Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1966

Vol. 61 No. 15

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1966: Second Stage.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the setting up of a new Department of State to be known as the Department of Labour. Heretofore, matters concerning labour, including the administration of the Industrial Relations Act and the body of laws for the protection of workers' health and safety and conditions of employment, have been the responsibility, in the main, of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, though other Government Departments have carried some responsibilities which will be transferred to the new Department of Labour on and after its establishment.

The most important of these is the administration of the employment exchange service. The growth of manufacturing industry and the pace of the economic change generally have tended to extend and complicate the problems arising in industrial relations and in the discharge of the Government's functions to protect the interests of workers in matters which are properly the concern of Government. It is no longer deemed to be practical and desirable to have these responsibilities kept as a part time responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Furthermore, the development of the manpower policy on which the Government are now engaged and the enactment and operation of legislation which the Government have announced in regard to such matters as the security of employment of industrial workers, redundancy and the introduction of codes of fair employment, will call for the close and undivided attention of one member of the Government assisted by a specialised staff. While industrial relations in the narrow, conventional sense of the term will not be the sole preoccupation of the new Minister, it is likely they will for a long time occupy a great deal of his attention. It is hoped that by facilitating top level discussion between representatives of employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions it may be possible in time not only to evolve a more favourable climate but to initiate a system which will minimise the danger of stoppages of work through industrial disputes and lead to the introduction of procedures in regard to them which will be more closely related to modern decisions and needs.

The importance of this to the successful solution of the country's economic problems needs no stressing. The proposal to set up a new Department had general support in Dáil Éireann. It was the subject of some public debate since it was first put forward by the Irish National Productivity Committee and has been mentioned in reports published to the Oireachtas by the NIEC as well as in the report of the Interdepartmental Committee which considered the administrative arrangements for the operation of a manpower policy. The decision of the Government to proceed with it followed on their examination of the causes and the circumstances of the deterioration in the labour relations situation which followed on the failure of the joint talks between the Federated Union of Employers and the members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on another national wage agreement earlier this year.

This examination made it clear that the policy heretofore followed by the Government of leaving these matters to be settled by joint action between the two parties in industry, without Government intervention, while theoretically the sounder policy in a free democracy, was not working out as we had hoped and that the situation called not only for more active Government participation in this area but for a general review of the present institutional arrangements, and of the legislative foundation of industrial relations and for the development of a specialist Department where day to day administration could be related to and guided by some basic research activities aimed at the generation and the exploration of new ideas and their discussion with leaders of management and unions. The general acceptance of this proposal by the Parties in the Dáil and by the Irish public also makes it unnecessary to argue the case for it at any length, whatever differing views may prevail as to how the new Department should function or the nature of the problems with which it will have to contend and the best methods of approaching those problems.

When the Bill has become law, and the new Department has been constituted, orders will be made transferring the appropriate functions to it from other Departments. In particular, the administration of the employment exchange service will be transferred to it from the Department of Social Welfare. The employment exchanges are now mainly occupied with the administration of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefits. The employment service proper, that is to say, the service set up to put unemployed workers in touch with employers needing workers, is underdeveloped. It is used mainly by public authorities who, under direction from the Government, are required to fill their labour needs from the employment register.

It is intended now to make a sustained effort to extend the utility of this service both to workers and employers and gradually to shift the emphasis in the employment exchanges from the administration of employment benefits to helping workers get in touch with jobs suitable to their needs and skills; to encourage the more active use of the exchanges by employers, involving the canvassing of employers to avail of the exchanges and the linking up of their work with the development of arrangements for industrial training and retraining. By this I mean, in the case of a worker reporting to an employment exchange that he is unemployed, whether or not he is claiming unemployment benefit, that consideration will be given to the prospects of improving his employment prospects by training of some kind.

The administration of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance will continue to be the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare but the staffs of the employment exchanges will become the responsibility of the Minister for Labour who will make the payments to beneficiaries on behalf of the Minister for Social Welfare on an agency basis.

One of the most important aspects of our labour problems is presented by the increase in the number and the scale of operations of State boards and companies which employ large staffs and provide either essential public services or conduct manufacturing operations. The legislation which was enacted by the Oireachtas setting up those boards and companies gives them autonomy in day-to-day administration and particularly in respect of the recruitment and remuneration of their staffs. There was an idea at one time that they could remain outside the normal process of wage adjustments by negotiation by automatically applying to their staff wage changes brought about in private employment and by the operation of internal tribunals dealing exclusively with their staffs. This idea has proved illusory.

In these days when wage claims are based more on comparisons with other workers than on actual needs and when the force of circumstances has on occasion tended to push those State boards into a position of lead giving in those matters, however undesirable that may be, the arrangements they make with their staffs often have widespread impact, while the authority of their internal tribunals has been progressively weakened by not infrequent rejection of their findings by some groups of the workers concerned. It is inevitable, therefore, that the Minister for Labour will have to be concerned with the labour affairs of the boards to the extent, but only to the extent, that they can have repercussions outside their own staffs, either by setting up standards for other groups and trades to imitate, or by reason of the danger of the stoppage of work which might threaten the public welfare or employment of other workers.

It is not intended that the autonomy of those boards should be invaded or that the Minister for Labour will in any sense be a court of appeal from their internal tribunals. In the development of a labour policy, however, and a new climate of relations in labour affairs it would be altogether unrealistic to have those State boards, which are very large employers—some of them are the largest in the State— outside the ambit of the Minister for Labour. It is recognised that while he will have to deal with those boards on labour issues he must keep informed the Ministers who are directly responsible for their supervision, particularly whenever there are situations arising that relate to their capacity to fulfil the purposes for which the boards were set up and the development and extension of their activities, which are directly a ministerial responsibility. In accord with the policy of the Government, State enterprise has been extended to many important public services and into some fields of manufacture. It would be our intention to go further and if possible extend them to meet new requirements and new situations, if they arise, but the feasibility and indeed the desirability of so doing will depend to a very great degree on it being possible to evolve a labour policy that will give safeguards against their monopoly character being exploited to the detriment of national development generally.

In the early days of the industrial revolution in other countries protection against the improper exploitation of the workers became a matter of consequence for Government and a body of legislation was built up in every country to protect their health, their safety and their conditions of employment, especially of women and young people. We consider these are still the proper responsibility of Government although there has been a considerable and significant shift in economic power and there is, perhaps, likely to be more difficulty experienced nowadays by the improper use of economic power by the trade unions than by management.

We envisage, however, a situation in which protection against arbitrary dismissal from work, against excessive hours, unhealthy conditions, unsafe practices and so forth, will not only continue to be the responsibility of Government but will be based where proper on legally enforceable rights defined by law and applied uniformly throughout each occupation.

I think everybody hopes we are entering on a new era in this matter and understands also the importance of developing a rational and intelligent procedure for dealing with it if the nation's economic welfare is to be protected and its future economic growth ensured. These areas of Government policy will be the special responsibility of the new Minister for Labour. I do not wish to underestimate the magnitude or difficulty of the task being allotted to him.

It would be far too much to expect that he will be able to clear away all the difficulties but there will be little doubt that he will be able to minimise some of them and start the process of working out a new deal in labour relations which everybody desires.

It is not very often we have the benefit of the presence of the Taoiseach in this House, and for that reason, and this is the first occasion on which he has come into this House during the life of this Seanad, I should like to say to him he is very welcome here this evening.

I think I am right in saying that he has not been in this House very often since he became Taoiseach, and I also think I am correct in saying that the last occasion upon which he was in this House was to deal with some labour troubles. That was the ESB Bill of unhappy memory and timely decease in September 1961 and I suppose it is significant that it is upon another matter in relation to industrial unrest that the Taoiseach is here this evening. I think that probably the infrequency of the Taoiseach's visits to this House and the fact that he is here this evening on a Labour Bill emphasises the importance and the magnitude of the problem upon which we are engaged. I think this is to a large extent a non-controversial Bill though the circumstances in which it is introduced are highly controversial.

We on this side of the House—I speak for myself and my Fine Gael colleagues—advocated here last March, when we were discussing the White Paper on manpower policy, the establishment of a Ministry of Labour and the appointment of a Minister for Labour. We feel that at this time, when we are about to come in for very severe competition from industry outside, and for a variety of other reasons, it is necessary to have in Government not merely a Parliamentary Secretary dealing with manpower and having special responsibility for problems relating to it but that there should be at the Government table a Minister with all the authority a Minister of the Cabinet has and the influence he can carry with his colleagues. I suppose it comes as no surprise to the Taoiseach to learn that we actively support the appointment of a Minister for Labour.

The Taoiseach has dwelt at some length on the kind of duties the Minister for Labour will have and the problems that will confront him, and, indeed, the problems are extremely complex, very difficult to unravel and difficult to find solutions that will be acceptable to all. I think perhaps the Taoiseach should bear in mind that while he maintained in the Dáil that his Government had a great record— and they have a good record in relation to the introduction of the Conditions of Employment Act and the Shops Act, and things of that kind—there are still many older trade unions with the scar of the iron rod that was used on them in the days of the wages standstill and that has remained with a lot of middle aged people and trade unions and probably will remain with them until the end of their days.

The Taoiseach's Government again in the field of relations with public employees have not a good history. I say this not for the purpose of provoking controversy but I think it is well that the new Minister for Labour and the Taoiseach should realise that there is that kind of attitude abroad. It must be remembered that for many years the public servants in this country fought a long, hard and unsuccessful battle against the Taoiseach and his colleagues in the Government in trying to establish a system of arbitration for the Civil Service. Indeed, there was a general election held upon this issue.

I remember as a young boy in the town of Castlebar listening to the politicians of that day proclaiming that we were going to be governed by the Civil Service. Indeed, all too unhappily we are nowadays governed invisibly too much by the Civil Service and too little by the politicians. That is the thought that is in the minds of a lot of people in the public service. Happily, I suppose, a lot of those who would be interested or actively engaged in the day to day trade union activities of the Civil Service are now promoted to the higher ranks where they no longer come under the scheme of conciliation and arbitration.

That old tradition, and tradition dies hard in the Civil Service as we all know, is there and it is something that has to be reckoned with by a new Minister for Labour. Indeed, at the present time there is a great deal of tension and anxiety, as far as I can gather from the public pronouncements of Civil Service officials and officials of other public bodies that their internal scheme of conciliation and arbitration will be annihilated in a newly constructed Labour Court.

Deputy J. Lynch, who is now Minister for Finance, hinted at that, I think, in an election broadcast during the last election and I think there has been some reference to it since but to judge by the statements made in the newspapers by a spokesman of the Civil Service associations and trade unions that is a step which will not be welcome. I think that in that field the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour will require to move with what I might call Civil Service caution. If they do they will not make a mistake very rapidly. One of the causes that have given rise to the kind of problem we have in State and semi-State bodies, responsible to a large extent for the establishment of the pay tribunal, was the absolute failure of the Government, whether it was the Department of Finance, Local Government, Industry and Commerce or Transport and Power, to take any active part in the development of a pattern of pay scales. Time was when the Department of Finance absolutely refused to consider any offer of an increase in Civil Service remuneration. Consequently, the remuneration of all public employees and very often the ESB and others was controlled by this until such time as—to use a glorious, time-honoured and oft repeated phrase —the outside pattern had emerged. In time, when the outside pattern did emerge the public sector took their cue from it and then, when that operated to the benefit of the people in the public sector, they were told that this kind of leap-frogging, this maintenance of the differentials, could not continue. The rules of the game were changed and this new pay tribunal was established.

What I feel is the proper thing to do now is for the public sector and the private sector in industry and the services to deal with these problems as they arise. In time these wage levels will be settled upon different conditions and circumstances and they will not be entirely related to one another. I think the new pay tribunal, for that reason, will create a whole lot many more problems than it will solve. That is another day's work but there never has been, in my view, a desire on the part of public departments to get in there with their own employees and deal with their pay claims here and now. There has been far too much waiting for Godot and when Godot did emerge and was beneficial to the public sector, he was overthrown and displaced. There is that kind of an attitude which I hope has, to some extent, been got away from in modern times, for the simple reason that conciliation and arbitration which has been in operation in this country for most of the public sector—it began in 1950—to some extent got away from the outside comparisons.

If the Minister for Labour is going to be an effective Minister it seems to me he will have to set a good example. He is not an employer but he can, I think, and ought to influence the pattern of behaviour between management and employees in the various semi-State bodies and, indeed, in the Civil Service, local authorities and elsewhere. My experience has been— purely as a member of the public I say this—that in many of the cases in which employees feel they have a wages claim, want to get shorter hours, or want to deal with promotion— which is always a very important matter to persons in the public service —their claims are properly dealt with in the first place, by an establishment officer or personnel officer, but all too infrequently, the trade union officials see the heads of these bodies. How frequently does the Chairman of CIE, the ESB or any of these other large bodies meet the trade unions to discuss a particular claim with them? If labour relations are all that important, and I believe them to be extremely important, I do not think it is outside the functions or dignity of any board of directors or board of any statutory authority to depute some of their members to meet those people and to have negotiations at top level.

I have always had the experience, as a one-time official of a Civil Service association, that when you could get absolutely nowhere with the establishment officer, with the assistant secretary in charge of establishment, and nowhere with the secretary, eventually, after a lot of knocking, you got to the Minister, whether it was the Minister for Finance, Social Welfare, Agriculture, Industry and Commerce or whoever he was, and then you got a hearing and, more often than not, a good deal was conceded. Ministers, by that kind of a discussion, I think, oftentimes learned quite a lot of what was going on in their Departments. Equally so, the chairman of semi-State boards could learn quite a deal of the outlook, hopes and aspirations, fears and misgivings of their own employees by meeting them on the more important kind of trade union matters which are of concern to their employees. That goes on all too infrequently. If there was more contact at board level, we might have a great deal less friction. I recollect, indeed, that that was the position in the case of the bank strikes a long time ago. I do not know whether they only met the office boy from the Banks Standing Committee. I do not know whether they have changed that and whether or not at this time the bank directors are negotiating with their opposite numbers in the trade unions. Perhaps they are too grand for that. If they are not, that might be some solution to this particular problem in which they are involved.

The time of the establishment of a Ministry of Labour or a Department of Labour is somewhat unfortunate, in that it is linked with a very serious problem for which the Government provided a very unpleasant remedy. Of course, the Taoiseach, I am sure, must be extremely pleased that this useful diversion has distracted public attention from what went on that time. I would have been a great deal more happy myself, if six months ago, a year ago, or two years ago, when there was no great crisis looming up, a Bill of this kind was brought in. So be it, it is none the less welcome. But what has always struck me as extraordinary— and for a long time I did not understand it until I saw the explanation given in reply to a Parliamentary question—was the fact that when you had strikes in CIE or in the ESB it was not the Minister for Transport and Power but the Minister for Industry and Commerce who intervened. The explanation was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce had responsibility for industrial relations, the functioning of the Labour Court and things of that kind. I am almost afraid to refer to the good Minister for Industry and Commerce because any reference to him nowadays seems to be regarded as an attack upon him.

I do not intend to make any reference to or cast any slight of character on the Minister for Transport and Power. The Minister for Transport and Power is responsible for the semi-State bodies, and having responsibility for them I think that it is up to him by persuasion, using his influence through discussion with the boards of these various authorities, to get them to put their house in order, and in this the Minister for Labour should join. Unless the State through these various bodies gives some kind of a lead to the private sector in this country all the exhortations from the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Industry and Commerce will fall upon deaf ears as far as the private employers are concerned. Very often innovations are introduced in these public companies with no consultation whatever with trade unions in advance, not even information that they are coming in. That is taking place to a lesser extent than once upon a time, but it seems that if we want to make a real effort to promote good relations in a body like the ESB or CIE we must bring in that other vital part of the industry, the workers. I can see no objection to consulting regularly with workers and having regular consultations upon a variety of topics which should be agreed between the boards of management and the trade unions.

I know that the Taoiseach may say that under the schemes of consultation or whatever kind of staff relations CIE had there was provision for that kind of thing. I am aware of that, but to what extent was it in fact used? Was it just something put in piously at the time when the scheme was being drafted in the hope that everybody would forget about it? There should be real and genuine consultation to let the workers know the reasons why things are being done, what the aim is, hear what their fears are, and, in so far as it is possible to do so, to allay them. If that is not done those fears are going to be there anyway and something will have to be done at some stage in order to meet what may be the legitimate objections of trade unions to certain innovations. It would be a good thing if the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Transport and Power in relation to semi-State bodies could inaugurate some kind of scheme of regular consultation with the workers in those industries so as to at least keep the workers informed on what is being done. It is important if that were being done that the people who would be consulted should not be the persons who will afterwards have to do the negotiation of wage claims and other matters relating to conditions of service of the employees. To have the same people consulted who do the negotiations would be to some extent to draw the teeth of the fighting members of the trade unions, who must always be left there to deal with the particular matter in the way they think best.

Having done something along these lines, it seems to me also that when the Electricity Supply Board or Córas Iompair Éireann or other bodies are floating loans—I do not know whether they do it nowadays—there should be some kind of scheme whereby workers in those industries would be able to take shares or stock in the various loans and to acquire some kind of stake in the industry. That could quite readily be done by appropriate arrangements for deduction from pay where people want that facility. If the facility is provided one may well find that it will be availed of, and availed of to an increasing extent. It would give some sense of belonging to the workers in the particular employment.

The Minister for Labour will have a great deal of work to do. I think that he will want to have the wisdom of a Solomon, the patience of Job, the hide of a rhinoceros, and after all that he will get very little thanks from anybody and a great deal of blame from everybody. He is faced with an extremely difficult job in trying to bring peace among what may not be a great number of industries but maintaining general peace in the various industries and services which operate within the State. He will have to do a good deal of education of employers. I want to stress this, that that education cannot be carried out at the dinner-dances we were talking about here this evening. That is not the time at which people are in the mood to digest the weighty words of a Minister for Labour. He will have to inaugurate some kind of course or scheme or system of distribution of booklets upon management and upon how to co-operate with trade unions as a vital element in the industrial and commercial life of this country.

To my mind employers fall into three categories. There are those who do not like trade unions and are opposed to them. That is not a great number, but there are some of them who have a settled dislike of trade unions and everything appertaining to them. One meets them from time to time. There are, then, a great number of employers, I do not know how many, who merely tolerate trade unions as a kind of necessary evil, and who try to get on with them because they are there and because it makes life that bit easier to try to co-operate with them. Then there are the small number of employers who get on very well with trade unions and who value them as a useful adjunct in the running of their business. The Minister for Labour will have a great deal of cultivation of employers in order to get them to accept that trade unions exist because there is a need for them and that trade unions have a right to make their case and that they have reasons for most of the things that they seek most of the time even if what they claim cannot be met. I have known employers—and indeed, employers engaged in very lucrative export business—who have steadfastly watched the shop steward, shifting him around from this employment to that and to the other and eventually putting him in the position where every movement of his could be watched. That is the kind of thing that is done for the purpose of making him feel so unstable that he just leaves the firm or that he will find it so difficult that he will resign his position as shop-steward. There is another employer who has as little time for trade unions and shop stewards as he has for the seconds that are produced by his factory. They are really for the scrap heap as far as he is concerned. When it comes to the interpretation of their terms and the fulfilment of the bargains made with him there is no lawyer who would find more loopholes through which he can escape from his obligations better than he can or who would be as good in doing it as this particular employer. I must say, strangely enough, that this is a thing about which he has been very successful. I suppose that there are certain things you can do through fear. I do not say that people like this represent any appreciable size of the body of employers, but the fact that that kind of outlook and mentality exists is quite deplorable, and that is the kind of thing which the Minister for Labour will have to deal with.

On the other hand, the trade unions will have to realise, as I think a great many of them do, that there is need for a certain code of principles and rules which should guide their activities. What I should like to see is the unions by agreement amongst themselves agreeing to certain kinds of things they will voluntarily undertake to do. One of the things it is necessary for them to do is, where there is an unofficial strike in circumstances in which there is no justification for the strike to occur, not to make it official afterwards. One often hears from workers in industry that if some of the local shop stewards do not get their way immediately upon something from the employer—if there is a refusal on the first occasion—instead of approaching it in a different way, or leaving it altogether for the time being, their first course is to think: "We will strike and teach him." All too readily that is the first approach and, even though those strikes do not materialise, that is not a good outlook. People in the responsible position of shop stewards will have to get a greater understanding of their own responsibilities, and papers to look at this matter and see if they can be more helpful in promoting good industrial relations in this country.

The Taoiseach, in introducing this Bill to the House, is asking us to sanction the appointment of a new Minister for Labour. Significantly, like many other Bills which have been introduced in this House this term, it has the general approval of the House, if one can judge, particularly from the speeches which have been made already by the Opposition members. One might say, in passing, that though these objections have not been raised here, the main objections to this new appointment have not been directed against the Ministry itself but against some other Ministries, as if they were inherently involved in this new appointment to cover these modern circumstances. I think it merely warrants a passing reference here that the criterion must surely be, in relation to the functions of every Ministry and of the man in charge of that Ministry, as to the responsibility and direction which he biars, and not necessarily as to the amount of work or the amount of drudgery which he puts in in any one day. Certainly, it cannot be related in any sensible way and I think the Taoiseach has very effectively given the lie to this; it certainly cannot be related to the population, as if one should have one Minister for 200,000 people or for 400,000 people or, as was pointed out in more populous countries of Europe, per 2½ million people. I mean one of the more populous countries of Europe. Each nation in the conduct of its own affairs must naturally legislate for its own affairs and make provision in such legislation, in such conduct, for the suitable offices, and I am satisfied, and indeed, all reasonable observers of the present scene in Ireland, I think, are satisfied that the time has come for the appointment of such a new Ministry. I feel that though it may have been activated immediately by some of the recent problems we have seen in industrial relations, in many ways it is rather a happy sign of the development we have seen in this nation.

When one thinks that approximately 30 years ago a limit was set to the number of Ministers under the Constitution which we should have in this country, and at present some people are expressing fears that possibly now we are about to reach the quota set down as the maximum by the Constitution of 30 years ago, in all reason and with all objective criticism of the development of this nation in the past 30 years we have developed and become a more complex society than could have been envisaged at the time of the framing of that Constitution. So far from needing an excuse to justify the appointment of a new Ministry, in fact, if anything I would agree with those who might say that the appointment has been, if anything, somewhat retarded because thanks to the economic development and growth of this nation over the past few years particularly this, with other problems, has followed in its trail, problems which are, as I said on the last occasion, characteristic of the very success we have created.

We have become a more highly urbanised and more industrialised society, and this brings in its turn a more impersonal relationship than one normally experiences in the rural relations that Ireland has been somewhat noted for up to recent years. One thinks in terms of a comparison with the almost father-son relationship that existed between farmers and their faithful labourers for many years. That was very much a characteristic of Irish life. Such a labourer was very largely a part of the farmer's family, but you find that now in the rural community in Ireland that is fading from the scene. Surely if such relationships are fading from the scene in our rural community certainly even more significant changes are taking place in the industrial and urbanised communities. As I say, without going into any great detail, there is obviously every justification and need there for this new appointment.

There are many aspects of this new Ministry which the Taoiseach has referred to here this evening and in his introductory speech in the Dáil. these matters and bringing his mind to bear on the rights and wrongs, and make a decision, or else he will not do it properly. If Ministers have to spend all that time on that kind of administrative detail, it is because they have taken more and more upon themselves in the various pieces of legislation which have passed through Oireachtas Éireann in the past number of years.

The Taoiseach might bear this in mind in relation to other Bills that will come before the Houses in his time: the time must come when these matters will have to be taken away from Ministers and handed to some quasi-judicial body. In my opinion Ministers cannot concern themselves with these things when they are attending to their constituencies, attending the Dáil and, at the same time, give the kind of thorough examination and deep thought to the problems with which they should properly be concerned. Of course, they have their officials dealing with these matters but in my opinion there is no substitute for the proper understanding of any problem other than getting down to it in all its details and ramifications, having a good look at it and giving a great deal of thought to it. When you have done that, there can be consultation on the advice of your officials and solutions can be propounded.

I agree that Ministers cannot busy themselves on these problems if they have to concern themselves with too much detail. I hope the Taoiseach will give that tilt to legislation in the future which will prevent the various matters in legislation being brought within the ambit of ministerial decision so that some of the existing institutions will be used to a greater extent. There is one piece of advice I proffer to the unknown Minister for Labour. If he wants to get a proper understanding of active trade unions——

A long-winded speaker.

The Senator is in travail.

I am not a long-winded speaker. It takes a Mayo man to do it, though.

The Senator is giving the Taoiseach cause to be proud of one of his nominations. I was about to say that the new Minister for Labour must acquaint himself with what the executives of unions have to deal with. The only way the new Minister can get to understand that is to attend not the dinners or the openings of new trade union buildings but to procure for himself some trade union invitations to attend branch meetings and executive meetings just to see what is going on. If he does that he will have a real insight into the kind of problems——

Does the Senator want us to go to bed at all?

——that people in responsible positions in trade unions have to deal with and the kind of reaction they are likely to be up against when they fail their members. When the national wage agreement was being negotiated I thought it would be a disastrous failure because it was against all experience that people in trade unions would sit back for two and a half years and make no move for the improvement of the conditions of their members.

Anybody with the slightest idea of how trade unions work would not propound such a thing. What happens is that Brother So-and-So proposes and Brother So-and-So seconds that certain action should be taken. It is passed on acclamation after debate on what the amount should be. There is never any dispute as to what the members are entitled to. It goes to the executive and maybe the timing of the claim is decided by them. To suggest that trade unions should go into cold storage for two and a half years was almost tantamount to asking them to commit suicide. It showed lack of understanding of the purpose, the functions and the functioning of trade unions to suggest that they should mark time for two and a half years. I say sincerely that if the new Minister for Labour has not got that kind of experience he should acquire it during a period. If he does, I believe he will find it easy enough to understand the mentality of the employers and that he will make a good Minister for Labour. There is very little else I wish to say on the Bill. I hope when the Taoiseach announces his appointment and when the new Department is established the great expectations we have for the new Minister will be fructified in time.

I join in the welcome to the Taoiseach. I was particularly struck by his speech in introducing the Bill. There might be temptation for Senators to say a few formal words and leave it to the Seanad to approve of this Bill because we are all in agreement that the Bill should pass. What I say, I hope will be directed towards the Bill but I cannot promise to avoid disturbing some of my friends on the other side.

I said I welcomed the Taoiseach. I should say also, of course, that I welcome the Bill. In the Labour Party, particularly, we welcome the decision to set up a Ministry of Labour. On behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I have also to say that the decision to set it up is welcomed. It could not be otherwise because Congress have been pressing for this for some years and the affiliated trade unions will be glad to co-operate with the new Minister and his Department. I think this is probably one of the few countries among western democracies that has not got a Ministry of Labour, and that brings me to the point of regretting that we have to wait until now to see this Ministry set up. There was, I think, a Minister for Labour in the Cabinet of the First Dáil. It is a pity that Ministry was dropped subsequently. I do not know the history of it but I submit that if we had such a Ministry in close contact with labour relations, certainly in the last year or two, things might have been a little better than they are.

I say this knowing that I possibly will disturb Senators across the way. Things have not been determined at national level in the past twelve months or so. I had hopes, and so had many others, that there was being built up some understanding between employers and trade unions at top level—that they had begun to realise one another's difficulties, that they were, perhaps, not prepared to agree, but were prepared to examine the cases made by the other side and have some appreciation and understanding of them.

It seems to me that in the past year or so the leadership in the employers' side has gone over to backwoodsmen. I say this deliberately: some of them are very stupid people. I know it hurt some of my colleagues on the other side during the debate on the Finance Bill. I am not saying they are all stupid or that they are all backwoodsmen but the tendency has gone in that direction and it is deplorable. I hope they will mend their ways and that the general atmosphere will improve. I am not saying that all trade union members are responsible, far-seeing people. That is not the case but among the leadership in trade unions a sense of responsibility has developed, always appreciating what trade unions are there for. I shall come back to that in a moment.

I wish to emphasise sharply the position of semi-State undertakings in the context of employers' organisations. We had the right to hope that in the semi-State undertakings labour relations could be good. I admit, of course, that there are two sides to the story. I had hoped that with semi-State undertakings there could be more progress towards co-determination, more linking of workers with the organisations concerned rather than have the boss and the higher ten. I am afraid that has been happening in recent years. I know that the Taoiseach, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, had responsibility for most of the semi-State undertakings. I am prepared to acknowledge, from dealings I had with him, that he was progressive in his approach to those matters and that his view always seemed to be that the semi-State bodies should meet and talk with the trade union movement and discuss their problems. The situation in recent years has been completely contrary to that.

The Taoiseach was responsible for promoting legislation in 1950 and 1958 to deal with CIE. He has also experience of the long history of the negotiating machinery with regard to the railways since the Railways Act, 1924. There existed a scheme for dealing with disputes between the unions and the various railways companies. CIE inherited that. That existed for nearly 40 years and not one strike arose out of a recommendation of that internal machinery of negotiation. There was an agreed machinery of negotiation which was far ahead of its time in 1924. That machinery was built up and played an important factor in respect of negotiations with regard to the railways.

It is very important that we should try to build up that type of machinery to deal with disputes rather than give strike notice and hope the Labour Court will intervene. I am speaking personally in this matter when I say that there is need for some sort of joint industrial council to deal with matters of this sort. Some of those disputes affect not only those in the particular board but they also affect workers outside it. I accept that and I accept that the time had probably arrived when there was need to take a look at the internal machinery which existed.

What happened in CIE? There was no question of waiting for a new industrial relations Act. There was no question of consultation with the trade unions. CIE simply said: "This machinery provides for six months notice. We are now giving you notice. At the end of the six months notice the machinery goes." That machinery has gone since last December. This was an industry in which there was a long tradition of respect for the machinery of negotiation.

There was also machinery for dealing with the more minor disputes. "Disputes" is probably not the right word. The Taoiseach may remember that where there was a question of the grading of a job for a particular individual this could be discussed by elected representatives of the group or grade concerned and the management. If agreement could be reached that settled it and if agreement could not be reached that was the end of it. The management had the last word. This built up a tradition of discussing the implementation of an agreement which was signed and which set down the terms and conditions of employment. This sort of thing happened. It was very necessary and desirable. Again, CIE said that that provision was subject to six months notice. They said they would give six months. That machinery has gone from the 1st July. Again, as I said, there has been a long tradition of trying to deal with those things by agreement and discussion.

I said this before and I say it again. I blame the Minister for Transport and Power for breaking this tradition. I am quite certain from various discussions we had that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not aware, and has not been aware, of what the Minister for Transport and Power has been up to. I had a case last week in which a claim for some grades in CIE was awaiting a hearing in the Labour Court. CIE instructed the local management to sack the people and employ others. I am not going into the details. I am just giving an instance of the kind of dictatorial attitude adopted by the Minister for Transport and Power.

The Minister for Transport and Power never did anything like that.

I will have him in tonight and I will say certain things to his face. The Taoiseach is here now. It is a strange thing when the Minister for Transport and Power is in trouble he always says that he is speaking on behalf of the Government. The Taoiseach is chief of the Government. We can reasonably argue, as we did in the case of the ESB, when we had the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who. God help him, came in here with the Bill——

He is well able to look after himself.

I know he is but we all need God's help, including the Senator. The Minister for Industry and Commerce came in here on that occasion regarding the situation in the ESB. A tribunal was appointed for the ESB some years ago. In fact, there were two tribunals. Both those tribunals were to be merged but nothing has been done with regard to that. Earlier I referred to the position of the semi-State undertakings and the whole set up of labour-employer relations. I said that we would expect the development of good relations in those employments. I accept, as I said earlier, that there are two sides to the story. I am not speaking objectively in this matter. I am speaking as a trade union and labour representative and I am speaking from where my heart is, namely, on that particular side. As I said, we have had a situation where relations have got worse in recent years. I wonder, in fact, if we had the Minister for Labour prior to this whether the position would be better. I think it would because the Minister for Labour should know what is happening in the semi-State undertakings where difficulties have occurred and where difficulties are continuing to occur. I hope that the new Minister will know exactly what is going on in regard to labour relations in those semi-State undertakings and that it will not be the function of the Minister for Transport and Power.

If relations have been bad that has been due, as I said, to the very conscious decision of the employers who declared war against the trade unions. People resented that remark when I said it last, but let me underline the fact that for about six months last year Congress, in a situation in which the value of the tenth round had been worn away by price increases, was trying to negotiate some stop-gap arrangement, some increase to alleviate the hardship of the workers, and the employers were not prepared to co-operate. They were simply continuing the negotiations, playing for time and eventually, as the Taoiseach knows, in January the Congress had to make a decision one way or the other. What they did was a very sensible and responsible thing. They recommended to their affiliated unions that in the present circumstances of the economy the unions should proceed to try to secure increases of not more than £1.

The employers still had the opportunity of trying to come to some understanding at national level in that situation and they knew very well, and the semi-State undertakings particularly must have known, that that round of increases would be secured. The case was there 100 per cent for the £1 increase and that it would be secured but apparently some backwoodsman within the employers' organisation did not want an agreement and had been acting on the theory that you must make the trade unions fight for everything. You must try and exhaust the workers, have strikes, try to exhaust the funds of the trade unions. That is a bad situation but it is no harm to say what we on our side feel is the true situation.

We are not saying it in any vindictive or incriminatory way. We realise that the employers have a right to fight if they want. We have that right and we reserve it. Let us face the fact that that has been happening and we are now prepared to co-operate not alone with the new Minister but with employers' organisations to try to improve the general atmosphere. I am sure I am as much at fault as everybody else but in this matter one is inclined to over-sympathise. We are dealing with human relations and human relations are always difficult.

Let me go back to the point I made a short while ago about the function of trade unions. What are they for? This was best summed up by Jim Larkin when he spoke at the Irish Management Institute at Easter in Killarney. He was making the point that too many managements and employers had wrong ideas with regard to trade unions. They thought the trade union's job was that of management, to help management to discipline workers and to help in increasing productivity, and that the attitude of management was that there was a joint partnership between trade unions and management, but the same people are never prepared, of course, to have any sort of joint co-determination. Certainly they run in horror of the idea of joint ownership. They imagine that the job and the responsibility of trade unions is to be an aid to management and industry. That is not so. Let us always appreciate that the job of the trade union is to protect the members of the trade union. That is our job. If we have to hurt people in doing it it is too bad, and we would regret it, but it is our job to protect the interests of the trade union members.

Let us also remember, and be blunt about it, that we largely represent the underprivileged. The House have seen the report on the financing of education in Ireland. Senators know the percentage of people who do not go beyond the sixth standard in school. They know that these tend to be from the same social structure, the same sector of the social structure at all times, father and son and son again. That is the sort of situation we have and these are largely the people the trade unions are there to protect and who in turn determine the policy and the attitudes of the trade union. Trade union leaders are not there to dictate policy to the individual members of the trade unions. We can attempt to guide, to influence, in ways to lead, but policy in democratic trade unions is determined by the individual members of the trade unions and let us always realise, and I repeat it, that we largely represent the underprivileged. I know the Taoiseach may say: "Look, Murphy, you represent salaried workers and you cannot claim they are underprivileged". I accept that. I am saying that largely the trade unions represent the underprivilged.

We must have regard to our responsibilities to those people, and fight continuously to improve their standard of living. We make no apology whatever for that but we are prepared to do it in a situation in which we want a steadily increasing standard of living for our people. We do not want strikes. They are the last resort. We do not engage in strikes for the purpose of kicking somebody. The people who suffer most are the workers out on strike. We want steadily increasing standards of living. We want steady and expanding employment. We want all these things and we are prepared to co-operate.

Again, let me be blunt about this. The trade unions and the people they represent have no vested interests in maintaining the present industrial and social structure. That does not mean, and do not misunderstand me here, that there is an attitude amongst trade unions towards a tearing down of our social structure, a tearing down of our economy. That is not so. The point I make is that they are largely the underprivileged. They will continue to be the underprivileged no matter what improvement is made but they have no vested interests in maintaining the present organisation of industry as it is. If industry is to be made a success the responsibility lies with management and with the employers. It is they who have the vested interests in making a go of it. It is they who must give the leadership.

The more I become involved in trade union affairs, in trade union experiences, if that is the appropriate expression, the more convinced I am that it is largely a question of leadership. I meet workers and members of other trade unions and I know their difficulties. I generally find that where people are properly led they are happier in their work. There are fewer complaints and things are going relatively smoothly. Possibly in management they tend to overlook their responsibilities in this matter. Management is seated behind a desk making decisions and it is a tough job and I am not critical on that matter. One of the greatest responsibilities and challenges of management is to lead the workers, have contact with them, know them, so that there will be a mutual exchange between them and confidence between the two sides. There must continue to be the two sides to industry. Where leadership exists the position is generally better and you will find less stress. I am sure that the Taoiseach must be thinking of some cases in which leadership has been very good and where strikes have been practically unknown. I can think of some of them right away. You are aware that there is good management who are consciously leading the industry, where the workers have confidence in it and where the relationship is good.

There are two points I want to make in conclusion and I will be brief because I think we are going to allow speeches from the other side tonight. The first point is in regard to the staffing of this new Ministry. This will take over a good deal of the functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce and we have already from that Department hived off the Department of Transport and Power. Earlier than that, I think, we had the Industrial Development Authority. This has been a good Ministry, a good Department and it had a good Minister for many years and it still has. The approach to this should not simply be one of taking people from Industry and Commerce and, so far as is necessary, Social Welfare but rather should we look to the Civil Service as a whole—not just the general grades but the other grades within the Civil Service structure for people who have aptitudes and qualities of mind suitable to the work in this Department. I think that the work of this Department and the work of the new Minister will be of fundamental importance to us. The degree of industrial progress, the degree to which we will develop our society in the next decade or so will largely depend upon the success or failure of the Minister in this new Department. Instead of simply hiving people off from their jobs that, in the long term interest, we should look around the people in the Civil Service as a whole, in all sorts of grades and try to get people who have special qualities and skills for the type of work which will be involved in this Department.

The second concluding point I want to make is in regard to newspaper publicity in regard to industrial disputes. I shall be very brief on this. I suppose the Taoiseach will rightly say: "Well, look I cannot do anything about this". I am drawing attention to the difficulties often created for both sides involved in industrial relations by our newspapers. Now I accept it is the job of the newspapers to report news, but surely we should not have had a situation such as we had last Saturday when there was some offer made by electrical contractors, including the ESB, which was objected to by one union, that that should have been front page news with the newspapers already putting them into their corners for a set-back, with no regard to the possibilities of negotiations and compromise in the meantime. The newspapers immediately got wind of this and put the ETU into one corner, the ESB into another and the Minister for Industry and Commerce into yet another. It is terribly difficult for trade unions and trade union leaders to do the best for their members with this sort of newspaper coverage. My reaction I must say, after some experience, is to try to keep the newspapers out of these things altogether. You may say I am hiding the truth; sometimes yes, by preventing this sort of publicity, because you find that, by this sort of thing, disputes are built up.

I had another experience of this— one of our bus disputes, not possibly the last one but one some two years ago when the dispute was largely made by the evening newspapers who started off about six months beforehand warning of the danger of a bus dispute or of a Dublin bus stoppage until eventually the employees, who did not know what it was all about, were conditioned to a frame of mind that there would be a strike anyway. This is not malicious on the part of the newspaper people. I do not know how it can be rectified unless, maybe, the Taoiseach, from his position of influence, would try to persuade the newspapers to report in as responsible a way as possible. Perhaps "responsible" is not the appropriate word but bad judgment on many occasions has led to the situation I have already mentioned. Anyway, we should try to prevent this because, as I say, I am satisfied that many of these disputes could have been prevented had we not had the sort of newspaper publicity we did have earlier on in the matter. If a strike takes place, it is O.K.; it is a matter for news and one to be covered by the newspapers, but I am talking about the ordinary industrial negotiations that go on time and time again—an offer made, an offer rejected and, when we reject an offer, we do not necessarily take off our coats and say: "That is that, boys"; it is a part of negotiation. I am sorry for talking so long on this but perhaps the Taoiseach could bring his influence to bear on the matter and try to persuade the news be less ready to show the mailed fist upon every occasion the employer does not meet their demands.

In the Dáil the Taoiseach referred to some of the intractable disputes that take place from time to time. It was suggested that he was thinking aloud in making the suggestion that it might be necessary to impose a solution in the case of an intractable dispute for which there did not appear to be any negotiable solution. Rather than thinking aloud I think he was probably throwing out this idea in the hope that it would not be challenged too strongly. It was a feeler more than thinking aloud. There are certain types of strikes and one wonders will they ever end but, with the exception of the famous strike in the Dún Laoghaire public house, most strikes come to an end sooner rather than later. There nearly always is a solution, and one wonders why it was not thought of in the beginning.

I would rather hope that in the re-organisation of the Labour Court, the way in which it will be manned, and the kind of principle upon which it will act, will be such that either side to a dispute will be in a position to dare the other side to go to the Labour Court where the Labour Court will determine the matter for them impartially. This is like the situation that very often arises in regard to law cases where someone has a claim against another for one thing or another and litigation is the end result. It is always a test of the strength of the other person's case as to whether or not he will go the whole hog and go to court. Eventually they must put up with the decision.

I do not say the Labour Court should be like that but I hope it will develop in such a way that both management and the trade unions will feel that if they resort to the Labour Court a decision will be arrived at which it would be very difficult for either side to criticise. That is the kind of situation we hope to achieve. If the Labour Court acts upon principle and not upon expediency, if it builds up its own code of principles in dealing with the labour disputes which come before it, in time people will probably resort to it in the belief that the Labour Court will produce the type of award which it will be very difficult for either side to reject. If we could get that kind of court—and I am not at all without hope that we will get it—that would be far better than making inroads upon the liberty of trade unions which would produce more industrial unrest than it would quell.

The Taoiseach referred in the Dáil also to the amount of work Ministers have to do. He advocated an extension rather than a contraction in the number of Ministers in the Government. I rather took from him, when he was dealing with that aspect, that he urges his Ministers from time to time to go around the country, to go to these various functions and so on, to keep in touch with public opinion and that he felt they did not do that sufficiently because they had so many decisions involving them personally and requiring them to spend so much time in their offices.

I do not at all agree that that is the way in which Ministers of State will acquire a knowledge of what is going on in the country. In some respects in recent times, as I said on a Bill the other evening, some Ministers of the Government have shown themselves not to be in touch with the requirements of the public and with public opinion. To illustrate that I referred to the disastrous provisions in the Succession Bill which was first introduced, then withdrawn and then re-introduced. There are other illustrations with which I will not delay the House at this time.

I believe Ministers have too much to do, but if they have it is because in Bill after Bill coming before Oireachtas Éireann they are taking more and more decisions upon themselves. In the Town Planning Act there are perhaps 50 different matters concerning the local authorities all over the country which have to be personally decided on appeal by the Minister for Local Government. One of two things will happen. Either the Minister will spend his time reading the recommendations of his officials, studying One could be excused for picking out some aspects of them which would help to develop comparisons with other countries, other constitutions and problems faced elsewhere, because it will be recognised immediately that even to attempt at this stage to cover the whole range of problems and administration that this new Ministry will deal with would be foolhardy, and possibly even those who are now setting the limits and the guidelines for the work which is to be undertaken by this Ministry—the Taoiseach and the Government—will be prepared to modify and change or increase the scope of that influence in time.

I could be pardoned for referring to two aspects of it which I think bear some examination. The first is that, as the Taoiseach said in his introductory speech, one of the functions of the new Ministry will be to implement improvements in institutional facilities to assist free collective bargaining, and, in other words, subsequently to give more active Government encouragement to free collective bargaining. There is no suggestion, and there has been no suggestion, that this is in any way an interference with free collective bargaining between employers and trade unionists. If there were, indeed, any such suggestion I think that we all would both from experience of other nations which have in some way infringed on them and from our own direct inhibitions also be very slow to give our wholehearted support to this measure.

If one might quote from the President of the Swedish Trade Union Congress as reported in some of the week-end papers in this connection, he said that in so far as their employers' organisations and trade unions are concerned they are mutually anxious to avoid Government intervention, and that this influences their efforts to reach a compromise even in situations in which there seems to be no hope whatever of agreement being reached. They are so mutually anxious to be left in charge of their own affairs to reach a family agreement without Government intervention that this influences them towards a conclusion. This is, in fact, as I think, what we would hope to accomplish here, because it has never been fully accepted that this situation is, in fact, because of a lack of a Minister for Labour either directly interested in a dispute as such apart from its national consequences or of a direct influence or authority in such disputes. It is to be hoped that this very power of intervention towards drawing the parties together, towards, if necessary, laying down guidelines towards solving disputes, which will presumably be vested in the new Minister, may have the same encouraging effect on our employer-employee relations as it has had obviously in other nations in Europe. That is one aspect of it.

Another aspect of it is that it has been suggested that one of the functions or one department of this new Ministry would be concerned with research into labour relations and the problems and solutions of such relations in other countries. In this, again, I think we can take a great step forward because, granted that the Irish temperament may be very different from that of others and that the temperament of every nation is different from that of another, we may have special problems, but what has proved to be by and large successful in other countries more highly developed industrially than ours and with a longer history of industrial relations than ours — the solutions that have been reached in most cases may be found to apply in one way or another to our nation also. Here I would like to say that it appears to me from maybe not a very detailed study of the attitudes of trade unions in European countries that they welcome liberty, liberty to negotiate their own affairs. They welcome a further very important thing— they welcome responsibility, and they look for liberty with responsibility. I can recall here in this House in the debate on the Electricity Supply Bill the suggestion that it was unfortunate that a small number of men involved in that dispute were unfortunate in not having an opportunity of exercising their right to withdraw their labour. I suggested then and I suggest now that far from being unfortunate in not having an opportunity to withdraw their labour they were fortunate in having an opportunity of exercising such great responsibility, that by their very smallness, so to speak, in their numbers a greater responsibility was being put on them than on many other workers, and by the very importance of the job they do a further responsibility was being laid on their shoulders.

This is not just a factor of industrial relations. It is a factor of life. The greater the responsibility, in many ways the greater the restriction, at least, the greater restriction on personal freedom to indulge in the ordinary things one wants to indulge in. It has been the hope and the purpose in many of those countries to which I have referred to have liberty with responsibility. Our new Minister and this new Department should encourage the same approach between employers and trade unions. If one can judge from a very short trip to the European community office in Belgium, and from a passing and cursory address on the social programme of the European Community, one is definitely left with the impression that the purpose of the annual meetings of employers and trade unions is to reach voluntary guidelines or voluntary agreements which will bind them mutually in their relations for the coming year, or two years, as the case may be. This they do under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour in each country.

Senator Murphy has indicated that most of the European countries with the possible exception of the Netherlands have a Minister for Labour, and the Netherlands have probably the equivalent in a Minister for Social Affairs. They are encouraged in their efforts to reach voluntary agreements by the knowledge that if they do not they will in some way be subject to direction from the Minister responsible, that is the Minister for Labour. That is the kind of responsibility and partnership—if I may use that word, because Senator Murphy appears to be afraid of any suggestion of partnership—that this new Ministry will encourage.

When he was introducing this Bill in the Dáil the Taoiseach said that the present problem has largely arisen because of the failure of the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress to reach a voluntary national agreement at the beginning of this year. In many ways this is simply the logical conclusion to that step. This is purely to assist the parties on both sides to reach a conclusion in the ultimate. I think the best work of this Ministry will be done in the context of industrial relations. I have confined myself to that aspect although there are many other aspects.

It is rather regrettable, too, that for one reason or another it was suggested that this Bill—and, indeed, any Bill which is now mooted in connection with trade relations—is being introduced to penalise the workers. That was suggested in the Dáil by some of the Members and I think it was a very unfortunate suggestion. The Taoiseach said the purpose of the Bill is to protect the workers. It is not intended to penalise the workers any more than the employers. In fact, it is to protect the interests of both, and the interests of all of us. We are a little thin-skinned in this matter, if we are a little thick-skinned in others, as soon as there is any suggestion of legislation in connection with trade disputes.

I appreciate that as Senator Murphy has said they have many problems to deal with, and that they have to deal with vast numbers of people pressing their various claims. This is an attempt to assist them, not an attempt to take from their authority or penalise them. Time will tell that this is an attempt to look after the welfare of all, and particularly those who are most closely involved.

Senator Murphy has seen fit to repeat some of things he said last week in connection with—I have forgotten what legislation we were dealing with last week.

The Finance Bill.

One wonders how it could be relevant to the Finance Bill. Perhaps that is why it slipped my memory. He has seen fit to repeat the very words he used on the last occasion.

(Longford): He said some were stupid this evening. All were stupid the other day.

As Senator O'Reilly has pointed out there was a slight change in the words, but there was certainly a very definite change in the tone. He did not appear to be quite so vehement today as he was then. After this personal attack on the last occasion, the newspapers of the following two or three days were full of such personal attacks. I am not saying Senator Murphy should take credit for promoting those personal attacks, but it is rather a sad reflection on the attitude of men engaged in negotiations with each other, who should be working towards the benefit of each other and not thinking in terms of the benefit of one to the exclusion of the other.

Significantly after Senator Murphy's attack on members of the Federated Union of Employers we had sharp criticism, to say the least of it, by a member of the Federated Union of Employers on the Trade Union Congress. I do not know whether he was aware of Senator Murphy's comment. The words used were a "libellous attack" by the NFA on the ICMSA and by the ICMSA on the NFA. We also had "libellous attacks" between the Bacon Curers' Society and the NFA. I am not suggesting that any of these organisations have a monopoly on this pastime. These people are not being asked to plan Government policy. There are many things they are not being asked to do. They are being asked to negotiate with each other and I know of no quicker way to spoil that job than the launching of personal attacks.

Senator Murphy feels that he represents the workers and the workers are near to his heart, we should realise that but there is no use in having the worker near to your heart unless there is room for the employer beside him. I should like to think that employers and workers are beginning to think in those terms. I am not criticising Senator Murphy when I say that he appears to expect that we will continue with a class division between the underprivileged whom he thinks he represents, and the overprivileged. I do not know if there is any room for that nowadays. I think it is totally unjustified in the context of modern Ireland. I know many people who are happy to claim that they have passed from what Senator Murphy regards as being underprivileged to being overprivileged in a very short time. I do not think the distinction is valid. We have the NIEC recommendation on education and the availability of higher education for all. If there is any hope that this can be implemented in our time, then, of course, the distinction between underprivileged and overprivileged will become obsolete and everybody will have an opportunity to exploit any talents he has—it will be largely the measure of his own talents and his own individual effort.

In this, I sympathise with what Deputy Dillon said in the Dáil last week. It may be rather a Utopia, but in such a small community we can get association which does not think of class divisions. We are so mutually dependent and have such close mutual interchange that one cannot organise the interests of one without the other. I deplore the term "warfare" in industrial relations. It was suggested in the Dáil that there was a declaration of war, that the struggle between employer and worker would exist as long as the relationship between employer and worker lasted. I suppose that is true but could not one say also of the association between employers and workers, that the mutual benefits that spring from such association will also last for as long as the relationship lasts? There are many other spheres of industrial relations which I do not think are relevant to this Bill. I feel everybody in the House will agree that this new Department will see the beginning of the end of our present troubles in industrial relations.

Senator Quinlan.

We have more Members on this side than they have on their side.

Not being on any side of the House, I have come in on this with some thoughts and reflections on the Bill and its problems, as so well outlined for us by the Taoiseach and during the subsequent debate. The subject of industrial relations is an exceedingly wide one, one of the most important, if not the most important topic that holds our society together. Up to this, it has been performed in a part-time capacity by the Department of Industry and Commerce but now the Taoiseach quite rightly proposes that a new Ministry should be set up to deal with this.

Of course, this is very proper at the present time, with the great many problems caused on the one hand by free trade prospects and the dislocations that may follow in industry under the impact of free trade—the necessity for retraining the workers displaced and the rapidly quickening pace of technological advance by which many workers in industry may find themselves redundant simply because electronic control can take over. We are in a time of rapid change and, therefore, it is right and proper this matter should be the responsibility of an individual in the Government.

It is in many ways the most important Ministry in the Government, though I should hate to think the Department of Education should rank second in importance to it. I am frightened by the tremendous range of the tasks set out by the Taoiseach for this new Ministry. I should like to break them down under three main headings. Firstly, there is the regular type of manpower policy. It is mainly concerned with adaptation of workers through retraining, rejuvenation or re-organisation of means of putting employers and workers into contact in an enlargement of the scope of the present labour exchange system. All this comes under the heading of a manpower policy.

That, to my way of thinking, is most vital work, a type of work in which the Civil Service is in its natural habitat —the interdepartmental relationships that will be involved. Two other fields flow from that. Into one of them I might put the very complex problem of semi-State bodies and, if I interpreted the Taoiseach correctly, the new Minister will be responsible for the coordinating and the keeping of the semi-State bodies in phase. He will represent the State on those bodies to a much greater extent than the present arrangement between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Department of Transport and Power in other facets of industry.

I interpret this as a move to bring those two together and try to coordinate them. To my mind, the new Ministry should not attempt this. It is surely a place where the responsibility should be placed fairly and squarely on an Oireachtas Committee under the new Minister. If there is anywhere in which the pooled wisdom and diverse backgrounds of the Members of both Houses could contribute it is surely in this matter and I appeal to the Taoiseach to give this very serious consideration and not to get the new Ministry off on the wrong foot.

The new Ministry will be largely pragmatic, concerned largely with the day-to-day affairs of a Department, but it is not the body to speak for the people as a whole. That, after all, is surely the function of Parliament of the people as a whole. The people are the shareholders, and they alone are the shareholders in our semi-State bodies. Therefore, every strike, every dispute, every wrong act of management and labour is directed not against the board of the semi-State body but against the people as a whole who have put up the money. Surely we, as representatives of the people, have a function in that. I believe such a committee could discharge the duties of the shareholders in the best possible way and could be comparable with committees in America, England, the Netherlands, where Parliament regularly faces up to such duties and responsibilities. I appeal to the Taoiseach to see to that.

The third facet, which disturbs me even more, is the suggestion that the new Department will engage in basic research activities. That sounds very good but, speaking as one who has had very close and intimate contact with research in my own line and that of my colleagues, I appeal to the Taoiseach to keep the Ministry of Labour out of this. It is not their function. Research, by its very nature, must have an independence and a right of decision that a Ministry cannot have. This is the way to balance fairly and equally between all sections involved in our industrial disputes. A Department of Labour represents the Government which has to say time and time again: "So far and no further. The economy can take so much in expansion at this stage. The economy can take so much in increased wages and no more."

Other countries have such research departments. They investigate problems and make an impartial research into industrial matters. You cannot have such research within the framework of a Civil Service Department because research, by its very nature, cannot be directed in that way. I appeal to the Taoiseach to look at the matter of research in this way and recognise this third facet of harnessing all our energies to our manpower policy and that it requires this research arm. This research arm should not be within the confines of the Department of Labour. It should be attached to some of our university institutions.

I am not making any special pleading in this regard. It does not concern me in the slightest but as a member of the university I want to make this special plea to the Taoiseach. Most countries in Western Europe have such research departments as I have referred to. We are conspicuous by its absence here. Apart from part-time work, which is very often extra-mural work, engaged in by some members of the university, nothing has been done on a planned basis. I appeal to the Taoiseach to see that this is remedied. In all walks of life, in any endeavour, whether it is in this new Ministry, or whether it is appointing a Chairman for CIE or appointing a Chairman for the Broadcasting Corporation, or any other group, if you are looking for an individual, a man who can be relied on, the people I have suggested to the Taoiseach are the people to get. Better still, you could get men—I always prefer the plural approach in this if we can have it—who have shown their good thinking in industrial relations and management studies and who are very interested in their job. You could ask them to do something better than they are doing at the moment.

We should be very careful to examine the very special conditions here. I want to ask the Taoiseach to look at this matter. I do not want in any way to speak for my own college in particular. I am giving him an example and perhaps he can make comparisons. I want to refer to the work done in a department of applied psychology. This department consists of one professor and an assistant so it is really the work of one man. Colossal work has been done by this one man and it has had a tremendous impact on management in the south. It may stretch up as far as Dublin but this would be well worth expanding and cultivating. That comes out of a tradition of good industrial relations and responsibility between employers and employees. This stems from the work of three very great men who were for many years in the city of Cork. I refer to Monsignor Alfred O'Rahilly and two very wonderful trade union leaders, Mr. P.J. O'Brien, RIP, and Mr. Jim Hickey, RIP. Those three men did very wonderful work in educational and industrial relations which went as far back as 1916, appropriately. The framework is there by reason of the work of those three great men. The number of disputes settled by those three men, individually and collectively, is legion. In fact, I do not think there has been any really serious dispute in Cork in the past 20 years. A lot of that is due to the work of those three men. They had the confidence of both sides.

That is the type of foundation on which we should build. Recently we had some young men from Holland who have a wide background and training in industrial relations. They continued their studies here on some Irish problems. There is need for much more of that type of work. There may be similar cases in other parts of the country. I am just mentioning this one. I am not suggesting it should be confined to one. We have also had excellent work done by the Reverend Professor Newman of Maynooth College. He almost had to struggle with a quill pen.

He is struggling with a quill all right.

He continues to write the type of article and give the leadership which contribute so much to our society. I suggest to the Taoiseach that for a very small investigation he could get a tremendous return by having such a person. I am sure there are many more like him. There may be some in the universities in Dublin. I suggest very seriously, and with all the emphasis I can command, to the Taoiseach, not to make the mistake of giving this function to the Department of Labour. No country would do it. Any Department of Labour in any one of the countries mentioned where they are being so successful could not function without the tremendous help it is getting from the independent research work carried out by the universities in these countries.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn