Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1976

Vol. 288 No. 11

Industrial Relations Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

When I reported progress last night I was referring to the people who were exempt. I pointed out that this is the section which makes provision for reference to the Labour Court of agricultural workers. I have no intention of making a Second Reading speech on the section. I prefer to say something on some of the following sections. However, I would like to emphasise again to the Minister that in this area he is dealing with a category quite different from those engaged in industrial employment. The reference to the Labour Court of any disputes in relation to agricultural workers should be handled by a section of the Labour Court who would have the necessary knowledge from both sides of what is involved in agricultural work.

We all know that in agricultural work very often wet conditions play an important part in the working week of any particular person. Many farmers do not keep records like business firms do. There is usually a very good relationship between the farmer and his employees and there are perks attached to the employment in many cases that are not available in other types of employment. When weather conditions do not permit particular work to be carried out this is usually made up when the weather is fine. The old motto in farming is to make hay while the sun shines and the farmer has to take advantage of weather conditions. Any reference to the Labour Court of disputes arising in relation to agricultural workers would require to be handled by people having the necessary knowledge of what is actually involved in agricultural work. I suggest to the Minister that the setting up of a section in the Labour Court to deal with those disputes should be absolutely impartial. The people selected should have the necessary specialised knowledge of the peculiarities of employment in agriculture generally.

Mr. Wilson

As this section deals with the definition of a worker at least by exclusion of certain categories I would like to hear the Minister's views on the definition of an agricultural worker. The word is used in the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936 and as has already been said, conditions on farms have changed. At that time if one could use a spade reasonably well one could be defined as an agricultural worker. There are still a few agricultural workers around who are not skilled in the full sense. Fully skilled agricultural workers have to have considerable expertise with various forms of machinery. At times they have to be able to repair machinery and act as fitters, and so on. There are some people who are slightly incapacitated by mental retardation and I am wondering whether this legislation might not harm them rather than help them. On all sides of the House we are concerned with the dangers of the exploitation of such people. This is a very important point. There are some people who would not have any chance of a job in competition on the labour market but who are provided with board and lodgings on farms. They should be covered in some way in such an important Bill as this.

There are various other points I will take up on the different sections but I should like to see a firmer definition of an agricultural worker for the purposes of the Act. This carries with it also the onus of the definition of an agricultural employer because there is a grey area at the moment in the agricultural industry field in which legal people find it very difficult to define the status of an employer, whether he is an industrialist or a farmer. A man may be totally involved in the production of broiler chickens. His farm is used solely for that purpose and it has a considerable labour content. The reason I am raising this is that I know some legal people are having difficulty in defining in this field.

In my area there is a movement towards heavy development of the pig industry. The biggest piggery in the country is in my constituency. Is this an agricultural industry or is it a farming operation? What blurs the edges is the fact that it is exclusively the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that deals with such people rather than the Department of Industry and Commerce. To many people, some of these enterprises seem to be purely industrial. This may produce a certain amount of confusion and a field day for lawyers later on.

Mr. Callanan

I want to comment on the point made by Deputy Brennan about the type of people who will investigate disputes which may arise. There are various types of agricultural workers. Some of them would almost be called industrial workers. They come in to work at a certain hour and they have no connection with the family. It is fairly straightforward to deal with their wages. In my area there is hardly any such person. The agricultural worker is practically one of the family. He has lunch in the house and he gets a cup of tea in the field. Many people dealing with agriculture know nothing about such matters. People investigating the payment of wages should know something about them. A number of these people have a small farm of their own. They may have the use of a tractor. They may get certain things in the house. We need to have somebody on this board who understands the value of the work done by tractors and the provision of meals and so on.

Deputy Brennan referred to the weather. As I said on Second Stage, you might be idle for a couple of hours because of the weather and you might work another couple of hours in the evening. As Deputy Brennan said, you have to make hay while the sun shines. That applies to corn and everything else on a farm. Very few people understand how we farmers live. I am talking about a reasonably sized farm, not a factory farm.

A good deal of dirt has been thrown at the old board, but the old board set a minimum wage which no skilled man was working for. The man we want to protect is the unskilled man. No skilled man would work for the minimum wage. We must have somebody in the Labour Court who knows the value of the use of tractors and the provision of meals. It is entirely different dealing with an industrial dispute where the employee never sees his boss. He clocks in in the morning at a certain hour and he goes home in the evening at a certain hour. Hail, rain or snow, it makes no difference to him. He can work away. You cannot work on a farm hail, rain or snow. That is the difference.

Deputy Wilson spoke about poultry outfits and piggeries. The work is done there whether it is wet or dry. I am talking about the ordinary mixed farmer who needs an employee. The people who adjudicate in disputes should know something about him. The old board consisted of people from regions all over the country and were representative of workers and employers. They all knew what they were talking about. They set a minimum wage which was never worked for except by the unskilled labourer. This is the man we want to protect. The Minister is now setting up a new board and he is adding to the Labour Court. They must be people who understand the country as a whole and not just industrial disputes.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The points made by the Deputies are valid. Deputy Callanan referred to the flexibility and the knowledge and the understanding of the situation which can vary so much between different areas, the different farming operations which are carried on, and the different approaches there can be to the agricultural worker. These are all very important points and they will have to be borne in mind. Despite any legislation which is introduced, there must be an appreciation and knowledge of the situation to make this a satisfactory and successful exercise.

I want to refer to the apprenticeship contracts. This is an area we must look at very carefully. In the past agriculture has been our bulwark, our basic industry, and it will continue to be that. On section 1 yesterday Deputy Brennan referred to the departure from intensive tillage, the flight from the land generally, the industrial development of the 1960s and the current setback in that development. Now we must turn our eyes to agriculture at all levels.

We must consider not only the agricultural worker who is working in a different climate from that of the past but we must also encourage more intensive farming and the creation of more jobs on the land. The resultant creation of jobs in industries based on agriculture is very important.

We must consider seriously the necessity to train farm workers who are serving their apprenticeships. As has been pointed out by some Deputies, we are no longer talking about outdated methods because the agricultural worker today is a man of many skills. We must give attention to vegetable growing and horticulture and in the southern part of the country there is room for development and encouragement here. A group of people have grown tulips in parts of County Cork in an experimental project for the Dutch who are regarded as the experts in that area. In addition, through the efforts of a local community there is a daffodil export operation in that part of the country. Admittedly these are very small areas but they could be nursed and encouraged with a view to the creation of employment in those areas.

The training of farm workers is essential, not only in the ordinary day-to-day chores but in the more modern intensive types of farming. I would ask the Minister to discuss with the Government, and particularly with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the possibility of encouraging the types of agriculture that will give employment. At the moment there are many farmers' sons and daughters seeking employment with little prospect of success. Perhaps they could be trained to develop certain projects on their own farms. If a small sum of money or some assistance was given to them it would encourage private enterprise and effort by these young people in their own areas. There may be a few great people among them.

Possibly the Minister will not agree with my theory; he may be of the opinion that private enterprise should not be encouraged in the young people but in the nation's interest this is very desirable. I would urge him to consider this matter and the apprenticeship aspect with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and get schemes into operation in order to give employment. This is with regard to the basic agricultural industry, to work on the land and in the area of more intensive horticulture. What is done in this area will affect the industries based on agriculture.

Mr. Wilson

Would the Minister consider the position where a farmer could afford to pay an apprentice, perhaps his own son, a certain amount but not the full statutory wage? Would it be possible to introduce something corresponding to the employment premium scheme for farming in order to increase the numbers employed on farms?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Many people are educated with the assistance of grants but unfortunately they cannot get employment. If a person has gone through secondary school and is going on to further education having all the qualifications for a grant, would the Minister's Department consider making some of that grant available to a person who had a small project in mind in the area of agriculture or horticulture? They could create a job for themselves, admittedly with certain ties, and in some instances it might expand and provide employment for others. Perhaps the Minister would give his views on this?

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is a little outside the scope of this Bill but I would favour a system of agriculture where people who wished to make it their career could eventually be charged with management of an area of land. In other words, I should like to see the situation where a person's knowledge of working in agriculture would be the essential qualification rather than the ownership of land. It would be my preference to make that the test. However, that lies outside the scope of this Bill and the whole question of training in agriculture is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. There are schemes for farm managers and I know the Minister would like to see them extended. As far as I am aware, there is not as yet an adequate scheme for those who wish to make their career in agriculture and to have further training in the techniques of farming as distinct from the ownership of land. As I have pointed out, that lies outside the scope of this Bill.

Deputy Wilson raised questions about the definition of farm workers. He is right in saying that in recent years there has been a large extension into what is referred to as the "agri" business, something that was not there when the original Agricultural Wages Board was in its heyday in the 1930s. The ancillary services and industries that have grown up around the increasing mechanisation of agriculture is a new development. This question was examined in 1969 when an interdepartmental committee examined the question or redefining an agricultural worker and agriculture in general. This was done under the aegis of the Agricultural Wages Board to see whether the board should not apply to a wider net of employees and whether the definitions should not be redefined to relate more closely to the modern developments in agriculture.

The upshot of that inter-departmental study was that it was quite impossible to define clearly those grey areas. It would be better left to the discretion of the board itself. In this Bill we have provision, under the joint labour committee arrangements, that where a worker felt his work properly belonged to the area of agriculture, there is discretion left to the court to see whether he does not come under the Joint Labour Committee arrangements. That possibility is under section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, where the court has power to decide in regard to the applicability of a joint labour committee or an employment regulation order to particular work. Under that section a worker may appeal to the civil court on the question of the applicability of a particular employment regulation order to him.

Deputy Wilson asked about the widening boundaries of the definition of "agriculture". We say that this Bill in a very exact sense makes it clear that anybody working in some of the areas listed in section 1 is by definition in agricultural employment. Outside that in the borderline areas there is the right under this Bill for an individual worker to require application of its provisions to him. Under the old Agricultural Wages Board there was the tradition that the wages of certain workers who were not defined closely within the wages board kept pace with those decided upon by the wages board, and that negotiating situation will continue under this Bill. In industrial relations when one legislates for a particular section of workers there are equally important repercussions and consequences for workers whose wage rates have been tied over the years to the categories of workers defined under the legislation in question. The same appertains to this question of agricultural workers under this Bill. Under the wages board the wages rates of other categories either analogous to agricultural employment or related to it in some way were tied to the wages board.

Deputy Callanan said that, whatever one might say about the old board, it had a regional composition which ensured overall that, whatever its deficiencies, lack of knowledge of the realities of agriculture was not among them. That may well be and certainly I am not questioning the knowledge of agriculture of the representatives of the old board. What I am questioning is this. The reason for this legislation is that the old board did not over the period of its operation succeed appreciably in breaking down the vast difference which had grown up between the conditions of agricultural workers and those of industrial workers in general. I am not saying that that was entirely the fault of the old board. There were objective factors involved in their lack of success in this area. I am not entering into the general debate as to whether they ever tried. There is a sharp division between the conditions of one category of worker and another.

I regard the occupation of agricultural worker as an extremely skilled one. The nature of his job was always skilled, but if it is possible to be more skilled in a job in recent years it is possible to say of his job that the increase in mechanisation of agriculture makes it a totally different job, one that is much more difficult even than it was in the past. In the interest of agriculture itself it is essential that the division which has grown up between agricultural and industrial workers be ended. If this is our most important national industry it must be assured of a contented and skilled workforce. One of the ways in which one contributes to contentment in a workforce is to ensure that their standards of employment are kept as much as possible at the same level as those of other industrial workers. Even though agriculture may be increasing its mechanisation, it will require a workforce in the future which will be as permanent as possible, because one of the curses of the agricultural workforce was that so bad were the conditions in many cases that workers did not remain in their jobs. This was not true in all cases. Deputies are as well aware as I am that in many cases workers were paid above the level laid down by the wages board. We are trying to legislate for cases where this did not obtain.

Deputy Callanan spoke in defence of the old board's knowledge of agriculture. I do not think we need fear that there will be any lack of knowledge under the new arrangement. I will be coming to the section, a Cheann Comhairle, but one may say in advance in relation to this question of Deputy Callanan that the agricultural organisations would have the right to nominate their representatives to this joint labour committee. Presumably they would have close regard to the regional nature of agriculture, because the problems of agriculture are different in the west, the south, the midlands and the east. To make sure that there is a representative board it would be for the agricultural organisations to see that they get representatives who understand and are acquainted with the varying conditions obtaining in agriculture over the entire country. The same would go for the workers' side. There are regional differences in their situation, and it would be for their organisations to nominate representatives from around the country. Therefore, on the score of knowledge of conditions obtaining in agriculture our new arrangements can ensure that this weakness or lack of knowledge will not exist.

Deputy Brennan raised the question, quite properly, about the special problems of agriculture. I can see his point that it is true to say that this group of workers is the largest additional group of workers to be put under the Labour Court's care since the establishment of that court in 1946. At no previous period have we by one piece of legislation added something like upwards of 30,000 workers to be catered for by the court.

Under the amendment which we discussed yesterday evening we are making arrangements for an additional division of the court. The tenor of Deputy Brennan's remarks would suggest that he is conscious of the need for an extra division to be attached to the Labour Court. Whether that division should be specifically charged with dealing only with agricultural matters is a question I would prefer to leave open at present. I think it is always more appropriate for the court to make these arrangements itself. We should not here set down in statutory form the final arrangements on how the court should discharge its responsibilities. It could be said that we would be preserving under another form the separateness of agricultural workers were we to say to the court that there must be a division to deal with nothing else except agricultural workers. The intent of this legislation is to end the separate treatment of agricultural workers and to put them on the same level as everyone else. We place them under the same legislation as all other industrial workers and we end that status which was theirs, if status it can be called, whereby a different kind of legislation applied to their occupation. Previously they could go to the Labour Court only in the event of a trade dispute. From now on the Labour Court will be the final appeal body, the appointing body for the joint labour committee. They will be under its care as interpreter of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. They will be treated the same as everyone else, no better and no worse, and no worse is the important point.

Deputy Fitzgerald took up the point about farm apprentices, with which I agree, and Deputy Wilson also raised the necessity for having better training and facilities for those engaged in agriculture. Again I fully agree. Quite a lot has been done through the farm management scheme but possibly more could be done. However, it is not primarily my responsibility but that of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and he has discussed this with the farming organisations, who are very anxious to see properly qualified personnel coming into farming. This measure is concerned solely with one important aspect of those working in agriculture: the conditions and pay of farm workers. Under this Bill we cannot discuss the whole field of training in agriculture.

Mr. Brennan

I should like to see in the proposed new court a section dealing with agricultural matters. I appreciate that it might be impracticable to have such a section but I do not think it would be beyond the capabilities of the court to enlist persons with specialised agricultural knowledge who, when occasion arose, would deal with special problems of agricultural workers.

Section 2 of the Bill substitutes a subsection for subsection (1) of section 4 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, thereby giving access to the Labour Court to agricultural workers and right of access to the JLC like industrial workers. They are being put on a par with other workers with the exception of those specified. This gives them the right to have agreements registered, like national wage agreements. Such agreements have in them provision for dealing with anomalies which are usually dealt with by the Labour Court.

I can easily visualise in the special circumstances of agricultural workers that there are many anomalies which would not arise so often in relation to other types of employment and therefore there is need in the proposed new institution for people with knowledge of agriculture who would be able to ascertain what would constitute anomalies and discern when these anomalies should be the subject of a decision by the court.

It has frequently been pointed out here that many agricultural workers enjoy certain facilities or "perks" which are not available to other workers, such things as farm produce, sometimes use of dwellings on the land on which they work, sometimes some meals, not all meals. These things may or may not be provided and they could pose anomalies that would not be easily apparent to the average man dealing with industrial cases in the Labour Court. We will be dealing with another section later to which Deputy Fitzgerald has an amendment.

It is of great importance that this legislation does not impose an extra strain on employers who already experience many vicissitudes because of the special nature of their work. People who have no knowledge of what living and working on a farm means very often think they understand all the difficulties and the precarious nature of living on the land. Of course they do not. Unlike any other employer, a farmer cannot easily budget for the year ahead. The outcome of his labours depends on many factors including weather, markets, the old supply and demand factor. Weather conditions almost entirely dictate the success of his efforts in regard to tillage and there are animal and crop diseases to be contended with, all posing a continuous battle with imponderables. I appreciate that modern methods and technologies have eliminated many of these hazards but the farmer nevertheless has to contend with drought on the one hand or too much rain on the other, and of course storms of one kind or another still take their toll. The employer of agricultural workers still has no such thing as a nine to five day—it is still dawn to darkness and sometimes beyond it.

We hear a lot about what we should do to tax the farmer and about the great wealth people think he is enjoying, but we still do not see a great rush into farming. Indeed the figures show that the movement is in the other direction. In recent times the farmer has succeeded in getting his position better understood, in getting people to realise the importance of the agricultural employer, who is slowly coming into his own at last. For many years he produced food for the nation and for export and was working for a few pence an hour.

That does not mean we should be too ready to rush in to see what we can take from the agricultural employer, and for that reason I hope that the good relationship that existed on the land between employer and employee—almost a family relationship—will not be destroyed by this legislation the success of which will depend to a great extent on the manner in which it is administered.

Agricultural workers with whom I discussed this Bill did not seem in the slightest degree concerned about whether or not there was this legislation. Neither did they seem to think there was any demand for it. They believed they were always able to come to reasonable arrangements with their employers without any involvement in the rough and tumble that takes place in the industrial relations arena and many of them feel this legislation will merely make them part of the tussle that goes on in connection with registered wage agreements and so forth. They are conscious of the fact that their employment is of a peculiar type and does not really compare with industrial employment. It is a specific type of employment with many peculiarities that do not apply in other employments. It is argued this Bill will benefit those, if there are any such, who are not getting the full benefit of that to which workers are entitled. I question if there are any such. However, if there are, this will simply ensure their being able to make a legal claim to their entitlement.

The Agricultural Wages Board set a minimum wage. Wage fixing is almost invariably fixed at a minimum. Higher rates can be paid and that applied in agriculture. Where wage agreements are concerned, if it is known that a firm is paying higher than the fixed rate there is an inducement to others to seek the same rate and that can start a general wage demand spiral. I am not too sure agricultural workers are all that anxious to become part of the rough and tumble of industrial relations. They are working happily and they have adapted themselves to interesting work and I trust this legislation will not act as a disincentive to farmers to employ more. Other Ministers, particularly the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, could come to the rescue by creating incentives, such as we had in the past, like the relief of rates in respect of male employment on the land. Incentives would encourage farmers to employ more and they might possibly go in for more tillage because that is labour intensive.

Perhaps the Minister is in a position to tell us whether the insurance contribution, the weekly stamp, as it is called, will be increased and brought up to the level of the industrial stamp as a result of this legislation. It has always been at a lower rate and there is a feeling abroad that this legislation will automatically mean an increase in the stamp. Can the Minister tell us whether or not this will be the case?

This legislation will effect a dramatic change for a large section of workers, workers from whom we had no trouble in the past and with whom there was no difficulty. I do not think they were downtrodden. They may have been in the days of the hiring fair in Letterkenny when men went into the Lagan Valley to work for £7 per year. That was immediately following the famine and writers like Patrick Magill and Peadar O'Donnell and others have found ample scope for writing about those bad old days.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What is the book? Is it The Dead End?

Mr. Brennan

Children of the Dead End by Patrick Magill. Those days have long since gone and the agricultural worker has entered an era of comparative contentment and peace, away from the turmoil of the industrial world where strikes take place and there is jockeying for parity, differentials and relativity. These are things unknown to agricultural workers and I sincerely hope that, as a result of this legislation, they will not be dragged into the same turmoil that has bedevilled industrial activities over the past 20 years. The one thing that will ensure that there will not be such an evolution will be the putting on the joint labour committee and on the Labour Court people who understand the peculiarities of the agricultural worker's job, the environment, conditions and so on to which he has become accustomed. This would ensure the harmony and peace that has existed continuing into the future. In the recruitment of personnel we must ensure that there is no interference with the smooth running of the agricultural industry.

Mr. Callanan

When I spoke about people with experience I meant people with practical experience. There are too many with theoretical experience and no practical experience. Deputy Brennan has said most of what I want to say, but I want to stress that we must have people with practical experience. Theorists forget that nature plays a very important part in agriculture. They forget the weather plays an important part. We must have people with practical experience who understand what is involved and not somebody who has read all about whatever it is in some book because that does not work.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Deputy Brennan raised again the unique problems met with in agriculture when he queried whether it would not be advisable to have a particular section of the Labour Court specialising in the agricultural industry and the problems relating to it because they are so different from those obtaining in industry generally. We should not get the two things confused. There is the joint labour committee. That is the kernel of this legislation, the provision of a joint labour committee which would be representative of the employee and management interests in the agricultural industry. These two sides of the joint labour committee will presumably have all the specialised knowledge necessary to avoid the charge that the committee would be over-theoretical, would lack the requisite knowledge of the problems of agriculture. The joint labour committee, in its structure, with this representative arrangement, will be well equipped to know the problems of the industry, to know the conditions that obtain in the industry and to know the arrangements that are best made in the interest of the industry.

In any case, I have made the point that I do not think it wise that we should charge a particular new division of the Labour Court with a specific area of investigation and confine it to that area. The Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are the designated nominating bodies for members of the Labour Court, and while one side might be capable of nominating specialists in agriculture or those who are acquainted with its problems, perhaps the same thing could not quite be said of the employers' side in an arrangement which would charge a particular division of the Labour Court with the responsibility of dealing only with agricultural matters. If we pass this provision here I would prefer to see the new division of the court operate the same as any other division of the court, with the court "authorities" making their own arrangements about its area of investigation.

Deputy Brennan says he hopes we do not see the same difficulties that are evident in industry in general erupting in agriculture. I hope we do not. I see no reason why we should. I would not quite agree with him when he refers to a Garden of Eden situation in which the workers in that industry were content with the old arrangement and this new legislation disrupts that peace. If there was peace and contentment, that should not be changed under the new arrangement. But the new arrangement will ensure that, if there is to be peace and contentment in the industry, it will not be a peace and contentment that is bought at the expense of someone in that industry, that it will not be on the basis of low wages and poor conditions for a minority in the industry, and that all employed will have a certain standard in their conditions, hours of work and salaries.

That is all I envisage under this legislation. It is simply asking for agricultural workers the same conditions and the same legislative provisions that apply to workers in industry. There is no reason why this cannot be arranged under the representation I have outlined. In addition to that, the joint labour committee will draw up its own arrangements which will be subject to the scrutiny of the Labour Court and the Labour Court will, if necessary, refer back any proposal to the joint labour committee. However, the joint labour committee will be the initiating body, and they will have within their ranks adequate representation from both sides. This will ensure that the problems which the Deputies are apprehensive of, such as lack of acquaintance with the industry, will be dealt with and secondly, that the conditions of the workers will be catered for under the general legislation that applies to other workers in that the Labour Court itself is the final arbitrating body for interpretation of their conditions.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister did not answer the question about the stamp.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is no intention of changing the welfare contributions relating to agricultural workers.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This is a consequential repeal; we have already dealt with the matter of safeguarding the interest of the worker under the previous section and I do not think there is anything at which we can cavil under this section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This section provides for a number of things. First, it is appointing the joint labour committee to replace the Agricultural Wages Board. The Agricultural Wages Board have given long service. They have at all times established minimum wage rates and, despite any complaints the Minister may have made about the out-of-date methods they may have used, they were very familiar with the field of agriculture and the differences that applied in counties like Donegal, Galway, Kildare, Cork and so on. There are of course regional differences that do not apply to any other industry: different farming activities, different sizes of farm, different quality of land, different conditions applying to farm work generally. For that reason, the Agricultural Wages Board deserve to be complimented by this House for the contribution they have made to the agricultural industry. Perhaps we should be critical of them in certain respects, but on the whole they did good work. We have agreed that there is now a necessity for bringing agricultural workers in line with industrial workers. We have to be very careful here because it is important that the joint labour committee understand, in the same way as the Agricultural Wages Board did, the type of arrangements that have existed in the past and the happy relationships that have continued between employer and employee.

It is vitally important that there is no such thing as exploitation and that all employees can negotiate and have redress in the event of mistreatment or unfair payment and so on. Equally important is the fact that the relationships that have existed between agricultural workers and agricultural employees must be continued and must be seen to continue. There is unanimous agreement in this House in that respect. The joint labour committee will be tremendously important and must understand the differences that exist between, for example, the big farms in Kildare and Meath and the smaller farms, particularly in parts of my own constituency in Cork, and, indeed, in the west of Ireland generally. In the Kildare-Meath area there would probably be a less personal relationship between employer and employee than there would be in the smaller holdings. I would never support the idea that "perks" are a substitute for wages, but they do help to promote good relationships and this structure must be seen to continue. This seems important to me. The success of this joint labour committee depends on not approaching agriculture in the same way as it may approach an industry which, wherever it may be based, has basically the same conditions going for it.

The appointment of this joint labour committee means, of course, the ending of the Agricultural Wages Board. I want to know from the Minister how long-serving some of these members have been and whether he feels they should be entitled to any redundancy payment or to any entitlement due to length of service. I understand that some of them have given quite a considerable period of their lives to it. At all times I am sure that their approach was one of doing their best within the limits of the guidelines available to them, but certainly contributing their share to the peace that has existed in agriculture. They may not have been as effective as one would like them to be, but that does not take away from the fact that the Agricultural Wages Board has contributed to the successful relations which existed in agriculture over the years. I should like to ask the Minister what is the position regarding these officers. I understand these agricultural officers based in different parts of the country belong to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Will they continue as officers under the new joint labour committee or what will their functions be generally? I should also like to know what the position of the administrative and secretarial staff of the Agricultural Wages Board will be now that we are passing legislation here appointing the joint labour committee?

In later sections we will be coming to other aspects of this committee, but I do believe that one of the real kernels of this piece of legislation is this joint labour committee. The members who will form this committee must be familiar with agriculture, must have an understanding of agriculture, and must know the variables that exist in agriculture. There must be more flexibility because of the different regions. It must work. We all want it to work. I see no reason why good relations in the field of agriculture should not continue. I believe they will continue. Our part in ensuring that good relations continue only stresses for all of us the importance of the people who will form this joint labour committee. I accept the point of the Minister that this is putting a very large number of workers under the Labour Court at one time. I am referring to the importance of the composition of the joint labour committee, the replacement of the Agricultural Wages Board, and the fact that there should be some compensation for the people who have served for a long period on that board.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Any inspectors who worked in an enforcement capacity under the wages board will be absorbed into the inspectorate that will operate to ensure that the decisions of the joint labour committee are implemented around the country. That will look after their jobs and careers. Their conditions will be unchanged and their seniority will be looked after. They will simply carry out their old jobs under the new joint labour committee.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Under the Minister's Department?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes. They were in agriculture, but they will now become attached to an enforcement agency of the joint labour committee and part of the inspectorate of the Department of Labour. The secretarial staff will, of course, be absorbed in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The functions of the board will come to an end.

I do not know if there was any other question of substance raised. Again, Deputy Fitzgerald stressed the necessity for a knowledge and acquaintance with the problems of agriculture continuing and the hope that this knowledge will continue under the new arrangement. I see no reason why it should not continue. The representative nature of the joint labour committee will ensure that this will be the case. A point was raised earlier which refers again to this knowledge and acquaintance with the problems of agriculture by, I think, Deputy Brennan. Deputy Brennan referred to the difficulty of anomalies in industry and similar difficulties arising in agriculture and therefore the necessity of understanding the different circumstances obtaining in agriculture. In this connection, he spoke about the desirability of having a special division of the court to deal with agriculture. I make the general point that I doubt if this is advisable in the circumstances of the court's working operations. There must be flexibility in the court's operation. There must be flexibility to allow a division to be sent by the authorities in the court to deal with a particular case in any area and to deal with any category of workers who come under the same common legislation. I would prefer that to continue rather than to have a division of the court to be charged specifically and confined to one area of investigation. I would point out to Deputy Brennan that, of course, the court always has the right to appoint assessors under the Act. The most frequently quoted example of the court's use of this right was their appointment of assessors in the footwear industry last autumn to examine the possibility of job losses in that industry. They would have a similar right to appoint assessors to examine a particular case in agriculture or anywhere else if there was this feeling among their members that there were some extra facts to be understood.

Again, the general question was raised of the necessity of having a regional knowledge of agriculture in order to be able to appreciate the different scales of work and the problems involved as between east and west, south and the midlands in agriculture. The joint labour committee which will be national in character will, in common with other joint labour committees, have always the right to appoint local sub-committees and these can be located in different regions. In examining the regional nature of agriculture it will be for the overall national joint labour committee to reach a decision as to whether local sub-committees should be appointed. There is no reason to think that they would not consider making such a decision and they may very well adopt that procedure in their work. Deputies need not fear that the new joint labour committee will lack the essential knowledge required before reaching decisions in relation to agriculture.

Mr. Wilson

Arising from the Minister's assurance that the full-time officers will suffer in no way as a result of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, there are a few questions I wish to put to him. I understand from what he said that the personnel will be taken over by the Department of Labour. At present their rank is that of supervisory agricultural officers. Since the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is much bigger than the Department of Labour I would like an assurance from the Minister that promotional outlets for these people will not be less in his Department than they are at present in the other Departments.

The Minister said that the office staff were being assured on this point but it is usual in a replacement Bill of this nature to have that assurance stated explicitly at the end of the Bill. To my knowledge there are four supervisory officers involved and I should like to hear from the Minister on the question of residence in so far as they are concerned. Will they be allowed to continue to live in their present locations? Obviously, to move them to other areas would create great problems of a personal and family nature. While some officers may wish to move, others have their roots in an area and are contributing to the social life of those areas so that they may wish to remain where they are.

There is the question, too, of the man who has been acting part-time as chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board for the past 12 to 14 years. He is well known for his punctilious attention to his duties, for his diplomacy and his wide knowledge of the whole situation and of human beings generally. He is a man who has a distinguished national record and I should like to hear something from the Minister in regard to him. I assume that the Minister in his strictures on the operations of the Agricultural Wages Board did not intend to reflect on the officers, such as the part-time chairman and the supervisory agricultural officers who are living in different areas of the country, giving of their knowledge and expertise to their respective localities. He might tell us, too, whether these people have a choice to remain with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have indicated already the position with regard to office staff. I share the Deputy's concern that the inspectors' promotional opportunities not be limited by the change in their immediate employing body. In my general remarks about the necessity for the change from the old system to that of the new joint labour committee, there was no intention of any criticism or slight in regard to the work of the inspectors of the Agricultural Wages Board. These people undertook a very difficult job which they carried out to the best of their ability. It was their responsibility to ensure that the board's decisions were implemented in full and in this regard they did a creditable job. Nobody is endeavouring to take that away from them. Their promotional position will be considered carefully and no action will be taken to imperil their opportunities in this regard. Indeed, the contrary would appear to be the case —that their promotional position would seem to be improved because whereas up to now they have been isolated in a section of four in their Department they will now become part of a larger inspectorate in the Department of Labour. Their living arrangements in the various areas will be carefully considered, too. There is the necessity for the joint labour committee to have a regional element in their work and, obviously, the nature of the inspectors' work requires a degree of mobility. If any area calls for some decentralisation it is the area relating to agricultural activities, so I see no reason why there should be any change in the residential position of these inspectors when the new arrangements come into existence. Because of this new legislation the functions of the chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board whose activities were always part-time, are at an end. This happens when the law changes.

Mr. Wilson

I do not know whether the succinct statement of the Minister regarding the chairman was meant as a discourtesy but it sounded a little too curt. However, I may be misreading the Minister. Perhaps he will tell us if there is any possibility of an ex gratia payment from either the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Labour for this man as an indication of the appreciation of the work he has been doing for the past 12 to 14 years. It seems a rather cavalier thing to say: the law has changed, you are out of a job, that is it; goodbye.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I do not wish to be discourteous but I have stated the position as it is. We do not have an arrangement in the State services for a part-time chairman to be given any financial grant at the end of a period of office. That is not usual and it is not for me to decide to allot such. It is not done in any part of the State services. There are cases of chairmen of many State boards coming to the end of a period of office after a number of years of chairmanship and part-time chairmen of such boards cannot expect any reimbursement from the State since their full-time occupations lie elsewhere. They have been paid over the years for their chairmanship and that applies in this case. I do not intend any discourtesy but I was describing the position as it is. This is a new Bill and the Agricultural Wages Board, and the activities of that board, are at an end. Those who have full-time occupations under that board will continue to be employed under the new arrangement but for those who had some part-time functions related to that board, their jobs and functions are ended.

Mr. Wilson

In this instance part-time was full-time.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is possible that some of the members of the Agricultural Wages Board could be considered for membership of the joint committee or will they be excluded? Is there anything that would exclude them?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The nominated bodies will be agricultural interests on the one side and employees interests on the other. If either of those interests nominate any people from the old board there is no problem about them being represented on the new joint labour committee.

Mr. Brennan

Will extra personnel be required for the purpose of enforcement and the inspections that will be carried out?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We will be using the inspectors of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Brennan

Will there be any additions? We are now considering 30,000 workers.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There may be additional posts but at least we will take over the existing staff to start with.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

How many are there?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Four.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, in lines 22 and 23 and lines 30 to 32, to delete "from a panel prepared and presented to the Court by the Minister" and in lines 25 to 27 and lines 34 to 36 to delete "as the Minister thinks fit and with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries".

This amendment relates to the constitution of the joint labour committee. In this section there is a distinct departure from the principal Act. We are at a loss to understand the necessity for this departure in view of the fact that we are basing the introduction of this Bill on the fact that it is a logical development to put agricultural workers on the same level as industrial workers. We have three different categories of people being appointed to the joint labour committee under this section. In the first instance we are told that the chairman and not more than two independent members of the committee shall be appointed by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I fail to see the necessity for the inclusion of "Fisheries" there. It implies a permanency of that section being tied to the Department of Agriculture at a time when our fishing industry, and the needs of the nation, demand that "Fisheries" be given special attention. I believe a future Government will appoint a Minister for Fisheries. However, I appreciate the necessity for discussions with the Minister for Agriculture.

This section shows no change from the principal Act of 1946. My amendment refers to the next two groups of people being selected to take part on this joint labour committee. I have asked in the amendment that the Minister should not interfere in these appointments. Subsection (b) of this section states:

the representative (employers) members of the committee shall be appointed by the Court from a panel prepared and presented to the Court by the Minister after consultation with such organisation or organisations representative of agricultural employers as the Minister thinks fit and with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

We want to allow the court to consult with the organisations concerned and then appoint the members to the committee and not as proposed in the section which is a distinct departure from the 1946 Act. It is an interference by two Ministers with the structure of the joint labour committee. I believe the Ministers, and their successors, if we do not accept this amendment, will have powers that they can use to the detriment of a joint labour committee, a committee that must at all times be independent and be seen to be independent. If the Ministers for Labour and Agriculture have the right to interfere with the structure of the joint labour committee such a right can be abused.

We have evidence of political appointments being made on many boards over the past few years. We have the recent example of the Bord na gCapall situation. In that case the members of that board, after giving excellent service, were removed and replaced at the whim of a Minister. The chairman of Bord na gCapall gave much time, energy, effort and dedication to the service of that board during his term of office but he was lifted off that board without any prior notice. He was not even given the courtesy of a place on the new board as an ordinary member, despite the fact that he and many of his members had travelled the length and breadth of this country on behalf of Bord na gCapall and the horse industry. Having used that example, is it difficult to understand why we suspect that the same might apply here, that this Minister or his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, will do the same to the joint labour committee?

The section specifically states that members of the committee shall be appointed by the court from a panel prepared and presented to the court. In other words, the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries come together and form a panel having consulted with the organisation or organisations representative of the agricultural employers and workers. It appears that members of this panel may not be acceptable to the Minister for many reasons. One has to be suspicious that maybe they will not be acceptable because of political reasons.

It would be disastrous for the agricultural workers if this major step facilitated this kind of interference which could defeat the purpose of the joint labour committee before it began a new and difficult task. We want to see this committee perform fairly and effectively, particularly on behalf of the agricultural workers. I see no reason to depart from the 1946 Act in this case. The Second Schedule, section 2 (b) reads:

Members (in this Schedule referred to as representative members) appointed by the Court being—

(i) such number, as the Court thinks fit, of persons (in this Schedule referred to as representative (employers) members) who, in the opinion of the Court represent employers in relation to whom the committee is to operate, and

(ii) an equal number of persons (in this Schedule referred to as representative (workers) members) who, in the opinion of the Court, represent workers in relation to whom the Committee is to operate.

There is no need to depart from those guidelines. In proposing this amendment we are asking that the court, after consultation with the organisation, or organisations, representative of agricultural workers, appoint their members to the joint labour committee. The same applies to workers' representatives. I cannot understand the reason for consultation with the Minister. Perhaps he will outline in detail his reasons for doing this. It appears to be the thin end of the wedge. If it applies to this joint labour committee, what guarantee have we that it will not apply to future committees?

I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and show his fair approach to this matter. It will make his task easier during his term of office and will not give any opportunity to a Minister who succeeds him to avail of a specific situation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This method was chosen because Deputies referred to the exceptional circumstances of agriculture and the fact that agricultural workers have been dealt with by separate means for the last 40 years. Deputies have been making the point that those differences should still be taken into consideration in this new legislation. It is agreed that agriculture has special problems and interests which require acquaintance by all those working in it, if their decisions are to be correct and will not lead to unforeseen circumstances.

When setting up this joint labour committee in substitution for the Agricultural Wages Board it was obvious that agricultural organisations would be cautious about the necessity for such a step. A good deal of discussion had to be gone through before we introduced this Bill. In the area of industrial relations the point can be made that any legislation which emerges here has to be the product of many months of consultation and discussion before it even reaches the House. This is not an area of legislative intervention where one can sit down with one's officials, draw up a blueprint and introduce it to the House with the best advice available, because if the legislation is intended to be applied by those who work in industry one must go as far as possible, even before coming into this House, to gain their agreement. That is the position in relation to this section.

It would not have been possible to introduce this Bill were these slightly different procedures not adopted in the setting up of the joint labour committee. I say "slightly different" because the difference is very slight from the position obtaining in the establishment of the committee as set up under the 1946 Act. It is true that under that Act the panel goes to the court direct and there is no intervention by the Minister of the day. The intervention of the Minister in this case is necessary because he must be involved in the setting up of the committee taking into account the special conditions obtaining in agriculture.

Of the bodies who will be nominating representatives to this committee on the trade union or agricultural sides, neither raised any objections to this procedure. They both agreed that this is the common sense thing to do. I want to assure Deputies that no one from either side objects to this approach. On the contrary, they accept its necessity.

There is no departure from the Act because the final authority still rests with the court to nominate. In other words, if the court object to the appointment of anyone suggested to them arising from consultations between the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and myself, under the 1946 Act they have the power of veto. Deputies need not be over-concerned that anything untowards is suggested here. It is true that there is an alteration in that there is consultation between myself, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the nominating bodies—the panels come to us initially and we forward them to the court. The reason for this alteration arises from the anxiety of agricultural interests that the special conditions of their industry be reflected in the legislation chosen to set up the joint labour committee. In this connection the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries requires to be consulted because he has overall responsibility to the House for the agricultural industry.

Therefore there must be reference to the Minister on this section. Otherwise our choice was that there could be no departure, no question of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board and setting up the joint labour committee—hence the necessity for the section. There is no objection on the part of unions or farming interests to this section. They recognise the necessity for it and finally, the court itself has a veto of appointment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Did I gather from the Minister that were it not for this section there would not have been agreement to the setting up of the joint labour committee? I gather that the setting up of the joint labour committee was conditional on this section being part of the Bill. I see absolutely no reason why a Minister or Ministers should interfere in appointments. As I said on the Second Stage, it implies a serious lack of confidence in the ability of members appointed to the court to perform a task. This is consistent with the approach of the Minister to that court in recent times. That implication is very strong. It also implies that if the court are not fit, after consultation with the organisations concerned, to nominate people to the joint committee they are not fitted to judge the cases coming before them. It also appears to me that if the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries have to intervene and select a panel they should be involved in the deliberations of the court.

The Minister has argued the necessity for setting up a joint labour committee and for putting agricultural workers on the same footing as industrial workers under the 1946 Act. He is showing distinct weakness in this section if he is saying that the setting up of this committee was conditional on this section, and I submit the advantages to be gained from it may be far less in the long run than the dangers that can be created by its introduction. Is there now a further danger that because it is being introduced the Minister and his colleagues —his colleague in Industry and Commerce, for example—would be inclined to introduce the same type of interference in other joint labour committees that exist already and that we would be asked to change legislation so that this would happen? This is an area where the Minister should not take for himself or any successor the power sought in this Bill because of the danger of abuse of it.

What will it mean if a person is allowed on the panel? Will he have to be a card carrying member of the Minister's party or of his colleague's party? It appears they may not be members of the panel if they are not such persons. This danger is there. I believe this to be grave interference by any Minister. It is a slight on the capabilities on the members of the court to perform a duty. It is a weakening of their power. It is saying to them: "You are not fit to make these appointments." How then can they be fit to make decisions or judgements?

I ask the Minister, in his own interest, to accept our amendment. I am satisfied that the members of the court are competent. If they are competent to make decisions I believe they are also competent, after consultation with employers' and employees' organisations to make appointments to the joint labour committee.

Mr. Brennan

I also urge the Minister to accept the amendment because otherwise the Bill will be very much suspect and the whole effect of it will be spoiled. The modifications he seeks in regard to the appointment of the joint labour committee make it suspect. The Minister may argue that the Minister should have his finger in the pie, that he will not abuse the right, that he will do what is right but this comes fairly close to eroding the independence of the Labour Court, an institution that has withstood a good deal of buffeting since it was established. Its decisions may be accepted or not; they are not legally binding; the number of rejections is quite large; I do not know the present percentage, but the court's hope of establishing a reputation, a prestige and standing lies in its being and appearing to be absolutely independent of any political motivation or interference. If the court could not establish that absolute independence and make it obvious to everybody its reputation would be diminished and its standing generally impaired. It is its reputation for independence and impartiality and freedom from political motivation that give it any standing and right to have its decisions accepted.

In my time as Minister for Labour I had frequent complaints about the court being housed in the same building as the Department of Labour. It was suggested frequently that it should be moved to a separate building—and this would have been done but for the lack of accommodation— so as to stand out as a completely unattached institution capable of dispensing impartial decisions with absolute independence and free from interference of any kind. This section represents a serious erosion of principles which the court is seeking to have established and maintained in order to give it the reputation and standing it requires and which can only be built up with the years. It has been moving rapidly in that direction. The Minister may argue that it is essential that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should have his finger in the pie. Many will suspect that there are other reasons for that. There are many who will impute motives to the Minister for seeking this right. If we look at other boards that have been reconstituted, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, in recent times, the suspicion will be well grounded. That is all the more reason why we should in this legislation keep our hands completely off the Labour Court. The tendency should be to emphasise that it is an absolutely independent institution completely free from any manipulation or interference whatever. The Minister would be well advised to leave the Labour Court to appoint the joint labour committee, which they are capable of doing. They can consult directly with the IFA, the ICMSA and any other bodies they may wish to consult with to get the necessary personnel from the two sides of the agricultural industry in order to have a suitable joint labour committee.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section state:

(a) the chairman and not more than two independent members of the committee shall be appointed by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries;

(b) the representative (employers) members of the committee shall be appointed by the Court from a panel prepared and presented to the Court by the Minister after consultation with such organisation or organisations representative of agricultural employers as the Minister thinks fit and with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries;

In other words, the Minister can constitute any panel he likes, submit it to the Labour Court and say: "Take them from that". He may or may not select the best people but whether he will or not it will appear to people that there is something suspicious about the appointments. This will have a diminishing effect on the growing stature of the Labour Court. Paragraph (c) states:

the representative (workers) members of the committee (to a number equal to the number of representative (employers) members) shall be appointed by the Court from a panel prepared and presented to the Court by the Minister after consultation with such organisation or organisations representative of agricultural workers as the Minister thinks fit and with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries;

I take it there is a typographical error in relation to the bracket around "members" in this paragraph. This legislation refers to a particular section of workers to whom we are giving equality with industrial workers and we are giving them access to what industrial workers have had for a number of years. When doing this we should take the opportunity to ensure that what we do will stand out as completely free from any interference whatever by the Minister or any person who would in any way bring suspicion on the impartiality, independence and high reputation of the Labour Court.

The Labour Court is nothing if it has not a reputation and is known to have a completely impartial approach to all its work. It is necessary for the Labour Court to be completely free from interference from any source. The Labour Court may only make recommendations. They may be accepted or rejected. The extent to which they will be accepted by both sides will depend on the high reputation and standing which the court can maintain. What the Minister is doing is a blow which does not tend towards improving the necessary image the court should have. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. M. O'Leary

As I said, the final appointments are made by the court. I made that clear at the start of my contribution on this amendment. The necessity to consult the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries arises from the desire of the agricultural organisations. They were not initially too favourable to the entire conception of the establishment of a joint labour committee and the abolition of the wages board. It was necessary to disarm any criticisms they might have to make that the new arrangement would be to the detriment of the agricultural industry. It was necessary to assure them that this would not be the case. It was necessary to further reassure them that the arrangements for appointments and so on would ensure that the representative character of the joint labour committee would be such that it would be fully cognisant of the problems faced by agriculture.

I made the point that those who are rightly jealous of the independence of the court, namely the trade unions, are in full agreement with the arrangement set out here. The Federation of Rural Workers, which is the premier body dealing with farm workers are in full agreement with the measures suggested here. They have a better record of fighting for the independence of the court than any Deputy in the House. Deputies, therefore, need not concern themselves that the independence of the court is being interfered with in any way by this arrangement. The court have the final right to make the appointment. All that is sought here is the alteration of the 1946 provision whereby there is some consultation. In this case it is suggested that it should be between the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and myself prior to the submission of names to the court as to whom will be the final authority for making appointments.

This arrangement is specific to this joint labour committee. It does not suggest that this power be undertaken in respect of other joint labour committees. This step was not necessary in other joint labour committees. We did not have the conditions which appertain to agriculture, so it does not apply to other joint labour committees.

There is the further comment that under existing arrangements, those that have applied for 30 years to the establishment of joint labour committees, a Minister always appoints the chairman and two independent members of the joint labour committee. It has not been suggested in the past that this is an interference with the structure of the joint labour committees. This is a far more fundamental right of a Minister. He can appoint, as I will appoint, under this joint labour committee, the chairman and two independent members. Quite apart from the workers and employers' representatives and farming representatives I will appoint those people. Is it suggested that this is some interference? Is it suggested that there is something wrong in an arrangement which has obtained for 30 years? That suggestion was not made in the past. When we were on the other side we did not make that suggestion and it is regrettable if such a suggestion is made now.

The necessity arises from the suggestion by the agricultural organisations that this is the procedure which would meet their desires most closely. It is not objected to by the trade unions. It does not constitute an interference in the workings of the court, because here we are talking about the joint labour committee. If the argument is accepted that it constitutes ministerial interference, we have had ministerial interference for 30 years now in the appointment of the chairman and two independent members. No one has suggested that was wrong up to now. I would be surprised if Deputies opposite object to it now. It is a procedure which has worked down through the years. I do not propose to alter it in any respect.

All that is suggested here is consultation with agricultural organisations. Nor am I aware of any objection from the Labour Court to this arrangement. How could there be, if the constituting bodies do not object? If the trade unions objected to this procedure I would certainly have to look askance at it. There is no such objection because the trade unions are aware, as I am, that this is an essential condition for the establishment of the joint labour committee.

I am sorry that suggestion has been made in this debate this morning, which was otherwise related strictly to the issues before us. I am sorry the element has been introduced of card-carrying members of a party. This kind of nonsense should be discarded by Deputies opposite. It is not my fault, or the fault of anybody on this side of the House, if Deputies opposite are the heirs of 16 years of nepotism, and worse, nepotism which rewarded mediocrity. If that is their heritage, that is not my responsibility. Deputies should not bring into any debate related to a specific problem, that odious inheritance which is a problem their party have suffered from. If the party card became the passport to a job when they were in Government, they cannot inflict that bad inheritance of theirs on every measure brought in here to meet a particular problem.

I do not care about anybody's politics. What I am concerned about on the part of people who work with me is their ability. I judge people on their ability. I do not care a curse about their politics, Labour, Fine Gael or anything else. I am concerned about the ability of people who work in my area of work. The sooner we agree that ability is the criterion for any job the better. I regret that Deputies opposite should bring that element into this debate. One of the main reasons why Deputies are on the other side of the House is that the electorate concluded they are the party who made the possession of the party card the passport to a job. With that inheritance around their necks, they will stay over there. I regret that they should bring that element into a debate on a section in which I am proposing, with the agreement of the nominating organisations, that there should be consultation between myself and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. It is ludicrous to suggest that the reason we had to bring in this alteration had something to do with the party card.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I have listened to that insincere lecture by the Minister who would not even concede an obvious omission by him and tried to make cheap political gimmickry out of the fact that a Deputy from his own party whispered in his ear and told him something which he was not aware of up to then had been omitted from the Bill. That Deputy was not aware it had been omitted until I raised it in this House. Then we heard this contribution, this pulpit preaching, with its obvious lack of sincerity, in an effort to cloud the real weakness in the introduction of this joint labour committee, and to bury the problem to which he referred at the beginning of his statement. Fewer lectures of the nature which the Minister has just given, and concentration on the problem facing us in this and other areas would be far more befitting, and far more useful to the people we both represent—fewer lectures on past history and past performances. The Minister referred to mediocrity.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I said yours was the nepotism of mediocrity.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If the Government of which he is a member could even be termed as mediocre, perhaps some few of the many thousands now unemployed might still be working. Having said that, I want to get back to the real kernel of the section and the reason why the Minister lost his "cool" this afternoon. He started off by telling us he succumbed to the pressures of the employer organisations in the field of agriculture in introducing section 5 and that, as a result of pressures from that area, he has thrown a sop to somebody and said: "I want to do the big thing. I want to introduce my joint labour committee. I will do it at any cost."

Neither Deputy Brennan nor I said we had any objection to the Minister nominating the chairman and members. We object, and we will continue to object to interference by the Minister and his colleagues within the two areas which are so important if the joint Labour committee is to function successfully. The Principal Act is the 1946 Act. The experience of joint labour committees has been reasonably satisfactory. Why? Because there must be three parts to those committees if they are to function properly. The three parts are the nominated members and the chairman, independent members, the workers' representatives' group, and the employers' representatives' group.

The joint labour committee in this case has a completely different structure. We have the appointment of a chairman and independent members, the selection and control of a panel of workers or trade union representatives, having consultations admittedly with two Ministers, and the very same set up on the employer side. In other words, we have a major departure from the joint labour committees as we knew them. This will be a joint labour committee in name but basically a committee set up by the Minister to replace the Agricultural Wages Board. There is no way this party will agree to ministerial interference in the vital field of industrial relations.

It is not enough for the Minister to say there is no objection from the trade union side. It is obvious to me that, because of his having succumbed to pressures from one side, the effort had to be made to set up this joint labour committee which we all support. It loses its usefulness if this type of interference is allowed. It is not enough either for the Minister to say no objection was raised by the court. This is an interference with the court. We referred to this earlier. It is an interference with the functions of the court. It is an allegation of a lack of confidence in the court. If it is saying that, after consultation they are not competent to make appointments, how can they be described as being competent to adjudicate on any case which goes before them? The logical follow up to that is interference by the Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the decisions being arrived at on particular problems which come before the joint labour committee.

On many occasions in this House the Minister has referred to "we on this side" and to the Opposition "on that side" and he has mentioned reasons why we are on these benches and he is on the Government benches. The politician who talks in this way could be regarded as childish and I will not reply in detail to what he said. However, I will reply to the allegation about card-carrying members. I feel very strongly about this matter because I know the worth, integrity and the contribution of the man I referred to. He was not a Fianna Fáil man; in my opinion he was a man without politics who had an acute and keen interest in horse breeding and in Bord na gCapall. He was chairman of the board and he travelled the length and breadth of the country, often at his own expense and always in his own time and at great personal inconvenience. He did this because of his dedication and interest. He and most of his colleagues were removed from that board a few weeks ago by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at one fell swoop. Yet the Minister tells me we should not make allegations of this nature. I do not know the people who replaced this man and his colleagues. However, I am absolutely satisfied the man involved was removed because he had been appointed by the Minister's predecessor. In view of the contribution he made on a personal and dedicated basis he was entitled to be appointed a member.

I do not want the same kind of situation in the joint labour committee. It is not enough for the Minister to say that there is nothing in the Bill to interfere with the other joint labour committees, although I accept it. He has a habit of trying to put words into a person's mouth. He said there was no objection from us to the chairman and nominated member, nor had there been from them. It appears to me that was a lack of experience and knowledge by him in the area of industrial relations and negotiations.

There is an obvious reason why the members must be there because they are regarded as the balance of power between the two more important units at the employee and employer levels. I accept that the Minister must have a certain balancing power but when he interferes with the two more important sides we have to be careful. No Minister is as competent, or should be as competent, as the court. For a long time we have supported the independence of the court, its functions and its officers. There have been times when difficult decisions had to be taken and when they were not accepted generally but there has never been interference with the officers of that court to the extent that was evident last autumn. This interference is being continued in this Bill.

During the Dáil recess because of pressure we saw dismissals, appointments and reappointments in a matter of weeks. Here we are telling the court that they are not competent to make the appointments from the employer and the employee sides. The Minister is saying that he and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will be competent to draw up a panel from which the court may select. The Minister is saying that ultimately the court will have the power of selection but it will only be from a limited group whom the Ministers have selected. The Minister may say that this is preserving the right of the court to appoint members but it is from a very limited field. Surely I will be forgiven for asking the valid question: "What qualifies one for forming part of the panel?" Obviously the Minister has succumbed to pressure.

The joint labour committee is conditional on this section being passed. Despite any cross words the Minister and I may have had from time to time, I appreciate his interest in the working people. I realise his past connections but I do not think he will be fair to those connections or to those loyalties if he does not accept the motion I have submitted to the House. First, it will continue to preserve the independence of the Labour Court and, secondly, it will prevent interference by him or any of his successors in the vital field of joint labour committees. The Minister has said there is nothing in this Bill regarding other joint labour committees and I agree with him, but there is a danger that this could be regarded as the thin end of the wedge.

Mr. Brennan

Apart from the curt camaraderie that manifested itself at the end of Deputy Fitzgerald's statement, I agree with everything else he said. The Labour Court has not had an easy passage. It required years to build up its reputation for integrity. Under the Principal Act the Minister had the right to appoint the chairman and two independent members of the joint labour committee. If there is going to be any derogation from the principles of the 1946 Act dealing with industrial relations it should be in the opposite direction. Now that the court has established itself and in the interests of asserting its complete independence, it would have been more understandable if he had changed the legislation to leave the appointment of all the committees to the court. What he is proposing is a step in the wrong direction.

The Minister said there was consultation with the employers and the employees. I should like to know with whom he had consultations? Was it with the Rural Workers' Association? If so, how many of the 30,000 agricultural workers are in that association? With whom on the employers' side were consultations conducted? Was it the ICMSA and the IFA? What was their opinion about joint labour committees? Have they approved of this taking from the Labour Court the right to appoint a committee and put it in the hands of the Minister.

The Minister said that Fianna Fáil, due to their nepotism, were now on this side of the House, that Deputy Fitzgerald made the accusation that card-carrying members of the Labour Party would get preference. The Minister accused us of following that system, thereby implying that those joint labour committees that have already been appointed were appointed as card-carrying members of Fianna Fáil. The joint labour committees that are in existence and seen to be working, with whom the people have practical experience, will bear witness to the fact of the impartiality in their selection, and certainly contradict any suggestion that political leanings are brought to bear on the selection of these suitable personnel.

The Congress of Trade Unions and the employers' organisations were all asked to submit names. There was no interference whatever. The very nature and success of the committees will bear witness to the fact that what the Minister says with regard to Fianna Fáil's nepotism is wrong. It should be completely isolated, even from any suggestion of it, from any part of the Labour Court's work. For that reason we are concerned that our amendment be accepted. It will make this legislation better, because I can assure the Minister that the agricultural community are not enamoured of the intrusion of the Minister for Labour in their affairs. The Minister would be foolish not to import this amendment into this legislation and thereby take the opportunity of doing something that will further enhance the reputation of the Labour Court and add to its prestige and integrity.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I regret the intrusion into this debate of references to party cards. When we are having a debate related to amendments on certain points we agree or disagree, but all our remarks are addressed to the Bill before us. Remarks relating to party cards are irrelevant. It is not my fault if Deputies opposite have bad consciences arising from the conduct of their party when in office, or from the possession of influence and membership of the Fianna Fáil Party being synonomous when they were in office.

My preference is for the appointment of people with ability in all cases, uncaring about the political persuasion of any individual. The sooner we adopt that approach the better. I am impatient when I hear Deputies opposite, after I have explained at tedious length why there is this reference to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and myself in this section. It arose because of the fears of the farming organisations that their interests would not be adequately catered for. Therefore there had to be a place for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the consultative process. That is why it arose. It is no slur on the competence of the court, on the independence of the court. It arose simply from the necessity of setting up of the joint labour committee. This was one of the conditions which had to be met.

I will leave Deputy Fitzgerald to his imagination and his interpretation of why this condition devalues, as he sees it, the whole idea. I cannot understand his reasoning. Consultations have been very complete, held with all organisations, to establish this joint labour committee. They were held between the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the farming organisation, including the IFA and the ICMSA, and on the trade union side with the Federation of Rural Workers and the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Will we have a chance of asking what organisations were affected?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have been answering that.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

On the employers' side is it confined to the ICMSA and the IFA? What about the other farming organisations?

Mr. M. O'Leary

These are the main organisations concerned.

Mr. Brennan

The ICA?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The ICMSA.

Mr. Brennan

The Irish Countrywomen?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I do not think the Irish Countrywomen's Association were consulted. Perhaps they were but I have not got them on the list. There was full consultation held with all concerned. Deputy Brennan is right that the Federation of Rural Workers, or any trade union, do not fully organise agricultural workers. One of the basic reasons why the law is necessary here is that many workers do not have the protection of any union. Deputy Brennan and other members of his party may say they do not need such protection. He painted a picture this morning of a wonderful world, a veritable Garden of Eden, in which tranquillity and peace reigned and there was no rough intervention of industrial disputes, no discontent, no disagreement. He suggested that that peace may be ended for ever as a result of the intrusion of the same kind of conflict that we see reigning in industry. I do not know whether it is some lost valley in his imagination that Deputy Brennan is referring to, but if that is the position it should not change. I am not aware of any such condition of happiness on this earth as he has painted here this morning, but if it was as happy it should not change under the new arrangement.

I repeat that the Labour Court finally would have the ultimate authority in the appointment of anyone nominated to the joint labour committee. When we understand the nature of the joint labour committee, its relationship with the Labour Court, we see it is a wild charge without substance to say that the alterations sought from the 1946 Act and the consultative procedures with agriculture and myself constitute an interference with the independence of the court. This leap between the alteration sought here and the references to the independence of the court are quite unsustainable. When one considers the relationship of a joint labour committee—the committee can only make proposals to the Labour Court which is completely independent and which has power to amend any proposals—how can it be suggested with any sense of reality that the alteration we suggest constitutes an interference with the court? For these reasons I will not accept the amendment proposed by the Deputy.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I appeal again to the Minister, to accept it. The reason we say this interference or danger of interference in the court is that the Minister is not giving them the powers they have of appointment of members of other joint labour committees. They do not have that power now.

Mr. M. O'Leary

They have the final appointment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

From a limited panel selected by the Minister.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 58.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmons, Geoffrey.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Andrews, David.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Loughnane, William.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Healy.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.