Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 May 1979

Vol. 313 No. 13

Public Sector Industrial Relations: Motion.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Colley)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the present state of industrial relations in the public sector and supports the Government's efforts to ensure that disputes in this sector are processed in accordance with negotiated and agreed procedures instead of being made the subject of industrial action.

This motion is being moved in response to a strong request by the Opposition for time to debate the question of industrial relations in the public sector.

While there might possibly be room for disagreement on whether this is the most useful time for a debate of this kind given the danger of exacerbating the position in some disputes currently in progress, no one, I think, would question the importance of the subject. Everyone of us is vitally concerned, whether he likes it or not, with the state of industrial relations in the public sector—and that for two main reasons.

First, the public sector provides the majority of those services which are essential to the day-to-day life of the community. Electricity supply, public transport, postal and telephone services, water supply, hospitals and sanitary services spring readily to mind, but there are many others besides these where an interruption of services can bring widespread inconvenience or downright hardship to individual citizens—and particularly to the weakest and most vulnerable groups—apart altogether from the economic damage it inflicts on the community at large.

Second, each one of us is concerned as taxpayer or consumer with the size of the paybill in the public sector for we have to find the money for it either through taxes or through charges. Increases in that paybill have to be paid for by the ordinary citizen and he is, therefore, deeply concerned that increases given should be fully justified. He is entitled to ask for an assurance that this is so particularly when regard is had to the relatively sheltered nature of the greater part of public sector employment.

In our election manifesto we underlined our special concern for the promotion of good industrial relations, not only in the public sector but throughout the economy. We are committed to doing all in our power to bring about harmony and co-operation between workers and their employers. Every step we have taken in the industrial relations area since forming the Government has been directed towards the attainment of these objectives We believe that they are attainable. Indeed we are convinced that the achievement of industrial peace is crucial to the realisation of our main economic targets. In particular the target of full employment within five years will not be capable of being met unless there is a marked improvement in the industrial relations climate.

To anyone who devotes serious consideration to our problems in the industrial relations area, not merely in the public sector but in the private sector as well, it must be clear that the improvement which is required cannot be brought about by Government action alone. The Government are determined, however, for their part to take every possible step, consistent with our commitment to achieving full employment and to bringing the rate of inflation within reasonable bounds, to improve the climate of industrial relations. The national understanding gives the clearest expression to the Government's concern. It also serves to highlight the extent to which the achievement of industrial peace depends upon an unreserved commitment by all parties, the Government, the employers and the trade union movement, to an acceptance of certain essential constraints upon their freedom of action.

I believe that all parties in this House appreciate the importance to the nation of having the national understanding implemented. I believe the entire community share our aspirations for an end to the war of attrition between workers and employers which has gone on for too long in this country. I feel that the message should go forth to the trade union movement and to the employer organisations that this House expects them, in the national interest, in the interest of every section of the community and, in particular, of those who are most deprived and, therefore, most vulnerable to the injury that is inflicted by industrial action on the community as a whole, to accept the national understanding and to give this great experiment in economic and social development a fair trial.

I give this pledge on behalf of the Government. If the national understanding is accepted, the Government will not shirk in any way the obligations which will be imposed on them—and I may say that these obligations are heavy and involve a substantial burden on the Exchequer. In turn the Government will expect the other parties to the understanding to honour their obligations in full.

In the words of the understanding the realisation of the targets for continuing economic growth and social improvement depend on active co-operation and agreement between all sectors of the community. The success of the understanding depends on parallel contributions from all three parties involved. Above all else the understanding recognises that the achievement of the main central objective of economic and social policy, the creation of more employment, requires the contribution and effort of all sections of the community. There is no surer way of putting that objective in jeopardy than for the level of industrial unrest to continue unabated, placing existing jobs at risk and casting a blight over the prospects of creating additional jobs. All parties to the proposed understanding are agreed that priority must be given to the creation and maintenance of employment. In all earnestness I would suggest that, recognising the national importance of the creation of further employment, and the extent to which this may be jeopardised by industrial action, the House should leave no room for doubt in anyone's mind that it expects differences both in public and private sectors to be resolved through negotiation and agreed procedures and without any action which runs counter to the obligations freely assumed under these procedures.

This motion emphasises the importance which we in Government attach to the orderly processing of claims on behalf of groups of workers. I would emphasise further the obligation which must be assumed by both employer and employee interests to agree upon orderly procedures. In the public sector, by and large, such procedures are generally in operation. The basic framework of conciliation and independent adjudication —whether by way of separate arbitration or of recourse to the Labour Court —is available throughout the public sector to almost all groups of employees for the resolution of their grievances about pay. To a greater extent than may apply in the private sector it is accepted by all employer interests in the public sector that the findings resulting from adjudication must be honoured.

While there may be some residual disagreement about matters which may be the subject of adjudication—and I am not averse to the introduction of such further improvements as may be desirable by way of agreement, on the basis of orderly negotiation, with employee interests to meet their reasonable expectations in this area —there is full scope for the settlement under existing procedures of all claims relating to pay and conditions of service.

The use of the strike weapon, or any form of industrial action, in defiance of the agreed procedures is clearly unacceptable. I would expect that point to be endorsed on all sides of this House. I would go further. I feel that where it is clearly understood that the findings resulting from independent adjudication will be accepted, and implemented fully, by the employer side, it is not asking too much of the employee side that they should likewise feel constrained to abide by such findings. That is the only sure way, the only sane way, to industrial peace and harmony. It has been recognised as such in the national understanding in which, as part of the policy on pay, it is laid down that a union is precluded from "taking any form of industrial action in relation to the matters covered except where an employer refuses to act in accordance with the policy". I congratulate the representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and of the employer and industry organisations which subscribed to the draft understanding, on their perception of what is required to bring about the necessary improvement in industrial relations.

This Government's concern to bring about an improvement in industrial relations was evidenced at an early stage when the Minister for Labour announced his intention to set up a Commission on Industrial Relations with the responsibility of carrying out a fundamental review of our system of collective bargaining. The commission was set up in May of last year and has since been engaged, as I understand, in hearing the views of the various interests concerned in the operation of the system. I am hopeful that the product of their investigation will contribute in large measure to the inauguration of a new era in industrial relations in this country, an era which will see a marked reduction in, if not an end to, the dislocation of the economy as a result of industrial action instead of following agreed procedures for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

In my Department's submission to the commission the main stress was placed, and quite rightly so, on procedures for the settlement of disputes, on the need for both employer and employee interests to act strictly in accordance with such agreed procedures, and on the desirability of accepting the outcome of independent adjudication. Where reasonable and equitable procedures have been adopted by agreement there should be no occasion for any action in breach of these procedures. Indeed where such action takes place the question does arise as to whether it should be condoned by the community or by the Government of the day who have the obligation of protecting the community and defending their interests.

The essence of any code of justice is that justice not only be done but be seen to be done. I would hold that whether employers and employees agree upon negotiation procedures it is clearly unjust, and should be recognised to be unjust, to take action contrary to these procedures. There is no room for shilly-shallying in this area. When due provision has been made to protect the interests of employers and employees, the community are entitled to expect that both parties should, in turn, observe these provisions and refrain from action designed to further their separate aims in defiance of these provisions. It must be evident that, for the most part, such action is the outcome of a selfish and selfcentred attitude which places the interest of the party concerned above all other considerations and refuses to accept the need for give-and-take which is essential in these kinds of situations.

What then is the position of industrial relations in the public sector over the past year or two? First to look at the statistics. Strike figures for recent years—to the end December 1978—indicate that about one-quarter of all strikes took place in the public sector. Strikes in the public sector account for roughly one-third of all man-days lost through strikes. These figures are broadly in line with the public sector's share of employees in the labour force. About one in every four persons at work in Ireland works in the public sector and, as there are many persons who are selfemployed, the public sector accounts for about one-third of all employees in the labour force.

In recent years two-thirds of all strikes—both in the public and the private sectors—have been unofficial. In other words, two-thirds of all strikes have occurred in contravention of the rules and regulations which are laid down by each trade union for the orderly conduct of its own business. Many of these strikes have taken place with little or no notice being given to unions, to employers and to the public. The inconvenience, hardship and often financial loss caused, particularly to the poor and the aged, who are usually not in a position to make alternative arrangements, are often out of all proportion to the grievance, whether real or imagined, suffered by the worker or workers involved in the dispute. This has happened despite the fact that procedures are available in every area of the public sector for dealing with grievances and ensuring that justice is done. In these circumstances there is no justification whatsoever for unofficial or wild-cat strikes. Those who engage in this type of action show complete disregard for the welfare of the public at large and damage the solidarity of the trade union movement.

Official strikes generally account for three-quarters of all days lost. They tend to be much longer in duration and involve a far greater number of workers than unofficial strikes. Here again roughly three-quarters of official strikes occur in the private sector and one-quarter in the public sector.

There are, of course, large areas of the public sector in which staff use the procedures available for settling disputes and in which, happily, strikes are virtually unknown. The main areas in which strikes have occurred have been those concerned with the supply of power, transport, communications and local authority services. Because of the very nature of these services any breakdown immediately affects the public. Most of the strikes in the private sector have a much more indirect impact on the public and do not loom large in public consciousness, except when they affect essential public needs such as fuel or banking.

Whatever about the statistics, the fact is that there has, in recent times, been a succession of cases of serious industrial action in the public sector which, if it is not halted, would effectively frustrate our hopes of achieving the targets which the Government have set out for social and economic development.

In any consideration of the public sector it should be borne in mind that most of the public sector organisations which have been seriously affected by strikes are very large employments with a wide geographical spread, requiring an extended range of job skills and employing large numbers of workers in different grades and categories. In many cases they operate on a shift basis providing a broad range of services to the public. Some operate in areas where rapid technological change places new demands on workers and requires a significant degree of re-education and retraining. In these circumstances negotiating procedures in most public sector organisations have to cope with a large volume and a wide range of industrial relations problems. Change inevitably involves discussions between unions and managements and often between unions themselves with a view to reaching mutually satisfactory working arrangements. These discussions can be enormously complicated and, in some cases, completely frustrated when many different unions acting in an uncoordinated manner exist in the employment and when, on occasion, conflicting claims can be presented. Difficulty in reconciling claims does not, of itself, however, excuse recourse to industrial action in breach of agreed procedures. Rather does it point to the need for reviewing the existing machinery for discussion and negotiation on industrial relations problems.

There are a number of features about the major disputes which have taken place in recent years in the public sector and, indeed in the private sector, to which attention should be drawn. Many of the disputes have involved workers whose pay rates and earnings cannot be regarded by any standard as being depressed. Indeed, some of them are generally regarded by other workers as being the wage leaders in their particular skill or discipline. Notwithstanding their present rates they submit claims—often for completely exorbitant increases —and are not prepared to use the agreed machinery to process these claims. Alternatively, when the claims are processed under national agreements to adjudication, they may reject completely the results of that adjudication.

This attitude to agreed procedures shows a complete and savage disregard for the community at large which, in the case of the public sector, is the ultimate employer. It sometimes appears that in these areas a minority of workers have abandoned the traditional trade union approach of presenting and supporting their claims with reasoned arguments and appropriate comparisons in favour of tactics which inflict the maximum amount of damage, suffering and loss on the most vulnerable—and with public services that usually means the poor and the old—resulting often in a clamour for restoration of the services at whatever the cost.

One of the primary objectives of the national agreements which have been negotiated between employers and the trade unions over the past decade has been the achievement of industrial peace. It has been accepted on all sides that industrial peace is essential to economic progress which, in the long term, means more employment and a higher standard of living for everyone in the country. It is a matter for regret that workers and unions in some public sector employments have ignored the agreements which have been negotiated on their behalf and have taken action in breach of these agreements.

I think it is fair to say that there is growing awareness among the public at large of the seriousness of the issues involved and of the dangerous consequences likely to flow from treating agreements in these areas as something that can be ignored and thrown aside whenever a particular party feels it in its immediate interest to do so.

The conciliation and arbitration scheme for the civil service has come in for a certain amount of criticism of late. It is implied that the Government are too concerned with procedures and that if they showed a bit of flexibility there would be no problem. It is even implied that the Government's attitude has contributed to disruption rather than prevented it.

I wish to make the Government's position in this regard quite clear. We have no wish to adhere to procedures merely for the sake of doing so. Neither have we any dogmatic attachment to any one set of procedures as against others for the resolution of claims for improvements in pay and conditions made by civil servants. If it is felt that present procedures need to be changed or modified in any way we will consider any proposals for change with an open mind.

What we are concerned about, however, is that once procedures are agreed in the interests of all, once both sides have committed themselves to them, then they should be honoured. Neither party to the deal should have the liberty to use the system when it suits them and to disregard it when it proves inconvenient.

Problems may be solved in the short term by ad-hoc deviations but in the long run this approach would only lead to instability and chaos. Bearing in mind the large numbers of grades in the service and the wide range of items which are made the subject of claims, an accepted orderly arrangement for the processing of these claims is essential from the point of view of the various interests among the staff, the State as employer, and the public, for the service of whom the staff are employed.

What the Government is determined to ensure, by means of arrangements agreed with the civil service unions, is an orderly pattern of negotiations on claims for improvements in pay and conditions of service in the civil service which, firstly, results in fair and equitable pay determination and, secondly, protects the public from continuous disruption of the essential services which the civil service provides.

The Government consider that the present civil service scheme, which provides for conciliation, mediation and arbitration, meets these needs if it is operated as it should be. Let me repeat again that if the staff want to negotiate changes in an existing scheme or negotiate a different scheme, we will co-operate to the best of our abilities. Meanwhile, however, the existing agreed scheme applies and it is in the interests of all to protect it.

We must not lose sight of the fact that, for more than a quarter of a century in which the scheme has been operating, the record of industrial peace in the civil service, which is the largest and most complex organisation in the State, has been remarkable by any standards. The present postal dispute may obscure that fact so it is no harm to bear in mind that since the scheme came into being thousands of claims have been satisfactorily resolved.

I should like, in the interests of the ordinary citizen, to speak quite bluntly. It seems to me that, in the whole area of industrial relations whether in the public or private sector, serious moral issues arise which are critical to our future development. Are agreements once made to be adhered to or are they to be jettisoned unilaterally when found inconvenient or inhibiting by one of the parties? Though important in every area, this is of particular importance in the public sector where there is a greater concentration of essential services and where, in general, employees have greater security than elsewhere. There is, I would suggest, a major moral obligation on public sector staff to honour agreements made and, once they have peaceful means open to them for processing claims, to refrain from industrial action which, in the nature of the case, depends for its effectiveness not on the financial damage it causes to the employer but on the hardship and disruption it inflicts on the community. In so far as there may be a growing tendency to resort to this kind of action, it is important that it should receive no encouragement from anything said in this House. On the contrary, it should be made clear that such a development would be seen as entirely unacceptable to the House—as it is to the Government.

Having discussed the situation in regard to the conciliation and arbitration scheme in the civil service, I have to confess that there is evidence of a certain lack of acceptance of the scheme in certain quarters at the moment. There are a number of factors that may contribute to this but there is one very important factor that I cannot overlook. I do not raise this matter in a purely partisan spirit but because it is a recognised fact. It is that the previous government, the Coalition, for reasons which seemed quite good to them at the time, imposed an embargo on special increases in the public sector in 1975-76. It could be said, in one sense, that by doing so they placed a time bomb in the industrial relations structure in the public service. This is not just my view on the situation. The fact is that the previous Government, in doing what they did, realised some of the problems that would be created later.

There are memoranda in existence which came before the previous Government in which this very danger is adverted to. One is dated 12 November 1975, another is 9 September 1976 and a third is 26 November 1976. The then Government realised and adverted to the dangers to the whole industrial relations structure in the public service of what they were doing. I am not commenting on the reasons for which they imposed the embargo or whether they were right or wrong. That is past history. I am saying that what was done had, as a consequence, a considerable deleterious effect on the whole industrial relations structure in the public service. I am saying also that this is not something which I am producing out of a hat. It is something which that Government was aware of and adverted to in the memoranda on the dates I mentioned.

I am aware of this trouble. That embargo was lifted and there has been a number of substantial special increases in the public sector since this Government came into office. Perhaps it can be said that the embargo and what went with it was accepted, perhaps reluctantly, at the time because of the economic situation. I am not commenting on the responsibility for the economic situation at the moment but more is clearly expected from this Government and we have done a great deal more. The embargo has been lifted and we have done everything in our power to restore confidence in the procedures of conciliation and arbitration. We cannot remedy overnight the problems which arose over quite a number of years under the previous Government. We have, in our actions and in our whole approach, demonstrated our willingness to meet the problems that are arising and to meet all reasonable claims through agreed procedures. There is no reason on earth why any part of the public sector should have any lack of confidence now in the agreed procedures or in the willingness of the Government to honour all adjudications arrived at through agreed procedures.

It is also relevant, in consideration of the whole public relations scene in the public sector and, to some extent, in the private sector, to bear in mind something that might not be widely known, and that is, that now in many areas, and even in the case of average industrial earnings, they are higher than they are in Britain. The person on average industrial earnings pays considerably less tax than the person in Britain. That is a relevant factor in considering some of the claims which are at present being made.

I also think that we should not allow disputes and the consequences that grow from them to obscure the essential fact that excessive claims, if granted, serve only to divert scarce resources from the fundamental task facing us of creating employment and, in particular, that excessive claims are an attempt by those making them, whether they are aware of it or not, to divert resources from the creation of jobs especially for young people into the pockets of those who have jobs, in many cases secure jobs which by reasonable comparison are not badly paid. This is a fact that we should drive home. We should see some of the claims that are made in perspective and this House should make it clear that it does not and will not condone that kind of approach because if it does we revert to the situation where it is a question of who can exercise most muscle. If we revert to that situation no Government worthy of the name can abdicate its responsibility and if agreed procedures carefully worked out are to be jettisoned the alternatives available are the law of the jungle or control of the whole situation by the Government.

The stance of this party has always been in favour of free collective bargaining and that is still our stance. Similarly, we have always made it clear that we are not prepared to abdicate our responsibility and leave the settlement of the future progress of the country in the hands of those who fortuitously can exercise the greatest degree of industrial muscle.

In conclusion, I ask all Deputies to address themselves to the real issues in this matter. It is not a time for partisan politics. I believe that with patience and a low-key approach on all sides we can foresee a reasonably early end to the labour troubles which are afflicting many parts of the public sector. So much hardship has been caused by these disputes that I am certain that the desirability of trying to solve them by strikes and other forms of industrial action will be reconsidered. If, as I hope, the proposed National Understanding for Economic and Social Development is agreed, I believe it will open up new paths to industrial peace not merely in the public sector but also in the private sector. I am optimistic enough to believe that what we have been experiencing is an exceptional period of industrial unrest and that the signs for the future are more favourable. Whether those signs are ultimately borne out depends to a great degree on public opinion and in particular on its articulation by the public's elected representatives. I urge that nothing should be done or said by any public representative which would give aid or comfort to those who seek, for whatever reason, to jettison agreed procedures in order to push excessive claims with the consequences I have outlined for the future for the young people who have no vote in these matters of the national understanding or of strikes, but whose future is at stake. I suggest that nothing should be said or done to abet people whose actions are, whether they wish it or not, going to produce this kind of result and are in breach of agreed procedures. The key to good industrial relations, the key to the avoidance of damaging disputes is in adhering to agreed procedures.

Mr. J. Ryan

On behalf of my party I move amendment No. 1:

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

"deplores the failure of the Government to implement their promise in the 1977 General Election Manifesto in relation to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to `promote better labour relations which are of vital importance where such a large work force is involved' and Dáil Éireann further deplores the economic and social hardship and dislocation which has been caused to the community at large by this failure of the Government."

At the outset I should like to give an assurance that our contribution while it will be critical of the present state of unrest in the country will be responsible and constructive and I hope it will be accepted as such in an effort to resolve in some way the present serious situation.

The promise I have already outlined of promoting better labour relations in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was made by Fianna Fáil in the 1977 general election. It is another example of the many rash promises which were made, which the Minister for Finance in 1977-78 spent £210 million in paying for, and which have created the ultimate in great expectations. This strategy was used as a vote catcher. The utterances of the Minister for Labour, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on this issue to date are the most ineffective and unhopeful I have heard since I became a member of this House.

It is quite obvious that the Government, through the Department of the Public Service, is substantially responsible for the current state of our industrial relations in the public sector and to some extent in the private sector also. The trade unions in the public sector and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have continually complained of blatant interference by the Department of the Public Service in legitimate negotiations and agreements.

The prime example of the Government's failure in industrial relations is the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The manner in which the Government and particularly the Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs and Labour have treated the union and the workers during this dispute now in its twelfth week is disgraceful and unforgiveable. The Minister has made no effort to resolve it. It is an obvious attempt by the Minister and the Government to break and crush the Post Office Workers' Union.

It must be remembered that the Minister tried the same action with the Irish Post Office Engineering Union last year. During that dispute the Minister showed himself to be completely out of touch with reality. It appears that he was walking around his Department finding subversives in every corner. This is the climate of relations between employees in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the trade unions and the civil service and the Minister. It shows that the Minister is completely out of touch with the legitimate demands of his employees. Since this is the second major dispute in the Post Office in the past year, one must question the competence of the Minister to hold office. It would be in the national interest if the Cabinet were reshuffled and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs relieved of his responsibility for this Department.

Fianna Fáil in their general election manifesto stated that they would promote better labour relations in this Department. On that promise, presumably, they won thousands of votes among those employees: I am certain Fianna Fáil will get their answer on June 7, because fundamentally nothing has changed in the Department since June 1977. The personnel policies and procedures are unaltered and archaic and are based on 19th century attitudes. The Minister and management have consistently refused to engage in meaningful negotiations with any of the civil service trade unions. In the event of the resignation of the present office holder I call on his successor to sit down and talk to the Post Office Workers Union, which has a long and impeccable record as regards industrial relations. When the strike commenced it was reported in one of our national newspapers that this was the first time that the GPO had been closed since 1916. That gives an indication of the record of that union. Will the new Minister instruct his Department to adopt a more flexible attitude and to put an increased percentage offer on the table? If this is not forthcoming I can only conclude that the Government are prepared to do untold damage to our economic prospects in their attempt to smash the unions of the Post Office sector.

In an interview last Sunday with one of the national newspapers the Minister for Finance stated that the main cause of our present problems in the public service was the pay embargo introduced by the former Minister for Finance. The Minister did not refer to the fact that during that period we were suffering from an unprecedented economic recession and major budgetary cash problems. These were the main factors in our having to put a pay embargo on the public sector. The Minister said today that the embargo was lifted, but has it really been lifted? Perhaps in theory it has, but in practice the situation is still the same. The Minister's statement in last Sunday's paper can only be described as hypocritical and insincere.

There have been numerous complaints of industrial relations problems in other areas of the public sector, notably in CIE. The people in Dublin and Cork can confirm this statement having regard to the situation that exists in both cities and the confusion and chaos being caused by the disruption of bus services. I do not blame the CIE workers. Consultations between the management and CIE employees on future prospects of employment have been at a minimum and the Government have no transport policy. In fact in the past two years there was a cutback in the subsidy to CIE and the only recommendation made has been the creation of another working party to look into the affairs of CIE in their efforts to resolve the serious problems confronting them. The Government have refused to tackle the serious traffic problems here by introducing bus lanes and the development of a proper train service. They have refused to finance a rapid transit system. The workers have become frustrated because they see that the plan in the background is to allow a total rundown of CIE services throughout the country. The management in CIE are not entirely blameless either. They recently handed over their bus building programme to Van Hool McArdle and they are now about to surrender their coach building project to a German company. These actions and this policy reflect the Government's total commitment to private enterprise.

Last weekend in Killarney the Taoiseach complained about monopolies and it was quite obvious from his remarks that he intends to break up the public sector and hand it over to private enterprise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from the motion, which deals with industrial relations in the public sector.

Mr. J. Ryan

With due respect——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting into policy matters.

Mr. J. Ryan

I am giving the reasons for——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will give the Deputy all the latitude I can.

Mr. J. Ryan

I am trying to indicate the reasons for the unease in the public sector. The recent demonstrations by the PAYE sector have shocked the Government and employers. They now realise that the workers will no longer accept the sacrifices demanded of them by those who claim to have their interests at heart.

During a Dáil debate last December the Minister for Labour said that it was 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. How can we have industrial peace under a Government which abolished the wealth tax, commenced to abolish the food subsidies and at the stroke of a pen worsened the living standards of the low paid workers and social welfare beneficiaries? The Minister for Labour, speaking on an Opposition motion on industrial peace last December, complained that a disproportionate amount of media coverage was given to the reporting of strikes and industrial conflict, conveying misleading impressions. Since then I found that on 48 occasions headlines were given in our national newspapers to the Taoiseach and many of his Ministers condemning strikes, criticising the trade union movement and the state of our industrial relations.

In looking at our industrial relations problem, national and international reports commented on the calibre and competence of Irish management both in the public and private sectors. A recent NESC report on productivity and management made many important points relating to that issue. They maintained that weakness in management constituted a very significant barrier to improvements in productivity and industrial relations and that there was a gross lack of appreciation of our ability to harness the potential contribution of all staff to ensure improved productivity. In considering this problem the Government should look at the weaknesses in our managerial system. We must do away with the outdated concept of management prerogatives. We must condemn the lack of consultation with and participation of workers in the public and private sectors. We must condemn the fact that there is no discussion between employers and unions on forward planning and job security. Our first major concern should be the prevention of avoidable disputes, while, at the same time, accepting that there will continue to be inevitable areas of conflict. The Minister for Labour recognised this fact when, in May 1978, in his speech at the inaugural meeting of the Commission on Industrial Relations he stated:

In the frustration which conflict situations tend to generate, people are tempted to look to the Government for action.

It is as if the Government can legislate for industrial peace but if this were so would that not have been done long ago? Unfortunately, experience has shown that repressive legislation cannot attain industrial peace.

In considering the reform of our industrial relations system in the public and private sectors we should look at it under a number of headings. First, the prevention of unnecessary conflict which could be achieved by greater understanding and discussion between workers and management to avoid confrontation. Secondly, the speedy resolution of such problems. This would require a better arbitration and conciliation system and greater emphasis on personnel activity generally. Thirdly, follow-up action. In my opinion this means having a system that will ensure that the causes of conflict are eradicated and steps taken to avoid repetition of such conflict.

In a debate such as this we should try to be constructive and that is why I am making the following suggestion to the Government and especially to the Ministers concerned. First, in the interest of good industrial relations in the public sector the Rights Commissioner services should be available to all staff. All of them do not at the moment enjoy that protection. Secondly, the Minister must recognise the fact that staff representations have a key and vital role to play in the industrial relations area. In 1971 our Government voted at a meeting of the International Labour Organisation for the adoption of Convention No. 135 which recognised and accepted the importance of the role of employees in the public sector. This convention has yet to be ratified and implemented by our Government. Surely this is an area where they can show a genuine concern by ratifying the convention without further delay.

As I have said already, if the Government are not prepared to develop the public sector and if they are genuinely not prepared to lift the pay embargo and recognise the legitimate rights and aspirations of the trade union movement, then I am afraid there will be no end to our industrial relations problems in that area in the near future.

Mr. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 2:

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

"(i) expresses deep concern with the atmosphere created within the public sector as a result of Government mishandling of its own labour relations;

(ii) deplores the resulting disastrous economic and social consequences; and (iii) without causing further undue delay calls for a 6 month truce in all public sector disputes to allow time for negotiation on all the issues in a new atmosphere of industrial peace."

It is about time this House had an opportunity to discuss the issue that is the most harassing one of the day and which has been the most harassing in the past few months. For six weeks in succession, as principal Opposition spokesman on Labour, I sought to bring to the floor of this House the subject of industrial turmoil. I was not successful and because of my frustration in the matter I ended up by being suspended last week. I am back today, not bitter but unrepentant, having at least forced the Government to concede parliamentary time to discuss what for many people is the primary issue of the day.

I read the Tánaiste's contribution and I listened more intently to his ad lib comments to which I shall refer later. What the Tánaiste had to give the House today was a most depressing contribution, utterly devoid of any message, any gleam of hope for our beleaguered people. The Tánaiste's contribution was low key and low level. On this May morning the phrase, “low standards in high places” takes on a new meaning. It is our intention, as it has been our practice, to be constructive. What this country wants to see and hear are solutions, but real solutions to any problem will never be found until its true cause, nature and extent are identified.

In the case of Ireland's industrial relations problems there are several causes but in my opinion one of them stands above all the rest, namely, the Government. A fair measure of this is how many people believe that if those of us consigned, temporarily I hope, to these Opposition benches were again in charge of the nation's affairs there would be fewer strikes. The great majority of people would accept that the National Coalition would better handle the strikes problem in the future, as they did in the past.

If Fianna Fáil have one blind spot worse than the others it is their blind ignorance of workers' attitudes, perceptions and needs. Otherwise they would never have fought any election on a programme of unabashed Toryism which triggered off great expectations, on the one hand, and envy among workers, on the other hand. This is not the first time I have said that, both inside and outside this House. Sometimes I have been reported and sometimes I have not been reported. The manifesto triggered off euphoric expectations that had no chance of being met. It triggered off expectations that all could be provided and nothing would have to be paid for. We are now reaping the harvest of total irresponsibility. We are reaping the harvest of a party that for the first time in Irish history fought an election totally on policies that would do Mrs. Thatcher proud.

The Government have never understood and do not yet understand how much they have alienated the work force as a whole by pursuing policies, as Deputy Ryan said, that favour the rich and discriminate against the poor. Last week's headlines from the IMI Conference in Killarney proclaimed, "We have never had it so good", quoting a contribution of one of our leading millionaires. The headlines were right: they have never had it so good. That is the way the workers see it. The rich have never had it so good and the workers feel that for a long time they have never had it so bad. The present malaise is a result of Government policies about which I have spoken many times in the past 23 months. There in a nutshell is our major problem: the Government are being seen as disinterested in social justice. As Deputy Garret FitzGerald said at the Fine Gael Ard Fhéis, social justice has been suspended.

The Fianna Fáil manifesto triggered off great expectations and great envy. The expectations have been diminished since then but the envy has increased. I deliberately use the word "envy" because that is how the workers see it. The rich are doing well at their expense. We in Fine Gael see it as social injustice. Is it not unjust that at least one-third of each wage increase a worker gets goes back in tax while thousands of pounds are free of tax for the wealthy. This is being done by Fianna Fáil by way of incentive. They believe incentive is solely the perquisite of the rich. Incentive is a human need and it should apply equally to workers and the rich. I hope Fianna Fáil will listen and learn.

I make these points to highlight my contention that under a National Coalition Government things would not have come to the present state of impasse. We had a Government of social justice and they were seen to be such. They had sympathy with the workers' difficulties and needs. But there are other differences between the two Governments. It is fair to say that Deputy O'Leary as Minister for Labour was probably the most energetic and successful holder of that office since it was set up 12 years ago. I hope I am not being unfair to the present Minister when I suggest that—I will not say "worst"—he is the Minister for Labour with the lowest profile since Dr. Hillery was appointed in 1967. As his opposite number here, I know that much of the work in regard to national wage negotiations has been taken away from his Department and given to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. The Minister for Labour has not any role in public sector disputes. The re-arranging of responsibility within the Government has meant that the Minister for Labour, good, bad or indifferent though he may be as a person, has been robbed of any influence in the area in which he is supposed to be in control. That is in stark contrast to the position in the Coalition Government when the Minister for Labour was a man and in control of industrial relations.

I have spoken about the relative social justice existing in this Government, in the previous Government and which will exist in the Government to follow, and I referred to the Coalition Minister for Labour and the present Minister. I should like now to refer to the national pay deal, of which we as a party are strongly in favour and which we support. I would remind the House that Fianna Fáil have a propensity for using pay deals as part of election packages and not as economic strategy. I was not very old at the time, but I remember the famous 12 per cent increase announced by the late Deputy Seán Lemass when a by-election was pending in MidCork——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Wrong location.

Mr. Mitchell

It was in Cork anyway. I attribute the beginning of the inflationary spiral to that increase. It was a big price to pay for winning an election. It is dangerous for a political party to use national pay deals as an electoral tactic instead of as part of economic strategy. From the point of view of workers, Fianna Fáil are a bad party, and from the point of view of labour relations they are a bad joke. They will be cast aside, but unfortunately not yet. Meanwhile, our people cannot wait for a general election to get industrial peace.

Our people are strike weary—they are sick and tired of strikes. They do not care at this stage how strikes are fixed; they just want them fixed. Therefore, I solemnly propose a six-month truce in all public sector disputes. Fine Gael want all public sector employees voluntarily to suspend their right to strike for six months on the understanding that all current major outstanding disputes, including possible changes in the conciliation and arbitration machinery, will be negotiated by the Government in a positive manner and in an atmosphere of industrial peace and that during the delays involved there will not be loss of retrospection.

As I have said, the people are strike weary. They crave for the post to operate again, for the telephones to ring again, for buses to run again and to run consistently, for garbage to be collected and for the streets to be cleaned. Our request for six months may appear to be asking too much of one side and too little of the other side, the Government. It may be interpreted as merely putting on the long finger issues which have been for too long simmering away and which will boil over where they have not already done so. We want the Government to take labour problems off the boil. That will involve them in making a very definite declaration of intent to pursue peace and social justice in their own house by negotiating positively all the issues, by reviewing their own structure and lack-lustre performance and by making a commitment that, whatever the result of the negotiations or arbitration, the claims will be met retrospectively now as they have not been in the past.

This debate is about labour relations in the public sector. That sector is sometimes not very clearly defined and sometimes confused with the public service, which is part of it. The public sector has three distinct areas; they are the public or civil service, the local authorities and the semi-State bodies. These three areas, while distinct, have two things in common. Firstly, they have worsening industrial relations, secondly, they have the Minister for Finance as their ultimate paymaster. I make the point in passing, and will return to it later, that in the past year or 18 months industrial relations in the local authorities have deteriorated rapidly. This is not unconnected with the fact that in the past year the Minister for Finance became their paymaster, which previously he had not been. In the fact that the two common strands that I have referred to are intertwined lies the first identifiable major problem. Ultimate responsibility for the Government's own personnel function is vested in the Minister for the Public Service, whose principal job ought to be to maintain labour peace and morale in the public service and other areas of his responsibility.

Very unfortunately, a practice—I think this goes back to the Devlin report—has grown up between this Government and the previous one whereby we have what I would call an unblessed trinity. We have one man for two jobs, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service at the same time. Therefore, when Government representatives arrive at a meeting of a departmental council, a general council for concilitation and arbitration or the arbitration board, they appear dressed up as representatives of the Minister for the Public Service, while in the dark recesses of their souls they are but representatives of the Minister for Finance. There is a very vital difference. A Minister for Finance naturally will always be concerned first and foremost with what it is going to cost and what it costs immediately. His emphasis will be less on the justice of the claim and more on its implications. His preoccupation with immediate budgetary considerations does not allow him to take a more long-term view of the benefits on morale and consequently on productivity. His preoccupation with finance does not allow him to see these benefits. The Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde role of a Minister holding the two posts does not allow him readily to concede just claims which if conceded generously would create better relationships, better atmosphere and better morale in the public service and consequently much better service to the public and improved productivity. That is a very fundamental problem.

The Minister, after his introductory speech, ad libbed on the embargo imposed by his predecessor as Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Service. Of course the Minister has a point which, indeed, underlies the one I am now making. The one man should not hold simultaneously the posts of Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Service, because the considerations of finance will always supersede the considerations of the public service. The Taoiseach could make a significant contribution to peace in the public service by taking an early opportunity of reshuffling his Cabinet—he may have that opportunity very soon, and if he has not he should create it—and appoint a separate Minister for the Public Service. That would be a very meaningful step in the right direction.

On the Minister ad-libbing, I want to deal with another point that he made. He said that the average industrial earnings in Ireland are now higher than in Britain. We all know that that is so, but it seems that the Minister was seeking to imply something that is totally untrue. I hope that the reporters in the press gallery who have the job of reporting the proceedings of this House are wise enough not to have taken the inference which I believe the Minister deliberately intended. Whilst talking about average industrial earnings in Ireland being greater than in Britain, he seemed to imply that average public service salaries in this country were higher than in Britain. That is not true. In the document which the Taoiseach conceded in a recent statement was well researched, that is the Fine Gael document on Northern Ireland, it is shown that one of the principal differences in the standard of living between North and South is the difference in the public service. Public servants in the Republic are paid much less than are their counterparts in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. I hope I get that message across. I am glad that the Minister gave me the opportunity to raise this fact because I want to make the point that public servants see that while our industrial workers are paid more than those in Britain, they themselves are paid much less than are their counterparts in Britain. The Minister for the Public Service will merely lower further the morale of his own servants and add to the enormous morale problems in our public sector.

It gives rise to the point also that if one pays one's servants peanuts one cannot blame them if sometimes they act like monkeys. I say that without wishing in any way to reflect on our public servants whom we all value. But if you pay them peanuts, inevitably some of them will behave in a way seeming to be less responsible than might be expected. I get the impression that the Minister for Finance was trying to convery that our public servants were paid better than those in Britain. Everybody should know that that is not alone untrue but that our public servants are paid a great deal less.

I shall continue to deal with the Minister's ad libs. He said also that about one-third of our man-days lost this year was due to strikes in the public sector. The Minister for Labour told me that the figure was 36 per cent. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, a few weeks prior to that, said in a debate here—which made headlines in The Irish Times the following day—that 80 per cent of our industrial relations problem was in the public sector. My feeling is that it is not that high. Thirty-six per cent may represent the figure of man-days lost last year. We are all aware that, almost by definition, when the public utilities go on strike it causes so much more hardship on the public than do strikes in private enterprise. Thirty-six per cent may represent the figure for man-days lost last year. But we can adduce already that the figure for this year will be considerably higher than that and we are, as yet, four months and one week only into the year. It is true to say that already there have been more man-days lost in the public sector this year than for the whole of last year.

If the Government do not do something we are in for a boom year in man-days lost in the public sector. This year's figures could be as high as 60 per cent. Indeed if present trends continue—and we pray and hope that they will not for much longer—then we would be talking this year about something like 75 per cent of man-days lost in the public sector. Given that public sector strikes cause much more inconvenience and hardship to the public and the economy we are into a very serious situation indeed. Of course, this will not be news to the public at large who have had to endure and suffer these strikes.

I might refer to one change I urgently and seriously propose to the Taoiseach, that is, to divorce once and for all the post of Minister for Finance from that of Minister for the Public Service. I honestly believe that that would significantly improve the situation. It might not tell immediately but it would in due course. Then we would have a Minister, as Minister for the Public Service only, who would want to achieve primarily justice, peace, stability, morale and productivity in the public service and whose main preoccupation would not be with cost. That is my first proposal which would cost the Government very little but could reap great rewards.

My second proposal is this: too many claims that go through departmental councils, or more commonly, the general council for conciliation and arbitration, are forced into the queue of arbitration. If there was a separate Minister for the Public Service I believe this position would improve significantly. Also, if a slightly more generous approach was adopted at conciliation level then a lot of claims would never have to go to arbitration, could be dealt with at conciliation level, thereby reducing that queue and the delays which cause so much frustration and, finally, the explosions we all must endure so frequently. More conciliation would reduce the queues of arbitration.

I shall make another point in relation to arbitration: let us have at least a full-time arbitrator or several part-time arbitrators. Without in any way reflecting on Mr. Rory O'Hanlon, the Chairman of the Arbitration Board, an eminent Senior Counsel—I understand he is also a member of the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board and a member of the Devlin Review Group—it is manifestly clear that we need a full-time, independent, arbitrator so that we can drastically reduce the terrible delays to which public service claims are subjected. Indeed, a very significant factor in the Post Office dispute—to which I am not referring deliberately because my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, who is Shadow Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, will be dealing with it at length later—is that the union will not accept independent arbitration. The last time they accepted it they got their fingers burned, when the arbitrator said: all right, your claim is justified; you have waited eight years but we cannot pay you back money. That is a significant contributory factor to today's Post Office strike. An independent arbitrator is not acceptable because the delays involved are so great. Then, when he makes his recommendation, there is no guarantee of retrospection. Therefore I call for a full-time, independent arbitrator and a guarantee that, once claims get onto that arbitration queue, they will be dealt with in a reasonable period of time, say, three to six months and not three years, six years or even ten years. Those are significant improvements the Government could implement, at very little cost, to remedy the dreadful situation obtaining in the public service.

When problems arise in industrial relations there are two bodies the public at large tend to blame. The Government are blamed for everything; they can even be blamed for the weather. I have said my piece already about the Government; they are not the only people to blame. The unions are blamed also by the public at large. When a strike takes place in the Post Office, or anywhere else, whether it be official or unofficial, how often do we hear it said: "Ah, the unions". I am glad that the Minister made some reference to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I have said before in this House that, as a nation, we have been greatly served over the years by the combined leadership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I have said before also, and I repeat, that very few vested interest lobbies have shown the responsibility they have or their practical patriotism. Despite the popular misconception, the problem is not that the unions are too strong but that they are too weak. Over the years, when national pay agreements have been rejected, Congress have found ways and means of getting into a renegotiation situation and of having claims accepted. Despite the electoral aspects of the present settlement I wish it well and hope it is accepted because overall it would be better than any alternative.

Congress has gone against the votes of its membership who rejected national pay agreements by getting involved in renegotiation year after year and, eventually, got terms which were accepted. Congress have shown the height of responsibility, of leadership and of practical patriotism. Their problem is not that they are too strong but that they are too weak. Such is the state of indiscipline here of trade union law—they may not agree with me on that—that they do not have the power or the strength to see to it that if they reach a composite agreement on behalf of the trade union movement in a democratic fashion that each of Congress's component parts lives up to the agreement reached. In the last six months we have had flouting of the national wage agreement by a number of unions and, I must concede, in the case of the Post Office workers that is also a factor. I agree that we must deprecate that. If we are worth anything we must be worth our word. If we agree to something we must keep that agreement. However, Congress is not strong enough. The mass of unions together are not strong enough to control the dissidents, or opportunists within their ranks.

Many things can be done to improve the situation. The very valuable national service which leaders of Congress give by spending many hours discussing economic and social problems with Ministers, negotiating pay deals, acting as board members of AnCO, the ESRI, being on the Employer-Labour Conference and acting on various committees is not recognised. While those representatives are away from their offices on that service there is nobody back at the ranch maintaining the level of services and answering the telephone. At small cost to the Exchequer we could put that right by paying a certain amount of money to the unions to compensate for the absence of those union leaders. We should see to it that those leaders have competent deputies at their offices to deal with any problems that may arise in their absence. While the unions may not agree with me, I believe that the level of services can be a problem. The lack of a speedy response to the cribs or complaints of their members can cause a sense of frustration. If there is a speedy response strikes can be avoided and it would be possible to give such a response if out of State funds the unions were in a position to employ more staff.

We should also provide funds for more training of trade union officials. There is a need for a lot more aid than the £350,000 we are providing at present. My proposition is that there should be a six-month cease-fire in the public sector which includes local authorities and semi-State bodies so that the Government can have an opportunity of considering the appointment of a separate Minister for the Public Service, a more generous approach to conciliation, the appointment of a full-time independent arbitrator or, second best, several part-time arbitrators. The Government should be given time to consider other changes in the conciliation and arbitration machinery. If the first rule of conciliation and arbitration was observed constantly we would have less problems. I should like to quote that rule:

1. The purpose of this scheme of conciliation and arbitration is to provide means acceptable both to the State and to its employees for dealing with claims and proposals relating to the conditions of service of civil servants and to secure the fullest co-operation between the State, as employer, and civil servants, as employees, for the better discharge of public business.

I do not care who is in breach of that machinery. In my view they are all in breach. The present situation is not living up to that first rule in the terms of reference.

I urge the Government to take immediate action along the lines I have proposed. I deliberately avoided going into detail about the individual strikes because that will be dealt with by Deputy O'Donnell. I am glad that the CIE strike has been settled and I hope the buses will return to full service a lot sooner than three weeks. The Minister for Transport and Tourism should see to it that it does not take three weeks to get them back on the roads. I appeal to the Government to reverse their policies of injustice and see that economic progress cannot be achieved in isolation from social justice. For God's sake, they should come out of their bunker and move one inch. They should try to bring to an end the present postal dispute which affects and torments all our people.

Minister for Tourism and Transport and Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Faulkner)

I do not propose to reply in any detail to what Deputy John Ryan had to say about my ability as Minister and about my attitude towards workers and unions. I will simply suggest to the Deputy that he consult with the ICTU about my activities during the periods of the various industrial problems in the Post Office and about my concern for good industrial relations. Deputy Mitchell indicated at the beginning of his speech that he proposed to be constructive. Consequently I had hoped that for once we would have had some slight effort to examine the basic problems facing us in the Post Office dispute, that perhaps we would be offered even a shadow of a solution, but this has not been the case.

As the Tánaiste said, the basic cause of most of the unrest in the public sector industrial relations field in recent times goes back to the embargo on special claims imposed by the previous Government in 1975. All the public service unions were perturbed by that embargo which has resulted in public servants generally believing their pay to have fallen behind the pay of those in comparable employment outside. Because of this we have had a variety of catchingup claims on behalf of those workers. Recent offers and settlements in respect of these claims have been in the region generally of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent.

Members of the POWU are in much the same position as are other public employees in respect of pay developments in recent years. Therefore, one must ask why the union considered the calling out of their 13,000 members to be justified in circumstances in which substantial offers on their claims—offers averaging more than 9 per cent—have been made. It must be emphasised that these offers were well in line with settlements in other cases. The claims in support of which the strike is taking place range from 31 per cent to 51 per cent and were stated specifically to be based on loss of relativity with comparable workers. Yet the general level of loss of relativity has been taken to be in the region of 8 per cent to 9 per cent. Some of the POWU grades have very close pay relationships with other civil service grades.

I would stress the context in which the strike action was taken. Claims for unspecified pay increases were submitted by the union by way of the Civil Service Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme in June 1978. The claims involved the five main staff grades represented by the union. These were the grades of post office clerk, postal sorter, postman, night telephonist and telephonist. More than 11,000 staff members were concerned directly with the claims and many more would be concerned indirectly. When submitted first the claims were in general terms. The actual increase claims were not specified then but at the end of September 1978 the amounts were specified. The claims were discussed with the union at the Post Office Departmental Council level on 12 occasions from the end of September to mid-February. Four separate offers were made. The strike began on 19 February, only days after an improved offer had been made and while negotiations were still in progress.

I wish Deputies to be clear that what were involved were major claims both in themselves and in their implications for public sector pay generally. A pay increase of 1 per cent to the grades concerned directly costs about £300,000 to which must be added a further £100,000 for consequential claims which would follow from other linked grades within the Department. The offers which the Department have made on the claims would cost almost £4 million per year and would in themselves inevitably involve increases in Post Office charges generally.

I have said already, but I wish to emphasise it, that I would have no hesitation in asking the public to pay by way of higher charges the cost of any justifiable increase. Pay increases which cannot be justified on grounds of relativity or productivity are in an entirely different category. Increases of that kind are widely inflationary in fuelling claims and expectations throughout employment generally. There can be no doubt but that any unjustified increase would very quickly be carried into all areas of the public sector employment and into the private sector also. In the civil service alone a 1 per cent increase in pay costs about £4 million. If that were to be extended to the wider sector the cost involved would be £11 million. The difference between the Department's offer of 9 per cent and the unions average claim of 37 per cent extended throughout the public sector would cost, therefore, a staggering £300 million. Even a fraction of that is staggering in terms of our resources. I am sure that both Deputies and the public will realise from these figures the extent of the adverse consequences that would flow from conceding increases beyond those which can be justified in terms of the normal relativity and productivity criteria.

This strike, as is well known, is in breach of the Civil Service Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme, which is an agreement between the Minister for the Public Service and all the unions in the civil service and which is designed specifically for settling disagreements regarding pay and other matters. The strike is in breach also of the national agreement and has been found to be so by the Employer-Labour Conference. That agreement provides that trade unions undertake not to enter into a strike or to promote or encourage any other form of industrial action that would be contrary to the terms of the agreement and calculated to bring pressure on an employer to concede an increase in pay in excess of the amounts set out in the agreement. The agreement provides further that industrial peace shall be maintained, that none of the parties concerned shall take any form of industrial or unilateral action and that matters at issue shall, where conciliation and arbitration schemes operate in the public service, be referred for processing in accordance with the terms of the relevant scheme.

As Deputies are aware, the ICTU have taken a very serious view of the breach of the national agreement by a union who were a party to that agreement. All the staff on strike have received the pay increases provided for in the national agreement and would of course benefit also from increases provided for in the current national understanding.

I have been criticised in a number of quarters for asking that these claims be processed in accordance with agreements. I would expect such irresponsible criticism from some people, mainly those who are not in a good position to appreciate the consequences. I should add, however, that I would expect equally a more sensible and responsible attitude from others who know only too well the consequences of what they urge so lightly. I have referred already to these consequences. I am being urged by, among others, ex-Ministers, who when they were in Government similarly insisted on the observance of these agreements. I recognise that there is a grave temptation in the face of pressures caused by an individual dispute to say "Let us ignore our agreements on this occasion, overcome the immediate problem and let the future take care of itself". Such a course would not be in the interest of the public or, indeed, of the staff and that must be my primary concern. We should not delude ourselves that the future takes care of itself.

I have said on a number of occasions that industrial relations cannot operate in a vacuum and that ordinary negotiating structures are necessary. To demonstrate what I mean I should like Deputies to visualise what would happen if I were to throw overboard in this case the conciliation and arbitration scheme and attempt to negotiate outside the scheme while strike action was being taken. Apparently, that is what the unions and certain opposition Deputies are demanding. In the first place there would not be ground rules. Presumably I would offer £x and the union would demand £y. What would happen then? There would not be any commitment to realistic evidence and responsible argument and no agreement to have the differences resolved by independent and impartial adjudication.

Deputies might ask themselves how a settlement would be reached in that sort of situation. The conciliation and arbitration scheme would not simply be dented if I were to do that. It would be irretrievably lost, not only for the Post Office Workers' Union but for all the other unions as well. If industrial action in the civil service rather than orderly conciliation and arbitration processes is to be accepted as the norm, let us be clear as to the consequences.

Practically every group within the civil service is in a position to take action which could inconvenience the public seriously. With the public I include other groups in the civil service. If ordinary structures are abandoned, it is too much to expect that the other groups could refrain from using their industrial muscle in support of pay claims. Indeed, every staff group would tend to be pushed into adopting militant methods in order to maintain their positions. The end result would be continuing disruption, enduring staff discontent and public disaffection with the civil service, and with the State as a provider of services, in other words, a condition of anarchy in which no one, least of all civil servants, would benefit.

Neither the Government nor myself have any desire to underpay Post Office employees. Indeed, quite the contrary is the case. The present claims are based primarily on grounds of comparability and relativity. In the course of his speech Deputy Mitchell suggested that workers in the public service here were paid much less than in Britain. I am absolutely amazed that he should make that type of statement without first investigating it and finding out what the facts are. While I had the facts I had no intention of making them available in this House, because I do not believe in a comparative situation with Britain in regard to what our public employees should be paid. He has forced me into giving the facts because of the emphasis he placed on his statement.

I will give a couple of examples of the actual situation. The present pay at maximum of a postman in the British Post Office and in Northern Ireland is £56.38. The present pay at maximum of a postman in the Irish Post Office is £63.99. I will take one other example. The present pay at maximum of a postal officer in the British Post Office and in Northern Ireland is £69.47. The present pay at maximum in the Irish Post Office of a clerk is £82.20. Deputies can see that the current pay rates of the grades concerned here are substantially above the rates paid to the same grades in Northern Ireland and in Britain. I regret having had to make that comparison but, having listened to the Deputy, I felt it necessary to give the facts.

As Minister I recognise that I have a special responsibility to the staff of the Department to see that they are treated equitably. For that reason I have undertaken in advance to accept the results of arbitration on the current Post Office Workers' Union claims and to ask the public to bear the cost. The Government have wider responsibilities too. The Government have a responsibility to Post Office users to ensure the charges they pay are reasonable in relation to the services provided. The Government have a responsibility to the taxpayers who, in the last analysis, must foot the bill for public expenditure.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been involved in efforts to find a basis for a resumption of work satisfactory to both parties. I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the efforts of the Congress representatives. After discussions, Congress issued a set of recommendations which provide for normal work to be resumed and for negotiations on the union's claims to be restarted straight away. The negotiations are to be concluded within a period of two months. They are to be conducted, if the union so wish, under the chairmanship of an independent mediator.

The recommendations provide for independent arbitration under the arbitration and conciliation scheme, or independent productivity assessment under the National Agreement if agreement is not reached. The specialist advisory services of Congress would help the union in documenting and arguing their claims. Congress further recommended that negotiations on certain other claims should also be concluded within two months. These claims are for increased service pay, for shift allowances to compensate for unsocial work and for the implementation of equal pay for telephonists, on all of which the Department have indicated that they are prepared to make substantial offers.

These offers will mean significant additional money for many of the staff on strike over and above what has been offered on the main pay claims. For example, many telephonists will benefit substantially in current pay from obtaining equal pay with night telephonists and they will also receive considerable payments by way of retrospection.

Perhaps I should say in passing that I accepted the granting of equal pay to telephonists while this strike was in progress, although I was under no obligation to do so and could have appealed the matter to the Labour Court. This is a good indication of the goodwill I have shown towards the union and the staff they represent.

In their recommendations Congress also propose that, when work is resumed, I should meet the union executive to hear their grievances at first hand. I regard the Congress recommendations as being reasonable. While they impose very stringent deadlines on the Department's treatment of quite extensive and complex claims, I am more than anxious to help the union executive out of a difficult situation and to facilitate them in getting back to the negotiating table. Because of this, I accepted the Congress recommendations even though, as I said, they imposed very stringent conditions on my Department.

I do not have to say it takes the two parties to a dispute to bring about a resumption of work. As I have explained, there was no reason, so far as my Department were concerned, why strike action should have been taken in the first place, because the Department did not break off negotiations. Equally, so far as the Department are concerned, there is no reason why the strike has continued. As I have said on many occasions, the Department are ready and willing to resume negotiations.

I have referred to the initiative by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The Congress recommendations are comprehensive and provide the union with assurances on the treatment of their claims and on the support of Congress in the processing of their claims. I presume Opposition Deputies are not suggesting that Congress are an unsuitable body to mediate in this matter, or that Congress would be likely to make recommendations which would be injurious to the union's interests.

Throughout the dispute I have been saying the Department are prepared for further conciliation discussions, prepared to agree to independent assessment, and prepared to undertake in advance to implement the results of independent assessment. In other words, no doors have been closed to the union. I think this will have demonstrated to the House that, throughout this dispute, I have endeavoured to be fair and reasonable. The only stipulation I have made is that the Department should not be expected to breach the national agreement or the conciliation and arbitration scheme. If the Deputies opposite consider that these agreements, to which all the civil service unions are a party, should be thrown overboard, then they should come out and clearly say so and let them say, also, what they would substitute for orderly negotiations. If the Deputies opposite consider that strike action, rather than the honouring of negotiated agreements, should be the means of furthering pay claims in the civil service—and that seems to me to be the only logical interpretation of the position—then let them state that plainly to the public. The public, I am convinced, are no more fooled than I am by Opposition Deputies' simplistic demands that I should end the strike.

The public appreciate, as well as I do, the consequences for public services of encouraging anarchy in industrial relations and the resultant damage to the national economy. They would do well to credit the public with commonsense. Those who would treat our serious industrial relations issue such as this as a political football do so at their own peril. They can only create a climate which encourages the taking of strike action and the continuing of strike action. This diminishes the influence of responsible trade unionists, who can see the harm which unnecessary confrontation can cause.

Certain Deputies have also been calling on me to intervene personally in this dispute. I would like to say, as I said on a previous occasion, that I have always involved myself closely in industrial relations matters in the Department and I have been personally involved in the ICTU efforts to get a resumption of work.

With regard to the amendment by the Labour Party I want to say that, in so far as the election manifesto is concerned, I have done far more in the relatively short time I have been in that Department than was done for quite a number of years. I have consistently worked, since I became Minister, to promote better relations in the Department. As Deputies are aware, I inherited from the previous Administration a most difficult dispute with the union representing the engineering staff who had for several years before been seeking a productivity deal. I settled that dispute and the union and my Department worked out, through the conciliation machinery, a productivity agreement which will bring substantial benefits to both the staff and the public. As a result of initiatives that I have taken, a thorough-going revision of Departmental procedures in resolving disputes and problems has been undertaken. An agreement was reached at the Departmental conciliation council within the last year to set up a mediation committee, presided over by a chairman nominated by the chairman of the Labour Court, in other words, an independent person. I also strengthened the staff relations function generally at headquarters and I made extra provision for dealing with personnel matters at local levels. In addition, I established a review committee consisting of departmental and staff organisation representatives, also presided over by a chairman nominated by the chairman of the Labour Court, to examine the staff rules and regulations.

I specifically, in each of these cases, decided, in agreement with the union, that we should have somebody who was from outside the Department and independent. I have no doubt that these committees which I have set up are bearing fruit and I hope will bear much more fruit in the future. The number of grievances which have been settled through this machinery is impressive, but, of course, the public learn very little about grievances which are settled; they only learn of the ones which are not settled. These efforts that I have made are only part of an on-going task to improve the machinery for resolving problems and grievances, and I am prepared to make more efforts as the need to do so arises.

I have met, and have arranged to meet, the executive committees of the major unions in the Department, and the Minister of State and I have met staff at as many of the Department's working locations as was possible. I want, therefore, to refute the suggestion in the amendment put forward by the Labour Party that we have not carried out what we promised in our election manifesto. In fact the unions appreciate very much the efforts we have made.

I might draw attention to the fact that in the previous dispute, apart altogether from the productivity deal aspect, there were constant references to rules and regulations and the problems arising from them. I can say that in this particular dispute we have heard very little about that aspect. That is due in no small measure to the changes I have made in that Department since I went there. I shall endeavour as best I can to help to solve problems as they arise and to solve as many as possible of them at local level. What I have done in that respect is appreciated.

I do not need to tell Deputies that the strike is causing widespread inconvenience and hardship. I made it clear from the outset that this strike would have serious effects. It is putting at risk the jobs of people in much less secure employment than those who are on strike. It is also hampering the Government's job-creation programmes, with all the potential consequences which that has for the future.

I have said repeatedly that the Department is ready to resume the negotiations which the union broke off. Up to now, the union's response amounts to an insistence that no settlement is possible unless the Department also breaks the agreement. I have pointed out the financial consequences and the major difficulties, from a purely procedural point of view, that this involves. The Government are convinced that the abandonment of agreements for the settlement of pay claims in the civil service—for which, I might add, the civil service unions and the public service unions strove over a long period—would be a recipe for repeated disruption of public services and would have serious consequences for the country's economic future.

I should like to repeat the appeal which I have already made to the union and to the staff to return to work and to resume negotiations. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I believe, provides them with an honourable basis for doing this. As I said before, nobody would dream of suggesting that the Congress would put forward recommendations which would be damaging to any individual union's rights. I also stress again that they have my assurance that their claims and their problems will be dealt with speedily and sympathetically. It is only by returning to the negotiating table that the interests of the union members can be advanced and the harmful effects of the strike ended.

Mr. Corish

It is difficult to know whether or not this discussion will do any good, but it should be accepted that anybody who makes a contribution in the position in which we find ourselves does so in good faith. I would like to refer to something that the Minister said about resenting the accusation by my colleague Deputy Ryan about his inactivity as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in this present dispute. Whilst the Minister might have been very busy in his office it does not appear to the public as if he is personally concerned because, as far as I know, up to this he has refused to meet the executive of the Post Office Workers' Union, and any initiative taken in this respect was taken by the Congress of Trade Unions.

When I was a Minister I had difficult problems and had no hesitation in meeting those concerned in trying to resolve disputes. In most cases I was successful. The Minister should not underestimate his responsibility in this matter. This motion has been put down by the Government because of the number of recent strikes. In the first few months of this year there were many disputes in Britain. There seemed to be a certain amount of flexibility in Britain in dealing with what appeared to be exorbitant claims. The Ministers in the Labour Government took a stand in December or January when they said that increases should be limited. Negotiation with the Ministers concerned helped to resolve the disputes, even though the disputes caused inconvenience in the interim period.

The Minister is resentful of being criticised for his inactivity. The present Minister for Labour, who could be referred to as a genial man, clamoured loudly during the previous Dáil for Deputy O'Leary to intervene in disputes. What has the present Minister for Labour been doing about the present disputes? He has not been heard on the subject. I do not know whether he will speak for the Government at the conclusion of this debate. All the legislation that is needed in present circumstances was introduced by Deputy Michael O'Leary when he was Minister for Labour and his legislation has been successful.

In my capacity as spokesman for Posts and Telegraphs I want to talk about the Post Office dispute. It will be readily conceded that industry, commerce, tourism and social welfare have suffered as a result of this dispute. The Ministers concerned must realise that they have a role to play in trying to ensure that the disruptions end as quickly as possible. Some people see only one side of a dispute. I am sure that the Minister and the Government lay the blame for this dispute at the feet of the POWU. There are two sides involved in all strikes. This strike involves the POWU and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Even though the Minister has criticised the action of the POWU, it ought to be remembered that 13,000 persons are suffering for what they regard as a reasonable claim.

Few people refer to the basic issue in disputes, which is the wages and salaries of the workers. We were aghast at the level of wages and salaries of the workers involved in the British disputes. The Minister compared salaries in the public service in the North and in Britain with public service salaries here. That does not impress me. What impresses me is that the wages and salaries of the workers in the postal service are much lower than the wages and salaries of those in comparable employment in parts of the civil service and in semi-State companies. I am sure it would surprise many members of the public if they knew that the POWU claim is in respect of one grade of workers who earn £53 per week. There are labourers who earn more than £53 per week. Many people who have less responsibility and who work fewer hours per week than the members of the POWU earn more than that. If the wages and salaries of the Post Office workers are related to comparable employment in the civil service and in the semi-State companies, it will be found that the Post Office workers have lagged behind. I do not want to make comparisons by naming semi-State bodies but I know that the wages and salaries of the Post Office workers lag behind the wages and salaries paid in some of the larger semi-State bodies.

The Minister said that he will not move until the workers return to work, that negotiations would then be resumed. I have the greatest respect for agreements entered into by trade unions, particularly the ICTU, but this problem must be solved and we all hope that it will soon be solved. I believe that the Minister has, as Deputy Michael O'Leary said recently, become a prisoner of procedures. I believe it is his duty to seek an end to the dispute. It has been recognised by the Government, by the employers and by the trade unions that our industrial relations procedures need to be improved. As far as I can remember, the improvement of industrial relations procedures is included in the national understanding. Therefore, it is a tacit admission that industrial procedures are not all they should be.

For the sake of the economy and for peace and harmony the Minister should do as the POWU have requested him to do. He has been asked to make an offer and I am sure he knows what sort of an offer would be acceptable. It is not for me to name that percentage this afternoon. The POWU have been criticised but we must also remember that the Minister is responsible in this situation of stalemate. I appreciate, as does the Minister, the efforts of the ICTU in this matter. I should like to quote the example given to the Minister by Deputy Cluskey who, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, found himself in a dispute situation which could have had serious repercussions for the Department of Social Welfare, particularly for those in receipt of social assistance. In order to avoid a long strike and disruption of the welfare services, he cut corners and intervened and settled the dispute in two hours. A gesture from the Minister would help in resolving this dispute. I have respect for agreements but we should not always go by the book. We must remember that we are dealing with people, not inanimate objects. It appears that the POWU are determined to stand fast until a reasonable offer is made. For that reason we are in a stalemate position, and as much responsibility lies with the Government and the Minister as with the POWU.

The Minister also referred to their requests for cash on the table. If the Minister were to offer a reasonable percentage increase I believe the way would be open for the beginning of negotiations and a quick conclusion to the dispute. I do not believe there is an insistence that the maximum claim be conceded, but the POWU want something which would be regarded as reasonable by their members, the 13,000 people who will make decisions in respect of offers made.

There must be a solution some time and the Minister could make a start now. He and the Government are responsible for the disruption of services and industry and must be concerned with all these facets of economic life. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs are not a Department within which bad industrial relations should exist; this must be obvious to everyone. Too much is at stake, and this is demonstrated every day.

The whole purpose of the conciliation and arbitration scheme was to provide a means acceptable both to the State and to its employees for dealing with claims relating to the conditions of service of civil servants and to secure the fullest co-operation between the State and its employees for the better passage of public business. It is important that claims should be dealt with within a reasonable time, and some of the claims submitted in the past by the POWU have been delayed for years. More important still is the spirit of the scheme for conciliation and arbitration, which should find a measure of agreement to allow the settlement of claims within a reasonable time. The national understanding published this week certainly recognises that there is a need for great improvement in arbitration and conciliation and the general question of industrial relations.

I am very grateful for the distribution of the Fianna Fáil manifesto to Opposition Deputies. The Minister has said that since he took up office he has made very many changes in regard to industrial relations. He may have done so, but they are not at all obvious. Fianna Fáil have now been in office for two years and, while nobody expected they would complete the examination to which they referred in their manifesto within weeks or months, it would not be wrong to expect this detailed examination to have been carried out within two years. In the manifesto Fianna Fáil proposed as follows:

To undertake a detailed examination of Staff Rules and Regulations in an effort to promote better labour relations which are of vital importance where such a large work-force is involved.

The impression has not been given to me that there were any radical changes as a result of that detailed examination or that a detailed examination of industrial relations within the post office was carried out at all.

It is recognised that many of the rules and regulations need to be examined; many of them were introduced in the last century. It would not be difficult to give an example of a rule or regulation which is an irritant to post office workers. A claim for increased wages is, in many cases, the result of a build-up of frustrations and irritants, particularly among those in the trade union movement. As an example I will quote part of the submission made by the POWU to the Commission on Industrial Relations. Whether the problem has been resolved I do not know, but it would not need a major decision to bring about a change. The submission states as follows:

Written explanations as distinct from oral inquiry are sought from staff involved in disciplinary or other incidents. A frequent complaint from the staff is that irrespective of the explanation given the papers are almost immediately referred back stating the answers are regarded as unsatisfactory and asking for reasons to be put forward why disciplinary action should not be taken against the recipient. No indication is given as to why the explanation is regarded as unsatisfactory and the person concerned is left with the feeling that he/she, as a matter of course, has been found guilty before the case is fully examined. To those who are unfamiliar with clerical work the answering of papers is a burden which at times is beyond the training of manipulative staff.

We have all come across that in respect of certain individuals as long as we have been in this House and surely it should be corrected. The worker should not have to engage in protracted correspondence with superiors.

The submission further states:

Cases have arisen where motor drivers delayed in traffic have been required to give written explanations.

This could entail a full-time job having regard to traffic jams in Dublin.

The Minister for Labour and every Fianna Fáil Deputy must recognise that the POWU have an excellent record in regard to industrial relations, even though they have been subjected for many years to these stupid and archaic rules and regulations. A younger generation are now employed in the postal service and they are not prepared to put up with that sort of nonsense. I have known the POWU for a long time and they have always had a reasonable and responsible approach to industrial relations. Anybody who thinks they have become involved in this dispute for some base motive does not know or appreciate the contribution the POWU make to the trade union movement and the contribution they have made as members of the ICTU. Deputy Ryan said that this is their first strike in 60 years and that could be regarded as the best non-strike record in this country.

Having said all that, it seems increasingly difficulty for them to maintain this attitude in the light of the responses of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to their various claims. There has always been a hard line approach by the Minister and in the top bracket of the civil service within the Post Office. There are examples which have contributed to the disputes and the frustration within the Post Office. The Minister seems to suggest that the workers in the Post Office have always been treated generously but the Minister will recognise that some time ago senior civil servants received increases over and above the terms of the national wage agreement. How that was done or when I do not know but it is a fact. All these increases were channelled horizontally and vertically across very many areas of the public service including the Army and the Garda but the increase was not applied to certain grades represented by the Post Office Workers' Union. Another occurrence that added to their frustration was the claim for double time for Sunday attendance on behalf of 12 part-time postmen. This was refused by the Post Office and referred to arbitration because of the alleged serious economic difficulties obtaining. The claim was eventually conceded by the Post Office almost on the eve of arbitration and will cost about £30 and would only recur about once every seven years, if ever. In fact, I presume that this situation will never happen again but it is part of the build-up which adds to the frustration of those working in the postal service. Another example is a claim for 2.36 per cent by postmen, telephonists and other grades arising from internal productivity. This was opposed for many years.

The Minister also referred to the question of equal pay. It is true that equal pay was conceded but the Post Office Workers' Union were negotiating that for nine years. I grant that this was going on in our time in office as well but it went on for nine years. I know that Ministers are supposed to be heads of their Departments but this sort of approach has been taken for so long by Ministers with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and that should not be regarded as being good enough.

I have only given those examples to show that in relation to the grievances of the Post Office Workers' Union the Post Office have driven them to breaking point when it comes to negotiating on big and even small issues. Some of these claims were small; the cost in money would not be great but the cost in the loss of goodwill and the cost of industrial disruption is incalculable so far as the staff in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is concerned. It is true that relatively small grievances often give rise to far more trouble than the big ones awaiting hearing at arbitration and the Minister would gain a lot of goodwill if these small claims were resolved. Even at this stage any of these small claims that are outstanding should be cleared up immediately. Protracted negotiations —and we have seen much of these not alone in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs but in other Departments —are certainly not a receipe for good industrial relations.

The Minister has urged that use be made of the agreed procedures and that the Post Office Workers' Union return to the negotiating table. It seems a reasonable request but the plain fact is—and this is felt by the workers who cannot be said to be a wild maverick group—that the members do not trust the Post Office in view of their experience of the past and many examples can be given.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has five minutes.

Mr. Corish

The Minister is concerned about the possible repercussions in the public service and elsewhere if he concedes these increases to members of the Post Office Workers' Union but the Minister will recognise that there are features of the workings and liabilities of the Post Office staff which have no parallel elsewhere. It is necessary for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or his Department to show some initiative in seeing that just and acceptable offers are forthcoming on a return to work. It must be said that the Minister would not meet the workers when they were not on strike and he will not meet them now that they are on strike. Apart from the stipulation of the Post Office Workers' Union about the increased percentage, the Minister should at least as a gesture be prepared to see the executive of this union and I am sure it would be helpful. The ICTU have done their best and credit is due to them but a discussion with the Minister himself on the situation generally might resolve some of the difficulties. The record of the Post Office Workers' Union since their inception is a positive signpost that given adequate and fair treatment the staff would respond as they always have in the traditional attitude of goodwill and co-operation. I believe that further delay would be fatal and would set back for many years the recovery of that goodwill and co-operation.

Finally let me repeat that both sides have responsibility but the Minister should not shirk his responsibility and should be prepared to regard this as a special case so as to ensure that the industrial and commercial, agricultural and social life of this country will be returned to normal as quickly as possible.

Mr. Moore

I would like to pay tribute to the Government Ministers who are involved in any way in the industrial and human relations scene. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Faulkner, and the Minister for Labour, Deputy Fitzgerald, have been giving their full and constant attention to possible ways and means of meeting the many demands made upon the State as an employer. I realise that because of the existing machinery things are not made any easier but these efforts culminated in the national understanding.

I further pay tribute to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who played such a big part in that. I believe that we have the essential goodwill for bettering human relations in industry and in commerce. A man does not change because he accepts a job as a factory manager, a factory worker, a postman or a bus conductor; he is the very same man so that what we are dealing with here are human relations.

When each side becomes embattled bitterness creeps in and thousands of people suffer whereas if we could get down and examine the issues and accept that all strikes, disputes or lock-outs must end sometime and that we should have the wit to use, in this 20th century, 20th century methods to ease our problems, we would be in a much better position. It is no joy to anyone, whether he be an employer or a trade unionist to walk through this city and see the queues of pensioners at various Government centres or in his own parochial hall where the St. Vincent de Paul Society are readily doing their part to help the pensioners. We are capable of doing much better than that. There is an onus on all of us to play our part to bring about much better industrial relations.

Recriminations against trade unions and the Government are not very helpful. We must remember that it is very easy to criticise a union for going on strike and to ask why they could not have prevented a strike, but very often there are long standing grievances. Under various Governments there have been longstanding agreements and the unions, whether because of agitation from the Government or private employers, have taken strike action.

I believe the strike weapon is as out of date as the bow and arrow are in modern warfare. Some of our machinery for settling strikes is also archaic. We have got to do something about it. We must remove the cause of strikes and try to devise new industrial relations so that the unions will not have to use the strike weapon. I defend the right of unions to take strike action but once a strike begins everybody loses. The real strength of the strike weapon is the threat, not the application. Once a union go on strike their members and their families suffer.

Throughout the country but especially in Dublin there are thousands of innocent people suffering because of the postal strike. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs stated that he would be willing to accept the award of an arbitrator in that dispute. What is the union waiting for? The families of the post office men are suffering as well as thousands of pensioners.

It is baffling why there is so much hate towards the State. The old order of the unjust employer has almost disappeared. In 1913 we know that people could do nothing else but go on strike because there were insensitive employers who were still back in the 19th century in their attitude. In the case of the post office strike it is the Government who are on one side and the strikers on the other. Any Government can be chained to a popular vote, as has often been the case, but the Government are not hard line employers. I can speak from experience about the efforts of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to try to bring a just settlement to this strike. I know that the men in the Post Office Workers' Union are highly principled people. They see that things are wrong in the public service and want them changed. Deputy Corish referred on one occasion to the difference in payment among the different grades in the post office. Perhaps people who are doing less important work than the postmen are being paid more money.

I suggest to the Post Office Workers' Union that they go to the Minister and his departmental officials and discuss productivity with them. I believe there are many areas in the post office where those men can prove that because of the important work they are doing they deserve higher pay, that they are in a different category from other State employees. They should go to the Department and tell them that they are doing important work and they feel that their wages are far below what they are really worth. There must be a return to work so that they can get down to drawing up new negotiation rules, the pensioners may not suffer any more and the economy will not go on suffering. I am a member of the second largest trade union in the country. I cannot speak on behalf of the union. I am a member of the Government party but not a member of the Government so I emphasise that I cannot speak for them. I am giving my own thoughts this morning but because of my background I feel I am in close touch with people. Perhaps because I am not involved in the strike I have a clear view of certain matters.

The post office strike is the most serious strike at the moment. I appeal to the men on strike to indicate that they will return to work if they are given an assurance that there will be an independent arbitrator or on some other grounds. If the men did this I believe the Minister would set the arbitration machinery in motion immediately to examine the claims of the Post Office men. We could have a transformation in a couple of days from bad feeling into goodwill and striving towards a settlement of the men's claim. This would be a step forward on the road to prosperity. This side of the House, and I am sure the other side as well, are committed to trying to bring about full employment.

There are people who are being forgotten in this confrontation—those without jobs. They have the right to gainful employment. While we have industrial trouble, we will not make the necessary strides to create a prosperous country with full employment.

Jobs have been, and will be, lost because of strikes, but that does not deprive any union of the right to strike. Unless we take another look at our industrial and human relations, we will bring on ourselves—the Government and the trade unions—a great deal of criticism. Deputy Mitchell said this morning that people are blaming the unions. Of course they are, and the people are crying a plague on all our houses. We have no postal service and our bus and cleansing services are very much curtailed. The people are suffering because of these things. I believe that these problems could be settled.

I think the strike weapon is out of date. Some of our machinery for settling disputes is archaic. People told me they have had claims in for many years. There is an onus on us to install a new industrial relations system which will remove the injustices which I am convinced exist and will give us a chance to develop our industries so that we can provide jobs for all who need them.

Somebody mentioned the moral issue involved in strikes. There are moral issues in all strikes and there are accepted rules laid down for a just strike as there are for a just war, if there can be such a thing. One of the rules is that we must have tried every possible means of negotiation, concilation or arbitration, before strike action is taken. Are we honouring that moral law? Have we examined all possible means of removing injustices from which men suffer? These questions apply not alone to the unions but to the State, as an employer, and to private employers.

I do not suggest that Ireland has the worst record for days lost due to strikes. We are about half way up the table. On the continent people have a very high standard of living and there are very few strikes. Surely we can learn a lesson from them. If we want a higher standard of living and our people at work, we must be able to offer our young people jobs, but we must make up our minds that we will not succeed unless we have a happy industrial relations climate. We all have a duty towards one another.

It may take a long time to change our negotiating procedures but it will not take very long to bring our people back to work. The Minister said that there would be no delay in dealing with these matters. The Minister for Labour is here this morning and I know he has more than goodwill, he has a deep concern for the people affected. He knows the needs of the men in the post office and all those on strike. What have we to fear from taking the bold step of returning to work? The same day, let the Minister sit down to negotiate with the men and meet their demands as far as possible.

As I said earlier the strike weapon is out of date, the negotiation machinery is archaic, and it will take some time to change that system, but it will not take any time for a return to work. Then the strikers will have an income while the unions are negotiating. The Government should give a guarantee and a commitment to overhauling the negotiating machinery. Every strike must end some time and the sooner it ends the less suffering will be caused.

Yesterday I suggested that a national council to monitor the economy and wage claims should be set up. They would investigate claims and decide how the national wealth would be distributed. The council could be composed of the State, the trade unions and the employers. This is not a Utopian idea. We have taken a step in this direction with the national understanding which was brought about to serve the present hour. The experts who write on industrial relations tell us that ad hoc solutions are not always the best. I agree with them. We must have long-term planning in which the Government, the trade unions and the employers are involved. I suggest that this council be a permanent body which will do this work and allow the Ministers to pursue the usual activities of their Departments, such as the creation of full employment.

Democracy is a very delicate thing. It has been described as government with the consent of the governed. There are many stresses and strains on democracy nowadays and all who believe in democracy must take steps to ensure that the democratic institutions are upheld and respected. When agreement has been reached it should be upheld, until it has been reviewed. It would have the added merit that there would be no strikes and workers would not be losing their weekly pay or pension.

There are two things before us and the most important is the settlement of the Post Office strike. It has done tremendous damage not only to the strikers, their families and others affected by it but to the whole economy. People from abroad wonder how we can do without a postal service. The fact is we are not doing without it; we are paying very heavy costs indeed. Speaking of costs, I should like to recall the words of the Minister, Deputy Faulkner, who spoke this morning. He said he would accept the arbitrator's award in this dispute and that the Government would meet the cost. We are all paying through taxation and are willing to do so. It is important to get a resumption of work at the earliest possible moment.

We realise now that we must perfect our industrial relations machinery. We cannot carry on having such strikes or such disruption. The first thing we must do is remove the cause of strikes. It can be very irritating to see some grievances outstanding for years and then when somebody suggests using muscle they are quickly resolved. When I was on a shop floor I recall that a private employer had a claim before him for seven months from men who had to work in very unpleasant conditions. It dragged on without any hope of being resolved until one day the men went on strike and it was fixed in three or four hours. That kind of situation has now almost passed but it has not quite done so, as can be seen from the present number of strikes.

Things have changed in that we have a much better outlook today. Unofficial strikes in the best society can cause chaos. It has taken on the guise of a Frankenstein which very often cannot be controlled despite the best efforts of the unions. We have the components for success to bring order out of the present disorder. The Government are committed to full employment and to giving each citizen a fair deal. The unions are also pursuing the same ideals. The tragedy is that we do not recognise that we are all in this together. By our action or inaction, on all sides, we are causing suffering to the weakest sections of our community who cannot defend themselves. Surely we can all realise that we are just one community. The days of the old hard line boss are gone. The Post Office union are not fighting big brother or some hard line employer. They are fighting the Government elected by the people which, being a democratic Government, listens to the pleas of the union.

If we can make our voices heard by the unions and by employers we can update our archaic negotiating machinery. As I said before, the strike weapon is outmoded and has no part in the twentieth century. We live in a sophisticated society and, therefore, our negotiating machinery must be sophisticated. Surely if we realise we are all in this together and are a small community we can come together for the common good and create a much happier nation.

Mr. Kelly

The last time I found myself speaking opposite the Minister for Labour in a special debate was in November 1977. On that occasion, the House was debating the biggest single disaster ever to overtake modern Irish industry in consequence of industrial disputes, namely, the closure of Ferenka.

We are 18 months on from Ferenka and the industrial disputes which are before the House today are industrial disputes in the public sector. Although they are a special case, as everyone on both sides of the House recognises, the industrial atmosphere which causes bad conditions on one side of the economy will cause bad conditions on the other. In the 18 months which have gone by since Ferenka, although we all swore high and holy then that something would be done about industrial relations, we find ourselves, in May 1979, a year and a half later, debating this against a background in our country in which there is almost nothing working.

The Tánaiste plunged in here this morning to speak first—it is true he is the Minister for the Public Service but that does not mean that he is the appropriate Minister to lead in a debate of this kind which essentially concerns the Minister opposite and, to almost as great an extent, Deputy Faulkner—as though he had some message for the people. This was his message, if Deputies do not fall asleep while I read some of his pedestrian sentences:

We are committed to doing all in our power to bring about harmony and co-operation between workers and their employers. Every step we have taken in the industrial relations area since forming the Government has been directed towards the attainment of these objectives.

What are these objectives? Would somebody list them for me? Do the public know about them? Where are they to be seen? What are their effects? If I am to judge on results they must have been steps backward because the scene now, and for the last six months, has been immeasurably worse than anything seen under the National Coalition even in the depths of the recession, even at a time when there were large numbers of people suffering from fearful inflation—which was much the same as every other western economy was suffering from in the wake of the oil crisis—even in those times when the less well off sections of the community might have felt no longer the ordinary restraints but a stronger inducement than usual to be disruptive, to strike to make difficulties. We never then saw anything remotely approaching the situation over which the "Soldiers of Destiny" have been presiding for the past year or more. We are now getting the rowback from the bright promises of June 1977. In the same section of the Minister's speech that I have just referred to I see, as indeed I noticed yesterday in reading through the official text of the national understanding, that others are being set up to take the blame for the Government's forthcoming failure to meet their targets in regard to job creation. "We are convinced," the Minister said, "that the achievement of industrial peace is crucial to the realisation of our main economic targets." Who dissents from that pedestrian sentence? But, "In particular," he said, "the target of full employment within five years would not be capable of being met unless there is a marked improvement in the industrial relations climate." If the sky fell we would have larks. It is no use telling us these things. We know them. The problem relates not to telling us we can reach this target of X and Y and Z. The problem relates to achieving X, Y and Z, achieving industrial peace. We should be spared all these hypotheses which we know well. Of course if there was total industrial peace, if the working population consisted of robots who never looked for wage increases or improved conditions, who would take any treatment handed out to them in the public sector or the private sector, the economy would grow by leaps and bounds. Of course we would be able to undersell our competitors and the Irish £ would be worth two English £s in a year's time. That is perfectly clear; we cannot give anybody marks, let alone the Minister for the Public Service, for telling us that. What we want to know is what is being done to achieve those conditions.

Others, as I have said before, in particular the working population are being set up and put in a corner to take the blame for the day when it will be realised that the targets which Fianna Fáil sold to the people as an election programme in 1977 are not capable of being met in the kind of conditions we have.

Towards the end of the Minister's speech he used a sentence which made me smile. He said—I admit in regard to the specialised question of conciliation and arbitration in the civil service and in regard to the general public relations situation in the civil service—"It is even implied," he said sanctimoniously, "that the Government's attitude has contributed to disruption rather than prevented it". Dear me—is it not most unreasonable of us to take that kind of line? We are really too bad to take the line that the Government have directly contributed—as they undoubtedly have—to the atmosphere of industrial relations here over the last two years. We really must apologise for pointing out what is so obvious. I suppose we should apologise for having pointed that out at the time when Fianna Fáil were presenting themselves for election nearly two years ago. We said then and we have never ceased to say since that the kind of atmosphere then being generated by the "Soldiers of Destiny" would lead to disaster in social relations, industrial relations and consequently in the economy at large. But now we are told: "There are some people who are even inclined to blame us"—meaning the Government. We really must seek pardon for that.

Is there any limit to the degree of unreality that can invade a Minister's mind when he can seriously get a subordinate to draft a speech like this, type it, show him the proof, approve the proof, have it retyped perhaps several times and publish it to the Dáil as the Government's serious attitude? It is undoubtedly the fault of the Government that the general atmosphere of industrial relations has become so poisoned. It has never been perfect: we had strikes under the National Coalition; there was a bank strike, a bus strike, a dock strike. None of them lasted as long as what we see now. I remember—something I have not seen since—that the then Minister for Labour, Deputy O'Leary, sweated bricks on more than one occasion and was seen personally to sweat bricks in trying to solve industrial disputes and he did so with success. The reason why the atmosphere was more conducive to efforts like his in those days was that the Coalition Government with all their faults—and they had faults—were seen to treat people fairly, hardly, perhaps, as was unavoidable in years like 1974 to 1976. They leaned equally on them all.

This Government have not done that. This Government came to office with a lot of bleating about the profit motive, a lot of crying on behalf of people who are so rich that they do not know how much they have. That cost us in my party seats in Kildare, North Tipperary, Louth, Laois-Offaly, Longford, Westmeath and possibly in North Kerry. They were not ashamed then to be crying for the rich, to be sanctifying the profit motive. What do they expect the man on £60 or £70 a week to make of that? What do they expect he will say or how will he react in his industrial setting when he sees, as The Irish Times said a few days ago, “the men with the winter tans” around? What do they expect a man who finds it hard to buy a new overcoat, let alone new clothes for his family, to think when he sees how prices have gone up? How do they expect him to react when he finds he is in the charge of a Government who are in favour of the profit motive? Naturally, he is only flesh and blood and he says: “Why should I be permanently at the bottom? Why should my life be the only one with no prospects? Why should the advertisements for glossy holidays be directed to everybody except me?” Naturally he is inclined to let it rip and turn a deaf ear to entreaties like the bleats from the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister for this and that that we hear every day about moderation.

The monotony of the bleating is occasionally broken by quite querulous complaints from the Fianna Fáil Party. Senator Noel Mulcahy was the most recent example, giving out about the greed and selfishness of the workers. If ever there was a party that put greed and selfishness on a pedestal it is the one represented by the two Deputies opposite. That does not stop the workers being ticked off for their greed and selfishness, for their high unreason. The men with the fat stomachs and dinner jackets and the cigars that will scarcely fit between their overfed fingers are not to be ticked off for greed and selfishness, for having poured money into Fianna Fáil so that they will be let off wealth tax and capital gains tax—no greed or selfishness there. These are the men on whom the future of the country depends. Perhaps it does. I see every role in the country for capitalists but do not ask me to exempt them from the ordinary burdens the rest of us must carry. Do not blame me if I take the side of a lowly paid worker and refuse to tick him off or lecture him in those tones if he shows signs of impatience when asked to be moderate in his demands and sees that request is made to no other part of society.

I am not a worker in the ordinary sense; I work very hard but I am not in the normal sense a member of the working population and I am well off by Irish standards. I do not at all want to hold myself out as a demagogue in favour of the lower paid workers. I agree with a great deal of what has been said by Deputy Moore and other Fianna Fáil speakers about the disastrous effects of unreasonable behaviour on the part of the working population. But I cannot find it in me to lecture them, to take up the same tone towards them because I think the moral basis for such lecturing is absent in the present Government. This Government were going to cure everything; I never saw such a sunburst of advertising and of promises as we had here two years ago. What has it left us? It has left us with a country, to take nothing more profound than that, with two chiefs of police and no real Taoiseach.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with industrial relations. I should prefer the Deputy to come to them now, please, industrial relations in the public sector. The Deputy should deal with his own amendment.

Mr. Kelly

There was a strike a little over a year ago in the Blackrock post office. Part of the area served by Blackrock post office is in my constituency. That was a single strike in one postal district and the people there were fit to be tied. It was not simply inconvenience; there was real hardship. The ordinary traders had hardship as had old people depending on postal remittances and social welfare recipients. All classes experienced hardship. It seemed at the time to be an absolutely intolerable situation that the inhabitants of one urban district in the city could be going through this hell. The whole country has been going through it more or less since Christmas. There are no reliable bus services to speak of here or in Cork. There are no refuse collections to speak of here. There is so much litter on the streets anyway that one would be afraid of being in danger of tripping over a Viking sword as one walks along the streets. Since the refuse collections from the doors was suspended it has become ten times worse. That does not stop Ministers from talking about the quality of life or from rechristening a Department, Environment, instead of the humble Local Government. It does not stop them from lecturing us about matters which we are so far from achieving that we should be ashamed to think about them. These are areas where the quality of life has gone steeply downhill. Quite the contrary was being held out to us as a reasonable expectation two years ago. The people bought those election promises and I have no doubt that they will buy more election promises because there seems to be no end to their gullibility. I do not complain about their choice, that is their right. There will be a fresh array of promises the next time round, perhaps more glittering than any that people from this side of the House feel disposed to make. The people bought those promises and what did they get? They got 84 seats.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Kelly speak to the motion or to his amendment, please? We are dealing with industrial relations in the public sector, and so far, half of Deputy Kelly's speech has had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Kelly

The debate is about industrial relations in the narrow field of the public sector, but any conditions which bear on the atmosphere of industrial relations generally must be relevant to this. Government policy which has gone to build up the kind of industrial relations we have is highly relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with industrial relations in the public sector and nothing else. The Deputy has a very big amendment there that he could deal with.

Mr. Kelly

I have about ten minutes left and I will try to be more restricted in what I have to say.

Deputies

Here, here.

Mr. Kelly

I notice that the Minister for Labour is out of the House. I do not blame him for wanting his lunch. I notice that there is no quieter man around here these days than the same Minister. He is easy to talk to now; he is as quite as a mouse. There will be many people who have nostalgia, as I have, for the 20th Dáil. Among the things they miss is the ranting, raving and roaring that they used to get day in and day out from Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. That has gone like snow from a ditch. There is not a trace of it left in the House. When will we have these great days again? It will be when the Minister finds himself back on this side of the House. Then the roaring will start all over again; then he will have all the answers. The Minister is in the job now in which he can demonstrate that he has the answers. Let him do so.

Although I described the Minister's speech this morning as a pedestrian, flat, dull, uninteresting, uninspired speech which could have been churned out by a computer, programmed by the people whose unhappy job it is to write Ministers' speeches for them, I agree with the sentiments it contained, worn and dim though they are. I agree about the intolerability of industrial disorder, about the moral responsibility of people who strike when it is not necessary, about the intolerability, from the public point of view, of public sector strikes in which the main object is not to penalise the immediate employer who is on a salary which will not be taken away from him, but the public at large. I also agree about the moral issues involved in neglecting agreed procedures of conciliation and arbitration. I noticed a curiously weak note running through the Minister's speech and through the speeches of the Government speakers on this topic. They are somehow afraid to grasp a few nettles.

There was a time when Fianna Fáil consisted of a set of fairly raw politicians who were not afraid to say what they felt. I did not like them, but Seán McEntee, for example, would not have sat through this debate without saying what he honestly felt should be done if the pattern of industrial relations that we have seen here lately, continues. That sort of wishy-washy approach towards a serious subject communicates itself from the Government benches to the media. Although I praised The Irish Times' editorial of two days ago, I note that they had an editorial about a year ago about industrial relations and about the state they were coming to, which was bad then but not as bad as they are now. They said that legislation is not what is wanted here, that we did not want legislation to control industrial action in the public sector or in any other sector. What is needed, thundered The Irish Times, is reasonable contracts which will be reasonably binding. That was the solution. I know that editorials are written under stress of time and fatigue and one can nod and say something foolish as easily if one is a newspaper editor as if one is a politician. I wanted to ring the editor and say “fair enough, I am all in favour of reasonable contracts that will be reasonably binding, but what about the occasional unreasonable man or group that do not regard their contract as binding and refuse to be bound by it?” There was no reply from the Government about that.

Sooner or later that question will have to be faced. It is all very well to talk in general terms about the responsibility of the Government, the House and so on. We are not afraid to talk about that responsibility in concrete terms in other walks of life. We are not afraid to talk about exactly what we mean, but when it comes to industrial relations we keep saying that we hope that co-operation and goodwill will solve everything, but we say not a word about what we will do if it fails. I have a suggestion which was not approved by my party's front bench or by anybody else, it is purely my own suggestion. The post this morning inside Leinster House, such as it is, contained a Bill to amend the Constitution so as to enlarge the spread from which the university or higher education representation in the Seanad could be drawn. I have doubts about whether there is any legitimate reason for this system anyway, apart from the reason that we inherited it from the British. I doubt if there is any legitimate reason for there being six separate seats in the Seanad for the people who had the privilege of higher education. However, the 43 panel seats which are left over should be looked at when we look at Seanad reform. I was a Senator for a term, and glad to be one. I do not want to say anything to annoy colleagues, and I hope I will not find myself needing to look for a seat in the Seanad again. Everybody recognises the terrible splits in society which are getting worse, and that one large section trumpets abusively to the other, one calling the other a mob. The section calling their antagonists a mob are described as being a powerful selfish lobby, and so forth. That kind of talk used not to be common here, and nobody who is not either a farmer or a trade unionist can understand either of them. Anybody who is self employed or in a profession out of touch with either of these groups wonders whether everybody is talking leave of his senses and sense of moderation. We find 43 of the 60 seats of one House of the Oireachtas occupied by panel members who were supposed, as the Constitution was originally enacted, to represent different vocational groupings, but who are really 43 politicians. I was one of them, and I am not pouring scorn on the system. There is a lot to be said for using the Seanad as a means of easing someone into politics or as a means of easing someone out of politics.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has five minutes to relate all this to the motion before the House.

Mr. Kelly

It would be worth considering—I say this as a personal suggestion—whether the 43 panel seats of which 11 are supposed to be devoted to the interest of labour, whether organised or unorganised, and another nine which are supposed to be devoted to agriculture—I am not sure if I have the figures right—should be filled directly from inside the vocational groups, the professional associations and the trade unions rather than by politicians who may have some knowledge or experience in these areas. Otherwise the groups to whom I have referred will be shouting at each other in the newspaper columns, showing they have no understanding of each other's problems and no wish to understand them.

I cannot see that the country would encounter disaster if we had 11 representatives of labour in the Seanad. Constitutionally some would have to be left for unorganised labour but the bulk could be chosen from directly within the trade union movement rather than having to come via Fine Gael, Labour or Fianna Fáil. I cannot see why the agricultural representatives there should not be chosen in a similar way by election directly from inside the farming organisations.

I can see the immediate objection, namely, that it would politicise these organisations. They are politicised already—although maybe not in the narrow party political sense—in the sense that each person has his own axe to grind. If he feels he can do better by being in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour or by supporting them he will do it whether he is a farmer or trade unionist. I should prefer to see these people brought from behind the doors of the professional organisations and put into a position of power and responsibility where they could be seen to debate with one another when the Seanad sits. In this way they could meet and get to know each other, could have a drink together and be friendly with one another. A change of this kind would not require amendment of the Constitution because the recruitment of the panel seats is left to the ordinary law.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy is proposing that they should debate industrial relations in the public sector he is in order on this motion.

Mr. Kelly

That is my point. Nobody seems to have any ideas. I am entitled to produce this idea. As far as I can see, nobody has produced an original idea on this matter this morning. The sectional divisions that are so visible in this country, particularly those affecting the matter we are talking about, the trade union movement, might be ameliorated and there would be better sectional understanding if the Seanad was deliberately structured to have these people, who are national figures in their own right, under this roof. That would be a great improvement. I do not think it important that there might not be a Government majority in that House. The powers of the Seanad are limited. It has only delaying powers and even those powers can be cut out altogether in certain cases. Would it be such a tragedy if the Family Planning Bill or the Bill dealing with higher educational awards were in the Seanad for an extra three months? Would the sky fall if that happened?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not know how we dragged in the Seanad on this.

Mr. Kelly

This matter can be debated at greater length——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On a more relevant occasion.

Mr. Kelly

I have produced a constructive suggestion in regard to healing the split, the results of which are only too visible in the industrial disruption around us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lawlor.

Mr. L. Lawlor

The main issue that must be recognised as we discuss industrial relations——

Mr. Kelly

I beg the Chair's pardon but I thought it was time now to call Deputy O'Donnell as the concluding speaker.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are no concluding speakers in this debate except the Minister for Labour. There was no arrangement for concluding speakers. The arrangement was that the first three speakers got 45 minutes each by agreement of the House, all other speakers were allowed 30 minutes and the Minister for Labour is to be called at 4.15 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

Did the House not make an order regarding concluding speakers?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The House did not make an order. It is just an ordinary debate.

Mr. Tully

I do not wish to hold up Deputy Lawlor. It appears the intention was to have concluding speakers and that was so discussed. There was no definite arrangement made to put the concluding speakers on the Order Paper and because somebody was not watching their p's and q's——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not correct. The only notification the Chair got was that there was a gentleman's agreement for three speakers to open the debate with 45 minutes each, all other speakers to get 30 minutes and the final speaker, the Minister for Labour, to be called at 4.15 p.m.

Mr. Tully

I am not referring to what the Chair did. I am referring to a discussion that I was informed by our Whip took place after a meeting of the Whips and according to him the arrangement was that there was to be speaker from Fine Gael and the Labour Party. However, the Chair has made a ruling——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair did not make any ruling. The Whips make decisions and agreements and these are conveyed to the Chair. No order was made this morning. If the Chair had been told that three concluding speakers were to be called, the Chair would call them. There is no question or doubt about that.

Mr. Kelly

No one is reflecting on the Chair.

Mr. Tully

That is so.

Mr. Kelly

It was my understanding that there would be three final speakers in reverse sequence.

Mr. MacSharry

There is no question of concluding speakers from Fine Gael or Labour. As far back as Tuesday that was the arrangement. It was checked with the leaders of the parties and agreed by them. It was agreed it was not necessary to have any time allocation motion which is normal in these circumstances. It was just read out as agreed by the Taoiseach on the Order of Business this morning. Let there be no misunderstanding about it.

Mr. Tully

In case the Minister of State has given the impression that somebody is not telling the truth, I want to state quite clearly that the Whip for the Labour Party informed me yesterday afternoon of the arrangements I explained. I am not blaming the Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Until the Chair hears otherwise I must proceed in the ordinary way. Deputy Lawlor is in possession.

Mr. L. Lawlor

This debate is taking place soon after the conclusion of the national understanding and it is opportune to discuss industrial relations at length. This matter is the cause of great concern to us all. As a result of what has been concluded by the Government, employers and trade unions it is opportune that we look in details at our industrial relations scene.

Deputy Mitchell this morning spoke about our present problems. There are three, in particular two, industrial disputes of national importance. We are glad to see that the CIE dispute has concluded and one must question the motives of the Opposition who are giving the impression that industrial relations are in such a chaotic state. The Minister responsible for the Department concerned in that dispute dealt in great detail with it. It is obviously a complex matter involving a lot of spin-off issues, and as a result I will not go into it in detail. The Minister has been most reasonable and has taken more than his fair share of criticism, most of which has been ill-placed because it has been directed at a Minister who during the years in different Departments has been one of the most constructive and helpful members of the Government.

In that dispute one cannot help but feel there is a content of unreasonable attitudes. We have seen that a number of the employees on strike would like to be back at work, because they feel the Minister has been most reasonable in regard to the situation that would obtain if they return to work. The Minister has put forward a reasonable basis for a resumption of work, and on all sides of the House we should appeal to the men to consider constructively the solution that has been put forward.

We realise that certain employees in the public sector, possibly through lack of foresight on the part of their executives, have not always put forward their cases in a positive or clear-cut way. Recognising this, particularly the role of the postman, the Minister has stated that if a proper factual case is put forward under independent arbitrators, it will be dealt with. He has gone even further. He has given a guarantee, even though there is a queue of disputes in the public service, that there will be a time limit of two months for the determination of the dispute. Based on that guarantee and on the offer to look at outstanding problems in detail, there is a just way to settle the dispute.

Of course disputes can be fixed easily if there is a large sum of money put on the table. Here there is a great deal of public support for the Government, who have been constructive and realistic. One could end the dispute in half-an-hour if one were to concede unreasonable demands. I suggest that an appeal should issue from this House today, particularly from the Opposition benches, instead of trying to divide the Minister from the staffs who are his employees. An effort has been made to give the impression that the Minister has not been doing everything possible to end this dispute.

Throughout the country many members of this union feel that the original claim was unrealistic, away above the norm, and that it could not have been conceded. I urge the executive of that union to put the issues to the members, to let them decide, so that some form of democratic procedure will prevail. I suppose it is difficult for the men who called the strike to accept that they were rash at the beginning, that they have now a realistic offer before them and that they should reconsider the matter. There may have been circumstances, particularly in Sheriff Street, which compounded the problem. It is highly damaging to have the postal services ground to a halt because of the dispute.

On the other hand, when we try to deal with industrial relations we should consider management in depth. The NESC in a recent report were highly critical of management, and in particular in relation to productivity. Industrial relations constitutes one of the great challenges to our continued prosperity, and if we do not get it right we will not make progress. The subject has taken on a completely new importance, but this possibly has not been realised fully either by management or by the trade unions. Many of those involved on both sides of the negotiating table, both management and unions, are ill-prepared for their positions. There is no recognised training procedure, no recognised educational process to equip people for the requirements to do more efficiently the important jobs they have to do.

In many areas of the private sector the personnel section is one of the less important. Marketing is important because it is through it that an organisation gets its revenue, and production is important because it is from it one gets the return from capital. In some large organisations, and this applies equally to the public service, personnel officers have not been recognised as having such a key and important role. I suggest that the contributions today from the Opposition benches should have been directed not at pointing to small segments of no great importance but at some of the broader issues involved in industrial relations. If that had been done today's debate would have been worth while.

I take issue particularly with Deputy Mitchell, the spokesman for Fine Gael, who endeavoured this morning to put before the nation a scene of industrial chaos which does not exist. As I have said, one dispute has been fixed and another is in the field of the local authority of which Deputy Mitchell is a member. What has he done to try to solve that dispute? He spoke about the bin collection problem in our capital city and described the terrible state of the streets. What has Deputy Mitchell, former Lord Mayor, contributed to a solution of that dispute? The solution is not with the Minister. In contributing to the debate in that way, Deputy Mitchell has not been helpful to his party or to the country.

We had a contribution from the spokesman for the Labour Party. That party had been clamouring for a debate on this issue but their spokesman had to conclude after 20 minutes today. Apparently he did not have a contribution to make which would have occupied the time allotted to him. This either means that his contribution was purely for the purpose of criticism or that he had not any constructive suggestions or recommendations to offer.

In the national understanding we have a document contributed to by the Government, the trade unions and the employers. If the letter and the spirit of this document are implemented one can see a potential improvement in industrial relations. However, the Leader of the Labour Party last night rejected the national understanding on the ground that he did not have enough information in regard to the setting up of a national enterprise agency. So he decided that a document compiled by the trade union leaders is not acceptable to him on the basis that he has not studied it in great detail. That is a most disturbing approach by the Labour Party to the national understanding.

Debate adjourned.