I have already brought to the Minister's attention the urgent need to accelerate our industrial training programme and the need to develop a comprehensive placement, manpower and forecasting service. I approve of the transfer of the Irish Management Institute subventions from the Department of Industry and Commerce to the Department of Labour. I would also suggest that the transfer of the INPC grant is overdue.
I have further suggested to the Minister that the criticism which one hears from time to time about the Labour Court is likely to diminish public regard for this vital institution. I think unions and employers should try to resolve between themselves that which they frequently request the court to do. I have been critical of the public relations and procedures of some of the parties involved in industrial disputes and have suggested liaison between representatives of the media and the parties involved. I have suggested the development of a national port authority and the decasualisation of the work of dock workers. I have opposed the concepts of compulsory conciliation pauses in industrial disputes and compulsory secret ballot. I have opposed legal enforcement between employers and workers of industrial agreements, and as an alternative I have suggested the need for comprehensive voluntary written agreements between the parties concerned. I have suggested there should be a long overdue review of the Educational Company Judgment case as well as needed legislation for the extension of the Holiday Employees Act and amendments to the Redundancy Payments Act. This afternoon I propose to deal with the remaining aspects of the Minister's speech.
My first comment relates to vocational rehabilitation and the role of the Department of Labour in what I consider to be a very much neglected area on our industrial scene. The Labour Party Deputies are very much concerned—as was the late Deputy Dunne —that there seems to be little real concern within the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Labour about the problems relating to vocational rehabilitation. We, on this side of the House, have pointed out that so far there has been very little recruitment of the specialist staffs required to promote this aspect of policy. There is unfair national dependence on the magnificent, but still inadequate, work done by the voluntary rehabilitation organisations in this field who are attempting to undertake this sophisticated function of a manpower policy.
There remains a great deal of work to be done by the Department of Labour in the introduction of satisfactory settlement arrangements for disabled persons, and in the skilled identification, registration and general advice which ought to be given to the disabled.
In his last Estimate speech the Minister said he had appointed a representative committee to make recommendations on the possibility of improving employment opportunities for the disabled in the public service and the semi-State bodies. He said he had received a preliminary report and expected to see a final report within the next few months and that An Chomhairle Oiliúna had a statutory responsibility in this matter. I appreciate that An Chomhairle Oiliúna has had a difficult and busy year but I would stress the urgency of dealing with work for vocational rehabilitation because this is something which has been so long neglected that I am afraid it may slip further into oblivion within the Department. There should be more Departmental concern in encouraging and developing selected placement because the number of openings for such persons is frequently quite limited. In any event, it may be necessary for the Department to give much greater assistance to sheltered employment, and within the training concept of An Chomhairle Oiliúna, to undertake initiatives themselves. An Chomhairle Oiliúna is sadly lacking in staff to do this work and the Minister should consider some provision, by statute, for special allocation of employment or specific occupational designation for persons who are disabled, the main aim being—if I can sum up the Labour Party's attitude on this question—to ensure that we demonstrate to the deprived sections of our community that their working qualities, their abilities and their capacities have a greater opportunity for development in this country. We have got to promote working opportunities for them and seek out the jobs they are capable of performing. We can in that way overcome the employment prejudices and discrimination which exist in many areas against disabled persons. Above all, we will get rid of the myth that a handicapped person cannot do a full day's work. In fact, such a person is quite capable of doing a full day's work under normal conditions in an enlightened community. Those are some of the points I should like to make initially on that aspect.
As regards the somewhat cursory references in the Minister's Estimate speech to industrial relations and particularly to industrial disputes I would have though he might have highlighted certain characteristics which are a matter of serious concern to the Government, to employer organisations, to this House and, of course, to the trade unions. In the first instance, as has been remarked by the NIEC and by many of the commentators on industrial affairs and industrial disputes, the outstanding characteristic seems to be the extremely long duration of many of our industrial disputes once they occur.
One constantly gets the overriding impression that in many instances real negotiations only begin after the strike notice has, in fact, expired. Secondly, I think a disturbing feature is, despite the efforts of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to establish procedures concerning disputes, and particularly prior notification by trade unions to the congress of impending strikes in industries and major places, there does not seem to be, as yet, any development which would hinder and prevent a major tendency to drift into strikes without I would submit the necessary planning on the part of employers and unions concerned, if that is the appropriate expression to use. I think planning in an industrial dispute is often very important.
One often gets the impression that many workers and employers in negotiations drift into disputes without clearly knowing exactly who is to be involved, to what extent direct and indirect workers are to be involved and who precisely will be responsible for a settlement. At times, indeed, it seems to me that some executive committees and some branch committees of some trade unions, particularly some of our smaller craft unions, drift into a situation in which they know that developments are on occasions likely to become rapidly quite confused and in which they, perhaps, may sit back and then yell to the Congress of Trade Unions, or to the larger general unions, to the Minister or, indeed, to the Labour Court to go in and do a rescue act. Therefore, I would submit that on many occasions we have seen disputes in recent years which have occurred without a great deal of background thought and without a great deal of the necessary prior notification, particularly in respect of picketing.
This brings me to the aspect of picketing, which I consider to be of major importance. I do not accept for one minute that a legislative bar of prohibition against picketing will solve anything. I do not think one can do it by statute or by withdrawing a legal privilege to either trade unions or workers in the event of picketing taking place. It is a rather futile legislative exercise. I have already been critical of secret ballots and so on. However —and this is of major importance— the unions must bear in mind certain things in relation to picketing which have to be said to their members, whether their members like it or not. Nobody in the trade union movement can possibly operate alone, whether he is an individual worker in a trade union or an individual union or whether that union is a small union, a craft union, say, enjoying great economic power in an industry or, indeed, whether a union is the largest one in the country. I have repeatedly said at many union meetings that the strength of the trade union movement is in the movement as a whole, particularly lies in the political climate we have built up in this country in terms of industrial relations and it does not rest particularly with individual actions of individual members or individual trade unions.
We, therefore, have a major problem in the Republic in respect of picketing for the very simple reason that picketing in Ireland is at its most effective position at this point of time as against Britain, where pickets are frequently passed, as against America, where scab labour is frequently imported to break strikes, as against the Continent where trade unions operate on a political one-day strike stoppage general basis. Indeed, it is quite a long time since we have had major strike breaking activities in Ireland. Generally, the picket is observed in the Republic. Therefore, because that is the position, our trade unions must make sure this right is preserved in an effective manner and preserved in the context of the right to strike. While we can all declare and reiterate in this House that the unions propose to maintain and reserve the right of strike we should point out —and union officers have a basic responsibility in this—to members that strikes can be won, that they must be won with the minimum of disruption and sacrifice to their fellow workers directly involved and with the least possible damage to industry or to the national economy.
This is a fundamental, sane principle in every dispute. It is, therefore, important to recall and remember that the fact one serves a claim in Irish industry does not automatically mean that one goes on strike. The fact that one goes on strike should not, and need not, necessarily mean that one must automatically on every given occasion place pickets in front of an employer's premises. The trade unions, therefore, have the obligation to negotiate, to manoeuvre, to use tactics and strategy and to fall back if necessary on the full brunt of the strike weapon with picketing. We should have this sane understanding about it.
Some people, unfortunately, seem to be of the impression in the trade union movement that serving a strike notice automatically means placing a picket in front of a place of employment Indeed, if one wants to embarrass one's fellow members in a trade union and sometimes, indeed, if one wants to blackmail them, one can put a picket on but a picket is not always necessary, I would repeat, for a successful outcome of a dispute. Indeed, during the war trade unions were successful in solving many industrial disputes when during that particular emergency powers period picketing was illegal and unions and members used their feet instead of placards on a given occasion.
We should, therefore, exercise understanding as to the purpose of pickets internally in trade unions. This applies to all unions, whether general or craft unions. Craft unions have tremendous power in some sectors of industry and they can only use that power so long as the general trade unions are prepared to hold the ring for them in an industrial dispute and so long as the trade union movement as a whole are prepared to make sure that neither employers nor the Government interfere in a particular dispute. Even when it comes to the point of the strongest craft union having to fight completely on their own very often they are not strong enough to face the full vigour of an industrial dispute.
Therefore, we must not just stand up and condemn some aspects of picketing. Also we have got to try in this House and in the trade union movement to understand what kind of trade union movement we are trying to build up. It is fashionable for everyone here to condemn unofficial disputes and to denounce them in the strongest terms but what is equally important is that where union officials and Deputies condemn them they do so for the right reasons.
I have no objection to a show of industrial militancy in a dispute: militancy is in many respects the very life-blood of trade union action and of its involvement in a strike situation, but where militancy is not organised and directed by the members involved in a dispute—and militancy itself does not win strikes as such on every given occasion—disputes have got to be supported and paid for by trade unions, and workers have to get strike pay. If all we need is periodic displays of industrial militancy as some people in the extreme left-wing may advocate, there is no need for trade unions. You can have a straightforward situation of a one-man show.
Neither is the desire to condemn unofficial strikes a denial of the democratic rights of members, internally in a union. Once a strike is declared in a union it is no longer the sole responsibility or the decision involvement of the members directly concerned; it then becomes the problem of the particular union as a whole. This is very often misunderstood internally in unions. It is the trade union as an organisation which bears the full responsibility for resolving the dispute on behalf of individual members, and the general body of members have laid down democratically certain rules and regulations in relation to strikes which must be carried out, even when they pinch the toes of some of the members involved.
This brings me to the maintenance dispute where we had a classic example of confusion, and in many respects, of internal trade union incompetence, of sheer bumbling on the part of some trade unions, displaying a classic case study of internal power politics on the employers' side and on the trade union side. At times it seemed that the settlement of the claim involved was very much a secondary issue. It may seem repetitive to go back on this but there were sharp lessons to be learned from it.
As the Minister pointed out, there was a loss of 630,000 man days, it cost £13 million in gross production, £3½ million in exports, £1½ million in wages. It cost the trade union movement £400,000 in strike pay. The question can be asked, was it necessary that such losses should have occurred in order to bring about a settlement of the claim which was finally conceded by the employers. I think the answer, in many respects, is that it was not entirely necessary that it should have escalated to a crisis situation.
Irrespective of the settlement involved—people are inclined to judge the ultimate settlement rather than the other aspects of the dispute—I suggest there were very serious aspects which require public examination on our part. I do not propose to speak at length on the dispute but I feel it necessary to draw the attention of the House to the very important, comprehensive, critical and necessary report of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions relating to this dispute. What I shall say may be grist to the mill of those who are anti-trade union, but a public examination of conscience will not do any harm in this particular case. At paragraph 19 of this Report, Congress stated:
For whatever reason, the Group was grossly negligent in that it failed to supply either Congress or other unions with an accurate list of these firms. This failure was inexcusable. It created an atmosphere from the beginning that was not conducive to co-operation between unions and solidarity in pursuit of the claim. To put it bluntly, there was a strong impression abroad that the Group (or unions in the Group) selected the firms to be picketed on a basis that would involve few firms employing any large number of members of these unions. Certainly the failure of the Group to indicate the basis for the selection of the firms lent support to the assumption made at the time that circumstances unconnected with the pursuit of the Group's claim determined the inclusion of certain firms and the exclusion of others. The general unions, in particular, had a well justified grievance on this score and the almost casual attitude adopted on the picketing of firms rightly gave rise to considerable criticism. The Group and the unions involved cannot avoid responsibility for having allowed such a situation to arise.
Congress were extremely critical and this is an illustration of the kind of report which was presented and which was accepted in June of this year.
There is another aspect which I would bring to the attention of the House. It is—and I do not think the Minister for Labour can improve on it; neither can any exhortation from any branch of the Department—that there is procedure within congress in respect of industrial disputes and it devolves on the trade union movement to make sure that this procedure is carried out. In 1968 the annual conference of congress adopted a motion of major importance to the trade union movement. I quote:
Congress is concerned with the failure of some unions in certain cases to give adequate consideration to the rights and interests of other workers when deciding the action to be taken in pursuit of claims on behalf of their members. Congress considers that in all cases where the conduct of a dispute on behalf of workers in any employment may involve a stoppage of work involving substantially greater numbers of other workers not directly concerned with the dispute, it should be normal and good trade union practice for the union prosecuting the claim to consult with the unions representing all the other workers affected by the dispute prior to any stoppage of work.
In respect of the maintenance dispute, that resolution was violated repeatedly and in quite a disgraceful manner. Indeed, the terms of the resolution as adopted by the conference were completely flouted. Therefore, having got that report from congress, one can hope that there will be built up a climate in the trade union movement which will not again permit the kind of messing—I think that is the only appropriate description—that developed on that occasion.
Therefore, having used such strictures as were necessary in relation to that dispute, I do not think my words can be classified as being grist to the mill of anti-union elements in our society. It is important to point out that Ireland is not generally a strike-prone country — that we are not the most strike plagued country in Europe, as some of the commentators have announced. One has only to look at the Continental press to see the rash of wild-cat strikes in Europe, some of them very violent, many of them politically motivated, in many areas, in Germany, France and Italy. If one looks at these disputes one can put the situation in Ireland in proper perspective.
I shall pass to another aspect. The Minister spoke about ad hoc inquiries made during the year, referring to the EI Company at Shannon. He said that the report of the inquiry had not been published but that the dispute had been settled to the satisfaction of the parties. I submit to the Minister quite strongly that although he said these reports have thrown a good deal of light on industrial relations in Ireland in the industries concerned, as far as we are concerned they did not throw any light at all in respect of EI. The EI report was not published.
Irrespective of embarrassment to the company concerned, or, indeed, to the trade union concerned for that matter, irrespective of the concern which might be shown by the Industrial Development Authority regarding foreign firms making inquiries in Ireland and being handed that report as a case study, there is an obligation to publish this report and I refer the Minister to a speech made last year by his predecessor, Deputy Dr. Hillery, when he stated bluntly that the dispute at Shannon involved a face-to-face confrontation between a large externally financed concern and our largest and most powerful trade union and when he stated further that the rigid attitude of the firm in refusing to accept the Labour Court recommendation had been matched by the determined stand of the trade union which had brought the full battery of union weapons to bear on this dispute.
That was a rather serious statement by the then Minister for Labour, yet, the report commissioned by him was not published and it is strange that the annual report of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company which was circulated to members of the House did not contain one reference to that particular dispute. I know that there are embarrassments involved but we should not be as sensitive as that in relation to reports of that nature.
I congratulate the Minister on the other reports—the ESB report which was compiled under Professor Fogarty and which is an extremely perceptive report; the report by Mr. Charles Mulvey on behalf of Bord na Móna was also exceptionally well done with the co-operation of the trade unions and these are reports that will be of major importance in the years ahead. However, the procedure for such reports should be regularised rather than their being compiled ad hoc by individuals outside of the Department as each crisis tends to develop.
Another aspect that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister is in relation to the groups of trade unions. I have already dealt with the national maintenance craft group of trade unions—that particular ad hoc group that was set up after the first maintenance agreement between the FUE and the trade unions. The outstanding feature of that particular group was that it had no constitution, no rules and no voting procedures so that it was a miracle that they were able to stay together. I urge that the trade union movement undertake a very extensive and searching review of the various ad hoc groups of trade unions which are currently in existence in the country. In all, there are about 18 different groups of trade unions in such major concerns as Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna, RTE, Dublin Port and Docks, the Dublin printing industry and there are three groups in CIE, one in the road passenger section, one in the freight department and one in rail. The trade union movement should make up their minds as to whether they want to keep the groups as I think they should, and operate them on an executive constitutional basis or whether they want to allow them develop on a casual basis.
This is one area within which there could be co-ordinated very effectively the loose amalgam of trade unions so that they could work on a more constitutional basis affecting the 60,000 workers who are now covered by these various groups. That brings me to an aspect which the Minister should further consider as being very much within his province and that is the proposition that has emerged in Ireland and which has received a rather confused reception and has been the cause of a great deal of confusion within the trade union movement, namely, that there should be some statutory negotiating licence given to some groups of trade unions quite distinct from the ad hoc development within congress itself. I urge the Minister to consider this aspect which I am putting forward as my own personal viewpoint. This would be a very practical contribution to the betterment of industrial relations in this country.
Perhaps, the Minister and his departmental officers underestimate the extent to which there is opposition in the trade union movement in regard to this and if it is advanced in future legislation before this House it could well be that the growth of the voluntary group system which exists at the moment might be hindered and generally emasculated. In any event, the idea of group negotiating licences is very much a voluntary proposition whereby groups could apply for licences if they so wished. In view of the fact that many unions would not be likely to apply in any case, the real need for introduction should be seriously reconsidered and not on any dogmatic grounds or trade union law basis. We must consider whether the proposition is a serious development with many long-term benefits. I shall leave the matter there as I expect it is outside the scope of a discussion on the Minister's Estimate.
As regards education and training within the trade union movement, it is my experience as a former education officer within the movement that there is organisation by general exhortation, communication with members through the media of newspapers and television and decision making by ad hoc conferences. Shop stewards who are very often the only link between the workers on a shop floor and the union are working in an atmosphere of confusion and half-baked ideas largely because the trade union movement has failed in many areas to expand education as it should expand. There should be more effective trade union information and training procedures.
I am critical of the failure of the trade union movement in that respect. Shop stewards are very often unaware of what exactly their union policy is. The shop steward is responsible for union organisation in the company, for recruitment of new members in an organisation, for the collection of union dues and for dealing with grievances as they arise within the particular company in which he is working. There are several thousand shop stewards throughout the country and it is not to the credit of the trade union movement — admittedly they have limited financial resources and limited resources in terms of trained personnel—that they have failed to ensure that members are supplied with adequate information on social legislation, on industrial legislation, on health safety and welfare legislation, on the position of claims or procedures or on the handling of grievances and the preparation of submissions to the executive committees of their unions.
However, I am not one of those who believe that because one trains somebody and gives him essential information that person is automatically a better and more desirable individual. We have known sufficient educated chancers in both trade union and political life to have reservations on that matter. I submit that the basic integrity and the militancy of a shop steward is his most important attribute but I also submit there is a strong need, on an educational and training basis, for more effective trade union organisation than heretofore in this country. I would point out to the House in view of the fact that I am being critical of the trade union movement—and I am sure Deputy Dowling would agree with me in this—that there is a fairly strong reservoir of anti-trade union attitudes in certain areas of public life. One meets that attitude in some sections of upper-middle-class life in Ireland. One meets it among certain sections of employer organisations who regard trade unions as being a regrettable but necessary evil with which they have to come to grips when someone "blows his top" in a factory, and when they have to meet unions every two years to discuss trade union claims.
Very often there is no appreciation of the need for such a trade union organisation. I stress this point by asserting that any person, whether a white-collar worker, a clerical, professional, or technical worker, whether employed in the public service or by private enterprise, whether employed in local government or any other form of employment, when he has problems of a social, legal or disciplinary nature, when he is under a contract of employment, he has a basic need of trade union organisation. This must be pointed out repeatedly to the public at large as an essential aspect of the real situation of industrial relations in this country.
I share the Minister's concern on the wage/price/costs situation in this country. The Minister has pointed out that employees' incomes increased by 10.5 per cent in 1968 and are expected to increase by over 10 per cent in 1969. This is the greatest increase ever known in the history of our country in any two-year period. The Minister had pointed out that national production grew by over 5 per cent in 1968 and is expected to grow by about 4 per cent this year. Industrial earnings went up by 30 per cent between June, 1968 and June, 1969. This is certainly a massive general increase, together with the increase of 8.5 per cent in the consumer price index between August, 1968 and August, 1969. I share the general concern which has developed in the country about the magnitude of these developments.
The more perceptive Members on our side of the House would be prepared to accept the vital importance of having an effective prices and incomes policy developed in the country which would ensure that our industrial costs are maintained on a competitive basis and that there would be more equitable distribution of incomes in the country. Neither the Government nor the trade unions can abdicate their responsibility in this matter. Neither the other political parties nor the Labour Party itself can deny responsibility. We have a direct responsibility here. The Government have a very special responsibility for ensuring that prices of key commodities in this community and the pay, particularly of lower-income groups, are not relegated solely to the market place of competition and the general exploitation of consumers by commercial interests. That would be folly of the first order. Great initiative is required on the part of the Government in respect of an incomes policy.
We in the Labour Party are particularly conscious that wage and salary earners are the first to suffer when the economic situation tends to worsen. We have had rather sharp and bitter experience of that aspect of the matter. It is an outstanding feature now that while trade unions chase wage increases we have parallel rocketing of price increases in the community with very little deliberate, conscious effort on the part of the Government to try to develop an incomes and prices policy in a situation in which there could be some element of general price stability brought into the economic situation. This is a matter of profound regret and one which is likely to give rise to very considerable difficulties in the years ahead.
I submit to the Minister and to his colleagues in the Cabinet that they have failed — I do not use a word such as "failure" lightly — because they have not accepted with the alacrity one might have expected the recommendations of the National Industrial Economic Council regarding incomes policy which would have mitigated the current wage/price spiral development which has given us a great deal of concern in recent months. In Ireland we are rather unique, I would stress, because we have a tremendously high proportion of our manufactured goods placed on the export market. I am sure that Deputy Dr. FitzGerald will correct my figures when I give a tentative estimate of some 50,000 Irish workers involved in the export industries of this country. There are a small number of firms employing these 50,000 workers to manufacture goods for export. We are conscious of the fact that the importers of Great Britain, the Continent or America do not owe us a living, much as we may have felt on many occasions that they did in our criticisms of capitalism and its operations internationally.
At this point in time they do not feel that they owe our workers a living. Unless the incomes policy situation in Ireland is rectified as a matter of urgency these 50,000 jobs could be in jeopardy. This would halt the slow but sure economic advance that has developed in the country in recent years. Likewise, it would be completely unrealistic for the trade union movement to advocate that there should be price control and more economic forecasting and planning on the one hand and, at the same time, refuse to recognise that such activity requires that wage and salary developments should be integrated in a general overall policy in the country.
An incomes policy is concerned with the distribution of all money incomes and not with just wages and salaries. It is concerned with professional earnings, many of which should be sharply scrutinised in some areas in Irish public life. It is also concerned with rents which should also be scrutinised. It is concerned with profits in the community and with capital gains and with the incomes from some sections of the farming community and with the incomes of many other self-employed persons. One cannot preach to the trade union movement that there should be an incomes policy which would be purely a wages policy and which would ignore all other incomes. If the incomes policy is to be genuine, effective and acceptable to the trade union movement it is essential that it should be all-encompassing. It will require a tremendous efforts on our part to ensure that that kind of policy develops.
I would commend the Minister for making a suggestion regarding wage increases and I would come down firmly on his side in respect of the two aspects he advocates—first of all that such increases should be, as he suggests, on a phased two-year basis. In fact, I do not favour a three-year basis. I consider that a three-year period is too long in terms of rapid economic developments. I would accept his proposition that negotiations should be on a general industry by industry basis or, indeed, on a firm by firm basis. I would submit that that kind of negotiation, even though it does impose a much greater strain on the trade union movement, and on individual unions, does ensure that proper cognisance is taken of the general economic conditions of the particular industries and of particular firms. I would submit that this is broadly in line with the recommendations of NIEC and as such it is a useful, sane and generally acceptable proposition coming before the House.
With regard to low paid workers I know that the Minister has a litany or annual ritual in respect of his Estimate on the problem of lower paid workers. In fact the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, at the beginning of this year, suggested that we were now having in 1969 the year of the lower paid worker. We were all impressed. Then we got what certainly was a useful innovation and something which was a significant advance. We got the public services agreement between the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Finance and the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That was a significant advance in ensuring an uplifting of the position of the lower paid worker but much more remains to be done. There are in our community, among the three-quarters of a million insured workers of the country—those employed in the Government service, in local government employment, in the public services, for example in the Post Office, in CIE, in hotels, in distribution, in guest houses, in the personnel services industries such as supermarkets, hairdressing, dry cleaning and many other such industries—a large number of very low paid workers. In current negotiations there should be some special consideration by the trade union movement and particularly by the Government in respect of its own employees to ensure that the level of earnings of such workers is substantially increased. Low paid workers are not just confined to specific categories of workers. Very often individuals who are physically handicapped, individuals who are in poor health, individuals who suffer from mental disabilities, persons of low capacity, of general low ability or, indeed, persons who are handicapped or inadequate in terms of coping with industrial environmental facilities are low income workers and require special consideration on the part of the State.
Therefore, the problem is not just a question of low income. It is a question of low income employment and we must look at it on a much broader basis. We should not be under any illusions that we in Ireland are alone with this problem. In England the new earnings survey of September of last year showed that ten per cent of men in full time manual employment aged 21 and over were earning less than £15 a week in Britain. It also showed that 20 per cent of British manual male workers had earnings of less than £17 10s. Nobody can therefore, claim that Britain has not got a major low income problem too. We should certainly consider how we are going to develop our approaches to this matter. There is a danger, of course, that we may come to superficial solutions and that we may minimise the tremendous complexities that exist in the problem of low paid workers.
The suggestion has been made repeatedly to the Minister here that a statutory minimum wage should be introduced. There are major difficulties in that field. If such a wage, for example, was introduced in the country and supposing we set up a statutory tribunal we would have to pick a particular minimum wage as at this point of time. I would rather imagine the Government probably picking the wages paid to workers under the Agricultural Wages Board, to farm workers, which would, indeed, be so low as to be of little or no value in raising the general level of wages of low paid workers throughout industry.
In the trade union movement we would be inclined to the general idea that a living wage as we would call it should be based on what it might cost to maintain a man and wife and, say, two or three children. Although it would be very difficult to work out this kind of figure there should be an effort made by the Government and the Department of Labour to work out a figure which would represent the cost of feeding, clothing and housing such a family with another allowance for expenditure on what we could classify as normal modest comforts. I do not think any great work has been done in this field. I submit that no research whatsoever has gone into the field either within the Department or, for example, by the Economic and Social Research Institute which could usefully help us in that regard. Unfortunately, even if all the research were done a great deal of subjective judgment would still be required in deciding what comforts should be given to the average citizen.
One can only guess at such a figure but a large number of workers would fall substantially below the figure we might, in fact, reach. Indeed, even if we were to raise the level of lower paid workers by, say, £3 or £4 a week to bring them up to a level which we would regard as an acceptable living wage we would still be faced with the whole question of differentials above the minimum rate. For example, if we set a minimum rate of, say, £16 a week as an absolute minimum and if we brought low paid workers up to that figure, what would happen to those workers who traditionally enjoy a differential above other workers? Would their differential be maintained or would we be involved nationally in a further round of increases to raise those on a differential basis above the minimum rate or if the differentials were reduced or virtually eliminated what would be the economic consequences of it in industry?
These are problems to which scant attention has been paid. Now the Minister, in the valley period before a national minimum wage becomes a political football coming up to the next general election, has a golden opportunity to consult with the employer organisations and the trade union organisations on the basis of a family minimum wage in the country and try to devise a general minimum which would be acceptable and which could be implemented in the context of a national incomes policy.
There is another aspect to which I should like to refer. Something which is very often understressed in this House and in the country is the importance of the contribution now being made by wage and salary earners in terms of PAYE. PAYE contributions in 1964-65 amounted to £19 million, a very considerable sum. Today in 1968-69 they amount to something like £40 million, a tremendous increase in contributions under PAYE made by the workers to the national exchequer, a contribution made from wage increases, from increases gained through higher productivity. This is something which the Minister should certainly be conscious of in the context of an incomes policy more particularly as there are quite a number of sectors of workers in the country and some self-employed and professional groups who are making no contribution from their earnings towards national resources to meet the essential social and capital requirements of the State.
So far I have refrained deliberately from mentioning the responsibility of management. I do not propose to launch into any general admonition of management but I do point out that there has been in this country a considerable improvement in management expertise in the past decade. This is to be generally welcomed.
I would point out, furthermore, to such management groups that the basic requirements for higher output in Ireland at this point of time, even with the tremendous adaptation which is still necessary in Irish industry, are not just more sweat and longer hours and more exertion on the part of trade union members on the factory floor; the basic requirements are still related to more effective management production techniques on the factory floor, to a more effective utilisation of capital equipment, to more capital investment in employment and, for example, to better marketing techniques in companies.
I do not think that this is any excuse for the trade union movement. The trade unions, perhaps, could be much more critical of management in these spheres, for example, where management fail to make better use of raw materials in factories. Unions could be much more critical of managements who fail to improve industrial processes, of managements who fail to have better plant layout or who fail to have better equipment utilisation. Very often the unions stand back and allow such things inside firms. They should be much more critical and more forthcoming and more involved in criticising materials-handling, the design of work places, the selection of supervisors, and so on. All these areas are areas of management responsibility and I submit that management in Ireland in many companies may be found to be very short and very marginal in many of the contributions they have made in these areas.
In the social and environmental aspects we could express a great deal of criticism of Irish management in regard to such things, for example, as class divided, segregated industrial canteens—things which are a rarity in many areas of the United States—not that we welcome or support or, indeed, admire some of the industrial practices of management or trade unions in America but I certainly think that we could be critical of the segregation of canteen facilities in Ireland, the artificial educational distinctions brought into the industrial setting, the distinctions which the educational system has built into the industrial life of the Irish community. I am afraid that we in this House have a serious responsibility in respect of many of these developments and, in fact, in many areas, are directly responsible for them.
Equally, I would submit that the managements of many firms can be held to be at fault for failing to have elementarily decent working conditions introduced in their firms. The poor lighting in many factories, the very bad ventilation that one frequently comes across, the half observance of safety regulations in firms, ineffective heating, poorly equipped cloakrooms, and so on, may appear rather trivial to some Members of this House now that we have some of the exotic building developments within the House but, certainly within many Irish industrial undertakings we can be quite critical of what is available to the Irish workers and a great deal of their complaints and disputes in these matters are quite justified.
Another aspect that I would refer to and would capsule some of my remaining points is that of women workers in Irish industry. The Minister was rather scrappy in his analysis of the growing shortage of female labour and the difficulties posed for some industries in Ireland. He pointed out to the House that the participation rate for women in our labour force, now running at 35 per cent, is a good deal lower than in most other western European countries and indicated that the possibility of an increase in the number of women at work raises many issues and that he was in consultation with the Economic and Social Research Institute about a research project into the various factors affecting female employment.
We had the same report last year. If I recall, the then Minister, Deputy Dr. Hillery, pointed out last year that he had suggested the need for research into the factors affecting female employment in Ireland and indicated that his Department was in touch with the Economic and Social Research Institute as to how research in these matters could be best organised.
Twelve months have gone by. In many areas I cannot exonerate the Minister's Department. I submit that this kind of research has not been done in the past 12 months, that it should be done and that there is great urgency, particularly as there are now some 230,000 women "employees" working in Ireland—a major classification of industrial employment. There are 55,000 women employed in offices throughout the country; 63,000 women working in manufacturing industry; 44,000 women in professional employment; in the health services alone, 25,000 women directly employed; in distribution some 50,000 women and in public administration 9,000 women. What are the opportunities and the prospects open to such women? We are here tonight, 51 years after women got the franchise, we pay a great deal of lip service to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and it is not yet on our statute book nor, indeed, has it been accepted by the Government in respect of the ILO Convention. We are developing an annual ritual in this House in respect of equal pay.
It should be pointed out to the women of this country that once a girl has chosen a particular career she may find the principles of equality between men and women, so often lauded in our Christian concept of morality, are not fully respected, especially in the matter of employment promotion and in respect of pay itself, notwithstanding the fact that these principles have been repeatedly enshrined in the United Nations Conventions on the political rights of women, in the International Labour conventions 100 and 111 on equal pay and on discrimination in jobs and professions and in the European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms in Article 14 and in the European Social Charter, Article 4 and in the Common Market Treaty, Article 119. There is a litter of general anti-discriminatory provisions written into European and world legislation. Yet, we have a situation in Ireland where women earn £9 a week in industrial employment and men get twice as much for work of equal value and for work of appropriate skill.
While I very much welcome—it is not inappropriate that I should mention it here—the Taoiseach's intention to recommend to his Cabinet that there should be a commission on the status of women in Ireland, the Minister for Labour has still a major responsibility in this area. There is the question of equal pay in the relatively limited number of occupations where men and women are clearly doing the same work and work of actual equal value. There is the question of coming to grips with that problem first of all. I do not think that anybody rejects the idea of that approach even though it might apply to only a small range of occupations but I am afraid there is a yawning gap between acceptance of the principle and its practical application.
Secondly, and probably as important as the concept of equal pay for equal work, there is the whole question of the remuneration of women relative to men. It is quite clear that on the Continent of Europe, particularly since the signing of the Rome Treaty—and it is one of the few attractions I find in relation to the Common Market as Deputy FitzGerald would certainly acknowledge—the concept of equal pay has gone far beyond the idea that men and women who are simply doing the same work should get the same pay. It has gone away beyond that approach.
It is now universally accepted that there is need for equalisation of pay between men and women and the complete rejection of the idea of so-called "women's work". Female employment is the worst paid employment in this State. Even over the past 20 years we have made very little progress here. Male earnings in industry and elsewhere are more than double the average earnings of female labour. This is not because all men who work in industry are skilled or because all women are unskilled; it is very far from being that. On the Continent the difference in take home pay as between men and women engaged in industry is at the very most 20 per cent.
The third area I would urge the Minister and the proposed commission to examine is that of women's employment, their numbers, their prospects of promotion and the existence of unacceptable marriage bars in certain employment. It is meaningless to consider an approach to equal pay within the narrow limits of equal pay for equal work while excluding consideration of the overall position of women in our society, particularly from the point of view of work. I submit to the Minister that if we take some urgent action on this matter of equal pay we will transform Irish society and profoundly affect the pattern of that society in the future. Even in the short-term we could bring about a considerable transformation.
There are two solutions. It can be done by legislation or it can be done by trade union action. Judging by Government reaction the prospect of legislation would appear to be rather remote. The Taoiseach gave no indication that he would be prepared to introduce such legislation. The trade unions will have to rely on promoting equal pay by trade union action, but there are still prejudices in some areas in respect of women and a great many perverted social attitudes. That reflects the male dominated concept of society which abounds in most strata. We must consider equal pay in that setting. The difficulty is a major one. There will have to be a campaign of social education because some men, as we know, are unable to face the reality of women earning equal pay. It might also be said that some women have not yet been fully persuaded about the need for equality. These are aspects I would stress.
In the light of the Minister's comments on women's employment, I would point out to him that, apart from equal pay and related aspects, there are other aspects requiring urgent attention if we are to build up a pool of women workers. For instance, the present facilities for child care are grossly inadequate. In many areas they are non-existent. I am well aware of some of the more emotional reactions to this. But one must approach a matter of this importance calmly and logically. The need for child care facilities will become more marked with increasing numbers of mothers going out to work. Indeed, the pattern of child care is likely to change very considerably. At the moment working mothers rely on relatives—possibly grandmothers—to look after young children but, today, great numbers of women in the fifties and sixties are going out to work themselves and they are no longer available to look after young children. We shall have to plan our approach on that basis. We will have to plan for mothers with children under five years of age. No consultation is needed with Deputy Dowling in regard to industrial Dublin where one finds an increasing number of mothers, with children under five years of age, going out to work. In some cases they have to work. In other cases they just want to work. I suggest that the average child of three to five years of age can benefit considerably from nursery education. A rapid expansion in such education could play a very important part in building up a pool of women workers. There is a grave shortage of women workers in industry. Nurseries will be absolutely essential. The hours of work will have to be made extremely flexible so that all possible benefit can be derived from the system and so that the benefits may be spread as widely as possible.
Again, special provision will have to be made by the Government, by our employment services and by the Department for the large body of women workers who must work irrespective of the ages of their children. There are the widows, the unmarried, the divorced, the separated and the deserted wives. Not only are nursery facilities essential but there is a basic obligation on the State to provide such facilities. If we do not provide such facilities then the children will be reared in unhealthy environments, mentally and physically, and without the stimulation every child craves. All these aspects must be borne in mind. I have chosen my words as carefully as possible knowing that what I say may be open to misinterpretation by the less enlightened amongst us.
I submit there is a tremendous waste of potential skill and that if this skill were channelled into its proper use it could make a major economic contribution to our industrial life. I was speaking recently to some British and Russian medical personnel. In Britain 5 per cent of doctors are women. In Russia the figure is 75 per cent. I do not suggest we should draw any particular analogy, but I do suggest that the general assumption that women are incapable of obtaining a tremendously high degree of skill in both social and public services is a hideous fallacy. The figures I have given illustrate the magnitude of the contribution women can make. It has been admitted in Sweden that an increase of something like 55 per cent in national income could be effected by making a more intelligent use of available female labour. If Irish women are properly trained there is no reason why their skill should not make as great an impact and it is, therefore, imperative that we should have industrial training for women workers.
The Minister refrained from comment on the trade unions, possibly out of circumspection. I should like to comment briefly on the need for rationalisation. On the whole, the congress has been somewhat uninspiring. The trade union structure here is not as irrational as it is in Britain. I think that all the efforts have been overshadowed by the spasmodic efforts during the mid-1960's on the part of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and the Workers' Union of Ireland to come to grips with the second-last remaining leg of the disunity that faced the trade union movement in the earlier part of trade union development in this country.
Certainly, I welcome the 1966-1968 discussions between these two general unions. The transport union has 140,000 members in the Republic: the Workers' Union of Ireland has some 30,000 workers in the Republic with some 25,000 of these in the greater Dublin area. Most certainly, I think that, conscious of the collective negotiating strength of both unions, and the ramifications of the organisational bases of these two unions, all other efforts at rationalisation tend to pale into insignificance in the Republic. I would hope that the tentative talks which took place between these two organisations will be resumed at an early date.
It is a matter of regret, in the first instance, that the final talks towards unity, merger—call it what you will— did not come about. I trust they will soon come about. Such a development would have a major impact on the Irish trade union movement. It would be in accord with the work done in the mid-1960's by the late Jim Larkin, who took many initiatives in this field in respect of relations between the Workers' Union of Ireland and the transport union and, indeed, it would be in accord with the wishes of the late John Conroy. I would hope that the overlapping of membership and duplication of services between these two unions—with the quite inevitable and quite human competition which inevitably exists between large general unions—could be harnessed, with the common intelligence of the executives of these two unions and bring about a larger trade union structure. That does not preclude the need for further rationalisation in many other sectors of the Irish trade union movement affecting the other trade unions directly concerned who might usefully join in that kind of exercise. I think that congress could at the moment do with a new shot in the arm in that general sphere of development. That is all I propose to say on that aspect at this point of time.
I shall conclude my comments by making a few very brief random points. I would refer the House to one of the difficulties facing the trade union movement, a difficulty which the trade union movement itself must face internally, namely, that we have trade unionism in this country on the cheap. We have quite a disgraceful state of affairs whereby Irish industrial workers—very often because they have not been asked to pay more—now contribute the equivalent of a packet of ten cigarettes a week to their trade union. We expect to receive, from that, in respect of a national organisation representing half a million people, an effective, national trade union structure. It is a matter of regret that trade union contributions are so terribly low.
I am quite certain there is sufficient idealism, sufficient sense of need in trade unions, that members will willingly contribute—I would suggest the equivalent of one hour's pay per week. I think that would be a normal contribution from a trade unionist to his trade union. It would give to a rationalised trade union movement much-needed funds. It is quite preposterous to suggest that, for example, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions can subsist, or barely exist, on, for example, a total income of something like £25,000 a year. One would find it impossible to run a more effective national organisation purely on affiliation fees of that kind. The trade unions must face up and explain to members more coherently why they want the money. No doubt trade union members will respond to that: particularly some of the smaller unions will get out of some of the difficulties they are wont to get into from time to time.
I would also draw the attention of the House to the existence, within the trade union movement, of something which we very much failed to consider in any of the Estimates to date of this Department, namely, that the trade union movement in Ireland is the only organisation in the world which has got an internal appeals board machinery. This might be stressed by Deputies when they meet disgruntled trade union members. The appeals board was set up in 1963 following the endorsement by the then annual delegate conference of a recommendation by the committee on trade union organisation. It differs from all other boards of the congress in that the members are selected directly by the annual delegate conference of congress itself. I think members of the trade union movement should show no compunction whatsoever, if they have disputes with their executives, in availing of the exceptionally fine and useful appeals board machinery which exists within the trade union movement. The British TUC has not got it. The Swedes, despite their sophistication, have not got it. Neither has the German trade union movement got it. There is no doubt that this appeals board, elected of members of the movement itself could very usefully have an effective role to play in future.
As regards industrial safety, I shall be very brief on this point. I welcome the comments of the Minister. He should do his utmost to try to ensure that as well as the competitions to be arranged by the Civil Service Commissioners for the filling of vacancies and so on, and for the expansion of the inspectorate of this Department—as, indeed, he has repeatedly been urged since the setting-up of the Department —a review of the factory inspectorate will be undertaken immediately. There is constant harping on this. I am aware of some of the internal difficulties in this matter. However, there is a big gap at the moment in respect of industrial safety which needs to be closed.
As a former officer of the National Industrial Safety Organisation, I would suggest that the £10,000 which the Minister is now giving to that body should be spent mostly on industrial training courses. We over-estimate the value of leaflets, of quarterly journals, of conference reports, and so on; we over-estimate the value of posters and of a whole range of written propaganda. One decent industrial training course would be far better for the advancement of industrial safety in this country.
I am afraid the Members of this House have every much underestimated the tremendous loss of human life, the waste of mental and physical abilities, the loss to the economy as a whole and the general human misery and suffering caused by industrial accidents. Only those of us in the trade union movement can appreciate, as trade union officers, the catastrophic effects which industrial accidents have on family life. I strongly endorse the work of the Minister on that matter. Indeed, if I may say so to the Press Gallery, if only half of the passion and detailed examination that is exercised on industrial disputes were directed for a few weeks on the prevention of industrial accidents then I think we could have an even greater benefit to the economy as a whole. These are aspects which are well worthy of consideration.
The Minister might also produce, as a matter of urgency, a new Factories Act handbook. We have been promised this for the past three or four years; so far it has not emerged. In Northern Ireland and Britain there is readily available to shop stewards, to trade union members and employers, a very useful and effective safety handbook outlining the principal provisions of the Factories Act, 1961.
I would also recommend that the Minister should consider the question of occupational pensions. One of the most significant and welcome developments in recent years has been the growth of occupational pensions of the superannuation or death kind. One of the major disadvantages of such schemes, however, is the absence of transferability with all its accompanying frustrations for workers when they change employment. The Minister should have further consultations with the Minister for Finance to ensure that the legislative prohibitions in respect of transferability are removed. This aspect is something that will merit increasing attention in the future.
I should also like to make a comment on the role of the trade union movement in respect of industrial and economic planning. It would be inappropriate that an Estimate like this should pass without placing on record the tremendous efforts made by the trade union executives, particularly those in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, in regard to the work of the NIEC over the past four or five years. Men like the late Jim Larkin and the late John Conroy, Senator Murphy, Mr. Donal Nevin and Mr. Charles McCarthy, despite being caught up in their own day-to-day work, found time to make a major contribution towards ensuring that the trade union movement lived up to its principles and policies in respect of national economic planning. The work done by the trade unions in this sphere has frequently gone unrecognised and, indeed, we have not explained to our own members what precisely we were doing at national level.
These are my comments on the Estimate. I regret that I availed of the opportunity to speak for so long but it is one of the few privileges in a democratic country that one can talk in this House for as long as one likes, as long as one is not unduly repetitive. The matters to which I have referred should have the immediate attention of the Minister. I had hoped to have sufficient time to expand on such topics as industrial democracy. I suggest that the Minister should set up a working party to deal with this matter, a working party which would be representative of employers, trade unions and the Department and which would review in depth the necessity for introducing the democratisation of industrial life in various spheres. Many people are bemused by the jargon which has developed in regard to economic and political control and, therefore, such a working party should be appointed. Such a working party would in time bring about a more rational, and less of a party political, interpretation of this vital aspect of social and economic development.
