Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 May 1979

Vol. 314 No. 6

Estimates, 1979. - Vote 42: Labour.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £33,710,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1979 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Labour, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.

The White Paper "Programme for National Development 1978-1981" indicated that it was the Government's primary objective to achieve the maximum possible increase in employment and suggested that employment increases of 25,000 a year over the period 1979 to 1981 were attainable. The proposals for a national understanding which subsequently emerged provide that if a significant shortfall in these targets seems likely a special joint public and private sector employment programme will be launched up to a ceiling of 5,000 jobs. In such a situation the employer and industry organisations are prepared to contribute 50 per cent of the necessary finance to be collected by means of a special surcharge on the employer's social security contribution. A special tripartite committee would supervise the implementation of the employment guarantee. To meet the formidable employment challenge facing this country, a special effort is needed from all sectors of the community and I believe that acceptance of the national understanding would be a historically significant milestone on the road to full employment and to our economic and social development.

A major proposal in the White Paper and the national understanding is to set up a national hire agency. The Supplementary Estimate which I will be moving includes provision for the cost of this agency. Given the scale of the employment problem facing us it is essential that we tap all available employment opportunities be they temporary or otherwise. The special function of the agency will be exploit to the full all available opportunities for temporary work. The intention is that the agency would employ people as required and would supply their services to firms for appropriate fees. The agency would be the employer of the people on its books and would be responsible for payment of their wages, social security contributions and so on.

I am anxious that the agency should be established at the earliest possible moment. I have decided, pending the enactment of legislation, to establish a limited company to perform the functions of the agency. I should emphasise that the agency is experimental. I would ask all those concerned with employment to give it their full support.

Of very special concern to me is youth employment for which I have undertaken a co-ordination role. The problem of providing suitable work for our young people demands a many sided response involving the co-ordination and integration of policies ranging across many areas of activity.

The best sources of information we have on the size of our youth unemployment problem are the EEC labour force surveys. The 1977 survey shows that there were about 15,000 young people looking for their first job as against the 20,000 at the time of the 1975 survey. We know that the labour force is growing on average each year by about 9,000 a year and will continue to do so into the mid-1980's because of the excess of school leavers over the number of people retiring from work.

The main line of our attack on unemployment rests on our traditional and long established employment policies. There is, of course, a complementary role for special measures which should reflect the particular characteristics of the problem. There are differences in the educational attainment, sex, social background, aspirations and so on of young people who are without work at the moment. It is important, therefore, that youth employment measures should reflect this diversity. A variety of schemes was therefore brought forward by the employment action team which the present Government set up after taking office. These schemes have covered almost 4,000 young people. More than 6,400 young people participated in 1978 Government schemes including those put forward by the team.

The main schemes suggested by the employment action team in their first submission were the work experience programme and the environmental improvement schemes programme.

About 3,000 young people have taken part in the work experience programme so far. The Government have agreed that it should be continued and expanded and that a sum of £2.8 million with a target of 6,000 placements, should be provided for it this year. So far about 500 participants in the programme have left their positions to take up permanent employment, illustrating the schemes value in getting young people into viable jobs.

The environmental improvement schemes programme also provided worthwhile employment and improved amenities for local communities. In 1978, it provided about 750 man-years of employment and it is being continued in 1979 with a target of 1,000 man-years of employment.

Last December the team made a second submission to me. Deputies will recall the Tánaiste's announcement in his Budget Speech last February approving schemes suggested by the team relating to employment by voluntary organisations of young people as development officers and for the employment of child-care assistants in special schools for the physically and mentally handicapped. The team's second submission contained two further proposals. One was for a language/ marketing skills training scheme to help Irish companies build up a nucleus of staff with expert knowledge of specific European markets and the appropriate language. The other suggestion is for the temporary employment of young people on local manpower surveys. I am happy to inform the House that the Government have approved these further schemes.

At this point I would like to pay public tribute to the team. They were set a difficult task and they were successful beyond expectations and opened up opportunities far in excess of the targets set. I have conveyed to the chairman of the team the Government's appreciation of their work and my intention to terminate the team. I am doing this in the light of my recent decision to set up the Manpower Consultative Committee which I propose will embrace youth employment problems.

I now move to the employment situation in the broader context. Total employment in manufacturing at the end of September 1978 was 203,000 or an increase of 5,600 on September 1977. The White Paper estimates that employment at end December 1978 was some 7,000 greater than was the position at end December 1977. There was an increase of about 43 per cent in the number of vacancies notified to the National Manpower Service as compared with 1977, 41,000 in 1978 compared to 29,000 in 1977. These facts should be sufficient answer to Opposition suggestions that unemployment decreases are due to emigration.

The employment incentive scheme provides for the payment of premiums to employers in respect of the recruitment of eligible workers who represent an increase over the numbers employed on specified base dates. The scheme is being continued for 1979. Four million pounds is provided for the purpose which I expect will be supplemented by grants from the European Social Fund. Premiums at the rate of £20 or £14 a week (depending on the age and category of worker) are payable for up to 24 weeks in respect of each extra eligible worker employed. During 1978 premiums were paid in respect of some 15,660 additional eligible employees, including 6,168 first-time job-seekers.

This scheme was introduced last year to help firms in the clothing and footwear sectors and some areas of the textiles industry and subsequently the tanning (leather) industry to cope with employment problems arising from increased competition. The assistance gives £5 per week in respect of each worker. The Government have decided to retain the scheme in operation for a further year from 31 March 1979 and to extend it to the tableware section of the pottery industry. The conditions of the scheme, as extended, are at present the subject of discussion with the EEC Commission. The scheme applies to some 30,000 jobs or more.

The continuation of high unemployment calls for a continuing search for new solutions. One which is receiving much attention is work sharing. There are difficulties involved in the introduction of any work-sharing arrangements but these difficulties have to be looked at in the context of the economic, social and political costs attached to high levels of unemployment. The future challenge may be how to spread the available employment equitably among a growing work force. I welcome the commitment in the proposals for a national understanding to investigate work-sharing possibilities in so far as these can be used as a job creation mechanism without adversely affecting competitiveness. Work-sharing is also being considered by various EEC bodies. I will return to that issue when dealing with my Department's involvement in EEC affairs.

The main function of the National Manpower Service is to place workers in suitable employment and to assist employers in recruiting suitable workers. I told the House last year I was not satisfied that the National Manpower Service were adequately equipped to carry out their functions and that I hoped to expand the service substantially. Since then I have increased the number of placement officers from 56 to 122 at the moment.

I am arranging for the opening of a further six permanent offices as soon as suitable premises become available. Many more clinics are now operating in towns which have not got permanent offices.

I have also arranged for the appointment of additional guidance officers. These officers give specialist advice and guidance to job-seekers who are in doubt or have difficulty about what they want to do or are best suited to. I hope this service can be extended to all regions shortly.

Last year it became clear to me that there was a need for a more effective co-ordination in the formulation of manpower and employment policies and schemes and that the involvement of the social partners was desirable. I have set up the Manpower Consultative Committee which are representative, at the highest level, of employers and trade unions and Government agencies. Their function is to advise on the role of manpower policy in economic and social development and as such they can advise in particular on the manpower policy requirements of the Government's full employment objective.

At their first meeting in December last the committee identified the issue of occupational shortages as a matter warranting urgent attention. By drawing on the information available and the experience of the wide range of organisations represented, the committee identified particular occupations in short supply and estimated the extent of the shortages. The occupations included engineers, computer personnel, electronic technicians, draughtsmen, engineering craftsmen—such as tool makers, fitters —construction craftsmen—plasters and bricklayers—and sewing machinists.

The committee have recommended substantial improvements in the resettlement assistance scheme as it applies to people with skills returning from abroad to jobs here and the launching of a campaign in Britain to recruit workers in the occupations in short supply. These recommendations are being put into effect immediately. As to the medium and long-term, the committee proposed provision of courses which would be implemented from September or October 1979 and which would contribute to relieving the shortages. The proposals entail the expansion of existing courses and the creation of new courses, including conversion courses to qualify for employment in an area of shortage. These conversion courses will ensure that increased output in the problem areas will commence from 1980 and it will not be possible to wait until the increased entrants have completed the normal four years of study for engineering degree courses. The proposals provide for an increase of well over 1,000 places for study in courses from which employment prospects are virtually guaranteed.

As announced yesterday by the Minister for Education, the financial resources necessary for the implementation of the HEA proposals are being made available to the universities and other institutions concerned through the Department of Education. Provision is made in the Supplementary Estimate for payment by my Department of allowances to persons undertaking conversion courses. The Manpower Consultative Committee are also considering questions of improved manpower information and bias against industrial employment among school leavers. I believe that the committee have brought to the manpower policy area a new sense of commitment and co-operation which will ultimately be reflected in a greater contribution by manpower policy to economic and social development.

The recent White Paper assigned to the NMS the overall task of improving the flow of labour market information and the service are currently reviewing the position. Already I have made arrangement for the service to publish a regular quarterly bulletin of labour market information. My Department are currently involved in a number of research projects on manpower topics. A study of employment/output relationships in manufacturing industry between 1953-73 was commissioned from the IPA in June 1978. The research was based on annual changes in employment, output and productivity in individual Irish industries and attempts to estimate future employment growth rates consistent with alternative rates of expansion output. A report will be published in the near future.

My Department are funding, along with the Department of Economic Planning and Development, an in-depth survey of the mid-west-region, with particular reference to Limerick, from the point of view of employment, unemployment and industrial relations. The field work for the survey is due to start later this month and a report is expected by early 1980.

Finally, my Department are sponsoring research into overtime which is being undertaken by the Department of Industrial Engineering, University College, Galway. That survey is concentrating on the reasons for overtime and on the possible effects from a job creation point of view of a reduction in overtime.

The Careers Information Service continue to provide comprehensive information about occupations through leaflets, booklets, audio-visual programmes and participation in careers exhibitions. New audio-visual programmes have been produced covering subjects such as choosing a career, preparing for a job interview, working in industry, and technician careers in science.

The Government recently approved an increase in the grant of the Advisory Committee on Emigrant Services to provide assistance to Irish centres in Britain to employ social welfare personnel. This follows on representations from the authorities running these centres.

Provision is made in my Department's Vote for financing of the two State bodies, AnCO and CERT, involved in industrial training and for a State grant to the Irish Management Institute.

In 1978 AnCO trained 16,268 adults and apprentices including 4,418 girls and women. This training was provided in 14 permanent training centres and in three temporary centres and in facilities provided by public and private companies, State-sponsored bodies, educational establishments and other institutions. In addition, 24 mobile training units visited areas remote from the main centres providing short introduction-to-industry courses which last from six to eight weeks each, accommodating 12-24 trainees at a time. Almost 80 different types of courses, varying in length from two weeks to eight months were provided.

Net operational expenditure by AnCO in 1978 amounted to almost £22 million. The Exchequer provided £11.9 million and the balance, £10 million came by way of grants from the European Social Fund. For 1979 the Exchequer allocation for AnCO's training activities is fixed at £13.47 million. As much of their expenditure will qualify for matching grants from the European Social Fund, AnCO expect to have a total of almost £26½ million available for operational expenditure in 1979 and they expect to train about 19,000 people, including 2,028 apprentices.

AnCO will also receive an Exchequer grant of £4 million for capital expenditure in 1979 as against £3.5 million in 1978. A new training centre at Tallaght. County Dublin, 400 places, will open next week and preparatory work is well advanced on new centres in Cork, 700 places, Sligo, 350 places, and for the expansion of the training centre at Ballyfermot, Dublin. Sites have been acquired for further centres in Finglas and Loughlinstown, County Dublin. By the end of the year AnCO expect to have nearly 4,000 training places in their centres including about 1,700 for apprentices.

I am sure it will be of interest to the House to know that nearly 80 per cent of all AnCO trainees in their own centres and in hired facilities are under 25 years of age. Their special schemes such as the community youth training programme and the summer introduction to industry courses are aimed specifically at young people. Some 1,800 school leavers, redundant apprentices and craftsmen benefited under the scheme in 1978.

Despite the expansion of AnCO direct training activities, the primary responsibility for training falls on the employer. There are now almost 5,000 training managers and training instructors working in Irish industry. Industry is encouraged and assisted to define its own training needs and to prepare and implement programmes to meet those needs through levy/grant schemes which are devised by industrial training committees of the designated sectors, namely textiles, clothing, footwear, food, drink and tobacco, engineering, construction printing and paper, and chemical and allied products.

This year's Estimate provides a grant of £754,000 for CERT. This grant includes a capital element of £100,000 for the conversion of the premises at Roebuck, to enable short-term training programmes to be provided there. The Exchequer provision is supplemented by aid from the European Social Fund which in 1978 amounted to £365,000.

In conjunction with the vocational education committees, CERT coordinates formal training at 13 centres throughout the country. During 1978, 1,462 people received formal training at both management and craft levels.

Last year 149 in-service courses were held for managers, supervisors, receptionists, housekeepers and craft personnel in the hotel industry, and 16 in-service courses in the catering sector. These courses attracted 2,362 employees.

The Estimate includes an allocation of £170,000 for crash training courses to meet large numbers of identified vacancies in the industry. These courses of six weeks duration give instruction in such areas as food preparation, housekeeping, food service and bartending. A total of 380 trainees completed the courses, which were conducted in Bundoran, Killarney and Rosslare between January and April. To date 85 per cent of them have been placed in employment.

The Irish Management Institute provide a comprehensive programme of management development and training in which about 5,000 managers participated during 1978. A non-capital grant of £397,000 is provided in the Estimate for the IMI which will be supplemented by grants from the European Social Fund. The ESF grant approved for 1978 was £300,000.

The institute, in co-operation with AnCO, have been conducting a series of career development programmes for redundant managers. Up to the end of 1978, 15 courses were completed. Four programmes are scheduled for 1979. The re-employment rate of participants is about 80 per cent.

The institute in 1977 embarked on the business development programme. The objective of this programme is to give concentrated attention and advice to a number of small to medium size firms to ensure profitable expansion and increased permanent employment. The first programme is nearing completion and has been rated highly by the participants. It is proposed to commence a further two programmes in the autumn.

The number of redundancy notifications in 1978 fell to below 10,000 for the first time since 1973. This was an improvement of almost 3,000 on the 1977 figure. I hope to see a further significant reduction in our redundancy figures this year. The Redundancy Payments Act, 1979, which came into operation last month, has simplified and improved the scheme.

I should like to draw attention to one provision of an innovatory nature in the Act which introduces the concept of time-off to look for work during the period of redundancy notice. Provision is also made in the Act to permit the appointment of additional vice-chairmen and members to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I intend to appoint these shortly as I am anxious that processing of claims should be expedited.

In some areas of employment, particularly where workers are unorganised, wages and working conditions fall below the national average. These are mainly the areas covered by Employment Regulation Orders made under the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The most important sectors are: agriculture, catering, hairdressing, hotels, law clerks, messengers, flour milling, tailoring and millinery.

Types of employments covered by these orders are systematically inspected by the general inspectors of my Department. As a result of these inspections arrears of wage underpayments amounting to £65,952 were collected in 1978. Legal proceedings were instituted against a number of employers, mainly for failure to pay statutory minimum wages. Only a small number of employers fail to comply with the orders. I intend, nevertheless, to continue with this policy of systematic inspection.

It is also my responsibility to enforce the provisions of Registered Employment Agreements made under the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. There are two such agreements for the construction industry.

My Department are also concerned with a number of other measures dealing with conditions of employment. These include the Conditions of Employment Acts, the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and the Protection of Young Persons (Employees) Act, 1977. I will continue to ensure that workers, particularly young workers, and also employers are made aware of their rights and, indeed, their obligations under this legislation.

The White Paper Programme for National Development 1978-1981 referred to the scope for the creation of additional jobs without significant cost increase by discouraging systematic overtime working and indicated the Government's intention to reduce the present statutory limits on adult working hours and overtime. The proposals for a national understanding for economic and social development repeated the Government's intention. I will be introducing a Bill to give effect to the Government's intentions on overtime and I intend in due course to consult with employees and trade unions on the necessary changes.

During the past year my Department have undertaken further work on the enforcement in Ireland of the EEC road transport regulations, which prescribe hours of driving and rest periods for road transport workers and methods of control—initially log books and ultimately tachographs. I have made regulations which designate the enforcing authorities for the regulations dealing with hours of driving, and prescribe penalties. In the near future I will be making further regulations concerning the installation and use of tachographs. In order that Ireland might avoid being brought before the European Court on the tachograph issue—as was the UK, who unsuccessfully sought to be excused for the full application of the regulation—I arranged with the Commission, after initial discussions with employer and worker bodies, that the tachograph would be installed on a phased basis over the period up to 1 January 1981.

I accept that these regulations pose very severe problems for employers and workers in the Irish transport industry. At the same time, I am convinced that the Commission have gone as far as they can go in trying to accommodate us. The Government's aim is to secure acceptance of the regulations and their implementation in an orderly manner, with the minimum of disruption. It has not been possible up to now to have national discussions between employers and trade unions on the implications of the EEC regulations. I urge trade unions and employers to use the phasing-in period to find acceptable solutions to these complex and very difficult problems.

The problem of safety, health and welfare of the workforce is receiving increasing attention in recent years. The industrial inspectorate deals with the enforcement of the legislation in this area as well as providing educational and advisory services to employers and workers. The inspectorate has offices in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway, Sligo, Drogheda and Athlone. Specialised groups are set up within the inspectorate to deal with technical matters relating to construction, electricity, machinery, marine, mining, chemical and also occupational hygiene.

The number of factories, mines, quarries and other premises subject to inspections in 1978 was 20,261 and, of these, 17,721 or approximately 85 per cent were inspected. Inspectors made 24,465 visits during the year 1978 which included repeat visits to ascertain whether contraventions had been remedied and to investigate accidents, complaints, and dangerous occurrences. A total of 4,074 accidents were reported during 1978 under the Factories Act and the Mines and Quarries Act as compared with 3,467 in 1977. Twenty-seven of these were fatal accidents as compared with 26 in 1977. Prosecutions were instituted in respect of 134 contraventions of the Factories Act and convictions obtained in 116 cases.

Backing up the industrial inspectorate of the Department is the National Industrial Safety Organisation, to whose work I attach great importance. It is clear from the available statistics that a high percentage of industrial accidents could be avoided by increased safety consciousness in work places. This promotional and educational aspect has a very important role which is reflected in some of the clauses of the Safety in Industry Bill. The appointment of safety representatives and the election of safety committees will also heighten the awareness of workers in this area.

The area of occupational health is one of increasing importance with the growth in the use of man-made substances in industrial processes. Research into the possible harmful effects of these modern substances has drawn attention to the need to examine critically some of the more accepted processes and established practices in our working environment. As a consequence, I have initiated an occupational health programme within my Department. Research has been undertaken by the Department's industrial medical adviser and by the industrial inspectorate into causes of certain diseases.

This research should prove fruitful in finding ways of preventing the occurrence of these diseases and ultimately to provide the means of eliminating them completely from our work places. It is hoped that the occupational health programme will highlight the unnecessary suffering which can be caused by contracting such diseases and will create a more enlightened approach and recognition of the problem by both employers and employees. The establishment of a mobile research unit in the industrial inspectorate to monitor the environmental conditions in the factory and analyse the conditions is under consideration.

Apart from our own efforts we also, as a member of the European Community, are contributing to proposals for directives which will improve the environment for our workforce. These proposals and indeed existing EEC directives range through a wide field. Their eventual implementation can only lead to healthier work places and can contribute to improved results in achieving economic targets. With this combination of legislation, promotional work, advice and scientific research it is hoped that the risk of occupational disease and accidents will be significantly reduced.

My Department are responsible for the administration of the legislation aimed at ensuring equality of treatment between men and women in employment, that is, the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The growing awareness of workers of their entitlements under the Acts has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of cases referred to equality officers of the Labour Court. In order to speed up the processing of such cases, I have arranged for the appointment of two additional equality officers, which will bring the total number of persons now engaged in that area of work up to five compared with two when I took office. The Employment Equality Agency have been assigned the task of encouraging equality of treatment between men and women at work and of overseeing the operation of the legislation. The agency's report on their first 15 months of operation should be available shortly. At a practical level the agency advise people of their rights under both Acts. They also provide information and advice through the distribution of explanatory leaflets, brochures and posters, and by means of radio and television publicity. They have also held seminars in Dublin and Cork and plan to organise more in the provinces.

already reviewed those sections of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, which prohibit the employment of women in industrial work at night. They concluded that the prohibition on women working at night militated against their attaining equal treatment with men in the workplace. They accordingly recommended that the objective should be the repeal of legislation which imposed restrictions on women working at night which did not also apply to men. I have asked the various interests concerned for their views on the agency's conclusions, and I will make a decision shortly on the appropriate action to be taken.

The agency are now engaged, again at my request, in reviewing certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1955 and the regulations made under that Act about the lifting of maximum weights. The inclusion of a weight lifting clause in an Employment Regulation Order in the clothing industry has already been considered by the agency, as it had been suggested that such a clause could be used to limit job choices or employment opportunities for women. Following the agency's representations the clause in question was removed.

Most of the recommendations by the Commission on the Status of Women have now been implemented as far as employment-related issues are concerned. Since the remaining areas where action was needed did not relate to my sphere of responsibility, the Government have agreed to transfer to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development the overall co-ordinating role for follow-up action relating to the Commission's recommendations, as well as responsibility for the affairs of the Council for the Status of Women.

The Government are committed to the promotion of effective participation by workers in management decisions affecting their working lives. Elections for the appointment of employee directors have already been successfully concluded in B & I, ESB, Bord na Móna and NET under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. An election is also in progress in the Sugar Company. In the case of the remaining companies covered by the Act—Aer Lingus and CIE—I expect elections to be held this year following the completion of consultations.

I have arranged to have a discussion paper prepared setting out the general position relating to worker participation at all levels of the enterprise. Its early publication should focus public debate and discussion on the main issues and on new developments in the area of worker involvement at shop floor level. It should also afford both sides of industry an opportunity to put forward their own views and opinions.

Until the social partners have outlined their positions, Government initiatives as regards the private sector would, in my view, be premature. Any worth-while progress in this area must be based on consensus between the interest groups concerned.

For my own part I am prepared to facilitate and to assist fully in the promotion of extensive and detailed discussion both within and between the various groups involved. The fact remains, however, that worker participation is fast becoming a practical reality and both employers and trade unions must be prepared to adopt more positive attitudes if we are to meet this challenge. In particular, managers and employers should now be exploring the possibilities for taking progressive and enlightened initiatives where these can be successfully implemented on an agreed voluntary basis. I should like to emphasise that it is imperative for us to develop management practices and structures based on consent—not least because of very obvious industrial relations considerations.

However, I must emphasise that the formulation of a positive response to the growing challenge created by the demand for more worker involvement is not the sole responsibility of the Minister for Labour, the Government or employers. This responsibility also devolves on groups such as the trade unions and workers generally.

There has been increasing concern about dangers relating to the transport of dangerous goods within the country. The 1972 Dangerous Substances Act, when brought into operation, will extend safety precautions in the handling of dangerous substances in industry and trade.

This Act will authorise me to make regulations providing for the control of the loading, unloading and transport of petroleum and other dangerous substances. However, I am advised that, to bring in the Act in its present form would mean the repeal of certain provisions on explosives which must be retained for the time being in the interests of security. I have, therefore, put in hand the drafting of a short amending Bill to permit me to bring into operation the provisions required for the making of regulations dealing with dangerous substances in use in industry and trade. I hope that it will be possible to have this amending Bill passed in the present session, following which I intend to have the Act brought into operation.

In preparation for bringing in the Act, the Department, following consultation with the interests affected, have prepared regulations to deal with the handling of petroleum and other specified substances. Notices of the intention to make regulations in relation to petroleum were published in September and October last year. Representations made by interested parties have been examined and discussed with the interests concerned, and account taken of the submissions made, as appropriate.

Work is well advanced in the preparation of regulations to cover the transport of over a score of dangerous substances which have been listed by the inspectorate of my Department. These regulations will be ready for signature when the amending legislation goes through. Further regulations will control their loading, unloading and storage, and the list of substances will be added to as the need arises.

Regulations have also been prepared to implement an EEC directive which lays down standards of safety for the classification, packaging and labelling of over 800 dangerous substances.

In addition, I intend to implement, shortly, another EEC directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations and which prohibits the use of monomer vinyl chloride as an aerosol propellant.

Following the completion of the Second Stage of the Safety in Industry Bill last year discussions were held with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Employers' Confederation, and these two bodies also had discussions between themselves on certain aspects of the Bill, notably those relating to safety representatives and safety committees. A mutually acceptable formula has now been devised and I propose to incorporate this in the Bill by way of amendments which I shall propose in Committee. I shall be proposing a number of other amendments to meet points made in the House during the Second Stage debate and also points put to me by the ICTU and IEC.

Some time ago I came to the conclusion that our legislation in this area was in need of overhaul. It is my intention, therefore, as soon as the Safety in Industry Bill is enacted, to arrange for the whole field of worker safety to be surveyed.

The central purpose of the Payment of Wages Bill, 1979, at present before the Dáil, is to amend the Truck Acts in order to make it lawful to pay wages by cheque or other non-cash method, where both employers and employees covered by those Acts are agreeable.

The restriction now obtaining on the payment of wages by cheque to employees under the Truck Acts came about unintentionally as a result of the Currency Act, 1927, which removed the banks' powers to issue bank notes. The Payment of Wages Bill will restore the pre-1927 position and bring it into line with the original intention of the Legislature.

Discussions have taken place with both sides of industry since the Bill passed its Second Stage and I shall be moving amendments to the Bill in Committee, later in the session.

Preparation of regulations is well advanced to implement the EEC directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses. Discussions are taking place with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers on the matter.

I would like now to refer to developments in the social policy of the EEC. As there are about six million unemployed in the Community, unemployment has been for the past few years a source of constant and pressing concern to member states. Repeatedly at EEC Councils of Ministers, at tripartite conferences and at meetings of the Standing Committee on Employment which consist of Ministers along with worker and employer representatives at EEC level, Irish Government delegates have stressed the need for vigorous Community action and for the necessary finances to be made available to combat unemployment.

The tripartite conference held on 9 November 1978 dealt primarily with investment and employment, work-sharing and the role of the tertiary sector. At the December 1978 European Council of EEC Heads of Government and the June and November 1978 Councils of Ministers for Social Affairs there were wide-ranging exchanges of views on employment policy with particular emphasis on youth employment. The November 1978 Council also approved the introduction of new aids from the European Social Fund for employment measures in favour of young workers.

Indeed, at a further European Council in March 1979 a large part of their proceedings was devoted to the unemployment situation and social policy generally. The Council confirmed the importance they attached to youth employment. At Community level they instructed the Social Affairs Council to study the measures to improve the employment situation, including the limitation of the systematic use of overtime and the improvement of employment opportunities for women.

The Social Affairs Council of Ministers on 29 June 1978 adopted a resolution comprising an action programme on safety and health at work. They agreed to take action by the end of 1982 in respect of the causes of accidents and diseases, dangerous substances, the dangerous and harmful effects of machines, and increasing awareness of dangers inherent in work situations.

The Council also adopted a directive on the protection of the health of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer.

The Council last Tuesday agreed the main lines of a draft directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states on protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer. The directive will oblige member states to set up institutions to deal with the claims of employees in respect of pay, and other cash or equivalent benefits. The draft directive also will require that an employer's failure to pay social security contributions before insolvency does not affect his employees' benefit entitlement and that pension rights of employees and former employees should be protected. Some further work on the draft directive will be necessary before it is finally adopted.

I envisage that the extension of the responsibilities of the Redundancy Fund set up under the Redundancy Payments Acts to include the liabilities proposed under the draft directive other than those relating to social security and pensions will be a feasible method of implementing most of the provisions of the directive.

Another item approved by this Council was a Programme for the Exchange of Young Workers. The Commission will, under the programme, approve and recognise organisations to effect the exchanges for which some finance will be provided by the Community. Member states will be involved in bringing the attention of young workers, trade union and employer organisations, and youth organisations to the scheme and in putting organisations in member states in touch with the appropriate European organisations.

In the context of the grave unemployment situation in the Community the Council examined a Commission document on work sharing. The Council decided to ask the Commission to study further a number of work-sharing measures including annual duration of working time, limitation of systematic overtime, flexible retirement and continuous shift work and to make proposals where appropriate.

The improvement of relations with the social partners in relation to the holding of further Tripartite Conferences was also discussed. Discussion at the Council centred mainly on Commission proposals for improving the working methods of the conference in view of the disappointment of trade union representatives at the organisation and outcome of the last Tripartite Conference in November 1978.

The Standing Committee on Employment will meet on 22 May 1979 to discuss the mismatch between the supply and demand for labour in the Community. Mismatch partly explains the fact that there are a considerable number of job vacancies at the same time as there are over six million people unemployed in the Community. As I said earlier, the Manpower Consultative Committee have made substantial progress in dealing with skilled shortages.

Ireland will assume Presidency of the Council of the European Communities for six months from 1 July 1979 to 31 December 1979. It is intended that there will be one meeting of the Social Affairs Council and one, or possibly two, meetings of the Standing Committee during our Presidency.

The European Social Fund is basically an employment fund which, under Article 123 of the Rome Treaty, is given "the task of rendering the employment of workers easier and of increasing their geographical and occupational mobility within the Community". The scope of the fund is more precisely determined by the specific types of activities eligible for fund assistance. Until 1979 the grant of fund assistance was limited to programmes of training and retraining of workers and resettlement. With effect from 1 January 1979, fund assistance has been available for certain types of job creation programmes for young people. This is a development we heartily welcome.

My Department have the role of Government-designated agency for handling all applications for assistance and are glad to answer all inquiries about the fund and to guide intending applicants in the correct formulation of applications.

In general fund grants are based on a matching of public expenditure in the member states concerned on the particular service aided. However, for operations carried out in very few Community regions, including the whole of Ireland, a higher intervention rate of 55 per cent was introduced in 1978.

The assistance which we have received from the fund has enabled us to develop our national training system, particularly the operations of AnCO, at a far faster rate than if we had to rely on our own resources. We intend to continue our efforts to use the fund to develop our vocational training system for the benefit of Irish people and to provide them with the skills necessary to acquire good and stable employment.

We have done well from the fund and have succeeded in getting approvals for higher grants each year since 1973. Our fund assistance approved in respect of 1978 operations amounted to £28.8 million, which represents an increase of 50 per cent on the amount approved for 1977 operations and is the largest increase achieved so far.

As regards 1979, a total of 32 applications for about £34 million has been submitted to the Commission in respect of operations commencing in 1979, of which about £31.5 million relates to 1979 operations and about £2.5 million to 1980 operations.

In addition, grants approved in earlier years in respect of operations to be carried out in 1979 amount to about £8.7 million. I am confident that the total amount of fund grants approved for 1979 will again show a substantial increase on the figure for 1978.

I already mentioned the new fund aids for young people which came into operation from 1 January 1979. We advocated and pressed for such aids and strongly supported proposals put forward by the Commission in April 1978 for the introduction of the new aids. Lengthy negotiations were necessary to secure Council agreement, which was eventually reached in November 1978. The new aids cover certain job creation measures for young people under 25 years of age in both the private and public sectors, though jobs in central government administrations are excluded. The maximum fund contribution for Ireland will be about £11 per person per week. We intend to take full advantage of this new fund intervention and have already submitted applications for assistance in respect of our various schemes to promote employment for young people.

The Irish Government attach the greatest importance to the Social Fund which has been one of the major benefits of EEC membership and has provided us with a great opportunity which we have used successfully and efficiently.

My Department are also involved in the activities of the ILO, the Council of Europe and the OECD.

We shall be sending tripartite delegations to the 65th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1979 and to the 3rd European Regional Conference in October 1979. The June conference will consider, inter alia, the adoption of new international instruments relating to hours of work and rest periods in road transport and occupational safety and health in dock work. The October conference will be mainly occupied with young people and work and policies and practices for the improvement of working conditions and working environment in Europe.

We are saddened by the continued absence of the United States from the ILO. I can only wish that the efforts of member countries, including Ireland, will be successful in securing an early return of the US to membership.

As you know, this year is the Year of the Child. To mark its importance in a special way the ILO have urged member states to ratify Convention No. 138 concerning the minimum age for admission to employment. I am happy to say that Ireland has already done this. I propose to recommend to the Government the ratification of two further conventions in the near future—the Human Resources Development Convention, No. 142 of 1975, relating to vocational guidance and vocational training in the development of human resources, and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, No. 144 of 1976, concerning the promotion of the implementation of international labour standards and national action relating to the activities of the ILO.

My Department's involvement in the work of the Council of Europe is concerned with the European Social Charter on which member states are required to report biennially.

In the fight against unemployment the Manpower and Social Affairs Committee of the OECD continue to play an influential role through their reports, research and the 1976 recommendation on a general employment and manpower policy. The secretary of my Department has been serving as chairman of this committee for the past three years and will shortly complete his term of office.

The committee have been following up the work done at the high-level conference on youth employment held in December 1978 under the chairmanship of the US Secretary of Labour. The committee have also been examining the employment measures taken by member countries during the recent recession in relation to the desirability of resuming a high level of economic growth.

One of the most important items of expenditure covered by the Vote for my Department relates to the Labour Court and its industrial relations service and also the rights commissioner service. These are all free services and are supported and availed of by employers and trade unions.

When the Oireachtas set up these services what they did, in effect, was to provide a forum where the parties to disputes could come together and try to reach agreement with the help of an impartial third party. As Deputies are well aware the normal practice is for workers and employers to discuss and negotiate with the intention of settling issues between them. In fact the vast bulk of issues are resolved in this way. However, to assist the parties, the industrial relations service of the Labour Court are available. When efforts at conciliation have failed, and where both parties are agreeable, the court will investigate a dispute.

The Industrial Relations Act, 1969, empowered the Minister for Labour to appoint rights commissioners. The type of disputes with which the commissioners normally deal concern "rights", such as dismissal, demarcation and disciplinary disputes. When a rights commissioner has investigated a dispute, he makes a non-binding recommendation to the parties, suggesting terms of settlement and either of the parties involved may appeal this recommendation to the Labour Court. In such event, the court's decision is binding. However, neither the rights commissioner's recommendation nor the Labour Court's decision on an appeal is legally enforceable.

The various procedures have been designed for parties desiring to settle or prevent disputes. Cases have come to light, however, where the parties to a dispute did not make genuine efforts to reach agreement in direct negotiation or at conciliation conferences. It would appear that these processes were used as a stepping stone to a Labour Court investigation. In situations like this it is understandable that the processes of negotiation and conciliation have not been successful.

I would like to urge on the parties to discussions the need to make every effort to reach settlements through negotiations. The most satisfactory settlements are those reached in this way.

In 1978, industrial relations officers of the court acted as chairmen to negotiations in 1,288 cases, an increase of 113 over the 1977 figure which, itself, had been an all-time high figure. The court held 602 hearings and issued 545 recommendations in 1978 as compared with 462 recommendations in 1977 and 162 in 1971. The rights commissioner service also continues to be used increasingly. In 1978, the commissioners investigated, under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, about 1,960 cases as compared with 1,830 in 1977.

To deal with the increasing workload and to reduce and hopefully eliminate delays in dealing with cases, I have made an order providing for a fourth division of the Labour Court and the arrangements for setting it up are proceeding. I will also be appointing additional rights commissioners.

At the first meeting of the Commission on Industrial Relations in May last year I asked for a report to be submitted inside two years if possible. I am confident, from the progress made to date, that this request will be met. When the report is received, we shall all have the opportunity of taking whatever decisions are necessary on this important subject.

I continue to receive demands for more legislation—legislation outlawing strikes and pickets, legislation providing for cooling-off periods and so on. I can well understand the reasons for the calls for law in cases particularly where the life of the community is disrupted by minority groups who persist in the pursuit of their own interests by ignoring agreed procedures. So far, I have resisted these demands, believing that sanity will prevail in industrial relations and that voluntary arrangements negotiated between employer and employee will be supported and will be allowed to work. I believe that I am expressing the sentiments of all right-thinking people in the country when I say that this is not too much to expect.

However, if small groups persist in pursuing their own interests to the detriment of the community at large, the elected representatives of the people may have to consider seriously whether the public interest requires some measures to be taken to protect the people's interests, especially where services and supplies essential to the life of the people are affected.

While I believe that the agreed procedures, coupled with the services provided by the State, are capable of producing settlements in almost every conceivable case of dispute, I do not rule out completely the possibility of my intervening where the agreed processes may have failed to produce a settlement, or where serious hardship for the community is threatened.

This stance is taken in the interest of sustaining the system of industrial relations which has been developed in this country and which trade unions and employers also want to see operated without interference. I should make it clear, at the same time, that I do not see my office as one of detachment or aloofness from the negotiating scene. I keep in close touch with all significant developments and I receive daily reports from the industrial relations monitoring unit of the Department. In certain situations it is apparent to me that failure of one or other of the parties to a dispute to use the machinery available to them could lead to a breakdown. In numerous such situations I have met the parties to disputes in order to persuade them to use the machinery or I have given instructions for this to be done in my name. Deputies will appreciate that in proceeding in this way it is necessary for the Minister to act with care and discretion. It is necessary to make it clear at this point that the vast majority of our disputes are settled quietly in a mature way within the agreed procedures and without the glare of publicity.

Without prejudice to what the Commission on Industrial Relations may suggest, I would like to say that one conclusion I have come to is that a change in basic attitudes is essential if we are to have a real improvement in industrial relations. One of the ways in which this change can be achieved is through a better informed trade union movement and a more open approach on the part of employers. To help towards this, the Government make available through this Vote substantial financial assistance for the education, training and advisory services of the ICTU and for the Irish Management Institute. In so far as the grant to congress is concerned, it was subject to a restriction which would have had the effect of requiring of congress, as and from this year onwards, that they meet 50 per cent of the gross expenditure on their education, training and advisory services. However, this restriction has now been removed and the grant has been established on an 80 per cent Exchequer 20 per cent congress contribution basis. The grant to congress has steadily increased over the years and it now stands at £205,000. In addition, since the beginning of the year, my Department have assumed responsibility for the payment of the State subvention to the College of Industrial Relations. The amount being provided this year is £20,000; double that for last year. I would expect that the outlay by the State on these institutions will bring substantial benefits and will improve the quality of our conduct of industrial relations.

The multiplicity of unions has long been recognised as a factor causing special problems for us, especially at the level of the enterprise. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have for some time been promoting the better organisation of trade unions in joint structures to achieve common negotiation procedures where a number of trade unions operate within an industry or firm. Any moves in this direction are deserving of support and I would encourage employers to co-operate fully with the congress in the matter, in the interest of improving industrial relations.

The proposals for a national understanding represent another important development in the relationship between Government, employers and workers. They certainly represent a major step forward towards achieving national agreement on a wide range of topics, including employment, pay and taxation, health and welfare and education. I would remind the trade union movement that when they vote on the proposals on 23 May they will be voting on major issues of vital concern to the whole community and not merely on a pay policy. The proposals constitute a concept which falls to be accepted or rejected in toto.

One of the most important aspects of the framing of the proposals for a national understanding was the spirit of co-operation and unity of purposes shown by the parties involved towards achieving economic and social progress. It is to be hoped that this spirit will set a headline for those concerned with negotiations at all levels. If there is adherence to agreed procedures and if full use is made of the dispute settling machinery both sides of industry will be making a worth while contribution towards industrial peace and the well-being of the country.

I cannot start otherwise than by deploring the contribution which the Minister for Labour has just made. I have endured for the past 95 minutes this absolute bumph when the country is in a state of industrial chaos. The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for insulting this House by coming in with that sort of crap and not saying one word about the industrial crisis. I am very tempted simply to sit down and not follow the Minister and not to contribute one iota to this charade. The Minister's speech was the most disgraceful contribution this House has ever had to endure, especially in view of the upheaval and chaos which pervades society. He gave not one word of hope, not one idea as to how this crisis might be coped with. I am deeply insulted.

I will deal firstly with the industrial chaos. If the Fianna Fáil Government had set out to create this present state of industrial chaos they could not have succeeded—if that is the word—as well as they have done. Seldom before have labour relations been in such turmoil and seldom has there been so much discontent. Seldom if ever before has a Minister for Labour been so innocuous, inactive and irrelevant as the present Minister. Admittedly the Minister is but the junior boy among the economic Ministers of the Cabinet. Admittedly the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy see themselves as the ministerial giants compared to their silent partner in the Department of Labour. He may be overawed by their economic theories and high profile, but nothing can justify the apparent paralysis that affects the Department of Labour and their Minister.

Since I was appointed as shadow spokesman I have been receiving in the normal way the scripts of speeches made by the Minister which are prepared by his Department. Even the flow of those platitudinous scripts has dried up. During the past three months the Minister for Labour has made only one speech which was reported, and that was the infamous speech in Cork in which he said "I can do nothing. I have no magic wand". When the Minister was on this side of the House he was the most strident critic and had all the answers, but now that he is Minister he can do nothing. If that is so then he should resign. He has said that he can do nothing and has not a magic wand, but two short years ago there was a solution to every problem; everything would be conceded and nothing would have to be paid for. Now we are told that the Minister can do nothing.

That is the hopelessness of the situation. It is the hopelessness of the Government in the area of labour relations. Last week during debate on the Finance Bill I said that for workers Fianna Fáil are a bad party but that for labour relations they are a joke. Anybody who might read the Minister's speech today could hardly disagree with that remark. If there is nothing the Minister can do in the present situation, he should go. I do not know whether the problem rests with the Minister's colleagues, but the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is handicapped also because the Minister for Finance and for the Public Service will not allow him to concede. I do not know how restricted the Minister for Labour is by his colleagues in the Cabinet who have responsibility in the economic area but if he is being restricted, if he is allowing his personal reputation to be tarnished by any such restriction, that in itself is good enough reason for him to go. On the other hand if it is a case of ministerial incompetence, that is also sufficient reason for his going. To a country yearning for industrial peace it ill behoves the Minister to say there is nothing he can do to help resolve the problems. He ought to be ashamed to say that.

The situation is so bad that, if there is not a ministerial resignation or if there is not a significant improvement, I shall be forced to seek the support of my colleagues on this side of the House in moving a motion of censure against the Minister for Labour. That is a step that an Opposition are very slow to take, but I am putting the Minister on notice that we will be duty bound to take such a step unless there is significant improvement in the labour relations situation.

We in Fine Gael believe that the country is tearing itself apart but we are confident that there is a widespread yearning even for a temporary breathing space from the frustrations of strikes and work-to-rule situations. I shall return later to the question of the root cause of these problems. The people as a whole want some relief from the pressures and restrictions to which they have been subjected in the past year. Instead of national understanding we have national undermining. The environment is not conducive to the creation of jobs, the jobs that are needed so badly. What we need, what the people want is a cooling-off period, a cessation of labour hostilities to allow time for reflection.

Last week I called for a six-month truce in respect of public sector disputes. I am calling now, not for a national pay pause, but for a national strike pause, for a period in which the underlying factors might be considered in an atmosphere free from pressure. The major obstacle to such a cooling-off period is the post office strike, a matter to which the Minister failed to refer in his long script. This is the most malevolent strike this country has known for many years, if ever before. It is the first million-day strike that we have ever experienced. For more than 13 weeks 13,000 people have been on strike and if it continues for another week or so it will qualify for a golden disc in that one million man-days will have been lost or more than the total for some of our worst strikes in the past. Therefore, the post office strike will be the one to go into the Guinness Book of Records. Is there not something rotten in the State? Yet, the Minister does not refer once to that strike during his 95-minute speech. The Government refuse to budge. They refuse to talk to their employees, many of whom are now hungry.

I have no wish to interrupt the Deputy so early in his speech but the Chair will insist throughout this debate that, while any Deputy in his contribution to the question of industrial relations will be entitled to mentioned particular disputes in passing, he will not be allowed to go into detail on them. Such detail would not be relevant to this Vote because these are matters for other Ministers. The post office dispute in particular is a matter for another senior Minister.

I do not wish to quarrel with the Chair but the ruling he has just made highlights the problem to which I am referring, that is, that the Minister for Labour has no role or is not seen to have a role in what is the worst ever single strike in our history. This situation is a joke. The man who has responsibility for industrial relations, for the Labour Court and for the civil service conciliation and arbitration machinery has no role to play in this major strike. No private employer would be tolerated if he refused to talk to his employees for 13 weeks. There is no compromise on the part of the Government.

I would ask the Deputy again not to enter into the details of any dispute. He may deal at length with the question of industrial relations. The Minister has done so.

A million man-days have been lost; the country is being brought to its knees. People are sick of it, they want an end to it and they want to know what the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Government are doing about the strike. What we need is a national cooling-off period, and the major obstacle to that is the post office strike, the biggest strike in our history, the million, and perhaps two million, day strike, if the no-talk stance continues.

I plead with the Minister for Labour to use his influence within the Government and with his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and to recognise that the conciliation and arbitration scheme, in so far as it applies to the post office, has broken down. Thirteen thousand men do not stay out of work for over 13 weeks, starving their families, for fun. I urgently ask the Minister for Labour to use his influence to get the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to talk now. As with every strike, eventually talks will be held, eventually a solution will be found, but how long more have the House and the country to wait? How infuriating it will be if next week, or next month, or in two months' time, a solution will be found that could have been found two months ago. I would ask the Minister to get direct talks going, to move out of the Government's no compromise, not-an-inch stance and to bring to an end the worst strike in our history.

It is not only because of the direct implication for the national economy, tourism, jobs and so on; it is not only the cost of conceding the reasonable cost of the claim; there is the problem of the bitterness that will be engendered in the public service and in the post office.

The Chair would ask the Deputy to get away from this subject. The Chair has already said that we cannot go into the detail of strikes. Industrial relations are completely in order on this Vote. All the details of the post office strike are a matter for another Department, and the Deputy will have an opportunity of debating them on the Vote for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

I must obey the ruling and will pass from that, but would urge the Minister to have talks, to make concessions, to make a compromise, to come out of his bunker and fix this strike. This is a strike in the public sector. I have said, and I repeat, that if it were not for our industrial relations problems in the public sector we would have scarcely any industrial relations problems at all. By comparison with the public sector, the private sector is the essence of virtue.

The Minister for Labour tells us that last year 36 per cent of man-days lost were in the public sector. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy tells us in a speech on the budget, or on the Finance Bill, that perhaps as much as 80 per cent of man-days lost were caused by public sector disputes. Both of these figures are on the records of the House. Regardless of which is correct, this year we may have as much as 90 per cent of the man-days lost—and up to 95 per cent if this strike goes on—in the public sector; it certainly will be higher than 75 per cent, unless we have an outrageous rash of strikes in the private sector in the next year.

The public sector is where the problem is. The Government have failed in their handling of their own employee relations. They have been, and are, the most inept, the most incompetent administration, as far as industrial relations are concerned, certainly that I can remember, in the history of this State. There are bin strikes, post office strikes, ESB strikes, CIE strikes; there have been Bord na Móna and NET strikes in this past year. All the big strikes, all the nuisance strikes, are in the public sector—in the Government's own area of responsibility. Where, in that Estimate speech, did the Minister once refer to the plague that is not only on this House but on the country?

Up to 18 months ago there was a very little problem in the local authority sector, very few man-days lost. Why do you suppose that, in this past 18 months, problems have arisen? I will tell you why, because I have consulted with a lot of senior local government officials around the country whom I happen to know through my membership of the Association of Municipal Authorities. The problem is that since the abolition of rates, the paymaster is the Minister for Finance, and there lies the common thread. Where the Minister for Finance is the paymaster, you have industrial relations problems, because he is more concerned with financial stringency and financial implications than with productivity, or morale, or getting a job done. Although in many areas, including, now, local authorities, the heavy hand of the Minister for the Public Service intrudes, it is, in effect, the heavy hand of the Minister for Finance, because it is one and the same person. There lies the major problem, as I said in the industrial relations debate recently. These two Departments must be separated; there is a clash of interests. The Minister for Finance should never be, at one and the same time, the Minister for the Public Service. That is one of the root causes of our problems in the public sector. The Minister for Finance, posing as the Minister for the Public Service, is keeping a tight rein on money in the Departments of State, semi-State bodies and the local authorities.

The Aer Lingus strike last year could have been settled within a few days, but for the heavy hand of the Department of the Public Service. Local authority problems in Dublin and elsewhere at the moment could have been, and should have been, settled but for the heavy hand of the Department for the Public Service, alias the Department of Finance. There lies the major problem. The public sector is our biggest problem area. If the Government could handle their own employee relations problem we would not have much of an industrial relations problem left. The Government have failed, and failed miserably, in that area and they deserve to be roasted publicly for it.

Speaking of industrial relations generally my own view is that the great majority of strikes are avoidable. There are very few workers who want to be on strike or who would have recourse to strike action if proper and speedy means of obtaining justice were available. There is a need for a comprehensive independent industrial judiciary. In Sweden, for example, most labour problems are sorted out in local district labour courts and if they fail there they go to a higher labour court. Last year there were 18 man-days lost per thousand in Sweden. There is no reason whatsoever for many of our strikes. Most of the problems that cause strikes could be resolved if we had district labour courts readily available to workers, whether individual workers or groups of workers, so that they could put their case forward. If we had such a comprehensive industrial judiciary, if we had a speedy system of solution and arbitration, if we had the sort of legislation that creates confidence among workers and would provide for work-place democracy—as we when next in Government will provide—then the Minister would be in a position to do something, for instance, about the present state of the law which gives certain protection to unofficial strikers.

I want to make my position and the position of my party clear in this respect. We recognise that legislating for labour relations is fraught with so much difficulty that successive administrations have shield away from it. There has been political cowardice for years, such is the danger that is seen in this area. We know it is difficult. But we also know it is possible to put the situation right and to change the laws in certain respects, because the law that allows the present upheaval to continue is an ass and the Government that allows it to continue is a jackass. The laws can be changed to remove protection from unofficial disputes. If the environment is right and if the Government create confidence among workers that they are on their side then something can be done. That is why when we are next in Government we will introduce a charter of rights and responsibilities at the work place which will provide worker democracy. It will embrace a change in the law in relation to unofficial pickets; it will have provisions for funding trade unions so that a proper level of service can be provided for the members. In so far as unofficial strikes are concerned, we see them as anti-democratic, as undermining the authority and the reputation of the trade union movement, and we have a responsibility to face up to that situation. We also know that on their own changes in the law to abolish the protection of unofficial pickets would be seen as anti-worker. Such changes can only be made as part of a package which would be seen clearly to be in the interests of the workers. An even-handed approach is the way. The political cowardice of years must come to an end. The situation must be faced. I do not know whether this document is even worth quoting from, but the Minister made some reference to the fact that if the present situation continues he will consider having consultations to take steps to review the law on unofficial pickets. That is the sort of meaningless contribution that makes me boil, and I know it makes the great majority of the people boil.

We need a comprehensive independent industrial judiciary with district labour courts and not just a centralised labour court. We need a system which will react quickly and which will be available quickly even to the individual worker so that many problems which need not end up in wild cat pickets could be resolved peaceably and justly. There should be a second appeal court. There should also be provisions for dealing with centralised pay bargaining and so on.

I said that we, when next in Government, would tackle the problem by introducing a charter of rights and responsibilities at the work place. We have already published the first chapter of that charter at our recent Árd Fheis. The charter of work-place democracy will cover all jobs and not just jobs in the private sector. It will cover public service jobs, semi-State jobs, local authority jobs and private sector jobs—all jobs in enterprises above a certain size. That is the first chapter, and we hope in the coming months and the coming few years to have the other chapters of this proposed charter published. I know there are dangers. I do not mind if the Minister for Labour, in the absence of any ideas of his own, seeks to borrow ours; he is welcome to them. If we can even push him into some sort of action along lines we believe in that would be a good thing. We do not mind him getting the credit for it so long as it is done because it would be in the national interests. We see this charter as very necessary to create a generation of industrial peace which we believe is the best framework in which full employment can be achieved. It is the central economic challenge to achieve full employment and I do not believe it can be done except in the context of prolonged industrial peace. That is why we hope to set the tone for such prolonged industrial peace by this charter of rights and responsibilities, starting off with a national cooling-off period to be followed hopefully by prolonged industrial peace. This would provide us with the atmosphere for tackling the central challenge of providing real jobs.

Most people in the country are so used to strikes that they believe there is no way we can get away from having strikes. I want to send out this message from this House. That has been a fact but it does not have to be a rule. We do not have to have strikes. In many continental countries there are very few strikes. We propose to make a provision in which there will be very little need for strikes because the responsible machinery will be there and also there will be socially just policies. The Government are seen to be anti-worker. They have sold themselves body and soul to the rich. Workers all over the country have no confidence in the Government. There is no confidence in the policies they pursue and workers do not believe they will get fair play or justice from them.

A Fine Gael Government will be, as the last one was, a Government of social justice which will have the confidence of the people, which will provide the framework in which the need for strikes will be greatly reduced. That is the message of hope that I want to send out to the country. In places like Sweden and Germany there is industrial peace. Why do we have to accept that we cannot be as good as the Swedes and the Germans? Why do we have to accept this bad industrial relations history? We have had to accept this because of political cowardice, because of an unwillingness by politicians to face up to their responsibilities, however unpopular they may be. I read an article in yesterday's Evening Herald in which a leading Dublin businessman blamed the whole problem on inept politicians. I agree with him, especially in view of the fact that our major problem is the public sector.

The central challenge is job creation. There has been so much talk about job creation and so many figures bandied about that I do not want to go into the semantics of it. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that when people are claiming that 6,000 jobs were created in one area and 10,000 jobs in another area they could be talking about jobs which last for four weeks on unemployment surveys or they could be talking about nine-week jobs on community youth training programmes. They are not talking about 52-week jobs but about short-term jobs. Anybody who engages in that type of confidence trick is not doing himself any good.

Because of the postal strike we do not know what the present level of registered unemployed is. I know that whatever we are told it is, it greatly below what the figure really is because there are thousands of people who are not on the register for some particular reason or are in jobs which I call substitute dole. There are many thousand extra people in training with AnCO, some of which is very valuable but some of it is so-called training. The Estimate this year shows a bigger increase. When we compare figures for today and those for ten years ago we should remember that there was no AnCO then and there were no people in training. At that time we used to have 70,000 on the unemployment register and we thought there was a crisis. Now we have over 100,000 unemployed, we have many thousands of people in AnCO and we have thousands more doing short-term jobs under the environmental improvements scheme, community youth training programmes, work experience programmes and so forth.

We are hiding from the people and from ourselves the true level of registered unemployed. We are preventing a climate being created in which people would be prepared to see what the crisis actually was and prepared to take the necessary steps to put the matter right. The Government have not fooled the people who are still unemployed or those who are in short-term jobs, who know they are short-term jobs and who still have all the frustrations of being unemployed. They are only fooling themselves. They are also preventing a climate being created in which policies for job creation could be pursued.

The Minister for Labour is not the worst offender in this instance. I ask him to get his colleagues to stop the codology about employment figures and employment claims. Let us establish facts, let us get the true level of unemployment and let us include on the unemployment register the people who are on temporary employment schemes. We have to find jobs for those people. If they are included on the unemployment register we will have a better chance of knowing the true extent of the problem. We cannot go on creating artificial jobs in the public sector. We cannot go on creating real jobs in the public sector. I know that we need more teachers and others as well. We cannot go on doing that unless somebody else is creating the wealth to pay their salaries. We are getting into a dangerous situation where we are creating more wealth consuming jobs and fewer wealth creating jobs, creating more artificial jobs and fewer real jobs. I do not believe the Government have faced up to this fact.

We cannot go on having a burgeoning public service and a diminishing industrial workforce. What can we do about it? The person who comes up with that solution will be very successful. Before any problems can be solved the nature and extent of the problem must be identified. That has been deliberately avoided as far as our unemployment problem is concerned. Not only do we ignore short-term jobs and so-called training, but we also ignore the under-participation of women especially and the very severe problem of under-productivity. In Ireland each worker produces half as much as is produced by a worker in the Benelux countries and Denmark, and the comparison with Germany is even worse. In the so-called national understanding we are proposing a 15 per cent pay increase, presuming an 11 per cent inflation rate, when our strong competitors in Germany in particular are talking about a 5 per cent increase.

The Taoiseach, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, the Minister for Finance and all the economic commentators during the months leading up to the EMS talked about the need for rigid discipline in pay bargaining. They said there would have to be a convergence of inflation rates and pay increase rates. I have lost confidence in the expert commentators and the so-called expert Ministers. The Irish punt which was to revalue against sterling has devalued. Now we are confronted with a so-called national understanding which smells more of electoral tactics than it does of economic strategy. Fifteen per cent is three times what our German competitors are getting this year.

Next week a special delegate conference of Congress will decide on whether to approve the proposed national understanding. It is my duty as shadow Minister for Labour to declare the view of Fine Gael Deputies. The pact could turn out to be not a national understanding but a national undermining if it is based not on sound economic grounds but, as I fear, on mid-term election opportunist considerations. I am amazed at the lack of comment by economic commentators on the short-comings of the proposed pact. As I said, the same commentators reported at length on the lead up, the entry into and the debacle of the EMS. Apart from the fact that the Taoiseach did not know what he had negotiated when he came back, he stressed again and again the need for rigid discipline in wage bargaining. He spoke ad nauseam, as did all his economic Ministers, about the need for Irish inflation rates and pay rises to converge with those of our EMS partners.

What has happened in the past few months that this convergence is no longer thought necessary? What has happened that justifies a 15 per cent pay increase compared with a 5 per cent increase in Germany? Does this not mean that we will be 10 per cent less competitive compared with Germany than we were before the pact? Does this not mean fewer jobs rather than more jobs as was hoped from the proposed national understanding? What has happened in the intervening months to render this convergence unnecessary? Nothing, except that the European elections are due in a few weeks time and the Government need something to save them from this debacle because the house seems to be falling around their feet.

The end result of this pact will be a weaker, less competitive and more unemployed Ireland. Those selling the pay pact on opposite grounds are living in cloud cuckoo land. Despite all I have said, I have called inside and outside this House for the adoption of the national understanding. We urge the unions at large to accept it not for its inherent qualities but despite its inherent disabilities because the other alternatives are even worse. We see no prospect of any better central deal and we see almost any central deal better than a free-for-all in which the weak would suffer most.

Let it not go unsaid that we see this pact as fuelling industrial chaos, not solving it, as increasing price rises, not reducing them, as further increasing PAYE income tax, not reducing it and as contributing to further unemployment, not solving it. But such is the mess that the Government have got us into that we still urge—and I hope this message goes out from here today—the unions to accept this pact with all those disabilities, because we see no better prospects ahead.

I have said that we see this pact as fuelling industrial chaos, not solving it. Last year's national pay agreement provided for an 8 per cent pay increase, which turned out, on average, to be 16 per cent. That agreement had an industrial peace clause that other national agreements did not have. Does anyone in this House or in the country believe that last year's national pay agreement was not a disaster as far as industrial peace was concerned? We have been told—I read it in the newspapers and I laughed—that this pact virtually guarantees industrial peace for 15 months. It does not do anything of the kind. We must remember that although it is a national pact it must be agreed at local level. I make the prediction that instead of achieving peace in industry it will contribute to chaos.

I predict that the pact will lead to increased rather than reduced prices. Everyone expects 15 per cent as a minimum, and if the inflation rate remains at 11 per cent for the year both will have the effect of diminishing our competitiveness abroad and leading to further inflation. Workers are sick and tired of wages following prices and vice versa. They would prefer to have increases of 2, 3 or 4 per cent in their real take home money rather than to get 15 per cent and have it swallowed up in increased prices and higher taxes. Far from guaranteeing employment, this pact will make for further unemployment. In earlier days, unprotected as we were because of our link with sterling, the value of wage increases could be maintained by a devaluation of our £. That can no longer happen in the context of our EMS membership.

It is quite in order to discuss the national understanding—the Minister did—but we cannot hang an economic debate on it as the Deputy is now trying to do.

Far from guaranteeing job creation the national understanding will diminish the likelihood of new jobs being provided. I must emphasise, however, that the alternatives with which we are faced are even worse, and we therefore urge on the unions, in the interests of all workers, to accept the pact in six days. This party are committed to it and support the concept of centralised pay bargaining.

Apart from his primary function in the Government in relation to industrial relations, the Minister for Labour also has functions in regard to training, placement, safety at work, equal pay and other matters. In his speech today he signed the death certificate of the Employment Action Team. Of course rigor mortis had set in a long time ago and it was time the death certificate had been issued. The Employment Action Team were heralded with a great flourish but they were most often used as an excuse for the Minister's inaction. They were a joke, and the organisations who sent representatives to them were conned into lending their names to what was only a gesture at job creation. The team were only a charade.

It is difficult to divorce income tax and social insurance from employment, although they are not dealt with in the Estimate. However, the Minister for Labour must be concerned with jobs, indeed that is his primary role, and he should therefore be concerned about the effect of taxation and social insurance on employment. Redundancy payments, also, constitute an effective tax on employment. The company with which I have been associated since I was 14 years, Guinness, have to pay in redundancy money each year——

The Minister has responsibility for redundancies but not for taxation or social insurance.

I am just making the point in passing. Although the percentage paid by employers here by way of social insurance is less than in some other European countries, I still regard it as a payroll tax and an impediment to job creation, and we would be well advised to look for alternative methods of financing social insurance. The present system is nonsense in our situation. I do not know how much it would cost the Exchequer to have it abolished. I am not proposing that we should abolish it. I accept that we have to find some alternative method. We might reduce it and find an alternative method. The effect of social insurance is that it is a payroll tax. It makes a mockery of our job creation efforts, when our job creation needs are so great.

I want to compliment the Department of Labour on their courtesy to me any time I have contacted them. I had very harsh words to say about the Minister, which are fully justified, but he has always been courteous and prompt in replying to letters and representations from me. I thank him for that. I also wanted to praise AnCO. They are doing a very good job. Their organisation is very well run. If all our organisations were as well run and as enterprising as AnCO we would not have many problems. I cannot say quite the same about the National Manpower Service, although I get prompt but stereotyped replies from them. I should like to see a much more aggressive approach to placement by the National Manpower Service. There are many very fine people in that service, including the director. They are very courteous and helpful.

Would it not be better if the National Manpower Service were divorced from the Minister's Department and became an agency under his Department like AnCO and the Employment Equality Agency, an independent agency which could tackle things in their own way, rather than being a section of the Department? In the constituency I represent, I have cause to refer many people to that service. I have to thank them for their courtesy and the interest they show, but they should be given more independence and more authority to get on with the job. I look forward to that happening.

A number of Bills have been on the Order Paper for a long time including the Safety in Industry Bill.

The Minister may have mentioned these Bills in his introductory speech. Otherwise it would not be in order to deal with legislation on an Estimate.

The Minister explained the position in detail.

It is not in order to deal with legislation on Estimates.

I did not want to create a false impression.

When will the Committee Stage of that Bill be taken? Why is the Minister dragging his feet? It must be a year since we had Second Stage and there seemed to be a great flurry about it. The Minister said that he will be incorporating amendments in view of the criticisms of the Opposition and consultations he has had since with both sides of industry. I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that he has committed himself to a review of safety legislation. I should like to see comprehensive legislation dealing with health, safety, hygiene and cleanliness in all places of work. The current legislation does not cover all places of work. I will not refer to the Payment of Wages Bill because we will have an opportunity to discuss it later.

The House recently passed a Bill dealing with redundancy. I want to repeat my worries about redundancy. I know certain cases where men have been declared redundant, and have been happy to be declared redundant, have almost worked themselves into a situation where they were declared redundant, to get the lump sum. The jobs in which they were declared redundant were much more viable than some of the jobs we are creating. The lump sum is very attractive to a married man with a number of children, some of whom may need university fees or may be getting married. For the first year the social welfare payments are not all that bad. I should like the Minister to look again at this problem.

I will finish as I began. Our industrial relations situation is a shame. It is an absolute nuisance. People are sick and tired of it. It is not good enough for the Minister to say there is nothing he can do. The House and the country want action and want it fast.

In welcoming the introduction by the Minister of this important Estimate I want to say that I am speaking on behalf of the Labour Party and in particular on behalf of my colleague, Deputy J. Ryan, who is our spokesman on the Department of Labour. He is attending his union's annual conference this week and, therefore, he was unable to come here this morning.

The Minister said, quite correctly, that a change in basic attitudes is essential if we are to have a real improvement in industrial relations. I fully accept what the Minister said but we need to analyse exactly what we mean by a change in basic attitudes. At present the climate of industrial relations has soured. In some areas it is confused. In others, particularly in the public sector, there is an atmosphere of bitterness. To put it at its lowest, there is a climate of very serious public concern.

In that kind of climate many people search for desperate solutions. They put forward glib solutions, Flash Harry solutions, and in some cases solutions based on sheer panic. In that climate one can talk oneself from one peak of a crisis to another and finish up by making a difficult situation almost impossible. In the national interest we need to have a very clear, sober and realistic appraisal of how best we can get ourselves out of the present situation and achieve what the people are desperately yearning for in all walks of life: a stable, prolonged period of normal industrial and social progress. Without that kind of industrial relations stability, and unless we the politicians can bring it about—and we can influence the course of events to a limited degree only—there could be quite a demoralising lack of self-confidence in the country and, as a result, economic, social and industrial development could be set back. Therefore, first of all we must shed very rapidly from our minds some of the entirely superficial solutions to the existing problem of industrial relations.

Some notable politicians—and to some extent the Minister for Finance and the Public Service averred to it in a sideways fashion—think that we need a German or a continental form of industrial trade unionism. Having regard to the history and the current state of trade union-employer relations here, I do not see any prospect of that kind of structure emerging. Even if it had the most laudable of merits, I do not see it coming about here. Therefore, there is not much point in superficially wishing for something which we cannot bring about even if we think there were certain merits in that kind of structure.

This morning Deputy Mitchell spoke about a national cooling-off period, whatever that might be. Do we all go out and have a shower and hope for the best? Do we have a statutory prohibition on strikes which presumably would involve calling out the Army and the Garda in every industrial relations situation? Clearly that is not on because apart from anything else after the cooling-off period presumably everything would hot up again. That proposal has no long-term meaning in industrial relations. Superficially it is very attractive. It is a nice phrase. It is a headline which is ephemeral in the newspapers, but the reality is that employers, trade unions and Government have to work together on a day-by-day, on a month-by-month and on a year-by-year basis. Superficial solutions such as a national cooling-off period are, to say the least, shallow and irrelevant propositions.

Out of a sense of frustration, members of chambers of commerce and some employers who are not deeply involved in industrial relations call for a statutory prohibition on strikes and then, after some thought, they say they want a statutory prohibition on unofficial strikes. The impossibility of that kind of action in this country, in the UK or even on the Continent is self-evident. If workers stop work in their factories for whatever reason and if public servants walk off the job for whatever reason, while there may be strong views as to whether they were right, the fact of the matter is that they stop. Serving 350 injunctions on them from the High Court will not necessarily get them back to work. There was the famous case where ESB workers stopped working and in the end taxis had to be sent from the Department of Labour to Mountjoy to bring them home so that they could go back to work. They went back to work and the matter was resolved.

Yet one finds responsible spokesmen coming back time and again saying that we need formal statutory prohibition on strikes. Some eminent personages who have made considerable contributions to national development—one of them is a Member of the Seanad—suggested that we needed to bring in the Army and the Garda to settle that kind of situation where essential services are involved. Undoubtedly in a state of national emergency the security forces have a fundamental function to perform. If there is a total breakdown they must, and would, perform their duty but to suggest that kind of action as a global solution in the current situation where there are sectoral disputes in the public and private sectors and where there are individual company disputes is wishful thinking and is not constructive.

I am afraid that one comes back to the proposition put forward by the Minister, namely, a basic change in attitudes in this country. Here one must ask: whose attitude? I do not think it is enough for a Government to change their attitude because no Government can do for the people what they must do for themselves. When the Labour Court was set up the late Mr. Mortished said in an explanatory booklet that we could not expect the Labour Court to carry out for employers and workers the negotiations that they must carry out themselves and which are their direct responsibility.

That is not to say that the Government of the day do not set the climate. They do, and this is where I fault the party in government. I do not personally fault the Minister for Labour. Contrary to the current trend in thinking in some quarters, I think the Minister is as good as any other Minister who has ever held that office and in some respects he is a lot better than some of the previous holders of the office. That may sound a backhanded compliment in some ways but it has to be put in a rather guarded form.

I think the Deputy.

I think the Minister will appreciate what I am saying. The Government of the day must set the climate. Unfortunately the climate was wrongly set by this Government and two years later we are now reaping the result of the superficial expectations that, tragically, were put forward at the general election and prior to that election in 1977. In 1977 the country was slowly but surely and painfully on the verge of coming out of the recession. It had been a traumatic experience for those who were in Government. I recall 1973-4 and the tremendous efforts at that time of a Cabinet which admittedly, on occasion, was at sixes and sevens in trying to get to grips with the economic situation, but it succeeded in holding things together and by 1977 the worst of the unprecedented recession was over.

Unfortunately, for what I regard as short, narrow, political gains we had the two or three months prior to the 1977 General Election and the election campaign itself which unleashed a climate of expectation which could not be met, cannot be met and which in the foreseeable future will not be met. It is time that the politicians not only appreciated that but told the truth to the people, that there is no way in which the expectations now dormant in the community and the expectations which are every day being put forward can be met from existing resources.

The only parallel I can find to the 1977 situation was in 1965 and the by-elections when the late Deputy Sean Lemass unleashed expectations at that time with the 12½ per cent national pay agreement when the country would, I think, have accepted much less and needed much less and when surprisingly much more was given—there were two by-elections in the offing. Ever since 1965 these expectations have been growing, almost on a leap-frogging basis. In 1977-8 there was a climate of funny money. There was no problem in abolishing car tax; whether it cost £20 million, £30 million or £50 million it did not matter. We could abolish wealth tax whether it cost £2 million, £10 million or £20 million. Off came £80 million; it did not matter—we were back in power; the election was won and there was no problem that could not be settled in the next two or three years. We would put on the brake within two years, gradually release it and run into an 1980 election and the car would be flying again full of petrol and great expectations.

The difficulty about that kind of economic and political strategy is that it does not work. We now have a situation in which every single section and group in the community has been initiated into a climate in which it automatically expects not 10 or 15 per cent but a great deal more. If the rates are knocked off one's house, one's car tax abolished, one wants another lash of income tax knocked off and one wants more real growth in one's earnings. One ends up with the kind of confetti money society in which we could very easily move back into not just an 11 per cent inflation rate but a 12 or 14 per cent rate. Then we are back to a crisis situation of exceeding the British inflation rate and of doubling our rate of inflation compared with that of the continent or the EMS average. We are then back to a prolonged period of stagnation of exports.

There is therefore a fundamental obligation on the Government now to tell the people the truth, to admit that expectations were created which cannot be met. On top of that, we have had a fumbling which has been regrettable in regard to the ordinary day-to-day activities of the Government. The Government have fumbled farm taxation—I know we are dealing with industrial relations and I do not intend to prolong my remarks on this line. The Government have fumbled the PAYE tax relief issue, which was badly handled. As a result, the people have expectations. Looking at the industrial relations scene at present, it is not a matter only of the post office dispute. The Garda Síochána, according to a Commission report, get £14.5 million and apparently large numbers of them are very dissatisfied. There is a Devlin Report to come up later in the year dealing with higher levels of remuneration in the State sector. God knows what reaction there will be to that report. There is a special situation in regard to nurses' pay which has to be met during the year, and on top of all that there is the national pay situation. The climate is not one that gives great hope, but it certainly demands considerable leadership and honesty on the part of the Government in spelling out that the country cannot see implementation of the Government's promises on income expectations in 1979-80. That must be spelled out right down the line.

That is one reason why personally I thought the fundamental framework, the concept, the structure of the national understanding was and is entirely laudable. For decades the trade union movement have been berating successive Governments, saying again and again: "We want a say, a role not in just annual pay adjustments or annual revisions of differentials, or in catching up with inflation and getting a 2 per cent or 3 per cent real growth in earnings; we want a real say and a direct involvement in Government strategy in regard to taxation, employment, education, health and welfare". For the first time in the history of the State that did occur in relation to the national understanding. To that extent it was a courageous initiative and entirely welcome and I do not think, no matter what difficulty may affect that approach in the weeks ahead, that that structure should be jettisoned even if it were rejected by either the employers or the unions or the Government in frustration at not having it initially accepted.

The concept is fundamentally correct. I have never been a great believer in all the pre-budget submission exercises that have gone on. Prior to the budget every national organisation makes a submission to the Minister for Finance. It is gutted internally, about nine-tenths of it is thrown into the Finance waste paper basket, and the part that is kept is duly shredded by the Minister. It is more sensible that when the period of pay adjustment expires, employers, trade unions and the Government should sit down on a joint basis and discuss the wide-ranging topics which are encompassed in the national understanding.

There has been political reaction against this. Some politicians, including some who are present in the House, have said that this is not a desirable way of doing it. They say it is bringing the authority of the Cabinet, the work of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the role of the Finance Bill, outside the House into the arena of the Government being a relatively minor party, the paymaster for the cost of bringing about that kind of understanding. I do not share that view. There are some who believe in the traditional structures of Government, that it is the Cabinet's job to govern and that it takes account of all submissions, makes up its mind and then issues an edict. Such is the state of democracy here today and such are the demands from national representative organisations—I include the farming bodies as well—that there is an annual need for that kind of discussion which dramatically affects industrial relations.

It would be tragic if the role of such understandings, broadening out the history of national pay agreements, were jettisoned simply because part of the understanding was rejected, namely the pay element, which might well be. The signs are not good in that direction. In the event of any difficulties arising my earnest plea to the Government is that, unlike their behaviour on the farm tax where they lost their nerve on a Friday afternoon and had to wait until the following Tuesday to recover it, they should not lose their nerve in the event of any rejection. There will be an obligation on the Government to talk to the parties again, see what elements of the understanding did not prove acceptable, and then come back. I say that conscious that balloting is still going on. This kind of new structure is something which, at national level, has to be welcomed and developed further in the years ahead.

I welcome the setting up of the National Hire Agency. It is a sensible approach. I am glad the Minister has not gone through the usual tortuous way we have to go about things here to get legislation through the House. I am glad that in the interim period he has decided to establish a limited company to perform the functions of the agency. I know that the role of the agency is still experimental, but it is a development which must be welcomed and which will make a useful contribution.

Regarding the Employment Action Team, I could be entirely scathing but there is not much to be gained from it. Mr. Kevin Heffernan and his army in the Employment Action Team have been demobbed as and from today. The Minister has terminated the team, which is unusual civil service jargon, and the usual letters of appreciation have gone to the chairman of the team. The chairman and his colleagues put forward some very useful proposals for the employment of young persons in industry and in environmental schemes.

I would chide the Government because of the fact that we had a great flurry of manifesto politics when we were assured that the Government action team would bring forward a wideranging series of proposals for the employment of young persons and other groups in our society. It is sobering to recall that, apart from their submission relating to the work experience programme and the environmental improvements scheme programme, little more was proposed. I do not blame the action team as such for not coming forward with very much, because there was not much heart behind it. It was a creation of manifesto politics and was rapidly allowed to drift into a situation where the Government did not pay much attention to most of its reports. It made a submission in December but has not met since. The best thing that has happened is that it has been put out of its pain and gently removed from the scene. Heffo's army has been demobbed but I am sure the experience has been worth while

All his armies, I suggest.

There was a tremendous hullabaloo at the time in the national newspapers. I recall all the photographs of the Ministers for Labour and Economic Planning and Development issuing innumerable speeches about it. Now it is terminated. It shows that one should be very careful about creating expectations. All the political parties have learned from the last election that manifestos are usually hung around one's neck. The authors of future manifestos will be careful of what they put into pre-election promises. This is one promise which has been declared redundant as and from today.

I welcome the extension of the employment maintenance scheme to the tableware section of the pottery industry. That section has been undergoing considerable difficulty. The Government should review the £5 assistance per week paid in respect of workers in the clothing and footwear sectors, in the textiles industry and in the tanning leather industry, because it is now some time since the assistance was introduced. I know there was considerable difficulty in presenting it to the EEC Commission, but nevertheless the £5 is lessening in value and if it is to have a real impact it should be raised to £10 in some sectors, not necessarily the textile sector, but perhaps in the footwear sector, to enable exports to be developed. We must bear in mind that we are talking about two national agreements being applied within the industrial sector since then.

The role of the National Manpower Service should be kept under close review. It has been suggested that perhaps the National Manpower Service should be a separate agency, and that has not been welcomed by the trade unions concerned. Whether the National Manpower Service should be so rigidly under the Department of Labour is open to question, and I have an open mind on the proposition. We now have 122 placement officers and the Ministers should seek their views, the views of the trade unions concerned, and the views of guidance officers as to the best structure for the National Manpower Agency. The National Manpower Agency are doing a good job in very difficult circumstances. Job vacancies in the past few years have been extremely limited, and these officers have given considerable service to job seekers and have given general guidance and advice to workers in the labour force.

I welcome the setting up of the Manpower Consultative Committee. I am concerned about the continuing shortages in certain occupational areas. The skilled workers listed as being in short supply—engineers, computer personnel, electronic technicians, draftsmen, engineering craftsmen including tool makers and fitters, craftsmen in the construction industry and sewing machinists in the textile industry—should be seriously considered. The Government should make a crash effort to increase the number of trained workers in these areas. Firms who would come into the country will inevitably get the information from the IDA that these sectors lack sufficient personnel, and will be discouraged. The degree of urgency in that area was not stressed by the Minister, and I would urge him to devote greater attention to it.

I welcome the substantial improvements in the resettlement assistance scheme which applies to skilled workers returning from abroad for jobs here. I am worried about the launching of the campaign in Britain to recruit workers in sectors which are in short supply. It is absolutely essential to have them brought home in instances where it would take a long time to train workers, but one of the problems relates to housing. It is all very well to get a resettlement grant, but in Dublin and the greater Dublin area a person must have a four-year residential qualification period in order to qualify for a house. Recently some workers who came back from London to take up employment were told by Dublin County Council when they applied for local authority housing that they had to have this qualification. The assistance could be geared in some measure to helping people in relation to housing. Admittedly housing is included in the resettlement costs, but there is a problem with local authorities. For example, when a native of Dun Laoghaire leaves Dun Laoghaire and goes to England to work at a skilled job, if he is out of Dun Laoghaire for more than five years he must return and reside for two years in Dun Laoghaire before he will get a local authority house. The same applies in the County Dublin area, and if one happened to be a Cork man who went to England and wanted to return, one would have to live here for four years and establish minimum residential qualifications before one could get local authority housing. One of the terrible problems in relation to the resettlement scheme is that highly skilled workers who return to work end up in flats in Dublin paying £15 to £20 per week. Admittedly they are earning good money, but flats are very expensive and the resettlement assistance scheme should take this into account.

Apart from that, workers coming back to Ireland should be made aware of the situation. At the moment people arrive home with young families, they are anxious to have their families educated in the greater Dublin area or in their native counties, but that information has not being given to them in detail. In some cases these people have given up local authority houses in the UK or have sold their house and, of course, the price of a house here in some areas, particularly the major urban areas would be more than double what they got for their house in Britain. With that reservation I welcome the improvement in the resettlement assistance scheme.

I welcome the publication of the quarterly bulletin on labour mart information by the Department. It is very useful, together with the research work into overtime now being done by the Department of Industrial Engineering in UCD. These two studies are essential.

I welcome the increase in the grant to the advisory committee on emigrant services. This is very useful, and certainly the long-term benefits to emigrants and to the country are incalculable. I certainly approve the increasing of the grant to the advisory committee.

AnCO is a major State body with expenditure last year of £22 million. The Exchequer allocation for this year has had a further increase of £13½ million, and most of their expenditure will qualify for financial grants from the social fund. In relation to the expenditure of £27 million by AnCO this year which is a lot of money, I recommend to the Minister that he should look at the structure and operations of AnCO. I would not bring in consultants because there are already enough of them dealing with State-sponsored bodies. Having gone through a prolonged period of development, internal structural reform and legislative enactment, there is a case to be made for examining the structure, administration and effectiveness of AnCO on a cost-benefit analysis basis. Some people may feel there is a hidden motive behind this suggestion, but in my opinion there is a need every five years or so to have a look at an organisation, particularly when it is under the auspices of a Department, in the context of its future programme and role within the State. I have some personal views regarding some aspects of AnCO operations, but I can convey my views directly to the Minister in another form. AnCO is the major State body operating under the auspices of the Minister. It has developed a life—perhaps an empire—of its own in some ways in the best sense.

I welcome the allocation of £750,000 to CERT. I have strong views about one aspect of that area of employment. Many young people are exploited in the areas of food preparation and service and bar tending. We are now entering another tourist season and, provided the weather improves and we have a supply of petrol, it should be a good season. I am appalled at the number of young people who are exploited in this general area. A young person aged 16 or 17 working, say, in a "singing pub" may not get home until 1 o'clock in the morning, having cleaned up the premises when the customers have left. The proprietors of these establishments are by no means impoverished and are well able to pay decent wages and send their staff home by taxi after work. Very often the rate of pay is a miserable 75p or even 50p an hour.

The same applies in other places such as supermarkets where young people may work at the weekends in order to supplement their pocket money and achieve some personal independence. They are the cannon fodder of industries in the personal service sector, such as the lounge bar trade, the hotel trade, the food service take-away trade and petrol pump operation where people work intermittent hours. I would include also some areas of the supermarket sector which involve heavy work like stocking shelves. I worked behind a bar when I was a student and later and we all appreciate how difficult that work is. It can be very unhealthy for young people to have to work in an unduly hot atmosphere reeking of tobacco smoke.

The Department's inspectors might do some overtime and visit these establishments around 10.30 p.m. or 11 o'clock. If an ordinary individual goes into a bar and asks a young person how much he is paid and the number of hours he works, that young person will be very reluctant to answer. However, the inspectors could find out that information. Supermarkets are not very profitable but many hotels and pubs are extremely profitable and I see no reason why young people should be exploited. This matter does not solely concern young people. Married women or widows may be obliged to supplement their income by working in these establishments.

I welcome the CERT courses, within which there should be special emphasis on another aspect which public representatives often ignore. While food preparation, food serving and bar tending are included, I would hope that hygiene is also included in the curriculum. There are too many pubs who serve drinks in dirty glasses and hotels in which one would not eat if one had seen their kitchens. There are a number of hotels, restaurants and bars whose sanitary facilities are not up to normal standards. The impact on visitors is disastrous. That is why CERT should impinge this essential aspect of Irish training on each of their 400 trainees.

I should like the Minister to let me know also how the innovation in the redundancy payments scheme is progressing in respect of time off during a period of redundancy notice. In the months ahead I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that, rather than having to wait for next year's Estimate to get some information on it.

I welcome the decision of the Government to introduce the Bill relating to overtime. Hopefully, that Bill will be put through as quickly as possible. However, we are not likely to have the Bill before the summer recess, but if it is introduced in the autumn I assure the Minister that it will have speedy endorsement from us.

I welcome also the introduction of the tachograph system. After much hassle this system has been accepted. More than anything else it should result in better industrial safety. Allowing for a deterioration in the quality of some of our roads one is shocked at some of the practices on the part of some of the drivers of the large haulage vehicles. The tachograph system should help to curb some of the cowboy activities that one witnesses on our main highways in respect of the driving of some of these 40-foot articulated trucks and indeed some of the smaller ones also. I attribute the poor standard of driving on the part of the minority of drivers of these vehicles to the delay in introducing the tachograph system.

A very unusual decision on the part of the Minister, and one of which I cannot approve, is the transferring to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development of the future role concerning the recommendations by the Commission on the Status of Women. That decision is not likely to be welcomed either by the trade unions or the employers or by organisations which cater for issues relating to women workers. One major area which should have remained within the responsibility of the Minister for Labour is the area of maternity leave. One would have thought that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development has enough on his hands without assuming responsibility for a matter which is essentially related to the Department of Labour. Are we to assume that there is not to be any legislation introduced on the question of maternity leave? In this connection I would emphasise that the British Employment Protection Act of 1975 provides for 40 weeks' maternity leave. The ICTU have indicated that they consider that, as a minimum, we should provide for a similar period with at least 29 weeks of that time being post natal. Ireland is the only remaining member of the Community not to have maternity protection legislation. Therefore, a woman has no legal entitlement to a specific period of maternity leave or to pay during that time. Neither has any woman the legal right to return to her job after confinement except by way of ordinary industrial relations agreements.

The only statutory right that women have is that which comes within the ambit of the Equal Opportunities Employment Act whereby it is illegal for an employer to dismiss a woman on marriage. Likewise, under the anti-discrimination legislation it is illegal for an employer to dismiss a woman on grounds of pregnancy. If we are to develop the general role of the employment legislation we must introduce legislation to provide statutorily for women during pregnancy in terms of leave and pay. I trust that such legislation will be introduced as speedily as possible, because the issue concerned is a major outstanding issue. I am surprised that there is an implication in the Minister's speech that the responsibility in this area is being ditched so far as the Department of Labour are concerned.

I have not noticed any reference in the Minister's speech to a piece of safety legislation that he referred to last year, namely, legislation relating to the safety and welfare of persons employed on offshore installations in the exploration and exploitation of our natural resources. Perhaps the Minister would indicate in his reply what is the position in regard to this legislation, for which there is an urgent need. In May 1978 he indicated that preparation of the Bill was well advanced.

I welcome the decision of the Minister to publish a discussion paper on worker participation. That should prove a useful exercise. It might usefully include a review of the success of the limited application of the current legislation. The paper should be interesting.

I am glad to note also that we are to have a short amending Bill relating to dangerous substances. This is a sensible approach, especially now that the difficulty has continued in respect of explosives. Again, we assure the Minister of our endorsement for that legislation.

There have been continuous discussions in relation to amendments to the Safety in Industry Bill. I understand that all the problems in this regard have been resolved and that an acceptable formula has been agreed. I expect that after the European elections legislation will go through rapidly here and, consequently, I trust that the Committee Stage of that Bill will reach the House before we recess for the summer.

I want to query the situation regarding the EEC directive on acquired rights. The Minister has indicated that the preparation of regulations is well advanced. I would ask that these be hurried up. I would point out that, technically, it could be argued that we are in breach of that particular directive since January 1979. The welcome introduction of these directive regulations would safeguard the rights of employees in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses, or parts of businesses. This is a very useful and essential directive, which has been inactive since January 1979.

I share the Minister's concern about the absence of the United States from the International Labour Organisation. I thought their decision to leave the ILO was quite crazy. Some of the senior trade union representatives of the AFL/ CIO, in their long experience, have become a bit paranoic about the alleged Soviet influence on the ILO, but their absence from the ILO has diminished the importance of that body. I appreciate that the Minister and his predecessor made strenuous efforts to bring about the return of the United States to full membership. I can only call it a reactionary and rather sad rightwing decision of the trade union people in the United States, who have not yet forgotten the cold war, and they should review it. Ireland would particularly welcome the United States back into this organisation.

The Minister has commented on the multiplicity of trade unions, quite rightly pointing out that it does cause serious problems, especially at the level of individual enterprises. He has stressed that the ICTU has for some time been promoting the better organisation of trade unions. I might say to the Minister that my own personal experience is that it was very difficult for congress, with which I have been associated in the past, because it was dependent in some way on initiatives from the trade unions involved. After all, unions are affiliated to congress on a voluntary basis. Perhaps there should be some individual role, if finance was available within congress, whereby congress could have, not a separate office but a separate officer, who would have little else to do but work on this issue, with the existing pressure on the senior officers and on the executive members of congress, who, after all, are not the best people, as elected members, to bring about amalgamation, being involved in the particular structure itself. Within congress, there should be some financial encouragement from the Department under the Trades Unions Amalgamation Act which would enable congress to have a "sitting review" individual or officer who would help in that direction. I make that not directly as a plea to the Minister, but as an observation which might be of some assistance in the role of congress.

I do not want to classify the Minister, or indulge in the common Irish failing of trying to find a scapegoat for the existing industrial relations situation. The Minister is a member of a cabinet; he has to accept the collective cabinet responsibility, and the Minister for Labour and the present Minister should in no way be regarded by us as a convenient scapegoat. We are very competent at finding scapegoats, particularly political ones. It does not matter who is in power, or who you know—politicians are there for the knocking. However, the Government, particularly those who were involved in the drawing up of the notorious manifesto, must accept considerable responsibility for creating that climate of ever-increasing expectations, of ever-increasing demands, of ever-increasing sectional differential applications. With the experience of a post office dispute which will be happily settled soon, when sanity will prevail—I know that discussions are going on at the moment and do not propose to comment unduly on the matter—the Government must be entirely honest and indicate that the resources are not there to fulfil many of the promises of ever higher incomes which were implicit in the manifesto strategy. Most people realise that; there is still a vast reservoir of practical national interest within the Irish people. There is no point in finding the scapegoat inside the Cabinet, or running around the floor of the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is no point in finding the European Parliament or the European Community to be the scapegoat. We are our own masters. We are our own deciders on that situation. On that basis, the approach of the Government, the trade unions and the employers, and indeed the Opposition parties here, to the national understanding has been a sensible one.

When this country sobers up and realises that the manifesto politics of the 1970s are entirely irrelevant, entirely unproductive and entirely unconducive to higher and better living standards of this country, then we will all have a prolonged and normal period of industrial peace, so that these exports can leave the country, so that we can at least write to one another, and telephone one another, and use public transport to visit one another. Then, a measure of personal self-confidence and self-respect will be restored to the people.

I call on the Government to give that kind of leadership, which is urgently needed. I call on the sectional interests—be they farmers, trade unionists or employers—to respond in the national interest, to sober up and cut their losses and ensure that we have a period of normal industrial relations ahead of us.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this estimate. It is a most extensive document, which contains a vast amount of material but, unfortunately, does not answer the questions that our people are asking day after day, day in, day out. I would hope that the Minister would be a little more forthcoming about the present industrial relations chaos. The document contains a lot of flowery notions, a lot of explanations but none relating to the problems which are throwing the whole country into chaos at present.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share