asked the Minister for Labour when the decision was made to appoint a review body or commission on industrial relations.
25.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Industrial Relations.
24.
asked the Minister for Labour why the announcement of the appointment of the chairman of the proposed commission on industrial relations was not made in the Dáil.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 25 together.
The decision to establish a Commission on Industrial Relations was communicated by letter to the chairman of the employers' side of the Employer-Labour Conference and to the president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on the 18 January 1978.
The announcement regarding the chairman was made in the manner which appeared to me to be the most appropriate to the case.
Would the Minister care to admit that he mentioned a commission and review body as early as October last year, seven months ago? That being so, what has held up the setting up of this commission? When will it have its first meeting?
The reply to the question is factual. This was the first official communication with both sides. I would hope to have the first meeting of the commission before the end of this month. Arrangements are at present in progress.
The question asked the Minister when the decision was made to appoint a review body or commission. On 9 November the Minister referred to the review body. What has held up the setting up of the commission?
A commission of this nature is very important and it is also important that both sides of industry be consulted. They were consulted. Nominations were requested from them. Nominations have now been received. Is the Deputy saying that he does not want the commission to operate? The commission has been named and, hopefully, will be meeting towards the end of this month.
I am calling the next question.
I shall answer the Minister's question with another question: is he aware that since he came into office industrial relations have been in a shambles and that therefore there is an urgency about the setting up of this commission. If the delay in setting it up is any indication of the speed with which it will report, God help us.
I have called the next question.
Sorry, sir——
The Deputy is making a speech and he knows perfectly well that I do not permit, and the Chair could never permit, Question Time to be turned into a debating session.
Could I ask the Minister——
The Deputy had an opportunity to ask a question but he proceeded to make a speech.
I wish to ask a supplementary in relation to Question No. 25.
26.
asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to a recent article in the Financial Times on strikes in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I have seen the article referred to in the Financial Times of 25 April 1978 regarding industrial disputes here.
I believe that it presented a misleading picture of the effects of certain strikes and of their impact on the IDA's industrial development programme. It exaggerated the impact of the disputes and was in a number of respects contradictory and inaccurate. The article put a disproportionate emphasis on industrial relations as a factor in the attraction of overseas investment and ignored all the other factors which continue to make this country an attractive location for overseas investment.
I have already made known to the Press my views on the article in question and I understand that the IDA have written to the newspaper refuting in detail the allegations in it.
Before the Minister commenced replying to that question I understood the Chair to accept a supplementary from Deputy Mitchell because of the fact that two questions were involved. As Deputy Mitchell was about to put a supplementary question to the Minister on the second question the Minister read his reply to Question No. 26.
I had already permitted four supplementaries. The Deputy was on his feet asking questions repeatedly and he spoke for a lengthy period without putting a question. I cannot condone the device of using a preamble to a question to make a speech. It is something that must be ruled out at Question Time.
I accept that but I understood that the Chair had accepted Deputy Mitchell's point of view, that he was entitled to ask a supplementary based on the second question dealt with in the Minister's reply. It is possible that the Minister did not hear the Chair agreeing with Deputy Mitchell that he was entitled to ask a supplementary.
I misunderstood the Deputy's reference. I will permit the Deputy to ask a supplementary on Question No. 25.
In connection with Question No. 25, I should like to ask the Minister, in respect of the announcement of the appointment of the new chairman of the Industrial Relations Commission, if it was due to embarrassment that the Minister did not come before the House because this was his second choice? Would the Minister accept that the faux pas he made earlier——
I thought the Deputy had a sensible and relevant question to put.
Is the Chair disputing the relevance of the question I have put?
I am ruling that it is not a question arising out of the question on the Order Paper. I am calling the next Question. The Deputy is not entitled to introduce argument of the type he is using. The Chair is protecting nobody, only those that Standing Orders are laid down to protect.
Would the Minister read the reply to Question No. 26 again? I accept we have been going backwards and forwards but I would like to hear that reply.
The Minister read the reply to that question.
We did not get an opportunity of asking supplementaries.
I cannot go back. I am calling the next question.
27.
asked the Minister for Labour the strikes in which he has personally intervened in since taking up office; the stage in each strike that the intervention was made; and the success with which the intervention met.
I have intervened directly in one case, the Ferenka dispute. I have also been involved with my colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, in discussions with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions concerning the telecommunication dispute.
In the case of Ferenka I intervened when it became clear to me that an impasse had been reached. I made proposals which were not acceptable to all the parties involved. In the case of the dispute in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, following protracted negotiations involving the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and myself, settlement proposals which were acceptable to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs were brought forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. These were accepted by the members of IPOEU in a secret ballot. Normal working resumed on Monday 8 May.
The Deputy will be aware that I have repeatedly pointed out that I do not intend to intervene in dispute situations where the institutions established by the Oireachtas are being utilised or can be utilised to produce solutions. I am satisfied that ill-considered Ministerial intervention represents a threat to those institutions. I propose to invite the Commission on Industrial Relations to comment on this matter.
Is the Minister aware that Acts dealing with industrial relations allow for direct intervention by him, and by the Labour Court, in cases of intractable disputes? Would the Minister admit that he has had his fair share of intractable disputes since he took office?
I have already answered that. I have repeatedly pointed out that I do not intend to intervene in dispute situations where the institutions established by the Oireachtas are being utilised or can be utilised to produce solutions. Otherwise, we undermine those institutions.
That was not the Minister's view when he was in opposition.
In relation to the Ferenka dispute, will the Minister admit that no conciliation officer was appointed?
We are not getting back to this argument. I am not permitting irrelevant questions. We cannot have arguments at Question Time.
There is no argument; I am asking a question.
I am calling the next question.