Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 1969

Vol. 238 No. 15

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

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

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

When I reported progress I was about to ask the Minister for Labour, having regard to its great bearing on this legislation, what attitude the Government would have to a proper prices and incomes policy. The necessity for legislation such as that which we are now considering results from the inactivity of the Government. It is well to note that, in the absence of any policy to control the cost of living, in the absence of a prices and incomes policy, in the absence of industrial relations—which are nil at the moment—we have a Labour Court with excellent officials who are functioning as if they were blindfolded and handcuffed and no matter what amount of time they devote to their work with energy, zeal, enthusiasm and seriousness their decisions are not binding.

All of these factors lead us to the one conclusion, namely, that, in so far as the workers of this country are concerned and their relationship with their employers and in so far as the standard of living of these workers is concerned, we now have in this country the weakest Government since this State was founded with the weakest Taoiseach since this State was founded and with Ministers flying in panic in all directions and with the Minister for Labour, who is charged with this legislation, having to choose his words very carefully in the course of this debate lest he might let slip one word that would seriously aggravate the extraordinary and unprecedented position that prevails outside this House in this country today.

The days are long gone in this country when employers were allowed to exploit or to take advantage of workers. That day is over, gone forever and never to return. We all rejoice that we have lived to see that day. We must ask ourselves this one further question: "What of the employers who are showing increased dividends and who, at the same time, fail to meet in consultation with their workers through their trade union or their shop stewards or branch secretaries or whatever the negotiating machinery may be?"

I feel that the most frequent consultation should take place between management and workers in order to foster a greater spirit of co-operation between all concerned. We have already said that all the workers are not angels, either. Because of poor industrial relations, because of a failure to sit down and hammer out a solution to a problem which must eventually be solved and which could be solved today or tonight as easily as it will be solved in a fortnight's time, more people must suffer. The most serious sufferers in this conflict are the innocent children and wives of some hundreds of workers, in numbers now going into thousands on the basis of an average family of four persons.

For the third or fourth week, now, not a penny piece has entered under the roof of many workers—neither in the nature of unemployment benefit, home assistance nor payment from a trade union. This is a case in which we see that a display of strength by the trade union, or by a certain element of the trade unions, is having a serious and a very detrimental effect on their own workers. I feel that this is something which not alone can be avoided but must be avoided. I wonder if the Minister has asked himself on any occasion the question: "What is the cause of all of this widespread discontent that prevails today in so far as industrial relations are concerned?" Is it unreasonableness? Is it that there is not a spirit of give-andtake or is it a case in which workers want to grab all or that the employers want to give nothing? Surely, if we have the machinery to investigate who is to blame, the general public, and the masses, are most certainly entitled to know.

In my opinion, the trade union movement is the greatest movement that has been set up in this country. It is a movement that has gained the widespread respect of all sections of our people. There is something very seriously wrong with the trade union movement, or small sections of the trade union movement, when the wise counsel of a man such as Mr. James Dunne, President of ICTU, is not given a hearing and is not given the attention which the expression of such wise opinion and wise counsel would deserve.

In any demands that have been made, surely some consideration must be given to the capacity of the employer to pay? I feel that, in so far as a demand by workers on an employer is concerned, the trade union representing the workers have a bounden duty to satisfy themselves that the employer is in a position to meet the demands.

If, however, circumstances prevail in which the employer is not in a position to meet unreasonable demands, workers should be told about that situation and should moderate their demands until such time as the firm concerned are able to meet them without damaging the duration of the business or the security of employment in it. Workers should be made aware by their unions of the circumstances prevailing in the business lest otherwise a picture might be painted which would give workers a wrong impression and injure the ability of the firm to continue in business. Workers can damage an industry irreparably by unfair and unreasonable demands.

I only wish there was a way in which we could lecture foreign industry here on this matter. I remember recently talking to a German who set up business in the midlands. He was not too long in the country and he has since left. He said to me: "I cannot understand why there is such a thing in Ireland as an hour for lunch. In Germany, in my factory, all the time that is required for lunch is 15 minutes. In the remaining three-quarters of an hour, the workers put up blue bonus points. What I want to teach the workers here is to finish their lunch in 15 minutes, put up blue bonus points and earn more money."

I told this distinguished industrialist that he was now in Ireland, not in Germany. He could not understand the trade union regulations which require that workers should start at 8 in the morning instead of 7 and why they should not work until 9 or 10 at night instead of 5.30 or 6 p.m. He said: "We are not asking them to do it. All we want them to do is to put up their bonus points and at the end of a week they will be able to have all that overtime." During the short period in which he operated here he was, in my opinion, an industrial tyrant. He seemed to be everywhere at once, standing over people while they worked. Needless to say, he did not last too long in this country.

It is a great thing that we have the trade union movement here because without it we would not alone have industrial tyrants from abroad but probably some of our own industrialists would be equally inclined to exploit the workers. The movement is to be welcomed because it gives the workers not only security and guarantees but it also provides them with comradeship in the union. Without the trade union movement, employers might get fatter and richer at the expense of the workers while they grew thinner and poorer.

That is why I should hate to see the day when the unions would overstep themselves to such an extent that they might be curbed by legislation. I hope the Minister will impose as little compulsion as possible. There is the old saying that you can lead a horse to the well but you cannot make him drink and it is possibly our chief characteristic that no one can compel us to do anything which we do not wish to do. I hope that any legislation in the future will pave the way for more consultation and understanding and I beg of the Minister not ever to consider compulsion.

I have expressed my views on this matter and before I sit down I wish to say that I rejoice we have such a strong trade union movement. I should hate to see that strength eroded by actions of irresponsibility on the part of the unions. That would be a tragedy because the movement was built up through hard work and sacrifice. I come from a home in which the trade union movement was cherished and I am a firm believer that every worker should be a member of a union and that every employer should negotiate through the unions and consult frequently with them. The movement has brought the workers the outstanding advantages which they enjoy today. I hope they do not enjoy these advantages too freely and too happily. I hope they realise the great danger in which they stand, the great risk in which the whole principles of trade unionism stand if they act irresponsibly. When we compare today with years ago and see the methods of promotion, the security in employment, the wet time benefits and the many other benefits too numerous to mention that have been brought about mainly as a result not of pressure but of reasonable request to powers that be and to management, I hope the trade union movement will completely and entirely, not in part, return to normality and to sanity at a very early stage. We have seen the distress, hardships and disasters that have taken place in many quarters. At all costs this must be avoided. Therefore, I can only express the hope that in future with a greater degree of co-operation and understanding and with the use of the conference table more often and with the presence of men of commonsense and intelligence at the conference table many of the industrial problems which appear to be so unreal as to be outside the bounds of possibility of settlement will be settled. The conference table is the spot where all these problems must be solved. Any steps that can be taken by the Minister for Labour and any powers that will assist and encourage this must meet with the approval of all Members of goodwill of this House who are anxious to see that the worker will get a fair return for his work but that the employer will be given fair service and fair return in labour from the employee. If we had that state of affairs we would have a very happy relationship.

I am afraid the silence of the Government in the past has not helped matters to any great degree. It is extremely doubtful if the Government will be able to face up to the problems which have now proved to be of their own making. I hope that they will and that they can.

Dr. Gibbons

In view of the industrial state outside the House we all seem to agree that any legislation that would help to improve it now or in the future must be accepted and welcomed.

The Members of the House speaking here during the day all seemed to be agreed that no force should be used by the Government in settling this dispute or any dispute in the future. All appeals are being made to reason, asking employers and employees to get together to try to understand each other and solve their own problems for themselves. It is true to say that this has been the policy of the Minister for Labour and his Department since the Department was founded. Nobody has found fault with it but on an occasion such as this there is a certain amount of hysteria and demands are made irrespective of the fact that when demands were made before and were interpreted and legislation was introduced to deal with an industrial situation and when this legislation was used, the very people who made the demands were the first to demand that the law should not be enforced. This, unfortunately, seems to be a trait of the people and it is very difficult to get over it.

As I see the legislation before the House, it is designed to achieve the harmony which is necessary among workers and employers. The Industrial Relations Bill concentrates on the introduction of two officers, an industrial relations officer who will perform certain functions under the Labour Court and a rights commissioner who will perform functions outside of the Labour Court. As far as I am aware the latter is a new appointment. It is a very important appointment because any worker with a grievance will have the right to appeal to the rights commissioner and he will be in a position to look into the grievance, examine it and suggest a remedy for it. If employees and employers are to get on they must have some outlet such as this when they cannot agree among themselves. I hope that when the legislation is enacted it will be availed of on many occasions and that as a result conditions will become much better.

In the Trade Union Bill the secret ballot seems to be the big change. I was surprised to hear people say here that they were not altogether in agreement with the secret ballot. I was more surprised still to hear it said that the Donovan Commission in England had some doubts about it too. This is very hard to understand because it must be agreed that a secret ballot is the foundation stone of our democracy and if we are to have an industrial democracy this, too, must be based on the secret ballot. From the limited experience I have had of industrial disputes I have no doubt whatever that all disputes should be settled by a secret ballot if there is to be a ballot at all. I also think it should be said that it would be much better to settle a dispute without any ballot but there are occasions when this cannot be done.

Reading subsection (3) of section 4 of the Trade Union Bill two things struck me. On the group side I just wonder who would take part in the secret ballot. Would it be the representatives of the unions concerned in the group or would it be their members? I was also struck by the fact that there will be a secret ballot in deciding to go on strike. I wonder why is it not necessary to have a secret ballot to decide on the acceptance of terms which may be offered. Perhaps, that is in some earlier law but I am not aware of it.

Reference was made in the House last week to the fact that the Labour document on worker democracy was examined by the Fianna Fáil Party. It is correct to say that it was examined by a committee of the Fianna Fáil Party of which I happened to be secretary. Some people were surprised by this but I do not think it should occasion any surprise because this is an exercise that must be performed by any Party, that is, to examine the policies of its opponents. There is, perhaps, a greater duty on the Fianna Fáil Party to do this because they are the Government Party and they are likely to continue as the Government Party for a long time to come so that if, by any chance, the opposing parties have anything worthwhile to offer to any part of the community there must be an obligation on the Government to introduce that at some stage or other.

Having examined this document, a few things struck me. The most important statement in it appeared at the end of a paragraph. It is to the effect that the facts of economic life should not be ignored and I think that this statement should be put at the end of all the paragraphs of the article.

The article defines the workers' democracy as the full participation of the workers in all of the decisions involving the utilisation of the resources of an enterprise or an organisation. Our attention must be drawn to the fact that the words "full" and "all" are used in this definition. They give very little room for manoeuvre or acceptance. Moving along through the document we see that the circumscriptions start in subsection (8) when it is pointed out that effective controls in the interest of the public must be kept on the organisation and that planning authority will be necessary and there is also mention of the question of public accountancy. This is not defined but I take it to mean that the accounts of all companies must be submitted to the State auditor some time or other. Those three stays are binding on the decisions that may be taken on the floor of the organisation or enterprise.

We are informed, in section 2 subsection (6), that this participation by the workers consists of election by the workers of people to management. Right away we are back to the democracy we know, democracy by election or by representation but this is the democracy which does not give us all full participation in all the decisions in which we are involved. The document goes on to define the aims of the workers' democracy which will be to make the decision makers who control industry or organisation responsible to all those who work in that industry or organisation but, again, it is pointed out later on that the planning authority will still be there, deciding how the resources of the State are to be used. It is also pointed out that the objects of any such organisation must be completely in accord with the planning policy so that a number of the decisions are taken out of the hand of the people working in the organisation.

On the question of management it is true to say that the workers would be directly concerned with the election of those over them. Some members of the management would be elected by the workers but one wonders what this would be worth. It is true to say that in the past workers who have elected trade union officials have repudiated these officials and it is more than likely that in regard to industry the workers would also repudiate the men they had elected to management. There was also the question of intermediate management and it is pointed out that these are important people. However, these are not going to be elected by the workers but are going to be appointed by top management in consultation with the workers, which is a different matter altogether.

Another point mentioned is that alienation of the workers is due to the fact that the worker has no control over his work, that the produce of his work is appropriated by somebody else. In spite of this it is pointed out in relation to State companies that outside companies could take shares in State companies and also take profits from them. Why should a worker not be alienated by virtue of the fact that the State takes his profits and be alienated by the fact that a private person takes his profits?

An industry may be run for two reasons, social or economic. You may have a number of industries of social value but the vast majority of industries must make a profit to pay for themselves and also pay for the social services necessary to the State. There are other means by which profits can be taken from the worker under any economy and these are mainly through the old means of taxation. The profits of an industry can be taxed and the worker himself can be taxed. If the State becomes the employer as well as the collector of taxation has the worker then not got good reasons why he should be alienated by the State?

The document also states that the people who drafted it do not want a bureaucracy or an autocracy, that they want freedom in a democratic organisation. I do not think you can ever have complete freedom in any organisation. There must always be restraint. It also states that at the present time a worker cannot agitate the conditions under which he works. This is not true. This is what trade unions do. Further on the document points out that under the workers' democracy there must be a meaningful discipline and I take it that means that there must be obedience to lawful direction.

Mv general impression in going over this document is that it offers to workers something that they can never hope to achieve. On the other hand, one would get the impression that it was restating once more the importance of the fact that workers and employers must listen to each other, that they must talk about the problems of their work and make suggestions to each and have consultations for the benefit of the operation in which they are engaged. On that meaning no one could disagree with the document. This is what the Minister is trying to achieve at the present time. He is trying to do it slowly but the document states that this is planned for the long term and not for the short term. There is not much difference between the document and the policy of the Department of Labour on that point.

There is another good thing about the document which is worthy of attention. It suggests we should work out our own workers' democracy. There is no point in holding up to this House or to the Irish people the workers' democracies in other States, particularly the Socialist States. After all, the majority of us in this House would agree that compulsion is not needed and will not be accepted. As far as my knowledge goes there is a certain amount of compulsion in all Socialist States. It would be a great pity if the worker at some stage could not tell his manager to go to so-and-so, himself and his industry and the Government, and not suffer any severe penalty for doing so. This is the freedom he must have.

I find it very hard to understand exactly what socialism means and what a workers' democracy means. Everybody seems to have his own definition of them. The other day Deputy Tully gave us this example of a workers' democracy, that if an architect is designing a kitchen he should consult with the housewife. If this is part of the workers' democracy, then we should have more of it. I have had the experience in my district of having two dispensaries built for me. I was not consulted on the design of them. Both of them could have been designed much better. It would have been more beneficial to me and to the patients, in that we could have got through the work much more quickly, had the building been designed in a different way. If a new system of relations between workers and employers brings about this kind of consultation, we must look forward to it and welcome it.

Another matter mentioned in the document is the introduction of statutory rules and regulations to bring about these aims. I think I am right in saying that this is contrary to the opinions expressed in the House. It is felt that all these things must be developed by goodwill and good relations and if they are not developed thus they will not be acceptable. The document concludes by saying something to the effect that this is a socialist document which will be implemented by means of a socialist policy and that a philosophical change is involved. I cannot see a change being brought about to that extent. I still think fear will continue to be the great emotion, as long as we are alive anyway, and greed will be the great vice. No doubt charity and generosity will continue to be the main virtue, particularly if it is being exercised by the distribution of the other fellow's wealth. I think it is true to say that Fianna Fáil was one of the first Parties in the State to make that a practical thing in so far as it was permitted by the financial state of the country.

When this legislation we are dealing with is implemented I hope the workers concerned will make as much use as possible of what is referred to as the rights commissioner. In a short time we should be able to go a long way towards solving a lot of these problems in industrial relations and I hope that when this period of industrial strife is over it will be the end of industrial strife for quite a while on the scale we have it just now.

Mr. James Tully

On numerous occasions in this House when Bills were under discussion members of the legal profession referred to them as Bills that were peculiar to their profession, and almost suggested that discussion on them should be confined to members of that profession. On every such occasion I pointed out that while the legal men naturally knew a lot more about the fine points than anybody else in the House, the ordinary layman had a point of view which he was entitled to put and that the Bills could be improved by having the layman's point of view.

I am sure the Minister is sick and tired of listening to Deputies saying that these two Bills before the House are Bills for the trade unionists and particularly for the trade union officials. I have been a trade union official for 22 years, and on occasions during the debate here I have had extreme difficulty in restraining myself when I heard such well-known defenders of the working class as Deputy Ben Briscoe, Deputy Lionel Booth and Deputy David Andrews holding forth on what they thought was good for the workers; indeed I think Deputy Andrews said that when he consulted his cumann in Glasthule they told him what he should write in the Sunday Press.

All of these people are entitled to express their point of view in the House, but I do not think we should have people who know absolutely nothing about labour relations pontificating on the subject in this House. The last speaker, Deputy Dr. Gibbons, expressed many views with which I do not disagree at all, but it was the Labour document on industrial democracy he discussed and not the Bills before the House.

Other speakers discussed, in the main, the present labour troubles in Dublin. Let me say straight away that I do not think it is the job of the Minister for Labour to try to stop the row that is going on in the labour field. Anybody who says he should be able to do it immediately just by waving a wand is either being very naive or, alternatively, is trying to put him on the spot. Nor do I agree with the point of view expressed by Deputy Booth last night. I could not follow him, I am sorry to say. Maybe I am a little bit dense, but he seemed to think that the present system of bargaining between the trade unions and the employers is not the ideal one and he did not seem to agree that there should be compulsory arbitration. The only other way I know is a wand. Maybe Deputy Booth has a wand which he can wave and settle these things; if he has he has not used it in a few disputes I could name.

Mr. Cunningham

Why not name them?

Mr. James Tully

I should not like to embarrass some people in the House. We must observe the niceties in these matters.

Mr. Cunningham

Keep off it, so.

Mr. James Tully

I shall make my speech in my own way. I know what I am talking about, which is a lot more than can be said for the Deputy.

Mr. Cunningham

Nobody knows anything——

Mr. James Tully

I do not want any interference or advice from Deputy Cunningham. Would he let me continue my comment? When I am finished, if he has not already spoken, he can stand up and give his views; I have not heard him yet. One thing I dislike is people who occasionally ramble in here interrupting from behind. I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but this sort of thing is a well-known tactic and I am too long at the game to be put off by it.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy is very touchy, if he is so long at the game.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Deputy want me to give way to him? I do not mind, if he thinks he can improve on what I am saying; he is perfectly entitled to do so. The suggestion was made by Deputy Booth last night that there was another way of settling disputes. I do not know what that other way is. He suggested something like this: Was there any reason why, since anybody else who had a dispute would have to go to the civil court, employers and workers should not have to go into court to have a dispute settled? Perhaps he worked that out in his own mind. I have not been able to do so and I have not been able to understand what exactly he meant. The plain fact is that the system of collective bargaining is the way in which we settle disputes. The Labour Court is available to hear disputes. From time to time people have mediated and have succeeded in settling them. I know of no other way. If they cannot be settled in those ways we then have the usual trial of strength. All of us, no matter on which side of the House, deplore the present position and are very perturbed that so many innocent people are being affected by the disputes but there is one party in the disputes who so far have succeeded in sitting very far back from the firing line and in giving the impression that no matter who is at fault they are not at fault. That party is the employers.

I wonder if it is generally known that this dispute occurred at the end of a two-year agreement, that there was a three-months negotiating period and that in the three months before D-day there was absolutely nothing done, apart from a few skirmishes? Then, people wonder why workers—they are entitled to their own views—who have asked for wage increases are not going to rush back to work when somebody suggests they might do so. Could the first offer made by the employers be considered realistic in view of the fact that it appears that five offers have since been made by them? If the fifth was not acceptable, would it not suggest that the first was pretty bad? And the second and the third?

We have these people sitting back and saying: "What can we do with these unreasonable workers?" Quite a number of employers throughout the country have, in fact, made a settlement with the striking unions and have succeeded in getting their employees back to work. Many of them are preparing to get back to work in the next few days. Something which has apparently been forgotten is that while quite a number of trade unionists who have no connection with the dispute, other than that some of the striking unions have a few members on the job, are badly affected and that thousands of workers are out of work as a result. We must not forget that the workers took this decision themselves. There is a tradition, and one which many people would like to see broken down, and it is that one does not pass a strike picket. If a picket is outside a job the genuine trade unionist will not pass it.

We all deplore the fact that many of these people and their families are suffering and that they have no hope of gaining anything when the strike is settled but they have taken the decision; they are out on principle and we must respect them for it. If we want to put the blame on anybody for the hardship which these people are suffering it should go on the Department of Social Welfare because of their outdated arrangements whereby somebody who is out of work because a strike closes the job, even though he is only vaguely connected with the strike and may not be involved in it at all except as a result of a picket being put on his job, will not receive social welfare benefit. Is this because the Department of Social Welfare want to force them back to work or because they want to save the few shillings involved? One or the other must be the answer.

If the Department and many other people, particularly Ministers, who have been talking pretty loudly over the past couple of days—because they feel the people are becoming annoyed because they must do without some of their groceries, some of the things they should be entitled to buy—about the hardship being suffered by those who are out of work though not directly affected by the strike, would suggest to the Minister for Social Welfare that there should be a relaxation so that these people could get social welfare benefit, much of the hardship could be alleviated.

I heard a number of Deputies talking about unreasonable demands and asking: "What do the strikers want? Are they entitled to get the big money?" Indeed, one or two Fianna Fáil Deputies last night spoke of the fact that some of these people were getting the magnificent sum of £15 per week and said that if they had taken what they were offered they would get £18 and that if they worked some overtime, they would get over £20. Anybody who knows anything of working conditions would know that overtime is something the ordinary worker does not want because if he works hard during the day, as most of them do, it is rest he wants in the evening, not punching in a few extra hours in order to get the few shillings extra which he needs.

If we are satisfied that this question of wages should have been settled and that these people should not look for increased wages for the trades they have, we must look at the whole of our society because I believe that the tradesman who may not have been to a university but who has served his time for five, six and, in some cases, seven years is as much entitled to a decent wage at the end of his time as somebody who may or may not have got a university degree and may have been lucky enough, for some reason or other, to go into management and is able to get two or three times as much as the tradesman.

This whole problem is being misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise, by many people. Deputy O'Leary spoke the other day about the big number of people who have £11 or £12 a week and, right in the middle of the dispute, we had the Taoiseach making an announcement that if there was no attempt to increase what he called the wages of the higher-paid workers he was prepared to recommend that lowerpaid workers, State and semi-State, should receive a substantial increase. Was he saying to the people now on strike: "If you drop your claim for £2 or £3 a week I will give an extra £1 or £2 to the forestry workers, or the Board of Works, or to men in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries?"

If the State are serious about increases for low-paid workers and if all the keening we now hear about these workers at present means anything, then without any further delay, their wages should be brought up without relation to the wages being paid to anybody else.

Deputy Corish asked a question here yesterday for a certain reason which had nothing to do with the strike. Who causes the trouble in this country? Who encourages a certain type of trouble? Look at the headline in one of the evening papers here. It says: "State Chief Gets £1,960 Rise— Strikers Lash The Super-salaries". They quote an unnamed prominent trade union official who criticises the type of increases that certain people have got in State and semi-State bodies. I suggest the person who wrote that article was more interested in making a few extra shillings for himself out of the headline than in settling the industrial unrest. If we had less of this and more honest appreciation of what is happening at present we would get on a lot better and would not have a lot of this damn nonsense that is going on at present.

Listening to some of the statements made by some Deputies over there, one finds food for thought. I shall deal with one of them: Deputy Briscoe who, two or three years ago, bragged that he was speaking here as a trade unionist apparently has now cast his trade union card to the winds and speaks now as a capitalist. Deputy O'Leary said that he did not think that a man who was 20 or 30 years in a job should lose his job because of technological change. At column 1845 of Volume 238 of the Official Report, Deputy Briscoe comments as follows on Deputy O'Leary's statement:

—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 unthinkable statements like this which cause a lot of confusion in the minds of the people.

So little Deputy Briscoe, turned capitalist, now says it is a terrible thing for a man who has been 30 years in a job to show any resentment if his boss tells him: "We have a new machine. Here are your cards". All I say to Deputy Briscoe is that, if any of my members are in his employment and he does anything like that, Trade Union Bill or no Trade Union Bill, he will have a strike on his hands before he knows what hit him, and that is the only way to deal with that sort of stupid comment. We have too many of these stupid people still knocking around who believe that workers are necessary, but an evil nevertheless, and the sooner they can get rid of them the better.

The whole approach to industrial relations has gone a bit screwy. I sympathise with the Minister for Labour who is expected to be able to do wonderful things at very short notice. The Labour Court has been doing a good job. Those engaged in the conciliation end of it have been doing an excellent job. The only drawback is that there are not enough of them and they do not get enough appreciation. Their position is worse than that of the Members of this House because they can be called on from six o'clock in the morning until two o'clock the next morning and no one will say "Thank you" at the end of that tour of duty irrespective of whether the job is well done or badly done. The Labour Court itself has one fault. Because of the small numbers involved it takes far too long to get a hearing and, when the hearing comes off, to get the result of that hearing. There was an idea not so long ago that strikes were like boils— they had to be allowed to mature. Those were the Labour Court's own words: in other words, strikes had to be allowed to mature before they could be handled or before any attempt could be made to settle them. This resulted in a number of very expensive strikes, expensive to the employer, to the worker and to the trade unions involved. That idea of maturity seems to have died now and the general practice is that, if a dispute occurs, or is about to occur, every effort is made to bring the people together as early and as quickly as possible.

The Chief Conciliation Officer, Mr. MacDermott, has got a very difficult job. It is a pity there are not two or three more of his calibre who could be used in trying to iron out the difficulties which occur. It is not just enough for the Minister to say he will add another court; he should add at least two or, if the Exchequer will stand it, three courts because there is such pressure of business from time to time that things drag out for months before even the really serious cases are taken and, because there are so many cases, there really is not sufficient time to look properly into the rights and wrongs and give a decision until the matter has got completely out of hand.

Lest I forget it, tributes, deserved tributes, were paid to Jimmy Dunne, President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Observing those who were paying tribute I decided I would have to reread his speeches because there must be something wrong with them. Some of the people who would not give fresh air to a trade unionist were coming in here and literally putting a halo on Jimmy Dunne. Now this is a field in which I think the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has fallen down. I do not think Jimmy Dunne should have made these statements as personal statements; he should have been talking for the Irish Congress Executive. The Executive should have met and given him instructions as to the statements to be made. I am quite sure the statements would be exactly the statements he made, but it is wrong that someone who, as well as being President of the Irish Congress, is also General Secretary of the Union which is up to its neck in the dispute, though they will gain nothing out of it, because they will not pass a picket, should be put in the position of having to come out and make statements which will not make him the most popular man in the trade union world in this country.

There is the other problem then as to who exactly is carrying out negotiations in regard to this dispute. I was not listening to the Seven Days Programme last night but I understand there were some members of the strike committee on the programme and that it was fairly clear these gentlemen felt they were the people who made the final decision to recommend or not to recommend. In my 22 years as a trade union official I have been involved in a great number of strikes and it was always the practice for trade unions at their annual or biannual conference to elect a committee and an officer board. It is that committee which negotiates. If a strike takes place a strike committee is set up to ensure there are pickets available and that the routine work is carried out. I do not think it was ever the practice for a strike committee to decide whether or not an offer was acceptable. If that is the case now, then why are not these people carrying on the negotiations? I am not competent to judge whether or not this is right or wrong—I am expressing my own view—but I think that, if people make up their minds to strike and that strike is pursued to the bitter end, then the only people who are in a position to say when the end is reached are those who are carrying out the negotiations and they are the officials appointed by the general body of unions to run the union.

I have heard a great deal of comment here and outside about Irish-based and British-based unions and the way decisions and votes are taken. I was amazed at the people here particularly, who should know better, who seemed so very ignorant of what goes on. When the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was officially set up after the dispute with the two Congresses the one point that held matters up month after month after month was the fact that the Congress of Irish Unions would not agree to come in until all the British-based unions had Irish autonomy.

That was finally agreed on and anyone who talks of British-based unions as if someone in Whitehall was taking decisions for their members in Dublin does not know the facts. They cannot be members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, they cannot even be accepted into affiliation until such time as they clear up that snag. The position is that all the unions involved in this dispute and operating here are in fact Irish-based. The one advantage they have over us is the fact that they can fall back on vast financial resources in Britain. They can always ask for a few shillings if money is scarce, while we have to depend on what we have. That is the only difference. Anyone who talks about English-based unions trying to disrupt the economy of this country by carrying on this strike is talking a lot of nonsense.

One thing struck me yesterday evening when I was listening to Deputy Booth. I do not know whether he meant it, but he let the cat out of the bag. He pointed out the terrible suffering which must fall on a household where people are on strike for five or six weeks. Those of us who have been involved in strikes have known this for a long time. Deputy Andrews talked about worse cases. Deputy Booth said that the people who really suffer are those who are on strike because, he said, in normal circumstances all the difference it makes to the employer in a big firm is that there may be a drop of one per cent in the dividend at the end of the year. That is all the difference it makes.

It is a sobering thought. The FUE could quite easily have put an end to this dispute a month ago by saying: "Instead of giving you another 6d next October, we will give you an extra 6d now". Why did they not do that? Because, Deputy Booth says, it does not matter a damn. It only means a drop of one per cent in the dividend and apart from that it does not matter at all.

Deputy Dillon talking earlier referred to the fact that the family firm seldom has a big dispute. I agree with him that is so, but I do not think it is so for exactly the reason Deputy Dillon thought it was. He referred to the fact that they were closer to the workers and therefore there was more dialogue, to use the modern word. That may be partly the reason but, in addition, there is the fact that if a family firm has a strike then there is a loss to that firm. When it is spread over a big number of shareholders the loss is not felt. That is the whole kernel of the trouble. That is what caused the present strike and previous strikes to drag out over a very long period.

As a matter of fact, listening to people talking here I was reminded that some two or three years ago I was in Wiesbaden in Germany where there was an employer-worker conference which had to do with emigrant workers. I was amazed to hear a German employer there who was taking in most of his workers from Italy, and some of them from Spain, explaining that there was a 75 per cent loss in turnover in workers over each six weeks period. I thought this was extraordinary and afterwards I asked him how he had worked it out, and was it not rather strange for him to be training workers if at the end of six weeks when they were properly trained they went along to another job. He could not see anything wrong in that. As a matter of fact, he said this was cheaper because there were always more workers coming and if he kept them he would have to pay them more. So, by letting them move off he could get a new batch to do the work which was rather rough and that was all right.

I am afraid Deputy Flanagan's comments about the German who was employed in this country and wanted —what did he call them—the blue bonus mark to be put up—I know where they should have been put—are applicable to the attitude of many Germans in their own country and, indeed, to certain Irish employers here who would do the very same thing but they would probably have some other name for it. At present it is not unusual to find workers taking what the law allows, the minimum half hour for lunch. They must take a half an hour because they have to have a rest after five hours. That is what the law says. They are anxious to get the job done and finished as quickly as possible.

Dr. Hillery

The same as all of us.

Mr. James Tully

The position as far as the workers here are concerned is that they only want a living wage. It appears as if there are people here who do not agree that a living wage is what these people are entitled to.

We had a lot of talk about the system of balloting, whether or not a ballot should be taken, and the way in which it should be taken. I may take a different view from some other people on this but, if I had my own way of doing things, I would suggest that if a strike is to take place there should be a secret ballot; that not only should there be a secret ballot but that a majority of those employed in the firm affected by the strike should vote in favour of strike action. I would not like to see a situation in which, as we are told happened some years ago, about 15,000 people were employed in an industry, 15 turned up for a meeting, eight voted for a strike and seven against it, and it was six weeks before the strike was finished.

Workers, I am afraid, have not yet realised that there are many things in their own hands which they can deal with. The sooner the workers realise that if there is a dispute on the job it is not someone else's responsibility but their responsibility the better. They should be there to ballot. They should be there to have their say. They should be there to vote. The sooner this is done the better. How do you take the vote? Ballot votes certainly, because when it is a show of hands you see one man looking at the man beside him to see how he is voting because it is safer to do that than to put up his hand in the wrong place.

There is an objection to taking a ballot on the job. Deputy Booth says the workers are tired after their day's work and should be allowed to wash up and go home, and then when they go home they will not come back. I saw a postal ballot tried. The Minister will hardly credit it but there were people who would not think it worth their while to make an X on a piece of paper and put it into a stamped addressed envelope even though their livelihood depended on it. The trade unions must educate their members to a stage where they realise that the really important thing as far as decision-making is concerned is that it is their decision, and they must take it. When we reach that stage I am quite sure labour relations will take an upward turn.

As far as the question of balloting is concerned, or anything else which is contained in the Trade Union Bill, I feel that the Minister is entirely wrong in attempting to legislate to make people do things. He says there is no compulsion intended. This Bill means, "You do" and even though no penalties are mentioned what is the use? We had the penalties in the ESB Bill and we saw what happened. Fianna Fáil, with the assistance of Fine Gael, voted the Bill through. We said it was wrong. We said it could not work. We said you could not force a man to work. They said they were passing it and Fine Gael voted for it. Eventually when they tried to operate it they put people in jail and they had to send someone to pay the fines in the middle of the night. Could anything be more ridiculous than that?

The other night here, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave who normally is a very mild man, got a little hot under the collar and said that he considered that the Bill was wrong, that it was unworkable but that if it came up again he would do the same again. I cannot follow that line of argument. I believe the thing was wrong. Every one of us should admit that it was wrong and forget about it.

Before I go on to deal in detail with the Bill which the Minister has now before the House I should just like to refer to the reply the Minister gave me to a question the other day. I asked him if it was proposed to introduce a Bill to remedy the situation created by the Fitzpatrick judgement. He said it was not. I pointed out to him that his predecessor had promised that such a Bill would be introduced The Minister said: "No, that is not correct." I shall tell you what happened. He agreed to set up a party which would investigate it and so on, and they would come to a decision and subsequently they had discussions with ICTU and the thing had blown up. It was something like the Blaney-NFA row, apparently—the Minister and the trade unions stopped talking.

Dr. Hillery

Not on that.

Mr. James Tully

I have the letter here and I shall read it to refresh the Minister's memory.

Dr. Hillery

There was no blow up.

Mr. James Tully

Let me read to the Minister exactly what he said at the time—and Mr. McCarthy, I am sure, will remember word for word of it. It is dated 1 Aibreán, 1966—a long time ago—and it starts with a good old Irish "A Chairde", and continues as follows:

I am directed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to send you herewith particulars of proposals for the amendment of the law on industrial relations and for the amendment of trade union law. The Minister intends to introduce the amending legislation without delay and he would be glad to receive any observations you may wish to offer on his proposals as soon as possible. Officers of the Department will be available for consultation on any aspects of the proposals which you consider require elucidation.

It is envisaged that the amending legislation will be enacted in two separate measures, one for industrial relations and the other for trade union law. In addition, separate legislation will be introduced at the same time to deal with a situation that arose following a Supreme Court decision in December, 1961, in the matter of peaceful picketing.

A similar letter and particulars of the Minister's proposals have been sent to the FUE. The Minister has not, as of this date, furnished particulars of his proposals to any other outside body.

That is a definite undertaking which has not been kept by the Minister. I see no reason why he should not, even at this late stage, put his hand on his heart and say "I have given my word and I am now going to carry out what in fact I said I would carry out".

Dr. Hillery

Did I say it was intended to do it? Do not read the whole letter again, just the relevant part.

Mr. James Tully

"Separate legislation will be introduced at the same time to deal with the situation that arose following a Supreme Court decision in December, 1961, in the matter of peaceful picketing"—not "is intended" to be introduced. We all know what that means. I shall let the Minister have this letter lest his files have become mixed up. He might like to have another look at it himself.

Before I go on to the Bill itself, let me make a further comment on the question of industrial democracy. Deputy Dr. Hugh Gibbons was talking about the Labour Party document on industrial relations. The one thing about his speech that struck me as rather peculiar was this? Quite a number of his Party, including Deputy Flor Crowley and Deputy Joseph Dowling, in particular, have been howling since it came out and calling us "Communists" because of it. Deputy Dr. Hugh Gibbons, who is secretary of the Fianna Fáil group set up to consider the document, says he agrees with most of it. As a matter of fact, at one stage he said he agreed with all of it. Either there is nothing wrong with the document or else Deputy Dr. Hugh Gibbons, like the rest of us, is a "Red". I shall leave him to puzzle that one out. It certainly puts things in a peculiar light.

Mr. Andrews

Red Hugh Gibbons.

Mr. Luke Belton

Aodh Ruadh.

Mr. James Tully

With regard to the Industrial Relations Bill, the Bill itself is very good and in many ways is very desirable. Under section 2, the Minister may, if he so wishes, appoint six persons to be ordinary members of the Labour Court, in place of four persons as at present. I suggest that he increase that number again as I do not think that six persons would be sufficient.

Section 3 enables the Chairman of the Labour Court to divide the court into three divisions of equal status, if he thinks this is necessary for the speedy despatch of business. At present, the Chairman can divide the court into two divisions of equal status. Section 4 obliges the Minister to appoint one deputy-Chairman of the Labour Court and enables him to appoint a second deputy-Chairman, if necessary. This is a good idea—more than one deputy-Chairman.

On the question of industrial relations, the effect of section 6 is to change the description of certain officers of the Labour Court from "conciliation officers" to "industrial relations officers". It does not matter. What is in a name?

Section 7 enables the Labour Court to give an interpretation of an employment agreement if asked to do so by the parties. They already do that, in the main. I think that is a good idea, too.

Section 8 establishes that Labour Court hearings will be in private, but if a party to the disputes asks for a public hearing the court will have discretionary power to hear the case in public. Again, this is normal practice. It further provides that if, in the course of a public hearing, a matter arises which, in the interest of a party to the dispute, should be treated as confidential, the court can conduct that part of the hearing in private. Again, it is true that very often documents, particularly documents which might injure an employer if they were disclosed, are treated with confidence even if they are shown to the trade union side of the board.

Section 9 provides that specified Public Sector arbitration boards shall include a workers' member and an employers' member of the Labour Court. Why did the Minister not include the Agricultural Wages Board there?

Dr. Hillery

That is separate legislation. It is a statutory body.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister has set down this for the purpose of trying to keep in line with wage agreements from one board to the other. Is it the thinking that the Agricultural Wages Board are dealing with people who are so badly paid and just in case somebody would find out and say: "These fellows have to come up"? If not, would the Minister add the Agricultural Wages Board to section 9?

Dr. Hillery

I shall have a look at it.

Mr. James Tully

I shall put down an amendment to that effect. Section 10 enables an employer or a trade union of employers 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. This section also gives general legal status to registered employment agreements, with penalties for failure or neglect to comply with the agreements. Again, the Minister appears completely to have overlooked the question of the State or semi-State ones, even though, at a later stage, the Minister has a section not exactly bringing in those workers but giving himself authority to bring them in. Why does the Minister not say now: "They are in"? I shall come to that in a minute.

Section 11 empowers the Labour Court, in consultation with representative organisations of workers and employers, to draw up rules of fair employment in various industries. The rules would have legal status with penalties for contraventions. Again, there are certain sections left out and I should be glad if the Minister would have another look at this.

Section 13 enables the Minister to appoint rights commissioners. Again, what is in a name? A commissioner will investigate, privately, a trade dispute which exists or is apprehended, at the request of a party to the dispute, unless the other party objects. How many of those people does the Minister consider should be appointed? Is it only one, a kind of ombudsman, or are there to be a number of them to work in the same way as existing conciliation officers? There does not seem to be any point in it because a lot of the work which the Minister proposes to have done in the Bill has been done, and quite well, by conciliation officers. Perhaps, they did not have authority to do it. Changing their name in the Bill does not make any difference.

Section 17 refers to Part VI of the Principal Act and says that the Minister for Finance may from time to time designate for the purposes of subsection (1) of the section to do certain things. Why does the Minister not say that these workers come directly under the Labour Court? Here he is giving authority to the Minister for Finance to make an order if, at a later stage, he can persuade him to do so. Why is it worded in that way? Would not the Minister say directly "therein" or "thereout"? One of the last things Deputy Lemass did before leaving office was to give a guarantee that these workers would be brought under some kind of conciliation and arbitration. If Deputy Lemass saw fit to do so and if Deputy Lynch said that the Labour Court was the proper place, why is the Minister for Labour so coy by saying that he will give a right to the other Minister?

Dr. Hillery

It is difficult to identify them and if the Deputy can do it in an amendment I will take it, but he will be excluding——

Mr. James Tully

I have an amendment prepared and it does not leave any of them out.

Dr. Hillery

It must be very long.

Mr. James Tully

It is provided in that section that the Government may by order amend the definition of "worker" in Part VI of the Principal Act. There is an extraordinary thing in this. Somebody spoke about the Donovan Report in Britain. It appears that the Donovan Report makes the point that a worker is an unskilled manual worker or a tradesman, but it does not include either a clerical officer or a person who is not normally either of the first categories. It is something the Minister might have a look at. Perhaps, his Department know about it already. I have got a few more of these which I think the Minister had up his sleeve in the hope that nobody would refer to them, that we would blunder along until somebody stepped over the line.

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy is very suspicious.

Mr. James Tully

I am not suspicious: I am being careful. Section 21 states:

shall, in respect of any matter refer to either tribunal aforesaid before the passing of this Act, be deemed never to have been enacted.

Is this wise? There is a change being made and I wonder if this is being done deliberately to get at a certain person who made recommendations which saved us a lot of trouble, but whose last recommendation did not agree with the official side.

Dr. Hillery

That has been there during the past two years.

Mr. James Tully

But it is now being enacted. I ask the Minister to be very careful before he does this. As far as the Trade Union Bill is concerned, it is doubtful if certain provisions in it are proper for dealing with trade disputes. The Minister did not explain how successful his Department were with the ICTU in getting agreement in connection with group negotiating licences. There are groups already carrying on under a system like that which the Minister proposes here. I do not know whether this matter is modelled on the system which operates in Bord na Móna who, under their terms of reference, have been doing this for a number of years. There was one major dispute there last year and there is a report on which I do not know if it is the Minister or somebody else who is sitting——

Dr. Hillery

Not I.

Mr. James Tully

The report could be produced and I am sure it would make interesting reading at the present time. There is provision in Part III of this Bill amending section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. Section 10 implies—it is interesting—a provision that sections 4 and 5 of the 1906 Act shall apply only in relation to an authorised trade union which is the holder of a negotiating licence but if we go back to section 9 we find that the protection extends to unofficial pickets. The Government should clarify their attitude to unofficial picketing— whether they should have the same protection as those holding a trade union licence. It does not look to me to be very clear.

Section 11 proposes to extend the provision of the 1906 Act by a deletion from the definition of "workmen" in subsection (3). Afterwards we come across the situation that no matter what the Minister is proposing here, there is no protection being given to either State employees or local authority employees as far as a trade dispute is concerned. Up to now there have been disputes but the fact that the workers in these categories have been breaking the law usually has been ignored. In section 11, the Minister proposes to extend the 1906 Act to local authority and State employees and I am saying that what we are proposing does not give that protection at all. Therefore, I should be glad if the Minister would have another look at it. I will put in an amendment because, perhaps, this either did not come to the Minister's notice or it was done deliberately.

Dr. Hillery

It deals with people working in clubs. We will go into it on Committee.

Mr. James Tully

There is a twist in it. You have given the right to picket to people employed in this House but you do not extend the same right to employees of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, for instance. You give employees of this House the right to picket outside. When I read this in conjunction with the Minister's failure to give them legal cover——

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy is on a different line.

Mr. James Tully

I am not.

Dr. Hillery

My purpose was to bring in workers in clubs.

Mr. James Tully

Did you not intend to bring in the State employees?

Dr. Hillery

We will have a look at it on Committee Stage.

Mr. James Tully

The way it is stated suggests that this section of this measure binds the State, or binds the Crown is the way it is stated, employees of the State or employees of the Crown. That is not stated in the Irish version. As far as we are concerned "binds the Crown" does not mean a damn thing and the result is that it puts a number of people——

Dr. Hillery

I will have a look at it.

Mr. James Tully

O.K.

In the Criminal Justice Bill there is a section to permit picketing of Leinster House by persons directly employed in Leinster House. I think this should be included in the Trade Union Bill so that we will be able to keep it all together. The Minister should also explain that section 11 has the effect of nullifying the effect of the section of the Offences Against the State Act which deals with picketing of Leinster House. If the Bill is passed it will be necessary to consult a number of Acts to assemble a full definition of "trade union". I think there should be a full definition of "trade union" in the Bill. I wrote to the Minister about that and I have some information on it. I am not altogether happy that the position is as stated in the reply which I got.

With regard to section 14 and the requirement of having a ballot before serving strike notice, the section, as drafted, says a majority of the members of the union shall approve of such service. I think this is a drafting error. It must be. The Irish Transport and General Workers Union have 150,000 members and if a dispute arose concerning 20 members according to the Bill it could be interpreted that the whole 150,000 would have to vote.

Dr. Hillery

All members entitled to vote.

Mr. James Tully

Every paid up member is entitled to vote.

Dr. Hillery

That holds true now, so.

Mr. James Tully

But the Minister is making it mandatory.

Dr. Hillery

I am deeming the rules of a union to be that and if they are not that we are now making them that.

Mr. James Tully

At the present time the union interprets its own rules.

Dr. Hillery

We still allow them to interpret their own rules.

Mr. James Tully

Do you say that in the Bill?

Dr. Hillery

There is no need.

Mr. James Tully

I am afraid there would be. The trouble is that what the Minister would like to do and what a court would decide was, in fact, the law might be two different things.

Dr. Hillery

We can get it on Committee Stage.

Mr. James Tully

It could be fixed up, then.

Section 15 provides for grants towards expenses of amalgamation of trade unions. At first I thought this was rather generous but I found that section 12 of the Trade Union Act of 1876 lays down exactly what the Minister proposes now. I am sure he knew this.

Dr. Hillery

Does it provide financial assistance?

Mr. James Tully

It is almost exactly word for word. It might not be a bad idea if the Minister added some section to consolidate the existing law. There are two Bills already dealing with this and, perhaps, if the Minister could consolidate the law it might be a good thing.

Dr. Hillery

I do not think what is there is enough because as well as financial assistance we would have to give any assistance the House could give in the way of legislative changes. I think we would need to make provision for that.

Mr. James Tully

The Trade Dispute Act of 1906 is also involved. It is difficult to understand why the entire Act is not inserted in Part III to go with the appropriate paragraph of the 1876 Act. It would be as well if the Minister had put the whole lot in even as a Schedule to the Bill. It would mean that we could then relate one to the other. The biggest trouble in this House as far as I am concerned is that occasionally one gets a whole list of Acts which are referred to as being amended or being completely wiped out and it would take days to try to pick them out and find out what exactly they say. In some cases they say something which is entirely different from the impression one gets on reading the amending legislation.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the definition of "business" and "industry" in section 2 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 with a view to an amendment to this Bill on similar lines. I feel the Minister should use this definition because it is as recent as 1967 and it does clear up the situation with regard to what a business is and what an industry is. That is in section 2 of the Redundancy Payments Act. It is his own Department and he should use it.

With regard to the group negotiation licence it would appear that sections of this part are not operative until Congress applies for a licence. There seems to be nothing in sections 4 and 5 which has not already been in operation.

Deputy Pattison was pointing out something here last night and as far as he went I considered he was pretty good on it. He did miss out one point. He made the point that if a ballot was taken and it was decided to take strike action and subsequently it turned out that there were negotiations which might possibly settle it if strike notice could be withdrawn that the members might be reluctant to withdraw strike notice because if they did they would have to go through the same rigmarole again. I do not agree. I think it would be possible to withdraw strike notice altogether. I imagine he was right in that because it would mean that you withdrew it and you must go through the same procedure again. With regard to the ballot before a strike, it seems the strike could not be ended officially without a ballot. This could prolong a strike. Very often you have disputes, strike notice is served, the employer meets the trade union, discusses the matter, makes an offer which appears to be reasonable and instructions can be given to the employees that the strike is off. Strike notice could be withdrawn straight off the reel. According to the Bill you would have to have a ballot to end a strike as well as to start it.

Dr. Hillery

It is the executive that is given the right.

Mr. James Tully

That is a different thing. At the present time the situation is that somebody takes a decision to have a strike and it goes before a union executive. They may decide that the employer is unable to pay or that it is unrealistic to go on strike. They can decide that the strike should not take place. They do that now. It is a different thing if the strike notice has been served or a strike is taking place.

Dr. Hillery

You do not have to have a strike.

Mr. James Tully

A settlement is made. The workers are told the strike is over. As I read this, it could be held that it would be necessary to have a ballot to end the strike. The Minister shakes his head. I hope he is right, but that is my reading of it anyway.

Why must notice of strike be deposited with the Labour Court instead of Congress? At the present time notice is given to Congress and I believe it would be better if that were done.

Finally, on the Trade Union Bill I personally believe that the Minister should not introduce legislation of this kind. I think the onus is on Congress. I seriously believe that this is not a matter for this House. I believe that and I have no hesitation in saying it. I am sure I will get criticism for it. I believe that Congress have been weak in this particular instance. I believe that Congress should be directing. I know they are only consultative and have been accepted as being consultative for a long time but I believe that in a serious crisis—this is my personal view—they are the top body to which we are all affiliated. We pay substantial dues to them. They supply a certain service. It should not be confined to just advice.

Congress should lay down rules as to how to run a strike, as to how to start one and how to end it, of how negotiations should go and there should be no question whatever of any Government coming in and saying that they will do this, that or the other thing. You cannot legislate workers into going to work if they do not wish to do so. Deputy Dillon says you can, that Hitler did it, that he hanged them and sent them to jail. Perhaps, the first lot will go back to work but it will only be a very short time until somebody will decide that they will not stand for this kind of treatment and that is the end of it. As far as the Trade Union Bill is concerned we should say to Congress: "This is your job. You do it". If some rules and regulations have to be laid down let Congress decide on them, let Congress put their own house in order and let the trade unions put their own house in order and when that is done there will be no need for repressive legislation in this House.

Whether or not the Minister likes to put it that way, if the Trade Union Bill passes through this House in its present form or in any other form and becomes law, it will be considered repressive legislation. It will be objected to and then there will be trouble, the same trouble as we have now. I would urgently appeal to the Minister, and I know he will understand that I am most earnest in this appeal, that even though it is nearly three years since the Bill was introduced in this House, he should now withdraw it. I believe that something happened about this Bill. It was introduced here almost three years ago, the Congress and FUE discussed the matter, the Minister had discussions with Congress and then, at a particular stage, something happened and the Minister came along and announced that Congress had walked out. Was that all that happened?

When the NFA had trouble with the Department of Agriculture they kicked up such a row that the whole country knew that something was wrong. Are we to take it that Congress just walked out and then sat tight and made no representations whatever to the Minister and allowed things to drag until a stage was reached when the Minister introduced his Bill in the House? Are we to understand that Congress, having got a copy of the Bill, then just issued a statement saying that they did not agree with it? I think that is not the normal approach of the Minister to these things. I believe he is as anxious as I am to see industrial relations in this country placed on a proper basis and I do not think he is going to do that by saying to Congress and the unions: "This is the Bill. You can take it or leave it".

I would suggest to the Minister that even at this late stage he should say to Congress that they should handle the whole problem themselves, that he should withdraw the Bill. If that is done it will be very much in the interest of establishing proper industrial relations.

With regard to the other Bill, sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are noncontentious. Legislation giving effect to these proposals should have been promoted in 1956 or the years immediately following. It became abundantly clear then that the Labour Court was undermanned and that the absence of one member through illness reduced the effectiveness of the court by 50 per cent. This was not as it should be. On that point I would ask the Minister if he has arranged any form of promotion within the court itself. I believe the line of promotion was from outside the court into the court and then, when an officer of the court had learned his job, back he went into the Civil Service. We could not object to this because we knew that promotion lay outside the court but we do know that some of the best conciliation officers we ever had disappeared overnight. In that connection also I am glad that provision has been made for pensions for some of the older members of the court. We all greeted that announcement with jubilation, we are glad to see it happen.

Section 8 is a modification of section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and there is nothing at all wrong with this. As I have already said the Agricultural Wages Board should be included in section 9 and the Minister should have provided for a joint labour committee for agricultural workers under section 4 of the Act of 1946. I do not know if the Minister knows that the Agricultural Wages Board is the most outmoded piece of machinery it would be possible to find and the opportunity should now be taken to do something about it. The Minister may say that he has nothing to do with this as these are not industrial workers but surely he must know that agriculture is the primary industry of the State. We hear of the thousands of Agricultural workers who leave the land but the miracle is that any stay at all.

It must be remembered that it is only those at the bottom for whom the Agricultural Wages Board fixes the rate and that rate does not apply to the higher-paid workers. It it only when one finds a group of agricultural workers getting £15 or £16 a week and individual workers working on farms at £10 2s per week that one knows something is wrong. When one asks the employing farmer why this is so he will say that he is paying the fixed rate.

I have mentioned already that there is no doubt that section 11 will not extend ordinary trade union protection to local authority and State employees. There is nothing in the Act of 1906 to bind the Crown. Again, the Donovan Report makes it clear that this is the case. It is possible that section 4 is intended to rectify the court decision in the Carlingford Lough dispute. In his speech introducing the Bill the Minister stated that the terms of the Bill made it clear that protection exists for members of trade unions holding negotiating licences but section 11 of the Bill does not give effect to that statement of the Minister. I propose to put down amendments on that point but if the Minister has amendments on it I will withdraw mine because the Minister's amendments will go through while mine will get the knock.

With regard to the Labour Court I would suggest that the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the court should not appoint an officer to the court if objection is made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. While we have had very fair treatment from time to time, occasionally we have got the feeling a case being heard was not getting as favourable a hearing as it might. Indeed, I heard some of my colleagues talking about the Joint Labour Committee. I had an unfortunate experience in connection with one of them, where a chairman of the Joint Labour Committee came into a side conference, advised on the amendment of a proposal which was before the committee, and when we went back in and put his amended proposal before him he voted against it and ruled it out. This is the sort of thing that makes trade union officials a little bit mad. I got out of it by resigning from the Joint Labour Committee.

There are many things we could deal with but I know the Minister is sick and tired of the whole discussion, and I would not blame him. However, when the Bills are so important it would be a pity if they went through the House without getting the very fullest investigation.

While many people feel the Minister should have Deputy Booth's wand which would enable him to go out and settle industrial disputes at the drop of a hat, I do not agree with this. He can offer intervention as an individual the same as anybody else. Ministers of State have done it before successfully. I remember the late Deputy Norton on one occasion sitting up all night to settle a dispute with CIE. However, it is unfair to say to the Minister: "It is your job. You are responsible if it is not settled."

It is also unfair to say the whole trouble is caused by a group of trade unionists who are greedy and looking for too much. They are looking for fair recompense for the trade, for the essential work these employees carry out. The fact that some employers have found it possible to pay them the rate proves that it is not unreasonable. As far as the employers generally are concerned, they have done very little in regard to meeting the demands. They are sitting in the background waiting for everybody to criticise the trade unions and say they are irresponsible. We all regret the involvement of so many people outside who have nothing to gain by the dispute. The trade unions who are supporting these people who are out, though they may be finding it pretty hard to do it, have been paying out vast sums of money. The amount to the individual trade unionist is possibly small, but the total amount is considerable.

I agree there does appear to be an air of unreality about the whole thing. I discovered from long experience that no matter how bitter a dispute may have been and no matter what may have caused it, eventually it is settled by sensible men sitting around a table and hammering it out. It is very easy to say that the country cannot afford it. It is very easy to say that the reason the demands are not being conceded is that they are too big. However, Deputy Booth took the lid off that last night when he said that the only difference it would make to most of the firms was a drop of one per cent in their dividends. If that is correct, then the dispute should not be running as long as it is. It should have been settled long ago.

My only wish is that those who have been meddling in this dispute in an effort to make political capital out of it; those who have been meddling in the dispute and trying to give the impression either that the men are greedy or trying to set one trade union against another; those who are meddling in the dispute and who do not give two hoots as long as they themselves come out scot free; my wish is that they would all keep out of this and allow the situation to reach normality, because in four or five weeks time if you mention the maintenance strike lots of people will not know what you are talking about.

It has been my experience over the years that no matter how bitter a dispute is, while it may be remembered by those who have not had a wage packet for many weeks, even they do not want to talk about it. That is the normality of things and every dispute can be settled by good sense, not by slagging people on the radio, on television or in the newspapers or by scare headlines in the evening papers such as I referred to a few minutes ago. That is not helping the situation at all. We should let these people go about their business; let the people who have been appointed to represent the workers represent them, and let the employers meet them and make a fair offer. If that is done the dispute could be over in five minutes, and the sooner it is over the better we shall all be pleased.

Mr. L. Belton

Deputy Tully commenced his speech by saying that mainly legal men talk on legal Bills, and he felt that this being a Trade Union Bill it was one on which members and officials of trade unions were well qualified to speak. I could not agree more with him, and I am sure his long and enlightening address has been a useful contribution to the debate. However, he also agreed that the ordinary Deputy who was not so qualified was also entitled to speak. This is one of the blessings or one of the defects of democracy. I belong to the category that would not be qualified as Deputy Tully is as a trade union official; neither am I a legal man.

Deputy Oliver Flanagan said this evening that the people were very critical of the Department of Labour, that because they cannot see any work being done by the Department of Labour, as they can see in the case of the Department of Agriculture, Finance or Industry and Commerce, the people are inclined to think that that Department are not working. Even if the Department were to be still slower, if they are laying the ground work firmly as I believe they are, and if in the end, to use Deputy Flanagan's words, they can produce a "Ten Commandments" for better industrial relations, no matter how long it takes, it will have been well worth-while.

The present industrial unrest is a national problem. Some people may say that perhaps the Department of Labour or the Government as a whole are being easy, that they are playing for time and not in any great hurry to settle this unrest, in the hope that prior to a general election, which we all know must come soon, they can step in and settle this dispute, and then, as an election gimmick, tell the electorate that Fianna Fáil is the only Party that can create calm out of this chaos and this unrest and that no other Party is capable of doing it. I do not think this line will prove successful, because the electorate are now well enough educated not to be deceived by such propaganda.

Trade unions have a useful purpose in society. In the early years of the State workers had to endure great hardship and it was only due to the efforts of people like the late Jim Larkin, senior, and others that they were given some rights and some place in society. For many years the gap between workers and bosses had been too pronounced. The bosses were inclined at times to look at the worker as being in a different and lower class and the worker, in turn, distrusted the bosses. You also had this situation between skilled workers and tradesmen and the ordinary labourer. Not so long ago it was quite common here in Dublin, particularly in the plumbing trade, to see the helper walking four or five paces behind the tradesman. Because he was not a tradesman it was not considered proper that he should walk beside one.

Deputy Flanagan also spoke of experiences on building sites and much of what he said is quite true. In many cases workers were sacked because the foreman or boss did not like their looks. It was also commonplace here at times, particularly on Dublin building sites, for the worker to leave a matchbox for the foreman to ensure that on Saturday night, if some people were being laid off, he could hope not to be among them. This also happened in rural Ireland on road works. Road workers at one stage were only paid fortnightly and one man would be detailed to collect the cheques for the others in the local towns. If he did not entertain the ganger or foreman he was in danger of losing his job.

Everybody will agree that no sensible person, whether boss or worker, wants a strike. A strike of any duration upsets the smooth running of a business and cannot be of any benefit. Surely the worker does not want it? Anybody who has seen some of those on strike in Dublin for a few weeks and the privations of their families knows only too well that workers do not want a strike. They do not lightly take a decision to strike. There may be the exception of a few hot-heads but they are in a minority and the ordinary worker does not lightly decide to strike.

Relations between management and workers require improvement and if we had this improvement and had better relations it would go a long way towards eliminating strikes. I believe that at all times in industrial relations the emphasis should be on the prevention of strikes. If you have good industrial relations it will have a very desirable result.

Deputy Dowling said yesterday, or the day before, that some, or even many, strikes are due to misfits being placed in key positions because of family connections. I do not doubt that this may happen but surely there is nothing wrong in the case of anybody who has built up a business putting his own relations into positions in it, if he so desires? It is a right and nobody can prevent him exercising it. If, as a result of putting misfits into key positions the business fails, who loses but the firm? Granted, some workers may suffer also but, surely, if somebody loses his own business as a result of bringing misfits into it, that cannot in any way be compared to the position where misfits were put into State and semi-State bodies? Some misfits were put into such bodies, perhaps, not into top positions but into key positions and, as a result, who suffered? Was it not the taxpayers? It is one thing to suffer as a result of your own neglect, but it is a very different thing when people brought in because of their political affiliations are misfits, with the result that the Exchequer has to subsidise these concerns which should be making a profit and the ordinary taxpayer has to shell out. That is much worse than the case where a relative of the owner of a firm, by being a misfit, causes his firm to lose money.

No matter what legislation we enact legislation never was and never will be the ideal solution to relations between worker and management. Unless there is proper cohesion and understanding between management and workers legislation is only a poor substitute. I cannot see how any Government can ask workers to be calm and not seek increases when they put no stop to the spiralling increases in the cost of living. Answering a question last September the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that up to then in that year he had allowed 300 increases. In most cases people must apply before they can get an increase. Again, in the month of January this year the Minister sanctioned 25 more increases. In view of this constant increase of the cost of living there is not much sense in the Government appealing to the workers for restraint and asking them not to seek increases. If the Government would put their pride in their pocket and forget that it was Fine Gael who enunciated a proper prices and incomes policy and if they would adopt that Fine Gael prices and incomes policy, while it might not be the ideal solution, it would go a long way towards remedying a great deal of this industrial unrest.

One speaker mentioned the Labour Court and wondered why the findings of that court were not made binding. I do not profess to have the perfect answer, but I do not think that would work out. No power can make a worker work if he does not want to work. There is the old adage that you can bring a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink: you may pass rules, regulations and laws to make workers work and you may try to encourage or coerce them but, if a worker does not want to work, then he just will not work.

Mr. O'Malley

I should like to draw attention to the difference in the attitude of the Labour Party to these two Bills prior to their publication and since publication. For two or three years we heard them described as repressive legislation, although the Labour Party were unaware of the contents of them. It must be disappointing to the Labour Party to find that there is not one repressive provision in either Bill. On the contrary, they are an effort by the Minister to try and clear up some of the many difficulties afflicting trade unionism by giving the trade unions an opportunity voluntarily to put their own house in order rather than by forcing them to do so.

It is worth while, I think, to make a comparison between these two Bills and the White Paper which Mrs. Barbara Castle introduced in Britain last week. That White Paper, which Mrs. Castle so optimistically entitled "In Place of Strife", is introduced by a Labour Government which prides itself on its socialism and it goes very, very far, indeed, beyond what the Minister proposes here. It is apparently accepted by the British Labour Party as being in accordance with their traditions and as not being offensive to trade unions. Because of that I find it very hard to understand how the Labour Party here can legitimately object to the proposals in these Bills, unless, of course, the Labour Party here is very much more to the left than Mr. Wilson's Government are.

While on this subject, a great many people here believe that much of the trouble in this present unfortunate dispute is due to the fact that we have quite a number of British unions here. Their membership is small; it is only a couple of hundred or so but, in the earlier stages of the dispute, these seem to cause a great deal of trouble. As the House is aware, there are various restrictions on non-nationals who carry on business here, but there appears to be no restriction whatever on foreign trade unions carrying on business here. Neither do I see anything in this Bill in that connection. In fact, one section seems to have in mind more foreign trade unions being established here. It refers specifically to the fact that they must comply with the new regulations proposed in this Bill.

I suggest to the Minister that he might consider something on the lines of the Insurance Act of 1936 whereby only foreign insurance companies which were trading here at the time could get licences to continue to trade. That would not do any injustice to existing trade unions and it might well do something to discourage this large number of very small unions. One of the difficulties is that these unions have very few members here and a great many members in Britain and the great many members there are able, without any hardship whatever, to subsidise the very few members here in the case of a prolonged dispute. It may well be that that subsidisation is making this very much more difficult for the members of Irish unions which are not in a position to finance their members over a long period of dispute. The present dispute has developed to such an extent that one could not now just put one's fingure on what precisely is wrong but it did appear at an earlier stage that a very small number of members of foreign unions were tending to keep a great many general workers who belonged to Irish unions out of employment at a time when the Irish unions were very anxious to settle matters. If possible we should do everything we can to avoid a repetition of that situation in the future.

There is another aspect of trade unionism to which I should like to refer briefly. The Minister might, if he finds it feasible, introduce legislation to deal with the problem. In craft unions which cater for tradesmen there appears to be a closed shop inasmuch as only certain people will be considered for membership. My experience is that these are the sons of existing members. I know two young tradesmen, very highly skilled and qualified. They acquired their skill by serving their time in England. Having become efficient and fully qualified they decided they would like to come home. They did so and found it impossible, or practically impossible, to obtain employment because of the fact that they could not get a union card.

I can well see the point of view of the existing members of those unions and the point of view of the officials. At the same time, a closed shop is basically a wrong concept in any sphere of life. One does not get that in the more progressive countries and that is probably why so many people emigrate. There are opportunities abroad, or so they feel. This is one instance, at least, where that fact is borne out because you do not tend to get closed shops in other countries. I do not know whether this is a matter about which one could successfully legislate but it is, perhaps, something to which the Minister might give some thought. It is a discouragement to people who might otherwise qualify to enter certain trades, and it is an encouragement to those who are qualified in certain trades to emigrate. That is very regrettable.

I want briefly again to commend the Minister on the restrained nature of the proposals which he has put before the House. In the circumstances in which they have been brought in, and at the time at which they have been brought in, there are many people who would feel that the Minister was more than justified if he took a much stronger line in these two Bills. I am glad he has not done so. It is recognised on all sides of the House that one cannot legislate to the extent of forcing people to work. The Minister has done and done very well what was open to him—in other words, he has given the trade unions an opportunity to put their own house in order. This I sincerely trust they will do. At the same time, it is only right to point out that the trade union house is not the only house that has to be put in order.

I had a very unfortunate example in my own constituency in the past couple of weeks in connection with the present dispute. A certain large and important firm gave what I can only describe as provocative notice to a number of men which, in my view and I think in the view of nearly everyone who has looked into the circumstances, was totally unnecessary. It has resulted, unfortunately, in a large and substantial factory in Limerick city being closed down, and the whole building industry in the southern part of the country being seriously disrupted.

I do not know whether it is open to the Minister for Labour or any other Minister to legislate in connection with the activities of some employers or employers' organisations, but if it is open to this Minister and if he feels it is feasible to do so and that it might achieve any results, I think legislation on those lines would not be out of place. Apparently there are quite a number of small employers' organisations and, so far as I can see, many of them have the same sort of problems that arise from fragmentation of the trade unions, and they cause the same difficulty on the other side of the fence and make the question of negotiations and settlements of disputes very difficult on the other side also.

Mr. James Tully

A closed shop does not mean refusing to give someone a card.

Minister for Labour (Dr. Hillery)

If Deputy Tully had any glimmer of hope in his heart that Congress would put things right I should like him to say so.

Mr. James Tully

I think they will.

Dr. Hillery

My experience does not give me any reason whatever to hope that Congress will even start to put things right. My experience and my study of the trade union situation, and the industrial relations situation, have convinced me long ago that legislation is not the answer. I stated this at the very beginning on the setting up of the Department of Labour, and even before that. I am quite satisfied that, as someone said, you cannot legislate men into work. I stated publicly that I believe legislation is not the answer.

I suppose one could accent that by asserting now that any legislation which was wanted would be "on" at the moment in this House. If you could think of any legislation that would cure the ills of our industrial relations, no matter how harsh it would appear to be, I think it would pass through this House in the present set-up. I am not attempting to pass any harsh legislation because I know that, even if it passed through this House, it would not work. It would not solve the problem. I know that Deputies like Deputy T.F. O'Higgins who last night described this legislation as a mouse would describe it as a monster when the present strike is over, and at the next strike it would be a mouse again.

This is the same mouse, no bigger no smaller, no more teeth no less, than the mouse with which they tried to frighten the wits out of the people of the country during the referendum campaign. I like to give credit where credit is due. When the Labour Party read my description of the proposals I had for legislation, that put an end to their assertion that there was repressive legislation coming. On television the night before the people voted on the referendum, Fine Gael tried to frighten the wits out of the workers by saying that this arrogant Government were bringing in repressive trade union legislation. Now it is a mouse because the wind is blowing the other way.

This legislation is not for the present situation. This legislation is not a cure for our ills, nor is it an attempt to remove the responsibility from management and trade unions to do their proper job in the field of industrial relations. This legislation is the first step towards what could be a cooperative effort between the State, representing the community, and the trade unions who can and should put things right in their field and management in their industries, in their factories and in their plant getting down to their responsibility to get proper relations and agreements going. They should not pretend that human relations at industry level are something that they should not bother about, something less than other aspects of their management job. This is all I have presented this legislation as being.

At this hour of the night, perhaps, I should deal with some of the points which were raised. The first point raised was the Irish Congress of Trade Unions reaction to the circulation of these Bills. The reaction was: "Withdraw the Bills. We should not have them." As I said before, they might have done so in a different way if they had wanted to communicate with me, but I have not had any request, since the circulation of the Bills, from Congress for consultation. I have invited the officials of Congress to meet my officers next week so that they will be given a chance to explain in detail what they find amiss with this Trade Union Bill.

If I find, as I have been led to believe, that the wording in the Bill is defective or does not express my intentions properly—my intentions in the Bill are the result of a long period of consultation and a good deal of examination—I shall move to amend the sections on Committee Stage. If the Congress of Trade Unions have new ideas to propose to me or to the House by way of amendment to the Bill, I should be glad to consider them and, if they are good ideas, I am sure the House would be glad to adopt them. All too frequently, I am criticised for ideas I put forward as possible beginnings to solutions in this field. I have been left wondering always by the critics whether they have any worthwhile ideas of their own or whether they are willing to express any idea at all.

I approach this problem as a longterm problem and I would give time, before Committee Stage and during Committee Stage in the Dáil, to see if this House has any part which it can play to help the two parties in industrial relations to solve their problems. I am sure some people must sometimes say that, perhaps, we are relieving them of responsibility by having a Labour Court or even a Ministry for Labour and so easing them of pressure that should be on them to find modern solutions in a complex society which they want to solve by free negotiation. But they must solve the problems created by free negotiation by those who abused the freedoms given to them on both sides, too. Some of the points would, perhaps, best be answered, first.

At the beginning, Deputy P. Belton suggested that the public sector should have accepted the Labour Court as the arbitration part of their conciliation and arbitration schemes. I thought so, too, and I proposed this for discussion with people involved in the various schemes. They rejected it. They felt strongly about it. What I have now proposed in the Bill is to have two members—a worker-member and an employer-member of the Labour Court sit in on these arbitration schemes. I hope that, before the Bill is through the Houses of the Oireachtas, the people involved in conciliation and arbitration schemes will come around to my way of thinking because I think it is the proper approach. We cannot forever go on leapfrogging and grabbing at the money in this country. There must be some agreement on the rules of the game and some relationship between the awards made. I had hoped that these people would come around to my way of thinking on that.

Deputy Michael O'Leary suggested that the secret ballot proposal is aimed at having fewer strikes. The aim of a secret ballot is to protect individual workers when it comes to expressing their opinion so that they can record their honest views, one way or another, in favour of or against a strike. The arguments for it are as strong as the arguments in favour of a secret ballot for Dáil elections.

Mr. Corish

Congress do not disagree with the secret ballot, as such.

Dr. Hillery

I think that when we get to Committee Stage we shall remove a lot of the doubts. I understand that people have doubts about the drafting. If we agree on the intentions, we can clear up the drafting problems.

Deputy Michael O'Leary's idea of financial help for unions proposing to amalgamate, rather than unions after amalgamation, would be something which I would consider. Anything we can do to help amalgamation of trade unions, I think this House should be willing to do it.

Mr. Corish

Hear, hear.

Dr. Hillery

On the question of the recruitment of the conciliation officer service, it was suggested that people with qualifications in sociology and psychology would be recruited. It is not a new idea. However, those with practical experience will be aware that this is a personality job. Some people do it well and other people, no matter what their academic qualifications would be quite incapable of bringing aid to people at the conference table. You cannot judge beforehand, by any test that I know of, how an officer would work out.

One of the advantages of having civil servants in these posts is that if they do not work out, they can be transferred. More than one person mentioned here that people have been promoted, that good conciliation officers have been promoted out of that service, resulting in a loss to the service. In the past couple of years, we have tried to arrange matters so that we did not lose good conciliation officers. In the event of recruiting somebody who was not a civil servant and who did not work out as a good conciliation officer—regardless of any academic qualifications—it would not be possible to transfer him to any other part of the service and one would be left with a conciliation officer who was not effective. That was the only reason I continued to think that recruitment from the Civil Service is an advantage.

Deputy Dillon suggested that, in addition to having a personnel officer or manager, there should be a director on the board of the company, concerned with personnel matters and that such matters should be the first item on the agenda of board meetings. I would agree wholeheartedly with that. It is not a matter for legislation. We cannot legislate that people will pay attention to their business.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Or on agendas.

Dr. Hillery

Or on agendas. Two years ago, we set up the Department of Labour. I tried to present it as a symbolic act of the Government to set aside a whole Department, with the Minister being at the Cabinet table—symbolic for industry—so that they, too, would give equal attention to the people they employ, to the pay they receive, to their conditions of work, to the making of agreements.

The Irish Management Institute did a study of the personnel officers employed in Irish industry. It is dismaying to think how neglected the personnel function is in our Irish firms. Naturally enough, some small firms cannot afford it. However, in the medium-sized firms and in the big firms, not enough attention is given to consider the personnel function. We have this extraordinary attitude that the important things in business are the getting of markets and the getting of machines; that the people working in the industry should be all right and, if they are not, they should be looked after by the FUE or by the Government.

Mr. Corish

Hear, hear.

Dr. Hillery

Those immediately dealing with the workers must take on this task. I do not know whether my saying it will encourage them to do it.

Mr. Corish

It encourages them to think so.

Dr. Hillery

I said recently that employers were greatly at fault: I said it in the middle of the present dispute and it was not well received but it is not my desire to be popular but rather to get a long job started— and that will never properly be done until we can coax, drive, shame or otherwise make management share in this function. I think most people in this country have the same attitude, namely, that it is a pity we have a strike as we were going along so well. They adopt the attitude that people should work away. The speed of progress in any plant, in any industry, and the speed of progress in the country as a whole, will be determined by the speed at which this personal function is developed. This must be the basic fact with which we must begin.

Workers are not something to be taken for granted, or to be left to some outside body or the Government to control. We shall proceed at the speed at which the personal function is developed.

During the debate, some speakers seemed to think that the revised conditions for negotiating licences which are mentioned in the Trade Union Bill applied to existing unions and that they would militate against small unions now in existence. These revised conditions will apply only to future applications for negotiating licences and it is an attempt to prevent the big number of unions we have becoming greater by splintering, breakaway and other formations and groups not satisfied with their own executives.

Why people have to take such extraordinary action when they are not satisfied with their executives makes me wonder whether the processes of democracy are working smoothly in the various unions. Why the selected negotiators are not the people who can say what will decide an issue I do not understand. Perhaps we are all too complacent about the organisations to which we belong, so that these breakaways and new groups working behind the scenes preach the failure of democratic process. This goes back to something I pointed out here a couple of years ago—that the membership of trade unions are not participating in the activities of the unions. I read in one trade union journal that at the annual meeting only three per cent of the membership were present.

You could imagine the influence of this House if only three per cent of the electorate participated in electing us. The absence of the ordinary honest member who thinks these things do not concern him must be the basic cause of a great deal of the trouble in the trade unions—of the splinters, of the strike following lack of accepttance of negotiators when they go back to the union. You cannot legislate for this. You can only try to encourage people and when people are inclined to find people of various colours operating in the trade union movement, and subversive elements— if I were asked to name names, I should name the ordinary, honest, decent people who do not attend the meetings of the unions.

Mr. Corish

We have been saying this for years — the lack of attendances.

Dr. Hillery

How to get over this I do not know but if Ireland is to go over the cliff—it is like a bad turn in the road: you must have an accident —I think we have to go over the cliff before people believe they have to make democratic processes work. If democratic processes do not work, it will not be pinks or subversives who will be responsible but the ordinary decent person who does not attend his union's meetings.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I agree.

Mr. Corish

The Minister is talking more sense than any of the people behind him have done in the last few weeks. They have been speaking nonsense but the Minister seems to have a much greater appreciation of the position than some people.

Dr. Hillery

Sense is not always spoken from the strongest position. In recent years in Ireland sensible people have been booted out of the way.

Mr. M. O'Leary

You can say that again.

Dr. Hillery

I do not know was it ever a good thing to be sensible. When I was away from this field, I discovered a quotation from Cardinal Newman, 100 years ago, when he spoke about how to manage people generally. He stated:

Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man.

In the trade union movement one believes in ordinary progress, in creating new wealth, new employment for school-leavers. Those who believe in such things will some day have to get down to the difficult and slow task of shaping the trade union movement into a structure that can co-operate with the rest of society so that this nation can go ahead to create the new wealth and higher standards of living.

The fact that we have a Bill before us does not mean there are not other aspects that have to be changed but it is no use for the Labour Party and the trade unions to say: "Come back after you have got industrial democracy in the FUE and in other branches of society." Members of the unions must put their own house in order and when that has been tested and has been found to have failed, we must try the other ways.

One of the theories in this debate has been the idea of an incomes policy. Earlier on there was a prices and incomes policy. Deputy O'Higgins has a soft spot in his heart for profits because during the debate he did not want them restricted. There is this about a prices and incomes policy: if it is to be effective—in Ireland the priority is in settling strikes at all costs—it will have to be imposed. Either everybody will agree that some body—not some person but a body of people—will be entitled to fix our incomes, our wages, salaries, prices, dividends, professional fees and so on and everyone will have a judgment handed down and must accept it. If he does not accept it, if he withdraws his labour and has a strike—he has the right to strike— everybody else will go on strike because that is the way to gain. Even with an incomes policy, you could have all the disputes you have now because people will not be satisfied with their share.

Debate adjourned.