Is it proposed to bring the Act into operation at an early date?
Committee on Finance. - Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1966: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
Yes, almost immediately.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
Might I suggest that, when the Department has been set up, a memorandum should be circulated for the convenience of Deputies informing them as to the manner in which this agency arrangement will work from the point of view of the matters, for example, that I raised earlier so that we shall know exactly at which end to tackle the thing?
And also stating what functions are transferred.
The transfer of functions will be a matter for an Order which will have to be tabled.
Mr. O'Leary
At an early stage a press conference should be held with employers and unions in order to outline in greater depth just what this Department will be expected to do. As we indicated earlier, the Minister will have to dissolve a great deal of criticism in advance. Several people have their prejudices in relation to this Department. He did indicate that the changes contemplated in the law relating to trade unions will not make the task any easier and I would recommend that at an early stage the lamb who will take over the Department should meet all these big bad wolves in the world of industrial relations and do his best to explain the importance the Government attach to this Department and in what way exactly he is there to help all sides reach early settlement. I think the best way to do that would be to have a representative meeting at which he should explain what his object is.
I think that is very likely: it would be a very sensible arrangement.
The business ended so quickly that some of us interested in it, such as Deputy Tully, were caught on the wrong foot. I do not know what the Taoiseach said this morning. I would like to know when he proposes to make the appointment.
As soon as the Bill becomes law.
The naming of the Minister for Labour and any reshuffling or additions——
Will be made then.
Mr. O'Leary
Have the rest of the staff been notified about this vacancy?
During the course of his Second Reading speech, the Taoiseach made a reference to agricultural workers. I assume Deputy Tully's amendment was ruled out of order on Committee Stage. The Taoiseach indicated that the Agricultural Wages Board would still continue to operate. He must be aware of the dissatisfaction there is with the type of machinery for fixing the wages, hours and conditions of those employed in the agricultural community. It certainly would be conceded by me and Deputy Tully that they are a particular group and that in practically all cases you have two or three people dealing with one employer. But the agricultural labourers feel that the Wages Board has always been weighted against them. It is true that trade unions are represented equally with the employers who are from the farming community. The chairman is appointed by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. It has always appeared that the chairman falls down on the side of the employers rather than the agricultural workers.
We could go on for a long time discussing the ability of the farming community to pay what would be regarded as good wages. The Government, particularly the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance, will have to devise some ways and means of ensuring that a supply of well-paid labour will be available to the agricultural community. With the establishment of more industries, there is a great attraction from the land. I do not think anybody could blame a man with £7 15s or £8 a week for going into a factory. In many cases we find the farming community hollering for labour and deploring the scarcity of it. We will always have this scarcity unless the agricultural labourer is in a position where he has not alone good wages but good conditions of employment.
However, as far as what the Taoiseach said is concerned, I think he indicated he might at some stage use some part of the new Labour Court to deal with this particular type of worker. As far as I can gather, there will be three or four different types of courts. If one could be available for agricultural workers and other workers in the rural community, that might meet the case Deputy Tully wanted to make. As far as the Agricultural Wages Board is concerned, it is absolutely and completely unsatisfactory.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach has been disappointed in this debate in that it did not descend to a personal attack on the Minister for Transport and Power. I would like on behalf of the Labour Party to assure the Taoiseach, every member of the Cabinet and others in public life, such as the chairmen of semi-State bodies, that if comments are made from this side of the House, they are not made in any personal sense. If people accept public responsibility, they must accept public criticism. Dr. Andrews has been subjected to criticism recently. I know Dr. Andrews. I know he is a capable man, but, what is much more important, I know he is big enough to take criticism. I do not think members of the Fianna Fáil Party should be so sensitive as to think that any criticism of people like Dr. Andrews or the Minister for Transport and Power is made in any personal sense. As I say, people who accept public responsibility must be prepared to accept public criticism. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has to take it betimes; the Taoiseach has to take it; but they give it out, too. I do not think we should be so sensitive as not to be able to give and take in matters of this kind.
The important element in this case is the individual to be appointed. He is going to have a very difficult task. Deputy O'Leary described him as a lamb. I presume he means someone to be sacrificed. If the Taoiseach gets some person who is able to knit these two groups together, I am sure the objective he wants to attain in the establishment of the Ministry of Labour will be attained. We trust that this appointment will be made soon so that the new Minister will be able to get on with the various tasks outlined for him by the Taoiseach.
I think the Taoiseach misunderstood me when he was replying to the debate last night. He quoted me as saying that this was not the best time for the introduction of industrial legislation or trade union legislation. I think I went on to say in my speech that if the Bills were not discussed in Dáil Éireann until the autumn, I thought that would be a good time because it was desirable to discuss these matters when we had relative peace. An atmosphere in which tempers are frayed and there is acute industrial unrest is not the best atmosphere in which to discuss Bills that may be of a controversial kind. I think I can say as far as the Labour Party are concerned—and, as far as we know, the trade union movement—that if the Minister for Labour consults fully with the two sides, there should be no difficulty in getting an improved Industrial Relations Act and an improved Trade Unions Act.
On the occasion of the passing of this Bill into law, I urge on Deputies on all sides of this House even jocularly not to be presenting the picture of a Minister for Labour in the process of being torn to pieces by warring factions in society. I do not believe that this potential war exists. It is a great disservice to the community to which we all belong to give what appears to the country to be official sanction to the proposition that we are living in a kind of jungle in which trade unions are reaching for the jugular vein of every employer in the country and employers' associations are secretly yearning to see the trade union movement obliterated. That is a gross distortion of the facts.
We have had a considerable spate of industrial unrest in the recent past. But it would be a great disservice to the country to represent that as being the responsibility of the trade unions or the employers exclusively. We know perfectly well we have been passing through a period of extreme economic difficulty. We have seen a marked increase in the cost of living which we have all deplored in this House, but it is idle to think that in the presence of a steeply rising cost of living you can avoid efforts by unions to try to secure for their members redress for what they believe to be the erosion of the benefits they secured from previous negotiations.
On the other hand, you have employers fighting to keep their businesses solvent, fighting to make profits and faced with the prospect that if the burden of wages and salaries rises beyond certain levels, the only source on which they can draw is their profits. What I am afraid of is that "profits" is becoming an almost indecent word. I want to point out that while I fully recognise that the trade unionists and their unions must fight to maintain their own standards and the standards of their members, there can be no wages, there can be no salaries, there can be no business if there are no profits. It is sheer suicide to persist in the illusion that if we are to maintain in this country the kind of mixed economic system we have—partly State or semi-State bodies and the bulk of our business committed to private enterprise—there can be any progress or any enduring employment for our people at home if those who employ them are excluded from the possibility of profits.
Bearing in mind the difficulties through which we have passed and through which we are passing, and despite the optimistic diagnosis last night of the Minister for Finance of our economic situation, it is right to say to the House, considering the difficult conditions through which we must pass, that we have got to recognise there will be labour unrest, there will be difficulties in arriving at agreed solutions; and while on this occasion I do not particularly desire to lambaste the Government for their share in it, it is necessary to emphasise that a good many of the problems with which we are wrestling are due to the inflationary situation into which the Government have drawn us, and I most urgently press on the members of the FUE and of the Congress of Irish Trade Unions to realise that we are all living in a difficult situation created by the inflation which has been raging in the country, but that we are not all tigers waiting in our respective lairs to spring forth and eat the Minister for Labour the moment he is appointed.
I know I will shock a number of employers' organisations when I say that though there have been exasperating disputes in this country, considering the difficulties that have obtained, I do not think our record for labour relations is all that bad. We have had lengthy, protracted and difficult strikes but when we see the labour relations problems that exist in England, our nearest neighbour, and the occurrences last week there—attempts to take over unions for political aims—complex as our labour relations have been in the past couple of years, I do not believe they were born of any fundamental hatred between two sections of our community.
I want to revert to a theme I mentioned on the Second Stage. I regret the repeated suggestions in this House, coming, I confess, mainly from the Labour benches, that there are two classes in Ireland and that there ought to be a war continuously proceeding between us. That is all cod and we all know it is cod. We know that though Labour Members shake their gory locks at us in here, when we meet outside the door, we are ready to have a cup of coffee together. When we proceed to examine our antecedents and our domestic foundations, there is no great difference between us. Neither side has servants. Our wives are battling away with the household work as well as they can and sometimes they ask us to go out and have dinner somewhere else because they are too busy.
Mr. O'Leary
Where do we put our cloth caps?
Thanks be to God, we do not wear them. I never saw one on Deputy O'Leary, a fine upstanding young man. I do not know if any lady has landed him yet but if she has not, she soon will. It is a long time since I saw Deputy James Tully in a cloth cap.
Did you ever?
It is important that we should at first realise and secondly rejoice in the fact that we live in a classless society. To have achieved it is an example before the world. There are many countries that cannot make such a claim, even modern democracies like the USA which throw up a plutocrat and a proletarian to constitute a social menace. We are greatly blessed that we have not got that problem. It cannot be too often emphasised and we cannot too often in public and in private thank Providence that such is the case.
I want to join issue with the Taoiseach. I do not think it is right to snap at every word a Minister utters in the course of speaking at the end of a debate because very often a Minister has to rise at the end of a debate and without protracted preparation or consideration of every syllable, answer a wide variety of questions. I doubt if the Taoiseach on reflection, when dwelling on the possibility of a strike becoming wholly intractable, with neither side yielding, will sustain the suggestion that we would have to consider legislation——
I said nothing about legislation——
Wait a moment. I want to make this clear. I do not believe the Taoiseach meant to convey the impression——
He meant a fairy wand.
I hope he did not mean to communicate to the House that his or any other Party would contemplate legislation to impose settlements in trade disputes. The primary reason why I revolt against such a suggestion is that it is inconsistent with the preservation of individual liberty in the State. But there is a second almost equally cogent reason: it does not work. Australia tried it under a Labour Government and it never worked. There are people who will say when a strike goes on and on, with the men picketing and the employers refusing to meet them: "Something must be done or the strike will go on for ever". The answer to that is this: is it expedient for us today to proceed to legislate for the operation of Oireachtas Éireann should an earthquake shake down Leinster House? Anybody who heard that the Government was legislating for such an eventuality, was making preparations for the Dáil to meet in cellars if Leinster House should be destroyed by an earthquake, would think that the Government had gone mad. I have never seen a strike that went on for ever.
What about the barmen's strike in Dún Laoghaire?
The person in question became the most intimate friend of the man who was on strike against him. That strike became almost a tourist attraction and the man against whom the strike was called was most concerned that the striker did not catch a cold. He ensured that he got three meals a day and that strike developed into a kind of friendly relationship between the two of them. It is my honest belief that in the long run there is no trade dispute that cannot be settled through ordinary deliberation and I know of no case of a strike that went on for ever. We all regret protracted strikes not only because of the hardships suffered by those on strike but also because of the great injury done to the employer. You can point to a case like the great strike in America that went on for seven years, the strike in the great Kohler concern, but there was a peculiar background to that whole business which introduced outside factors. However, even that came to an end.
The Taoiseach has said that he never contemplated legislation to impose a settlement of a trade dispute and I would like him, when he is replying on this stage, to clear that matter up. I want to say that imposed settlements of trade disputes will not work and that they would constitute what would be an intolerable infringement of the rights of the individual upon which we all agree.
There is a terrible danger of our becoming so fascinated with all that is going on in other countries that we shall come to the belief that what other people have is always better than what we have worked out here at home. I am not sure that is true. I think we have in our own way evolved in Ireland a way of life and of human relations that is in many respects entirely superior to anything that obtains abroad. I was referring last night to the intimate personal relationships that exist over a wide range of Irish employment between the employer and the employed man, out of which has grown a relationship which is not so much that of employer and employee but of a friend working for a friend. That is a much better approach to labour relations than the approach developing throughout the world, as companies grow bigger and bigger, that a man's labour is a commodity from which it follows that a man is little more than a bolt, a nut or a screw to be disposed of, if he is no longer giving the maximum return for his wages.
I am growing sick and tired of listening to talk about the gross national product and the affluent state, and I commend to some of my colleagues an article in last Sunday's Observer by Malcolm Muggeridge. It was a startling comment on the world in which we live. I remember that ten years ago Malcolm Muggeridge was a great prophet of atheism and of the Utopian future that would be ours when all the superstitions of Christianity were wiped away. He has changed his mind since then. In a very noble and striking testimony, he proclaims that as he has watched the growth of the affluent state he has come to the conclusion that the computers and the economists are wrong, that there is something more to life than that, that there is something more than that which really matters and that the affluent society and all the rest of it has failed dismally to produce the only thing that really counts, that is, a chance for ordinary people to live honourably in their own countries.
I want to suggest that in this matter we have almost reached the goal; we have come closer to it in this country than in any other country I know, that is, we have managed to preserve freedom, have managed to avoid extremes of wealth and poverty and have, in this House, unanimous agreement that the first charge on our resources must be the obligation of the elimination of poverty. We are all prepared to meet whatever burdens that involves. That is not a bad philosophy of life and I do not want to see it surrendered for something else. I believe it is the foundation of good labour relations.
I wonder if I am right in this, and it is something I present to the Taoiseach for his special attention. I suspect that a good deal of the difficult labour problems that arise here arise through the arrival of foreign firms that we are most anxious to welcome, provided they invest money in new forms of industry and turn out manufactured goods for export. I remember being in Germany two or three years ago with Deputy Corish at the invitation of the Federal German Republic. He will remember several big German industrialists telling us that they had labour relations problems much more complex than ours. They were bringing in Turks, Greeks, Italians and Spaniards to work in their factories. They had not only to grapple with the language problem, which they found relatively simple to solve, but they also had to grapple with the problem of cooking for their foreign employees. They discovered to their amazement that what was served to the directors of a German firm was very often wholly unacceptable to a Turkish labourer who would not eat it and they had to bring in Turkish cooks and Italian cooks and Greek cooks and Spanish cooks in order to cook for people from the other end of the world who simply could not adapt themselves to what was for Germany excellent food.
I know we have no trouble of that that kind here. The trouble we do have is that we have our own pattern of society of which I am proud, the classless society, and we are not accustomed in this country to people exchanging conversation on the basis of bosses and men. You will find perfectly decent, respectable persons working in jobs in this country, who are quite prepared to deal with rational employers on the basis of fair exchange and mutual respect but whose hackles begin to rise if they are treated as anonymous cogs in a machine.
I think if a Minister for Labour will do any outstanding service for superior labour relations in this country it will be to say to people, to every foreign firm who come here that one of their first duties before a wheel turns or a product is put on the production line is to get a good personnel manager who belongs to our people and understands them. Our people are not unreasonable. They are a proud people and they do not want to be treated contemptuously. I rejoice that they will not be treated like this. I am glad our people are that kind of people but we do ourselves a great disservice if we spread the word abroad that ours are a difficult people to deal with. There are no better workers in the world than our people in their own country, provided only their employers will treat them not as servants but as friends.
I think a good Irish personnel officer, a man or woman, understands that. That does not mean workers are not prepared to accept rebukes or remonstrances but it does mean that if there is to be rebuke or remonstrance, it is to be in terms acceptable to an honourable man or woman and in a situation in which they have a right to state their views and give their explanations, a situation in which it is not regarded as insurbordination or impertinence but a right which an employer in this country must gladly and readily concede. Only too many firms in this country have got into trouble for the want of a good personnel officer.
I conclude by saying to the Taoiseach that I do not believe the Minister for Labour is fated to be a lamb prepared for the slaughter, to be torn to pieces by two warring factions in this country. I wish him success and I offer as one most important suggestion that he should concentrate on ensuring that those who are giving employment in Ireland, certainly in the initial stages of their enterprise, should fortify themselves with a competent personnel officer who understands the people with whom he has to deal.
I listened this morning to Deputy Dillon's comments about Malcolm Muggeridge. It is fair to comment that he is not the only old man who has had to change his views of what was right over the years, and not the only old man who has found that the intelligence which he thought was gone with his youth was something given him by a great Omnipotent Being, of which he merely has a loan and which eventually he will have to pass on. We have that all over the place.
I am interested in the comment about a classless society. God knows we do not want, particularly in the trade union movement, to start or to continue a class war. It amuses me to hear people like the Taoiseach and Deputy Dillon saying that there is only one class in this country when every day we go out we find people with plenty of money doing everything they can to prove that they are superior beings to those who have not got it.
That is lack of success.
They are trying it, and as long as they try it, the blame goes on them for making a class society and not on the people who are working hard on a week's wages. The question is whether or not in this country we could have ideal relations between the workers and employers and the fact is we do not have this situation which is supposed to exist in America. I should like to point out that some of these relations have been carried into this country by some of the firms who come in here and who make it a prerequisite when employing labour that they will not become members of a trade union. I am sure Deputy Dillon, and others in this House, are aware that again and again we find people being dismissed, their only crime being that it has been discovered that they, without telling their employer, became members of a trade union. The employer found out and got rid of them.
We had last year in County Cavan an Irishman who had a firm there and because his members joined not my union but the ITGWU, he closed down his job overnight. A strike took place which lasted 12 months and he won it. Those poor people, who had been on strike for the best part of 12 months, who will never if they live to be 90 recover the amount of money they lost, just had to swallow their pride and look for employment elsewhere.
Before we start talking about a classless society, let us realise that we still have this sort of thing happening in the country again and again. The fact that it is being continued in this Bill, with which we agree—we agree that a Minister for Labour should be appointed — is evidenced by the fact that agricultural workers are excluded from this Bill, but, in fact, what the Taoiseach said when he introduced the Bill proves to me that he does not believe that agricultural workers are entitled to the same type of treatment as any other workers in the State.
This is the third or fourth time in the life of Fianna Fáil government that this has happened. We had the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Bill a few years ago introduced after a previous Bill had been passed in this House dealing with all other workers. In other words, there are two types of people in the country, ordinary workers and agricultural workers—the poor relations. Again, in the NIEC forecast, agriculture is left out for the same extraordinary reason. The Minister for Agriculture gave an excuse here which was not an excuse at all. It is quite evident that everybody seems to think that if you are engaged in agriculture at any level, you are not the same as other people employed in more respectable jobs. So much for the classless society.
I was also interested in the comment made this morning by the Taoiseach, followed by Deputy Dillon, about the desire of both these gentlemen to ensure that in no circumstances was the right of these workers to go on strike and to stay on strike to be interfered with. All I can say is they must have been taking some kind of drugs or must have had a lapse of memory, because somehow they have forgotten that less than three weeks ago, both the Fianna Fáil Party and Deputy Dillon's Party voted together here to force workers to accept a decision.
The Taoiseach is shaking his head. When this Bill was going through, he pointed that there was no question of imprisonment. Perhaps he will tell me how a worker on £13 10s a week will pay a fine of £1,000, or £25 for a start and £5 a day, to go to the lower end of it. How will any man pay it? If he does not pay, what will happen? Will he go to Mountjoy?
It is not in the Bill.
Of course, it was not in the Bill. Does the Taoiseach tell us now, so that we can use it for future reference, that in the event of this occurring again and these people being fined, if they refuse to pay the fine, no action will be taken?
The fine is transferred to the union.
Supposing the union says that they are opting out of it, that it is a fight between the workers and the employer, who pays the fine then? What happens?
The union. That is what is in the Act.
If the union refuse, what happens? What do you do with them? You do not take any action. You say you will not ask them to do anything and just leave it there. No matter what covering up you have on it, this is purely and simply blackmail to try to persuade people that unless they do certain things they will go to jail. The Taoiseach might as well have written it into the Bill because in the Bill it is. The Minister for Labour can do a lot of things. The only thing is that he will be asked to do too much.
It is fair to say that nobody paid and the strike is settled.
The action in this House had nothing to do with the settlement, good, bad or indifferent, and the evidence is perfectly reasonable that what would have been accepted the previous week was rejected by the workers because they said they would not be threatened by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or anybody else.
It is settled now.
It is settled now but do not let anybody get the impression that it was a Bill of this House which settled it because it was not. It was settled, as all these things must be settled. I have 20 years experience as a trade union official and I find that most employers are reasonable. In 99.9 of the cases, I find I can discuss matters with employers, and agree to differ, can refer the matter to the Labour Court or some other court, have the matter discussed and then reach agreement and there is no strike and no headlines.
Hear, hear.
A big trouble is that pretty often other unions as well as my own find the situation where a wage demand has been served, where the settlement is a bit sticky and we take up the evening paper and see banner headlines: "Strike threatened in X firm". We go to meet the employer and he says: "We cannot talk to you. You have already threatened strike and we are not going to work on that basis." You go to the workers with an offer and they say: "The national newspapers think we should go on strike. We will get more." That is a big thing now. I wish that the people responsible for publishing headlines like that would realise the damage they are doing to the national economy. I place the blame where it should be placed, not on the trade unions or their officials but, fair and square, on the shoulders of people who want to make a few shillings by headlining things which are only partly true and we know that the half-truth is the hardest thing to nail.
As far as the whole question of labour relations is concerned, of course, the new Minister, whether he likes it or not, will find all of this dumped into his lap. He will find that whenever a dispute takes place, if it looks like reaching deadlock, he will be asked at least to bring the two sides together. This can be done by an outsider. It has been done before. Even the Taoiseach—I give him credit for it—has on one occasion brought together two sides. I remember the late Deputy Norton, who was referred to in not a very complimentary manner here yesterday evening, sitting up all night in order to settle, or attempt to settle, a CIE dispute and successfully bringing the matter to a conclusion. But I do not think that any sensible person in this country who knows the temper of Irish people will ever try to force people by law to do something which they do not want to do.
As far as the question of taking legal action is concerned, I am very glad of the assurance of both Parties that there is no intention at any time to enforce a law to make people accept an agreement which they do not want to accept. At the same time, it must be realised that hints, whether broad hints or just veiled threats, do no good and a clear statement of policy, not alone from the Taoiseach, but from the new Minister, is one of the things we must have.
We have had here discussions from time to time on new industrial relations. It is an awful pity that we have not been able to discuss the proposed new legislation in conjunction with this appointment because, whether we like it or not, if we are to appoint a Minister and then start to ask what powers or responsibilities we must give him, we can find ourselves trying to fit the Bill to the man—the Minister referred to that yesterday—rather than trying to set up a system by which things like this can be straightened out.
I am a trade union official for 20 years and I freely admit that strikes have occurred from time to time because of the fact that the trade unions responsible for handling the strikes did not insist on a majority of the workers voting for that strike. There is nothing at all wrong with ensuring in any legislation that trade unions should have, not a majority of those present and voting, but a majority of those affected by the strike. A stupid situation occurred a few years ago where a small number of men were able to hold up this country for quite a considerable period because they were the people who were interested enough in having a strike. It was even more stupid because of the fact that some of the people who voted knew when they were voting that they themselves were in excluded jobs and therefore would not be involved in the strike. If we are going to look at this, we must look at both sides of it.
There is one aspect of this to which the Taoiseach must give immediate attention, that is, employment in national concerns. I am sure that as a fairminded man, he must be the first to admit that it is absolutely ridiculous that a Department of State will not alone not make an offer of a wage increase when a demand is served by a union but will even fail to meet the unions concerned for the purpose of discussing it; not alone that, but when, in fact, it has been proved that the correct rate of wages is not being paid for a period of six months, say that they will pay it from a current date and refuse to pay the back money, refuse to meet the unions to discuss the matter and say that no useful purpose will be served by such a meeting and there is no appeal from it.
I am sure the Taoiseach and the House will agree that those who go on strike in a forest or in many county council jobs or on arterial drainage jobs do not get very much for their pains. They could be on strike for a long time and nobody would know whether they were on strike or not. There is no point in the Taoiseach or his Ministers talking about fair labour relations when this sort of thing is allowed to go on. There was a bonus system introduced in Forestry and the Land Commission a few years ago. One of the things written in was that whenever the system covered all forests, there would be a tribunal set up to consider wages. All the forests were covered about five years ago. We still have not succeeded in getting this tribunal set up. Why? Because the little tin gods at the head of affairs in the Departments concerned feel they should have the right to say whether men live in comfort or starve, and many of them are on a semi-starvation diet.
If the Taoiseach wants to appear before the country as being the big-hearted Arthur who will give fair play to everybody and will see that the workers are well looked after in future, it is only fair that he should give the same right of appeal to the workers in State employment as is given to those in semi-State or private employment.
There are quite a number of matters which have been taken up by way of question in this House, and again as a trade union official, I deplore the necessity to have to raise a matter which is between me and my union and the employer concerned, namely the State, on the floor of the House. It must be readily admitted that if the answer in every case from the employer is "no", there is no other way than to have it raised here. The Taoiseach explained why it was not possible to include under the State the right to have a case heard before the Labour Court. Until the last inter-Party Government, local authority employees had not had the right and it was preached from the Government Benches that there would be chaos if that right were given. But it was given and has resulted in perhaps the smoothest working of any labour relations I know of inside or outside the country.
I suggest that the Taoiseach should seriously consider giving the same right to State employees in that class, because when they go beyond a certain grade, they all have various tribunals to which wage claims can be brought, but the lesser people at the bottom are left behind in every case, with no right of appeal in any circumstances. There is nothing unreasonable about my request that they should have a right of access to a tribunal to deal with this matter. The Taoiseach is getting an opportunity of considering this now. If he does not, I intend to raise it as long as I am in this House on every available occasion because I think it is a national scandal and something that should be aired before the general public.
It is an extraordinary thing that people who are in responsible positions in some of these classes are, in fact, treated as if they did not matter, as if it did not matter whether they got a decent wage or not. There is no way of having these matters dealt with except before an impartial tribunal. The Taoiseach himself, I believe, was surprised to find this position because he said: "Why do you not take them to the Labour Court?" I quite understand he felt that they must have that right. The Taoiseach can, by a stroke of the pen, have that decision taken and possibly he will do so. The Minister for Health is here and he will know that local authority employees from time to time had to have grievances aired—mostly before his time—in the Labour Court. They usually get fair recommendations which, as far as I know, have always been accepted by both sides. There is no reason why we should not have the same right for State employees. I do not want to labour this any further but it should be dealt with.
Deputy Dillon spoke about the position in Germany where employers had so much difficulty not so much with food but with the cooking of food and the type of food and told how the managing director's food in Germany might not please a Hungarian. Some years ago I made a study and was surprised to find that people who are imported mostly from Spain and Italy to Germany were not treated exactly as we would treat them here because apart from the language question, there was one employer who admitted a turnover in his employment—which was fairly tough—of about 65 per cent. There was change over every six weeks and the workers just stayed until they got another job. It was not the food that was worrying them. I am mainly concerned, not with the cooking of the food because our people will cook the food if they can buy it, but that they should get the food. I am not happy with the present situation when we have some people working on such desperately low wages, apart from social welfare recipients, that they must find it extremely difficult to get the money they need to buy the food they require in order to do a hard day's work.
We have bonus incentives all over the place but there is one thing which has not yet been tried. I firmly believe that if a man is well fed, he is able to produce far more as a worker than if he is badly fed and promised that if he kills himself, he will get an extra few shillings in his paypacket. Incentive bonuses are all right but first there must be a decent basic wage and an attempt should be made to have that basic wage sufficient to feed a man and his family.
An effort is being made to have these debates concluded in a reasonable time and I do not propose to hold the House any longer, except to say again that while we wish the new Minister for Labour well, we hope he will be able at least to give guidance, because I think guidance is important in the matter of labour relations and that he will not be cajoled or threatened into taking out the big stick and wielding it all round. That is one thing which will bring his Ministry into disrespect and will mean that he will be like another Ministry here which is not trusted to do what it is supposed to do.
Finally, let me say that people have repeatedly referred to the fact that the Labour Party in putting down an amendment, which, in fact, was not taken, to the Bill on a previous stage did so simply for the purpose of having a "go" at the Minister for Transport and Power. Let me repeat that our members feel that Deputy Childers is a likeable sort of person but that does not alter the fact that the amount of work which his Department is doing is ridiculously low and, as far as we can see, since the appointment of the Minister for Transport and Power, the only money saved has been saved at the expense of workers' wages.
I met a man last week who worked 40 years with the GNR and transferred to CIE. He had what was a responsible job, guard on a train, practically all his life. He retired on a pension of £1 a week at 65 and when he reached 70, it was reduced to 10/-. Is it any wonder that he was a little bitter about the type of pensions which he hears are being discussed in this House at present?
It has been said, rightly. I believe, that the setting up of this Ministry of Labour will not of itself give us better industrial relations. The proposal has been generally welcomed because it is felt that it indicates a new concern on the part of the Government for better industrial relations and a new appreciation of the great importance of improving labour relations generally. Our concern has been brought about by the spate of industrial disputes the country has suffered in recent times.
I want to refer to something Deputy Tully mentioned, that is, the exclusion of farm workers from the ambit of the Ministry of Labour. He has a feeling, which I share, that it indicates that all those concerned with farming and agriculture are still being regarded as second-class citizens, as he described them. There is no reason why we should not have the same treatment for farm workers who are working in the biggest and most important industry as for workers in any other industry, always provided that the farming community employing these workers is put in a position of being able to pay wages comparable with the wages paid in other industries.
Deputy Tully mentioned that, on the part of the unions, it was all wrong that a decision to strike or stay on strike is arrived at by a majority of the workers present and voting. I think this has caused extreme hardship and it is certainly something that should be changed.
I have been closely associated with a number of strikes in the past few years. Invariably, what happens is that, when a strike takes place, it is now so easy to get to England and to obtain employment there that most of the people with family responsibilities have to get out straight away and do, in fact. Then, I think they are no longer effectively taking part in negotiations to settle the strike and unless they can be present and voting, their opinion just does not arise. Very often, and I say this in all sincerity, it is the workers who speak loudest and longest, and not always, indeed, the most responsible workers, who get themselves elected as members of the strike committee. They are not always the people with the greatest family responsibilities. They, indeed, can be and sometimes are responsible for carrying a strike long beyond the period it is reasonable to carry it on and the workers with the greatest responsibility are not present to take part. This, of course, is not taking either one side or the other in these disputes. We all know that employers have been and will be responsible for disputes. As Deputy Dillon has said, it is often due to the fact that a public relations officer is not employed by a large industry that these things are allowed to start in a small way and to develop and it is only when the crisis arrives that anything serious is done about it.
There have been discussions about imposed settlements. I think everybody recognises that you can lead Irish people but that you cannot drive them and that nobody would attempt to institute a system of labour relations based on imposed settlements. Serious consideration should be given both by the labour side and by the employer side to arriving at an arrangement and a settlement whereby, if a strike goes on beyond a certain period which is regarded as a reasonable period for all the negotiations to take place between employer and management, the dispute will then be submitted to a tribunal, the personnel of which would be agreed upon by both sides in advance, and the findings of that tribunal would be and must be accepted by both sides. If we had an experiment of that kind for three or five years in order to see how it would work out, I believe a lot of good would come from it and that much of the hardship that has to be endured by the workers by reason of prolonged strikes might perhaps be eliminated almost entirely.
When a prolonged strike takes place, it is the people who work in the industry who suffer. Invariably, the people who own the business or the directors do not really suffer or go through this hardship. I think that fact is recognised by all sides and that everybody is sincerely trying to bring about a situation where we could have more industrial peace and more equitable settlements generally. I think that is the desire of every public representative in this House.
Deputy Dillon has drawn attention to this class war which is indicated and which certain Labour speakers have emphasised, and I think perhaps over-emphasised. So long as we keep drawing attention to the fact that there are two classes in society that must continue warring, and that that is the normal and the natural set-up of things, I think it only helps to prolong this attitude to most of the difficulties that arise between employers and workers. The effort should be to indicate that employers are anxious to be fair and to ensure that the men and women who really run their industry for them are being seriously considered by them. Until we have that sort of attitude on both sides, and not this feeling that the employer is Public Enemy No. 1, labour relations will be difficult.
I always regret, when I have anything to do with a strike, even in a very remote way, that the prevalent attitude among the workers in industry is that the boss or the employer is there to do them down. It is an extremely unfortunate attitude and it is something that the labour movement should be very anxious to eradicate. There will always be the risk of a certain amount of that but the greater the efforts to educate the workers in industry into appreciating that there are reasonable employers, that there are many employers anxious to meet them fairly and equitably, the better for all.
The new Minister for Labour should not concern himself primarily with better industrial relations and better conditions for the people in employment. I think there should be far more concern for the people who are unable to get employment. My estimate is that we have approximately 100,000 people for whom there are no jobs. It should, therefore, be one of the principal concerns of the new Minister for Labour to find employment for those people. I feel, too, that it should be a very important consideration of the members of the trade union movement and of the members of the Labour Party. It should be a first concern to ensure that those who have no jobs should get jobs rather than to overpush, perhaps, the claims of those who are already in employment.
By agreement, it has been arranged to add Nos. 13, 14 and 20 on the Order Paper to the Order of Business.
I believe that this proposal to establish a Department of Labour can have far-reaching effects on the future of the nation. The implications of its establishment are, in my opinion, much wider than this debate would seem to indicate. While I think the idea has been created in most people's minds that the sole function of the new Minister will be to act as a mediator in industrial disputes, it is true, as the Taoiseach said in his opening speech, that, in the beginning, the main concern of the new Minister will be to promote a climate of goodwill in respect of labour matters which will contribute to industrial peace and to national economic progress. The functions of the new Minister will extend to other fields, as well. He will be charged with the formulation and implementation of an integrated manpower policy.
I regret that when the Taoiseach was introducing the Second Stage of this Bill he resorted to heavy political argument and castigated the Opposition Parties for having tabled amendments. The Taoiseach set a very bad example in starting off that way. One thing about which I am not too happy is that agricultural workers have been excluded from the ambit of this Bill. This follows a line of policy which we have had recently because agriculture was excluded from the NIEC. Agricultural workers should not be looked upon as a separate entity. As Deputy Tully said, we divide workers into two categories, agricultural workers and other workers. I do not agree that the Agricultural Wages Board should be left under the control of the Minister for Agriculture.
I do not like to intervene, but this is the Fifth Stage of the Bill and only what is in the Bill may be discussed.
I was merely commenting on what other speakers had said before me. However, I welcome this proposal to establish a Minister for Labour, particularly as I come from a constituency which has a large labour force and is on the fringe of the Shannon Industrial Estate which has evolved and created many special economic and social problems. I am convinced that the success of this new Ministry will be determined to a large extent by the economic policy of the Government. Unless there is a drastic re-appraisal of the aims, objectives and methods of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, the new Minister, unless he possesses a magic wand, will not be able to achieve a lot. We will have to have a proper approach to economic development and planning before we can have a proper labour policy.
With other Deputies, I share some disappointment over the Taoiseach's opening statement and also disappointment over his closing statement on this——
I have not made it yet.
The Taoiseach is a past master at saying nothing. I suppose to be a really successful politician, one ought to be able to stand up on practically every occasion and say nothing. I must congratulate him in that regard. In effect, what he said was that he was going to set up a Ministry of Labour, that conditions today were changing, but he did not give us any idea as to what the function of the Minister for Labour was to be, other than, as far as I can make out, that he is to take over some duties of the Minister for Social Welfare. The Taoiseach made a lot of woolly, meandering statements of the type he has been making recently in this House in regard to what should be done and should not be done, but as Head of the Government, he did not tell the House what proposals he has to enable this new Minister to restore harmony in industrial relations.
To put it at its mildest, everybody must accept the fact that industrial relations are not happy today. We have had more stoppages by reason of labour disputes in the past 12 months than we had in the four or five year period before that. One must come to the conclusion that the formation of a Ministry of Labour was to give some new fillip to industrial relations. As I said, the Taoiseach has spoken on the introduction of this Bill and again in his closing speech——
I have not made that yet.
On the Second Stage. He will have the opportunity of telling us exactly what this Ministry of Labour means, whether it is just another Fianna Fáil red herring or not. Of course the Taoiseach covered himself in his opening statement when he attacked both Opposition Parties for daring to oppose anything the Fianna Fáil Party do. The Opposition are expected to sit mute and agree that everything in the garden is lovely, that economic progress is terrific and that even though our balance of payments has gone haywire, it does not matter. We are to agree heartily with everything he says but, as I say, what the Taoiseach has said is nothing and he has said nothing in his recent speeches in Dáil Éireann.
I suggest that the present system of dealing with industrial relations is not the best. I have a very high regard for civil servants but their training makes them extra cautious and they do not have the same contact with the ordinary public as other individuals have. That is one of the points in a democracy, in electing parliamentary representatives, that they know what is going on in the minds of the people. The civil servant works in an office on statistics and economics and tenders advice to the Minister. The success or failure of a democratic Government lies in whether they are able to assess that advice to the best advantage of the country as a whole.
Our method of settling industrial disputes is to refer them to the Labour Court. I think the Taoiseach will go all the way with me on that. That is the only machinery we have. Apparently, Ministers do not intervene here. They do in Northern Ireland and they did it with some success in the bank strike. For some unknown reason, Ministers in the South do not intervene, although everybody would like to see the bank strike ended.
I agree that the Labour Court has settled some industrial disputes but it has failed in a great many cases. This Court consists almost entirely of civil servants. To a certain extent, civil servants are servants of the Government, or they are supposed to be, so it is natural that they may not feel entirely free to negotiate on a free basis at all times without reference to the official line here. The point I am making is that if the Taoiseach and the Government want happy industrial relations, they will have to create a new Labour Court and go entirely outside the existing court.
In my opinion, it would pay this country well to set up a body of representatives who understand human nature, who are conversant with daily affairs, to adjudicate on industrial disputes in the future. If the Government are not prepared to do that, I do not see any end to existing conditions. If the Taoiseach favourably considers this suggestion to set up such a body—and perhaps when he is replying he will give us the information we have been waiting for— I suggest he does not appoint a High Court judge or a Supreme Court judge or any member of the judiciary to that body because I do not think they are the sort of people in a position to adjudicate properly on such matters They may be very good in the courts in relation to the facts put before them by learned counsel but what we want in our labour relations is a human approach.
We are all in this: everyone is affected by a strike. That was highlighted by the ESB stoppage which threatened to paralyse the industrial life of the country. I suggest that the Taoiseach take his courage in his hands and tell the country and, in particular, the Dáil, what his plans are. This is the place in which to give that information and not outside at a dinner party or during a tour of the country. If the Taoiseach accepts my suggestion and appoints five people, perhaps, to adjudicate in industrial disputes, people experienced in the industrial sphere, the agricultural sphere, and possessed of a certain humanity, he and his Government will make some contribution towards settling the unhappy industrial situation in which we find ourselves.
The Labour Party have in general welcomed the decision to establish a Ministry of Labour under a Minister for Labour. Naturally some questions were asked as to why there was any need to appoint an extra Minister. God knows, there are Ministers who have little enough to do. If we did away with two or three of them, the country would not notice the difference. However, what we are concerned with is not merely the appointment of a Minister for Labour but rather industrial relations generally, the matter of training facilities, retraining and other matters referred to by the Taoiseach in his opening speech.
I was rather concerned by the last speaker's reference to the desirabality of appointing someone to adjudicate. I should like Fine Gael spokesmen to clarify for me this question of adjudicating in industrial disputes. The workers do not want arbitration. They have made that clear time after time. They are quite competent to handle, through their organisations, their own affairs, provided they are given the right encouragement in the right kind of atmosphere, coupled with a proper approach on the part of both the Government and the employers.
I am not so much concerned with the appointment of a Minister for Labour and his functions as I am in regard to the long-term functions in this regard. I should like to know what exactly are the intentions of the Government. I am not speaking now of the intentions expressed by the Taoiseach because he is capable of expressing many things on different occasions. What I should like to do is to examine the intentions initially from the point of view of those employed in the Government service, those employed in the Department of Lands, Agriculture and Fisheries, in the Office of Public Works, in the Department of Justice, the Department of Defence, and so on. The terms and conditions of these people certainly do not measure up to the highflown sentiments expressed by the Taoiseach when introducing this Bill. The measure of equity is poor.
There should be no need for a Minister for Labour to secure reasonable wages and conditions for these workers. I challenge any Minister to defend the rates of wages being paid. The salaries paid, on the other hand, to secretaries, assistant secretaries, higher civil servants, etc., may not be considered altogether reasonable by some. It depends on one's point of view. Remembering the wide gulf there is as between the higher civil servants and the ordinary workers, the salaries would appear to some to be too high. That view has been expressed outside this House. The officials themselves may not regard the salaries as adequate from the point of view of the responsibility of the work they do.
Nevertheless, I challenge the Government, from the Taoiseach down, to defend the rates of wages paid to those in the lower ranks of public employment. I also challenge them to defend the conditions they impose on these people. Large numbers are still temporary, after long service, with no sick pay and no superannuation. If the Taoiseach is really serious in his desire to evolve some national machinery in regard to industrial relations, then the first thing he should do is to put his own house in order. It will not require a Minister for Labour to do that. I hope the first task the new Minister will shoulder is the remedying of the legitimate grievances of thousands of our fellow citizens. Many of them are in receipt of less than £10 a week. They work long hours. There are employees of the Department of Justice working hours far in excess of the hours worked by those employed by the most reactionary employers. They work over 70 hours a week. I trust the Minister for Labour will devote some attention to these.
I was concerned to hear Deputy Esmonde talking about the appointment of five or six men to adjudicate. I do not know whether he means that he and his Party are in favour of arbitration. There appears to be a growing trend in Government circles towards dealing with disputes by way of arbitration and the acceptance of decisions. In recent years the services of the conciliation officers attached to the Labour Court have been of tremendous value. These officers, with their knowledge of the background and circumstances of disputes, are asked to intervene and try to bring about an acceptable solution. The difficulties have been (a) there are not sufficient of these officers and (b) because of the nature of present arrangements, the officers are only called in at a stage when a dispute has already reached the point of confrontation. If these officers had been available in the earlier stages to have informal discussions with both sides, I have no doubt that quite a number of disputes could have been resolved without reaching the point of confrontation. The difficulty is that these officers are called in to assist at a point where both sides have already taken up an attitude.
There is another aspect the new Minister for Labour should take into consideration. In recent years we have had investment in industry in this country by concerns from America, Germany, Japan and so on. At least a percentage of these investing firms and their representatives had an impression, wherever they got it, that there were two factors favourable to their development in this country. The first was that there was an adequate supply of labour that could be readily trained because of the intelligence and the ability of the Irish worker to accept the benefits of proper training. We all agree that factor is there. Because of the degree of unemployment in this country, there has been such a pool of labour available to outside interests.
The second factor is this: at least a percentage of those coming here got the impression that there was no necessity for them to recognise the workers' right to join a trade union, engage in trade union activities and have their interests safeguarded by trade unions. There have been cases in Limerick, Galway, Cavan and elsewhere where foreign managements not only did not welcome workers employed by them becoming members of their appropriate trade union but over a long period used every possible means to discourage and prevent Irish workers from exercising their right to become members of a trade union and have their trade union negotiate for them and represent them in all things. If the new Minister for Labour does nothing else, he should make it clear to anyone coming from abroad to establish any kind of undertaking here that the workers of this country are entitled to join a trade union and that in no circumstances should an employer interfere with their right in that regard. He should make it clear that he would recommend to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that no public funds would be available to any employer to deprive an Irish citizen of his right to join a trade union.
I understand the Taoiseach has again indicated that agricultural labourers should not be included as coming within the scope of this new Department.
I have already told the Deputy that this is the Fifth Stage of the Bill and only what is in the Bill may be discussed. The Deputy says the agricultural labourer is not included. Therefore, he is cutting himself out.
I will not use the term "agricultural labourer" again. This Bill should apply to all workers. That term should be an all-embracing one. The word "worker" is not confined to industrial workers, manual workers, clerical workers, professional workers or other workers who have been the subject of earlier discussion. It is to be hoped that the new Minister for Labour will try to ensure that no workers of any kind are paid miserable, starvation rates of wages. There are certain sections of workers in this country, who, by direction of the Ceann Comhairle, shall remain nameless at this stage, in receipt of wages which are not sufficient to meet the normal needs of workers to provide for themselves and their families. The machinery available to these workers has not been such as to make it possible for them to secure the normal average rates of wages, hours of work and proper conditions of employment.
Having regard to that, it is only logical that unless there is a change of heart on the part of Ministers and of members of other bodies concerned, all we can do is point out that the Minister for Labour should not be precluded from looking after the basic interests of workers. Our general attitude to the Bill is that while the establishment of the new Department is welcomed, it still does not mean any specific satisfaction: the appointment of the new Minister and the establishment of the Department do not in themselves mean there will be any improvement.
There has been emphasis on the number of man-days lost during the past two years because of disputes and we should like to point out as vigorously as possible that the new Minister must, first of all, carry out an exercise in depth into the cause of such disputes. His first exercise should, of course, be an examination into the attitude of the Government during that period. It is because the Government failed to deal with the pressing economic problems of the country that the situation developed to the point at which workers had to seek compensation for the continued increase in the cost of living. The workers' efforts have been resisted continuously and unjustly. The situation developed to the point where the workers were forced to resort to the only weapon left to them.
By and large, workers in this country have a mature approach to their problems and none of them wishes to reduce his average industrial wage of £10 or £11 a week to the payment given by his union during a dispute. No man with a wife and one or two children wishes, through involvement in a dispute, to cut down still further the low standard of living currently being enjoyed by his wife and family. Workers do not engage in strikes just for the fun of the thing.
Therefore, the new Minister must, first of all, engage in an exercise in depth, into the approach of the Government Departments to the problems of the lower-paid State and semi-State employees. He must then carry out an exercise in depth into the reasons for the disputes that have been occurring. If he does this, he may be of some benefit to the community.
We on this side of the House are disappointed that at a time when the term "productivity" is on the lips of everyone, the efforts of employers are aimed at producing the same or even more with the employment of less labour. The aim in productivity improvement is to reduce the unit cost and the main aim in many cases in this country is to ensure that the same number of employees, or fewer, produce more goods. Given sufficiently high productivity, employment may be maintained or slightly increased but we must realise that the productivity of each worker concerned has increased. It is therefore disappointing to us in the Labour Party that the Government have not shown an example of increased productivity by having the work of Government carried on by fewer Ministers. In fact they are increasing the number of Ministers. Let the NIEC, who have made so many pronouncements on productivity, have a work study carried out on the efforts of Ministers and on the need for the number of Ministers we now have. While we welcome the appointment of the Minister for Labour, we recommend very strongly to the Taoiseach that he should consider calling in work study experts to examine the productivity of his Ministers.
I will not be very long on this but I feel I should say something about this important matter. As has already been said, the Labour Party and the trade unions welcome the setting up of a Department of Labour and its establishment is an admission at last that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been right all along. It can truly be said that many of our labour disputes can be traced to the absence of a Minister for Labour. There have been disputes coming within the ambit of Departments of Government and when trade unionists tried to get the Minister responsible for such Departments to take an interest in them, they were told that the Minister had no authority to deal with them.
When the Taoiseach was introducing the legislation for the setting up of this new Ministry, I understood him to say that he would like to see a situation come about in which Ministers in their various Departments would not be completely tied to their desks in their Departments and would have more freedom of action. I trust that as a result of the establishment of this Ministry of Labour, the many Government Departments that have to deal with labour matters will bring about a situation in which the new Minister for Labour will look after labour matters in those Departments. I have in mind the possibility that the new Minister will have a look at the antiquated machinery that exists in those Departments as far as labour disputes are concerned.
I can recall my own experience as a trade union official in trying to make an approach to these Departments in regard to wages and conditions. That experience was most frustrating. That can be said of the Board of Works, the Department of Local Government, the local authorities, and the ESB. At one time I was chairman of the ESB manual group of workers and the approach of the management to questions of wages and conditions was most archaic. There was no way of getting at the people charged with responsibility for negotiations in labour matters. They were not prepared to talk because, at the back of their minds, they always felt that it would end up at the tribunal in any case. This is all wrong. If you cannot get officials of State and semi-State bodies to sit down and talk, you are not likely to get private employers to do so. The cause of the difficulty may be the inexperience of those charged with the responsibility of negotiating with trade unions.
I am sure that a close look will be taken at all these matters when the new industrial relations legislation comes before the House and I trust that a serious review will be undertaken of the Labour Court and its operation. Whilst the Labour Court has been in existence for a long number of years, the number of conciliation officers in that court has not increased very greatly. There were four at the time it was established and now there are six, six men to deal with a considerable number of unions and a considerable number of employers. Is is any wonder that when we go to the Labour Court, we find that there is a queue? Perhaps this is one of the reasons which prompted the Taoiseach to establish this new office.
The new Minister should make sure that in appointing conciliation officers to the Labour Court they will be given every opportunity to get to know their job. The system of appointment at the moment leaves a lot to be desired and we find that when these conciliation officers get to know their job, they are shifted to some other post. There is a great need for these men being given an opportunity to see how the job is done, perhaps even in other countries. We must marvel at the success that has been achieved by some of the conciliation officers when we take into consideration the many problems that have been thrust on the Labour Court. The job of work done by them is commendable. If we ensure that they are not overloaded with work, we will obtain satisfactory results in the industrial field.
I would also hope that the new Minister would not only be responsible for trying to keep the peace and improving productivity but would also be charged with having a look at the minimum rates of pay. There are thousands of people in this country in receipt of less than £10 a week. I know of people who are in receipt of only £7 10., £8 and £9 per week. This is all wrong and it is time to have something done about it. At the moment it is impossible to make any progress for we find one local authority waiting for another to make up its mind. This alone is a good reason for the establishment of a Ministry of Labour and we hope that when he gets down to his job, the Minister will set up suitable negotiating machinery affecting all types of workers.
People will have to take an interest and display confidence in the usefulness of the reorganised Labour Court. The Government will have to be extremely careful and the Minister concerned will also have to be careful to ensure that he is not taking one side as against the other. There is no doubt that the Taoiseach in his speech last week appeared publicly anyhow to be talking down to the trade unions. That is the way it is looking anyway. Perhaps the time has come for the Taoiseach to talk seriously to employers. If this country at the present time is going through a bad period, surely the people who can make the sacrifices can be called on to make them. Surely there is nothing wrong in asking employers to curtail their profits. They owe it to the nation because they have been having it easy for too long.
I would also like the Taoiseach to take a lesson from what he and other Ministers experienced when they stood up in this House and indicated that there should be only a three per cent increase in wages. This resulted in frustration for everyone. As from the time that statement was made, the employers took a stand. Attempts were made then to try to bring both parties together but the talks were beaten before they started. This again I say will be the function in the future of the Minister for Labour. The Minister undoubtedly will be charged with responsibility for bringing both parties together with a view to having them, if at all possible, agree on a round of increases but we should not start beating people's chances to bring about settlements before talks start. That type of attitude should cease.
Having regard to what my colleague, Deputy Larkin, said, I think we should bear in mind the importance of not seeking to advertise this country as an undeveloped nation and giving industrialists outside the idea that they can come here and obtain cheap labour. This undoubtedly has happened in many schemes, particularly down in Shannon. You have people coming to Shannon in the belief that they can get away with paying workers with buttons. They could not understand when they found that this country was reasonably organised trade unionwise. They went off again just because they found that our people were not prepared to work for buttons.
I feel also we should bear the thought in mind, when we come to the appointment of more people to the Labour Court and extending the size of the Court, the importance of ensuring, whether they come from the trade union side or the employers' side as members of the Labour Court, that they have a knowledge of industrial relations, that they have a knowledge of negotiations. I trust the Minister for Labour, whoever he may be, will succeed in his endeavours. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to know who he will be. This matter is so important that we should know who is to be the Minister for Labour. I do not know whether we will be afforded an opportunity of commenting on whether or not the person concerned is a fit and suitable person to act as Minister for Labour. The job itself calls for somebody who knows and is well versed in labour negotiating machinery. I sincerely hope that we do not get somebody who is not so versed.
There are four matters that were mentioned in the course of this discussion, on the Final Stage of the Bill, to which I want to refer.
First of all, as regards the Agricultural Wages Act, the decision that the responsibility for the administration of this Act should not be transferred to the Minister for Labour is open to reconsideration at some future time. It seems to us that there are aspects of that decision which would require much greater consideration than it would be possible to give it now. Deputy Tully, I think, misunderstood the effect of that decision. It is not intended that the Minister for Labour will not have responsibility for quite a number of other matters that will affect agricultural workers, including the specific matter he mentioned, the retraining of those who wish to leave agriculture for other types of employment. He was, I think, quite unfair in his reference to the work of the Agricultural Wages Board. The outstanding feature in our wages statistics since the Agricultural Wages Board was established is that the wages of agricultural workers have been increasing percentagewise far more rapidly than of any other category in the community.
That is because agricultural workers are paid with buttons.
On the contrary; it was because the Government realised that there was a situation regarding agricultural workers which justified it that the legislation to establish minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers was enacted. I am saying that legislation has had the effect of giving agricultural workers a more extensive and continuing improvement of wages than any other category of workers.
They are still getting £9 a week for 50 hours.
With regard to the many suggestions that were made here in relation to the composition and functions of the Labour Court, these will arise in connection with legislation for amending the Industrial Relations Act which has been given its First Reading and which will come before the Dáil in the autumn session. I do not wish to refer to these suggestions now because they will be far more relevant to that legislation.
Deputy Corish referred to Dr. C.S. Andrews and to remarks concerning him that were made in this Dáil for the purpose of emphasising that they were not made, as far as he was concerned, by way of personal animosity to Dr. Andrews. May I say straight away that I was very much concerned about these remarks, not because of any hurt to Dr. Andrews' feelings but because of their implications with regard to the continuing and successful operation of our socialised industries here? We have set up a number of socialised concerns, State boards, to carry on important public services and commercial undertakings. If they are to succeed and if this association of public with private enterprise in our Irish economy is to succeed, we must be able to attract into the service of these concerns, into their top management people of the highest possible quality and we must be able to keep them there. I do not think we can attract them or keep them unless we are prepared to pay to those in top management salaries equivalent to those which they could hope to get in private enterprise of the same size, and there are not many private undertakings of that size.
That does not apply to the Taoiseach. He should be paid for his work.
Not alone must we be prepared to pay these men the salaries they would otherwise secure from private industry but we must also, those of us who are concerned with the successful operation of these undertakings, keep them immune from the type of personal attacks Deputies sometimes engage in. This also will be a very serious deterrent in getting into the service of those companies the men who are required and that was the reason for my concern about certain statements that were made in recent times.
They get twice as much as the Taoiseach.
Deputy Dillon spoke about inflation raging in the country. I do not know why he makes those statements. The fact is that none of our economic indicators at the present time justifies the statement that inflation is raging in the country if, by inflation, is meant excessive demand attributable to the accelerating circulation of money. The fact is that the level of retail sales in this year is rising much more slowly than in previous years, the balance of payments deficit is contracting, and bank deposits are rising. These are not signs of inflation raging. They are an indication of the success of the Government's measures to keep inflation under control.
We have the situation where prices are being pushed up by rising costs due to wages rising more rapidly than productivity. If we could get a situation of relative stability in respect of wages, then we could hope with a reasonable expectation of realising it, that productivity will again improve to overtake these higher wages.
There is one other matter I want to refer to. Deputy Dillon referred to what I said yesterday regarding the dispute in the Irish paper mills. I want to say that I am informed that real negotiations are now in progress in regard to that dispute and we can hope the outcome will be its termination. But I referred to it merely to identify for the Dáil and those who are concerned with industrial relations matters outside the Dáil a possible kind of problem we may have to contend with some time, the possibility of the intractable strike, not a strike that would go on for ever but a strike that would go on for so long that the employer would find that he had no business to recover when it came to an end and the workers would find, perhaps, that they had no jobs to go back to.
This may be a theoretical situation but if that situation ever arose—and I am not presuming to say whose job it would be to decide that negotiations are not likely to produce a settlement— something must be done by somebody, either by the Congress of Trade Unions acting on the unions, by the Federated Union of Employers acting on the employer, either to bring about effective and realistic negotiations or to get their common consent to submit the issues in dispute to the judgment of the Labour Court and to accept that judgment.
This is a theoretical situation which may never arise, but if it does arise in future, we will at least have a Minister for Labour who will be able to give it some specialist attention and to explore ideas as to what can be done about it.
Deputy Tully very rightly pointed out that there are many aspects of our industrial relations situation in which there are irrational procedures and anomalies of one kind and another which are productive of difficulties. I am quite certain that not all of these will be put right by any Minister for Labour, no matter how energetic or competent he may be, but I hope his appointment will mean that we will start the process of putting them right and, even though new difficulties may emerge, at least some old difficulties may be removed.
I made reference to the fact that State employees, manual workers, have no tribunal to which we can refer their cases. Would the Taoiseach consider that the time is ripe to give them such a tribunal or to put them under the Labour Court?
That is one of the matters being considered, whether or not persons employed by the State should now have access to the Labour Court; whether the Labour Court should not, indeed, be substituted for the arbitrators now appointed under the various conciliation schemes.
I am talking about people who have no right at all. The manual employees have no right of appeal, no redress. Is it yes or no?
The point I was trying to make is that the Labour Court was set up to handle disputes arising in industry. Its personnel were selected because of their acquaintance with the character of disputes arising in industry. When there was legislation introduced here to give local authority employees the right to go to the Court, I pointed out that this was not a court that had any particular competence to deal with the problems arising in local authority employment and that would apply also to agricultural workers. If there is to be a Labour Court operating for agricultural or local authority employees or Government employees, it has to be, perhaps, slightly different in form but certainly different in personnel from the Court that now deals with industrial disputes.
Is the time ripe to have such courts set up?
I think so. I am not saying that these people should not have access to a Labour Court but the composition and functions of the Court will have to be considered.
We cannot get a word from the Government about the £1 a week.
Is there not a principle here involved which had to be considered when conciliation and arbitration was first established for the civil servants, that the ultimate decision on matters relating to public finance devolves on the Government and that they simply have not the right to delegate that ultimate decision to any tribunal, and the Government have always been in the position of saying: "While we most sympathetically desire to conform to the findings of any tribunal in relation to a public servant, ultimately the decision must rest with the Government as to whether the community can afford to meet what may appear to be abstract justice but which for the moment may not be accessible to the revenue"?
This is true, and this, of course, was the argument that was made when conciliation and arbitration was introduced in the Civil Service that it appeared to operate to deprive the Government of a most important function in regard to the national finances but the conciliation and arbitration schemes do put the responsibility ultimately on the Government. They have the right to refuse to implement an award, subject to coming to the Dáil and justifying their decision.
The manual workers have no tribunal and, whether the Government have the right to refuse or not, they do not get the chance.
This is intended to deal with that situation. Amendment of the Industrial Relations Act is required to bring it about.
Deputy Dillon was a member of the Government who introduced conciliation and arbitration into the Civil Service.
Question put and agreed to.