Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1969

Vol. 238 No. 12

Private Members' Business. - Trade Union Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

With this Bill is being taken the Second Stage of the Industrial Relations Bill, 1966.

While one is discussing this Bill it is impossible not to be aware of the situation in the city and in the country in labour/employer relations. May I take this opportunity now of making a plea to both sides in this strike to come together tomorrow morning and, without sacrificing principles, to think of the great suffering which is being inflicted on a large section of our people and to remember that the strike must be fixed some time, so why not now? People have said, of course, that the Minister should do something about this strike. I think the Minister has done everything possible, in by far the best way to establish a plan for proper human relations in the industrial and commercial field. The FUE suggested there should be another body of arbitration. But, while the Labour Court is there, we appeal to the parties at this late stage, when this strike is almost a month on, to fix it and then go on talking after that.

This Bill is entitled the Trade Union Bill, 1966, and through no fault I suppose of any side—the Minister's or the trade unions'—it has been delayed for three years. During that time critics of the Government and of the establishment in general have said that of course the Minister was preparing repressive, restrictive and reactionary legislation. I wonder what their feelings were when they saw the context of his actual Bill here? It is certainly not restrictive, there is certainly no repression in it and it certainly is not reactionary. I welcome this Bill because I see in it the recognition of the precept that this is a democratic State. The Constitution does not provide that democracy should be confined to the principle of adult suffrage in Parliamentary or local election. It surely intends that the State should insist by legislation on the exercise of democratic control in other institutions, such as trade unions established on a democratic basis.

Nobody will disagree with Deputy O'Leary's theory that the worker desires a feeling of belonging to his organisation. That is a very human feeling. The worker should not be just a cog in the trade union movement. He must be established as a human being having dignity and intelligence. Therefore, I do not think that workers will ever care a hoot whether such things as a bank overdraft should be financed by a mortgage debenture or by any other means but what he does care about is that he shall have a voice as to whether he goes on strike.

We must face the fact that in the city today thousands are affected by the strike who were not even given the opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether they should or should not strike but because of our history of trade unionism and because most of us were taught in our younger days that one should not pass a picket, there are people who are abusing this loyalty and who believe that a picket is sacrosanct and should not be passed.

The president of the Congress of Trade Unions said recently that we must examine our attitude towards pickets. It may seem just coincidental that in England where there is a socialist government with all that means they are having the same trouble in introducing what they believe is the proper trade union legislation. Our legislation here is quite mild because the Minister in his wisdom—and I am sure we all agree with him—recognises the fact that any kind of legislation, especially trade union legislation, must have the consent of the workers and of the employers.

If we are to have the society that we wish to have here, we shall not have it by the implementation of harsh measures for either workers or employers. With regard to England, the Minister in charge there has published a White Paper called "In Place of Strife". This very able lady has accused somebody of leaking the details of the Bill to the people concerned and she has also accused them of leaking the restrictive parts of her Bill. I merely mention this to show that, while some people are saying that Fianna Fáil are neglecting the workers here, a socialist Minister in England admits that restrictive legislation is being brought in there to curb the unions. That illustrates that while we are having our trouble, most other places are having their troubles too.

One may ask: "Why do we need a Trade Union Bill?" Anyone who has read the newspapers during the past month can see clearly that we have reached an almost chaotic situation. In last evening's issue of the Evening Herald under the banner headline “General Workers Rebelling” we read:

A rebellion by the general workers in industry because of their treatment by the craft workers, was how Mr. James Dunne, president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, described the situation which exists today in the big strike.

We, on this side of the House, believe that if we are to have progress, if we are to have full employment and if we are to help the lower paid workers, we must have a very strong trade union movement and the Minister has sought, in his Bill, to create the atmosphere and the conditions for a strong and a responsible trade union movement. However, I do not think it is the Minister's job to do this. I should like to see a state of affairs where the Trade Union Congress and the FUE would draft their own legislation and say: "This is our charter for the workers and for the employers". This would make for proper human relations in the industrial field and it would prevent thousands of people from being turned out of employment. I recall a former Taoiseach, Deputy Seán Lemass, saying to the trade unions: "Draft your own legislation and we will implement it". This would prevent a situation such as we witnessed recently when the women of Dublin had to fight in the bread shops for bread for their children because of the strike.

We hope, therefore, that this Bill will help to remove the doubts and clear the obstacles bedevilling us at the moment and which are throwing thousands of men and women out of employment. I do not believe we will secure the ideal of a perfect society but if we have responsible Government, responsible employers, responsible trade unions, responsible workers and a sense of responsibility in the other spheres of our society, we can achieve something very close to it.

During the past fortnight we lost two outstanding trade union leaders, Lord rest them. Those men worked very hard to uplift the trade union movement and it is rather crazy that we find at the time of their deaths a situation as ugly as any that has existed since 1913. I cannot diagnose the cause of the trouble. There are probably many aspects of this problem. One possibly is caused by the fact that a section of our society treats the word "profit" as a dirty word and says that profit should not be made out of anything. If this were to be believed by the majority of our people it would bring malaise to our society: it would affect national progress and our whole outlook. In countries like Sweden and West Germany where there is free enterprise, there is certainly a very high standard of living.

If we were to give our lower paid workers an increase of, say, £2 or £3 a week, other workers would seek a pro rata increase and the old merrygo-round would begin all over again. It is my opinion, however, that a man below a certain weekly wage should not have to make social welfare payments. His wages are too low for these. If we were to say to him that he would no longer have to make these payments but that, at the same time, he would be guaranteed the benefits to which he is now entitled under social welfare, it would, at least, give him something extra on which to live.

Talking about the lower paid worker, it has been said by many people that the increase in Oireachtas salaries was one cause of the present unrest. If that is so we must examine our consciences on this matter. We know very well, as Deputies, that, first of all, the increase given was illusory in many ways because a Member of the Dáil or Seanad is not a free agent in respect of his salary. He is merely handling it for the time being. The point I want to make is that, in future, if we are going to have any kind of proper progress in wage negotiations, we should have some tribunal or some adjunct of the Labour Court which would deal with the salaries of the judiciary and the Oireachtas to show people that we are prepared to stand with them in this matter of salaries. I fully supported the increase given and I do not wish to suggest that I did not.

Of the various strikes, apart from the one I mentioned, the craftsman strike at the moment is very important. Even last week we had the secondary teachers strike. It ended very quickly. We are reaching a stage in this country when we feel that no settlement is possible unless we have had at least a token strike. This is a tragic thing for our country. If we cannot resolve our differences without this tremendous loss of employment every time, it is bad. I often wonder who actually gains by the wage increase which follows a strike? In the present strike one union is paying £120,000 in strike pay per week. The strike pay is only a fraction of the wage a man would earn. He has not affluent living on strike pay and the union is being beggared. All this could be prevented if we had an injection of commonsense into the trade unions and the employers' organisations, and into ourselves generally, in order that we might see there is a problem here which is not being faced. We should face it in a civilised way. We can prevent a lot of misery in our community by being civilised about these things.

In this Bill there is provision for one very democratic thing: that is, that there should be a ballot on a strike if the strikers want to get the full protection of the law for their strike. There is one point here which I should like the Minister to deal with when he is replying. It is laid down in section 14 that we would have a secret ballot on a strike issue. Most people agree with that. It has been put to me by one of the bodies concerned that it could happen this way: if union members decided to claim say £1 per week and instructed their executive to claim it, they might also say that they would hold a strike ballot to strengthen the hands of negotiators at the table. That would not be a good thing. They might take a long time to resolve the wage claim and they might then go for strike action. They might not get the full demand and they might have a second ballot. The men might say that they got a fairly good offer and there would be some embarrassment if they had to the previous decision to strike. I am sure the Minister will deal with that on the section. I am sure there is some explanation for it. It may be a drafting defect in the Bill. If the Congress of Trade Unions were to bring some drafting mistake to the notice of the Minister, knowing the Minister as I do I feel he would be glad to meet them so far as possible and to remove any defects from the Bill. This is a simple Bill which is not going to change the whole structure of society. It is part of a whole series of legislation. We have found out that you cannot just legislate for what is an attitude. You must have full co-operation of all the sectors of our economy in order that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, may be worked well.

It has been said that we have too many trade unions. This is generally agreed. We could do with re-grouping. The Bill provides for this, so that unions may be organised into various groups. An ex-member of the Trade Union Congress told me some time ago that, back in the 1930s, the then Congress met on this question of union grouping. He states that a recommendation was made that there should be ten trade unions. Ten is the number that they have in Federal Germany, where they have many more workers than we have. If we were to have ten, that would be a huge reduction on the number we have at the moment. With ten, each union could have proper, full-time staff. At the moment unions have not got proper full-time staff and, no matter what the ability of the secretary, it is hard for him to carry on his normal day's work and then look after the trade union members during his leisure hours.

Another point which has come to the fore in recent times is the matter of the British-based unions here. I know this is a thorny point. Without being fully versed in all the historic roots of these unions, I feel that the British-based unions, if they operate here, should at least give the Irish workers local autonomy.

They had to have that or they could not be members of the British Congress of Trade Unions.

That is not what the secretary told me. I was told matters had to be referred back to London.

They had to be autonomous or they could not be members of the Congress.

We may well be asked: "Do you not realise there are plenty of people in the Six Counties who would not agree with you?" I do not care whether the headquarters is in Dublin or Belfast, but it should be in this island. The British trade union movement has influenced us tremendously. Some of that influence has been good and some not so good. The British are not as emotional as we are supposed to be, but they boast of their martyrs also. They often talk about the 12 men of Dorset. They speak about Robert Owen, Keir Hardie and George Lansbury. They were probably very good men, but even the British must realise now that they are in the 20th century and that they have got to face a Europe which has little emotion in it.

I refer to West Germany, Holland and Denmark, whose economies are booming at a time when the British economy is declining and while in Ireland we are not having the growth we should. Having had a look at continental trade unionism, we must get down to examining things here. I appreciate that the men in the trade unions, even in the craft unions, have their difficulties. I appreciate that the employers have difficulties. I appreciate that we are going through a period of expansion and that when the economy is expanding there are likely to be more troubles than when it is contracting, but at the moment we are inflicting tremendous suffering on ourselves by not using more commonsense.

When this Bill is enacted we know it will not be the panacea for all our ills but it is an honest attempt by the Minister to mend a situation which is fraught with danger. There are men in the trade union movement who are striving to bring about a proper system of free negotiation. If we were to speak from the employers' side, for many years we have had the experience that one of the biggest causes of strikes was delay in dealing with even an ordinary, simple claim. Consequently, often the worker was convinced that the only way to finalise his claim in an expeditious way was by unofficial strike. Often, after workers had spent months trying to get their claims remedied, there were unofficial strikes and then there was a rush to the corridors of power to have the strikes fixed up quickly. The lesson of that was not lost and people began to say that this is the only way to get things done. But it is not the right way. Such unofficial strikes nearly invariably affect workers in some other sphere of industry.

On the Industrial Relations Bill, which is an extension of the other, the Minister has introduced some original and worthwhile proposals. Section 10 is to enable an employer or a trade union affected by an employment agreement registered with the Labour Court to complain to the court that an employer affected by the agreement has failed or neglected to comply with the agreement. If the court is satisfied that the complaint is well founded, it can direct the employer to comply with the agreement under penalties. There is some ambiguity here because there is no indication in the section that where an employer wishes to give more favourable terms than those provided in the agreement he can do so. It scarcely happens that an employer betters an award given by the Labour Court but we can assume that an agreement reached in the Labour Court will be for the minimum benefit and there may be employers who make such vast profits that they can afford to give more. If they decide to do so there should not be any impediment.

Some years ago in Holland, unions and employers were so united that when one employer ratted on an agreement, the employers went to the trade unions and said: "We will help you to fight this fellow". During the war in that country, labour and capital became so integrated in the face of the common enemy that when the war was over they decided they should not go back to the old days of laissez faire. The position is excellent there now. They have not as many strikes as we have, though I am not suggesting they do not have any strikes. I do not wish to model this country on West Germany or any other country but these countries have got certain good points which we might accept as an example. We must say to ourselves: “We are serious about the lower paid worker, about the person who cannot get a job and who has to emigrate”. How serious are some of us? It looks as if we could not care less about those who have to emigrate to Birmingham, London or elsewhere, who have to try to rear families on their subsistence wages. We shall have emigration, unemployment and lower paid workers until we realise we have here a country and that each one of us must make sacrifices so that we shall build an economy which will give employment to every person who wishes to live in his own country— which will give a proper living to the people who are prepared to work for it. However, we must stop this insane situation in which thousands of our people are on strike today and in which thousands of other men and women are out because of loyalty to a principle.

I spoke recently to a man who had done business with a Polish firm. The man wanted to import coal and after they had haggled about the price the Irishman said: "Are you willing to stick to this price?" The Polish representative said: "We are, but are you, with your capitalist trade unions and your strikes?" This is the comment of a representative of a totalitarian country. In fairness to the trade unions here, I prefer it the way it is instead of the way it is in Poland, but at the same time we must think. Here the Minister is providing a lead, a blueprint to help us to get back on the path of sanity. My final plea to the craftsmen and to the FUE is to end the present strike tomorrow morning and to take this first step back to sanity and reality.

Not because he happens to be a friend of mine, I wish to congratulate Deputy Moore for the contribution he has made. It appears to me that he speaks not alone from conviction but from a certain amount of experience in the trade union movement. However, I would not be as optimistic as Deputy Moore with regard to the end result of the two Bills now before the House, as introduced by the Minister for Labour. I believe the motive of the Minister in introducing the Bills is laudable. He has the best intentions in the world, but I do not believe, apart altogether from the dispute we have at the present time, that these Bills will go any distance in the matter of solving the problems we have and which are recognised by the employers and the employees.

One remark I should like to make at this point refers to the time for discussing these Bills. We always appear to discuss trade union and industrial relations questions at times when we have industrial strikes. This is the wrong atmosphere in which to discuss the type of measure we have been discussing during the past week or so. It is not the first time I have mentioned this not only to the present Minister for Labour but to various Ministers for Industry and Commerce. The time to tackle these problems is when there is peace or, if the Minister likes, relative peace.

When is that?

I do not think we should assume that in the last ten years or since the war we have had a succession of industrial disputes. That is not so, even though we have a pretty bad record as far as days lost in strikes are concerned. I do not know whether I am correct in saying this or not but, as far as I can gather, the last discussions the Minister had with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on industrial legislation was two years ago, or maybe more, on these two measures, in any case, because the House will note that one Bill here is described as the Trade Union Bill, 1966, and the other is described as the Industrial Relations Bill, 1966. I do not know and I do not know whether my colleague knows of any real discussions that went on with regard to the publication of these two measures.

The delay is due to discussions. They would have been in in 1966 but for discussions since then.

There does not seem to have been any sort of substantial agreement. Nothing seems to have emanated from these discussions. I am not blaming the Minister for that. But there have been no real discussions for about two years.

They were not imaginary. The delay in bringing the Bills to the Dáil was due to having discussions with both sides in industry at the request of the Congress of Trade Unions. They asked me to delay on discussions.

That is extraordinary to me.

They finished over 12 months ago.

It is since the Bills were introduced that we had the discussions.

That was in the first 12 months after the Bills were introduced.

Congress did not get a final copy of this Bill. The Minister knows that. They did not get it until everybody else had it.

They would not be entitled to higher authority than Dáil Éireann, I think.

Now, now, now. I am not talking about the Minister's Department in particular but there have been Bills which have, in fact, been circulated to other people with legitimate interests in the measures before they came to be delivered to Members of this House. In any case, the Minister will have noted a statement issued by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the last 24 hours when they asked for the withdrawal of the Trade Union Bill, mark you—not the Industrial Relations Bill—the Trade Union Bill and I would suggest—and this seems to be a negative or a foot-dragging proposal —that the Minister should not proceed with the Trade Union Bill until he has had further serious consultation with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

I do not believe that the Government have thought out for themselves the future of industrial relations. Every time we talk about industrial relations in this House and ask what is the attitude of the Government Party or members of the Government, we are blandly told that they believe in collective bargaining. As I said, we have not a good record. I think we are blackguarded a little too often about industrial strife in this country but let me say as far as our record of days lost in strike is concerned it is not good, to say the least about it.

I do not want to talk about the present dispute. I know there are people in the country who are saying of me and my colleagues in the Labour Party and of the Minister for Labour: "Why does he not do something about it?" or: "Why do they not do something about it?" I cannot say what the Minister's activities have been in the last few weeks but I know what the activities of my Party have been and the vital interest in this dispute that the Labour Party have. We have been in constant consultation with people in the trade union movement and have offered our services, if required. I say, tonight, as far as this dispute is concerned, whether it is the FUE or any other band of employers or any of the trade unions, I and members of my Party are available to do what we can.

The Labour Court is an institution for which we all have respect and they have discussed this matter with the two sides over a period of 230 hours. I say this in all modesty: I, frankly, do not know what I could do at the present time that the Labour Court could not do with the two parties present over a period of 230 hours. I know the situation may change tomorrow morning; it may change for the better or worse tomorrow evening —this is the sort of dispute it is—but as far as we are concerned everybody who knows our association with the trade union movement knows that everything possible will be done. It is not that we want publicity for it because I think the Minister would be the first to acknowledge the help the Labour Party and I to some extent gave in a dispute we had last year in which workers in the Electricity Supply Board were involved.

I do not think anybody in this present dispute should try to gain kudos, particularly political kudos. I suppose if we wanted to do this we could do so by lambasting one side or the other or even by lambasting the Minister. In that way we could get a certain amount of political kudos. But we are in this particular position: if a trade union do well for the country or any member of their own organisation we do not seem to get any credit for it. As a matter of fact, they appear to give credit to the Government. But if, as in the present dispute, there is a certain amount of industrial disruption, the Labour Party gets the blame. We are prepared to take it. I suppose we have to take it from some ignorant people who comment in the newspapers or those who would be our critics. I realise and they realise, I am sure, the seriousness for the economy and, indeed, for workers of a dispute of this kind but there must be a reason for all this. There must be a reason as there is for every strike. I do not think the workers in this country are any different from workers in any country in the world. It may be—and this is a situation we are trying to correct—our trade union law and our law in respect of industrial relations is wrong but as far as our legitimate demands are concerned and as far as the behaviour of the workers is concerned, as compared with workers in Europe, they are no different and I do not think we should castigate or blackguard them or attribute to them base ulterior motives merely because they withdrew their labour.

As Deputy Moore has said, in this present strike there is an overflow and many workers are suffering because there is this particular dispute. We have not yet in our industrial relations legislation or in our trade union law devised a legal system to ensure that such a number of workers will not be affected as are affected in the present dispute. We must look upon this whole problem from the social and economic standpoint.

People have been critical of the Labour Party in recent times. Mainly, may I say, our critics are those who have not read our policy document but are merely trying to interpret what must of necessity be abbreviated reports that appear in the newspaper or are told over television or radio. At least, we have done this: we have got people talking about industrial democracy; we have got people talking about the involvement of workers in the affairs of an industry as they affect the workers. I was gratified to listen to members of an employers' association treating with respect the proposals that were put forward by the Labour Party as far as a workers' democracy is concerned. Some people, of course, by their sneers and by their smears would describe it as some sort of system foreign to our country. Let me quote this document very briefly:

The aim of workers' democracy is to make the decision takers in the place of work and in the control of the enterprise responsible to those who work in it.

Again, there are our political opponents who would suggest that we of the Labour Party want to see the workers take over management, to nationalise everything. That is not so. We merely want to see industrial democracy operate as, indeed, political democracy operates in this country and in most civilised countries of the world.

People thought it unusual some hundreds of years ago that ordinary people should decide who should be their rulers. I shall relate this, in case the Ceann Comhairle is getting anxious, to the matter that is under discussion here. The root of our problems goes very much further than 6d an hour, or 9d an hour or anything else you care to mention. Some hundreds of years ago people resented the idea that there should be political democracy and believed in the sovereignty of the king or prince or other ruler but we came to a situation over that period in which Deputy Hillery, a dispensary doctor from County Clare, is now a Minister for Labour and he now decides what trade union legislation should be introduced here. He is a man who within the Cabinet will decide what new taxes will be imposed in the next Budget, what financial provisions will be made for the economic development of the country and for the running of the country as a whole. However, all we propose as far as workers' democracy is concerned is that that should be imitated in industry.

That is not unreasonable. That is the kernel of the proposals we have in our policy statement. Do not run away with the idea that this is a "phoney", this is something which is practised, not as some would say, in Red China, Cuba or Russia, but in civilised countries in Europe. It is practised in Sweden, for example. People may say that it is impracticable now, that it is away out, but I guarantee that there will come, even in our time, a situation in which workers, who are the most important ingredient in industry, will have a right, as they should, to determine how the capital resources of their industry will be spent.

We do not claim that this is a perfect document or that it will solve all our problems as far as industrial relations are concerned; we regard this as the first experiment. Our proposals will be the first experiment to ensure that there will be these happy relations between workers and employers in industry. At present the situation is that it is a case of "them" and "us", whether one is an employer or an employee, and there always has been that division. The appointment of a few workers on a board, whether it is semi-State or State, or a private industry, is a bit of a sop but it does not solve the real problems. However, I am not going to weary the House with our particular policy as far as this is concerned in the field of industrial democracy. It is sufficient to say there must be an improvement and the improvement must be the participation of workers with their directors or management in determining how the capital resources of the firm should be spent. We do not want to do all the things that it is alleged sometimes by the Taoiseach, sometimes by the Minister for Local Government and very often by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries we want to do.

I believe the Minister approached this whole business in the wrong way. Deputy Moore quoted the example of Britain where Mrs. Barbara Castle produced a White Paper. There would have been much more thought given by the public, by trade unions and by employers to a White Paper containing the Minister's proposals with regard to industrial relations and trade union law. The White Paper should have been one in which the Government laid down their philosophy on industrial relations, the organisation of trade unions and procedures as far as industrial relations are concerned.

As I have said, it is not enough for Deputy Hillery, the Minister for Labour, nor was it enough for Deputy Seán Lemass, nor for the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, to say: "We believe in free, collective bargaining." Everybody believes in that but the machinery to be employed is the important thing, and the end result is the important thing, and so far we have had no clear statement from the Government so far as that is concerned. One of the Bills, the Trade Union Bill, is too committed and apart altogether from that it is expressed in language that is too technical, language that is not easy to understand by those who will have to operate this machinery. I am not talking only about the members of the Congress of Trade Unions, or members of trade unions but the ordinary people. I am sure that the Minister himself when he received the first draft of this Bill had to read it, perhaps, six times to understand what it meant and to understand its implications. Indeed, no doubt this sort of criticism could be made of practically every piece of legislation that emanates from draftsmen in the offices of the various Ministers.

We all believe that changes are necessary in industrial relations. The trade unions unanimously admit that there is much room for improvement in trade union law and in fixing procedures for trade unions particularly when a strike is contemplated or when a strike is in operation. The Minister should have issued a White Paper which did not commit him to anything but which laid down broad principles, a White Paper that would have evoked much more thought, comment and criticism from the trade unions, from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, from the various employers' associations and other people outside those groups. As far as I can see, these measures are merely a tidying up process of the present machinery. I know that the Minister may say, when I suggest a White Paper that would evoke comment and criticism, that he has asked for people's advice already. I am sure he did this. I am sure he may have done it on two or three occasions, but a White Paper is a different thing. A White Paper is a document containing proposals that can be kicked around, a document that can be amended or added to and which in short will be the concern of all the people involved particularly and the general public as well.

It is the business of the Minister for Labour to get comment. It is not sufficient to say: "I asked for it and did not get it." He must go out and get it, particularly from those who are involved. I reckon he did not get many suggestions when he asked for views on amending trade union laws and industrial relations. I bet that the only real comment he got was from some of the employers' associations, maybe from the trade unions, and from Departments, but there was none of the widespread discussion on any of the proposals which is vitally necessary at present. In my view these Bills will do nothing to prevent the sort of situation in which we find ourselves at present. On the contrary, as I tried to demonstrate, and as I am sure some of my colleagues will more ably demonstrate, it is going to make the situation as far as industrial strife is concerned much more complicated and more frustrating, particularly for workers.

I knew I would be accused of not going far enough.

Now, now. We have recognised this long ago. The Minister would love us to suggest certain amendments and then he would have the halter around our necks. He would do like he does at Question Time, ask us: "Do you want me to take action in this?" meaning: "Do you want me to put workers in gaol again?" No, we do not want that. The Minister has a job to do and we have a job to do as well and we do not believe it is our job to give him a brand new Bill. Our job is to amend it or if we see serious defects in a Bill to tell him to withdraw the Bill. As I said, I believe that even if these Bills are passed into law they will not remove all the difficulties which we have in our negotiating machinery at present. In any case, as far as industrial relations are concerned, our history has not been a very happy one. Our system of negotiating for increases in wages has not been one with any great pattern of uniformity about it. We have had various wage rounds conducted by different unions over different periods but I do not think anybody could say with certainty when the eighth round began or when the ninth, tenth or eleventh rounds began.

The practice has been for unions to move on a certain date—perhaps, two or three go on a certain date. There has been industrial strife, tension, hearings at the Labour Court in, say, February and March, and then in April and May you will have another bunch of unions going for an increase under the same round and so on for the whole 12 months. All this gives the people the impression, when they hear or read reports of negotiation in the Labour Court, that there is more industrial strife in the country than, in fact, is the case. Then, we always have the problem—it is not peculiar to the craft unions or the general unions—of leapfrogging. We have it particularly—I do not want to go into it—in some of the professional grades. All these things, in my view, with the co-operation of the Minister, the employers and the trade union movement must be ironed out. In short, they must be eliminated.

Then we have the difficulty of some firms—this is one of the big difficulties in the present dispute—which are not in the Federated Union of Employers. I am not suggesting now that the Minister should force every employer into the FUE. I do not want to elaborate on this. I am sure the Minister may know as much or more than I do about this. We also have different systems of negotiation. We have the difficulty of negotiation between the single union and the single firm and the groups with the single firm and the groups with, say, semi-State companies like Bord na Móna or CIE or the Sugar Company. There is no really uniform pattern of industrial relations in a claim for wages or conditions or hours of employment. In fact, there is no well-oiled machine for the trade unions or for the Labour Court for industrial relations generally. There is nothing in this Bill that suggests that the Government have any idea of bringing in, with the agreement of those concerned, such a well-oiled machine that would eliminate much of the unnecessary strife and, should I say, much of the unnecessary publicity that even the smallest dispute commands in the news media today.

I believe, therefore, that it should be possible to have contracts for an agreed period, contracts for wages and, if you like, contracts for hours of employment. Suppose there was a contract for wages for, say, two years. If we could get agreement on this it would be known that in two years time, in 1971, the contract would come to an end. I should like to visualise a situation, and I hope we shall reach it, in which six months before the contract is terminated, the employers and trade unions get together to work out in advance some sort of general agreement as to what the wage increase should be, whether it would be a percentage or related to the cost of living. I do not think the latter suggestion would be advantageous to certain workers because, as Deputy O'Leary pointed out, there are hundreds or thousands in the country who still have to reach a certain standard before they can be related to fluctuations in the cost of living.

We have seen the complex situation in the present dispute where a long period of negotiation was needed. If the contract idea were accepted, we need not be discussing the dispute when men are out of work. Six months beforehand we could try to set down the guidelines as to what the pattern of wage increases should be and it could be operated before the current contracts ran out. There must be negotiation but in most of our industrial disputes it appears that all the negotiations have been going on when men are out on strike. This is not a very happy position. It is very difficult for the trade union leaders; I am aware it is somewhat difficult for employers also to carry on negotiations such as we have had in the last few weeks when men are out of work. It is because I believe that the time to talk about wages and conditions is when people are at work that I suggest the idea of a contract for one, two or three years. Whether the Minister can reach that situation or not, I do not know. The Minister has not said a word about the ESB (Temporary Provisions) Act——

Is the Minister going to repeal it?

I said that if the unions adopted my approach in this Bill, I would rather get rid of it.

I do not think they would be getting a very good bargain in that.

No, my approach is that the trade unions should build up their own responsibility.

I think you would negotiate on that for 233 years——

I think this question is a very serious one. If the trade union movement does not take over control with or without my legislation the country is in for a very bad time. If they take over control, I will get rid of that ESB Act. I do not want any legislation of that kind——

I do not think the Minister is fair when he tries to set one against another because every Party in this House, the Fine Gael Party in a recent motion—although they had a certain attitude when it was brought into the House—and the Labour Party, in particular and members of the Minister's Party have spoken and asked him to repeal this ESB Act because everybody recognised it was unworkable. The Minister himself recognised how unworkable it was in disputes in the past 12 months. When Deputy Lemass was Minister for Industry and Commerce—I think it was he who introduced the Act in 1961—recognised——

That was a different one.

The provisions were all the same. In short, it meant that if a worker did not work he was fined or put in jail. Is that not so?

No. If supplies of electricity were disrupted or in danger of being disrupted an increase in wages or salaries could only be given by a tribunal, an arbitrator or by the Labour Court. If workers went on strike or caused a disruption of electricity after that they were not entitled to it——

If workers did not accept the arbitration award, what happened to them?

There were penalties which would be put on by the court and if they decided that they wanted to go to jail they knew the penalty.

"If they decided to go..." one would imagine they had a choice.

We are faced with two ways of handling our country, the way towards power or the way towards responsibility. I want to follow the way of responsibility but I cannot do it by myself. The trade union movement can do it; so can the workers. I would willingly repeal that Act if I thought we would succeed in getting the responsible way accepted. I am not even putting it up as a bargaining point.

Above all Ministers I do not want to be cross with the Minister for Labour but he is trying to sell this Trade Union Bill, as he said just now, for the repeal of the ESB (Temporary Provisions) Act——

If I misunderstood that, I withdraw it.

The Deputy should have read my introductory speech. I am trying to get a new approach which would put the ESB Act out of the line of my present thinking. I should like to see that the new approach would be that the trade union establishes its authority. This is what I want and I am really serious about that.

Many people have been saying that the trade unions should assert their authority. That is all very well, but people should appreciate the difficulty which a trade union official has. I am sure the Minister does. In any case, I am now suggesting, despite what he said in this debate or in his opening speech, that the repeal of the ESB (Temporary Provisions) Act is something that the Minister should undertake as quickly as possible and I shall leave it at that. I do not believe the trade union movement should be told by the Government that they will withdraw the ESB Act if the Trade Union Bill is accepted.

I do not know whether the Minister mentioned this point in his speech. I read his speech but it was about a fortnight ago and I hope he will forgive me if I cannot remember everything that was in it.

I am disappointed that I did not make a bigger impression.

The Minister did give a firm promise to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions two or three years ago that, on the introduction of a Trade Union Bill, such as we have before us now, he would introduce the Trade Union Bill of 1963. I understand Deputy James Tully has a question down about that tomorrow and the Minister will probably reserve his reply until then but, in any case, this promise has not yet been honoured— I do not know which Minister it is, but let me say by either the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That was a Bill the trade union movement regarded as vital to their activities and it was promised that it would be introduced when the 1966 Trade Union Bill was being introduced here.

We have no serious objection to the Industrial Relations Bill and we do not intend to oppose it. On the contrary, we see many improvements in the machinery for good industrial relations. In section 4, however, we believe the Minister—I am sure he has got this comment already—should go further in the powers he takes to himself in appointing one deputy chairman to the Labour Court. In order to ensure there will be no delay in hearing claims or disputes, and no queueing up, we believe that the Minister should have power to appoint a number of deputies. I cannot say how many. The Minister's Department or the Labour Court will probably be able to suggest how many.

I am sure, if asked, the trade union movement will be happy to oblige. We do not believe the appointment of one deputy chairman will suffice to deal with the many claims that may come before the Labour Court in those years in which there will be wage rounds and demands for increases.

I do not want to trespass on Deputy Tully's bailiwick because he will be able to comment much more profoundly on section 9 than I can, but section 9 provides that the various arbitration boards, wages boards or salary boards shall have included on the board one member of the Labour Court. Why not the Agricultural Wages Board? I assume the inclusion of such a member is to secure some sort of uniformity in wage and salary scales, conditions of employment, and so on. But why not the Agricultural Wages Board? There must be a particular reason for this but, no matter what the reason is, it will want to be a very good one to convince us that agricultural workers should not have the same sort of treatment as those listed here and the general workers who have ready access to the Labour Court.

There will have to be clarification of the description "industry" in section 11. I do not know whether or not this means manufacturing industry only. In any case, it seems to be too narrow and too confined. The word "employments" should be substituted because "industry" need not necessarily include all workers—road workers, forestry workers, workers employed in the Office of Public Works and manual workers generally in the Civil Service. This is something at which the Minister should have a look before the Committee Stage.

We welcome section 13 in which the Minister takes power to appoint rights commissioners. This is something that should alleviate a great deal of the dissatisfaction that there is now in industry, quite apart from the things which are included here—rates of pay, hours and times of work, annual holidays, and so on. We applaud the improvements in the provisions contained in the Industrial Relations Bill and we will support the Bill.

The Trade Union Bill is another kettle of fish. Whether or not the Minister understands it, the trade union movement are anxious to have good trade union law. I think the Minister appreciates their difficulties and the efforts they have been making in recent years. I do not know whether he has seen the statement put out this evening by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in which they state they are contemplating changes in the trade union law, these changes to be put before a conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the next three or four months when the annual conference takes place. I know many people have been impatient, not alone with the Minister but with the trade union movement as well: I do not think critics understand the complex problems we have within the trade union movement itself and the really keen desire of the trade union movement to have, for example, a lesser number of unions, to provide for more amalgamations and for proper and democratic procedure as far as trade union law is concerned.

In section 1 of the Bill the Minister gives certain definitions. He gives the definition of a strike, but there is no definition of a lock-out. If strike is defined, then lock-out should also be defined. Dismissal should be defined. We may now have two definitions of strike, the definition in this Bill and the definition in the 1906 Act. The Minister will need to convince us, too, that there is no real danger for trade unionists, particularly trade union officials, in section 4. In that section we are told:

No body of persons shall be granted or hold a group negotiation licence unless it is a body (in this Act referred to as an authorised group) which fulfills the following conditions...

The conditions are set out. If these conditions are transgressed legal action will be taken against somebody. What does "body of persons" mean? What the Minister may have in mind is a body of persons representing their trade unions. I do not think I, or Deputy James Tully, or the Minister himself, would like to be named as one of the persons in that body. The likelihood is that, when this comes to be interpreted by the courts I, in my personal capacity, as will Deputy James Tully, will be sued.

For what?

If one transgresses the conditions laid down here there may be a penalty.

No. If you have not got the conditions you will not get a group negotiating licence.

That is related to licence, but in other parts there is power given to groups to do this, that and the other, and there is a direction given to groups that they should do this, that and the other—say, in the way of serving strike notice and so on. We want it to be abundantly clear that it will be the unions, that it is they who will be sued as representatives of the unions rather than in their personal capacity. I had a conversation with the Executive of Congress yesterday and I want to assure the Minister they are very chary and very doubtful about that particular description.

There may be some redrafting to be done, but the intention is accepted.

Would the Minister agree with me that the proper amendment would be "any body of persons representing trade unions, et cetera.” That will tie them to their unions.

There are no penalties. You will not get a licence. We will draft it to make sure nobody will get into trouble.

Will the Minister take special note of that?

I will. We will deal with it on Committee.

I am just giving the Minister time to think about it.

Section 9, I am told, is seriously objected to by the trade unions. It appears here that those who would get group licences would be penalised if they transgressed any part of the provisions of this section, but for others who would be, say, unofficial pickets, there would be no penalty. There are certain penalties. If the Minister would look at section 14.

I thought it was section 9.

Section 14 provides for the procedure by which strike notice may be served. Right? If these provisions are not adhered to, there is a penalty in that the trade union concerned would not have the protection of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1906 Act. Is that not so?

Actually that needs a drafting change. That is not the intention.

The Minister recognises this defect in it?

There are some drafting defects which will have to be changed.

The Minister will understand the anxiety of trade unions who would read and interpret the Bill as it is.

So long as the difference between us is one of drafting——

Yes, because it would be so simple, even by error, to transgress section 14. There is a procedure laid down here. I should like to read the first one. Section 14 (1) provides:

The following provisions shall apply in relation to the service of a strike notice:

(a) the rules of a trade union shall be deemed to require that, before the service of a strike notice, a majority of the members of the trade union entitled to vote and voting in a secret ballot conducted by the trade union shall approve of such service;

I should like to talk about this. Maybe this needs a drafting amendment as well. What does the Minister mean by "a majority of the members of the trade union entitled to vote"? I can give a very simple example. Suppose there is a small establishment that employs 100 members of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and there is a dispute, and they want to go through the procedure in order to serve strike notice. Can the Minister tell me what members of that union are entitled to vote? In the trade union movement the definition of a person who is entitled to vote is a chap who has a clear card, a person who is in benefit, and has paid his weekly subscription to such and such a date. He is entitled to vote. The Minister says "members of the trade union". There are 160,000 members of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. As it appears to me, a majority of those men would have to decide if they were going to go on strike. There is nothing in this subsection to say "the members of the union in that particular place of employment."

An intention is what the Minister has, and he gets the legal people to draft it into law. What Deputy Corish wants is my intention. The drafting will be done by a draftsman.

If the Minister makes a speech somewhere or other——

At a Fianna Fáil meeting in west Clare.

——and tells us what his intention is, that is fair enough. I can understand that, but if the Minister gives his proposal to the parliamentary draftsman and says: "I want this", I do not think we should get such a vague subsection as the one I have read out.

I can tell the Deputy what my intention is. If this drafting does not cover it we can deal with it in Committee. My intention is that the normal procedures of the union as at present obtaining concerning who is entitled to vote will be followed.

The Minister will understand that it must be related to the industrial premises in question. As it is, it means all the members of a trade union. Is not that so?

If we can so draft it that it is the procedure now followed and followed for years past by a union in relation to the taking of a vote on any strike—we want to leave it as wide as possible and have as many decisions as possible left to the unions. It is a matter of drafting.

So long as the Minister accepts that the interpretation I put on it is right in its present form, I will accept that he will amend it.

I do not accept that.

These are simple words: "...the rules of a trade union shall be deemed to require that, before the service of a strike notice, a majority of the members of the trade union entitled to vote and voting in a secret ballot conducted by the trade union shall approve of such service."

May I say something? At the present time in any trade union, certain members are entitled to vote on any particular issue. Now, these are the people mentioned, the people entitled to vote as decided by the union.

We all know the saying about the road to hell. It has to be much more explicit there. In any case, we are behaving as if we were in Committee.

How can I help doing that?

I am blaming myself as well as the Minister. Again, may I say I should like to have the Minister's view when he is replying. This subsection says: "...a majority of the members of the trade union entitled to vote ..." I do not know how anyone can force members of a trade union to go down to a particular hall to vote. I do not know the solution to that myself. Say there were 100 people in some place of employment and they want to go on strike.

"... entitled to vote and voting ..."

I am wrong. So it does mean therefore, "of those present". That has got that clear.

Hallelujah.

If we could get a few of the Minister's colleagues now and again, even once or twice a year, to say: "I am sorry; I am wrong", this would be a better Parliament. Try to get the Minister for Local Government to say he was wrong.

Bad drafting.

Actually trade union law is very difficult to draft. I think some misunderstandings are due to difficulties of drafting but I think the intentions are acceptable.

The intentions are honourable, I hope.

Section 14 (1) (c) (i) provides:

whenever the service of a strike notice has been approved in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection and the strike notice has been served, a statement to that effect shall be deposited by the trade union concerned with the Labour Court on the date of such service;

I should like to question the Minister as to the mechanics of this. A decision has been taken, say, in the afternoon in some place like Caherciveen. The provision here is that a statement to the effect that strike notice has been served is to be deposited by the trade union concerned with the Labour Court on the date of such service. Does this mean it is to be deposited by the trade union official who may be down in Caherciveen or by head office in Dublin?

The two letters can be posted at the same time.

The intention here is that notice to the Labour Court and to the employers should be sent by registered post. I assume there will have to be an acknowledgement from the Labour Court to the effect that they have received it. I do not know whether we can prevent the sort of situation which the Minister appears to be trying to prevent, where workers who have a legitimate grievance and feel very badly about it at the time it happens, will have to wait for three, four or five days before they can actually go on strike. That appears to be the intention of this section, because it would not be possible for them to take any sort of industrial action for about three or four days, because I assume the Labour Court will have to acknowledge receipt of the statement to the effect that they had served strike notice.

So long as they deposit it. The intention is that when a strike is coming up the Labour Court and the conciliation service would be aware of it and would be available to try to prevent it. The intention is good.

The Minister knows what I said about good intentions. However, related again to section 14, suppose there is some slip up here, suppose there is some accident, suppose something is not done that should be done, and not through the fault of any official or anything like that, it can become an illegal strike in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. These people would not have the protection of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1906 Act. However, as I have said, we have been behaving in the past 20 minutes as if we were in Committee. It was not my intention. I should prefer if the Minister would make his comprehensive statement when the debate concludes.

In conclusion, I just want to say, as far as the Industrial Relations Bill is concerned, that we applaud the improvements contained in it but, as far as the Trade Union Bill is concerned, we regard it as being loosely drafted— somewhat irresponsibly, I should say. The Minister talked about his intentions in respect of some of the sections to which we take exception. Whether or not he can convince us in his final speech, I do not know. From our examination of it, we believe it is a Bill that is not acceptable to the trade union movement or to the Labour Party. I do not believe it is a major step in providing good trade union law. It does not appear to me to be a serious effort. I still appeal to the Minister, at this stage—I say this to him seriously— to have another serious talk with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions between now and the Committee Stage. Believe you me, they would be much more critical than I have been, if they spoke to the Minister on the Bill.

I think the fact that we have been discussing these pieces of legislation in the midst of the present very grave situation is probably useful. Indeed, I think it is completely unrealistic to suggest that it would be possible to get a time in the history of this country when there was absolute industrial peace. The fact, however, that the country at present faces what can be regarded only as one of the most serious situations that has ever affected the economy highlights the problem and emphasises the urgency of getting a practical solution.

The present situation is not merely serious but tragic. We have seen now, for weeks, the spectacle of absolute chaos in industrial relations and a position in which the whole industrial situation—indeed, the trade union movement—appears to be chaotic and leaderless. That situation has developed to such an extent that we have not merely the comments of people in the press but expressions of concern by the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Mr. Dunne, and his voice almost alone crying out in the wilderness and expressing his personal concern and anxiety for the situation which has developed. I feel, therefore, that, in considering these measures tonight, it is important that we should look at them in as calm and dispassionate a manner as possible but that in no way lessens the sense of urgency or serious concern with which Deputies on all sides of the House should view the position.

It is generally recognised that no form of legislation can assure industrial peace unless there is goodwill and co-operation on the part of all concerned. Our objective and aim in this House should be to frame our legislation so that these objectives may be facilitated. If possible, the framing of such legislation should be after consultation with the different interests, when the terms, if not in absolute details but certainly in their general direction and heading, should be discussed and those concerned abide by the discussion.

It is important that, in considering this matter, Deputies should shed themselves of prejudice. Earlier in this debate, I listened to Deputy Michael O'Leary who gave the impression that everybody was prejudiced except himself and the Labour Party. That is completely unrealistic. I believe there is genuine anxiety on the part of Deputies on all sides of the House to work out some form of practical solution. But, leaving aside the question of what form the permanent legislation may have, the present situation is such—I think this should now be emphasised—that, whether the parties are invited to a conference by the Taoiseach or by the Minister for Labour on behalf of the Government, it is a matter of the very gravest urgency that either the Taoiseach or the Minister should call all parties together and arrange for a discussion —if you like without any agenda— to see what can be done to work out a procedure for the examination of the present dispute or, alternatively, agree to the establishment of an independent inquiry by some body, judicial or non-judicial if that is regarded as more acceptable, which would report and make recommendations. The present position, if it continues, will result in an extension of the very serious consequences which were referred to yesterday by one chairman of an exporting company— the United Distillers—and which, I understand, apply in many other cases as well.

The port of Cork is in a most serious position. The situation that has developed has shown, in the most glaring form, the inadequacies or deficiencies of our industrial relations system. It has highlighted the urgency of considering this problem anew and of discussing the question in as detailed a manner as possible. It is quite true that a matter of this sort is best discussed when there is industrial peace or certainly when there is less disruption due to some industrial dispute or other than is the case at the present time. On the other hand, the gravity of the present situation, the consequences for the economy, the effect on the lives not merely of those directly employed but on the lives of defenceless people—the members of families and others not concerned with it but who are anxious for peace and order—make it imperative, and indeed probably strengthens the determination of those who are looking on at the situation, to try to achieve a modus operandi that will produce some order out of the present chaos.

In the course of the Minister's speech and in the course of other speeches during this debate, there has been reference to strikes. The Minister said: "80 per cent of the man days lost are lost because of disputes about wages and hours of employment so that our main economic trouble and the main hardships imposed on workers in the community arise in the area of settlement of wages and incomes." That, I think, emphasises the urgency of a prices and incomes policy. I know it will be argued—and it has been repeatedly said by the Ministers, by the previous Taoiseach, by commentators and others—that a prices and incomes policy will not work or has not worked. Because it has not worked perfectly, because it has not been a complete success, is no reason why some effort should not be made, some serious effort, to make it effective.

Over three years ago the NIEC in November, 1965, advocated and recommended it. On that body there were representatives of employers and trade unions as well as those who had no responsibility for either of these bodies but who represented the State through particular Departments. Those people signed a report dated 5th November, 1965, and a significant part of that report, I believe, was contained in paragraph 50 which read:

By an incomes policy we mean a policy which is concerned with the behaviour of all money incomes, i.e. wages and salaries, incomes of farmers and self-employed persons, professional earnings, rents, profits and realised capital gains—rather than a policy which focuses attention on particular components of the total such as wages or profits. Too often an incomes policy tends to be regarded as a wages policy. We repudiate, as inadequate and inequitable, any incomes policy which does not embrace all categories of money income.

I think that is a reasonable statement, a reasonable recommendation. Recently tributes have been paid to trade union officials. With the exception of Mr. Dunne, the only officials to whom tributes were paid were the late John Conroy and the late Jim Larkin. Both of them signed this report. If we want to pay some tribute to their memory and show some desire to accept whatever guidance or leadership they gave, we should start by at least making an effort to work a prices and incomes policy.

I have said, and I want to repeat, that I believe the Government should approach this on the basis of consultation and discussion. So far as the Minister is concerned, he has shown considerable evidence of his personal desire to get an agreement by consultation and discussion. I think all of us, as Deputy Corish said, accept the Minister's actions as bona fide but there has been in this country, and there is no use denying it, an arrogant attitude on the part of the Government. That applied in two or three notable cases. I do not want to-night to re-open discussions that have taken place, but the referendum was one example. If the Minister or the Government had shown any desire to approach it in a reasonable fashion there might have been a different approach all round and a different result. That was one example. There has been an example in the case of the Criminal Justice Bill, in respect of sections 30 and 31. There is a modified view now but that merely illustrates a different approach by different Ministers in different circumstances. There has been this attitude in respect of the university merger. The approach laid down was: “You accept this proposal. That is our approach, no other”. Now I believe there is again a modification there under very great pressure. I do not like using the word “moderation” because the words “moderate approach” have had a rough time recently in a part of this country, but I do recommend the word “reasonable”. I believe that the majority of trade unionists, the majority of workers and the majority of employers are reasonable people.

I think it was Deputy O'Leary who said here last week that their policy had been misrepresented. Maybe that is true. We have all had that experience. I think one reason why it was misrepresented was that there was a proposal announced somewhere by some Labour Party spokesman that they proposed to nationalise Guinness's and Waterford Glass.

That is nonsense. That is not in our policy.

I heard a Labour Party spokesman on television say that.

It is not official Labour Party policy.

Well, the person who said it was Dr. Browne.

Our official policy was announced in January and I am very surprised to hear Deputy Cosgrave joining the mudslingers.

The Deputy was very free with his comments on us, but he resents being told some of the truths.

You voted with the Government on the ESB (Special Provisions) Bill.

To preserve the lives of the people and we will do it again if necessary, but I believe it was a mistake to try to operate an Act that was unworkable.

I am against nationalising Guinness's or nationalising Waterford Glass. That was Labour Party policy announced by one spokesman for the Labour Party.

That is not Labour Party policy. The Deputy is just slinging mud.

Well, Dr. Browne is a Labour Party spokesman. I am against that. I believe it is not in the workers' interest, it is not in the people's interest.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Cosgrave should be allowed to make his speech.

(Interruptions.)

No Deputy is going to put me off my speech. I have been too long in the game for that.

You are trying to cover up your departure from the Just Society, that you do not believe in it any more.

Obviously, the Labour Party feel in a defensive position on this because that was said on the radio or on the television.

And they chose the spokesman.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Cosgrave must be allowed to make his speech.

We have advocated the participation of workers. I spoke last year in the Television Club in Harcourt Street and I expressed what I believe is the general concern of a very large number of people in this country that there must be a far greater participation by workers in the running of business. I expressed then, and I want to repeat now, that that does not mean that the concern should be nationalised. I am all in favour of nationalising Potez, something that has failed. If anyone suggests nationalising that, he will have my full support. Anything to resurrect a "dead duck" like that in any form will have my support. But I think it is all wrong to suggest that the interests of this country or, above all, the interests of the workers can be helped, assisted, promoted or encouraged by nationalising concerns that have been established, not with State capital, not with capital provided from the taxpayer, but with the work and risk of Irish people putting their own money into it.

We tried, and the late Deputy Norton tried as a member of the inter-Party Government—he went abroad and we went abroad with him as members of that Government or as representatives of it, jointly and severally— to get foreign capital in here. We succeeded in cases like the Whitegate oil refinery because we were able to attract capital here, encouraging them and giving them the confidence that, not merely would they get a return on their money invested here, but that it would not be nationalised at the whim of political opportunists who suggested that it should be nationalised. That is our policy and that was the policy that got in here the Whitegate oil refinery. I reject any suggestion of nationalisation as being against the workers' interests and against the interests of this country. Not merely would it prevent capital coming in, but it might result in capital going out. It might result, maybe, in capital moving out because of instability and insecurity and because of the fact that we may become some type of Cuban Republic in which any sort of political adventurer who secures office can wipe out the established sweat and work not merely of the managers but also of the workers and those who are employed in a business.

The Deputy is making the same speech as the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Blaney, made last week.

As I said last year, it will have to be increasingly recognised in the future that the worker has as much at stake in the business in which he works as the manager and the owner; perhaps more so, because the worker's whole livelihood may depend on his job whereas the shareholders may have other resources. I believe we are well behind some of the other European countries in our recognition of this and in making the necessary arrangements to ensure, for example, that the worker is given not just the privilege but the right of full consultation with management on all matters which significantly affect his future.

That does not mean that the workers should take over the boss's job. Far from it. In any organisation there has to be somebody responsible for taking decisions. I agree with Deputy Corish when he said that there should be the same approach in industry as in political democracy, that those who are concerned in industry should take decisions in the same way as in political democracy. I took down the words he said: "...industrial democracy will work as political democracy operates". However, it means accepting responsibility as well as claiming rights. Responsibility means bringing it in here and if the electors vote in a particular way you cannot shrug it off by saying we will not accept responsibility.

I want to repeat what I said last week in the Mansion House. Nobody is interested in saving this country. We must save it ourselves. That calls for effort from all political Parties. Nobody can save this country except the Irish people. Let me continue with what I said last year. It was this Party that established not merely the first but the most successful of State enterprises because we believed it was the right thing. We are not people with theoretical prejudices about one form of operation or another. We are prepared to operate a State enterprise that works, if it is necessary, if it is desirable, if it is the proper way to do it. We do not believe in taking over the outworn, theoretical socialist policies that have been tried in Britain and discarded because they failed. That would be crazy politics and still crazier economics.

In the concept of industrial democracy that has been increasingly talked about it is important that we should realise the legitimate aspirations of the worker for increased participation and consultation in industry. I do not believe in being bemused by cliches or catch-phrases. We want a system that will work, a system that will ensure that the workers' rights are safeguarded and protected. As I have said before, we have many advantages in this country. There is no traditional difference here between capital and labour as in other countries. There is no wide disparity of classes or groups in the community. Undoubtedly some people are more prosperous than others. Unfortunately there are many in very poor circumstances.

They are the people about whom we should be really concerned. I agree with the concern that was expressed by Deputy O'Leary about the number of people—I think it is 38 per cent— who are below £11 a week. That includes not merely those gainfully employed but also retired persons, persons on fixed incomes, pensioners. These are the categories that are adversely and seriously affected by the five per cent rise in the cost of living last year. The consumer price index figure, which shows a figure of five per cent, does not really disclose the full facts of the situation. Price rises have been, in many cases, far greater than five per cent. Five per cent is the actual price increase reflected in the items included in the cost of living index figure, which is of limited application and of limited validity. The rise in the cost of living in the broad sense, as it affects people and as they understand it in the ordinary human way, is far greater, far more serious. The people that it is our responsibility as legislators and as public representatives to look after and whose burdens we must try to ease are the people to whom Deputy O'Leary referred, the people under £11 a week, people on fixed incomes, small farmers, small shopkeepers, retired persons, persons unable through some form of group action, through trade unions or otherwise, to make an effective claim for a larger share of the national cake.

The importance of again endeavouring to have a prices and incomes policy has been highlighted by the present crisis. The fact that it has not been done in the past is no reason why we should not make a real effort now. They have had a try at it in England. Their society is far more complex and they have far greater economic divergencies and a far bigger population to deal with. It is true it has not been a remarkable success, but there have been some advances, and some improvements. We have a much smaller economy, a much smaller population. There is no reason why we should not endeavour to operate on a broad front a prices and incomes policy.

I want to endorse what has been said elsewhere, that that policy should embrace everyone. I do not think any Deputy, and certainly any Deputy who has concern for the reputation of people in public life, likes a situation in which Ministers or Deputies or Senators fix their own salaries. That situation has grown up, but we need not inquire how it developed; it has always been the position. I never want to shirk responsibility, but I think we should all feel more satisfied that not merely was justice being done but that it was apparent that justice was being done if these decisions were taken by a tribunal or other body that would, after examination, make a recommendation.

That brings me to the point that I believe an effort must be made to establish a more uniform system of wage and salary adjustment whether it is by means of arbitration or conciliation. I am satisfied and I think most people recognise that the Labour Court has done, in very difficult circumstances, a good job within its limitation in respect of both the numbers of the court and the staff and personnel available to it. I believe the proposal to enlarge the Labour Court is good. It is obvious that the number of cases that have to be discussed in modern times, with the very steep and continuous rise in the cost of living, means that the present system is not sufficient, that the court should be divided up. I believe there is another aspect that should be considered. The court should sit more frequently in provincial centres as well. It should make an effort to recruit— and this is no reflection because I think everybody recognises the immense contribution that the present and past conciliation officers and their staff have made but this is a job for trained industrial consultants—to recruit staff who have experience in those fields. I have consistently expressed the view, both from inside and outside Government, that the Civil Service is not geared for commercial activities.

We all found that out with State companies. That is no reflection on the Civil Service. It was never trained for that. The training civil servants get does not fit them for commercial or industrial activity. The validity of that fact is proved by the experience of the successes which individual civil servants have achieved when they devoted themselves to particular problems. There is no doubt that many of them have achieved eminence and success in individual spheres, such as the Labour Court, or in respect of industrial activity in some of the State or even nonstatutory bodies. The broad picture is that the Civil Service is not trained, is not geared and was never intended to do the tasks it is now being asked to perform. An effort should be made to recruit trained personnel and operate them in conjunction with the Labour Court and in association with the existing conciliation or arbitration officers.

I believe that this problem must, as I said last year, be approached on the basis of a new look at the industrial situation here. I believe there is a genuine desire on the part of most employers as well as most trade unions and workers, to operate some form of works committees that will ensure consultation. It does not matter what those are called. We are all bemused here by cliches, catchcries and phrases which have some emotive effect but no practical effect in achieving harmony through reason and discussion. I listened to President Nixon on the radio the other night when he said he hoped to have genuine consultation. That is the operative thing. He was referring to discussions with the Soviet Union. I think it was in that connection that he used the phrase "genuine consultation". That is the operative thing.

The Minister expressed his desire to evolve from consultation with the trade union organisation and with the FUE legislation that will prove acceptable to both of them, if that is possible, or to frame some such form of legislation. In so far as we are concerned, we are anxious to get some form of workable legislation. We are not wedded to any of the proposals in either of those Bills. If there is a better alternative, we are prepared to support it; or if there are amendments which should be made to improve on the terms of those Bills, we will support them and we will endeavour to draft some improvements ourselves.

Genuine consultation means discussing and being prepared to accept suggestions from the other side, whoever they are. That is where I want again to emphasise the warning I gave initially. I believe the Minister is reasonable in his approach and is anxious for fair consultation, but we have seen evidence of too many Ministers on too many occasions, dealing with too many different matters showing an arrogance and an intolerance. There is an improvement it is true, recently. There has been a proposal, which we have not seen yet, to modify the sections of the Criminal Justice Bill. There is some suggestion there will be further consultation with the universities. This is a small country. This is not the property of any one person. It is not the property of any one political Party or any section of the community. It is the property of the Irish people.

We recently said a great deal in the course of celebrating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the First Dáil about the struggle, the fight and the sacrifices of the past. We will be the first generation that proved unworthy of the trust reposed in us if we do not seek by rational and reasonable discussion to iron out the differences not to magnify them, not to push theory to the extremes, not to push individual Parties or individual policies to the utmost, but to consult together, to achieve our objectives by a reasoned approach. We can do this before the world if we behave in a rational, reasonable and responsible manner.

That imposes obligations on each and every one of us. It imposes an obligation for politicians to sink Party or personal arrogance of a Party or personal viewpoint if we get a better viewpoint—a more progressive, a more advantageous, a more realistic viewpoint. I believe recent events in this country, in both parts of it, have shown that people do not want to adopt the attitude: that, and that alone, is the approach. There is nothing easier. We have seen it in this country. We have not to look any further. We have seen it in France and in the USA and in other places. There is nothing easier than to create chaos or anarchy. Anyone can do that, but it takes statesmen, it takes men and people of courage, people like James Dunne in the trade union movement, people who are prepared to stand up and to express their views, it takes reasonable and responsible men with a rational and a fair approach to evolve from all the discussion an arrangement and a system that may not give to any section of the community what they feel is their right, or what they are prepared to fight or argue for, but that will be made available for the community, for the people who really need it, for the lowly paid workers Deputy O'Leary rightly referred to, for the retired personnel, for the pensioners, for the sick and for those who have no trade union or no means of increasing their incomes by any action. Those are the people we must be concerned about.

A situation is developing in this country at the moment in which trade unions are taking action against each other in a way which, if it happened 50 years ago, 60 years ago or 100 years ago between the trade unions and employers, people might regard it as reasonable or rational or to be expected. But the situation developing in this country at the moment is a reflection on everyone. It is a reflection on ourselves. The challenge is there to be faced. We are prepared to do our part and we do not mind standing up and saying we accept responsibility; but that means responsibility on all sides, on elected representatives, whether they are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour. It is not sufficient to say everyone else is prejudiced, that everyone else has a narrower view conceived out of past dissensions. We want to see in this country a system under which all Irishmen can operate, can live up to what Tone described as the common name of Irishmen and we are prepared to work for that.

A disgracefully irresponsible speech.

The Deputy is a great judge.

I should like to begin by complimenting Deputy Cosgrave on what I consider was a very responsible speech, a very statesmanlike speech.

It was a Blaney speech.

I was going to use the phrase "young pup" but I shall refrain from using it. I hope, Sir, that you will be able to keep Deputy O'Leary in control. I went to some trouble to read Deputy O'Leary's speech which took him almost four hours to make and which contained nothing; there was nothing constructive in it. This is a subject which is the concern of every person in this country today and people are looking to Dáil Éireann to see if we have a responsible attitude towards the problems that are besetting us at the present time.

A lot of lip-service is paid to the lower paid sections of the community, the people who Deputy O'Leary says, earn £11 or less a week. It is a well known fact that many of these people who are earning this kind of money are earning it principally because of the fact that many of the workers who are earning considerably more will not allow these lower paid workers to earn any more.

If, for example, we were to say that we would have a minimum wage of £12 or £13 a week and that no one in this country should earn less than that, those workers who are earning £13, £14, £15 or £16 per week would look for a pro rata increase, so that there would always be this gap between the different categories of workers. The ones who previously received £11 or £12 would then receive £14 or £15 and they would, therefore, be in the same position as they are at the moment. Deputy O'Leary, in his speech, referred to the fact that——

I thought there was nothing in my speech.

There was not, but——

Then, forget it and make your own speech.

——I want to point out to the Deputy how negative his speech was. In Volume 238, No. 10, of the Dáil Debates he says, at column 1408:

It is not sufficient to come along to the man who has worked at a job for 20 or 30 years and say: "Technological change deprives you of your job."

I consider that to be an irresponsible statement because if we do not make technological changes in our factories we will not be employing anybody in our factories. It is stupid and unthinking statements like this which cause a lot of confusion in the minds of the people.

In this small country of ours, there are approximately 100 trade unions and it is an accepted fact that responsible trade union leaders would like to see this number reduced. One of the things which we hope to achieve in this Trade Union Bill is to encourage unions to merge. One of the steps which we have taken to encourage the amalgamation of the smaller unions is to provide financial assistance to meet any unusual expenses. Recently, I spoke to a trade unionist in this country and I asked him for his views on trade unions. I told him that a number of people had so far in this debate referred to foreign-based unions here; he was a member of a foreign-based union and when I asked him why he was not in an Irish union he asked me if I was mad. He said that the Irish trade unions were in such a state of shambles that one would need to be mad to join them. This is an unfortunate thing to say. If anything, we have tried in this Bill to get unions to come together.

In my view, it is an impossible situation when employers have to discuss new arrangements with 20 or more different unions in the one job and very often, as we can see in the present strike, people who have no voice in their union are out of work through the actions of a few people. People in this country want to get back to work but they are being prevented from doing so by a minority of people.

The Industrial Relations Bill, as we know, is providing for an expansion of the Labour Court and this is an excellent idea. The trade unions belong to the workers and the position should not be vice versa. It is sometimes the case that the workers are the property of the trade unions and God help anybody who tries to change that position or to intervene in it. It is about time that the average trade unionist thought of looking more closely at what is going on within his union.

Within the past couple of years I remember the Minister for Labour saying that the number of people in any trade union who actually came along to trade union meetings would average about three per cent of the workers. That is a sad situation and the kind of trouble which we have today is a result of the workers not taking a more active line and of not getting to know what the policy of their union is. Something which no one has mentioned is that a strike means a failure. A strike should only be used as a last resort but instead of that, we have strikes first and negotiations afterwards. The seriousness of the present trouble has not yet sunk in with those people who are on strike but later, perhaps, when the result of all this strife is assessed, a very poor light indeed will be shown.

We have here at present just one strike after another. Each time a settlement is reached, a claim comes from another group of workers and if the claim is resisted, a close-down occurs again and so it goes on in a never ending series of strikes. During the past few years and while this legislation was being drafted, I have been reading the Minister's speeches and I have kept many of them. I have seen the efforts he made to bring about the amalgamation of unions; he has made efforts to get unions to come forward with suggestions as to how he might help them provide better machinery for settling disputes.

In a speech which the Minister made to the workers on the 3rd January of this year, he said:

You will, I trust, not take it amiss if I suggest that loyalty by the members to the idea of trade unions should be always supported by attention to the affairs of the union.

This is what I should like to see happen more and more—that members of the trade unions would pay more attention to what is going on at executive level. I wish to pay tribute to the courageous Jim Dunne.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27th February, 1969.
Top
Share