Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 1973

Vol. 266 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 39: Labour (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £5,104,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1974, 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.

—(Minister for Labour).

Mr. Moore

I want to say, first of all, that I appreciate that this is the Minister's first brief and therefore I intend just to say a few words on the future rather than on the past. I want to assure the Minister that if he is forward looking and if there is a general effort made to improve the Department then he will have my full support. I should like to emphasise that in my opinion the reason for this Department is that job creation should be at the top of its priorities. It would be ridiculous if we had a Department of Labour that could not say to an unemployed person : "Look, in a reasonable time we can assure you that your prospects of being put into gainful employment are quite good." I admit that is not an easy thing to do but I suggest that all our efforts must be governed and channelled towards this object. Therefore, it may not be altogether the privilege of the Department of Labour to ensure that we will provide, as near as we can, full employment. I realise there are many factors influencing the situation, factors in regard to which the Department is powerless unless the economy is, first of all, built up to such an extent that we can say to those who want employment that we can provide them with the opportunity.

The Minister referred to the problem of jobs for young people. I am sure everyone agrees with the Minister and shares his concern in this particular respect. One of the worst things that can happen to a boy or girl is entering a blind alley occupation. Sometimes youth do this in an anxiety to leave school or for the purpose of getting some kind of employment which will help to improve family circumstances. I hope the Minister will tighten up the regulations with regard to the employment of youth and thereby ensure that the boy or girl who enters employment will have some idea of the future the particular employment holds for him or her.

I agree with the Minister about the need for career guidance. The Minister said that too few schools are aware of their obligations in this regard. I do not want to criticise the schools; it is almost a national pastime to suggest that all our problems should be resolved in the schools. Teachers have a very onerous task and one would hesitate to impose any further burdens on them. I think the Department could well have its own section for career guidance in the schools and the officers of the Department might arrange special sessions for pupils for the purpose of such guidance.

With regard to manpower and manpower policy in general, this particular section is doing a good job. I think its activities could be expanded. Perhaps the Minister might tell us when the OECD Report on Manpower will be available. I believe the report will teach us a great deal. The experts have been here and they will probably be here again before they present the Minister with their report. If the Minister could hurry up the report that could well pay a handsome dividend. The Minister says we are going through trying times. I suppose that is part of life; times will always be trying, but because of the overall excellence of the matter emanating from the OECD, I believe the report will be of tremendous value in analysing the various problems associated with our lack of employment opportunities or, indeed, in one or two instances overemployment. I look forward to the report.

A change has taken place recently in that employment exchanges are now under the auspices of the Department of Social Welfare. This may or may not be a good thing. I should like to see the employment exchanges developing into something more in line with their title instead of being places where men and women go to sign on and draw social welfare benefits. The exchanges here in Dublin do not look very inviting buildings. The one in Gardiner Street is drab. It certainly would not inspire confidence. The one in Werburgh Street is tucked away there. The Minister might consider modernising the buildings. They should be designed to inspire hopefulness. New offices might cost money but that is no reason why they should not be built. The exchanges should have a 20th-century look. One is 18th or 19th century in appearance.

I noted with satisfaction the Minister's reference to our exiles. We must face the fact that many of us do not really care very much what happens to our exiles. I should like to see a greater consciousness of our obligations to emigrants. The ideal would be to provide such conditions here that no one would have to emigrate. I know that some people will always want to emigrate but we sometimes see families broken up because the father must emigrate in search of employment. Very often middle-aged couples, who have reared families at great personal sacrifice, have no alternative except the emigrant ship or, in this more affluent age, the emigrant plane. Is there enough awareness of the position of the unwilling emigrant? Are we doing enough for such emigrants. I have a feeling that the more affluent we become the less concerned we are with those who are not so affluent. We let them emigrate; we no longer see them and our consciences are no longer worried.

I compliment the Minister on continuing the policy introduced by his predecessor of making grants available to the voluntary organisations dealing with emigrants. If our people must emigrate they should emigrate fully trained for some particular craft or trade. The Department have a task in the training and retraining of workers because although we do not wish to see our people going at all, if they do go we should see that they are properly trained to face competition in the foreign labour market.

Now that we are in the EEC the call to Europe on our workers will be greater. Until recent years our emigrants went to the UK or the US. I have met some of our workers in Europe. Some of them went there from a sense of adventure. We had a report from Denmark of some of our workers there being dissatisfied with conditions. I made inquiries from the Minister and I have found that the problem now, if it exists at all, is of much less import than at the beginning. The Minister now in the House and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will have a greater task than their predecessors to ensure that our workers who emigrate to the Continent will be given the best safeguards possible. When they emigrated to the US or the UK they did not have any language problems. In Europe this will be an added burden and the Department may well see their way not alone to train our workers technically but also in languages.

Last year the Minister for Labour introduced the Employment Agencies Bill. I say with all modesty that I had some part in that legislation being initiated. Although most of our employment agencies were first-class at that time, we had an alarming report on the activities of one. Dr. Hillery was Minister for Labour at the time and he introduced the Bill which is now giving much more protection to people who seek employment abroad through these agencies. I would emphasise that having met representatives of employment agencies not so long ago I am satisfied they are good people who are giving a professional service and who always bear in mind the interests of the people seeking employment. At the same time we must be constantly vigilant so that these high standards will be kept up.

Only last week the Minister introduced a Bill to amend the redundancy legislation. I welcome the fact that the number of redundancies last year fell by comparison with the previous year and that a greater number of people were using the Appeals Tribunal. I have often wondered how many cases there are which are never appealed. Such people carry their grievances and this sort of thing could lead to strikes eventually. Only the other day there was a strike and an injunction and I wondered whether that situation would have been reached if the person had appealed to the tribunal. The Minister may tell us he cannot be responsible for people not using the Appeals Tribunal, but I wonder are the existence and functions of the tribunal publicised sufficiently as far as the workers are concerned. I have not heard workers talking very much about it. Workers should be properly informed of the existence of the Appeals Tribunal which is there for their protection and, also, of course, for the protection of the employers. The Minister has made an appeal for industrial peace and he should see that these possible abrasive elements, such as lack of knowledge of the tribunal, are eliminated.

In the matter of safety and health for workers the Minister has promised new legislation. I think this is essential because although the death-rate in industry is fairly low—we have had the figures for last year—far too many accidents, fatal and non-fatal, are occurring. One accident in industry is one too many. Some years ago when I worked in an industrial concern we had a work safety committee. I do not hear any mention of these nowadays and I wonder if they have been dropped. If only from the point of view that they brought worker and employer together they were an excellent idea. All efforts should be made for the safety and the health of workers and every means to inform workers and employers should be adopted. We will become much more industrialised and therefore our workers will be open to much more risk in the future. We should strive to reduce our accident rate by adopting all possible precautions.

The Minister also has a heavy responsibility in regard to the health of workers. Industrial growth has played a big part in creating the polluted atmosphere in which we have to live and although we live in one of the least polluted atmospheres, as we become more industrialised the problem will grow and there will be a greater risk of chest troubles for our workers. This risk could be reduced very much if we had proper factory inspections and rigid rules being adhered to for the protection of workers' health. I look forward to the Minister introducing legislation on health matters in industry at an early date.

The Minister said that for the first time since 1923 we have a member on the governing body of the ILO. I do not know why this should be but I welcome it because Irishmen have played a big part down the years in the ILO. I hope we will maintain our interest in it.

Like the Minister I welcome the drop in the number of man-days lost through strikes but I think the Minister is being a little naïve when he says that a little more give and a little less take would lead us further to industrial peace. That is over-simplifying the cause of strikes. From time to time we hear demands being made for the banning of unofficial strikes. I often wonder how that could be done. One may say that unofficial strikes are wrong, wildcat strikes are wrong, but I have seen some of them erupt without any warning and then spread to a big industry. They are not always because of wages. The cause may be a grievance on the part of one person or it may be a big grievance. We cannot over-simplify industrial relations.

The Minister said that the two national wage agreements played a big part in bringing about this drop in the number of man-days lost through strikes. We all hope that the Government and the trade unions will succeed in adopting a third national wage agreement because if this is not achieved I can see that there will be chaos here not only in the industrial sector but throughout our whole economic life. Unless the Government rigidly control prices I can see little hope of a third national wage agreement. This has been the trouble in a country very close to us. One cannot expect a man whether he is a worker or a man in receipt of a pension for work which he has done or because he is handicapped, to look kindly on any agreement which will allow his wages or his pension to be eroded by rising prices. I wish the Minister well in his part in the battle against infla tion. I believe that unless we succeed in pegging prices, the chances of reaching a third national wage agreement are very poor. If we do not have such an agreement we are in for a trying time.

At the beginning of this year the Labour Court was expanded slightly. I should like to see the Minister study all aspects of the Labour Court and come in here with legislation to remove what some of us see as weaknesses in the whole procedure. For many years the Labour Court has served us well. At the same time, I should like to see more recourse to the Labour Court. It should be used by employers and employees from the word "go". The Labour Court officers, excellent men with tremendous experience, are available to industrialists who have problems but this court is not being used fully. Very often it is only used as a last resort. People decide they will not give an inch and then they go to the Labour Court but this does not mean the end of the trouble because the court's decision is not binding. It has been suggested that we should have an appeal from the Labour Court but I do not think this would serve any purpose because having tried the first court and not having succeeded in obtaining the increase the men wanted, or in the case of the employer not having succeeded in pinning the increase to lesser dimensions, there would be the human tendency to appeal. It would simply drag out the whole process. I am sure the Minister will get around to looking at the Labour Court, this tremendous institution which has served us so well but which could serve us even better with some slight adjustments. I look forward to the Minister bringing in legislation in this regard.

The Minister said that in these trying times we must seek perfection. We must certainly seek perfection but we should never become so unrealistic as to think that if we do not have perfection we shall stop trying. We must realise the task before us in the labour sphere and go ahead with perfecting our organisation, educating the people on both sides in industry. We will have the drift from the land continuing and we must find employment for many thousands of extra workers in industry. This is happening in most countries. We must up-grade our institutions to ensure that they can deal with the problems, some of which have been there since the industrial revolution and will be with us for some more years. We now, as full members of the EEC, must assure the Europeans that we are fellow Europeans and that we intend to play as full a part as possible and up to European standards. These are problems a previous Minister did not have to face up to but in their wisdom the last Government decided that our place was in Europe and succeeded, with the votes of the people, in entering Europe.

If this new departure gives us some headaches I believe we will find that they are headaches worth having. After solving the problem I believe we will have a more prosperous and happy country. We can set a headline in this regard and be in a position to show others how we reduced the total number of days lost through strikes. On two occasions this country won the OECD league for the number of man-days lost. This year the number lost has dropped, and I look forward to the Minister for Labour being able to report next year that we have industrial peace, and harmony, and that we are well on the road to having full employment.

Mr. B. Desmond

I propose to deal with apprenticeship generally in Irish industry and the role of the Department in relation to employment taking in the other employment agencies in the country, particularly the agencies which create and promote employment —for example, the Industrial Development Authority. My concern in regard to apprenticeship arises from the fact that there is now a long overdue decision on the part of AnCO to review the current effectiveness of apprenticeship arrangements in the country.

I welcome the fact that AnCO has decided to publish a discussion document on a new approach. I note that the Minister, in his introductory statement, welcomed the document. I also welcome the document for discussion purposes. I have some reservations about the various proposals put forward in it. I am not so sure that one might regard the proposals contained in the document as being very far-reaching, or major implications on the future of apprenticeship in this country, or major changes from the 1959 Apprenticeship Act. I am not sure that one could regard these proposals as representing a new approach.

The more one reads the document the more one becomes concerned that it may have the seeds of a very old approach. I think that in some respects it has a rather out-dated approach. At times I got the whiff of 19th century attitude of employers who merely wanted to have industrial workers, after the age of 15, trained in an industrial centre for 12 months, or two years, with a little theoretical training added on and then they were considered fit for industrial life. I have the strongest reservations about that kind of approach. Nevertheless, I accept the criticism of our existing apprenticeship system.

I believe that it is inadequate that young boys should leave school at 15 years plus and then should be expected to get practical training on the job, and theoretical training on either day release, or block release, in our technical schools. I believe it is wrong that they should be regarded as qualified skilled men having undergone an alleged apprenticeship of five years in industry. I do not think that the system as has been devised from 1959 is adequate. Equally, I am concerned about the extent to which we have managed to forecast the need for overall adequate intake with an eye to future needs of the country. I am not sure that we have had effective, adequate manpower forecasting in this field. I am glad to know that the Minister has laid special stress on the work of the National Manpower Service in this country in trying to undertake the necessary forecasting in the field of industrial skills.

I wonder if the proposals put forward by AnCO in this document will not make an already difficult situation even worse. This may be regarded as a peculiar statement but there is a great deal of confusion in the document. For example, it is suggested in this document that no young person should be refused entry into craft training by reason of failure to pass an examination. This young person, however, would need to have completed either the group certificate or intermediate certificate course and to have undergone an aptitude test. That is the double-barrelled proposal of AnCO. In other words, one will not have any entry examination as such. One will merely go through the group or intermediate certificate course and then undergo an aptitude test. If one is suitable at that level one is taken into apprenticeship. On the other hand the person, having been taken into apprenticeship, AnCO finds it completely unsatisfactory that there is effectively no terminal testing in the current system. It proposes to have continuous assessment of apprenticeship throughout the period of apprenticeship and terminal testing for qualification. To me, that is a confusion. One cannot have non-qualification entry and have terminal exit testing of an effective nature. Therefore, there is a confusion in the approach of AnCO.

I am also concerned about a good deal of the assertions in the document produced by AnCO which the Minister has urged us to consider. I am concerned about how the document was compiled. Reading through it there is no statistical appendix in it. There is little statistical information in it. If one goes through the annual report of AnCO one gets a certain amount of information on apprenticeship and what is being done in various areas, but there is little of what one would call rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the apprenticeship system in this country. It is difficult, therefore, for the politicians to assess the situation.

I urge a certain caution on the part of the Minister because I have a horror that one might finish up with the situation where apprentices will be produced on a three-year basis, some in fact might be produced on a one-year basis, in different crafts with AnCO certification. One would find a substantial number of skilled Irish workers caught in the narrow confines of an industry. I want to see apprenticeship broadened in the educational centres. I want to see apprentices receive qualifications— this will involve examinations or certification of some kind. I want apprentices to participate fully in courses in the regional technical colleges; I want to see them graduate out of apprenticeship into the technological colleges. I want to see apprentices from 15 years onwards follow courses whereby they can finish their education at universities. There is a great danger that if a narow approach is adopted on the educational front we will have skilled ghetto workers and nothing could be more disastrous for the future industrial development of the country and for the development of skills in Irish employment.

If I am critical I hope it is in a constructive sense. There has been a strong feeling that the AnCO document is an internal discussion document. I should like the Minister to ensure that the other Government Departments, notably the Department of Education, are involved. I do not think AnCO can survive without the Department of Education. There may be a feeling in some areas that AnCO could survive and develop their own training curriculum and work away on their own basis. There must be the closest liaison between AnCO and the national manpower service in forecasting apprenticeship needs.

There must be a relationship between AnCO and the National Science Council. There is little point in training apprentices on a three-year basis in skills that will be obsolete at the end of that time. Many Irish workers are being trained in skills that will be obsolete in five years. This is the reason I argue that the broadest educational training should be given to young boys of 15 years and over to enable them to adapt in a changing technological situation. They must be given a broad educational flexibility to enable them to adapt to a rapidly changing industrial society. I would urge the Minister to ensure that this is the outcome of the approach of AnCO.

The document is a training document, interspersed with conventional educational wisdom. I do not think that is adequate. One must have a balance between education, apprenticeship and training. The responsibility of the Ministers for Labour and Education is to have the correct mix to ensure that this is obtained. The socialist approach is that education concerns the whole person, not just training in an industrial training centre for a particular skill. It is the complete development of a worker's personality up to the age of 18 and thereafter with retraining and further adult education to enable the worker to develop throughout his life.

In the AnCO document there is reference to the AnCO special committee. I always have reservations about special committees. I would ask the Minister to inquire about the special committee; what is its composition and are the people on the committee competent and qualified for the major proposals contained in the document? The AnCO document has also stated that educational interests were consulted or were involved. I have considerable doubts that educational interests were involved to the extent suggested and I would ask the Minister to query AnCO on this point.

I wonder if the proposals contained in the AnCO document relate to the proposals and recommendations made by the industrial training committees of AnCO. There might be some divergence in that regard. I regard the evidence in the document as rather inadequate. It has taken several years to compile this document but we are expected to give our views on it in a few months. The Minister can legitimately say that the discussion period should be extended to enable all concerned to consider the matter. For instance, I should be interested to hear the views of the Department of Education. I think many educationalists in the Department would have strong views on the matter. The views of all the teaching organisations—not merely the Teachers' Association of Ireland—should be studied carefully. Similarly, the Irish Vocational Education Association and the CEO's association would have some fairly tough comments to make regarding the approach adopted by AnCO.

It is easy to be critical but I must point out that some of the statements in the document are not necessarily supported by hard evidence. For example, it is stated that theoretical training in vocational schools and colleges can appear to many employers and apprentices to be irrelevant because often it is remote from practical job requirements. Have we clearcut evidence that the theoretical training provided in the day-release and block-release courses is inadequate, unnecessary or irrelevant? I have not found any evidence from the authorities concerned that this is so although this may be the view of some specialists in AnCO. However, if we are to have adaptability and if the young people in industry are to have sufficient flexibility in skills in order to master the technology of the future they should look beyond the skills in which they are being trained at present. Certainly they will need a thorough understanding of the social forces in society. They may very well need considerable grounding in theoretical training at apprenticeship level to enable them to have this sense of adaptability that is necessary in modern industrial life. I query the rather superficial dismissal of the theoretical aspects of training.

With regard to the Minister achieving the correct mix in industrial training, I have no great objection to the development of aptitude testing. My view is that a combination of certified examinations plus aptitude testing gives the best result. I would not go overboard on aptitude training of either intake apprentices or apprentices themselves on certification. It is important to point out that one of the pillars of the AnCO document is that aptitude testing is, one might say, becoming the be-all and end-all. Personally, I have reservations about it because while aptitude testing is invaluable in many areas it is subjective and in Ireland we still need a great deal of proof of its effectiveness. I have no objection to the introduction of the system of personal evaluation. I think it quite unfair that an apprentice should be thrown out because he does not pass an examination. I think a combination of examination and aptitude testing is best but in the AnCO document the examination system is thrown out and aptitude testing rather superficially substituted. That criticism is entirely invalid.

One of the frustrating aspects of the document is the absence of source information: how many apprentices have undergone aptitude tests? How many were successful? How many were not? This information is not available in the document. Let me refer to paragraph 19 of the document. There is a rather sweeping statement that 20-25 per cent of boys who leave school between the ages of 15 and 16 enter apprenticeship. Who said so? What evidence is there that this is so? I shall accept that figure if somebody gives the source of it but I have not yet seen any source of an authoritative nature.

That kind of sweeping statement is rather dangerous in a document which proposes major policy changes. There is need to check such a statement put in as a positive statement in this document. Therefore, I suggest that in the final assessment of this document at departmental level there might be greater emphasis on the training of apprentices for an industry as a whole rather than on training for a particular job or skill. This broad approach is necessary and is in line with the general principles of industrial training.

One might query whether in 1973 we should worry about a new approach to apprenticeship as such. Is there need for apprenticeship as such? This is why I do not regard the document as a new approach. There is certainly need for a tremendous development in industrial training. Workers should be trained in a broad range of skills in a given industry and given a substantial general education. Then one would have mobility of skill within an industry as a whole and comprehensive, on-the-job training will enable them to specialise at individual firm level.

I urge the Minister to consider a different line: educational training should be relevant to the work undertaken in the apprentice's industry, not just a narrow craft. Is there much point in training a worker purely as a carpenter or bricklayer when one should be training him in the broad range of skills of the construction industry? Is there much point m training him in the narrow skills of a particular trade in the engineering industry which might be obsolete in a few years time when there is need to train workers in the broad skills of that industry as a whole? That kind of approach would be the most helpful to Irish industrial workers in the future and would ensure mobility of the work force within the industry as a whole. This will be necessary. If we are to have that approach there must be basic educational training on the scientific and industrial principles underlining the industrial processes for such workers. That is necessary if we want to have a broad industrial training approach rather than an apprenticeship approach.

I am certain that the Minister, if I know his past statements in this regard, is in full sympathy with my views. The education of the apprentice should and must include suitable basic training in what one would call the broad general educational humanities. It is preposterous to suggest that one takes a young worker at age 15-plus, gives him one year or three years of training, much of it on the job and the minor aspects of it theoretically, and then assumes that he is an adult industrial worker of a skilled type. This is undemocratic and a denial of the right of the individual. People should not be narrowly trained, narrowly apprenticed and educated in a very narrow rigid framework. I am adamant that young industrial workers have a social right to be trained and given basic education in the broad general humanities even if they end up as skilled industrial craftsmen. We owe to the Irish people a very broad progressive approach in this regard and I think we can provide it because we have the advantage of learning from the mistakes of the Continental countries, the mistakes of Germany for instance. With due respect for AnCO their rationale, to quote just a summary, is: "In most European countries there are compulsory tests and certification during and at the end of apprenticeship. Here the only qualification is to serve five years as an apprentice." They are critical of the five years but I do not particularly like what I have seen of German apprenticeship nor am I particularly impressed by the French or the Dutch. I would recommend some Members of the House to go and see some of the Continental apprenticeship training systems where men are slotted into a narrow, ghetto craft, a module, one might say, for life. That is their inheritance as Continental workers.

In Ireland we can have a broader approach without losing the specialised skills of an industrial worker in his particular job. Perhaps the most important aspect of this approach is one I commend to the Minister: it will provide and be so designed that automatically if adopted, a worker will, if he is a successful student, have an opportunity to progress to further education. This is important. He will have the prospect of further education opened up to him. Educationally and socially it is regressive in any document to suggest that what may eventuate—and I see this kind of approach developing—is that a worker will be apprenticed for life, one might say, to work for a single firm rather than for an industry. That is the danger and it is a denial of a worker's rights in the development of education.

I am giving the Minister my views because he has asked for the views of Deputies. There is no departmental or ministerial policy on this as yet. I am grateful that the Minister has not done the trick-of-the-loop of announcing policy decisions, and that is the end of it. We now have an opportunity to form policy in Dáil Éireann by putting forward our views. The broad approach which a craftsman will have to labour mobility across an industry will appeal to the trade union movement. It has always been a besetting problem of trade unions in relation to crafts, redundancy and individual firms, that workers have been trained narrowly for particular firms and trades. Without mobility and flexibility the unions have found themselves with redundant members on their hands with nowhere to go for other work.

The broad approach would be beneficial for Irish industrial workers in the years ahead when they will probably work abroad—not that many of them. Many of them now work in Britain and some may yet work in the European countries. Why should we not train Irish apprentices in a foreign language? We are in the European Economic Community. The technocrats in AnCO probably would be aghast at the idea of an apprentice of 16 or 17 years of age learning a foreign language, but this is the type of broad education we should give Irish industrial workers.

We are in the Common Market. Skills and employment have become multi-national, and why should not an Irish tradesman be able to speak French or German, and learn it as a part of his general apprenticeship education? I would recommend that the broad skills of the humanities should be opened up to industrial workers. That recommendation regarding languages is now 12 years old. Twelve years ago this was a recommendation to the Apprenticeship and Vocational Educational Authority at a congress in Trieste. In 1962 they asked for a second European language as a common European qualification to ensure broad mobility.

The Minister might inquire from AnCO what precisely they have in mind in terms of the general education of apprentices in future. The answer to that question would be illuminating. I am not on what I would call a critical kick against AnCO. Tremendous work is being done on the apprenticeship and industrial training sides by this organisation. It would be dangerous if these proposals were allowed to go through without public discussion. Therefore, I suggest that a good standard of general education for apprentices, to use a classical Irish phrase, would not be incompatible or irreconcilable with the proposals of AnCO. This would be a far better preparation of the individual for his future life.

The Minister said: "I feel these proposals are very worthwhile and should be carefully studied by all Deputies." I accept that many proposals in the AnCO document are worthwhile, particularly those relating to the forecasting of apprenticeship needs. This is a major issue and one which will merit the full support of this House. I accept that there is a need for more flexibility on entry standards. I support the desirability of an entry examination together with an aptitude test. One often finds that a particular individual can pass an examination but fail an aptitude test. There should be a flexibility and an openness in providing apprenticeship entry for young people.

I agree with the general concept in the document of continuous assessment techniques being used. This is good. It is not what one would call window-dressing, but an essential need. I would not be happy with the proposal in the document that all one needs at the end of a three year period at a post-primary school is a certificate of attendance which says that one has attended a day group certificate course, or an intermediate certificate course and, hey presto, one gets a certificate of attendance and one can start one's apprenticeship. That would not be satisfactory in the long-term because it would lower standards, if anything, and would be ineffective.

The Minister for Education is making what I would call a very interesting approach to closing the gap between the post-primary secondary and the post-primary vocational technical sides. One of the measures I would strongly urge on the Minister is late entry to apprenticeship. Why should a person not with the leaving certificate start off an apprenticeship? Is there anything wrong with that? We have thousands of young men and women emerging from the leaving certificate course with pass leaving certificates. They and their parents are at their wits' end to know what they will do in future life. We have thousands of young men and women also emerging with honours leaving certificates. They do not belong to the upper middle-class income group and they have not got the money to go to university, even with a grant. It is quite expensive. Why should they not have an opportunity of a short accelerated apprenticeship entry and, over a period of two years, become a qualified apprentice? Age of entry should be substantially higher. I agree with AnCO that age of entry into apprenticeship should be much later if necessary. Why should a man not become a craftsman at the age of 21 or 22 or 23?

Ruairí Brugha

That is a trade union problem.

Mr. B. Desmond

I agree with Deputy Brugha that, on the trade union side, there must be greater flexibility and a much more open approach has to be teased out inside the trade union organisations. I see nothing wrong with a person of 18 years entering an apprenticeship. Why should he not if he is a late developer in life or if he wants to get an industrial skill? Equally, there should be an opportunity for women to take up apprenticeships. It is a scandalous situation that apprenticeship, by and large, is overwhelmingly confined to boys. Why should we not have young women apprentices as in any modern European state? The denial of opportunities of apprenticeship to women in this country is scandalous. We are going to provide equal pay for work of equal value in employment opportunities which are of themselves of the lowest possible grading. That is not equality of opportunity. It is not even equal pay. Equal opportunity in apprenticeship must be provided for women in industry.

I would ask the Minister to ask AnCO whether they are happy about the idea that young men and women with leaving certificates should have the opportunity of entering industrial apprenticeship. The Minister should ask the trade unions about this point. Are the unions prepared to accept people with leaving certificate for apprenticeship? Are these people wanted? I hope that they are. Apprentices with leaving certificate are, in some instances, better equipped to proceed to technician grade or up to the first level in technological grades. A man with leaving certificate can proceed rapidly to that level. He is on the first rung of the ladder into a technological college. A young apprentice with a good broad leaving certificate, having gone through an ancillary period of apprenticeship, can become one of our finest technicians or one of the finest qualifiers on the technological front, equal to a man in first or second year in university.

One of the problems about the AnCO document is that it would seem to depress the opportunities open to young people to go further in the educational field. I would urge the Minister to have a variety of methods of entry to apprenticeships. If the Minister concentrated on that type of approach we could enrich enormously the skills of the country. We could not merely enrich the skills in the vocational schools and in the industrial training centres but also in our technological colleges and in our universities. I have some very strong views about the role of the universities in this regard. I accept, however, that it is not appropriate to speak on these views in the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Labour.

I urge the Minister in his discussions with AnCO to be flexible on the duration of apprenticeship. Some people regard apprenticeship as a five-year training period in a job before one becomes, for instance, a motor mechanic and feel that if this period were shortened to three years everything would be all right. This is a superficial approach. We find various people in various trades having certain views about the length of apprenticeship. There may be over-emphasis on this in the AnCO document. I do not think the length of apprenticeship is over-important; what happens during that apprenticeship is very important. It could be that 12 months would be adequate as an apprenticeship period in certain trades, while two years or three years would be necessary in other trades and five years would be necessary in highly specialised trades.

I suggest to the Minister that we should not have a global three-year period. I would be opposed to the current five-year period. What is sacrosanct about three years? Why not three months? Perhaps a short period would be sufficient if one could get the fundamentals of training into a young man's head in three months. The length of apprenticeship should be flexible. There are 90,000 workers in the construction industry. The constructional engineering industry is expanding. The printing industry has great potential. We have a textile industry and a shoes and leather industry. All these industries are quite definite and a wide divergence of skills is required. The length of apprenticeship in the various trades should be discussed with trade union officials or mature craftsmen. The length of such apprenticeship should be flexible and should be the subject of consultation. The Minister would be surprised to know of the problems facing him in respect of some of the trade union attitudes. Some unions would regard five years' training as sacrosanct. It is really a question of what length of apprenticeship is necessary in industrial training.

These are some of my views on one aspect of the Minister's speech. The speech was very comprehensive, detailed and thorough. It was refreshing in that regard. I would not be disposed to comment on various aspects of the Minister's speech. Many of the Minister's proposals are forward-looking and comprehensive. I hope that during the Minister's term of office some of the schemes will come to legislative fruition. We know there is a difference between making a speech and producing a Bill. The Minister has my sympathy in that regard. Social and industrial legislation are required in this country. During the lifetime of this Dáil we will probably have a Bill for industrial training and safety legislation, and legislation about holidays and conditions of employment. There is a wide range of legislation. A different approach is required on each legislative front. My experience has been that during my public life, in the short period since 1959, no Minister is judged on his record for making speeches inside or outside Leinster House. The only consolation a politician has comes from his record of having brought in a piece of legislation as a monument to his efforts. This is where we wish the Minister well with the actual legislation he will bring in over the next few years. I look forward to the House having an opportunity of discussing such matters.

In conclusion, I am pleased to note that the Department of Labour have their own Minister. It is a growing Department which is not, perhaps, the most expensive Department in terms of expenditure from the budget, but a Department which has been progressive in relation to redundancy payments, an area in which the Minister has substantial control on an agency basis, one might say, and an area in which the Minister for Finance would regard budget responsibility as being in some respects rather limited.

However, there is one aspect on which I would encourage the Minister to lay emphasis, because I would be worried in case the Department of Labour became a compartmentalised Cabinet portfolio. As in Britain, the Department dealing with employment should have a broad scope. For example, in the employment creating agencies, particularly the Industrial Development Authority, I would hope that there would be departmental involvement. If we are to develop effective regional policies we cannot have a situation in which the IDA will decide on a particular regional strategy, the Department of Labour will simultaneously decide on a different regional training and manpower strategy, while at local government level there is another regional arrangement. There is need for co-ordination, and that can be brought about by the Department having consultative and even policy-decision involvement in the work of the Industrial Development Authority. That is one way of giving the Department an opportunity to co-ordinate policy at a national level. It may be yet another burden on the Department, but it will at least mean that an employer setting up a factory in Ireland will get everything in one package. Therefore, I would urge not just liaison but statutory involvement. That is just a passing comment I would make arising out of the views of Deputy Moore which I heard earlier on, and which I support.

Ruairí Brugha

Ba mhaith liom traoslú leis an Aire as a ainmníu mar Aire Saothair agus mar gheall ar an learmheas leathan a thug sé ar an Roinn cúpla seachtain ó shin. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go maith leis agus le h-oifigigh na Roinne san obair atá rompu, mar is obair an-thábhachtach í don náisiún seo.

I do not intend to go into the controversial areas in which the Minister may have responsibility for the coming 12 months, although it would be easy to do so. I wish the Minister well in the fulfilment of his responsibility and would, perhaps, take a brief look at the Department of Labour as it is now. It started off like a Department that would be called at the last moment to try to deal with a strike. At least that was the public impression of the Department. Over the years it has expanded into something which is of tremendous importance to the community. It is possible that even the people deeply involved in the Department and ancillary bodies may not appreciate how vitally important is the work they are doing. Next to the Department of Education the Department of Labour is, I think, the one Department that can help to create a better social atmosphere and a happier community. It is a Department that can help to generate a better attitude by management towards workers and by workers towards their job.

There are many aspects in which the Department is now involved, through An Chomhairle Oiliúna, through research, through the work of the Labour Court, which is independent but which is attached to the Department, which are of the utmost importance to all of us. Deputy Barry Desmond referred to the need for a liaison between the Department of Labour and the Department of Education and the need for a broader general education for people, perhaps before they become involved in training for work. I feel the Deputy is correct in this in relation to many areas which I have observed around me in recent times. I know it does not relate to the Department of Labour, but the atmosphere which develops in any community derives from the type of education which young people get. The education they get in the humanities and the values of life they acquire inevitably influence their attitude. Society, therefore, gains or loses, depending on the quality of that education.

The Minister, in any research he might direct, should try to find out how many young people in this city today have been given the habit of reading books; how many young people are going into jobs and going from work to play and to drink and have not been given the sort of education which would encourage them to read books and to learn about nature, art and so on. We ourselves are responsible for the sort of society being created, and certainly some of the atmosphere around us is not very encouraging. On the other hand, there are good aspects. There are many young people engaging in fruitful and even constructive pastimes, but the sort of education that is being given is very important to the success of the Department for which the Minister is responsible.

The EEC membership which we have now acquired is, I believe, dynamic in its effect, not only on our social outlook but in regard to our efforts to make a success of ourselves in this country. The decision to join the European Community was based on the belief of most people engaged in industry that Irish management and workers could be as successful as others provided we had access to markets. It was believed we had for too long been dependent on the British market for work for emigrants and also for Irish goods which would keep people in jobs at home. In this sense we have been, and still are, far too dependent on the British economy and on the ups and downs of that economy.

I am sure the Minister appreciates that the objective of the industrial drive which started many years ago was to create industry, to slow down the enforced emigration and to provide for the natural increase in the agricultural population who would need work. Things have changed considerably during the past ten years. The Minister referred to the fall in emigration and recent statistics indicate a fall in redundancy.

The work of AnCO is very important in regard to the training of workers for better and more efficient production and retraining workers to fit them for alternative jobs. I regard the retraining of workers as of the utmost importance because if a man or woman loses his or her job through redundancy he or she has the right to a new job. This is a top priority.

A good deal of work has been done in the training of managers by the Irish Management Institute. This is certainly as important as, if not more important than, the training of workers. It is important to understand that more of the responsibility for the success of an enterprise can lie on a manager than on those who have to work with him. The first rule of any manager should be to create an atmosphere in which workers are glad to work with him. Much of the cause of discontent and dissatisfaction in the past has arisen from bad and sometimes arrogant management attitudes. There has been a considerable improvement due mainly to the influence of the Irish Management Institute.

It is important that industries which are running into trouble in regard to markets should let AnCO and the Industrial Development Authority know as soon as possible so that diversification or alternative industry can be brought in in time. Management have to recognise that they have the responsibility to create new jobs rather than let things reach the stage where it is too late and people become redundant.

The work done by the National Manpower Service is very good but I do not think enough is known about it. The Minister should try to get more publicity for it on radio and television. I imagine very few people know that there are now six regional directors working in 13 different centres throughout the country. The work which is done here in the proper placement of people in jobs is very useful in the interests of those people and is essential in the interests of our economy.

It is essential to bring career information into every school and I am glad to note in a reference to this that the aim is that in the Department of Education there should be a career guidance officer in every school. There are too many misfits and, indeed, some parents are foolishly over-ambitious for their children and disregard the true welfare of those children by not ensuring that those children are doing what they are fitted to do rather than what their parents may think they should be doing.

The good work of the Labour Court does not get enough publicity. We know that bad news is always news and good news is seldom heard but the record shown by the Minister of 78 per cent acceptance in disputes last year is a good one and it highlights the importance of the Labour Court as a consultative body which brings people together.

I would like to urge the Minister to have a look at the very large number of people who retire at 60 or 65 years of age. The Department, An Comhairle Oiliúna, employers and trade unions should engage in some sort of research into what people in this category should be doing after they retire. I believe here you have years of accumulated experience going to waste because many of those people have not thought about what they should be doing. They have not been conditioned towards undertaking some kind of fruitful work. In many cases people look after this themselves but I have come across cases in the course of my political work where people who have retired are doing absolutely nothing. I believe these could make a considerable contribution and both they and the country would be the better for such a contribution.

I would urge the Minister to give special priority to the finding of alternative employment for those affected by takeovers. We all know takeovers are undesirable and, if we could prevent them, I am sure we would. The fact is that they are with us whether we like them or not. I have come across cases of personal tragedy, of bitterness and disillusionment as a result of the buying out of firms of one kind or another. It is not enough to ensure that the correct redundancy payments are made. The individual who has worked for ten, 15, 20 or 25 years has a right to continue working; he has a right to some sense of fulfilment. I should like to see this particular area getting some kind of priority.

We have now had the Employer/ Labour National Agreement with us for a couple of years. The Minister may have difficulties here and inflation will do nothing to help these difficulties but I would urge him to try to ensure the continuance of this kind of agreement. It is a tribute to the workers, the employers and the trade unions that the agreement introduced a couple of years ago has survived to date. It is very important, not just to industry but to all people, that there should be that degree of harmony in the area of pay.

I was glad to note the Minister's reference to his intention of having a survey conducted on mental health and stress in industry. I think the responsibility of management is quite considerable in this particular sphere. In any employment sphere those in control can help to a great extent to create conditions which will go some of the way towards reducing the monotony of work. The manager or, indeed, the managing director can help by talking to the workers, by being a bit more human in his approach and that, in turn, will increase the interest of the workers in their particular jobs. I believe that many of the difficulties and many of the disputes which arise are not just motivated by a desire for more money; they very often arise from dissatisfaction due to a lack of thought on the part of management and a lack of interest on the part of the workers because of that lack of thought. New thinking on this is beginning to develop in Europe and the social policy there is following on that development.

Pollution by industry has been mentioned. This is not the direct concern of the Minister, but it could concern him indirectly in the sense that, if we do not control our environment and keep industrial expansion to some particular pattern and order, life itself would become more drab, more monotonous and, therefore, less interesting for workers with a resultant loss in the quality of performance.

I should like again to wish the Minister well in his Department. The work of the Department is essential to the future welfare of all the people. I also wish the bodies attached to the Department well in their work.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I wish to thank Deputies for the various comments they have made on the working of my Department and to assure them that these comments and the queries raised will have our close attention. As I said in my introductory statement, we have been at pains in the Department to have a general review of the entire working of the Department and it is our intention, in the course of that general review, to subject to a similar examination all legislation affecting the working population. This is essential because a great deal of our legislation is antiquated.

General factory legislation in the 1955 Act in turn, however, is based to a large extent on British legislation of 1936. The 1955 Act was brought in by the late William Norton and basically it incorporated a good deal of British thinking around the year 1936. Therefore it is necessary to update all that legislation, and I am sure Deputies on all sides would give general support to this idea. Attitudes of society change. Justifiably, higher expectations come with the changing situations of changing times and it is clear and right that our legislation should mirror the justifiably higher expectations, demands and requirements of people working in 1973.

As I explained in other venues, in this struggle of the working people for better conditions in their places of work, for better legislation governing their conditions of work, the Department of Labour are not neutral. We are squarely on the side of all those who work for a living in Ireland, of working Ireland. It is our ambition in the Department that this commitment of ours will be enshrined in up to date legislation wherever that is appropriate. I would hope that in the coming months we can at least begin the process of bringing the equal pay legislation, for instance, into law.

I have taken the opportunity in other places to explain that this legislation will not automatically give us true equality of the sexes in their places of work. We do not claim that for the legislation. Obviously, true equality of people of the two sexes in their places of work, doing the same kind of work, who are at present receiving different rates of pay, will not be achieved overnight by the passage of any equal pay legislation in this Parliament. True equality in the place of work or anywhere else will only be achieved on the basis of the general conviction that equal opportunity should be afforded to members of both sexes. This fundamental granting of equal opportunity to women will be in the long run far more important than any legislation and it will be far more difficult to achieve.

It has been noted by people who have examined this contentious question of equality of opportunity that it has its origin in home attitudes, in school attitudes and finally in the general attitude of society. If our legislation goes through all stages in this Parliament and goes out to be law in a society which still holds outmoded ideas of the woman's role, then that legislation will be ineffective. If it goes out to working places in which the majority of trade unionists have prejudices on the matter, then it will not be as effective as we would desire it to be.

In other words, for such legislation to be effective and for true equality of the sexes to be achieved, we require nothing less than a revolution in the attitude of people in our society. It is a remarkable paradox that in the part of this country over which this Parliament has jurisdiction at present, in the struggles earlier this century to give us the measure of freedom and political independence we enjoy, women played an important part. People have commented on the seemingly strange paradox of women's leading part in the founding years of this State and their apparent departure from decision making positions in this State in the late 1920s and 1930s. How is it that women who in the 1920s or earlier were prominent in what we know as the National Movement, that women who were given equality of leadership in that movement, by 1937 could be relegated in our Constitution to their place in the home? What had happened to national attitudes in that brief period?

One does not suggest that legislation based on bringing about equality of the sexes should mean women abandoning their homes. That could not possibly happen nor would it be desirable that it should happen, but it is strange that this view of women could be expressed in the 1937 Constitution in which they were given no other dimension than their role in the home.

Mr. Moore

That is not true, of course.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What is not true?

Mr. Moore

That the 1937 Constitution drove women back into the home.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am drawing attention: to the contrast in attitudes to women in the founding years of the State and later. In the Constitution of 1937 the emphasis is that a woman's main role is in the home and there is a total absence in that Constitution of any role for women beyond being confined to the home. I think that provision in the 1937 Constitution reflected the views of the majority of the Irish people. It seems strange that women should have had a leading role a short time before——

Mr. Tunney

We had Joan of Arc earlier in French history, but this does not prove anything.

Mr. M. O'Leary

l grant the Deputy that, but I do not quite get his point.

Mr. Tunney

I thought the Minister was making the point that, because ladies had identified themselves in certain fields of activities, there should have been general acceptance that the ladies' place was outward. History shows us that at certain times there were individual ladies who were different from the general pattern.

Mr. Moore

Thank heavens for that.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is a good point, that whatever about constitutions or the general opinions of society there will always be individuals who will be exceptions to the generally expressed attitude. This was true in the case of the 1937 Constitution. We did have exceptional women throughout that period who continued in leadership positions in the Irish Trade Union Movement—Louise Bennett, Helena Maloney. There we're other names also which do not come to mind, women who continued that tradition of earlier in the century.

The general point I was making was that we may proceed now with equal pay legislation, my intention has been expressed to proceed with legislation as rapidly as possible, but in the absence of any charge in public attitudes in the country as a whole towards acceptance of the idea of women as equal partners in the progress and development of our State any legislation will be severely limited in its beneficial impact.

Ruairí Brugha

That change is with us now. There is a notable change in attitudes and indeed the attitude of women towards life is changing fairly rapidly.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes, perhaps I am being overpessimistic about it. If the Deputy is right in that society in general now has a proper appreciation of the relevance of the women's effort in the national economy, accepts them as equal citizens in our State, then our legislation will fall on fertile ground and it will have some effect. They have discovered, in other countries where they have brought in equal pay legislation, that old prejudices die very hard and it has been necessary to tackle the more fundamental question of equality of opportunity. There we very rapidly come up against the accumulated traditions of centuries and James Connolly remarked in his day how difficult it was to overcome those. We will not escape that predicament even by bringing in legislation. This attitude is rooted in particular approaches to education. It was mentioned in the Hyland Report on Education. The Lynch Report referred to the parental attitudes to the kind of education suitable for girls and boys. This is seemingly a parental predetermination of role, an assignment of role at parent level, which extends throughout society.

These are problems that cannot be tackled by Government action alone and will require some fundamental changes in attitude in society at large. However, we, in so far as it is within our capacity to act, are acting on this matter of equal pay for equal work. It may be necessary later this year to consider general anti-discrimination legislation. While we do not have discrimination of the vile kind which has been in existence in the Northern part of the country on religious grounds, there are other forms of discrimination which have been noted in recent years. There is discrimination on grounds of age. We have the problem of workers leaving their jobs as a result of redundancy, technological change, and we find an unhappy prejudice growing up on the part of employers against reemploying people in their early forties. Properly trained men, good workers, with almost a whole lifetime of productive work before them, are turned down on grounds of age. It may be too heavy a comment on the situation to say that it is discrimination but literally that is what it amounts to. It is quite useless for the State to embark on a policy of training and retraining workers if there is an unwillingness on the part of the employers to take on such workers on the grounds of age.

Another discrimination, maybe not as widespread, which the Equal Pay Bill would be designed to help towards solving is the discrimination on grounds of sex. I believe this discrimination may continue and it may be necessary to introduce general anti-discrimination legislation to incorporate this question of refusing employment on the grounds of sex to individuals.

I have mentioned the question of age, a matter often complained of to me, and other Deputies may have had complaints from their constituents. We find, in a particular part of the country a factory closing down and, with IDA assistance, another factory opening up nearly a year later. In the meantime, we may have provided retraining facilities for the redundant workers. Then we find that workers are rejected in the new factory on grounds of age. I am not clear yet on what is the answer. I do not believe we should move to legislation until a case is proved for the necessity of such legislation, but the problem undoubtedly exists.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Surely the Minister is exaggerating?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Perhaps I am. All I am saying is that I am having the matter examined at present. I have had reports from many areas of this kind of difficulty. It may be that the problem is not as widespread as my reports suggest but I am having it examined anyway, because it would be very foolish to have workers with almost a whole lifetime of work before them turned down on grounds of age.

Another problem I am having looked at at present is discrimination on the grounds of address. In the Dublin city area, and perhaps in other areas, young people from particular areas do not appear to get the same treatment in terms of interview time or possibilities of employment as young people from more socially accepted areas. I do not know what the answer is. It is a very real problem if a young person is refused an avenue of employment simply because, in the view of the employer, the area from which he comes is not quite suitable. We must not permit social prejudices of this kind to deprive any young person of gainful employment. This would be quite unfair to the individual concerned. The answer is that it may not be as widespread as certain reports at my disposal appear to suggest. I do not think we can permit the situation to continue and if there is any wide application of this, or if wide areas, or sections of the people are affected, the answer would seem to be to remedy the matter by way of legislation.

I have already announced my intention of bringing in legislation to provide for the employment of a certain quota of handicapped persons. This legislation provides that employers be asked to employ a certain quota of handicapped persons. Up to now we have been following voluntary methods in this country. There is an argument as to which is the best for the handicapped person. Some arguments suggest that voluntary methods of asking employers to take on handicapped persons are the more effective in the long run.

In 1967 the late Deputy Seán Dunne introduced a Private Members' Bill dealing with this matter but it encountered certain opposition. The Minister at the time argued his case that it was better that voluntary means alone should be depended upon to ensure that handicapped persons would receive fair play in terms of employment. Our experience of the voluntary system at work since that date does not leave us with any choice in the matter. Looking at the experience of Britain and other countries, we do not see any great extension in the kind of occupations granted to handicapped persons, or the numbers employed. We see handicapped people being restricted to a few of the traditional occupations with no expansion into the other occupations we have seen in other countries in recent years.

Those who have considered this subject in other countries insist that the properly trained handicapped person, in the appropriate job, may do every bit as good a job as the person with no physical handicap. This is two way traffic and we must have this willingness, and this possibility of avenues of employment, for such people. This possibility of employment must exist before we can see the training opportunities opening up for the handicapped persons to give them the necessary skills.

I have come to a decision, in the light of our experience over the past few years, that we must proceed to legislation which will ensure that a certain quota of handicapped persons will get a chance of employment. I do not believe that this measure will encounter appreciable opposition on the part of employers. I believe most employers will welcome this opportunity. We will look, in the experience of the legislation, to see what changes may be necessary later. I do not believe that we can any longer content ourselves with voluntary means alone. The record suggests that some change is needed and it would appear that the direction should be in the legislative line.

Deputy Moore spoke of the necessity of the Department of Labour having a connection with employment creation. We have a good informal relationship with the IDA. but I agree with the Deputy that it would be necessary to have a more correct institutional relationship with this body. The IDA is the premier employment creation body for attracting industry from outside. I will be looking into this question shortly. It appears that it will be necessary to have an organic connection between my Department and the IDA to ensure that when an industry is going to an area the labour possibilities are a factor in the IDA'S decision-making process. There could then be a close link-up between the manpower section of the Department of Labour which examines the labour market in its national profile.

It would seem common sense, and a rationalisation of effort on the part of State Departments, that there should be a close organic connection between the manpower section of my Department, and the IDA, on this matter of setting up of industry. I appreciate, and I do not wish to evade my responsibilities in this matter, that crucial to the success of all our plans is the attainment of a rapid advance towards full employment. This is a goal which has eluded every administration in the history of this State, some worse than others. It is true that this goal of reducing unemployment to acceptable levels has eluded all administrations of the State so far.

During this period of early EEC membership it is obvious that the entire economy is undergoing severe strains, strains which nobody, looking at the situation a year ago, could have anticipated. There is no reason why, however, with the correct policies in the years ahead, the goal of full employment cannot be achieved. What I have stated is that it must be achieved and all our efforts must be directed towards achieving it sooner rather than later because everything is dependent on that progress towards full employment.

Deputy Moore raised the question of the OECD manpower examination. For his information a meeting will be held on the report of the examiners in Paris the week after next and a report of this meeting will be published some time later. That report contains a great deal of illuminating material which has been of immense assistance to my Department in seeing more accurately a way ahead for the manpower section of my Department. Deputy Brugha is correct in saying that the manpower section has received little public attention, even though it is the kernel of the Department of Labour.

Most people, when thinking of the Department of Labour, see it as dealing solely with industrial relations. Because so much bad news is involved with industrial relations the Department of Labour, in the manner that the news comes out, must be seen by the public to be solely concerned with the matter of industrial relations. In fact, the real kernel of the Department's work is in the manpower area. I am looking at this matter. I agree with the Deputy that little is known of the Department's work in the manpower area and that there is little appreciation of what its objectives are. These objectives are intimately connected with the achievement of full employment and are crucial to the success of the social and economic policy of the State. Whatever administration is in charge, manpower policy will continue to be a major area of importance. Yet, we have the absurd situation where its activities are seemingly clouded in semi-secrecy and it appears to lead an anonymous twilight existence in that its activities are not known to the public.

I am having this matter closely examined. Accepting the importance of public awareness of the manpower section, I have assigned a press officer to that section as I regard it as the kernel of the Department of Labour, I have discussed projects that would lead to greater public interest and co-operatiton. It is essential for the success of any manpower policy that trade unions and the general public know exactly what is implied in uninteresting terms such as " manpower policy ". The real economic battle of the State is joined to the question of the provision of full employment. It is in our advance towards that goal that we can say if the State is advancing and meeting all the requirements of a modern State, whether we can afford the socially desirable things all of us want for the less privileged in our community. The achievement of full employment is crucial to these social objectives. The social bill for any socially just society can only be paid when the employment situation reaches the stage where we can pay the full social bill.

We are also involved in the social policy of the Directorate of Social Affairs in the EEC. Deputies will have noted that the consultative procedure set up for the passage of the social document has been upset somewhat by the failure of the European trade unions to agree on representation for the tripartite meeting which was to be held this week in Luxembourg. At our last Council of Ministers meeting quite an amount of time was spent on the question of representation at the tripartite conference. That conference was to be composed of employers and trade unions; the general idea was that what is referred to in EEC parlance as the " social partners "—the employers and trade unions—would consider the draft document and give their opinions on it.

Unfortunately, as a result of the difficulties of representation of managerial grades in France and Germany the majority of European trade unionists found it impossible to agree to the representations of these organisations and, therefore, the tripartite conference was postponed. At the Ministers meeting we had ensured that there would be Irish trade union representation in the tripartite meeting but the meeting was postponed because of failure to agree on representation.

As Deputies are aware, it was laid down in the communiqué of the summit meeting of heads of state in Paris last October that the social document should be ready in December, 1973. Whether this schedule can be met at this stage as a result of the consultative procedure being upset by the postponement of the tripartite conference in Luxembourg is an open question. I hope that the deadline set by the Summit Conference last October can be adhered to. There appears to be no good reason why there cannot be another Ministers meeting at which there could be a fuller exchange of views on the document. Such an exchange of views took place at our last meeting but it was a necessarily restricted meeting largely because the problem of representation took up so much of our time.

As the agency that processes the national claim on the social fund, we are anxious to see that social document become a reality. As I stated on my return from the last Ministers meeting, we are anxious to see the social policy become the pace-setter for all other Community policy. The Department of Labour, while looking after the interests of working people in Ireland, are also anxious to preserve their place in the EEC. It is an important aspect of the Department's work that not alone must we look after the interests of Irish workers in Ireland but we must not restrict our efforts on their behalf simply to the home front. The Irish worker is aware that what happens his counterpart in France, Belgium or Holland has an impact on his own conditions. We maintain a permanent representative in Brussels and at the International Labour Organisation in Geneva. Our effort in these areas is to ensure that in the European Community the rules of the Community will be advantageous to Irish workers.

In the course of the debate a Deputy referred to safety committees. There will have to be a change from the old voluntary principle on this matter. In the entire country there are only 145 safety committees. The 1955 legislation gave trade unionists and people in the work place a right to set up safety committees and full authority to proceed on this matter. However, this legislative right has not been exploited to the full—in fact, if one looks at the figure of 145 safety committees one realises it has not been used adequately. Even though there were only 24 fatal accidents at work last year this was 24 too many. It is only fair to say it was a decrease on the number of fatal accidents in the previous year but it means there are too many fatal accidents in industry. We had 3000 non-fatal accidents last year. It is obvious that we cannot remain complacent when we see that the response to this figure on the part of industry has consisted in a token 145 safety committees being established throughout the country and consideration will have to be given to making safety legislation mandatory. It is questionable whether we can permit a state of affairs to continue such that when left to the goodwill of those concerned the response is only 145 safety committees. This is irresponsible in view of the number of accidents still occurring in industry.

Yesterday, at the presentation of certificates to 15 safety-first personnel who had gone through a course in Semperit, the tyre manufacturers, in Dublin I mentioned that there should be a medical kit attached to each factory. From some of the reports at my disposal it would appear that the medical equipment of many of these kits would be more appropriate to Crimea war conditions than the requirements of industry in 1973. Obviously, consideration will have to be given to giving these medical kits greater medical relevance. According to the reports I have the contents of many of these medical kits are only of antique value and of little help to any person involved in an accident. Legislation may have to be continued in this area also.

Deputy Desmond spoke of the apprenticeship document circulated by AnCO. I have stressed that this is solely a discussion document prepared by the executive of AnCO and it does not represent the views of bodies represented on the AnCO council. On the other hand, I stress that it is a document of immense value because it is obvious that the role of the skilled person in our work force will continue to be of great significance in the future and, it may be argued, will be of even greater significance. The IDA and other employment-creating agencies, industrialists coming here and officials of my own Department have noted that, frequently, nothing prevents industry being set up in a particular area only the absence of skilled personnel. In many parts of the country at present there is a scarcity of certain skilled key personnel which, if it continues, will constitute a severe brake on employment expansion. There has been a sharp drop in the intake of apprentices; the number going through training schemes has dropped and unless this can be corrected our plans for full employment, a more just distribution of wealth in our society and for growing prosperity will be curtailed. In view of these incontestable facts I think AnCO are to be commended. It was highly praiseworthy on their part to produce and promote this document among the interests concerned and have it discussed. I invite Deputies to discuss it in this House because questions like apprenticeship, manpower and employment policy may not make immediate headlines and the material in these areas may not particularly interest the media for a lunch-hour or evening programme and may not particularly interest the general public but the elements involved are of immense importance to the future of our economy. I again commend this AnCO document. The proposals, I stress, are for discussion but I hope that after discussion by all interests involved, trade unions, employees and Members of the House, we can come to some generally agreed decision to ensure that national progress is not held up in the future and that the best training facilities are provided and the highest standards followed, to ensure as Deputy Desmond said, that the training given to our young people will permit them to have adaptability as industry changes.

The basic secret of teaching a skilled discipline at present is to be able to impart the core of necessary central educational material. The person with this basic training, this necessary conceptual element of his training, is equipped to be adaptable and change as circumstances change in industry. Obviously the time has gone when we can hope that our progress can be assured by teaching by traditional methods in apprenticeship. I hope these AnCO proposals will be considered constructively by all.

Deputy Moore spoke about the redundancy appeals tribunal which has been used very widely and successfully by workers. It deals with the eligibility of workers for redundancy pay. Deputy Moore appeared to think the tribunal was concerned with questions as to whether the employer should or should not let workers go. That question is a main cause of disputes but the tribunal deals with eligibility for redundancy pay and not with this question of whether the worker should or should not be made redundant. That is a matter of contention. The tribunal has been working successfully, I have been examining this area also to see if there are any amendments necessary.

I think it was Deputy Brugha who mentioned the problem of take-overs. He mentioned that the one human consequence which causes a great deal of hardship in such take-overs was that workers may find themselves looking for another job without having the appropriate skill. The problem raised by Deputy Brugha is very real. As he correctly pointed out, in this area we will need a vast expansion in training and retraining facilities. I am conscious of that. As Deputies are aware, we have gone to the World Bank for certain financial aid for the expension of the building programme and the training programme of AnCO. Over the next few years we hope to treble our training capacity.

Progress has been made in this area but not sufficient to accord with our plans for the future. If the economic lodestone to which all our policies are directed is the attainment of full employment, obviously we cannot attract the necessary industry unless we have the appropriately trained force. We cannot have the appropriately trained force unless we have an expansion of the training facilities. This is a big question. Discussions are taking place on whether industry comes before the trained worker, or vice versa. My opinion is that we must train the work force because a trained work force is as big an attraction for industry as any financial incentive.

It could be said that our State policies in general have neglected this human factor in the question of the establishment of industry. While adequate attention is paid to the financial side of inducing industry to come here, by the IDA and other agencies of the State, and while financial policy has been well researched and well implemented—and it is recognised by all sides of the House that it is successful—we have not adequately stressed the human training side.

There is no point in having sophisticated financial methods of inducing industry to come to a particular part of the country if we lack the necessary skills to make that industry a going concern.

I made this point earlier this week at the opening of the Ballyfermot AnCo Training Centre. I do not know whether Deputies would consider it over-Utopian to think so, but we must approach a stage where, when a worker is forced into a period of unemployment—perhaps as a result of technological change—that unemployment period is not seen simply as a period of waste. We must transform that period of unemployment into a period of gainful productive training for the worker. I made the point in Ballyfermot that, in the academic world, it is considered that every so often the academic should have a Sabbatical, a recharging of his intellectual batteries, although the results of this recharging are often questionable.

It should not be over-Utopian to suggest that it would be more in the State's interest to have an unemployed worker retrained over that period and given a new skill, rather than that he should receive State money in a barren position of unemployment. It would be better if we could have training benefits paid to that worker so that over that unemployed period he would undergo training. He would be in a better position to re-enter the labour market. He would have a better chance of more skilled employment after his period of unemployment. At present the unemployed man can only re-enter the labour market at the same level of skill as he left it. These may seem to be over-ambitious plans but this is the direction of the thinking of my Department. We are seriously considering experiments in this direction. I have arranged in 50 different centres around the country to have short periods of training for groups of unemployed people. The manpower section of my Department is co-operating in this experiment. We should learn a great deal in the course of this experiment-enough to know whether we can expand this idea.

One of the things which has always struck me as a waste of the human individual is the involuntary unemployment forced on so many Irish men and women. This has been an area of gross failure of all Governments: the predicament in which State policy has left so many of our fellow citizens, the dead end of no job, no possibility of a job, and the unimaginative manner in which we have left it just at that level. It is not sufficient to say to the unemployed: " We will give you higher benefits." What the unemployed man and woman want is a job. They wish to leave their unemployed position as rapidly as possible. The most beneficial way we can help their return to the labour market is to give them an additional skill and train them over that period. This is the best way to build up confidence.

Sociologists have noted that where there is unemployment over a long period affecting large numbers of people, the greatest casualty is the loss of self-confidence of those who are unemployed. Sociologists have also noted that there is a malaise, mental and physical, afflicting the unemployed after a period, in which they become unemployable. After a sufficient period of hopelessness, of despair, the unemployed man or woman becomes unemployable. If it is national policy to bring about full employment sooner rather than later, obviously we cannot permit any longer the large-scale human misery that unemployment causes. We cannot any longer relegate the unemployed to a No Man's Land in official thinking, to a Limbo, a place in which they are forgotten by the policy-makers.

Instead, it must be our objective not to forget citizens simply because they are out of jobs but to bend all our energies to providing them with new jobs as rapidly as possible and to giving them over this period the skills that will be necessary. We must get rid of the Victorian idea that unemployment is a kind of economic punishment doled out to those who deserve it because, as we know, part of the price of the coming of prosperity to our economy, the price of our economy's development, will be that there will be pockets of unemployment in the years ahead. Because of technological changes, because of amalgamations of firms, because of job changes, and so on, certain workers might find themselves out of work over a particular period.

We must not say that these people should while away the wasted hours in thinking about the past, or walking down sunlit streets, or watching their fellow-citizens at work, and generally having nothing to do. Since unemployment as a result of structural change will be a feature of our future economic development, we must ensure that, over these periods, they take part in training which is of benefit to them and permit them to re-enter the labour force.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.