(Waterford) asked the Taoiseach if he will state in view of the commitment he made in his discussions with The Workers' Party prior to his election as Taoiseach when he proposes to introduce an order declaring May Day a public holiday.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - May Day as Public Holiday.
2.
I will discuss this proposal with trade unions and employers at an early date.
Deputy Kelly.
I have a couple of questions on this, unless Deputy Gallagher wants to ask a supplementary first.
I called Deputy Kelly.
Any time we try to be courteous the Ceann Comhairle slaps us down.
It is not a matter of courtesy. An attempt is being made to usurp the powers of the Chair. The Ceann Comhairle calls the questioner.
I am sorry, Sir. I did not mean to be discourteous.
Thank you. Deputy Gallagher did not offer to ask a supplementary. Deputy Kelly first, please.
I have two or three questions. They will not take long if I can get through them. In view of the fact that the year contains roughly 240 working days, and that a public holiday notoriously has a spin-over effect into the days on either side of it, would the Taoiseach not agree that the effect of creating a new public holiday will be to cause a drop in industrial output of roughly ½ per cent thus representing yet a further home-made handicap for Irish industry?
Undoubtedly a public holiday will have some effect on national output, but it could be hoped that this drop in national output would be more than restored by increasing competitiveness and efficiency throughout the economy. I should like to point out to the Deputy that, in the European league, we are lower than most with regard to the number of public holidays of this sort.
Would it not be time enough to bring the number of our holidays up to a European level when our productivity, which is roughly half the German and Dutch average, is also at the European level? Would that not be a rational way to proceed instead of hanging yet another handicap around the neck of Irish industry which we are all supposed to be supporting?
It is important to have a balance between competitiveness and holidays. The Deputy should remember we are now in the latter half of the 20th century and there are enlightened ideas about the conditions of workers, holidays, and so on.
There is also an economic panic of a kind never seen before in this century.
(Waterford): In view of the comments just made by Deputy Kelly, can the Taoiseach produce any evidence to substantiate the claim that by granting a May Day holiday — recognised throughout the EEC as a workers' holiday — in effect it would cause economic disruption and a drop in GNP?
No, I would hope it would not. I would not be at all persuaded that it would necessarily do that.
(Waterford): Would the Taoiseach agree to the proposal that Irish workers, by virtue of the fact that this country is now a member of the EEC, should enjoy the same entitlements as the vast majority of other workers throughout the EEC?
I would be inclined to agree with that in principle, yes. I do not see why Irish workers should not as quickly as possible secure as good a standard in every respect as any of their European counterparts. That would be the aim of our economic policy.
(Waterford): Would the Taoiseach refute the allegation that the working people are responsible for the economic crisis in this country at present?
I have frequently stated that in my opinion lack of competitiveness and inefficiency in Irish industry is very often as much a function of management as anything else.
(Limerick East): I notice the Taoiseach said that he would be entering into discussions with both employer and trade union interests and that he made no reference whatsoever to the Minister for Labour. Do I take it from that reply that matters such as this — public holidays, conditions of work and trade union and employer matters — are now the responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach rather than of the Minister for Labour?
No, the Deputy may not take anything of the sort. It is part of my policy to meet with representative groups in the economy as often as possible to discuss current matters with them. I have a policy of meeting regularly with the Trade Union Congress, with representatives of the employers and indeed frequently of farmers. I would propose to avail of one of those meetings at an early date to discuss this particular, separate, individual proposal.
Has the Taoiseach considered the implication of this proposal specifically for the public service in the light of the fact that if one divides — I admit that this is a crude exercise — the number of working days in a year into the total public sector pay bill the result is that the State is paying salaries of roughly £6 million a day? Would the Taoiseach agree that the effect of this proposal, if implemented, would be that the State would be paying £6 million of public money and getting no value for it? Is that not another piece of the shoddy populism that has us where we are?
I do not think the Deputy need be as stern about any attempt to improve working conditions of employees in this country. I think it is quite possible, both in the public service and the private sector, to improve working conditions, including holidays, without in any way interfering with productivity.
Why not ensure that productivity improves first and then take the holidays? That is what any businessman would do in his own business.
Perhaps I did not hear the Taoiseach correctly when he was answering Deputy Gallagher's question. The latter part of Deputy Gallagher's question asked the Taoiseach when he proposed to introduce an order declaring May Day a public holiday. Did the Taoiseach give Deputy Gallagher any indication as to when he would be introducing this legislation?
I indicated to Deputy Gallagher and to the House that I propose to discuss the proposal at an early date with both trade unions and employers. Most reasonable Members of the House would agree that that is a reasonable way of going about this proposal.
Did the Taoiseach tell Deputy Gallagher when he would be introducing the legislation? For example, will it be next year or in five years' time?
Legislation will not be necessary.
On a point of order may I, through you, Sir, ask for written replies to the following questions which are on the Order Paper in my name: Nos. 162, 168, 169, 170, 183, 184 and 197.
Thank you, Deputy.