Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1978

Vol. 310 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Industrial Unrest: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Mitchell on Tuesday, 5 December 1978:

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.

Debate resumed on 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."

—(Minister for Labour.)

Mr. J. Ryan

When I rose last evening to support the motion I indicated many areas where there should be genuine concern, unease and unrest among the workers. I had pinpointed one particular aspect affecting workers, the new housing guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment in directives to local authorities. I had given a specific example of a case in my local authority area where according to the directive a man in receipt of a gross income of £75 and a take home income of £54 was deemed to be in a position to provide his own housing. I had criticised and ridiculed this peculiar attitude to what was a basic principle of successive Governments, the principle of housing the needy and those who cannot afford to provide their own housing. This test case and the discussion at county council level influenced a local paper and I was in the process of indicating their feelings on this new thinking in their editorial. The paper asked who in this age with a wife and family to support on a weekly income of £54, with mortgage rates soaring and building costs booming, could possibly afford to build a house? They said one could go further and ask if a civil servant on twice the income who enforced this ridiculous regulation could do it? If he could, they said it would be something of an achievement but for the man on £54 a week it was an impossibility.

I am concentrating on this aspect because if there is unrest among the workers this revolutionary retrograde anti-social step taken by the Department of the Environment will contribute in a big way to that unrest. The workers are now being told that for the sake of their pride and dignity they should be encouraged to provide their own homes. Where is the encouragement in rising mortgage rates and small income limits for a county council loan? These new strictures on local authority housing requirements will condemn everyone in this man's circumstances to the same situation. Because of financial considerations local authorities will be unable to provide housing for them. The Government have a grave responsibility for the creation of this social injustice. Everyone has a basic right to be properly housed. It is a hallmark of the society we created. How can this Pontius Pilate act on local authority housing be described as social progress, as stated in the amendment moved by the Minister for Labour? I regret that I can only compare this anti-social thinking on housing of the present Government to the evictions of our ancestors in the last century under another Government. That is a harsh statement but it must be said.

I will reflect again on the past year and on the public sector and its labour relations record. Listening to the Minister for Labour last night it was apparent that he had been missing from the House for some time. During the past year the public sector record was abysmal. The last 18 months has been the worst on record in 20 years. The year 1978 will be remembered for the stand taken by two groups of public sector employees, the Garda and the nurses. They are normally a loyal, dedicated and concerned body of men and women and they have always stood by the State, their executive and the people. I can well appreciate their action. They had reached the stage where their patience was exhausted with the negotiations conducted through antiquated negotiations systems and to which they saw no end result. Because of these interminable negotiations, the Garda and the nurses were regrettably forced to take stern action. Both of those sectors are vital to the health and security of the country and they were forced into a situation where against their will they had to threaten the withdrawal of their services. That was a rare occurrence in the history of the State.

As I said last night, the pot of gold was somewhere over the rainbow but there was no sign of it. The public unrest there cannot be denied. Two weeks ago we witnessed the anger and frustration of approximately 4,500 nurses storming up Kildare Street to the gates of Leinster House demanding a new deal in keeping with their admirable commitment to our society. Only then did the Government relent, and a commission was promised. In similar fashion the Garda threatened the withdrawal of their services due to frustration at the long talks with no results and a certain amount of bluffing. They were driven right out on the edge. I do not blame them and many people agree with me. By a show of force and by determination the Garda fOrced the Government to sit down and negotiate and again to set up a commission.

The third portion of the public sector where there is unrest is the post office, the dispute in which has been going on for so long now that people have forgotten about it. The matter is still not resolved and this again is a sector vital to the community and to industry. There is again an impasse here. I refer to these three sections of the public sector when I say that surely something is wrong somewhere. There must be some early warning system to prevent such serious escalations in such important sectors of the security forces and essential services of the country. Continuous bluffing creates hardened attitudes which result in long-term disputes. If someone had become involved at the outset the situation would have been resolved earlier and we would not have three areas of the public service in a state of chaos.

I should like to refer to those who pay tax under PAYE. At present they are unsure of the future. It is estimated that they will contribute £500 million to the Exchequer this year, which is a quarter of the cost of running the country. As one Minister is pleading for wage restraint for the betterment of the nation another Minister is threatening further taxation. Those who pay tax under PAYE are wondering how much more they will have to pay next year. They cannot continue being the backbone of the economy. The man who pays his tax weekly and who is trying to support his family to the best of his ability finds it hard to stomach the urging of wage restraint. There is no way out for these people. They are in the net and the net seems to be getting bigger. As we hear of wage restraints and the possibility of further taxation, we also hear that food subsidies will be abolished. Families have been buttressed by food subsidies this year to the extent of £60 million. If we are anxious for harmonious relations between worker and employer, I cannot understand why we are prepared to create an increase in the cost of living for the sake of saving £60 million out of a total budget of £2,500 million. It has been said that there is no shortage of money but there must be a hole in the bucket if £60 million has to be saved in this fashion.

The Labour Party abhor industrial unrest. We favour a just system of industrial relations which would ensure a growing share of national prosperity for workers and their families. By the abolition of wealth tax and the easing of the capital gains tax, Fianna Fáil have clearly indicated their alignment with wealth and privilege. They did not stand idly by on that issue. They have created widespread dissatisfaction and must accept responsibility for it. I support the motion.

Mr. Killeen

When this motion was put down by Deputy Mitchell I was not interested in the wording of it but could see that he wanted to discuss industrial affairs. As one who has a great interest in industrial relations I welcome the motion.

At question time yesterday Deputy Mitchell suggested on a number of occasions that he had the solution to all our problems and that the Minister should consult him. I was conscious of the fact that Deputy Mitchell has a knowledge of industrial relations. During last night's debate I waited for Deputy Mitchell to solve the problems. Lo and behold, what happened? Deputy Mitchell apologised for putting down the motion, as well he might, and went on to talk about a man who paid a lot of money for a famous racehorse. I did not understand the inference but I know that this racehorse went on a go-slow after he had been purchased. It appeared that Deputy Mitchell was asking the Minister why he allowed this horse to adopt this attitude. The peculiar thing about this horse is that a "Piggott" was on his back on a number of occasions. Having looked at the horse, Deputy Mitchell decided it carried a picket instead of a "Piggott" and blamed the Minister for what had happened. He suggested that the man who had purchased the horse had not earned his money——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must interrupt the Deputy. Last night I told Deputy Mitchell that it is not in order to speak in the House about an identifiable person outside.

Mr. Kelly

He had uttered only one sentence when you stopped him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Killeen has not said a sentence yet from which anybody could be identified.

Mr. Killeen

I will close the story about the horse as best I can. Deputy Mitchell insinuated that people like the man with the horse are making millions from policies introduced by Fianna Fáil. That transaction took place in 1977. From June, when Fianna Fáil took office, until December last we sat listening to Deputies opposite telling us that anything that was happening in that period was a result of policies introduced by them when in Opposition. Therefore, Deputy Mitchell was saying that this man had made his money from Coalition, not Fianna Fáil, policies.

Deputy Mitchell told us he had spent the weekend preparing his few words and that he had listed statistics in relation to industrial relations. This is a very serious subject and there is no point in coming to the House on such a subject to bandy figures which cannot stand up to examination. Deputy Mitchell spoke about lost man-hours through strikes and he said the number is now five times that of 1972, since when we had four-and-a-half years of Coalition Government. He should have given us relevant figures, for 1973 when the Coalition took office and for 1976 which was their last year. I will record these figures. In 1973, total man-hours lost through strikes were 206,725; in 1976 the figure was 800,000 and to the end of September 1978, the figure was 399,000. It is fair to estimate that for the whole of 1978 the figure will be in the region of 500,000.

These figures indicate that Deputy Mitchell did not do any research: he came into the House with a few figures, threw them out and got the press to publish them. The Minister went into great detail last night and I will not repeat the figures now. He pointed out that the only Government that has proved capable of controlling this type of situation has been Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Mitchell indicated that lower paid workers are striking because of dissatisfaction at increased social welfare contributions which they have to pay under Fianna Fáil and because of the amount of income tax they have to pay. In the time available I did a bit of research and I found that when we came to office in 1977, the male worker was paying £2.87 for the social welfare stamp. Today he is paying £2.26, a reduction of 61p. In 1977 the female worker was paying £2.80. Today she is paying £2.19. Where did Deputy Mitchell get his figures to prove, as he said, that social welfare contributions are crippling the lower paid workers? Fianna Fáil have always appreciated the desirability of helping lower paid workers and they gave a reduction of £1 to social welfare contributors from the beginning of 1978 and increased this to £1.50 from 1 April. In regard to income tax, the only Minister who ever did anything for the lower paid workers is the present Minister for Finance. A remark made by Deputy Ryan worried me most. He said that during the Coalition's regin the trade union movement had a very good relationship with the Minister for Labour, Deputy O'Leary, but since the changeover the same co-operation has not been there. That inference was made by Deputy Ryan.

He said the trade union movement had promised that co-operation to Deputy O'Leary. I am sure Deputy Corish will acknowledge that it is a serious matter to say that while there was a Labour Minister in power the trade union movement were prepared to co-operate but that that has now gone. I have too much respect for trade unions to accept that. I have been dealing with them for a number of years and have found that their members, from the top down, have been of the highest quality. There have been exceptions but they have been few. I do not accept that the trade union movement would withdraw their co-operation because our Minister for Labour was not a member of the Labour Party. The trade union movement have the interest of their members and the welfare of the country at heart, irrespective of the party in power. They have shown that on a number of occasions.

I made that point to illustrate the need for Members who table Motions similar to that before the House to make positive, concrete statements in support of them rather than bandying figures around without taking into consideration the implications of their actions. Reference has been made to what has taken place since Fianna Fáil were returned to power but I should like to point out that last year's growth rate at 5 per cent was the highest in the EEC. However, according to Opposition speakers, the country was in a chaotic situation in that year; we did not have leadership and workers were doing what they liked. It is expected that we will have a growth rate of the order of 7 per cent this year, which is in line with the Government's target, and will be the highest in the EEC. Coupled with this production in manufacturing industry in the first half of 1978 was 9 per cent higher than for the same period last year. Taking into consideration those facts how can Members of the Opposition say that the country was in a chaotic state last year and in the first half of this year?

Before he tabled a Motion about industrial unrest Deputy Mitchell should have prepared a positive response to such a situation, if it exists. Irrespective of whether these figures go down, as they have between 1973 and 1978, nobody can be satisfied with this type of situation. We are all anxious to improve it and the only way we can do that is to find out what section is causing the problem. I would not point a finger at any section. When people see a picket outside a premises they immediately blame the workers but that is an incorrect assumption because workers or unions are not always at fault. Employers must be looked at. The trade union movement is accepted by all as being an honourable one which has the interest of its members and the country at heart but I would like to see that movement infuse discipline to try to eliminate unofficial strikes.

Official pickets are respected because people know that the trade union movement would not place such a picket on a premises if they were not satisfied that all avenues had been explored to settle the dispute. What concerns me is that with all the excellent machinery for dealing with disputes at the Labour Court we still have many unofficial strikes. I am also concerned that when a dispute is referred to the court in some cases unions, or management, do not accept the ruling. Many people prefer not to pass unofficial pickets and in a lot of cases not only are the workers and the companies concerned affected but the general public are also badly hit. We had an incident recently where one man placed a picket outside a bus depot with the result that the old and those who depend on the bus services were affected. In order to overcome such situations the trade union movement should infuse some discipline into their members.

I should like to make it clear that I am not suggesting that employers are not at fault in all cases. I would not attempt to say which side of industry, workers or employers, bear the biggest portion of the blame for our industrial unrest but in my view many companies have not attached enough importance to the role of the industrial relations officers they employ. For too long workers were treated as numbers, and their grievances were not dealt with. The result was that when workers felt they were being treated like robots they took stern action. Until such time as employers accept that the most important man in their concern is the industrial relations officer the situation will not improve. Companies can have top salesmen, great accountants, brilliant managers and spend a lot of money on advertising but if the industrial relations officer is not competent the whole thing can blow up in a cloud of smoke. We must forget about throwing bricks at one another, making false statements and quoting wrong figures and get down to solving this problem. I could ask the Opposition what they did about this problem when they were in Government for more than four-and-a-half years.

Mr. Kelly

Fianna Fáil abolished the wealth tax and they have threatened to cut food subsidies and to tax children's allowances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have an opportunity to speak in a few minutes. He should allow the Deputy in possession to speak without interruption.

Mr. Kelly

He asked a question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no need for the Deputy to provide the answer.

Mr. Killeen

I am delighted the Deputy spoke. The only thing they can talk about is that we abolished the wealth tax. I ask what did the Coalition Government do during their four-and-a-half years in office to eliminate the industrial unrest that existed then? Apart from the statement that they had great co-operation from the trade union movement because they had a Labour Minister, what else did that Government do?

Mr. Corish

We advanced labour legislation. We had the best record for any Minister for Labour or Minister for Industry and Commerce since the Dáil was established.

Mr. Kelly

Hear, hear.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time of the Deputy in possession is limited. Deputy Kelly should not interrupt.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Did the Chair say the Deputy was limited?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Brien should not come in at this stage.

Mr. Killeen

I am trying to speak to the motion. It deals with industrial unrest and there is no point in talking about anything else. The two previous speakers did not deal with the motion. Certainly they did not deal with industrial unrest.

Mr. Corish

That is a reflection on the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Unfortunately the motion is very wide. It is very hard to control the debate and to keep it on industrial unrest.

Mr. Killeen

If we are serious in our efforts to deal with industrial unrest we must try to find the causes and to rectify them. If we do not do this industrial unrest will continue. The Minister and the Government can be proud of their achievements since they came into office. We would love to have a magic wand that we could wave and have no more official or unofficial strikes. We do not want to take the right to picket from any man. A man has a right to strike officially and to have an official picket. I should like to see the right to place an unofficial picket removed. I call on the trade union movement and the employers to strengthen their position and to try to control the people who are responsible for industrial unrest. If this could be done we would achieve something. If we work together as a unit we can get this country moving again, as the Taoiseach once said.

Mr. Kelly

I should like to begin by giving the Minister a surprise. I should like to endorse some of the things he said yesterday and which some of his colleagues have said in the past weeks and months. In particular, I should like to endorse three themes that have been constantly on the lips of the Minister's colleagues; I will not say on his own lips because he is a rather elusive Minister. He is one of the more rarely seen members of this vibrant team but when he surfaces on this subject I must say he adds to the general orchestra which has had these three themes and I should like to endorse them.

First, I should like to make it clear that this party also deplore the disruptive effect of strikes, particularly those in the public sector, not just on industry but on the lives of ordinary people. Secondly, we agree entirely—and we said ourselves when we had the responsibility of government—that the existence of poor industrial relations situations in the public sector, and to some extent in the private sector, has a very discouraging effect on outside investment. Everything the Minister for industry, Commerce and Energy said here a few days ago I would wish to have endorsed had I been speaking after him instead of before him. Thirdly, I should like to agree with the Minister present here and with his colleagues who said that the degree to which industrial relations here are bad has been somewhat souped up abroad in the private sector at least. I should like to agree with the Minister and his colleagues that it is quite true that the vast majority of private firms here have next to no industrial trouble. Our party would be failing in the duty we see ourselves as having if we did not add our voice to that of the Government in endorsing those three points and in recognising their truth.

At the same time, I have a very easy conscience in supporting this motion, because the paroxysm of industrial unrest that we have seen in the past 12 months is something for which the policies of this Government are squarely to blame. I should like to apologise to Deputy Killeen for interrupting him with some levity. I did not mean to put him out of his stride—and I did not succeed in doing so anyway—but when he asked what the Coalition Government had done in order to avoid this paroxysm of bad industrial relations I replied by pointing out some very conspicuous things which they had done and stuck to. They imposed a wealth tax and stuck to it; they introduced food subsidies and did not threaten to remove them; there was no word about taxing children's allowances. I should like to point out to the House, particularly for the benefit of Deputy Killeen, that there was something more than that.

The previous Government earned the confidence of the trade union movement, not the confidence of every single member, not the blind obedience or loyalty of every single member, but in a general sense they earned, deserved and retained a level of confidence in the trade union movement that ruled out as unlikely, if not impossible, the degree of industrial unrest that we have now come to regard as the normal thing.

This afternoon I got in the post an issue of Liberty, the journal of the largest union—the ITGWU—in the country. It features a depressing cartoon on page 2. It shows the National Wage Agreements on a bonfire, going up in smoke. There are two men in the characteristic caricature of workers silhouetted in the foreground and they were saying about the National Wage Agreements: “They were too restrictive and kept our living standards down”. There are two other men, easily identified as the Taoiseach and an international banker—he appears to have German and Swiss registration marks on his briefcase and he is wearing a tie with an attractive pattern of £s on it—who were linking arms and saying of the National Wage Agreements, “They gave the workers too much money”. I do not attach much importance to a cartoon whether it is in this paper or any other paper; but I want to say this—and I say it with pride because my party suffered because of it and lost seats in some rural constituencies because of it—such a cartoon could not have appeared in the time of the National Coalition Government. For all our mistakes or alleged mistakes, for all our failures and blunders—and they were by no means as many as they were made out to be, as the people will come to see—it was never once said that we were in league with wealth or with power. Nothing more divisive can be said in this country or in any other country. It was because we stuck to our guns, and particularly this party as the former Tánaiste beside me will recognise, because we stood by what the Government had proposed to do when they were first elected that we in Fine Gael lost seats in some rural constituencies from people who saw only the interests of their own tax situation and the interests of their own wealth, and who could not believe that Fine Gael had a conscience which would require them to stand in the middle of the road and try to take both sides with them. If we did not succeed, we did our best.

That cartoon is something of which the Government should be ashamed. It is not an isolated cartoon. It is said every day of the week and not just by communist agitators. No one in this House will accuse me or suspect me of being a communist or having the slightest softness towards that side of political throught. Quite the contrary. But I am glad to belong to a party which, even though many of its supporters are comfortable, are well heeled, are articulate, was willing to go along with the central Government policy which was at least an attempt to achieve justice, at least an attempt to spread the burdens of life, particularly in recession, evenly between various groups of the population, and not to let one group off so that they could come home publicly from the Barbados and the Bahamas saying they were "tax exiles" but were now back because "the lads were back in office".

That is the spectacle we saw here last July 12 months. Is it any surprise that 18 months later we get this kind of response from the biggest union in the country, when we are debating this evening a paroxysm of industrial unrest of a sort never seen here before? I quite understand Deputy Killeen appealing to us here this evening not to fall over ourselves blaming each other, but that is all very fine when Deputy Killeen is sitting on the Government benches. What are we to do? Would he, if he sat over here, have the self command to bottle up the feelings he would experience on seeing the condition into which the social policies of that Government have reduced this country?

I will not go over the ground covered by Deputy Mitchell last night in regard to the detailed facets of Government policy which have produced this situation. I will not thrash it out in the same detail. He mentioned the abolition of the wealth tax. He mentioned the abolition of car tax and the threats we are now hearing to tax children's allowances and to reduce the food subsidies. What can the Government expect except that there will be industrial chaos when this is the face they present? The ordinary working population of the country can read. They have access to television sets. They are well informed. They are not in the dark about what is going on in the world. They are not in the dark about the standards of living of other people. They are not in the dark about the financial ambitions of other people and how these ambitions are realised. They can count. They can size up for themselves what profits are being made by certain sections of the population, and the burdens which they themselves have to carry and how other sections of the population are getting away lightly.

I am not a red revolutionary and the Minister and everybody else in the House knows that, but I believe in the Government being fair to all sides as far as flesh and blood can do it. I believe in the Government imposing burdens and having the guts to do it, but doing it fairly on all sides, and not letting any side get off with the idea that they are something special, that just because they can contribute to an election campaign they should be treated easily. I do not believe in that, and no one in Fine Gael believe in it. I do not care if we lost every seat left to us, I would go down happy if I thought we stuck to the idea of justice and keeping to the centre of the road and dealing fairly with all classes.

This Government are not doing that. They have failed to do it. By a long chalk I do not go along with all the opinions I hear from the Labour Party, and the former Tánaiste knows that, but on the central issues on which we were solidly together in Government, I backed them with my whole heart and still would. This Government have a lot to answer for if their neglect of the policies which the Coalition worked so hard for for four-and-a-half years leaves us with an unmanageable and ungovernable industrial situation.

The first mistake this Government made—and Deputy Mitchell did not advert to this last night—was that in their election manifesto they spoke of tax cuts and promised tax cuts. I quite accept that if you read the manifesto carefully, as not .1 of 1 per cent of the people did, you would see the manifesto was intended as a total package and that one could not necessarily single out one part of it and say: "We insist on that, but we will not go along with anything else". I accept that the manifesto did speak about 5 per cent as being the level at which an acceptable pay increase might be tolerated in the following year. That was in the small print. The big print said nothing about conditionality, nothing about how the benefits, which the newspaper advertisements and the television advertisements were trumpet ing as hard as they could, being dependent on the acceptance of a 5 per cent wage rise and no more.

Not only that, but that fact led to the 5 per cent being regarded not simply as an asking price or a bargaining figure. like the Taoiseach's £650 million in the EMS negotiations, but as a floor from which to negotiate upwards so that the achievement and negotiation of a reasonable pay agreement at a time of sinking inflation was impossible from the outset. It was a dead duck before the ballots had been even counted. The Minister opposite and all his colleagues must know that.

Secondly the phenomenon of wage drift on which we have been getting so many elegant little lectures recently from Professor O'Donoghue and his colleagues was well known before the change of Government. It was well known before the last change of Government too. Anyone in the backup team of any party could have said that, if you achieve a wage rise of 5 per cent on paper, what you will get in reality is 8 or 10 per cent, and anyone could have told him that when you get 8 or 10 per cent on paper what you will end up with is something like 15 per cent.

The seeds of the wage situation were sown back in whatever time it was that the buzzing brain-pan of Senator Ryan and his backroom boys worked out the election programme in April or May of last year. That is when the seeds were sown for the damage in that field as in many other fields. The damage was completed when the Government, naturally and quite predictably, failed to achieve the reasonable wage settlement of 5 per cent they set out to achieve. They failed to do something which the Coalition had succeeded in doing by screwing down the lid on all sides equally in a difficult time of international recession and taking the consequences for it and sticking to our guns. We succeeded as even Professor O'Donoghue has admitted in print in an official publication——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should refer to the Minister.

Mr. Kelly

There has been an inflation in titles. They have all got titles but they are such a mouthful that I would waste half the time for my speech if I were to give them all their full titles.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must keep the record straight.

Mr. Kelly

The Minister for Labour has the shortest title in the House and rightly so perhaps. He has a two-syllable title but it would take half the night to give some of them their full description. When you move to the Minister of State it is completely impossible.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy refers to Ministers the Chair will accept that.

Mr. Kelly

That Minister knew about wage drift and he should have known it must be a dead duck from the moment when 5 per cent appeared in the election manifesto. Now they come whinging about how they are not getting a reasonable wage settlement. It was certain that they would not get one from the moment the manifesto appeared. It is certain that they will not get one next year for the same reason. I hope no one will accuse me of making trouble. I hope the trade union congress will think again about their attitude to a national wage agreement; I would be very sorry if the system were to break down altogether. If it does break down, and if we have seen the last of national wage agreements, I know where to put the blame.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I know where the Deputy would like to put the blame.

Mr. Kelly

It is really amusing to find that the Minister and his colleagues nowadays are so full of calls for restraint and for a bit of discipline. This restraint and discipline apply only to one class of the population, the PAYE earners and the people at the bottom of the barrel. They do not talk about restraint to the people higher up. These calls for restraint, for what they are worth, are now being made quite freely.

This week and last week I got a delicious satisfaction from watching a little exchange between The Irish Times and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley. The Irish Times published an editorial about a week ago in which they called for discipline in economic affairs. They said sardonically that they knew the word “discipline” is poison to Fianna Fáil and would bring shudders to a Fianna Fáil publicity man's mind. The paper did not say this but I say it: Fianna Fáil are a party of balloon-men like people used to see at fairs long ago going around with balloons for the children. That is what they are. They have not produced one single economic idea worth anything since their election. The hopes of the Taoiseach in regard to the EMS were centred—I know he and most of his party are public spirited men—on the £650 million——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have allowed everything on this motion. It is a very wide debate but we will not discuss the EMS. You will have another occasion to discuss it.

Mr. Kelly

I hope I will have it this side of Christmas. The Irish Times said that the word “discipline” was something which was now necessary for the national and political vocabulary. They said that discipline in economic affairs was absolutely vital and that we could not take the soft option any more, and they expected that this call would be poison to Fianna Fáil. Yesterday The Irish Times printed as their first letter a really disarming little piece from the Minister for Finance in which he said that they could not accuse him of not calling for discipline because he is always calling for it. He went on to cite three of his own speeches and one of the Taoiseach in which they are calling for discipline in incomes and restraint in wage increases. He could have quintupled those letters because I know he is always talking about it, as is the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and all the other dignitaries in the Government.

They have all been calling for it since the election; but there was not one word about restraint or a syllable about discipline in the weeks or months leading up to the election. The dates of the speeches on which the Minister wrote to the editor of The Irish Times are all October and November this year. There was not a word about this when they were running for election. It was “all systems go”. It was: “Let it rip, lads, it is only the malice of the Coalition that is keeping you on short commons”. That was the message that went out from the Fianna Fáil Party 18 months ago. It is only now they are beginning to talk about discipline.

That cuts no ice with me and not surprisingly it does not cut any ice with the public either. There is no point in talking about restraint and discipline now. A party which do not say what they stand for when out of office as well as when in power are not worth a curse. If Fianna Fáil had come to the people June 12 months and said that the country had gone through an international recession, and considered that the Coalition had not handled the situation as they might have done, and that they were going to try to do better, that they would have to do some unpleasant things, that they could not make everything easy for everybody overnight and that they were not going to attempt such a thing so the people would not be able to say later that they promised any such thing, they would be entitled to respect and would have taught us all a salutary lesson. Instead they have given us a salutary example in the opposite direction of what a party in a democracy ought to avoid. They have given us an example of the kind of posture which will encourage the very thing they are complaining about.

Deputy Killeen spoke about the necessity for speakers on this side of the House producing a solution. I take it hard at being lectured by a Fianna Fáil Deputy about people on this side of the House pretending to have all the solutions. In the twentieth Dáil there was no more vocal, strident Deputy in this House than the present Minister for Labour, Deputy G. Fitzgerald. He shouted, roared and ranted every day of the week, in and out of season. He trampled on Ministers and on the Chair. He had the answers to everything. He knew it all. There was an even chance any day Deputy Fitzgerald was in this House that when you put your nose in the door the voice you would hear first was his. Now he is a changed man.

I do not want to be taken as making a personal attack on him. Although I have never gone to him for anything, I sense that if I did go to him for help, he would do his best to provide it. I recognise that he is a decent man and I do not want to hurt or offend him, but I want to draw a contrast between the incredible know-all character of that Minister when he was an Opposition Deputy and the shrinking violet personality which he has very wisely taken on since he became Minister. He is hardly to be seen at all. I hope he will not take offence when I say this, but it reminds me of the words spoken by Hamlet on discovering the corpse of Polonius behind the curtain in his mother's bedroom——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Kelly, what has Hamlet to do with the motion? Forget about Hamlet and get back to the motion.

Mr. Kelly

He said:

This counsellor is now most still, most secret and most grave,

That was in life a foolish, prating knave.

There is no stronger contrast in behaviour or demeanour in any man or woman in this House in the twentieth and twenty-first Dáils, than that between Deputy G. Fitzgerald as an Opposition Deputy shouting and roaring, and Deputy Fitzgerald as a Minister who on the rare occasion we see him in the House now, is quietly reading a script. I will take no lecturing in regard to the affairs of the Department of Labour about how we pretend to have all the answers while the man in charge of the Vote is Deputy G. Fitzgerald. If he had been a little more modest when in Opposition I would not have had those words to say.

There is no way of controlling or achieving a balance and stability in industrial relations except by engendering confidence among the people you are dealing with. That confidence was struggled for, and painfully won, by the National Coalition, but a penalty was paid for it, and paid largely by the party to which I belong. Nonetheless that confidence was achieved. It was admitted by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development in black and white in an official publication of the Department of Foreign Affairs that the growth rate and in particular the boom in industrial production and exports, about which Deputy Killeen was boasting, were accounted for very largely by the wage restraint achieved in 1976 and 1977. They were achieved by the sweat and blood of Deputy M. O'Leary and Deputy R. Ryan, and with no thanks to any help from the other side of the House.

I am not going to sketch out for the Government what they should do. All they need do is look into their own hearts, according to the doctrines of their founder, to tell them what the people need. If that confidence is to be re-established, they will have to start looking into their hearts and start adjusting their budgetary programmes and policies in such a way that the confidence, balance and sense that all sections of the community are being required in equal proportion to their ability to carry the national burdens is created. Until that time comes we are going to see more and more industrial unrest. I deplore that.

I started my speech by joining with the Government in deploring it. I agree that to some extent it is exaggerated in the private sector. I also agree that it has a discouraging effect on investment and I back the Government 100 per cent in calling for improvements. But of all sectors in the country, the Deputies who now form the Government party are in the weakest position to do so and carry any moral conviction.

So far as I could see there is no policy on industrial relations emerging from this Government and the people are crying out for such a policy. I believe they would even take something in the nature of legislation. I notice everybody is fighting shy of talking about this. It is like the time when the Coalition were in office and we were being urged by people to realise who was governing the country. We used to see editorials saying "The Government were elected to govern". What they meant was that we should enact a statutory incomes policy, but they did not have the guts to say it. Something of the same kind is surfacing again. The Irish Times of 29 November said:

Corrective or coercive legislation to remedy the situation is useless and dangerous.

I agree with that. It went on:

What we could do with are decent laws which would bind a man, be he employer or be he employee, to a reasonable contract which cannot reasonably be broken.

What about the unreasonable man? What are you going to do with him? If he breaks his contract what will you do? Are you going to say "there is no coercion here so naturally we cannot do anything with you"? If so, what value is the contract. That is the kind of wet comment which will persist from publicists and outside commentators for as long as there is not a Government in the country with a little guts. That is not to be taken as advocating any special kind of legislation, but the Deputy who spoke before me and who had a carefully prepared speech said he believed in outlawing unofficial strikes and unofficial picketting. I believe he was selected to speak as a backbench Deputy and therefore I must assume that before making his speech he consulted the Minister for Labour.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Deputy is entitled to assume that but he may not necessarily be correct.

Mr. Kelly

I would prefer that the Minister would shoot his own tigers and not ask poor Deputy Killeen to do it for him. Deputy Killeen has not been in the House for a wet week yet. I recall that when the Green Paper was debated here the Taoiseach read from a prepared script and one of his statements was that the Opposition were stunned by the novelty of the proposals put forward in the Green Paper. I am tempted to offer £5 to any Deputy who, from memory, can name any new proposal from that publication with the exception of the one relating to work-sharing and which became a national joke within a week. What were the new proposals? In the area we are talking of, there were no proposals and the same applies to other areas with the exception of the one I have mentioned—work-sharing—a suggestion that does not stun me even if it may stun others.

This Government, by their social policies, which Deputy Mitchell has rightly described as divisive, and by their fiscal policies, which are both divisive and anti-social, are almost guaranteeing industrial unrest with all that entails for our industrial production, for our balance of payments and for our future stability. Until the Government show some courage, until they take some les- sons from the book of Deputy Liam Cosgrave or from the book of Deputy Corish and the men who worked with them, they will be in continuing deep trouble.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting this motion. Obviously, then, I reject the amendment. Everybody must know that we have a serious industrial relations problem, although the Minister for Labour would seem to be the odd one out in this regard because at the time of any problem in this area he always seems to be missing. In any event, he appears to do very little in regard to solving the various problems and merely adopts the Pontius Pilate attitude of washing his hands and saying that whatever matter is concerned it is one for the people involved. This attitude does not absolve the Government from taking on themselves the responsibilities of Government. Regardless of where they may try to lay the blame, they cannot shirk that responsibility.

We hear from various Ministers about the irresponsible people who are bringing about a situation of doom in our industrial life and sometimes these Ministers ask why this should be the case. There are a number of reasons and one of them is that the Government built up people's expectations far beyond what was possible. In addition, Fianna Fáil tried to undermine the position of the previous Government and promised before the election to bring about a situation of full employment in which every possible benefit would be bestowed on the people. That was a totally dishonest policy but now they are wondering why the people are so discontented. Our young people in particular have been let down badly. A committee was set up to study the situation in regard to employment opportunities for young people but there the matter rested. I suppose the setting up of a committee is a good way of shelving any issue.

People in the lower income groups have been let down too. Most of them cannot afford cars so they cannot be said to benefit from the car tax remission. These people live mostly in low-rateable accommodation so that there was little if any benefit for them by reason of the removal of rates. But people in the very high income groups have benefited from these changes. Is it any wonder, then, that there is so much discontent? By and large, people are very reasonable. For instance, workers will not go on picket easily. They have no wish to go on strike and do so only when there is no other recourse open to them. It is for the Government to seek solutions to the various problems. They are elected to make the decisions. In the last election they were given a strong mandate. Indeed, one Minister used this situation by way of threatening the Government's 84 seats against anybody who might take industrial action. Would it not be better that the Government used their majority to produce meaningful policies? The amendment to our motion asks the Dáil to support the Government's policy aimed at promoting industrial, economic and social progress. Let us take the question of social progress. There is talk of taxing children's allowances.

Mr. N. Andrews

On a point of order, who is talking of taxing children's allowances?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That talk is coming from the Opposition.

Mr. N. Andrews

They are confusing the issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Brien is in possession.

Mr. Corish

Is that a guarantee that they will not be taxed? Will children's allowances be taxed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corish and Deputy Andrews are not in possession.

Mr. N. Andrews

The people on that side of the House——

A Deputy

Is Martin O'Donoghue

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no such person as Martin O'Donoghue. He is Deputy Martin O'Donoghue, Minister.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am raising the hackles of the Government side and it is worrying them.

Mr. N. Andrews

The Deputy is making a false assumption.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Children's allowances have been mentioned, there is no doubt about that. The removal of food subsidies has been mentioned. Are they going to deny that too? Is this part of the social policy of this Government? Is this why workers should not be discontented? They see this inroad into the social aspect of their way of life. Subsidies on food help them to bid and buy. Children's allowance gives a woman an income. Are we to support these policies? This side of the House will not support them and I believe many Members on that side will not support them when it comes to the reality. People are discontented and not very happy with their way of life and it behoves the Government to examine and ask why this is so.

At the trade union congress conference last year in Cork I asked if national wage agreements have outlived their usefulness. Have they? I believe they have. If the Minister was doing his sums he would see that in reality a large number of people, particularly in the public sector, were falling behind in standards. The figures are there and the sums can be done. The people who are falling behind are to be the scapegoats to be blamed for an ineffective Government. But no, they are standing up to be counted, asking questions and rejecting the national wage agreement because it has run its course. It did serve a very effective purpose, but do not let us adopt a lazy attitude in the belief that because something has worked it is going to continue to work. Why did the Government wait for its collapse? Because they were incapable and had no alternative to offer. That is a pity. The last thing I and anybody on this side of the House want to see is industrial strife; but if the Government have no social conscience and talk about threatening the way of life of people we are going to get unease. Why do this Government not get down to the very fundamental principles of industrial democracy? Are they too much aligned with one section of industry as against the other? I am not accusing them; I am just questioning.

If we are to get this nation on the road to economic recovery that can be done only with a comprehensive policy on industrial relations. The Minister has set up a commission on industrial relations. That is passing the buck. We are long enough talking about industrial relations and industrial democracy to know exactly where we are going and what we want. Surely this is properly set out on the shop floor and you should get it right through industry. You should get harmony and proper consultation within industry so that people are not alienated from one another. They would then realise that they have the same interest, the common bond keeping that industry alive because they have all a stake in it. That is what industrial democracy is about. Putting one or two directors on a board does not satisfy me nor does it satisfy workers. That is only paying lip service to industrial democracy. This question must be re-examined, starting from the shop floor and going right through. The Minister has been in office for well over a year and has made no attempt to do anything except to set up a commission.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude now.

Mr. F. O'Brien

That is not satisfactory. Dust is gathering on commission reports all over the place without any action being taken. This country needs positive action and policy on industrial democracy to see that the worker has his rights, a share of the profits and a share in management. Until that is achieved we will have industrial strife and industrial problems. The Minister may sit there and pontificate and put the onus on this, that or the other. But at the end of the day the onus lies on him, the Minister for Labour, to co-ordinate and develop a proper policy in consultation with the social partners so that we may take our place in Europe as a nation of concern. We are Europeans. The Government have made——

Mr. N. Andrews

Music.

Mr. F. O'Brien

——a horse's collar of it.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 44.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Sile.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, P.J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Noonan, Michael.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• Gallagher, Dennis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Jim.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• O'Connor, Timothy C.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Horgan, John.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lipper, Mick.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Mannion, John M.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, John J.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Creed and Horgan.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.