Supplementary Estimates 1980. - Vote 41: Labour. – Dáil Éireann (21st Dáil) – Friday, 20 Jun 1980

Supplementary Estimates 1980. - Vote 41: Labour.

Minister for Labour (Mr. G. Fitzgerald)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £40,044,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, 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.

While there was strong growth in employment in Ireland in 1979 there are at present far greater problems in increasing employment due to national and international developments. The record increases in net employment achieved in the last two years are unlikely to be repeated in 1980. While in general job creation targets are being met, the situation about off-setting factors such as closures and redundancies is less favourable. The number on the live register of unemployed persons has also been increasing in the last couple of months. The fact that our working population is growing rapidly is another factor which makes achievement of employment targets more difficult.

My Department run a number of schemes designed to help people in securing employment. The Employment Incentive Scheme, under which premiums are payable for additional unemployed workers recruited, is continuing to operate successfully in 1980. Since the scheme was initiated in 1977, up to 30 May last premiums have been paid in respect of over 23,000 additional employees. The allocation in the 1980 Estimate provides for participation by 11,000 employees, including about 5,600 school leavers, in the scheme. The scheme is supplemented at the present time by additional premiums payable out of the Employment Guarantee Fund which is financed equally by the Government and additional employers' social insurance contributions.

The Employment Maintenance Scheme, which applies to the maintenance of employment in certain labour intensive sectors of industry, such as textiles, expired on 31 March 1980 and the provision in the Estimate is to meet outstanding claims under the scheme. A new scheme—the Employers Temporary Subvention—operates from 1 April to end of December 1980 to assist firms in sensitive sectors whose workers face threats of serious unemployment. This scheme is financed from employers' contributions to the Employment Guarantee Fund but is being administered by the Department on behalf of a Steering Committee of representatives of employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

The Work Experience Programme since it was introduced in 1978 has helped over 8,000 young people to get some practical employment experience. About 80 per cent of the participants have succeeded in obtaining regular employment. The Estimate provides for continuation of the scheme in 1980 at about the same level of participation as was achieved last year.

The Vote provides for Exchequer grants to agencies engaged in industrial training—AnCO and CERT Ltd. AnCo trained a total of over 18,000 adults and apprentices in 1979, over 77 per cent of whom were immediately placed in employment—over 80 per cent of them were under 25 years of age. The current Exchequer grant to AnCO is expected to be supplemented by payments from the European Social Fund giving a total budget for current training activities of over £31 million. The capital grant to AnCO is also being increased in 1980 to allow for the continuing expansion of their training centre network.

CERT Ltd, which looks after training for the hotel, catering and tourism industry, also benefits from aid from the European Social Fund. In 1979 CERT financed the training of about 1,200 persons on formal full-time courses, including over 500 first year trainees, and of almost 2,000 workers on short in-service courses.

The National Manpower Service of my Department are the principal agency involved in helping people to get employment, in providing counselling and occupational guidance services and in administering at local level the employment schemes run by the Department. The programmed expansion of the service will continue in 1980 both in terms of staff numbers and new offices. I hope that before the end of the year each region will have at least one occupational guidance officer.

The practical work of our employment services has to be backed up by adequate manpower information and research. A major survey on the employment experience of 1979 school leavers is at present being carried out. Late last year 17 surveys on availability of semi-skilled labour were undertaken and the results are at present being published.

The representative manpower consultative committee, which I chair, continue their important programme of work. The committee have identified shortages arising in a number of occupations ranging from engineers to technicians and craftsmen. This has led to measures relating to recruitment from abroad and expansion of education and training capacity to meet shortages. The committee have also been examining the general youth employment situation and attitudes towards industrial employment.

My Department, working through an inter-departmental committee, have been pursing measures to secure additional employment for disabled persons in the public service with a view to achieving a target quota of 3 per cent by 1982. A recent significant step forward has been a decision by the Civil Service Commissioners to hold a special competition for recruitment of disabled persons to the Civil Service. The inter-departmental committee have also been discussing with State bodies, local authorities, health boards etc the fulfilment of their obligations under the 3 per cent quota.

As Deputies are no doubt aware, the Safety in Industry Act, 1980, became law earlier this month. The various sections of the Act will be brought into operation by means of commencement orders. I should like to take this opportunity to appeal to employers and workers to avail of the provisions of the Act in relation to safety committees.

The Dangerous Substances (Amendment) Act, 1979, enabled me to bring into operation in September last the Dangerous Substances Act of 1972. I expect shortly to make an order declaring 25 substances to be dangerous for the purposes of the Act. At the same time I will bring into operation safety regulations controlling the conveyance by road of these substances. I also propose to make regulations relating to the loading, unloading and storage of these substances.

As regards future worker protection legislation, Deputies are aware of my commitment to promote legislation for maternity protection of women in employment. These proposals will involve extensive discussions with the social partners. I would hope, however, to introduce this Bill before the end of the year.

Other legislation in early prospect relates to protection of workers engaged in off shore installations and reduction of statutory limits on working hours. Two Acts administered by the Department which are at present being subjected to major searching reviews are the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, and the Night Work (Bakeries) Act, 1936.

During the debate on the Safety in Industry Act I undertook to set up a working party on safety and health at work which will have very wide terms of reference relating to the occupational protection of people at work. I hope to have this working party set up in the near future and that it will conclude its work within about two years of its establishment. I expect the report of the working party to have a major influence on our legislation in this area and on the development of our future occupational safety and health programmes.

The Employment Equality Agency which has the function of monitoring the operation of the Equal Pay and Employment Equality Acts is financed from my Department's Vote. I am considering proposals for changes in these Acts sent to me by the Agency and the Labour Court. My Department are also responsible for liaison with the Council for the Status of Women. The Council are being given various facilities by the Department to help them to carry out their role. The council have been afforded consultative status in relation to draft legislation.

The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act provides for election of worker directors in seven designated State bodies. Directors have taken up their appointments in five of these bodies. Arrangements have already been made for an election in a sixth body— CIE—and I hope that an election in the seventh—Aer Lingus—can be arranged later this year. I published a discussion document on worker participation in March last and it is my wish to encourage voluntary initiatives in relation to worker participation in all sectors of the community which can be successfully implemented on an agreed basis.

The Council of Minister for Social Affairs held this month adopted a directive on the protection of workers from harmful exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents. This directive will involve consequential legislation in Ireland. A resolution for guidelines for a Community labour market policy was also agreed as well as proposals to improve relations with the social partners which should enable meetings of the Tripartite Conference, which has dealt mainly with employment problems, to be resumed.

I have already referred to the aid which AnCO and CERT received from the European Social Fund. Grants totalling £38.7 million from the fund were approved for Irish applications relating to 1979 operations covering training, including training of the handicapped, resettlement and job creation measures for young persons. For 1980 operations, grants totalling £48.2 million have already been approved including £2.3 million for schemes of job creation for young persons. Applications for a further £8.93 million for 1980 operations are still to be dealt with through the normal fund procedures. The Government would like to see an expansion in the resources in the fund and in the types of aid in support of employment which the fund can give. It is my intention to press for extension of the fund activities in these ways.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has five minutes left.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If there is one topic which attracts frequent comment in the media and among the public, it is the state of our industrial relations. Certainly there are occasions when criticism is not only justified but necessary. At the same time the fact that the vast majority of differences between workers and employers are resolved through peaceful negotiation often seems to escape notice.

It is only realistic to recognise that conflict will arise on occasion between both sides of industry. In a situation of rapid economic, technological and social change, differences about how things should be done and how the rewards for improved productivity and increased production should be shared are bound to arise between workers and management. We must apply ourselves to the task of reducing the extent of the conflict and also to devising the best methods of resolving conflict when it arises.

Too often, we have experienced unnecessary strikes which do untold harm to our economy, discredit our reputation abroad as an attractive industrial base and seriously damage the job prospects for our expanding and young work force. Many of these disputes have taken place among the better-off sections of our work force. The more these people take out of our national resources, the less there is for the lower paid and more vulnerable sections of our community. These people seem to have little regard for the effects of their actions on their fellow workers or on the community generally.

When parties to disputes fail to settle their differences through direct negotiations, it is imperative that full and proper use be made of the dispute-settling machinery made available by the State namely the Labour Court and its industrial relations service and the rights commissioner service. These institutions have been doing invaluable work over the years in the industrial relations area and are entitled to the full respect of both sides of industry. Increasing use is being made of the court and its industrial relations service. In 1979, industrial relations officers acted as chairmen to negotiations in 1,301 cases as compared with the 1978 figure of 1,288 which, itself, had been an all-time high figure. The court held 622 hearings and issued 575 recommendations in 1979 as compared with 545 recommendations in 1978, 462 in 1977 and 162 in 1971. In 1979 the rights commissioner service investigated, under the 1969 Industrial Relations Act and the 1977 Unfair Dismissals Act, about 1,760 cases as compared with about 1,960 in 1978 and 1,830 in 1977.

I am aware that there have been criticisms of the Labour Court with regard to delay in hearing cases and in issuing recommendations. To deal with the increasing workload of the court, I have appointed a new division of the court and I have also provided the court with additional resources so as to ensure that cases will be handled with minimum delay.

As well as strengthening and expanding the State dispute-settling machinery, I am convinced that a strong well-equipped, well-informed trade union movement can make a positive and significant contribution to improving our industrial relations. Since taking up office the Government have increased, in real terms, the level of State assistance towards the education, training and advisory services of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The State grant is paid on the basis of an 80 per cent contribution by the Exchequer, the balance of 20 per cent being subscribed by congress. The allocation for congress this year is £300,000. This represents a substantial increase over last year's allocation of £205,000.

One factor which has militated against securing a more orderly system of industrial relations has been the large number of trade unions relative to the size of the labour force. Primary responsibility for securing the rationalisation of the trade unions rests with the movement. I am personally aware of the valuable work being undertaken by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in relation to difficulties over inter-union disputes. Congress indeed engaged an expert from the International Labour Office some time ago to look at the situation here and I understand that congress are at present engaged in follow-up action arising from his report with particular reference to developing greater co-ordination between unions in multiple-union situations. The Trade Union Act, 1975, specifies the procedures for the amalgamation of trade unions and enables State assistance to be provided to recoup financial losses directly related to such amalgamations. A sum of £30,000 is provided in the 1980 Estimate for this purpose.

The period of the agreement on pay policy contained in the National Understanding for Economic and Social Development negotiated last July will expire shortly for some workers. As the Minister with responsibility on behalf of, and with the authority of, the Government for negotiations with the social partners on any future national understandings I have had a number of meetings over the past few weeks with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and of employer and industry organisations on the possibilities of another centrally negotiated arrangement on pay and related issues. Further discussions are envisaged to see if an acceptable measure of agreement can be reached on the wider issues as well as agreement on pay policy. Deputies will understand that it would not be appropriate for me, while discussions are in progress, to comment on developments at this stage.

There is also a supplementary estimate for £300,000 to cover a Government contribution to the cost of improving the physical facilities for welfare services at the Irish Centre, Camden Town in London. A request for aid from the centre was examined by an inter-Departmental committee which recommended that, subject to certain conditions, aid to this amount should be granted. The Government are satisfied that the provision of this aid is fairly justified for the purpose of helping our less fortunate emigrants, who encounter various difficulties, mainly after arrival but also at later stages, in adapting to life in the London area.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It is a pity that these Estimates have been cut down to such a limited time. Neither the Minister nor this side of the House have adequate time to discuss what is a very important Estimate. Before I begin, I apologise for the labour spokesman who is unable to be here and who has asked me to stand in for him.

The Minister mentioned a few points. Work experience is a very important aspect of life in any economy, but particularly where we have high unemployment and where unemployment is growing we must ensure that work experience is available to young people. The Minister said that he intends to maintain the programme at the same level as last year. For this year £1.8 million is provided; last year the figure was £2.8 million. I would like the Minister to tell us how with a 20 per cent inflation rate we can carry out the same programme in the light of those figures. I do not think that it is "on".

The Minister spoke of the Safety in Industry Bill and welcomed participation in it. Again, there is the question of money for the National Industrial Safety Organisation. I presume they make some input in this area, and there is an increase of just £1,000 in their funds. Does the Minister think that is adequate if he has expanded and intends further to expand their programme? Later he indicated that he had set up a working party to examine safety in industry. I welcome that development because great emphasis should be placed on safety in industry It is a pity the working party was not set up prior to the legislation, but possibly when the Minister became aware of the shortcomings in the legislation he realised it was necessary to have the working party to ensure that a comprehensive study leading to broader legislation would be undertaken to meet the needs in that area.

The Minister mentioned disabled persons and the 3 per cent quota in the public service. I suggested previously that the employment premium scheme should be used in the private sector to encourage employers to take on disabled persons. I still think that should be done. The Minister can exercise direct control over State activities, but he should give an incentive to the private sector so as to ensure that everything possible is done to enable disabled people to live as full and as normal a life as possible. The Minister should examine this matter again even if it means seeking grants from the EEC. We always seem to look to the EEC when the question of a grant arises. It is important to broaden our aims regarding disabled persons and see if we can give some support to private industry to encourage them in this regard. If private industry had a conscience they might employ disabled people, but I think they require a push here and there. Many of them do a reasonable job, but the Minister could make a little more effort in this connection and I ask him to do so.

The Minister also spoke of maternity protection. I would like to know how far he will go in that regard and whether it will be the responsibility of the Government to ensure that maternity leave money is paid rather than have the amount foisted upon the employer. We must be careful not to place too many impositions on employers. Otherwise, they will tend not to employ people. This is a point which must be considered in relation to social welfare, PRSI contributions and so on. There is a limit to the load the back will take and any more will have a negative effect. The same applies to maternity leave. Any extension there should be met in full by the Department concerned rather than impose a further burden on employers. They are in competition and if they are to survive they must be competitive. If we impose too much on them it will have an adverse effect.

There is a great challenge as regards our young population in the sphere of job experience. According to the newspapers in the past couple of days, the number of persons under 25 now unemployed is rising dramatically. Persons of that age are at peak capacity in enthusiasm and ability and if that great reservoir of energy is left untapped many things can happen. It is a dangerous situation and the Minister must ensure that every effort is made to ensure employment for our youth. Obviously, the number in this category tends to increase and it will cause great concern. It requires real and positive steps to deal with this challenge. If we cannot employ our youth at this age the country will have serious economic and social problems. The social consequences could be catastrophic. We can see around us today the social consequences of unemployment, and if present trends increase there will be a real threat to the whole fabric of our society. It behoves the Government, not just the Minister, to meet this challenge head-on and ensure that employment prospects are improved.

To judge by the Minister's reference to industrial relations one might think that there were no problems in that area at all. There are occasions when criticism is justified and necessary. At the same time, the vast majority of differences between workers and employers is resolved through peaceful negotiations. There is nothing extraordinary about that; it is as it should be. But there are serious problems and these will have serious consequences on employment prospects unless we take a radical look at the whole area of industrial relations.

In the administrative changeover of late last year the Minister was blowing hot and cold on legislation.

One day we heard that unofficial strikes should be tackled one way and the next we were told they should be dealt with by peaceful means and by negotiation. This is a very dangerous attitude towards industrial relations. We also had the Minister making a speech shortly after the Taoiseach made a plea on television in regard to industrial relations. We got the impression that the Taoiseach had made his speech, divine providence had spoken and everything was all right. Everything was not all right. It is very dishonest of the Minister for Labour to say that, because the Taoiseach has spoken or some other Minister has spoken, we will have peace. That is an insult to people involved in industrial relations—the trade union movement and the employer movement—who are concerned about the matter. We should not have this type of indifferent attitude towards industrial relations, that industrial problems are minor ones. They are not; they are with us every day. Nobody relishes them, but very little action is being taken.

Positive steps are not being taken to ensure that there are good industrial relations. I know the Minister set up a committee to examine industrial relations. The country wants action not commissions or working parties. Governments are elected to take responsibility and to do their job. The Minister is not doing his job in the industrial relations field. Far too many disputes are taking place, far too many problems are arising every day. Our economy is tottering and international goodwill has been lost because of the indifferent approach of the Minister. That will have a dramatic effect on us in the long term. I ask the Minister to come up with concrete proposals in the whole area of industrial relations to ensure that management and labour are not against one another.

The Minister must take a serious look at the trade union movement. Fine Gael in their document suggested that funds should be provided for the trade union movement we can legislate for industrial disputes but, unless the conditions are right, legislation will not make any difference. The way to solve problems is by consensus, consultation and good communications. We will not get good industrial relations by vague statements and what we should or should not do. We should get a formula worked out for good industrial relations.

Management and trade unions want to see a peaceful work force and want to see industrial relations working well, because it is good for employees, for the economy and for the country. Those people have an interest in good industrial relations and it is now a question of getting together and the Minister and the Government coming up with proposals. The first thing is to inject money into the trade union movement. Money is given through the various agencies for the development of employment and there is no reason why the trade union movement, who represent our work force, should not get money for training, and the development of proper staff structures within the movement to ensure that there is no question of the trade unions being remote from workers. There can often be disputes because there is a little remoteness from head office. Trade union officials are possibly the hardest working people there are, because they work 16 hours a day and, as a result, sometimes they may be a little remote. I believe that, if enough money is injected into the trade union movement to ensure that there are good staff relations and that the officials get closer to the factory floor, we will have fewer problems.

I believe that many industrial problems arise from bad management. When problems arise the finger is always pointed at the trade union movement, but they are not always at fault. Very often indifferent attitudes by management towards workers is the cause of industrial disputes. Personnel departments should not be seen as being there as a sort of protection for upper management and for boards. They should be there for both sides of industry. If we can get it established that personnel are there for workers and management in the best interests of everybody, we will have peace in industrial relations.

I have been in negotiations on behalf of workers and when we were talking to personnel we did not feel they had our interest at heart. We always felt we had to argue a point to make a point. Personnel departments should get both sides together and give a sense of trust and well-being to everybody.

The Minister mentioned the question of worker participation on boards. That is grand, but it is like putting the chimney pot on the house first and working down. We have got to get our structures right at the bottom and then work right up through industry to the top. We talk about Sweden and about Germany. But we have our own attitudes and we should develop our personalities within industry and forget what happens elsewhere. We can work well if we do that. The Minister should take the whole question of industrial relations much more seriously than he has done up to now. There is very little space given to industrial relations in the Minister's speech, which is probably because of the shortage of time. I would have liked more time, but I realise the time has been agreed. Possibly I will be able to make my points again on another occasion.

Mr. J. Ryan

As we enter the eighties I believe greater emphasis must be placed on the Department of Labour, because with a growing population and greater emphasis on young people the Department of Labour are one of the most sensitive Departments for the peaceful and adequate development of our economy. The Department of Labour are concerned with employment, unemployment and industrial peace—the three facets of our life which are most necessary for proper development and the greater employment of our people in the years ahead. We may have other national priorities. I support these objectives wholeheartedly, but before they can be achieved what must be uppermost in our minds is the provision of adequate training programmes and ultimately adequate employment for all our people, because the basis of future development and job opportunities for this country must be based on a contented work force. I have referred to the ever-increasing youth population. Their main needs are jobs and housing. They are a very responsible section of our people and I am satisfied that if we can show concern for their needs, the response from that ever-increasing number in our population will be worthwhile and will contribute to the well-being of our community.

I would like to refer to many aspects in the Minister's report which are important in their own way for the achievement of this objective. First, I will take the operation of AnCO. I applaud their efforts as a member of a VEC and I support wholeheartedly what they are doing in the field of employment and training programmes. As I have stated at VEC level, I believe that if we are to attain the ultimate objective in youth programmes and youth employment, there should be greater discussion and getting down to the job between AnCO and the VECs at IVEA level. In both areas there is an overlap and perhaps by working together we can attain a better result by having our objectives in line rather than having perhaps a wastage of energy, power and finance. This matter has been discussed at VEC level and, as far as I know, it has gone to congress. It may seem that criticism of AnCO is intended, but I am not criticising them. However, a better relationship between the VECs and AnCO would enable our objective in employment to be met.

CERT are concerned mainly with the catering and tourist trade. I appeal to the executive of that body for alertness especially in the catering and hotel trade here. Even after many years of protest and recommendations to that body, a certain amount of hardship is being created in the working conditions in many sectors in the hotel and catering industry. The Safety in Industry Bill has been finalised after two years but it is still inadequate and leaves much to be desired. I regret to say that the cart was put before the horse. The working party would have been better advised to come in with the report before the Bill was enacted. Now, despite the fact that the Act has been passed, we are still awaiting a working party report which it is estimated will take two years more to produce. In this area it is vital that we have proper and safe methods of working because, as was said on discussion on the Bill, so many new ways of working and so many new sophisticated pieces of equipment have been introduced that it is essential for the safety of the work force that everything possible is done to ensure maximum safety in the carrying out of their duties on the industrial site.

Some weeks ago we spoke here about the Protection of Young Persons Act, 1977, and I supported the extension of that for another 12 months. Unless a full and finalised Bill is brought before the House in 1981 this side of the House will not support a further extension of a temporary cover for our young people under this very important Act which precludes them from being abused financially by many people.

On industrial relations I would like to refer in particular to the need for co-operation on all sides in this very important field. The Minister said:

We must apply ourselves to the task of reducing the extent of the conflict and also to devising the best methods of resolving conflict when it arises.

Later on he said:

I appreciate the Minister's efforts because, from my knowledge of the trade union movement and the ordinary worker, great impatience and annoyance have been felt over the handling of issues by the Labour Court. One could wait two months for a hearing. I know of cases where there have been delays of three to four months before the final recommendation was issued. We talk about wild cat strikes and irresponsible strikes, but if a man with a genuine case—and there are many genuine cases—must wait six months for a hearing and the finalising of that hearing, I can well appreciate an impatient man becoming a little more than impatient.

I made a recommendation some months ago to the Minister that, for the better working of the Labour Court and for the achieving of its objective of as early solutions as possible, there is a need for decentralisation, with particular reference to the conciliation and arbitration services of the Labour Court. No longer can everything be resolved in the city of Dublin. While we have offices throughout the country, with officials from the Department of Labour centred in the greater areas like Limerick, Waterford and Galway, the important people of the Labour Court are those who will be the early warning system to resolve difficulties quickly on the ground and not let the situation be exacerbated. If the conciliation and arbitration services were to a greater extent regionalised and decentralised the Minister would be doing something worthwhile to reduce the serious industrial strife of recent years. The Minister would be contributing to the reduction of tension and the quicker resolving of strikes in the country. We all know that every strike is not in Dublin and 100 miles may mean a lot in the prevention of a strike.

In the middle of the year 1980, what are the facts of life as regards the national situation on employment, as we face the eighties? The newspapers and the Minister have said that the picture is bleak and the outlook frightening. Unless serious steps are taken within the next 12 months or two years there could be serious repercussions within our work force—or perhaps I should say, within the force that is not working. Recent headlines have indicated an unemployment figure in the region of 95,000 and rising. In the last two months there was an increase of 7,000 on the unemployment register, at a time when employment should be at its peak. Not alone that, but a further headline is even more frightening, of 50,000 young people this year without jobs.

Our young people are our future generations and will be the backbone of this country. Unless this serious situation is tackled, I forsee serious social problems in the ten years ahead. Unless this great challenge to our ability to provide employment is taken on by next year, without being pessimistic, I predict a figure of 150,000 on the unemployment register. That brings us to an unemployment figure of almost 10 per cent of our work force. That is not an optimistic picture, but is a realistic one which must be faced in the light of what was enunciated some two years ago by the then Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Deputy Martin O'Donoghue, who envisaged an inflation rate of 5 per cent and full employment by 1982. Surely this pie in the sky has to disappear when one reads of the harsh realities of the unemployment situation in Ireland in late June of 1980? What frightens me even more is the Central Bank report. After reading two chapters, I threw the report away because there was not a happy ending in the final chapter. What I did read was that the Central Bank were very clear and definite that the budgetary proposals and policies in January 1980 were not sufficiently retrograde, with not sufficient cut-back on finances, and they were urging that in 1981 our Government should take even more drastic steps to ensure further cut-backs. Where will this thinking lead our country? What has happened to the messianic charisma of the Taoiseach when elected last December? We all know that the change of leadership came for one reason basic to all, the survival of the fittest. The backbenchers decided that the then Taoiseach was not sufficiently geared to ensure their survival in the next general election and they selected a new Taoiseach to get the economy back on the tracks again, thus ensuring a viable economy facing the next general election.

To my layman's point of view, our present economy is shattered, off course and out of control. If I were a doctor, I would say it is seriously ill. We have many serious problems to deal with in the next 12 months. I conclude on this aspect by saying that many of our ills were created in the last three years by a certain amount of mismanagement of state affairs, unfortunately initiated by the kiss of death from the abominable manifesto, if I may put it that way. This was followed by many hit and miss policies and often no policies at all. In late 1978, because of earlier budgetary proposals, our inflation rate had been reduced to approximately 7 per cent and our GNP had increased by 6 per cent. It was a healthy development and we seemed to be going in the right direction, to be moving again and our economy gathering strength.

If I may explain to the Deputy, and his insincerity is so obvious here, when we introduced this programme at the end of 1978—from memory I would say it was September 1978—we could only estimate what our needs might be for 1979. The demand did not conform to what we had anticipated. However, as the Deputy has raised the matter of the programme, I must say it has been extremely successful. Its replacement rate, as I said in my opening remarks, has been substantially greater than 80 per cent, which is an indication of how successful that scheme has been from the point of view of young people.

Deputy F. O'Brien referred to disabled and to handicapped people. I would agree with the comments he made about encouragement being given in the private sector for their employment. I might say that the organisations concerned, who are deserving of great credit for the way in which they look after the handicapped, are mostly opposed to and are not enthusiastic about a quota system for employment in the private sector. Having said that, I believe however that we should encourage the private sector at every possible opportunity to assist in the employment of handicapped people. For example, the employment subsidy schemes assist in getting handicapped workers into employment. Needless to say employers are eligible for qualification under those schemes also. We receive also substantial grants from the European Social Fund for the training of handicapped persons.

I made a commitment that legislation in regard to maternity protection would be before the House by the end of this year and that there would be extensive consultation with both sides in industry. Obviously that would be important in the case of both the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the employer and industry organisations.

——the qualities of leadership that prove so conclusively that he alone among the Members of this House is fitted to lead this country, in that broadcast the Taoiseach appealed for industrial peace. That appeal, together with the efforts of all concerned—the efforts of the social partners, their commitment under the national understanding and, indeed I might add, the strenuous efforts of the services of the Labour Court and, with my assistance, of the Department of Labour—all contributed to what I said in this House some time ago was the best first quarter of industrial relations we have experienced in this country since we began to compile records in the Department in the mid-seventies. Of course I agree with those who have said that we have too many disputes: we have. In my opening remarks I said that often these disputes were unnecessary, that the procedures to prevent them taking place should be used to a greater extent than they are. I should repeat that, despite the publicity attached to and the difficulties created by those disputes, the vast majority of Irish workers and industry move along each day of each week of each year without such difficulty.

Again I would support those who emphasised the importance of the personal role. It is of extreme importance in that field, as is education. Since I became Minister there has been a substantial increase in the moneys made available to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for the educational, advisory and training services. This is only right. The previous Minister for Finance imposed a percentage limitation on what could be provided by the Government—in other words, a certain percentage had to be provided by congress. I amended that—I thought it was a penal imposition—and it no longer applies.

Worker participation was mentioned and the necessity for good communications. In the worker participation document I issued there was a chapter specifically related to the necessity of drawing up a voluntary code of practice on information disclosure, in consultation of course with the social partners. I believe that would be very desirable, useful and welcome from the point of view of the community.

I think it was Deputy O'Brien who referred to the finger being pointed at one side or the other. I have repeated several times that blame for disputes, disruption or industrial action be attributed to both sides.

Deputy Ryan referred to AnCO. I agree with him about the necessity for co-operation between AnCO and the vocational education system. There is a standing liaison committee between AnCO and education, including the VECs and the IDA. That committee has recently been revamped with a view to improving procedures for consultation between the bodies represented. In the Manpower Consultative Committee, which I chair and to which I referred earlier, we agreed recently to give representation to vocational interests also. I believe that in that whole area of placement, training and education there is a very important link for our future.

Deputy Ryan referred to the Working Party on Safety. Yes, consultations have been held with both sides of industry on the composition and the terms of reference of that working party. I hope in the very near future we will be able to get that working party in operation. They have a very big job to do and a very important role to play and obviously they will take some time to complete their tasks.

On the protection of employment of young persons, I made a commitment in my opening statement that when the review is completed we will bring in amendments. As regards the Labour Court conciliation services and decentralisation, I must confess that when I was in opposition I too raised this point many times. The court sits regularly in various cities and towns and the conciliation officers travel in accordance with the programmes laid down to deal urgently with problems. The possibilities of decentralisation are constantly being studied. It could be argued that conciliation officers are the solution but there may be drawbacks. At the moment a conciliation officer tends to be involved with one area of industry. If there is only one officer available in an area that may create problems because he may not be suitable to one side or the other. When there are a number available in the Department, there is a certain amount of flexibility.

Mr. J. Ryan

Would the Minister have another look at this?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

As I said, the possibility of decentralisation continues to be reviewed. Deputy J. Ryan referred to Labour Court delays which lead to some impatience. In defence of the Labour Court it must be said that the delays are not always created by the court; one of the parties involved may be a contributory factor. The position has been improved by increases in staff and resources. If blockages are caused by these staff or resources, I will be——

Mr. J. Ryan

The biggest complaint I get is about the delay in issuing the courts' recommendations.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I hope the position has improved but the point raised by the Deputy will be brought to the notice of the court.

The work of the court has progressively increased in both variety and complexity, not least because of the affects of national agreements and national understandings over the years. The court has not ceased in its efforts to effect the conciliation of the parties to disputes in an open, just and impartial way.

Vote put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 20 Jun 1980

Supplementary Estimates 1980. - Vote 41: Labour.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 20 Jun 1980