Industrial Relations Bill, 1975: Instruction to Committee.

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

I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Industrial Relations Bill, 1975 that it has power to make provision in the Bill in relation to (i) additional divisions of the Labour Court and (ii) the repeal of the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts, 1950 to 1975."

This motion relates to the amendment I wish to bring forward to make provision in the Bill for additional divisions of the Labour Court and a repeal of the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts, 1950 to 1975. In my opening statement on Second Stage I indicated my intention of having such amendments tabled at the appropriate stage. The substantive element in this amendment is that it provides for the additional divisions to the Labour Court. The repeal of the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts, 1950 to 1975 is simply a tidying up operation. Therefore, I will make one or two points about the motion.

The purpose of this motion is to permit me to move the amendment providing for the granting of authority to the Minister for Labour to appoint by order, and with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, additional divisions to the Labour Court. It is necessary to move this motion because the amendments referred to do not relate to the main purpose of the Bill as originally put before the House in that they deal specifically with the expansion of the composition of the Labour Court.

On Second Stage I stated that the widening of the range of protective legislation imposes a heavy additional burden of work on the present Labour Court. There is a need—and this has been long agreed by both sides in industry and also in the House—to have further divisions of the Labour Court. A heavy burden of extra obligations are put on the court by reason of legislation passed and proposed in this House. There is the legislative burden of equal pay. Last week we appointed two equal pay officers. There will be appeals on their decisions to the Labour Court which will have functions under that legislation. There is proposed new legislation in that area—the Equal Opportunities Bill. There is an additional burden of work arising from the agreement with the public service unions that arbitration boards from now on will have a Labour Court presence on them. That will mean a great burden of extra work on the court.

Section 24 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, has been used much more frequently in the past three years than in any comparable period since it was passed. There is also the unfair dismissals legislation which will be shortly before the House. All this legislation which gives additional protection to workers, improves our industrial system, ensures that employees work in a better legislative framework and that their rights are guarded, will impose extra burdens on the court.

There are three divisions at present in the court. The amendments I propose to move will give me the authority to appoint additional divisions by order to enable the court to deal more effectively with this increasing workload. Committee Stage amendments Nos. 6 and 7 provide accordingly. There has been a general demand from the trade union movement for additional divisions of the court. I am using the vehicle of this Bill to ensure that we can speedily meet that demand, to see that the Labour Court is enabled to operate more efficiently and to see that those working in the court have a less onerous workload. For these reasons I thought it appropriate to add my amendment to this Bill.

The setting up of a joint labour committee for agricultural workers adds to the problems of the court the largest number of workers since its establishment. Up to 30,000 additional workers are now under the court's final appeals jurisdiction. This is the largest extension of the court's activity since its establishment. For all these reasons I have decided that these amendments should be introduced in this Bill and that with its passage we could look forward to an improved court service available to workers, trade unions and employers, and ensure that there will be less delay in dealing with cases. It is a habitual criticism made sometimes unfairly, that the Labour Court does not deal with cases as rapidly as people requiring their service would wish. The additional divisions should eliminate that criticism to a large degree.

As I have already indicated, it is my intention to exercise powers already vested in me under sections 2 and 14 of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, to provide that agricultural workers may be brought within the scope of that Act by regulation. As I said, that is a tidying up operation but it will be necessary to repeal the existing Acts which cover the granting of holidays to agricultural workers. In other words, we are bringing agricultural workers under the same holidays arrangements as industrial workers. This is in the direction charted by the decision to set up a joint labour committee. I thought it best and most appropriate that I give the reasons and the nature of these amendments at this time.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I would like to ask the Ceann Comhairle for a direction on the procedure in this situation. On today's Order Paper we have a motion which gives us, in Committee, the right to discuss these extensions to the original Bill introduced a week or two ago. I want to know if our approach is a Second Stage approach, and if it will be open to us at some stage to submit amendments on Committee Stage. In other words, the extensions to this Bill were circulated to us only this morning. This did not give us the opportunity of putting down Committee Stage amendments to the sections extending the scope of the Bill. What is the procedure in those circumstances?

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a motion and is open to debate in the ordinary way. The Chair will use its discretion in respect of how wide the debate may range over the Bill and the amendments the Minister now seeks to make.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Do I take it that in addition to this motion we are also taking the Committee Stage?

An Ceann Comhairle

Later, when this motion is disposed of. The motion is taken separately.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Will it be taken this evening, tomorrow or when?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is included in the Order of Business for today, therefore, I presume it will be taken immediately this motion is disposed of.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is the reason for my question. The opportunity to submit amendments on Committee Stage, by reason of the procedure now being adopted, if we wish to avail of it, does not appear to be open or available to us. It also indicates that while one cannot cavil at the extra burden of work imposed on the Labour Court, not only by this Bill but by some of the things mentioned by the Minister a short time ago, it leads one to ask seriously how well organised is the Minister and his Department or how much of the activities carried on by the Minister can be described as fire brigade operations. We have a fairly glaring example of this when at this stage he outlines to us the extra burdens imposed on the Labour Court, the many reasons for them—reasons that were known to him and his Department long before the Second Stage of the Bill reached the House. One must ask why at that Stage the extensions to this Bill were not included in the Bill as originally drafted.

The Minister mentioned the appointment of equal pay officers last week in reference to a Bill passed in 1974. One finds it impossible to understand the delay in appointing such officers the need for whom must have been envisaged at that time for the implementation of the Bill. This is a further extension of it. One must again ask in regard to the major extension to it, which is the extra divisions of the Labour Court, are we passing legislation that has not been thoroughly examined and that may leave the Minister with more power than we would like him to have, particularly in an area like the Labour Court that must not only appear to be but in fact must be an independent body holding and retaining the absolute confidence of workers and employers alike?

I shall be pointing out on some sections of the Bill where I believe there is already a little too much interference with the Labour Court and I suspect that this extension would need much more time for its examination and for consideration of the loopholes in detail. One wonders why it was added now rather than on the Second Stage. The changing of the Holidays Act and the application of normal holidays to agricultural workers is desirable and something we support. For the record, may I point out that I referred in my opening remarks to this Bill as being a logical step onwards but I was misreported in some papers as having said it was a radical step. I did not; I described it as a very logical step, now, that our agricultural workers are approaching a situation where a great deal of expertise is demanded from them, expertise that could be regarded probably as the very highest in certain areas of the country, with specialist application by them to the task of intensive farming and mechanisation and all aspects of modern agriculture.

It is regrettable that the agricultural workers are not as numerous as they once were. The Minister has outlined, in addition to the added duties imposed on the Labour Court under this Bill, the added duties imposed on it by other measures and developments. He has used this motion as a vehicle for doing so. While we readily accept this, it is difficult to understand why it was not included initially. The holidays are desirable. There is another section, amendment No. 10, where the Minister is amending section 5 of the Act—I presume he did not refer to this in his opening speech. I do not know what connection, if any, it has with this Bill nor am I raising any objection to it. But again it demonstrates the sort of fire brigade approach we get from this Minister who refers to many measures, some before the House, some promised to us or possibly threatened on us, as the volume of work going through his Department. There are already on the books of the House quite a number of measures that have not been concluded.

Without going into detail I refer to the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill. A little over a year ago it went through the Dáil and was passed to the Seanad. A number of amendments were made to it and it has never been explained why it was delayed so long in the Seanad, particularly as we are now approaching another summer, a summer in which young people will face employment problems. I suppose the Minister has forgotten by now that employment is so necessary for young people and, perhaps because of the existing unemployment situation, in which he is taking very little interest, he feels the measure should not be pursued at this stage. It is difficult to understand why it has been so long with the Seanad.

We also have the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) (Amendment) Bill; we do not know if that is coming again or not. We also have the Anti-Discrimination (Employment) Bill, 1975 circulated but not reaching Second Stage yet. We do not know when the Second Stage will be taken. I mention all these because I believe the approach of the Department at present leaves much to be desired. The Minister is trying to project an image of a volume of work being processed by him, a capacity to bring Bills before the House but we argue that the number carried through the House to conclusion is very small. The 1974 Anti-Discrimination Bill about which we have had so much hubbub—it is still going on—indicates the situation: nobody is sure of the present position.

Again, I am not quite sure of what we must do if we wish to submit amendments on the extensions to the Bill. Is such a facility available to us between the time we approve of this motion and the time we begin to discuss the Bill in Committee?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have to proceed with the Order of Business as laid down. When we dispose of item No. 5 we shall proceed to deal with No. 13, which is the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

But the Chair sees the point I am making?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do. There is always the Report Stage for amendments also.

Mr. Brennan

I do not understand why the Minister uses this vehicle to import into the Bill what one would ordinarily expect to be done by amendment on Committee Stage. Apart from that, I should like to say on section 5 that there is quite a lot involved in relation to agricultural workers in which the Minister's colleagues might be more involved or concerned than the Minister for Labour.

We all know that for many years the number of people engaged in agriculture has been diminishing every year. The actual absorption of the fall-out from agriculture in manufacturing industry has posed a problem which has reached serious proportions at the present time. Added to that every year we have the people who have just left school coming on the labour market. It is important to provide every possible incentive to encourage the employment of agricultural workers.

I do not for a moment suggest that people engaged in agriculture generally should be given an incentive to employ more people simply to get them at a lower rate. The wage rate for agricultural workers should be the same as that for industrial workers. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for Local Government should try to have some incentive such as the old rates exemption incentive in respect of those over £20 valuation, because they are the people likely to give agricultural employment. While nobody could advocate that agricultural labour should be at a cheaper rate than industrial labour it is essential when the serious fall-out from agriculture is posing such a serious problem for the Government that no further impediments should be added.

We know that in industrial employment the tendency is to lay off workers when the particular concern find they are in difficulties in regard to fall-off in profit or lack of liquidity. Such people try to meet the situation by reducing as far as possible the number of people employed. This is easier for the agricultural employer than it is for the industrial employer. The agricultural employer has two alternatives open to him. He may go in for tillage on a big scale, which requires a lot of labour, or he may go in for cattle grazing only, which requires little labour. As the labour force becomes more and more expensive the inclination is to lay off workers and go on to grazing which provides less employment. This results in a greater fall-out from agriculture, such as has been happening for some time.

During the war, when there was compulsory tillage, the number of people who could be employed was remarkable. In order to have enough bread on the table and sufficient to go around people resorted to tillage. Many people who would not ordinarily be employed in agriculture found employment there. As soon as the compulsion was over farmers resorted to cattle grazing because it was less difficult and required the employment of fewer people. Farmers should be given some incentive to employ more people because we are importing much food at the present time which could be produced on our farms. There is little incentive for the agricultural community to go in for more tillage when they find cattle grazing simpler and also more profitable.

This type of legislation barely deals with the problem. There is much more involved. I believed that when we went into the EEC and conditions improved for the agricultural community, which it has but not to the extent we anticipated, the agricultural community would make definite progress, that they would be assured of stability of prices and continuity of marketing. In those circumstances I hoped that the fall-out from agriculture would have been much less and that we might have looked forward to more people engaged in agriculture as a result of the better conditions for agriculture generally. However, that is not happening. We are losing a lot by selling too many cattle on the hoof, which does not require much labour content in agriculture. If much more grain was grown as well as more potatoes—the potato shortage is nothing short of a tragedy in an agricultural country—and many other essential foods this would be of great benefit to the community as well as reducing our balance of payments deficit.

This motion is only doing a one-sided job. It is making better conditions available for agricultural workers. It is equating their conditions with those available in industrial employment. There are two different problems here. One is the desire to get more people into agriculture, which needs a very definite incentive. If farmers were given an incentive through relief on rates of over £20 valuation we could kill two birds with one stone. There would be much more tillage and much more intensive labour on the farm, and some of the people who are swelling the dole queues would be employed in agriculture. The world is short of food at the moment. Even though we are an agricultural country we are short of some foodstuffs and are paying exorbitant prices for our food. The Government might take a look at this rather than rushing legislation at a time when there are so many other gaps to be filled in relation to this problem.

I have spoken to a number of agricultural workers. They were not clamouring for legislation of this kind so far as I am aware. Many of them have their own arrangements and their own conditions and can dictate their own terms reasonably well.

In some cases the equation of conditions in the matter of pay and holidays could be counterproductive so far as agricultural workers are concerned, particularly those who work in places where we have intensive agricultural production in tillage, for example, in the Lagan Valley and the Finn Valley in Donegal where we feed most of the rest of the country. These people often have the privilege of having pieces of land of their own on which they grow crops. Sometimes they have different perks. Very often the land steward has a house and he is provided with milk. The employees also get milk and vegetables, potatoes and so on. Sometimes it is difficult to equate agricultural workers with those in industrial employment.

When he is producing legislation to give the same conditions to agricultural workers as are available to those fortunate enough at present to have employment in the industrial side of the economy, the Minister should consult with the Government as a whole, and with a few Ministers in particular, on the possibility of encouraging many more people to find employment in agriculture. This can be done in a number of ways. It can be done by the processing of everything possible which is produced on the farm. That applies to cattle and livestock sold on the hoof as much as to vegetables and food which can be processed before being sold. In this way we could find a good deal of extra employment.

This Bill could have the undesirable effect of further accelerating the flight from the land and reducing the number of agricultural workers. The farmer who has to meet his obligations in paying a particular wage to his workers has the natural easy way out of reducing his tillage, and his work on arable land, and concentrating on a policy of grazing which requires only, as we used to say in the old days, a man and a dog. That does not make for better employment. In so far as that is likely to take place, it could be a disincentive. The people who can come to the rescue here are the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for Local Government who can give relief from rates incentives in respect of male employment on the land to a worth while extent which would encourage the employment of more agricultural workers on the land. This is an area which would be well worth surveying if it is not under review, at a time when every possible means should be adopted by the Government to find extra sources of employment for the many people who are seeking that type of employment.

I rose to ask the Minister why this means of amending the Bill is being used rather than an ordinary amendment to the Bill itself. I do not think I have come across it before. It may not be an innovation but it is a vehicle which, to my knowledge, has certainly not been used frequently as a means of importing into a Bill something which one would expect could ordinarily be done by an amendment on Committee Stage.

Mr. Wilson

My question is more or less related to the latter part of Deputy Brennan's statement. Did the Minister think that without putting down this motion and without having this motion passed the amendment to section 8 could not stand? Did the Minister think he would not have the power to do it? This looks like a little graft on to the Bill. Did the Minister fear it was new material and, not having been covered on Second Stage, he had not the power in the ordinary way to make a valid amendment? This is what puzzles me. Technically, why is the motion put down? The first part of the motion states:

That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Industrial Relations Bill, 1975, that it has power to make provision in the Bill in relation to (i) additional divisions of the Labour Court.

The amendment suggested to section 8 state:

Whenever the Minister is of opinion that for the speedy dispatch of the business of the Court it is expedient that there should be added to the Court another division or other divisions he may, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1969, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, provide for such an additional division or divisions.

It is the technicality which puzzles me.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 9 Mar 1976

Industrial Relations Bill, 1975: Instruction to Committee.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1976