I do not know whether this is the appropriate section on which to raise the point but I wonder would the Minister reply to the query I put to him at the beginning: whether an individual employer with one apprentice will come under this or not?
Committee on Finance. - Apprenticeship Bill, 1958—Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
As the Deputy knows, the Bill is designed in general to cater for the craft trades. The Bill would, of course, cater for the grocery trade and it would be a matter for the Comhairle themselves to decide whether they would apply its provisions to the case which the Deputy has exemplified. I imagine that they would act in a way that would take into account any deficiency or any disabilities there might be in connection with a grocery undertaking capable of employing only one person, in which the training facilities would be very limited. In the long run, it will be a matter for the Comhairle themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In subsection (4), page 4, line 29, before "by the Minister" to insert "by order made".
This is a drafting amendment which simply makes it clear that the appointment of the "appointed day", referred to in this section, will be effected by Order made by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This is the section which gives the Minister power to declare the appointed day. Will the Minister give us any indication, at this stage, of when he hopes this Bill will be made operative? Has the Minister any target date in mind?
The Comhairle will have to be set up, and the Deputy knows that there will have to be consultations with employers and with trade unions. They will then examine existing trades and decide what trades they should designate. It is at that stage that the Bill will become effective.
When is the Minister proposing to have the Comhairle set up?
I should say within a matter of weeks after the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas, and depending on the agreement of the unions to nominate members.
Does the Apprenticeship Act of 1931 refer to apprentices employed by the Army, and does Section 4 of this Act cover apprentices employed by the Army?
In the first instance, the 1931 Act applied to apprentices only in trades which voluntarily put themselves within the scope of the Act. In fact, it applied to only four trades, brushmaking, hairdressing, furniture making, and one other. As far as the Army is concerned, the 1931 Act did not apply to any apprentices within the Army, but it is intended that this Bill will apply to the ordinary Army service.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, line 40, to delete "eleven" and substitute "thirteen".
There are a number of amendments which I would ask permission of the Chair to discuss together as the Bill progresses.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment Nos. 5 and 6. Nos. 2, 5 and 6 could be discussed together.
It might be of assistance to the House in dealing with these amendments to give an indication of what the effects are. The three amendments are intended to give effect to the recommendations of the joint committee to which I referred a while ago, comprising the trade unions and the employers' representatives. The main amendment of the three is amendment No. 5, the other two being consequential.
Amendment No. 5 proposes to increase the number of employers' and workers' members from four to five— five each from the employers and five each from the trade union interests involved. This, again, is the result of a joint recommendation. It is not intended to change the number of educational interest members. They will remain at three and, as a result, the membership will increase from 11, with a chairman, to 13, with a chairman. Under amendment No. 5, the Minister will be required to appoint as workers' members of the Comhairle the persons nominated by the organisations themselves—these are the organisations representative of the trade unions which have been designated by the Minister for that purpose.
Does that mean the individual unions?
Yes.
Not the Congress?
The Congress will be the organisation and as a result of the recommendations, the Minister will be required to accept their five nominees.
Look at the phrasing in amendment No. 5:—"The Minister shall, in respect of each workers' member, designate an organisation representative of trade unions of workers to nominate a person for appointment as a workers' member of An Chomhairle and the Minister shall appoint the person so nominated to be a workers' member of An Chomhairle." Does this mean that one body is to do the nominating, that is, the Congress of Irish Unions?
The Congress will do the nominating now. They will select their five men and I shall have to accept their selection.
Has any significance been attached to the difference between the second last paragraph on the page of amendments and the last paragraph? What is the explanation for the difference in the phrasing? Both have five members and why is the same phrase not used? Is there any significance in that?
There is no significance in it. The fact remains that the Congress will be required to nominate five members and these will automatically be appointed.
I can see that, but if it was right to express the matter correctly in this way in the last paragraph, why was the same phrasing not used in the second last paragraph? Is there any significance in the choice of the different words?
In the case of employers, they will not recommend only five members. They will submit a panel of names from which I shall make a selection. In the case of the Unions, I shall have to accept the five they nominate. Perhaps that accounts for the difference in words.
That is possibly so.
I was just coming to the employers' representatives. In reply to Deputy Norton, I have indicated that the employers will be required to submit a panel of names from which I shall select five. Amendment No. 6 is designed to cover the filling of casual vacancies in line with the form of the section.
Would the Minister say how he intends to proceed to the selection of the representatives of the educational interests?
After consultation with the Minister for Education.
Has the Minister any idea as to how the Minister for Education intends to approach it?
Naturally he must have regard to vocational education primarily.
Is it intended that the representatives of the educational interests will be people who will be actually working on the vocational side of things, actually in the teaching line there, or members of any of the vocational educational committees?
Representatives of workers' interests expressed some doubt as to whether or not membership merely of a vocational committee would suffice. I think it will be a matter for the Minister for Education, in consultation with myself, to decide which would be the most effective form of representation. Personally, I am inclined to lean in favour of the working teacher.
The Minister is in favour of what?
Of teachers who are actually teaching in vocational schools or who have responsibility for teaching in those schools rather than members of vocational committees. That is my own opinion.
Is there any obligation on the Minister for Education—I do not see it here—to consult any body representative of such persons before he makes recommendations?
He is not required statutorily to consult any body but in effect, of course, he will have to.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 3:
Before subsection (5), page 5, to insert the following new subsections:—
"( ) Where the chairman of An Chomhairle becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas, he shall, upon his becoming entitled under the Standing Orders of that House to sit therein, cease to be the chairman of An Chomhairle.
( ) A person who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein shall be disqualified from being the chairman of An Chomhairle."
Normally, in legislation setting up statutory bodies it is usual to provide that members may not be members of either House of the Oireachtas. To go forward to Section 13 for a moment, as drafted it provides for the disqualification of a member of the Oireachtas from being either chairman or an ordinary member of An Chomhairle but since the chairman will be the only full-time member it is proposed that the disqualification should be confined to the office of chairman. That is the effect of this amendment. As a corollary, it is proposed that Section 13 should be deleted from the Bill and I think that will meet the wishes of the House.
The chairman will be the only paid member?
He will be the only paid member. The other members will receive expenses.
Does that mean that an ordinary member may be a member of the Oireachtas?
Yes.
That is unusual, is it not, in bodies like this?
It is unusual. This also emerges from the proposals of the Joint Committee.
I do not object.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
To delete subsection (5) and insert the following new subsections:—
"( ) The chairman of An Chomhairle shall be paid such remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determines.
( ) The chairman of An Chomhairle shall be paid, out of moneys at the disposal of An Chomhairle, such allowances for expenses incurred by him as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determines."
Is there any implication in the form of drafting—is this just a change of draft?
With the permission of the Chair, I would like amendments 4 and 11 to be discussed together. The purpose of amendment 11 is to provide for superannuation benefit for the chairman of An Chomhairle. This is being done by bringing the post within the ambit of the Superannuation Acts and the effect of the provision will be to preserve the continuance of superannuation rights and entitlement of any civil servant who might be appointed chairman. If a non-civil servant is appointed chairman, he would accumulate superannuation entitlement according to the normal Civil Service rate, which is one-eightieth of his salary on retirement for each year's service subject to a maximum of 40/80ths and a lump sum in the case of a man. In the case of a woman, the superannuation may, as an option, be calculated on the basis of 1/60th of the salary for each year's service and subject to a maximum of 40/60ths and no lump sum. A non-civil servant would not accumulate any pension rights until he had served for ten years. After five years, however, the dependents of a non-civil service chairman would qualify for a lump sum payable on death.
The provision of the Superannuation Act of 1956 under which a person may surrender part of his pension in return for a pension in favour of his wife or dependents is being applied to the office of chairman. It is also being provided that if a pensionable officer of a local authority is appointed as chairman he will retain his superannuation entitlement and he will continue to accrue such entitlement while serving as chairman.
Amendment No. 4 is consequential on amendment No. 11. The Superannuation Acts can only be applied in relation to people whose remuneration is borne on a Departmental Vote. The section as originally drafted provided that the remuneration of the chairman of An Chomhairle should be met out of moneys at the disposal of An Chomhairle. The effect of amendment No. 4 is to ensure that the remuneration of the chairman shall be paid out of the appropriate Vote, that is the Department of Industry and Commerce. The aim of that is to qualify and entitle him to superannuation benefits as I have indicated. Otherwise, the Superannuation Acts would not apply.
Is there a change in policy indicated here? The provision in respect of superannuation may, in fact, operate disadvantageously in the case of a person appointed at a certain age. For example, the amendment provides that the person concerned shall retire when he reaches 65. Suppose he is appointed at 45, then serves for only 20 years and his annual pension is calculated on the basis of 1/80th for each year, so that he can only get 20/80ths, or a quarter of the salary on retiring at 65. The whole scheme of Civil Service superannuation was conceived against the background that the person would be recruited early in life, at about 18, 19 or 20, and that he could obtain full pension on retiring at 60 or 65. In this case, if you appoint a person at 45, he could only get one-quarter of his salary and the pension is less still if he is 50 years of age. It might be found in practice that some person with mature experience in this field would be the, ideal chairman but would that be an attractive pension to offer that person?
In the case of some of the State-sponsored bodies, an entirely new system of pensions was offered to the employees. Admittedly they had no lump sum but the scheme of superannuation was based, I think, on 1/48th for each year of service so that if a person gave 24 years' service on such a body he got 24-48ths or in other words half his salary for pension purposes. This provision seems not to give the person any chance of availing of that type of superannuation scheme which is operating in quite a number of State-sponsored bodies, so far as I know. If the Minister has in mind the appointment of a civil servant to a post of this kind this scheme of superannuation is all right but if it is intended to find somebody outside the Civil Service the pension scheme provided here is not very attractive for the person recruited to the post at about 50 years of age.
As the Deputy says, if a civil servant or a local authority employee is likely to be chairman he will not come out any worse—in fact, possibly much better. The likely superannuation benefit can be taken into account in fixing the chairman's salary. However, I appreciate the anxiety the Deputy expresses and I shall have this matter looked into between now and the Committee Stage to see whether or not some provision might be made in the case of a person who is not a civil servant or a local authority employee.
Does the Minister mean "between now and the Report Stage"?
Yes, the Report Stage, if I said otherwise.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In sub-section 4 of Section 10, it is stated that the Minister may at any time remove the chairman of An Chomhairle from office. Is that not rather sweeping? Would the Minister not agree to insert the words "for stated reasons"? That same provision appears lower down in the next section. If we are to get worthwhile members, they should know that they are not there at the whim of a Minister. It is not unknown that a Minister may remove a member. A member should at least be entitled to know why he is being removed from office.
There may be a lot of reasons for removing a man which it might not be possible to state very precisely. Again, I shall have another look at it between now and the Report Stage and indicate to the Deputy what I decide to do.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 5:
To delete subsections (1), (2) and (3) and substitute the following new subsections:—
( ) Of the ordinary members of An Chomhairle, five shall be workers' members, five shall be employers' members and three shall be educational members.
( ) The Minister shall, in respect of each workers' member, designate an organisation representative of trade unions of workers to nominate a person for appointment as a workers' member of An Chomhairle and the Minister shall appoint the person so nominated to be a workers' member of An Chomhairle.
( ) The Minister shall invite organisations representative of employers to nominate persons for appointment as employers' members of An Chomhairle and the Minister shall appoint five of the persons so nominated to be the employers' members of An Chomhairle.
( ) The Minister shall, after consultation with the Minister for Education, appoint three persons whom he considers to be representative of educational interests to be the educational members of An Chomhairle.
This is consequential.
This has already been dealt with.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before Section 12, page 5, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a casual vacancy occurs among the workers' members of An Chomhairle, the Minister shall designate an organisation representative of trade unions of workers to nominate a person for appointment to fill the vacancy and the Minister shall appoint the person so nominated to fill the vacancy.
(2) Where a casual vacancy occurs among the employers' members of An Chomhairle, the Minister shall invite organisations representative of employers to nominate persons for appointment to fill the vacancy and the Minister shall appoint a person from among the persons so nominated to fill the vacancy.
(3) Where a casual vacancy occurs among the educational members of An Chomhairle, the Minister shall, after consultation with the Minister for Education, appoint a person whom he considers to be representative of educational interests to fill the vacancy.
(4) A person appointed under this section shall hold office for the remainder of his predecessor's term.
This also has been dealt with already.
Acting Chairman
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of Section 12 of the Bill.
Section 12 deleted.
SECTION 13.
Acting Chairman
Section 13 also is being deleted.
The Minister gave us the impression a few minutes ago that members of the House are eligible.
It is being deleted.
Section 13 deleted.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 7:
In subsection (3), page 6, line 20, after "five" to insert "members (being members who are entitled to vote at the meeting)".
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 together.
Amendment No. 8 is the main one. It proposes to insert three new sub-sections as a result of recommendations made by the joint committee concerning the voting power of members of An Chomhairle.
The first two of these sub-sections give voting power to the chairman and to the employers' and workers' members but not to the educational members, except that an educational member who acts as chairman of a meeting, in the absence of the regular chairman, will have a vote on that occasion. The joint committee took the view that the educational representatives on An Chomhairle should act in an advisory capacity only. They said that the real training of apprentices is carried out by employers and craftsmen on the job and not in the technical schools. They expressed the view that the workers and employers in a trade have a vital interest in apprenticeship because it is a matter closely connected with their livelihood. They felt that the giving of voting powers to educational members would upset the existing balance between workers and employers.
I may say that I was a little surprised to learn that the joint committee took this line. However, there is little doubt that the co-operation of both sides of the industry in this matter of apprenticeship is an essential to progress and I feel that there is no alternative but to accept the recommendation which has been made.
The third new sub-section implements the joint committee's recommendation that there should be provision for pairing to ensure equality of voting power between employers and workers. This provision is similar to a corresponding provision relating to joint labour committees in the industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 8. The acceptance of amendment No. 8 means that the educational members of An Chomhairle will not have a vote. It is, therefore, necessary to clarify that the quorum of meetings of An Chomhairle must consist of five members who are entitled to vote at the meeting.
Does this mean that where there is disagreement between workers' members and employers' members on the committee, the chairman has a casting vote?
Yes.
I think this is a substantial improvement on the Bill as originally introduced. The scheme for providing for equal representation between unions and employers and then throwing in three educational folk into a committee to determine matters of which the educational folk have no experience and no ultimate responsibility was calculated to burst this thing wide open. The employers would say that they had to pay the fellow and that they were entitled to say what he was going to do; the union people would say that their members had to train them and that they were entitled to have a say in the matter also. The educational people had no further concern with the person, once he was registered as an apprentice. I think the solution is a happy one of an awkward situation which would not have worked and which, I think, would have burst the whole thing up. The solution has been achieved by this device and I think it will work.
I put down amendment No. 10 for much the same reasons. I felt there should be equal voting between workers' and employers' representatives. It will ensure absolute impartiality on behalf of the vocational representatives. I think it will recommend itself particularly to the workers' representatives. It will remove all fear of unequal representation, either on An Chomhairle or on the district committees. Having regard to the other amendments by the Minister, I do not think my amendment is necessary. If it is not, I shall not move amendment No. 10.
Is this only permissive in the event of one or other being in the majority? The section says:
"whichever of the said groups is in the majority may arrange that any one or more of its number shall refrain from voting so as to preserve equality".
Paragraph (a) of amendment No. 8 says:
"whichever of the said groups is in the majority may arrange that any one or more of its number shall refrain from voting so as to preserve equality."
It is purely permissive?
That is right.
You would need to look at paragraph (b), which would seem to suggest that if the arrangement does not work the voting may be adjourned until the next week.
It says: "may adjourn".
That is permissive also?
The chairman will have the right to decide whether or not to postpone the voting.
I take it that it does not cover only a situation where the employers are in the majority, that it covers either situation? Is that correct?
Yes.
Then, I think, paragraphs (a) and (b) are both permissive. There is not an obligation on the chairman so to adjourn?
No, there is not but I should imagine that a chairman will always be looking for peaceful co-operation between the members of the committee and that he will promote that in the best way by availing of these permissive sections and, if for one reason or another one side or the other refuses to pair, he has discretion to adjourn the meeting forthwith. That will indicate that they ought to avail of this pairing arrangement at the next meeting.
It gives him a power that he may use, depending on his view of the situation?
That is right.
There will always be a draw and the chairman will have the decision—that is what it looks like.
Not necessarily. They can carry on and vote notwithstanding any inequality of numbers, without pairing. As Deputy Russell has pointed out, it is permissive.
You might find the chairman in a minority in these cases.
It might be only a minor matter. On the other hand, it might be a vital matter, in which case the chairman has power to adjourn.
That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
Before subsection (5), page 6, to insert the following new subsections:—
"( ) The chairman of An Chomhairle and each workers' member and each employers' member of An Chomhairle at a meeting thereof shall have a vote.
( ) An educational member of An Chomhairle at a meeting thereof shall not, except where such member is chairman of the meeting, have a vote.
( ) If, at any meeting of An Chomhairle, the group of workers' members does not equal in number the group of employers' members present—
(a) whichever of the said groups is in the majority may arrange that any one or more of its number shall refrain from voting so as to preserve equality,
(b) if no such arrangement is made, the chairman of An Chomhairle or, in his absence, the person who is chairman of the meeting, may adjourn the voting on any question to another meeting of An Chomhairle."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In subsection (5), page 6, line 28, after "shall" to insert ", subject to subsection (*) of section 53 of this Act,".
Amendment No. 9 goes with amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. I would refer Deputies to Section 53 of the Bill as drafted. That section provided that An Chomhairle and apprenticeship committees that would be set up by An Chomhairle would have power to exempt individual employers from the requirements of the Bill or of rules made under it. The joint committee felt that there was a danger that widespread exemptions from rules might be granted. They recommended, therefore, that either An Chomhairle or an apprenticeship committee should not exercise their power to grant exemptions unless the chairman and the majority of employers' and workers' members agreed so to act. The purpose of amendment No. 47 is to give effect to that recommendation. It is necessary as a corollary to Section 14, subsection (5), to insert a saver for this departure from the normal voting procedure. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Was this amendment agreed between the two sides?
Between the two sides. Acceptance of amendment No. 47 would, I think, make it unnecessary to accept amendments Nos. 45 and 46. These are amendments in the name of Deputy Noel Lemass. It is obviously desirable in the interests of flexibility and to avoid the causing of hardship in individual cases that there should be some power of exemption. The safeguards provided by amendment No. 47 should ensure that the power of exemption will not be abused and, therefore, I think Deputy Lemass can withdraw his amendments, if he agrees to do so.
I am glad that the point is being dealt with. These are the points that I had in mind at the outset. As it is an agreed measure, I would be quite willing to withdraw my amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I take it the intention is to appoint civil servants as officers of An Chomhairle?
Yes.
They will remain as civil servants?
They will.
Seconded to this particular body?
Quite. That is the intention.
Subsection (2) says that the officers and servants so appointed shall hold office on such terms and receive such remuneration as the Minister for Finance determines. Is he the determining Minister? It is not the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
The officers and servants will be civil servants. That is the position in relation to all civil servants, that the Minister for Finance determines.
I see.
It makes no difference what Minister you mention; the Minister for Finance is the boss.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, before Section 16, to insert the following new section:—
"(1) Service by a person in the office of chairman of An Chomhairle, excluding any service rendered by him after the expiry of three months from the date on which he reaches the age of sixty-five years, shall be deemed for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1956, to be established service in the civil service, and the Superannuation Act, 1956, shall apply to or in respect of the chairman of An Chomhairle in like manner as that Act applies to or in respect of an established civil servant.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1909, shall apply to a person who was appointed chairman of An Chomhairle and who ceases to be chairman by operation of law or by reason of his removal from office, other than for stated misconduct or incapacity, or the expiration of his period of office.
(3) (a) Section 67 of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1956, shall have effect in relation to a pensionable officer of a local authority who is appointed chairman of An Chomhairle in like manner as if he were appointed to an established position in the civil service.
(b) In paragraph (a) of this sub-section "pensionable officer of a local authority" has the meaning assigned to that expression by Section 2 of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1956."
This amendment has been dealt with.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to make a couple of suggestions. I am not sure on what section I should make them but it seems to me that Section 19 is the appropriate one. There are a couple of functions which might be attributed to An Chomhairle and, as this section deals with making grants available to An Chomhairle, I would suggest that the grants which will be made to An Chomhairle should cover the following two things. I think An Chomhairle could do very useful work in publishing, for the guidance of parents, careers which their children can follow in the various trades, giving an outline of the period of apprenticeship, the manner in which the child can enter the trade and information of that sort. The second thing I should like to see An Chomhairle do is in connection with any trade. It would be desirable if it had the power and the finances to publish textbooks or manuals for the trade which would be available to apprentices learning the trade and even to tradesmen. These two types of publication could with advantage be undertaken by An Chomhairle.
Secondly, I should like to see An Chomhairle with the authority and the money, where necessary, to make grants to local authorities for the provision of certain types of equipment and gear for the proper training of apprentices and the running of apprenticeship courses in vocational schools. Would the Minister consider whether it is necessary that the functions which I should like to see attributed to An Chomhairle should be actually incorporated in this Bill or whether the specific power should be given to An Chomhairle to carry them out?
There is no necessity to require An Chomhairle to carry out such functions by way of legislation. An Chomhairle can undertake certain activities such as those outlined by the Deputy as long as they are not inconsistent with the main purposes of the Bill and it would be better, I think, to await the setting up of An Chomhairle to see what activities of that nature they feel they ought to engage in. I should like to direct the Deputy's attention to Section 61. An Chomhairle are entitled to receive gifts. If the Deputy felt in a benevolent mood, he might give effect to his brain child.
There will be a big queue.
Does that mean that An Chomhairle would be entitled to give grants to a vocational education committee for the provision of technical equipment?
It is not specifically envisaged but, on the other hand, it is not excluded. An Chomhairle would have to have regard to what forms of expenditure they feel would have priority. I would not rule it out but I do not think it is likely.
If the Minister envisages those functions for An Chomhairle, would he say how much money he has in mind as the annual grant to them from the Exchequer?
I do not think it is quite right to say that I said I envisaged those functions; I said they would not be excluded. The annual grant in the first year or so would be in the order of £5,000.
To pay the salaries?
No, the expense of the salaries will come out of the voted moneys.
What will the £5,000 cover?
I do not know exactly, but I shall come to it later on. Ultimately, the figure is expected to go up to £50,000.
I still think I have a point. I can imagine An Chomhairle, once it is set up, confining itself to carrying out only the functions specifically attributed to it in the Bill. They can very well say, if they are asked to do the type of work I have in mind, "We have no statutory authority to do it and no funds available for it." It seems to me that these two particular things I have mentioned are very important and that An Chomhairle could do untold good in that way towards helping parents and vocational schools.
Can the Minister say at this stage—it may be more appropriate later—does it follow from what he says that An Chomhairle will have funds at its disposal and that it is possible assistance might be given to vocational education committees? If so, will An Chomhairle take into account the fact that State grants are already available? Will there not be over-lapping in the contributions of the moneys?
Perhaps I should have distinguished between the proposals made by Deputy Haughey. The first was that An Chomhairle might usefully apply themselves to issuing brochures and publications concerning apprenticeship schemes. An Chomhairle would have that function and could contribute moneys. At this stage I do not exclude the possibility of their providing certain moneys to assist vocational education committees; on the other hand, they must have regard to the fact that moneys are already provided out of the Vote for the Department of Education. To say that I do not exclude the possibility is not the same as saying that I envisage it.
I can reply to Deputy Norton's question now. Out of the grant, which I said would amount annually to £4,000 or £5,000, An Chomhairle would have to pay the fees of the Chairmen of the Apprenticeship Committees and the travelling and other expenses of the ordinary members of An Chomhairle. They will have to pay fees or allowances to supervisors—that will be mentioned later in Section 50— gratuities to employers, scholarships and other awards to apprentices and other administrative and incidental expenses. Again, these will be specifically dealt with in other sections.
There does not seem to be much money left for gifts there. The bulk of that is obviously administrative, with something available for awards. The way in which the Minister replied to this matter in the first instance gave me the impression that An Chomhairle could be looked to as a body to be approached from time to time and asked to dispense sums of money to vocational education authorities in order to help them whenever they wanted to do something which involved money. Are we to have three methods of injecting money into vocational education authorities? Firstly, the local council through the local authority rate; secondly, the Department of Education and now, thirdly, permissive through An Chomhairle.
That does not seem to be a very efficient way of dealing with the matter. So long as the local authority can raise money or grants can be got from the Department of Education, these ought to be the financing sources. To allow An Chomhairle to be approached from time to time as a body that might pass out a cheque here and there is not, I think, calculated to earn them a good reputation, because of the number of refusals they would have to give. Nor is it wise to give the impression that the ability to equip classes and purchase goods or machines is related to the ability to squeeze some money out of a body that has got no money to be squeezed out.
The Deputy will appreciate that they get certain registration fees from apprentices that ought to swell their coffers. I want to say again I do not anticipate that they would be required to subsidise vocational committees, but when questions are put to a Minister in the course of a Committee Stage or Second Reading debate I, for one, would not like to exclude the possibility of saying "yes" to the question. On the other hand, I would not like my remarks to be interpreted as a directive to An Chomhairle that they should in any way finance vocational education committees. It is possible that in some instances, for purposes associated with apprenticeship schemes, they might find it desirable to do something of that nature. Any remarks I made today were designed not to exclude that possibility; on the other hand they did not suggest it was a probability.
I should like to make my point a little clearer. I was not asking the Minister if An Chomhairle would subsidise vocational education committees. I could visualise a situation where one specific item of equipment might be wanted for a particular trade. As a matter of fact, I have one specific item in mind. No one vocational education committee might be disposed to buy it. An Chomhairle in that special case might be enabled to buy that item. I feel it should be given the funds to do so if necessary.
The moment the money is made available to buy a machine for one vocational committee, you will have applications, wire pulling and political intrigue in every other county that cannot get the same.
The job they have to do is big enough.
The Minister should come down flat-footed and say there is no money there. Let the local people and the Department of Education find the money, but if you are going to make a St. Vincent de Paul Society out of An Chomhairle, you are running into trouble.
I agree with Deputy Norton. It will undoubtedly lead to over-lapping. The position will arise that having failed with the Department of Education, the next thing will be to try An Chomhairle. I would rather be quite specific and say it is not the intention to supply equipment in any shape or form that is normally supplied through the Department of Education. The question of the publication of literature is a different matter.
In case my remarks might be interpreted in any way as enabling An Chomhairle to do anything like that and having regard to the views of Deputy Norton and Deputy Russell, I want to say that as far as I would have any influence over the expenditure of An Chomhairle, I would not expect them to equip vocational education schools with any special equipment that should be provided in the ordinary way through the finances of vocational education committees.
If they make a present of a machine to a vocational committees mittee in Cork while you are Minister for Industry and Commerce, you will have repercussions all over the country whether you did, in fact, encourage them to make the grant of a machine or not. That is why I think you should come down flat-footed and say there are no alms here for you.
Most of our vocational schools, particularly in this city, are deplorably short of modern equipment of all sorts. If I can see any other body which could come in and supply them with more equipment, I would be delighted, whether it was overlapping or not. In conclusion, I should like seriously to recommend to the Minister my other suggestion regarding the publication of a guide to careers for parents and the information of trades generally and also the publication of a manual of instruction.
I think I will take Deputy Norton's advice about protecting myself from myself.
I have not an amendment down. This is only a suggestion.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I take it this section does not apply to the Army apprenticeship school at Naas or the Air Corps one at Baldonnel?
The Bill does apply to apprentices employed by, or under, the State. The exempting of certain employments will, of course, be possible under the Bill.
I understand the scheme to which I have referred is working well. That is the only reason I am interested. It might, of course, be automatically brought in under the Bill.
It is fundamental in the Bill that An Chomhairle, having looked at any apprenticeship scheme and found that it is operating well, will not interfere with it.
It is also desirable that not only should they not interfere with it but they should adopt it and provide the requisite certification.
Provision for certication in such cases is provided for.
Will the Minister have a look at the matter from the point of view of Naas and ensure that that scheme will not be put off-side because it does not come under this?
And Baldonnel—the Minister might also consider the position of the Air Corps scheme. The two are similar.
I shall do that.
The section states that An Chomhairle may carry out an examination of the methods used in any trade for the recruitment and training of apprentices. Has the Minister considered any provision whereby, at the request of the two parties in any particular trade, An Chomhairle would proceed to carry out an examination? As the section stands, it is An Chomhairle which will take the initiative. A situation might arise in which both employers and employees might, of their own volition, wish to have an apprenticeship scheme examined. Would the Minister consider making provision to cover that situation?
I think it is inherent in the section. If the two sides in any particular trade want it, An Chomhairle will naturally carry out any examination required. So long as An Chomhairle is satisfied that intervention is not necessary, it will not intervene. I do not think that what the Deputy suggests is necessary, but I shall look into it between this and the Report Stage.
If the Minister says the section as it stands envisages that situation, I am satisfied.
I think it does.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 12:—
To delete subsections (3) and (4) and insert the following new subsection:—
( ) An order under this section shall, as respects an apprenticeship committee established by it—
(a) provide that the committee shall consist of a chairman and a specified number of ordinary members,
(b) provide that An Chomhairle shall appoint a person to be the chairman of the committee and that he shall be a person who is not representative of either workers' or employers' interests,
(c) provide that the ordinary members shall include a specified number of workers' members, a specified number of employers' members (which shall be equal to the specified number of workers' members) and a specified number of educational members,
(d) provide that An Chomhairle shall—
(i) after consultation with the Minister, designate, in respect of each workers' member, an organisation representative of trade unions of workers to nominate a person for appointment as a workers' member and shall appoint the person so nominated to be a workers' member,
(ii) after consultation with the Minister, invite organisations representative of employers to nominate persons for appointment as employers' members and shall appoint the appropriate number specified in the order of the persons so nominated to be the employers' members,
(iii) after consultation with such educational bodies as An Chomhairle considers suitable, appoint the appropriate number of persons specified by the order to be the educational members,
(e) provide for the term of office of the members,
(f) provide that a member whose term of office expires by effluxion of time shall be eligible for re-appointment,
(g) provide that An Chomhairle may remove a member from office,
(h) provide that a member may resign his office as member by letter addressed to An Chomhairle and that the resignation shall have effect as on and from the date of the receipt of the letter by An Chomhairle,
(i) provide that a member shall be disqualified from holding office and shall cease to hold office if he is adjudged bankrupt or makes a composition or arrangement with creditors, or is sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction to suffer imprisonment or penal servitude or ceases to be ordinarily resident in the State,
(j) provide that, where a casual vacancy occurs among the workers' members, An Chomhairle shall, after consultation with the Minister, designate an organisation representative of trade unions of workers to nominate a person for appointment to fill the vacancy and that An Chomhairle shall appoint the person so nominated to fill the vacancy,
(k) provide that, where a casual vacancy occurs among the employers' members, An Chomhairle shall, after consultation with the Minister, invite organisations representative of employers to nominate persons for appointment to fill the vacancy and that An Chomhairle shall appoint a person from among the persons so nominated to fill the vacancy,
(l) provide that, where a casual vacancy occurs among the educational members, An Chomhairle shall, after consultation with such educational bodies as An Chomhairle considers suitable, appoint a person to fill the vacancy,
(m) provide that a person appointed under the provision made under paragraph (j), (k) or (l) of this subsection shall hold office for the remainder of his predecessor's term,
(n) provide that at a meeting of the committee—
(i) the chairman shall, if present, be chairman of the meeting,
(ii) if and so long as the chairman is not present or the office of chairman is vacant, the members who are present shall choose one of their number to be chairman of the meeting,
(o) provide that the chairman, each workers' member and each employers' member at a meeting of the committee shall have a vote,
(p) provide that an educational member at a meeting of the committee shall not, except where such member is chairman of the meeting, have a vote,
(q) provide that, if at any meeting of the committee the group of workers' members does not equal in number the group of employers' members present—
(i) whichever of the said groups is in the majority may arrange that any one or more of its number shall refrain from voting so as to preserve equality,
(ii) if no such arrangement is made, the chairman or, in his absence, the person who is chairman of the meeting, may adjourn the voting on any question to another meeting of the committee,
(r) provide that, subject to the provisions of the order, the committee shall regulate, by standing orders or otherwise, the procedure and business of the committee,
(s) provide for such other matters as An Chomhairle considers necessary for the proper performance of its functions by the committee.
Under this amendment it is proposed to insert a new subsection in place of the original subsections (3) and (4). The new subsection contains provisions relating to the constitution of apprenticeship committees, the procedure for appointing members, the circumstances in which membership may be terminated, the filling of casual vacancies, the voting powers of members and the procedure at meetings.
The purpose of this amendment is to give effect again to a number of recommendations made by the joint committee. These were that the educational members should not have votes; that there should be specific provision that the chairman of the apprenticeship committee should be independent of either workers' or employers' interests; that there should be provision for the pairing of votes, as outlined in a previous section; and that An Chomhairle should use the same method of appointing employers' and workers' members on apprenticeship committees as the Minister will use in appointing such members of An Chomhairle itself. There are also a number of new paragraphs being inserted to bring the provisions relating to the establishment of apprenticeship committees into line with those for the establishment of An Chomhairle. Again, this amendment is as a result of the agreed proposal of the joint committee.
I take it this amendment is really doing, on a district and apprenticeship committee basis, what is being done on a national basis as far as An Chomhairle is concerned.
That is so.
I take it the amendment was an agreed amendment.
It was an agreed amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 9, subsection (5), line 31, after "determines" to insert "and, in the absence of the chairman from a meeting of the committee, the fee that would be payable to him may, if An Chomhairle thinks fit, be paid to the person who acts as chairman of the meeting."
This amendment provides for a situation during which the chairman of an apprenticeship committee is unable to attend meetings over a period. Provision must be made for An Chomhairle to pay the fees of the member of the committee who acts as chairman over that protracted period. The provision in the amendment is permissive and would probably be availed of by An Chomhairle in cases where the same person consistently acts in place of the apprenticeship committee chairman proper who is consistently absent.
Where does the Minister get the idea that it is only payable where there is prolonged absence? The amendment states: "in the absence of the chairman from a meeting of the committee, the fee that would be payable to him may, if An Chomhairle thinks fit, be paid to the person who acts as chairman of the meeting."
It may be paid.
It could be lost for one absence.
Strictly speaking, it could. The intention, however, is to cover absence over a long period —for example, as a result of a prolonged illness.
That is different from what the Minister said earlier. Would the Minister not pay a sick man until he recovers, and pay his substitute as well? It looks as if there is a bit of horse trading in this amendment. It looks like an effort to hunt a man out of bed; otherwise, he will lose his fee.
The fees for chairmen of committees are fees for daily attendance.
Under this amendment it will be possible for the chairman to lose that fee if he is absent from one meeting. I cannot understand that Shylock attitude.
It is not intended to have that effect if he is absent from only one meeting.
Why not pay him so? The Minister wants the substitute paid.
Not necessarily.
Is it that you cannot pay his substitute?
The Minister wants to take the fee away from the sick chairman and pay it to the healthy one.
It is only fair in the event of prolonged absence that some recompense should be made.
That is all right, but the amendment does not say prolonged absence; it says "a meeting".
I shall see if it is necessary to amend further in order to keep it consistent with the principle.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In subsection (1), page 10, lines 19 and 20, to delete "after consultation with the Minister for Education".
Section 25 provides for An Chomhairle to make educational rules and in consultation with the Minister for Education, the joint committee recommended that An Chomhairle should be required to consult with the Apprenticeship Committees before making educational rules under this section. This recommendation is being accepted by amendment No. 15. Provision for consultation with the Minister for Education previously included in subsection (1) is being deleted from that subsection by amendment No. 14 and is included in the new subsection proposed by amendment No. 15. The net effect is that the joint committee recommends that An Chomhairle consult with the Apprenticeship Committee before making educational rules.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
Before subsection (2), pages 10, to insert the following new subsection:—
( ) Before making rules under this section, An Chomhairle shall consult with the Minister for Education and the apprenticeship committee (if any) established for the district in which the proposed rules are to have effect.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In subsection (1), page 10, line 30, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Subsection (1) of this section as drafted empowers An Chomhairle to make rules specifying the minimum age at which employment by way of apprenticeship in designated trade may commence but does not require An Chomhairle to make such rules. The main reason for the permissive nature of the original provision was that where An Chomhairle decided 14 years—which is the statutory minimum school-leaving age—should be the minimum age for commencement of apprenticeship, no rule would be necessary. However, I now feel that for the guidance of those concerned with the trade it would be preferable that the minimum age as well as the other requirements should be clearly set down. The effect of the amendment is to make it mandatory rather than permissive on An Chomhairle to fix the minimum age for commencement in each designated trade.
Is this an agreed amendment?
It is a Ministerial amendment without any recommendation from the committee.
Line 30 reads: "An Chomhairle may make rules specifying the minimum age..." Should not that be "shall"?
The intention is to leave that permissive.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
Before subsection (2), page 10, to insert the following new subsection:—
( ) Before making rules under this section, An Chomhairle shall consult with the apprenticeship committee (if any) established for the district in which the proposed rules are to have effect.
This amendment is another amendment giving effect to a recommendation by the joint committee that An Chomhairle should be required to consult with the Apprenticeship Committee before making rules under Section 26, regulating the minimum age of entry into apprenticeship. An Chomhairle would, no doubt, undertake such consultation even if there were no statutory provision requiring it but since it was recommended by the joint committee, I am inserting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27
I move amendment No. 18:—
In subsection (1), page 10, line 40, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This amendment proposes to make it mandatory on An Chomhairle to make rules regulating the dismissal of apprentices. The section as originally drafted was permissive. The employers' representatives on the Joint Committee were doubtful about this provision and their doubts mainly arose from the fear that An Chomhairle might neglect to make rules, in view of the permissive nature of the subsection. This possibility will no longer exist, if this amendment is accepted.
Is this an agreed amendment?
Apparently the employers' representatives expressed doubt as to whether An Chomhairle might make rules or neglect to do so, unless it were made mandatory on them. The workers' representatives had no observations to offer on this so I take it that it is an agreed amendment, in effect.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In subsection (2), page 10, line 48, after "post" to insert "and keep posted".
This is really a drafting amendment and I ask your permission, Sir, to take amendments Nos. 21 and 49 with it. It is a requirement that the committee should post rules but the amendment requires them to keep the rules posted. In other words, under the original sections or section, they need only put them up once and take them down, but now they have to keep them in a prominent position.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In subsection (1), page 11, lines 33 and 34, to delete "to train and instruct in a specified manner" and substitute "to ensure the training and instruction in a specified manner of".
As the section stands, it provides that employers should be required "to train and instruct" apprentices. In view of the fact that many employers do not themselves carry out the training of apprentices, the joint committee decided that it would be more consistent with such a situation, and equally effective, if the words "to ensure the training and instruction" were inserted instead of "to train and instruct".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In subsection (2), page 11, line 38, after "post" to insert "and keep posted".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
Before Section 30, page 11, to insert the following new section:—
An apprenticeship committee may make rules prohibiting persons carrying on the trade, for which the committee is established, in the district of the committee from taking any premium, fee or other consideration in respect of the employment by them of any person by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district.
Amendment 50 would also go with this and I ask permission to take amendments Nos. 22 and 50 together. The taking of substantial premiums by employers from apprentices is no longer the common practice. It is proposed, however, that apprenticeship committees should be given power to prohibit the taking of such premiums so that they will be able to prevent any abuses in the event of the reintroduction of that practice. There was a similar provision in the Act of 1931.
Amendment 50 makes the breach of a rule about the taking of premiums an offence punishable by a fine. It does not indicate that this was an agreed recommendation but I think it is necessary——
Was this before the committee?
They did not advert to it. I am instructed that they did not advert to it but they know about it and I understand I have their agreement to it.
It is a very desirable provision, notwithstanding what the Minister or even the trade union may say.
They agreed. There is no conflict.
I am not doubting that. Notwithstanding what they may say to the effect that this practice is nearly dead, I am sorry to say it is far from dead. A number of enterprising operators think that a good way to finance their doubtful activities is to advertise for an apprentice. They get credulous mothers and fathers to dig their hands deep into their pockets in order to draw our an apprenticeship fee for their son, with the assurance that he shows a marvellous intellect and a great aptitude for acquiring the trade which the receiver of the fee promises to impart. Only too often, the fee is sometimes used to keep the wolf away from his door or to stop some other gap in his finances in some places far removed from his trade.
I have received letters from people who paid apprenticeship fees for their sons and daughters to learn a trade but not only could they not learn the trade but they could not even get back any portion of the fee by way of remuneration. In recent years, the collection of the apprenticeship fee in many instances has gone hand in hand with very shady practices. I am glad that this section will prohibit that and make it an offence for persons to accept fees in such circumstances. It should put an end to an abuse that has existed for too long in many cases.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 11, line 43, after "reports" to insert, ",in such form as shall be indicated in the rules,".
Section 30 requires the making of reports to ensure, in the first place, that committees will acknowledge the progress of apprentices and, secondly, that employers will pay full regard to their responsibilities in giving adequate training. The amendment as suggested by the joint committee provides that employers' reports on the progress of apprentices should be in a form to be determined by the appropriate apprenticeship committee. It is likely that apprenticeship committees would for their own convenience and that of employers have specified a form of report but a prescribed form will now be a statutory requirement.
How often will these reports be submitted? Would it be decided by An Chomhairle or the committee?
I should imagine they would be made every six or 12 months.
Are there any means by which the parents of apprentices may get a look at the report in order to see what progress has been made?
We shall consider that. I am sure the committee would have regard to that. I shall consider anything that may be necessary.
It is necessary to know exactly how the boy is getting along rather than be dependent on rosy reports by him to the effect that he is breaking new records, when in fact he might be dull and stupid.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 24:—
To delete subsection (1) and substitute the following new subsection:—
( ) An apprenticeship committee established for an apprenticeship district for the purposes of a designated trade in which contracts of apprenticeship are normally effected by deed may make rules specifying the form of the contract to be used when a person is taken into employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district of the committee.
The section deals with the written forms of contract of apprenticeship. It is understood that these written forms of contract are now not in general use, but where they are still used, it is necessary to ensure that their terms do not conflict with any of the provisions of this Bill or any of the rules made under it.
The section as originally drafted empowered an apprenticeship committee to determine the form of written contract to be used and made it an offence for an employer to use any other form of contract. The joint committee felt that the section as originally drafted might enable an apprenticeship committee to require a contract to be effected by deed where this was not the practice. This amendment is designed to meet the committee's viewpoint and to make it clear that the power is permissive and will be used only where it is necessary to use it.
What is the position in the case of a person who is at present employed as an apprentice by an employer who says: "I will take you on as an apprentice. You will work for five years at your trade. Then you can go. You will be a journeyman, a fitter or a carpenter, as the case may be." What is his ability under this Bill to get a legal document to the effect that he is and is deemed to have been an apprentice to that person when he holds no such document at the moment?
I could give an answer to that but I shall take advice first.
Will the Minister look into it? I know of at least one case where a person is employed as an apprentice. He has no document to the effect that he is so employed. He learns the trade and is paid a certain rate of wages from year to year. He hopes in five years to be fully qualified but he has no document saying he is an apprentice. As far as he is concerned, his apprenticeship depends on the whim of the person who employs him. Can he in the future require the employer to issue to him a certificate to the effect that what he has been doing and still is doing is part of his scheme of apprenticeship?
I shall look into that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 25:—
Before Section 32, page 12, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Rules made by An Chomhairle under any provision of this Act may contain different provisions in respect of different areas in an apprenticeship district.
(2) Rules made by an apprenticeship committee under any provision of this Act may contain different provisions in respect of different areas in the district of the committee.
(3) Where rules under Section 25 of this Act contain provisions which apply to an area comprising part only of an apprenticeship district, subsection (2) of that section shall, in its application to a person carrying on in that area the trade to which the rules relate, have effect as if the reference therein to an apprenticeship district in which the rules have effect were a reference to that area.
(4) Where rules under Section 26 of this Act contain provisions which apply to an area comprising part only of an apprenticeship district, subsection (2) of that section shall, in its application to a person carrying on in that area the trade to which the rules relate, have effect as if the reference therein to an apprenticeship district in which the rules have effect were a reference to that area.
(4) Where rules under Section 27 of this Act contain provisions which apply to an area comprising part only of an apprenticeship district, subsection (3) of that section shall, in its application to a person carrying on in that area the trade to which the rules relate, have effect as if the reference therein to an apprenticeship district in which the rules have effect were a reference to that area.
(6) Where rules under Section 31 of this Act contain provisions which apply to an area which comprises part only of an apprenticeship district, subsection (2) of that section shall, in its application to a person carrying on in that area the trade to which the rules relate, have effect as if the reference therein to the district of an apprenticeship committee and the reference to the district were references to that area."
This amendment is intended to give effect to a recommendation of the joint committee that An Chomhairle and the apprenticeship committees should be empowered to make different rules for different areas within an apprenticeship district. Under the Bill as originally drafted, there is no power to make different rules except by re-dividing the area and appointing a series of apprenticeship committees, if necessary. This amendment will give apprenticeship committees an additional degree of flexibility in regard to the making of rules and should enable committees to be established in respect of relatively large districts, rather than have a number of small committees administering small areas.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 26:—
Before Section 33, page 12, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Before making or confirming rules under any provision of this Act, An Chomhairle shall publish notice in at least two newspapers circulating in the area in which the proposed rules are to have effect, stating that it is intended to make such rules, the nature of the proposed rules, that copies thereof shall be made available, on request, to interested persons and the time, manner and place in which objections and representations in relation to the proposed rules may be made.
(2) An Chomhairle shall, before making or confirming rules under any provisions of this Act, consider any objections or representations received, in accordance with a notice under subsection (1) of this section, in relation to the proposed rules.
This amendment gives effect to a recommendation made by the joint committee that An Chomhairle should publish notice of its intention to make or confirm rules, that the proposed rules should be available to interested persons and that objections or representations in relation to the proposed rules should be considered by An Chomhairle. It was the intention that An Chomhairle should in practice follow a procedure of this sort but now there will be a statutory obligation on it to do so. The provision proposed by the amendment follows generally precedents established under the Apprenticeship Act, 1931, and the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 12, line 22, to delete: "daily".
Section 33 is designed to ensure that steps will be taken to bring to the notice of persons affected the fact that rules have been made and the place where copies of the rules may be obtained. As originally drafted, it was proposed that An Chomhairle should publish a notice in Iris Oifigiúil and in at least two daily newspapers. The joint committee decided that in some cases better publicity might be obtained by a notice in local papers which are in many cases weekly. This amendment deletes the word “daily” so as to enable publication to be made in provincial weekly newspapers if that is considered necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 28:—
Before Section 34, page 12, to insert the following new section:—
"A person who carries on a designated trade in an apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade shall not take into his employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district any person—
(a) other than a person who is registered in the register of candidates kept, under Section 40 of this Act, by the apprenticeship committee for the trade and the district, and
(b) save with the consent of such committee."
Section 34 as originally drafted prohibited the taking into employment by way of apprenticeship of persons who were not on the register of candidates for apprenticeship provided for in Section 40. The joint committee recommended that, in addition, the section should prohibit the employment of persons by way of apprenticeship unless the appropriate Apprenticeship Committee had consented to employment with a specified employer. The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to that recommendation. The joint committee made the recommendation with a view to preventing abuses such as the use of apprentices as cheap labour by employers who do not possess adequate training facilities.
Amendment agreed to.
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of Section 34.
Section 34 deleted.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 29:—
SECTION 35.
29. Before Section 35, page 12, to insert the following new section:—
(1) An apprenticeship committee may, after consultation with An Chomhairle, determine the number of persons that, during a specified period, is to be taken into employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade, for which the committee is established in the district of the committee and the committee, if it so thinks proper, may, before the expiration of such period, make, after consultation with An Chomhairle, a further determination altering the number previously determined.
(2) Where an apprenticeship committee determines, under subsection (1) of this section, a number, the committee shall arrange for the taking into employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade, for which the committee is established, in the district of the committee of that number in the period specified in the determination and for that purpose may, if it is satisfied—
(a) that a sufficient number of persons is not being taken into such employment, in the period specified in the determination, in the trade and in the district, and
(b) that a person who carries on the trade in the district has the facilities for training persons by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district and is, without reasonable cause, failing to take persons into his employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district,
by notice in writing served on that person require him, within a specified period to take into such employment in the trade and in the district a specified number of persons.
(3) An apprenticeship committee shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) of this section for the purpose of making any arrangement under Section 49 of this Act.
This amendment proposes to replace the original text of Section 35 with a new text. It will give effect to the following three recommendations of the joint committee:—
(1) That an Apprenticeship Committee which determines the number of apprentices to be admitted to a trade in a specified period will have power to vary the number before the end of the specified period;
(2) That the power of the Apprenticeship Committee to compel an employer to take on an apprentice or additional apprentices will be invoked only where the specified number is not being taken on and where the employer concerned has facilities to train apprentices and is unreasonably failing to take on a sufficient number of apprentices;
(3) That the Committee's compulsory powers under this section should not be exercised for the transfer of apprentices involved in a trade dispute.
The aim of this section is to ensure that sufficient numbers of apprentices are taken on each year to ensure that in future there will be enough skilled craftsmen to meet the needs of trade and industry. Unduly low intake of apprentices leading to an acute and artificial shortage of skilled workers is a complaint often made about existing apprenticeship arrangements. On the other hand trade unions often argue that the purpose of restricting intake is to ensure that apprentices are not used as a source of cheap labour and that a pool of unemployed craftsmen will not be created. It will be up to Apprenticeship Committees which will be representative of workers, employers and educational interests to determine each year how many apprentices should be taken into the trade in that year, taking account of the two points of view I have outlined. It is hoped that the problem will be overcome by goodwill and co-operation on the part of all concerned and that the compulsory powers provided for in this Section will be used only as a measure of last resort.
This is a recommendation of the joint committee?
Yes.
If it did nothing else but this it was good work. It represents a very healthy advance.
I agree.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting-Chairman
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of Section 35.
Section 35 deleted.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In subsection (1), page 12, line 50, before "suitable" to insert "which An Chomhairle and the vocational education committee agree is".
The purpose of Section 36 is to empower An Chomhairle to make arrangements for the provision of technical school courses for designated trades. The purpose of amendment No. 30 is to give effect to a recommendation of the joint committee that An Chomhairle or the Apprenticeship Committee, as appropriate, should have a greater say in determining the curriculum of courses of technical education to be provided under Section 36.
That will not interfere with the present arrangement whereby certain undertakings or industries have arranged with vocational education committees to set up classes? That arrangement can still continue.
I am sure it can.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In subsection (2), paragraph (a), page 12, line 60, before "course" to insert "whole of the".
With the permission of the Chair I propose to take amendments Nos. 31 and 32 together. The purpose of these two amendments is to seal a possible loophole in subsection (2) of Section 36 as originally drafted. There were somewhat similar provisions in the Apprenticeship Act, 1931. In a court case taken under that Act a district justice held that an apprentice and employer had fulfilled their obligations if the apprentice attended one class during a course in a technical school. The purpose of this amendment is to require the apprentice to attend at all the classes so as to ensure that such a decision as has been taken can never be taken again.
Does that not go to the other extreme? Normally in courses they are allowed, say, three-quarters of the course or a certain prescribed number of lectures, demonstrations or whatever it is.
There will be a provision whereby an apprentice will not be penalised if for good and sufficient reasons he cannot attend at all courses.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In subsection (2), paragraph (b), page 13. line 4, before "course" to insert "whole of the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 13, to add to the section the following new subsection:—
( ) Where a person upon whom a notice under paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of this section has been served is allowed time and liberty to attend, during normal working hours, an instruction which is part of a course provided under sub-section (1) of this section and fails to attend, then, notwithstanding anything contained in his contract with his employer, he shall not be entitled to receive the amount of any pay (being pay which he would otherwise be entitled to receive) which is apportionable to the period of his absence from his employment by way of apprenticeship unless he satisfies his employer that his failure to attend the instruction was due to sickness or other unavoidable cause.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 will go together with this amendment. As the Bill was originally drafted an apprentice who failed, without reasonable excuse, to attend the technical school course would be guilty of an offence punishable by a fine. The Joint Committee recommended that it would be much more effective to penalise the apprentice by an appropriate deduction from his wages if he failed to attend technical school classes without reasonable excuse. I have accepted that recommendation and as a corollary it is proposed by amendments Nos. 51 and 52 to delete the power to take proceedings against apprentices who fail in this regard.
Is the Minister satisfied that he is on good terms with the Truck Act, in view of the proposal to deduct wages from an apprentice for not attending classes? I understood that recently there was some desire to amend that Act because it is now archaic in character.
I am advised that it does not affect the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38
I move amendment No. 34:
In subsection (1), paragraph (b), page 13, line 23, before "those" to insert ", or have completed,".
The purpose of Section 38 is to provide for junior examinations to be held when a person has completed approximately half of the apprenticeship course and a written senior examination for persons nearing completion of the course. The joint committee pointed out that, under the section as drafted, it might be held that an apprentice who had completed his period of apprenticeship before the final examination was held could be precluded from sitting for the examination. The purpose of the amendment is to clear up the doubt on this point. It is really only clearing up a doubt.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
Before subsection (2), page 13, to insert the following new subsection:
"( ) (a) The subjects to be included in, and the standard for, examinations under this section shall be determined by the Minister for Education after consultation with the apprenticeship committee concerned.
(b) Examinations under this section shall include practical tests."
This amendment gives effect to two recommendations of the joint committee. One is that An Chomhairle or the Apprenticeship Committee, as appropriate, will have a greater say in determining the standards and details of the examinations provided for in Section 38. The second recommendation is that specific provision should be made for the holding of practical tests in connection with examinations. Point (1) then is that An Chomhairle or the Committee will have a greater say in determining the standards. That was also suggested by the Dublin Vocational Education Committee and has been accepted for that reason and also because it was a recommendation of the joint committee.
The Minister said that there was provision for the holding of examinations through the local Apprenticeship Committee or through An Chomhairle as appropriate. I do not see that in the section. The section seems to me to require the Apprenticeship Committee to get its arrangements done by An Chomhairle.
I think the Deputy is confusing my remarks in connection with the previous amendment.
I am talking about Section 38.
The recommendation of the joint committee was that An Chomhairle or the Apprenticeship Committee would have a greater say in determining the standards.
The section says that "the Apprenticeship Committee shall, from time to time, arrange, through An Chomhairle, with the Minister for Education..." I think it would be much better to keep this matter on the basis of An Chomhairle and the Minister for Education rather than the Minister for Education and a variety of local Apprenticeship Committees. In other words there should be some general agreement and standardisation at the top and let that filter down to the Apprenticeship Committee.
The Apprenticeship Committee will act through An Chomhairle and An Chomhairle will have regard——
That is assuming An Chomhairle is the clearing house.
Conversely will the Minister act through An Chomhairle and the Committee?
The section says that "an Apprenticeship Committee shall, from time to time, arrange, through An Chomhairle, with the Minister for Education..."
I think the Committee should be turned back to An Chomhairle as well. In the Bill itself the Committee can only work through An Chomhairle. It would look as if the Minister for Education could work through the Committee.
In the interests of standardisation I shall have another look at that.
It would be well.
It was a joint committee recommendation but I will have another look at it.
I think the phrasing should be made to dovetail more with the phrasing of the section.
Acting Chairman
Amendment agreed to?
Subject to coming back to report.
The Minister will look into it.
I shall.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
36. In page 13, to add to the section the following new subsection:—
"( ) A person who fails an examination under this section may, at the discretion of the apprenticeship committee concerned, be allowed to undergo such examination again."
This amendment gives effect simply to a recommendation of the joint committee that an apprentice who has failed a particular examination will have further opportunity of undergoing the same examination.
Only a second opportunity or can he sit again?
Supposing he fails the second time can he sit again?
My brief is in the plural. I should have said "further opportunities."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 37:
In subsection (1), page 13—(a) in line 32, to delete "examinations" and substitute "senior examination", and (b) in line 37, to delete "those examinations" and substitute "that examination".
Section 39 provides for the grant of certificates to apprentices in a designated trade who have satisfactorily completed their training and have passed both junior and senior examinations. The Joint Committee recommended that the issue of the certificate should be dependent on the result of the final examination only. I have accepted that recommendation on the understanding that An Chomhairle and the Apprenticeship Committees will ensure that the final examination will be a fully comprehensive test of the apprentice's skill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
I move amendment No. 38:
To delete subsection (3) and substitute the following new sub-section:—
"(3) The person having custody of a register kept under this section shall, upon request, permit the register to be inspected by any interested person."
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to deal with amendments Nos. 38 and 39 together. Section 40 provides for the keeping of a register of candidates for apprenticeship and Section 41, for the keeping of a register of apprentices by an apprenticeship committee. Each of the sections contains provisions requiring the register to be kept open for inspection at all reasonable hours.
On further consideration, I have decided that this requirement is too rigid and is perhaps incapable of being complied with in certain circumstances. Many of the apprenticeship committees, particularly those in the provincial areas, would meet only at infrequent intervals and might not have any permanent offices. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to keep the register open for inspection at all reasonable hours.
The alternative text submitted here provides that the rights of all interested persons will be preserved, that is, their rights to inspect the register, but they would have to request the person who has custody of the register to permit inspection. In the circumstances, that is more practical.
Would the Minister say who is covered by the phrase "any interested person"? Would he give us some examples?
I should imagine people who possibly want to establish factories and industrialists who are expanding.
Who determines the interest of the person who wants to see the register?
In the first instance, the person who wants to see the register will have to satisfy the person who has custody of it that he is an interested person.
But nobody knows who and when. You leave that to posterity to determine.
I suppose practice will determine it.
Does the Minister think Deputies would qualify?
I think they should.
By cutting out "all reasonable hours", it seems to me that the section is more rigid.
It might be better to reinsert the word "at all reasonable hours".
It must be remembered that Deputies' hours are rather long.
I shall consider that suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
I move amendment No. 39:
To delete subsection (3) and substitute the following new sub-section:—
(3) The person having custody of a register kept under this section shall, upon request, permit the register to be inspected by any interested person.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.