Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1959

Vol. 51 No. 12

Apprenticeship Bill, 1958—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

The general purpose of the Bill is to replace the Apprenticeship Act, 1931, with a measure which is designed to make better provision for the recruitment and training of apprentices.

The successful operation of any law dealing with apprenticeship depends to a large extent on the wholehearted cooperation of the parties mainly concerned—the employers and workers. It is, therefore, a source of satisfaction for me to be able to inform the Seanad that the Bill is, in large measure, an agreed one, After the Second Stage of the Bill had been passed by Dáil Éireann, a Joint Committee composed of representatives of workers' and employers' organisations examined the Bill in detail and made a number of agreed recommendations for amendments. Almost all of these recommendations were accepted and appropriate amendments were passed during the Committee and Report Stages in Dáil Éireann.

Consequently, the Bill now before this House represents, as far as possible, the united views of Government, employers and workers as to the best type of Bill to deal with this problem of apprenticeship. This is a most gratifying situation which reflects considerable credit on the representatives who participated so diligently in the work of the Joint Committee. It is, I hope, a happy augury of future cooperation when the Bill has been enacted.

I do not think that anyone will quarrel with the general aim of this Bill which is to provide a system of apprenticeship designed to ensure that sufficient numbers of suitable young persons are given an opportunity of entering the skilled trades; that they receive thorough training on the job and in the technical schools; and that their proficiency in the trade will be tested before they are certified as fully qualified craftsmen. We all know the existing apprenticeship schemes in some trades are fairly satisfactory. But this is not true of all, or even most, of our craft trades. The broad picture is that the recruiting and training of apprentices is dealt with either haphazardly or in a way that is prejudicial to the long-term interests of the trades themselves and of the community as a whole.

The Commission on Youth Unemployment examined this question some years ago and recommended that fresh legislation should be prepared to replace the 1931 Apprenticeship Act. That Act was based entirely on the principle of voluntary cooperation and no trade was brought within its scope except with the agreement of the trade itself. The results were disappointing. Only four trades—furniture making, house-painting and decorating, hairdressing and brush and broom making —agreed to the establishment of statutory apprenticeship schemes under the Act. The Youth Unemployment Commission recommended the establishment of a national apprenticeship authority, the setting up of statutory apprenticeship schemes for more trades, and the provision of more effective measures for the training, instruction and testing of apprentices. These recommendations are incorporated in the Bill now before the House.

It might be of assistance to Senators if I were to outline briefly the main provisions of the Bill. It is intended to apply mainly to the craft trades. Agriculture, dairying and horticulture, as well as professional and clerical occupations, are not included within the scope of the Bill. I think it will be accepted that it would be neither appropriate nor practicable to apply the types of apprenticeship schemes envisaged in the Bill to any of these occupations.

The outstanding feature of the Bill is the proposal to place the regulation of apprenticeship schemes in the hands of a central organisation to be known as An Cheard Chomhairle. An Chomhairle will be under the direction of a full time officer, the Director of Apprenticeship, who will be in a position vigorously to promote the principles and practice of sound apprenticeship. The ordinary members of An Chomhairle, of whom there will be thirteen, will serve in a voluntary part-time capacity. They will be representative of employers, workers and educational interests. The educational members will act in an advisory capacity.

The provisions of the Bill will not be applied automatically to all trades in which formal apprenticeship is the method by which future skilled workers are trained. An Chomhairle will have power to carry out an examination of the methods used in any trade for the recruitment and training of apprentices. Trades which operate satisfactory schemes will not be interfered with by An Chomhairle. Other trades will have an opportunity, in consultation with An Chomhairle, of putting their own houses in order and any trade which does so will be left outside the scope of the Bill.

It is my earnest hope that many trades will avail of this opportunity, because I am satisfied that the best apprenticeship schemes are those evolved as a result of close cooperation between responsible workers' and employers' organisations which recognise their duty to the community as a whole as well as to their own trades. We must, however, provide for the eventuality that certain trades may not be willing or able to remedy defects in their existing apprenticeship arrangements, and An Chomhairle is, therefore, empowered to designate a trade and bring the apprenticeship arrangements in that trade under statutory control where they find such action necessary.

There is, however, a provision enabling An Chomhairle to exclude from certain requirements of the Bill satisfactory schemes operated by individual employers or groups of employers within the designated trade. There is also provision for exemptions from rules to avoid hardship in individual cases.

Where a trade has been designated, An Chomhairle will set up an apprenticeship committee or, where necessary, a number of committees to control apprenticeship in that trade. Apprenticeship committees will, like An Chomhairle, include representatives of employers, workers and educational interests under an independent chairman, and the educational members will act in an advisory capacity. Where it does not prove possible, for one reason or another, to set up an apprenticeship committee, or where an established committee fails to do its job, An Chomhairle itself will be able to act as, or for, a committee for the particular trade and district involved.

An Chomhairle will make rules in respect of each designated trade laying down minimum educational qualifications and the minimum age of entry for apprentices, as well as rules regulating the circumstances in which an apprentice may be dismissed. The apprenticeship committee for the trade will maintain a register of candidates for apprenticeship and no person will be enrolled on the register unless he complies with the age and educational qualifications laid down by An Chomhairle.

The apprenticeship committee will also make rules about the period of apprenticeship and about the training to be imparted to apprentices by their employers. If, in the case of any particular trade, An Chomhairle considers it necessary that special advice or assistance should be provided to raise the standard of training, it will appoint supervisors for the purpose. If it is found that an employer is persistently neglecting to train his apprentices properly, arrangements can be made for the transfer of the apprentices to a more conscientious employer.

There is, furthermore, a provision by which the employment of each apprentice by a particular employer must be approved by the apprenticeship committee. The committee will, therefore, be in a position to ensure that an employer who has not the appropriate training facilities or who has shown himself to be incapable of imparting the necessary training, will not be permitted to take on apprentices.

It is intended that, in time, all apprentices will be required to attend courses of instruction in technical schools. If a boy is to reach a high standard of craftsmanship, attendance at a well defined course of technical instruction must form part of his training. The technical school cannot, of course, displace the workshop as the principal means of training, but it is an essential adjunct to training on the job. Where appropriate, employers will be required to allow apprentices time off, without loss of wages, to attend day-time courses of instruction.

Employers will also be expected to cooperate by making periodic progress reports to the apprenticeship committee on how the training of each apprentice is progressing. The apprentices themselves will have to keep records of the training they receive and each apprentice will have an opportunity of undergoing proficiency tests, one mid-way through his apprenticeship and the other on the completion of apprenticeship. Apprentices who have completed their training satisfactorily and who have passed the final examination will be given certificates by An Chomhairle. It is not the intention to confine employment in any trade to holders of the certificates, but it is hoped that, in time, possession of this certificate will come to be regarded as the hallmark of a good tradesman.

An Chomhairle will be empowered to award scholarships and other prizes to apprentices of outstanding merit and to send apprentices abroad to attend competitions and exhibitions. The expenses of these activities may be met in part by registration fees collected from apprentices. These fees will be of reasonable amount and there is provision for exemption in cases of hardship. These fees should not, of course, be confused with the rather substantial premiums which were formerly payable by apprentices in some trades. This practice of collecting premiums can be abused and committees are, therefore, being given the power to prohibit the taking of premiums.

A common complaint from employers is that they are unable to reap the full benefit of the time and expense which they devote to the training of an apprentice, since the apprentice is free to leave his employer for another employer on the completion of his apprenticeship. The Bill recognises this problem by providing for the making of direct monetary grants to employers who have trained apprentices in accordance with rules made under the Bill. An Chomhairle will recommend the trades in which such payments are considered to be appropriate, the emphasis being placed on craft trades which make a positive contribution to national productivity. The amount of the grants will be subject to the consent of the Ministers for Industry and Commerce and Finance; it is not proposed that they should be paid in respect of apprentices in State or semi-State organisations.

The question of the intake of apprentices is one which causes difficulty in many trades. There have been complaints that in some trades, the trade unions place undue restrictions on the number of apprentices entering the trades each year, thereby creating an acute and artificial shortage of skilled operatives. On the other hand, it is often argued on behalf of the trade unions that they must protect the interests of their members by ensuring that the intake of apprentices is such as will not lead to the employment of apprentices as a source of cheap labour or result in the deliberate creation of a pool of unemployed craftsmen. It will be the task of An Chomhairle and the apprenticeship committees to examine closely the arrangements in each trade and to strike a fair balance in each case.

The number of apprentices to be taken on in a designated trade within a particular district in any period will be determined by an apprenticeship committee, after consultation with An Chomhairle, and the committee will have power to require a particular employer to take on apprentices where it is satisfied that that employer has adequate training facilities and is failing without adequate cause to bear his share of the responsibility for training entrants to the trade.

It is not proposed to re-enact in this Bill the provisions of the 1931 Act which enabled apprenticeship committees to regulate the wages and conditions of employment of apprentices. These questions are, in my opinion, more appropriate for settlement by direct negotiation between employers and workers or their organisations, with the assistance of the Labour Court, where necessary. I should mention here that there is provision for the reconstitution under the new Bill of the apprenticeship committees relating to the four trades which were designated under the 1931 Act; when these committees have been reconstituted the 1931 Act will be repealed.

All rules made by apprenticeship committees will have to be confirmed by An Chomhairle before they attain the force of law. The Bill provides for inspection and enforcement by authorised officers, and for penalties for persons found guilty of breaches of the statutory rules. It will also be an offence for a person to prevent or obstruct an employer from complying with the rules.

The salary of the Chairman and of the staff of An Chomhairle will be borne on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. Other expenses will be met out of an annual grant to An Chomhairle. It is difficult to give at this stage any precise indication of the probable total cost of administering the Bill. In the first year or two, the cost might be of the order of £6,000 or £7,000, but according as An Chomhairle expands its activities the cost will naturally rise, particularly on account of the grants which it is proposed to make to employers who satisfactorily train their apprentices. The annual cost may eventually reach about £50,000 a year.

This, I think, summarises the main provisions of the Bill. The need to raise the level of efficiency and output in industry is well recognised to-day. In this highly competitive age, there is no place for the shoddy, poorly-finished product and if we are to make progress in winning essential overseas markets, the goods we produce must be well made and capable of being marketed at competitive prices. The provision of proper training facilities for young persons is an important prerequisite for the attainment of the standard of skill and efficiency at which we must aim.

This Bill is intended to provide the machinery to enable such training facilities to be made available. The successful operation of that machinery will depend on the voluntary co-operation of employers and workers as well as educational interests. The manner in which these interests have cooperated in the framing of the Bill leads me to believe that there is every expectation of continued cooperation in the administration of the measure and that a very substantial contribution will thus be made towards the establishment of sound apprenticeship schemes.

Mr. McGuire

The Minister has given us a very detailed statement on the provisions of this Bill and as can be seen from what he has told us, the subject has been pretty well covered. The main reason for that is that the Bill has been drawn up, as he said, in co-operation with the employers and the workers concerned with its working. Therefore, they have been able to bring to his notice, and get into the Bill, most of the problems associated with apprenticeship. Therefore, I think it would be rather superfluous in this House to go too deeply into all the considerations appertaining to apprenticeship because the debate has already been carried out between the employers and the workers, the people who know most about this matter, and the Minister and the Government, so that all we can do is merely to comment on what they have said and what they propose should be done.

I welcome the feature of this Bill, that consultation was entered into with the people who know all about the matter under discussion and with the people who will be required to carry out the provisions of the Act, namely, the employers and the workers. The Minister himself paid tribute to the co-operation which he received from these two groups and I should like to say that the Minister and the Government are to be complimented for taking this enlightened action.

The necessity has been felt for a very long time for some regularising of the situation in connection with apprentices and for an orderly method of dealing with apprenticeship and bringing it under control and seeing that apprentices were properly trained and properly treated. For a long time, Governments found it difficult to get the employers and the trade unions to come together on the subject. Eventually, the Minister took the bull by the horns and introduced the Bill and immediately everybody sprang to his feet and paid attention to it. In an enlightened way the Minister then said, after the Second Reading: "Get on with the matter yourselves and tell me what you would like me to do." That was what happened and as a result of this action, the joint groups produced a report to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I have their report here and having looked at it, I can say that they have done a very good job. They got down to the examination of the subject very seriously and with the full intention of producing something practicable and something that was in agreement. Many of the recommendations were joint recommendations and the Minister, I understand, has introduced if not all, practically all, of the recommendations as amendments to the Bill. Naturally, there were some recommendations made by the employers and some made by the workers which were not put into the Bill; naturally the employers and the workers were not fully satisfied; but I think it would be impossible to satisfy everybody in a case like this.

As the Minister said, the Bill is a great improvement, and is welcomed as such, on the 1931 Act, but it is felt, and I think it is only realistic to say, that it is not a perfect Bill. No Bill is perfect but it is a great improvement and perhaps, in operation, it will be found that some of the recommendations made by the employers and some of the recommendations made by the workers which were not put into the Bill and which are still on record in the Department of Industry and Commerce, may be found desirable and may be introduced into some future amending legislation.

I think I am expressing a general wish when I say I am sure it is very much hoped that under this Bill, when enacted, a solution will be found for the present unsatisfactory methods of recruiting apprentices in certain trades, both as regards numbers admitted and the kind of people admitted. We are all aware of the limitation on certain people for admission as apprentices in certain trades and where tradesmen's sons only are allowed to become apprentices. There have been grave restrictive practices in this matter in the past and the result has been the denial of skilled craftsmanship to large numbers of our citizens, with the result that it may be, and always is, argued that there are not enough craftsmen. I know there is the other side of the argument about apprentices sometimes used as cheap labour, but, purely on the question of craftsmanship, we can do with a great many more craftsmen.

Even facing the actual position here, we have a large degree of emigration and while we deplore that, we must recognise it and it is very unfair to large numbers of our young men and women who have to leave the country without any skilled knowledge. They find themselves in England or in other countries as unskilled people and are looked upon as hewers of wood and drawers of water. From the point of view of national dignity, that is very unsatisfactory because we are regarded only as slaveworkers. We may be well paid but nevertheless we are workers without skilled training.

Under this new legislation, I hope that position will be very much changed and that a much more enlightened approach will be made to this matter of training the young people in skilled trades and making craftsmen and craftswomen out of them. There are further extensions of this question. I gather that there are certain men who learned their trade in the Army and other places and who are not recognised by certain groups at present as skilled craftsmen. I do not want to go into all the details of the proposals in this Bill. I know it is very much welcomed all round; it is a great improvement on the existing situation in our industrial and commercial life. I believe the results of this Bill will be far reaching in the future in giving us more efficiency and ultimately more employment of a higher quality leading to better products and industrial goods and services of all kinds. Eventually, that will pay off in making us prosperous.

Finally, this seems to me to be a Bill that might very appropriately have been introduced in the Seanad. The Seanad will discuss this subject on another day but many of us feel that the Seanad is not being used to the full at present, that we merely come here in a very secondary capacity, whereas we could be utilised to perform a very useful service, if legislation were introduced in this House. That would lighten the work and the agenda in the Dáil and prevent the congestion that we continue to get at present. This Bill might appropriately have been introduced in the Seanad.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to support almost everything, I think, that Senator McGuire has said and certainly the main trend of his remarks. There is no doubt in my mind that the intention of this Bill is excellent and I am prepared to believe that the results it will produce will be good. I am not quite sure—although open to correction on this—that the Bill is not unnecessarily cumbersome. Some of the provisions seem to me to be rather too detailed regarding the way in which the council will carry on its business, the way it will vote, and how it shall act when it first meets. It seems to me that a good deal of that might, perhaps, be left to the council itself rather than be prescribed in such detailed form. These are only matters of detail and I think the aim of the Bill is excellent. If I am interpreting it correctly, it represents a desire to provide access by apprentices to a number of trades on ability rather than by any other test.

As mentioned by Senator McGuire and as hinted by the Minister, it has been the practice of the craft unions to keep apprenticeship within a very narrow circle and the history of trade unionism in this country shows that the craft unions and their members have tended to a greater or lesser extent to seek that they should be regarded as aristocrats of labour. That is understandable because it is based on the class structure of the State in which they exist and have their being. They were evolved and did evolve in a class rule economy and of course you have the parallel on the other side among the employers, people desiring to restrict access to their trade—as appeared in the case of the garage proprietors not so very long ago—to very narrow limits. This tendency is not to be found merely among the craft unions; it is also to be found among certain associations of employers. In both cases, I think it is to be condemned by the public and the ordinary citizens. I would subscribe to the much better and more liberal conception of a trade union in which access to the union was free and in which there was no restrictive screening before one got one's union card.

I do not believe, for instance, that trade unionism can in fact flourish to the benefit of the whole of the crafts if it is based on an exclusive caste system which I am afraid is encouraged at the moment by certain craft unions, although I must say that among their officials and members there are many people who are far from satisfied with it. During the war, it was found possible for a skilled craftsman in one or other of the crafts who was unable to get a union card here because he was not admitted to the trade union to go to England and work as a carpenter or plasterer there and to get his cards there in an English union. He could then come back with his cards and, because he had those cards, he could be recognised here by the equivalent union or by the Irish branch of the same union. That seems an odd situation because, clearly, the man's skill was sufficient but he had to go outside the country to prove it before he would be accepted here.

I remember one example among many which I might mention. I was approached for the purpose of getting a boy of about 16 accepted into apprenticeship in one of those trades—as a carpenter, in fact. This was a most intelligent boy who was already working for a builder. In fact, he was being employed as an assistant to a charge hand and was attending night classes in carpentry. He was clearly intellectually and physically eligible and certainly from the point of view of physical skill, he was eminently suitable for training as a carpenter. When he applied, he was asked if his father was a carpenter or if by chance his uncle was a carpenter. When he answered both questions in the negative, he was rejected.

I took up the matter and approached the trade union officials who were most sympathetic but the reply was regrettably in the negative. They showed the greatest sympathy, otherwise. That was a case of a boy who was quite willing to go into the union as an apprentice in this particular union and because he had not the basic qualifications, a father or an uncle a carpenter, this boy with all his ability was not even admitted to the union. It is quite clear that this is bad for all of us, bad for the trade unions, for the community and for the workers and bad for these boys who might perhaps be far better fitted to become plasterers, bakers or carpenters than the sons and nephews of such tradesmen.

I can understand—and I think we should try to understand—this desire on the part of such a union. It is not a thing that we should merely condemn without trying to understand —the desire to keep the supply of trade workers within certain limits. I can understand the desire on the part of such a union to keep the supply of trained workers within certain limits, because that is one way to prevent that trade or class of craftsman from being exploited. It is, in fact, a restriction of supplies. I can understand, within the profit system of economy which we operate, the desire on the part of such a union to keep the supply of this skilled labour within reasonable limits, but where I would join issue is on the point of what tests should you apply for admission to the trade. I think we all ought to agree that the test should be ability and nothing else—ability and personal capacity and not relationship to a previous member of the trade.

I should like to say something about one or two details in the Bill, while welcoming the general intention of the Bill. I notice, for instance, in Section 10, subsection (4), that it is stated "The Minister may at any time remove the chairman of An Chomhairle from office." That seems to me to be rather arbitrary. There is no question of an effort to consult with anybody, no question of appeal and no question of his having to state reasons. Bang!—he can just chuck a man out of office. That is that—full stop. It has the merit of being a short, concise subsection, but I think its implications are rather alarming. That requires some kind of amendment. There should be some onus on the Minister to make some kind of explanation to somebody. On the whole I think he might be required to take somebody's advice before he does this. I should like to feel that the chairman would not be quite so open to immediate dismissal without reason. I feel possibly his actions would be less circumscribed if he were given just a little more latitude.

The same applies in Section 11, subsection (7), to any ordinary member: "The Minister may at any time remove an ordinary member of An Chomhairle from office." We all agree, I think, in general principle that the Minister will be guided by the best motives and so on and that he will not abuse this power, but we are also agreed we should not give a power to the Minister on the ground that, although the power is excessive, we are confident he will not abuse it. I think it is better to give him just such power as we feel happy to see him exercise.

In this same section, Section 11, I notice a phrase which occurs many times. It occurs first in subsection (1): "Of the ordinary members of An Chomhairle, five shall be workers' members, five shall be employers' members and three shall be educational members." I am a bit hesitant about this phrase "educational members." Some members of the Comhairle will be highly educational but I am a little bit unhappy as to what is meant. I think it is a bad phrase, in other words, and I should like a better phrase, which I find, in fact, in subsection (4). "The Minister shall, after consultation with the Minister for Education, appoint three persons whom he considers to be representative of educational interests...". It might be possible to condense that a little further, but I am not happy that the condensation into the two words "educational members". is a good one. I would prefer even a lengthier phrase, if necessary, or else some further definition of what is meant by "educational members". The same phrase occurs in subsection (3) of Section 12.

In section 13, an odd provision in relation to the so-called "educational members" is found in subsection (6), which provides that they shall not have a vote. I am a little surprised by that. Why not? I think the workers' representatives and employers' representatives on An Chomhairle ought to be able to get together with the representatives of educational interests and agree on a policy, agree on rules and so on and, if necessary, take a vote. We are dealing with adult people. What is the fear implied in not allowing the representatives of educational interests to have a vote? "An educational member of An Chomhairle ... shall not ... have a vote." I think they will look rather silly on this committee. Their advice may or may not be listened to and may or may not be adopted, but they will have no say except a verbal one. They will have no vote at all.

Similarly, subsection (7) of Section 13 reads very oddly, I think. It states:

If, at any meeting of An Chomhairle, the group of workers' members does not equal in number the group of employers' members present—

(a) whichever of the said groups is in the majority may arrange that any one or more of its number shall refrain from voting so as to preserve equality.

I feel that is an extraordinary provision to have in an Act. I think you could get very inefficient work in such circumstances. I should be inclined not to give such power but to constrain the members to turn up at the meeting and, if they failed to do so, to take the consequences. This matter, of course, may be arranged by the chairman saying: "We would prefer to leave over the discussion on such and such a thing to another meeting"; but I do not feel this is a point to be enshrined in the Act.

I should like to turn now to Section 25 which refers to the kinds of qualifications that shall be required for entry into particular trades. I am glad to see that they do not lay it down that one must be the nephew, grandson or son of a member of the trade. But they do say in subsection (1) of Section 25 that An Chomhairle may make rules regulating educational qualifications. I should like an assurance from the Minister that this means precisely what it says, that what will in fact be asked of the persons will be educational qualifications and, under Section 26, a minimum age, probably a maximum age and nothing else. I hope there will be no other considerations except the words "ability and the right age group".

There is provision, of course, in Section 27 as to the circumstances in which an apprentice may be dismissed and so on, but I trust that there is no question as to this being aimed to provide access to the trade for everybody with the ability or apparently with the ability to be able to benefit from it.

I should like to turn now to Section 48 which provides for scholarships, in these words:

"For the purpose of making available for persons employed by way of apprenticeship in a designated trade better facilities for receiving training and instruction in the trade, An Chomhairle may, if it so thinks fit, grant scholarships to such persons so employed as An Chomhairle selects in such manner as it considers appropriate."

The Minister referred to this. I should like to welcome it very much because sometimes it is not possible for children of a poor family to contemplate a long apprenticeship where they might not be earning very much unless they are assisted by such a scheme as this. I think this is excellent; it has the mark of an understanding of the realities of the situation. My hope is that the scholarships will be generous, both in amount and in number, and that the tests will relate to the trade only. I should not like to feel that the tests for entry into a trade will have anything to do with anything except the trade itself. In other words, I hope there will be no restrictive practices in that regard, either.

Turning now to Section 61, I notice that subsection (1) says:—

Where rules under this Act require printed copies of the rules to be posted and kept posted, such copies shall be posted and kept posted—

(a) in a prominent place in every premises in which persons are employed by way of apprentice in the trade to which the rules relate...

I notice that although subsection (2) of the section says that "a person shall not wilfully pull down, injure or deface any copy of rules posted in pursuance of this section," there are in fact no penalties involved for failing to observe the section. There is a long section subsequently which deals with all kinds of offences but it does not mention offences under Section 61. So, while the section says that rules shall be posted and kept posted in a prominent place, there is no guarantee under penalty that they will be so posted and kept so posted.

They might, for instance, be treated like the rules of the Department of Education which, according to regulation, are supposed to be kept suspended conspicuously in every classroom. We all know, of course, and the Minister better than most of us probably, that the only way in which they are conspicuously suspended is that they are frequently ignored. One does not see them posted up at all, and there is no sanction involved. Similarly, here, from his knowledge of the persistent failure to carry out that regulation in connection with another Department over which he presided for some time, to keep posted the regulations of that Department in every classroom, he might perhaps be inclined now to devise some way of ensuring that this section will be respected in fact as well as in the letter.

The last point I want to refer to in detail arises on Section 62, subsection (10), paragraph (b). This refers to what persons shall do, and so on. They will be subject to penalty, and so forth, if they wilfully refuse to answer questions lawfully put to them under the subsection by an authorised officer. There are two points I should like to make there. It has been found necessary in the past, and I think it is a principle to which the Minister would subscribe, to supply the authorised officer with some mark of his authorisation, some card of identity, something that will mark him out as a duly authorised officer and not merely because he says so. In many Statutory Orders, it has now become the practice to make it necessary not merely for the authorised officer to have a card authorising him but to produce it on request. That is the first point.

The second point is that we are, perhaps, interfering with the common law when we are demanding, under penalty, that a person must not wilfully refuse to answer questions put to him. I think it is the right of any citizen to say: "I do not propose to answer questions because my answers may incriminate me." I understand that is a usually accepted principle and I should like to know whether this word "lawfully" allows a person so to refuse to answer questions. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. It is a rather strong power to place in the hands of an authorised officer—a power to insist under penalty that people in trades, the employers, in this case, must, under statute, answer any questions that are asked of them lawfully.

In conclusion, I should like to say that, as I have suggested, the result of this Bill will be excellent if it succeeds in basing entry into the skilled trades upon ability rather than upon some other consideration. I should also say that another indirect and very good effect it may have will be a marked heightening of the degree of skill in all the trades involved. It is quite clear that where the recruitment is on the level of pure ability, the final product in the craft will also be increased in value. In other words, the Bill will serve the purpose of raising the whole standard of craftsmanship in general throughout the country. If it is successful in its intention, that will be something to applaud.

Mr. Murphy

Like the other Senators who have spoken, I welcome this Bill. I must say, however, that Senator McGuire and Senator Sheehy Skeffington will be disappointed if they imagine this Bill will be a vehicle permitting anybody and everybody to be trained in trades, according as they wish. We must all accept that it is necessary to control in some way or other the recruitment and training of apprentices.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

By ability.

Mr. Murphy

To control the recruitment and training of apprentices. Up to now, in many trades, that control was exercised solely by the union involved. The union decided the number of apprentices that could be recruited in any year. The union decided who those apprentices should be. Instead of engaging in a bout of sarcasm at these methods, we should welcome the decision by the unions to hand over a control which they previously had solely in their own hands to a joint body of trade union and employers' representatives, presided over by an independent chairman. That is a substantial step forward and the unions concerned are to be congratulated on agreeing to it. It does not, however, mean that there will be indiscriminate recruitment of apprentices for the future.

This Bill, as the Minister said, is largely an agreed measure and the Minister, his predecessor, his Department, the trade unions and the employers' representatives are to be congratulated on the work they put into achieving this large measure of agreement in the past 12 months. The Bill, as Senators may notice, is the Apprenticeship Bill, 1958. We are now in 1959. The delay was well worth while, I think, because it resulted in the bringing forward of this agreed measure.

There is one particular principle that I welcome as a representative of trade unions. The Minister has agreed to accept for appointment to An Chomhairle and the committees people nominated by the trade union body. He has departed from a principle upon which other Ministers insist, namely, getting a list of people from which a Minister will make his choice That practice is objected to by the trade union movement. Unfortunately some bodies under other Ministers—perhaps it is just one Minister at the moment— are unmanned from the point of view of trade union representatives because the Minister concerned insists on getting a panel from which he will pick individuals rather than accept the people nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I welcome the fact, therefore, that in this measure it is clearly provided that the Minister will accept the people listed to him by the Trade Union Congress.

I should like to draw the Minister's particular attention to three sections in this Bill. One of them has already been mentioned in the Dáil and, as a result of what Deputy Norton said there, the Minister promised to reconsider the section between then and the Committee Stage in the Seanad. I refer to Section 51 which has as its marginal note "Interference with employers." That section provides that where rules have been made "a person shall not do any act or thing for the purpose either of preventing or obstructing an employer" from complying with the rules. The trade unions, and I think all of us will accept that this is a fact, will not hand over the power of deciding what to do about the terms and conditions of any one of their members to any outside body. In effect, this could mean that we are attempting by legislation to prevent a trade union taking an action in respect of one of its members, an apprentice.

There is another aspect of this, the reverse side of the coin. It could well happen that an apprentice in the employment of a particular employer worked during a trade dispute or did work appropriate to another person who was engaged in a trade dispute, and, on the resumption of work, according to this section, the trade union would be debarred from taking any action about what they rightly considered a trade dispute. In effect, the trade unions will not, I am afraid —or should I say "afraid"?—have regard to that. They will take their traditional action to defend their own interests or the interests of an individual member. I hope that the considerations which the Minister promised to give to this section will result in an amendment to exempt from this section any action taken in pursuance of a trade dispute, so that the good work in this Bill may not be swept away in a year or two where a dispute might occur and an attempt might be made to apply this section.

Another section to which I should like to refer is section 37. I am not very good at construing legislation but I have read the section a number of times and I think it is unnecessarily ambiguous. What is intended, I think, is that nobody can recruit an apprentice, unless that would-be apprentice is on a list as prescribed in section 43 and, as well, such recruitment is approved by the committee. In other words, it is not enough that the person being recruited is simply on a list; it is also necessary that such recruitment has the consent of the committee.

The Minister will rightly argue that that is what is intended and, in effect, that is what is said by the section, but I think it is unnecessarily ambiguous and I ask the Minister to look at the section between now and Committee Stage and to see if some clearer wording could not be produced. I have asked different people to read this section and to tell me what they thought it meant. On many, I found it left the impression that a would-be apprentice could be recruited who was not on the list, provided it was with the consent of the committee. In other words, the impression was left that in some way paragraph (b) governs paragraph (a) rather than the section as a whole. That impression is left, as I said, and it might be left with other employers, that the committee could approve of somebody not on a list and he then could be recruited as an apprentice.

That brings me to Section 43 which provides for the keeping of a register of candidates for apprenticeship. It will be seen that according to Section 37, to which I have just referred, a person to be recruited as an apprentice must be on the list provided for in Section 43, the register of candidates for apprenticeship, and that register provides for, amongst other things, under paragraph (b)—"such particulars of registered persons becoming employed as aforesaid..." It seems to me that a person listed there who becomes employed, as provided for under Section 37, is then no longer listed on that register of candidates for apprenticeship, as provided for in Section 43. In fact, he then apparently goes on to another list as envisaged under Section 44, a register of apprentices.

It could well happen and it has happened—and it is unfortunate that it should happen—that a boy taken on as an apprentice in a trade is, for one reason or another, put out of work before his time is up. The merchant or trader may go bankrupt and then the boy is out of work. I think it is intended under Section 37 that the committee would have in mind placing that boy under another trader, another employer, when a vacancy arose. I suppose that is one of the reasons they have power as envisaged in paragraph (b) of that section, but that boy is not on the register as provided for in Section 43. Apparently he has gone off that register on to the register envisaged in Section 44.

Perhaps I am finding difficulties where they do not exist. All I am asking is that the Minister between now and Committee Stage will examine the point I am trying to make, if he can understand my explanation, and say if that difficulty is only in my imagination. With those words, I commend the Bill to the Seanad and express the hope that the points I have raised, particularly in regard to Section 51, will be considered and met by the Minister on Committee Stage.

Mr. Burke

As one elected on the Commercial and Industrial Panel, I feel I should say a few words about this Bill. The Bill is admirable in its conception and the work that has been done by the joint committee of employers and workers has helped the Minister in bringing before us a piece of legislation that should be a benefit in this age. This is an age of science and technology and if the young entrants to crafts and trades are not given the proper technical as well as the proper craft education, I feel they are going to slip further behind in the standards which the people wish to enjoy but which they can enjoy only by the fruits of their own intelligent and educated efforts.

A trade in which I am particularly interested and one of the largest export trades is the meat trade. It is not possible in the training of apprentices in most of our factories to give them the technical and sometimes scientific knowledge which must be of importance to them in handling products of this kind. The facilities are not available in the factories and the skilled personnel are not always readily available. I hope that Senator O'Donovan who, perhaps, has experience in the matter, will contribute something before the debate concludes.

In framing this Bill, I believe that the reason educational representatives on the committee were not given a vote is that they are there solely for the purpose of providing the educational facilities which employers and workers know from their experience are required. If they were entitled to vote, they might be influencing policy in connection with matters in which they could not be competent. I think it was a proper decision not to give the educational members a vote in this instance.

Entrance to the trade has been mentioned and to judge by the emphasis on it, there is almost a suggestion that a carpenter's son would make a bad carpenter and that anybody else who had no tradition in the craft or vocation would make a better entrant. I think we should walk in the middle of the road in this matter. It is generally true that tradition is something that must and should be encouraged. We have too little of it in craft and industry in Ireland and any of us who visit Britain or the Continent will see that continuing tradition there.

We find in Britain generations of millwrights and other such craftsmen whose fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers all followed the trade. As a result, Britain is an industrial country and I do not think there has been in that country—or in most countries of which I speak—any move to restrict new talent or new blood from entering the industry. Sons of craftsmen, sons of printers, carpenters or masons have grown up—I know many of them—in a tradition involving everything connected with the trade. Perhaps if they are not as good at mathematics or languages as some of the new entrants to the trade, they have other enormous advantages and they have a pool of knowledge and tradition which is part and parcel of their family and that should be given its proper weight by the Comhairle. I believe the Comhairle will do that when drawing up rules with regard to the appointment of apprentices.

I want to disabuse Senator Murphy of one misapprehension under which I think he has been labouring. He said that trade unions always entirely controlled entry into the craft trades. They did not; in many cases, agreements have been made between the employers and the workers in different trades as to the numbers of apprentices which a trade can absorb. Trade unions have occasionally tried to interfere, to restrict the number of new entrants, but it is not true to say that they have entirely controlled the matter. I know that in the printing trade, there is a very definite national agreement with regard to the number of apprentices and the matter is discussed at local level always between the employers and the workers. Even the lists of prospective entrants and their educational qualifications are discussed.

I have nothing further to add except to hope that the Comhairle will be set up without delay and that the knowledge which our apprentices will be helped to receive will not be denied them any longer. I congratulate the Minister on the measure. Thanks are due to all concerned, the employers, the workers, the Minister and his officials. I think the nation owes them thanks for a most exemplary piece of legislation.

Mr. Cole

I should have thought this matter would more appropriately have been dealt with by the Department of Education but it is a peculiarly happy situation that the Minister now dealing with it has been in that Department and knows that vocational schools in a great many centres in the city and in a great many country districts have already formed classes to deal specially with apprentices in certain trades. I wonder why the matter was not dealt with completely by the Department of Education. If it had been, the whole thing could be handled in one scheme. The vocational education committees are anxious if they can get sufficient numbers—certainly in my county—to form such classes and are anxious to have them at times to suit workers and employers. In a way, it is a pity the matter was not dealt with by the Department of Education, but it is a happy circumstance that the Minister who was in that Department is dealing with it.

From the Minister's remarks and those of Senator McGuire, I felt that there was a very happy sort of exchange between employers and unions in regard to the details of this Bill but it seems to me that Senator Murphy swept the whole thing away. His opening remarks were to the effect that it was necessary to control entry to the trades; that entry originally was completely controlled by the unions and that now the unions were to be commended for more or less handing over these powers to this joint board. His third and final remark was that this did not mean that there would be indiscriminate entry into any trade. That, it seems to me, takes away my whole idea of what the Minister said and what Senator McGuire said; in other words, the unions are not going to allow this body to act with complete freedom.

I have great sympathy with Senator Sheehy Skeffington when he says that entry to these apprenticeships should be on ability. To define ability in those circumstances is sometimes rather difficult but one does know of people who may be useless at school but clever with their hands. These are the people whom one would like to see apprenticed in certain trades but any attempt to find out their abilities beforehand might lead to their being put at the bottom of the list. For those reasons, one would like to see the whole recruitment of apprentices left completely open.

I should like the Minister to deal with one point. In Section 2, he has defined a trade as any industry, occupation or business. Section 20 provides for an examination into the method used in any trade for the recruitment and training of apprentices. Then we come to Section 29 which states that an apprenticeship committee may make rules requiring persons carrying on trade to ensure the training of those whom they employ. Nowhere can I see any power given to the Minister or the committee to compel employees who refuse to co-operate by assisting apprentices. I can see a position arising in a trade where a union, trying to keep it a closed trade, at a very small number, will refuse to co-operate in any way whatever. Does the Minister think he could deal with that situation under this Bill?

I have every sympathy and pity for the boy who wants to enter a trade, who has a great interest in a certain trade, but who, simply because the members of the trade think it is already overcrowded, is not allowed to take up that trade. I should like to assist that boy, if possible, by having some machinery to enforce his recruitment as an apprentice in the trade he wishes to join.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.