On a point of order——
Estimates, 1982 - Vote 40: Labour (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £71,291,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1982, 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.
—(Minister for Labour.)
I shall ask the Minister to withhold any comment until we get silence.
I agree. I want to ask the Minister if he is making the same speech as he was making on the last occasion or will this be a revised version?
It is almost the same. There are a few minor changes. The Deputy thanked me for co-operation on the last day when I had issued the speech but time prevented me from delivering it in its entirity. There are a few changes possibly in relation to industrial relations and the EEC Council meeting. There are some additions that I am sure the Deputy will pick up. Certainly I do not intend to hog the time because of the agreement between the Whips. I want to be as brief as I can on the continuation of this speech on the Estimate. I now propose to deal with the Department's role in relation to new legislation. Considerable progress has been made in the last decade towards conferring statutory rights on workers. I am proud to have been associated with this development during my previous term of office at the Department of Labour. Our legislation amounts to a charter which safeguards the employment rights of workers. I hope shortly to put at least two completely new pieces of legislation on the Statute Book, one about hours of work and overtime and the other in relation to safety on off-shore installations such as oil rigs.
Current statutory limits on working hours were set during the thirties and are now completely out of date. Apart from that studies have shown that there exists potential for the creation of jobs through the control of excessive overtime. I intend to introduce a Bill in the very near future which will reduce statutory working hours and limit excessive overtime working. To be effective the Bill will have to be very wide in its application and will have to cover both the private and public sectors. Overtime over and above the limits set in the Bill will have to be sanctioned by the Minister for Labour and I would anticipate that we would operate the legislation on a fairly flexible basis initially until firms adapt to the new limits which will be specified.
As regards safety of workers involved in the exploration or exploitation of hydrocarbons off our coast, it is my intention to introduce a Bill in the very near future to provide for standards on off-shore installations comparable to those which exist in our legislation for safety in industry generally on-shore.
Yesterday I had a meeting with the directors of State boards. I know my predecessor also had a meeting with them in his term of office, just as I had in my previous term. As he was impressed with his meeting, I was similarly extremely impressed with my meeting with them yesterday afternoon. I found them to be a very positive committed group of people with very deep commitment to their industries and the boards in which they participate.
One of the major pieces of worker protection legislation is the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. This Act has worked well since its enactment and a great number of workers have benefited from its terms. However, it has become clear that the legislation can be improved in certain respects and with this in view I am giving priority to the preparation of a Bill to amend the Act. I would hope to have this Bill ready for circulation by the end of this year.
The employment equality legislation has now been in operation for a number of years. I am having a comprehensive review of the operation and effectiveness of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 and the Employment Equality Act, 1977 carried out. In the course of the review, discussions will be held with both sides of industry as well as with the Employment Equality Agency and the Labour Court.
As regards dangerous substances, since the Dangerous Substances Act came into operation in September 1979, five sets of regulations have been made relating to petroleum. In addition, 25 other substances have been declared to be dangerous for the purposes of the Act and regulations to control the conveyance by road of these substances are in operation. I believe, however, that this list of 25 substances should be extended to cover further substances. I have, therefore, asked for an urgent review of the Declaration Order and this is currently being carried out by the Industrial Inspectorate of my Department. I also believe we need a further set of regulations to control the loading and unloading and storage of these substances. The drafting of regulations on this matter is at an advanced stage and I would hope that I would be able to make the regulations in the very near future.
My Department, through the industrial inspectorate, continue to enforce the provisions of the Safety in Industry Acts, the Mines and Quarries Act and certain provisions of the Office Premises Act. The Department are also involved at EEC level where occupational safety and health matters are being considered. An increase in the staff of the inspectorate has recently been authorised and recruitment of additional personnel is proceeding.
As Deputies will be aware, a commission of inquiry are at present examining the entire question of how safety at the workplace can best be secured and their report is expected by the end of this year. I have no doubt that their findings will be important in directing public attention at this vital but often neglected area and will point the way ahead for my Department and for other bodies who have a part to play in promoting safe and healthy working conditions.
The Employment Equality Agency who are financed by grant from the Labour Vote have the general function of monitoring the operation of the equality legislation. This year's grant shows an increase of over 60 per cent on 1981. The agency play an important role in informing women of their rights under the legislation and ensuring that those rights are obtained. The agency recommended the repeal of the ban on the employment of women on nightwork in industry which they considered to be discriminatory. When the denunciation by this country of the ILO Convention relating to women on night work takes effect at the end of February 1983, women may be permitted to work at night by regulations made under the Conditions of Employment Act 1936, after consultations with the employer and the workers' representative organisations.
My Department are responsible for liaison with the Council for the Status of Women who represent over thirty women's organisations throughout the country. Support for the efforts of the council on behalf of women in this country are reflected in the provision of an extra £30,000 over and above the original amount of £65,000. The additional provision is being made in the Supplementary Estimate.
A working party to look into the question of child care services and facilities for working parents are meeting under the aegis of my Department. The working party have been considering the setting of standards and the introduction of a system on registration and inspection of child care facilities and also the training of child care personnel. The preparation of the working party's report is at an advanced stage.
My Department have responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the legislation covering conditions of employment. They maintain an information service about entitlements and obligations under a substantial body of worker protection legislation, covering holidays entitlements, hours of work, shift work licences, the rights to minimum notice and written terms of employment, right to maternity leave, redress for unfair dismissal and protection of young persons. The question of enforcement is pursued wherever necessary.
There are still sectors of employment, particularly where workers are unorganised, where special regulation of working conditions is necessary. These sectors are covered by employment regulation orders, setting minimum pay and conditions under the Industrial Relations Acts. The main sectors are catering and hotels, law clerks, agriculture, the clothing industry and hairdressing. Inspectors of my Department visit all premises covered by these employment regulation orders to ensure compliance.
My Department has a substantial involvement in the social policy side of the EEC and also in the ILO and OECD. One of our main interests in the EEC is the European Social Fund from which Ireland is a very substantial beneficiary.
Ireland's income from the social fund has increased every year since 1973 and now constitutes a very important part of our expenditure on training, job creation and mobility of workers. As a reflection of increased Government expenditure in these areas, our requests for social fund assistance have increased considerably in recent years. The amount of fund assistance approved for 1981 operations was £70.9 million. For operations commencing in 1982, some of which will extend in 1983, assistance of £102 million has been applied for, of which £80.9 million has already been approved by the EEC Commission.
The main beneficiaries will be AnCO, the organisations dealing with the training of the handicapped, the Department of Education, the Industrial Development Authority, the National Manpower Service, CERT and the Youth Employment Agency.
The social fund is about to undergo a major review and Deputies may have seen articles in the press suggesting that Ireland's present status in the fund, as a region of absolute priority, could be put in jeopardy in the review. The Commission have not yet made formal proposals for the review of the fund but I have been keeping in close touch with the Commission and am aware of the general lines of their thinking. I had a recent meeting with the EEC Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, Mr. Richard. I impressed upon him that Ireland could not agree to any proposals which could result in a reduction in the amount of aid it received. I received certain assurances from the Commissioner that Ireland would not suffer any reduction in the amount of its social fund aid, as a result of the Commission's proposals. I shall be keeping a very close watch on this matter to ensure that our interests are protected.
One of the main problems facing the fund has been a scarcity of resources to enable it to meet all the demands being made of it. I shall be pressing for a substantial increase in the Social Fund budget for the coming years.
I attended a meeting on 27 May of the Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs at which a number of important decisions were taken. The Council agreed a directive relating to the levels of exposure of workers to lead; that directive will take effect in 1986. A resolution relating to a new programme of Community action in favour of women was adopted. As a follow-up to that resolution, the European Commission will be putting forward specific proposals for consideration by the council in a number of different areas. The Council also approved a recommendation relating to flexible retirement age of workers. Finally, and most important of all, the Council adopted a resolution concerning Community action to combat unemployment. This resolution deals with such matters as the need to take account of employment considerations in investment decisions, industrial restructuring, the roles of small and medium-sized undertakings and of local initiatives and co-operatives, the desirability of giving priority Community attention to vocational training of young people and adaptation of working time. The resolution provides a framework for the development of Community proposals in specific areas and the Commission have been asked to bring forward the appropriate measures. The OECD have recently embarked on a series of reviews of youth employment policies in member countries. Ireland was included in one of these reviews which started last year. A review team led by Mrs. Shirley Williams, formerly Secretary of State for Education and Science in the United Kingdom, visited Ireland last summer and will be reporting shortly, I expect the results of the review to be of substantial help in developing our youth employment policies and programmes.
Finally, I propose to deal with industrial relations and, as worker participation is a clearly allied subject, I will first outline progress in that area.
I believe that better worker participation can contribute to better industrial relations. I had a discussion paper on worker participation published in March 1980 with the aim of focusing debate on the key issues as well as outlining possible policy options for the development of participation.
Submissions have been received from many interested parties, ranging from individuals to large companies, students and specialists in the industrial relations field and from universities and professional bodies. I have now requested an assessment report and I intend, as soon as I have completed my consideration of the report, to have consultations with the representatives of employers and trade unions as well as other interests concerned in the hope of getting a consensus on future developments.
In line with an earlier commitment in the second national understanding, I will shortly be seeking Government approval to introduce legislation to extend the principle of employee participation at board level to additional State enterprises. Also my Department have prepared a draft code of practice on disclosure of company information which will be sent to congress and employer organisations shortly as a basis for consultations. The code will be designed to improve trade union and employee knowledge of company affairs and to facilitate collective bargaining.
Our industrial relations scene has continued to be one of intense activity as is reflected in the level of services provided by the Labour Court and Rights Commissioners. The court held 831 hearings and issued 766 recommendations during 1981. This compares with 866 hearings and 802 recommendations in 1980 and 622 hearings and 575 recommendations in 1979. Also in 1981 the rights commissioner service issued 639 recommendations under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, as compared with 660 in 1980 and 506 in 1979.
I have always been committed to the need for support of training and education in the trade union movement during my time as Minister for Labour. That continues to be my policy. This year's allocation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions towards the cost of their education, training and advisory services is £540,000.
The college of industrial relations are doing excellent work in promoting trade union studies and industrial relations education and training. Provision is made for an increase in the grant-in-aid to the college by £5,000 to £35,000 in 1982.
Progress on trade union amalgamations has been disappointing. The response to the Trade Union Act, 1975, the purpose of which was to simplify amalgamation procedures and thereby encourage trade union rationalisation, has not been as good as envisaged. There is an allocation of £10,000 for this subhead this year and my hope is that the full allocation will be taken up.
It will be my intention during my term of office to give urgent attention to the improvement of our industrial relations system. Consultations with my Cabinet colleagues on the extension of legal immunities under the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 to licensed trade unions in the public sector of the economy have now been completed and I propose to introduce the necessary legislation in the present Dáil session. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been pressing for this amendment of the 1906 Act for many years.
I am glad to say that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have already given me an assurance that they will enter into discussions as soon as action is taken on the amendment of the Trade Disputes Act to identify ways and means of remedying, as soon as possible, deficiencies in present industrial relations practices and procedures, including problems identified by the Commission of Inquiry on Industrial Relations. I expect a similar approach from employer bodies.
I will undertake shortly comprehensive discussions on the improvement of our industrial relations practices and procedures. I will work hard and diligently with trade unions and employers to make positive progress towards the improvements which are regarded as being both necessary and urgent.
The Commission of Inquiry on Industrial Relations which I established in 1978 presented their report last year. Their report contains a detailed analysis of our system of industrial relations together with wide-ranging prescriptions for its reform. It can be expected to form a useful focal point in regard to a number of the subjects which I will be discussing with employers and unions. I see no reason why immediate progress cannot be made on those aspects of the commission's report on which a consensus already exists or might readily be obtained.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance I attach to seeking improvements in our system of industrial relations. The goal of national economic recovery would be assisted greatly if disruptions of production or services resulting from industrial action could be reduced to a minimum. An improved industrial relations climate would also encourage more foreign investment to locate in this country.
Little will be achieved by this process unless there is a willingness in all parties to recognise not only their own responsibilities and the need to improve their own performance but also the need for change. It is vitally necessary, therefore, for all parties to work together to achieve improvements which will lead to a better and a more stable industrial relations climate.
Employers have ultimate responsibility for the running of their enterprises. They must recognise that industrial relations require the application of the necessary time, effort and expertise.
Unions exist to represent the interests of their members. To do this adequately, they must be well-resourced and efficiently organised. This is manifestly not the case in many instances at present. The defects in Irish trade union structure are too well known to require further elaboration. The trade union movement alone can tackle the defects and must surely recognise the need for urgent remedies.
In the forthcoming duscussions, I intend to stress forcefully to both sides my conviction that the remedies for many of our problems lie mainly in their hands. This surely is what free collective bargaining must mean.
I will conclude on that note because I believe that there is a great deal of consensus on the need to improve our industrial relations performance and on the recognition that such an improvement is a vital part of the action required towards national recovery for the economy and particularly for employment. There is, however, much less consensus on how precisely improved industrial relations can be achieved. I intend to devote a great deal of my time over the next few years to working hard for a broadening of this area of consensus and to implementing measures which result from that wider consensus.
In the time available — I want to give Deputies an opportunity to speak — I have had to deal necessarily briefly with various aspects of my Department's work. If Deputies require further information I will, of course, try to provide it when replying.
I recommend the Estimate and Supplementary Estimate for the approval of the House. I assure Deputies on all sides they will have my co-operation at all times.
First of all, I welcome Deputy Fitzgerald back to the Department of Labour. I enjoyed very much shadowing him during the years in which he had responsibility for that Department up to 1981. I wish him every success in his difficult task. I hope he will be as successful as his predecessor, Deputy Kavanagh, who made a great impact and impression. I was privileged to have been a colleague of his in the last Government. I am sure his contribution to this debate later will be listened to carefully.
The main problem facing the country not just today or last year but in the past ten years was, and probably for the remainder of the century will be, unemployment which is the central economic problem here. We have seen the graph going up and it has now reached 150,000 and heading for 160,000, and the forecast is that by the end of the year the figure could reach 200,000 people unemployed. I hope that figure is too pessimistic, that we will not have that dramatically high figure this year, but taking the most optimistic view, if we continue on the road the Government have been taking and their unwillingness to face up to hard economic decisions, I am afraid we will reach a position which will make it difficult for our democratic State to survive. I am not exaggerating, because if the present trend continues we could have 300,000 or 350,000 people unemployed by the end of this decade.
Therefore, it behoves all of us in the House and in the country to do everything possible not only to create jobs but to maintain present employment. We must be prepared to make the sacrifices necessary so that employment can be created and so that there will be a future here for the present and coming generations.
Successive Governments have implemented policies which have been conducive not to the creation of employment but unemployment. First of all, there is a lack of an incomes policy. We have not got such a policy though there is an urgent need for it. The first rule of such a policy should be that he who goes out to work should be paid significantly more than he who does not. I represent a very large working class area in Dublin and those who are unemployed come to me to tell me they are better off not working. Some of them even tell me they cannot afford to work. On the other hand, many who are employed come to me to say they are hoping for redundancy, that they want to leave their employment because they would be better off without it.
I am saying this because it is part of the malaise attached to unemployment. There are many other problems as well to which I will refer later. Among the things that inhibit employment creation here, and the maintenance of employment, is the high level of absenteeism. This is caused indirectly and unintentionally by a combination of policies of successive Governments — for instance the policy of high personal taxation and high PRSI. Towards the end of the tax year it becomes more profitable not to work. The absenteeism bulge comes in the last few months of the tax year. It is clear that these policies, together with the one of paying high pay-related payments and not taxing them, contribute to absenteeism. If a person was thinking of locating an industry in Ireland, he would say there are certain incentives; but then he would look at the disincentives, particularly the high rate of absenteeism.
I know that what I am saying runs counter to the instincts of all socialists. However, if they think about it they will know I am correct. I am all for better social welfare benefits but when I thought about it, I saw what we were doing. We were removing the incentive to work and creating unemployment. People on the streets of Dublin will tell you that. We must leave our prejudices aside and think about what we are doing. It is too serious a situation to be allowed to drift.
In our budget in January we proposed to introduce an element of taxation on pay-related payments if they exceeded a person's tax free allowance. We were attacked by the Workers Party and other socialists because we tried to tackle the problem which is that if it is more profitable not to work, human nature being what it is, people will not do so. It is not very pleasant to get up early in the morning and travel to work in traffic jams and bad weather. If we are concerned about creating a future for the people and creating employment, we must think seriously about it.
Absenteeism is caused on a large scale by a combination of our social welfare policies. The Minister for Social Welfare, Mr. Corish and his Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cluskey, in 1974 introduced pay-related payments. This was a very progressive step. Before 1974 the level of absenteesim was somewhere in the region of 4 per cent to 6 per cent. Six or seven years later it had doubled or trebled. I was alarmed to hear that in some factories in Dublin there is an absenteeism of 30 per cent plus. There is the Monday morning syndrome, the Friday afternoon syndrome and the January, February, March syndrome. Absenteeism stifles the creation of new jobs.
Industrial relations here are also a disincentive to creating employment. There is no doubt that they are in an awful mess. That need not be. I do not pretend that there are easy solutions but there are solutions. There is a broad consensus between the social partners and the political parties on how most of the problems can be solved. Most of us have commonsense.
The Minister made a serious mistake when he was Minister for Labour previously about the commission on industrial relations. Once the Irish Congress of Trade Unions withdrew from that commission it was inevitable that the report would be rejected and would not be acceptable as a basis for any progress on industrial relations. That is how it turned out. There is a basis for wider consensus both inside and outside the House to bring about the necessary changes and reforms so as to improve our industrial relations. What reasons have I for saying that? In trying to explain the difference between relations here and those in Sweden, Holland and Germany people say that we are not amenable to discipline. I reject that. We are a very disciplined race and there are many examples to prove it. For example, although last year may prove the exception, we have had more political stability than any other western European country. That shows a discipline in voting and support. There is discipline, but we do not have the leadership to harness it.
The frequency and number of strikes, especially unofficial ones, contribute to the loss of thousands of jobs. If an investor was looking for a location in which to site a new plant and looked at the scene in Ireland, Denmark or Holland, everything being equal, he would not choose Ireland because of our bad industrial relations. Although this is important in its own right, I refer to it in the context of its impact on employment.
The trade union movement have a duty to address themselves to these problems and put aside old prejudices and old principles in order to allow policies to be adopted which will increase the likelihood of job creation. To give an example, the principle behind the Unfair Dismissals Act, which was passed in period between 1973 and 1977, is an excellent and correct one. Again, the principle is excellent and correct. I know the Minister has said that he intends introducing amending legislation later this year but has not said what type of legislation that will be. Even though the principle is excellent and the motivation absolutely right the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act unintentionally are proving to be some of the greatest disincentives to employment because, once an employer engages somebody it is now almost impossible to get rid of that employee no matter how bad he or she may be.
I shall be looking forward to hearing the Minister's proposals for amending that Act. I do not know how one can overcome the real problems the operation of that Act is creating without violating the excellent principle which motivates that Act. I know many employers who would rather not make extra profit, would rather not expand their operations rather than employ additional people because they feel the responsibility of so doing under the Unfair Dismissals Act is too great. Such employers have had their fingers burned already by reckless, careless and irresponsible employees they cannot get rid of. While raising the subject of this Unfair Dismissals Act I must emphasise that the principle motivating it is absolutely correct, that people must be protected in their employment. But we must seek ways of reconciling that principle with the real problems emerging on the ground.
The creation and maintenance of employment far outweigh the central economic challenge now facing us and indeed will continue to do so in the next 20 years. Many things have been tried in the last five to ten years. All sorts of policies have been adopted. We have had work experience programmes which I must say I did not feel at the time of their initiation had much merit but which I must concede in practice have proved to be of considerable merit. There is the employment incentive scheme, the youth employment premium scheme and then the Youth Employment Agency established by Deputy Kavanagh as Minister for Labour. To some extent all these things have the appearance of creating work, in other words, of thinking up jobs rather than creating real jobs. That would be all right if they were accompanied by other programmes creating real jobs but it is not all right if these are supposed to constitute a full answer to the problem. The only attempt to create employment is by way of these make-work jobs. We can sustain these programmes only if at the same time we create sufficient other real jobs generating wealth which, in turn, will maintain the others. I am afraid we have been very weak in the creation of real jobs. That is why is so necessary and urgent that we examine in a comprehensive way the full range of Government policies to ascertain their impact on job creation and its maintenance, which is equally important. Having assessed those policies having an adverse impact on employment we must then, as a Legislature, proceed to their amendment as best and as urgently as we can.
Before leaving the subject of employment and unemployment there are two further matters to which I want to refer. Firstly, there is the whole area of what might be described as the payroll taxes. Secondly, I might refer to the area of under-employment also constituting a massive threat. To deal with the question of the payroll taxes it is worth repeating that it does not make sense, at our stage of economic development or in the context of our present and foreseeable economic problems, for us to pursue a policy of taxing employment which is effectively what we have been doing. I know that to some extent this runs counter to the policies of the Government of which I had the honour of being a member. But every additional expenditure we incur in the creation of a job renders its very creation less likely. It must be said also that the burden of social contributions of all sorts has become so great that it is acting as a very real disincentive to job creation for many employers. On the other hand, it has proved to be an incentive to some employers to go outside the white economy into the black and employ people who draw unemployment and social welfare assistance while at the same time working, which means that such employers do not have to stamp their cards and so on. From what I see happening all round me it would appear that that practice is growing and is another adverse consequence of these payroll taxes. It does not make sense for us to be taxing employment. Admittedly, it is easy to say that but it is not so easy to suggest alternative sources of revenue. In the context of our present and foreseeable economic situation, in the context of our present and foreseeable employment position, we must think in dramatically new terms about the whole subject of employment. That is one area that must be examined.
Talking about the very depressing unemployment figures and their even more depressing portends, I must admit that there is one area which makes me very gloomy indeed, that if that of underemployment. I do not know what is the present position or that of last year but I do know from NESC reports that five years ago our economy, in the manufacturing industries sector, was producing less than half per work person that of the Danes, Belgians, Dutch and Luxemburgers, what are called the Benelux countries. In effect that means that had we the same levels of productivity as the Danes, Belgians, Dutch and Luxemburgers half of those in our manufacturing industry would be redundant. Of course it must be remembered that, because of the competitive nature of that industry, that in turn means that potentially half our work force in that area are redundant.
As competition gets tougher and tougher it is likely that more and more of those jobs will be lost. There is only one other way by which those jobs can be saved and that is through low wages. We can only get away with employing twice as many people as the Danes, the Belgians, the Dutch and the people from Luxembourg employ to produce one unit of production if we pay our workers half what they pay theirs. That is the only other way we will maintain competitiveness. That is not a very happy thought. If we went in that direction it would really be opting for continued work sharing, which was the great in-thing about four years ago. Work sharing has been the way of the past because our productivity levels have always been such that we were employing more people to produce things than other countries found it necessary to employ. Work sharing can only be continued if the gross pay bill for our employers is not greater than the gross pay bill of the Danes and the Dutch. Unfortunately that is not the case. We may have to make the choice soon of opting for low wages relative to the Danes and the Dutch or opt for more unemployment. That is a very harsh choice but I am afraid it will have to be made.
I remember saying in the House, when discussions were going on about Ireland joining the European Monetary System, when all the pundits and commentators as well as most of the politicians were talking in terms of a revaluation of the punt within the EMS snake, that there would be no revaluation but devaluation unless our entry into the EMS was accompanied by a proper wages and incomes policy. We did not have an incomes policy and we have floated downwards within the EMS. This will continue to happen.
Devaluation has an impact on employment and the standard of living. I am worried about the effects of devaluation but I am also worried about the absence of an incomes policy. I do not mean an incomes policy for this year, I mean an underlying principle of how incomes should go over the next few years and an overriding consensus on why such a policy is necessary. The overriding principle will be the principle of maintaining and creating jobs because if we do not tackle the problem, if we do not think in dramatically new terms about employment I doubt if the democratic system can survive the type of unemployment figures which are now being envisaged for the end of this decade.
I will not speak for much longer although I have much to say, because I realise there are many Estimates to be taken today. I ask the Minister for Labour, who is also Minister for the Public Service, not to be afraid to think in dramatically new terms about industrial relations and employment. He should not be afraid to approach the Opposition to seek a consensus for job creation and a job maintenance policy because it is in all our interests that we turn the corner, the downward spiral is halted and we start climbing back up again to fuller employment. If the Government fail we all fail, if they succeed we all succeed.
I thank the Minister and Deputy Jim Mitchell for their kind remarks about me while I was in the Department of Labour. I cannot join with the same enthusiasm the Deputy's welcome of the Minister back to the Department of Labour. I was quite prepared to stay on there a little longer. My period in the Department of Labour was a high point in my political career, which I enjoyed. I had the greatest co-operation from the staff in that Department from the top to the bottom. I can only pay the greatest tribute to the personnel in the Department for the unstinting way they helped me through the difficult periods I faced in that Department and the great ability and knowledge which the staff of that Department have about the various areas of their responsibility, particularly industrial relations.
I would like to pay tribute to the former Secretary of the Department of Labour, Mr. Tadhg Ó Cearbhaill, who retired during my term in the Department. I want to say, on behalf of everybody who served with him, how grateful we are to him. In fact, one could say we served under him because he was a very dominant figure in that Department. He created the Department along with the first Minister for Labour, who is now our President. He saw it through the early years when the formation period was so important to the future of the Department. It is now a major Department and great credit must go to Mr. Tadhg Ó Cearbhaill for the work he put into the Department. I wish his successor, Mr. Finlay, well in his new job. He served for many years as second in command and his knowledge and ability is unquestioned.
I have to be a little more critical in my remarks from now on. The financial allocations for the different services of the Department of Labour and their agencies as outlined in the Minister's statement are, with one exception, as decided by me when I was Minister for Labour. The exception is the Employment Incentive Scheme for which the Minister for Finance provided an additional £4 million in the Budget and on which I will be commenting later on.
The Minister's speech is disappointing because of its superficial treatment of nationally important issues and because of his failure to give any indication of policy priorities or of his likely approach to particular areas of departmental responsibilities. There are vocations where the practice of silence is both uplifting and appropriate. Membership of Government and the effective discharge of ministerial responsibilities require, however, a certain basic level of communication so that the public can be aware of what is being done or proposed on their behalf. In its absence they may suspect inactivity and become restive. The silence from Mespil Road since early March is a curiosity to many. Last week the executive of the FUE could take it no longer and in a strident statement sought information on the Minister for Labour's industrial relations policy. I am not aware that they have had any satisfaction to date and the contents of the Minister's Estimate speech certainly will not provide it on that or any other major issue relevant to the work of the Department of Labour.
As indicated the bulk of the estimates sought will be devoted to industrial training and employment-oriented schemes and programmes. The overall thrust of these is to improve the quality of the labour supply in the expectation that by doing so we will also enhance the chances of participants gaining worthwhile employment. That thesis more easily translates to reality in times of economic expansion but, nonetheless, education, work experience or industrial training cannot but be an asset to those seeking jobs. Facile attempts to explain away the seriousness of the present unemployment situation are no help at all. In his speech the Minister contends that IDA job creation and £50 million for the building industry will stabilise the current level of unemployment and then start to reduce it. He does not say when this development will come about no more than he explains how. Factory closures and increasing numbers of redundancies do not intrude to distort the cost picture he paints. The people are showing with increasing regularity an impatience with those who underestimate their intelligence and sophistication. The present Minister for Labour would do well to remember that.
We have a very serious unemployment problem and recent authoritative and objective commentaries on emerging trends forecast continuing high numbers of people, and particularly young people, without jobs in the period immediately ahead. Despite this greater progress can now be made than before to cater for the vocational needs of our youth. In my period as Minister for Labour I established the Youth Employment Agency with the mandate, the structure and the resources to make an urgent comprehensive contribution towards alleviating and overcoming the problem of involuntary unemployment among those under 25 years.
It could be said that the Deputy just beat the deadline.
But the fact is that it was done in a very short period of time. In doing this the co-ordination of existing schemes of training and work experience and the initiation of new and imaginative departures to meet the job needs of unemployed youth are major tasks. The time is opportune for all local communities to consider their potential for making a contribution to the employment futures of their young people. I am convinced that local enterprise has much untapped employment potential not only in small-scale industrial ventures but also in agricultural and horticultural enterprises. The agency can assist in the establishment of co-operative ventures by young people and I am hopeful that this dimension will be developed in the period ahead. I fully support the Minister in exhorting all to co-operate fully with the Youth Employment Agency and so assist them in effectively discharging the centrally important tasks for which they were established.
As I have already indicated the only heading where there is any variation in the level of financial allocation proposed, as against the estimates settled by me in advance of leaving office, relates to the employment incentive scheme. Here the original estimate has been increased from £2 million to £6 million as announced in the Minister for Finance's budget speech.
While I welcome the improvements made to this scheme and in particular the increased level of premia payable to persons over 25 years and over 26 weeks without a job, I have some reservations which I hope the Minister will allay when replying. First, I would ask where the additional £4 million is coming from. Secondly, expenditure on this scheme in 1981 amounted to only about £1.21 million. Even allowing for the improved rates of premia and the longer duration in which payments will be made, I find it very difficult to see anything approaching £6 million being spent in 1982. I should like to know the Minister's views on this. Thirdly, perhaps the Minister would tell me the date from which the revisions to the scheme will be applicable.
Finally, the Minister innocuously mentions that "the scheme has been simplified from the point of view of the employers who wish to claim." I am very anxious indeed to have clarification as to what those words are intended to convey and with good reason because we recall that in 1977 this scheme was extended to insurance and banking sectors and almost £500,000 was paid almost entirely to the Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks to encourage employment in these sectors. I recall that about 1,300 jobs were created by way of that expenditure. We need hardly tell the House that there is absolutely no need to encourage these sectors to use public funds to extend their numbers when we are aware of the profit being made in this sector of the economy. I am anxious that none of the £6 million would go in that direction this time. I am, nevertheless, interested to know if the scheme will be extended to the building industry which could use this level of incentive to encourage the employment of thousands of people presently unemployed in the industry.
The enactment of progressive labour legislation to protect the interests of working people is the most durable testimony to the commitment of a Minister for Labour. Nowhere has the positive effects of the Labour Party's participation in Government in the lot of ordinary men and women been more effectively demonstrated than in the legislative programme which Deputy O'Leary when Minister for Labour put on the Statute Book. During that period, nine major labour laws were enacted relating to issues such as holiday entitlements, employment protection, unfair dismissal, equality in pay and working conditions, worker participation and trade union amalgamations. These have provided a statutory base for proper standards for workers where none previously existed or updated legislative provisions where it was no longer objectively effective. Every day since those laws were enacted workers and employers have availed of the structures established to ensure equitable treatment for all in the work place. This body of legislation has been practically applied with few problems in the intervening period. When in Government I had announced the commencement of a comprehensive review of the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Pay Act, 1974, the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, with a view to seeing if they could be improved in any way on the experience gained in their operation to date. I am pleased that the Minister proposes to proceed with that review.
On what the Minister describes in his speech as two completely new pieces of legislation which he himself proposes to have enacted — dealing with hours of work and protection for workers on off-shore installations — there are a few points I want to make. The first point is that there is nothing new about either proposal. Hours of work legislation, to update the 1930s law which as a matter of fact has never been enforced, was promised in the national understanding of 1980. There it specifically stated that the appropriate Bill would be introduced in the first Dáil session in 1981. That commitment, like many others in the 1980 national understanding, was not delivered on as promised. It re-emerges here without any reference to its previous history and is offered by the Minister as a completely new legislative initiative.
The other novel legislative departure which the Minister proposes concerns the introduction of legislation to provide for the safety and health of workers on off-shore installations. This has been a standard offer in speeches by the Minister over some years now when previously in the Department of Labour. The real crux here has to do with the extent of the right to legislate for off-shore territory. This is tied up with the deliberations of the Law of the Sea Conference which has been proceeding in Geneva for many years.
That is what the Deputy believes they told him.
I am telling the Minister that he had an opportunity for many years to do this and he used it as a basis for putting off introducing the legislation.
It lay very dead. It does not suit the Deputy to say that.
In the seven months I was in charge of that Department I had to deal with a heavy workload on the industrial side that was left to me and yet I brought in a major piece of legislation.
If the Deputy wishes to discuss that I can guarantee him that when I reply there will be many red faces.
The Minister will have an opportunity of replying to all these irritants later. The Deputy should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
I will avail of that opportunity to deal with the points raised.
I have to remind the Minister of the irritants that were in the Department when I arrived, an office which he occupied some months before my arrival. Finality will most likely take many more years to arrive at. The Minister gave the impression today that he can somehow shortcut the deliberations of the Law of the Sea Conference. I hope he can. I would not like to see the country dragged before an international court. I will be surprised if the Minister can make progress with this legislation in the near future but if he can he will certainly have my support. We must wait to see what emerges.
The Employment Equality Agency which was established under the Employment Equality Act of 1977 has been a major force for beneficial change in practice and attitudes on the employment, education and training of women since its inception. Through its work many of the barriers which had prevented access of women to employment and job training have been removed. Women and men now work in jobs from which they had previously been debarred. We see female post delivery personnel and bus conductors, there are male air stewards where previously there were none. These are but some of the more obvious examples of the result of work undertaken by the Employment Equality Agency. The less public aspects of changing attitudes and breaking down discriminatory practices also progresses behind the scenes. A real test of commitment to its objectives is demonstrated by the level of financial provision which it is allocated. During the period 1977-81 its initial derisory budgetary level was increased only in line with inflationary trends. No effort was made to give it the resources, financial and otherwise, to allow it do its job with maximum effectiveness. In these circumstances, the agency has performed remarkably well. I had increased the level of this year's grant to the agency by 60 per cent, the first real increase on a nominal initial allocation which it has received to date. I am pleased that the Minister has not changed that level of grant allocation. I hope that, whatever the period of tenure of this administration, it will show a more positive approach to eliminating discrimination against women in our society that it has done in the past. I am sure the Minister will maintain that level of expansion of resources to that agency which has done tremendous work in the area of equality.
The promotion of worker participation, given its first formal structuring in the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, of 1977 has patently not been a priority of Fianna Fáil Ministers, since the extension of the Act to other State enterprises has been talked about for years by Gene Fitzgerald but no positive advances have been made. I was glad to see that he had met the worker directors and I hope that as a result he will be spurred on to do more. Only in March 1980 did the discussion document on worker participation appear after a very long era of promises. It is most depressing to hear today from the Minister that, now that submissions on the discussion document are all in, yet another report to assess these is to be prepared. This only further long-fingers the time for taking decisions which might lead to progress in the application of worker participation to employments. Now that we know what other interest groups think of worker participation, surely it is well time that the Minister let people know his own personal and political views on the issue. To appear to be always striving for consensus can often be an effective disguise for seeking only to do nothing.
I have noted the Minister's remarks on the review of the European Social Fund and his determination to ensure that any changes proposed should not result in any reduction in financial aid to this country. That was the policy line which I had communicated to the European Commission and will obviously continue to support. Income from the social fund is very substantial indeed and has increased each year since we joined the EEC. The extent of our industrial training and employment scheme has been directly influenced by the level of income from the fund and failure to protect our interests fully in renegotiation of the ground rules for benefit would be disastrous. I am confident that our interests will be protected in the course of this exercise. While on the subject of aid from the social fund, I had expected the Minister to indicate the progress of negotiations with the European Commission to retrieve in excess of £700,000 which Ireland was disallowed because of the Minister's failure to submit the claim form by the date specified. This was to have been considered by the European Court of Justice and I would appreciate if in his reply the Minister would outline any developments that have occurred in the intervening period.
All developments are positive. I have good news on that also.
I am glad that the action I took has brought good results.
Seven months of inaction.
Finally, I want to make some comments on the subject of industrial relations. The establishment by the Minister of a Commission on Industrial Relations in 1978 could have been a highly significant development. As events have turned out it was not.
The Minister adamantly refused to amend the 1906 Trade Disputes Act at the request of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and so precipitated their decision at the 1979 annual delegate conference to suspend participation in the deliberations of the commission until that act was amended. The ICTU representatives were not to participate again in its activities but as things turned out they should never have had to leave. The 1980 national understanding, concluded when the Commission on Industrial Relations was about to report, committed the Government to amend the 1906 Trade Disputes Act as the congress had requested two years previously. No explanation has ever been given as to why it could be conceded in 1980 but not in 1978. There was obviously no fundamental point of principle involved. In the context of getting a national understanding in 1980 expediency and intimidation were the vogue terms.
Meanwhile, the hard work of many committed people in the CIR was devalued because of the absence of any philosophy to introduce industrial relations on the part of the present Minister. What could have been a fundamental and significant report drawn up with the active co-operation of the trade union movement and pointing towards improvements in our industrial relations practices and procedures is now gently disowned by the Minister in his speech. His previously expressed expectations for the report have been hugely scaled down and he now sees it only as providing "a useful focal point" around which to commence discussion once again. This sorry saga of wasted time and resources could have been avoided at no cost whatsoever. The fact that it was not has put a major question mark over the capacity of the Minister to achieve any improvements in the area of industrial relations.
On coming to the Department of Labour last July 1 was fully aware that the practice of direct ministerial intervention in industrial disputes was gravely undermining the functions of the statutory dispute-setting agencies such as the Labour Court and its conciliation service. The situation had become so farcical that on occasion not one but two Government ministers, as well as the Taoiseach himself, were meeting with parties to industrial disputes to discuss the issues involved. The present Minister came back from his secondment to the Department of Finance to partner his ministerial successor in discussions with the petrol tanker drivers who were on strike in the early part of last year. Such actions had the effect of prolonging strikes rather than solving them. My policy was to leave the job of solving industrial conflict to those paid by the taxpayers of the country to do it. I did not see that the Minister for Labour had any role in intervening directly in the issues in dispute. It is not any part of his brief to tell employers or workers how much should be paid for any particular job. Those are matters for negotiation or appropriate and expert third party intervention. I think I succeeded in establishing that. I will be interested to hear what the Minister's approach will be this time around — making the fairly broad assumption that he is afforded the freedom to determine that policy for himself.
The Minister who is taking office has had a period of unique industrial peace such as we have not seen for many years which has resulted from the approach of the previous Government to pay bargaining and to the public service agreement on pay and also, as I have said, to the policy approach of the Department of Labour to industrial disputes. I hope that the Minister will not waste this time of industrial peace which contrasts so vividly with the period when I came into office when bus workers were on strike and in various Department of Government the public servants also were on strike. We had a long and difficult strike in Tara mines. I could go on and on. The Minister has had a period of industrial peace in which to formulate policy for wage agreements over his period of office. Before the last election and during that election he promised to renegotiate the national wage agreement.
Your author is wrong again.
Not at all. Also in his speech after the budget failed the now Minister for Education — and he should read it — promised that this would be done. The Minister must admit that he has now succeeded to a situation of industrial peace on a very large scale such as has not been known for years. I have said some hard words to him, but now I give him advice which he should take. He should use the time to ensure that this industrial peace continues. Groups representing employers, such as the CII, have indicated that there is an upturn for manufacturing industries and exports. This has occurred because of the policy of the previous Government on industrial peace and wage settlements. If that upsurge continues we will see a reduction in the inflation rate which had begun to fall when we left office. We will see also a fall in the unemployment figures.
Finally, I tell the Minister to remain vigilant in this area and then this country can overcome its many difficulties. I intend to return to the wider economic situation in the discussion on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach which usually concludes this Dáil term, but today I want to be specific about the job of the Department of Labour. I would have liked to see the Estimate for the Department of the Public Service taken at the same time, but that was not done and so I cannot ask the Minister about such items as the Ombudsman and policy in that area. When I asked questions of the Minister on the Department of Labour and the Department of the Public Service I can only say that because of the volume of questions on the Order Paper I have had to take written replies and therefore could not quiz the Minister in the House. Those replies were totally unsatisfactory. I hope that we will have an opportunity for a much broader discussion on the whole area of industrial employment, taking in the public sector also.
I have had strong criticism to make of the Minister's work in the Department in the past. He now has a second opportunity to approach it with an example that was set recently. I hope he will take that opportunity to progress in a way more positive than we have seen on previous occasions.
With the other speakers I extend a hearty welcome to the Minister on his resumption in the Department of Labour of his State responsibilities. I accept that at this time he is facing the most formidable task ever confronted by him or any of his predecessors in assembling the mechanism necessary to give training and work experience and bring about a reduction in the colossal volume of youth unemployment here. I will be brief because of the time limit on us, but I want to make a few points. I subscribe tremendously to the contribution AnCO are making to the training of our youth, but from my experience of the multiplicity of courses they run some of them are quite short with no real end product in view. The repetition of these course sometimes leads to frustration among the students and people involved. Really there is no goal and such courses do not result in the employment to which they aspire. Longer and more fundamental training courses which lead eventually to positive employment bring about the best results.
A widening of the work experience programme in relation to the Manpower Service is necessary. Not only must these courses be run in the larger centres of population but they should also be taken out among the community with a view to tapping very valuable resources and preventing school leavers from turning to the labour exchange rather than to an employment incentive scheme which could fit them for subsequent employment.
I would ask the Minister to give particular attention to the problem of apprenticeships because these are vital to the individuals concerned and to the whole community. Over wide areas in the west there are no sponsors for apprenticeships and in my constituency there is not a single sponsor in the electrical trade. This is a trade to which many young people aspire but despite their aptitudes and qualifications they are unable to obtain sponsors. A similar situation exists in the engineering, joinery and carpentry trades. There are many school leavers of high calibre with aspirations to these trades and I suggest that the Minister's Department in consultation with other bodies should set aside a number of apprenticeships for which AnCO, the National Manpower Service or the Department of Labour would arrange the necessary sponsorships. This would be doing a service not only to the students but also to the communities they would serve on completion of their training. Such people would assist in the development of small industries. The absence of sponsors for apprenticeships delays the provision of skills in the areas where they are most required.
In relation to the Youth Employment Agency, local project teams of young unemployed should be set up and their views should be ascertained as to how best they could be formed into units so that the different agencies operating under the Department could guide, direct and help them financially.
I disagree with the suggestion that the present levels of social welfare payments are a disincentive to work. Let us accept that there is poverty in only one sector of the community and that is the sector which depends on social welfare benefits. Anyone who has experienced the frustration of workers who are faced with the possible closure of a factory will accept that there is no ready willingness on their part to become unemployed. Much is being made of the suggestion that the levels of social welfare payments contribute to the high level of unemployment because people do not want to work. Every public representative and factory manager knows of the strong representations which are being made with a view to obtaining employment. The fact is that our people have not the opportunity to work and they have no option but to rely on social welfare benefits.
I hope the Minister will take particular note of my plea in relation to apprenticeships. The area from which I come is seriously handicapped by the lack of sponsorships in various trades. Many of our young people who aspire to achieving qualifications are denied the necessary opportunities.
We welcome the suggestion by the Minister to limit excessive overtime. This has become a regular feature in industry and overtime payments are accepted as a normal part of a person's income. When overtime is not available it is very hard for such a person to accept a lower standard. I contend that overtime should be restricted because there is a tendency on the part of employers to allow some people to work any amount of overtime while others are unemployed.
We now have quite an amount of legislation which is of direct importance to workers. It deals with such matters as safety in industry, unfair dismissals and employment equality. It is unfortunate that so many workers have to refer their case to the rights commissioner or the appeals tribunal set up under the unfair dismissals legislation.
One speaker asked what protection management have. We must look at manabl agement and recognise that many problems in industry can be attributed in no uncertain manner to the appointment of incompetent people. The standard of management is very low. Workers on the factory floor must see that their factory is being run by a competent person who has close liaison with the workforce. There should be no question of making appointments simply for the sake of making appointments because when workers see that happening they begin to ask why they should bother. Management must be competent to run industry and must enjoy good relations with the workers. Many problems would thus be eliminated.
So many agencies have now been established that it is difficult to see what exactly is being done to create youth employment. The National Manpower Service are not really playing their part, possibly because their terms of reference are not correct. There is no point in an unemployed person going to the NMS, having his name put on the register and hoping that some day he will get a call saying that a job is available. There is nothing to reassure such people that they will get an opportunity to compete for jobs. The attitude of some employers to the National Manpower Service is not what it should be and in some cases the use of the service is merely a cosmetic exercise. There should be a more thorough follow-up in this area. We must not forget that employers receive grants and we must ensure that there is fair play towards people who are unemployed. It is the sons and daughters of well-off people who are getting employment, the children of people who may be earning incomes of £20,000 or £25,000 a year. Yet, at the same time, the children of unemployed people are walking the streets.
Worker participation has been mentioned. Worker participation is worthwhile, but it would be more beneficial if we had built into the legislation provision for a system providing for participation below board level. At the moment workers are elected by their fellow-workers to the board of a company but there is no provision to refer back to the workforce. It is a haphazard arrangement with no substance. I ask the Minister to consider providing for worker participation below board level.
Statements have been made that unemployed people are getting more than people who are at work. That may be the case, but I think it is somewhat overplayed. There has been talk of taxing social welfare benefits as though that were the answer, but it is ludicrous to suggest such a course. I will give the House a few statistics to illustrate my point. Recent figures on payments made under pay-related benefit schemes highlight the backwardness of the approach of Fine Gael and the Labour Party. The Coalition Government proposed to tax short-term welfare benefits. The average pay-related element in unemployment benefit amounted only to £19.32 per week in 1981. The pay-related element runs out totally after 15 months and a person aspiring to get the average male industrial wage while being unemployed would need to have at least 14 children. So much for the theory that thousands are earning more on unemployment benefit than they would if they were lucky enough to have job.
It is wrong and unjust to have a system where a young boy or girl of 19 or 20 years, who has no income and who is registered for unemployment assistance, is assessed not only on the income of their parents but also on the income of their brothers and sisters in the house. That system is quite wrong. I see great frustration in people who have been assessed in that way. Young people want to work and do not want to stay on unemployment benefit.
I welcome the legislation to protect workers. It is unfortunate that it has to be so strong but that can be attributed to the fact that in most cases management are not up to standard.
First, I should like to thank the Deputies who have contributed to the debate, and particularly Deputy Mitchell for his kind words and good wishes. With regard to Deputy Kavanagh, I cannot be blamed if the electorate decided that his term of office should be so brief. I was disappointed at the general tenor of his contribution: he showed a little bitterness that is not typical of that Deputy. I am sorry he is not present, although I understand fully the reason, because I would have liked him to hear my comments on what he said. I thank the Deputies for the points mentioned and the issues raised and I want to assure them that what they have said will be considered and taken into account in any decisions being made. However, I shall reply specifically to some of the points mentioned.
Deputy Mitchell started by departing somewhat from the area of labour into that of social welfare. The matter of incentive or disincentive to work is a broader issue and, strictly speaking, it is a matter for discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare. One could argue on many lines about the incentive or disincentive to work. However, we must not forget the many under-privileged people in our society, those who are unemployed, the sick and other vulnerable groups. At times it seems to me that such people are being made a target for criticism and are held responsible for certain problems in society.
Deputy Mitchell spoke about absenteeism. This is a matter of grave concern. Deputy Sherlock was right in saying that he appeared to confine it to just one issue, the disincentive or incentive of the social welfare benefits. The reasons for absenteeism are interesting and varied. Although there are no firm statistics available in any of the European countries, the trend of labour surveys seems to indicate that growth in absenteeism is common to European member countries. It is a modern phenomenon and is a rather serious matter. It is costing industry a considerable amount of money and is putting an additional burden on fellow-workers. At the moment there is an inter-departmental committee working on the matter which involves a number of Departments.
I agree with Deputy Mitchell that this is a serious issue, but I do not agree that the sole reason is the disincentive to work. It has become a European problem and needs to be examined closely. I will certainly be interested in the departmental committee's findings when they come in.
Deputy Mitchell also referred to the taxation of employment. We are mainly talking about youth employment and incentive schemes. Deputy Mitchell's figures are based on the continuation of existing trends. Our budget will help to get people back to work. There was criticism of the provision of extra money for the building industry. Deputy Kavanagh said it was not sufficient. It was £50 million more than the previous Government thought fit to provide for that industry. To provide employment in industry we acted quickly and provided job opportunities.
What would Pat Gallagher say to that?
The operation of the Youth Employment Agency will be helpful and I have already complimented my predecessor on setting up the agency and have continued to support it myself. If Deputy Kavanagh were honest he would admit that I walked into a dispute situation, that he had created an industrial relations problem in the Youth Employment Agency on a very day he left office, as the public press acknowledged. I supported the Deputy because I thought he had taken the right decision and I complimented him in the House for having taken that decision.
Now I want to go on to some of the points raised by Deputy Kavanagh. He referred to the attitude of Ministers to the problem of industrial relations, an indication of his short time in that Department. Ministerial intervention has been debated in this House and outside it over the years. If a Minister intervenes he may be blamed for settling at too high a price or for not settling at all. If he does not intervene he may be criticised because the public are deprived of some service. I supported the non-intervention policy and have always done so. But there are times when the public generally require that every possible step be taken by the Minister. If Deputy Kavanagh were honest he would also admit that the quiet behind-the-scenes interventions that no Minister can claim credit for are the ones that make the greater contribution to periods of industrial peace such as we have at the moment. I do not like to say that because one never knows what will happen tomorrow. But there is fluctuation. Let not Deputy Kavanagh think that in his long wet day in the Department he succeeded in achieving anything like that. He did not. These things happen intermittently.
Let me be more specific in regard to the Deputy's reference to the 1906 Act. In the document prepared in the Gaiety, Deputy Kavanagh's Government agreed to amend the 1906 Act. Yet by 9 March in had not been amended. Perhaps there were difficulties that prevented him from amending it by 9 March. I accept his personal commitment to it but I suspect the commitment of some of his colleagues was not as great. However, I would like to correct him on one point, because obviously he did not spend a lot of time in the Department of Labour or do as much homework as I thought he might have done. If he had read all the national understandings through he would have realised that I too regretted the withdrawal of Congress from the Committee on Industrial Relations. In the relevant national understanding there was a strong commitment by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to participate fully in the work of the Committee on Industrial Relations. But subsequently the decision to withdraw was taken at their delegate conference. I regret the decision but I am convinced that we can make progress using certain aspects of that report as an agenda for discussion. Despite the Deputy's criticism on consensus, I will always strive for consensus in delicate issues between employer and trade union bodies here. I welcome Deputy Mitchell's offer of discussion with the Opposition on matters of that nature. I would certainly like to discuss such matters with the Opposition's spokesman in his term of office. As I said, consensus between employer and trade union bodies is important, and if we in this House can achieve something by discussion I am all for it and I am quite prepared to discuss these items with the Deputies.
Deputy Mitchell asked about the Unfair Dismissals Act. I am loth to accept his argument that the Act operates as a major discouragement to employment. It is mentioned often and it is an exaggeration. It has not had a major impact. I never object to paying tribute when it is warranted and I admit that it was introduced during Deputy O'Leary's time in office. But it happened to coincide with emerging reforms of that nature through our EEC entry. But nevertheless I complimented my predecessor many times for it. I would always hope to be more generous than my predecessor.
(Interruptions.)
I will come back to some of Deputy Kavanagh's misdemeanours if he wishes but I do not think anybody would be interested. The operation of the Act has been a balanced one. It should be reviewed and all interests must and will be consulted when that review is taking place.
Deputy Moynihan referred to apprenticeships, particularly in areas that he represents.
The Minister did not say what sort of changes he is contemplating in the Unfair Dismissals Act.
This is not the appropriate time to tell the House. I am considering ways and means. I have certain fears about this Act too. I want it to be specifically useful to workers and employers. I would hope that the interference of law would not become too severe a penalty. My predecessor would probably agree with that in regard to the Act. It was introduced to make it as easy as possible for employees in certain circumstances to have access to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. After four or five years in operation it should be looked at to see if improvements could be made.
Agreed.
We all agree.
I thank Deputy Moynihan for his contribution because only he and Deputy Sherlock referred to AnCO. That organisation should be complimented for taking the responsibility of training many young people. I sympathise with the point raised by Deputy Moynihan about sponsorship in some trades in certain parts of the country. This situation is worse in the west and south-west where there is very little employment in skilled areas where apprentices could be sponsored. AnCO try as far as possible to get young people apprenticed in their own areas. I do not see any solution to the problem of sending apprentices outside their own area except to say that AnCO try to place apprentices in their own areas as far as possible.
As regards apprenticeships the difference between this recession and the last is that it appears industry are more concerned to continue apprenticeships now. I welcome that move and we should all encourage it because industry will ultimately benefit. The more skilled people that are available at times of boom and growth the better for industry. I urge people who are not committed to this idea to support AnCO's training policy.
Deputy Sherlock introduced an element which causes concern. He mentioned the different agencies and the people who operate the schemes. We have AnCO, the National Manpower Service, the Department of Education and the Youth Employment Agency. There is a certain amount of confusion in the public mind about who is doing what. There were recent discussions on this subject but it is very important that there be co-operation amongst all the agencies concerned.
Deputy Sherlock was critical of the National Manpower Service, I think unjustly, but I will be looking at this service to see if some changes need to be made. It is unfair to be so critical of that service in times of high unemployment because they have great difficulty at such a time in placing people.
Any Deputy who wishes to talk to me about any aspect of the Department of Labour is welcome to come to me because it is very important that every Government Department is as efficient as possible. If there is room for improvement we should decide what to do to provide a better service for the public. The vital function of the Department of the Public Service is the overall training and raising the quality of the civil service and we should all help towards that end. I have not mentioned the incentive schemes but I have all the answers and the Deputy need have no reservations.
There are many other areas I should and could cover but before I conclude I want to support what Deputy Kavanagh said about the officials in the Department of Labour. One is inclined to say more about a person when he retires than when he is serving but at a time like this it is nice that we commend people who are so often unfairly criticised by the media. The majority of civil servants work very diligently. I support the comments about the recently retired secretary of the Department of Labour who was in the Department for a very long time. I join with Deputy Kavanagh in paying a tribute to him now that he is no longer in the civil service.
Vote put and agreed to.