Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Nov 1969

Vol. 242 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 39: Labour.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £1,975,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Labour, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.

The Estimate shows a net increase of £632,000 over the provision for last year. The increase is due mainly to the increased subventions for training to An Chomhairle Oiliúna, the Irish Management Institute and CERT Ltd. A new service has also been introduced in respect of grants towards the provision of information and advice for intending emigrants. Because of the importance of training, I shall give it pride of place in the review I propose to give the House of the services covered by the Estimate.

Last year my predecessor outlined the measures which were being planned to improve the skills of workers. The provision of training at all levels in industry and commerce is at the centre of the Government's manpower policy. That is why I am seeking a substantially increased provision in the grant for An Chomhairle Oiliúna—AnCO as it is now known. It is on AnCO's activities that the successful development of industrial training very largely depends. The provision which I am making for AnCO is for the sum of £975,000—an increase of £475,000 on last year's allocation. This large increase is evidence of the growing importance of training as an aid to industrial expansion. I am glad to be able to report that considerable progress has been made by AnCO in building up its national programme of training. AnCO has approached its task, firstly by encouraging industries to develop their own training schemes and to use the facilities for training provided by such bodies as the Irish Management Institute, the vocational education committees and other training organisations and, secondly, by establishing training centres for special training needs. Industries are being brought within the scope of the Industrial Training Act, 1967, by designating them for the purpose of training. Designation is done on a broad basis and altogether there will be about ten designated industrial activities. Four major industrial sectors have been designated so far this year covering about 70 per cent of workers engaged in the transportable goods industries.

Steps are being taken to establish the training needs of each industry. This is being done by specially recruited and trained technical staff in collaboration with consultants. Industrial training committees are being established for the designated industries. Their function will be to advise AnCO on matters concerned with training within the various sectors. These committees are representative of both sides of industry. Committees have already been established for the engineering, textile and construction industries.

It is the intention that firms will be encouraged through a system of levies and compensatory grants, to develop their own training schemes. AnCO, in consultation with the industrial training committees, is at present drafting levy-grant schemes and the first of these should be in operation during 1970.

I have mentioned the training centres which AnCO is establishing. Three of these centres, situated in Shannon, Waterford and Galway, are already in operation. At present about 250 adults are undergoing training for semi-skilled industrial work in these centres. In addition, some 200 apprentices are receiving first year full-time training in the Waterford and Galway centres. AnCO has recently acquired a site for the setting up of a large training centre in the Dublin area in which some 400 training places will be provided. It is hoped to bring this centre into operation during 1971. AnCO has co-operated with CIE in establishing in the Inchicore works an experimental training centre in which apprentices in various trades will be given full-time training for a period of 3 years. This centre is due to open shortly.

Apprentice training will continue to be the principal means of providing skilled workers for industry. AnCO has been giving particular attention to the improvement of present methods of training for apprentices. More supervision of training is being carried out; the number of apprentices attending day-release and block-release courses of instruction in the technical schools has greatly increased. Employers are generally co-operative in regard to these courses and are becoming more appreciative of the role of special instruction in the training of apprentices. AnCO has been particularly concerned to ensure that sufficient apprentices are taken into training to meet the likely future needs of industry for skilled men and the number of apprentices in training this year shows a 12 per cent increase over last year's figure.

AnCO considers that the time has now come to carry out a comprehensive review of the whole system of apprenticeship training as it operates at present. Plans for this review are being drawn up, in consultation with all concerned.

The success of training schemes for other employees depends largely on the ability, expertise and enthusiasm of management. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the success of our efforts to keep the economy expanding and to create more jobs depends on the calibre of our managers. For some years now, the Irish Management Institute has been performing very valuable work by operating a variety of training courses for managers at all levels. A programme for developing and expanding this work over the period of the Third Programme has been drawn up by the institute and I am at present considering how this programme can be most effectively supported by public funds, in the interest of bringing about the raising of the level of management which our developing economy needs.

Because of the overall responsibility of my Department for training, the provision for financial assistance to the Irish Management Institute has been transferred from the Industry and Commerce Vote to the Vote for my Department. The provision this year for the institute is £90,000. This represents a 50 per cent increase on the subvention for the previous year and is an indication of the importance which we attach to the work of management-training and development.

Similarly, the money which was previously provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce towards the cost of attendance of managerial, supervisory and trade union personnel at training courses is now being provided by AnCO. AnCO has established a close co-ordination of policy and programmes with the Irish Management Institute. This, I think, is very desirable as the work of each body reacts on the activities of the other.

Last year, the fullest co-operation from everybody—employers, trade unionists, educationalists—concerned with training was sought for the various important measures necessary to strengthen our training potential. This co-operation, I am glad to say, has been forthcoming and I am confident that it will continue in the future.

I have also taken on the responsibility for the grant to CERT—the Council for Education, Recruitment and Training for the Hotel Industry. This responsibility has passed to me because of the concern of my Department with training for all activities of industry. The grant to CERT was hitherto channelled through the grant-in-aid to Bord Fáilte and was provided for in the Vote for Transport and Power. The sum of £100,000 is included in the Estimate as a grant to CERT for 1969-70. This represents an increase of £20,000 in the grant provided for CERT in 1968-69. The greater part—about two-thirds of the grant—will be expended by CERT on courses for the training of persons for employment in the hotel industry. I feel sure that Deputies will agree that there is a need for an expansion of training in this industry to meet the growing demands on its services.

The relationship between CERT and the Department will fall to be reviewed in the next year or so in the light of progress made by AnCO in its programme of work under the Industrial Training Act.

Now that we have got our policies and programmes for training well under way, I am convinced that we must, in the context of manpower policy, give priority to the building up of a strong and efficient national manpower service. From an examination which has been made of the situation in countries with successful manpower policies, I have come to the conclusion that the key to success lies in building up such a service. Earlier this year the Government approved of proposals for the reorganisation and development of the employment service. These proposals envisage the separation of placement and guidance work from the benefit-paying work of the employment exchanges; the provision of separate offices for manpower work where necessary but certainly in the larger cities and towns; recruitment of staff from outside as well as inside the Civil Service; and a regional structure for the new organisation.

I think there is general agreement about the need for improved placement and guidance facilities, properly housed, and staffed with the best people we can get. The manpower service should be a great help to job seekers and to employers with vacancies to fill. But important as these functions are, I believe that the availability of reliable manpower information on a continuing basis is even more important and is the really telling argument in favour of a strong national manpower service. I know that this aspect is regarded as a top priority in the two countries—Sweden and Canada—in which there has been most progress with manpower policy.

The national manpower service will be responsible for the collection of detailed information on labour supply and demand on a continuing basis at local, regional and national level. This is needed for the development and expansion of industry and as a guide to the educational and training authorities about the likely future needs in their fields. At the moment, we do not have adequate information about labour supply nor about the way the demand for labour is likely to go.

Later on I will be dealing with the question of manpower surveys. These, while useful in certain ways, do not meet the needs of manpower policy, for the reason that they deal with the situation at a point of time, while the labour supply and demand position is changing from month to month. Later, too, I will explain why I consider that the live register, so frequently quoted as a source of information, is an unreliable indicator of labour availability.

What I am planning to establish is a manpower service which can provide, on the local, regional and national levels, up-to-the-minute information about labour availabilties, which will be able to identify problem areas and shortages and which will be geared to give advice to employers, trade unions, education and training authorities and make recommendations about possible measures to be taken to correct imbalances in the labour market. A senior officer of my Department has been appointed as national director of the service. Preparations for the recruitment of the necessary personnel are well advanced. One of the first tasks is to obtain suitable premises in central locations in our principal cities and towns. Some difficulties have arisen here and I am in consulation with the Minister for Finance to see how these might be overcome.

A programme to replace unsatisfactory employment exchanges was initiated some years ago and has been pursued systematically by successive Ministers for Social Welfare and by my predecessor in the Department of Labour. I intend to press ahead with this programme until all exchanges meet a satisfactory standard. Places where new premises will be provided during the next few years include Clifden, Drogheda, Cork, Limerick and Manorhamilton.

It is important for manpower purposes to know the numbers and kinds of vacancies arising in the labour market as a whole. At present, no information is available regarding vacancies filled by private employment agencies. Moreover, the activities of some private agencies, particularly those offering employment abroad, have given rise to adverse comment. For these reasons, I intend to bring forward legislation to introduce a system of registration of employment agencies which charge fees. One of the purposes of the Bill will be to bring to notice some activities which have been the subject of complaint. There is no intention of interfering with the work of the reputable and long established agencies who perform a useful function in this field.

Employment and unemployment trends are encouraging. Employment is increasing at a faster pace than last year. In June, 1969, the estimated numbers at work in the transportable goods industries totalled 201,000— 11,000 more than in June, 1968. Since the beginning of this financial year, the number of registered unemployed has been lower in nearly every week than for the corresponding dates last year.

When discussing the live register, however, I should like Deputies to appreciate that, while the figures show the trend from week to week, they cannot be regarded as a reliable indicator of the numbers available for work. The manpower survey in Drogheda brought this out and survey work in Waterford and Galway suggests that the pattern is the same there. I have also had a check made in a number of other centres. In many parts of the country, a large percentage of those registered as unemployed have been found to be not available for full-time employment under present conditions. I do not think that this will come as a surprise to Deputies. We all know that this is particularly true of most married women who register as unemployed to keep their social insurance alive. There is full employment in many of the skilled occupations, and some employers are experiencing difficulty in getting female staff.

On the other hand, the live register does not include all school-leavers who may be looking for work. Neither does it truly reflect the extent of any under-employment on the land and in other occupations. The main message is that the present live register does not tell a reliable story about labour availabilities and this is the reason why, earlier in my statement, I stressed the importance of building up a national manpower service which would be able to delve into the manpower situation on a local, regional and national basis, and produce information about the labour situation on which everyone can rely.

The growing shortage of female labour is a cause of difficulty for some industries. The House is aware that the participation rate for women in our labour force, at 35 per cent, is a good deal lower than in most western countries. The possibility of an increase in the number of women at work raises many issues and I am in consultation with the Economic and Social Research Institute about a research project into the various factors affecting female employment in this country.

The Waterford manpower survey for which provision was made in earlier Votes, is nearing completion and I hope to receive the report shortly. Work on the Galway survey is well advanced and the report may be ready by the end of the year. Both reports will be published.

Manpower surveys can be of considerable help to people concerned with economic development. Surveys carried out on a detailed and scientific basis as in the case of Waterford and Galway are, however, a very costly exercise in terms of personnel, time and money. I do not propose to commission any more surveys of this nature until the value of the work done in Waterford and Galway has been fully assessed by all concerned.

At the same time, there is a need and a demand for reliable, if less comprehensive, information on manpower availability throughout the country in connection with our industrial development programme. I have, therefore, been reviewing the whole question of surveys to see whether the information can be got by other methods. As I explained earlier, I am satisfied that the development of the new manpower service is the best long-term answer to the problem. Pending the organisation of that service, however, I am prepared to assist in the carrying out of more limited labour availability surveys, and my Department has already co-operated with a number of local organisations which undertook projects of this nature.

There has been no change in the Government's policy towards emigration. That policy is based on the belief that the solution lies in the provision of jobs at home for all our people who wish to the achievement of full emmitted to the achievement of full employment at the earliest possible date and Deputies will be aware of the steps we have taken to intensify our industrial development programme towards this end. In this connection I have referred earlier in my statement to the encouraging employment trends which have emerged over the past year.

However, the NIEC report on full employment pointed out that it will take some years to reach the stage when there will be employment for all at home. Meanwhile some of our people will continue to go abroad for work. There have been complaints from time to time that some of our young people, because of lack of training and advice, are obliged to take unsuitable jobs when they go abroad. I have come to the conclusion that the best way to help is to provide them with adequate information and advice before they leave the country.

Voluntary organisations have been doing excellent work in this field, mostly on very limited resources. A provision of £10,000 has been made in the Estimate to assist these voluntary organisations. I have set up a widely representative committee to advise me on how best this money can be used. Other important functions of the committee are to assist the national manpower service in informing intending emigrants of job opportunities at home, and to devise ways in which voluntary and official agencies can help Irish people abroad who wish to return home to work.

So far as manpower forecasting is concerned, the position is that, for some considerable time to come, we shall be going through a development stage. This was foreshadowed by my predecessor last year when he indicated to the Dáil that nowhere in the world had techniques been developed which enabled reliable manpower forecasts to be produced.

Since the manpower forecasting unit was established in the Department in March, 1968, a careful assessment has been made of the basic information available here for forecasting. It is clear that this information will need to be expanded. The methodology and techniques in use, and in the process of development, in other countries have been studied and the head of the forecasting unit has visited Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands to make on-the-spot checks of the position. He has reported that similar problems exist in those countries. The manpower and social affairs committee of OECD has been concerned at the slow progress being made internationally with the development of forecasting techniques on which policy makers could rely. As a result of discussion in the committee in which the Irish representative took part, a meeting of forecasting experts, at which Ireland will be represented, has been arranged for early next year.

The forecasting unit has, on experimental basis, prepared preliminary labour replacement and labour expansion projections in line with the assumptions underlying the Third Programme. These experiments have highlighted in a practical way the need for improved data for forecasting purposes and for a fuller understanding of the influences affecting labour demand and supply. The unit is working with Metra consulting group on the manpower aspects of the regional technical colleges' study commissioned by the Government. A mathematical model will be developed as part of this latter study and it is expected that over the years, as our data processing sources expand and our modelling becomes more precise, our knowledge of the relationships between the supply of and the demand for technical manpower will greatly increase. One of the functions of the unit will be to up-date the manpower section of this model.

Parallel with these exercises the unit is preparing an occupational classification system to be used by the Department. The proposed system will follow closely the international standard classification of occupations prepared by the International Labour Organisation and the British system which is at present being revised. A detailed classification system of this nature is needed for the placement, guidance and forecasting work of the Department, as the existing lists of occupations will not be adequate for these activities.

The careers information service in my Department has the task of providing information about the various occupations open to persons in this country. A considerable volume of information about careers has been built up and is being published in leaflet form.

Leaflets covering 166 occupations have already been issued and it is hoped to bring the number to about 200 by the end of the year. Irish language versions of the leaflets are available or are being prepared.

The material is distributed free to all schools, libraries, youth clubs and to any other organisations or persons who ask for it.

There has been a steady demand for leaflets. Over 11,000 letters have been dealt with during the past year and we have had thousands of requests from people calling to the Department in person or on the telephone.

The Department is also taking an active part in various exhibitions which feature career opportunities for young people. I might mention here that, when the occasion is appropriate, other functions of the Department are also included in our stand at these exhibitions.

The redundancy payments scheme has now been in operation for almost two years. When the legislation to give effect to this scheme was introduced my predecessor stressed that it was not motivated by an expectation of large-scale redundancies. Experience up to the present has confirmed this. The total number of redundancies under the scheme during the period from 1st January, 1968, when it became operative, to 30th September, was 6,811, comprising 3,863 in 1968 and 2,948 in the first nine months of 1969. This represents, on an annual basis, about .34 per cent of the labour force. Indeed, so small is it that I have been wondering whether adaptation is proceeding at a fast enough pace if Irish industry is to be geared in time to meet the full challenge of free trade.

As regards the benefits accruing from the scheme, lump-sums totalling about £1,000,000 were paid to workers up to 30th September, 1969. Of this £900,000 was paid directly by employers who were recouped to the extent of over £400,000 from the redundancy fund. A total of £100,000 in lump-sums was paid directly from the redundancy fund to employees where employers, for whatever reason, have not met their obligations. The average lump-sum payment made in the 21-month period up to 30th September, 1969 was £149.

Workers who became redundant during the period January, 1968, to September, 1969, received, so far, £476,600 in weekly redundancy payments. The redundancy scheme, as can be seen from the figures I have given, is of great benefit in reducing the hardships resulting from redundancy for workers and their dependants. Deputies will appreciate that payments under the scheme are additional to unemployment benefit or other benefits to which a worker is entitled.

I am pleased to say that the redundancy fund, which is financed by the contributions of employers and workers, is in a very sound condition. Even after the substantial payments made from the redundancy fund since January, 1968, it had a credit balance of approximately £1 million at 30th September, 1969. I think the House will agree that it is desirable to build up and maintain a reserve in the fund against unforeseen contingencies but I do not think we should allow the fund to continue to accumulate too large a surplus.

The incidence of redundancies in the period since the scheme came into operation has been fairly steady and, as no radical increase in the number of redundancies is foreseen, I am satisfied that it will be possible to introduce improvements in the benefits under the scheme without the risk of serious depletion of the redundancy fund. I am considering these improvements at present and I hope to introduce legislation shortly to give effect to them.

In view of the number of representations I receive in individual cases, I think I ought to stress that the decision as to whether or not a particular worker is entitled to a redundancy payment rests, under the Act, with the employer in the first instance. If a worker is dissatisfied with the employer's decision he is entitled to have the matter referred to the redundancy appeals tribunal which determines matters of dispute under the scheme. I would add that my Department endeavours to ensure that workers are made aware of their rights under the scheme, including their right of appeal.

I might add here that in the case of large-scale redundancies special arrangements are made for expeditious payment of the sums due to dismissed workers. Where appropriate a special team is sent from the Department to the firm concerned to speed up redundancy payments and the team includes an official competent to give advice about alternative employment.

The first annual report of the redundancy appeals tribunal, covering the year 1968, was published in July, 1969. From what has been said to me by employer and trade union representatives and from letters I have received I believe that it is accepted by employers and workers alike that the tribunal has dealt satisfactorily with the disputes which have come before it.

I should also say that, in the main, employers have shown a readiness to meet their responsibilities under the Act to workers whom they are obliged to dismiss on redundancy. The great majority of disputes that have arisen about the entitlements to redundancy payments in individual cases have been due to genuine differences of opinion between employers and workers. One example of a question which has been at issue in a number of cases is the length of service of individual workers. Service records seem to be lacking in many firms and I would urge employers, both in their own interests and in fairness to their workers, to remedy this deficiency.

I feel that many employers who recognise their responsibility to employees whose services they no longer require would, if they had guidance on the steps they could take, be willing and anxious to co-operate in arrangements to minimise the impact of redundancy on their employees. With this in mind, I have arranged for consultations with employer and trade union representatives on a code of procedures for dealing with redundancy situations. I envisage that this code of procedures would, for example, recommend to employers that early consultation should take place with employee representatives and that the national manpower service of my Department would be notified of impending redundancies at the earliest possible date, so that efforts could be made to find suitable alternative employment for the workers.

The resettlement allowances scheme, for which provision was included in the Redundancy Payments Act, provides for financial assistance to unemployed persons to move to new areas of employment. Various types of allowances are payable under the scheme —interview grants, travel expenses for the worker and his dependants, household removal expenses, settling-in grants, lodging allowances, grants for the worker to visit his family while awaiting transfer to the new area and grants towards the legal expenses involved in the sale or purchase of a house. In view of these financial aids to resettlement, it may seem surprising that the resettlement scheme has been very little availed of. This can scarcely be due to the rates of benefits provided, as these are quite generous in our circumstances. It is clear that there are other factors. One of these factors is the lack of a tradition of geographical mobility of labour within the country, except to the cities— mainly Dublin—from rural areas. I am hopeful, however, that the resettlement scheme will assist in bringing about a greater degree of desirable mobility of labour and I am reviewing the scope of the scheme in connection with the proposed amendment of the Redundancy Payments Act. I am also in consultation with the Economic and Social Research Institute on a research project about the factors which inhibit internal mobility of labour, having regard particularly to the experience of emigration from certain parts of the country.

The International Labour Organisation—or the ILO as it is popularly known—has been referred to briefly in statements on previous years' Estimates but because the ILO and its member countries are celebrating this year the 50th Anniversary of the founding of that organisation—in fact, the 50th Anniversary of its first meeting is the 29th October—I would like on this occasion to speak more fully about it and its work.

The ILO, as Deputies will be aware, was established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles. It was founded by governments for the purpose of providing international collaboration in securing universal and lasting peace based on social justice, by improving the conditions of labour.

The activities of the ILO are divided into two broad categories. It sets international standards for the protection of workers. It also promotes international technical co-operation and provides technical assistance especially for developing countries. In its early years the role of setting standards was the predominant one but recently the ILO—changing its patterns to meet a changing world—has greatly expanded the scope of its operational activities.

So far, the ILO has adopted 130 conventions and 134 recommendations on questions as diverse as hours of work, minimum age for employment, workmen's compensation, night work in bakeries, social security, non-discrimination in employment, forced labour, contracts of employment, medical examination of young workers and the conduct of employment agencies.

Ireland has ratified 45 of these conventions and is in the process of ratifying a 46th. This ratification record, embracing only approximately one-third of all ILO conventions, may at first sight seem to Deputies to be modest enough but, in fact, it compares favourably with the record of other member countries.

Ireland has participated in the ILO's promotional and operational activities which have assumed major importance in recent years. The provision of expert advice in matters connected with social policy is now directed to a large extent towards developing countries.

Fellowships are sponsored by the ILO to enable administrators in newly emergent countries to gain experience abroad and Ireland has played its part in providing study facilities. Holders of such fellowships from Cyprus, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Syria have been brought here to study our labour and social administration systems. In addition, six experts from this country have served in under-developed countries in recent years under the auspices of the ILO technical assistance propromme.

Ireland's connection with the ILO is of very long standing as we have been members since 1923. It is the first international organisation which we joined. Although Ireland is among the smallest countries in the ILO, it has had the unusual distinction of supplying two Presidents of the annual conference; Deputy Seán Lemass, when Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1937, and the present Taoiseach when Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1962. Another Irishman, the late Edward J. Phelan, was associated with the founding of the ILO and was its Deputy Director-General during the critical years of the second world war and was appointed Director-General in 1946. What is unique about the International Labour Organisation is that its annual conferences are attended by tripartite delegations, consisting of representatives of Governments, employers and workers. The delegates have the same status and participate fully in working out standards which benefit workers throughout the world.

A programme to mark the 50th Anniversary in Ireland has been worked out in consultation with employer and worker representatives. The programme includes the issue of a postage stamp, an art competition and publication of a brochure on Ireland's role in the ILO. To mark the anniversary the Government has also decided to endow a number of fellowships for trainees from developing countries at the centre for advanced technical and vocational training in Turin which is promoted by the ILO.

As Deputies have no doubt heard, the work of the ILO over the last 50 years has recently been marked by the award to the organisation of the Nobel Prize for Peace.

In view of the 50th Anniversary Deputies may wish during the debate on this Estimate to pay their tributes to the very valuable work of the ILO. I shall be happy to convey Deputies' remarks to the Director-General.

The review of the body of protective legislation administered by my Department to which my predecessor referred last year is proceeding and indications as to the lines which future development should follow are emerging. By tradition my Department's responsibilities in the field of worker protection extend to most of our employed population other than those engaged in agriculture.

The existing legislation has developed piece-meal, giving a measure of statutory protection, first to one group of workers, and then a measure — often of a different kind — to another group. It is now contained in a patchwork of Acts dating from 1936 to 1965. These Acts deal with various aspects of a worker's conditions of employment — using that term in its widest sense — but, with only one exception — the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961 — none of them caters for all workers in the non-agricultural sector.

The review shows that the statutory provisions for protecting workers against occupational hazards are uneven and far from consistent in their coverage. I have come to the conclusion that the best way to iron out the inconsistencies is to proceed on the principle that any legislation which provides a minimum of protection in any aspect of a worker's employment conditions should apply to as wide a spectrum of workers as practicable, but that in the interests of simplicity and ease of administration, each of the main aspects of employment conditions should be dealt with in a separate Act. I am accordingly working on a programme of gradually replacing the present Acts with a series of enactments each of which would, like the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961, deal with one main aspect of a worker's conditions of employment.

As my predecessor informed the Dáil last year, work on the revision of the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938, had commenced and there had been already some discussions with workers' and employers' organisations about it. Arising out of the review of the general legislative position which I have just outlined, I felt that the scope of this project should be extended with the aim of producing a new Hours of Work Act which would in general cover the whole non-agricultural sector. Outline proposals for such an Act are at present being prepared in the Department and I hope to have them circulated to workers' and employers' organisations in the near future.

A start has also been made on preparing revised safety, health and welfare legislation, which I hope, again, would apply to all workers. Information is being collected on similar legislation in a number of countries whose circumstances are comparable with ours to see if we can avail of their experience.

Consultations have been continuing with workers' and employers' organisations on the proposed legislation to give workers a statutory entitlement to a minimum period of notice of termination of employment and a right to written particulars of their terms of employment. I hope to introduce the legislation to the House in a few months' time.

My Department has also completed the preparation of a Dangerous Substances Bill. This Bill, which has a public safety content, as well as providing for protection of workers, will deal with the manufacture, import, transport and sale of explosives, petroleum and petroleum products and dangerous substances generally. It is my intention to introduce the Bill in this session.

The main function of the factory inspectorate is to ensure that workers in industry, including those engaged in building and construction, enjoy safe working conditions and proper welfare facilities. The inspectorate seeks to prevent accidents, health risks and occupational diseases in industry by giving advice and guidance to assist management and workers in complying with the requirements of the Factories Act. Where necessary, enforcement action is taken through the courts.

Following a full-scale review of the factory inspectorate my predecessor decided to build up the strength of the unit from 28 to 46 officers to enable it to operate effectively as a safety advisory and accident prevention service for industry. A competition for a number of posts in the inspectorate is at present in progress and further competitions will be arranged as soon as practicable by the Civil Service Commissioners for the filling of the other vacancies.

Various occupational hazards now arise from technical processes in industry. New occupational risks also stem from technological innovations in manufacturing and processing plants and the use of potentially dangerous materials, including chemicals, is extending into many sectors of industry where such things were unknown a few years ago. To enable the inspectorate to cope with this important aspect of its functions it will be necessary to enlist the service of a medical officer qualified in this field. As a first step, I am arranging for a survey to be made of the existing occupational health hazards in industry as soon as I can arrange for professional advice to supplement the skills already available to the factory inspectorate.

Despite the increased number of premises registered on 30th September, 1968—13,658 as compared with 13,051 the previous year—and the corresponding rise in the number of workers coming within the scope of the industrial safety legislation, the overall number of accidents reported, at 2,711 was slightly less than in the previous year. Twenty fatal accidents were reported as against 22 during the previous 12 months. Indications are that the figures for the year ended the 30th September, 1969, to be published in the next report of the factory inspectorate, will be about the same as for last year. In comparing these figures Deputies will bear in mind that the number of workers coming within the scope of the Factories Act continues to increase.

I regret to say that the response to the campaign launched over a year ago by my predecessor in co-operation with the National Industrial Safety Organisation to get more safety committees set up in industry has been disappointing. Only 111 committees existed on 30th September, 1969—the same number as a year ago, or a net increase of 12 compared with two years ago. This experience will have to be borne in mind in a review of the Factories Act, 1955, which will fall to be made soon.

The National Industrial Safety Organisation has been endeavouring for the past six years to promote safety consciousness in industry—by running training courses for foremen and other supervisory personnel, by exhibitions and by the distribution of safety posters and other literature. Last year it began publication of a two-monthly journal called Sciath which is distributed to affiliated organisations.

Heretofore NISO has been paid a grant-in-aid of up to £2,000 from subhead K of this Vote, on a £1 for £1 basis related to subscriptions raised from member firms, trade unions and insurance companies. The secretariat is provided by the Department.

Last year the organisation made a case for a higher State grant to supplement its subscriptions from affiliated firms, so that it could operate more effectively as a safety service, thus complementing the official safety advisory and accident prevention service of the factory inspectorate. Provision has, therefore, been made in subhead K of the Vote for a grant-in-aid to NISO for 1969-70 of up to £10,000—on the basis of £4 from the Exchequer for each £1 of subscription income—to enable the organisation to expand the scope of its activities substantially. It is my hope that NISO, functioning on this larger scale, will be able to win far greater financial support from at least the larger firms than has heretofore been forthcoming.

The rest of what I would like to say today refers to the closely inter-related subjects of industrial relations and trends in wages and salaries. First, I will deal with industrial relations.

1969 will go down in history as the year of the maintenance strike, and this dispute undoubtedly overshadows all recent events in the industrial relations sphere. The settlement of that dispute has also become a pivotal factor in the growth of incomes. I do not think that it would be useful for me to dwell on the features of the dispute which has already been the subject of a number of investigations, including the official inquiry undertaken by Mr. Con Murphy, the results of which were recently published. I think it is enough to recall that the dispute resulted in losses of about 630,000 man days, gross production of over £13,000,000, exports of almost £3½ million, wages of nearly £1½ million, that it cost trade union funds over £400,000, and that for every man on strike there were another 12 out of work because of the strike.

This country has got for itself an unenviably bad reputation for losses due to strikes in recent years and the maintenance dispute by itself, has ensured that this bad reputation will, not alone be maintained, but become even worse, for 1969. The total number of man-days lost in 1969 up to the end of September was about 760,000. This compares with 405,000 in 1968 and 182,000 in 1967.

One of the proposals which emerged from discussions at the National Industrial Economic Council about our industrial relations situation was that detailed inquiries should be carried out into major disputes. Apart from the inquiries into the maintenance dispute, full scale inquiries have now been held into certain major disputes in the last few years in Bord na Móna, the ESB and the EI Company, Shannon. The report of the inquiry into the disputes in Bord na Móna by Mr. Charles Mulvey was published last autumn and the final report of the committee of inquiry into industrial relations in the ESB under Professor Fogarty was published early this year. The report of the inquiry into the EI dispute was not published but the dispute has been settled to the satisfaction of the parties. These reports have thrown a good deal of light on industrial relations in the undertakings concerned and have resulted in various recommendations mainly addressed to the managements and trade unions in these undertakings. It would be too much to hope that all the conclusions reached by the various investigators would be freely accepted by the parties concerned. It is my hope, however, that these studies will contribute to improved industrial relations in these important undertakings.

My predecessor introduced two Bills dealing with industrial relations early this year. The Industrial Relations Act, 1969, became law in June last, but the Trade Union Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the last Dáil. The main features of the Industrial Relations Act are power to appoint additional members of the Labour Court; inclusion of members of the court on public service arbitration boards; certain changes in the procedures of the court; powers to appoint rights commissioners to investigate trade disputes, mainly of a disciplinary character; provision for rules of fair employment; access to the Labour Court to a wider range of persons employed in the public service; strengthening of enforcement procedures of registered employment agreements; and dissolution of the statutory tribunals for dealing with pay and other conditions of employees in the ESB.

The appointment of additional members of the Labour Court is tied up with the inclusion of members of the court on public service arbitration tribunals and this will require amendment of the various conciliation and arbitration schemes. It will probably be some time before these appointments are necessary. I hope to appoint a rights commissioner or commissioners in the future. The question of making fair employment rules will be pursued by the Labour Court. The Minister for Finance has made an order under the new Act the effect of which is to give access to the Labour Court to a large number of public service grades which are not covered by the Civil Service conciliation and arbitration scheme. Negotiations are proceeding to set up a non-statutory body to deal with pay claims, etc., in the ESB to replace the dissolved statutory tribunals.

As regards the lapsed Trade Union Bill, since it was given a Second Reading in the House, discussions have taken place between officers of my Department and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. As a result of these discussions, various parts of the text are being re-examined. It is my intention to introduce a revised version of this Bill which will contain the same general ideas as were in the lapsed Bill, but will have regard also to the points raised by congress.

I have been under pressure by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to introduce a Bill to deal with what is known as the Educational Company case, i.e., a Supreme Court ruling against protection for picketing to enforce trade union membership. I have already made it clear in the House that I would be prepared to have a review undertaken of the whole law relating to picketing which would cover the issues raised in the Educational Company case. This is still my attitude on this matter and if congress and employer bodies are prepared to participate in such a review I will be glad to initiate it. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have also asked that the question of legislation to facilitate trade union amalgamations should be considered and I am having this matter examined.

My predecessor as Minister for Labour put before the Houses of the Oireachtas the thesis that the main function of the Minister for Labour should be to set up institutions and procedures to help the parties concerned in industrial relations to reach their own decisions. These institutions and procedures should so operate that all relevant information and facilities are made available to the parties concerned, but the ultimate decisions are matters for settlement by these parties under the collective bargaining system. I will regard it as my responsibility, as Minister for Labour, to keep these procedures and institutions under constant review to see what can be done to improve the situation. There is no doubt, based on our record, that we have tremendous room for improvement, but as long as basic freedoms are to be maintained in the bargaining arena, a Minister can only introduce changes to the extent that these are acceptable to, and will be operated by, the parties mainly concerned. I hope that the results of this continuous review will be regular series of improvements, backed, where appropriate, by changes in the law. The next step will be the introduction of the revised Trade Union Bill. The reviews I have referred to of the law relating to picketing and amalgamations of trade unions should lay the basis for further legislation later.

The position of the Labour Court and the industrial relations service (formerly the conciliation service) in the area of industrial relations is of great importance. The Industrial Relations Act, 1969, has introduced certain changes in the procedures of the court and the functions of the conciliation service, but these are not of a radical character. Unfortunately, the rejection rate of court's recommendations continues to be very high. In 1968, the court issued 139 recommendations of which 53 were rejected by trade unions and ten by employers. In the first six months of 1969 the court issued 41 recommendations of which 19 have been rejected by trade unions and two by employers. I see this rejection rate as evidence of a continuing decline in the status of the court and as a matter of serious concern. There is here a continuation of the pattern which induced the Government, in the Third Programme, to declare that, if those who use the court were to continue to regard it as little more than a stage in the bargaining process, then the status of the court would diminish to the point at which its retention might have to be questioned.

If the court is to serve a useful purpose as an institution, further steps may have to be taken to build it up to function as a body which will command the respect of employers and trade unions. In the short time I have been responsible for this service I have been wondering how an improvement could be secured, for example, by giving the court additional functions, or by changing the way in which its members are appointed. Or it may be that the court itself, which is an independent body and includes members nominated by the central employer and trade union organisations, could do more to get acceptance for itself as the national authority in the field of industrial relations. The problem of the usefulness of the court and its associated agencies is one to which I propose to give a good deal of consideration in the near future.

Turning now to trends in wages and salaries, we immediately come up against the pay increases granted as a result of the maintenance dispute. This settlement gave increases of 1/3d an hour from 6th January, 1969, and 6d an hour from 7th July, 1969, the agreement to terminate on 30th June, 1970. These increases on a 40-hour week basis amounted to £2 10s a week from 6th January, 1969, and a further £1 a week from 7th July, 1969, or roughly 15 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. It is worth noting at this point that the Government issued a statement in January, 1969, appealing for moderation in the growth of incomes in 1969. This statement, which was laid before the Dáil and widely published and commented on in the press, radio and television, argued that increases in incomes in 1969 should be related to the expected growth in national production, which at the time was estimated to be of the order of 4 per cent to 4½ per cent. It is quite clear that, whatever considerations determined the maintenance settlement, the Government view of January, 1969, was not one of them.

Following the settlement of this dispute, the Minister for Finance and my predecessor had talks with the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Our main aims in these talks were, firstly, to prevent the upsetting of existing eleventh round agreements, many of which ran to the end of 1969, or later, and, secondly, to urge that the scale of the maintenance settlement should not be used as a headline for other wage settlements. The first aim has, in the main, been achieved so far at any rate and it is only fair to acknowledge the part played by responsible trade union leaders in this. I will deal with the question of the second aim later.

Another favourable development which originated in the talks between the Ministers for Finance and Labour and the trade unions was the negotiation of the agreement affecting personnel in the public service. This gave increases of three per cent to four per cent, with additional payments to certain lower paid groups. The scale of the increases granted under this agreement was, I think, reasonably in line with the views of the Government as outlined in the January statement. However, this agreement runs only until the 31st March, 1970.

Since the maintenance settlement, pay agreements similar in pattern and scale have been negotiated in a number of other employments. The maintenance increases have been given to various classes of skilled workers in the public service. A new agreement affecting all workers in the building industry clearly reflects the maintenance increases and the same can be said of the re-negotiation of a number of other agreements which have expired in the last few months. The main body of eleventh round pay agreements has still to be re-negotiated, particularly those affecting manufacturing industry. It is too soon yet to say what the final pattern will be, but those in touch with developments think that the maintenance agreement will be a significant factor. The crux of the situation is whether undertakings generally, and particularly those in the manufacturing sector, can stand cost increases of this order without loss of competitiveness, with resultant loss of business, particularly in export markets; any such developments would, of course, reduce workers' earnings and even endanger employment.

The general economic situation and the trends in wages and salaries were recently discussed by the Minister for Finance and myself with the FUE and the ICTU and it is our intention that further discussions in the matter should take place. I cannot say that these discussions have so far given any real basis for hoping that a serious inflationary increase in incomes can be avoided but we will continue to seek ways of meeting these problems in the future discussions. Employee income increased by 10½ per cent in 1968 and is expected to increase by over 10 per cent in 1969. National production grew by over five per cent in 1968 and is expected to grow by about four per cent in 1969. The increase in average industrial earnings was over 13 per cent between June, 1968, and June, 1969. The consumer price index increased by nearly 8½ per cent between August, 1968 and August, 1969. It is clear that increases in pay have contributed largely to the increases in prices. If the current trends in wages and salaries continue, the comparable statistics in a year's time may reflect an even more disturbing situation.

I would put it to Deputies that the situation we find ourselves in raises these main issues. First, what economic damage is going to come from the maintenance settlement and its effects on the pay situation generally? Second, can we survive this damage? Third, can we do anything at this stage to mitigate the effects? And fourth what do we do when, what, for want of a better term, I can only call the 12th round has worked its way through the various employments?

That the maintenance agreement and its consequences may slow down the rate of growth and impair our prospects of increasing employment and reducing emigration is now clear enough. The warning signals are already there with our widening trade gap, our growing balance of payments deficit and the developments in regard to credit and the availability of capital. In assessing the possible effects we shall be observing the growth in wages and unit costs in the other countries with which we trade, particularly Great Britain. It is a reflection of the precariousness of our situation that we have to rely on inflation in other countries to enable us to survive inflation in our own.

There are various ways in which the impact of the maintenance dispute and its repercussions could be lessened in the re-negotiation of the agreements which expire in the next few months. The circumstances of individual firms, particularly subject to strong competition in home and export markets, should be given greater weight. Increases in pay could be spread over longer periods than have been negotiated in the maintenance agreement and some other recent settlements. I would suggest that agreements spread over two and a half to three years should be aimed at, with the increases spread over a number of phases. Every effort should be made to introduce productivity clauses into agreements. The question of increases for salaried classes will present further problems, particularly when the public sector agreements expire on 31st March, 1970.

Whatever the outcome of the 12th round and whatever can be done to mitigate its damage to the economy, the community as a whole will have to pause and think again when the round is completed. There will have to be a reasonable interval to give national production a chance to catch up in the race with incomes. Careful management and understanding by trade unions of the circumstances of particular industries, together with Providence and a lot of luck, may bring us through the 12th round somehow but the results of a further round which might follow soon after would surely be disastrous. We all know that the maintenance agreement expires on the 30th June, 1970. This may be the amount of time we have left to get the situation under control if we are not to succumb to the threat of runaway inflation.

I should like to mention at this point a subject which seems to have dropped from the public eye recently, that of lower paid workers. The Government, in their statement of January last, said that they were prepared to support the initiation of a movement to improve the pay level of lower paid workers, particularly male adult workers. The agreements negotiated this year for the public service fulfilled this undertaking, so far as State employees are concerned. The public service unions and staff associations gave their full support to this development. However, I do not see any evidence that anything comparable has happened outside the public service. In fact it can be said that what has happened as a result of the maintenance settlement and its consequences, has made sure that the lower paid worker will be left still farther behind. While income increases far in excess of national growth are being extracted by better-off classes, including better paid workers, through the use of economic power, very little can be done in pay negotiations to help the lower paid, because, within the system of free collective bargaining, which employers and trade unions operate, the lower paid have so little industrial strength.

I think I have said enough about the incomes situation to emphasise that it can become a good deal more serious if the problems involved are not tackled by all concerned in a constructive way. The search for a way out of these difficulties is a constant pre-occupation of myself, my Department and indeed the entire Government. These problems are also receiving a great deal of attention from other bodies, including the National Industrial Economic Council. The council have been devoting a lot of time to a study of possible institutional arrangements for implementing an incomes policy. The Government are hopeful that the council, which includes representatives of the main bodies concerned with these problems, can come up with some helpful ideas.

To those who are calling for strong Government action to deal with the incomes situation I can only say that this is a problem which the whole community must solve and not the Government alone. The Government can certainly give a lead but success cannot be guaranteed without the full support of the community. Somehow, we must convince all concerned that radical improvements must be made in the handling of our incomes problems. If public opinion, and particularly opinion in representative bodies, would accept the facts of the situation and accept also the logic of doing something to help solve the problems, we would be able to make a fresh start towards securing regular growth in real incomes all round, along with real progress towards full employment.

The overall picture which I wish to present to the Dáil at this time is one of rising employment, of slowly falling unemployment, of reducing emigration, of real improvements in pay and living standards, but also of a serious risk of an interruption in these favourable trends through pressure of income increases which are dangerously in excess of the country's economic growth.

If we are to have any chance of realising the hopes we all share for the future of our people, the causes of our troubles must be dealt with and some better way found to achieve orderly increases in employment and incomes without the evils of inflation and industrial strife. I am certain that if we all approach the task with confidence and with a real resolve to agree on equitable arrangements and to operate them afterwards with a sense of fair play to all, we shall be successful.

At the end of his statement the Minister said:

The overall picture which I wish to present to the Dáil at this time is one of rising employment, of slowly falling unemployment, of reducing emigration...

The position is that we still have not got the same number of insurable jobs as we had. This is said every year, but we are not given the total number of insurable jobs. Three or four statistics are mentioned, but not the main one. The first part of the statement dealt with AnCO and rightly so because AnCO are responsible for approximately 50 per cent of the total net cost of the Department of Labour Vote. The Minister mentioned there was training at all levels and that AnCO have taken four sectors—engineering, textiles, construction industries and one other—which cover 70 per cent of workers. There is another sector which covers 30 per cent. This is the food and pharmaceutical industry. I wonder could the Minister tell us when this will be covered by AnCO. He also said that at present there were 250 adults undergoing training for semi-skilled industrial work at these centres. I did not read that in the AnCO report, but later on I will come to it.

The Minister mentioned that there were 200 apprentices receiving first year full-time training at the Waterford and Galway centres. I feel that vocational authorities could provide this training quite easily and that we are duplicating the work. He did say AnCO would get them into training in various industries, but we are still duplicating this work. He said they have improved methods of training. I agree, but this could have been done through the vocational authorities. He spoke about the success of the apprenticeship scheme. I think it is successful but I wonder whether it is sufficiently successful. He said there is a 12 per cent increase over the last year's figure. I thought it was nine or ten per cent, but I may be wrong in this.

I should like to congratulate AnCO on the production of their brochure or report. It was very comprehensive and set out what they are trying to do.

The Minister's statements on the calibre of our managers were very much to the point and very correct. This is one field in which we have failed over the years. He mentioned a figure of £90,000 for the Irish Management Institute, who provide courses for managers and various supervisory grades. This is probably one of the most essential things we could do in this country, because we have lacked top-class management. I hope that when the Management Institute are giving these lectures they emphasise industrial relations. A dispute is a lot easier to fix at the beginning than at the end and they should pay more attention on the factory floor before a dispute breaks.

The Minister mentioned a provision of £100,000 for the hotel business. He said that this represents an increase of £20,000 in the grant provided for CERT in 1968/69. I consider this the proper way to disburse this money, through the Department of Labour. The hotel business is one business that we should without any doubt subsidise not alone because of the money it brings into the country but also because of the employment it gives. It would be a tremendous thing if we could have what they have in certain parts of Germany — family-style hotels. The family works in these hotels and the cost is cheaper for the person staying. That would entice people into the country. I have seen this type of hotel in Bavaria.

I agree that the national manpower service is one of the most essential things and I consider that AnCO have gone about this in the proper way. Until such time as we get all the surveys, or even the semi-surveys the Minister mentioned, we will not know what way labour is moving in the country. As the Minister said, it is quite easy to change jobs in the city of Dublin but throughout the country it is a completely different thing.

The Minister mentioned female labour. I shall have more to say about this later on but I feel the Minister did not do anything to rectify the situation. This can be done by bringing their pay up to that of the male employee for equal work done. I also believe that the Minister for Finance should look at the system of taxation for married women.

The Minister mentioned that the way to improve the emigration situation was to create jobs at home and that the Government's policy on full emment was to try to do this and that they would need a lot of money invested in the country to improve the situation. However, in the meantime people should be better trained for when they go abroad. The miserable £10,000 that he has given is absolutely stupid, in my opinion. It is £10,000 to do what? To set up a committee with no answer to the problem whatsoever. At the moment in England, and this was mentioned a short time ago in the debate on External Affairs, there are people willing to run these centres— religious or voluntary organisations. What they want is a capital injection to start them going, not help year after year. These Irish centres should be supported. Putting it off from year to year will not do. It comes up every year on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs. It has come up for the past two years on the Estimate for the Department of Labour. It is now time for us to do something constructive, not to set up a committee and pay £10,000 to find out something we already know. By calling up a centre at Leeds, Liverpool or London one can find out all about this. People went over to England, particularly country people, because they listened to their friends coming back from England and telling them falsehoods. They went over expecting that every place would be open to them. Usually, they were unprepared for what they found. If they had been prepared they would know what they had to face but sometimes they went over with no money and were stuck with any job they could get. The extra training they will get here now will help them to get a better type of job; but if we in Ireland or the employment exchange could send them to a centre in London, they would be helped to a much greater extent than just getting off the boat and ending up in London. If they were trained going across and if they were helped at one of these centres they would be always available if this country wanted them back and could offer them more money. At present, if they go across and if they succeed in getting a good job they are not interested in coming back since they have had to struggle so hard to get established in England. In the long run, it would pay us better to give a capital sum to these centres rather than mess around with £10,000.

Having read the report from AnCo and the Minister's speech I must congratulate AnCo for having gone to every possible country to pick the brains of people who have already tried these schemes and have encountered certain difficulties and problems.

The Third Programme was also mentioned. I am not a great believer in it. It may display more knowledge than was displayed in the Second; indeed it could not be any worse. The careers information service is probably in its infancy and will grow quite a lot. The Department did a very good job in advertising this and those involved are to be congratulated. Here again, there is much more to be done.

I was glad to hear the Minister say he would probably increase redundancy payments in the future. This is good but I also believe the time has come—the Minister may not have taken this into account—when the person earning over £1,200 should be entitled to redundancy payments. If this were done it might absorb much of the £1 million. As regards the appeals committees on redundancy the Minister said there had been very little objection from either side and I agree that they have been very satisfactory. I had one complaint myself but there was nothing to be done about it, as the only alternative was to appeal to the High Court and that would be on a point of law. I am glad to see that the resettlement allowances are to be improved but we cannot say much about this until we see the extent of the improvement.

I shall say something about the International Labour Organisation later on. The increase in the number of factory inspectors from 28 to 46 was very much needed. This is borne out by the drop in the number of accidents because of the extra inspectors. The Minister said that he would increase this number, and I think he should do so because the number working in industries has increased. He pointed out that in September, 1968, it was 13,658 as compared with 13,051 the previous year. We need more inspectors in factories. By having more inspectors you tend to eliminate unfair competition. You can get a factory that does not bother about safety regulations, or skimps on them, producing at the risk of their workers an article much cheaper than their competitors. If this is avoided you give the industries a common starting point. One cannot then undercut the other.

The Minister said he was unhappy about the industrial safety organisation and the safety committees in industry. Last year Deputy Tully asked the Minister if he expected workers after a day's work, to start working again on this matter. Surely this is a job for the inspectors? I could not see workers sitting down to deal with this item. If it was a works council dealing with this and other conditions on the floor I could imagine the workers including safety as one of the items, but they certainly would not sit down after a day's work to worry about safety. They forget about it. When you are working in a premises for some time you forget about safety regulations. This is a job that must be done by the Department. The industrial safety organisation has been instructing foremen and supervisory personnel. This is good but I still think the inspectors must do the job to impress the importance of safety regulations on the managers and workers and to keep factories and employers on their toes in this regard. I am glad the Minister has increased the grant to the NISO to £10,000, making it £4 to £1 as against £1 to £1.

The Minister said that this was one of the worst years for industrial relations. I do not think that it was quite the worst — 1964 and 1966 were worse. There were 630 man days lost in the maintenance strike. One thing that struck me during that strike was that the Minister for Labour should have got in touch with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to this aspect of it: while the strike was on, foreign competitors of Irish firms brought in products that hitherto were scarcely imported here at all or only on a very small scale. For example, a biscuit company employed seven new travellers while the strike was on. They were getting a market for their biscuits which meant that, when the strike was over, another company would be left with that much less of the market. If there is a strike here, it is a temporary thing. Employers and employees may be bitter at the time but, in the long run, the employee's job is at stake. When, for instance, you allow a large quantity of biscuits into the country, that will absorb a certain amount of the market and ultimately a certain number of jobs will be lost. No action was taken or very little was done in this case. I thought that at least the future of these workers should have been considered.

I am glad to see the post mortem on the various industrial strikes that have occurred here. It has thrown up many ideas. I wonder how many the Government have taken heed of? I wonder how many points suggested by the various people on these inquiries have been put into force by the Government? To my knowledge none. In the Fogarty Report it was suggested that the workers should have representation on the board. I have heard nothing about it since. If a report suits the Government they use it, and if it does not they do not use it. When a report is made tremendous heed should be paid to it and so far as possible it should be put into force.

When the Industrial Relations Bill was going through the Dáil I felt that a rights commission and conciliation officials would be appointed straight away. Are we to wait until the strike is here or until a number of strikes are here? Deputy Tully and I said last year that there were not enough personnel in the Labour Court. If a number of disputes come up and mediation has to be put off until a certain day in the week, or even a fortnight hence, this makes the situation a lot worse. These men should be appointed. Surely even a conservative estimate of the number of people required in the Department of Labour can be made?

The Minister mentioned that he had been under pressure from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to introduce a Bill to deal with what is known as the Educational Company case. I know that the trade unions are very concerned about this and I think it was suggested that it was against the Constitution. I think the Constitution overrules it. There would have to be a change in the Constitution and not just a promise by the Minister or by the Department.

Which Bill?

The Educational Company case. I think it is a constitutional matter. I think there would have to be a referendum, and we have had enough of them already.

We were promised a Bill on it.

I thought it was a constitutional matter.

We were promised a Bill dealing with this question by Deputy Lemass but we have not got it yet.

A Bill would not overrule the constitutional question.

I am not a constitutional lawyer but I gathered that a Bill would have suited.

The Minister said that in 1968 the Labour Court made 139 recommendations, of which 53 were rejected by trade unions and ten by employers. I agree with the Minister that in some cases either the trade unions or the employers use the court as a stepping stone to bargaining. I think this is completely wrong. I agree with the Minister that in the long run it will do more harm to both sides if they do not go prepared to settle as far as possible. We cannot guarantee that it will be 100 per cent successful.

The Minister surmises that wage increases will continue and I will have something to say about that later on. We usually get a comparison of the number of man hours lost in the public sector as against the private sector. We did not get that information this year. Over the years from 1964 to 1966 1¼ million man hours were lost in the public sector and very little was lost in the private sector. That has probably been reversed this year. I should like to get that comparison in the Minister's reply.

There is no doubt that unless we can automate our export production we will get into considerable trouble because I do not think the wage increases in other countries have been anything like the wage increases here. Most of the wage increases here were caused by the Government spending too much money. The Government have created this inflation by squeezes and by indirect taxation.

The Minister asked four six mark questions:

I would put it to Deputies that the situation we find ourselves in raises these main issues. First, what economic damage is going to come from the maintenance settlement and its effects on the pay situation generally? Second, can we survive this damage?

We have to do that some way. He went on:

Third, can we do anything at this stage to mitigate the effects? And fourth, what do we do when, what, for want of a better term, I can only call the 12th round has worked its way through the various employments?

This has been the pattern. The Fine Gael Party have been at the Government regularly over the past two or three years to provide an incomes policy and, even further, an incomes policy tied to a manpower policy. We asked for this. The previous Minister said "No". The Minister for Finance on television some six months later said: "Yes, we will have to have an incomes policy." The NIEC considered this and supported it but their recommendation did not suit the Government at the time so they did not put it into force. Now they are coming around to it. They come around to everything when it is almost too late. An incomes policy based on manpower is the only way of having any control, and this control must go right through. I am not speaking solely about the wage earner. I am speaking about salary earners and people who collect incomes of all descriptions.

The Minister has not mentioned that he will introduce a Bill dealing with the minimum period of notice. This should be tied to the number of years a person has worked in a premises or a business or in industry or whatever it might be. The redundancy payments are worked on this system and this could be worked out some way with a pensions scheme.

Again I presume the Government will not bother about it until it is too late, but I believe that a national pension scheme should now be introduced. If this is not done there will be leap-frogging in the pensions scheme such as we have in wages, with one wage agreement in June, another in July, and another in August, with the result that we do not know what increases are coming. A national pension scheme should be tied in when there is a high increase in wages. This is the time to tie it in because no matter who pays for the pension scheme—let it be the workers or the employers—it comes originally from the workers and the man who pays, the customer. Therefore this should be tied in with a wage increase. The minimum period of notice should be tied in with the years of service.

I had intended asking the Minister had he seen any improvement in industrial relations. The maintenance strike was on during our discussions on the Industrial Relations Bill. I think the Minister is about to appoint a rights commissioner but this appointment should be made straight away. This man must get used to his job.

The Minister said he has not picked him yet. He may be saving a few pounds, but the man must get into his job and gain a certain amount of experience so that he will be ready when a case comes up. If the Minister does not appoint him for another three or four months, they will then be inundated with the various claims, they will have no experience and could make many mistakes. Now is the time to get them so that they will be versed properly in the job they are to do.

There is mention here of the question of contracts of employment. There was much talk about this during the last industrial relations legislation. I heard nothing about it since. The sooner this comes in the better. When the Industrial Relations Bill was going through, Deputy Tully made some very good points. He said that when a contract is being made over two or three years, six months or three months before the contract was due to expire, employer and employee should start negotiating for a new contract. As Deputy Tully said, it is very hard to make an agreement when men are out of work, and negotiation should be under way in good time instead of waiting until a week or ten days before the contract is due to expire. I do not know whether we should legislate for this, but at least there should be some agreement between the parties when they make their contract.

Another suggestion made by Deputy Tully and Deputy O'Leary was that there should be a public hearing. Many things can be gained by a public hearing. First of all, it is reported in the paper and many business people and trade unionists will read it. Deputy Tully made what I consider to be a very good point in support of his suggestion. He said that if he was negotiating, say, for Dublin County Council and it took two months to get agreement in the Labour Court, he would then have to go to Wicklow, to Cork, in fact, to all the 27 councils in Ireland and would be working the whole year where one case and one report would do to fix the whole thing up.

There are matters dealt with by other Departments which affect the Department of Labour very much. For instance, the increase in children's allowances was brought in, I shall not say as a gimmick, but certainly at the wrong time. This increase in children's allowances was brought in shortly before an election. In order to help the Department of Labour such an increase should be brought in before a big demand is in the offing. The maintenance strike was looming up and if in the Budget before last the children's allowance had been increased many of these people who were seeking increased wages would now have got some portion of it and would have cut down their demand. Very often the people in a trade union who push for increased wages are those with a big family or in bad circumstances who have big repayments on their house. Children's allowances help to even up the spending power of a family and such increases should be brought in before any big wage demand.

This also applies to pension schemes. The worker nowadays is a well educated man and he knows a pension scheme will help him in the future. At the moment he is probably paying out so much in insurance and if he gets the benefit of a pension scheme he will not have to pay this insurance money and so it will not cost him anything extra. Again if a man earning £17 a week is paying £7 or £8 a week on a new house, this will make him look for an increase and put pressure on trade union officials. The Minister congratulated workers on holding their hand; I do likewise, but they will not hold their hand much longer when this type of pressure is built up. In 1948 there was a £275 grant introduced to help this type of person so that the cost of living would not get out of hand. The grant is still £275 but the Government has collected approximately £410 back on wholesale tax and turnover tax, so that the worker has £130 less while houses are three times the price. That is why he has to look for more money.

On the question of manpower, there is a development in other countries though it is not quite the same as what I want to suggest. Where the Department of Industry and Commerce give a very big grant to a person, the Government should have at least one person there to keep the Department of Labour informed so that if things are not going so well the Department of Labour could set up a new factory in that area to take up the unemployed people instead of giving them redundancy payments which is only a glorified dole; I know it is in addition to the dole, but it only keeps a man from starving for a couple of weeks. It should be possible, where it is known that a big industry is going to flop, for the Department of Labour to introduce a factory through the Department of Industry and Commerce or to start something in that vicinity to help them.

Another point is the question of co-operation between the Department of Education and the Department of Labour. I have a case of a boy who got a corporation scholarship and was told what school to go to. He went to this school, and he wanted to become an electrician. He got his intermediate certificate with honours; he got Irish, English and mathematics. In this school they do not do science, so he cannot become an electrician. That is the regulation laid down by the Department.

I had occasion to go to the then Minister for Education, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on behalf of four people who asked me if I could get their sons into St. Joseph's School, Marino. They were going to school in Donnycarney and wanted to go to the school in Griffith Avenue, two miles away, the reason being that the parents went there. I wrote to the Department of Education and was told: "No, it cannot be done." These children are controlled as to where they can go, first of all, by the Minister and the manager of the school. They must go to this school no matter what is taught because they have a corporation grant. Here is the case of a boy who has honours in his intermediate but not science, willing to do science alone as a subject, because he cannot become an electrician without science. He goes across to the day group certificate only to find that the subject is not transferable so he has to repeat all the subjects. This means he will have to waste who wanted to become a teacher but a year. I heard of the case of a girl she failed singing—she was sick—and she had to repeat the whole year. I know singing is an essential subject for a girl, but the Department will not get them a second chance, instead they prefer to waste the girl's time, her parent's time and the country's time. There is no co-ordination between the Departments and I am surprised at this because most of the recommendations which the Minister read out were good. I hope these are things which will be done and that it is not just wishful thinking.

The AnCo report is very comprehensive and very well done and I should like to congratulate those responsible. However, I do have a few things to say against it. One thing that we should have had many years ago, but the Government did not bother about it, is an assembled organisation for training for industry. A centre has now been created in Dublin to train instructors. The Minister's Department has given £90,000 to the Irish Management Institute for this purpose. I think this is a very worthwhile project and I should like to congratulate both the Department and AnCO for going to Northern Ireland, Sweden and Denmark to look at the systems in operation there so that we might avoid some of the pitfalls which other countries fell into. Their ambition to make the standard of training in Ireland second to none in the world is a very good one but I think we need to speed things up somewhat.

AnCO have gone into marketing management and on page 11 of the second annual report they outline five points to be considered:

(1) Market research to discover the product the customer needs and can be persuaded to buy;

(2) Development of the product in the forms required by different sections of the market;

(3) Market promotion to demonstrate the successful product;

(4) Development of appropriate sales outlets inside and outside firms;

(5) A pre- and after-sales service.

This is something which many people forget. The success of the German and Japanese motor industries is due to their after-sales service and if we are creating for export we must develop after-sales service.

The Minister has forecast that we shall have 2,000 people by 1970 in the various training centres, but I should like to know how soon we will be able to get to this figure because to date we have a very small number and many are duplicating the vocational schools in my opinion.

The Minister promised last year that new exchanges would be set up in Bantry, Bandon and Drogheda before the next report and I should like the Minister to tell us when this will happen.

The figures in the AnCo report show that there were 90 trainees and nine instructors in Shannon and 100 apprentices or trainees—they do not say—and ten instructors in Waterford.

I should like to know how many people between the ages of 45 and 50 years are being retrained. Can the Minister give us a figure or is it just a matter of picking out a few here and there? Surely it is important that we should know and that people in that age group should know what chances they have of being retrained. Otherwise all such a person can do is to get his redundancy money and go to England.

I should like to deal briefly with the administration of this body. There are the chairman, the vice-chairman, the union and employer representatives. There are 86 people in the personnel department. There are eight placement and guidance officers and a number of typists, who are all directly concerned in this section of AnCO. I should like the Minister to give the House a breakdown. The figure for AnCO, given this year, is £955,000. This covers Galway, Shannon and Waterford. There is a sum of £420,000 which includes allowances to trainees, scholarships and so on, and there is another figure of £110,000. Can the Minister tell us how much of this is non-recurring? In the future will such money be used for purposes other than building offices?

So far, the main content of training centres has been apprentices. In this context I often wonder, in passing, if Galway and Waterford were the proper places for these industrial estates and also whether these are the right centres in which to put these trainees. The vocational schools have been doing this and the Department of Labour are trying to do it now. Is there not serious and wasteful duplication? There are approximately 3,000 industries in Ireland and after two years we have only between 280 and 290 people catered for in AnCO. That is approximately one-tenth of a person per business. I know there is in-trade training but I wonder if we could bring the facilities of the vocational school in this respect under the Department of Labour or bring the Department's training scheme into the vocational schools. As I have said, there is duplication at the moment.

The Fogarty report on the ESB mentions worker-participation. The day has gone when you will see a worker sitting outside the union office waiting for someone to come and say a job is waiting for him, just as the day is gone when a worker will tolerate unfair treatment by his employer. He does not mind an employer being strict but he will not stand for unfair treatment. We must have worker-participation in works committees or works councils as a start and it should then be possible to advance to a higher bracket. It will be impossible to get the increased production the Minister has spoken about unless workers have a reasonable and fair say in the jobs they do. We cannot continue with the practice where one man gets all the profit and the worker gets nothing.

We should obtain certain information from firms to reassure the employee that his job is secure for the next 15, 20 or 25 years. He needs this information for the security of his family, apart altogether from the information being of value to him, giving him a sense of security. He should also have access to knowledge about his retirement prospects. Such knowledge would give him a sense of security and would help in the education and upbringing of his family.

Unless this is done we will get nowhere. Many of these wage increase demands have come about because of dissatisfaction of workers in their jobs. If they were given the information I have suggested—I am suggesting that the profits of a firm should be disclosed in the same way as those of public bodies—there would be a better sense of participation on the part of the worker. I suggest we must follow the recommendations in the Fogarty report. It does not mean that worker-participation would be introduced immediately. It could be done gradually if necessary. Workers could go on the boards of State bodies. After all, the value of their work by far exceeds the capital invested in these bodies. When workers get such a say in the running of these bodies they should not be controlled by the unions on the one hand or the employers on the other.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5th November, 1969.
Top
Share