On the last day we discussed the Minister's speech and the AnCO report. The comprehensive speech made by the Minister covered all aspects of the Department of Labour and the report by AnCO, which is their second annual report, is an example that might be followed by all other State and semi-State bodies.
We have seen how AnCO set out in a businesslike manner to establish this department, a department of services for the education and the improvement of skills of the various workers. They worked together with unions and employers and various committees were set up to run this section so that they are now in a position to train 70 per cent of industrial workers. They have a centre in Dublin for the training of instructors and Irish management to whom they have given a grant are being used to instruct the various supervisors in all sections of industry. This body is setting out to promote the highest standard of efficiency and training that is possible and competitive with any other country in the world. I agree with the Minister when he says with regard to the various surveys that a survey is practically history by the time its recommendations can be implemented.
The Minister spoke of a certain number of apprentices and from my checking of the AnCO report there are 90 trainees at Shannon, 100 at Waterford and Galway will have 100 adults and 100 trainees by the end of the year. This is one thing about which the Minister was not very explicit. He did not tell us the age of the various trainee apprentices. I gather that at least 80 per cent are apprentices and from this point of view that they are only duplicating what the vocational schools are doing. This was a very comprehensive report. All these services have been set up with, according to the Minister, the best men that could be had. Money has been spent and a big staff employed and so far not many people are being trained. From now on we should watch the results of AnCO. They have now set up practically everything they need. The Minister said he was going to provide more premises in different areas. From now on trainees should come in and we should see results. This scheme has been very well established. In my opinion no businessman or business consultant could have done it better. It will be interesting to see what return we will get for the money spent and how many trainees we will get from the scheme and how soon we will get 2,000 to 3,000 trainees.
The Minister spoke at length on the question of manpower. This is probably the kernel of the problem. We all agree with him that the placement services and the employment agencies should be separate. In the last Estimate we agreed that this is the correct thing to do. The manpower services are expensive. I doubt if they are beneficial. When one discovers that the manpower is available in a certain area, by the time the service has been put into practice the workers have either emigrated or gone elsewhere. There should be a better on-the-spot system. The employers and the various people involved should be able to give a list of those leaving their employment and also of those they employ. If this list were sent to a central spot it might be more beneficial than spending money on the huge surveys which we have at present.
I agree with the Minister on the question of the registration of private employment agencies. To date, nobody knows the numbers of persons placed by these agencies. The daily papers contain three or four page lists of people seeking jobs and of agencies offering positions.
The Minister said that no country has found a foolproof system of forecasting manpower requirements. Perhaps this can never happen but the nearer we get to perfection on this and the more we can improve on it, the better. I do not think any businessman could tell us on a particular morning how many men he will employ the next day. He can increase or reduce his staffs. AnCO can only improve the situation and try harder.
The Minister mentioned the various firms that had post-mortems after strikes. I quote now from Irish Industry and Industrial Management, Volume 37, No. 9.
The long awaited Murphy report on the inquiry into the maintenance strike during the first quarter of 1969 has been presented to the Minister for Labour. It is a damning indictment of our whole system of industrial relations and like the Cameron report in the other part of our island, brings to the surface the faults of many years past. Management — industry — and labour, the workers and their trade unions, along with the Labour Court itself, all receive a fair share of blame, although the craftsmen's unions especially are, as the public long before this had come to suspect, the most culpable.
Further on it says:
This is not the time for recriminations or simply for apportioning blame. If the series of strikes have taught us anything, it is that both forces of production must come together honestly and with understanding and trust, as well as with far better public and press relations. Both sides should study and try to comprehend the problems and difficulties of the other and sit down early on in any dispute to talk it out rather than fight it out later on. Our entire system of industrial relations must change and this is possible only with good will and determination on both sides, with a Labour Court respected and trusted by both and whose recommendations would be almost legally binding.
This post-mortem or inquiry shows that employers on the one side and unions on the other, and a particular union maybe, and the workers are not worrying about the other section. The only solution is to have an incomes policy. I cannot see any other way out of it. When it comes to negotiations each person is thinking of himself only. He is not thinking of any union or of anyone else but only of having more money than his next-door neighbour. The ESB were given time to set up a non-statutory body to deal with pay claims. It would be a great thing if all sections of the community could gradually attend the Labour Court and if we had one authority who would treat them all alike. The Minister mentioned that he was bringing in protective legislation. He mentioned the patchwork of legislation and spoke about bringing in something like the Factories Acts and the Holidays Acts. This is essential. There should be the same basic rules for every worker so that all firms would start workers on the same wages and exercise the same supervision and from there on the most successful business would win out through its own hard work, productivity and salesmanship.
The Minister mentioned that he would look into the question of the hours of working. That can only be done by fixing maximum numbers of hours. In the hotel and catering trades the workers must work at different times from other workers. Most workers work in the daytime but hotel and catering staffs work when others are free. I agree with the Minister on the question of giving a minimum period of notice which should be tied to the number of years worked.
A Bill dealing with dangerous substances is something long overdue.
The Minister made a lengthy, comprehensive speech on the International Labour Organisation. There is little I can add to it but I wish to endorse everything he has said. This organisation was founded in 1919. That was after the first world war and the workers who had fought side by side with the better off people in the trenches decided that during the war their lives were as good as any other's.
As soon as the war was over they might have had to go back to pre-war conditions and they decided not to. The International Labour Organisation was founded to prevent this, to give workers better opportunities when the war was over. It took quite a while for this to get going. The Minister mentioned that its main functions were the protection of women and junior workers and the determination of maximum hours per day and maximum hours per week. It is even more comprehensive than the EEC although it operates in a different sphere. It covers the whole world and by bringing the wage structure in the various countries up to a certain level, not always the same but very nearly the same, it has probably been the forerunner of the setting up of the EEC and the EFTA countries because when labour charges are the same countries are moving towards achieving the same cost of production and this brings people closer together. It also gives tremendous encouragement, labour-wise and social-wise, to the emerging countries in Africa. I am glad to see that the Minister has mentioned a programme to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its founding which includes the issue of postage stamps, an art competition and a publication of Ireland's role in the ILO. I hope it is the Irish role and not the Fianna Fáil role that comes out in this as it did in the publication Facts about Ireland.
In the NIEC report No. 11 an incomes policy was recommended. This is in line with what Fine Gael have suggested. We in Fine Gael are not against profits, we are pro-profits, and in no circumstances do we want to contain profits at a certain rate. Even if control of profits were desirable, which is not the case, it is not practicable because profits are earned competitively, particularly profits from exporting. Profits cannot be controlled in advance; they must be controlled in arrears. For instance, the Government cannot tell a man to produce a box of matches for a penny. He must try to produce them at a penny first. If he charges 2d he may make profit. This can only be done in arrears. We are also against dividend control because if a dividend is controlled all companies are being brought into line, the good and the bad, and no incentive is given to a company to improve and pay a bigger dividend.
What we wish to see is that the rate of increase in the aggregate post-tax purchasing power from dividend is no greater than post-tax wages so that any increase in post-tax dividend must compare with the increase in post-tax wages. This would prevent a lot of bad example—people buying £7,000 or £8,000 cars. If they were taxed sufficiently, if their incomes were not allowed to grow to any huge extent, they could not afford this. This would also encourage them to leave money in their business or company which would mean producing more money in the economy to create more jobs. The only loophole in this would be where there are cartels or monopolies. Where these are in force special legislation should be set up to deal with them. Where there are State companies in monopolies there must be a committee set up to watch them. Just because a company is a State company in a monopoly does not mean that it can add 6d or a shilling ad lib. There must be a watching committee on this.
An incomes policy is essential and it will work here. It has been reasonably successful in England. The Government here have no intention of having an incomes policy because to have one it must be co-ordinated with the economic policy of the country and with a manpower policy. With our economic policy two methods are used to fix up the balance of payments—increase in indirect taxation which reduces personal spending and a credit squeeze which stops investment. Both of these measures cause the cost of living to go up. Increased taxes put up costs. Reduced production puts up the unit cost of each item. This in turn puts up wages. This is what the Government have been doing. We have two budgets practically every year; we have indirect taxation on most goods— you may call them luxury goods but most people use them—and this in itself is creating inflation. We have a credit squeeze two years out of every four which also puts up the cost of goods to the worker who in turn must get increased wages. This may be fixing the balance of payments but it is creating inflation. The Minister must see that when an incomes policy is introduced it is done in co-operation with an economic policy.
The Government, employers and trade unions frequently use the word "productivity". The Government and the employers have shouted for increased productivity. The unions used it, sometimes fairly well, but sometimes for an over normal increase. There is a certain right on their side to look for these over normal increases but you get one group who have a productivity agreement and get an over normal increase, which is copied by other workers. Then there is another group who get a productivity agreement and it goes right back to the whole lot, six or seven times, instead of one set of productivity agreements and then getting rid of it and coming back to a certain normal scale again. Productivity, in fact, means harder work for fewer workers or reduced restrictive practices for increased pay. We do not hear the Government shouting so much lately about productivity, they still do now and again, but productivity is a once only job. You make one productivity agreement and you cannot go on increasing productivity. After that you go back to normal wage negotiations based on a percentage increase or a cost of living increase. When unions and employers have got this productivity agreement they are back to the old wages. Increases after that have nothing to do with productivity. It may come into automation but it will not come into physical or manual power. Incentives should be given to workers. They should be encouraged to take a real interest through bonus incentives, profit sharing, opportunities for promotions and so on. The Murphy system would make a man an integral part of the firm. That is what should be done. If the recommendations in the Murphy report were adopted the Labour Court could then become a final tribunal.
There is, too, the problem of a shortage of skilled labour. The Government have not faced up to this problem. Neither have the unions. Employers, though not so deeply involved perhaps, have not bothered too much about the problem. Huge wage demands usually start through a shortage of skilled labour in a particular industry. If a manpower policy were tied in with incomes a great deal of the present difficulty would disappear. Because of a shortage of skilled labour in a particular trade those engaged in that trade are often in a position to demand any wage increase they like and the repercussions of that run right through the whole economy. If there were a proper incomes policy there would be no shortage of skilled labour. Those who are not in such a strong position have to wait until certain groups move before they can do anything to better their position.
I have talked about this to many trade unionists. They do not really like pushing, but a very small push starts the whole thing going. Of course, some demands are legitimate and should be met. The Government have a certain responsibility in all this because they go into certain sectors and create a shortage of skilled workers. The sudden entry of the Government into a particular sector sends everything skew wise. If there is a scarcity of a certain type of labour then a particular group is put in a privileged position. That happens when the Department of Local Government, for example, goes into building. A shortage of labour is immediately created in private enterprise building. When the Department of Education builds schools a shortage of skilled labour follows. These jobs are once-and-for-all jobs. After a period there is no more work. Proper planning is vital. If the Department of Health builds hospitals a shortage of skilled workers in other facets of the building trade ensues. When the hospitals are built there are no more jobs for these workers.
A new health scheme is being introduced—actually it is a scheme stolen from Fine Gael—and this scheme is being introduced without proper prior planning. The first thing that should have been done was to encourage more teachers to train the personnel who will be required to operate this scheme. There seems to be no proper thought. Someone decides to go into something and then it is found that there is no personnel to operate whatever it may be. Factories are built and then it is discovered there are no trained workers to man that factory. The trend nowadays is to pay what workers are available well over the rates. I have no objection to that, but it does upset the economy. The Government have more responsibility in this than anybody else.
Both Fine Gael and Labour have spoken at length about the lower paid workers. The Government pay lip-service to these workers but, when it comes to a demand by any section of the community, they do not give a damn about the lower paid workers. Surely it should be possible, when there is a demand, to give ten per cent to the lower paid workers and seven or eight per cent to those who are better paid. The better paid workers get more because their unions are stronger. We will have to evolve some system of added social benefits. The higher income groups should get no children's allowances while the lower paid workers should get double or treble the allowances.
