Yesterday I expressed the view on behalf of the Labour Party that the only reasonable reaction we could have towards this legislation was to regard it as a classic piece of non-Government, a rather blatant example of the non-management of the economy and a clear illustration of the non-influence of the Government on the course of economic affairs since 1964. I pointed out the general inconsistency of the Minister for Finance in his attempted introduction of these measures particularly in regard to the 12th round second phase agreements and his withdrawal and double shuffle on that aspect of the matter, and the other unfortunate aspect of the effects his measures will have on the future of industrial relations.
I also pointed out that he had set back the prospect of any rational discussion on an incomes policy at least ten years. Further discussion can only be brought about by, one might almost say, the necessity for a general election. I also stressed that, as an individual Member of the House, I have never had any particular hostility towards either the long-term or short-term aims of an incomes policy itself. The long term aims of an incomes policy, which must be favoured by any party claiming to describe themselves as a socialist party, must be to raise the general level of real wages, to increase the share of wage and salary earners in the national income and measures within the context of the general framework of an incomes policy would promote by and large a greater degree of internal justice in relative pay.
These are realistic and sensible proposals to which any trade unionist or member of the Labour Party would subscribe. I am quite sure few in the trade union movement would quarrel with these aims. We find it impossible, however, to accept that the legislation before the House advances in any way these long-term aims for the future of an incomes policy. Even in the short-term it cannot be held that this legislation will act as a palliative and assist in maintaining export competitiveness by maintaining stability in pay levels and price rises.
The whole emphasis is on holding down pay in the form of wages and salaries. The stringency of the statutory controls means that what you have here is wage and salary control and nothing at all bearing the slightest resemblance to price and income control. A comparison between the legislation introduced in Britain and that introduced here shows the amazing difference in approach. This Bill is full of dangerous tendencies and for that reason alone it must be strenuously rejected.
There are clever decoys—that is how I describe them—in regard to prices, rents, dividends and profits. The provisions dealing with these are nothing more than decoys. The Bill is, in effect, a measure designed to control wages and salaries. It is not really designed to control prices, profits, dividends and rents. The Minister cannot hope to get away with public credibility on that aspect of the Bill. It is vital that the Government should maintain normal working relationships with the trade union movement but the result of this Bill will be the creation of a genuine mistrust. There is a feeling in the trade union movement, to put it bluntly, that the Government are a terrible shower of messers.
The Minister has tried to argue that the only choice lies between statutory control and a free-for-all type of general bargaining. I think the Minister is fomenting confrontation, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps stupidly. I want to get rid of the proposition once and for all that we have ever had a free-for-all bargaining situation. Neither the trade union movement nor anybody else wants a free-for-all. That has been abundantly clear since the maintenance workers dispute. We have never had a free-for-all. The employers' attitude has always been one of resistance to all claims, irrespective of size. Some resistance may be legitimate. Some resistance may be unduly harsh.
The introduction of this measure is not a case of the other side of the coin. We have never had a free-for-all from the point of view of wage increases. I suggest that, because of its general incompetence, the Cabinet is not capable of coming to any conclusion in terms of industrial relations. I do not accept the Minister's argument with regard to the alternative. What has been done in this Bill is a clear example of a Cabinet, to paraphrase Father Feargal O'Connor, making up policy as it goes along. There is no real evidence of any policy in regard to prices, rents, dividends and so on. There is nothing really from the point of view of overall economic management.
This Bill is a very shoddy piece of legislation. Such is the general apathy and, indeed, contempt on the part of most people now for politicians generally that the Government has not only no longer the capacity to sell this piece of legislation but it has not even the capacity to sell a tin of dog food and that incapacity arises out of its own disarray and disrepute.
I would like to place on record the policy statement adopted by the congress in July of this year in regard to industrial relations. Either the Minister never heard of it or he did not bother to read it. The congress did adopt a policy:
Congress recognises that indiscriminate wage claims can be detrimental to the interests of workers and accepted the need for a review of the whole structure of wage demands and the devising of a system that would ensure a fairer share for all sections, particularly the lower-paid workers. Congress declared its support for all unions pursuing wage claims based on the cost of living, sharing in increased productivity and increasing the workers' share of the nation's wealth. Congress deplored the lack of progress made in the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and called on the Government of the Republic to accept the principle and to begin the phasing in in the public service of equal pay and to introduce a Bill along the lines of the British Act.
These are just some of the policy lines adopted by Congress and they are notable for their moderation. Congress also noted the progress made in the public service in implementing superannuation and sick pay schemes for all employees and it called on trade unions to make the provision of adequate pension and sick pay schemes in the private sector their urgent objective. The concept of fringe benefits and extra wages is shot down by this Bill in a harsh and rigid manner that shows an appalling ignorance of the complexity of the many wage settlements and conditions of employment operating in the public service and in the private sector throughout the country.
One has but to recall the attempts of western European governments since the mid-1960s to introduce this type of legislation. One then realises the futility of fighting inflation on such an appallingly narrow front in terms of economic management. Western Germany has been able to maintain an exceptionally high growth rate without an incomes policy of this kind. Sweden and the Netherlands, both countries who have tried their best to introduce an effective wages and incomes policy, have not been any more successful than we have been in keeping down prices. Relatively speaking, Britain has had greater success in this regard than Ireland or the continental countries for reasons to which I shall refer later.
One would not have to do much reading of incomes policy developments on the continent to appreciate that the Dutch wages policy has collapsed now after the high hopes of the early 1960s. Even the tremendous efforts made in Britain through the agency of the NEDC to introduce an incomes policy have been rather fruitless. While I am not an advocate of Ted Heath, nevertheless at least he realises the extreme difficulty of introducing a comprehensive wage control system "in a free society". If one wants to have a Stalin-or Leninist-style of wage determination whereby one could tell a Dáil reporter his or her worth in money terms, in terms of job evaluation and of competence or otherwise, one could try to do it. One can try out this policy on any category, grade or profession in this country, but life is a little more complex and is not amenable to this kind of approach.
That is why the trade union movement have fought and will insist on maintaining certain basic principles in regard to wage bargaining. These principles are now shot down apparently and thrown overboard by the 12 so-called trade union members in the Fianna Fáil Party. Governments must accept their own limitations. We live in a democratic country. It is the job of the Government to influence; it may not necessarily be their job to exhort in the manner adopted by Deputy Childers on many occasions. The Government must place the facts of life before the negotiating parties but it is not their job to interfere directly, as they have done on this occasion, between the trade unions and employers.
In relation to State employees I accept the Government have a role to play; and when Deputy Haughey, in his capacity as Minister for Finance, told the public services committee of Congress that this was the view of the Government he was speaking in the context of an employer and of Government policy in relation to their management of their sphere of influence. His views were listened to and agreement was reached. He appreciated the limitations of the role of any Minister for Finance in the wage bargaining situation where one has to deal with 500,000 trade union members and many thousands of people who are not in trade unions and for whom one must cater.
That is the first principle—no interference in free negotiations between trade unions and employers. The second is that wage questions must be resolved by the normal processes of free collective bargaining, if this is possible. It is to the credit of Seán Lemass and the trade union leaders at the time that in the immediate post-war period of 1946 there was built up in this country a complex system of Labour Court recommendations. There was a voluntary system of joint industrial councils and joint labour committees, a wage settlement system, with the Labour Court having considerable influence through its conciliation service and its recommendations. These were regarded as the normal processes of free collective bargaining.
One might well ask what has this Bill done? It has riddled the 1946 Act. In the months ahead—and most certainly in 1971—it will prove to be a stupid operation. The trade union movement must reject any proposals for the control of wages while prices and profits remain uncontrolled and are, in effect, allowed to find their own level. I do not like to provoke Deputy Dowling, because he is liable to talk for another two hours tonight in reply, but does he or does anyone seriously suggest that there can be any analogy between the control of wages and the control of profits? If a particular company director is forced in a private company—and in many cases such a man may be a shareholder in the company—to peg back the level of wages in his company until after 1971 it merely means that his holding in that company is proportionately held in reserve for him to get in 1972. It means that his shares generally appreciate on the stock market. Such a man does not lose very much, but an Irish industrial worker loses. Does anyone seriously suggest that in a free open economy it is possible to control prices with the same rigidity as it is proposed to control the level of incomes?
I have frequently called for a large measure of effective price surveillance. I do not believe in price control. It is an emotive term. There is need for an effective system of price surveillance of a fairly elaborate and permanent nature and for something not of a transient, 12-month period as is mentioned in this Bill. A Government believing in its principles do not bring in something for 12 months. Inflation is not something that arrives one year and disappears on a set date the following year. If it is necessary to bring in legislation one legislates on a quasi-permanent basis for the community. These proposals have all the hallmarks of panic measures which were very hurriedly contrived to meet the current situation, without any indication as to what the long-term aspects of the problem are and without any indication as to whether such aspects are even understood by the Cabinet. These measures will make a lasting impression on the course of industrial relations in this country. The Government were warned about what would happen. Following the maintenance dispute had action been taken to foster and develop good industrial relations and had more initiative been shown by the Government, the idea of an incomes policy would have percolated into the mainstream of public consciousness much more effectively and the very practical recommendations which were made by the NIEC would not have been thrown out by the Government as they have been in recent weeks. By virtue of the ineptness of the proposals, the Government stand indicted.