I move:
That a sum not exceeding £3,626,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1972 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.
By agreement the following motion and Supplementary Estimate are being considered with the main Estimate:
That, in connection with the supply granted for the year ended 31st March, 1971, the Dáil takes note of the activities of the Department of Labour.
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £200,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1972, 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.
In this review of the services for which I have responsibility, I propose to deal first with manpower policy, next with the services concerned with worker-protection, and finally with industrial relations.
In discussing manpower policy, it is appropriate, I believe, to give priority to training. Expenditure on training is channelled through three bodies—An Chomhairle Oiliúna, better known as AnCO, the Irish Management Institute and CERT, the Council for the Education, Recruitment and Training for the Hotel Industry.
The provision of training at all levels in industry and commerce is at the centre of the Government's manpower policy. The importance which I attach to AnCO's role in the development of the national programme of training is evidenced by the substantial provision now being made for AnCO. Between capital and current, the total provision was £1,530,000 in 1970-71 and will be £1,850,000 in 1971-72. The supplementary estimate now being moved will add a further £200,000 to the Grant-in-Aid.
Deputies will find a detailed account of the activities of AnCO in the third annual report of the organisation, covering the year ended 31st March, 1970, which was been presented to the Dáil. It is appropriate, however, that I should refer to some of the most important activities of AnCO in opening this debate.
Six industrial sectors employing 275,000 people or 95 per cent of all employed in manufacturing and construction, have so far been brought within the scope of the Industrial Training Act. Industrial training committees, representative of employers, workers and other interests, have been established for each of these six sectors to advise AnCO on training requirements and on the formulation and introduction of levy-grant schemes.
Levy-grant schemes are already in operation for the textiles, clothing and footwear industry and the food, drink and tobacco industries. In these cases the levy amounts to 1 per cent of payroll, and the grants are aimed mainly at getting companies to appoint and train training managers and training instructors. The first priority is to get individual companies into the position in which they can identify their own training needs and can prepare and implement plans to meet those needs. This can best be done by the appointment of qualified training staff. AnCO, in co-operation with the Irish Management Institute, is providing the necessary training courses for training managers and training executives for industry.
The preparations for levy-grant schemes for the construction industry, the engineering industry, and the printing and paper industry are well advanced and will be brought into operation on various dates between now and the end of October, 1971. While final decisions have not yet been taken, the indications are that the industrial training committees will recommend levies of the order of 1 per cent to 1¼ per cent of payroll in these industries. AnCO contemplate a grant structure similar to those already in operation, although there may be special grants in industries such as construction and engineering to stimulate apprentice training. I have asked AnCO to keep the various schemes under special review for the first year or so. If, by then, the schemes do not look like attaining their objectives the whole situation can be reviewed to see if more effective measures can be devised.
On the basis of a levy of 1-1¼ per cent of payroll, it is expected that a total of about £3,000,000 will be paid in levy in a year. Firms who train according to requirements will get their money back from AnCO with little delay and normally would not be out of their money for more than four weeks. It will be possible for industries to recoup between 85 and 90 per cent of levy in the form of grant if they take the necessary action in regard to training. The balance of the levy will be retained by AnCO mainly to meet the cost of the training and advisory services which that organisation will have to provide.
I have set up a tribunal under the Industrial Training Act, 1967, to determine appeals by employers against any levy imposed by AnCO, and the tribunal has heard 17 appeals so far.
The most expensive part of AnCO's operations, so far as the Exchequer is concerned, are its direct training centres. These are currently costing about £500,000 a year to run. AnCO has three training centres in operation —at Shannon, Waterford and Galway —providing a total of 600 training places. Since courses seldom last more than six months this means that there is a capacity to train over 1,000 persons each year. The main aim of the centres is to train unemployed workers. To date about 900 persons have been trained in this way and nearly all of these are now working in industry. It costs about £500 to train one person in a training centre for six months. The figure includes trainees' wages, lodging allowances and travel expenses. To offset some of these costs there is a saving in unemployment benefit or assistance; we must also take into account the additions to national production, and the taxes to be paid by the employed person in due course. In view of the amount of money involved and as this activity will be increasing, it has been decided to have a cost-benefit analysis carried out on the training centres to see whether the money we are providing for them is being spent to the best advantage.
In addition to adult training, one year off-the-job training for a limited number of first-year apprentices was also provided in the AnCO training centres at Waterford and Galway during the past year. These are mainly pilot courses to demonstrate that systematic, programmed training of apprentices on a full-time basis can achieve useful results. They have also helped to overcome shortages of skilled workers in some trades. Over 200 apprentices were trained in this way in the first year of the experiment. Another 200 apprentices are currently undergoing training.
The erection of a training centre in Dublin with 400 training places, that is a capacity of 800 trainees a year, is well under way. It should be in operation in the early months of 1972.
When the Dublin centre is opened AnCO will have 1,000 training places with a throughput of 2,000 trainees a year. I should like the House to realise, however, that notwithstanding the substantial progress made in this field we still have a good way to go to catch up on other European countries.
The provision of direct training will be materially advanced by the new projects mentioned in the Budget Statement for which the supplementary estimate of £200,000 is now being moved.
Of this additional sum, £100,000 is being allocated to enable AnCO to establish and equip a new training centre in the Cork area. The Cork Council of Trade Unions has agreed in principle to the inclusion in the new centre of training up to fully skilled level. AnCO is at present actively negotiating with the council on such detailed matters as the content of the training courses, the conditions of entry to the training centre, the recognition of the trainees as eligible for fully skilled union cards, et cetera. I am hopeful that there will be a quick and successful conclusion to these negotiations which will mean a very welcome addition to the country's skilled workforce. It is estimated that £50,000 will be required in 1971-72 to run the centre. The centre will have 150 training places of which 50 would be for training to fully skilled level. This sum will be provided from the additional amount now sought in the supplementary estimate.
The location of the new centre has been chosen because the shortage of skilled workers in the Cork area shows signs of becoming more acute than elsewhere in the country. As well as that, the demand for skilled workers in Cork will increase further as industrial development plans come to fruition over the next few years. The aim of the Government's manpower policy is to provide the necessary training facilities in good time so that the skills will be available when required. I should like to pay tribute to the Cork Council of Trade Unions whose co-operation has enabled arrangements to be made for what I hope will be an historic break-through in training in this country.
I have been aware for some time of the need for immediate retraining facilities for workers disemployed because of the closure of an industry or serious curtailment of production. This need for retraining could be particularly acute in an area heavily dependent on a particular industry where opportunities of other jobs might not be available locally. I believe that the prospects of early re-employment of the redundant workers would be improved if retraining facilities were provided on the spot; and, of course, the prospects of attracting a new industry to the area would also be enhanced. I have in mind that retraining will be provided on an ad hoc basis immediately the kind of skills needed for the new industry can be predicted. Up to the present AnCO did not have the resources to provide such facilities. Accordingly, and as foreshadowed in the Budget Statement, £50,000, that is, the balance of the amount provided in the supplementary estimate, is being allocated to AnCO for this purpose. The choice of areas for these facilities will be made in each case by AnCO in consultation with the IDA.
In order that young Gaeltacht workers should be trained in the skills required for modern industry in the Gaeltacht, AnCO and Gaeltarra Éireann are in consultation with a view to setting up a special training centre in the Gaeltacht, probably in Donegal. The training will be carried out in the Irish language and the skills to be taught will be those required for industries already operating, or to be established, in the Gaeltacht.
It is hoped to have the centre established by the end of the year. The expenditure on the centre, which should not be very substantial this year, will be met out of the moneys already allocated for manpower services and Gaeltacht development.
A part of AnCO's activities is to administer existing apprenticeship schemes. This costs AnCO about £250,000 a year. Included in this figure is a sum of about £85,000 contributed towards the cost of block-release courses for apprentices in technical schools and colleges. Expenditure here is mainly for apprentices' travel and subsistence allowances. A total of nearly 4,000 apprentices attended block-release courses during the past year and it is expected that even more will attend such courses this year. There are not sufficient block-release courses for all apprentices but the vast majority not taking block-release courses are attending day-release in the technical schools.
AnCO is engaged in a review in depth of the whole apprenticeship system. If apprenticeship is to continue to be the main method of producing skilled workers, the system will certainly need to be up-dated. For example, some experienced persons who have discussed the matter with me have suggested that there should be a more systematic training of apprentices in the early part of their apprenticeship. As Deputies know it takes some years for an apprentice to attain fully-skilled level. This suggests a need to supplement the apprenticeship system by special training arrangements especially where there are shortages of skilled workers.
A most important aspect of AnCO's activities has been the establishment of an instructor training centre in Dublin and the bringing of instructor-training courses to the provinces. Already over 400 persons from industry have been trained by AnCO in modern techniques for the instruction of operatives and other workers. Very worthwhile results have been achieved by these instructors on their return to their own firms. They have introduced systematic training schemes for operatives and other workers. This has resulted in a reduction in training times, in increased output and in worthwhile cost reductions. AnCO is at present considering a major expansion in its instructor-training activities.
I feel it my duty to repeat what I have said before, in the House and elsewhere, that full co-operation between all concerned — management, trade unions, educational and training organisations—is vital for the success of the national training effort. Deputies have mentioned the risk of wasteful overlapping or duplication of effort with other organisations, particularly the regional technical colleges and the vocational education committees. I can assure the House that my Department and AnCO are very much alive to the need to avoid any such overlapping. Special liaison arrangements have been established for consultation and co-operation so as to prevent waste and duplication of effort.
The national training programme requires that companies improve the quality and quantity of training provided within their own establishments. This is essentially a job for industry itself and the main purpose of the levy/ grant schemes will be to provide the stimulus to secure progress in this direction. AnCO will make available all possible advice and assistance to companies which have a commitment to training: and in this context commitment means the full involvement of top management. There is encouraging evidence that, as time goes on, the importance of training is being recognised more clearly by senior people in our leading industries and companies.
This growing awareness by management of the importance of training is due in no small measure to the efforts of the Irish Management Institute. I have mentioned earlier that the institute is co-operating with AnCO in providing the necessary training courses for training managers and training executives for industry. For some years now the institute has been providing a variety of courses for managers at all levels. Some months ago it drew up a programme for developing and expanding this work over the period up to 1975. The aim is that all practising managers in Irish industry should be in a position to take a comprehensive course in the broader aspects of modern management, tailored to suit the needs of firms of different sizes. Particular attention is being given to the needs of managers in small firms. I am glad to say that the institute's courses are well supported and the number of managers attending them is increasing every year.
It is vital to have the standard of management at the highest attainable level; otherwise, the other skills which we are developing will not have the best chance of being used. That is the main justification for Exchequer support which, in the form of a grant to the IMI, was £120,000 in 1970-71 and will be £175,000 in 1971-72. Apart from this grant, management training is also stimulated through grants under AnCO's technical assistance scheme which enables firms sending personnel for training to recover portion of the cost.
To complete the picture of training as far as this Vote is concerned, there is the grant to CERT—the Council for Education, Recruitment and Training for the Hotel Industry. The Estimate for 1970-71 contained a provision for £120,000 for CERT. With the approval of the Minister for Finance this provision was increased during the year by £12,000 which was met from savings in the Vote. This year there is provision for a grant of £165,000 to CERT. The increased provision reflects the growing training needs of our hotel industry which is of some importance to our tourist effort.
At present there are between 700 and 800 boys and girls in training at CERT schools. CERT are completing a survey of the manpower and training requirements in the hotel industry. The findings of this survey are likely to influence policy on hotel training during the coming decade.
All the signs are that a further expansion in the training for hotels and catering establishments will be required in the years ahead, and that this will involve a substantial addition to the bill for training in the industry.
The setting up of the national manpower service is well under way. A number of regional directors and placement officers have been appointed following public competitions run by the Civil Service Commission. Some have taken up their appointments and are undergoing training. Additional placement officers are being recruited, also through public competition. For a start, there will be five regional directors, in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway. Placement officers will be stationed in these five centres and also in a number of other important centres, including, for a start, Dundalk, Drogheda, Sligo, Ballybofey, Tralee and Athlone. Premises have been procured in Athlone, Dundalk, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Sligo, and negotiations are proceeding for premises in the other centres. I am hopeful, therefore, that the service will be effectively in operation in another few months.
The manpower service will have an important role to play in the country's future economic development. It cannot be said too often: the aptitudes and skills of our work-people are our most important natural resource. The most effective deployment of the workforce is essential from the economic point of view and important too in the human sense. The broad aims of the service are accordingly to place job seekers in the employment best suited to their abilities and inclinations, and to secure for employers the workers best suited to the needs of the work on offer. The individual person will benefit by way of job satisfaction and probably greater earnings, and for these very reasons will make a greater contribution than otherwise to the economy. But the service cannot be fully effective in placement work unless it has the co-operation of employers and workers and is used by them. I hope it will have their support and the support of all concerned with national development.
Reliable information on manpower is vital for industrial and general economic and planning purposes. Another important function of the service, therefore, will be to collect detailed information on the supply and demand for manpower at local, regional and national level and to keep this information up to date. In so far as this aspect of its work is concerned the service will work in close co-operation with the State agencies and other bodies concerned with industrial and economic development. Indeed I might mention here, as an indication of the recognition of the desirability of such co-operation, that the service will be occupants of the same premises as the IDA in both Cork and Sligo.
When introducing the previous year's Estimate I referred to the Waterford and Galway manpower surveys. Both reports have since been published. Detailed scientific surveys of this kind are very useful but they take a long time to complete and they are also very costly. When the manpower service is in operation the basic information on manpower will be complied on a continuing basis throughout the country and can be readily made available to industrial promoters, education authorities and others interested. Unless particular needs arise which cannot be met by the manpower service, the special type survey done in Waterford and Galway will not be necessary in the future.
Forecasting is another element in the area of manpower information. I said last year that we would be going through a development stage for some time to come in the field of manpower forecasting. I mentioned then that the Manpower and Social Affairs Committee of OECD was concerned at the slow progress being made internationally with forecasting techniques, and had arranged a meeting of experts to review the situation. This meeting, which was attended by the head of the Department's Manpower Forecasting Unit, was held last summer. It is clear that other countries are experiencing difficulties similar to our own. The unit is keeping in close touch with its counterparts in other countries so that it can take advantage of any developments. Even allowing for the existing limitations on forecasting the unit has been able to produce an amount of useful information for bodies concerned with economic development by way of estimates of manpower potential in various areas throughout the country. It has also made substantial progress in the preparation of the new occupational classification system which it commenced last year. This classification will be completed during the present year.
The programme to replace unsatisfactory employment exchange premises, initiated some years ago by the Minister for Social Welfare, is continuing. A new exchange for Clifden is under construction and arrangements are being pressed ahead for the replacement of the existing premises in Drogheda, Cork, Limerick, Manorhamilton, Thurles and one of the women's exchanges in Dublin.
I have at present before the Seanad a Bill entitled the Employment Agency Bill to provide for the licensing of employment agencies, the approval of their scales of fees and to require them to furnish returns of their activities. The Bill also contains provisions dealing with advertisements for the recruitment of Irish workers for employment abroad. I expect that the House will soon have the opportunity of discussing the Bill.
Information on the various occupations open to young people in this country is fundamental to their making a good choice of career and to their parents and teachers in helping them to make the choice.
The careers information service in my Department has published leaflets covering about 200 careers and aims at producing leaflets for all worthwhile jobs. Because of changing conditions these leaflets can go out of date quickly and need to be revised. Many of the original leaflets have already been revised.
The leaflets are distributed free to schools, libraries, youth clubs and to any other organisations or persons who ask for them. There has been a steady demand for them. Over 30,000 letters were dealt with during the two years and there were also many inquiries by people calling to the Department or by telephone. The Department have also taken part in various careers exhibitions in Dublin and throughout the country.
The Government's approach to the problem of emigration is that the solution lies in the creation of full employment at home at the earliest date. The industrialisation programme is directed towards this end. Voluntary organisations engaged in emigrant-welfare work have noticed a falling off in the number using their services. This is, of course, because of the substantial decline in emigration in recent years. While the employment opportunities offering in the country are not yet sufficient to absorb all those coming on to the labour market, and consequently, sizeable numbers are obliged to seek work elsewhere, nevertheless, I am satisfied that not all those who leave the country for work abroad have to do so. Instances have been cited where young people have given up jobs at home only to engage in similar work in Britain at the same, or sometimes lower, wages than at home. Indeed, in some cases they were soon back home again, wiser I hope for their experience.
In October, 1969 I set up a committee to advise on the problems of persons going abroad and of Irish people living abroad who were anxious to return to work at home. Money was made available from the Vote to help voluntary emigrant welfare organisations in this country.
The advisory committee took as a first priority the strengthening of the voluntary information and advisory services. To enable the voluntary bodies to give a better service, grants have been paid to a number of them on the committee's recommendation. The emphasis is on discouraging unnecessary emigration. People thinking of going abroad are advised about jobs at home of which they may have been unaware. In the event of people going to Britain, they are informed by the voluntary bodies about the employment situation in Britain and, if possible, jobs and accommodation are arranged for them in advance. Discussions have taken place with Irish welfare organisations in Britain about the reception and advisory services for newly arrived emigrants. The discussions also included ways of providing information and advice for Irish people there who are interested in jobs in Ireland. My Department are co-operating fully with the voluntary bodies in this work. The provision in the Vote for this purpose last year was £10,000 and this amount is also included in the Estimate for 1971-72.
From time to time, there have been complaints by some industrialists about shortages of skilled workers. Following these reports, I had the situation investigated. In December, 1969, the National Manpower Service sent questionnaires to about 9,000 firms in manufacturing industry. Results of the survey showed that there were about 1,100 vacancies for skilled male and female production workers in about 200 firms. Particulars of these positions were then circulated to all employment exchanges. They were also circulated to a large number—150—of Irish organisations in Britain. In addition, they were given wide publicity by advertisements in the national newspapers and in the Irish Post which has a big circulation among the Irish in Britain. From the large number of inquiries received from abroad—over 1,200—it is evident that many of our skilled people are interested in returning to jobs at home. Up to now more than 100 people have returned as a result of this campaign. I am sure that others who are pursuing inquiries with the service will also return. Some of those who have inquired are very highly skilled, many with professional qualifications. A list of these persons has been prepared and, with the co-operation of the Confederation of Irish Industry, over 200 copies have been distributed. The filling of skilled vacancies by returning emigrants where the necessary skills are not available at home will have the effect of creating jobs for semi-skilled and unskilled workers here. The number of skilled workers on the live register is very small.
The number of unemployed continues to remain at about the same level as last year. This is a matter of serious concern and it is no consolation to know that the trends of unemployment in some other countries are worse than they are here.
I accept that, by any standards, the figure is too high. I suggest that our common purpose in this debate ought to be first to identify the reasons for this high figure and then to suggest how the situation might be improved.
As to the reasons, the basic one is that there has been a shortfall in overall growth, a fact which was noted in the Third Programme Review presented to the House before the Budget; there has been the unexpectedly big fall in the numbers engaged in primary production; there have been redundancies to offset some of the new jobs in industry; there has been the slowness of the building industry to recover from the cement strike and there has been the reduction in emigration as shown by figures of net outward passenger movement last year. These are the principal elements contributing to a rate of unemployment which is higher that any one of us would like it to be.
There is, of course, only one way to improve the position and that is by expanding the national output of goods and services. Here there are some encouraging signs. Present indications are that the growth of national output, which was 1½ per cent last year, should be about 3 per cent this year. This doubling of the rate of economic development is bound to improve the employment situation substantially.
Policies designed to promote economic growth and increase job opportunities are the responsibilities of other Departments and agencies. As far as I am concerned as Minister for Labour, the services for which I have responsibility will be so directed as to cooperate with the various economic development programmes, in the interest of increasing the number of jobs in the country.
The redundancy payments scheme continues to operate to alleviate the hardships caused to redundant workers and their dependants. The lump-sums payable under the scheme provide compensation for workers dismissed because of redundancy for the loss of their jobs, while the weekly payments provisions of the scheme help to maintain the incomes of redundant workers close to their pre-redundancy earnings in the period following disemployment if they are unable to get alternative employment.
The number of notifications of dismissals under the redundancy scheme in 1970—3,896—was almost the same as for the year 1969, which came to 3,696. In the first quarter of 1971, however, the number of notifications of dismissal under the scheme was 1,931 as compared with 975 for the corresponding period of 1970. Deputies will not expect me to go into any detail about the operation of the redundancy payments scheme as the matter is being discussed in conjunction with the Redundancy Payments Bill, 1970, at present before the House.
The second annual report of the Redundancy Appeals Tribunal was published in July, 1970. A feature of the report is the substantial increase in the number of appeals coming before the tribunal, 367 in 1969 as compared with 133 in 1968. The upward trend in the number of appeals has been maintained in 1970 when a total of 434 appeals were heard. The increase in the number of appeals may be attributed, I think, to the growing awareness on the part of workers of their rights under the scheme and, I am sure, to an increasing recognition that the tribunal gives all parties a full and fair opportunity for having disputes resolved.
The Resettlement Allowances Scheme provides for financial assistance of various kinds to move to new areas to take up employment. Up to last year the scheme was being used only to a very limited extent. The situation has now changed. In recent months the scheme has been used much more widely. In 1968 only 17 persons were given grants under the scheme and the number increased to 37 in 1969. In 1970, however, 186 applicants qualified for assistance. This increase reflects a greater degree of mobility of labour within the country which I regard as desirable. I believe that the scheme is capable of being developed further, with benefits to our workers and, as Deputies are aware, I am seeking authority in the Redundancy Payments Bill now before the House to extend the scope of the scheme so that Irish workers in Britain coming home to jobs can be assisted under it. In anticipation of a substantial increase in the numbers taking advantage of the scheme, the provision for it is being increased from £3,000 last year to £15,000 this year.
The Department participates in the work of the OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee. That organisation as part of its programme of work, plans to carry out an examination of Ireland's manpower policies during the coming year. The examination will assess the effectiveness of our manpower policy measures and will pay special attention to our problems in this field. The exercise will also enable us to draw on the experience of other OECD countries.
Before leaving the subject of manpower policy I should like to make a general observation which may help Deputies in discussing the matter. A manpower policy is accepted by the Government as an essential ingredient of overall policies of national development. However, it should not be thought of as a substitute for other policies such as those concerned with curbing inflation. These will continue to be developed side by side with manpower policy measures. I consider it necessary to stress this in view of exaggerated claims which are made from time to time about what a manpower policy can achieve.
The Department of Labour has important functions in the area of worker protection. The Factories Act, 1955, and the Mines and Quarries Act, 1965 give industrial workers a right to certain standards of safety, health and welfare. The industrial inspectorate has the task of ensuring that employers meet their obligations under these Acts and the relevant regulations. The inspectorate also provides a safety advisory and accident prevention service to industry.
I should like to stress one aspect of the work of the industrial inspectorate; namely, its advisory functions. If an employer has a problem impinging on the safety, health or welfare of the workers and needs advice on how best to solve the problem, the industrial inspectorate will be only too ready to respond to a request for helpful advice. I would, accordingly, encourage employers to avail themselves fully of the advisory services of the inspectorate.
Increased pressure continues to be placed on the resources of the inspectorate, due mainly to general industrial growth and new technological developments in industry. Each succeeding year brings an increase in the number of workers coming within the scope of the industrial safety legislation. When moving the last Estimate, I indicated that steps were being taken to build up the strength of the inspectorate to enable it to cope with these increasing pressures. Some of this extra staff have been recruited and further competitions are being arranged by the Civil Service Commission to get the numbers built up.
The adequacy of our existing industrial safety regulations is under continual review in the light of the ever-changing requirements of the safety situation. There is a programme of up-dating existing regulations and preparing new regulations to meet these requirements. This programme, which embraces close on 30 codes of regulations, is now at an advanced stage.
A survey of occupational health hazards in Irish industry has been launched. A team of inspectors, specially trained in up-to-date methods, has been provided with specialised instruments for assessing such hazards and has commenced the field work for the survey. Medical experts are co-operating with the inspectors in this.
It has long been realised that the statutory and extra-statutory activities of a Government Department cannot, of themselves, prevent industrial accidents and diseases. Each firm and each worker has a role to play in raising safety standards. In 1970 industrial accidents in premises registered under the Factories Act amounted to 2,760 of which 22 were fatal. It goes without saying that full worker/management co-operation will be required if we are to achieve the maximum possible reduction in the numbers of such accidents.
Safety committees afford workers and managements an excellent opportunity of making a positive contribution towards improving safety standards. However, despite a joint promotion campaign by the industrial inspectorate and the National Industrial Safety Organisation, these committees exist only in a very small minority—about 130—of the many workplaces where safety committees could usefully be established. In December last, I was asked in this House if I would introduce amending legislation to ensure that safety committees are a legal requirement in all employments with ten or more workers. I said at the time that I would invite Deputies to discuss this matter during the debate on the Estimate for my Department and I should be glad if they would do so.
The statutory position in regard to safety committees is set out in section 73 of the Factories Act, 1955, and the section clearly invites the workers to set up these committees for the purpose of promoting their own better safety, health and welfare.
It is of interest to recall that the text of section 73 was presented to the House, by way of Ministerial amendment, by the late Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Norton, who was Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time. Deputy Norton submitted the amendment as representing the viewpoint of the different parties who had participated in an examination of the matter in a Special Committee. Labour Deputies complimented the Minister on introducing the amendment, the purpose of which, he said, was to encourage workers in factories to take an intelligent interest in legislation which protects them against dangers to health and dangers of physical injury. Personally, I think it would be a pity if it became necessary to ask the Oireachtas to enact legislation making it mandatory to set up these safety committees if the ground for such legislation was that workers had failed to avail of the opportunities given to them to have the necessary committees set up.
The National Industrial Safety Organisation — NISO — was founded seven years ago and its membership is representative of employers, workers, insurance companies and the industrial inspectorate. It is a voluntary body and since its foundation has done much to promote higher safety standards in Irish industry. The functions of the inspectorate and NISO in the provision of a safety advisory and accident prevention service to industry are complementary. The effectiveness of the work of the inspectorate has been enhanced by the work of NISO which has been active in promoting and maintaining safety consciousness.
The organisation is housed and staffed by the Department and it also receives a Grant-in-Aid from the Vote to help it in providing safety training courses and lectures and in preparing and distributing safety literature and propaganda.
The provision for NISO in the Estimate is being increased from £10,000 in 1970-71 to £12,000 this year and is paid on the basis of £4 for every £1 raised by the organisation from other sources.
The organisation deserves the greatest support including financial support, which it can get from industry and I again appeal most earnestly to industrial managements to join NISO and take part in the continual campaign it is conducting in the promotion of safety in industry.
When presenting the Estimate for 1969-70 I reported that I had initiated a programme of gradually replacing the Acts dealing with the protection of workers by a series of enactments each of which would deal with one main aspect of the subject and would at the same time apply to as wide a range of occupations as possible. The broad purpose of this is to ensure that the conditions under which our workers are employed conform with modern standards.
In our kind of free enterprise economy, matters such as pay, hours of work and holidays are settled for most workers by negotiations between employers and trade unions, and in the present state of our development it is the collective bargaining strength of the trade union that sets the pace in improving them. In such a situation the primary purpose of State intervention is to establish minimum statutory conditions of employment.
Legislation on conditions of employment has to be revised from time to time so as to ensure that the statutory minimum standards bear a reasonable relationship to those secured by organised workers through collective bargaining, and to ensure also that no group of worker is left too far behind.
At present the law on hours of work is contained in two Acts—the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 and the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938—which have now been rendered obsolete by the general level of conditions of employment and changes in patterns of working. Also they cater only for industrial, shop and catering workers. Last year my Department circulated to representative employer and employee organisations, and indeed to anyone interested, a consultative document on a proposed new Hours of Work Act, which would apply to as wide a range of occupations as possible. Observations, many of them very useful, were received from a number of sources and have now been considered. I expect soon to be in a position to seek Government approval to the general lines of a Bill to be placed before the Oireachtas.
In the area of holiday rights, the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961 conferred on all non-agricultural workers a legal right to a minimum of two weeks annual paid holidays and six public holidays with pay. In view of the changing pattern of industrial holidays, I have decided to review this Act also to see whether an amendment ought to be proposed.
I hope to circulate shortly the text of the Dangerous Substances Bill designed to protect workers and the general public from dangers associated with the manufacture, transport, storage and use of certain substances used in modern industry.
I am working on proposals for new legislation to give workers and employers a statutory right to a minimum period of notice when employment is being terminated. I hope to bring a Bill before the House later in the year. In this legislation, I shall also be proposing to give an employee the right to get from his employer a written statement setting out the more important terms of his contract of employment.
As Minister for Labour, I attended the International Labour Conference for the first time in June, 1970. It is a rewarding experience to see this conference in action. As Deputies are aware, the ILO is a forum in which workers' and employers' representatives co-operate with representatives of government to forge together what are called "the bonds of common purpose". The 1970 ILO conference adopted three new international instruments, on youth employment and training schemes, on minimum wage fixing machinery and on holidays with pay. As I have mentioned, I am about to review our existing holidays legislation and the ILO instrument on holidays will be of assistance in this.
Ireland has been a member of the International Labour Organisation since 1923. It was the first international organisation which we joined as a separate State. During that time Ireland has participated fully in the work of the organisation. Of the 132 conventions adopted by the ILO, Ireland has ratified 46, which compares favourably with the record of other member States. It is hoped in the near future to ratify some more conventions.
Ireland participates in the ILO technical assistance programmes. Irish experts have worked in developing countries and we have provided study facilities for fellowship holders from a number of these countries. Ireland has also endowed a number of fellowships for personnel from developing countries at the international centre for advanced technical and vocational training at Turin. As has been widely reported, the ILO is at present experiencing some financial difficulties. Ireland continues to support the ILO and hopes that these problems can be surmounted so that the organisation will not have to curtail its important international programmes.
I now come to the subject of industrial relations. If we have our problems in this area, it cannot be said that we are unique in this respect. The problems, in one form or another, exist across Europe. And it is interesting and somewhat disturbing to note that industrial conflict does not seem to diminish with the rise in the level of education, the improvement in pay and conditions, the rise in the standard of living and the many other material advances experienced in recent years.
In trying to interpret the industrial relations scene since my appointment as Minister for Labour, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an ideal once-for-all solution precisely because the heart of the matter consists of people: people with their aspirations, hopes, fears, virtues, and their failings too. It is the people themselves, employers and workers, who conduct their industrial relations and it may be misleading to think in terms of a Minister for Labour being "in charge of" or "responsible for" practical day-to-day industrial relations. There has, of course, to be someone in Government in contact with the overall situation but there is a very definite limit to the extent of ministerial intrusion. The situation of a Minister for Labour in the area of industrial relations is, therefore, an unusual one. There is an impression, shared by some Deputies, I think, that the Minister for Labour should be continually involved, especially when disputes threaten. I want to tell the House that a Minister for Labour very quickly finds out that the parties directly involved in pay negotiations and the like do not want him in there at all. The ritual of our collective bargaining system and our institutional arrangements tend to support this attitude of the parties concerned. We settle our pay problems by way of free collective bargaining. In other words, the trade unions negotiate directly with the employers and reach agreement or fail to reach agreement. In the latter event the workers may withdraw their labour in support of their demands. Our institutional arrangements consist of an independent Labour Court and its conciliation service which the Oireachtas in 1946 placed at the disposal of the parties engaged in the bargaining process. I consider it opportune to remind Deputies of the independent status of the Labour Court because from time to time some people seem to want to believe that the Minister for Labour somehow controls the working of the Labour Court. I try to carry out my job on the basis that, unless in the most exceptional circumstances where the public interest is involved, there is no justification for a Minister for Labour intruding into the area of collective bargaining.
One thing emerges clearly from our situation. The freedom within which industrial relations are conducted carries with it the possibility of disruption, of suffering and, in fact, of disaster. My reading of the situation is that we all want this freedom to continue. We must, therefore, be prepared to accept the implications, one of which is the disruption of our lives whenever parties to a dispute decide to use the means available to them to press their claims. A statistic which is often quoted when discussing industrial relations is the number of man days lost through industrial disputes in a year. Last year this figure was just one million, a slight increase over 1969. As in previous years, when a few disputes accounted for the bulk of the days lost, so also last year two disputes, those in the banks and in the cement industry, accounted for over 870,000 of the days lost, leaving 130,000 days between all the other disputes which took place in the year. Thus was continued last year the trend for one or two strikes to be prolonged, with such unfavourable consequences for our international reputation in this field.
I commissioned an inquiry into the banks' dispute, mainly with a view to seeing how a similar disruption could be avoided in the future, and I expect to receive the report shortly. Following the settlement of the cement strike, I asked the Labour Court to inquire into conditions in the industry, and I am awaiting the court's report on this. In this case also, I am hopeful that some guide will be provided to the company and the unions, and to employers and workers generally, to help them to avoid disruptions of this kind in the future.
The number of conciliation conferences held by the industrial relations service of the Labour Court in 1970 was nearly 900, covering 564 disputes. Of this number of disputes 451 were settled by conciliation. Eighty disputes went to the Labour Court. I regret to have to record once more a high rejection rate of court recommendations by workers. About one-half of the workers involved in Labour Court recommendations in 1970 rejected the recommendations, although a number of the disputes concerned were later settled by conciliation, so that it could be claimed that the court's recommendations contributed to a settlement in those cases also. The high rate of rejection of Labour Court recommendations is still a matter of concern however.
In March last year, I used the power given to me under the Act to appoint two Rights Commissioners. Their services have been availed of to investigate and recommend on disputes about what are described as "rights" issues. These disputes usually involve one worker or at most a few workers and are generally concerned with grievance matters. The machinery is operating satisfactorily and up to the end of March this year the commissioners have dealt with about 70 cases. There is a right of appeal to the Labour Court from the recommendation of a Rights Commissioner on condition that the decision of the court will be accepted. So far, there have been two such appeals and in both cases the Labour Court upheld the Rights Commissioner.
One general comment I should like to make about trade disputes: whatever the reasons why they continue, whatever the reasons why they sometimes erupt into stoppages of work or interruption of supplies or services, whatever the reasons why in some cases they defy efforts to solve them, no one can lay the blame on any inadequacy of the conciliation or other services available to the parties. These services are freely at the disposal of employers and trade unions to help them to settle the conflicts that inevitably arise between them.
Before dealing with the national pay agreement of December, 1970, I should like to refer briefly to the significant feature of the background as far as trends in pay were concerned.
Deputies will recall the maintenance craftsmen's agreement of early 1969 which provided for aggregate increases in basic wages of £3.50 per week for a 40 hour week over 18 months or so. This agreement set the pattern for wage increases generally. In the early stages of the round initiated by the maintenance settlement the increases were of the order of £3.50 for craftsmen and £3 a week for general workers. As time passed, however, settlements tended to increase and, during 1970, settlements for £4 a week in two phases became common.
An important factor during 1970 was the report of the commission, set up under the maintenance settlement, to assess the place of craftsmen in the wage structure. The commission's report led to the negotiation of a short-term agreement providing for further basic wage increases amounting to £2 a week for maintenance craftsmen for six months from July to December 1970, increases which were gradually extended to other craftsmen.
In the climate of public apprehension following these unprecedently high pay increases, and consequential increases in costs and prices, the employer/labour conference recommended by the NIEC assembled and tried to negotiate a national agreement on pay increases.
The parties in the conference were not succeeding, however, and the Government, in an effort to contain the situation proposed statutory measures to operate should the efforts to make a voluntary agreement fail. In the event, as the House knows, the employer/labour conference was reconvened and eventually succeeded in December in concluding a national agreement. This made it unnecessary to proceed with the proposed legislation as far as wages were concerned.
The Government's attitude to the national pay agreement has been spelled out by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement. We want it to work as those who signed it intended it to work.
We believe that the interests of the community require that the agreement be maintained. As far as the Government are concerned, we are determined to create and maintain an economic climate favourable to the implementation of the agreement, and, as the Minister for Finance has already indicated, this was an important consideration in the framing of the Budget.
Some problems have arisen, as had been foreseen by those who negotiated the agreement, but there are built into the agreement the means for solving these problems, provided, of course, that the parties involved in particular cases have the capacity and the authority and the will to find solutions which are in line with the agreement.
As the Minister for Finance has pointed out, the agreement was accepted by the Government, notwithstanding its inflationary terms, because of the hope it holds out of moderating inflationary pressures in an atmosphere of industrial peace.
The agreement, as signed, was truly national, with benefits for all and with obligations for all as well. Before the community can be assured of the benefits of the agreement, such as a curb on inflation and an improvement in industrial relations, then there must be a sustained willingness by all those covered by the agreement to accept the obligations as well. I have observed, however, that some parties to negotiations are trying to settle on a narrow, sectional base without giving due thought to the wider, national purposes which inspired the agreement.
I accept that unions work for the benefit of their members, or that section of their members for whom they are acting when processing a particular claim for better pay or other conditions. I accept also that management's aim is to maintain and develop its business and to do its best to avoid any interruption in the supply of goods or the provision of services. Under the procedures developed over the years in this country for resolving industrial disputes, the confrontation of parties with these interests uppermost in their minds tends sometimes to produce settlements which, while they may be accepted by the parties, could, nevertheless, have repercussions in other industries and other employments. This danger is especially to be watched when a national pay agreement is in operation, because if groups of workers who have accepted settlements complying with the agreement see other groups securing improvements in pay or conditions which go beyond the limits laid down, then it is easy to see that the acceptance of the agreement could be endangered.
This can be prevented if management and workers take proper account of the national agreement, take account especially of the long-term national purpose which it is there to serve and act in accordance with the aims accepted on the 21st December, 1970, by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, by all the main employer bodies and by the Government.
I believe that it would be helpful in opening this debate if I were to repeat these aims, as set out in the national agreement, and invite Deputies to endorse them, so that the message will go out from this House that, in this area of containing inflation and preserving industrial peace, we are all in general agreement as to the objectives to be worked for.
The parties to the national agreement agreed that
(a) it is essential that the rate of increase in costs and prices be moderated substantially;
(b) all possible measures should be taken to ensure improvements in efficiency to offset increases in costs and charges so that increases in incomes represent real increases; and
(c) industrial peace must prevail to achieve these objectives.
I believe that all of us, the Members of this House, would be doing a service to the people we represent by echoing these sentiments on all appropriate occasions and by using our influence to see that the agreement is observed in all situations, so that the high hopes held out for it can be fulfilled and we can reap the rewards in the form of moderation in the rate of inflation, real improvements in pay and living standards, industrial peace, higher production and more employment.
In commending these Estimates to the House, I should like to say that I look forward during the debate to hearing views and suggestions and criticisms of the running of the Department and I can assure Deputies that points made by them will be given due attention.
I have given the house a very lengthy introduction to this debate, an introduction covering all the essential features, I think, of my Department. I believe that this makes things easier for those who are interested in the different facets of the Department of Labour and I trust that it will be accepted by the House as an effort to make readily available to Deputies information in which every Member of this House is bound to be interested.
