asked the Minister for Labour whether he has made any inquiries as to the possibility of settling the cement strike; and if he will make a statement on the activities of his Department in relation to this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cement Strike.
20.
Cement Ltd. have indicated their acceptance of the recommendation of the Labour Court as to the terms on which the dispute might be settled.
As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the Deputy to my statement in the Budget debate on 20th May on the subject of ministerial intervention in trade disputes.
Is the Minister saying that no initiative by his Department has been shown throughout this dispute and that, as far as he is concerned, the Labour Court recommendation is the end of this unhappy dispute? Can the Minister point to any attempt by his Department to bring about a fair settlement, an attempt to bring about a negotiating position on either side?
When one party to the negotiations refused to accept them it cannot be taken as the end of the dispute. Furthermore, I want to emphasise again that my Department are continuously in touch with the situation. As I have said here so frequently, I am very slow to intervene. We have the Labour Court, the conciliation service, the Joint Industrial Council, and these provide ample machinery for negotiation. However, if people sit down at the negotiating table they are likely to be influenced, prejudiced or conditioned one way or the other if they believe there are other sources to which they can appeal, that intervention might take place. I am most anxious that the existing machinery be used to the full. In connection with the cement strike I should say that right now the unions concerned are examining a clarification statement from Cement Ltd. in regard to their latest offer in the light of the workers' demands. Therefore, I do not want to interfere or to say anything that might prejudice what is likely to be the outcome of that.
Is the Minister aware that Cement Ltd. negotiators have maintained a hard line in this dispute on the basis of what they assume to be the best for the economy, as they interpret it? Is he also aware that immense hardship has been caused to thousands of workers' families and that this dispute is now at a stage of deadlock, while his Department have shown little initiative in this dispute? Is the Minister further aware that the Taoiseach, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, intervened successfully on numerous occasions in disputes to bring about settlements whatever about his recent interventions in other areas? Would it not, therefore, be proper for the Minister for Labour to show a little more initiative in bringing about some settlement disposition on the part of Cement Ltd. who enjoy a monopoly——
We cannot have a discussion on the question.
I should like to say something about this. Does the House want the Minister to get into these disputes or are we to use the machinery that is available for the work? I suggested some time ago we might even reach the stage where we would have to abolish the Labour Court. If I have to become part of the institutions that are available, it is merely debasing the Labour Court. I would be slow to supersede the work of the Labour Court.
Does the Minister not think it is necessary to bring Cement Ltd. to an urgent sense of their social obligations? This five month old dispute continues because of their intransigence. They enjoy a monopoly position and it is time the Minister for Labour did something about this.
We cannot have a discussion on this question. We cannot have a speech on the matter.
Does the Minister not agree that this dispute is perhaps exceptional in the fact that it has caused widespread unemployment extending far beyond the limits of the disputants themselves and that there is a feeling growing that this steep rise in unemployment has been tolerated by the Government purely for balance of payments purposes?
I do not see how the Deputy could justify that sort of statement. First of all, I have not interfered with either side. Indeed one has to be very careful not to appear even to do this. If it is to be a question of my giving a directive to one side or another I cannot see how we can face the overall situation in relation to strikes. I am well aware of the damage this strike is doing to the economy generally. It is not helping the balance of payments because cement is being imported whereas in the past it used to be exported. However disastrous the effects of the strike may be, the ultimate decision could be much more disastrous to the economy if we are going to settle every strike by acceding to the demand, thereby getting a settlement at any price.
And accepting the refusal of employers not to give wages?
Is the Minister and the Department of Labour, therefore, standing over the present attitude of Cement Ltd. in this dispute? Is that the Minister's position?
The Minister or the Government are not in a position to dictate to either side.
The Minister has twice said the workers are unreasonable.
The Opposition would be the first to object to this being done. I am quite satisfied that negotiation has taken place, that they have been using the machinery much better than in some other disputes and that they are still using it.
Would the Minister indicate why we have a Minister for Labour?
The Minister for Labour has many very important functions.
Tell us one?
On the Minister's assertion regarding the importation of cement, has he had any consultations with his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce or with the Revenue Commissioners, on the black-marketing of cement and the exorbitant profits some people are making on this unfortunate dispute? If so, will he indicate the nature of the discussions he has had with either the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Department of Finance or the Revenue Commissioners?
That is a separate question.
Has the Minister any observations on the statement to the effect that on another occasion when the Taoiseach was Minister for Industry and Commerce he accepted his public responsibility in that particular matter and took the initiative in a situation which was tantamount to stalemate? We have stalemate and deadlock now. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect that the Minister for Labour would take some initiative in trying to bring the parties together?
I would like to say we are not at deadlock and there is not stalemate in the cement strike.
It has been going on for over three months.
Efforts are still being made much better than I could make them. Let us be clear. Do the House want me to interfere as an arbitrator?
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 21. We have discussed this question at length.
Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I want to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
We will have a busy night.