During the Second Stage debate on the Bill I raised the point about the advisability of having a further extension of the members of the Labour Court beyond what is in section 2 so that in time we might develop a situation in which more sections of the court would be available and, indeed, that at times of peak demand on the services of the Labour Court, delays might be reduced. In his reply to the debate, the Minister indicated that he felt this was not necessary at the moment, that it was something which would be kept in mind.
I was glad to hear from the Minister that he is prepared, if it appears to him that such a development becomes necessary, to come back—if he is the appropriate person to do so—to seek amending legislation. However, I was somewhat disturbed at what the Minister said in respect to the question of delays in relation to disputes. He commented that each industrial dispute has its own shape and that an early proposal for settlement could often be premature and that the situation must develop for a time before a settlement can be reached.
Though this is true of some industrial disputes, I do not think it should be a consideration which should govern the size of the Labour Court or the number of divisions of the Labour Court which should be made available, because though what the Minister said may be true of some disputes, equally there are disputes of which it is not true. The important thing in this respect is that industrial peace is of such vital importance, not only from the economic but the social viewpoint as well, that we should not get ourselves into the position that the settlement of disputes, the handling of outstanding disputes by the full Labour Court, should at any time be restricted.
We have a situation here resembling that of the ESB in planning the investment in plant for the electricity supply of the country: it is necessary for the ESB to invest in plant which will be used not only in peak time—it is necessary for them to have a certain standby beyond what will be used day in day out. Indeed, even in the coldest day of the year in mid-winter, they do not year by year reach the actual limit of their supply.
In somewhat the same way, in regard to the provision of divisions of the Labour Court, which it has been suggested might become specialised divisions in regard to particular types of occupations or regions of the country, it might become necessary to have these available in ample numbers to provide for peak demand, so that if peak demand comes at a critical time in our industrial relations, divisions of the Labour Court will be available for the immediate hearing of a case. I accept that the Minister's mind is open on this point but I wish to press the point that the problem of the settlement of disputes is so important that we should be prepared, as it were, to build into the Labour Court what might appear to be excess capacity.
I am not suggesting, in fact, that this is an essential point. Indeed, from the point of view of industrial peace, I do not think the work of the court itself, or its divisions, is nearly as essential as the work of the industrial officers in the sphere of the prevention and the early handling of disputes. In this regard, of course, the court is free under the Bill to expand to meet the demands made on it. It is in this sphere that we will have the main crunch in doing this particular job. Behind this there is the question of the Labour Court and its action. We hope that in the years to come the court will fulfil a wider and wider function as a court as such. So I think there would be no harm at all in, as it were, some excess capacity being built into it.