I move:
That a sum not exceeding £1,163,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1969, 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.
The Estimate shows a net increase of £285,000 over the provision for last year, inclusive of the supplementary provision made in December last for special redundancy payments to former employees of Messrs. Rawson's, Dundalk. The increase in the Estimate reflects a programmed development of the services financed from this Vote, the main item of the increase being attributable to an expansion of the services of An Chomhairle Oiliúna.
Because of the importance which I attach to training, I shall deal first with the provision for An Chomhairle Oiliúna, which was set up, under the Industrial Training Act, 1967, since last year's Estimate was voted by the Dáil.
The programme of An Chomhairle Oiliúna calls for an expansion of the schemes of apprenticeship training initiated by the former Ceard Comhairle (the National Apprenticeship Board); training and retraining of workers at all levels; training of redundant or unemployed workers and retraining of agricultural workers for industrial employment; advance training of workers for new industrial projects; and training of instructors, supervisors and technicians where necessary.
Two pilot training centres are already under construction, one in Shannon and the other in the Waterford Development Estate. These will be operating before next autumn. Staff have been recruited for these centres and are being trained. Accelerated adult training will be provided in the centres in order to help new industries settling into these areas by providing the semi-skilled workers in demand. The trainees will be paid maintenance allowances and will be credited with social welfare contributions during training. By the end of the year I hope to see a similar centre in operation in the Galway Estate.
An Chomhairle, which is representative of employer, worker, educational and other interests, has had to spend some time in its early months in recruiting specialised staff. It has recently been engaged in training its own staff and in programming its activities for the future. I hope to be in a position shortly to lay the first report of the board before the House.
There is already enough evidence to show that a massive amount will have to be done in the field of training. I ask everybody concerned, employers, trade unions, educational, et cetera, authorities, to co-operate fully in the measures which will be necessary to improve the skills of our workers. The grant-in-aid provided in the Estimate is the substantial one of £450,000 and I have made it known to An Chomhairle Oiliúna that I hope that means will be found to spend it all beneficially during the year.
I mentioned last year that I had decided to proceed with the development of the Employment Service in two stages. The first stage consisted of a number of short-term measures for immediate improvements involving the provision of separate accommodation for placement work within the existing exchange premises in the larger centres and the appointment of placement officers to these exchanges. During the past year, seven placement officers were appointed, one in each of the four exchanges in Dublin, one in Waterford, one in Galway and one in Cork; and the provision for staffing the service, included in Subhead A, is up by £10,000 on last year.
However, for the purposes of arriving at long-term policy decisions on how the placement and guidance functions of the employment service should be organised to meet the needs of manpower policy as a whole, I felt that a detailed and comprehensive review of the situation should be made.
I, therefore, commissioned the Institute of Public Administration to carry out such a review and to make recommendations on the lines on which the placement and guidance functions should best be developed. The Institute research team, who were assisted by a steering committee representing workers' and employers' organisations and Government Departments, have presented their report to me and it was laid before the Dáil at the beginning of this month.
The report recommends that placement work should be divorced from the benefit-paying function of the employment exchanges; and that the task of placing people in jobs should be carried out in separate offices which would also accommodate a new guidance service to be set up under the control of the Department of Labour. The report says that these steps are necessary if the Placement and Guidance Service is to be effective as an important instrument of manpower policy. A further recommendation is that the service should be voluntary and competitive, without any compulsion on employers or workers to use it. It recommends that persons claiming unemployment benefit should no longer be required to register for employment with the placement service and that that service should not be used to test an unemployed person's willingness to accept work. These matters are at present being discussed with the Government Departments concerned. When the implications of the report are examined and the results considered by the Government, I shall make an announcement on plans for improvements in the Placement and Guidance Service.
Meanwhile, work on existing employment exchanges has continued. New exchange premises have been completed in Carlow and in Cahirciveen. Clifden, too, I hope will have a new exchange this year. New rented accommodation is being provided in Bantry and should be available in a few months. For Drogheda and Manorhamilton plans for new premises are being prepared. New accommodation may also be required in other centres. Decisions on these areas will be influenced by the policy decision taken on the Report of the Institute of Public Administration.
I had hoped to have an industrial psychologist recruited during the past year to help in developing the guidance and placement functions of the Employment Service so that it might be in a better position to place workers in jobs suited to their aptitudes and to provide employers with workers suited to their requirements. So scarce are the persons with the qualifications for this work that it was found necessary for the Civil Service Commissioners to advertise the post twice. There are good prospects now, however, that a suitably-qualified person will be appointed in the near future.
Difficulty was experienced in recruiting a suitable person to head the Manpower Forecasting Unit as persons with the required qualifications for the position are also in short supply. However, an appointment has now been made and work on organisation and the preparation of a programme is proceeding. Information available from abroad shows that the science of manpower forecasting has not yet been fully developed anywhere. I expect, therefore, that, for some time to come, the operations of the unit will be concentrated on analysing particular shortages in the labour force and short-term predictions, while keeping in touch with developments in manpower forecasting generally in other countries, with a view to devising and operating a set of forecasting procedures relevant to this country's manpower circumstances.
The provision of information on careers is a necessary adjunct to the development of the placement and guidance functions of the Employment Service. I, accordingly, set up a special central Careers Information Service in my Department with the task of providing a comprehensive range of information about various occupations open to persons in this country. With the aid of other Government Departments, State-sponsored bodies and various professional and other organisations, a considerable volume of information about careers is being built up and this is processed for publication in leaflets setting out basic information on each particular occupation.
An initial series of leaflets covering 50 occupations was issued last June and a further series was distributed in March, 1968. A further issue will be made before the end of the current school year and leaflets will continue to be issued until a comprehensive range of careers and occupations is covered. Irish language versions of the leaflets are being prepared and will be issued according as they become available.
All the leaflets produced so far relate to individual careers. The desirability of reproducing the information in other forms, for example, in booklets covering all the occupations in a particular industry, will be considered later.
There has been a steady demand for leaflets and information. Posters publicising them have been distributed for display in schools, libraries, post offices and other appropriate centres. The leaflets are available free, on request to the Department.
I am including a provision of £3,000 in Subhead I for this service.
During the past year manpower surveys were carried out in Waterford and Galway, both of which had been selected as development centres, so as to obtain reliable information about the present and future labour supply. A team of social scientists was recruited to undertake these surveys which commenced in July. The field-work is now practically completed and I expect to have a report on the Waterford survey by the end of the year and of the Galway survey about the middle of 1969. Surveys of this nature are a valuable source of information about our manpower resources and suggestions have been put to me that they should become a normal activity of the Department of Labour later on.
Other areas have expressed interest in similar surveys. However, I had to decline their requests to have these carried out at public expense, because of scarcity of qualified personnel. A comprehensive manpower survey is a long and costly affair and I am not at all convinced that such comprehensive study is needed in all the areas looking for them. I am considering, therefore, the alternative of inquiries of more limited scope, to be carried out by local voluntary effort under the guidance of a competent and fully qualified director. Any such scheme would have to satisfy certain professional and technical criteria and would, of course, have to be of practical value. At present the question of assessing one such group is under consideration as a pilot study. The cost of the surveys is borne on Subhead G—Research, for which a total provision of £20,000 is being made in this year's Estimate.
Apart from the manpower surveys, I am also anxious that research should be undertaken on certain social problems of interest to the labour force, such as attitudes to income differentials and the mobility of our workers. The NIEC has suggested that there is need for research into the factors affecting female employment in Ireland. My Department is in touch with the Economic and Social Research Institute as to how research in these matters could best be organised.
The Redundancy Payments Scheme came into operation on 1st January of this year and all the necessary arrangements, including the appointment of the Redundancy Appeals Tribunal, were made.
When the Redundancy Payments Bill was going through the House, a number of Deputies expressed concern lest workers would not be fully informed of their entitlements under the scheme. I, therefore, promised to publicise it as widely as possible. My Department accordingly published a guide to the scheme and a special booklet for employers as well as a leaflet containing a summary of the main provisions of the scheme. These publications and the normal publicity statements issued on the commencement of the scheme were given wide coverage and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Radio Telefís Éireann and the newspapers for the assistance they gave in having the provisions of the scheme made known to the public.
The scheme is being administered through the employment exchanges and employment offices. Contributions to the Redundancy Fund are at present made by employers by means of affixing special redundancy stamps to redundancy cards. Following representations from employers about the expense and inconvenience of this procedure, I consulted the Minister for Social Welfare about merging redundancy and social insurance contributions in a unified card and stamp. I am glad to say now that we have found it possible to make arrangements for unified contribution cards and stamps and these will come into operation for men and women from the beginning of 1969.
In the first quarter of 1968, a total of 1,120 cases of redundancies, involving 229 firms, were notified to my Department. Included in this total, however, is a figure of 145 workers from one firm whose notices of dismissal were put in abeyance as the firm concerned, which was scheduled to close, was continued in operation on a reorganised basis. The effective total for the quarter was, therefore, 975 people. In the four-week period ended 26th April, 1968, a further 477 cases were notified making a total, for the first 17 weeks of the scheme, of 1,452.
The average lump-sum payment in the first quarter amounted to £115, and the average weekly redundancy payment was £5 10s 0d per person. While the effective total redundancies notified in the first quarter amounted to 975, claims for weekly redundancy payments at the end of the quarter amounted only to 360 per week, indicating that the majority of those declared redundant had been placed in alternative employment through the Employment Service or had succeeded through their own efforts in obtaining other jobs. An analysis which I have made of redundancies in the first quarter of 1968, shows that, of the total of 229 firms involved, 170 firms had each dismissed one or two persons only for reasons of redundancy.
I have always recognised that the general Redundancy Payments Scheme as provided for in the Act might not be suitable for certain classes of workers because of the nature of their employment. Deputies will be aware that provision was made in the Act for special schemes if this course should appear appropriate in the case of any special class of workers. Two classes of employees whose general pattern of employment might, I feel, warrant special schemes are dock workers and building workers. I have set up two committees representative of the ICTU, the employers' organisations concerned and my Department to examine the feasibility of special schemes for these classes. The committees have met on several occasions but agreement on proposals for a special scheme has not yet been reached in either case. To remove any anxiety which Deputies may feel on this score, I should explain that, in the absence of special schemes, the main scheme applies, so there is no question of a worker being denied the benefit of redundancy pay merely because a special scheme has not been negotiated for his employment.
As undertaken during the passage of the Redundancy Payments Bill through the Oireachtas, I am examining the question of extending the scope of the Redundancy Payments Scheme to clerical workers over £1,200 a year. It may be some time before this can be brought to the point of decision, as it involves examining the conditions of employment of numerous groups in this category to see to what extent these classes already have protection against redundancy.
Section 46 of the Redundancy Payments Act provided for a scheme of resettlement allowances, under which financial assistance could be given to persons who are obliged to move from their home areas to a new area to obtain employment.
Following consultation with the Manpower Advisory Committee, I have brought a scheme of resettlement allowances into operation. The scheme applies to persons who are unemployed, or are under notice of redundancy, and who are prepared to accept new employment beyond normal daily travelling distance of their homes. To be eligible for assistance under the scheme a worker must have been, immediately before becoming unemployed, in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, or in any other employment for which the remuneration did not exceed £1,200 per annum. The scheme provides for payments of allowances and grants as follows—interview grants, travelling allowances, household removal expenses, settling-in-grants, lodging allowances and legal expenses connected with the sale or purchase of a house.
I hope that this scheme will assist in facilitating that degree of geographical mobility among workers which is desirable in the interests of promoting national economic policy. The scheme will be kept under review for the purpose of considering any improvements in it that may be necessary and Deputies may take it that, in the absence of experience, the provision of £15,000 included for it in Subhead H of the Estimate is experimental.
It appears to me that the work of a Department of Labour can be most effective when there is co-operation, goodwill and confidence between its personnel and those in the various, and sometimes conflicting, organisations with which it deals.
In an effort to promote good relations, I authorised officers of the Department to attend meetings and address shop stewards, trade union members and part-time union officials on aspects of the work of the Department, the lectures being arranged by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as part of their education programme. Officers were also authorised to speak on aspects of the work of the Department at meetings organised by management, administration and academic bodies.
I believe that the personnel of the Department and those with whom they deal in trade union, management and other quarters can gain from these exchanges. Already certain improvements have been made in official procedures as a result of suggestions made at these meetings.
Deputies will recall that I informed the House last year that, as a result of a review of the factory inspectorate, I had decided to increase its staffing from 22 to 28. Two competitions have been held by the Civil Service Commissioners and so far three additional inspectors have been, or are about to be, appointed. A full-scale Departmental review of the inspectorate has recently been completed and I am considering proposals for reorganising the service, so that it can best fulfil the role of industrial accident advisory and prevention service, envisaged for it when the Factories Act, 1955, was enacted.
The trend in industrial accidents notified to my Department showed a further increase of about 7 per cent in the year ended September, 1967, as against 1966, and, unfortunately, fatal accidents increased from 20 to 22. The statistics so far available for 1968 give reason to hope that the increase is being arrested, but it is too soon to say this definitely. While these accident figures are regrettable and investigations disclose that the majority of industrial accidents are avoidable, it must be borne in mind that the number of workers coming within the scope of the Factories Acts is increasing all the time.
I must report the continued failure of workers in industry generally to avail themselves of their rights under section 73 of the Factories Act to set up safety committees, only ten new committees having been established during the year, bringing the total up to a mere 99. The Department, in co-operation with the National Industrial Safety Organisation, has recently launched a campaign to get more safety committees established. This campaign stresses that initiatives coming from either managements or workers for the setting up of Safety Committees will be welcomed. If this campaign is not successful, I may have to ask the House to consider proposals for legislation requiring the setting up of committees in the larger factories and workshops.
The National Industrial Safety Organisation continues to develop its safety campaign, through meetings, conferences, exhibitions and training courses. Its latest contribution is the inauguration of a two-monthly journal called Sciath which will be distributed to affiliated organisations.
NISO has now been in existence for five years and is paid a grant in aid of up to £2,000 from Subhead K of this Vote, on a £1 for £1 basis related to the subscriptions raised from industries, trade unions and other organisations. The secretariat of the organisation is provided by the Department.
I have already informed the Dáil that a systematic review of the Acts relating to the welfare of workers, conditions of employment, etc., has been undertaken by the Department. As a first stage in this review, meetings have been held with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the two employers' organisations regarding proposals for bringing into line with modern requirements the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Acts, 1938 and 1942. The Department is also in touch with the ICTU and the FUE on proposals for legislation to give workers a statutory entitlement to minimum periods of notice on discharge. Deputies will recall that I undertook to consider such legislation when the Redundancy Payments Bill was being discussed.
Another matter which needs looking into is that of gaps in our protective legislation. Notwithstanding the wide coverage of the law, there are still certain workers who have not the benefit of the Factories Act or other similar legislation. For example, one particular class for whom there is no safety law —except they are working in factories —is window cleaners. Apart from safety there are some other types of workers who have very little statutory protection in regard to their conditions of employment, such as messengers employed outside the main cities. I have ordered an examination of this whole issue in order to identify the gaps in the protective law for workers and then to consider what to do to give as many as practicable of our workers a legal entitlement to some minimum standards of safety, health and welfare at their places of work.
The policy of developing our association with the International Labour Organisation is being continued. Last year a delegation representative of the Government, ICTU and the Federated Union of Employers attended the organisation's annual conference in Geneva and I myself had the opportunity of addressing the assembly. Among the instruments adopted by the conference were a Convention and Recommendation about maximum weight to be carried by workers and Recommendations about communications and grievance procedures. The question of accepting these is under examination in the normal way. The Government have approved the attendance of a delegation at this year's annual conference next month.
I must here refer to statements made in this House during the Budget debate that unemployment has reached record proportions and that over 70,000 people have been unemployed for the whole year. This is entirely inaccurate. It is true that the Live Register reached this figure in one week, namely, the week of the ESB strike, when a number of factories had to close down for want of power. The record was, of course, reached in February, 1957, when the number of unemployed exceeded 95,000. That figure has not been equalled since and I hope that it never will be.
The latest figure for the Live Register is 61,000 and I must confess that it gives cause for concern. The NIEC have recently commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the Live Register as a measure of the numbers available for employment.
Of the 61,000 on the Register, 11,000 are women. The Department has made inquiries into the availability of women for work and some significant facts have emerged in the Dublin area. There are two women's employment exchanges in Dublin; in one married women accounted for 70 per cent of the Live Register while at the other they represented 50 per cent. The great majority of those women were signing for "credits" for Social Welfare purposes and were not seeking employment at all. Ninety per cent of the married women did not want full-time employment and, indeed, the majority of them did not want work of any kind. The reason most frequently given for not wanting work was the demands of the home. A pilot manpower survey in Drogheda revealed that 72 per cent of all women registered at the exchange there were not interested in getting work for the reason that they were looking after their homes.
Employers in the industrial sector in Dublin have reported difficulty in recruiting female staff and, in fact, the placement officers have vacancies notified to them that they are unable to fill. Deputies will see that, at least so far as women registrants are concerned, the Live Register is not at present a true indication of the numbers unemployed and looking for work. A further point that emerged from the Drogheda survey is that the demand by industry for skilled and semi-skilled women and girls is likely to increase over the next few years. The implications of these findings are being studied by the Department.
Last year I appointed a representative committee to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of improving employment opportunities for the disabled in the public service and semi-State bodies. I have received a preliminary report from the committee and I expect a final report in the next few months. Training is probably of greater importance to the disabled than to the able-bodied in seeking employment and An Chomhairle Oiliúna has a statutory responsibility for the provision of training for the disabled. Voluntary bodies are already doing very valuable work in training the physically and mentally handicapped and as An Chomhairle develops there will be close co-operation between the organisations catering for the handicapped and An Chomhairle. When I have received and considered the report of the committee on these problems, I shall make an announcement of any special measures which can be taken to absorb handicapped workers in the public sector.
During the year a Private Members' Bill introduced by Deputy Dunne similar to a British Act on the employment of disabled persons was debated in this House. It was proposed in the Bill that employers should be required to employ a percentage of disabled persons and that certain employments should be reserved for such persons. I sought the views of many of the voluntary and other bodies catering for the disabled and they were almost unanimous in being opposed to compulsion. I was, and I still am, of the view that compulsion is undesirable unless it is clearly demonstrated that the same end cannot be achieved by voluntary means. If, however, it appears that a voluntary system is not giving the desired results, I shall consider the question of legislation. There is, of course, no question of placing disabled persons in jobs to which they are not suited; suitability and capacity to carry out the work are as necessary with the disabled as with the able-bodied.
It has been the policy of successive Governments over the years to discourage emigration and, therefore, to refrain from action to assist or to encourage people to seek employment abroad. Representations have been made to me suggesting that since, as is pointed out in the NIEC Report on Full Employment, certain numbers of our work force must seek jobs abroad in the years until full employment is reached in Ireland, the interests of the persons concerned are deserving of more attention from the community. There has also been some recent publicity about the conditions of employment and the types of work in which young Irish people have been engaged in Great Britain; it has been suggested that some of our young people, because of lack of training or advice before leaving the country, are obliged to take jobs which are beneath their capacity or are otherwise unsuitable; and questions have been asked in the Dáil on the activities of private employment agencies offering to place Irish workers in employment abroad. I am discussing these matters with my colleagues and I would welcome the views of Deputies as to what action, if any, might be appropriate. I may say, from a preliminary study which I have made, that the problems involved appear formidable in the extreme.
As I have referred to our emigrant workers, I might also deal briefly with arrangements about foreign workers who wish to take up employment here. Under the Aliens' Order, 1946, an alien, other than a British or Commonwealth citizen, may not be employed here without a permit. My main concern is to safeguard the employment opportunities of Irish workers. Accordingly, the employer is usually asked to produce evidence that a suitable Irish worker cannot be got and corroboration is sought from the Department's Manpower and Employment Services and by consultation with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or a professional or other body. Needless to say the evidence may be inconclusive or conflicting but in practice a permit is refused where it is established that a competent Irish worker is available to take up the employment.
There are certain exceptions to this procedure, the principal of which is where a new industry is set up and key foreign workers are required. A more liberal policy is justified here because admission of such workers leads to greater employment of Irish workers. In a few categories, for example, domestic service and certain catering work, permits are granted freely as Irish workers are in short supply. Occasionally individual permits are also issued on humanitarian or hardship grounds.
Before I deal with our present problems in the sphere of industrial relations, and no Deputy will deny that we have problems, I might state, for the record, that 1967 was not a bad year for industrial relations. The number of trade disputes handled by the Labour Court and its conciliation service was, however, higher than in any previous year. The Court issued 131 recommendations of which 123 were accepted by employers and 85 were accepted by workers. We lost about 180,000 man days in strikes compared with about 780,000 in 1966 and 550,000 in 1965. So far this year the available statistics, which do not, incidentally, include the workers in industry laid off due to the ESB strike, indicate that we have lost more man days already than in the whole of 1967. We have had a virtual close down of industry due to the unofficial ESB strike and we have the intractable dispute involving the EI Company in the Shannon Industrial Estate.
The ESB strike was both unofficial and involved breach of the law. Everybody knows that, of itself, an Act of the Oireachtas cannot guarantee electricity supplies. The 1966 Act was based on the hope that Irishmen would observe a law intended to protect the community and that the prosecution of sectional claims would not be carried, in face of such a law, to the point of paralysing the nerve centre of the country. When a group of workers did defy authority and break the law, with the consequences we all saw, the fact that they could justify it on the basis of their own principles could have brought little consolation to anyone, except perhaps to people who are not at all concerned with workers' rights but who are always interested in seeing our economy disrupted and our institutions challenged. I regret to say that my experience in this particular dispute proved to me that there are such people and that while they do not belong to a trade union or workers' organisation, they have been able, in critical situations like the ESB strike, to exploit the loyalty of the worker to his workmates. Unions instructed their members to report for work but these instructions were disobeyed. A formal committee of inquiry has since been launched into industrial relations in the ESB. The purpose of this inquiry is to establish the facts objectively and to make recommendations for a re-casting of procedures which would prevent a similar disruption of electricity supplies in the future.
The dispute at Shannon involves a face to face confrontation between a large externally-financed concern and our largest and most powerful trade union. The rigid attitude of the firm refusing to accept a Labour Court recommendation has been matched by the determined stand of the trade union which has brought the full battery of union weapons to bear on the dispute. I have intervened, exceptionally, in this dispute, and I have had a number of meetings with both parties. I have been working in the hope of being able to convince the company that a successful and profitable operation could be carried on in Ireland without having to go outside our normal management/union practices. I am, of course, particularly concerned to protect the employment of the 1,200 workers concerned.
Our industrial relations moved recently into an era of unofficial disputes, of which the ESB one was the most spectacular and the most damaging. Recent unofficial strikes have shown trade union leadership in certain areas to be unable to retain control in a strike situation. There are signs that the trade union movement is itself aware of the dangers involved in some recent developments. I would encourage them to take action to counter the risks inherent in these developments. I submit to this House that, in the trade union movement as in our society generally, the aim should be disciplined action rather than the idea of absolute unfettered freedom.
There is one matter which causes me some anxiety while to the outsider it may appear not too important. I am conscious that certain officials of the trade union movement continue to make speeches about the Establishment. The effect of these speeches is to divide or attempt to divide the worker from the rest of the community. An example from a journal of one trade union is as follows, and I quote:
We can see the periodical reappearance of all the signs of anti-worker and anti-union attitudes which have long been harboured by the Establishment.
The top men in the trade union movement must know that, to put it at its lowest, this statement is unjust as far as the elected Government of the country and the public service are concerned. Let me say here and now that the Department of Labour exists for the good of the worker. Its purpose is to improve and protect the lot of the workers and if anybody honestly finds it falling short on this task I would invite him to come and visit me and explain his views. As things are, I suggest that bad seed is being sown and co-operation between the Department of Labour and the unions for which I have tried to work since taking over this portfolio, is being undermined. If Irish workers see grounds for the allegations of anti-worker bias they have not shown it at the polls nor does the record of the Government support these easily-made allegations.
It would be wrong and misleading to give any impression to the Dáil that the defects in our industrial relations are all attributable to weaknesses in the trade union movement or to the behaviour of workers. A report of a survey of Irish firms done a few years ago disclosed very serious deficiencies in the personnel management of many of our industries. There is evidence of improvement in this field over the past year, thanks to a growing realisation by management of the importance of good personnel management. However, some cases of mishandling of staff relations leading to tensions and industrial difficulty came to light during the year and it is clear that much more requires to be done before our managements can be said to have attained a satisfactory level of competence in this important area.
In their report on Full Employment the National Industrial Economic Council recommended that there should be inquiries into major industrial disputes, after the disputes had been settled, to discover the reasons why they arose and why they lasted so long. I have already referred to the Committee of Inquiry into Industrial Relations in the ESB. I have also decided that a pilot inquiry, based on the NIEC proposals, should be held into the recent dispute in Bord na Móna and I am making arrangements accordingly.
As the Minister for Finance stressed in his Budget Statement one of the greatest obstacles to a country's development, particularly in the industrial sector, is an unsatisfactory record of production lost through industrial action. A bad international reputation in this field damages existing industry and discourages new ventures. Our hopes for industrial development and employment rest heavily on the prospect of attracting external industrialists to set up factories in Ireland. My experience in the Department of Industry and Commerce brought it home to me that this island is far from being the automatic choice of every world industrialist looking for a location for his enterprise. The Industrial Development Authority and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company have to compete for new industries with other countries which are offering a wide range of inducements. If, because we cannot settle our industrial disputes in a civilised and orderly manner, we fail to get these people to come here and stay here then we shall stand deservedly condemned before those of our people who look to us for the opportunity of making a living in their own country.
There is therefore a heavy responsibility on employers, trade unions and on everyone concerned in industrial relations to help in restoring and maintaining industrial peace. I am constantly looking out for ways of improving the facilities and procedures available to the parties to negotiations on pay and conditions so as to ensure that the official service is first-class. If Deputies have complaints to make or suggestions to offer, I shall consider them most earnestly.
The year 1967 was a year in which there was no general increase in wages and salary rates. Nevertheless, total employee income in the year was up by 8 per cent on 1966. Thas was partly accounted for by the fact that the tenth round—the £1 a week—generally came into effect from about the middle of 1966. Despite the absence of general increases in rates in 1967, wage costs increased substantially due to the widespread grant of service pay, reduced hours and longer holidays. Average industrial earnings in September, 1967, were nearly 4 per cent higher than in September, 1966, and the increase for the December quarter was over 5 per cent.
Since the latter part of 1967, a series of individual agreements involving substantial pay increases has been negotiated affecting workers in many industries and firms and this process is now spreading to the bulk of industrial employment. The pay increases granted under these agreements have followed no uniform pattern but the most common formula has been three increases spread over 1968 and 1969 with the total increase for the two years for men ranging from about 30/- to 40/-a week, and correspondingly lower increases for women and juveniles. Some agreements provide for extra leave, shorter hours and other improvements and a number of agreements also contain provisions about productivity.
From the point of view of the economy, there are two favourable aspects of the current approach to the wage situation. First, the increases are being given on a phased basis rather than in one large award. The spreading of the increase over a period eases the impact on industrial costs and is in line with a recommendation by the NIEC. Secondly, the industry-by-industry or firm-by-firm approach has the merit that the economic situation of the particular firm or industry can be given some weight in the negotiations.
There is also a greater possibility that productivity considerations can be introduced into the negotiations. It must be said, however, that, in practice, an individual industry or firm cannot isolate itself in pay matters. Comparisons with other employments are a prominent feature of negotiations, and where there is a general movement in pay and conditions, workers in weaker firms or in employments in which productivity cannot readily be improved are not likely to be content with increases substantially less than those gained by their fellow workers. It is essential for growth, therefore, that the standard of pay increases generally should not be bases on what can be afforded by the most successful firms in the fastest growing sector of the economy, i.e. manufacturing industry.
It is clear that the results of the pay adjustments which are now in full swing will involve extra payments in 1968 very much in excess of the increase—4 per cent to 4½ per cent— which is predicted for national production this year. The pay increases provided for in most of the 2-year agreements are, in percentage terms, in the 10 per cent to 20 per cent range, with the greater part of the increase coming in 1968. Allowance must also be made for the impact in 1968 of agreements negotiated in 1966 and 1967, and still being negotiated in some industries, for reduced hours of work, additional holidays, service pay, and so on.
It looks now that by the end of this year average industrial earnings will be running at a level which will be at least 10 per cent higher than they were at the end of 1967, with a further substantial increase again in 1969. This increase is a serious threat to our international competitiveness and consequently to our employment position. In Britain, which is our main competitor and our main export market, the Government is seeking to contain pay increases within a ceiling of 3½ per cent, with limited exceptions where stringent conditions, mainly based on productivity, are fulfilled. The British Government's policy is to be backed by statutory power to defer or suspend increases in wages or salaries for periods of up to 12 months.
So far, the pay negotiations have been concentrated mainly in the industrial sector but claims for comparable increases in other employments, such as the Government service, State-sponsored bodies and other non-industrial employment, are now being put forward. Any attempt to bid up further the pattern of pay settlements in respect of these claims could have disastrous results for the economy. Our competitive position is already in grave peril and any claims which would increase this danger should be moderated.
The most worrying features of the national economic situation at the present time are the failure of employment to increase and the growth in unemployment. The key to increased employment and to reduction of involuntary emigration is industrial development. Industrial development depends almost entirely on increased exports and such exports can, in turn, be achieved only if production costs are competitive. The recent increase in the Live Register is a salutary statistic, when we consider the growth in the economy in 1967 and the prospects for 1968. If the numbers of unemployed and of emigrants are to be brought down expectations will have to be brought closer to reality and there must be a more sensible attitude to claims which inflate industrial costs and so threaten to put people out of work.
The Review of the Second Programme published before the Budget showed that, over the past four years, the economy grew at an average rate of 3 per cent a year but that disposable incomes were pushed up by 7½ per cent a year on average. In other words, for every pound's worth extra produced, we paid ourselves £2 10s. It may be taken that if we had been more moderate in our income demands in these years, we would now have more exports, a higher level of employment, less emigration and greater overall national prosperity than we have, in fact, achieved.
The position as to wage levels in employment in Irish industry has, for all practical purposes, now been determined up to the end of 1969. I would suggest that the best ways of avoiding further deterioration in a potentially dangerous situation are as follows. First, the remaining stages in the current series of pay adjustments should be carried out in such a way that there is no escalation on pay awards; second, agreements which have already been negotiated should be scrupulously observed for their duration by both sides; third, the campaign for higher productivity must be stepped up; and fourth, we must, between now and the end of 1969, renew efforts to get the concept implemented, which everyone seems to accept in principle but ignore in practice, that increases in incomes should be kept in line with increases in national production. By co-operating in measures to raise productivity and make industries competitive, workers will make a real contribution to the expansion of production and exports, and thus to the creation of new jobs in Irish industry.
The aim of raising the pay of lower paid workers has recently figured very much in trade union pronouncements. There is no evidence, however, that this worthy aim has been given any real support in the current series of wage settlements; indeed, trade union strength in organisation and bargaining position has been used to secure the best possible increases for those already relatively well paid, without any special regard for the lower paid workers. The Government would be only too glad to co-operate in any move to raise the pay and improve the conditions of lower-paid workers, but there must be acceptance that additional resources can only be given to the lower-paid workers if they are diverted from the better off sections of the community, including the better paid workers, and that, in particular, improvements given to the lower-paid will not be used by the better-paid to support claims for corresponding increases for themselves so that, in the language of the wage differentials, they can "keep their distance."
I said earlier that some of the current series of pay settlements contained clauses about productivity. Unfortunately, many of these so called productivity agreements did little more than make a nod in the general direction of productivity. Productivity is far too vital to be dealt with in this way. If we are to make up the ground we have lost in competitiveness, measures to raise productivity must be pursued tenaciously. If any reasonable base is to be laid for further pay increases after 1969 spectacular increases in productivity must be obtained. 1968 is National Productivity Year and must result in a great upsurge in productivity consciousness and in practical measures to raise productivity. My Department will seek to make an effective contribution and I intend to carry out a comprehensive examination of the measures the Department and their agencies can take to assist in the drive to increase productivity.
I want to stress again the link between excessive increases in incomes and rising unemployment and emigration. The lesson about excessive income increases should have been driven home by the set-backs our economy experienced in past years. Can anyone examining the outcome of the present series of pay claims say that we have learned this lesson? Have we even made a start towards the radical change in outlook which is essential if we are to progress along the road towards full employment?
I want to put it to the Dáil that the community has a choice in this matter and that we all have a national responsibility to explain what the options are, namely, a choice between increased employment with modest but regular increases in incomes, and, on the other hand, employment for smaller numbers at higher rates of pay, with the surplus workers swelling the unemployed list or emigrating. It is not enough to declare ourselves, even by formal resolution, in favour of more jobs at home: these will not become a reality until those engaged in making settlements learn to see the consequences for the community of excessive income increases, and resolve to act accordingly.
It is, of course, a weakness in our system of industrial relations and free collective bargaining that in industrial disputes and wage negotiations the interests which predominate are those of workers already in employment and of employers already well established in business. Normally, the pace-setters are those workers or employers who have sufficient strength to survive a conflict. Many who are adversely affected by the results of the process have no say in the outcome. These include workers whose prospects of holding a job or of getting a job depend upon our ability to continue to develop and export in a competitive world. Among them I would count those in marginally economic enterprises, the unemployed, the school leavers, the handicapped waiting to be placed, the breadwinners in England, and those who want to apply their resources of capital and skill to start up or expand enterprises here.
If order cannot be restored in our industrial relations and if restraint and consideration for others are not shown in negotiations and in other aspects of industrial behaviour—and I am bound to tell the Dáil that we are still far from the necessary degree of order or restraint—then the hopes of the community for more jobs for Irish workers in Ireland, for a gradual reduction in emigration and ultimately for full employment, cannot be realised in our time. The Dáil may take it that there is no shortage of solutions that could be proposed for our industrial relations and incomes problems on the basis of suspending free collective bargaining and setting aside various democratic principles.
Our task, however, is to evolve solutions while still preserving what the Irish people regard as basic democratic freedoms. This is a task which calls for co-operation and understanding of a high order. And it must be tackled and completed soon or it will be too late.
For myself, I should like to tell the Dáil that, despite the depressing and discouraging developments of the recent past, I still cling to the hope that our people, on realising what the inevitable consequences of present trends will be, will respond by voluntarily making the required changes in attitudes and practices and so facilitate an expansion of productive activity and employment in Ireland. It is in that confident expectation that I have instructed my Department to plan and work for a steady and orderly growth in the services provided under this Vote.
