Before I reported progress, I was saying that the people of this country are not prepared to stagnate as they have been stagnating due to the general sluggishness of economic activity. When we consider incomes, and, in particular, wages and salaries, regard must be had to the fact that the aspirations, the hopes, the needs and certainly the desires are much more clearcut than they have been. I do not think these could be or should be described, as far as the workers are concerned in any case, as being a crazy rush for higher living standards because if higher living standards are their aspirations, their hopes, their needs and desires, it is tantamount to their saying that they demand that our economy should be further expanded.
I do not think anybody could accuse the leadership of the trade union movement of not making this demand and of not working towards it because, as is known, they are on such bodies as the NIEC and various other semi-State concerns and they have contributed and will continue to contribute in order to see that the nation will be developed at a more rapid rate than it is being developed now or has been for a few years. They want the nation developed to the extent that there is full and secure employment.
Towards that end, we have had in recent times projections and plans. We have had the First and the Second Programmes for Economic Expansion. This is not enough. In my view, it all depends on our ability to match human endeavour to these plans.
A statement of aspirations by members of the Government as to what ought to be done or should be done in order to develop the economy and to ensure that our people would have higher living standards is not enough. These things will not happen merely because we wish them to happen. We cannot wish increased productivity; we cannot wish the elimination of waste; we cannot wish the elimination of bad management or industrial strife. We cannot wish good design and good marketing. Nor can we wish upon ourselves an increase in exports. We will have to apply ourselves to the problem of developing the country at a faster rate now that we have a measure of free trade with one country and now that there seems to be, however vague, a prospect of our entry into the European Economic Community.
In order to do these things, particularly in industry, in order to increase productivity, to eliminate waste, to ensure that management will be good and that there will not be industrial strife to the extent that there has been, one of the most important things is a substantial improvement in employer-employee relations. In order to achieve this, no matter what the difference may be, the boss and the worker must both agree that they should work together in order to ensure higher efficiency and greater production.
This is accepted by way of statement by both sides. Therefore we have to ask ourselves what is wrong and who is at fault when we cannot tackle successfully the problems to which I have referred. Is it bad wages? Is it high incomes? Is it the fact that we have bad social services, bad health services? Is it the fact that housing is inadequate or that the education system needs to be greatly improved? Is it because we have low output or, in some industries, in respect of some workers, absenteeism, or that we have selfishness? I do not believe there is absolute, complete, right or wrong on either side.
There are many in this country who should get a far greater share of, as it is described, the national economic cake but if all are to get a bigger slice of cake, all sides in industry must accept responsibility for making a bigger cake. As far as the worker is concerned, he must not alone feel that he is part of the enterprise in which he works but he must be, in fact, part of the enterprise in which he works.
A valid criticism of the Government in this respect and maybe of other institutions as well is that workers who are regarded as the primary producers in industry are not sufficiently acquainted with the general economic plan for the country. That is bad enough in itself. I have said this on many occasions and I repeat here today: There is no point in the Civil Service or the Minister or any national committee knowing about the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. The Government have done nothing— I repeat—the Government have done nothing to try to ensure that the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, with its attendant plans, is brought down to the level of the ordinary worker. That is bad enough but, worse still, and this in the context of employer-employee relations, the majority of the workers in industry are not sufficiently acquainted with their own enterprise. I do not think it would be invalid criticism to say that the only interest the worker is allowed to have in the business in which he works is the wages he gets and his hours and general conditions of employment.
There must be a drive initiated either by the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Industry and Commerce or maybe the Taoiseach to ensure that if there is a plan for further expansion all sections of the community will be conversant, even if in a general way, with that plan and with its objectives. It should also be made known what the workers in an individual capacity or as trade unionists are required to do in order that the plan will be successful.
There is insufficient consultation as far as employer-employee relations are concerned. It is tragic that in 1967 the main consultation is in respect of wages and conditions of employment. As I said before, the primary function of a trade union is to ensure that these will be fair and equitable and advantageous to the worker. It is deplorable that in the majority of cases this is the only type of consultation that takes place between employer and employee.
I do not suggest that consultation is the complete answer but I do suggest that no matter how small or big the enterprise or the job the worker must be identified with the welfare of the firm in which he works. As against what happens in the majority of cases, the employer should be concerned with the welfare of the worker and one might say vice versa. Too seldom do we see employers showing any initiative in establishing sick pay schemes or an attractive holiday scheme or, something that has been mentioned in this House ever since I came into it, the establishment of industrial pensions. Very many people, including employers, believe that there is no necessity for those things now. In their ignorance, they believe that the contributory social welfare pension is adequate. I do not think this is good enough treatment of employees by employers. After a service of 15, 25, 30 and in many cases 40 and 45 years, there should be, if not a legal obligation, a moral obligation on an employer to ensure that an employee who has given such long service in a firm is adequately provided for for the remaining years of his or her life.
We accept that efficiency and greater productivity should be for the worker's profit and not merely to produce additional profit and fees. We could make other comments on the matter of profits and fees but it is our belief that workers in industry should have it made known to them by way of consultation that greater productivity and greater efficiency, the elimination of waste and bad management, will be beneficial to both sides of the industry. Effective communication between both sides is of vital importance but that communication must mean consultation, not merely consultation about wages and hours of work and the other usual things but consultation related to productivity, efficient management and the other things I have mentioned.
All this business of industrial relations has come to the forefront because of the industrial strife in 1965, prolonged to some extent in 1966. Many people, including, I think, the Minister, have suggested that an incomes policy might be the solution of all our difficulties. After economic development had floundered, due to incompetent leadership, due to incompetent Government, we welcomed the announcement of the National Industrial and Economic Council that this country should establish an incomes policy but we do not accept that an incomes policy on its own is a way out of all our problems. It could be regarded as a progressive weapon for economic and social development but there are many other things to be considered.
If all it meant was the introduction of an incomes policy relating to economic growth, the matter would be very simple indeed, but I think the Minister ought to have regard to paragraph 48 of the NIEC Report No. 11 which says "An incomes policy must be considered in the wider context of a policy of incomes distribution". An incomes policy is necessary and desirable but it can be successful only if it is part of the overall social and economic policy of the Government. It is ridiculous for this or any other Minister to brandish the big stick of an incomes policy as if it were a simple means of ensuring the economic well-being of the country, particularly when the Government do not appear to be able to put before the country proper proposals for a revised programme of economic expansion and a national social programme. Without these, an incomes policy would be worse than useless. It does not depend on itself alone but on the nature of the Government measures that are necessary and should be introduced. To introduce such a policy now would be more an irritant to wage and salary earners than anything else.
The Minister on one occasion suggested that people should finish their thinking before they started to speak. He might have taken that lesson to himself. An incomes policy relating to productivity would mean percentage increases according to our growth rate but the NIEC report recommends that it must also be used to ensure a fair distribution of incomes. If it is to mean that on occasions of economic growth a percentage increase will be given to those on £8 or £9 a week, it does not mean an equitable distribution of incomes. Our first job must be to ensure that fair standards will be established and I must say that the recent speech of the Minister for Transport and Power in which he talked of a crazy rush for higher living standards annoyed and angered me.
It would suit the Minister for Transport and Power much better to talk of people on low incomes. I do not hear him speak very often of people who are in receipt of small allowances. On a recent occasion in my constituency, a question was put to me by a man who is a widower with three children and who is in receipt of sickness benefit and getting £4 12s 6d or £4 15s per week. How is such a man to fare out under an incomes policy? If economic growth goes up by a certain percentage and if that same percentage is to be applied to people working in industry, it simply means that the people now living on £8 or £9 per week will be looked after but is there to be nothing for the people who are unemployed or who are unable to work? These people have been pleading for years that something should be done for them and their pleas have not been answered.
To ignore the existing inequalities would only make a mockery of an incomes policy and we cannot accept that an incomes policy will be a weapon for the improvement of our society if it is not aimed at better income distribution. I would like to know therefore, as this is the Minister who will be arbitrating in disputes, if he will give us his views on a just incomes policy, how it should be established and how it should be operated.
The Government were not always enamoured of an incomes policy. I remember welcoming the views of the NIEC on an incomes policy and even at that stage the former Taoiseach was laughing at the idea. It was after the boom of 1964 and the slump of 1965, extending into 1966, that this was introduced. The proper time to introduce an incomes policy is in time of boom and it should not be used in a period of crisis. We are in a certain period of crisis now and an incomes policy should not be used as a big stick against people on low incomes or people unemployed at the present time.
We are very concerned in industry to think about such important things as capital, factories, equipment and an incomes policy. What is equally important is the establishment of a proper social organisation in industry. We have to remember that the nature of the social organisation of industry moulds the lives and attitudes of the workers. If we are to make genuine progress, we cannot afford to ignore that point. I do not think that anybody could be satisfied with the present social structure of industry. We could not say that it is good. The financial arrangements may be good; the machinery may be good and the productive methods in many cases may be good, but we have not begun to think of the social organisation of these industries. No employer, no industry, is going to get the best out of the workers, unless there is good social organisation within the structure of the industry.
Mark you, many of the disputes I know of, whilst the final issue may have been in regard to wages or hours of employment, have been built up by a lot of irritations—bad conditions, overheated or underheated factories, draughty factories, snoopy employers or narky foremen—all these tend to make the sore of discontent fester in the workers' minds and the combination may result in strike by the workers on another issue which would be regarded as being important.
If we are to have good and happy industry, we must have regard to the conditions in which workers have to do their daily work and we must be satisfied that there is proper and effective consultation between both sides of industry. The worker should be made part of the industry. It is not an unfair comment to say that at present, and for quite a long time, all power clearly resides, and has resided, with the employer. He is the man who decides whether a man is to work or not, or whether he is to be sacked or not. The unfortunate thing, as far as many industries are concerned, is that this device of sacking a man, or taking him on, or of closing down the factory, need not necessarily be a decision of somebody in Ireland, a foreman or a manager. This is a decision that can be taken by somebody in London, New York, Amsterdam, or in some other part of the world. This person has no idea of the difficulties facing the firms or the industries. It would be much more reasonable if there were greater consultation on any difficulties the firms had, or on any suggestions for increased production, because consultations on these matters would give the workers a little more interest than they have at present in their jobs.
As I said, many workers have only one stake in their job, that is, the weekly pay packet. This is not so in other countries. It is not good socially and it is not good economically. I am sure the Minister has examples of this in some of the factories in his constituency and there is no need to particularise. The Minister should take positive and deliberate steps to encourage new forms of industrial organisation. The idea of co-partnership is anathema to many employers at present and it has been so for quite a long time past. He should encourage schemes of works organisation and works committees and he should give greater encouragement to the establishment of safety committees. I do not want to appear to be in any way impudent to the Minister but on many occasions it appeared to me that his attitude towards safety committees was quite casual. Perhaps this is an attitude that has been built up in the Department of Industry and Commerce over the years. His attitude towards factory inspectors seemed to be quite casual.
I was encouraged to hear—and the Minister may take note of what was said by one of his backbenchers—the complaints made by Deputy Wyse which were as strong as the complaints made in this regard by Deputy Mullen over many months. The Minister did not appear to believe Deputy Mullen but if he did not believe Deputy Mullen in regard to the inadequacy of the staff of inspectors, or when he said that workers should be brought around with these inspectors, then he may believe one of his own colleagues, Deputy Wyse. The Deputy comes from Cork and I am sure that he knows what he is talking about.
I referred to co-partnership schemes, works organisation and works committees and I want to tell the Minister that this is not merely my view or the view of the Labour Party but they are suggestions made by the Irish Management Institute last year. I should like to know if anything has been done at Departmental level or if there has been any effort made to consider these suggestions of the Irish Management Institute. I believe that there has not been; at least the Minister did not refer to them in his opening speech. The emphasis has been on the generous grants available to industry. This grant policy should be used to consider new approaches and to stamp out abuses. The trade unions should have access to these grants, providing agencies both for the purpose of consultation on matters of organisation and for assessment of the personnel policies of firms. In addition, serious consideration should be given to whether or not a firm should get the same scale of grants, or get any grants, if it does not conform to certain standards laid down by the Minister or fair standards that may be requested or demanded by the trade union movement.
Despite all that has been said about the Minister or his Department. I do not think anybody believes he will not endeavour to do the best job he can. I do not know what the actual function of either the late Countess Markievicz or Mr. Joe McGrath was but I am sure they did not have the same difficult job as the Minister for Labour will have. I appreciate that he is willing to learn; I know that he believes, or should believe, that he is not the sole repository of all knowledge in regard to industrial relations, but there is a tendency on the part of Ministers in this House and in other countries to reject out of hand any suggestions made by members of the Opposition.
We are all vitally concerned with the question of industrial relations. If we want to increase production, or to prepare for free trade, or to prepare for the competition which we will undoubtedly have in the European Economic Community, it behoves all of us to pull our weight, whether we are trade unionists, or employers, or whatever we are, to ensure that we will succeed in this task. Increased productivity and increased economic growth depend on keeping our people at home at work. The Minister for Labour is a very important man. We do not expect him to provide solutions immediately. As a matter of fact, we do not expect that he will provide solutions by way of legislation. It is necessary that there should be amending legislation in respect of trade union law, in respect of industrial relations generally, but the Minister should heed the warnings, some of them strong and some of them stronger than others, from these benches in regard to the distance he can go in the matter, say, of interfering with the structure of the trade union movement, and particularly of interfering with the right of trade unions and their members to free collective bargaining.
The former Taoiseach in very positive terms stated in one of his speeches within the past 12 months that he had no intention of interfering with free collective bargaining. What has happened in the meantime? The Minister and the Government should not be scared because we have had perhaps too many strikes in the past two years. Those are not the ideal periods on which to judge the trade union movement and, for that matter, the employers. Those were extraordinary times and, without going into it, the Government must take their share of the responsibility for the industrial strife we had. The unfortunate thing is that we tried to provide a solution when we were nearly in the middle of a crisis. I believe that if there is to be industrial legislation, and if we are to get rational views and ideas, this should be done in a time of relative peace.
What reaction can the Minister expect from the trade union movement when in the final part of his speech, he says that if the workers do not come to heel—and if he did not say it in those specific words, he inferred it— he will have to do something about it? He might as well be tilting at windmills, because the trade union workers do not want to cause trouble but they do want to have the right to sell the only thing they can, the use of their hands or their brains. There is no use in the Minister talking in terms of imposing fines or putting the workers in prison or in jail if they will not work, because that will not work. Threats of that sort are not conducive to a favourable response from the trade union movement, if legislation on the lines which has been suggested is to be introduced by the Minister.
In any case, I know he has had consultations with the trade union movement, and I think he realises that regard must be had to the views of the workers, the wage earners and the salary earners. When the Minister and other Ministers of the Government call for restraint in incomes, they should not forget that in the beginning of 1966 the trade unions voluntarily restrained themselves to what they regarded as a minimum increase—the famous £1 per week for men and the appropriate scale for women. I do not think the trade union movement as a whole can be regarded as being wild or irresponsible. The number of strikes we have had has tended to be exaggerated and, with all due respect to those who publish these stories and news, there is far too much emphasis on strikes and far too little emphasis on settlements.
Therefore, I do not think we should be scared by reason of the fact that an unusual number of days were lost through strikes or lock-outs in recent years. We should approach this problem of industrial relations not with an eye on 1965, 1964 or 1966, but having regard to what the future pattern of industrial relations will be, and what the future structure of the trade union movement will be. We should not be prejudiced by events in the recent past or by any clamour from any section of the community which believes that the trade union movement is too powerful or too strong.
I shall end on this note. The trade union movement has been recognised by various Governments as very responsible and important. The evidence of this is that they have called upon the trade union movement to participate in semi-State organisations, many of which have been established and designed to ensure that there will be real economic growth. The Minister should bear in mind that economic growth is dependent on the co-operation of the trade union movement and all sections of the community. I do not think any section can act independently. We are together in this battle to ensure that the country will progress and in this the trade union movement can play a very important part.
