I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
This Bill provides for the setting up of a new Department of Government, to be known as the Ministry of Labour. The idea of setting up a separate Ministry of Labour has been the subject of some public debate in recent years and was mentioned in some reports and documents which have been published to the Dáil. It was put forward formally in April, 1964, by the Irish National Productivity committee, in the context of a document dealing with the development of an active manpower policy. The Government decided that it necessitated very careful consideration and, as part of the process of giving it this consideration, the inter-departmental committee which had been set up by the Government to consider the administrative arrangements for implementing manpower policy was asked to consider and to report on the proposal.
This committee recommended against its adoption. The committee was, of course, concerned mainly with the development and administration of manpower policy and had not, therefore, considered very fully the need for a separate Department of Labour in connection with other aspects of the labour situation which would be primarily a policy decision rather than an administrative one.
The National Industrial Economic Council commented on this report from the interdepartmental committee and, while recognising the arguments to the contrary, expressed their belief that there were considerable psychological and other advantages in having all major matters relating to manpower under one Ministry, preferably a new Ministry of Labour. They proposed that if a new Ministry was not set up, these responsibilities should be concentrated in the Department of Industry and commerce, including the administration of the employment exchange service.
The Government decided that in the earlier stages of development of manpower policy the manpower authority should be located in the Department of Industry and Commerce to which a Parliamentary Secretary was assigned with special responsibility in this regard and that the problem of future responsibility for the administration of the employment exchanges should be further considered when the problems involved had been more fully studied.
The probability is that the Government would have eventually decided on a separate Department of Labour in conjunction with the development of manpower policy even if more recent events in the labour sphere had not focussed public attention on other aspects of the labour situation. These other aspects seem, in our view, to support the case for a new Department of State which would be exclusively concerned with labour matters and in which would be concentrated all the functions of government in regard to the protection of the interests of workers and where the more fundamental aspects of policy in this regard could be studied by a Minister with no other Departmental responsibilities, assisted by specialist staffs.
The aspects of labour affairs which have been most prominently in the public notice recently relate mainly to industrial relations and these have occupied an increasing proportion of the time of the Government as well as of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in recent months. The deterioration of industrial relations, particularly following on the failure of the negotiations early in this year between the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on another national agreement, required the Government to give a great deal of consideration to general policy in this regard and led to a decision that, to secure a more comprehensive approach to the problems presenting themselves in this area and in the interests of industrial peace, to protect the welfare of workers and to develop a modern approach to industrial relations generally, changes in the organisation of government were required and specifically, that a new Department of Labour should be set up.
The history of Government attitudes to industrial relations may be briefly summarised. Prior to the enactment, in 1946, of the Industrial Relations Act, responsibility for industrial relamenta tions in the broadest sense, including the administration of a conciliation service—a very limited conciliation service at that time—rested with the Department of Industry and Commerce. When important industrial disputes arose which were not resolved by direct negotiation between the parties or which erupted into strikes, the parties were normally invited into the Department and generally negotiated settlements eventually, under the auspices of the Department. This practice not infrequently involved the personal participation of the Minister in the negotiations.
The circumstances prevailing in these pre-war years were, however, very different from those of today. That was a period of protracted difficulties, due to the world economic slump and to the special problems caused for Ireland by what is now known as the Economic War. Industrial development was only beginning. Disputes at that time were not very numerous by present day standards and disputes could generally be dealt with in isolation. It was rarely a problem that a settlement of a dispute in one occupation involved problems in others as it does today. The comparison factor was less potent then than it is now. Organisation on the trade union side was much less extensive than it is today and on the employers' side was non-existent, except for specialist groups like the Federation of Building Employers.
At a subsequent stage, there arose the complication of the split in the trade union movement and the emergence of two trade union congresses which for quite a long time had no relations with each other and even declined to meet together. This tended not only to increase the number of disputes but made their settlement by negotiation a more difficult operation.
The decision to try a new institutional system in the post-war Ireland, involving the setting up of the Labour Court, arose out of consideration which was given to this problem during the war years and followed on the situation which developed during the war, including the wage control system operated during the latter part of that period which involved periodic flat-rate increases of wages on a national and uniform basis which it seems reasonable to assume was the initiating cause of the wage rounds which have been characteristic of our post-war situation.
The desire of the Government of that day to get rid of wartime controls as quickly as possible, the recognition that the experience under the wartime system of uniform increases on a national basis was likely to influence the future course of wage negotiations and the general need that was expressed by trade unions and employers alike for an institutional system outside the Government that would facilitate collective bargaining and, in theory at least, reduce the prospects of disputes leading to strikes were the basis of this decision.
At various times since 1946 the operation of the Industrial Relations Act was reviewed in discussions with organisations representative of employers and trade unions, and while no desire for any fundamental change manifested itself, some changes in methods of operation were made which tended in the main to put increasing emphasis on the conciliation service operated under the Court. The idea of trying to negotiate periodic wage adjustments by national agreements began to emerge. In 1948, in 1952 and again in 1957 agreements of this kind were made in a fairly straightforward and uncomplicated way and worked fairly well, in my judgment. This process stopped, however, and was given up altogether until the National Wage Agreement of 1963 which was more complicated and not so successful; recent experiences have led to the conclusion, which is, I believe, shared by both the trade union and employers' organisations, as well as by the Government, that more fundamental changes may now be needed both in respect of the functions and organisation of the Labour Court and in the operation and extent of the conciliation service, and discussions with the Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers in this respect are taking place at this time.
There is also a need in our view for the initiation of some system, however informal, if one could be devised, which would enable the possibility of trouble to be detected before it develops and action taken in time to deal with it as well as for positive Government participation in the development of a more modern and sensible system for dealing with industrial relations which I think everybody recognises to be desirable.
The Government have been hoping that many of the problems arising in industrial relations could be reduced, if not removed, by agreement between the central bodies representing unions and employers and without Government participation. We actively encouraged the initiation of joint discussions with this end in view and for a time the work of the Employer/ Labour Conference held out this prospect. Without going into details as to the reasons for the decline of this hope, the Government have now had to decide that if the system of free collective bargaining in labour matters is to function properly, it requires not only the extension and the improvement of the institutional facilities now available but also some more active Government encouragement of discussions aiming at the development of a better situation and indeed with Government participation in discussions, and this will be the function of the new Ministry.
The setting up of a new Ministry of Labour is not to be taken as implying any fundamental change in regard to Government policy in respect of industrial relations which is firmly based upon the principle of free collective bargaining to which we are committed by our ratification of an International Labour Organisation Convention. We conceive of the duty of Government as limiting its role to facilitating this system in whatever way may be agreed to be desirable. Neither does it mean we have some cut and dried ideas as to how matters should develop in industrial relations for which we intend to press, although it does mean recognition of the need for more active Government leadership in this regard. It implies, however, acceptance of the now generally recognised fact that better industrial relations are an important aspect of national development policy which is likely to become of even greater importance as our industrial progress proceeds and that some new thinking is required in all quarters regarding this situation.
Over the whole field of relations between workers and their employers, it has become increasingly evident that as the prosperity of the country grows, new forces and pressures are being released and new concepts and new problems are emerging. Like all other democratic nations, we are being faced with rapid changes in our economic life, not all the consequences of which have been or indeed can be foreseen. Perception of what these changes may involve in industrial relations is growing but growing fairly slowly. There seems to be in this area, as indeed might have been expected, greater reluctance to abandon old attitudes and old procedures, and particularly reluctance to consider new approaches to the new problems which are emerging.
Among the workers the forces of change can be seen to be at work, although it is still largely uncontrolled and unco-ordinated. Among employers, new ideas seem at times to lead to bewilderment and even to resentment. If the whole effort for a steady attainable pace of economic development in which all sections of the community must share is not to be brought to nothing, we must give much more attention to managing the human side of economic life as well as the material side. This is the basic reason for the Government's decision to propose the setting up of a new Ministry of Labour. There is a real job of work to be done by the new Minister. New thinking will be required and to the extent that the Government have a part to play in it— this in itself is one of the matters that has to be worked out—the time has certainly come to create a new Department of State which will have the duty of devoting the whole of its attention to this important job and, with a specialist staff, to undertake it.
Whatever is to be the role of the Government, it must certainly be a central one and the Government must be properly equipped for the task. The creation of this new Department should achieve this. One of the main tasks of the new Department will be to establish a research section where fundamental studies can begin and which can acquire and distribute reliable information as to what is happening in this respect in other countries and to which leading employers and trade union representatives can contribute their ideas for improving the situation. While it seems likely that for a long time to come industrial relations will be a large part of the work of the new Department, it will not of course be concerned exclusively with them. Its primary duty will be to protect the interests of the workers in matters which are properly the concern of the Government. It may not be fully appreciated, even by workers, the extent to which by various legislative enactments the Government have moved to protect their interests.
