Deputy Fergus O'Brien is in possession. The Deputy has 50 minutes.
Vote 42: Labour (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £27,355,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1978, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Labour, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Labour.)
I thought it was 55 minutes. I spoke for only five minutes.
I think the Deputy spoke for ten minutes.
The Chair is cutting me fine. For the five minutes that I spoke on the last day I talked about the Employment Action Team and their role and performance to date and I was asking a few questions about them. One of the questions was: what has become of this action team since last November? We have not heard much of them since their report. A pertinent question is: what is the future of this team? We are all concerned about youth employment. We must be serious about it and we must not have any type of smoke-screen action to try cover up the serious problem. The Employment Action Team have not been given the resources to do any kind of job whatever. What area have they been given except broad terms of reference? When they try to operate they are told that AnCO look after this or the IDA or some other body look after that. That is not good enough.
Changes took place in the personnel of the team. Were the replacements from the various Departments of the same rank as those they replaced? My view is that they were not, and if not, that is a clear indication that no real role is envisaged for this team.
What is required here is a national agency for youth employment and not some ad hoc committee. With the situation and structures as they are there is no agency whatever dealing with youth employment. This is an area which could and should be looked at with some degree of urgency. When we talk about youth employment we seem to think of purely the industrial end of it. But surely in an agricultural country one must examine the rural and agricultural aspects of youth employment.
Is there an area here in which we could get young people gainfully employed? I believe there is but that seems to be overlooked. If the Employment Action Team are to work they must be given a clear mandate so that they can be independent. Because they lack this independence they are floundering and are not getting the support they deserve. How often has the Minister been in touch with this action team? How many of their meetings has he attended or how many meetings have they held? These are reasonable questions to ask, especially since that team were set up with such a fanfare of trumpets. We need a national agency for youth employment which would encompass every aspect of industry, whether it be agriculture or in the manufacturing or service sectors, an agency that would have available adequate staffing and which would have access to all the advice necessary. We must be more serious about tackling the grave problem of youth employment. If the Minister finds that the action team are not operating in the way in which they were intended to operate he should be honest enough to say so and to say that something else is required in order to deal with the problem.
The idea of a national manpower service is good but that service is restricted because of the many firms and organisations who do not avail of it for recruitment purposes. That is unfortunate. We must endeavour to make the service attractive enough to encourage firms to recruit all their staff through that channel. Although the term "labour exchange" is associated with the Department of Social Welfare, it has connotations in so far as the Department of Labour are concerned. The National Manpower Service and the labour exchange are not complementary to each other. There is overlapping and consequently we should endeavour to rectify that situation. It would be much better to have the whole area of employment within a body such as the National Manpower Service. A person going to a labour exchange in the hope of finding work will be likely to lose hope quickly whereas a person seeking employment through the National Manpower Service would at least have some hope.
Another aspect of the employment exchange system concerns people who are out of work for, say, more than two years and who at that stage may have become unemployable and may be lacking self-respect, confidence and so on. In these circumstances we should consider the possibility of retraining. First we would need to undertake a survey of the situation and try to ascertain at what stage the break-off point is reached. A good training course prepares a person for work because the programme would not be unlike that of full employment. However, the main concern should be to retrain people where necessary in order to give them confidence in themselves, to give them the feeling of being wanted in society. In other words, we must create for them a hope situation.
There is mention in the Minister's speech of the employment of disabled persons. Not enough is being done in this area. On a couple of occasions I have suggested that the special employment premium be incorporated in a scheme that would help and encourage employers to engage disabled persons. It is bad enough to suffer from a disability but it must be soul destroying for a disabled person to be told simply that he is not suitable for employment. If we purport to be a caring society we must do more for these people. More could be done in this regard in Government Departments and in semi-State bodies. Such example would encourage private employers to become involved in providing employment for the disabled.
There is reference, too, to the Irish Management Institute and to the input into that body by the Department. It is important that that input be maintained because we must have effective and efficient management. In particular we must have good personnel management. We have a long way to go in improving personnel development. Many of the ills in industrial relations may stem from that area. Therefore, in talking about the IMI we should put greater emphasis on personnel training and development. In many industries the personnel officer is described by the workers as an antipersonnel officer, one who is regarded as the buffer between management and workers, as the person who must say "no" to the workers. The role of the personnel manager should be that of bringing both sides together. He must not be seen as the tool of management but as the person who makes for good industrial relations and who has the confidence of both sides. When there is that confidence we can hope for good industrial relations. For too long we did not develop our industrial relations along that line.
AnCO are doing a good job, given the resources they have. Their training programmes are excellent and they have become involved in community projects. This is an excellent outlet for young people. The difference of opinion regarding apprenticeships between AnCO and the Construction Industry Federation does not augur well. It is important that we should have a steady input of apprentices. There is talk about putting apprentices into the local authorities, but I do not think this is the best way to train them. I would rather see apprentices working on building sites. The situation is ideal if the local authorities are using direct labour. In my local authority area a number of craftsmen are employed but their work is generally of a maintenance nature and I do not think apprentices would get the right type of training. This whole question needs to be examined and we should ask the federation for their views. I would rather send a lad into a good construction firm than into the local authority area because I believe he would be better trained and would be a more rounded person. If it is decided that apprentices are to go into the local authorities it is important that they should be properly trained and equipped to match the apprentices trained by the building industry. If that can be done I will be happy, but I have fears on that score.
The Minister has spoken about worker participation and he said recently that workers have a right to such participation. It is easy to say that but if a worker demanded his right he would be told exactly where he stood regarding participation. We can be a little glib in discussing worker participation. We should not think that by putting three or four workers on a board we will solve all the problems. That might even alienate the workers. We could create an élitist type of worker who would become remote from the shop floor. Workers on the board might not be able to play an effective role through lack of numbers and they could become disillusioned. We must look at the global aspect of this question and begin structuring from the bottom. This would solve many of our industrial relations problems. One cannot legislate for good industrial relations; they must be created by goodwill. Workers must participate from the shop floor level up to board level. There must be an interrelationship without any void in the middle. It is such a void which causes problems.
We talk about the evil of unofficial strikes and what we can do about them. It is said that a fellow would not move his tool box or something like that and that this was the cause of a strike. If we took the trouble to examine the reasons we would find that this was only the fuse which ignited the situation and that the problem had been going on for some time and manifested itself through some simple incident. The problem had been allowed to develop because of lack of communication. Where there is such a lack of communication there is a tendency for unofficial strikes to take place. It is not good enough to criticise the workers because of unofficial strikes when they could be the fault of the management or even of the trade union who have become aloof from their members.
If we can create the right structures we can prevent most official and unofficial strikes. If there is a malaise we must find a solution. We may have inherited structures which are not suitable for our type of development. If they are not suitable let us cast them aside. I believe we should have works councils at shop floor level and this would lay the foundation for successful participation at board level. It is not enough just to give several places on the board to the workers. This development must begin at the bottom. Workers and management will respond because most industries are owned by companies and from the managing director down to the man on the shop floor they are all employees working to the same end. There should not be any dichotomy of views here but unfortunately there is, because in my view management have failed to communicate with the workers and they do not have a good industrial relations structure. The IMI should help in the area of industrial relations. This will take time but we must do it well because this is a very worth-while exercise.
For too long workers have been used as units to be manipulated. They must be given responsibility. I have never met anybody who did not respond favourably when given responsibility. We must give workers a pride in their work. They must be consulted by management. They should be involved in decision-making. If a firm is in difficulties the workers should not be told at the last minute that the firm is going to close. If they are involved in decision-making they will know well in advance and will do their utmost to help the firm to survive.
If we are to survive as an industrial nation we will have to restructure our industrial relations. This will not be done by legislation. This has to be thought out and encouraged. Incentives will have to be given and there must be the right type of approach to and from industry and to and from the trade union movement. If we get that we can look forward to a happy industrial relations situation. Listening to me one might get the impression that we are a nation bedevilled by bad industrial relations but we are not.
For too long the worker has been ignored as the person who can play a major role in industry. He has not been treated as a thinking human being who wants to respond and help. If we are to develop industrial relations we must get away from the idea of only putting people on boards. I welcome such a move but we should not leave it at that because that is too easy a solution and would not solve any problem.
Workers could be given the opportunity of becoming shareholders in a company. This would encourage them to increase productivity because their money is involved. When men go into industry they are giving their lives to it. In my opinion if men give their lives to something they are entitled to a good and reasonable return. Only by writing a new chapter in industrial relations can we see ourselves as a competitive nation.
The nations who are surviving in this highly competitive world are those who have seen this problem, such as the Germans. They have developed the right industrial relations and the facts and figures are there to prove it. Their rate of productivity is much higher than that of other western European countries. As a result they are more competitive and can employ greater numbers of people. No matter how we encourage industries to come here unless we can create the right climate at shop floor level we will be always struggling.
Management and the unions have a great responsibility in this area. Management will have to be courageous and ensure that the worker is an integral part of the business. We hear a lot of talk about the shareholder, and rightly so, because if he invests his money he is entitled to consideration, but we hear very little about the man who invests his life's sweat in industry. That is possibly where our problems arise.
Lately we have seen industrial disputes which manifested themselves because of a breakdown in communication. The Ferenka strike could be seen as a breakdown between the workers and the unions. There we had disenchantment with one union and a number of employees wanted to align themselves with other unions. If there had been greater liaison between the unions this would not have happened. Perhaps this is one of the problems with national wage agreements. Previously every union had to be on their toes and negotiate for their own employees. Now it is done on a national basis. As a result, it might make the trade unions more remote from their members. That area should be examined as well. Both the unions and the management have much in common in creating and building up industry; and they have an important role to play in the development of industrial relations and in creating more employment.
There is a great challenge to expand. We have the European market at our door which we can exploit if we are competitive. We can only attract industry by competitiveness. With the advent of industrial structures in industry, profit sharing, and the right of workers to invest in a company, industrial relations will improve. Workers can share in the profits of an industry for instance by way of a bonus at the end of the year or they could get shares in the company. This is not a new idea, but here it does not operate except in a very small way. Any company that operates in this way is not bedevilled by minor or major disputes.
If we are serious about providing and maintaining employment we must consider the whole area of industrial relations very seriously. The problems will not be solved by apportioning the blame to the unions or by castigating people who go on unofficial strikes. We must eliminate the causes. We must pay more attention to the human factor. Employers must respond to the needs and the feelings of the workers. People will respond, will accept responsibility and will co-operate provided employers work with them and not against them. With the right approach we can have industrial peace and greater productivity.
If we want higher standards of living we must earn them. We can earn them by promoting good relationships in industry. The workers should know how a business is operated, the profits coming in and the amount of money that must be reinvested to create further employment and must know where they stand at the end of the year with regard to shares or profits. They must also know if it was a bad year because of international conditions. With that sort of knowledge workers will not harbour any grievances against a company. Workers should have structures within the company to enable them to make known their points of view and the management should also make known their point of view and there should be complete openness. We have been remiss in the past and have missed a lot of opportunities in this area.
A number of industrial disputes were badly handled. During the Post Office strike everybody seemed to stand back and say that they could not negotiate, that they could not climb down and so on, while outside a number of industries were going to the wall because of the lack of communications. People told me that their businesses were on the verge of collapse because they were losing orders to other people. Our image abroad was not enhanced because of the lack of communications between companies. Let us not in the future adopt the ostrich mentality of putting our heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away. It will not go away; it will have to be solved.
The Labour Court and the other machinery we have to deal with industrial relations are doing an excellent job, and I hope they will continue to do it. But Ministers of the day should not be afraid, without commitment, to examine serious problems which can have adverse effects on a large number of people. In the Ferenka situation no action was taken until it was too late. Admittedly it was a delicate area, but when the factory was closed everybody ran around trying to do something. We should have trouble shooters in the Department who are not shy about getting in and finding out. When an industry has been closed down it is too late to be talking about whether we did the right thing, whether we should have involved ourselves in the dispute. It has been said that ministerial involvement might weaken industrial relations in other areas. I do not accept that. We must look at disputes as they occur.
The Deputy has five minutes left.
You are very hard on me.
Let us say I would not stop the Deputy in the middle of a long sentence.
We should not be shy about involving ourselves in any dispute whose continuance might have serious repercussions on industries not directly involved. In the Post Office dispute the Government acted in a Pontius Pilate fashion, washing their hands while most of the country was held up. That is what worries me. At the other end, it is no use patching up a dispute and leaving it without establishing good-will among all involved.
My suggestion is that Ministers and their Departments should get in quickly when disputes arise, whether there are other forms of conciliation available or not. This is particularly so in the case of the Post Office which caused serious loss of export orders, which in turn could cause serious unemployment because lost orders would not be likely to be repeated. It is always better to be doing something than standing on our pride and letting disputes continue, which is what respective Ministers did in different disputes which caused serious trouble.
If we are to attract employment-giving industries we must be seen to have a properly structured industrial relations scene. We must be seen to have our workers involved not just in boards but at all levels. This will not be done by legislation but through the co-operation of all concerned. If we can achieve this our development as an industrial country will be achieved and we will prosper as a result. It can be done only by thinking out a good policy instead of the piecemeal situation we have now.
I agree totally with many of the things said by Deputy O'Brien, unlike his colleague last week who caused deep resentment on these benches. He said there were no working-class people on this side of the House. I welcome the Minister's speech setting out the Government's goal in this area. There has been an increase of nearly £15 million in the amount of money available as compared with last year and when one looks at where the money is to go one will see that the Government's priorities have been properly aimed in the last ten months.
The main task of the Minister for Labour is in relation to employment. The last speaker concentrated on industrial relations but I shall concern myself mainly with the additional funds being made available to employment maintenance schemes and employment incentive schemes. There has been a huge increase of more than £5 million in this area. There has been an increase of 30 per cent on the amounts available to AnCO for industrial training.
The Minister in his speech repeated the commitment to a net 25,000 more jobs this year. It is a high target but in the last six weeks there has been an increase of 6,000, and the total figure of unemployed is 8,000 less than last year. About £7 million is being spent on the employment incentive scheme which gives £20 per week and £14 per week in respect of new employees in different categories over a period of six months. The catering industry, which was not included heretofore, is now covered as well as the manufacturing and building industries. It is proving to be a great boost to the industries concerned.
It has been said by the Opposition that the employment maintenance scheme here is not as good as that in Britain. It provides £5 per worker for all in the clothing and footwear industries.
Speaking earlier here, I referred to the employment action team and the various schemes for youth employment, and I do not think I need to go into them in detail today. To say that we have not been doing anything about youth employment is bordering on the ridiculous. I have not heard anybody saying all these schemes are totally satisfactory but the test is the employment they will promote. The apprentice training scheme is an excellent effort because there is no point in having too many untrained or semi-skilled people in the community. The Ballyfermot work project has succeeded in compiling a lot of useful information which can be of great help throughout the country in general, particularly in the absence of a recent census. Deputy Mitchell seems to regard it as a sort of joke but I can assure him that the people involved do not so consider it. The environment works scheme has given reasonably paid jobs to 4,000 young people. In 1977 20,000 people were provided with jobs by the National Manpower Service. I am not quite sure what the Minister meant when he said he was not satisfied with the set-up there. I was glad to hear that the 30 placement officers will be recruited this year to get on with the job of finding work for people.
Some Deputies said that there were very many people on the lists of the National Manpower Service. In general the organisation does a very good job. It cannot be very satisfactory for the placement officers to find out that a person stays only half an hour in a job and then goes working elsewhere. The vast majority of people on the live register want to work and those who do not want to work should be on another kind of register. If the National Manpower Service are to attain their target I think it would be necessary to interview each person. They would need to send out detailed questionnaires. I know of cases where people got jobs through that organisation but the jobs were totally unsuitable; for instance, an elderly man got a very physical job that he could not do. There may be a tendency on the part of a placement officer to put a person at the end of the list if he finds that the first job he gets for him is quite unsuitable. It would be advisable to have detailed questionnaires so that misunderstandings will not arise.
The Government are proposing to allocate a 3 per cent quota for disabled persons for State and semi-State employment and this is welcome. It may be difficult to carry this out in some areas but there are many jobs that disabled people could fill, especially if they are only slightly physically handicapped. In the Central Remedial Clinic at Clontarf disabled people get some training in printing, basketmaking and so on. It might be better if money were given to the clinic to help these people. There are many handicapped people in the clinic, the resources are limited and they may get only a few hours' training every week. This does not give them much of a chance to get back on the labour market.
The Minister referred to career information and he spoke of 250 leaflets dealing with 300 occupations. I remember these leaflets being circulated when I was doing my leaving certificate. In many cases the leaflets end up in the wastepaper baskets because nobody in the school is interested in doing anything about them. Even in schools that have career guidance officers, many of the pupils do not know the situation regarding jobs in the public sector. This may be a matter for the Department of Education but the Department of Labour are spending money here. There should be some communication with career guidance teachers. Literature regarding career guidance should be circulated and steps should be taken to ensure that the pupils understand it. The entry age for State employment should be 19 or 20 years. In 1976 very few people were recruited to the public service and many young people are still unemployed. Probably some of them would have liked to join the public service but they are debarred because of age and this may be unfair in many cases, especially when the State did not recruit young people in some years.
A sum of £16 million is being spent on industrial training in AnCO. This service has expanded massively in the past few years. There are 13 permanent centres, four temporary centres and more than 20 mobile centres. The courses that continue for eight weeks have proved successful and many employers have recruited people who have done those courses. I was speaking recently to some of the teachers involved in this work and they find it most encouraging that at the end of eight weeks the pupils have got jobs. This year AnCO will train 15,000 people and 1,700 apprentices. The numbers on apprenticeship courses should be increased. It is essential for the sake of the country that people should have some skill or craft. If they cannot find jobs it is better that these young people should do "nixers" rather than cause destruction to property. When the contribution from the social fund is taken into account more than £20 million will be spent on retraining this year and this will be of considerable help.
Some employers recently criticised the registered apprentices. I am not fully aware of the grievances but the matter should be capable of being resolved. If there are disagreements between AnCO and certain industries— the printing industry was mentioned— they should be sorted out. In some cases AnCO may have to be rigid with regard to the age of apprentices and it may happen that a young person may not be accepted for training because of his age. Unfortunately this can lead to bad relations but the matter should be resolved between the parties.
About 1,800 people will be involved in the youth community training programme. They will work on renovating old people's homes and community centres. This will be of considerable benefit, especially in the inner city areas.
With regard to training for young people, Deputy Fergus O'Brien spoke about managers. The Minister said last week that he would encourage them to define what training is required in industry. The 117 AnCO training advisers are catering for almost 11,000 companies and 300,000 people. The means that approximately 15,000 people were involved in training in 1977. This is a massive figure, particullarly when we consider that 25 per cent of them are under 25 years of age. The managers in the firms should be au fait with training regulations and personnel regulations so that we do not end up having frustrated people trained without knowing what is going on in the job.
The Minister said that £375,000 has been put into the IMI to assist the small and medium-sized industries. A large sum of money has also been put into CERT for education, recruitment and training for the hotel industry This is very welcome because it will make sure that the organisations which are training people are in a position to educate workers into the different facets of industry so that they have no chips on their shoulders against management.
I am very pleased to see that the Minister will set up an advisory committee. He referred to the major part which manpower will have to play in this. He said he would be chairman of this advisory committee. This will give it a very special standing and people will realise that we want to solve the unemployment position. It is no good anybody standing up here and saying that in two years' time it will be almost the same. That is only scoring political points. All Members in the House should be genuinely concerned to have less than 100,000 unemployed in two years' time or as soon as possible and eventually to work for full employment. The important thing is not to have people walking the street but to have them in some type of jobs regardless of what they are. All politicians should welcome any project which is set up to provide jobs for some of the people who are unemployed and prevent them from becoming frustrated and losing the will to work.
The Minister said he hoped that the advisory committee will be able to formulate better information on the employment situation and an understanding of what the needs of the labour market are. We cannot expect Manpower to have that if the groundwork is not done for them. I hope the advisory committee will be able to revise the existing schemes in operation for recruiting people and link those with the economic objectives which are there from time to time such as this year's budget or next year's budget. The fact that the Minister will chair this committee will give it a special standing that something beneficial will be done and that it will not be just a committee meeting with no report coming from it.
In regard to the worker in employment and the safety of workers in industry, the Industrial Safety Bill is under discussion at the moment and there is no need to say anything about that. The Minister also referred to the health and welfare of workers. There is a certain amount of legislation covering those matters with which the Minister has several problems. We are not too badly off with regard to those matters at the moment because we have the Conditions of Employment Acts, the Holidays Acts, the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Minimum Notice Act, the Terms of Employment Act and the Anti-Discrimination Act. Those particular Acts cover most of the grievances which workers have. There should never be need for unjust relations provided we have personnel managers who are willing to interpret those Acts with some degree of flexibility and not always be reading just the words in them. A worker can read those Acts one way and a personnel manager can read them another way. One has to interpret them.
With regard to the Minister's statement on the possibility of fitting working conditions to the worker rather than to the employer this is a very complex matter. The employer's first interest, particularly in the private enterprise sector, is profit. It is impossible to do everything to suit the worker. When one talks about a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 30-hour week it is inevitable that that will reduce over the years and that workers will get longer holidays. It will be very difficult to get an employer in private industry to agree to have the regulations more for the worker than the employer.
We must look at the case of overtime, particularly in industries where overtime is essential. If a worker has to work overtime on a regular basis and is not getting time off for it that is a danger to his health and it is probably keeping somebody else out of work I see great merit in the flexi-time working so far as the worker is concerned. Workers should be able to work longer hours at particular times of the year. Between November and February workers in the city do not get much enjoyment going home from work at 5.30 p.m., perhaps taking one-and-a-half hours to get home and then going into unheated flats. I believe most of those workers would be glad to work longer hours in the winter and have shorter hours in the summer when they could do something with their free time.
There are many people who say they would not mind starting work early in the morning in the summer, like they do in other countries. Those travelling to work by car would find it much easier to get into the city at 7.30 in the morning. The Minister for Finance said last week that flexi-time has been tried in some of the Departments. That should be extended. In many of those offices, provided workers are there from 10.30 in the morning to 3.30 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. in the afternoon, when the public know they are there, they could work any other hours that are suitable. They could either start at 7.30 in the morning and finish early in the afternoon or start later in the day and perhaps work until 10 o'clock at night.
There was a lot of criticism last week about work sharing and some people said that something like that does not work. This ties in with shorter working hours, holidays and restrictions on overtime. We should also consider early retirement in connection with that. There are many people who would like to retire at an earlier age because of the strains of life. Many of those people would be glad to retire at 60 years of age if the pension laws were changed to suit them. There are other people who say that they would like to be able to work until 70 years of age because they cannot afford to retire. Many people who have their houses paid for and their families reared and are still active would prefer to retire at an earlier age and play golf or engage in some other pastime. It would help the unemployment situation if people were given the option of retiring at 60 years of age. I do not think we can force people to retire at 60 years of age. In America they have now given the people an option of retiring at 70 where formerly it was 60. It is no good bringing in regulations which have been found to be wrong in other countries. I do not agree to giving extensions because every extension that is given in employment, no matter how good a person is or how much he or she is needed, is doing somebody else out of a job. It is probably doing that person's health no good when he is working on after 65 or 70 years of age. Of course we must make sure he is not going out to live on nothing. There will have to be some pension arrangement. It should be possible to allow people, if they are not in a pensions scheme from the outset, to enter that scheme and be given credit for years of service so that they will have no objection to retiring.
There are workers in the health boards who have no superannuation scheme and so they go on working until they are almost physically incapable. Now the sooner people are covered by proper superannuation schemes the better it will be. Take the case of porters in hospitals. They would be quite willing to join a pension scheme but they are not permitted to join in the scheme operated by the voluntary hospitals. I believe it would merely be a matter of changing a few words in order to allow them to join the scheme. It seems ridiculous to have 800 employees in a hospital covered for superannuation and 200 manual workers debarred from the scheme. To me that is discrimination.
With regard to people who draw the dole and pick up jobs here and there while doing so, even if action were taken against them that would not solve the unemployment problem. They do these jobs in order to get some sort of living wage. They do not make fortunes. One must always remember, too, the cost of trying to catch them.
With regard to worker participation, all workers should feel that they matter and they should be given information about what is going on where management is concerned. Sales figures and productivity figures mean very little to most workers. They do not understand them. A simple report would be the ideal, telling the workers exactly what is going on, what contracts are likely to be forthcoming and so on. The worker would then feel that he was something more than a number on a pay slip. That could pay a dividend in another way because, if a company were in trouble and the worker understood the position, he probably would be prepared to do what he could to help the industry or he would have an opportunity of, perhaps, finding another job.
The EEC are spending 8 or 9 per cent of their total budget on youth employment. There are 6,000,000 unemployed in the EEC and it will take a great deal more than 8 or 9 per cent of the total budget to solve the problem.
With regard to lightning strikes, these are always to be regretted. Often they are totally unjustified. Most are caused by people with chips on their shoulders. I have had firsthand experience of these in the last eight or nine years. Shop stewards just pull the workers out. Now shop stewards should be representative of the workers. Unfortunately the shop steward is very often the least representative of the workers. He has the job because no one else wants it. There is an apathetic attitude. Very often when a lightning strike takes place the workers do not know the reason for it until they are outside the door. That is an irresponsible attitude.
You have personnel officials paid good salaries to take up a ridiculous stand against the genuine shop steward. What we should have is an industrial relations officer. His role would be quite different. The personnel officer will dig in his feet, say this cannot be done or that cannot be done. If a worker is out for a day another worker is asked to make two of himself instead of replacing the man who is out. That attitude forces responsible shop stewards into being irresponsible. Definite guidelines should be laid down. There should be proper training for personnel officials. Inexperienced people should not be put in the position of negotiating with 300 or 400 workers. Inexperience is bound to generate lightning strikes.
There has been a good deal of criticism about the rights commissioner. If the employer does not want to co-operate with the rights commissioner the worker seems to lose his rights. I had a few cases of that recently. There is nothing the worker can do. There should be some other type of committee before which a worker could have his grievances ironed out.
As I said earlier, we must be patient until the policies on employment, and youth employment in particular, are tested out. Then, if some of the schemes are not reaching the target, I am sure the responsible Ministers will adopt some other course of action. One has to try something out first to find if it works. The unemployment figures are falling every week. A great many young people are working. Some have temporary jobs. The situation definitely is improving and it would be unfair to say it is not. A year ago there seemed to be no way out. Now there seems to be some hope, though the problem is far from solved.
Every country in Europe has this problem, but that is no reason why we should accept it. If everybody is interested in it, as I am sure they are, the problem will be solved. When we find a solution to grievances and arguments about not allowing apprentices into certain jobs, a large part of our unemployment problem will be solved.
I should like to see figures quoted each month giving the number of jobs created and how many people have actually started work rather than what the register states. Recently in a rural community 40 people were taken on to work and only eight were taken off the unemployment register. The other 32 were unemployed but they were not on the register. Many people who are getting jobs are not on the register. We need to know how many jobs are created month by month. When people speak in this House, rather than saying what the Minister for Labour has not done, they should speak about what has been done and examine the areas where improvements can be made. We are not doing any service to young people coming out of school this year by talking about what happened last year. What happens next year really counts.
In introducing the Estimate for his Department the Minister said his principal aims were twofold, first, to make the greatest contribution possible to improving the employment situation and, secondly, to up-date the procedures and institutions so as to help our industrial relations to operate more satisfactorily. The Minister has given himself a very narrow brief and, by his own actions, he has downgraded the Department of Labour. He is totally ignoring the role of the Department in providing minimal legal protection and rights for workers and in the elimination of discrimination against women.
To start with I will confine myself to the Minister's narrow brief and comment on his job-creating efforts and his views on industrial relations. In his comments on Government policy on employment, he said the Government are aiming at the creation of 25,000 additional jobs per year over the period 1978 to 1980. This is another attempt by a Government Minister to get out from under the commitment made by the Fianna Fáil Party in their election manifesto and made by the Government in their White Paper on national development in relation to employment and unemployment. In both those documents the Government said their target was to reduce unemployment by 25,000. This is an entirely different matter from the creation of 25,000 additional jobs per year referred to in the Minister's speech. The fact is that if the Government managed to create 25,000 additional jobs per year, you would have to deduct 11,000 to 15,000 extra people who come into the labour force each year in order to get an estimate of the annual reduction in unemployment. Like his Government colleagues, the Minister has been grossly dishonest about this matter and this will be seen in its proper perspective by the electorate in time to come. You cannot fool people easily.
The Government's commitment was to reduce unemployment by 25,000 between the time they took office and the end of 1978. On the basis of that election commitment, the live register should show an unemployment figure of roughly about 85,000 in December next. That was the Government's target and we in this party have no intention of letting them forget it. It is becoming more obvious that the Government's strategy in relation to job creation has failed. It has failed because they placed their entire reliance on the private sector. The Minister and the Government are aware that the private sector has failed down through the years to create sufficient employment for our people. It has refused to create a modern industrial society in Ireland despite all the incentives, grants, and so on. At the end of this exercise I fear our young people will be told once again that the jobs needed cannot be created.
A recent survey in Business and Finance showed that approximately 90 per cent of businessmen do not believe the Government's job target can be met. The recent IMI conference in Killarney showed the interest private enterprise has in job creation. A spokesman for the FUE is now afraid that the private sector will become the whipping boy for our unemployment problem. As predicted by the previous Government the Irish economy is booming currently after a period of recession. Last year we had the highest growth rate in the EEC. This year we will also have the highest growth rate. Approximately 9 per cent to 10 per cent growth is expected in total investments and industrial output. Exports are expected to grow by 12 per cent in volume and over 21 per cent in value, with industrial exports showing the the largest rise, 14 per cent in volume and 23 per cent in value. Despite that colossal growth and buoyancy in the economy, all the Fianna Fáil Government and the private sector can do is to present us with a few temporary window-dressing jobs and possibly emigration. Fianna Fáil were always able to export part of the population when they could not create sufficient employment. Great events cast their shadows, and I wonder was it in anticipation of such an eventuality that the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy advised our young people recently to learn another language before Fianna Fáil once again declared them redundant and surplus to our requirements and sent them to the emigrant ship or, in this day and age, perhaps I should say the emigrant plane.
In the opinion of this party and the trade union movement, there is an answer to our problems, that is, the development of our semi-State bodies into areas of manufacturing industry where private enterprise has not operated or will not operate with the semi-State companies or on its own. Food processing, agricultural machinery, fish processing, processing of our mineral resources, and so on, are areas in which we could participate and provide more employment. Like myself, the Minister represents an area where there is quite a good deal of off-shore exploration. On previous occasions from this side of the House he interested himself in trying to ensure that as many jobs as possible were provided in this area for our own people.
I accept that the problem with regard to EEC workers was a little difficult to overcome but at present there are many workers from outside the EEC employed in our off-shore oil explorations in areas where they do not need special training. Many workers in Cork are anxious to be considered for such jobs but for some unknown reason they have not been taken on. I appreciate that proper training is necessary for some jobs but if training was available most of the workers in the Cork area would be able to take on responsible positions. The Minister should inquire from AnCO, whose representatives were in Cork more than two years expressing an interest in setting up a training centre for off-shore workers, if it would be possible to bring about a situation where training would be given in the North Sea or other areas for those people. For instance, I am sure that employers who would have rigs stacked for part of the year would have no objection to them being used for training Irish workers. There is a lot of agitation about this matter at present and we should try to ensure that jobs that can be carried out by Irish workers are given to them. If training is necessary it should be provided.
The Minister has indicated that he is making £7 million available for the employment incentive scheme this year. That seems strange in view of the recent comments by his colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, to the effect that the scheme was grossly inadequate as an answer to our unemployment problem. If that is so it is fair to ask why the Minister for Labour has praised this scheme consistently since taking office. He has told us that it is his hope that the scheme will create between 17,000 and 18,000 jobs and he also extended the scope and duration of the scheme. The comments of the Minister for Labour and those of his colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, are contradictory on this subject. That indicates a disquieting confusion within the Government in relation to a scheme designed to reduce our appalling unemployment level. I hope the Minister for Labour will clarify the Government's position on this scheme.
In the course of his budget speech the Minister for Finance told us that the Government regard youth employment as a critical and priority issue. The fact that the Minister for Labour admitted that he had only created 300 jobs for young people out of a promised 5,000 jobs shows how cynical the Fianna Fáil promises were. We have the highest unemployment rate in the EEC. Our youth unemployment is astronomical compared with other EEC countries. Almost 50 per cent of our population is under 25 years of age and unemployment in this age group constitutes almost 44 per cent of total unemployment. Our overall rate of unemployment is 9 per cent but the unemployment rate in the 15 to 19 age group is an astonishing 22 per cent and in the 20 to 24 age group it is 11 per cent. This year more than 50,000 boys and girls will leave our second level schools but what can the Minister for Labour promise them?
When the Employment Action Team was established in September 1977 the Minister gave the impression that this team would solve our youth unemployment. The team submitted their first set of proposals in November 1977. What has happened to the team since November? Have the team put forward any further proposals to the Minister? In the course of his Estimate speech the Minister said he was engaged in a review of the work of the team with the object of developing their role in the Government's overall job creation programme. The Minister should be honest and scrap that team. He is deliberately wasting the time and energy of some very committed people and organisations. Some of those will not tolerate this cynical exercise by the Minister and the Government much longer. It is obvious that the Employment Action Team can only propose schemes to create employment in the public sector or schemes that will involve public expenditure. It is equally obvious that these schemes will not be accepted by the Government. The Minister for Finance has issued dire warnings of possible hair-shirt budgets while the Minister for Economic Planning and Development wants public expenditure cut. In that situation the Minister for Labour will have no alternative but to thank the members of the Employment Action Team for their time and energy and apologise to them for the cynical use that was made of them and their talents.
In the course of his budget speech the Minister for Finance said he was providing a special allocation of £5 million to finance schemes for youth employment. What happened to the £20 million promised in the Fianna Fáil manifesto? Surely the Government do not expect to fool our young people by promising £20 million towards youth employment and then allocating only £5 million? The Minister for Finance also told us that the special employment scheme targeted specifically at young people would generate 5,000 jobs but the Minister for Labour in his Estimate speech told us that 4,000 young people would benefit. In that exercise the Minister brushed off 1,000 jobs from the original figure. Of course, 1,000 young people will want to know why they were promised a job by the Minister for Finance but denied it by the Minister for Labour. The fact that the Minister has only managed to create 300 jobs to date may explain the reduction of the figure from 5,000 to 4,000.
I should like to express my disappointment at the delay in putting into action the proposals of the Employment Action Team. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the proposals made by the team would prove beneficial in the long run, their proposals were submitted and accepted by the Minister last November. Just six months later we find that only 300 young people have been employed as a result of those proposals. That does not show any indication of concern to tackle this problem on the part of the Minister. The delay involved in implementing those proposals indicates the difference between Government rhetoric on the matter of unemployment and actual achievement. The two major schemes proposed by the team were a community fitness programme and a work experience programme. The community fitness programme has been passed over to the Minister for Health. To date no more has been heard of that. As regards the work experience scheme submitted to the Minister last November, he tells us in his Estimate speech that the proposals for its implementation are still being worked out by his Department and that pilot schemes for the first trainees will be under way in July. This is action indeed when it takes the Minister nearly nine months to get a scheme under way. With 44 per cent of the unemployed under 25 years of age it is a terrible admission that the Minister has to date created only 300 jobs in the youth employment scheme.
The Minister stated that one of his principal aims was to make the greatest contribution possible to improving the employment situation. His great contribution has been to increase the funds of the employment incentive scheme, which the Government have just announced has failed as a job creation scheme, and to create 300 of the promised 5,000 jobs in youth employment. The Minister stated that his second aim was to improve our industrial relations system. This is a wholly worthwhile aspiration, except that the Minister in the same speech seemed to show a lack of understanding of industrial relations. Firstly, he ignored completely the fact that far too many people ignore procedure. Too many managers introduce new machinery and work practices, dismiss and suspend workers and declare redundancies without proper consultation, notification and negotiation with their workers and the unions. Too many managers refuse to enter into serious negotiation with the unions on issues or they delay negotiation for months. Unfortunately, many workers can feel that the only way to stop instant changes in conditions of employment by management is to declare an immediate strike.
I am not in favour of unofficial strikes, but the Minister should realise that an instant reaction is often forced on workers. No matter how much we deplore this, it can happen because of some decision made without consultation and negotiation. I am not saying that this happens in all cases. I have met representatives of foreign companies who after a period in Ireland are often amazed at the reactionary views of some Irish managers to trade unions and workers generally.
The Minister used the old, worn-out argument that industrial disputes were affecting our competitiveness on the export market and foreign investment in this country. Irish exports are booming and they will probably increase by over 12 per cent in value in 1978. A powerful trading performance by our exporters in April produced exports of just under £240 million for the month and narrowed the trade gap to £48 million. Despite what the Minister said, there is no evidence that industrial disputes are disrupting our exports. He should be more worried about the fact that, despite the boom in exports and in economic growth, private enterprise are not creating sufficient jobs.
Regarding foreign investment, the Minister for Labour should have looked at the average rate of return of American industrial investment in Ireland, which has been boasted about on numerous occasions and as recently as yesterday by the Taoiseach, and rightly so. The average rate of return is 24 per cent. This compares with 6 per cent in the UK, 8 per cent in Belgium and France, 10 per cent in Italy and 12 per cent in Denmark. This is the situation, and we will not make progress by taking things out of context or making incorrect statements.
The Minister also raised the problem of inter-union disputes and unions outside ICTU. Inter-union disputes have not been a great worry. I can recall only two which caused major problems. There are only six unions of any significance outside congress and only one of those has been involved in an inter-union dispute in recent years. Is the Minister saying that as a result of two incidents, and possibly Ferenka—although there were many more elements involved there than inter-union differences—and the dispute which was resolved at Asahi, we have a major problem as regards inter-union disputes and unions outside congress? This sort of scaremongering could have a worse effect on foreign investment than any dispute. We should avoid inter-union disputes and all unions should be affiliated to congress. Then we would have a stronger and more united trade union movement. However, to suggest, without producing any evidence, that the present position is seriously affecting our economic and employment prospects is wrong and may be dangerous if it cannot be backed up by facts.
The Minister also raised the problem of far too many unions of relatively small membership. I agree that there are too many unions, and it would greatly strengthen the trade union movement to reduce the number, but it is foolish to describe it as a problem for our economy. It is a problem certainly for the trade union movement in terms of strength and resources. Let us put this issue into perspective. Of trade unions members in Ireland 93 per cent are in unions affiliated to congress; 34 per cent of trade union members in Ireland are in one union; 19 unions cater for over four-fifths or 82 per cent of total trade union membership in the Republic of Ireland.
The Minister stated that the Government have made available in the current year for trade union education a grant of £193,000. This compares with a Government grant of £375,000 to the Irish Management Institute. The Government grant for management education and training is almost twice that provided for trade union education. I put to the Minister that this is serious and I ask him to have it reviewed immediately. Introducing his Estimate the Minister spoke about the National Manpower Service. I am glad to note that he is not satisfied that the National Manpower Service are well geared to meet their present commitments. The service is grossly understaffed.
Hear, hear, but let us lay the blame where it should be laid.
The Minister is in Government now. Morale is not high in the National Manpower Service and so far the Minister has failed to tackle the problem. It would be necessary and desirable that the operations of that service be linked much more closely with the services of the local labour exchanges. The Minister should aim for an integrated unemployment benefit-payment system and placement service so that those in receipt of unemployment benefit would be linked directly to a service that would provide information on where jobs were available. Local labour exchanges are little more than pay-out offices.
At a time when there is much thought of industrial relations, of unofficial disputes and so on it is well to remember all those many workers who in a voluntary capacity work day after day in efforts to bring about good industrial relations. One hears only of what happens when things go wrong but one can never hear of how much trouble is prevented by reason of efforts being made in time to avoid trouble.
From time to time it would be well to examine the operations of the Labour Court. I do not think anyone can deny that the Labour Court has proved to be a wonderful institution and has worked as well as any such institution could be expected to work. However, it should be examined from time to time from the point of view of the services it provides, especially conciliation services. Perhaps it would be possible to organise the conciliation services on a regional basis so that when needed a conciliation officer could be contacted in an area adjacent to where the problem is rather than the people concerned having to telephone Dublin and, possibly, finding difficulty in locating the conciliation officer who cannot be expected to be on call all the time. I trust the Minister will give consideration to this suggestion. It may not be possible to have a full court in each region but it would be helpful to have an officer in each of a number of regions so that he would be closer to the people with whom he would be dealing.
When we talk of procedures in the context of the Labour Court we might have regard to the situation that can arise from time to time when workers are a round-and-a-half behind in terms of pay agreements so that while one can be discussing the next round with an employer, one is still involved in finalising the previous round with another employer. There should be some way at least of ensuring that such matters are not dragged out unnecessarily. The pay clause may be helpful in this regard but it has not succeeded in preventing disputes. It is not helpful for anybody concerned to be involved in disputes about pay that last for up to 15 months.
Perhaps the Minister would tell us what is holding up implementation of the legislation on worker participation that was passed in March last. Is the hold-up on the part of the Department or is it due to delay on the part of one of the Minister's colleagues in the Cabinet? As far as I know the Minister will be responsible only for making the necessary regulation. I trust that the legislation can be implemented without further delay. Some people are beginning to doubt that it will ever be implemented.
First, I congratulate the Minister on the obvious in-depth thought and consideration that he has been giving to his Department since taking up office. In his introductory speech the Minister pinpointed a number of areas that have been a source of difficulty and which have bedevilled Irish industry for too long. I wish him every success in coming to grips with the more serious of those problems.
One of the most striking aspects of present-day government has been the growth and development in the Department of Labour and in particular the very important role they have in keeping the cogs of industry running smoothly. This Estimate exceeds the amount for the previous year by almost £15 million or an increase of more than 70 per cent. Of this allocation £7 million is directed to the employment incentive scheme for the purpose of encouraging private enterprise to increase employment and to provide the jobs that are needed so badly. Obviously, unemployment will continue to be a major problem for us for some time. When Fianna Fáil were returned to office the country was on its knees after the previous four years in which thousands of jobs were lost and when the economy was practically in ruins.
We would all accept that the country was caught in the general world-wide depression but we must accept also that the Coalition did literally nothing by way of trying to curb the almost daily closures of industry and the resulting losses of thousands of jobs. What was worse was that at a time when any capital investment should have been encouraged, the then Minister for Finance imposed a tax on investment. This proved to be a real disincentive for any business and in turn it cost the country many jobs and destroyed the prospect of at least containing the job losses of that time. One can easily cast one's mind back to that depressing time. The memories are still fresh in the minds of many people.
Against that background one must consider the criticism by Opposition speakers of the real effect being achieved by the Government. This criticism sounds empty and hollow. In recent months contributions from the other side of the House have been forecasts of gloom and despair. Nothing constructive has come across. The Fine Gael Leader in his address to the Ard Fheis last weekend referred to unemployment and said that the unemployment problem could not be solved easily or painlessly and that they would have to prepare for a task of exceptional difficulty because of our unique population structure. That, at least, is an honest admission that Fine Gael would have really no ideas or no policies for tackling the problem of unemployment if they were in Government. As happened between 1974 and 1977, they would probably continue to sit still and hope that the problem might disappear overnight.
In comparison to that negative attitude and approach, what have the Government of today achieved so far? The special action programme has exceeded its target in the latter half of last year. So far this year the number of jobs provided has totalled 7,000 of the estimated 20,000 new jobs needed to the end of 1978. The last few weeks have seen an acceleration of the downward trend in the official unemployment figures. That, I would submit, is the positive action needed, not the kind of airy fairy talk that we have had from the Opposition.
The building and construction industry is developing and many more jobs will be created during the next few months. In the housing sector 26,500 houses are programmed for this year. This will be 2,000 more houses than in 1977 and the largest number ever built in any one year. The improved scheme for home improvement grants must also create a number of jobs. In the first four months of this year the number of applications for grants is treble the number received in the same period in 1977. Surely this must mean more jobs, but I question whether it will affect the official number unemployed. The abuse of the social welfare system is a matter for another Department and another Minister, but I believe that a large number of those employed in small building work, such as home extensions, renovations, improvements and so on are officially unemployed according to the live register. The position during the past few years has worsened in that regard. This applies not only to the construction industry; it cuts across all forms of occupation and business.
It is far too common nowadays to hear of firms who cannot get workers to fill available vacancies. Such firms are asked at interviews whether they stamp a card and unfortunately many applicants lose interest in jobs when it is realised that a company is completely above board and perfectly legitimate as far as social insurance stamps and PAYE are concerned. This is a terrible situation and a dreadful indictment of a Christian country when there are supposed to be so many thousands unemployed. What has got into our people in recent years in regard to this type of abuse? As a nation we would appear to have become too self-centred and selfish. I know for a fact that there are many who are genuinely unemployed, particularly young people who are striving to get a start in life, but it is anybody's guess as to the number on the live register who are unemployable for some reason or another. The Minister will have a tough job in segregating those available for work from those who are not available. Some day this must be done.
There are in some western European countries procedures to contain this type of practice. A State-controlled employment service, such as Manpower, sends those on the register to available jobs. If three offers of a job have been rejected by a person for no valid reason, he or she is struck off the register and ceases to receive unemployment benefit. Such a system would, of course, be extremely unpopular. However, it would serve a specific purpose and, if properly operated, would be fair in the long term to the country as a whole. It would be one sure way of catching the many thousands who are doing "nixers" and who are financially far better off by being officially unemployed.
Too many of our young people are genuinely unemployed, and next July many thousands more will be coming out of school and seeking jobs. As the previous speaker indicated, we have a very high ratio of young people per head of population. The numbers coming on the employment market are exceeding by far the numbers of workers retiring and the pace of new job creation is not fast enough. There are also other factors that contribute in a big way in modern times. The technological age is with us and automation has replaced many thousands of jobs.
Another very important factor is the retention of employment by many married women. This is something that is now with us, whether one likes it or not. In previous years many thousands of jobs were available to young people in the public service, banks, insurance companies, finance houses, factories and so on. There was always a very large turnover due to girls leaving to get married. The vast majority of women are now staying on at their jobs after marriage, with the consequent loss of vacancies and openings for those leaving school.
There is greater pressure now than ever before on the Government and on the various agencies to create the many additional jobs required to meet those seeking work. So far the Government are on course and are confident that the steps taken will achieve the set targets for this year and the following years. Unfortunately during recent years the infrastructure was seriously underinvested, thus creating a shortage of serviced lands. This could create serious problems and cause some setback to the IDA's massive investment programme. This would of course seriously disrupt such programmes and it is due to the absence of proper planning by the previous Government.
The National Manpower Service have come in for a lot of criticism in recent times—much of it, I would suggest, deserved and justified. The pressures of recent years have been heavy and obviously the National Manpower Service have not been geared or prepared to handle such heavy pressures. I feel that perhaps they may have become a little too bureaucratic. There have been complaints that from the employers' viewpoint the National Manpower Service are totally disorganised. Very often they continue to send candidates for vacancies even after such vacancies have been notified weeks previously as having been filled. It is important that employers should have confidence in the National Manpower Service and I am pleased to note from the Minister's speech that he has indicated his intention to expand the service substantially this year.
AnCO have played and are still playing a very important role in training our young people for specific grades. There is concern that industry in general are not catering for the apprentices that are, and will be, required to meet the demands of future years. Many employers feel that apprentices have become too costly. The Minister must look at this problem urgently and consider how best it can be solved. If necessary some form of incentive to the employer catering for apprentices could be considered. This would be a source of encouragement to employers to take on a sufficient number of apprentices, who are badly needed if we are to continue our development.
The Minister devoted nearly six pages of his text to industrial relations. That is an indication of how seriously concerned the Government are about this matter. Nobody will argue that the strike is not a perfectly legitimate weapon in any dispute, but the consequences of any strike also imposes on the worker an obligation to act in a responsible way. It is therefore very disquieting for everybody—I am sure is it disquieting for the trade unions—that 60 per cent of the man days lost since 1977 were due to unofficial strikes. There is no doubt that in any dispute there are two sides to the problem and many disputes are brought about due to inadequate and poor industrial relations by management. I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to condone those who resort to unofficial strike action without going through normal accepted channels. Very often only a small number will dictate and succeed in getting large sections to follow them, often against their own better judgment and against their will.
At this time particularly it is of vital importance to us as a country to encourage foreign investment which is badly needed to create employment and jobs. If we are unsettled in industrial relations there is no doubt we will not succeed. Some sanity must be restored in the area of industrial relations. The Minister is obviously very sincere in wishing for common sense and goodwill to prevail. The trade union movement have a grave responsibility to their members and to the country as a whole. Unions must act strongly and they must have discipline among their membership. The commission being set up by the Minister to examine industrial relations will no doubt give a great deal of thought to this aspect. We all hope that some progress will be made in this respect in the interests of the economy and of future jobs.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Minister on his efforts. His portfolio is a very difficult one— very much uphill. He is entitled to expect the support needed to put his ideas and plans, which will be of benefit to industry, to the economy and to the country in general, into practice.
Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar an Meastachán seo don Roinn Saothair. Roinn an-thábhachtach í san lá atá inniu ann agus dá bhrí sin baineann tábhacht faoi leith leis an ndíospóireacht seo.
This debate on the annual Estimate for the Department of Labour focuses attention on aspects of Government policy and national activity which could be validly referred to as being crucial elements in national development and progress. I refer in particular to the question of manpower policy and industrial relations. Coming from a constituency which suffered a severe disaster by the closure of the Ferenka plant and being spokesman in the field of telecommunications, an area which has been affected by prolonged industrial disputes, it is natural that I am concerned about the aspects of the Department of Labour which impinge on the question of industrial relations. The Minister in his speech adverted to the question of industrial relations, to the problems that have emerged and to the role of his Department and of a Minister for Labour in relation to industrial disputes and industrial relations. I am convinced that a harmonious industrial climate is a necessary prerequisite for economic development and social progress in any modern democracy. The programme of job creation, is a major and daunting challenge to create full employment of a variety and range to satisfy the job aspirations of our young people now that they have better educational opportunities than ever before. The achievement of this objective depends to a large extent on the creation of a harmonious industrial relations climate. This climate cannot be created on the basis of confrontation, coercion or repressive legislation and it cannot be created through the rosy expectations deliberately raised by a dishonest election manifesto or by the failure of the Government to deliver when in office. A climate of harmonious industrial relations can only be created on the basis of mutual understanding and goodwill founded on the practical application of the principles of partnership and responsibility between the Government, employers and unions. This concept of partnership and mutual understanding which is the ideal formula for a harmonious and stable industrial relations climate is difficult to achieve in a democracy but our recent experiences, notably the catastrophe represented by the closure of Ferenka and the long telecommunications difficulties which arise because of bad industrial relations in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, are examples of a growing national malaise which if allowed to continue unchecked could be fraught with serious consequences for the economy.
Despite what the Minister said in his introductory speech, the Minister and the Government have a major responsibility to create this climate of goodwill. It is a matter of grave concern to many people that the present Government since taking office appear to have failed completely to appreciate the sensitivity, the importance and the vital element that industrial relations constitute in the development of the national economy. The Government has a duty to give proper leadership. A very special responsibility rests on Ministers and Government Departments who have large State and semi-State bodies under the aegis of their Departments to ensure that an example of industrial democracy in action is given to the nation. That has not happened. The Minister for Labour has been reluctant to intervene in industrial disputes. I accept that the Minister must not intervene at early stages in every problem but there comes a time in relation to an industrial dispute, particularly one that can have major economic and social repercussions such as the Ferenka closure and the long-drawn-out telecommunications dispute, when the Minister for Labour has no option but to intervene.
I am gravely perturbed, as are many other people, by the apparent failure of the present Government to face up to the reality of modern industrial relations. I do not know whether or not the Minister for Labour, his Department or the Government have learnt anything from the Ferenka debacle. Following the announcement of the closure I and other people called for a public inquiry into the reasons for the closure. I would like him to say what assessment or analysis of the cause of the closure of Ferenka has been carried out by him or his Department. Surely there are lessons to be learnt from this. Surely we cannot close our eyes and ignore the facts and the difficulties that gave rise to this industrial disaster. There is need to allay public anxiety about this situation and to allay the anxiety of many potential investors and industrialists about the industrial relations climate here.
There is no doubt that the closure of Ferenka was an appalling tragedy in my constituency where 1,400 people were added to an already high number of unemployed, but the real tragedy and the real repercussions of this closure is the bad image that the whole episode gave to Ireland as an attractive base for new industries. The IDA are well aware of this and I am sure the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy who is at present abroad on an industrial promotions mission is well aware of it. One of the first questions that will be asked by potential industrialists will be "what happened to Ferenka?". This question of industrial relations difficulties, of inter-union rivalry and the other unofficial actions that were taken to which the Minister adverted in his speech, were contributory factors.
Much has been said and written about it. All I will say now is that the air should be cleared. Apart from seeking scapegoats or head hunting in relation to the Ferenka disaster, it should be studied and lessons should be learned from the reasons for it and the problems and the difficulties which led up to the closure.
The Minister spoke about his extreme reluctance to intervene in industrial disputes. I know as much as anybody about the Ferenka disaster and it is my considered opinion that it was a classical example of where timely, appropriate and proper intervention by the Minister for Labour could have averted the final catastrophe.
One dimension of the Government's handling of the industrial relations crisis in Ferenka gave rise to a lot of discussion. Many people, including me, do not understand why the Minister for Labour handed over responsibility to his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, at a crucial stage of the negotiations, the interventions and the overtures. I am convinced that had the Minister for Labour, of course in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, sought the assistance of at least three other Ministers in that general region, he would have found it possible—he would also have had the expert advice available to him in the Department—to avert that appalling tragedy. However, as I have said, there are lessons to be learned from a study and an assessment of that catastrophe which could result in non-recurrence of such catastrophes in future.
The whole field of industrial relations is probably the most discussed and most frequently written about topic nowadays. The Ferenka dispute which led to such a disaster was followed by the appalling telecommunications dispute. In order to create a proper industrial relations plan it is necessary that the Government should show proper leadership, appropriate understanding of situations as they arise and then take action. How can we expect the private sector to react reasonably, and how empty sound the appeals of Ministers for industrial harmony, when we find one Minister guilty of the most appalling industrial relations practices in respect of a Department employing thousands of people over which he has control? The PO dispute threw the whole telecommunications system into chaos and as late as yesterday Aer Lingus and another body had twothirds of their telecommunications systems thrown out of order. The reservations section of Aer Lingus was completely disrupted.
The Government must show an example and the Minister for Labour cannot ignore or opt out of the vital role he has in this respect. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs opted out of his responsibilities. How can we expect leadership in this field from a Government, from a Minister who suspended workers for refusing——
He did not dismiss any of them, like the Deputy's colleague did.
The Chair must come in here. It is in order to deal with industrial relations on this Estimate but it is not in order to go into the administration of any other Department while debating this Estimate. The Minister for Labour is responsible for industrial relations generally but not for the administration of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Deputy O'Donnell will get an opportunity to raise this matter on the Estimate for the appropriate Department when it comes before the House.
I accept your very subtle definition of the role of a Minister——
There is nothing subtle about it.
——your very acute definition of the whole thing. I am talking about industrial relations for which the Minister for Labour has final responsibility. I say, as one of my colleagues said, that there is an obligation on the Minister for Labour, given certain circumstances, personally to intervene in industrial disputes. Therefore, the Minister for Labour has overall responsibility in relation to the dispute I have been referring to even if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has direct responsibility for it—in other words, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs must consult with the Minister for Labour.
My concern is that the entire industrial relations situation would be given a new approach. There should be a clearer understanding of the vital role industrial relations play in modern economic development. Harmonious industrial relations can only be achieved on the basis of mutual goodwill by the Government, the employers and the unions. The challenge facing the Government, and the Minister for Labour in particular, is to use every means at their disposal to ensure that an industrial relations plan is created that will ensure we will not have any more Ferenka or PO disasters.
AnCO policy is another major aspect of the operations and the responsibilities of the Department of Labour. To me the most interesting part of the Minister's opening speech is his reference to the importance of a manpower policy and his promise to look at the question of the labour market. It comes under the general heading of manpower policy. I spoke about career guidance, the role of AnCO and of the IMI and also the role of our educational institutions. I agree with the Minister that it is necessary to have a proper manpower policy. I cannot envisage the achievement of the aims and objectives of a full employment policy in the absence of a correspondingly suitable national manpower policy. This is a vital element but there are major psychological difficulties to be overcome. Career guidance is a vital element and could be described as the take-off point in the formulation of a national manpower policy.
When we were in Government I had the privilege of opening a number of careers exhibitions and I was greatly impressed with the way the Department of Labour, AnCO and the National Manpower Service developed with regard to their presentation of career guidance. I was most impressed by the stands in the exhibitions and by the informative leaflets that were available. This question of career guidance is vital. The creation of full employment is not merely a matter of creating any kind of jobs. They must be of a range and a variety that will satisfy the job aspirations of our young people. These aspirations can be formed and moulded during the formative years of school. A proper career guidance system must be introduced to ensure that the natural talents, brains and ability of our young people are channelled into areas that will be suitable to their ability and qualifications and also it must be geared towards those areas that will provide the best employment opportunities.
There was the old traditional system in which many of us grew up where the bright children were sent to the local secondary school and the not so bright to the local technical school. This was the traditional practice throughout rural Ireland and I grew up under that system. There must be greater emphasis on technical education and career guidance and this will have to be integrated with the AnCO training courses into a comprehensive industrial training set-up. I recall the case many years ago when two young men who had their pass leaving certificate came to see me in my office in Limerick one Saturday. They asked me for my assistance in finding them jobs and I referred them to the industrial estate at Shannon. They were re-directed to an industry that was recruiting workers and they filled in an application form stating that they wanted office jobs.
In those days if a person had a pass leaving certificate he or she expected to obtain at least a clerical job. The two young men were informed that there was no clerical work available and were offered jobs on the factory floor. One of them accepted the job and the other refused. The person who accepted the job on the factory floor got on very well and after five or six years he was made assistant manager and is now a very successful factory manager. However, the parents of that young man did not speak to me for 12 months after he got the work. Their grievance was that their son who had his leaving certificate was going to work with other young people who went to the local technical school. There is a moral to that story. Career guidance is of vital importance.
I had very close associations with AnCO, go háirithe le Gaoth Dóbhair i nGaeltacht Dhún na nGall sna ceithre bliain a bhí sé do onóir agam bheith im Aire na Gaeltachta, agus ba mhaith liom moladh a thabhairt go poiblí do na daoine atá ag obair in ionad na Comhairle Oiliúna i nGaeltacht Dhún na nGall. Thug an tionad sin cabhair mhór do Ghaeltarra Éireann chun forbairt thionscailíochta na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn. Tá tábhacht ar leith ag baint leis an Chomhairle Oiliúna ó thaobh fhorbairt eacnamíochta, ó thaobh postanna agus ó thaobh eacnamíochta na tíre go hiomlán.
I have had personal experience of the operations of AnCO in the Limerick-Shannon region. AnCO have shown flexibility, initiative and understanding of the problems of training young people, many of whom come from a rural environment where there is no industrial background and where the families have no association with industry. During the years AnCO have succeeded quite well in training young workers and in acclimatising them to the psychological change of working in an industrial environment as compared with their traditional farming and rural environment. We had the same problem in relation to industrial development in the Gaeltacht regions and I want to pay tribute to AnCO for what they have done. However, their role in relation to the future training and educational needs of the potential industrial workforce must be looked at. I am not too sure that as they are at present constituted and having regard to their terms of reference they are geared adequately to meet the enormous challenge of providing the educational and training facilities for what we hope will be a rapidly growing labour force.
Debate adjourned.