There are no amendments on Report Stage, so do I take it we will move on to the Fifth Stage since there are no amendments on Report Stage?
Industrial Relations Bill, 1975: Report Stage.
Acting Chairman
It was not physically possible to have amendments. How do I stand in regard to the amendment I offered? Perhaps before going further I might ask the Minister to give me the information I sought from him on Committee Stage. I understand he has it now. I do not know whether I am in order in asking this question. It will depend on the information the Minister gives me whether I will be requesting permission to submit an amendment on Report Stage.
Acting Chairman
The Chair appreciates the Deputy's position. Has the Minister the information the Deputy sought earlier?
I have. I undertook to get the court to communicate with the Deputy in an effort to meet the Deputy's wish to know what the actual situation is and what is the exact meaning of "prescribed". My officials have located the Statutory Instrument, 1950, 258-1950 which, as a minimum requirement refers to the necessity for publication in Iris Oifigiúil and one national newspaper. In practice, the court publishes in Iris Oifigiúil, in national newspapers and, I am informed, provincial papers. My information is that there is pretty full dissemination of the regulations of the joint labour committee. I have no doubt that the composition of this joint labour committee is such that there will be full dissemination. The Deputy has made the point that, since there is no requirement that notices should be put up on farmhouse walls, there is a greater necessity to ensure even wider communication in this instance. I am sure the joint labour committee will consider that aspect of the matter.
I understand that the regulation says Iris Oifigiúil and one national newspaper?
Iris Oifigiúil, one national newspaper and provincial papers.
Of course provincial newspapers are very wide ranging. One never knows whether this will be in selected provincial papers or in them all. That would be a very wide number. Is there any hope of obtaining information at this stage as to what papers are covered?
The Deputy will appreciate that my officials have had to act rather rapidly to get this information. As I have undertaken, I will ensure that the court will communicate with him in full on the practice in relation to existing joint labour committees. I will ensure that the joint labour committee will take up this matter.
We are now having fire brigade action on amendments.
This is the amendment Deputy Fitzgerald referred to last night.
Before we deal with that amendment I should like to finish with the other matter. I appreciate that at this stage I cannot submit an amendment to the Minister. I would like to be kept informed and I would like the Minister to be aware of the situation in advertising. To agricultural workers, Iris Oifigiúil means nothing. A national daily paper, which is probably a Dublin paper, means very little to them. The provincial newspapers are important to them. I will let it slide at that if the Minister is prepared to ensure that publication is carried out properly.
Acting Chairman
The Chair has now been informed that there are two amendments, both in the name of the Minister.
How can it be that the Chair could not be informed of this before we commenced Report Stage? Just as we commence Report Stage various amendments are circulated. Was this a last minute decision by the Minister? It is typical of the fire brigade action we get from him.
Acting Chairman
The Chair has been informed it was not permissible to circulate the amendments until now.
I accept that but I should like to know if there was some confusion in the Minister's mind with regard to the amendments. However, it does not alter my decision other than to point out that much of our opposition seems to be taken for granted by the Minister.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, in the definition of "agricultural employer" to delete "who carries on the trade or business of agriculture and" and to delete "for the purposes of that trade or business".
Deputies will recall that yesterday afternoon the point was made that there was no specific reference to stable lads. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete the words "who carries on the trade or business of agriculture and" and to delete "for the purposes of the trade or business". I should like to discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together because they are related. With regard to amendment No. 1, I am advised that the reference in the definition of "agricultural employer" to a person who carries on a trade or business in agriculture might in turn be restrictive in excluding from the Bill some agricultural workers employed by agricultural employers who are not engaged in a trade or business. Amendment No. 1 is designed to remove that difficulty.
Acting Chairman
If the House is agreeable it may discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Basically I have no objection to that but I think we should tease them out somewhat. My understanding is that an agricultural employer is now defined as a person who employs other persons as agricultural workers. I have no objection to discussing the two amendments together.
I should prefer to do that. Yesterday evening we discussed the definition of agricultural worker and I explained that an interdepartmental committee was set up in 1969 to examine whether a wider definition should be used in this area and it came down on the side of not extending the definitions. Therefore, the definitions of agricultural worker and employer used in the wages board were not altered. We have taken over those definitions from the Agricultural Wages Board almost intact. As we discussed yesterday, there is no reference to stable personnel or those who have responsibility for the care of horses, for instance, at stud farms and so on.
As I informed the House, there is a close relationship and always has been between the wages and salaries paid to those personnel and the wages and salaries paid under the Agricultural Wages Board and that situation will continue. I made the point that if there is any doubt that the legislation would not apply to such personnel in order to remove such doubt I would include it by way of amendment on Report Stage or at the appropriate Stage. We had some discussions on this matter yesterday. The decisive contribution that persuaded me that it was as well to be specific in this matter and to point up the absolute right of such personnel to salaries, wages and conditions that would follow on implementation of those measures was that made by Deputy Bermingham. His contribution persuaded me that it would be wiser to have a specific reference even though that relationship obtained in the past and will continue in the future. I did not receive any representations from workers' organisations that this reference was regarded as necessary. Such personnel are organised by some unions who will be represented on the joint committee. In Deputy Bermingham's constituency there are many people who work in this area. Other Deputies also said it would be advisable to have such a reference but they did not speak with the knowledge and experience of Deputy Bermingham.
Acting Chairman
There is a certain amount of confusion because it appears that the next business of the Dáil is due to be taken at 5 p.m.
Have we still got a Government? Has the Taoiseach gone to the Park?
(Dublin Central): I understood we were dealing with this matter until 5.30 p.m.
I have been dealing with this Bill all day and I am afraid I know nothing of what is happening outside.
I welcome the introduction of an amendment to include people engaged in the caring of horses—stable lads and groomsmen— and I raised the matter last night. It was I who suggested that Deputy Bermingham from Kildare should interest himself in it. I am glad somebody in the Labour Party is aware that this area needed attention. The Minister has consistently denied me credit for having initiated this subject of rearing, caring and training of animals. Perhaps this has become a wider issue than was envisaged. I am always worried about hasty legislation. Is a greyhound trainer included as a result of this amendment? If a man is breeding pet rabbits at home, is he included? Has the Minister now widened the scope of the Bill in these respects? Is it possible there is a reluctance on the part of the Minister to refer to the horse industry because some of his colleagues have such an interest in it?
People throughout the country are aware of the problems in this area and are concerned they should be included in this Bill and now, as a result of our representations yesterday evening, we have included what Deputies Bermingham and Wilson and others, including myself, believe to be desirable
The amendment is a result of the draftsman's definition of the intention suggested here yesterday evening. I would point out that under section 57 of the Principal Act the Labour Court is given discretion. It is the court which in the last resort decides on questions of interpretation, application and demarcation. Section 57 of the Principal Act makes that clear when it states in subsection (1):
The Court may at any time on the application of any person give its decision on the question whether a particular joint labour committee operates as respects a particular person or whether a particular employment regulation order applies to a particular person.
There must be this area of discretion open to the court. The court will always have, as the principal industrial relations institution, reference to the bargaining practices and the relations that have grown up between one service and another. There is a growing relationship between the wages and conditions obtaining in the animal caring business and those obtaining under the old Agricultural Wages Board. The rates we are talking about are in all cases minimum rates and in many of the areas the Deputy thinks might be included the rates of pay would be far in excess of any rates that might be laid down by any JLC. We cannot make legislation of this kind watertight—there must be a grey area left after the draftsman has completed the job and this is an area in which the court will exercise its discretion.
In effect, amendment No. 1 means that we are now dependent almost entirely on the definition of "agricultural worker". According to the Bill, agricultural employer means a person who carries on the trade or business of agriculture and who employs other persons as agricultural workers. We come then to the definition of "agricultural worker" and the Bill states:
"agricultural worker" means a person employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship whose work under the contract is or includes work in agriculture, but does not include a person whose work under any such contract is mainly domestic service;
"agriculture" includes dairy farming and the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard or osier land or woodland, or for market gardens, private gardens, nursery grounds or sports grounds.
That is transplanted from the Principal Act. Deputy Wilson referred last night to intensive poultry keeping and intensive pig units and I wonder if they are now industrial or agricultural by definition. We are very specific in our definitions and I suggest that we would leave over the Report Stage until tomorrow, if that is convenient, to have another look at the definitions. It all hinges on the definition of "agriculture". It all appears very confused. Agriculture is defined very specifically.
The Deputy oscillates between saying the definition is too wide or too narrow. One can always have this argument about the hen or the egg, horses or dogs, in a definition of this kind. We have been as accurate as we could be and we are satisfied with this amendment.
What is the position of the intensive poultry producer and the pig producer? Are they operating in agriculture or in industry?
I am informed poultry are not animals.
I am not referring to animals at all. This is typical of the Minister. I would ask him to be serious for a moment. I fully appreciate he did not know about the blooming horse last night and he had not the courage to defy his leader so the greyhound goes in and the white rabbit and the terrier just because the Taoiseach would not like to have the horse industry referred to.
The Deputy is responsible for his own imagination.
Having done that, the Minister makes light of the pitfalls. Perhaps he should not try to run so quickly. The poultry industry is pretty widespread and gives good employment. Of course the Minister has no longer any interest in employment, though one would expect a Minister for Labour to have some interest in it. Of course poultry are birds with feathers.
They are not animals.
The poultry industry gives good employment. Is the worker in that industry integrated into agriculture? Is he an agricultural worker or an industrial worker?
As I told the Deputy, we have provided as accurate a definition as possible.
I am asking a specific question.
I will not answer specific questions on which it will be the responsibility of the Labour Court to adjudicate.
Why should we add to their problems? Why not make it easier for everybody?
I told the Deputy an interdepartmental committee sat on this whole question of definitions for quite a long period. It is not as simple a matter as the Deputy would try to pretend. The Deputy chides people with rush and haste.
The collective wisdom of the interdepartmental committee went into these definitions and I believe they are as accurate as they possibly could be. Naming categories of animals to the nth degree would not be in the interests of good legislation. There must be an area of discretion.
Have I much time left?
The Deputy's time is up.
The interdepartmental committee came out with a Bill two weeks ago in which certain areas were defined and they came out with an amendment yesterday in which other areas were defined. As a result of my request here to look at the horse-breeding industry still another area was found and that despite the length of time this interdepartmental committee sat.
I said these were covered even if they were never referred to.
They could not possibly have been covered and they were not covered except in the way it suited to have them covered.
Debate adjourned.