Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 1958

Vol. 171 No. 4

Apprenticeship Bill, 1958—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Larkin

When the debate was adjourned, I was indicating that, for a number of reasons, it was felt that the interests of apprentices, employers and trade unions and the interests of the country at large could be better served if this problem of apprentices were tackled on the lines the Minister himself indicated as the correct approach in a letter to the trade union movement about November, 1952. I understood he indicated that all parties agreed that some form of overhaul was necessary and that in his view, that overhaul, as well as improvement in the existing machinery, could best be dealt with on a basis of voluntary co-operation rather than by mandatory legislation. As I mentioned before— and I do not want to unduly stress the point—it appears the Minister has now departed from the point of view stated by him and the point of view with which every responsible person in the country would agree. When you come to the problem of training apprentices for skilled trades and for crafts, what is necessary above all is that the understanding, voluntary co-operation and assistance of the workers already in the trades will be forthcoming, co-operation which I believe cannot be obtained by any form of mandatory legislation.

On Section 48, the Minister referred to the obstruction of employers in carrying out the directions of the apprenticeship committee or the council. On that point alone, surely the Minister and every Deputy realise that if, in the employment of any employer, there are one or two craft workers of a certain craft and one apprentice, the apprentice cannot obtain adequate training in his trade, except with the voluntary and wholehearted co-operation of the craftsman. There is no means known to man that can compel a skilled craftsman to train, guide and advise the lad whom he is supposed to train in the skills of his trade, if he does not feel like doing it, and no Order of a Minister or of any committee will have any effect. If a case arises where such a skilled craftsman does not give wholehearted support, will there be recourse to inflicting penalties under the penal clauses?

To come back again to what is fundamental here, in relation to the council, there is provision, first of all, for the appointment of a chairman by the Minister. You will note that Section 10 provides that the chairman shall be described as a director. With all due respect, I think that is a mistaken approach if one hopes to get co-operation from a representative group of trade unions and from employers. We find that the representation will be four persons whom the Minister considers to be representative of employers, four persons whom the Minister considers representative of workers, and three others who will be selected on the basis of being representative of some educational body or other and who will be appointed in consultation with the Minister for Education. Therefore, you have four employers, four workers—if we accept for the moment that they are properly representatives —three representatives from an educational authority of some kind, and the chairman.

The present bodies looking after apprenticeship and other matters between employers and workers operate on the basis of equal numbers from each side. In the case of the joint labour committee set up under the Industrial Relations Act, there is provision for a chariman appointed by the Minister and independent members. The employers and workers are equal in number, but no decision of that body is entirely binding on the workers. They only fix minimum standards, minimum rates of wages, minimum hours of work, minimum overtime rates in the industry for which the joint labour committee operates, and there is nothing to prevent the organised workers in the industry seeking, as they do, and obtaining, as they do in many cases, better rates of wages, better hours of work and better conditions of employment than those set down in those Schedules.

This council, or comhairle, as it is described here, will be given an almost overriding authority and being set up in that way, it will appear to the representatives of the skilled workers or craft workers to be a council in which the dice is loaded against them the whole time.

The Minister mentioned the fear of the trade unions that opening wide the gates to allow a higher proportion of apprentices into various trades would be looked upon with suspicion because it would be regarded as an effort by certain unscrupulous employers to endeavour to carry on their own section of the industry with cheap labour. I agree with the Minister that that suspicion would be there and that suspicion would be strengthened in the light of this Bill and of Sections 10 and 11.

In Sections 25 and 26, it is proposed that there be educational and age qualifications. We are all agreed that it is essential to increase the general educational standards of our people. However, we do not appear to be going about it the right way. Here we have a proposal to make an educational standard for skilled tradesmen, while many hundreds of skilled tradesmen down the years have demonstrated that although they might be lacking to some degree in formal education, their ability to carry out their work expertly in their own trade has not in any way suffered. The fact that a lad's formal educational standard may not be very high does not necessarily mean that he is not a first-class mason or carpenter, a first-class butcher or tradesman.

It must be remembered that these qualifications will be decided, not by the mutual consent of representatives of the employers of industries and the direct representatives of the workers concerned, but by a committee mainly comprised of three categories—those who, in the Minister's view, represent the employers; those who, in the Minister's view, represent the workers; and somebody brought in from the educational field.

In Section 35, there is a suggestion that an apprenticeship committee might be empowered to determine the number of apprentices to be permitted in any particular area. The present basis of operation, which is accepted generally by responsibly employers, is that the ratio of apprentices shall be such as to ensure reasonably that the apprentices who devote their time to the particular trade will have some hope of employment at that trade. We know that in recent years, of course, that position has gone completely out of balance, because of the reduction in employment in the building industry. We know there is little definite hope amongst those who served their time in that industry that they will be able to work as skilled craftsmen in their own country.

I should like to ask the Minister whether in farming this Bill consideration was given to the question of training apprentices for work outside the country. If we are to depart from the recognised voluntary efforts, we would like to know whether the Minister has in mind any question of endeavouring to see that more lads are apprenticed in industry than can be absorbed in a reasonable time in our own country.

I notice that in Sections 38 and 39 the Minister has set out various principles governing the examination of persons undergoing an apprenticeship period. In sub-section (2) of Section 38, the Bill says:

"The conditions governing entry for examinations under this section shall be determined by the apprenticeship committee concerned after consultation with the Minister for education."

It goes on in the next section to set out the conditions in which certificates will be issued to those who qualify for the trade by passing two examinations. What the trade unions are concerned with is whether the apprentices will get employment, not certificates; and it is because of their overriding concern with this phase of the matter that they have gone on record, I understand, and informed the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that as far as their constituent bodies are concerned, they feel that this Bill should not be passed.

If the Minister sincerely desires that any difficulties or problems in connection with the training of young workers be removed and if he sincerely desires the active co-operation of the trade unions, both in the Irish Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions, surely even at this stage he should pay them the compliment of accepting that they have a primary interest in the matter and agree to defer consideration of this Bill until after he has had discussions with representatives of those bodies?

The Minister, of course, can put the gun to the heads of the members of the House. There is no doubt about it he has got a majority and he can carry the Second Stage and the subsequent stages just as he will. He can put it on the Statute Book but I feel if it goes on the Statute Book, either in its present form or as amended on the Committee Stage, and is not a Bill that is welcomed by both sides of industry, it will be of no positive value in dealing with the problems outlined by the Minister. While sections of the Bill propose that in certain cases penalties of £2, £10 or £20 can be enforced, nobody can enforce co-operation.

I think the Minister was sincere in 1952 when he said that he felt that the problem could best be dealt with by the parties concerned. I have no doubt that in the light of the developments within the trade union movement since 1952, and particularly in the light of developments in the last 12 to 18 months, the Minister will be doing a good day's work if he decides not to exercise the powers he has in persisting in this legislation.

Mr. Dillon

It is pretty generally agreed that an Apprenticeship Bill is a desirable thing. I suggest to the Minister that if we are to get an Apprenticeship Bill to work, it is highly desirable that it should be an agreed Bill and the more closely we can approximate to that desirable end the more likely are the Minister's efforts to be attended with success. It is pretty generally agreed that, for special reasons, into which it is now unnecessary to go, to get adequate consultation with the trade union movement on this question of apprenticeship regulation was extremely difficult up to 12 to 18 months ago, but that there is a development now by which the Minister would have available to him a body representative of the whole trade union movement by which he would have profitable discussions on the problems here involved.

In the light of that, fact, he would be very much better advised to have these discussions before the next stage of this Bill comes before the House. I am fully aware of the fact that in his opening statement the Minister said that he was anxious for a protracted period to elapse before the next stage, during which period he would be happy to hear representations from any quarter which had an interest in the matters dealt with in this Bill, and with the firm intention of giving the most sympathetic consideration to any such representations. He would probably get a very much more constructive reaction if, instead of asking the House to accept this Bill as at present framed, he would conduct these consultations before the Second Stage is completed and it is not impossible that he might be obliged to come back and say: "I have done my very best to get a substantial measure of agreement. I cannot get it and in the absence of that I am now offering the House the best solution I can work out from the consultations that have taken place." The House would view that situation much more sympathetically than the situation in which the Minister dumps a Bill upon us.

Mr. S. Lemass

Two years' notice was given.

Mr. Dillon

The Bill was not presented until the 10th of October.

Mr. S. Lemass

Two years ago it was announced——

Mr. Dillon

The first time I saw this Bill was a fortnight ago.

Mr. S. Lemass

——that there was going to be such a Bill.

Mr. Dillon

This Bill was presented a fortnight ago. I am not very fretful one way or the other about the Bill but I believe that, if this problem is to be dealt with effectively, you do require in substance an agreed measure which everybody concerned is prepared to work. It is not the kind of Bill you can enforce if you beget a situation in which the important parties to it simply stick their heels in the ground and refuse to play. You cannot make a man teach an apprentice if he does not want to. What you want is to encourage the craftsman, or the employer, to provide agreed facilities for the apprentice so that you will have competent apprentices in fair numbers.

I know that many of us who do not belong to craft unions feel that craft unions are unduly conservative in the matter of restricting entry to their trade. That creates very serious problems for consumers who after all are a party to all these proceedings. I am obliged to recall, when sometimes I am stirred to irritation by the attitude adopted by certain craft unions, that there are such organisations as the Pharmaceutical Chemists' Association, the Incorporated Law Society, the veterinary profession, and even the Bar Council, and that they go about their restrictive practices quite as much as the craft unions but not in so crude a manner as the craft unions. They take quite good care that, in so far as they are able to do so, there will not be too many chemist shops opened and that there will be some restrictions on those entering solicitors', veterinary and other professions, so that all the restrictive activities are not on the side of the trade unions.

None of us is a saint in this matter but if there are difficulties, and I think there may be, in regard to this whole problem of apprenticeship I am certain they cannot be overcome without common discussion on all sides. I sympathise somewhat with the Minister's impatience in trying to bring this matter to a head. I often had the same impatience in other matters when I was Minister for Agriculture, but I believe that in the long run, particularly about a matter which is not excruciatingly urgent, it is worth while having preliminary discussions with interested parties so that they will not feel that they are having their heads knocked together. Being the kind of people we are, we do not like having our heads knocked together and, in the special circumstances attaching to this Bill, to evoke that reaction is to make the effective operation of this Bill terribly difficult. There is another reason why preliminary consultation is requisite, quite apart from the susceptibility of the trade unions. I know that Deputy Norton possibly feels that if a good Apprenticeship Bill is to come before the House it should be made as widely applicable as possible.

I want to put another view to the Minister. I think we should be careful in delegating to the apprenticeship board the arenas in which they are to function. I think, for instance, that an apprenticeship board eminently suited to deal with crafts and industrial relations of that character might go very far wrong in an effort to deal with the general apprenticeship question in the retail distributive trade in rural Ireland. A competent apprenticeship board under this Bill—or Act, if it becomes an Act—which was familiar with conditions obtaining in Dublin, Cork and Limerick might make regulations eminently suitable for such conditions and which would create chaos in the small towns of rural Ireland. When I recall the numbers of boys who move from farm homes into trade and industry through the medium of apprenticeship to a local trader it appeals me to think what might happen if an inappropriately rigid code of apprenticeship rules were set up which made it virtually impossible for the average small business man in rural Ireland to take apprentices at all.

Those of us who are familiar with conditions in rural Ireland know of our own personal knowledge men who entered into a very elemental kind of apprenticeship agreement with traders in rural Ireland but who are to-day in a very large way of business which they would never have secured if they had not started with the rudimentary agreement which obtains up and down the country.

I did not infer from the Minister's reply, when I questioned him as to whether it was possible for this Bill to be operated for the retail distributive trade what Deputy Norton perceived —that there was a profound reluctance on the part of the Minister to contemplate that. I gathered that it was a matter of complete indifference to him, that the board would decide that themselves. I do not think he is right in that. If he had prior consultation with a body like R.G.D.A.T.A. which is familiar with the rural distributive trade rather than the large city emporia, they would bring to his attention certain considerations in that respect that might induce him to say that, certainly at this stage, the Oireachtas would decide on the merits that conditions of apprenticeship in the rural distributive trade would not be subject to regulation by the apprenticeship board envisaged under this Bill.

I have no doubt that the period of waiting which the Minister envisages between the Second Stage and the Committee Stage may prove adequate for representations of that kind to be made, considered and possibly accepted, in regard to that specific problem, but I think the Labour Deputies are right in saying that an attempt to short-circuit consultation with the trade union movement may beget so much ill-feeling that the whole Bill will be put in jeopardy.

It is probably a good thing to have a Bill drafted along the general lines of this Bill for, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, it is drafted on the lines of the report made by the Commission on Juvenile Employment, but I think it is an antediluvian approach to these problems to proceed as though you did not think the trade union movement existed. That may have been appropriate to 1857 or 1858 but it is not appropriate to 1957 or 1958.

I believe there is no country in the world functioning under our kind of institutions in which it is thought expedient to make that approach at this time. Any of us who have any experience of trade or industry will say to the Minister what he himself probably already knows, that the best way to create bad labour relations is to ignore the trade unions. On the whole we have here a trade union movement which is rationally led and, if one deals with it openly and frankly, in the vast majority of cases one can deal with it satisfactorily and reasonably expeditiously.

It is true, and I have said it before, that where there is a great problem of 30 or 40 unions representing the employees of one firm such as C.I.E., the difficulty of dealing with labour relations is infinitely complicated. I think we all know that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce and his predecessor had the problem in connection with this business that there was more than one body which professed to speak for the trade unions movement here. I think I am right in saying that within the last 12 months developments have taken place which would give the Minister reasonable ground for hope that he could now have discussions with one body which could express the trade union view to him on this whole apprenticeship problem.

If he takes my advice he will agree to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill until such time as those consultations take place. If he accepts that advice then I invite him to look into the question I have raised of whether apprenticeship in the rural distributive trade should be made subject to general regulations of the kind envisaged under this Bill. But I do not think the same urgency applies to that representation as applies to the desirability to consult the trade union movement before the House is asked to pass the Second Stage of this Bill.

If the Minister does not accept my advice the case will be made, and many people will believe it, that the Minister is holding a pistol at their heads. If the Minister has prior consultation, then those who make that case afterwards cannot expect any reasonable person to accept their point of view. As things are at present I think the Minister is giving the trade unions ground for legitimate apprehension. That is, I think, a bad point of departure from which to embark upon this Bill. I would ask the Minister for the purpose of securing successful administration of this legislation to make a concession which, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, he need not make. He has a majority and he can use it, but there never was a time when a person should be more scrupulous in using a majority than the time when he has the majority.

Mr. Kyne

Nobody will deny that the object of this Bill is desirable. Many industries, particularly those in rural areas where labour is not organised, are deplorably in need of rules and regulations governing the admission and the careers of youths going into the various services in this country covered by industrial relations. Nobody will deny that there is a good deal of exploitation of juvenile labour and the apprenticeship system at the moment. All of us would welcome a Bill to remedy the grievances which exist, but it is to the way in which that object is achieved and the method adopted that we on the Labour Benches object. Deputy Dillon struck the really important point governing labour relations in relations to this Bill: one can make all the rules and regulations one likes, but, in the last analysis, it is the craftsmen who will decide whether or not they will train apprentices. Without the goodwill of those who have the trade, no rules or regulations made by this House, or by any other body, can be effective.

I appeal to the Minister to postpone this Bill until such time as he has had an opportunity of discussing it with the Irish Trade Union Congress and the C.I.U. I am aware that the Minister has said that he will consider their views and perhaps incorporate some of them through the medium of amendment on the Committee Stage. But the very principle of this Bill is objectionable to the trade unions because they see the scales weighted against them. If the Bill is forced through and that objection persists, nothing but chaos will ensue.

I make this appeal in all sincerity. I am trying to give the Minister the views of the combined trade unions. It is significant that there are certain exempted groups, such as clerical workers and others. Deputy Dillon pointed out that there are other organisations which take in apprentices, such as solicitors. Would the Minister consider the formation of any committee without consulting these groups? Would he lay down rules and regulations without meeting the people concerned and getting their agreement? In the interests of the trade unions and the employers, and ultimately in the interests of the country as a whole, would the Minister accept the advice we offer and postpone the Bill to some later date?

Mr. Rooney

It is obvious from a study of this Bill that the Minister decided to draft a Bill covering the problems that might arise without consulting the trade unions or the employers. He decided that the issues involved should be fought out here rather than through the medium of discussion and consultation with the interested parties.

One significant feature of this Bill is the power the Minister takes unto himself in appointing members to the board. According to the Bill, the board will consist of 11 members under a State-appointed chairman. The other ten members will act in a voluntary capacity. Four will be representatives of the employers, four representative of the workers and three representative of educational interests. The significant phrase is that the Minister will appoint those whom he considers to be representative. It is he who will appoint the members. He disregards the fact that the employers' organisations may consider other people to be more representative, from their point of view.

The Minister will appoint four persons whom he considers to be representative of the workers' interests. He does not say that he will appoint such persons as the trade unions consider to be representative of their interests. Three will be appointed to represent educational interests. No indication is given as to whether or not they will be professors, professors who have never known what apprenticeship to a particular trade connotes and who have no understanding of the problems confronting young people seeking apprenticeship.

This Bill is a shock. It is a complete departure from a system which has operated reasonably well. The last Apprenticeship Act was passed in 1931. It is agreed that there is necessity now for certain improvements from the point of view of regulations and methods, but it is obvious from a study of this Bill that the Minister decided to have the problem threshed out here without any consultation with, or consideration for, the interests involved.

In order to get a satisfactory Bill, it is essential that the Minister should now postpone this measure until such time as he has an opportunity of consulting with the main interests involved, namely, the trade unions and the employers. He should have consulted those bodies before introducing this measure. He has ignored those vitally concerned and he has decided apparently to put through this Bill with the help of the majority on the Government Benches. We know there is a substantial measure of unity in the trade union movement now. The Minister mentioned that this Bill was contemplated two years ago. The Minister knows quite well that the position of the trade union movement has changed very considerably in those two years and he has a much better opportunity now of consulting with the trade unions than he might have had two years ago.

Every parent knows the difficulty confronting children who wish to take up a trade at the present time through the machinery mainly of the vocational schools. At present the busiest persons working in the interests of young people who have completed vocational school courses are the vocational teachers who have completed the training and education of those young people. A very difficult part of the work of vocational teachers is searching amongst firms and employers for apprenticeships for their students. It is desirable that there should be, with the agreement of the various interests concerned, a new scheme whereby recruitment of apprentices could be made easier than it is at present. Under this Bill it is proposed to establish apprenticeship districts and apprenticeship committees. That shows appreciation of the difficulties experienced by vocational teachers in placing their pupils.

The Bill appears to me to be designed for a highly organised industrial economy and not for the type of economy which we have where we are trying to put industries on their feet and keep them there. In this country there is a large number of small businesses. The provisions of the Bill, in my opinion, would work effectively with regard to the recruitment of apprentices in large concerns but we must remember the very large number of businesses which would recruit a very limited number of apprentices in the normal way. In my opinion the Bill should be designed to meet that problem rather than, as I think this Bill is designed, for recruitment of apprentices in large numbers in large concerns.

I notice that it is proposed to omit from the provisions of this Bill certain classes of activities. For instance, it is intended that the Bill should not include agriculture, horticulture, the making of butter, cheese and other dairy products, or professional or clerical occupations. As Deputy Dillon mentioned, there is a number of professional and clerical occupations for which there is prolonged apprenticeship. There is no need for me to particularise. They are well known to the Minister and to the House. It is not proposed that this Bill should in any way affect those particular activities.

If I read it properly, Section 34 interferes to a great extent with individual freedom. Section 34 says:

"A person who carries on a designated trade in an apprenticeship district for the purpose of the trade shall not take into his employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district any person other than a person who is registered in the register of candidates kept, under Section 40 of this Act, by the apprenticeship committee for the trade and the district."

In other words, it is proposed that unless an apprentice is duly registered and offered by the proposed new board, he shall not be permitted to become an apprentice in any trade. That, in my opinion, is an interference with the liberty of the individual and would force the person concerned, whether he likes it or not, to go through the board for presentation to a firm as an apprentice rather than being free to be accepted as an apprentice in the normal way by any business or firm that might wish to recruit him. There is a number of such provisions in the Bill that are contrary to the ordinary type of freedom that one would expect for young people wishing to follow the various activities that involve apprenticeship.

I would conclude by asking the Minister if he would consider the suggestion made to him already, that is, to adjourn discussion of this Bill. It is there now in black and white. Let him take the Bill to the employers' organisations and the trade union organisations and thresh it out with them in order that he could bring in a Bill that would be acceptable to the House and to all the interests concerned.

Mr. S. Lemass

I do not think that either Deputy Dillon or Deputy Rooney has grasped what all this discussion is about. As I understood the speech made here by Deputy Norton and the speech of Deputy Larkin, there is objection not so much to this Bill, but to any Bill. The issue being put to the House is not whether this Bill is good or bad but whether it is desirable that there should be any legislation to put right the unsatisfactory position that now exists regarding apprenticeship in many trades.

The first matter the Dáil has to decide therefore is whether it is desirable that we should do anything about this matter at all by way of legislation. There is objection to our legislating about it and it is only when the nature of that objection is understood that the House will be able to understand the other points that have been raised in the discussion.

Let me dispose straightaway of the suggestion that this Bill has been hastily decided upon or is being rushed through the Dáil for some reason. I foreshadowed in 1957 the intention to introduce legislation dealing with apprenticeship. In the course of my speech introducing the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, on 11th June last, I referred to the need for legislation to amend the existing Apprenticeship Act and I said —I am quoting from column 1534 of the Dáil Debates, No 11, Volume 168:—

"The proposals for new legislation which I foreshadowed last year are being developed and I should greatly welcome the views of employers, workers and of educational interests on that very important subject."

This Bill, which we are now discussing, got its First Reading in the House on 17th July last. In view of the fact that legislation was foreshadowed last year, that I invited all interested parties, in June of this year, to send me their observation on what they thought the Bill should contain, and in view of the fact that this Bill gots its First Reading four months ago, is it not reasonable to assume that everybody in this country who is interested in the subject of apprenticeship—and I am prepared to assume that the members of the Labour Party are so interested, that the trade union leaders who are members of the committees of the congresses are so interested — at least knew that there was going to be legislation, dealing with apprenticeship, debated in this House?

The matter has been the subject of discussion in various parts of the country, and reports have appeared in the Press of lectures given, and of debates organised on the form of legislation that should be enacted. Is it not, therefore ridiculous to suggest that this Bill is being rushed in any way, that this question is being hastily thrust on the notice of the Dáil? It was not until yesterday, however, that I received from the two trade union congresses communications indicating to me that they were objecting to any legislation on this subject. In the case of the Congress of Irish Unions the objection was on the grounds that they thought this legislation was an unwarranted interference with the rights of the trade unions and, in the case of the Trade Union Congress, on the grounds that they thought this matter should be dealt with in another way than by legislation.

Let me deal now with this suggestion that there has been some inconsistency in my attitude and that I am taking a different line from what I took in 1952. 1952 is six years ago and if I thought, then, as many other people thought, that this question of defective arrangements for apprenticeship was worth attention, surely the time which has elapsed since then with nothing accomplished would justify us in considering a change in the attitude we adopted then. In 1952, I initiated discussions with the two trade union congresses and the Federated Union of Employers with a view to the formulation of agreed measures for the improvement of apprenticeship schemes. There were discussions on that matter, from which it emerged that there was general agreement on the need for the improvement of the existing apprenticeship arrangements, and the view was generally held that, if possible, these improvements should be effected through voluntary co-operation between the parties directly concerned, rather than by way of legislation.

I accepted that view in 1952 and I am still of that view. I am still strongly of opinion that if we could get this matter put right by voluntary action between the parties concerned, legislation could be avoided, but I am not prepared to accept the view that we should do nothing if voluntary action is not going to be taken.

On 4th November, 1952, I sent to these congresses and organisations the communication to which Deputy Norton referred, and from which he quoted; but he left out from his quotation the part that, from my point of view, was most important. In that letter, having dealt with the matter in the manner in which Deputy Norton indicated I went on to say:

"As already emphasised the Minister would be only too anxious to leave to the organisations of workers and employers the establishment of a satisfactory system for regulating apprentices, but the Minister must also emphasise that he cannot remain indifferent to the outcome of any dicussions on the lines proposed. For this reason, and in order to help with the business of the proposed meeting, he has drawn up draft headings of what appear to be to him the essential foundations of any apprenticeship scheme. In drawing up these headings the Minister has been influenced by the recommendations of the Commission of Youth Employment whose statement of general principles on this subject of apprenticeship he accepts. I am to inquire whether these headings appear to you to provide an adequate and satisfactory basis for the purpose of the proposed discussion."

The letter then went on to suggest a conference to discuss the matter.

For reasons, which Deputy Norton explained, arising out of internal problems in the trade union movement at the time, the Congress of Irish Unions refused to attend the conference, and attempts made to have separate discussions with the two trade union congresses, in conjunction with the Federated Union of Employers, failed. There the matter stood and it certainly appeared to me that we were deadlocked, that there was no means by which we could proceed to get action on this matter in the way everybody accepted was most desirable, by voluntary co-operation between the parties.

In the following year, in May, 1953, I decided that the headings of a Bill should be prepared, on the general lines of the Bill now before the Dáil, and that the organisations should be given the opportunity of commenting upon these draft heads before the question of proposing legislation was brought to the Government. There the matter ended, as far as I was concerned at that time.

May I say that I have very considerable sympathy with Deputy Norton in his task here this afternoon. He has been arguing to a brief supplied to him by the Trade Union Congresses, a brief in which I know he does not personally believe. Indeed, Deputy Norton, who was my successor as Minister for Industry and Commerce, prepared and circulated to these organisations the draft headings of a Bill which he asked them to consider, and which he made clear were sent to them only for consideration, and on which he invited their views.

The draft headings of this Bill which he circulated, and which was suggested to be the type of legislation he thought he might introduce, provided for the establishment of a central committee of the kind I am proposing, with a slightly different composition, with powers to set up trade apprenticeship committees which in turn would have all the powers I am proposing to give them in this Bill. For a very long time, the effect of that action of his was nil. Deputy Norton sent these draft headings to the organisations concerned in March, 1956, but nothing significant happened as a result until December of that year.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister at this stage do me the favour of reading the heading on that document?

Mr. S. Lemass

"Proposals for a Bill to Amend the Law Relating to Apprenticship."

Mr. Norton

Was there an advice to say it was to form the basis of consideration?

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Norton

And that they did not necessarily represent the Minister's proposals?

Mr. S. Lemass

That is quite true. I made it quite clear that these headings were for a basis of discussion.

Mr. Norton

These were general headings and were not the Minister's. We gave them to the congresses to cut their teeth on.

Mr. S. Lemass

The net result of it all was that the Trade Union Congresses signified, in December, 1956, that they were opposed to any proposals which envisaged an overall apprenticeship scheme based on legislation. They did not, however, put forward any alternative proposal for consideration and nothing further was heard about the matter from them until the present Bill was circulated. As soon as copies of this Bill came from the printers it was circulated to the congresses and to other interested organisations. They were all informed of the intention to provide for a fairly long period—between the second Reading and the Committee Stages— to give them ample opportunity to consider its provisions and an assurance that any suggestions or proposals regarding the Bill which they would put forward would be fully considered. There is no foundation for the suggestion that I am reluctant to discuss this matter with the trade unions. On the contrary, the trade unions never have any difficulty in making contact with me. There was no request from them to discuss this matter with me. The perturbing feature about this business is that notwithstanding the invitation I issued here in public last June, notwithstanding the knowledge that this matter has been under consideration for years, notwithstanding the general appreciation amongst the workers of the country that there is a situation here that requires attention, no such request for action has come to me from anybody.

I believe it would be far better if we could get this situation dealt with in a satisfactory way by what is called voluntary action but voluntary action appears to me, in this context, to be synonymous with doing nothing. I am not prepared to agree that in this matter we should do nothing. Deputy MacCarthy in his speech to-day expressed the view that it would be a dereliction of our duty if we failed now to deal with the matter which we accepted was urgent six years ago merely because of the difficulties of doing it or because of the problems which may be created for some people by our proposals.

This is a matter which has been neglected for years, and, with everybody else, I am prepared to accept full responsibility for the neglect. Twenty years ago it was obvious that we needed a revision of our apprenticeship legislation because the 1931 Act was a failure and it was clear that the conditions of apprenticeship in many trades were unfair to the country and to the young workers of the country who were seeking the opportunity of acquiring skills, under proper supervision, in conditions which would give them a reasonable chance of getting those skills, and the certificate that went with it at the end of their course of training, which would give them also the opportunities of employment which their skills would open up for them.

I made it clear in my introductory speech that I am not seeking to imply that the conditions of apprenticeship are unsatisfactory in every trade. We know there are some trades which have satisfactory arrangements. Four trades set up apprenticeship committees which functioned under the 1931 Act. Other trades have voluntary schemes outside that Act which appear to be quite satisfactory. Some of them certainly could be made completely satisfactory with minor amendments. But, behind all these, there is a body of trades in respect of which apprenticeship arrangements are completely haphazard and, indeed, some where there appears to be a complete absence of supervision over the training of apprentices, and of proper co-ordination between work in the factory and the courses in the technical schools, with no assurance that apprentices are not been exploited or that the skills they set out to learn will in fact be imparted to them within the time they anticipated.

We have been trying to remedy that situation now over all that period by this process of voluntary action which is suggested. We failed. We got nowhere. Nothing happened. No important change has taken place. I have become completely satisfied that we will get nowhere without legislation; that, unless it is clear that something will be done by an effective authority the parties that should be moving in this matter will not begin to interest themselves.

I am quite satisfied also in my mind that whatever motives may be operating in the executive committees of the trade union congresses, in seeking to put this position right we will have the support of 99 per cent. of the organised trade union workers of the country. Indeed, in my experience, it is far more frequently that one hears of the need for action in this field stressed from workers organised in trade unions than from people outside the movement. If we can get action taken by agreement, of course we will welcome it. That is what we have been trying to do for years. But, as action has not followed, we now have to push a little ahead. But still the effort must be to secure agreement — agreement not merely on the general form of the Organisation that is to be set up to supervise apprenticeship but right down the line.

Deputies spoke as if it was contemplated that coercive action would be taken everywhere. That is not the manner in which I contemplate that the comhairle to be set up under this Bill would function. They would seek to get the results they were aiming at by agreement. The powers to act in relation to any trade — to set up a committee for the trade or to act itself as committee for the trade — would only be used in the last resort.

Deputy Dillon spoke about the conservatism of some of the craft unions. We have to recognise its existence. We have to recognise that some of these unions are extremely conservative. They are suspicious of change in any form and are particularly suspicious of change precipitated by means of legislation. I do not know that anybody would seriously contend that the organisation of the Irish trade union movement is particularly efficient — I mean, is particularly adapted to the fulfilment of the process of getting agreement on matters of this kind by unanimous consent.

We all know that unanimity in such a matter is extremely improbable. Does that mean that if we cannot get unanimous agreement amongst all the unions likely to be affected in this matter, we are to do nothing; that none of the difficulties attending the organisation of apprenticeship in this country are to be dealt with; that the haphazard conditions prevailing in many trades are to be allowed to continue; that the defect that represents in the whole industrial organisation in the country is not to be remedied? I do not think that point of view will be seriously put forward by anybody. I regard the introduction of a proper system of apprenticeship and proper methods of training young workers in the old skills and in the new skills that modern industry requires as an integral part of the whole programme of national development.

I do not think we could contemplate a situation being allowed to develop in which we would be in effect depriving these young workers of the opportunity of acquiring these skills. I do not think that we should fail to do what is our obvious duty in this matter merely because there are some internal problems in the trade union movement as a whole or because some individual unions have, for reasons of their own, objections to a measure of this kind.

So far as the Bill is concerned, there is not a detail in it that is not open to amendment. I heard Deputy Norton talking about provision regarding the nomination of trade union representatives by the Minister. I invite him to draft the amendment which would, in fact, ensure that the trade union members on An Cheard Chomhairle would be nominated direct by the appropriate trade union organisation.

Mr. Norton

The Bill is there and there is no reason why the Minister should not advise the two congresses and the Federated Union of Employers about meeting next week and saying: "Get me an agreed scheme within six months."

Mr. S. Lemass

No. I asked them that six years ago.

Mr. Norton

And put through the recommendations?

Mr. S. Lemass

That is futile and the Deputy knows it is futile. It is only a delaying gesture. Six years ago, not six months ago, I tried to get that.

Mr. Norton

There was a different atmosphere then to what is there now.

Mr. S. Lemass

I have no reason to believe that progress would follow. Let us not depart from common sense. We all know that the organisation of the trade union movement is not such as to make it possible for any body of men to come and say that all unions are unanimously agreed on detailed provisions like these. It could not and would not happen.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister would be in a powerfully strong position in six months time if he does what Deputy Norton says.

Mr. S. Lemass

I sent a copy of this Bill to the two Congresses on the 17th October and I invited them to let me have their views on it. They have no reason to believe that their views on the Bill will not get the most careful attention. Indeed, the whole anxiety on my part would be to meet their views so long as they were consistent with the general principles we aim to secure and one of these is that there should be some central body responsible for the development in this country of a proper system of apprenticeship. We have no such central body at the moment and the 1931 Act was a failure precisely because it did not provide for any central authority set up to get apprenticeship schemes organised and with power to supervise them. Secondly, there must be provision to ensure that, where necessary, the central body can itself take measures to ensure that apprenticeship arrangements are made. Undoubtedly, it should seek to get its results by voluntary co-operation and agreement amongst all parties concerned in any trade but they must ultimately, if they are to get agreement, have power to act where the withholding of agreement is in their view unreasonable.

Finally, I should like to have in such an organisation the means by which the State can come in to help the development of apprenticeship in a sound way by providing for these grants to employers who undertake the proper training of apprentices and the means by which the suitability of the training can be regularly tested. There must be some supervision over the training of apprentices. We have all heard about apprentices being taken into work and left cleaning the floors or handling tools to a worker during their period of apprenticeship. They come out at the end without having any real knowledge of the trade which they through they would get when they embarked upon their apprenticeship course. There must be a central organisation and some form of supervision. The central organisation must be responsible for getting arrangements organised voluntarily if at all possible with financial resources provided by the State to enable them to do the things contained in the Bill and with power for the setting up of apprenticeship committees where required for any trade — committees representative of the trade.

I have heard objections voiced in regard to bringing the vocational education authorities on to these committees. I cannot understand that. I cannot conceive of any apprenticeship scheme being worthwhile which does not provide for the closest link between the technical schools and the workshops. The capacity of a new entrant to a trade to learn and to acquire skill depends very largely upon a proper integration of the work in the workshop and the courses in the technical schools. It seems to me not merely sensible but essential that there should be brought into this organisation of apprenticeship and kept in a key position there the representatives of technical education. It is contemplated that they should be associated with these committees and that, under this organisation, there should be integration of training between the workshop and the schools.

If there is agreement that we should have legislation which will provide these essential things — they are all the headings set out in the Report on Youth Unemployment and Emigration then the details are open to any amendment that may be agreed upon between the parties. I would be prepared to leave the drafting of the Bill in detail to these organisations provided they accept these essential principles.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister go one step further and bring the employers and congresses together and say: "Here is my idea. Get me a scheme within that inside six months and make it work?" That, in the Minister's point of view, is a good line.

Mr. S. Lemass

May I remind the House again that the Congress of Irish Unions say that in their opinion the Bill constitutes an unwarrantable interference by the Government in the right of trade unions to negotiate with employers on the subject matters of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

The Labour Party ask that a period of six months be given.

Mr. S. Lemass

You will make no progress whatever in this matter unless it is quite clear that a Bill is coming on the Statute Book and that, while it can be amended, it will get through in some form or other. We have spent six years sitting on our hunkers doing nothing about this matter. As far as we are concerned we are not prepared to sit any longer. If the congresses accept that there is need for action and that that action should not be longer postponed, then we can get agreement. If these communications are intended to put this matter off for another six years, then as far as I am concerned, the Bill will get to the Statute Book in some form.

General Mulcahy

With regard to Deputy Norton's suggestion, how does this Bill contemplate that there will be a decision as to the educational foundation upon which apprenticeship will be built up?

Mr. S. Lemass

For each trade.

General Mulcahy

If the Minister is in touch with his colleague in the Department of Education he must know that the six years we are talking about in relation to this problem exist in regard to the other fundamentals of the educational policy of the country. A substantial amount of decision requires to be taken in the Department of Education with regard to that. I do not see the necessity for a postponement to reach the position suggested by Deputy Norton. Even if another six months had to be spent, the fundamental facts that have to be decided and reviewed from the educational side could not be looked at in any realistic kind of way at any earlier date.

Mr. S. Lemass

Even if the Bill was passed, the committees would not be in existence for 12 months.

General Mulcahy

I understand the suggestion is that the Bill, as it is, would be based on a joint body. With that as a basis and the Minister's invitation for changes and to suggest any possible amendments, the scheme could be gone ahead with on an agreed basis before the Committee Stage.

Mr. Norton

How long?

Mr. S. Lemass

A month.

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister not contemplate that inside that month Deputy Norton's suggestion could be carried out?

Mr. S. Lemass

I do. That is already in progress. The organisations have had this Bill for three weeks already and they have been asked to submit their views.

General Mulcahy

The sub-committee of the Dublin City Vocational Committee dealing with that matter only met yesterday or the day before. They did not contemplate meeting before a fortnight to consider some of the suggestions. The suggestions they would have to make would be very simple compared with the suggestions made by the employers and the trade unions. Permission to introduce this Bill was asked for in July last. We got the Bill only about a fortnight or so ago and now we are discussing it in a great hurry.

Mr. S. Lemass

I am even prepared to consider a further postponement of the Committee Stage, if that would facilitate any discussions in this matter. I suggest we might order it for this day four weeks and see what progress we make.

Mr. Norton

Is the Minister acting reasonably in this matter? I say the House will adjourn at its customary time next month and resume at its customary time in February. We will not be able to take the Committee Stage before the adjournment next month, even if it is decided to proceed. Then the Bill is hung up on the Committee Stage until February next. Now we have got November, December, January and February. We do not get back to the Committee Stage until February. Would it undermine the foundations of our industrial fabric if we said: "Instead of being bogged down on the Committee Stage of this Bill in the middle of February next, what we will do is this. We will try to get the congresses and the Federated Union of Employers together to hammer out a scheme so that when we meet again in May, this will be an agreed scheme common to the unions, the employers and all sides of this House"?

Mr. S. Lemass

I do not know what the Deputy means by a scheme at all.

Mr. Norton

Of course, there is another way. That is the bull-in-the-china shop way. That is the way the Minister proposes.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister could say: "If that does not mature in May, I am going my own way."

Mr. S. Lemass

I am quite prepared to give the congresses and the Federated Union of Employers all the time in the world to agree upon the terms of a Bill. However, it is quite hopeless to think we can let this matter hang on until they have agreed in detail on a scheme which will have no legislative foundation whatever. That will mean no progress.

Mr. Norton

They want to implement their scheme by enabling legislation. Will the Minister agree to defer it for six months?

Mr. S. Lemass

I could not agree. This is not a new matter for them. Presumably, they have been discussing this matter on and off for the past six years.

Mr. Norton

If they get a scheme in three or four months——

Mr. S. Lemass

It is quite obvious you will not get progress in this matter by putting it on the long finger.

Mr. Dillon

If they propose another Bill to the Minister within six months and it is satisfactory, will the Minister move to discharge this Bill and introduce their Bill?

Mr. S. Lemass

I dislike this suggestion that it should take them six months.

Mr. Norton

No, in four months.

Mr. Dillon

Would you seriously consider discharging this Bill and adopting their Bill?

Mr. S. Lemass

I do not want to discuss that. As far as I am concerned, there is a Bill and it can be amended in detail. Any amendments they may suggest, separately or collectively, can be considered and incorporated in this Bill. I want it to be understood that time is being given to them to enable them to make amendments to the Bill but that the Bill cannot be avoided and that, one way or another, we are going to get some progress. On the understanding that the purpose of the whole exercise is to get amendments to this Bill so that an agreed Bill will get to the Statute Book, I am prepared to leave it to the next session.

An Ceann Comhairle

Second Stage agreed?

Mr. Norton

No. Shall we take a vote now, Sir? It is past nine o'clock?

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not like to interfere with the discussion, but we have already gone into a private Deputy's time.

Mr. Norton

Maybe the Minister would think over this between now and tomorrow.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 11.

Tá

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Davern, Mick.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar,Anthony.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Russell, George E.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Browne, Noel C.
• Casey, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Everett, James.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• McQuillian, John.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.
• Tierney, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Larkin and Casey.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Committee Stage?

Mr. S. Lemass

3rd December.

Mr. Norton

How does the Minister reconcile that with his earlier statement that he was prepared to give a long time for the Committee Stage?

Mr. S. Lemass

If I should find that discussions of a constructive character are proceeding and are likely to be fruitful, I shall be prepared to provide a longer period.

Mr. Norton

It is a short time.

Mr. S. Lemass

It is a month. As I said, if discussions of a constructive kind are proceeding which are likely to be fruitful, I certainly shall not seek to disturb them.

Mr. Norton

There is a bit of the jackboot in this.

Mr. MacEntee

It will take you a month to waken up.

General Mulcahy

I should like to appeal to the Minister, in view of this experience of many things that have gone on in the House, to give us a February date for it. What progress is going to be made in Committee on a Bill like this in December, if it cannot be discussed in an absolutely open, clear, matter of fact way?

Mr. S. Lemass

December 3rd is for me an indication that we are going ahead with this Bill anyway, if we cannot get, through constructive negotiations, agreements on the details in it later. If we can get that, I certainly will not allow any mere mechanical arrangement of business to interrupt it. If we are getting no progress and if no indication of progress is forthcoming, there is no point in delaying it.

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister's action in putting down the 3rd December for this Bill not suggest that he does not believe he will get constructive co-operation?

Mr. S. Lemass

I do not believe that at all; I am quite convinced I will get it.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is quite convinced he will get constructive co-operation outside?

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes.

General Mulcahy

If that is so, why have the appearance, by putting down 3rd December, of suggesting to lots of sensitive people that he does not believe it?

Mr. S. Lemass

Leave it to 10th December, if you like, but I think we should order a date in this session. Otherwise, I do not think it would look as if we were serious at all.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is very foolish.

Mr. Norton

Did the Minister say the 3rd or the 23rd?

Mr. S. Lemass

The 3rd.

Mr. Norton

Pharaoh may relent in the meantime.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd December, 1958.