I notice that "trade" is defined as meaning any industry, occupation or business, and also includes any distinct branch of a trade, but does not include agriculture, horticulture and so on. I should like to ask the Minister whether I am right in thinking that fishing, for instance, would be included in the definition of trade as it stands ?
Apprenticeship Bill, 1958—Committee and Final Stages.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Senator has put a question to me which is not in my brief, but, in general, the activities related to agriculture are not within the terms of the Bill. Fisheries, so far as the administrative aspects are concerned, relate to agriculture but I do not think there could be an apprenticeship scheme in relation to fishery activities. There would have to be an apprenticeship committee appointed. Fishing is rather a loosely-knit type of industry and it is only those industries which are well defined and are capable of having an apprenticeship scheme, that we feel would be proper to bring within the terms of the Bill. However, I am not saying now that fisheries can be absolutely excluded. There may be aspects in which they can be brought in.
The reason I rose to mention this point is that in cases dealing with industries, you are excluding agriculture. In nearly all these cases, you lump fishing in with agriculture, although it is not strictly part of agriculture but partakes of the same kind of character as agriculture. I thought in view of the desire to improve the fishing industry and the energetic steps taken in that regard, particularly by the previous Minister for Lands, now Minister for Transport and Power, and the likelihood of the continuance of that policy, that fishing would be included in trade. In view of the freezing of fish, and all the other developments which are taking place at present with a view to making fish more readily available, there are certain aspects of the fishing industry which might be the subject of apprenticeship.
The Senator is referring to fish processing?
Yes.
I take it that could be included.
I should have thought, in relation to certain trawlers to which the former Minister for Lands referred, that that is the kind of thing apprenticeship might apply to, that the art of manning trawlers was something that had to be acquired. The Minister might like to have the opportunity of finding out whether it is included in the Bill or ought to be included.
I do not think it is necessary. As the Senator knows, An Chomhairle will be set up and in so far as there are certain activities which they feel require a proper apprenticeship scheme, they may designate these schemes. Fish processing which the Senator has in mind is, to an extent, in its infancy in this country. It may well be that apprenticeship schemes will become necessary for the different activities in that industry. There is on board ship the necessity for training certain types of engineers—perhaps the type of training might be suitable only to fishing —and the Comhairle might have regard to designating that particular aspect of the fishing trade in general. Therefore, I do not think there is any necessity for him to postpone the consideration of the Bill in any way because the Comhairle will be set up with the necessary powers to designate what trade will be affected, if they feel it is necessary.
The Comhairle no doubt has the power to designate what trades will be subject to apprenticeship schemes, but it can only designate those occupations which it is permitted to designate by the terms of the Bill, and there is a restriction here and on that basis I should think that fishing is probably included.
Yes.
If it is, I shall probably be referring to it in another context; but before passing this legislation, we ought to be certain whether or not it is clear that if the Comhairle want to include some type of fishing, they have the power to do that, and that we do not have to come in with another amending Bill making for greater certainty in the matter.
I think the Seanad can take it that in so far as certain activities described in the section— agriculture, horticulture, butter-making, cheese-making and professional and clerical occupations—are specifically excluded, fishing and activities associated with fishing are included.
I think the discussion has clarified the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill".
Sub-section (1) states that the chairman shall hold office for such period as the Minister may fix at the time of his appointment. Is there any reason why a definite period such as three or five years could not be specified, as is customary in all these types of appointments? Why the exceptional treatment, and what is the length of period contemplated?
The period contemplated for ordinary members of An Chomhairle is five years, and the Parliamentary Draftsman was consulted as to whether it was necessary to name in the Bill the term for the duration of the period of office of the chairman, and his advice was that it was not necessary. Apart altogether from Parliamentary draftsmanship, as I said on the Second Stage, the chairman will occupy a position of some delicacy and he must have the absolute confidence of both sides. If at any stage it appears that he has lost the confidence of one or both sides, it would be necessary that he should hold office no longer. I am not suggesting that if a period were actually mentioned in the Bill, he could not be removed before that, but having regard to the advice from the draftsman, in the circumstances it would be better not to put in any specific period.
Has a period not to be stated at the time of his appointment?
Yes.
Then I do not see why it cannot be set out in the Bill.
It is likely that he will be appointed for at least the same term as that for which the ordinary members are appointed, and it might be that his appointment will be renewed after that for another period of five years.
Senator Quinlan has raised the point I wanted to raise in connection with the chairman. The Comhairle is to consist of a chairman and 13 ordinary members. The chairman is to be known as the Director of Apprenticeship and to be a wholetime member of the Comhairle. It seems to me, therefore, that he will be in a position analogous to that of the chief executive officer of a vocational educational committee except in this respect, that whereas the chief executive officer is merely the executive of the committee, in the case of the Comhairle here, he is also the chairman.
It does not seem to me to be a good thing, from the point of view of functioning of the Comhairle, that the person who is its chief executive should, at the same time, be the person who has to hold the balance between both sides of the Comhairle and who, as the Minister has stated, as one of his qualifications must have the confidence of both sides. I may be wrong in the way I see this Comhairle working, but it seems to me that certain proposals will have come up before the chairman in his executive capacity and naturally he will have formed a conclusion one way or the other in relation to them.
Say a district apprenticeship committee has certain rules coming up which the chairman does not think are the type of rules the Comhairle should approve of, and he forms the conclusion that the rules should be disallowed. At that point it may well be that the workers' representatives on the Comhairle might think the rules first class, but it will fall upon the executive officer, who will be the chairman of the meeting, and whose function should be to hold an even balance and to conduct the discussion impartially, to point out the deficiencies, which in the eyes of one side, would be not deficiencies but merits. It seems to me to be extremely bad that the chairman is to be the executive officer.
In relation to the Institute of Agriculture, there is a director who is the chief executive, but he is a different person from the chairman of the Institute. That seems to me to be a much better arrangement. I would ask the Minister, if he has any second thoughts on the matter as a result of what I have said, to reconsider this modified position so that administrative difficulties will not arise and the whole functioning of the Comhairle will not be impaired as a result of this arrangement.
On the same point, it has occurred to me also that everything hinges on the chairman's vote. The balance is so delicate, with five employers' representatives and five trade union representatives, that in all cases the final vote and the ultimate decision will depend on the vote of the chairman. The matter is so delicate that if the representatives of the educational bodies are not asked to vote in case it might impair their good relations with the other two sides—the reasons given on the Second Reading—or their power to advise on the educational side, surely that consideration applies with greater force to the chairman who will have to exercise all this tact? Instead of putting the onus of deciding all things on the chairman, the vote could be given to the three educational members; if it were, there could be less grounds for either side accusing the chairman of acting without impartiality.
Senator O'Quigley has a point which, at first sight, appears to be well taken but I should like to remind the Senator of Section 14:
The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may appoint such officers and servants as he thinks necessary to assist An Chomhairle in the performance of its functions.
If, in practice, it would appear to be necessary to have an executive officer as a separate entity from the chairman of the Comhairle, there is within that section power to make that appointment.
Secondly—and this is in answer to points made by Senator O'Quigley and Senator Quinlan—this measure is largely, almost entirely, an agreed measure, agreed between the joint committees set up to represent employers and employees. They went through the Bill very minutely after the Second Reading in the Dáil and it was on the basis of their recommendations that any amendments were brought before the Dáil. This section is one which received very close examination. I take it therefore that they agreed also regarding the functions of the chairman, but they agreed particularly on the question whether or not the educational members should have the right to vote. They agreed that only the employers' and the workers' representatives should have the right to vote because they were directly concerned in working out apprenticeship schemes. They thought however that the educational representatives' function should be limited to an advisory one except on certain occasions where an educational representative might find himself acting as chairman when he would have the casting vote, that is, in an apprenticeship committee as distinct from An Chomhairle. I think it would be better to leave an agreed matter alone.
Was this matter regarding the chairman being also an executive officer of the Comhairle a matter to which the committee specifically adverted and agreed?
I cannot say that I know that specifically.
The answer is that they did not disagree.
That is so.
It seems strange where such steps have been taken to cancel out five and five, that both sides should place the whole onus of making a decision in a disputed case on the chairman. If that is the case, the chairman will find himself in a very delicate position. His position in a delicate situation would be considerably reinforced if he could claim that the educational members were part and parcel of the decision also. I do not want to press the point; I am merely raising it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There are three educational members.
The three educational members might themselves create an impasse. The answer is that the committee were very much against giving the educational members a vote because they could create a combination between employers and workers, if they took any side. They are needed to act in an advisory capacity on educational matters which inevitably will arise. I feel that the chairman is the right person to have the decision between the two parties. It is only a carry on from other industrial relations where employers and trade unions meet.
I might add that the necessity for voting arises only in respect of rule making. The applications of the rules is a matter for interpretation and obviously those who have joined in making the rules will be able to interpret them pretty well. I think that prospects of agreement on the formulation of the rules is enhanced by the fact that you have such extensive agreement on the form of presentation of this rather complicated measure. I do not think the dangers which the Senator foresees are likely to arise at all.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to make a remark here and there on the Committee Stage to let the Seanad see how these sections were arrived at from the point of view of the committee. The significant feature of this is that in the case of employers, they merely nominate certain people to the Minister and make a panel from which he appoints, whereas the trade unions insist that their nominees should in fact be appointed. In other words, they go straight on, with the assent of the Minister, but without any choice. That is the same in the next section.
I would refer to subsection (7). Having made the appointment as outlined by Senator McGuire and conformed with subsections (2) and (3), it seems rather strange that according to subsection (7) the Minister may at the same time remove an ordinary member of the Comhairle from office. It would seem to me that an ordinary member should be removed only with the consent of either the trade unions concerned or the employers' organisations.
I should like to raise a small drafting point on Section 11, subsection (4).
It sets out:
The Minister shall, after consultation with the Minister for Education, appoint three persons whom he considers to be representative of educational interests to be the educational members of An Chomhairle.
Is it the Minister who will get a recommendation from the Minister for Education as to the three persons or is the Minister obliged to appoint the three persons whom the Minister for Education thinks should be appointed? That seems to be the position in the Bill as drafted. It is not entirely clear which Minister shall have the final say as to who the three people to represent educational interests will be.
This wording follows the practice. It requires only that the Minister must consult the Minister for Education before making the appointments. I think it is clear that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the Minister who actually makes the appointments. It is required by statute that he should have consultations with the Minister for Education and naturally he would have regard to the recommendations of the Minister for Education and perhaps, in effect, he would appoint the three members whom the Minister for Education recommends. I think it is quite clear and the Senator will see ample precedent for the wording here.
It seems to make it entirely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that after consultation with the Minister for Education, the Minister shall appoint three persons. There is no doubt in the world that it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who will make the appointment after consultation with the Minister for Education.
As it stands at the moment, it certainly has the appearance that the Minister is obliged to appoint three persons recommended by the Minister for Education because "he" refers back to the Minister for Education under the ordinary rules of grammar which apply in the interpretation of legislation.
Section 2 defines the Minister as the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The word "he" refers back to the last noun.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think the words between commas are the same as if they were between brackets. I think that is the ordinary way to interpret it.
Would the Minister elaborate on subsection (7) in relation to removing an ordinary member from office?
Somebody must have power to remove members from office, if they are not fulfilling their functions. It is hardly likely that the trade union group who would nominate a member would remove a person. They may not be in a position to know whether he is adequately fulfilling his function. The Minister would be in a position to know. If he removes a trade union member from office, the trade union will have to nominate somebody in his place. Therefore, the Minister must have good reason for removing him if he is to depend on the cooperation of the trade unions to nominate a member in the place of a person who is removed.
In the case of the employers' representative, the employers would have to nominate a group of people from whom the Minister might select. In the case of removing an employers' representative, he must rely on the goodwill and cooperation of the employers in order to recommend somebody to replace the removed person. Therefore, he will not, in effect, remove anybody lightly. He can remove him only if he feels he is not fulfilling the function for which he was nominated.
Would it not be well to insert a proviso that the Minister "may with the consent of the nominated body"? Surely a removal should not be carried out without first acquainting the trade union or the employers' body that the member was not fulfilling his function and that the Minister proposed to remove him? Otherwise, you would have a serious impasse. You might find that the man who was removed was renominated by the organisation concerned.
On the contrary, I suggest that the impasse would be more likely to arise in the contrary position. If the Minister found a member of the Comhairle not doing his job properly and if he wanted to remove him and failed to get the consent of the body which nominated him, there would be great difficulty. It would be a threat to the continued working of the Comhairle or the committee, as the case may be. I think I need only repeat that it is hardly likely that the Minister will remove anybody lightly. He will have to depend on the organisation which he represents to nominate his successor. If he removes him lightly, it may be that the organisation might not nominate such a person. The impasse is more likely to arise in the contrary case to the one which the Senator is putting forward.
How would the Minister know that a member was discharging his function?
The whole body is responsible to the Minister.
Would it be by a majority decision of the Comhairle to say that this member is not discharging his function?
Surely the Senator is not suggesting that I write in all the circumstances under which a man may be discharged under the Bill?
The subsection seems to be far too arbitrary. It should be with the consent of the Comhairle or the union. In fact, probably the consent of the Comhairle would be far better. Surely there is no better way of finding out how a member is performing his functions than by a direct communication from the Comhairle itself? You cannot go on hearsay. The onus must be on the Comhairle to say whether a member is performing his function.
I think Senator Quinlan's suggestion would be unthinkable. If a member of the Comhairle misconducted himself, that might be, in fact, with the collusion of the nominating body which sent him there. If an unfortunate Minister, whoever he might be, had to get the permission of the nominating body which sent the person there, if there was collusion, he would not be removed. You must vest in the Minister proper power to remove from office a person who is acting obstreperously or in an undesirable manner. I think the power must be vested in somebody and in whom better than the Minister?
Surely the decision as to whether a person is acting in an unbecoming manner or not cannot be given by a minority of the Comhairle? Otherwise, it would be a matter of the chairman and some one or two members of the Comhairle saying: "This member is proving troublesome." Surely any decision as to how a person acts must come from the majority of the committee? You cannot take a minority decision. If you took the decision of a minority as to how people act on committees I do not think any of us would be on them.
I hold that Senator Quinlan is all wrong. If you have nominations from different bodies, they are all vested interests. There is nothing wrong with that. You might find a man who was troublesome to the majority of the committee but who from the point of view of a Minister outside, was not. The Minister would be looking at the whole thing in globo.
Might I conclude by appealing to the agreement which the joint committee found on these measures? I am satisfied that was taken into full account before it was inserted in the Bill.
We are performing our function here when we raise any legitimate doubts we have. Personally, I think it is the very antithesis of democracy that any verdict of that kind should be anything other than a majority verdict. The whole basis of democracy will break down if a minority vested interest within a committee can label a member as undesirable and actually, by gaining the ear of the Minister, have him removed.
Might I suggest that in this case the matter has already been settled by reason of the fact that there was absolutely complete agreement between the two parties? Surely that is democracy? There is complete unity.
The Minister might remove a member.
It has been very carefully gone into.
Here the Minister may remove but in the next section there is provision for the filling of a casual vacancy. It is inconceivable that a Minister would lightly remove a member of a workers' organisation against the wishes of that workers' organisation. In the next section, there is provision for the filling of a casual vacancy.
I said that originally.
The Minister must accept the nomination of the workers' organisation in the next subsection in regard to filling a casual vacancy. I think there must be provision for a removal. A person might not be doing the job. Somebody must have authority to remove him. I am sure the Minister would not conceivably act without the advice and probably the recommendation of the committee. Fortunately, in this House, the Minister has not authority to remove an obstreperous member.
The Cathaoirleach has.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
It seems the Minister may appoint such officers as he thinks necessary. It is just the wording I want to raise. The whole thing seems doubtful. Has this Comhairle the autonomy it should have? I am on a board which is supposed to be autonomous but it is tied hook, line and sinker to the Department of Education. I should not like to see this Comhairle tied so closely to the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I want a little information. As we all know, some young people will have to emigrate. It is very desirable that when emigrating, they should have some training. One of the best forms of training young men and women leaving Ireland could have is apprenticeship to some trade. If the Comhairle restricts the number of entrants to a trade, then, when the Irish emigrate, they will still be hewers of wood and drawers of water. They would do honour to themselves and their country if most of them leaving Ireland had a trade rather than that they should go just as casual labourers or other sorts of workers. I hope a liberal interpretation will be given by the Comhairle to this section.
If there is a surplus of trained people, some will emigrate. They may emigrate only for a while. If they work in other countries and come back again as craftsmen, they are bringing back their experience and some of the craft of other countries. They would be better tradesmen and better craft-workers on coming back to Ireland because they would have seen and benefited by the techniques, in other countries.
The idea is to train apprentices for trades in this country and not simply to train a surplus of apprentices which would in fact depress the labour market in the particular trade. It is quite all right to talk about sending people out of the country better equipped than they would otherwise be, but that is a matter for education, perhaps in vocational schools, rather than one governing the recruitment and training of apprentices in a trade, as envisaged in this Bill.
I am in agreement with Senator Burke. Why should we condemn our people to be hewers of wood and drawers of water? A limiting effect on the number of apprenticeships below the practical figure there can be within the trade here is bad. One of the great flaws in trade unionism in this and in every country is that once a fellow is in and has a card, he does not give a hoot about the fellow outside who has not one. I suppose that remark will draw an attack on me. I believe that that is the trouble. I find the same thing in relation to people in corporation and county council houses. Once they are inside, then, in relation to rent, and so on, they do not care about the unfortunate fellow outside. A limiting factor like that is bad. If we can train more apprentices, then, even if they have to emigrate, as Senator Burke wisely said, there is always the chance they may come back later. A limiting factor is bad.
I want to endorse what Senator Burke has said. I think it is possible to combine the two points of view. Our governing factor should not be the limiting of our facilities for training apprentices, even if some must emigrate. I appreciate Senator Murphy's concern about the depressing effect a surplus number of trained persons would have on the market. You might even go so far to meet that viewpoint as to designate a certain number of apprentices to work at home. The others would get the training and qualify in the examinations but it would be made clear to them that they are not qualified to enter the home labour market. At least they would know what they were doing. They would get a training to equip them to do something better than they would normally do when they emigrate.
There is too much apprehension on the part of Labour in respect of this matter. Senator Murphy said they might get training in the vocational school. A boy who goes to Britain or America and receives training in a vocational school there and then comes back here will not be admitted to the trade union unless he has gone through the type of apprenticeship which is now recognised by the trade unions.
With regard to a surplus of skilled persons and educated people, just take the medical profession as an example. We train more doctors each year than we need. When they go to Britain they get experience. They are the men appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners to the jobs of county physicians, county surgeons, and all the other important medical posts, because of their experience abroad.
With the permission of the I.M.A.
The I.M.A. give permission so that more doctors are trained than are immediately required for our home needs. That is the point. When those who emigrate return, we receive the benefit of their experience abroad. If our tradesmen have to work in New York or Melbourne or London and come back after maybe years of improvement and experience, do they not bring something with them to our economy? Is that not more education? Do they not bring new ideas and new help to the craft? Do they not add lustre to their vocation and their craft? I think they do. The Minister would be well-advised—I am sure he has powers under the Act and so has this Comhairle—to see that this will be interpreted wisely and to the benefit of Ireland. In relation to many things in this connection here in Ireland there is, I might say, for the want of a better phrase, an intellectual restriction.
I should like to say that in the past the trade unions genuinely had something to be afraid of because, as we know, too many apprentices in the olden days were used to keep skilled men out of jobs by providing cheap labour. What has happened is that the pendulum has swung in the other direction.
The effect of this Bill is to rationalise that position and under this Bill apprenticeship will be directed in such a way—I am sure we can rely on the people who will be directing this Act to see that a reasonable number of apprentices will be allowed into the different trades—as to have regard to the justified apprehensions of the trade unions in the matter.
Senator McGuire has made my point.
The terms and conditions of the employment of tradesmen are rather different from those of doctors, engineers and members of the professions who, with age, acquire more qualifications, and are more sought after. Unfortunately, the position of tradesmen is that once they get on a bit and become a little slow, they tend to be dropped for younger men. If we are to have a situation in which many of them are surplus, definitely the trade unions may fear the position that the older people will be unable to secure employment. That is the experience at present. Carpenters, as they grow older, are not employed. They have longer periods of disemployment and eventually have to emigrate to England. That is the tendency but young doctors who leave the country come back with more experience, and better qualified.
Has the Minister anything to say?
Perhaps Senator Burke did not hear me but I said that Senator McGuire made the point I would have made.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section which enables An Chomhairle to declare a trade to be a designated trade in any area in the State and the area may then be divided up. They may decide that the area forms one apprenticeship district or they may divide it into several apprenticeship districts and constitute several apprenticeship committees for each of those districts. It specifies the powers which An Chomhairle has in relation to the constitution of those committees. I want to refer to subparagraph (i) of subsection (3) which provides:
that a member shall be disqualified from holding office and shall cease to hold office if he is adjudged bankrupt or makes a composition or arrangement with creditors, or is sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction to suffer imprisonment or penal servitude or ceases to be ordinarily resident in the State,
I wonder whether if you have, say, in some cases three apprenticeship committees in a district—supposing you had an apprenticeship district embracing Connemara, Donegal and Limerick— and you had a member of an apprenticeship district committee serving on the committee for that area, if he happens to be a trade union member or a business man and has to travel from that area to the district of Wexford or Kerry, he "ceases to be ordinarily resident in the State".
It seems to me that if that man were resident down in Kerry, he would know very little of what was going on in Donegal or Sligo. I think if a member of a district apprenticeship committee ceases to be resident within the district, he should be dropped and an equally good man found to replace him. An Chomhairle should have power to make that provision rather than say "ceases to be ordinarily resident in the State". I think that would be desirable.
As I read the Bill, it seems fairly clear from Section 21 that An Chomhairle may revoke or amend orders made under that section. Could the Minister say if an apprenticeship district committee wishes to change the rules in relation to a particular trade in its district, it has, under the Bill, the power to revoke, alter or amend rules? It does not seem to me that it is given that specific power and if it is not— and it may be very necessary for it to have that power to amend, revoke or alter—it should be given to it. Would the Minister say if provision was made in that regard apart from subparagraphs (s) and (r) which do not seem to give specific power to amend rules?
On Senator O'Quigley's first point, I do not think we can be as restrictive as he suggests, so far as the residence qualification is concerned. If a member happens to leave a district, he may be a particularly valuable member and perhaps the committee would not want to lose him. I do not think because he moves from Kerry to Meath or from Wexford to Galway that he should ipso facto cease to be a member, but if the committee decides, he should be removed, or rather, if it is decided that he should be removed, An Chomhairle have the power to remove a member. If they feel that the residence outside the district for which committee he is a member is such disqualification, or such deterrent, to his performing adequately his functions, then An Chomhairle have power to remove him from office. The committee has the power to amend its rules. There is no question about that.
I must say I have perused the Bill with some care and— apart from subparagraphs (r) and (s) which are general and I take it ancillary to the powers provided in subparagraphs (a) to (q)—I could not find the powers to amend rules. Is that what is contemplated because it is obviously necessary and it does not seem to me that it is provided, and if it is not, I think it should be specifically provided.
I can look into the matter, if necessary.
It is provided under subparagraph (r).
There is another point I want to refer to on this section. The apprenticeship committees probably are a great deal more important than An Chomhairle in practice, and provision is made in a later section of the Bill for the keeping of registers by the district apprenticeship committees. There is no power invested in those committees to hold property and presumably they have office accommodation. I wonder whether it is necessary or whether some facility will be provided by An Chomhairle on behalf of the district committees because it is perfectly clear from the other section that there must be a special headquarters readily available to people who want to consult with the committee or who are entitled to inspect the register which will be kept by the committee in its district.
Any property the committee will use will be the property of An Chomhairle and if they have the right to have property, I do not think it is necessary to give a committee that power.
In Section 22 (b) it says that "an apprenticeship committee for the district to perform the functions assigned to an apprenticeship committee". Would the Minister not consider that it would be better to have an apprenticeship committee for the trade?
If the Senator refers to sub-paragraph (a), he will see that trade is provided for.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 23 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."
I must confess that I find sub-section (3) quite extraordinary. This is the section which permits the apprenticeship committee to modify arrangements in regard to a particular apprentice with his consent, if he is over 18, but if he is not over 18, then "in relation to a person... who has not attained the age of 18 years, means the individual having the legal custody of the person." It then goes on to define what is meant by a parent and it is the most peculiar definition of parent I have ever seen.
Sub-section (3) says: "In subsection (2) of this section ‘parent' in relation to a person employed by way of apprenticeship who has not attained the age of 18 years, means the individual having the legal custody of the person." I do not understand what is meant by "the individual having the legal custody of the person." Indeed, I consulted a colleague more learned than myself today as to what was meant by that phrase but he could not tell me what, in this particular context, is meant by "the legal custody."
The subsection continues—"and where, owing to the absence of the individual"—and it does not explain "absence" or whether it is outside the State or not. If an apprentice's father is living in England and the lad is working in Dublin, who has the legal custody? Does "absence" mean in this context absence from the State or merely absence relative to the father or the parent? Certainly there is no definition of the word.
The subsection continues "or for any other reason, the person is not living with or in the actual custody of that individual, includes the individual with whom the person is living or in whose actual custody the person is." Well, it may well be that the legal custody would be with one person and the actual custody, of say a child of 14 or 15, might be with an aunt or uncle, or some such person. It seems to be quite improper that the rights of the parent in relation to the child should appear to be minimised or derogated in this section by saying the aunt, who has the actual custody, is entitled to decide what is to happen in relation to the apprentice. The subsection astounds me as a piece of legislation having regard to parents' rights to mind their children.
The Senator described this as a most peculiar definition. I am advised that it is the common definition of parents in such legislation. I do not want to pit the Senator's experience against that of my advisers but as this is the common definition, it seems to have stood the test of time.
Perhaps the Minister would indicate some of the statutes in which this definition appears?
I have not got that, but I am reading directly from my brief—"this is a common definition where the word parent is used in legislation." I do not think any difficulties will arise. The Senator is raising hares; not alone that but he is also splitting hairs.
I am not, and what is more——
We cannot hear the Senator.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 29 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides that an apprenticeship committee can determine the number of persons to be taken into a particular employment by way of apprenticeship in a trade in a particular area where the committee is of the opinion that insufficient have been taken in by way of apprenticeship, and where it is satisfied that a person who carries on a trade in a district has facilities for training people by way of apprenticeship and is, without reasonable cause failing to take persons into his employment by way of apprenticeship, they can serve notice on that person and require him to take a certain number of people into apprenticeship. That, of course, when you take the view that everything should be regulated nicely and neatly is a perfectly logical section but I submit that this kind of section is a gross invasion of the rights of the individual and I very much doubt its propriety.
There is such a thing as freedom of action and people, in accordance with that freedom, frequently do things which are not in the public interest and which are not socially desirable, but they still have under our system of government, and our democratic Constitution, the right to exercise these rights which they have, in a way which may not conform with the social concepts of different sections of the community. The fact is that they have got them and to my mind, while I am in entire agreement with the idea of regulating apprenticeship, fixing standards of wages and qualifications, granting diplomas and indeed in general raising the life of the people in trades, we must never forget that once we begin making invasions of the people's rights in one direction, we shall then come along and in another direction make a further invasion. We shall have Ministers getting up and saying that this is common form; that we have something analogous to it in previous legislation. In time we shall find that respect for the individual ceases and becomes a thing of the past. I do not see how it can be enacted by the Oireachtas that an apprenticeship committee, which is not responsible to Parliament and not subject to review by the courts, can oblige, under a penalty, an individual of this State to do something which at the present time he is not obliged to do, and which I think, under the Constitution he cannot be obliged to do.
If a man has facilities for training apprentices and he is not taking on apprentices for good or bad reasons, whether he is acting socially or unsocially, as long as he is within the criminal laws, I do not see how he can be compelled. An apprenticeship committee can act with no supervision by Parliament, not even to the extent of placing regulations on the Table of the House so that they can be kept for 21 days—not even that nominal safeguard. It cannot be right to require persons in these circumstances to carry out such regulations.
This is a most serious invasion of the rights of individuals and certainly I am opposed to this provision. Mark you this: it would be different if there were some recourse to the courts, if the apprenticeship committee could say: "Under these rules a certain man is obliged to do something" and then get a court order. The courts are there to preserve the rights of the individual, to preserve the rights of man and man, man and the State, man and local government, man and the apprentice.
It has been suggested that we should finish the business as announced on the Order Paper today. There is a general feeling that we should sit until midnight to conclude. There are difficulties in the way of sitting to-morrow and it is possible that we may not meet next week. One at least of these Bills is urgent and I suggest we continue until midnight to finish the business.
I wish to support Senator O'Quigley very strongly on this. What penalty can the apprenticeship committee exact from, say, the owner of a garage if he refused to take apprentices? It may be "socially undesirable" but this is giving a very undesirable, a very anti-social, power to the committee and mark you, it is not even subject to review by An Chomhairle or any other body. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this section and see whether he could not find something more acceptable.
The only explanation which could, I think, be given as to why this was agreed to by the committee is that it is a corollary to the insistence that the trade unions on their part should not interfere with the number of apprentices agreed to by An Chomhairle. In other words, it is only reasonable that employers, unless they can give a reasonable excuse, should accept them. It is a quid pro quo.
The words in subparagraph (b) should allay any fears entertained by Senator O'Quigley or Senator Quinlan. It states that:
a person who carries on the trade in the district has the facilities for training persons by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district and is, without reasonable cause, failing to take persons into his employment
is guilty of an offence. He then has recourse to the courts to establish whether he is acting with reasonable cause. That brings him to the points made by Senators O'Quigley and Quinlan that an obligation might be placed on him. If he can establish to the court that he has good and sufficient cause which the court considers reasonable, the court will not place an obligation on him by imposing a penalty. If a penalty is not imposed it is proof that the court considers he has given reasonable cause and he need not take an apprentice. The safeguards are there already.
I thoroughly and completely disagree. "Reasonable cause" is what to the committee appears reasonable. If it appears to the committee that a person is without reasonable cause, they may by notice require him to take into his employment a specified number of persons. I would refer to subsection (7) of Section 62:
Where a person upon whom a notice under subsection (2) of section 38 or subsection (2) of section 58 of this Act is served fails or neglects to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The requirements of the notice are merely "You shall take in three apprentices." That is all the apprenticeship committee has to establish. "We served notice under Section 38 of the Act requiring Mr. X. to take three apprentices into his employment. He has failed to do so and therefore he shall be guilty of an offence." The question of the reasonableness of his refusal or whether he has the proper facilities is not within the jurisdiction of the court. They cannot be entertained by the court at all. The committee says the notice was served and once it is proved that it was served, the person is guilty of an offence. I think that is most outrageous.
May I add that the fact that this is the product of two parties does not affect these facts? It is a question of the rights of people who are not members of the Federated Union of Employers. This section can apply to a garage owner in Achill who may have facilities but may not want to take the trouble of retaining apprentices to deal with tourists who come with their cars. He may have facilities and because he has "no reasonable cause" he is brought before the district court in Achill and fined £20 for doing what he considered best. I am taking a purely hypothetical case. I think this provision is outrageous.
If a prosecution is brought, the prosecuting authority has to satisfy the court that a notice, as provided for in Section 38, was served and satisfy the court that the employer was refusing to do something without reasonable cause.
No.
I would agree entirely with Senator O'Quigley because, after all, the practice in the courts has been not to inquire into why a particular notice was served on employers, under the Factories Act, perhaps. As long as the statutory requirements are complied with, they are guilty. That is all there was to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 39 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 58.
Government amendment No. 1:
Before subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:"( ) No one shall be required by virtue ofparagraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section to answer any question or to give any evidence tending to criminate himself.”
This is an amendment to meet a point made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington on the Second Stage. The section, as it stands, provides that an authorised officer of the Comhairle may enter upon premises and may ask certain questions of the employer whom he finds on those premises with regard to the apprenticeship scheme he might be administering. The point made by the Senator was that he should not be required to answer all questions that might be put to him. I think the point is a good one. The amendment now proposed deals with the point that no one can be required, by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, to answer any question or give any evidence tending to incriminate himself. I think the House can accept that amendment.
The Minister said that he thought the point made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington was a good one. I must certainly say that I agree wholeheartedly with him. Indeed, I feel grateful to the Minister for introducing this amendment in the light of the history of another amendment on another Bill which was inserted by the Seanad twice and rejected by Dáil Éireann. I could make something out of that point.
Not at this hour.
I could dilate at length on the righteous indignation which moved the Seanad to insert that amendment in the Prices Bill, 1927, but I do not choose to do that. I rather prefer to congratulate the Minister very sincerely that, in spite of the previous experience, he has introduced this worthwhile amendment. It is some consolation to realise that after the discussions, mainly one-sided, which we had on Section 38, there is at least a glimmer of respect for the constitutional rights which the people gave to themselves under the Constitution enacted in 1937.
I hope the Minister can persuade the Dáil to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 59 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 2:
Before section 63, to insert the following new section:
"An offence under this Act may be prosecuted by An Chomhairle."
I was approached by the Incorporated Law Society in connection with this section. They were concerned about the use of the words "or an authorised officer" following the words "at the suit of An Chomhairle." In other words, they thought that the Comhairle or an authorised officer might actually prosecute an offence by appearing in court. I assured them that it was not the intention that an officer should appear there as an advocate of An Chomhairle in court, but in order to remove any doubts I decided to delete the words "or an authorised officer as prosecutor" and simply let the section read: "An offence under this Act may be prosecuted by An Chomhairle". It will stand to reason then that An Chomhairle will naturally have to be represented by a solicitor or by a solicitor and counsel in any prosecutions they bring.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 63 deleted.
Sections 64 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I must confess to keen disappointment in regard to the points I made on Section 38 which I consider to be of fundamental importance, in that we are enacting legislation dealing with the rights of individuals that the Minister has not given a more satisfactory explanation of the reasons for the introduction of those powers.
I have already said more than I want to say on this section. I think the Minister might have second thoughts and give further consideration to the matter, even if it requires the introduction of an amending Bill.
I do not want to suggest that I have not taken cognisance of the point made by the Senator but I think the Bill will work as it stands. If it does not and if it is shown that hardship will be encountered, there will not be finality. There is always a right to amend a Bill even after enactment.
I take the same view as Senator O'Quigley. I am surprised the committee overlooked the point. It is rather frightening to think that people could be forced, almost against their wishes, to take people in whom they are not willing to take. Perhaps the Minister would look into the matter?
Have I machinery now at this stage to look into the matter further?
Question put and agreed to.