Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Mar 1980

Vol. 319 No. 5

Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1980: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—

Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1980,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 19 March, 1980.

It will be recalled that in 1977, when the Second Stage of the Worker Participation Bill was being moved in Dáil Éireann, the House was told that it was not possible at that time to determine, in advance, the sizes of the re-constituted State boards in question. The view was that it would not be appropriate at that stage to prescribe board sizes in the Bill as it could limit the discretion of the Government Ministers concerned. It was felt to be desirable and appropriate that the Ministers should have discretion in determining the size of the boards to take account of the appointments to the boards of members elected by employees. The solution adopted was to allow the new board sizes to be prescribed at a later stage by affirmative order.

For that purpose Section 23 of the Act empowers the Minister for Labour, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and other appropriate Ministers, to prescribe by order—in relation to each of the State bodies designated in the Act—the number of members or directors of the reconstituted boards, including the number of employees to be appointed following an election by the workforce. Where the total number is a multiple of three, elected representatives must constitute one third; otherwise the proportion of elected representatives must be rounded upwards to the number which is next above one third.

Under the terms of Section 4 (4) of the Act, a draft of any order to be made under Section 23 requires the prior approval of the Oireachtas by way of affirmative resolution of each House. The intention behind that provision was to ensure that there would be no diminution of the authority or responsibility of the Oireachtas in determining the appropriate size of the State boards concerned.

The present order, which has been laid before the House in draft, is designed to comply with the requirements of section 23 of the Act, insofar as two of the seven State bodies are concerned—Aer Lingus and Córas Iompair Éireann. The effect of the proposed order is that, as and from the date on which it is made, the size of the boards of these bodies will be fixed at twelve members, of which four—that is to say, one third of the total—will be elected by the workers for appointment under the Act. This will standardise the increase in the board sizes of all designated bodies as a previous draft order was approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas in July 1978 in respect of the other five State companies.

I have also included in the draft order provision for the similar alteration of the board of Aer Linte as required under Section 28 of the Act. This section, which was incorporated into the Bill at Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann on 26 January 1977 stipulates that employees elected to the Aer Lingus Board are to be appointed to the Board of Aer Linte also. This arrangement is necessary because even though Aer Lingus and Aer Linte are two separate legal entities, there is a long standing procedural arrangement whereby the boards of the two companies meet jointly and operate as one enterprise. In effect, it provides that where, under Section 15, the Minister for Transport appoints a successful candidate to the board of Aer Lingus he must at the same time appoint that person to the board of Aer Linte.

Deputies will be pleased to note that with the appointment of the successful candidates in Aer Lingus and CIE, following the forthcoming elections, the scheme will be fully implemented in all seven designated State bodies.

I believe that the introduction of employee directors has brought some positive elements into the operations of those companies where elections have already taken place. Since directors have only been on the boards of the five companies where elections have already taken place for about a year on average, I would not, at this stage, risk general conclusions on the success of the experiment. So far, the indications I have are positive.

In the first place, employee directors have had a favourable reception from their colleagues at all levels of the enterprise. Their intimate knowledge of the company's operations has, if anything, improved boardroom decision making. Communications upwards and downwards in the enterprises is being reassessed and there has been added stimulus to the development of sub-board consultative structures. Also, the experiment has shown that inter-union co-operation can extend across craft and occupational barriers.

These are tentative but positive results. I am continuing to have the operation of the Act and its development monitored and have arranged, with the active co-operation of both the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers, to have a report from the European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions, in association with the Irish Productivity Centre, on the impact and effectiveness of the legislation. The information gained from this project will be particularly useful in developing future policy in this area and extending the scope of the Act to other State bodies.

On behalf of Fine Gael I welcome this motion but I am deeply dissatisfied with the delay in bringing it before the House. The Worker Participation Bill was passed in 1977 and it covers seven semi-State bodies five of which have had worker directors for some time but Aer Lingus and CIE have not. I am distressed that things take so long.

I do not wish to appear to be carping but the question of worker participation is much more urgent than the sedate attitude of the Minister would suggest. If we had wider worker participation there would be a significant diminution of industrial strife. It is significant that in the countries of Europe where worker participation is at an advanced level the gross domestic product per worker is much greater than ours and the number of man-days lost due to industrial disruption are less than ours. In 1976 the gross domestic product per worker for the Netherlands was $19,709; West Germany, $18,159; Sweden, $18,156; Norway, $17,496. Then one comes to the two black sheep of industrial relations, UK and Ireland, UK, $8,972 and Ireland, $7,767. The situation is completely reversed as regards work days lost due to strikes. The average for the year 1976 to 1977 was Ireland 870 work days lost per 1,000 workers; UK, 704; Norway, 120; Netherlands, 96; West Germany, 30; Sweden, 18. The evidence is clear. We need to hasten worker participation and not just in State enterprises or at board level.

In his speech the Minister referred to the development of sub-board consultative structures. That is jargon to me. What we need apart from participation at board level especially in companies like CIE is participation at all levels in sections, garages, departments and regions. Not only do we need it in State enterprises but also in private enterprise. We need it in public Departments and local authorities. In the case of the latter two, it would have to be in a form that would be consistent with political democracy and control but that should not be impossible.

Industrial democracy is called by different names in different places. It is sometimes called co-determination, as in Germany. Sometimes it is called worker participation. In Fine Gael we would like to call it work place democracy to indicate our determination and strong belief that participation is not confined to industry but is the way of the future at all work places. We should be hastening fast towards industrial democracy. By that I do not mean that we should rush into anything. Our policy, which was approved a year ago this week at the Ard Fheis, is to set up as soon as possible after we come to power a worker participation agency to actively pursue the introduction of full worker participation in the four areas I mentioned—private enterprise, State enterprise, public service and local Government and health services. There are different models of work place democracy in different countries. Different models suit different countries because of different economic structures and histories, for example, in the case of Germany compared to Sweden. We would hope that the worker participation agency would create several different models of industrial democracy in each of the four sectors I mentioned on a pilot scheme basis so that after a reasonable length of time there could be informed discussion on the best form of work place democracy for us.

Apart from the European statistics I quoted, the time for the "them and us" mentality has passed. That mentality pervades every work place and is at the root of our disastrous industrial relations record. That is not something that has just cropped up since Deputy Fitzgerald took over that Department although it has been very bad in recent years. We have been at the bottom of the league for too long. That need not be. One of the major components in changing it is by having advanced forms of worker democracy. The "them and us" mentality needs to be broken. Worker democracy is one way of breaking it and, depending on the form, it can completely eliminate it. We do not want "them" and "us" but just "us" working together, as we call out industrial relations policy document just published.

We want to get rid of the multi-status work places where the general operatives arrive at 8 a.m., the skilled workers at 8.30 a.m., the office girls at 9 a.m. and the bosses at 10 a.m. They all go to different canteens and even different toilets. We want what we call single status work places where all workers, whether they are in the board room or on the shop floor, work together. We do not see why there should be any differentiation between pension rights or leave entitlement. In CIE and Aer Lingus there are different leave and pension entitlements, depending on the status of the worker. Is it any wonder that we have such bad industrial relations?

The Minister did not refer to those problems and that suggests to me that enough thought was not given to those subjects. I hope the reports published in today's newspapers that the Minister will publish his paper today on worker participation are true. It has taken the Minister three years to prepare that paper. Our paper on work place democracy was published one year ago. It is worth underlining that there is a great deal of resistance to industrial democracy at present. I can understand that but I cannot see the ultimate wisdom of that resistance. Some of the more enlightened employers have already advanced a long way down the road of work place democracy. I am aware of one major concern in this city where there is an advanced form of work place democracy and worker participation. However, by and large there is a great deal of resistance among management. That is a crying shame and it flys in the face of the facts and statistics. I do not think it is the only factor contributing to the higher domestic product per worker and the greater number of work days lost in Ireland compared with Great Britain but it is a major one.

We also have the problem that the trade unions in reality are not very keen on worker democracy because they are a little afraid of it. They do not know how to cope with it. That is why we have proposed the establishment of a worker participation agency to help worker-directors and worker-participators at lower levels play a full and informed part in the enterprise of their employment. There will be a need for training, research and back-up facilities and we propose to provide those in such an agency. There may be resistance to worker democracy but it should be remembered that there was resistance to political democracy just 100 years ago. It has taken a century to achieve that political democracy and we must remember that there was great resistance to it. At that time there was a lot of talk about the dangers of the masses having votes and now there will be a lot of talk about the unsuitability of workers having control or a say in the operations of their place of employment. If we are to be a progressive and free society we have got to move as fast as possible so that labour has a parity of influence with capital in the work place.

I look forward to the Government's White Paper, even if it is not issued today, but I believe the time for talking has come to an end. There has been a lot of talk but no action on many fronts. We want action in the area of work-place democracy, in the area of improving job prospects, job satisfaction and in the human fulfilment of our people at work. That is the only way we are going to bring about a meaningful and lasting labour peace.

On behalf of the Labour Party I wish to welcome this Bill on worker participation. It is essential in substantial semi-State bodies such as CIE and Aer Lingus that employees, who number almost 23,000 should have an important input and involvement in the decision-making processes of those boards. I have a personal interest in the Bill because, prior to my election to this House, I spent 25 years in the service of CIE. As an employee of that concern I can assure the House that the provisions of the Bill are long overdue. Deputy Mitchell felt they were overdue since 1977 but in my view they are overdue for the last 20 years. Through lack of a proper national transport policy or plan the effectiveness of any CIE proposals did not account for much because of the lack of worker participation.

I should like to deal with the workings of CIE over the years and give my opinion on the areas where the company fell down. The Minister did not mention anything about sub-boards in CIE, but consultative committees at area and district level have been in operation in the company for many years. At such committee meetings workers were involved with middle management in group discussions on matters relevant to their work place, their way of living and improving the system. Fruitful discussions took place but, unfortunately, such committees did not have much power. The introduction of worker participation will create a better atmosphere and improve the industrial situation in the board's concern. Staff have been very patient down through the years with the inactivity, indecision, lack of concern for their future and the many hit-and-miss alleged transport policies submitted to Government who allegedly attempted to take up the challenge of providing a transport service second to none in Europe.

As a CIE man I should like to express concern on behalf of my former colleagues about one aspect of the makeup of CIE boards throughout the years. I and my colleagues in CIE for many years had to endure the presence of political nominees on that board, many of them with no interest whatever in the development of our national transport system, although they were supposed to be representing the interests of the workers, the taxpayers, the community at large. Indeed, many of them engaged in enterprises running contrary to their position on the board of CIE.

This order will be effective in CIE only if the Government realise the urgent need to introduce a transport plan. If there is not a determination to provide a proper transport plan for the eighties this order will have very little effect on the viability of our transport service. CIE workers have always been concerned at the failure of successive Governments to produce a proper policy on national transport. Nowadays we have an energy crisis, a crisis which will not go away tomorrow, to add to the problem.

Undoubtedly worker participation on these boards will improve the boards and their relations with workers and the public generally. Until now workers had been on the outside looking in. Now they will have a say in management and as far as CIE are concerned their experience in regard to transport generally should make a big contribution. I am looking forward to their involvement.

On Tuesday night, when the Government were accused in the House of reneging on a proper policy in respect of CIE, a Deputy from the Government benches pointed out that CIE got a subsidy of £56 million last year. I do not think that is sufficient. I appreciate that money is scarce but unless the Government are prepared to adopt a plan for substantial national investment this undertaking cannot be viable.

With worker participation we can look forward to a better industrial climate in CIE. Workers as well as the general public for years have been concerned about the many industrial disputes there at a time when worker participation at board level could have contributed to harmony. Top level decisions were being made without consultation with the workers, who found it impossible to endure such a situation. I hope that this new system will mean that CIE workers can look forward to a sound future for themselves and their families instead of being the brickbats and the football of the public in the matter of redundancies and industrial disputes. In the past when there were talks of lay-offs it was always the platelayer on the line and the porter in the goods store who suffered. I look forward to better industrial relations from now on.

The legislation under which this order is being made was introduced to give worker participation or democracy to State enterprises. It has been operating for a couple of years and it is time we had a look at its effects. When the legislation was going through I was not entirely happy that this was the best way to achieve democracy in industry because I thought there was an element of lip service being paid to the idea.

It is easy to elect people on boards, but in modern enterprises boards can be very remote from the executive, the people responsible for day to day decision making. We hoped that by worker participation we would get better industrial relations, but on examining the record I do not think we have achieved that to date. Greater participation by workers is a step forward. I know this is confined to State enterprises because we have control over such enterprises, but even at that level we are not doing enough. What has happened in relation to worker participation at shop floor level other than the election by the workers of a number of people to the board? The nature of the boardroom can isolate those elected from the workers unless there is some feedback from the board to the workforce. In the absence of such a feedback of information the whole concept of worker participation will disappear. Lines of communication must be developed from the workforce to executive and board level. Most of our problems have been due to a breakdown in communications and the almost total absence of dialogue.

We must not think that this measure will cure all our industrial problems. We must inject money into the area of industrial relations in order to improve the climate and to provide the necessary aids for those involved in negotiations. The Department can play a very positive role in aiding trade unions in the development of the concept of worker participation. Industry today is getting larger, multinational companies proliferate and State enterprises are expanding. The worker tends to lose his sense of identity and he must be given the feeling that he is participating in an industry and is not just a number or a cog in a wheel. He must be given a sense of dignity.

While it is laudable to provide for the election of workers to the board, we are not being altogether sincere in our approach. It is an easy way to convince ourselves that we are doing something positive, but the problem of industrial relations is far too serious for such self-indulgence. The Department of Labour should apply themselves to the task of getting workers involved and should also ensure that management are trained to respond to workers. When negotiations take place between workers and management it often seems that they are entirely separate entities who are completely divorced from one another, even though both sides are working for the same enterprise and should have a common interest in furthering its activities. To hear them talk across the table one would swear they were bitter enemies. This is a sad feature of industrial relations and we must try to break down the barriers. Management must be responsive to the needs of workers who must be given responsibility and not looked upon as disposable units of production.

It is that attitude which creates suspicion. Management, particularly personnel management, is a buffer in the whole area of industrial relations. It should basically be on the side of the worker because then we would be getting a response from the worker through personnel to the executive and the board. But in many cases the board is not aware of what is happening on the shop floor. So we have workers on the shop floor who are involved in the industry. They can be involved in some part of the State and there may be disputes going on in some other areas which he, as a worker, is not fully aware of because the lines of communication are not good. If he is not aware of it, the fact that he is sitting on the board is not much use because in many cases personnel are covering up problems instead of letting them come to the surface earlier so that they can be dealt with. Is that the role of personnel management? Personnel officers seem to be obsessed with the idea that it is. I believe that as a country with no great industrial hang-ups we should adopt a much more enlightened approach in the whole area of worker participation, but we do not because there is an attitude in middle management that the worker should be kept in his place, that middle management know exactly how to control the affairs of the country and that really the worker would not know very much about that so that he should not be consulted or allowed to participate. It is all right to put him on a board, he will not have much say there at the end of the day about what happens because most of the decisions relating to day-to-day operations are made at middle management level. The board does not know about them until the trouble is caused.

The Deputy is widening the scope of this little order here. It only refers to two companies, CIE and Aer Lingus, and it is very limited.

But it is in order to speak on matters relating to worker participation.

We are getting into the realm of middle management and personnel management and all those things.

With respect, I would hope that there is middle management and personnel management in those companies. There are times when one would wonder if there is because there is so much trouble in them. I am not referring to individual companies because if one mentions CIE, for example, one could go on for a day about the problems and the lack of worker participation. The fact that they are planting a couple of guys at board level in such a vast company is of no use unless we get at the nitty-gritty of worker participation because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about worker participation.

Yes. In two companies.

I am not talking about the ESB. I am not talking about Bord na Móna. I do not have to mention them every time I speak. I am not going to delay the House too long if that is what the Chair is worried about.

My concern is to keep within the argument.

I am keeping within the argument. We can talk about CIE. We all know the track record of CIE. But is this going to solve any of the problems in CIE? I do not think it is. The Minister can be asked what is he doing and he can say that he did this or that he did that. That is fine so far as it goes but as long as we fail to grasp the nettle we will have problems. As I said before, putting workers on boards is like starting to build a house at the roof; that is not the way most people start to build. That is why I do not think this is the way to approach this problem. I know it has gone on; it was the Coalition Government that brought it in and I am not scoring political points one way or another here because the matter is far too serious for that. But it has given me an opportunity to put a point of view across the House. I have put this point of view before. I am not satisfied that this is enough and I will continue to say that it is not enough.

We must, if we are serious, give workers an opportunity to participate in their company. We hear a lot of talk about responsibility to shareholders and about capital and so on. But one must consider that an employee is giving the best years of his life, his skills, to that company and why should he not have rights at all levels to ensure that his interests and the interests of the company are looked after, because all these interests are interwoven. There seems to be an impression that there are lots of pigeon holes and a lot of different entities doing their own thing and building their own walls and having their own attitude to the company. But that is not what worker participation is about. It starts at the floor and it goes right up to the board and the lines of communication should be open so that when problems arise and there is discontent, at whatever level, there is a line of communication right through and no buffer, like a personnel department, trying to keep it back so that it will not erupt, because it will erupt eventually and then there will be strikes. I am not against what the Minister is doing. I am just putting my point of view across. We must take this whole area of industrial relations seriously. When can we look forward to the day when workers will have a share in private industry, a share in wherever they are employed? It is only when we start evolving across the board a scheme of worker participation that we will come to grips with the whole question of industrial relations. This is the basic reason this motion was introduced—to endeavour to see what could be done in order to give workers a stake. At the time we felt that, unless we gave workers responsibility there would be much more industrial strife. However, that was one aspect of it only. This problem is not being followed through and, unless this is done, there will be a continuance of the turmoil in industrial relations, particularly that experienced last year, something of which none of us, as legislators, can be proud.

Neither are there any short cuts to success. My party brought out a comprehensive document on industrial relations. We should like to see some response from the Minister and the Government in this whole area, to see just how serious they are in coming to grips with a problem that has been allowed to continue since they came into office. There has been exhortation on television but that is useless without a positive blueprint for a policy of worker participation. Mere exhortation with no formula for success will not work. These are the types of cosmetic exercises to which I am totally opposed, that workers will see through and will reject.

I must say that is a wide order. I hope I will get as much latitude when replying.

Deputy, please. I appeal to the Deputy to keep to the motion before the House which barely concerns worker participation in some two companies.

I am sorry if I am getting at the nerve of the Minister.

No, but I appreciate that it has all to do with this weekend.

The Deputy is getting at the nerve of the Chair.

I would not wonder that I would get at the nerve of the Minister because, if I had done as little as he over the last two-and-a-half years. I would feel somewhat uncomfortable.

The Deputy will never sit in this seat anyway.

The Minister was sweating bricks a few weeks ago when he did not know whether or not he would be retained.

The Deputy will never have to sweat those bricks.

This is completely out of order. There is nothing before the House but a simple order dealing with worker participation in two companies.

The Deputy has to fill in time; he is a stop-gapper.

So long as he is relevant he is entitled to do so.

One only has to read the Minister's record in the press in recent years and, in my view, the less he has to say in this whole area the better.

The Minister's record has nothing to do with what is before the House.

The Deputy has been here for nearly half an hour and has said nothing as yet.

Deputy O'Brien on the order.

But the Minister is interrupting me.

I will deal with the Minister if the Deputy will deal with the order.

Obviously the Deputy wants me to comment.

Sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am on my feet and I am entitled to respond.

The Deputy is entitled to speak on the order before the House and nothing else.

I shall conclude by saying that I accept the order before us this morning but I am disappointed that nothing has emanated from the Government in the whole area of worker participation. We have had promise after promise since 1977 but no action taken. The earlier we have some response from the Minister and his Department the better. Otherwise we will drift into another period of industrial unrest. Indeed this motion will not at all solve the problems in the two companies we are talking about. The Minister should catch on to himself, get on with the job, bring in the appropriate formula to deal with this problem, and, if he does not, he knows what to do.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and acceptance of the order. In regard to the reference, I think it was, by Deputy Mitchell to the time lapse between the introduction of the Bill and the introduction of this order, as I explained in the Seanad yesterday, I have maintained close liaison with both companies since 1977 in order to assess the prospects of arranging the elections. When I brought in the order in 1978 I should like to have included the other five companies, bringing the whole seven together. But of course that was not possible because, when that order was made in 1978—fixing at 12 the board sizes of Bord na Móna, the B and I, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, the ESB and NET—I found that consultations between management and unions had not reached the stage, in Aer Lingus and CIE, at which decisions on board sizes could be appropriately made. I am of the opinion that it is now opportune and desirable that elections under the Acts should be held in these two companies. I should say that in Aer Lingus a worker participation study group, which had been formed by the trade unions, had lapsed in the period since 1978 as a result of industrial unrest. The study group has been re-convened for some months now and is preparing proposals on participation structures appropriate to below-board levels. I agree entirely with those who said that structures below-board level are important. Indeed Deputy J. Ryan emphasised that and I agree with him.

Obviously, because of the short time it has been in operation in the five other bodies to which I have referred, while we cannot yet be positive of the beneficial effects of the board representation—because of myself and my Department keeping in touch with the situation there in addition to the study being carried out by the IPC on behalf of the foundation and to which I referred in my opening statement—indications are that there is greater anxiety to set up the sub-board structures and to improve communications. Indeed Deputy Mitchell referred to a statement of mine in regard to communications as being jargon. That indicated to me his lack of appreciation of the most essential and important thing in all of this area, which is good communications. Unfortunately, they are not always good enough in Irish industry.

I might deal now with a few points raised. There was for example the agency idea raised by Deputy Mitchell. Perhaps I should refer first to the newspaper report he referred to and confirm that I am laying before both Houses of the Oireachtas today the discussion document on worker participation, which of course was one of the commitments in our manifesto of 1977 and part of the Government's commitment in the national understanding of last year. My hope is that this discussion document, setting out many options, will stimulate worthwhile discussion and awareness not alone within both sides of industry but also among the public at large and that they will take an interest, will discuss it and make submissions. In that way I believe this will be a major development and improvement in the whole industrial relations scene.

This order I am making today merely enables me, as envisaged in the 1977 Act, to set up the boards of the two State companies to which I have referred. It will mean that when their elections have been held the seven State boards named in that Act will be able to have the elections over. An average of about a year, as I said, is the existence of worker directors on the other five State bodies. I am not prevented from extending further within the State area but it is desirable and probably realistic to have proper examination of the experience within those seven bodies before a final decision is taken as to what is the best way, whether there is room for improvement or in what other shape this idea may be extended.

Preliminary examinations have been made in the five State bodies where the system operates. It is obviously a very early stage as the first year would probably be the year when all sides are learning and, when new departures are being introduced, that year can be the slowest year. I should compliment the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who have made backup services and training for State board directors available. I look forward to attending a seminar in the not-too-distant future involving some of those people.

I referred to the agency idea put forward. I referred to the discussion document. I am establishing a Worker Participation Advisory Committee composed of representatives of ICTU and the FUE and other experts. The committee will report to me on the best way of advancing worker participation. Very useful work has been done in this sphere. At times the lack of knowledge among Deputies in this respect amazes me when they suggest that nothing is being done. Obviously, they do not familiarise themselves with what is happening. This is true particularly as regards Deputy O'Brien's contribution. I am surprised that a Deputy who appears to express interest in the subject is not aware of the many things going on. Very useful work has been done in this area by labour management service of the Irish Productivity Centre to whom I have previously paid tribute. They have now five specialists available to advise companies about participation assistance such as work councils, works organisations and so on. This is an ongoing process and it is performing very commendable work.

I agree fully with Deputy Ryan on the need for the sub-board structures to which he referred. I said this when in opposition when my predecessor introduced the 1977 measure. As I indicated this morning, I think there is greater awareness because of the presence of directors on the boards—I realise it is sometimes a long way from the boardroom to the shop floor—that there is room for middle management involvement structures.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. Deputy O'Brien did not appear to keep on the rails entirely and perhaps I should briefly, with the permission of the Chair, make a few points on some of what he said. On the eve of the Ard Fheis, presumably, it is understandable that he would want to make a little play because his spokesman would be getting publicity over the weekend.

We have all done it.

I suppose we have. He referred to making money available for trade union education and training. I am delighted with this change of attitude in Fine Gael because when I came into Government I had to undo a penal imposition of the former Minister for Finance, Deputy R. Ryan, on the grant-in-aid for trade union education and training when an enormous contribution was being sought and expected from ICTU.

I have allowed the Minister to reply, but Deputy O'Brien was certainly very much out of order if he dealt with finance for trade unions. It must have been before I came into the Chair. He was certainly out of order a few times after I had come into the Chair.

He was dealing with their recent paper probably before you arrived.

Deputy Ryan did roam to some extent which would entitle me to reply to him. Basically I wish to thank Deputies for their support. This is only a step enabling elections to be held in those two bodies. If it improves communications and if it encourages and develops structures at various levels of management. I think it will be seen as a step in the right direction. However, I might agree with Deputies who have said that much remains to be done.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share