Committee on Finance. - Vote 39—Labour (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Tuesday, 28 Feb 1967

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.

Mrs. Desmond

Before reporting progress, I was making the point that when speaking on this Estimate one must come down either on the side of labour or on the side of capital. No matter how much we might beat about the bush, we will ultimately declare ourselves on one side or on the other. We in the Labour Party do not deny the fact that we are naturally on the side of labour. The Minister wants to give us the impression that he is taking a middle-of-the-road course, that he is on no side, so to speak. When we and workers generally, those people whom we represent, hear the Minister in his opening speech on this Estimate state that he is concerned only with those unions who might make claims in the future and only with those employers who might concede those claims and make no reference at all to all the employers who might resist those claims, no matter how just the claims might be, we would be pardoned, I think, for assuming the Minister was rather on the side of the employers.

We find the Minister talking about his being concerned with settlement of wage claims which are in accordance with the general interest, but when we find the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, entering into a conspiracy, if I might say so, to increase prices over the last few months and deciding these price increases should not be made public, and deciding that it was in the general interest that they would not be made public, I think we might be pardoned for assuming that in the Government's mind the general interest is not synonymous with the interest of the workers of this country.

We and the workers generally have another reason for being suspicious. Over the last 12 months most Deputies will recall wage increases of a maximum of £1 per week were granted to lower paid workers as a result of arbitration awards. In the case of county council workers and workers employed by health authorities, by the Department of Lands and Forestry they were dated from 1st May. The various Minister concerned, the Minister for Lands, the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Health and whoever else they may be, refused to sanction this increase from 1st May. This was an indication of the attitude of the Ministers, the Cabinet and the present Government to even the lower paid workers and these are the very people about whom the present Government profess and express themselves to be most concerned.

Those are only a few general observations. I want to be perfectly honest. I rise principally here tonight to endeavour to ascertain the attitude of the Minister and that of the present Government to the question of equal pay for equal work. I want to know exactly what the attitude of the Minister is on this. I want to know, for instance, what the Minister meant when replying to the debate on 9th November last when, at column 687 of the Official Report, Vol. 225, No. 4, in reply to questions raised by Labour Deputies, he states:

The matter of equal pay for what has been called equal work was raised.

This might be a manner of speaking but to me it suggests that the Minister for Labour is one who believes that there is no such thing as equal work. I am just wondering if he is one of those people who feel that women are just not capable of doing equal work. I hope I am wrong because I believe that the present incumbent of this office is a man particularly suited to the post, a man whose characteristics are just right for the public relations type of work the post demands, but I would hate to think that he is possessed of such a Victorian attitude towards women as those few words of his seem to indicate.

In the same debate the same principle seems to be involved when he replied to a question raised about women factory inspectors. At column 681 the Minister for Labour said:

Much of the work of the inspectorate would be in areas which could not easily be done by a woman, so that the area of their activities would be quite limited.

I do not know a great deal about factory work or factory inspection but I should like the Minister to point out to me why he thinks women's activities in this particular field would be so limited. Is this another indication of his opinion of women workers generally and their capabilities, either physically or mentally?

In the same volume at column 687 the Minister, when replying to questions raised regarding the Government's attitude towards ratification of Convention No. 100 of the International Labour Organisation, goes on to say:

The matter of equal pay for what has been called equal work was raised. I answered this in the Dáil as reported in column 2055 on Question No. 37 on 24th May last. I said that the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 100 provides expressly that this principle may be applied by means of national laws or regulations, legally established or recognised machinery for wage determination, collective agreements between employers and workers or a combination of these various means. The normal method employed in wage negotiations in Ireland is that of free collective bargaining. Before taking a decision on the possibility of ratifying Convention No. 100 I said that the Government should have regard to the trend in free, collective bargaining in the direction of equal pay and that, having regard to the general existing pay structures, it would not be appropriate for us to ratify the Convention at this time. That is still my attitude to that problem. Other countries have set out to achieve this but I do not know if they have made any marked progress.

As Minister for Labour he will, I hope, find out now if they have made any progress. He gives the impression that he does not care and does not believe in the principle at all. This is my impression and I hope, for the sake of women workers whose lives will be affected a great deal by this new Department, that I am wrong. We have a right to know where exactly the Minister stands. I personally feel so strongly on the matter that I would go so far as to say that national law should be applied.

I am insensed, and I am sure many women on factory floors, in offices, professions, or wherever they may be, are insensed when they find Labour Court findings of £1 a week for males and pro rata increases for women and juveniles. Pro rata increases are all right for juveniles. That is a transient stage and if one is a male one leaves it after a few years, but there is no such reprieve if one is a woman. I feel very strongly about this. It is something we should get the Minister's attitude on.

We are all concerned about collective bargaining. My Party is aware of this but if it is not expedient to set the trend to that extent surely it must be possible for the Government to cut out the discrimination that exists in the service of the State, in other words, in the Civil Service, the discrimination against women as a sex that exists there. I am inclined to believe that when the Minister speaks about the trend, the trend is going in the opposite direction as far as I can see it. When one looks through the Book of Estimates one sees various wage rates, so much for a man, and possibly a couple of hundred pounds less per year for a woman.

We see here in this Chamber today women working—and this brings me back to what the Minister referred to as what might be called equal work— and in a few moments this work will be taken over by a man. That man gets more pay, for no other reason than that he is a man. There is no question that this is equal work and yet the man who takes over in a few minutes gets more pay for it. That is something I cannot understand. In this age when a number of injustices are being wiped out, and when a number of Victorian ideas are being discarded, I am surprised that this is allowed to continue.

In fact, there are other instances of discrimination against women within the Civil Service. I was a civil servant and I feel very strongly about this. If I had taken the advice of, I think, the Minister for Lands at the time of my election, instead of entering this House, I would have been sensible—I think that was the word he used—and gone back to the Civil Service. If I had done so, I would get no marriage allowance for rearing my two children. Women who have gone back to the Civil Service have to pay back the gratuity they got, and they get no marriage allowance. Yet, their male colleagues, having once qualified for large amounts, continue to enjoy that privilege, whether they have a wife or family. That is another instance of discrimination against women.

I appeal to the Minister for Labour to set his mind to rectifying this glaring injustice. In this age, the role of a Government should be to eliminate injustices and oppression which definitely exist as much today as they did years ago in the case of women working side by side with men. We have a very enlightened view on this question on these benches, but even from the most conservative point of view, it must be realised that women today are occupying posts which could be occupied by men, but women are being used as cheap labour. I can understand that the Government in their present straits need cheap labour to keep down production costs, but they are doing so at the expense of women particularly, and also at the expense of the less organised, less protected and lower paid.

They are doing so particularly at the expense of women and even more so at the expense of young girls between 14 and 16 years of age. These young girls are, in fact, being held out as incentives to some foreign industrialists. I am not condemning all foreign industrialists, but employment is being given to these little girls between 14 and 16 years of age, who are not even of insurable age, for paltry wages of 30/-, £2 or £3 a week, in very bad conditions. Not only that, but when these girls reach the age at which they might draw even the inadequate female rate of wages, they are replaced by girls of 14 to 16. At the age of 18, they are let go. This is something with which the Minister and the Cabinet as a whole might concern themselves.

As I said, my principal object in speaking on this Estimate was to ascertain once and for all the Minister's attitude towards my sex as employees, but I want to refer briefly to a few other matters as well. I want to make a brief reference to the question of career guidance. The Minister told us—and I was glad to hear it— that he is looking into the whole question of career guidance. He said he is trying to publish the basic information on the various occupations for our school leavers, and those who are staying on at school, and that he will have before the year is out a series of 100 leaflets setting out in tabloid from the basic information on the particular types of employment.

That is a step in the right direction, but a great deal more is needed. It is certainly necessary that our boys and girls who are still at school and who are in the process of leaving school should know the qualifications required for various posts which they might like to take up, or various careers on which they might like to enter. I do not know if the Minister intends letting these boys and girls know what openings there are in the various grades. From reading his speech, I do not think he has gone that far. This is very important, because already even before we have this new deal in regard to education, there are too many with pass leaving certificates looking for openings in academic careers and too few with technical training. I believe that with the advent of the abolition of fees and with free school transport in the rural areas for our boys and girls, there will be a greater tendency towards this academic training.

We have a sort of unenlightened attitude towards technical training— I suppose this is historical — and a number of our people still feel that there is something more respectable about academic training and academic jobs. The trouble is that the jobs are not there. We all know boys and girls with a pass leaving certificate, perhaps with two honours, whose parents are not in a position to spend more on their training, and who would in fact be better off if they had had career guidance earlier on. It is very important that the career openings available should be made known as well as the qualifications needed. Indeed, for many of our parents education is a means to an end, a means to a job. It is very important that they should know so far as possible what the job prospects are.

I know that retraining and training are an enormous task. This has been dealt with pretty adequately by my colleagues on these benches, and I shall not dwell on it at any length, but I should like the Minister to give me an assurance on the question of selection. Unfortunately, we have more material than we need. I want the Minister to assure me that on the question of selection, no injustice will be done. We hear it said that it is not a question of what you know but whom you know.

Mr. James Tully

As Deputy O'Malley says.

Mrs. Desmond

I do not subscribe to that saying, but I do know that in some instances it is justified in the field of training. Perhaps this is more a matter for the Department of Education than the Department of Labour, but I want to give a specific case. I know of a case where leaving certificate candidates are chosen for further training which is, incidentally, heavily subsidised by the State. When they appear for interview for this further training, the results of leaving certificate examination are not known: indeed when they are selected, the results of that examination are not known. They are asked questions at the interview which have nothing to do with educational matters. They are asked, for instance, what their fathers do, where their sisters are, where their brothers work. No question is asked to determine their educational merit.

Dr. Hillery

Is this for national teacher selection?

Mrs. Desmond

No. I have found, and it is generally known, that the higher the social standing of the parents, the more suitable is considered the candidate for further training. This interview concerns girls. Many of the girls whose parents could not afford further training of any kind were forced to go into positions which were not suitable for them. Some of the girls chosen for further training left the course for various reasons after a few months. I will deal with this more specifically on the Vote for Education. This is purely a matter for the Minister for Education.

I ask the Minister for an assurance that this sort of thing will have no place in his Department. Perhaps I am being naive in asking it: it may be unnecessary to ask the question, but I am asking it all the same, just as I ask him to reassure the workers and us who represent them that he is not as biased as we might think he is, as he has given us, Members of the House, to believe. Finally I wish to know from the Minister—this was the primary purpose of my intervention in the debate—exactly what his attitude is towards women workers. He has been asked the question by my colleagues and he has hedged up to now.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Come out into the open.

Mrs. Desmond

He should tell us where he stands. The women of this country wish to know it. They deserve to be told what they can expect from this new Department.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The last speaker was very doubtful about the qualifications of the Minister and about where he stood.

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Burke will reassure us now.

Mr. P.J. Burke

As far as I can see, the Minister for Labour has the toughest job in the Government. There is not any Ministerial office as tough as that of the Minister for Labour.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has a very tough one.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I do not think there is any Minister who, in such a short time, has got so far as the Minister for Labour. His main task is to bring about better understanding between trade unionists, the workers, the employers and their federation. I do not know anybody who has done as much in this direction as the Minister in his short time in that office. My advice to him as an old campaigner is to go slowly in everything he does. I know him as a colleague and a friend and I hope he will have the goodwill of both sides in industry.

I appeal to the trade unions and to the employers' organisations to support the Minister, to help him in every way possible. It is the duty of every public representative to help him inside the House and outside it. I have watched him very carefully since he took over this very hard job and have seen his efforts to reconcile labour and employers, the trade union movement and the employers' federation. It is easy to misrepresent the Minister's purpose: it is easy to say he is against labour. We on this side could not be against labour. Umpteen times I have repeated that as far as we are concerned we must continually be striving for the good of every section of our people, irrespective of class or creed. Our country is too small to concern itself with sectional interests. I do not ever want to hear the word "class" used in it. We must get away from that and strive to leave something for posterity so that we can say honestly that we endeavoured as far as possible to be fair to all our people within the limits of our resources. May I say that the present Minister has no interest beyond that of our people as a whole? He is a man of charity and he has the background of a man of goodwill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is not an obituary, is it?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I do not usually descend to the level of personal abuse to which the Deputy descends from time to time. This is a very serious matter. It is easy to say that the Minister will introduce legislation but that we will not obey it. I do not want to see legislation introduced that will not have the goodwill of both employer and employee. I want to hear everyone in the country saying sincerely: "We will help you in the job you have". It is the easiest thing in the world to condemn a man who is doing something worth while but it contributes nothing to society or to the future of our people.

Listening to the Minister's speech here we find he has had many conferences with the trade union leaders and with the employers' representatives. I want that approach to continue and to see these conferences going on and on. It is inevitable in human society that misunderstandings will occur. They will occur in our homes and in our everyday life. That is inevitable where human beings meet and discuss things together. However, commonsense should prevail. It is up to the leaders of the Labour Party, the leaders of the trade unions, the leaders of the employers' federation to solve their problems sensibly. I am not coming down on one side or the other, because I have intervened in more disputes possibly than most other Deputies here, and successfully, thank goodness. What I want to emphasise is that there are a number of employers who have brought trouble on themselves and a number of workers who have brought trouble on themselves, through some misunderstanding or other, or through being too proud to discuss a problem round a table.

I was a Member of this House at the time the Industrial Relations Bill was going through, and there was a trend of thought at that time that similar powers to those exercised by the courts should be given under the Bill, that when anybody went before the tribunal, the ruling would be final and binding both on the worker and on the employer. I opposed that at the time because I wanted the Bill to be completely free and I wanted relations between the worker and the employer to evolve slowly and smoothly. We had many discussions, even at our own private meetings, about this matter. Deputy Lemass, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, introduced at that period a very fine Bill. The Labour Court has succeeded in doing an excellent job. It has succeeded in solving many disputes. It may not have succeeded in all cases, but it has done so in about 98 per cent of the cases, and that is a big advance.

We must remember that that human machine was built up at a time when the trade unionists and the employers were not so well trained to put their respective cases. Today the trade union official is as competent as a barrister in speaking on behalf of his men. It is the same with the employers' representative. Even so, in the old days, we had the best trade unionists of all time, because times were bad and they had to fight hard and adopt tough tactics. Neither the Minister nor the Party to which I belong is going to interfere with the right of people to strike. Nobody wants to interfere with that democratic right. What the Minister and his Department are trying to do is to eliminate as far as possible any misunderstanding that might be responsible for bringing about a strike.

In our semi-State concerns, the training of foremen in industrial relations would seem to be desirable. Whether he is a foreman on the factory floor, or in a workshop, he lacks that training in industrial relations which is involved in good leadership and good management. I am not saying he should be a softie, that he should not try to get higher production for his firm, or that he should see a worker sitting down and say nothing. However, he should know how to approach workers. He can do a great deal to improve industrial relations. The director may be the best executive of all time but he has his own job to do and may be immersed in trying to sell the products of the industry. The worker is more concerned with the man who is immediately over him than with the director sitting in his office.

I have heard many stories in regard to our semi-State industries. One will hear it said of the foreman: "He has a down on me" or "The foreman is doing this, that and the other." Possibly this is a man who was one of themselves and was promoted. This is a big field the Minister for Labour has to go into, and it is only with the wholehearted co-operation of the trade unions and the employers that he will achieve anything.

Deputy Mrs. Desmond made a good case here for the ladies. We are all anxious to help the ladies and to see equal pay for equal work. That is gradually coming, of course: Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. The wind is blowing that way.

Mr. Corish

Translation, please.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Times change and we must change with the times, and I can quote it from the second book of Caesar.

Mr. Corish

Now give it to us in Irish.

Mr. M. O'Leary

You know what happened to Caesar.

Major de Valera

Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I could go on talking all night on this subject, but I shall desist. I am trying to convert my honourable colleagues here on the left of me. I want them to see reason and to do what I have appealed to them to do. As an old trade unionist of many years' standing——

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy is in arrears.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have a life membership of my union. As a matter of fact——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Honorary membership, no doubt.

Mr. P.J. Burke

——they are entitled to their democratic right to say hard things but, in the particular field in which we are now, we are dealing with a Minister who is anxious to meet them all the way, if he can. For that reason I shall not preach any more and I thank the Chair for its indulgence.

Mr. Treacy

I have listened pretty carefully to this debate. I have listened, in particular, to the sentiments expressed on the Government benches and, having done so, I am of the confirmed opinion that the Fianna Fáil spokesmen, especially Deputy Booth, Deputy Dowling, Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Andrews, have done nothing whatsoever to help the Minister to attain his ideal of peace, harmony and progress in our economy. Seldom in a debate of this kind have we heard such vitriolic statements from Government spokesmen. Seldom have we heard such a denigration of the labour and trade union movement. Seldom have we heard such threats and seldom such slander and abuse of trade union leaders and trade union members as that which emanated from those benches in the past few days.

Surely the Minister is not so foolish as to think that statements like these will help his cause? We realise, of course, that when a Deputy like Deputy Booth speaks with a slanderous tongue in this House, denigrating the Labour Party and the trade union movement, he speaks for and on behalf of his own class, the capitalist class. I congratulate him on having the courage of his convictions in saying what he said. On the other hand, Deputy Dowling, and others in the Fianna Fáil Party, who purport to be trade unionists and who, no doubt, carry trade union cards in their pockets, are a disgrace to their class. They pretend to represent the interests of the workers. We know full well that Deputy Dowling and his ilk have the same love for the labour and trade union movement in this country as a greyhound for a hare. What they have been seeking to do in this debate is to tear down the foundations upon which the trade union movement has been built.

It is extremely difficult to reconcile the Minister's brash, arrogant statements in his opening speech on this, his main Estimate, with some of his earlier statements. Indeed, in his opening statement, he set a headline for all the enemies of the workers in this country, especially those in his own Party; he invited them to show their hands and use their tongues in this debate. The responsibility is his. It is difficult to understand how the new Minister for Labour could have the audacity to issue the threats he did and indulge in the intimidation in which he did in relation to this Party and the trade union movement when he said he would curb collective bargaining; he was going to go ahead with the preparation of a new Trade Union Bill and an Industrial Relations Bill without waiting for full agreement with either the employers or the unions. In the context of that statement, one can forget at once about the employers. That he should threaten to go ahead with this repressive, anti-workingclass legislation without the support and concurrence of the trade union movement is to invite chaos instead of the industrial peace he alleges he is pursuing.

This repressive legislation is of interest not merely to trade unions; it is of vital interest to every citizen in our society who appreciates the democratic way of life. There are fundamental issues involved. There is the fundamental issue of the right of free association, the fundamental issue of the right to strike, to withdraw one's labour in intolerable conditions. To attempt to do what the Minister says he will attempt is, and this is what the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has said the Minister intends to do, to place the trade union movement here under State control.

Dr. Hillery

When did the Congress say that?

Mr. Treacy

That is what is involved.

Dr. Hillery

When did the Congress say that?

Mr. Treacy

Very good. I shall quote from Trade Union Viewpoint published quarterly by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the date?

Mr. Treacy

It is the September issue.

Mr. Ruadhrí Roberts, the General Secretary, stated that he must oppose the Minister's proposal on trade union law in so far as these proposals appeared to be designed to abolish the right of freedom of association and places the trade union movement under Government control. This viewpoint received the support of Conference. He was speaking at the Annual Conference of last year and the second part of the report, together with the executive's proposed observations, were unanimously adopted.

It is hard to reconcile the threats made now with the attitude of the Minister some 12 months ago. I shall quote from the Irish Independent of 13th December, 1965. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was then Dr. Hillery, now Minister for Labour, was addressing the Ennis Chamber of Commerce in the Queen's Hotel. Talking about this aspect of strife in our society, he said:

"Let us hope that we can find a balance between common sense and law which will ease us through our difficulties without the need to diminish the freedoms we have today." Industrial peace in good measure was not for us a luxury but a necessity, and nobody could opt out of his responsibility to foster and maintain it.

He asked:

What then should be done to make things better?

Here he was referring to strikes in particular. He went on to ask:

Should the Government force a betterment or seek to induce it in some way? He had been advised "that the Government should do something about it, to be firm" and to "see that justice was done", and to "take my courage in my hands", by persons making a horseback appraisal of the difficulties, seeing the facile solution and galloping away to advise someone else on other problems.

He invited deeper examination of the problems and the implications of attempting to solve them. There was no easy course. There was a lot of woolly and unfinished thinking on the subject of industrial relations and particularly in relation to the powers of the Labour Court and the question of strikes.

In the same speech, he said:

To people who asked why there should be strikes the simple answer was that industrial relations were essentially human relations and history was a record of the failings of human nature.

These are very sensible sentiments and ought not to be gone back upon. It goes on:

The implication in the suggestion that the Government should do something about it was that force should meet force, but this was not the way to produce harmony in industry.

I could quote at length from this unbiased and rational speech dealing with the difficulty of securing harmonious relations in our society and the dangers of using coercive measures where persuasion could suffice.

The Minister had a little admonition for the employers on that occasion:

He reminded employers of the 1957 Working Party on Unofficial Strikes, in which it was reported that questions regarding wage rates contributed less to the incidence of unofficial strikes than did matters related to working conditions, including supervision and worker-manager relations.

He also said:

It was essential that effective machinery should be provided in each employment for the early ventilation and examination of grievances.

What caused the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, now the Minister for Labour, to go back on this rational approach and to come into this House the other day armed with a threat to all concerned that he was going to go ahead, whether we liked it or not, with this repressive legislation, which, in our opinion, is repugnant to the Constitution, inasmuch as it affects fundamental human rights?

Dr. Hillery

I did not say I was bringing in repressive legislation.

Mr. Treacy

It is written all over it.

Mr. Kyne

We say it.

Mr. Treacy

Read the Irish Times for the day after your speech.

Dr. Hillery

There have been discussions with Congress since that statement quoted by the Deputy.

Mr. Treacy

I appreciate all that. The Minister cannot deny that he stated in this House, introducing the first Estimate proper for his Department, that he intended going ahead with the preparation of new legislation, possibly dealing with industrial relations, the introduction of a trade union Bill without the full consent or agreement of the parties concerned, the employers and the unions. He felt a sufficient length of time had elapsed to bring matters to a head. It would be rash in the extreme if, for the sake of a little extra time in which agreement might be arrived at, the Minister introduced such legislation, which can only have disastrous consequences for this country.

I rather felt that the Fianna Fáil Party, after their spurious victories in Waterford and Kerry, had once again become drunk with power, thereby displaying this threatening attitude, this arrogance and this disdain for the rights of others. We have the evidence of it today in farmers being jailed and now a threat to the trade union movement that this Government intend to put them in shackles if they are not good boys. The Government would do well to rethink this problem. They surely cannot expect to put the clock back to 1913, although, mark you, there are a good many would-be little William Martin Murphys in their ranks today. These people would curb the right to strike. They believe in the profit motive to such an extent that they would love to cut down the barries of trade unionism and proceed to exploit and dehumanise as they did in 1913.

We submit the workers of Ireland today are of the selfsame mettle as their fathers were in 1913. They would resist this legislation with the same fervour. They have the same desire for sacrifice as their fathers had in 1913. The need for strikes in this country and the need for a strong trade union movement is as important today as it was in 1913. We still have exploiters in our midst. Even the very State itself relegates its own workers to the status of second-class citizens. Before this measure was resumed tonight, the Labour Party had a motion before the House merely asking that Government Ministers give to the employees in their respective Departments, in Lands, Agriculture, Defence and the Board of Works, the simple right, which all workers enjoy, of going to the Labour Court in respect of disputes. That right has not, as yet, been given to them.

Dr. Hillery

It is one of the things being done in this legislation you say is repressive.

Mr. Treacy

We heard the Minister for Labour speak on the subject tonight. He did not satisfy the spokesmen on this side that he was doing all that was to be desired in this matter. He passed on the responsibility for the kind of legislation we desire to, of all people, the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Labour can check on that. I hope this pending trade union legislation will not come into the House until there are further talks with the officers of Congress and its constituent unions. I have already told the Minister how unwise that would be. The Minister must be aware that Congress is absolutely opposed to the proposal that the Minister should have power to decide whether a union should have its effective existence terminated, and whether an organisation of workers should be permitted to obtain as a matter of right the legal status necessary for the conduct of its business.

Likewise, a lot of odium has been heaped on the Labour Court in this debate. The enemies of trade unionism are now anxious to turn the Labour Court into a court of law, a court of arbitration, where the decisions of that body would be binding on the unions concerned. This, of course, is wholly unacceptable to the trade union movement. This is what the Minister would desire, but this is the negation of democracy, that we should have a situation in which the Labour Court could be turned into a court of law and strictures would be laid down for workers who must accept them whether they like them or not. This would be compulsion of a kind wholly unacceptable to freedom-loving people. The trade union movement considers that the Labour Court has demonstrated in practice its effectiveness in dealing with industrial disputes of various kinds and the various unions affiliated to Congress have considered the Minister's proposals and are satisfied that they can be properly described as proposals to abolish the court in its present form and establish in its place an arbitration body.

It is further to be noted that if the Minister's ideas are to bear fruit the court would no longer have the balanced character of a tripartite body composed of employers, workers and Government nominees but would be a Government dominated body. The manner in which the proposed new court would be constituted is a further reason for believing that the new court will not, in fact, be used. Most unions, I feel certain, have already indicated to the Minister that they would not be prepared to avail of the services of a court of this kind which would not dole out justice but would merely be comprised of a junta of Government nominees whose duty it would be to conform to Government policy.

It is difficult to deal adequately with this subject having regard to the many things that have been said to could the issue and the many voices to be heard on it, which, to say the least of them, have done no service to the Minister or the Government in regard to the ideas he has in mind. Whoever advised the Minister to say what he said in his speech on the introduction of this Estimate have done the Minister, the Government and the workers at large a very great disservice. It was particularly lamentable because the Minister's threats were made at a time of comparative peace in industry. It might have been understandable had the spate of strikes which we experienced in 1965 and in the early part of 1966 continued. We ought to know that the reason for this outburst of industrial unrest was the stupid policy of the Fianna Fáil Government and Taoiseach at that time in insisting that the only increase in wages and salaries that we could afford to pay despite a steep increase in the cost of living was a meagre three per cent. This was an indication to the Labour Court to reject all claims over that amount. There alone you had a headon clash between the trade unions and the employers and the State. That the Minister should issue these threats when there was to his own knowledge a great fund of goodwill built up among the trade union movement for many things he had in mind such as legislation to bring about mergers between the unions and to facilitate the retiral of officials of unions, to do away with the multiplicity of trade unions, in other words, and many other good points which the Minister had in mind, is hard to understand. It is to be greatly deplored that for the sake of a little more time he should throw away this great fund of goodwill and co-operation and have the audacity to say that he was prepared to go it alone as if there was any hope of success along that path.

I could spend all night and all day replying to the various spokesmen of the Minister, but it would be a foolish exercise. Some of the statements, however, require to be answered. Deputy Booth made a particularly vicious attack on Deputy Cluskey of this Party. He said that he was typical of the irresponsible trade union leaders of this country who were seeking to create conflict. He implied that Deputy Cluskey was an irresponsible leader of a trade union, unfit to hold a position in his union and was setting out to create trouble on every possible occasion, that he loved conflict and was essentially a troublemaker. He painted the same general picture of most of the leaders of the trade union movement and went on to say that the whole thing was undemocratic, that he wanted a strong trade union movement of top grade executives. What he meant by that, nobody knows.

Deputy Cluskey, like all our trade union leaders, instead of fomenting trouble, precipitating strikes and unrest, spends all his working days, and indeed his working nights also, trying to stave off trouble, trying to maintain peace and harmony, trying to win better conditions for his people and would only have recourse to the strike weapon in the last resort. Deputy Cluskey, like every other responsible trade union leader, does not have it all his own way, as Deputy Booth should know. Deputy Cluskey does not have it in his power to call men out forthwith: he is responsible to his executive council and before strike action is taken, the executive council of his union is consulted. Not only that, but the executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is consulted and, above all else, the members are consulted. These sweeping, slanderous statements of Deputies Ryan, Booth and others have done much harm and destroyed much of the fund of goodwill which had been built up for the Minister and the various facets of his Department in labour, industry and commerce in particular.

It is greatly to be deplored that the Minister would precipitate this all-out onslaught on labour and the trade union movement by various elements of the Fianna Fáil Party, without recognising, in particular, the magnificent contribution which many of the officers of Congress and its constituent unions have made to the betterment of our society, without recognising the part they have played in the Committee on Industrial Organisation, in the NIEC, in the productivity committees and in the many other committees with which the Minister has been associated for so many years. It would take a long yardstick to measure the intrinsic worth of this contribution and the earnestness, the sincerity and the devotion of these officers of Congress and the other unions in co-operating with the Government in very many important schemes for the expansion of our economy. It shows terrible ingratitude that such calumnious statements should be issued from Government benches over the past few days.

In particular, the Minister has shown a complete and utter disregard for the contribution which the working-class people of this country make to the prosperity of our country. The real producers of wealth in this country are the people who are being legislated for in this penal repressive code which the Minister has in mind. There is not a tittle about it in so far as employers are concerned. The Minister's attitude would seem to be that the workers are the only people who are at fault—bring them to heel and all will be well.

If we have an incomes policy—as the Minister, I understand, is tinkering with—we shall have thereby a Standstill Order on wages, and profits and prices may soar unbridled. To Deputy Booth, Deputy Briscoe and the rest, profits are sacred and untouchable. The Fianna Fáil Party dare not move in there but do what you can, do all you can, to put down the working classes. This is not social justice and it is wholly unacceptable to those of us who are in the labour and the trade union movement.

I had hoped to deal with other matters in the Minister's speech and matters appertaining to the effective working of the Department of Labour but I shall deal now only with one or two of them because we prefer to remain somewhat silent and watchful of the actions of this Department in the next few months, in particular, to see how the land lies, to see whether the Minister is sincere in seeking peace as distinct from chaos in our society.

I was pleased to see that the number of factory inspectors has been increased somewhat from 22 to 28. The Minister must be aware of the unsatisfactory state of affairs appertaining to decent conditions in very many factories in the Republic. The trade union movement is not blameless in this matter. Indeed, it is regrettable that the many unions have not as yet educated their members to the need to avail of the concessions legislated for them in this House in the Factories Acts introduced and carried through this House by the late lamented Deputy Norton as Minister for Industry and Commerce. The fact remains that there are working people in overcrowded, insanitary, cold and dilapidated buildings in this city and I have seen them there and in very many parts of Ireland as well. There are places of work where obviously a factory inspector never calls and would seem to be unaware of their existence.

Apart from the obligation devolving on trade unions, workers and employers, I should like the Minister to take such steps as will ensure that every industrial establishment with a reasonable number of workers will be visited by one of his inspectors, irrespective of whether or not there is a safety committee in that factory. Only in that way shall we eliminate the terrible conditions, usually in non-union shops, that prevail. We want to see our work people in modern conditions where there is proper ventilation, and where, in particular, there is an adequate heating system. The question of heat in winter, in particular, is of paramount importance. I have known workers to walk out of their jobs—unofficial strikes, if you like—by reason of the intolerable conditions in which they have to work. Sometimes the conditions are Arctic. The cold is such that they cannot manipulate with the fingers the various machines on which they are employed.

In many instances, employers show a callous indifference to the question of heating. Many of them are so Victorian in their ideas as to think that by keeping the atmosphere cold, they will get the workers to work all the harder. There is not adequate lighting, heating, ventilation or sanitary facilities—again, a very important factor—in quite a lot of our factories. It is futile to have a team of factory inspectors if places where workers suffer and where there is an obvious threat to their health are not properly investigated.

I would ask the Minister to consider issuing through the post—as is done in respect of the leaflets on social welfare, the White Paper on Health, and so on—especially to places of employment, large numbers of that booklet on the Factories Acts so that workers will be educated as to their rights in regard to the provision of proper conditions.

I was very interested to hear the Minister say that he envisages something tantamount to a transformation of employment exchanges. That is long overdue. It is a herculean task. I wish the Minister well. Having regard to our economic climate, I cannot see that he can do much with these awful places.

A positive manpower policy designed to raise living standards, to provide full employment, job security, stability of prices and so on, can be implemented only in an economy where there is full employment or near full employment. In an economy such as ours, reeking with unemployment that is at present reaching the alarming figure of 70,000, there cannot be a manpower policy. In addition to the 70,000 registered unemployed, one must take into account the rural workers who are prohibited from signing as being unemployed and who will not be granted a qualification certificate because the attitude is that they could or should have got employment on the land. Taking these into account, it means that our unemployment figure is standing at the 100,000 mark. I defy contradiction of that statement. It is well known that emigration has increased steeply in recent years and is again spiralling to the 40,000 figure.

In these circumstances, what hope have we of giving effect to the Industrial Training Bill and what chance have we of transforming our labour exchanges into places of real employment opportunity? None.

The Minister has on his hands the impossible task of bringing progressive thinking into the cobwebbed corridors of the Department of Social Welfare, in particular. The atmosphere in that Department has percolated down to all those controlling the labour exchanges, from the managers to the clerks, whose attitude towards the unfortunate people coming in to sign is one of indifference and contempt. The employment exchanges are hated and despised by the working classes. There is issued there nothing but contempt, disrespect and humiliation. A few miserable shillings are doled out every week. The decent man or woman, boy or girl, who has to go there realises what humiliation and degradation mean. Very few of them continue to sign there for long. They quite in desperation. They go to England. As I have said, the employment exchanges are places where Irishmen and women suffer humiliation and degradation for a little while until they go to England.

Despite the fact that the employment exchanges are now to all intents and purposes taken over by the Minister and his Department I want to assert and to demonstrate that there has been no change whatsoever in the intimidatory, tyrannical and abusive approach of the personnel running the exchanges towards the unfortunates who go there.

Dr. Hillery

Would the Deputy let me know of any case of that or of anybody who knows about it and I will put a stop to it at once?

Mr. Treacy

I am going to quote a case.

Dr. Hillery

If you know of any case, let me know about it privately and I will stop it at once.

Mr. Treacy

In any progressive country where there is an unemployment problem, there are employment exchanges in the real sense of the word and there are replacement officers such as the Minister has adverted to. People who attend at the labour exchanges during periods of redundancy or unemployment are treated with the utmost respect. They are treated with dignity, as human beings. They are brought into the office and their problem is discussed in strictest privacy. The skilled placement officers ascertain the skills and aptitudes of the unemployed persons and do what they can to place the persons in employment suitable for them. Does that happen in our country? Not likely.

There is already an army of unemployed persons to contend with. There are no jobs available in the employment exchanges except of the most menial kind from employers of dubious character who could not obtain workers through the normal channels, usually blind alley, badly paid jobs, if at all. We are coming to the conclusion that all this talk about the Minister of Labour, the threats to the trade union movement, the references to transformation of employment exchanges, the Training Bill which has just gone through the House, are nothing but political window-dressing for the Fianna Fáil Party and are incapable of being implemented in the foreseeable future. It is nothing more than a pretence at conforming with more progressive legislation in other countries such as Britain and the EEC member States.

The fact remains that you can implement a positive manpower policy only in a country where there is full or near full employment. It is an impossible exercise in a country such as ours that is ravaged with unemployment, under-employment and emigration. Apart from the fact that there are nearly 100,000 unemployed and an exodus of about 40,000, we have to contend with an annual outflow of an average of 40,000 boys and girls from our schools. This is clearly an impossible task. The Minister would have us believe that he intends to make our labour exchanges places of real employment possibilities to which the worker can go when he is unemployed, declare his skills, his experience and aptitude and he will be quickly placed in a suitable job. Mark you, he would be a very gullible worker indeed if he accepted that kind of statement these times.

I want to explain to the House that only quite recently a worker of very high educational standards, outstanding integrity, unblemished character, who had been working for a number of years in a semi-professional capacity, became unemployed for the first time in his life. He was obliged to sign on at the local labour exchange in order to get money to maintain his wife and two young children. This was for this man a rather humiliating experience, one to which he certainly was unused, but in order to provide the wherewithal for himself and his family he was obliged to sign on as unemployed.

In the meantime he was trying earnestly to secure a job. No one in this employment exchange helped him to get a job or advised him what to do. He applied for this particular job and he was called for interview. He was obliged to come to Dublin for the interview and he accordingly advised the officers of his labour exchange on the Tuesday previous to his coming to Dublin. That was on 10th February last. He related the full facts and he asked to be excused from signing on as unemployed on that occasion.

One would expect the re-orientated labour exchanges to be quite pleased about this but instead of helping him to secure this job they did everything possible, I contend, to upset him and obstruct him and they penalised him for going for the job. When he asked not to be disallowed for the day in question he was told that he would have to sign on as unemployed in the city which was 105 miles away from the town to which I refer. He pointed out to the clerk and later to the manager of this Exchange that this was an unfair imposition, that he had enough worries on his mind going for this particular job and that he had to face an interview board on that morning at 11.15 in an office not 100 miles away from this House—indeed, very few yards away.

No reasonable attitude was adopted. If the officers in the exchange had any doubts as to the truth of his statement they could consult with the office concerned but the management of this labour exchange insisted on his signing on in Dublin. He pointed out that the interview was at 11.15 a.m. He did not know where the labour exchange was. He refused to be so humiliated and said that he would not conform to this archaic regulation. He travelled to Dublin in his own car on the morning in question, went for interview and returned home. He was disallowed to the extent of 19/- unemployment for that day. So much for the transformation which has taken place in our exchanges.

That is not the end of the story. Our friend did very well at the initial interview. He is coming to Dublin again next Thursday for a final interview for this important job. Having heard his story, I made special representations to the clerks in that exchange and to the management to exempt this man from the responsibility of signing on as unemployed next Thursday, pointing out the unreasonableness of the request, that it was virtually impossible for him to sign on as unemployed in Dublin and at the same time attend an interview board for a job and that instead of hindering this man they should help him.

I got no satisfaction whatsoever. I believe this man will be disallowed on next Thursday as well. Yet, we in the Labour Party are expected to believe all this bluff and pretence about the new Utopia to be created for the working classes when we know, as a result of our association with this class of people, that the contrary is the truth.

I want to place on the record of this House not the name and the address of this man but, for the Minister's reference, his insurance number so that this matter can be retraced. His insurance number is 1475685. A decent man who never thought he would have to sign on as unemployed signs for the first time in his life; he goes for a job over 100 miles away from his home and he is blackguarded to the extent that he is directed to sign on as unemployed in this city, and because he does not he is penalised to the amount of a day's benefit. The same thing will happen to him next Thursday unless the Minister's gratuitous ideas are put into effect.

The Minister also referred in his speech to the fact that some employers were conceding increases in wages and conditions of employment too easily. This makes us in the trade union movement laugh. We have never yet found an employer who made a concession in relation to wages or to conditions of employment without a hard, difficult and bitter struggle. Where the Minister gets these ideas it is difficult to know. He also implies in his remarks that our working class people are too well off—earning too much money.

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy is now going far beyond the bounds.

Mr. Treacy

The Minister's whole policy could be summed up in the philosophical observation that if you work for nothing you will always have work. The statistical facts are that out of roughly one million people employed, 100,000 are earning £10 weekly, and of all the women employed 50,000 have wages of £5 a week or less. Some 250,000 people are receiving wages of between £10 and £14 a week, and some 400,000 workers receive wages which vary from £5 to £14 a week. Despite that we have employer classes here telling us that we are too well off.

In debates leading up to the formation of this Department, I stressed one aspect of the manpower policy which is most urgent, and that is the provision of the redundancy payment fund. I noted in the Minister's statement that legislation providing for this is pending, but the Minister must be aware that, while we are talking about the necessity for such a fund, which will provide for payments during unemployment and during retraining and until there has been reabsorbtion in alternative employment, there are thousands of workers queueing up at our labour exchanges and redundancy is being declared in many factories in towns all over the country every week. Yet there is nothing in the Statute Book to provide monetary assistance for these people except unemployment benefit. Nothing is being done to speed up legislation for the implementation of redundancy payments.

We regard this as a fundamental to any manpower policy and as the most urgent aspect of the work of the Minister's Department. We expect that positive legislation should be introduced at the earliest possible date to cover this aspect. I was very disturbed when I read the Minister's speech—I was not present when he delivered it here—in which he threatened the foundations of our trade union movement and of our democratic society. This is all the more surprising coming from a man who has earned for himself the reputation of being kindly, gentle and understanding and the most co-operative of men. I can only assume that some bad influences have been at work on the Minister, and that he has allowed these sinister influences to set him on this road which threatens disaster if he continues along it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. The Deputy should be allowed to make his speech in his own way.

Mr. N. Lemass

I have spoken on most of the Estimates and in the other debates that have come up in regard to this Department and on every occasion I have made a suggestion of some sort or other which I should like to think had been made for the first time. I was very gratified that any ideas I expressed which might have been new have either been incorporated by the Minister or properly explained to me in subsequent debates. The Minister has shown to Deputies of all Parties, including back benchers of his own Party——

Mr. James Tully

Who are not here.

Mr. N. Lemass

——that the very thing which the Labour Party have been asking for has been taking place, plenty of discussion and as much understanding in order to get an agreed measure as far as possible. This is what the Minister has been doing. I should like, however, to deal with one or two aspects which arise out of the Minister's speech. He refers, on page 12, to the formulation of our policies having regard to the change which will be involved by EEC membership. This is a matter which we must always keep in mind when deliberating on this subject. The first thing that should be said—and everybody will agree that it can rightly be said here—is that it is the aim and object of every Party to try to increase the affluence and wellbeing of all of our citizens. If we disagree on the ways and means, I hope it will not be suggested that any Party is deliberately trying to depress the standard of living and affluence of individuals in the nation.

I would be concerned that sometimes perhaps in the quest for this growing affluence that the price of it— in the context of the EEC and the United Kingdom—might make inroads in our political unity and national independence. The problem of reconciling national economic goals and other national goals is not unique to Ireland. In fact, it is becoming increasingly urgent in countries all over the world as we tend to take steps which will enable us to get into the mainstream of technological advances which will make it possible for all citizens in all parts of the country to share in this affluence.

It is a situation wherein the leaders of the superpowers in the United States and Russia are appealing for reductions in trade barriers; they want more trade at all costs in order to raise the welfare of the people of their own countries and, they hope, also of the countries with whom they trade. Unless we retain an all-round position of competitiveness, we will not be able to benefit and avail of the opportunities presenting themselves to us today. Dividends must be declared with the maximum restraint or, I believe, it will be the duty of the Government to try to enforce that restraint. Profits must be kept within a reasonable proportion of capital investment or the Government will have to enforce further the steps they have already taken for price control, to ensure profits do not exceed a reasonable percentage in relation to the capital invested. These things are vital now when it is so urgent—as the Minister has already pointed out—for industry and business in this country to prepare themselves for the inevitable days ahead in or out of EEC, certainly for free trade with the United Kingdom or EFTA. This is not a time for profit-taking; it is a time for reinvestment. I think also a serious look must be taken at the problem of capital gains.

I should like to diverge slightly here to show that we have a problem here now with the high cost of housing which is causing some unrest among the workers and their representatives. This has been caused by the inability of the authority, vested by the State, to provide the necessary services in the way of drainage and proper waste disposal methods, and to accept the responsibility for providing these services. Therefore, if the Government have failed in any way to force those local bodies to make the necessary plans and take the necessary steps which would prevent such inflation and the bringing about of such problems as large capital gains, then the Government must now take steps to intervene directly in these matters, thereby preventing the condition which might create discontent and an unbalancing of incomes and investment in a way not to the best advantage of the State.

Likewise, the sacrosanct idea of differentials being maintained between various grades of workers is something which will have to be very seriously re-examined. There is no good saying we want to improve the lot of lower-paid workers unless the higher paid skilled workers are prepared to take a smaller share of the national cake in so far as differentials are concerned. They must allow the lower-paid workers to narrow the gap between them. Means will have to be devised whereby, if it is felt the highest-paid workers should get 10/- or £1, then the lowest-paid workers must get £1 or £2. Something must be done to re-examine this entire system of differentials, because any time a serious effort is made to better the lot of lower-paid workers, it then starts to spiral along and people try to maintain the differentials they consider to be their right in their particular section of industry.

The Minister has also pointed out that, while there is a policy of a wage standstill in force in England—largely with the support of the trade unions —and now while there are further discussions going on—apparently not so much with the support of the trade unions at this stage—for a severe restraint to follow this period, our trade unions—if they want to maintain their present position, will have to take note of what is happening in England and restrain themselves, in order to prevent a situation arising which would greatly reduce employment opportunities for Irish workers. Statements have been made by trade union leaders which make me quite confident about this restraint which is, in fact, in operation by the majority of trade unions and that they are approaching the situation very sensibly. But, if there should be a serious worsening of the position, then the Government will have to do, as they have done in the past—try to counter the situation by fiscal methods, which are more discreet and less politically damaging than those adopted by Harold Wilson in England, the direct method of enforcing national guidelines.

As I said at the outset—in the context of large trading groups of nations, which we must join if we want to benefit from the technological advantages— I should point out we are living in an age when there are many new and independent nations trying to assert their national identities. But this is also an age when men have dared to dream that all people everywhere can share in the good life and material abundance modern technology makes possible. Economic growth and development should be our prime aim, not the protection of differentials and the class distinction inherent in such a system; but national growth for all, aimed in the direction of a classless society.

I agree we do not want to be contaminated by foreign ways, to be dominated by foreign influences, or depend upon foreign goods, but we want easy access to the goods, the technology, the skill, the markets and the capital of other countries. Nationalism can be a highly emotional subject and any emotional subject can lend itself to a quick solution. But international commercial relations are a very complex subject and if anybody tries for a quick solution, he is invariably wrong. Prosperity and independence go together. They are the basic test of national success. The basic test of national success is a rising standard of living. Economic growth is not a goal totally in itself but is the foundation for national unity and self reliance.

Economic development in Ireland depends on foreign trade and foreign investment. Our nation, as a nation, will not be weakened if many of its business enterprises are owned or controlled by foreign companies. Businessmen are guided by economic circumstances only and these have no nationality. If we in Ireland can rationalise all our trade union movement, as two of the major engineering unions have already done, as the major general workers' unions are exploring: if we can direct attention to national aims instead of sectional aims; if we can expand the meaning of patriotism in the 1960s and 1970s, we can achieve an expanding population and the rising standards of living we had during the first period of the Programme for Economic Expansion.

The Minister for Labour has been told, perhaps with some justification, that he seems to speak more about wages and salaries than he does about profits and price control. This is quite true because, when the Government agreed that now was a good time to set up this Department they were faced with making a Soloman's judgment, this is a judgment as to how far you can go in getting co-operation from the people concerned with incomes and salaries without losing political support and how far you can go, on the other hand, in controlling dividends and restraining profits without damaging the position of business investment. The Government, like Solomon, solved this problem and cut the baby in half and it was the only way it could be done.

The Minister for Labour, if he were given the full responsibility for price control, would find that this would lessen his ability to talk to both sides of industry in the way he is now doing because, politics being what they are, the next time we went out to fight a general election, Fine Gael, and probably Labour, would have some leaflets out to show what prices were when we took office and what they will be when the next election will come along, which will be some years from now. I should like to conclude with some words from Charles de Gaulle who said in 1944 that the State can only serve its citizens if the citizens lend their services to the State. That applies to businessmen, trade unionists, workers and farmers as well.

Mr. James Tully

New social thinking by Charles de Gaulle.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

Mr. Corish

You cannot advocate it but you can threaten it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The greatest part of this debate has been spent discussing legislation which has not been introduced yet, and which is not on the Statute Book. At any rate, the Minister has said that he has made efforts to bring management and labour together and to get full agreement between them, if he can. Apparently he has given up hope that agreement will be reached between management and labour.

Dr. Hillery

On every aspect. There is quite a range of agreement.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I gather that there is a wide field in which there is not agreement.

(Cavan): The Minister asked me how he could attain the situation which I should like to see. I am now telling him. When he has done that he should then go to management and labour and say: “I have done my part and, better than that, my colleagues in the Government have done their part. Now I am asking you to do your part.” I am confident that he will succeed in getting the measure of agreement he wants, and that it will not be necessary to introduce what Deputy Treacy calls repressive legislation and what I call an effort to make the horse drink.

Mr. Kyne

Much of the good in the early part of the Minister's speech was lost, in my opinion, because of its concluding paragraphs. Many of the things he spoke of as coming within the province of his Department, such as retraining, forecasting of manpower pool and various other functions, are all desirable to hear coming from a Minister for Labour.

Unfortunately, he lost a lot of the impact of an otherwise constructive speech by his concluding remarks. I agree quite definitely with what Deputy M. O'Leary said in his speech—that the business of the Minister for Labour as seen by those of us who are trade unionists and members of the Labour Party should be to act as a neutral judge, as a go-between of management and labour, using his good offices with both sides to endeavour to achieve peaceful solutions. He could do much constructive work in that way but not by using the threat that unless we on the workers' side do certain things, he and the Government will have to take steps to compel us to accept certain restraints.

I am convinced that the workers here as in Britain can accept restraint, provided they are satisfied that certain conditions will apply to such acceptance. I suggest the first condition is that the restraint applies to all sources of income, not just wages but profits as well. Income is merely something which one part of society calls wages. It is what they get to keep their families and enjoy life; and if restraint is to apply equally to all people, I am quite convinced that trade unionists in this country will accept it as they have accepted participation in the national struggle since the beginning of trade unionism.

Therefore, the Minister would be well advised to rely on the possibility that he will get restraint and co-operation, provided he gives to the workers the assurances they are looking for. As a second condition of that restraint, the responsible Minister and the Government must see to it that there will be no alternation in the circumstances of the cost of living so as to deprive them of the benefits of the limited amount of income that might be of any value to them. Provided these two conditions are fulfilled, just as in Britain the workers here, by and large, will be happy to co-operate.

Deputy Lemass wondered why our counterparts in Britain can accept restraint and we apparently will not. Does he forget there is a Labour Government in Britain? Does he forget that the workers in Britain elected that Government and can trust that Government? Can we say the same of the Government here? Can we be assured they are not on the side of the employing class, that the workers will get a fair deal? Events up to the present have not proved it. The average income of the working man here is below £10 a week, even below £9 a week, and when we hear industrialists on the other side of the House, with incomes of £3,000, £4,000, £5,000 and £6,000 a year, suggesting to the working people that they should be happy now and that they should take into account the national good and accept restraint, must we not ask what does the national economy mean to a working man who more often than not finds it difficult to feed and clothe his family and himself? It is not much use talking about the national economy, the national good, the national interest to a working man in these conditions. Some of those people on the opposite side must live far away from the everyday world. I can well imagine people with incomes of £5,000 a year living in a dream world, not wanting to be upset by keeping in close contact with the conditions of trade unionists and the working people.

The Minister mentioned that in a competitive market the workers' income in Britain was increasing less rapidly than that of their counterparts in Ireland. The reason for that is that the English worker had already reached a standard of parity, of fairness in wages, conditions and fringe benefits. All these things we still have to get. That is what trade unions are for. There is no ideal wage structure in Ireland except, perhaps, in one or two exceptional firms. There are no ideal conditions here. Not very long ago we were told that the 40-hour week could not be managed. In my town even the bankers were told that if the banks closed on Saturdays the economy of the country would be upset.

The banks have been closed on Saturdays for a considerable time and the country has not suffered as a result. Time will come—it already has come in the world's greatest producing country, the US—when we shall be thinking in terms of a 30-hour week. We must adjust our ideas in this country. Why is it that every time we ask for a wage increase, a fringe benefit such as a pension on retirement or a resundancy payment, people hold up their hands in horror and say: "The economy cannot afford it."

I am glad the Minister in the earlier part of his speech displayed some progressive ideas. Some of these progressive ideas, of course, have been forced on him because of the risk or the chance of entry to the Common Market. That is a good thing. If we go into the EEC, we shall enter only on conditions of equality in the matter of the various types of benefits that go to make up effective wages. Those who have studied reports of workers' conditions in Europe must know that a big part of their wage structure is composed of fringe benefits which we have been endeavouring to achieve during the past year or so through our promise during the last round of wages agreements not to mention wages but fringe benefits. It is only since then that we have made any progress towards the level our fellow workers in Europe and in Great Britain have been enjoying for years.

I do not wish to dwell on the threats contained in the latter part of the Minister's speech. There is a working party still endeavouring to find solutions to many of our industrial problems. Perhaps the latter part of his speech is meant as a spur to both sides to endeavour to reach understanding between them. If it is only that, well and good. However, if it is more serious than that, I feel that rather than do any good it could do a considerable amount of harm. It would cause me to think that workers would resent it so much that where they would, before that, have been more than willing to co-operate in any normal adjustment, they would then, just out of perversity, say: "My back is up and I am just not going to participate in the implementation of any proposal." I hope that is not so.

Workers, and especially trade union officials, do not want strikes. The worker and his family very rarely recover from the effects of a prolonged strike. I have experience both of participating in them and leading and guiding them. We have a saying in the trade union movement that the man who would strike for fun would go to hell for pleasure. Nobody strikes for fun. It must be a serious matter when 300 or 400 men will go out and leave themselves and their families short of the necessaries of life for 16 long weeks, as they did in the Waterford Paper Mills strike. That is not done for fun, and it is not Red agents who come over here and tell us what to do. These are Irish workers. By their own democratic vote and without inducement from their head office, they decide that because their grievances, because their genuine grievances cannot be remedied by direct negotiations, by the Labour Court or conciliation officers, the only way to secure redress is to starve themselves and their families until such time as the loss of profit to the employer compels him to put his pride in his pocket and sit down at the table and discuss rationally terms that will be mutually agreeable.

I note in the Minister's speech a proposal to increase the number of factory inspectors. I welcome that, but one thing I find in connection with factory inspectors is that they notify the employer of the day they intend to call, or if they do not notify him in advance, they notify him immediately they call to the factory. Do they consult with the trade union? Do they notify the trade union concerned? Is it not in the interest of the workers they are calling? Is it not the safety precautions governing the conditions of employment of the workers that they are there to inspect? If there is a concealed danger, surely it is the workers who could point that out, especially this favourite son of the Department of Industry and Commerce, the safety committee, about which the Minister is so keen. Even in the factories with which I have been connected as a trade unionist, we have set up safety committees, but never did a factory inspector honour or notice any member of the safety committee. They were never recognised, as if they had no function.

These are the people with whom the inspector should consult instead of running around with the management. They should be up to every trick of the management. When there is a faulty and dangerous machine, it always happens that that machine breaks down the day the factory inspector is about to call. The dangerous machine is not being worked and it cannot appear on the inspector's report. He could be told that the machine was working five minutes before he came into the building, and again he could be told it would be working five minutes after he went out. These are the things on which the Department of Labour can take advice and get information from people connected with the workers' movement, whether they be in the Labour Party or any other party. Because we are in the Labour Party, we should not be accused of trying to obstruct; in fact, we are very anxious to co-operate if we get the assistance from the Government that we desire.

I was surprised at the way the Minister for Labour outlined the year's working of the Labour Court. He said that of 124 recommendations, some 52 were rejected. Would it not be nicer if he put it that 72 were accepted? Why not look on the good side? Or was he building a case to show someone was wrong? We know that, in the main, it is the workers who object, that employers are often only too happy to accept some of the suggestions or the solutions of the Labour Court.

I am quite happy about the Labour Court up to a point. When the Labour Court was left free to give honest, fair decisions, when there were no directions issuing from Government sources, the Labour Court functioned reasonably well. If I had any criticism of it, it would be only this, that the Court had not the facilities to hear cases quickly enough, that because of cases of national importance, such as the railways, ESB, Guinness and other big concerns, the small private rural factories and companies had their cases neglected and postponed, and what was simply a pinprick of a grievance developed into a running sore. Perhaps a conciliation officer could have effected a settlement speedily, but because of the delays for want of personnel, the Labour Court was placed in an almost impossible position.

Of the 52 recommendations rejected, 30 of the disputes were settled later, perhaps by force, the Minister says. I do not think it was by force in all cases. A good deal of the trouble was that the employers did not make their best offer at the direct talks, at conciliation or at Labour Court level, but that, faced with a determined group of workers who may have known much better than the Labour Court the recources of a particular firm and the extravagance, perhaps, of the directors, and that there was enough to meet their legitimate demands, the employers agreed to those demands around a table in direct negotiations. I do not think 20 failures out of 124 is any reflection on the Labour Court at all. I think it is a good sign of co-operation between workers and management. My complaint is not against the Labour Court itself; it is because the personnel are not numerous enough. In my opinion, there should be courts simultaneously sitting in Dublin, Cork, and various areas around the country, to ensure that there would be no long delay and, therefore, no festering of grievances.

The Minister spoke about strikes and the hours lost because of strikes. I know quite a good deal about strikes. We had a very serious strike in Waterford during which 340 men were out for 16 weeks. I wonder does the Minister know why they were out. I can tell him. They were out because management demanded that, in the interests of progress and economy in the firm, the firm being the National Board and Paper Mills, the workers should be prepared to work four shifts continuously night and day, Sunday and Monday. A bitter struggle ensued. After 16 weeks a compromise was reached. A team consisting of workers and management visited European paper mills and, after a time, the workers returned to work and decided to agree to this proposal.

What happened? Six months ago the strike ended. The workers are now working five days a week. There is no work for them and management never had any intention of putting the proposal to which I referred into effect. What is worse, they are now being allowed to import manufactured American Kraft paper; Irish workers could be engaged in Waterford making this paper. The firm got a grant of £50,000 from the Government to provide a store for wastepaper, the raw material for the manufacture of cardboard. That store is empty of wastepaper but it is full of American Kraft paper which is allowed in free of duty as waste. This is resold to the firm's competitors for use in their manufacturing processes. All this has been told to a Parliamentary Secretary. The workers are willing and anxious to meet management and to meet the Minister with management to argue out and prove the truth of what I am stating.

Is it likely men will go on strike for 16 weeks to oppose something unless they know that what is being put forward is only an excuse? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Having got agreement, this firm has not yet put into practice what they promised. They have not even attempted to do it. They say that some of the machinery there is not capable of doing the work. There are adaptation grants for this firm as there are for all firms throughout the country. Is it not odd that they do not accept these grants? We were told the machines would cost £1 million. The machines have not come yet. Would it not be preferable to go on working with the old machines which have produced suitable quality board in the past for manufacture into cartons rather than import finished raw material? The threat now is that the men may be laid off; they are working on a week-to-week basis. The livelihoods of 144 workers are in jeopardy.

The Minister talked about an officer of his Department who will go out to ease uneasiness, find out the difficulties, consult and try to iron them out. I suggest there is grave need for him. There is a great deal of room for him in Waterford. I tell the Minister now quite seriously that unrest is beginning again. The men are not looking for trouble but, if men are facing the prospect of being unemployed next week, next month, or even next year, they will be in no mood to be reasonable. They will have a grievance and they will endeavour in any way they can to thwart the people who are endeavouring to take away their livelihoods from them.

I do not want to deal specifically with the cost of living but it must be admitted that, while cost of living increases continue, the position will not be satisfactory. RGDATA accused a Minister of not publishing increases to which he has agreed. Whether or not these increases are published, the ordinary consumer knows full well that prices are going up. I understand there is an obligation on shopkeepers to publish a price list. That obligation is not being honoured. Were it not for certain supermarkets springing up throughout the country, God alone knows what kind of prices would be charged. In my own town butter dropped by 7d. a pound when the supermarket came in. Someone had been robbing somebody.

Rents, under the direction of the Minister for Local Government, will increase 200 per cent. Surely workers will not accept this rent increase without looking for more? The only place they can get more is from their employers and, if the Minister endeavours to stop us, there will be a serious head-on clash. Without any threats at all, it must be fairly evident to the Minister that one could take all the employers in the country, tie them in a bundle and throw them over a cliff and the country would survive. If, however, one did that to the workers, there would be no country at all. One can translate a foreman worker into a manager and a firm will go on working with a manager, but one cannot translate a director into a factory worker or, if you do, you will have a damned inefficient one.

It is not just as simple as the Minister apparently thinks. Things cannot be done just by regulation and I do not believe the Minister thinks he can do that. What the Minister is doing is, I think, using the old gimmick of saying: "Look, unless you do this, I will have to take steps to make you do it". I do not believe the Minister believes this can be done.

There is another little problem at which I should like the Minister to have a look, the question of redundancy. There are about 115 workers in Waterford city and county who will become redundant; some of them will get redundancy pay and some will not. I know one case of a temporary railway gatekeeper with three years' service who will get a pension of 25/- a week. A permanent railway official with 25 years' service will get no pension at all unless he transfers 50 miles away from his home. Possibly a different Minister handles this problem. It is a CIE problem. I do not know if the Minister for Labour has any function there. Certainly the man nominally in charge of it has no function. I do not know who should deal with it. There is room for a good deal of thought in relation to redundancy pay. It is a problem some Minister should examine.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 28 Feb 1967

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

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 1967