asked the Minister for Labour his intentions regarding reforms in the area of industrial relations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Industrial Relations Reform.
15.
As the Deputy will be aware, my predecessor published proposals for the reform of trade dispute and industrial relations legislation early last year. I am at present examining the question of reform in this area. I have been able in recent weeks to have a preliminary exchange of views with the representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and, separately with representatives of the Federated Union of Employers. I intend to see what progress can be made through continuing consultations with employers and trade unions.
While agreeing with the Minister — I am sure it is the Minister's view that consensus is highly desirable in this area — I should like to know if he will agree that the participants are capable of keeping a process of consultation going on indefinitely? Will he agree that this is an area where decisions are required? Does the Minister regard it as a satisfactory state of affairs that our basic legislation governing this whole area dates from 1906, when there was a very different industrial climate?
I do not. It is 81 years since we have had a major piece of legislation in this area and some of the principles of the 1906 Act were taken from an 1871 Act. A review has been taking place in this area since the first Minister for Labour was appointed.
Some of the employers' views have not changed.
It is an extremely difficult area and I am trying to take up where successive Ministers left off. In the last six weeks I have been endeavouring to communicate and discuss with the social partners in this area. I do not believe we can have an early resolution of this but I intend to set it as a priority and try to make some progress where the last seven or eight Ministers failed. I am not saying that I feel over the moon about the success so far.
Will the Minister agree that it might advance the position if the social partners were told that it was the Minister's firm intention to introduce legislation in this area and that procrastination will not help them? Will the Minister address himself to the questions that have caused public concern, unofficial disputes, one-man pickets, disputes where minorities have gone on strike thereby jeopardising whole undertakings in defiance of majority wishes and so on? Will the Minister indicate his anxiety about this area to the social partners and have it addressed without delay?
I will. The issues raised by the Deputy were the central matters brought forward by the last Minister in his discussion document. There was some agreement on them but from the talks I have had I do not think there is any great will to agree on them. I will look at this matter in a positive way, take those proposals and see what agreement I can get from the social partners on them. I accept that many Members of the House are anxious to get progress in this area. There has been a certain amount of progress over the years such as in the 1969 legislation and throughout the seventies, and down to the efforts of the last Minister. I hope that over the next few months — it will take some months — I can prepare a package that I may get into legislation. I cannot be clearer than that on this issue.