Deputy Donegan reported progress. Deputy Davern.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Labour (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £38,600 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1967, le hagaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Saothair.
—(Minister for Labour).
The Department of Labour was founded mainly to deal with three related and specific problems: firstly, industrial relations; secondly, the implementation of a national manpower policy which includes training, retraining and accelerated training at all levels of industry, redundancy schemes and placement services to anticipate the strains which affect workers particularly in industry in changing circumstances; and thirdly, a wide range of legislation and other activity which must be calculated to bring about better conditions and a better climate for workers and to protect them against accidents and illness. These are the three main purposes behind the establishment by the Government of the Department of Labour.
It is worthy of note that the incumbent of the office is a man equal to the responsibility it demands. The first Minister for Labour in the Dáil was Countess Markievicz. She, at that time, saw the rigours and hardships of the workers in their struggle for the right of association in trade unions. She was herself very much involved in the early period of that struggle. It was a militant type of person who was required in those early, formative years. Today, with the trade unions in the strong position they have fully earned for themselves, a calm, serious, deliberative person, with the technique of seeing both sides of an issue and of evaluating the justice of a case, was obviously the person to be chosen for this very important Department which will play an ever-increasing role in the future of a developing Ireland. Deputy Hillery is such a man, and I have every confidence that his efforts in this field will bear great fruit.
There is much woolly thinking in regard to labour relations. In any period of industrial crisis, we have experts, both professional and nonprofessional, giving all sorts of advice to the Government. They tell us: "You should stamp out strikes; a Government should govern"—they suggest all sorts of methods which spring mainly from hysteria. They do not tell us to take the long-term view of more cordial relations between management and employee. On a recent visit to the EEC headquarters in Brussels, we were briefed by the person in charge of the Labour Relations Department there. One very significant statement he made was this. In the EEC countries, management and employee are viewed, not as antagonists in a war to gain more wages or give less wages, as the case may be, but more on the basis of the normal marriage where there is give and take on both sides, where there are good times and bad. This is the atmosphere they have created. No one can be complete boss. There must be a certain amount of fluid movement between both sides as to who is in command. If it is all one-way traffic, it will not work. There must be some degree of commonsense between both parties.
I quote an illustration of this. One of the industries in my constituency is Bulmers of Clonmel. This industry started in a very small way with six people. With management and workers co-operating, it has now grown to an industry employing nearly 200 people and well over that figure at peak periods. The managing director was one of the original six who started it. He appreciates their problems. There is regular consultation between the unions, the shop stewards and the management. This has made for a greater degree of trust between both sides and they both realise this. It is of no advantage for one to persecute the other. If the employer persecutes the employee, he will get less return from the employee. Similarly, if the employee demands too much in wages, which must be reflected in the price structure of the commodity to be sold, he may well deny himself a job if production costs become too high. But by this kind of teamwork, they have made a success of this industry and brought it from humble beginnings to the concern it is today.
When people talk about strikes, they always seem to pick on the employee. In many instances management in this country is not suited to or trained for its responsibilities. Indeed, it might well be said that in all too many cases management was inherited rather than merited. In the future—and indeed this is evolving now from present trends— management will be trained specifically in this field and will have a greater capacity to understand the many problems of the employee and of the various unions.
Something that would seem to have gained a lot of public sympathy and possibly support during the industrial unrest in the past year was the idea of the semi-strike being brought into operation. This works fairly well in Florida. If a dispute arises between employer and employee, the employee cannot withdraw his labour, nor can the employer lock the employee out for the term of the dispute. Production continues but both sides subscribe to a central fund. The employer gives half his profits for the duration of the dispute and the employee gives half his wages. If a settlement is effected within a certain number of days, both parties can withdraw the amounts subscribed by them. If the dispute is not settled within the specified period, the money collected is sent to the local authority to be disposed of. This may have many demerits but it certainly has the merit of being a positive inducement to both sides to resolve their problems. We have seen down through the years that, no matter what the dispute, however justified it might have been and however protracted, eventually a settlement had to be made. Surely it would be in the interests of all to have that settlement made early rather than late?
Deputy Donegan by insinuation and innuendo implied that many people were trigger-happy about going on strike. I do not accept this. We know well that the average wage earner spends his wages every week and indeed is committed to a great deal of expenditure through hire purchase rentals and such like. He will not wilfully put himself in a position in which he and his wife and family will have to accept a lower living standard for the duration of a strike that might go on for some weeks or some months. He will not do this without some justification or cause. There is never a strike without some basis of reason and some very cogent reason. People just do not go off and deny themselves the luxuries or the necessaries of life because they want to prove that they can go out on strike.
The same can be said about the farmers.
If Deputy L'Estrange wishes to make a speech, I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will allow him to do so.
He said it all by way of interjection.
Reference has been made to the Labour Court. Deputy O'Leary, I think, said he would not like to see any great interference with it and, indeed, neither would I. I think the Labour Court functions reasonably well. Unfortunately, their recommendations are not always implemented or are not implemented with a sufficient degree of promptitude to solve the problems they have deliberated upon. There is room here for greater scope for the Minister and his Department to explore the avenues and approaches so as to ensure that, with the co-operation of ICTU and FUE, the findings of the Labour Court will become a little more binding and will be implemented more quickly than at present.
Deputy Donegan spoke about the ESB Bill. At one stage he lamented the fact that it was put through the Oireachtas, and in the next breath, vehemently defended the right of the worker to strike. That seems a contradiction. Maybe I misunderstood him, but I doubt it. We saw that there is a point at which a Government, in the national interest, must take action. It may be unpopular action but it must be taken. The ESB Bill was an instance of that. Surely we could not deny to all people, in justification of the right to strike, the right to electricity, the right to save life. Dilatory action on our part might unwittingly have made us executioners of people who, for example, are sick. We could cause grave harm to industry, to life itself and to the social amenities of people. These are a few points on this subject and I think they are quite relevant.
The other aspects of the Department of Labour are such that we just cannot say that the Department of Labour is designed specifically to deal with industrial disputes. It has other very specific functions. It has to look after the health of the workers and ensure that factory regulations are complied with by all people who own or run factories and that the workers in these factories enjoy the benefits of legislation. Again, many of the laws under which trade unions operate at the moment are somewhat archaic. The earliest trade union law is, I believe, 1871, almost 100 years ago. Surely what was suitable for that time can no longer be justified as being suitable for the 20th century? Indeed, we are coming to the autumn of the 20th century. We must visualise, then, a more realistic approach by all sides to labour problems and industrial relations, all told.
Manpower policy is another facet which comes under the aegis of this Department. It was dealt with here at length by the present Minister for Health, then Deputy S. Flanagan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Again, we find that changing circumstances must bring with them changing demands and changing solutions. We feel that people can no longer be located in a spot with factories and shops established at their doorstep. Rather would it sometimes be more convenient and more profitable for all concerned to have workers commute to industrial centres and to have residential towns built in reasonable proximity to these industrial centres.
The Government have two basic functions in the field of industrial relations. The first is to provide machinery with which to help the parties to resolve their differences. I have no doubt a manpower policy will bring to life many differences. Through natural resistance, people will be slow to move into new fields. This is human. We dread the unknown and stick the known, no matter how much it may be to our disadvantage. I suppose the old axiom that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know is one of the prime causes of this.
The Department of Labour has another very important function, that is, to maintain proper relations between the public, the Department, workers and industry, generally speaking. I want to quote from the Minister's speech what I consider to be a very important sentence. He said:
Institutions, to remain useful, must be dynamic. They must be sensitive to change in the sphere in which they are operating and they must respond to such changes.
That, I think, is the challenge of this new Department. It is adapting itself and the Government, by establishing it, have proved that they are adapting themselves to changing circumstances. ICTU and FUE must do likewise. We cannot have a stalemate nor can we hold on forever to the ideas current 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. No matter how much in vogue they were then, they are obsolete now to a lesser or to a greater degree.
We believe also, in the field of bargaining, that every man — this is human nature — will be a bargainer when it comes to his job and that the employer will not be willing to give out 10/- if he can get away with 8/-because he is in the manufacturing business to make money and profit. Neither will the trade unions be willing to accept 8/- if they think they can get 10/-. The merits of these cases will work themselves out, provided all parties go in with an open and realistic mind, so that if they find, in the particular field of industry in which they are negotiating, that there are difficulties ahead, they will, in the interests of their own members, make an effort to curb the impatience, possibly, of people seeking an increase, for the time being at least, so as to allow the factory or industry to get on to a firmer footing.
The accident portion of this Department and how it relates to workers is, I think, of primary importance. I am sure that, inter alia, this will be connected with the Department of Social Welfare when the new legislation comes before the House. This is a very worthwhile development. It should be given every chance to bring benefit to those most in need of it. We all know that at present a worker who suffers accident in his work receives £4 10s per week workmen's compensation. If an award is made subsequently, this money has to be refunded. Because of the length of time it often takes to adjudicate on such a case, it frequently happens that a family are in very reduced circumstances because of commitments, grocery bills, and so on. Lack of finance can reduce the family and the spirit of the family to a very depressed level.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the Department of Labour can function well, and will function well if it gets full co-operation from all sides involved in industrial relations, be they employer or employee. It is only with maximum effort on the part of both sides that the Department, which will be acting in the best interests of the nation, which will be acting as the watchdog of the under-privileged, which will be acting as mediator and protector for all, will work well, and I wish the Minister and his Department success in bringing about more rational and agreeable industrial relations in the future.
I am particularly interested in one or two of the opening remarks of the Minister for Labour where he refers to the fact that there were two previous Minister for Labour in the first and second Dáils. The Minister for Labour at column 1795, volume 224, of the Official Report of 20th October, 1966, said:
A Ministry of Labour operated under the first Dáil Éireann and the second Dáil Éireann, and did a good deal particularly in the field of conciliation and mediation in industrial disputes. For the record, I should say that there were only two holders of the office of Minister of Labour, namely, Madame Markievicz and Joseph McGrath.
The peculiarity about that is that the first Minister of Labour was Madame Markievicz and, yet, the Minister in introducing his Estimate, gave no indication whatsoever, as far as I can see, that he was going to interest himself in taking on some of the functions which have been adopted in countries outside this in relation to the principle of equal pay for equal work. It appears to me, whatever other Ministers may have had as an excuse as successor to Madame Markievicz in that particular post, no one would suggest that the late Madame Markievicz played any less than a full share in the struggle for independence. Yet, today there is throughout the Government services, throughout local authorities, throughout industry and commerce, throughout the factory life of this country, the position where people of the same sex as Madame Markievicz are given lesser recognition, are paid less, purely because of their sex.
There are doctors, nurses, psychiatric nurses, civil servants, girls and women in factories who, and I am speaking about people who are doing the same work, accepting the same responsibility, required to undergo the same period of training, are paid less than men. The new Minister for Labour at column 1798 of the same volume said:
Wages and salaries are ordinarily settled and adjusted through a system of free collective bargaining. This process is enshrined in a number of international conventions and it has been accepted, in principle at least, by organised labour, by employer organisations and by the public generally in this country.
But the Minister did not refer also to the fact that the Convention on equal pay for equal work is also accepted in progressive countries, by the Governments of these progressive countries, by employers and by trade unions, but, so far, this Convention has not been signed by this country which prides itself in other spheres on attempting to give some leadership. I hope the Minister will deal with that point and will give some assurance to the thousands and thousands of people who serve the country well, and who work hard, many of whom have gone through their schools and their university, many thousands of those whose university has been the university of the factory, of the shop, etc. but who are treated in the State, purely on the grounds of sex, as second-class citizens in this regard.
Of course, I think it is to some extent a reflection on their fellow women-folk and a reflection on us in this House that there are so few women Deputies elected to Dáil Éireann. Consequently, it is left on occasion for some of us to say a word on this matter.
I speak of industrial relations, first of all. I think it only just and proper that tribute should be paid to the efforts of the Labour Court, and particularly to the conciliation officers over the years for their work in endeavouring to maintain, or bring about, peace in industry. The work of a conciliation officer in particular is very difficult. Not everybody is equipped to deal with it in quite the same way. Certainly the community has been fortunate in having had over the years a number of outstanding conciliation officers. They have come into the most difficult industrial situations and by exercising their tact and their knowledge of the background of the industry and their experience of conducting cases have been successful in settling many serious disputes. Unfortunately, a number of these disputes should never have occurred. They would never have occurred if there was the same exercise of understanding and the same attempt to discuss the problem in a realistic way by those directly involved.
This situation is not peculiar to private employers or those engaged in the operation of industrial or commercial undertakings for the purpose of making profit for their shareholders. This situation has occurred on a number of occasions in semi-State bodies and even in Departments for which the Minister is responsible to this House. For instance, there was the deplorable situation last year which was caused by the failure, and it was a failure, on the part of the responsible people in the Board of Works. The situation was only a minor inconvenience to Deputies who suffered from lack of heat here but it was a situation in which a number of people who only were desirous of doing their work efficiently were forced to take action. They were treated— and in this case they were not females but male workers, many of them with many years' conscientious service—as second class citizens because they were not skilled craftsmen. The Labour Court eventually came up with a formula to settle the dispute after some weeks.
I might also take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the Minister for Labour the situation which exists, according to information given to me as a result of Dáil questions, in the various Departments of Government. The Minister for Labour is responsible, he tells us, for just a little bit more than just acting as Minister for Labour in a narrow field. He is concerned, I think, with endeavouring to ensure that the relationships between employers and workers are maintained at a reasonably good level. Let us hope that that extends to those who are treated as second-class citizens by his colleagues along the bench. There are thousands employed in the various Departments who are not entitled to any sick pay if they are out sick in contradiction to the situation in most semi-State organisations, in practically all local authoties and in most substantial private concerns. No provision is made for them when they retire after 30 or 40 years' service except a miserable gratuity. I hope the Minister will consider that it is part of his privilege to exercise on his own colleagues his wisdom by directing their attention to the fact that what would be expected from a private employer should be granted without any difficulty by a Minister of State or a semi-State body.
The Labour Court has done well and proof of that is the percentage of its recommendations which have been accepted. It is somewhat unfortunate, I think, that in recent years, in contrast to the experience in the earlier years, the recommendation in many cases says that "having regard to the circumstances of the case we recommend so-and-so." In the earlier stages of the Labour Court the recommendations not only included a recommendation as to what they thought should meet the situation but, in most cases, also included a summary not of the case presented by the workers' side and the case presented by the employers' side but a summary of their own views. It is possibly true to say that at times some of their views were not too well liked. If, when making a reommendation, the Labour Court made some criticism of how the case was presented now and again the criticism might have been resented but it was very useful criticism because it placed on both sides, whether the representatives of the workers or the representatives of the employers, the responsibility of documenting their case fully. If they failed to do so and were criticised, the individuals concerned learned something for dealing with future cases.
The court was set up on the basis of using the services voluntarily and on the principle that it was there to bring about and maintain peace in industry. The provisions in the 1946 Act were that if both parties wished to have the case dealt with under the clause for arbitration, they could do so and this was resorted to on a few occasions and with full freedom to each party to do so. Its value was that it was a voluntary organisation. It had no power to arbitrate and at the very start the suggestion of having professional advocates was resisted and dropped from the earlier proposals.
One of the problems in recent years as far as the Labour Court is concerned has been that there has been an inadequate number of conciliation officers available. On many occasions a conciliation officer was asked to go in to try to settle a dispute and he came at a time when attitudes had been taken up, when the lines had been drawn and when it was difficult for either side to move without giving an impression that they were retreating. In many of these disputes if the conciliation officer had been able to come in earlier with a knowledge of the situation it is quite likely that a number of them would not have taken place. The main need as far as I can see is an extension of this particular machinery, the provision of earlier conciliation.
One of the problems for both employers and workers in the Labour Court machinery is that an officer does not acquire the skill overnight. Just at the particular point where he becomes expert at conciliation, there is an opportunity for him to advance in the Civil Service. Nobody would want to deprive a person who has served in such a capacity of that opportunity; but it can mean then that the situation will arise in which some new conciliation officer has to start the tortuous procedure of learning the job all over again. I will say that some of them certainly developed a knowledge and understanding of the process very quickly indeed.
Reference was made also in the course of the discussion, by the Minister and others, to the question of factory inspectors and safety inspectors. There are just one or two points I should like to make in relation to the question of factory inspectors. The Minister has a situation where there are insufficient offices available for the purpose of carrying out fairly thorough and constant inspections of factories. Too often reports are received of complaints made at the factories inspectors' branch of inspectors arriving at a factory and carrying out an inspection without the workers in the factory being aware that he was there, without his having even contacted any representative of the workers for the purpose of ensuring that the complaint made is properly investigated. The Minister will have his hands full with the question of factory inspection alone, if he determines to carry out a thorough investigation of many of the backstreet factories operating in nearly every city and town in this country.
The same may be said of safety inspectors but, in this regard, I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister when he indicates that there is a lack of co-operation on almost all sides in respect of this very necessary precaution against accidents or injuries at work. The establishment of safety committees was introduced in legislation in this House by a former Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know whether it is because we are all too human in this country, but there is too much of an atmosphere of familiarity breeding contempt—that because we are daily exposed to certain risks of injury to our eyes or limbs, et cetera, after a while we start to regard this risk as natural. On too many occasions there is difficulty in persuading workers even to utilise the equipment available to them for their own protection.
On the other hand, while most progressive firms have been willing to go along with the safety legislation, have been willing to recognise and work with safety committees and safety delegates, even today there are too many of them who are prepared to accept safety delegates as necessary evils. Safety committees, made up of a combination of safety and welfare committees, in fact are not afforded the full opportunity of doing their primary job; that is, to endeavour to look after the safety of their fellow workers. In too many cases employers, while they may pay lip service and will assure the Minister they are fully in accord with every effort being made to protect the workers and to operate the legislation, when the Minister's representatives go along there, the constructive recognition of safety committees appointed by the workers is very little indeed. I am glad to see that the Minister is prepared to see what can be done to improve that situation.
I do not think anything need be said at any great length about the necessity for training and retraining. The Minister referred to it and there will be quite a number of contributions in relation to the need for training redundant workers. There is a necessity for dealing with the question of redundancy compensation without delay because, so far, while there has been a willingness to discuss in certain parts of industry redundancy compensation, there has been no real willingness to arrive at any particular adequate and acceptable agreement. Part of this is due to the fact that for some time the question of the introduction of redundancy compensation on a national scale has been visualised and referred to. Consequently, in many parts of industry the employers' side has been reluctant to do anything in the matter, awaiting some action at Government level. Therefore, we hope this matter will be dealt with without any undue delay.
The Minister now is responsible for employment in some respects. I wonder would he consider whether that would include giving special attention to the difficulties of those in their fifties and upwards in obtaining employment because there is a particularly difficult problem when people, even in their late forties, lose employment because of redundancy, temporary redundancy or otherwise. They will have extreme difficulty in finding new employment of any permanent nature. Even in circumstances where there is a reasonable demand for workers, there is still this attitude that once a worker goes beyond a certain age, he is to be put to one side. I suggest to the Minister that he might have this aspect of the matter examined and see to what extent he can assist the people concerned.
In relation to the general field of industrial relations and negotiations, it is essential, in my opinion, that the workers should have full freedom to negotiate, to use the system of collective bargaining which they have won at such great expense. There should be no interference with their rights to settle disputes by way of negotiation, to deal with their legitimate claims by way of negotiation, and if they consider it necessary, in accordance with their normal procedures, when they fail to get a settlement of their legitimate claims by negotiation, there should be no interference with their rights to resort to industrial action.
Deputy Davern, in making a small contribution in this matter, used the hoary old phrase, "in the national interest". That is a term that can be used too readily. It was used in relation to the Offences Against the State Act, which this Party opposed; it was used in the case of the ESB Act, which this Party opposed; and if the occasion arises, it can be used on any pretext.
It can be used by a Labour Government in Britain.
Do not be too despondent.
I said it can be used by a Labour Government in Britain.
I thought the Minister meant a Labour Government here.
No, I was not expecting that.
It is on top of you.
Deputy Tully was not here earlier when I said that Conventions which have been adopted by social democratic Governments in other countries have not been adopted by this Government so far.
The Deputy has been defending free collective bargaining.
I am not concerned with Deputy Davern flying a kite. I am not concerned with kites which are flown by backbenchers or budding aspirants to office, as he may be— I do not know.
What are the odds? About 100 to one against.
As reported in the Official Report of 20th October, at column 1800, the Minister said:
I shall regard it as my duty to see that negotiators have access to the most up-to-date information on national economic affairs.
I have no quarrel with that. He continued:
I shall continue to exhort them to have proper regard to that information when making settlements, in the hope that adjustments in wages, salaries and conditions will be kept within the bounds set by increases in national production. If, having done all that, I find that settlements in excess of the growth in national production are being negotiated, then some fundamental policy changes in regard to our procedures must be considered.
I do not like that phrase, "settlements in excess of the growth in national production". The Minister talks about a viable economy. There is a bit more to the term "viable economy". Adjustments in wage rates and salaries to meet changes in the situation either on a national basis or on the basis of the people employed in industry or commerce must also be viable. There is no use in the Minister coming to this House—and I hope he is not suggesting that he would do so—like King Canute and saying: "So far; the tide stops there when I say it", because the tide will flow over him and anyone like him.
We have a long way to go before the average workers are in receipt of salaries or wage rates which would give them the standard of living to which they are entitled as human beings. There is far too great a disparity in the living standards of the workers. In some sections, an adjustment of 3½ per cent at a certain time might be satisfactory, while at the same time, another section might need to be given an adjustment of 5½ per cent, 6½ per cent or 10½ per cent which might at the time be in excess of the growth in the national economy.
It is not very many months since thousands of workers in this city were walking the streets because the employers listened to someone saying that if they gave any more than 3½ per cent, the national economy would be in danger. Thousands of men and women had to walk the streets to convince the employers that that should not have been attempted. I recommend to the Minister, since he will have a lot on his plate, that he should turn his attention to another situation that exists and is beginning to be a source of trouble.
I was reading an article in a personnel magazine yesterday in which some personnel managers in Britain highlighted this problem of the disparity in fringe benefits between workers employed in the same undertakings; such fringe benefits as holiday entitlements, sick pay entitlements, working hours and so on. The Minister is aware that this is a situation which is growing and will develop. There are some groups of workers who work a 35½ hour week and in the same undertaking, other workers are required to work a 44 hour week, a 42½ hour week or a 40 hour week. When he is examining that situation, the Minister might also discuss the situation existing in his own Department and in his colleagues' Departments.
These are matters in which the Minister possibly will not take any active part, except that he may advise the parties concerned to face up to the realities of the situation. In the year 1966, it is somewhat contradictory to have workers in an undertaking working a 35 hour week, a 36 hour week or a 37½ hour week, covered by a sick pay scheme, perhaps with additional holidays, and possibly with a pension scheme, whereas their fellow workers engaged in productive work in the same undertaking work a 40 hour week or a 42½ hour week and have no sick pay scheme, shorter holidays, and in too many cases are not covered by a superannuation scheme. This situation is changing rapidly elsewhere and a move in that direction is starting here. I hope the Minister for Labour, under whose aegis many of these changes will be brought about, will bear this in mind and set a good example in the national sphere.
There are the employees of the Board of Works, for instance. Surely the Minister for Labour can consult with the Minister for Finance—of course I do not know who he will be next Thursday—and say to him: "Is it not time you had a look at the staff?" He could also consult with the Minister for Defence under whose authority these conditions also exist. Ministers and even the Taoiseach have spoken in this House about creating an atmosphere in which industrial relations problems can be settled. As well as creating an atmosphere, the Minister for Labour might get his colleagues to set a national example. There are far too many State employees being treated as second-class citizens.
I do not propose to deal with matters which the Minister has indicated he is considering, for instance, the matter of working parties on both sides of industry. I do not think that a contribution by me at this stage would be of any great value because I have no doubt the spokesmen for both sides will more than adequately present their cases. When these discussions or examinations are completed, there may be another day's work to be done. I hope the Minister will listen and pay attention to the arguments and submissions presented to him by an organisation who are directly representative of workers in the country. If he listens to the points made by them, he will not make many mistakes in dealing with this problem. I said at the beginning that we wish the Minister and his Department well and I should like to conclude by repeating that I sincerely trust he will be successful in his endeavours.
It is a pity that when the Department of Labour began, the wrong foot was put forward as I believe it was when the Minister stepped into the same building as the Labour Court. It was a very serious error to house the Department of Labour and the Labour Court in the one building. It is like putting the Department of Justice in the Four Courts and I believe the Minister for Labour will bring on himself a great deal of difficulty because of that location. The reason I say so is that already doubts have been expressed about the impartiality of an industrial court which works side by side with a Government Department concerned primarily with the issuing of directives, the creation of policy and administrative matters.
I submit it is desirable that at the earliest possible time the Minister should find a home in a building other than that housing the Labour Court. The Labour Court to date has primarily been an arbitration court or a court concerned with settling disputes that had reached or were about to reach the level of war, but in any event the very title of the Labour Court indicates that it is a place where decisions are taken by impartial people between disputing parties. The association of a Government Department with what ought to be an independent agency is undesirable. I would be the last in the world to suggest a proliferation of Government buildings or of unnecessary accommodation but I suggest it would be preferable to have at least a visual separation and, on that account, separate buildings are greatly to be desired.
I doubt, for instance, if people would have confidence in the impartiality of our courts if the Minister for Justice were to be housed in the room next door to the Chief Justice. This is not to suggest that individuals who have held these offices and who will hold them in the future would in fact deliberately qualify their decisions because of their proximity one to the other, but doubts certainly arise and doubts have already arisen. I have heard them voiced by people of the highest integrity and it would be wrong to let this occasion go by without bringing these matters out in the open because the sooner this is done, the sooner such matters will be remedied.
We note that the Minister said he has an information officer. Might we appeal to him to see to it that the information officer will concern himself with informing Members of the Oireachtas on the operations of the Department? It is unfortunate that no information was passed to Deputies regarding the Government's proposals in relation to trade union law and industrial relations law until the matter had already been headlined in the public Press and until negotiations had taken place between the Minister and the various people directly concerned. Ultimate decisions in relation to trade union law and industrial relations law will have to be taken here on these benches and the people who will have to make these laws are entitled to be informed. It was only when a specific appeal and an application were directed to the Department that members of the Opposition became aware of the Government's proposals.
Then we saw why there were rumblings and the trade union movement were not prepared to accept the Government's heads of policy. We find that the proposals in relation to trade union law are entirely rules governing the declaration and the conduct of war. They show little understanding of the basic problems of disputes in industrial matters. They endeavour to treat symptoms as the root cause of industrial difficulties. All they propose amounts to rules or conventions which they will endeavour to oblige both sides to accept when both sides are already in a state of war.
We in Fine Gael regard this as a confession of failure and as an acknowledgment that the Government, notwithstanding all that has been said in this House and elsewhere, have not yet grasped the real situation in regard to industrial relations. They seem to have in mind that the Government, and the Government alone, are the people who can decide what is or is not a trade union, that the Government, and the Government alone, may decide whether any new group is to be recognised as a trade union. I am sure we all cherish the belief that freedom is something precious. If we believe that, there must be freedom for people to form associations.
We believe that if there are people who disagree with the majority in their own trade union, who disagree with the executives and find themselves unable to remain in the same company or the same union, they have a right to form a new association. Many of the groups which we now recognise as lawful trade unions, many of the groups which have contributed immensely to the welfare of the workers and the welfare of the country in general, were at one time rebel organisations. That has not, in any way, diminished the contribution they have made towards the welfare of the workers. It is quite likely that the workers might not be in whatever relatively better situation they are in now as compared with the past if there had not been freedom to form such rebel organisations in the past.
We believe that if we are to have a situation in which the Government withhold recognition of any new organisation, we will only crystallise the differences in those organisations. If there is a breakaway group, although you may condemn them for doing so, may deplore fragmentation, and might wish this not to happen, we believe no amount of wishful thinking can ignore the fact that if there is this breakaway, it is because a group of men are discontented. You will not create content by saying you will not recognise this discontent.
When we speak of such breakaway groups, it is no harm to mention them by name. The National Busmen's Union now caters for the greater number of busmen within CIE. If I understand the situation, although it may be an irritant and an embarrassment, this arose out of the discontent of a large number of men with their own union. It may be they themselves were the cause of this discontent in that they did not participate as actively as they should have in the organisation of their union. Despite that, this does not confer on this House or Minister any right to interfere with the freedom of association, nor does it give any right to anybody to say: "We will tell the unions how to run their affairs". That is what we find the Government have in mind. We do not know what way as yet the Government are prepared to mend their hand. It is most unfortunate that they should have started off on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction. This is indicative of a dangerous frame of mind. We can only hope that better counsels will prevail.
The idea which the Government have to prevent any strike which they call an unofficial strike is no remedy for disputes. There are many ways in which workers can protest other than strikes. What is to happen if the Minister declares a particular strike unlawful and the workers return to work? They can then use the weapon of the work to rule and this can cause a whole industry to grind to a stop.
I have never had any great faith in contracts which have to rely upon sanctions for their carrying out. If the Minister prohibits a strike, this will not bring about industrial peace. We believe it is extremely lamentable that Government thinking in relation to industrial matters should be confined to this state of war. Usually the cause of a strike can be found years earlier in growing discontent and lack of communication between management and workers. As far as we see it, the Government have done little thinking in depth in that particular field, and until such time as the Government do some thinking in this matter, we do not think there is any hope of successfully tackling the problem.
The people in Aer Lingus deserve our congratulations for having successfully concluded this new contract. We should congratulate any activity which can lead to industrial peace and to the welfare of the workers in general. It is certainly a great achievement and a milestone in our industrial relations that it has been done in Aer Lingus. From what we know of CIE and the ESB, we believe that both those organisations are very far away from making such an agreement. I say this, and I say it critically of the management of CIE, notwithstanding the most improper remarks of Mr. T. P. Hogan, the Chairman of that organisation yesterday, when he denounced the members of this House for daring to criticise the management of CIE. He said we were not even able to manage our own affairs. Notwithstanding his audacity in that regard, if he listened to what is being said here, he would know what is being said on the shop floor and in the CIE system, and he would know the opinion of the ordinary people of this country. Until such time as CIE listen to what the ordinary people have to say, whose representatives we are, we believe the sorry state of affairs in CIE will continue. We will deal with Mr. Hogan's improper remarks another time. His remarks are a reflection on the people we represent and whom we are supposed to be serving.
The rights of workers to continuity of employment and to security have not been properly recognised in this country as yet. We consider it obligatory on our society so to arrange things that workers and their families can look forward to the future with some degree of confidence. Therefore it is essential, whether their employment is terminated because of the failure of their employer, because of changes in economic activity, redundancy caused by any trade arrangement or otherwise, that we ensure that workers get longer notice before their employment is terminated in future and that they get some compensation when their employment is terminated.
Last week I addressed a question to the Minister relating to a group of firms in this city who have recently announced they are to amalgamate. We are told that, as a result of that amalgamation, 58 workers, at present in what appears to be permanent employment, will be declared redundant and will be discharged after having received certain compensation. Unfortunately, the situation is much worse than the public announcement would lead us to believe. There are 58 people in what is classified as permanent employment who will be discharged but my information is that there will be a couple of hundred people who will be upset in their lives because of this new arrangement. There are people who are regarded as temporary and part-time, and the fact that their classification in the firm's employment may not be as high as that of a person who is full-time and permanent does not solve their difficulties, difficulties which will be immense as soon as their particular employments come to an end. Many of them are necessarily supplementing incomes in their families by part-time employment. Many of them, from time to time, when domestic circumstances allow, take up employment for short periods. All these are employment opportunities lost and incomes lost to the families in question.
We appreciate that we cannot discourage the move towards rationalisation, and, as this appears to be inevitable, it is essential that we should expedite the introduction of a redundancy scheme and make provision for redundancy payments, where appropriate, and new training facilities, where appropriate. We feel the Government are dragging their feet too much where this particular problem is concerned. I do not think there will be any reluctance on the part of employers or employees to contribute towards a scheme of redundancy payments and retraining and we would hope there would be no reluctance on the part of the Government to contribute the major share towards such a scheme, though the Government have indicated on occasion that they think they should be free of all financial responsibility in this matter. We do not think they can be free of all financial responsibility, the more so as redundancy will take place as a direct result of treaties made by the Government, and for no other reason.
It is quite clear from the pattern of growing unemployment that redundancy is also growing. Some of it is due, of course, to the financial crisis through which, because of the Government's mismanagement, the country is going, but some arises because firms are already making arrangements to adjust to the competition which will be inevitable in free market conditions. What is unfortunate at the moment is that the redundancy which has taken place because of the new economic developments is concealed in the growing volume of unemployment due to the financial crisis. It is imperative, if people are to be saved from emigration and if homes are not to be broken up, that the Government should take steps now to provide a proper scheme of redundancy payments and retraining.
If I might return for a moment to the case of the firm I mentioned last week, apart from the 58 people referred to in the published statement, a large number of workers will be retired compulsorily when they reach 58 years of age. That is an extraordinarily young age at which to retire workers, particularly when they are in an employment which does not impose any tremendous physical strain or call for any great physical exertion, and the problem is, therefore, much greater than it would appear to be on the surface.
Though I make these comments, I do not minimise in any way the generosity of the firm in question or the efforts they are making to meet the problems which are arising. One part of the programme provides that the payments which are to be made to the workers declared redundant and to those who are retiring will be reduced by whatever sums may be provided for in the Government's scheme of redundancy payments. What the workers are being compelled to accept at the moment is an agreement which will be qualified by something which is as yet unknown. That is undesirable. There is a likelihood that other workers will be affected in the not too distant future and it is imperative that the Government should, without further delay, declare their intentions in this regard so that workers will know exactly where they stand.
I should like to touch now on the incidence of accidents on building jobs. There are certain regulations which ought to be observed on building sites and in the building industry generally. Unfortunately these are not observed. Deputy Larkin mentioned the fact that, where safety regulations are made and safety precautions taken, workers will not always comply with what is recommended or provided for their own safety. That is perfectly true, but there are too many instances in which safety precautions are not taken. At a time when the building industry is going through a difficult period and competition is very keen, there is a temptation to skimp on safety precautions. I beseech the Minister to ensure that there are more frequent inspections of building sites. My information is that not infrequently inspections take place following an indication given to management and workers that such an inspection is about to take place. Those who work in the industry will recite stories of how they were engaged on putting up safety devices and taking safety precautions, having got a tip off that an inspector was going to visit the scene. When this was mentioned here before, the Minister threw up his hands in holy horror that such a thing could happen, but such things have been known to happen. It is, of course, quite wrong. It is no way in which to ensure that safety precautions are taken and observed. I would ask the Minister to ensure that these inspections are carried out without prior notification, and more frequently.
What I say in relation to the building industry is probably equally true in relation to factories and workshops generally. Inspections should be carried out more frequently and without prior indication. It may be that informing management of proposed inspections is not done deliberately. It may be that it is done because of some set pattern which enables inspections to be anticipated. Steps should be taken to ensure that whatever warning has operated in the past will cease to operate in the future.
I join with other Deputies in wishing the Minister well in his new Department. He is dealing with the greatest national asset this country has, the labour and sweat of its people. He has a tremendous duty and, from his opening statement, it is obvious he appreciates that to the full. I wish him well.
On a matter of order, standing orders provide that, in the case of any Member of the House feeling there has been a breach of the privileges of the House, that breach can be brought to your attention at the earliest opportunity. There appears in today's newspapers a statement, which has only just come to my notice, by the Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, as follows:
There are about 2,900,000 people in Ireland.... Of these, 22,000 work for CIE. Subtract that from the total and you get the number of people in Ireland who think they can run CIE, including characters in the Dáil who can't even run themselves.
I suggest, Sir, that that is a clear breach of privilege. The Committee should be requested to investigate the report and to report back to the House as to whether it is a breach of privilege and, if it is, the action that should be taken in the House in relation thereto.
I am obliged to the Deputy for bringing the matter to my notice. I have not had an opportunity yet of seeing the text of the report as reported in the newspapers. I cannot, therefore, make any statement as to whether or not it constitutes a breach of privilege. I shall examine the matter and make a statement in the morning.
On the Order of Business in the morning?
Yes, on the Order of Business.
The creation of a Ministry of Labour has caused much rejoicing in the ranks of the official labour movement. This Party have been stressing the need for such a Ministry for many years. The Department will have the responsibility of creating full employment, creating job security and achieving a rising standard of living for our people. The Department will also be concerned with improving industrial relations, improving conditions in jobs and providing a decent standard of wages for workers. As I say, for a number of years we advocated the establishment of such a Department and it was with the utmost reluctance that the Government accepted such a proposal. The Taoiseach, who is now making his exit from active politics, is on record as making excuses from time to time and indeed repudiating the idea of a Ministry of Labour as unnecessary and unsuitable to the requirements of this country. It required a lot of persuasion to convince the Government that such a step was necessary.
We welcome the establishment of this Department because we realise that a highly intelligent and adaptable labour force is a vital necessity to our requirements as we come closer to freer trade with Britain and closer, eventually, to the Common Market. We realise the inadequacy of our educational facilities and that we have a surplus of untrained and unskilled people for whom, in these times of technical change, there will be no future in years to come. We realise that there is an acute shortage of skilled employees and particularly skilled technologists. Realising this and realising, for some years past, that free trade was impending, it is to be deplored that the Government did not take more positive action in regard to the training and employment of people. In recent times we heard a lot of talk about education and the training of people in new skills and new techniques and we heard talk about the feasibility of establishing schools of technology. The recasting of our vocational educational system was forecast but despite the number of years that have passed since free trade became the keynote of controversy in these islands there has been no tangible evidence or proof of the establishment of these schools of technology which are so vitally necessary. It is futile to talk about training schemes unless we are given the opportunity to train our people. It is pertinent to ask what are these apprentices being trained for——
Hear, hear.
——and where are the employment opportunities for them. At present we have a standing army of nearly 50,000 unemployed and emigration figures run at from 20,000 to 30,000 this year. In addition, we have an average of some 40,000 boys and girls coming on to the labour market every year from the schools. This means that we should be providing at least 25,000 to 30,000 jobs per year in order to make worthwhile inroads into this great labour reservoir which is available. We are doing nothing like that at all. Last year 4,000 new jobs in industry were created and that number is a mere fraction of the number of jobs required. The figure was also 7,000 less than in the year before, so that in relation to the targets set in the various economic expansion programmes we are truely falling flat in respect of these jobs and these aspirations.
I do not envy the Minister the task he has before him but I do wish him well. He had at his disposal something which is the envy of the more progressive countries of Europe. He has a labour force comprising nearly 100,000 people each year. This is the great human asset which he has at his disposal. There is an acute shortage of labour in the countries which I have in mind but here in Ireland this great reservoir of human talents lies wasted, dormant and unexploited. It is an indictment of the Government that this should continue and that we should have this disregard for our own people, that we should have such little regard for their talents and show such disregard for the need to put them to work in their own land.
It has always been a test of Government to ask to what extent they achieve full employment and if the Government are to be judged on the test of full employment, prosperity and security, they stand completely condemned, sadly lacking in responsibility in that respect because as long as they have been in office—nearly 30 years— they have failed miserably to solve the problem of employment, despite the many catchcries and slogans they brought to the hustings in so many general elections. We had such slogans as: "Wives, put your men to work" and "We promise 100,000 jobs". These slogans must surely have won many votes for the Government Party in recent elections. The people were gullible enough to accept these slogans with some confidence in the Government to carry out the promises implied. We now know that in regard to all these promises the Fianna Fáil Government have failed miserably to meet their commitments.
There are so many aspects of the Ministry of Labour that one could talk for a long time on it. I had the honour to propose a motion at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in Belfast in 1964 to the effect that a Ministry of Labour should be established and that this idea should be brought home to the Government in the Twenty-Six Counties. The motion said that in view of the development towards free trade and the removal of restrictions on imported goods, Congress was of opinion that a Department of Labour should be created with a Minister responsible for dealing with the problems which would arise for labour in these conditions, such as unemployment retraining and placement of workers in new employment and adequate financial support during unemployment.
That motion was adopted by Congress and we took the issue from there to this House and persisted in our endeavours to convince the Government that such a Department was vitally necessary. We knew the ravages which impending free trade would cause among industrial workers here. We had the reports of the Committee on Industrial Organisation, a body established by the Government for the purpose of assessing the extent to which our industries could stand up to freer competition. These reports were alarming. They indicated that in a very large number of industries which they investigated—70 or 80— in free trade circumstances about 11,000 workers would lose their jobs and that if the adaptation measures which the committee recommended were not taken by the industries concerned, a further 23,000 would lose their jobs.
These reports referred to the impending free trade with EEC countries but I think they are just as relevant in respect of free trade with Great Britain. As the barriers of protection go down 10 per cent each year, competition with the industrial giants of Great Britain will be too much for many Irish industrialists and they will go to the wall. Some will go quickly. We are satisfied that the industrial battle in which we have engaged is a battle between a pygmy and a giant and that industrial graveyards will result and that there will be many thousands of Irish workers lying prostrate on the battlefield. This will be the situation and it will become progressively worse in the next nine years. In these circumstances there was a moral obligation on the Government to take urgent steps to equip and assist industry to adapt itself to meet this economic impact. There was a moral obligation on the Government to bring in speedily the necessary legislation to safeguard these redundant workers and to introduce schemes for retraining and apprenticeship, schemes for the re-employment of these people in alternative work.
While we have had all this talk we do not, as yet, as I said earlier, see any tangible evidence that there is an improvement, for instance, in our vocational education system to accelerate the training of apprentices. I am not aware that additional trades or skills have been added to the curriculum of the technical schools. They are still fiddling about with carpentry, metal work, and mechanical training of one kind or another. These are necessary skills but represent only a fraction of the skills and techniques required in this modern age. Our technical schools are not equipped for the training required in modern industry. The only schools of technology we know of are confined to the cities and mainly to this city, the Bolton Street School of Technology, the Rathmines School and perhaps the School of Commerce in Cork. Outside of those I do not know any means of training or providing the necessary training or advice in new industrial techniques.
I appreciate that is not the Minister's Department but it is pertinent to ask when we shall see the creation of these schools of technology, some six or seven of them, which were so much talked about a few years ago. When will we see evidence of their establishment and when will we see students taking their places in these schools?
I appreciate there are many aspects of this Department. I appreciate that the first instalment of the manpower policy, which is an integral part of the Department of Labour, has come into this House, that is, the training of apprentices. I have made my comment on that measure, but I said at that time that, from a practical point of view, as a trade unionist, as a man who is not far removed from industry and still very close to the problems of industrial workers, knowing full well their hopes, their fears and their anxieties, I would much prefer the introduction of a redundancy payments scheme. We wanted a practical scheme to give relief to workers affected.
Since we have been talking about this Department of Labour and while the Minister has been talking about what he proposes to do in respect of training, redundancy payments and all of these things, he must surely be aware that many hundreds, and indeed thousands, of workers have become redundant in this country, that consequent on the signing of the Free Trade Agreement with Britain last Christmas week, a number of industrialists panicked and threw in the towel, closed the doors of their enterprises with the result that in very many towns which I could mention here hundreds of workers found themselves out of a job, and there was nothing, despite all the talk, in any Act of Parliament which they could invoke to give them relief by way of redundancy payment, by way of retraining, or a hope of being reabsorbed in alternative employment, nothing but social welfare benefits which were there all the time.
I may tell the Minister that the cost of living is so high today and the unemployment benefits so inadequate that no family man conscious of his responsibility to his wife and family can remain very long without getting into deep debt; no responsible family man can continue in such a state of insecurity, in such a state of social depression, and invariably such a man goes to England, because this Government provided nothing, in spite of the grandiose proposals about which they have been talking in this House. It is time to end all this grandiose talk and give us legislation which the workers can invoke, particularly in respect of redundancy pay.
How long does the Minister propose we must wait for this scheme to become a reality? Must we wait until the nine years which have now to go have expired and free trade meets us in its full impact, or is it anticipated the aim to which the Taoiseach still holds fast—that we shall be in the Common Market by 1970? Is it not high time we had these redundancy proposals brought into this House and speedily implemented? In saying that, I express the hope that the redundancy payments will be such as to ensure a sufficient amount to permit the worker to live in at least frugal comfort until he gets an alternative job and that while he is being retrained, it will be an amount comparable with the wage he had in his previous employment. I hope also the Minister will have regard to the principle of redundancy payments applicable in other countries and that he will have regard to the number of years which the worker had in that industry, that the redundancy payments will be applied to his years of service, that there will be a week's wages, a week and a half or two weeks' wages for every year of service in his employment.
My desire is to impress upon the Minister that it is now high time that the redundancy proposals were implemented. Too many people have lost their jobs as a result of the inability of their employers to compete in these modern times, in these times of rigorous competition, which will grow progressively more severe. It is not good enough to talk about these things and to ignore the fact that in my constituency and in the constituency of every Deputy here, factories are closing down. Indeed, it is said that for every factory that has been established in recent months, some two or three have closed down. The Minister can refute that statement when he is replying, if he can, but these people who have lost their jobs have been thrown ignominiously on the unemployment scrap-heap and have been given no State help to rehabilitate themselves in any form, other than the unemployment benefit payments which are payable under the social welfare code.
I appreciate the Minister will now be concerned, as indeed he is, with industrial relations. We have observed the Minister's speeches in recent months since he took over his new office and we share his concern for an improvement in industrial relations. We do not want to see our country or our society branded as strike-ridden, and that is the kind of picture which has been created recently by reason of industrial unrest and the number of strikes with which we have had to contend in recent months. This would be a bad thing from the point of view of attracting industrialists to our land and the establishment of new industries. However, the Minister should be very slow to take upon himself authoritarian powers for dealing with this matter of industrial unrest.
The increase in the number of strikes we have had in recent times is due to many factors. I believe the last round of wage increases would have passed off very quietly without any great unrest or industrial strife, were it not for the stupid attitude of the Government and, particularly, the Taoiseach, when he declared that a three per cent wage increase was all that the country could afford. At a time when the cost of living had gone up by almost eight per cent, this was a most irresponsible attitude for the Leader of a Government to adopt. He placed the trade union movement in an impossible position in negotiating a reasonable increase in wages with employers, individually or collectively. It was a different situation from the previous round of wage increases which occurred at a time of by-elections, when the very same Taoiseach virtually recommended an increase of a percentage which was acceptable to both sides.
The two dearest by-elections that were ever bought in this country, bar none: the rascality of Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Tully always says that it was not the Taoiseach at all. You can speak with many voices.
There were gullible Irish workers who thanked him for that increase.
Hear, hear, and they are paying for it now, God help them.
The Taoiseach precipitated industrial strife by the ridiculous attitude he adopted of recommending a three per cent increase. Naturally, the Federation of Employers felt they had a great ally in the Taoiseach and treated the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with contempt and felt they had the full rigours of the law and the Government behind them in doing so. This is what precipitated the head-on clash between the workers and employers. People seem to forget that. It took many months for the strife to resolve itself. The struggle was merely one to maintain decent standards, to compensate for the increase in the cost of living, nothing more and nothing less.
Government spokesmen tried to infer that there was something sinister in this whole action. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. They were merely Irish men and women agitating within their trade union organisations for a reasonable increase in wages to compensate for the cost of living increases which the Government had brought about.
I am aware of the Minister's proposals in respect of trade union law. I am also aware that what the Minister seeks to do is to determine not only when a new union would be permitted to come into being but also whether an existing union would be permitted to continue. This is power which the Trade Union Congress would not accept. The Minister would do well to realise that this idea he has of taking power to decide what unions will come into being and what unions will continue in existence is something which is absolutely opposed by the united Congress of Trade Unions.
The right to freedom of association is contained in our Constitution. No group or society should lightly surrender that right. Apart altogether from the trade union movement, it seems to us to be contrary to the spirit and intention of those clauses in our Constitution guaranteeing freedom of association that we should ever allow any Minister or any Government to determine what kind of organisation shall come into being or whether an organisation shall be permitted to continue in existence.
I would ask the Minister to be very slow to try to impose this kind of measure on any section of our people and to discuss the matter further with Congress and its affiliated constituents to see if a more amicable settlement can be arrived at. The powers which the Minister is taking unto himself in this proposed legislation are wholly unacceptable to labour and to the trade union movement.
I understand that the Minister is unhappy in respect of the present setup of the Labour Court and that he has in mind proposals in respect of that body. We are of the opinion that the Labour Court has done a good job of work, that it has been an effective instrument in resolving strife between employer and employee. The most recent annual report of the Labour Court, that is, for 1964, shows that out of 405 disputes dealt with by the Court, only 29 were not settled and in only six of these 29 cases stoppages of work occurred or continued. The previous reports of the Labour Court showed a similar picture.
The trade union movement considers that the Court's record of useful work shows that its existing basis and constitution are fundamentally sound and should not be altered radically. It would be a great tragedy if the Minister were to change this court of arbitration into something in the nature of a court of law, a court of compulsion. It is recognised as a court of conciliation and of arbitration if necessary. I admonish the Minister to keep the law out of it, much as the lawyers behind him might want to encroach upon it. The trade union movement will have nothing to do with the lawyers attached to this court. If ever they become attached to it, they will be shunned by the trade union movement.
If we are to have a court of arbitration and conciliation, let us ensure that that court is availed of when disputes arise. Let the Minister not be so foolish as to create some kind of court which will be shunned and not availed of by the unions. I assure the Minister that there is a real risk of this. I ask him to be very slow in altering radically the present constitution of the Labour Court without having regard to the views of the unions attached to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I ask him to be at one with them in the kind of body which will seek to resolve the various disputes that occur from time to time.
The Minister has some worthwhile ideas in respect of future legislation which can bring about better relations between employer and employee and do much to eliminate industrial friction. We all realise the desirability of a change in the organisational structure of unions. We appreciate that there are, perhaps, too many unions and that an amalgamation or a federation of some of these unions is a desirable thing. It would make for efficiency within the trade union movement itself and would, I believe, make for better servicing of the members of these unions. But I would much prefer that this fusion, which is bound to take place in the future, would come about as a result of the initiative of Congress rather than that it would be imposed upon them by Governmental strictures of any kind.
I appreciate that some of the Minister's proposals will help towards the elimination of the multiplicity of unions with which we have to contend. I understand that he has it in mind to come to the aid of union officers who may be affected by amalgamation and that their superannuation and pension rights will be safeguarded. This is a desirable thing and the Minister is to be complimented on it.
I realise that the Minister's aim will be to attain a very high level of technical training for all the people who can be put to productive work in this country. We wish him well in that regard. But the Minister would want to consult with his colleagues in the Cabinet to bring about an acceleration of productivity in this country and to provide more industry. We have a degree of stagnation in our economy at present. We have a very high unemployment rate, to which I have already adverted. We have had an economic crisis on our hands for months past. We have had to contend with an acute shortage of capital, which is—let there be no mistake about it—affecting jobs. There is an air of insecurity over the Government, the country and the future.
Those are the circumstances in which the Department of Labour is trying to operate. I have heard it said that a Department of Labour can only work successfully in an economy of full employment. Therefore, this Minister has many disadvantages to contend with. In all he attempts to improve this position, we wish him well. We wish him well in the creation of an efficient labour market, where there will be adequate forecasting and a clear indication of the supply and demand for labour. He will have regard to the very excellent NIEC reports and the other reports available which pinpoint the way ahead for him.
These are some of the sentiments I wished to express on this Estimate. I should like to emphasise that the most important part of the Minister's task will be to assist unemployed, underemployed and redundant workers. As far as the new legislation assists towards that end, we welcome it. I feel we have talked too much about this matter in this House. I now look forward to the practical implementation of these proposals, which will redound to the benefit of these workers about whom I am concerned. Later on we shall, I trust, get the details of how the redundancy pay scheme, for instance, will operate. As yet, we have not had positive proposals for such a scheme. I should be glad if the Minister would indicate in his reply when he hopes to circulate the details of such a scheme and when we are likely to get down to discussing it and implementing it without further delay.
I listened with interest to Deputy Treacy telling us that the Labour Party rejoice in the establishment of a Department of Labour. I have been watching Fianna Fáil for a long time now. Every time that they get themselves, and incidentally the rest of us, up to our necks in a bog, a raft is thrown out and a new gimmick is started The Minister is the latest gimmick to distract the minds of the people from the fact that if we have a rising tide of unemployment, if we have an economic crisis, if we have shipped 300,000 of our people to Great Britain in the past seven years, it is the gentleman over there who is responsible for it.
He is now cast in the role of a knight in shining armour, a Sir Galahad to rescue us all. But it is the same old firm, the same man but in different clothes. They have been shifting them round and round the mulberry bush while they were cutting one another's throats to see who would succeed Lemass. Now we see that Deputy MacEntee says that he is surprised that a young chap like Deputy Seán Lemass should retire when General de Gaulle is going strong. What are they at, at the present time? They are running in and out of the House here like rabbits, trying to canvass this man's vote for the election which is to take place tomorrow morning. Is he listening to any of us? Is his mind on the Estimate for the Department of Labour?
What Deputy Dillon is now saying does not seem to arise on it.
It is a matter of concern to this country that the Minister's thoughts are not on it.
The Deputy has my full attention.
I bet I shall have the Minister's full attention before I finish. I do not blame the poor man. He is harassed. I have been counting them since I came in. There were three since I came in and I am told there were 12 since the debate began.
He only came in to ask me if the Deputy was going to speak.
I thought it was evidence of a vacillating character in the Minister. Nothing would be more unsuitable than a Minister for Labour vacillating between two poles, as the Minister seems to be doing today. One of the consequences of the establishment of a Ministry of Labour in Great Britain, to which we have heard reference here tonight, is the increase in the number of unemployed from 100,000 persons to 500,000 and a prospect of a further substantial increase engineered by the Minister of Labour.
For a good reason.
There is a good reason for it and there will be a good reason for it when he engineers it here. Do not be a bit uneasy. You will be told that it is for the good of Caitlín Ní hUallacháin. It will not be for the balance of payments or anything else. It will be a high national principle to question which is sabotage, if not high treason.
Rocking the boat.
I hesitate to say in public that I like the Minister for Labour personally but I do not think I compromise him if I say I hold him in high esteem. I should not dare to say that if his throat had not been cut for the Taoiseach's stakes. He is quite safe from the disaster that is to overtake his poor colleague, Deputy Lynch, and so I say that I hold him in high esteem. He has a very interesting job, if he is let do it, in the Ministry of Labour.
When I heard Deputy Treacy say that the whole Labour Party is given over to rejoicing at the establishment of a Ministry of Labour, I should like to remind him that if he imagines the establishment of a Ministry of Labour by a Fianna Fáil Government means the realisation of Paradise on earth for the workers of this country he is sharing an illusion I used to have that the Department of Agriculture would create tolerable conditions for the farmers of this country but they have been sitting for three weeks outside the Department of Agriculture to protest that they are on the verge of starvation. They would be sitting there still only Deputy Jack Lynch said, in effect: "Not bloody likely. You are not going to make me Taoiseach and hand me that plate to start my dinner with. You will get them off the steps before you start to unload on to me the responsibility of government." More power to Deputy Jack Lynch for sticking out his chest and saying so. The trouble with Deputy Haughey is that he stuck his chest out too soon and got it punctured. It is a very good sign that Deputy Lynch stuck out his chest at this hour.
I have a different concept of a Ministry of Labour under Fianna Fáil.
A Ministry assumes a strange aspect when it comes under the control of a Fianna Fáil Minister. I have no hesitation in saying that the Department of Agriculture was the faithful servant of the farmers of this country under many Ministers since this State was founded. However, under a Fianna Fáil Minister, it became an irresponsible instrument for the persecution and betrayal of the farmers. I hope the Minister for Labour will not emulate that example.
I remember speaking, as leader of the Fine Gael Party, at a meeting in Ballina during the general election. I was expounding the doctrine of a prices and incomes policy. Someone said to me: "What do you do if you cannot persuade them to act reasonably?" He was expecting and hoping that I would reply: "I will make them", but I did not. I replied: "I should have failed. That is all. No one can do more than his best." In a free country, the quintessence of freedom is for any man to destroy himself economically if he wants to do so. If you cannot get men to collaborate for their mutual protection, you cannot make them. It is all nonsense for the Deputies of the Labour Party to be shivering in their boots for fear this or any other Government would bring in compulsory arbitration.
What about the ESB?
It was not.
It was, with Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil backing it.
Deputy Tully is a doughty and hardy old warrior and is as cute as a fox. What he says is well calculated to deceive and mislead innocent people but he ought not to do so because he is the Chief Whip of the Labour Party and some honest decent people might believe what he now says. The ESB had not compulsory arbitration, and Deputy Tully knows it. Compulsory arbitration has been the law in Australia for the past 25 years and it was brought in by a Labour Government and it never worked and it never will.
There is no use in compulsorily arbitrating a labour dispute if the men thereto individually say: "We will not work. We do not claim to be functioning as a unit but, on the terms laid down in this legislation, as individuals, we will not work. Goodbye." Unless you want to introduce the system of Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, you cannot put them into concentration camps because they elect not to work. It is true that you can impose heavy penalties on employers and people who have property you can attack, but the man selling his labour and nothing else you cannot coerce unless you are prepared to alter the whole basis of the society in which we live which I certainly do not want to do and which I hope and believe the Minister for Labour does not wish to do either. Therefore, all this cuffuffle on the part of the Labour Party about their apprehension that there will be compulsory arbitration is all my eye and Betty Martin. You can pass Acts of Parliament here until the cows come home but you cannot make a man work if he does not want to work, unless you substitute a slave society for our free society. Sometimes when I hear Deputies talking that way I begin to despair. I hope the new Minister for Labour on behalf of the Government will be able to do the job that really needs to be done most urgently—not only to employ but to educate trade union officials such as Deputy Tully who are living in the 20th century and not the 19th.
We were living in it earlier this year when the ESB legislation was passed.
And we would pass it again and again rather than let people die for the want of an iron lung. The only way you can do it if you have certain kinds of privileged employment is to take from that kind of employment the right to withdraw their labour and murder your fellowmen by withdrawing their labour when their lives depend on maintaining the essential public service such as power and light.
Do not try to draw me. I shall talk about it any time the necessity arises but please God, nobody will ever show a sense of irresponsibility in this country that will ever make the enactment of that kind of legislation necessary again. It is the function of the Minister for Labour to try to teach not only employers but trade unionists as well. If we are to survive in freedom, these two elements have to work together and the Government cannot make them do it. The operative words are not "to survive" but "in freedom". Mind you, sometimes when I listen particularly to younger fellows in this House. I often wonder if the word "freedom" means as much to them as it meant to me all the time. I fully appreciate that at 64 one has lived in a different tradition.
All my life was spent from the time I left the pram listening to my seniors yearning for the right to live free in their own country. That was the dominant pre-occupation in their lives and for that alone they were prepared to make any sacrifice and, as we know, not only did they sacrifice their personal fortunes but their lives as well. What they were struggling for was to be free, not to be an inferior race in our own country.
Sometimes when I hear some of the modern up-to-date young Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Party, I begin to wonder if their passion for freedom is as strong as that which I was reared to have. When I hear them talking about a variety of changes that should be made, it occurs to me it is not for re-entry to the British Commonwealth of Nations which we left when we declared the Republic, it is not entry into the Common Market, it is not really the benefit of the Common Market they yearn for. What they are really yearning for is a re-enactment of the Act of Union. They want to get back into the comfortable womb of industrial Great Britain. They cannot bear the burdens of freedom.
Let us face this fact—and it is time some of the Deputies opened their eyes—if you want the standard of living that obtains in Germany, Great Britain or the United States of America, you must become a province of one of these countries. You cannot have it in an independent republic. Let us face that. Unless and until that is faced we are all talking ballyhoo.
I want to say to those sitting on my right, opposite me and beyond them, that if you are misleading the people who voted for you into the belief that the establishment of a Ministry of Labour or anything else we can do will ensure for our people a standard of living equal to that of Great Britain, Germany or the United States without surrendering our political liberty, you are practising a deceit and most of you have the wits to know that. The price of freedom in this country is to face the fact that to breathe free we cannot have the riches of a great industrial nation. We took that decision the day we determined to revoke Lord Castlerea's Union. There is no use pretending anything else.
That is one of the lessons we expect the Minister for Labour to teach every employer and trade unionist in this country. That is the real price of living free and I think he has got to ask whether we are prepared to pay that price. Do you intend to pay it yourselves, your children and your children's children? That is the fundamental decision that will have to be taken before we can approach the problem of stable rational labour relations and an expanding capacity to employ men and women in our own country.
The second task which occurs to me that the Minister has to tackle in dealing with employers and trade unions is to draw their attention to the fact that it is irrelevant to carry on a class struggle that does not exist. There was a class struggle in the United Kingdom to which we belonged 130 years, 120 years, 100 years, 80 years, 60 years ago and we fought a great battle in the British House of Commons on the side of labour to defend their interests in that class struggle. As Irish MPs in the British House of Commons, we fought bitterly for the Trade Disputes Act which gave labour the rights they enjoy today.
It was the Irish Party that welcomed Keir Hardie into the British House of Commons when there was nobody else to speak. It was the Irish members with whom he associated and amongst whom he found his feet in the House of Commons. It was around him the Labour Party grew up. It was the votes of the Irish Party that sustained the Liberal Party of 1906-1910 which passed the Trades Disputes Acts and the other reforms which helped to give labour the rights it now enjoys in Great Britain and, incidentally, in the United States, because the United States copied what had been begun in the British House of Commons. But since this State was founded, there is no class war. There is not a single one of us that does not come from the same kind of people. Trace back to our grandfathers and great grandfathers and we are all the same kind of people who did the same kind of work within the last century. It is all nonsense to be trying to create artificial class distinctions between fellows who bought Mercedes Benz within the past ten years but whose mothers and grandmothers were scrubbing floors 40 or 50 years ago. Mind you, I have more respect for the mothers and grandmothers who were scrubbing the floors than for some of the gents that are sailing round in the Mercedes Benz and the Bentleys now. But it is all nonsense to be describing them as a class. They may be a conspiracy but they are not a class.
They think they are.
Ah, well, a lot of people have queer ideas of what they are, I suppose. Lots of people have illusions. It is bad enough for people to have illusions about themselves but when they begin to sell their illusions to their neighbours, that really frightens me.
There is no class in this country and if we are to get rational, reasonable labour relations, it is the duty of trade union officials to make it known to their members that there is not such a thing as class and those who are swaggering about pretending that there is are deceiving not only themselves but anybody else who believes them.
That was not true in the Great Britain to which we belonged 100 years ago. Then there was a class. There was a traditional aristocracy in England typified by the Duke of Devonshire who said: "He is not a gentleman; he works." That was the criterion of excellence. There was a powerful landed aristocracy who believed that anybody who worked was not a gentleman and, therefore, belonged to another class. Therefore there was a perpetual war eternally ranging between the landed aristocracy of England who had certain rights and positions and privileges and the proletariat whom they saw as beating at their gates. They yielded step after step and they felt they were losing something that was precious to them. They were perfectly right. They were losing the oligarchy of England.
It would be very useful if some of the Deputies would spend some of their leisure hours reading a little modern history. I can recommend a book. Labour Deputies could read with great profit the recent biography of Disraeli by a man called Blake. I waded through the whole six volumes of Moneypenny and Buckle. Blake has now written a volume of 700 pages and it covers the story of England's public life from 1830 to 1881. It gives a true picture of what class was and the struggle involved to combat it.
To compare that situation with our poor lads who are prancing around here with their new-found riches and do not know what to spend it on does not make sense. They must spend it on the Mercedes Benz and the Bentley because they cannot put it in mink and new hats because the wife cannot carry any more. They have to get some kind of evidence to announce to the whole world that they are in the dough. But to describe them as a class is just laughable.
You might say that there was a class of illiterate aristocracy in rural Ireland but it is fast disappearing. I knew, when I was a child in rural Ireland, a considerable body of people who never learned to read or write and they were the aristocracy. I have visited people in their houses who could teach a duchess how to receive a guest and they were not rich. They were very poor but they had all the dignity of a proud people.
Hear, hear.
I would be prepared to argue with Labour deputies that these people represent a class which I respect and the passing of which I deplore. To go further into that would be, perhaps, to widen unduly the scope of our debate.
My purpose now is to establish that this is a classless society. I attribute no virtue to anybody for that fact. It is just a fact of life and until it is recognised by the trade union movement in this country, they will spend half their invaluable time and talents challenging a dragon that does not exist. We cannot do the job of establishing decent labour relations in this country unless the trade unions carry at least 50 per cent of the burden. They cannot do that if they do not know what the burden is, if they are staggering about with a hod over their shoulder moaning that they have 100 bricks to carry in the class war when everybody but themselves knows that the bricks are made of gutta percha. They are wasting their time and energy struggling with a nonexistent problem.
But there is a problem, that is, the problem of convincing not only employers but the trade unions' members that in a free society free men have the right to starve themselves if they choose to exercise it and one of the ways to starve themselves is to destroy the industry in which they work. It is wholly illusory and daft to be advancing the thesis that workers are exploited by employers. Maybe the employers want to exploit their employees. Maybe they do. A great many of them do not. But what employer in this country disposes of the power that any trade union disposes of? What is the good of talking to me about the employer trying to exploit the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union when the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union is one of the most wealthy and powerful organisations in this country? There is not a single employer who could conceivably give it battle, never mind exploit its members.
If trade union representatives in this House say that their members are being exploited, there can be only one explanation, that is, that the trade unions are not doing their job and if they are not, then it is their own conscience they ought to examine. I now assert there is no employer in this country powerful enough to exploit a member of any trade union. I wish to God the trades union——
Buíochas le Dia.
Why in the name of God not say "buíochas le Dia" to your own members instead of going around with the béal bocht and the "Ó, tá eagla orainn roimh an fear mór sin".
You are exploiting your own employees.
How do you mean?
This House, this Govment, are exploiting their own employees.
Wait a minute now; I am coming to that in a minute and I will bring the indictment nearer home than the Deputy may care. I shall go into the question of the rates of pay paid by trade unions to their own employees.
The Deputy made a statement to that effect before and when he was asked to prove it in this House he was not in a position to do so. Unless he is able to do it, he should not say it again.
Will you agree——
Will the new Leader of Fianna Fáil agree?
Some of the proofs I might provide the Deputy with might not please him. Might I ask the Deputy some day to prove to this House the scale of pay trade unions give to their employees. I will follow that up later on and I will go into this in greater detail tomorrow morning. There are a couple of matters I want to ask the Minister before I deal with that.
That is called changing the subject.
I will give the Deputy a couple of wrinkles between now and tomorrow morning as to how he may get some information and it will not be Anno Domini will provide them. I said that before and I was reported as saying "Anne Donnelly" provided them. Fortunately, I noted it in the Official Report but, if I had not, it would have ruined me.
One of the most depressing features of the Minister's appointment is the announcement that the Labour exchanges are to remain under the control of the Minister for Social Welfare. Listen, if we are to put over the concept of a Ministry of Labour to serve the cause of industrial peace in this country, we have got to convince two parties, the employers and the workers, that this Ministry is really concerned to serve them. Is there anybody in this country who regards the labour exchange today as the place to go and look for a job? The labour exchange in this country is a place to go and collect the dole. Does any employer consider the labour exchange a suitable place to go and look for workers to fill the vacancies he may have? Does any rational man spend an hour longer or a minute longer in a labour exchange than it takes to collect the dole if he can get out of it? A drearier, mouldier, more ineffective institution than the labour exchange in this country could not be contemplated. It may work all right for the purpose of distributing the dole; I do not deny that. I have no doubt that the officers of the labour exchange discharge the limited discretion they have as well as any other public servant but the whole concept of the labour exchange under a Minister for Labour ought to be changed to that of a place to which a man looking for a job can go and that he will either find a job or he will be told what training is available and be put in contact with the training establishment, if he is prepared to go to it. Thirdly, if you can do neither of those things, act as his agent to extract from the social services every conceivable right he has to tide him over the period during which he may be temporarily unemployed. Is that image being presented to the average working man of this country? I do not think it is; I know it is not.
That is the intention.
Ultimately.
Not ultimately; as soon as we can do it.
Why not do it tomorrow? We know it will not work tomorrow but when I started the Land Project every prudent adviser I had said to me: "Minister, it will take one year to 18 months to prepare this scheme." I said to them: "I want you to be digging drains this day fortnight." I said further: "I am going to get the greatest possible authority to dig drains and, if there are any ructions about it, I will face the ructions". They said: "we will have to prepare forms". I said: "Prepare no forms. Here is a letter: I want my land drained; signed Pat Williams, Glenamaddy", and there was an officer down with him within 24 hours laying out the plans and within a week we were on the land digging. We made mistakes. The late Tom Walsh once ended up on a mountain trying to drain a man's land that everybody knew was solid rock 18 inches below the soil and poor Deputy Tom Walsh was on the farm of one of the most prominent supporters of the Fine Gael Party in that part of the world. Of course we made mistakes, but we got the work done and what was much more important we convinced the farmers that the Minister for Agriculture meant business and when he said at Mullingar: "We are going to spend £40 million draining the land of Ireland", he meant it; not like the Minister for Education threatening he would resign before the 31st December if his plans for free education are not implemented.
An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle
I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from the Estimate.
Are the labour exchanges——
An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle
The drainage of land in Glenamaddy would scarcely be appropriate on this Estimate.
I was merely pointing out to the Minister that if he could ever provide as useful labour as that, he will be a better Minister. But, if the Leas-Cheann Chomhairle cannot follow my argument——
An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle
I can follow the Deputy's argument but another Minister is concerned with the drainage of land.
I am explaining to the Minister for Labour how he ought to go about dealing with the conversion of the labour exchanges from what they now are into what he claims it is his intention to make them. He tells me it will be done as soon as possible. I am telling him it could be done in a fortnight and ought to be done within the limit of three weeks. If the Minister means to do it, the important thing is to carry conviction to the average working man in this country that he has a friend at the labour exchange to get him a job and what is even more important, that the labour exchanges will carry that conviction to the minds of employers.
I try to believe we can live in our own country; that is what I want to do. I am quite disillusioned about Fianna Fáil, have no doubt about that. I still believe in Irish nationalism. I know that is an old-fashioned profession of faith but I do. Therefore, I want to convey the impression not only to the working man who is looking for a job that he will be helped to find it in the labour exchange but —what is much more important at the moment—to carry conviction to the minds of employers that if they want men, a good place to get them is from the manager of the labour exchange and if the employer applies to him, he will not be sent all the duds that the labour exchange manager wants to get off the dole, but that the labour exchange manager will send out men who want work, men he believes are able to do the work and send them to the employer in the confident hope that having experienced his services once, he will come back again.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday, 9th November, 1966.