In many ways this section represents the core of what the provisions of the Bill are about. Certainly it is the triggering section that brings the new machinery into effect.
This Bill has had a lengthy gestation period. It is in many ways quite similar to the Bill circulated during the lifetime of the previous Government. It is, of course, a follow-up to the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act of the mid-seventies.
There are a couple of comments that have to be made. The first is that although there has been quite a wide-ranging debate on worker participation since then, during which period we have had reports of advisory committees on worker participation, quite a degree of academic discussion on the subject and so on, what is before us is not a Bill dealing with worker participation. It deals with a much narrower subject. It deals with the question of worker participation in a stated number of State enterprises and in respect of those State enterprises the approach taken is a fairly traditional one.
Since the seventies there have been circumstances obtaining in which there have been worker directors serving on a number of boards, I think six initially and subsequently An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. Now two further State bodies are to be added to the list that will have worker directors. The two selected or identified as being right for addition at present are well chosen. I am thinking particularly of the very considerable degree of preparation there has been involving workers and management in Aer Rianta and the considerable enthusiasm obtaining within that body for taking its place among the front-line group that have full formal worker directors.
That is at one level. The other level — and this really is what this section is at — is the opportunity afforded by this Bill to a wider range of State enterprises to become involved in a formal way because, of course, many of them will have had their own structures in the area of worker participation at sub-board level. I would make one particular appeal, that is, in implementing the provisions of this section, there be the maximum degree of flexibility. The legislation to date has suffered from the fact that it has applied a uniform procedure. We have had one level of participation, that by way of worker directors elected in accordance with a standard set of procedures. That has not taken account fully of the very wide variation in character of the different State enterprises, variation in terms of the activities in which they are involved, in terms of the sizes of their workforce, in terms of the extent to which they have a track record on consultation, co-operation, of code decision-making, variation in terms of the way in which their workforce is distributed, in some instances, between a very small number of plants and, in others, in small numbers scattered all over the country.
If one was to identify a weakness in the way in which the 1977 Act has operated it has been that it has been uniform in character. My concern would be that this new Bill, when enacted, should not follow that same approach but that there should be the maximum degree of flexibility and inventiveness in trying to devise formulae that will meet the individual needs of the workplace. The Bill, as drafted, provides that opportunity if it is seized.
We really have been quite conservative in many ways in the way in which we have looked at worker participation. There has been an assumption that this is achieved by way of election, with all the paraphernalia we have come to associate with local or general elections and which have been transferred into elections for worker directors onto the boards. We have not looked at the question of supervisory boards, works councils, or the various other machineries that have operated successfully in other countries.
There can be no quarrel it seems to me on the principle. It seems to me that the argument in both the public and private sectors for saying that there is a broad community of interest between all of those who go to make up the enterprise — management, shareholders and workers — is undisputed and that we must devise structures to give effect to that. That is clear but we have been remarkably unadventurous in attempting to give effect to it. Of course there has been the initiative taken by Fine Gael in Government in their succession of Finance Bills with their incentives of the offering of shares in a company to workers. That initiative was very worthwhile and I should like to see it availed of much more widely than has been the case to date. In saying that one has to say that workers, just by virtue of being employed in an enterprise, have a very direct share in that enterprise and that having a share certificate is not necessary for that to be said. Nonetheless it is the case that the issuing of shares by a company to its employees confirms the community of interest and can be effective in helping to eliminate the "them" and "us" attitude which to some extent, has been a feature, of our industrial relations from time to time; I stress to some extent only. It is unfortunate that that kind of confrontational approach should be in the news today arising from the developments in Longford.
My appeal really would be that we should not get hung up on any one model. If one looks at the list of enterprises in the First Schedule one will see just how remarkably different in character are some of those bodies. Some are very new — FÁS and so on — some are very centralised, some are overwhelmingly staffed by specialists. Any attempt to lay down a standard form of participation must necessarily fail.
I would hope that what we will see is a very innovative and flexible approach to worker participation in the public sector and that that would be triggered by the provisions of this section. I hope that will be taken up with much greater enthusiasm by the private sector.
On Second Stage there were appeals for recasting this Bill. It was suggested that the Minister should legislate for worker participation in the private sector. I have to say I consider that to be more than a little unreal. One cannot coerce people, by legislation, into becoming partners. One cannot coerce people into a belief that they have a community of interest but I do believe that the Minister has an important role to play, by promotion and education, in advancing worker participation in the private sector. I hope this Bill is not seen as being the end of the road and as being the Government's response to worker participation because this is limited. It is the Government's response to worker participation, in a limited number of companies. I agree with it.
