Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 1967

Vol. 226 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 39—Labour (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion :

That a sum not exceeding £848,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Labour, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Grants-in-Aid.

—(Minister for Labour).

Mr. James Tully

When speaking on Wednesday last, unfortunately I was forced to devote most of my comments to mis-statements by some of the junior members, backbenchers who, like the person who does not know how to swim, when they got into deep water, proceeded to say things that they would not have said if they were on dry land. I am quite sure that the gentlemen whom I describe as being very decent fellows when they know what they are talking about, and who sound desperately foolish when they do not, will be a little more careful in future.

I will turn to the Estimate and point out that there are so many things which can be debated on the Estimate that it is difficult to know where one should start or where one should finish. I regret very much that the Minister in his opening address should have given to the House and the country the impression that he, starting off in a new Department, on his first trip to the House, was taking out the big stick and waving it around. From my knowledge of the Minister, it is not in his nature to do this and I should hate to think that his nature has been changing in the short time that he has been in the Ministry of Labour so that he is now going to act the tough guy.

I can assure the Minister that nobody has a greater interest in the success of this country than the workers have, for the reason that those who depend for their livelihood on work by hand or brain will be able to earn that livelihood only if the country is proceeding successfully Those who have plenty of money can be cushioned against temporary reverses. Those who have not have to depend on what they can earn and they can earn only if things are going well.

While disputes have occurred in industry many of them have been due to the fact that the employers, while doing very well, were not prepared to deal fairly with their employees. I am not referring in particular to the private employer. I have a sneaking regard for the man who employs a number of persons. He is only being human when he tries to get away with paying wages or applying conditions which are not what they should be. It is out of his own pocket that he is paying the wages. While disagreeing with him, at least I realise that it is a human trait to try to hold on to as much as possible. He does not believe in giving away more money than he can get away with. When we find public companies and the State adopting that attitude something should be done.

The Minister would have been much better employed if in his opening speech he had referred to the necessity for more encouragement being given to those who are in fact producing the nation's wealth. It seems rather extraordinary that while practically everybody is prepared to agree that there are two sides in industry—labour and management—management should feel that, in addition to ownership of industry, they should be entitled also to very high profits. They are not prepared to agree that the people without whom they cannot produce anything are entitled to a fair share of what is being produced.

There were a number of remarks made by people, some of whom should know better and some of whom obviously do not, and there were questions asked in the House, as to the number of days lost through stoppages of work. As I mentioned the other evening, I am a trade union official. I can safely say that the trade union officials in this or any other country where trade union officials have a reasonable approach to these matters spend most of their time patching up difficulties, attempting to get the best for their members without an actual break taking place. Indeed, when strikes take place, trade union officials work might and main to prevent the head-on clash because if the head-on clash occurs in most cases the people involved in the strike suffer much more than the employers or the employers' representatives. Realising this, therefore, we ask the other side to appreciate the fact that there must be a very compelling reason in most cases for people to take the extreme action of withdrawing their labour.

I posed a question here the other evening and want to repeat it now. How many people in this House have been on a picket line? How many people in this House have had the doubtful pleasure of walking up and down outside their employers' premises in wet and cold and snow with no wages and no hope whatever of being able to get the wherewithal to buy the food, clothing, fuel and light and all the things that a family need? Is it reasonable to say that disputes which have occurred in this country have arisen because workers like punishing themselves? Surely, that is not the case? It must be realised that the employers, in most cases—I will not say in all cases—have been frequently very unreasonable in regard to what to them may seem minor matters but which to the workers may be matters of principle.

The one thing that the Minister could do and should do is to try to bring home to the employers, whether they are private employers or semi-State employers or the State, that it is not sufficient to lecture the workers; it is not sufficient to threaten the workers; it is not sufficient to say: "If you do not do this, we will bring in legislation to make you do it." The Minister could be very well employed trying to prove to the employers that there must be a team effort and that the persons who do the hard work and produce the wealth are entitled to a fair return.

I am well aware that from time to time situations arise where employers are inclined to say that the loss to them will be too big and after keeping their workers on the streets for weeks and perhaps months have decided to concede what was originally asked for and the loss to them has not been too big.

The Labour Court is doing a reasonably good job but do not forget that the Labour Court is very much over-worked. Do not forget that relatively small cases going before the Labour Court take months before being decided. I can give the Minister instances where, with the best will in the world, the Labour Court have not been able to give a hearing to cases lodged with them in September of last year. I can also cite at least one case which went through conciliation and all the rounds that can be gone through and finished up as a Labour Court case. There was a recommendation which would require a further conciliation conference, the chairman to be supplied by the court. That conciliation conference has not taken place. Either the court has not got the time or one of the parties in the case did not bother. There were three trade unions involved. Two accepted. The third, a union with very few members, apparently just did not bother accepting or rejecting. Because of that, the Labour Court said: We cannot bring the matter to fruition; we have to wait." Those are the things from which serious strikes arise.

I want to comment on the fact that a number of sarcastic remarks were made last week on the question of the number of man hours lost as a result of industrial disputes, and whether or not we were going to win the triple crown because of this. I should like to say to the Minister, and to those who are trying to be funny at the expense of the workingclass people, that if we take on the number of people who have not been working over the same period, not because they were not on strike but because there was no job for them, we will see who will win the triple crown. We will walk away with it. No country in Europe has a situation like ours.

We should put these things in their proper context. It is foolish of people who come from the silver-spoon-in-the-mouth class to make these comments. I regret that Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who claim to have come from a trade union and workingclass background, feel they are getting themselves well in with the Front Bench by condemning the running of the trade unions and the operations of the workingclass people. It pains me to hear this sort of thing and it is too bad that it should be indulged in.

I should like to repeat what I said to the Minister on last Wednesday night. There is a suggestion in his opening speech about legislation being brought in. Before he does so, let him remember that no matter what legislation he brings in here, the man who does not want to work will not work. You cannot force a workman to work against his will. That is where the ESB Bill, brought in last year, fell down. If it had to be brought into operation, it just could not be done. The Government know this as well as we do, and the sooner they stop——

Mr. Corish

We shall have to build a lot of jails quickly for them.

Mr. Andrews

It will give employment.

Mr. James Tully

Deputy Andrews has passed a remark.

Mr. Andrews

In relation to Deputy Tully's remark about Fianna Fáil backbenchers trying to ingratiate themselves with the Fianna Fáil Party, he is wrong. No Deputy as far as I know has criticised the trade unions.

Mr. James Tully

I did not refer to Deputy Andrews because I do not classify him in that category. I would not dream of referring to him as coming from a workingclass background.

Mr. Andrews

Is there anything wrong with not coming from a workingclass background?

Mr. James Tully

People who do not come from this background should not speak with authority on it.

Mr. Andrews

I am defending my colleague against the Deputy's unfair allegation. He mentioned trade unions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tully is in possession.

Mr. James Tully

Deputy Briscoe would be sitting beside Deputy Andrews if he wanted to defend himself. When they need to defend themselves, they will be here.

Mr. Cluskey

Deputy Andrews interrupted in defence of another man.

Mr. James Tully

I have said that Deputy Andrews is a very intelligent young man.

Mr. Andrews

I was not here to hear that.

Mr. James Tully

Deputy Andrews should not talk about something he knows nothing about.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. James Tully

Of those people who are unemployed at present, according to the figures given by the Department, roughly 64,000 plus 11,000 are in the peculiar position that they are like Mohammed's coffin, suspended between heaven and earth. They are unemployed for the purpose of seeking the dole but are not unemployed according to the figures given by the State. It is extraordinary how a man can be two things at the one time. There are 75,000 people at present who feel they could do with jobs. In addition to that, the number who have emigrated has gone well over the estimated 30,000, which leaves us in the position that we need jobs immediately, in order to retain those who are unlikely to go, for 70,000 to 100,000 people. Where these jobs will come from I do not know.

We had the Industrial Training Bill before the House a short while ago and reference was made to the training of old people. An extroardinary thing that strikes us is that the older people are, in many jobs, being replaced by younger people. While it is possible to train young people, it is not so easy to train older people and this is the big problem that has to be faced now. I do not blame the present Government for this. It has been going on for a number of years and this is true in other countries also. It is remarkable that as the years go by people who have been on a job all their lives are edged out and the younger people are coming along and filling their place. There is need for a system of early retirement or displacement compensation. Otherwise, we will have a continuation of what has become the pattern over a long period. Particularly in the past five or six years, we find the old people going to the labour exchange, eventually finding a home there and not being able to get out of it. It is a shocking thing and I do not know whether the Department can do anything to have it changed.

As far as disabled people are concerned, we shall be discussing the Department next week on Deputy Seán Dunne's Bill. While there are a number of voluntary organisations attempting to help disabled people, their results are not heartening. I find that the number of people placed in employment as a result of training through these organisations is small. The number of people who have been offered the facility of training is only a fraction of those the medical people feel could avail of it. I believe an effort should be made to do something for the disabled and I am quite sure that Deputy Seán Dunne's Bill, if accepted by the Government, will be the answer to a lot of these problems.

I referred to farm work and I should like to repeat what I said when the Bill was passed. It is a pity that training for people in agriculture is not included. The Minister would do well to consider bringing all workers, including those in agriculture, under his Department. So long as they are left out, it simply means that we have this old system of two different grades of workers—those entitled to the provisions of the Bill and those treated separately, as if they were lepers. Something must be done about this.

A suggestion has been made that this is not the time for reducing hours of work, and so on. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of what has been happening over the past few years, here and elsewhere, in local authority employment. Is the Minister aware that local authorities who ten years ago employed full-time nearly 700 people are now using machinery to such an extent they have reduced the number of local authority employees to about 300—less than 50 per cent of the number employed a few years ago. The Minister may consider that I am not making a valid case but I believe that apart from the right to leisure or anything else, to which the worker is entitled, if we do not have a substantial reduction in the working week within the next few years the number of people who will be declared redundant will grow and grow. Where employers instal new machinery and speed up production, it is unfair that they should not be asked to reduce the number of working hours rather than reduce the number of employees.

I am quite sure there could be a great difference of opinion about this between the employers' side and the workers' side, but we have reached the stage at which the number of people who are employed in industry are being reduced drastically as a result of new techniques. If something like this is not done, it will mean that in ten, 15 or 20 years, the number of people employed will be decimated and the wealth of owners of industry will increase to such an extent that they will be fabulously wealthy while people who will be depending on social welfare will be unable to find employment. This must follow. If people are to be rendered unemployed because machines take their place and at the same time output can be increased, this must follow unless there is a drastic reduction in the working week. I can see nothing at all wrong with a reduction of very many hours in the present working week.

One thing which makes everybody on our side mad—perhaps it should not—is to hear the sort of statement made by people like the Minister for Transport and Power, who is also the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—he has the longest title of anybody in this House. He blandly goes out to speak to a group not of trade unionists or to a group of his constituents in Monaghan, but to some chamber of commerce where he feels he is among kindred souls and tells them what they like to hear. He tells them about these terrible fellows, the workers, and the need for preventing them from looking for more cash. Usually he ends up by threatening to wipe out the remainder of the railways unless something wonderful happens. I do not propose to tell the Minister for Labour what he should say to his colleagues but his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, is doing no good to labour relations when he talks like this.

The Minister for Labour spoke a lot about not having received any constructive suggestions in regard to the running of his Department. I understand, from what Deputy Briscoe said, that he said that he received some proposals but that there was nothing in the proposals made by the unions.

Dr. Hillery

I do not think I said that.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister had better ask Deputy Briscoe because he thinks the Minister did say it.

Dr. Hillery

I could not have said that.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Hillery

It would have been very wrong of me. I could not say that.

Mr. James Tully

I am very glad the Minister does not think that because, as he knows, a number of trade unions, including my own, put their views to the Minister. We were all impressed by the courteous manner in which the Minister and his officials treated us. The Minister did not do as so many Ministers do when one goes on a deputation to meet them, keep looking at the clock or thinking about an appointment which they may have.

Mr. Corish

He has all the time in the world.

Mr. James Tully

We were under the impression that what we put to the Minister was worth considering. We are all with the Minister as far as preventing unofficial strikes is concerned. We do not want, and the trade union movement does not want, unofficial strikes. However, the Minister must remember that where an employer instantly dismisses a worker, he it putting himself completely outside any agreement that has been made. If he instantly dismisses a worker, he is looking for trouble. It is hard to say to a group of workers, who think that the dismissal is unjustified: "You cannot stop work, you cannot down tools". In cases like that, there should be some arrangement that the workers are entitled to treat the employer in the same way in which he treats them.

There is, of course, the arrangement which is now made with so many companies and firms that there is no such thing as instant dismissal. If a man or woman does something which he or she is not supposed to do and which merits dismissal, the worker in question is suspended until the matter can be fully discussed by both sides. This system has prevented a lot of trouble in some trouble spots, as the Minister knows. If this arrangement were extended, perhaps we could achieve greater peace in industry.

The Minister said that he was going to train people in the employment exchanges as placement officials. When I hear reference to a placement officer, I think of the ombudsman, a person who is supposed to do everything for everybody. The only sensible thing to do would be to train those already in the exchanges because they would be familiar with the way in which people who come looking for jobs think. Somebody on the Government benches commented that on many occasions we find people in the employment exchange bringing in their own worries and because of the fact that they had a disagreement with somebody at home or outside, they snap the head off some unfortunate who has arrived for the first time for unemployment assistance or looking for a job. Those people should not be allowed to continue in that manner. The Department of Labour should deal in the severest way with any evidence of discourtesy. A great number of these people are decent people but there are the odd ones who cause the trouble. I had experience some time ago of a man who could not speak properly and who got absolutely no assistance from the lady who was there. She literally chased him.

Dr. Hillery

An unusual occupation for a lady.

Mr. James Tully

Chasing a man? She chased this poor unfortunate fellow.

Mr. Corish

Did she catch him?

Mr. James Tully

No, but I did. He was due some money and he was looking for a job. The person concerned knew him and would have been well able to understand him if she had taken the trouble to listen, but because he was only a casual worker, she felt she was entitled to chase him. This sort of thing should not be allowed. If there is any training to be done, these people should be trained in psychology. Even if a person does not get a job, at least if he is met with a smile and a kind word, it does help.

The Minister referred to an information officer and could he tell me if the advertisement for this post referred to journalistic experience or has the post being filled?

Dr. Hillery

I forget the advertisement now. I did have it here for a while. A name has been selected by the Civil Service Commission but he has not been appointed yet.

Mr. James Tully

What I wanted to know was: is sports reporting considered journalistic experience?

Mr. Corish

It did not include the phrase—"all things being equal"?

Dr. Hillery

This is completely out of my hands. It is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. The appointment is made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. James Tully

And has only one name been put forward by the Civil Service Commission.

Dr. Hillery

Yes, one name.

Mr. James Tully

In that case, it does appear that sporting journalism is considered to be the type of journalism referred to in the letter to the Civil Service Commission.

I should like to refer now to the question of safety. I am quite sure the Minister has a copy—as a matter of fact, I know he has—of The Building and Contract Journal in which there is an excellent article on Safety, Health and Welfare in Industrial Employment by Patrick A. MacSweeney, BE, AMICEI.

Dr. Hillery

Two articles.

Mr. James Tully

A series of articles. I think the Minister will agree that the information contained in those articles spotlights the difficulty in this country as far as accidents are concerned. Accidents— whether they be road accidents, industrial accidents or accidents on the farm—tend to be regarded by people in this country as things which happen to other people; they do not happen to us. That is the attitude of everybody to accidents. That is the reason nobody seems to worry very much about this whole question of setting up safety organisations within the industry itself. I have a complaint which I made on the debate last year on Industry and Commerce—and I think the previous year also—that is, from my experience, I found that employers generally felt that the setting up of a safety council, or rather, the selection of those for a safety council from both sides was their prerogative. The result was that they tended to look for the fellow who had the reputation of not saying very much, of not being inclined to kick over the traces. As a result of that, the safety councils were not so hot in very many cases. In know that a number of inspectors are supposed to visit industries in the country over the year. I was shocked to find there are 21 only for the whole country. As a matter of fact, I can tell the Minister what they are, in case he does not know.

Mr. Corish

22, which is to be raised to 28.

Dr. Hillery

Twenty-eight.

Mr. James Tully

No, 21.

Dr. Hillery

I have 22.

Mr. James Tully

You have a chief inspector, four senior inspectors, 16 inspectors, and that makes 21. There may be one we did not count. These include civil, mechanical and electrical engineers and industrial chemists and scientists. But even if those people visited three factories per day for every one of the 210 effective working days they have to do the whole year, they could visit the factories only once a year and, if there is some special case on which they are held up—a court case or anything else for which they are required—the number drops further. Even with your 26 inspectors, I believe there is no effort at all being made——

Dr. Hillery

Twenty-eight.

Mr. James Tully

Even if the Minister doubled the number, he would still not be anywhere near the number required. It is quite obvious that while ordinary factories are being inspected, in addition, your inspectors are supposed to carry out further duties. Of the 10,889 registered premises in 1964, 9,773 were inspected; in 1965, there were 11,570 registered and 11,047 were inspected. But, in addition to that, your inspectors are also concerned with the enforcement of the provisions of the Conditions of Employment Act, the Holidays Act, the Office Premises Act, the Carriage by Sea Act, et cetera. How on earth could they do that job? How could 21, 22 or 28 do the job adequately? I do not think it is possible, and we are merely fooling ourselves if we think it can be done. There are 12,000 registered premises under the Act, which gives 600 per inspector. Apart from anything else, I do not think that is right.

In addition, these inspectors are responsible also for the inspection of building sites. The Minister must be aware that the most dangerous places of employment in the country are the building sites. Forty per cent of the fatal accidents occur on building sites. Why? In most cases, because absolutely no care is taken at all to have the normal safety precautions carried out. In fact, it appears as though very many of the building sites operate without the Department being aware of their existence at all. Therefore, they can never be examined. That may not be the Department's fault. If they have not got enough inspectors, it would be impossible for them to go round to every building site. I notice that the Minister, when presenting a safety prize on one of the sites in the city, made what I would consider a very sensible speech there. The trouble about it is that, apart from those who read The Building and Contract Journal, very few people will be made aware of the highlights of the Minister's speech when, in effect, what he says is that if people really considered the necessity for preventing accidents, accidents could be prevented. That, of course, is the situation. Even on some of the modern sites in and around the city serious accidents have occurred and the big trouble about those accidents is that they are usually fairly serious. There is a list of them given in this document and I think it shows how easily accidents can happen.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Even I came into this Dáil through an accident.

Dr. Hillery

That was not preventable, was it?

Mr. James Tully

There are some accidents people get over and some they do not. I do not know into which category to put the Deputy's entry into the Dáil.

For instance, on page 23 of The Building and Contract Journal of 16th February, 1967, certain facts are given briefly. It gives the number of people who were injured, taken from the report of the factory inspectorate. In this article we can see how simply people can be killed. One example given was of a man engaged in demolishing a building; a worker standing on a wall. He was using a hammer to break up and demolish the wall, when he slipped and fell 40 feet to his death. The next example was a carpenter coming down a ladder for a tea-break who slipped and fell seven feet on to the chipboard floor which he hit with his head, and he died. The next example was of painters engaged in a factory, painting the inside of the roof. They were standing on a working platform about 20 feet above the ground. The tie bar of the roof members, which supported the platform, broke and the men fell to the ground. One man was killed in the fall.

There is a list of people here who were killed because of the fact that simple safety precautions were not taken. On top of that, there are hundreds of people who have been seriously injured in the building trade year after year. The Minister might do very well if he made an effort to tie up the arrangements in the building industry. Here particularly the majority of the employers do not appear to encourage the workers to be interested in safety. They certainly do not encourage them to take part in the safety councils or the setting up of safety councils. The Minister could do a good job by trying to help out in this matter.

Over the past couple of years we have had quite a surfeit of advice from Ministers about the necessity for good relations between employers and workers. Although they have been referring to good relations between employers and workers, the Departments of State have been giving such a bad example to outside employers that there is no point at all in the Minister, at public functions or here in this House, saying: "There must be good relations and we must see to it that the relations between employers and employees must be very good. There must be no delay in discussion and it must be through negotiation." The Minister is surely aware that practically every Department in the State which employs men and women do it in such a way that they pay what they like. They give what they like and they literally thumb their noses at the trade unions. Why is this? It is because of the fact that they feel the trade unions cannot go on strike.

Some two or three years ago, to give one example, when a strike took place and the Department of Agriculture was involved in that Deputy Smith was Minister for Agriculture, how did it turn out? The first thing they did was to send for the leader of the trade union and say: "You cannot go on strike because you are breaking the law. You cannot picket our premises. You are not entitled to do it. You can be put in prison for doing this." The picket stayed. The strike was not successful because negotiations could not be carried out in the normal way. The same position obtained in the Board of Works.

The Department of Lands, whose officials are most courteous and most satisfactory, will not threaten us with Mountjoy but will discuss matters with us and say: "We are very sorry but it will take some time to process this." A situation was put before that Department on 11th February, 1964, and still no action has been taken. The whole thing has become ludicrous when you find even the Minister for Lands shouting from the housetops about the necessity for good relations and saying that those conditions should be straightened out.

Another matter in which the State is involved is this House: I do not mean any of the Deputies. We have got a number of people who have been working here for years. Some of them, because of peculiar twists in the system of employment, are not able to get the rights to which they are entitled. The reason I raise this matter—I know it is not relevant to the debate—is that it is ideal for Ministers of State to preach about outside employers while they are in fact not keeping their own house in order. They must keep their own house in order. They must set an example and they must point out certain things that should be done. If they do this, they will find that the general public will be prepared to do it far more quickly.

There is one final thing I want to say. We have in fact, at international level, agreed to promote equal pay for equal work. This is one thing in which the Minister can definitely set an example for all. While we signed the Convention, we do not appear to be desperately anxious to put it into operation. I do not want to embarrass the lady taking the notes in any way but here we have the situation where people do exactly the same type of work with a difference of £7 to £10 a week between them. It is not good enough to have all this talk about those things while the State itself is not setting an example. I would suggest that one of the things the Minister could do to improve the situation is at least to set an example in such matters.

Mr. Booth

At the outset I should like to say that I was greatly impressed by the Minister's introduction of his first Estimate for this new Department. I have further been impressed with his almost infinite patience in dealing with the many problems with which he has been faced. In spite of his quiet manner and his reasonable approach, his infinite patience and above all his willingness to listen to people, many of his speeches have been either ignored or misquoted.

I should like to try to underline again that the whole purpose of this Department is to ensure that we build up a proper policy for the workers and to develop even more the magnificent record which this Party have built up over the years. It was, therefore, something of a disappointment to hear some of the contributions of Deputy Cluskey. Before I criticise him, I hope he will not mind if I actually agree with him on another point. He spoke at column 1659 on the subject of the transfer of certain functions from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of Labour. I must say I find myself in complete agreement with him when he encouraged the Minister to do something really dramatic so far as the employment exchange premises are concerned. I would like to go slightly further and follow Deputy Tully a bit more on the question of the appointment of placement officers. At the moment I agree with Deputy Cluskey that employment exchanges are very dismal and depressing places, even for people whose morale is high, but for people whose morale is low through unemployment, they must be just about the last word. They are a very doubtful heritage which has come down to us. I hope that as soon as possible we will have them drastically improved.

So far as placement officers are concerned I feel, with Deputy Tully, that we have got to have men and women who are really well trained in industrial psychology. We do not want people sitting behind a hatch and saying: "Here is a job. Will you take it?" There is something more than that. We need to have somebody there to study the personality, the temperament, the ability, both physical and mental, of each applicant. First of all, he must study the man or woman and then he must look for a job which will suit that person and which he will suit.

At the moment there is no confidence by the workers or employers in the employment function of the employment exchanges. Employers tend to regard those who register in the employment exchanges as being the dregs of society, the misfits and so on. Amongst unemployed workers you will find people for whom it is almost impossible to find suitable employment but we cannot rest content until we can build up a system whereby a real effort will be made to study those who are out of work and find work for them. In particular, I hope that we will follow the Minister's example by talking about "unemployed workers" rather than "the unemployed" or "the handicapped," you are bringing these people right down to the level of statistics and you are losing the essential value of the personality. I hope all of us in this House and all other people in public life will keep this matter before them so that we regard unemployed workers as basically people and not just digits.

When I come to criticise some of the speeches which have been made ostensibly in reply to the Minister's speech, I should like to stress again that there is a constant effort made by Deputies of the Labour Party to speak as if they and they alone represented the workers and they and they alone knew anything about them. Nothing could be further from the truth. In actual fact, the Minister has stressed repeatedly that his guiding principle is to ensure that workers will be properly provided for and that conditions will improve in real terms. I would be the first to express pride that the standard of living in the country has improved dramatically over the past five or ten years and particularly over the past five years.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Hear, hear.

Mr. Booth

At the same time, wages have increased at a far higher rate than the improvement in the actual standard of living. Many of the wage increases have, unfortunately, been illusory. The amount of benefit workers have got by achieving an increase of, say, £1 or £2 a week has not really represented an additional spending power of that amount simply because it has not been appreciated that when wage increases get ahead of our increase in production, those wage increases just do not make sense.

Deputy Cluskey referred to the Minister making some threatening remarks about workers striving for better conditions. He was not, of course, quoting the Minister. He was saying what he hoped the Minister could be deemed to have said. I would ask the Deputy and other members of the Labour Party and members of the public to look at what the Minister did say. He was not threatening anybody with dire penalties for being naughty. What he was saying was that if any sector or sectors of the community were found to be acting against the national interest, the Government would have to act in order to safeguard the community, including the workers themselves. We must be very careful that we do not separate the workers from the community as if they were two entirely separate bodies of people. Deputy Cluskey was trying to say that the Minister was threatening workers that if they asked for better conditions, he would chop their heads off. That is not what the Minister said for a moment and I think it was terribly irresponsible of Deputy Cluskey to try to get that point over. It is a very easy thing to misquote people.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There you are now, Deputy Cluskey.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy has an alternative—to quote the Minister.

Mr. Booth

The Deputy will appreciate further how easy it is to misquote people if I show him how I could misquote. At column 1662 of the Official Report, Deputy Cluskey stated: "This is, in effect, what he said". That is the actual quote from Deputy Cluskey's statement.

Mr. Cluskey

Is Deputy Booth not going to quote the Minister?

Mr. Booth

I shall quote from the Minister shortly if the Deputy can bear with me. What the Deputy was accusing the Minister of saying in effect was not, of course, true. I should like to refer the Deputy to a statement of his own at column 1667 where he stated: "To try to tell the workers that there is no conflict between worker and employer is ridiculous. Of course there is a conflict between them. There must be conflict between them." I could say, rightly or wrongly, that, in effect, what Deputy Cluskey was saying is: "There has got to be conflict because I want it that way". I do not know whether that would be correct for me to say.

Mr. Cluskey

You know very well it would not be.

Mr. Booth

I have a horrible suspicion it would be because there are trade unionists like Deputy Cluskey, irresponsible ones, who have a vested interest in conflict rather than in settlement. There are also very fine trade union executive members who have gone far beyond Deputy Cluskey, for which I am devoutly thankful and who do not feel that conflict is essential and who feel no pride when conflict does break out.

Mr. Cluskey

Under the present system it is inevitable.

Mr. Booth

Under the present system nothing is inevitable.

Mr. Cluskey

Under the present system it is inevitable that there be conflict between workers and employers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Booth.

Mr. Booth

Then it only confirms my suspicion that Deputy Cluskey is going to make damn sure there is conflict.

Mr. Cluskey

No; I am going to make damn sure that workers know there is.

Mr. Booth

It comes to the same thing. He is going to go around preaching to the workers: "There is conflict; there has got to be conflict". That is the most unmitigated nonsense of which the Deputy should be thoroughly ashamed and anything more to the discredit of the Labour Party I cannot imagine.

Mr. Cluskey

It is a statement of fact. It may be regrettable but it is still fact.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Booth

It is in his own wilful imagination because he has not got the power or the will to think. There is nothing inevitable in conflict between workers and employers and between reasonable employers and reasonable workers. There can be the utmost harmony, and there often is, and that is the time when the trade union must come in, not to stir up trouble, and most of them do not, but to exercise the proper function of a trade union which is the raising of the standard and raising of conditions of employment of their members, raising the standard of training and doing everything they can to improve their situation. But there are some little men amongst trade unionists, and there are little men amongst employers, too, little men who believe that the only thing they are there for is to get an extra 6d an hour or 7½d an hour, and there is much more to being a trade unionist than that. At least I know that even if Deputy Cluskey does not, and if he does not, it is about time he did.

Mr. Cluskey

If I did not, I would not learn it from you.

Mr. Booth

I do not think he would learn anything from anybody but I am not devoid of hope altogether. Maybe one of these days enlightenment may dawn upon him.

Mr. Cluskey

Not from you.

Mr. Booth

We come to this whole question of industrial relations. How are we to avoid industrial disputes? How are we to build up reasonable industrial relations? They will not be achieved simply by the utterance of pious platitudes. We have to get some system whereby disputes which may arise from time to time can be brought to a logical and reasonable conclusion.

I have said before, and I will go on saying it until someone else sees the point, that in every other sphere of human relationships, disputes must be referred to the law and must be made subject to the rule of law at all stages. It is only on the question of industrial disputes that the rule of law does not exist. There is no earthly reason for that. There was a time, 50, 60 or 70 years ago, when the worker was in such a helpless position that he could not believe in the possibility of ever getting a straight deal from his employer, but those days are long gone. The trade union movement is now very strong, indeed, and workers are very conscious of their own power. Employers have power, too, but to try to settle disputes by means of a test of power between workers and employers is sheer nonsense.

There is no question for one moment of anyone wanting to make strikes illegal. One of the things we have to do is make them entirely unnecessary because, as Deputy Tully said a few moments ago, the people who get hurt by strikes are the workers, not the employers. That is the wrong way around if you are trying to run a strike, because the purpose of a strike is to hurt the employer and force him to take some action which he is not otherwise willing to take. Strikes are so crazy, for example, because not only do they hurt the workers directly involved in them and their wives and families, but also they affect workers who have no hand, act or part in the dispute at all, and who become disemployed owing to their loyalty to their fellow workers which compels them not to pass a picket. I know that no one ever wants a strike. No one ever wants an atomic bomb either. A strike is as useless a weapon as an atomic bomb because it only creates disaster all round. We have got to find some better way of settling disputes without causing that unnecessary suffering.

In his statement the Minister referred to the Labour Court and reported that during the year the Court issued 124 recommendations, of which 52 were rejected by the workers. That is an impossible situation. I know that certain recommendations have also been rejected by the employers, but that is very rare. By far the greatest number of rejections are by the workers. That is a reflection on our society and it is a reflection—and a quite unjustified reflection—on the Labour Court itself. When two parties come before a court, it is very rare for both sides to leave the court thoroughly satisfied with the result. The judgment of a court is rarely a compromise. Normally it is weighted in favour of one party or the other. We cannot expect the Labour Court to act in such a way that, when a dispute is referred to it, both sides will welcome the decision.

To my mind, it is utterly crazy to have a labour court which can go through all the formalities of hearing both sides of a dispute and give them earnest consideration before reaching a recommendation, then issue a recommendation and find it thrown in the ashcan. If it were completely thrown in the ashcan it would be bad enough, but when it is used as a jumping off board for fresh demands, that makes it even worse. That is the sort of situation which makes the Labour Court of such doubtful value in its present organisation.

This is something which we have to discuss very coolly and quietly together, but there must be some way in which we can make industrial disputes subject to the rule of law. The advantages far outweigh any conceivable disadvantages. I know it can be said that the Court in certain cases will be giving decisions which are unpopular with the workers, but it is equally clear that in some cases the decisions will be against the employers. If we are dealing with facts, and if we want justice, we have to accept the judgment of an independent and well qualified body. If we could do that and save the workers the agony of having strikes, of suffering loss of income, of having to disemploy themselves by failing to turn up for work because it would involve breaking a picket, we would have achieved a tremendous amount.

The only reason why people will not refer a matter to a labour court with power to issue a decision is that they have a built-in lack of confidence in the justice of their own case and because they believe that can achieve more by force than by reason. I do not believe that the trade union movement is basically in favour of the use of force, nor do I think it is basically unreasonable, but I do believe it has got to take a jump forward to the present day and away from the out-dated 19th century conceptions of labour relations by which it is damned at the moment. The trade union movement is struggling forward and making progress, but it is getting very little assistance from the Labour Party.

I would hope, therefore, that further negotiations and discussions would take place between the Minister and the Department and the Trade Union Congress and the employers' organisations, until we find some way in which we can have a settlement of industrial disputes by reference to a court of law where the decision shall be final. There are many factors of employment, apart from the rate of wages and the hours of work.

I do not agree for a moment with Deputy Tully that there is this urgent need for a further reduction in the hours of work. I believe he was genuine in his remarks but I think he was entirely misguided. If he looks into it, he will find that the men who have achieved a five-day week are only too anxious to have another part-time job on Saturdays, and that the practice of having more than one job is one which is already creeping into this country just as it has crept into America in a very big way already. That will not help the overall employment situation. But do not let us start codding ourselves that a 40-hour week is too long as far as workers are concerned. Anyone can work a 40-hour week and not be unduly pushed, but what many people are looking for, and everyone knows it, is either overtime or another job with the extra amount of so-called leisure. With the extra amount of so-called leisure workers have achieved, it is a common question for an applicant to ask his prospective employer: "What are the chances of overtime"? It is not a question of what the hours of work are.

Mr. Treacy

That is surely an indication of the wages paid.

Mr. Booth

It has become a habit to regard overtime——

Mr. Cluskey

As a necessity——

Mr. Booth

No.

Mr. Cluskey

——to live.

Mr. Booth

As an attraction. The actual basic rates of wages have been negotiated between the unions on a national basis in recent years and if they are to say at this stage——

Mr. Cluskey

No.

Mr. Booth

If the trade unions did not regard the basic wage rates negotiated as satisfactory, why the hell did not they say so in the first place? They have not said it.

Mr. Cluskey

Would the Deputy tell us what restrictions were put on his director's fees?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Booth must be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Cluskey

Would the Deputy like the Minister to have restrictions put on his director's fees?

Mr. Booth

I am not preaching to anyone.

Dr. Hillery

Is the Deputy suggesting that I am not allowed to speak to him now?

Mr. Cluskey

It is not a question of talking. The Minister attempted to intimidate——

Dr. Hillery

You have total agreement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If this conversation would cease, Deputy Booth might be able to continue.

Dr. Hillery

I am talking about free collective bargaining. They are against it.

Mr. Cluskey

It is a wonder the Minister does not look at the other side.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If this barrage of interruptions ceased, I might be able to call on Deputy Booth to resume his speech.

Mr. Booth

Could I get one other point clear and it might, in turn, clarify some of the points bandied around here during the past couple of minutes? The Minister in what he is trying to do has not been able to achieve the agreement of the workers or employers. There has been a certain measure of agreement only. I know that many workers, and possibly some trade unionists, feel that the Minister is dragging his feet in the matter of getting the maximum benefits for the workers; and I know, as the Minister has said, that the employers are convinced he is playing the trade unionists' game and letting them down, right, left and centre. As long as the Minister can keep himself in the position where each side feels he is working for the other, I am perfectly happy that he is steering a proper middle course in the interests of the community. The manifest lack of enthusiasm shown by the employers has shown he is not an employers' man. What he is trying to do, a damnably difficult thing, is to hold the balance in the interests of the whole community.

As the Minister stated in Cork, the Government are the custodians of the common good and must look for the advancement of the interests of the community as a whole. This brings me to the question of free collective bargaining. If we were existing in a society as it was 60 years ago, it might have been possible to regard the free collective bargaining system as ideal. In fact, most people, and I, certainly, do not regard it as ideal because no one situation can be dealt with in isolation. We are living in a complex, interlocking society. When one wage rate is increased or one working week is reduced, it has an immediate effect on numerous other sectors of the economy and there is a general reaction so that if one section of employees in a certain factory have their week reduced from 42½ hours to 40 hours, everyone else in the factory says his week must be reduced also.

Mr. Treacy

That is right. Keep them down; keep them down.

Mr. Booth

The Deputy's stupidity is almost beyond belief, unless he is being hypocritical. I think he is being stupid. Never mind, he will get sense. What we have got to do is to achieve a situation whereby there will be a reasonable settlement of wage rates, hours of working and so on which will mean something to employees. There is always this craving for justice and equality but there is a basic human weakness which reacts right against what I have been advocating. All you have got to do is to suggest there should be a minimum wage rate of £10 per week without any proportionate increase for other wage-earners and you will see what I mean. There are people working for less than £10 a week.

Mr. Kyne

Employers or employees?

Mr. Booth

I know the Deputy will find this awkward to swallow but let him content himself. There are employees working for less than £10 a week. There are employees working for £10 a week. If a rule were made that there should be a minimum wage for all workers of £10 per week, the immediate reaction of the man who is getting £10 a week would be to ask for £12 a week.

Mr. Kyne

The workers in the vineyard.

Mr. Booth

The next point would be that the man who was getting £12 per week would demand £15 per week. It goes right up into the thousands of pounds. I know one professional man perfectly happy with £3,750 a year until he discovered there was another man getting £4,000.

Mr. Cluskey

Was he happy? I am glad.

Mr. Booth

What is more, and Deputy Cluskey may be glad to hear it, is that he is now convinced he is broke because the other man is getting £250 a year more.

Mr. Kyne

What about the £10 a week man?

Mr. Booth

It is a long time since the Deputy found himself getting only £10 a week.

Mr. Kyne

Not so long.

Mr. Cluskey

It is not so long since I was on the labour.

Mr. Booth

I would be happier if the Deputy had stayed on it.

Mr. Cluskey

I would be surprised if the Deputy had expressed any other sentiment. That is his attitude to the workers.

Mr. Booth

We must build up a reasonable wage and salary structure. Some efforts have been made, particularly by Aer Lingus and Arthur Guinness & Sons, to make a reasonable settlement on a wide basis but, mind you, it took a long number of years. We have got to expedite that because the main worry, to my mind, at the moment is that there is a group of people living at far too low a rate and they obviously have the first priority. I know there are Deputies on the Labour Party benches who would resist it but we would be tackling the problem reasonably if we introduced a minimum wage of £10 per week and agreed that all other wages would not go up proportionately. Unfortunately there is this built-in class system which is more damaging to the trade union movement than it ever was to the employers. There are signs of both employers and workers coming to see the need for an overall approach but we are still bedevilled by this sectional approach.

I know Deputy Cluskey believes that I am very much against trade unionism. I cannot see how we can evolve a proper state of affairs in this country unless we have a strong, active trade union movement supported by loyal members, and that is what the trade union movement has not got. Far too often we find the wise guidance of a trade union being completely disregarded by its own members, many of whom do not wish to know what are the issues which are at stake.

I could give instances nearer home but a typical instance was over in Britain recently where there were 35 men on strike and their stoppage of work led to the disemployment of about 30,000 men. That in itself was crazy, unjust and unjustifiable. When it came to the solution of that strike and the 35 men were called together by their union to give a final judgment on a settlement of their dispute, only 17 turned up. That showed that the British trade union movement is not far ahead of ours, if indeed it is at all. How can you imagine a situation where 35 men could have put 30,000 out of a job, and when it comes to the final decision as to whether they will settle their dispute or carry on with it and keep those men out of a job, only 17 out of 35 would bother to attend a meeting to vote, which means that half of them did not know what the strike was about, that half of them did not care what it was about?

One finds in all sectors of the country a complete irresponsibility, and the only way in which we can get over this, to my mind, is to have properly elected union executives who will have authority, so that the trade union movement and the employers' organisation shall be truly democratic. At the moment neither side is truly democratic, because the essence of democracy is the delegation of authority by the members to an executive which is authorised to act on behalf of the members during its term of office. That is something of which both employers and workers have got to get the hang, and the sooner the better. That means, I would hope, that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions would grow in strength and that its executive would become more powerful and more able to negotiate a final settlement, without this dreadful business of having to refer everything back. The employers are little, if anything, better. At least the trade union movement has an Irish Congress. The employers have the Federated Union of Employers and numerous other smaller employers' organisations, sometimes acting with one another and sometimes acting at cross purposes.

In that connection, I should like to commend to the Minister's attention —I am sure he has given it his attention already—a proposal for the seting up of some national employers' organisation. The suggested title was the National Industrial and Business Organisation. I hope the Minister and the members of his staff will keep this under review and will give every possible support and encouragement to it. I am not appealing for a strong employers' organisation in order to be able to fight back against the trade unions. I do agree there is very often an inevitable difference of point of view between employers and employees, but there need not necessarily be conflict.

It is absolutely essential that we should do as other countries have done and build up a strong trade union organisation, which will cost the workers money. The actual amount which trade union membership costs the average member in Ireland at the moment is ridiculous as compared with what it costs in other countries. But in other countries they do get value for their money. They do get top grade executives and top grade experts on all aspects of the industrial situation: psychologists, industrialists, economists, financiers, the whole lot. I know that the Congress is beginning to get more experts on its staff, and more power to it. I am delighted, and I am delighted to see, too, moves towards amalgamation of trade unions, because these amalgamations can only do good to the worker and to the employer. I only hope my recommendations will not damn the idea, but I do feel it is essential, and I hope it will be equalled on the employers' side.

If we can do that, have an employers' organisation and the Congress of Trade Unions authorised to negotiate on behalf of their members and to reach a final settlement, we shall be able to produce order and discipline in our society, and that is something which it needs more than anything else at the moment. We are being damned by sectional interests and pressure groups, and these are things which produce no concrete results. I would hope, therefore, that the Minister's Department will go from strength to strength. I would also hope that they will not lose their patience, as they very well might do. I would hope that, if agreement cannot be reached between employers and trade unions, they will realise that they have nobody to blame but themselves if the Government have to step in in the interests of the whole community. Deputy Tully comes in and smiles in a rather sinister fashion as if to say: "I am glad I came in just to hear him making that horrible remark," as if the Minister or as if I want to go out grinding the face of the poor.

Mr. James Tully

I do not know about the Minister.

Mr. Booth

Grinding the face of the poor is not an enjoyable activity, I am sure; I have never tried doing it. That is not the way in which a political Party can work, especially a political Party which draws most or all of its strength from employees and not employers.

Mr. Kyne

Why does the Deputy not advise them not to go on strike if he has such influence over them?

Mr. Booth

I personally would never advise anyone to go on strike because I think it is the craziest form of activity. Everybody, in theory, recommends people not to go on strike. I wonder is the Deputy encouraging people to do it?

Mr. Kyne

Yes; you have to encourage them to go on strike when they are getting small wages.

Mr. Booth

God help his innocence if he honestly believes that is the way to get a settlement.

Mr. Kyne

I have seen it work.

Mr. Booth

Anybody with any experience and any knowledge of reality will know that whereas one gets an increase of 1d or 6d an hour, one loses far more by going on strike.

Mr. Cluskey

Was the Deputy ever engaged in a lock-out?

Mr. Booth

No.

Mr. Cluskey

Did he ever have any hand, act or part in a lock-out?

Mr. Booth

No.

Mr. Cluskey

I wonder.

Mr. Booth

No, I did not.

Mr. Cluskey

He is being a little bit too hypocritical.

Mr. Booth

As far as the Minister and his Department are concerned, I would support him absolutely in every effort he can make to get order and discipline and the rule of law into industrial relations. Neither employers nor workers have anything to lose; they have everything to gain. Above all, I say with all the emphasis I can bring to bear on it that I deny utterly Deputy Cluskey's suggestion that there must always be conflict between employers and workers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mrs. Desmond

I suppose none of us can speak on this Estimate without displaying our particular bias, without coming down either on the side of labour or on the side of capital. For my own part as a Labour Deputy who is not a trade unionist, I found—I am not referring particularly to Deputy Booth who showed his particular bias in no uncertain terms in the last quarter of an hour—that the Minister has also shown a bias. From what I, as a non-trade union Labour Deputy, could glean from the Minister's opening speech the only fears he expressed were that the unions might press in the coming months further claims and some employers might concede these claims.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.