Deputy Fitzgerald was in possession.
Industrial Relations Bill, 1975: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 2, in the definition of "agricultural employer" to delete "who carries on the trade or business of agriculture and" and to delete "for the purposes of that trade or business".
—(Minister for Labour.)
Deputy Hogan O'Higgins was in the Chair last day and called me for time. There is obviously some mistake.
Deputies are aware that amendment No. 2 on the sheet of amendments which was circulated this morning was substituted for amendment No. 2 which was before the House on the last day the Bill was taken. Deputies will recall that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were discussed together. Perhaps the Deputy has already spoken on amendment No. 2 and if he wishes to speak now on the substitute amendment he may do so.
There is a substantial change in amendment No. 2 and for that reason I am glad the Chair is treating it in that way. It does not bear comparison with amendment No. 2 of the last day. Also, there was a lot of confusion at the end of the debate the last day. We were not sure at what time we were finishing. I am prepared to give way to the Minister as a result of these changes but I would like to reserve the right, with the permission of the Chair, to speak later.
The Deputy will have the right to speak on the substitute amendment.
Amendment No. 2 reads:
In page 2, to delete lines 21 to 24, and to insert the following:
"‘agriculture' includes horticulture, the production of any consumable produce which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use, dairy farming, poultry farming, the use of land as grazing, meadow or pasture land or orchard or osier land or woodland, or for market gardens, private gardens, nursery grounds or sports grounds, the caring for or the rearing or training of animals and any other incidental activities connected with agriculture;".
This amendment clarifies that the joint labour committee will also cover workers employed in racing stables and stud farms and those engaged in horticulture, mushroom growing, poultry farming and pig breeding. That is the intention of this amendment.
This amendment shows a substantial improvement in all aspects since we last discussed this Bill. It proves one thing to me: we had a worthwhile and useful discussion on Committee Stage. On the last occasion there was a certain amount of repartee between the Minister and myself about whether a bird was an animal or an animal was a bird. He tried to persuade me that an animal was not a bird. The reason for this was because we had asked for a ruling on whether poultry farming was industrial, agricultural or in what area did it fall. As a result of our request this has now been included in the amendment before us. It will now be a much more suitable definition than was there originally. The time on this was well spent.
Amendment No. 2 says that—
"agriculture" includes horticulture, the production of any consumable produce which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use, dairy farming,——
and, above all, "poultry farming". Maybe the Minister took my suggestions made the last day seriously. I welcome that——
the use of land as grazing, meadow or pasture land or orchard or osier land——
That is a bit of a hangover. I do not know how much activity goes on on osier land anymore but I have no objection to its being left in here——
or woodland, or for market gardens, private gardens, nursery grounds or sports grounds,——
then the additions we had the last day——
the caring for or the rearing or training of animals.
This was again inspired by Fianna Fáil pointing out that there had been an omission regarding stable lads and people working in the horse-breeding and horse-training industries. I fully appreciate why the Minister was a little embarrassed to have the horse mentioned in the amendment—because of the involvement of his leader and his colleagues with that industry and sport. The fact that it is included indicates that our complaints about the inadequacies of the definition as it first appeared were noted. This definition is now more suitable than that which originally appeared in the Bill which was circulated.
The Minister told me that the interdepartmental committee had examined this matter thoroughly and everything was in order. I am glad of that because it is important that he listens to the Opposition who have far more knowledge of the situation throughout the country than the Government. There always seems to be this little lack of knowledge and a lack of appreciation of the problems on the part of the Government.
This section includes probably all the people engaged in agricultural activities. I note that it includes horticulture. In this area the Minister might, with good results, consider ways and means by which financial assistance could be made available to young people who have no jobs. In certain areas very successful horticultural projects were embarked on, such as growing tulips on a test basis for Holland which is the greatest tulip growing country in the world and there was daffodil growing for export. In a time of high unemployment horticulture is an area which should be encouraged particularly among young school leavers who may have some sense of entrepreneurial adventure. Activity in this area could create ancillary jobs also. For that reason I am glad that horticulture is included here. As a country which is dependent so much on agriculture, this entire sphere must be explored fully. The top six inches of our soil are our greatest natural resources.
We do not wish to move away from the sphere of industrial relations.
No, nor do we wish to move away from the question of the employment of agricultural workers in the field of industrial relations. Perhaps those of us here from various parts of the country may know a little more about these matters than is known to officials here.
The Deputy should not make that kind of remark.
I cannot see how I roamed in any way from the contents of the Bill and the type of people at which it is aimed. Agriculture is the one area of activity that we can extend at present. We have discussed at length the expansion of job creation within this industry and industries allied to it. That is why I say that agriculture as defined here includes the areas that we consider to be very important. It includes areas that were omitted until we brought them to the notice of the Minister but this indicates again the awareness on this side of the House of what is needed in any such legislation.
I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Minister for having submitted to me information concerning the circular from the Labour Court on advertisements that appear in Iris Oifigiúil and in the national dailies. He had promised this during the last debate.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, to delete lines 21 to 24, and to insert the following:
"‘agriculture' includes horticulture, the production of any consumable produce which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use, dairy farming, poultry farming, the use of land as grazing, meadow or pasture land or orchard or osier land or woodland, or for market gardens, private gardens, nursery grounds or sports grounds, the caring for or the rearing or training of animals and any other incidental activities connected with agriculture;".
Amendment agreed to.
As amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 4 which arises out of Committee proceedings, both amendments, if the House agrees, can be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, to delete lines 28 and 29, and to insert the following:
"2.—Section 4 of the Principal Act is hereby amended".
I do not wish to object to the amendments being taken together but, perhaps, the Chair would explain in what way they are related.
Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 4.
In what way?
The Deputy will note that amendment No. 3 refers to section 4 of the principal Act.
Amendment No. 4 includes the word "servant".
It broadens the scope of the section because up to now we were not including people other than officers of local authorities. Officers of local authorities have their own schemes but the servants are now included.
That point was made by us on the last occasion.
Amendment No. 4 proposes to alter the definition of "worker" for the purpose of the Industrial Relations Act. It provides for access to the Labour Court machinery for people other than the officers of local authorities, vocational education committees and committees of agriculture who formerly were excluded from such access. The pay and conditions of officers are governed by the operation of their respective conciliation and arbitration schemes so there is no need for their inclusion. However, those other employees who would be comprised within the general legal definition of "servant" pursue their claims through their trade unions. Since section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 entitles these persons to access to the court for purposes of trade disputes only, there seemed to be no good reason why they, likewise, should not have access to the court for other purposes such as joint labour committee negotiations as are envisaged in this piece of legislation. The amendment provides that gardeners and others employed by local authorities are brought within the scope of the Joint Labour Committee for Agricultural Workers. In other words, we have broadened the definition that was used in regard to the Agricultural Wages Board in order to include these elements.
I might add that without being included specifically the salaries of such persons would have related to those negotiated with the Joint Labour Committee procedure but since we broadened it in other respects, at least to the extent of specifying extra grades, it was considered in the interest of consistency that we should do so here, too.
On a point of order this is new since the Committee Stage so I am wondering whether it could be recommitted in order to have it teased out.
It arose out of Committee discussion.
I raised it then.
My recollection is that the matter was raised by one of our Deputies and that the Minister said there was no necessity for any change.
Since subparagraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of section 2 go by the board, I am anxious to find a formula for teasing the matter out and that is why I seek a recommittal of the amendment.
I do not see any necessity for recommittal. I do not think anybody disagrees with the matter at issue. It has been discussed previously during Committee Stage.
It was discussed mainly by way of questions.
It was referred to in Committee and requests were made by several Deputies that there be specific inclusion of such persons as gardeners.
If it is any help to the Deputy it arises out of Committee proceedings, Volume 288, number 10, columns 1556 and 1557.
This is the point I was making. Deputy Wilson asked a question as follows:
In regard to market gardens and private gardens, would St. Stephen's Green be excluded by definition?
The Minister replied:
Included.
Deputy Wilson then proceeded to question him on the employees of Dublin Corporation and whether they would be covered. The Minister then said:
That is what I mean, but as we go on to section 2 we will see that a person working under a local authority would not be included.
The door was closed as far as the Minister was concerned. Later he said:
They have their own schemes. They will not be covered but that would be relevant to the next section.
The Minister told me to stop being childish.
There is no great issue. I maintain that it has been referred to already in Committee but if the Deputy feels very strongly about it I will go along with any suggestion made. It is a matter on which we are all in agreement.
We will leave it.
We accept that. I understood the Minister to say "servants of these committees". I believe all officers and servants are employees of any body whatever that body might be. The officer is covered. I understood the servant was already free to go to the JLC. They were not covered under the agricultural wages board.
No. They could in the normal way through their trade unions have the general right of pursuing their claim. I made the point that anything that goes under this JLC will accrue to them without their inclusion. I thought, in order to be consistent in terms of definition, that we should include them specifically.
I see no necessity to have them excluded. They are involved in the same type of work particularly in view of the revised definition we now have and I think we can accept it.
Deputy Fitzgerald gave the Minister the opportunity of explaining the purpose of amendment No. 4. I was not present for the Committee Stage debate and I cannot understand the Minister's explanation for this amendment. Basically, what has happened between Committee Stage and Report Stage and what leads to this amendment, is that the Minister is deliberately leaving out "servants". The new subsection (d) is a replacement for the former subsection (e) which stated: "an officer or servant of a vocational education committee". The new subsection states: "an officer of a vocational education committee". The same applies to subsection (f). The word "servant" is left out. Does that mean that under the existing Act, without the amendment, that the servant is covered? Is this the purpose of leaving out "servant" in this amendment?
For the purpose of a trade dispute he could go to his trade union in the normal way. This extends the protection of the joint labour committee to agricultural workers in general. I want there to be no doubt about it that the person working in that capacity at local authority level should be able to have access to this joint labour committee arrangement. That is the necessity for its inclusion here.
We discussed amendment No. 4 with amendment No. 3.
Yes. They are consequential.
I would like to point out that the amendments were in all cases inspired by this side of the House.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, to delete lines 1 to 5, and to insert the following:
"(d) an officer of a local authority, (e) an officer of a vocational education committee, (f) an officer of a committee of agriculture, or".
Amendment agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
We hope that the deliberations on this legislation will be beneficial to the agricultural workers throughout rural Ireland. Our hope in the present climate is that we will see a greater extension of this group of workers who have contributed so much to the life of the country over the years. Work force numbers in agriculture have continued to diminish over a considerable number of years. This has necessitated their re-employment in other sections of industry. At this time every effort should be made to encourage more intensive farming, more jobs on the land and more jobs in the processing industries based on agricultural products throughout the country.
I believe the horticultural field is open for development, perhaps on a small scale but even this is important at present. I hope this Bill will create a better life for the agricultural worker and will not, as was pointed out by some speakers, create any industrial unrest. There has not been any industrial unrest in that field of agriculture and I see no reason why this Bill should introduce that unrest.
Question put and agreed to.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.