I am very pleased at the manner in which this Bill has been accepted by the Seanad. To be candid, I should have been very disappointed if it had been otherwise, remembering the background against which the Bill has been produced and the history of apprenticeship law since 1931.
Senator McGuire rightly observed that this Bill is an improvement on the 1931 Act. In the 1931 Act, the main defect was that no trade could be designated. That can be done under this Bill. Any trade which wanted rules of apprenticeship drawn up under the 1931 Act had to come forward voluntarily and the result was rather disappointing inasmuch as only four trades came forward for the drawing up of a code to govern entry and training.
Senator McGuire also observed that almost all the recommendations of the joint committee of employers' and workers' representatives were accepted. I think he can safely remove the "almost" qualification. All the joint recommendations were accepted and incorporated in the Bill by way of amendment on Committee Stage or Report Stage in the Dáil.
Naturally, there were some points of disagreement and a certain stand had to be taken on one side or another. The employers may have lost out, or the workers may have lost out, in the stand that had to be taken, but points of difference were reduced to a very happy minimum.
Senator Sheehy Skeffington complained that the Bill was rather too detailed in its provisions. I think it is one of the virtues of the Bill that we have succeeded, as we have, in getting a measure of agreement between employers' and workers' representatives on a series of details, and in getting them to iron out the bumps and smooth out the kinks at an early stage and embody that in legislation. It will render the work of An Chomhairle and the committees to be set up under this measure easier and will, to a very great extent, minimise the points at which disagreement might be registered between the representatives of An Chomhairle and of the committees at a later stage.
I am very pleased that they have been able to agree on such detail to such a great extent. As some of the Senators observed, the Bill might be more usefully discussed, certainly as to the criticisms I have heard here— and I did not anticipate that there would be no criticism of the Bill in some of its details—in Committee. Subject to making a few points here, I do not propose to go over all the criticisms or suggestions of the Senators.
In the first instance, the question of admission to trades was raised by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. It has been the practice and tradition that relatives of craftsmen are permitted, in the first instance, to go into a trade by way of apprenticeship. In general, I do not see anything wrong with that and it is not intended in this Bill to interfere with that established practice. The fact will remain that a young person may not enter into apprenticeship for a trade only because he happens to be related to a man already qualified in that trade. The age qualification perhaps will not matter much in this instance but the educational qualification might and as a result it may be the boy, or perhaps in a few cases, a girl, with the necessary educational qualification who may secure entry as against a relative. On the other hand, there is the provision whereby An Chomhairle, and the committees through the Comhairle, will be empowered to regulate the numbers entering into any particular trade in order to ensure there will be no shortage, on the one hand, of workers for a skilled trade, and, on the other hand, no undue surplus which might create a situation in which advantage might be taken of such surplus of workers in a particular trade. So far as there is that provision, it must obviously mean that the entry cannot necessarily be restricted to relatives of people already skilled in their trade and members of that particular trade union.
Speaking of trade unions, I doubt if it is possible to achieve the ideal suggested by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, of one big trade union. I do not know if I interpreted rightly what he said but if I did, he seemed to suggest that all trades and crafts might be represented by just one union. We know that that, in practice, is very difficult to achieve and having regard to the long drawn out negotiations—and the successful negotiations at that—to have one Congress rather than two Congresses of Unions, it will be realised that to get all trades into one union would be difficult. It is a happy solution that all these trades are represented now in one Congress and certainly it was a good distance to go. I doubt if we can go as far as the Senator suggests. I am not suggesting that I am interpreting him absolutely correctly in this. I may not be. I do not know that it is possible to have only one union representing all crafts and trades.
With regard to the criticism of the section whereby the Minister is empowered to remove the chairman at any time, I should like to point out that this was raised in the Dáil but was not pursued by amendment. As the Senator will agree, the task of chairman of An Chomhairle will be a rather delicate one and one in which he will require to use the utmost tact and retain the absolute confidence of both sides. Only by exercising such tact and exercising his functions with the highest degree of impartiality will he succeed. It may be that in some cases he could lean one way or the other, and he could do so constantly, and it might be difficult for any Minister to put his finger on any defects from which a chairman might suffer. As long as there will be a chairman capable of performing his functions properly and having the confidence of both sides, it is better that he should be retained and it is more than likely that he will be. If the stage is reached at which, for some intangible reason, he has lost the confidence of one side or the other, or both sides, it is obvious that he should be removed from office, but it will not always be very easy to put a finger on the reasons why he should be so removed. I repeat that as long as the chairman acts with tact and discretion and commands the confidence of both sides, there is no force in the suggestion that his security of tenure might in any way be jeopardised.
The Senator also commented on the fact that members representing educational interests did not seem to have much power on the Comhairle. The history of any power being taken from them is this. As the Bill was originally drafted, it provided for 11 members of An Chomhairle—four members representing employers, four representing the workers' interests and three representing educational interests. As a result of the setting up of this committee, and as a result of their examination of this provision, agreement could be got only on this basis: that the strength of the Comhairle be increased to 13, that each of the employers' and workers' interests would have a representation of five and that so far as there were educational interests represented, they would not have voting powers, except, of course, in stated cases when perhaps one of the educational interests might be acting as a chairman of An Chomhairle, or a committee, when a casting vote would have to be taken into account.
Senators complained about the provisions of Section 58 (1) (b) pursuant to which a person conducting a trade, an employer, will be required to answer certain questions put by an authorised officer. He will naturally not be required to touch upon matters of such a nature as would perhaps disclose the manner of conducting his business. The questions he will be asked must relate to rules of apprenticeship and the conduct of apprenticeship by him where he has apprentices in his employment who operate under the rules which are being drawn up and which will have statutory effect. These are the only questions he will be required to answer and it is only reasonable that when he undertakes the obligation of training apprentices pursuant to statutory rules, he should subject himself to answering questions pertaining to his fulfilment of those rules. He will not be asked any questions outside that scope.
In that connection, I might answer the point put by Senator Cole. He suggested that in certain circumstances, while perhaps the Comhairle had certain powers to ensure that people did not interfere with the carrying out of a proper scheme of apprenticeship, there may not be any provision preventing the employee or a fellow employee of the apprentice interfering with such a course of apprenticeship. Section 51 contains powers under which the Comhairle have certain rights to require the person not to do any act or thing either to prevent or obstruct an employer from complying with the rules. I suggest that the use of the word "obstructing" might cover the point Senator Cole had in mind.
Nevertheless, it would be a difficult thing to prove non-co-operation or something going a little further than non-co-operation and indeed it would be difficult to imagine how such a situation could be provided for in legislation, but at least there is here a section which the Comhairle can use to ensure that the scheme of apprenticeship will not be obstructed by anybody, whether an employer or an employee of the employer who conducts that apprenticeship scheme.
Again referring to Section 51, I may say to Senator Murphy—unfortunately he is not here—that he objects to the provisions of this section in so far as it might restrict the trade union from declaring a strike. As I said in introducing the Bill, it does not seek to control wages or hours of work. It simply sets up An Cheard Chomhairle which will have the right to designate a trade. It will not do so as long as it is satisfied that the trade is carrying out a proper scheme of apprenticeship or if it is not already doing so, if, following some submissions from the Comhairle, it amends its rules to conform to what An Chomhairle thinks is a proper scheme of apprenticeship. If it does not do so, An Chomhairle may then designate that trade or may themselves or by some of their committees have rules drawn up. These rules will have to be agreed in advance at the level of An Chomhairle or one of its committees which will be representative of employers and employees, with an independent chairman.
Therefore, the rules will largely be agreed rules and will become statutory rules. I think it would be a very wrong principle for us to adopt if we were to permit any organisation to have the right, without fear of sanction, to effect a breach of these statutory rules. The rules are for the purpose of ensuring adequate apprenticeship training and under them the young apprentices will be required to serve certain hours on the workshop floor and perhaps—almost certainly— spend certain hours at a technical school for the purpose of equipping themselves and establishing firmly for themselves a place in life. It would be very wrong for any organisation, trade union or otherwise, to interfere with the rights of any young boy to acquire, or be given the means to acquire, a craft or skill that would ensure him the means of earning a livelihood later on.
If, pursuant to a strike, a young boy required to spend certain time on the workshop floor was required by his trade union not to attend school and the period during which the strike was enforced was protracted, I think it would be obviously unjust to any boy that his time should be wasted in that fashion.
It is not intended that this Bill should affect wages or hours of work. These will continue to be matters for negotiation between employers and employees, or between employers and trade unions, but it would be very wrong for us to legislate any organisation out of its obligations under statutory rules that will be agreed as proper rules by the committee or An Chomhairle for the proper conduct of an apprenticeship scheme.
Senator Murphy said that Deputy Norton suggested in the Dail that I might reconvene the joint committee to reconsider this aspect of the Bill. I am satisfied that it was fully considered originally by the joint committee and further that no purpose would be served by reconvening the committee. I think I need go no further but I am sure that the vast majority of the Seanad will agree that the rules should not be capable of being easily upset by the act of any body or organisation with the detrimental effect that would have for a particular apprentice.
The Bill is, in so far as it is possible, an agreed measure, agreed between employers and employees. It facilitates the setting up of these committees to make these rules which will be statutory rules for the sole purpose of the proper conduct of apprenticeship. So far as any other criticisms or suggestions made by Senators are concerned, I suggest that these might be more adequately and properly discussed on Committee Stage.
