Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Dec 1978

Vol. 310 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Industrial Unrest: Motion.

Motion No. 60 in the name of Deputy Mitchell to which an amendment has been tabled by the Minister.

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann notes with concern the state of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take urgent steps to reduce worker alienation caused by its socially perverse policies."

It gives us no pleasure to move this motion. The present state of industrial unrest has been a matter of great concern to us. We believe that the national interest is more important than any political advantage which the Opposition can gain in this regard. Accordingly, we have restrained ourselves for the past 18 months. We have been responsible and helpful but our helpfulness has not been recognised and reciprocated.

Before I discuss the perverse social policies to which the motion relates, I should like to say that we are more than anxious for the turbulence inflicting industrial affairs to cease. I repeat the call I have made many times for a generation of industrial peace. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy has diagnosed our industrial troubles as the English disease. The diagnosis seems reasonable at first but on reflection it is clearly wrong. Our problems are homegrown. It is very much an Irish disease, the main characteristics of which are insane suicidal tendencies. It is to the eternal shame of this Government that, far from seeking to cure them, their policies have exacerbated and sharpened our industrial ills.

The House will recall the outrageous economic indisciplines of the Fianna Fáil manifesto. With the election of Fianna Fáil, boom time was said to have arrived. The question is: boom for whom? Instead of it being a boom for the workers it has been a gloom for them. This year more than £800 million was borrowed to pay for millionaires' wealth tax, to pay for the abolition of rates on grandiose mansions, and on multi-occupied dwellings in the ownership of speculators, to pay for a reduction in capital gains tax and to pay for the abolition of car tax, no matter how many are owned by the same family. These policies might not have been such an affront to working people had they not been accompanied by what I can only describe as perverse or antisocial suggestions, namely, the phasing out of food subsidies, the tax on children's allowances, the increase in bus fares which followed the abolition of car tax and the increase in local authority rents which followed the abolition of domestic rates. As a result of Fianna Fáil's policies, ordinary men and women have been faced with sharply inflated house prices as building millionaires smile all the way to the bank or, as some of them did, to the stud. We have witnessed the indecent spectacle of one of them gambling £750,000 on a share in a not very successful thoroughbred filly.

The Deputy is now dealing with identifiable people and he is not entitled to do so.

I am dealing with identifiable facts.

The Deputy should not refer in the House to identifiable people.

The increase in house costs since the Government came to power has been three to four times greater than the increase in material and labour costs. The building millionaires smile all the way to the banks as a result of the Government's perverse policies. The affront to ordinary people is compounded by the unparalleled level of mortgage interest rates which this anti-social Government have refused to subsidise. They have refused to follow the example of the Coalition who subsidised mortgage interest rates in the middle of the world recession when they were not as high as they are today. The Government removed the relatively small amount of wealth tax and abolished domestic rates on the grandiose dwellings of the rich. At the same time they cannot find funds to subsidise mortgage interest rates or to reduce the qualifying age for pensions to 65. As they penalise mortgage holders they subsidise the rich and increase the bank accounts, at home and abroad, of the building millionaires. The same Government are withdrawing medical cards from the needy sections of our community.

It is only fair to describe such policies as anti-social. It is evident that the Government's actions and inactions add up to the most anti-worker Government since the departure of British imperialism. It is reasonable to say that Fianna Fáil policies have been a double fiasco. First, in order to win an election they created an atmosphere of euphoric expectation to which the workers responded. Secondly, Fianna Fáil underestimated how anti-worker their policies were perceived to be and the extent to which they have alienated workers. This Government, temporarily, have warmed the cockles of rich men's hearts, have brought happiness to the well-heeled tax evaders who are a cancer in our society.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that the alleged Fianna Fáil pursuit of tax evaders is seen not as a sensible attempt to stop abuse but as an unfair attack on the weaker sections of our community? There has not been any recognition of the penal way in which ordinary wage and salary earners are being taxed through PAYE. They pay as much as 87 per cent of income tax revenue, yet it is clear that neither the Minister for Labour nor any other Minister has any clear perception of the demoralising effect PAYE has on the workforce when compared with the very generous and suspect kid gloving of the rich.

These points must be made. It does not give me any pleasure to voice them, but uppermost in the minds of Deputies on this side is the national interest. That must take priority over any political opportunities presented to the Opposition by an inept and unsocial Government. The national interest requires urgent action.

According to replies given to me today by the Minister, the total man days lost in the current year through industrial action are running at an annual rate of close on 600,000. That is five times the rate for the early years of the decade. It is of little use that the Minister says the man days lost have been fewer than in the pre-national wage agreement days. They are scandalously high, five times what they were six years ago.

I should like to deal with the public sector in the industrial relations field. While I was preparing my speech for this motion during the weekend, I listed all the bodies in the public sector who have had strikes this year—CIE, the ESB, NET, Aer Lingus, Posts and Telegraphs, Dublin Corporation, the local authority engineers and RTE. I thought I had exhausted the list until I walked through Baggot Street yesterday and noticed a Bord na Móna picket. Quite apart from overall responsibility for industrial relations, the Government have a special responsibility for affairs in the public sector, and anyone who knows anything about industrial relations, or indeed people who do not know anything about them, will appreciate that there is an acute industrial relations problem in the public sector. Not only have we had repeated problems in the areas I have mentioned but we have had major disputes among the gardai and the nurses, and now we hear of problems in relation to higher and junior civil servants and, once again, CIE.

I do not know what the Government have been doing about the special problems in the public sector or why these problems are so chronic. It will be noted that any action the Government have taken on industrial relations in the public sector has been to the detriment of public servants. The Aer Lingus dispute would have been settled earlier except for the intervention of the Department of the Public Service. Look at the appalling delay in the settlement of the telecommunications dispute which for many weeks left us without even the normally bad level of telephonic communication before the Minister came down from his ivory tower and allowed some discussions to take place. How long did it take us to get the Minister for the Environment to accept responsibility for the local authority engineers' strike? The frustrating of the efforts of Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick to raise the matter in the House was a standing joke in the media.

Mainly through inaction, the Government have mishandled completely industrial relations in the public sector. They have given no attention to the massive morale problems in CIE despite repeated requests from this side. There has not been any inquiry into the situation in the ESB where even a couple of days ago a go slow left the country without supplies. These problems will not go away if Ministers continue to bury their heads in the sand in the hope that they will go away.

In both public and private sectors positive action is required now. It is accepted by everybody that the preparation of legislation on industrial relations, where human emotion is a major concern, is a delicate matter. I agreed with the Minister today when he told us that any such legislation must be acceptable to be effective. I agree wholeheartedly. I acknowledge entirely that legislation for industrial relations, without a consensus, is potentially suicidal. I am not coming into this House to ask the Minister or the Government to commit suicide. I plead with the Minister to unfreeze himself, to come out of his corner and seek that consensus which, in the main, I believe exists not just between the social partners, between the FUE and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions but also between all sides of this House.

It is not good enough—as the Minister demonstrated in this House today—that he should sit idly by and do nothing. In all the replies to questions before us today everything was under review or was referred to the Commission on Industrial Relations who, the Minister would not admit to this House, will not be issuing any interim reports and are not likely to report for years to come. I know that is a fact. I presume and hope the Minister knows it to be so. We cannot await the outcome of the report of the Committee on Industrial Relations. We cannot tolerate the Minister hiding himself under the bushel of the commission. The Minister will have long ceased to be Minister when that commission report. If he continues with his present "do nothing" policy in every area of his responsibility the problems confronting us today in industrial relations not only will not be solved but will be greatly aggravated and multiplied.

I have said publicly before that the makings of a consensus on certain changes necessary in the legislative area exists not only between all sides in this House but between the social partners. What is now needed, and what I would propose, is a major change in the industrial relations code in the form of a Bill of workers' rights and responsibilities. Such a Bill could be a workers' charter enshrining not only the value and dignity of all workers but the doctrine that each right is accompanied by a parallel responsibility, and vice versa. The worker himself and the trade union movement are threatened by the pernicious cancer of unofficial action. The great bulk of workers know the verity of that statement; the trade union movement know its verity. Yet, like the Minister, a nervousness exists amongst the work force and the trade unions about legislation. It is nervousness that freezes any action in this regard, a nervousness that freezes any discussion in this matter. It is a nervousness I understand but do not share. It is for the benefit of the worker and the trade union movement that any change in the law—and in particular the law on picketing—be devised. It should be designed wholly for their benefit. What is called for is less nervousness, more confidence, especially more mutual confidence between the social partners on the one hand and the politicians on the other. I repeat my earlier invitation to the Minister to go out and create that confidence, to seek that consensus from those on this side of the House and with the social partners which I believe exists in principle. If he fails, all is not lost; if he succeeds, Ireland will be in his debt. Very often legislation is understood by many as a possible anti-worker move. No Bill coming before the House which even in the slightest degree could be considered anti-worker would have our support. That is not the sort of Bill we want; it is not the sort of legislative change we want. We want the sort of legislative change that will have our support and that of the social partners.

There are many areas that could be updated by enlightened legislation. I shall not go into them now. Certainly I can conceive of many different topics which, if enhanced in such a Bill of workers' rights and responsibilities, would significantly contribute to our economic progress. Legislation is not the whole answer, not nearly the whole answer; it is but part of the answer. Because of the possibility of failure or of our nervousness we should not be deterred from the attempt at least. I suppose there will always be tension in industrial relations but certainly there are other areas in which significant improvements can be achieved.

That leads me to the question of pay bargaining and a recent development when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, at their conference two weeks ago, rejected even talks on a further national pay agreement. I would not wish that we would have another national pay agreement similar to the current one. On the other hand, I believe that a free-for-all most definitely is not the answer. I note the almost quietly-pleased way Government Ministers accepted the verdict of congress. In view of their temporary financial and self-induced difficulties it seemed to me that the Government might not have to pay increases to the public sector in the absence of a national pay agreement. Every 1 per cent thus saved saves the Exchequer £10 million and reduces the financial embarrassment, self-induced, now afflicting the Government. That is short-term thinking. I believe a free-for-all would bring us back to the chaotic pre-1970 days; it would be of great benefit to the strong but a great affliction for the weak; the highly-paid would do very well while the lowly-paid would do miserably. Therefore, a free-for-all is not the answer. Neither is a repeat of this year's national pay agreement nor perhaps of earlier ones, undoubtedly good and beneficial though they have been for our economy. What is necessary is a new type of tripartite agreement, a social contract—call it what you like—because it seems to me no longer tenable to divorce centralised pay bargaining from Government policies on taxation, prices and social welfare. They all need to be blended to avoid counteractive effects on each other and their compound negative effect on competitiveness and job creation.

This is what I say to the Minister tonight. Let the Government address themselves urgently to that task, the task of seeking a social concordat on which their social and incomes policies will be based, not just for the next year but for, perhaps, the next few years. I believe that is essential. I believe any objective analysis of this year's national pay agreement, now running at something like 16 per cent, will show that more than half that 16 per cent for a start was clawed back in increased income tax, increased inflation and increased social welfare. On the other hand, increased costs have priced how many thousands of Irish workers out of jobs? Sixteen per cent means that we are that much less competitive than we would have been had it been 10 per cent, or 8 per cent, or 5 per cent. It means inevitably—hard to quantify but someone should attempt to quantify it—that some thousands of jobs have been squandered.

Would it not have been much better if the Government had buried their pride, taken their courage in their hands and negotiated last year some sort of social contract? Would it not be better if everybody concentrated not on fictional increases in pay, which do not have a similar increase in purchasing power, but rather on the purchasing power of wages mainly by reduced taxation and, perhaps, reduced social welfare? I say that because I believe, and I have said this before, social welfare in particular acts as the payroll tax. It is a disincentive to employment. So are high wage costs. On the other hand, workers are entitled to a fair share of the national cake and not only entitled but they have generated most of the economic growth we have been enjoying and are, therefore, entitled to the major part of it. It makes little sense for them to get increases in pay which are of less value than a reduction in taxation and social welfare. In the end we would all be better off, more competitive, with more people in work, more contributed to the Exchequer and less taken out of it.

The social partners themselves have a very big part to play in improving industrial relations. I have never made any secret of my admiration for the role that has been played by the trade union leadership over the last number of years. I have never made any secret of my respect and regard for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. But that is not to say that it is an uncritical respect. I do not think anybody in congress leadership today, or in past years, would say that congress or the trade union movement is perfect and so I make a strong plea, first, to the congress to reorganise itself as best it can in such ways as are possible to improve the discipline, the strength and the standing of the trade union movement. I address a similar appeal to the FUE and to management generally because I believe a major component in our industrial relations problem, especially in areas of repeated unofficial action, is bad personal management. I believe that certainly to be true of the battle of this time last year, Ferenka. Bad management is a big factor in bad industrial relations and the FUE and industry generally, and not just industry but the public sector management as well, would do well to address themselves to this problem and help to contribute towards a solution.

In conclusion, I would like to make an appeal that we should now set out to make strikes truly an action of last resort and not, as is now so often the case, an early weapon in a battle that no one in the end wins. I make one further final appeal to the Government to reverse their perverse, anti-social policies and to address themselves to the problems and the aspirations and the expectations of the work force on whom so much depends.

I move the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"supports Government policies aimed at promoting industrial, economic and social progress and rejects any suggestion that these policies are contributing to industrial unrest".

When this Government took office 18 months ago they did so with an overwhelming mandate from the electorate, a mandate based on the economic and social policies they had put before the people. These policies were intended to deal with the economic crisis which faced the country at the time of the election. We had record unemployment. We had the worst inflation rate in the EEC and an intolerable level of foreign borrowing. From the beginning the Government's overall economic and social strategy has been geared especially towards the generation of higher employment through a sustained high level of growth, greater investment and a reduction in the rate of inflation. Because we realised the effects of our measures to reduce taxation would take some time to work their way through the economy and be reflected in increased employment the Government took immediate action to provide employment by special programmes of expenditure in peak areas. It was necessary that our policies be pursued vigorously so that the economy could quickly recover momentum after the severe recession.

The results to date demonstrate that the Government's approach has been successful. The target growth rate of 7 per cent for this year will be achieved and inflation will be down, it is expected, to a level of about 8 per cent compared with 10½ per cent in 1977. The target in regard to unemployment for 1978 was a reduction of 20,000 in the numbers out of work. While the latest estimates suggest that there may be some shortfall it will be very small indeed and the net increase in employment this year will reach a record level. The special programme for job creation in the public sector, in the building and construction industry and in youth employment which the Government initiated shortly after coming into office is going ahead successfully. The target set under this heading was 20,000 new jobs and indications are that this target will be exceeded by the end of 1978. While there were unavoidable delays in getting some elements of the programmes under way, due in particular to administrative difficulties, I am happy to say there has been a very substantial improvement in recent months. At the time of the last election our fundamental policy was the reduction of unemployment, not just for economic reasons but also for social reasons and for the development of the individual worker and the community as a whole.

The Opposition motion speaks of worker alienation. Surely the greatest form of alienation in our community is being unable to find suitable employment when one seeks it. I am disappointed, therefore, that the tremendous efforts being made by the Government, and the community, to provide employment are jeopardised firstly by unofficial disputes and then by exaggerated comment on the industrial relations situation by the media and the Opposition. Anything which disturbs good relations between workers and employers and interferes with the attainment of industrial harmony is, naturally, a matter of concern to the entire community. As our economy continues to develop the degree of interdependence between the various sectors of the economy increases. Further, as the percentage of the workforce engaged in primary production diminishes so even greater numbers of our labour force are engaged in adding value to the primary product or, alternatively, are dependent for their livelihood on providing services to those engaged in the production of goods. The increasing complexity of linkages in the economy, therefore, means that no worker is totally immune from the repercussions of strike action.

It is important, therefore, that the real problems affecting industrial relations here be critically examined not only by those directly involved such as managers, trade unions, and the authorities concerned but by the whole community. People who seek to make political capital out of difficulties in this area are hardly performing a useful service for the community. Emotional language may be difficult to avoid in some disputes but a disproportionate emphasis on industrial relations conflict conveys misleading impressions not only to the Irish public but also to the international business community.

We live in a competitive and exacting international environment in which other countries are striving to attract foreign industrial developments. Our competitors will hardly play down any adverse reports on our performance in industrial relations. The picture of industrial relations for most people is painted by the daily newspapers, TV and radio. My view is that a disproportionate amount of media coverage is given to the reporting of strikes and conflict. We see little coverage of the many stories of success in the conduct of industrial relations in the vast majority of enterprises here. It would seem to be a case of good news being no news. Since 1976 my Department have been compiling approximate figures on industrial disputes which come to their attention. In the first ten months of this year there were 142 strikes. If we compare that figure with those of recent years we will find that in the four years, 1969 to 1972, inclusive, the total number of strikes was remarkably constant, ranging from 131 to 134 per year. However, in 1973 when the National Coalition took office, the figure rose to 182 and in 1974, 160 strikes were recorded. If we look at the position in the years from 1969 to 1978 we will find that the number of strikes which were unofficial were generally in the region of two out of every three strikes. In 1973 unofficial disputes at 81 per cent had reached an abnormally high level. What socially perverse policies were pursued by that Government to bring about such a deplorable situation? This record does not show that the industrial relations climate has worsened since that time.

In the first ten months of this year about 469,000 man-days were lost because of strikes. In the corresponding period of 1977, 391,000 man-days were lost and the total for 1977 as a whole was 449,000. The figure for this year and for 1977 are thus a long way short of the total of just under 800,000 in 1976. One Opposition Deputy has, in fact, seen fit to make the very wild and damaging statement that the number of man-days lost due to strikes would this year exceed one million. This is a case of someone thinking of a number and doubling it for political advantage.

In 1977, two out of five man-days lost, or 40 per cent, were caused by unofficial stoppages. In the first ten months of this year 109,000 man-days were lost due to unofficial action, which represented 23 per cent of the total. This is a welcome reduction from the figure for the corresponding period in 1977.

Two important conclusions can be drawn from the figures I quoted. Firstly, the vast majority of employers were not directly affected at all by industrial disputes. The second conclusion to be drawn from our strike record is the obvious need for disputes to be settled before the parties concerned become entrenched in their attitudes. Disputes which develop into long drawn out strikes cause financial hardship to the strikers and to their dependants, and may ultimately cause frustration and loss of production for establishments indirectly affected by the initial stoppage. Worse still, any ill-feeling caused by real or imagined grievances during a strike can persist when the strike is over. Where such residual ill-feeling persists it does not augur well for future industrial relations in the companies concerned.

Such problems can be readily avoidable if the disputants are prepared from the outset to negotiate in a meaningful fashion. Employers have long been acutely aware of the power wielded by the trade unions in the form of the strike and picket, which are powerful weapons and which should, therefore, only be used as a last resort. Nobody will deny the right of workers to use the strike weapon and withdraw their labour, but where a strike does occur I feel it reflects on both employers and workers alike. It may mean that either the negotiators or the procedures for communications between them are not what they should be or even that one side or the other is acting unreasonably.

The resort to strike action can only be justified when the issue involved is of a serious nature. Workers and employers must bear in mind the effect their action has on their families with the consequential financial hardship and on the future viability of the company and on the community as a whole. Each individual employer and trade union official has a duty to ask himself what positive contribution he is making in his own area of responsibility towards industrial peace, to use ways and means at plant level to work towards economic procedures which will avoid industrial disruption and to use these procedures effectively. Clear-cut lines of communication are needed between workers and management so that workers will know that any grievance they have will be dealt with quickly and sympathetically.

Where do the Government and the Minister for Labour fit into all this? I see the primary role of the Minister and the Government as providing the structures to deal with dispute situations, making sure that they work efficiently and with maximum speed and reviewing and improving these structures as the need arises. In addition to the institutions established by the State for the settlement of disputes as a whole, an array of informal arrangements and practices have developed during the years. These informal arrangements and practices operate sometimes separately from the more formal procedures, sometimes side-by-side and sometimes even as a component part of wider arrangements.

It is remarkable that in this process of evolution our main institutions have remained virtually intact, the only significant change, perhaps, being the establishment of the Employer-Labour Conference some eight years ago. Very often in serious dispute situations there are demands for ministerial intervention. What many people do not realise, however, is that frequent interventions of this kind can lead in the long term to a debasement of our existing structures and the addition of another rung on the negotiation ladder. My concern at all times will be to uphold the institutions which have been provided. The establishment last May of the Commission on Industrial Relations reflected the Government's view, which I believe is shared by the public, that a fundamental review of the procedures governing relations between employer and employee are overdue.

The commission's terms of reference are very broad and I accept, therefore, that their deliberations may take some time. I believe it is important that the commission be given an opportunity to reach a consensus on the main recommendations of their final report. These recommendations may be expected to influence the conduct of our industrial relations for some considerable time to come. I think it important to stress that employers and trade unions are equally represented on the commission and the recommendations of the commission in due course will have the early attention of the Government.

As regards their future strategy, the Government have already, as it were, put their cards on the table in the recent Green Paper on "Development for Full Employment." It puts forward for discussion a framework for economic and social policies designed to maximise our potential and to bring about a worthwhile improvement in living standards for all our people by methods that do not call for unacceptably high levels of taxation or Government borrowing. It outlines a ambitious programme for employment creation and presents the option of reaching a situation within a relatively short period where work can be available for all who require it. This is indicative of the Government's commitment to solving the problem of unemployment as a first priority. This objective can be achieved only if it has the active support of all sections of the community and if people at work accept the need for moderation in income increases in the interests of maintaining existing jobs and creating more employment.

Following publication of the Green Paper, there has been discussion with a wide range of interests and the various responses are being taken into account in the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper which will outline the Government's plans for national development for the next few years. Therefore in framing their economic and social policies, the Government are careful to provide that the various sections of the community are given the opportunity to contribute to and to comment on these policies. This in the Government's view is the most effective means of ensuring that their development plans have the widest support possible.

One of the requirements for success of the Government's strategies is that pay increases do not move ahead too quickly. Otherwise our ability to compete is diminished and opportunities for more job creation are lost and, as the Minister for Finance has emphasised recently, we are all involved in the process of job creation. Our attitudes to income increases and how we actually spend our incomes exert a powerful influence on employment levels. The unemployed do not sit at the negotiating table and if we are serious about job creation we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that a tradeoff exists between higher incomes and more jobs. Unfortunately, as Deputy Mitchell said, recent pay claims are giving cause for very serious concern. It now appears that the increase in incomes this year could be of the order of 16 per cent or more. While the standard terms of the national agreement were significantly above the norm proposed by the Government as being needed to achieve their economic and social objectives, even these terms have been regarded by some groups as a platform on which to base further demands. The consequences of a continuation of these trends are higher redundancies, slower growth in employment and an inflation rate above the target set at the beginning of the year. This pattern cannot be sustained as it is entirely incompatible with the overall targets set for the economy.

The application of the 1978 national agreement resulted in substantial improvements in real incomes and in real living standards and these were added to by the generous taxation and other concessions granted in the 1978 budget. Against this background it is unwise and unfair on the part of the more powerful groups to be still pressing for extra benefits. In the longer term they will gain no advantage if they continue on this course. Others will follow their example and there will be a continuing spiral of rising costs and rising prices.

1978 has been a good year for those at work but the improvements gained this year will be set at naught and jobs will be lost if the present trend of excessive demands is not reversed. If we were to join the European Monetary System——

I thought we were in.

I have not heard the latest. Perhaps the Deputy can bring me up to date. I have been in the House for some time.

The Minister may have to change his speech.

If we were to join the European Monetary System we would be in the company of others who are accustomed to lower rates of inflation and pay increases, and we would not survive in this company if we continued with the level of pay increases we have been enjoying this year. Our unit wage costs would move out of line with our competitors and we could not rely on currency adjustments to keep us competitive. We would have the opportunity in an EMS situation to sustain a high level of growth and to bring inflation down, but we would not be able to do this without income moderation. It is imperative that this be appreciated by all sections of the community.

As has been said, the Government are the largest employer in the country. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that industrial disputes will sometimes occur in sectors for which the Government are ultimately responsible. Since there has been adverse comment recently on the state of industrial relations in the public sector, and since the Government's policies in this area obviously have wide-reaching effects, I will say something about pay policy in the public sector. The success or failure of the Government's overall strategy for economic and social development hinges on the development of policies at national and individual enterprise level which will assist in the achievement of industrial peace and, at the same time, prevent excessive income increases which would adversely affect competitiveness and employment.

Given these overall economic requirements, the Government, as the largest employer in the country, have a special obligation to ensure that policies followed within their own area of direct influence are fully consistent with national objectives. At a time when the Exchequer pay and pensions bill is of the order of £1,000 million a year, they also have more than ever an obligation to see that the taxpayer is getting value for money.

Is the Minister talking about public sector pay control?

For these reasons, a co-ordinated approach to developments in public sector pay is essential. This is in no way unique here. A coherent public sector pay policy is to be found in almost every country in Europe. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that the objectives of moderation in incomes on the one hand and industrial peace on the other may conflict with one another at times. Indeed, industrial relations, like all affairs involving human relationships, require an element of flexibility and compromise. There must be realism and flexibility on both sides and there must be an adherence to agreed procedures and institutional arrangements.

Is the Minister talking about public sector pay control?

The Government have to take a stand when developments are taking place which, though they might benefit sectional interests would clearly be in conflict with the requirements of the national interest. The Government are fully committed to the pursuit of a fair, equitable and orderly system for the evolution of incomes both throughout the economy and in their own direct area of responsibility.

As for the social policies of this Government, I would emphasise that the Government consult as fully as possible with the representatives of management and unions, in accordance with our belief that only those policies which have the general support of the responsible representatives of the social partners have any chance of success. Only three weeks ago the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and myself had the latest in a series of meetings with delegations from the Irish Employers' Confederation and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

It is inevitable in a democracy that the interests of different sectors will sometimes clash. In such instances, the Government have to perform the function for which they were elected. If the policies pursued by the Government for the welfare of the community as a whole sometimes conflict with the narrow sectional interests of some, such polices are hardly socially perverse. Rather are they socially responsible policies.

On behalf of my party I wish to support in the strongest possible manner the motion that Dáil Éireann notes with concern the state of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take urgent steps to reduce worker alienation caused by their socially perverse policies. The amendment reads that Dáil Éireann supports Government policies aimed at promoting industrial, economic and social progress and rejects any suggestion that these policies are contributing to industrial unrest.

This amendment is the most dishonest and untruthful amendment laid before the House while I have been a Member of Dáil Éireann. Despite the Minister's speech from somewhere over the rainbow, in the past 18 months we have witnessed the worst period of industrial unrest in the past 20 years. That is an undeniable fact of life. The Minister's ostrich-like attitude to this serious deterioration in labour relations confirms my belief, and the belief of many others, that he has lost the confidence of the workers by his lack of concern and activity in this very important field. Can he deny that, as we approach the end of the year, hopes are fading fast for a new and vital national wage agreement and pressures are mounting daily for better pay and working conditions by further substantial groups of workers?

In these circumstances, how can he say Government policies are aimed at promoting industrial, economic and social progress? If they are so aimed, they are badly off target. How can he adamantly reject the theory that their policies are contributing to the scourge of industrial unrest which has hit our economy?

This serious situation has been admitted recently by a Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Gibbons, who furthermore threatened corrective measures to resolve the situation, which threat, I may add, did not go unnoticed in certain quarters. Is that type of attitude not confirming the original motion and contributing still further to a greater deterioration? Ministerial threats will not resolve or lessen the present tension that exists in the industrial sector. What is urgently and vitally needed is genuine concern for the needs and living standards of our workers.

Prior to the last general election there had been a long period of relative stability in industrial relations, even in the face of a vast world economic recession. That was a tribute to the responsible attitude of the trade unions and the work of the Labour Party's Minister for Labour. Unfortunately the last general election took the lid off. The Fianna Fáil election manifesto was like a brochure for entering the promised land. Taxes were to be cut, there were to be jobs for all and the consumer was to spend his way to prosperity. People took all this at face value. Unfortunately, the attitude of restraint that had been carefully nurtured by the previous Government in their four and a half years in office was shot to pieces by Fianna Fail's immoral grab for power.

Now what is the situation? Fianna Fáil want to put the lid back on again. They have threatened additional taxation, the reintroduction of the taxes that were removed last year, the taxation of children's allowances, the abolition of food subsidies as well as cuts in health, education and social welfare. All these threats are allied to a silent and a stealthy increase in the cost of living which is cutting into the living standards of every household. It is no wonder that workers are uneasy when the promised land turns out to be the land of threats and price increases with the new spectre of a harsh budget promised by both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development.

The Minister for Agriculture calls all this an unhealthy labour scene. If it is, then he and his ministerial colleagues are directly and personally responsible for the sickness. It was they who promised the economic miracle. It was they who raised expectations. Nobody is responsible for the current situation except the party that published that election manifesto of 1977.

Great damage has been done to the system of industrial relations that was carefully built up by the last Government. The Fianna Fáil Government have become panic-stricken and Ministers are threatening corrective measures. What precisely does this mean? What corrective measures has the Minister for Agriculture in mind? Let him come clean and tell the people. Better still, why does not the Minister for Labour, Deputy Fitzgerald, inform us of these measures?

There is no doubt in my mind that this Government have taken a definite lurch towards the right—clearly manifest in a concern for the wealthy and vested interests in our country, now their strongest supporters following the abolition of the wealth tax and other such financial reliefs. They have come a long way from being a party of the plain people of Ireland, with Taca now more rampant than in their heady days of the sixties. Undoubtedly they have lost their social conscience and this has become more apparent in the area of promotion of local authority responsibility for the provision of accommodation for our workers. I speak from experience as a member of a local authority who, because of a recent ministerial directive, are no longer responsible for the rehousing of those workers in receipt of a gross weekly income of £75 approximately, without any regard for their existing bad accommodation, the size of their families and finally their take home pay which in a test case I submitted was £54.

Did the Deputy deduct income tax?

I know the case in question because I was at the meeting. I regret to say the Minister was not there but if he listens he might learn something from what I have to say, and if I am wrong perhaps he would correct me. If that is all right with the Minister I will proceed.

I was only looking for information.

Deputy J. Ryan is in possession.

And no interruptions from two Ministers.

No interruptions from anybody.

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

At a recent meeting of my council, I was told that this man with a young family should be able to provide his own accommodation, which at present levels and because of the serious increase in building costs now stands at £15,000 approximately, from his own resources. Does the Minister for Labour or the Minister for the Environment support this anti-worker attitude or can they explain to me and the country at large how this man can meet a weekly housing loan repayment of £23 and support his family on the balance of £30?

Is he paying income tax?

I specifically indicated a £75 gross and a net take home pay of £54. This regressive departmental directive is a social injustice and a very definite and vicious policy to disown their responsibility of providing proper accommodation for those who cannot afford to do it themselves. Surely the Government's lack of concern for these people will increase tension and unease among our workers and create greater alienation in our community. These harsh housing guidelines prompted a recent editorial in a local paper which read as follows:

Housing Anomaly

It is not very unusual for a housing applicant to be told that he is earning too much to qualify for a county council house, although he might reasonably expect in such circumstances to be judged a suitable candidate for an SDA loan, but when he is told that the £54 a week which he brings home in his pay packet bars him from any such form of assistance to provide housing for himself and his family, the outrageousness of the situation rankles.

Who in this day and age, with a wife and family to support on a weekly income of £54, with mortgage rates soaring and building costs zooming, could possibly afford to build a house? One could go further and ask could the civil servant, on twice that income, who enforces this ridiculous regulation do it?

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share