to the Minister's reply to Deputy Dillon about the retail trade, that it will be outside it, too. I did not notice any enthusiasm by the Minister to include it.
This committee, when it is established, will, for the first time, deal with apprentices by representation on a basis other than equal representatation of employers with equal representation of workers. It is provided that the committee will be composed of employers' representatives, of workers' representatives and of three educational representatives. Those educational representatives will be entitled to deal with a number of matters affecting apprentices which, up to now, have been within the domain of the employer-employee sphere.
The new committee will be entitled to discuss such matters as employer-worker relations, to supervise investigation of disputes, and a whole variety of other matters which at present are the subject of discussion between unions and employers. These three educational people will have no status whatever in the employer-worker relationship field, but they will be brought on to that committee and given a status to regulate certain conditions applicable to apprentices, though they are not the employers or the apprentices, and though they do not represent the persons who are employed by the employers. What is the purpose of allowing them into this field? I could understand if they were there as advisers and not having a membership status. What is the purpose of loading-up the committee in such a way as to disturb the existing balance?
In Section 11, the Minister has adopted a rather strange method of defining who will represent the trade unions. Why has the Minister departed from the method of selection of trade union representatives which was defined — wisely, in my opinion — in the Industrial Relations Act? The Minister apparently is to give himself power to select four people who, he thinks, will represent the unions whereas Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, provides as follows:—
"The Minister shall, in respect of each workers' member, designate an organisation representative of trade unions of workers to nominate a person for appointment, and, in respect of each employers' member, designate a trade union of employers to nominate a person for employment and the Minister shall appoint the person so nominated."
Surely, it is only right that, if a person represents the unions on a committee of this kind, the status of the person should be such that it commends itself to the trade unions or the congress concerned rather than that the Minister should pick and choose between individuals as to whom he thinks best to represent the trade union point of view?
Similarly, again, in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, there was an equalisation between the representatives of the employers and those of the trade unions. That has gone with this new apprenticeship committee. The equality which has been a characteristic of this type of negotiation, and which is provided for in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, is now being upset. The balance is being disturbed— and to the detriment of the trade unions concerned.
Many of the craft unions to-day operate an unofficial scheme of apprenticeship with the employers. The scheme gives relative satisfaction. It is a scheme by which all those who want to become apprentices are considered and allocated on the basis that, when there is a vacancy, the employer picks one and the next vacancy goes to the nominee of the union. That enables of the apprenticeship requirements to be met in particular industries. Apparently it has given satisfaction to both sides. It may not be perfect. If there are any imperfections in it, the best way is to get the employers and the unions together and, as the Minister suggested, to put in a neutral chairman, in an endeavour to show both sides the infirmities of the present scheme in the hope that both sides may be induced to adopt a scheme with more elasticity and flexibility than may be considered to be present in the existing arrangements.
If the Minister thinks he will get a scheme of apprenticeship in which the sole selection will be made by the employer and in which there will be no equality in the distribution of apprentices, and imagines that the unions will meekly consent to an arrangement of that kind, I foresee trouble. I do not want to see that. I want a sagacious approach — putting two people in conclave and helping them to arrive at a decision in the hope that they will bring out a scheme which, enshrined in legislation if that be necessary, will give maximum co-operation and ensure smooth and efficient working.
In giving this new committee the power to intervene in many matters which affect the working conditions of apprentices, while members of the committee know nothing whatever about apprentices and in fact are not concerned with their day-to-day work, the Minister is asking the unions to swallow something which I do not think they would be prepared to do. I am not, indeed, sure the employers themselves would swallow any such proposal.
I am in favour of sound apprenticeship legislation. We have a lot to gain by devising, either voluntarily or through agreement, a system of apprenticeship legislation which will give the maximum measure of satisfaction and the greatest amount of elasticity and real flexibility that we can attain. However, in a matter of this kind, the basic goodwill of the two chief partners in the whole arrangement is essential, that is, the co-operation of the employers, on the one hand, and the co-operation of the unions, on the other hand. In 1952, the Minister said he regarded that co-operation as vital and preferred it to mandatory legislation or Government intervention. Now, we will have no co-operation. We get the mandatory legislation and we are getting the Government intervention although, in fact, the Minister, within 24 hours, can get agreement with the employers and the trade unions to sit down, with a chairman appointed by him, to work out the best possible scheme of apprenticeship legislation that will work and, if it does not work, it is a waste of the time of this House.
Deputy Norton's speech has surprised me. I am surprised that a member of this House should treat the lapse of six years as if it counted for nothing. Surely, a generation of young boys has grown up in the meantime? It is one of the ideas both of the trade union organisations and of the employers' organisation, and of everybody in this country, that industrial progress should be made and that the rising generation should be equipped to take its place in it.
I am well aware, from experience of many years, that this very question has been referred to technical and vocational congresses and that there were no more interested people in trying to tune up public opinion for legislation of this kind than the direct trade union representatives of the vocational committees with which I was concerned and that it has gone to these congresses and that time is passing and nothing has been done. Deputy Norton states that the committees appointed will know nothing about the apprenticeship conditions.
I did not.
The committee has not yet been appointed.
I did not say it. I said the employers and the workers would know but that the education people would not have served a day's apprenticeship themselves.
The Deputy does not know. Would it not be quite possible that the trade union representative of the technical branches would be on this committee? How can the Deputy judge what the committee knows before it is appointed or before the House——
They would be representative of the craft.
We know about the crafts and the trades. We know that any vocational committee that had an eye to business and towards fulfilling its functions has already arranged classes of that sort and that the teachers are craftsmen themselves — because nobody else could give the practical side of that education.
I cannot understand Deputy Norton's approach to this Bill. The need for it has been well recognised over a number of years and nothing has happened. Now this Bill has come before the House.
Everybody knows that a Bill is subject to amendment. If it is properly criticised — apart from mere destructive criticism — then, if somebody moves some practical amendments, the Bill may be improved. Surely nobody is so blind as not to give them due consideration.
The main point is that in this connection there is a crying need for many years. The citizens of our towns and our cities in particular have been looking for something of this kind. There is a change and there should be a change in the educational trend. There has been too much emphasis on the academic side and on the getting of leaving certificates and so on. When they have got to that stage, only a small proportion have any avenues of employment open to them. Indeed, some of them go back to the schools of commerce, under the vocational education committees, to get further training in secretarial work, economics and subjects of that kind to fit them for the progress for which we hope and anticipate.
That is the full purpose of the Bill to my mind. I would be the last in the world to come into conflict with trade union congresses or employers on the basic principle of the Bill because, after all, their children are affected very seriously, perhaps, because very often in life, as the Minister said, there is an advantage in having the sons of craftsmen follow their fathers' trade. They have the sympathy of the home towards it. They also have the knowledge that they naturally acquire from their father. All these things will permeate the whole scheme of things if we are sensible and approach the matter in a proper way.
Surely it is not held that the sons of craftsmen would not have an advantage in getting into whatever apprenticeship scheme is developed? I am sorry that I did not hear all of the Minister's statement on the subject since I was present at a meeting of a Committee appointed by this House but I know from my own knowledge and from my contact with trade union leaders and others that they feel a Bill of this kind is necessary. This may not be the most perfect machine but it makes a start at any rate and avoids having to wait another six years without anything being done.
We should get down to the matter on the fundamental principles that a scheme is necessary, that a certain administrative body will be necessary to implement whatever is done and that it may be advisable to reconsider some of the points in the Bill. I myself may not be satisfied with many of them and neither may the vocational committees who have a certain responsibility for training the rising generation on lines for which this Bill seeks to cater. I welcome the Bill. All that is necessary upon the Second Stage is to agree to the principle of the Bill. I think it is a good thing it has been introduced and I hope the House will discuss it properly and sympathetically.
Like Deputy MacCarthy, I welcome this Bill if it will improve the position with regard to apprentices in general throughout the country but, like Deputy Norton, I agree that there should have been more co-operation between the Minister himself, the trade union congresses and the employers before this Bill was even drafted. If that co-operation had been sought and given, the Bill might present different aspects from those which we see enshrined in it to-day.
Many amendments may be put down to this Bill. There are certain sections of it which will not meet with the approval of the unions or the employers. If the Minister tarried a little he might have found, after consultation with the unions, that he could have drafted a Bill more acceptable to all concerned.
However, the Bill is before us now and I suppose we must make the best of it. I agree with the principle enshrined in it. As the Minister said, it is an effort to rectify the anomalies and the disorders, if I may describe them as such, attaching to this question of engaging apprentices throughout the country. It is a fact that some definite action is required in this regard—an action which must be taken whether by co-operation, consultation or legislation. Naturally, I prefer it would be taken as a result of co-operation and consultation. That in itself does not rule out the possibility of legislation because the legislation should come after the co-operation and consultation and not before them.
It is axiomatic that in these modern times and in this technical age it is imperative to do all we can to train our coming apprentices so that they will be skilled tradesmen when they mature. With the impending introduction of a Free Trade Area, it is all the more essential to equip ourselves and our young tradesmen with the knowledge and the technical skill which will be absolutely necessary if this country is to survive the very keen industrial competition which will result from the setting up of the Free Trade Area.
We have only to read foreign newspapers and periodicals to realise the efforts which other countries are making in this regard. They are taking similar steps to ensure that our young men will be properly trained to cope with the increased industrial production and be able to compete with neighbouring countries. As the Minister said when introducing the Bill, the present Acts in force with regard to apprenticeship do not cover engineering activities as a whole.
I doubt if there is any engineering activity at the moment covered by legislation. Any apprenticeship scheme in an engineering concern is, I think, of a voluntary nature and if this Bill passes through the House unamended, I sincerely hope that it will not interfere too much with the existing setup with regard to apprenticeship schemes. At the present time there are a number of voluntary schemes working out quite well and although there is provision in the Bill whereby the board to be set up may exempt or exclude certain industries from becoming designated industries, I would urge the Minister to emphasise the point that as little interference as possible should be allowed in industrial concerns.
While condemning the introduction of the Bill before there has been consultation with the unions or employers, at the same time I feel that it is a fairly flexible Bill and that there are certain safeguards which should allay the fears of both the trade unions and the employers. However, it is only during the Committee Stage that we can clearly see the way we are moving and ascertain whether we can negative certain anomalies we see in the Bill.
Reference was made to the question of the intake of apprentices to industry. There are two views on this matter. One, held by the trade unions, suggests that they should have power to say how many apprentices should be recruited by an industrial concern. Naturally, they adopt that attitude because they want to safeguard their skilled men. They harp on the idea that a small number of apprentices should be employed so that there will be plenty of work for their fully trained men. I suppose that is an understandable attitude for trade unions to adopt. On the other hand, there is the point of view taken by employers that they should have full control over the number of apprentices to be employed. If they are given that control they are, as the Minister said, accused of trying to carry on with cheap labour. That is a very important problem and we cannot be too careful in trying to solve it.
I am glad to see that provision has been made in the Bill for local committees to be set up by the general board. These committees are to be composed of representatives of the employers, the trade unions and the educational authorities.
In regard to the setting up of this board, which will operate throughout the country, Section 11, sub-section (1) says:—
"The Minister shall appoint four persons whom he considers to be representative of employers, four persons whom he considers to be representative of workers and three persons whom he considers to be representative of educational interests to be the ordinary members of An Chomhairle."
Sub-section (2) says:—
"The Minister shall, before appointing the persons whom he considers to be representative of employers and those whom he considers to be representative of workers to be ordinary members of An Chomhairle, consult with such organisations of employers and such organisations of workers, respectively, as he considers necessary."
The Minister goes on to say in sub-section (3):—
"The Minister shall, before appointing the persons whom the considers to be representative of educational interests to be ordinary members of An Chomhairle consult with the Minister for Education."
I would ask the Minister why he should consult with the Minister for Education unless, of course, it is the intention that the Minister for Education will in turn consult with the various local vocational committees as to who should be appointed on this local committee representing the educational side. I do not think that a Minister as such, even the Minister for Education, should have authority to say to the Minister for Industry and Commerce: "Appoint so-and-so or so-and-so". The Minister should have resource to and should consult with the vocational committee in the country involved. Maybe that is the intention; I do not know.
I observe that the question of wages and working hours is to be excluded from this Bill. I suppose that is a wise precaution because, as the Minister says, this is a very delicate matter and should be solved by local consultation and negotiation between the employers and trade unions. With that point I agree. It is more important to concentrate on the training of apprentices, not so much on their conditions of employment. Of course, they are important, too, but it is more important to train them to be skilled men. They will get the fruits of their labour later on when they are skilled. By that I do not mean to suggest that they are not entitled to a fair apprenticeship wage, but the emphasis should be placed on the training of those young boys to become skilled men as quickly as possible.
I should like to ask the Minister what educational requirements will be necessary before a prospective apprentice gets on the register of apprentices. Will that education be confined to technical education or will it embrace all kinds of ordinary education, national school education, secondary education and technical education? Or will it be confined to technical education, as it is more or less at present?
I should like to endorse Deputy Cosgrave's statement in regard to the raising of the school leaving age and to urge the Minister to do what he can to achieve that amendment. The longer a young chap is left at school, the more chance he has of becoming properly educated. Of course, it does not always follow that the longer a person is at school the brighter he will be—sometimes the reverse is the case —but, by and large, the practice of allowing children to leave school when they reach the age of 14 years is neither good nor right. Its abolition has been recommended by various commissions set up here. The opinions and recommendations of such commissions should be listened to, treated with respect and acted upon.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that a long period would elapse between the Second Stage and Committee Stage of the Bill. Maybe his conscience is pricking him a little bit and he feels a lot of amendments will be required to this comparatively hastily-introduced Bill. Perhaps that is why he says there will be a long period before the Committee Stage. During that time I hope there will be that consultation and co-operation between the employers, the unions and the Minister which is not evident on perusing this Bill. That would meet Deputy Norton's point and the anxieties of the trade unions and the employers.
I would conclude by sincerely hoping that some good will come from this measure. It has been introduced, and we must try and pick the good out of it and reject the bad. We all realise that at present opportunities for young people in the industrial sphere are not very many. They could be greater and we hope they will be greater. Maybe they will be greater if this Free Trade Area comes into existence. One thing about the Free Trade Area is that there will be no via media; either we will do very well out of it or do badly. If we want to do well out of it, we must be in a position that we can compete with other countries on an equal basis. With that end in mind it is a good thing to see an effort of some description made to put the apprenticeship question on a proper footing in this country.
This Bill appears to have been rushed into the House. In his opening statement, the Minister gave no reason whatever for the degree of urgency in this matter. He certainly did not indicate in his opening statement—a good proportion of which I heard — that he wished to impose conditions on the trade unions who represent those covered in the legislation. Yet, as Deputy Norton pointed out, it is quite clear that the Minister appeared to depart completely from his clearly expressed attitude that this problem of apprenticeship and allied problems arising therefrom could best be dealt with by co-operation between the representatives of the workers and of the employers.
Deputy MacCarthy made some reference to the fact that 1932 to 1958 appears to be a fairly long time. If Deputy MacCarthy is ignorant of what has been happening in this country in those years, I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not ignorant, that he is well aware that last year, for the first time for many years, it was found possible for the Irish Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions, through the medium of the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation, to meet the employers as one body. You will recollect reference was made to those meetings, meetings to which the Minister himself made a substantial contribution. It appears very likely that any problems arising from defects in the 1931 Apprenticeship Act in relation to the general conditions governing the recruiting, training and absorption of apprentices into industry can be dealt with by one body representing all the workers concerned and, on the other hand, mainly one body representing employers.
Therefore, when that situation seems likely in the near future, one would think the Minister, with his knowledge of the general position, would say: "Whatever my views as a Minister are on these matters, I shall hold my hand for a little longer and see whether it is possible for these questions to be dealt with in a spirit of co-operations and consultation by those who know the problem." The Minister has received assurances that the two congresses are anxious to co-operate with the employers and are prepared and anxious to have his assistance or that of the officials of his Department in this connection.
Why does the Minister at this stage bring this Bill into Dáil Éireann? He tells us he is prepared to consider a substantial period between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage so that he will have an opportunity of considering amendments that may be proposed and even of considering possibly the views of trade unionists. But nobody is more aware than the Minister that there are certain general principles laid down here. Knowing the Minister, I think it is unlikely that he would, at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, agree in advance to alter general principles laid down by himself in a Bill. He might, in the course of discussion through representatives of his Department and responsible organisations such as the Federated Union of Employers, the Irish Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions, accept a point of view that he did not hold originally. However, as Minister for Industry and Commerce he has given us a Bill which appears to include as one of its general principles, which no doubt will be repugnant to the trade union movement, the introduction of a third party.
The problems of apprenticeship are basically problems for the representatives of the workers and the representatives of the employers. To introduce, as the Minister proposes to introduce, in a general committee, representatives of educational authorities, must have one immediate effect: that, on that council, unlike all other such bodies, the representatives of the workers will be in a permanent minority. That cannot be avoided and it applies both to the council and the apprenticeship committees.
The desirability of having the young people adequately trained so that they may be able to provide for themselves and their families in due course and take advantage of such opportunities of employment as offer is not contended or objected to by anyone in this House or outside it, but is there anything in this Bill which suggests that one additional young person will get employment in a trade or craft? It appears to me there is no suggestion in the Bill to that effect.
As well as the balance of representation appearing to be unfair in this Bill, there is a suggestion that there should be an educational qualification of some kind or other for apprentices in various trades. I think all Deputies are particularly anxious to see that the children of Irish families receive adequate training, but the Minister's Government have not yet indicated to this House that they have any intention whatsoever of extending the school leaving age even by as much as one month.
On that issue, the Bill must surely be examined in the light of the experience of apprentices in various trades, from the point of view of obtaining employment, primarily in their own country after they complete their apprenticeship. It must be examined also as to the effect of introducing an educational standard fixed, not by the employers, not by the trade union representatives in the light of the knowledge of what is required for the particular trade, but fixed possibly as a result of a recommendation from some expert on an education committee.
Debate adjourned.