When I reported progress, I was referring to the speech the Taoiseach made in the National Stadium at the Social Study Congress on Sunday night. This is one of the many speeches on the same subject made by the Taoiseach and members of his Government in recent times. I am beginning to become distrustful of the content of this type of speech. First the Taoiseach talked about the pressure of public opinion for greater Government control and he went on to say the Government resisted that. There was no real statement to the effect that it would be resisted in the future. I wonder is the Taoiseach setting up cockshots so that he can knock them down himself? He talked about the pressure of public opinion for greater Governmental control in the sphere of industrial relations and of the danger to our democracy. What section of the public have asked for that? Everybody is concerned in one way or another when a strike occurs, no matter what sort of strike it is. I can see that strikes in important industries hit a great number of people. Every strike, no matter what it is, causes inconvenience. Even the bankers' strike is causing a certain amount of inconvenience to people, although many seem to get on all right, even though the strike has lasted such a long time. I wonder if this demand has come from any section of the workers? Wage and salary earners represent a big proportion of the population. I suppose the number of insured workers would be about 750,000. If one were to include their wives and children, the figure would represent much more than half the population.
I know there are certain sections who do not want to see strikes at all. It does not make any difference whether these strikes are lawful or justified, or whether the demands by those on strike are reasonable or not. There is a feeling in the country, that has been cultivated to a large extent, to the effect that the trade union movement and the workers wield much more power and influence than they should. I do not think this is correct. The Taoiseach gets quite an amount of support in his own constituency. His vote may not be as large as that of Deputy O.J. Flanagan, but he gets a substantial vote—about 2½ quotas. Does he see this attitude amongst the workers of Inchicore or any part of his constituency, the workers saying: "We want to exert this influence in order that we might get more"? People are beginning to forget they are talking about Irish workers, their own kith and kin. I do not think anybody has suggested there are any sinister influences in these sections of workers. Is it suggested, as some people say, that they are selfish or unreasonable? If they appear to be unreasonable or irresponsible, the reason for this unreasonableness should be examined.
The Taoiseach in that speech also said that if the trade union movement were not prepared to undertake this responsibility of showing restraint and having due regard for the economy, the Government would be required to act by force of public opinion. I do not think sufficient credit has been given to the trade union movement over that period to which the Taoiseach referred in his speech here on Thursday last—from 1946, when the Labour Court was established, right up to the present. During that period we have had national wage agreements. It ought to be said that the trade union movement did show restraint.
If we have industrial unrest at present, surely it cannot be laid at the door of the trade union movement, who, in my opinion, showed terrific restraint when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were prepared to recommend to all their members in the 26 Counties that no more than £1 per week should be demanded in this tenth round of wage increases. This was a formidable task for Congress to undertake when one has regard to the fact that the last National Wage Agreement which commenced in January obtained in the vast majority of cases for a period of two years, despite the fact that the trade union movement could riddle it and with justification could have broken it by reason of the increase in the cost of living.
Another gentleman spoke at the Social Study Congress on Sunday night, the well-known Mr. Douglas Hyde. He was talking about young people and is reported as follows in the Irish Independent of 27th June:
"...They are rejecting our society because they do not respect it. We must be worthy of their respect and build a society that will use their idealism and give them a challenge to meet—in other words, a more Christian society than we have got."
Mr. Hyde thought the same went for industrial workers. who were charged with irresponsibility during a period of strikes.
"If industrial workers are irresponsible, we have to ask ourselves why? It reflects a breakdown in human relations, because we fail to make the industrial worker feel that he is part of the enterprise in which he works."
Therefore, it behoves us, apart from the establishment of the Ministry of Labour, to look into the causes of industrial unrest. This is referred to several times in the NIEC Report on incomes policy. Anybody who read that report knows that the NIEC showed the justification for unrest among many sections of the workers. It seems to me that every time there is industrial unrest, every time there is a strike, there is a certain section in this country which is prepared to condemn that strike without asking any questions as to the reasons why these people went on strike. For example, when a body of workers in this city, or in some town, who are existing on £8 or £8 10. a week, look for an extra £1 per week, as in the present circumstances, there is an outcry from a certain section which has not even inquired into what these workers are paid, or how many hours they work, but merely because there is a strike. In the present climate it is the popular thing to decry strikers and the trade union movement without looking into the causes. Surely if after a demand, long negotiations, and a lot of patience on the part of the workers, they decide to withdraw their labour there must be an appreciation of that final act.
There is so much blather and talk about a just society that one wonders will that be the new cliché. There is no point in talking in terms of a just society to an agricultural worker, a road worker, or a factory worker on £7 or £8 a week. The Taoiseach and the Minister know there are such people. As against them there are the people who usually complain about strikes and about the undue power and influence of the trade union movement. They are usually in relatively good surroundings and good circumstances.
The Taoiseach talked about the pressure for more stringent control by the Government in industrial relations. There are other people who talk about disciplining the trade union movement. There are people who blame the leaders of the trade union movement as if the leaders could say to any group of men who felt they had a justified grievance: "You must not go on strike." This is not a dictatorial movement ; this is a democratic movement. Decisions are made within the trade union movement as decisions are made in general elections. If we get a Fianna Fáil Government which we consider not to be a good Government, that is the decision of the people and the people must live with it. If a group of men, no matter what type of employment they are engaged in, decide they will not sell their labour to someone who is not prepared to buy it at the proper price, they are entitled to do that.
Anyone who talks loosely and stupidly about disciplining the trade union movement does not believe in democracy. The only one criticism I would have in that respect would be that not a sufficient number of trade union members are turning up at meetings where vital decisions are made. In particular not enough trade union members are turning up at annual meetings where officers are elected and committees selected. The point I am making is that those people who talk about disciplining the trade union movement believe in the jackboot method. The trade union movement believes that decisions should be taken in a democratic way and, once taken, should be executed. It is the business of the leaders of the trade union movement to put the facts before the members, to abide by their decision, and to see that it is carried out to a "T".
The Minister for Industry and Commerce—possibly the new Minister for Labour; we have not got that secret yet—and the Taoiseach recognise and, in turn, the trade union movement have recognised for a number of years, that changes in industrial legislation are necessary. I remember at meetings of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions over the past four or five years, resolutions which I am sure ended up in the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce which were passed by representatives of the trade union movement asking for some changes to be made.
We can all agree with the Taoiseach when he said last Thursday that it is inconceivable that legislation passed in 1946 to lay down our code for industrial relations would be appropriate in 1966. Things have changed; standards have changed; workers have got a new dignity; and having got that new dignity they are demanding new and better standards. The are not prepared—particularly manual workers— to be regarded as coming within a category which is separate and distinct from other workers and salary earners.
In any case, the members of the trade union movement recognise that many desirable changes could be affected particularly in the field of industrial relations legislation. Let me say that so far as negotiations and settlements on wages and salary issues are concerned we proclaim that we still have a democratic system here in all our institutions and in any changes made there must be no infringement of the constitutional or democratic rights of the trade union movement or individual members.
In his speech at the Stadium the Taoiseach said that the aim of policy should be to make social justice the criterion of economic activities and institutions and not the interest or power of individuals or groups. What he intended to say may have been misrepresented—I do not know—but in view of the tenor of his speech many people will assume that that was directed only at the trade union movement. We must remember that there are other individuals and groups who could be regarded as power groups. I know we have the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts and other legislation introduced to deal with such people. Over and above that, it must be recognised that there are groups who can have a tremendous influence on the economy in the way they manipulate and rig prices, despite the best efforts of the Taoiseach or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If any warning is to be directed to those who it is alleged would not have the interests of the economy at heart it should be directed to some of those power groups in industry, in banking and in finance.
The Taoiseach said:
...Remuneration ...should be determined in a fair and objective way, in the light of the national interest, by consideration of equity.
I think we would all agree with that sentiment but we should make greater efforts to put it into practice. There is nothing fair or just in the manner in which we treat certain sections of the community. There is nothing fair or just in the manner in which we treat the lowly paid workers. We had a discussion on social welfare here today and there is no point in talking about the just and fair manner in which we treat many of those who are dependent on the social welfare weekly grants.
On many occasions references are made to the NIEC Report on an incomes policy. I do not know whether or not the Government have done this deliberately, but it does appear that while the NIEC document has been accepted by the Government, the only effort that has been made in recent times is to apply an incomes policy to wage and salary earners. I know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is attempting to stabilise or curtail prices by the Prices Act, and here again the NIEC recognise that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction. Undoubtedly there is dissatisfaction among those who are lowly paid as against those who do not appear to contribute a tremendous lot to the community but who are in receipt of big incomes per year. I do not think we can be proud of this society or that we can afford to be complacent about it.
Certainly we cannot afford to threaten, for example, the 100,000 male workers in this country who have less than £10 per week. We should think about that now and again. We should think in terms, not alone of general statistics or of the figures that are rolled out here, say, during a Budget debate, but of the 100,000 males who have less than £10 a week, and of the family man who has a wife and three, four or five children, and ask ourselves how can these people exist, what standard of life must they have, in the year 1966, on £10 a week.
It is assumed, in any case, again according to what the Taoiseach said last Thursday, that the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, will be changed, to what degree we do not know. Whether it will be a drastic change or not, we do not know or whether the legislation will be drafted in accordance with the wishes of the two sides of industry, the employers and the trade union movement.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the last two or three years at the annual conference urged the extension of the Labour Court. I do not profess to be a practising trade union official and I am not as qualified to talk about the Labour Court as some of my colleagues undoubtedly will during this debate but I assume that the Labour Court will not be changed to the extent of compulsion in the manner in which the recent ESB Bill was framed and was before the House two or three weeks ago. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who appears to be a reasonably sensible man, speaking in Killarney—or maybe it was Ennis—recently, appeared to be pretty annoyed about people who criticise the trade union movement and he asserted that good labour relations can in the main be cultivated rather than legislated for. If in framing his legislation he is to be guided by what he said in that speech he certainly will be on the right lines but if there is an element of compulsion, as there has been in two Bills introduced by the Government, I do not think he will have the goodwill of the trade union movement and, again, may I say that I believe such legislation cannot be implemented?
I do not want to go back on the ESB dispute. I think the Government have a fair appreciation of what the Labour Party said on that occasion and of the conviction they have in respect of that type of legislation. As my colleague, Deputy Kyne, said, no matter how many laws you pass, you cannot make men work. In that particular dispute there were 100 fitters involved. You could fine them for being on strike. You could fine their trade unions for their being on strike. If they resigned their jobs, there is not a thing you could do about it. You cannot make men work, no matter how many laws you pass here. I am certain that if Deputy Hillery is to be Minister for Labour he will be glad to get away from that hastily conceived legislation that he introduced in connection with the ESB dispute of some few weeks ago.
I presume that in the consideration of a new industrial relations Act there will be consultation and full consultation, with the trade union movement and the employers' side because it is only by mutual trust that you will get machinery that has a fair chance of success.
I am presumptuous also to believe that in the extension of the Labour Court the Minister will adhere to the practice that has obtained since 1946, that is, of consulting the employers and the unions on the appointments to the Labour Court and that he will accept the nominees of these bodies.
An effort was made some time ago by the Minister for Health to get away from this system of appointing the nominees of the trade union movement to certain State bodies. He was unsuccessful in that. This will be a big point of issue with the trade union movement and if the Minister takes power unto himself to appoint his own nominees without having regard to the various interests who should be represented on the Labour Court he will find himself in trouble.
I do not believe that the system that has obtained for 20 years, since 1946, has been really defective in any way. The Taoiseach was one time Minister for Industry and Commerce. Deputy Jack Lynch was Minister for Industry and Commerce for some time. Deputy Hillery is the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not think that either of the sides concerned has given any of these Ministers a bad representative. The trade union movement will be as much concerned as the Minister will be to get the best man there and I am assuming that the practice that has obtained for 20 years will continue.
One of the most crying needs of the trade union movement, and, I suppose, of the employers also, is the extension of the conciliation services. There are too, too few conciliation officers operating in the country. Small disputes happen that do not get the publicity on radio, television or press. They are small when related to the whole economy but are very big in relation to the economy of the village or provincial town or small town in which they happen and it is very upsetting, to say the least of it, for these small communities to have to wait for days and sometimes weeks until a conciliation officer has the time to get down in order to try to resolve the problems that have arisen.
The Taoiseach, last Thursday, talked about the function of the Labour Court, particularly of the conciliation officers, with regard to the promotion of good relations and the prevention of strikes. This can be a very important function for these conciliation officers because the State, through the Labour Court, interferes only when the trouble has happened to the extent of men going on strike. We all appreciate that when men make up their minds to go on strike, they may think the next morning that they may not have taken the right decision, but, because they are proud men and have taken a decision, they are determined to carry it out and do carry on a strike for perhaps four or five days or a week. If the conciliation officers can step in and attempt to prevent strikes we will have gone quite a long way not alone towards good industrial relations but towards ensuring that the economy of the country and of these particular places and industries will not be disrupted.
I do not know to what extent these services may be extended but the promotion of good relations is one of the most important duties that any Minister for Labour can undertake because, while it is not deliberate, there is a certain amount of distrust and there always will be until there is some improvement as between employers and employees. Unfortunately in the main, the only time that employers and employees get together is when there is a dispute. This is crazy. I suppose it is more or less similar to the situation in which we find ourselves now. We propose the appointment of a Minister for Labour; we propose an improvement in the Industrial Relations Act; we propose changes in trade union law, in the middle of this unrest. The Government must take a certain amount of responsibility for this in that they did not do anything at all during times of relative peace as long as things were going on all right. In 1964, and most of 1965, nobody was talking about good or bad industrial relations. During the various periods of the National Wage Agreement since 1946 or 1948, there was no attempt to improve industrial relations by way of legislation or to improve trade union law where a Government had the power and the function.
This may not be the best time to re-legislate for industrial relations and for trade union law. It occurs to me in fact, that it will not be done within this session and we trust things will have settled down on the industrial front, so to speak, in the autumn and may be in an atmosphere which we hope will be calm and peaceful, we will get an improved Industrial Relations Act to the extent of having a better Labour Court, to the extent of having better and more conciliation officers, all of whose jobs will be to prevent industrial unrest rather than to correct it.
My colleague, Deputy Tully, will be able to talk about the position of agricultural workers. The Taoiseach was somewhat vague in his speech last Thursday. He promised Deputy Tully he would deal with agricultural workers and the type of arbitration they would have access to, but I do not think he developed it very much. I think he must recognise, even as a townsman like myself, that the Agricultural Wages Board is out of date. In any case, it is weighted against the agricultural worker. There is equal representation for the agricultural workers, the trade unions and the farmers' organisation, but the man in the middle is the important one, and he has not been the best selection down through the years. I suppose he always feels he should support the Government by in turn supporting the farmers.
The two big parties in this House are certainly not unaware of the support of the farming community. They are a little restricted in their regard for the agricultural vote but that is not the point I want to make. I believe agricultural workers should have access to the Labour Court. As far as I can gather, the Labour Court will be extended to such an extent that there will be two, three or four sections of the Court. The agricultural community and the rural community in general and the forestry workers should have access to the Labour Court in order to try to ensure that they will not be deprived so far as their wages and working conditions are concerned.
As far as trade union law is concerned, I can only give my own comments and I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the trade union movement or on behalf of my own trade union. In this field, trade unions will certainly be willing to discuss with the Minister for Labour desirable improvements in trade union law. The trade union movement have made efforts to ensure, where possible, an amalgamation of the unions. I do not hear anybody giving credit to the trade unions for trying to do that. A sub-committee has been operating in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions over the past two or three years to see how they can amalgamate some unions. That is not an easy task because every small union, and there are many with a long tradition and with members who are proud of their association with these small unions, is very reluctant to submerge itself or lose its identity by amalgamating with others. I think we should give the trade unions credit for making this effort. I do not know how successful it has been but they are keenly concerned with ensuring that there will not be a multiplicity of unions in big jobs.
We have not before us any direct proposals, apart from some general statements the Taoiseach made. I know he would not be in a position to give absolute details. The trade union movement would be very critical of any new power the Minister for Labour would take to himself as to the formation of new unions or, for example, the cancelling of the negotiating licence of a union. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions in accordance with international Conventions, in accordance with the Convention of the International Labour Office, recognise the right of groups of workers to form themselves into a separate trade union or into a new trade union. On the other hand, whilst recognising that constitutional right, the Congress on every occasion possible have condemned splinter groups and generally do not condone the idea of a number of small unions, particularly, as I say, when these unions are representative of one particular concern. They believe that a small number of unions is a better negotiating body and that in itself is one of the biggest advantages.
I refer to the ESB legislation and I trust that, on consideration, the Minister will decide to scrap it. If this Industrial Relations Act will be so all-embracing as we are led to believe it will, surely he will devise some better method to ensure that there will not be industrial unrest in any of the vital industries and in any of those industries where a strike would have an effect not alone on the economy but on a big body of workers?
We certainly will not be in a position to judge the Minister for Labour or his activities until his Estimate comes up, I suppose in another 12 months' time. So far as the Taoiseach is concerned, he wants to keep the Minister for Labour a very busy man. If I understand correctly, he will be delegated the task of directing a manpower policy. That is a formidable undertaking. He will be concerned with industrial training and redundancy compensation. He will be concerned with the various reports of the Committee on Industrial Organisation. In my view, these reports were some of the most valuable documents ever presented to the Members of Dáil Éireann. Unfortunately, like so many of the other reports and documents, they are not followed up. There are excellent recommendations here, recommendations designed to ensure that under free trade, whether with Britain or with Europe, industry will not be disrupted. The Minister or his predecessor was forced to concede recently that Irish industry just was not facing up to the task that the CIO report said they would have to undertake in order to prepare themselves for free trade.
I believe these recommendations can be implemented only in consultation with the workers, and we have too little consultation with workers in Irish industry. We have had that situation one might say, all the time. If the work of the Minister for Labour is to educate the workers, in the sense that they know all they are doing and what they are working for, I think it will be worth while. The majority of people in factories are doing automatic jobs and getting wages every week but they have no idea what the effect of the greater production will be on the economy of the country. I do not say the employers mean that deliberately, nor do the workers want it either, but so far as industry is concerned, many of our workers operate like robots. I do not say it should be the first consideration. The amount of work they do and what they get for it are equally important for them and for the whole economy. They have not a clue about the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.
Deputy Childers has it off by heart: he knows it backwards. There is no point in the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Taoiseach and all the economists in the Government knowing all about the Second Programme for Economic Expansion until the chaps down on the floor know what it is. If you say "Second Programme for Economic Expansion" to the majority of ordinary factory workers, they will have some vague notion that the economy is going to expand but they will not be able to give you any details. They have not even an appreciation of the production of their own factories because employers do not talk to them or consult them. There is this cleavage between the manual workers in these factories and what is described as management. If, in giving orders, managements gave the reason why a change was needed and if they took workers more into their confidence, not only would it provide for better labour relations and help to avoid unrest but it would be good for the economy also.
The Labour Party have done a good deal towards the education of workers and many of the unions have set aside money for such development, holding seminars and so on; but this has only scratched the surface of the problem. The bulk of the education can be given only by management in consultation with the workers. I believe that if the Minister for Labour tries to initiate and establish that sort of understanding between the two sides in industry, he will make a tremendous improvement and for that alone his portfolio will be worth while. I trust I shall not have to retract that in another three or four years.
There are other things in this measure that are important in themselves, for instance, the tasks which the Taoiseach said would be allotted to the Minister for Labour. Very important among these is the research section. I know we cannot be taught much and that we may not be capable of accepting a great deal in the matter of industrial relations from certain countries. The trade union movement in Europe has undergone radical change, particularly in Germany where during and after the war, it disappeared completely. I suppose it was relatively easier for them to establish a new foundation for a trade union movement than for, say, Britain or ourselves, where we have been tied to a certain type of trade unionism for 100 years or more.
Let me assure the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who may be Minister for Labour, that if he can get the goodwill of the trade union movement in any new legislation he proposes to bring to the House, its passage will be easier than if he did not have consultation or if he had haphazard consultation. I believe much of the consultation with the trade union movement over the past 12 months has been somewhat haphazard and perhaps confined. I shall not go any further than "confined."
In the absence of real details about the Ministry of Labour, it is difficult to discuss the matter further. I want to conclude by saying that we genuinely believe that the Department of Transport and Power should not be scrapped but should be absorbed into some other Department. As I said before, the Minister may be courteous and kind and all these things, while other Ministers have different personal qualities. We are not concerned about these but about the Minister's effectiveness, and we are primarily concerned to ensure that Ministers of any Department of State should be prepared to come to the House and answer practically any question asked here. The Minister for Transport and Power is very knowledgeable but he is not able to do this: he is precluded from giving any information regarding semi-State companies. We represent the taxpayers and as their elected representatives we vote the moneys for these enterprises, and I do not think it is good enough that we should be in the dark about the activities of these State concerns. The Government can retain Deputy Childers in the Cabinet; all we ask is that since his Ministry has no real function, it should be amalgamated with or absorbed into some other Department.
