asked the Minister for Labour when the report of the Commission on Industrial Relations will be published; the action he proposes to take on the report, and if he has held or intends to hold, consultations with trade unions and employers to discuss the report.

24.

asked the Minister for Labour the reason the interim report expected from the Commission on Industrial Relations before Christmas 1978 has not yet been received; if an interim report will be forthcoming, if so, when; and when a final report is now expected.

25.

asked the Minister for Labour the number of meetings of the Commission on Industrial Relations which have taken place in the absence of trade union members and if he proposes to proceed in their absence.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 together. When I met the Commission at their first meeting on 30 May 1978, I said that I envisaged a report being made inside two years. I understand that, as of now, the Commission hope to meet this target.

With regard to an interim report, the position is that on the establishment of the Commission, I suggested that they might prepare an interim report on the institutions for settling disputes. I understand however that, following discussion, the Commission came to the conclusion that it would not be realistic to report on the institutions in advance of their recommendations on industrial relations generally.

Since the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in July last suspended their representation, the Commission have met eight times. It is my hope that congress will reconsider their decision and fulfil their commitment under the National Understanding to continue to work within the Commission. In the meantime the work of the Commission is proceeding.

It would be premature to attempt to indicate action to be taken on the report when it is received. Such action will be decided in the light of circumstances.

Would the Minister agree that there is no area in which the Government have failed so conspicuously as they have in industrial relations? Would he agree that he has deferred any action in this area pending the report of the Commission and the interim report which he expected before Christmas last year? Would he further agree that from the beginning his handling of the Commission on Industrial Relations was a disaster, starting with the appointment of the chairman, which he had to withdraw? Would he accept that the country is not prepared to wait any longer for a Commission now flying on one wing?

I, too, express my concern with the unhappy state of industrial relations in some areas. As far as the Commission is concerned it had a major contribution to make. The Deputy is not right in saying that I did not make moves or could not make them while the Commission was still sitting. What I said was I would prefer to see advance in that area by developing progress by consensus and then implementing it. The Deputy referred to the Commission as flying on one wing. As I said in my reply I am disappointed here too. I am entitled to express that disappointment. The withdrawal by Congress is because of the 1906 Act. That has been the bone of contention for a long time and has been a problem for all my predecessors. There was pressure on them to amend that Act in some way. The request is now being made to me. I have some sympathy with the request, but it would be unfair to the community to amend that single issue on its own. In other words, I would expect a quid pro quo situation where Congress could deliver in an area of greatest concern to the public, unofficial strikes.

I agree with the Minister's final statement. Would he not agree that there is little sense in proceeding with the Commission with just one side represented? Does this not of necessity suggest that when the report is finally published it will not be accepted by the non-participating side? Would it be better to face up to reality and suspend the Commission until such time as the other party returns, or take action to get them to return?

The second course is what I would prefer and will be trying to do. It is what I had in mind when I said I had some sympathy with the request but in the interest of the community there would have to be some quid pro quo.

Is the Minister aware of the intensity of feeling about the industrial relations situation that has persisted for a long time and of the exasperation at the Government for not doing anything about it?

This is argument.

Is the Minister aware that the House was, to some degree, prepared to tolerate that so long as the report was imminent? Now that it is no longer imminent and as it does not seem likely to be accepted by the non-participating side, would the Minister take responsibility for minimum measures to stop the industrial relations anarchy that is prevailing?

I have already expressed my concern about the industrial relations situation and about the difficulties in the Commission which I hope with co-operation to be able to resolve. I condemn unofficial strike action, as I have done on many occasions. I will look at all options as my predecessors have done. My preference is, as I said on the Bill we were discussing before Question Time, that such measures would be measures that could be discussed with both sides and introduced to the best effect.

What steps has the Minister taken to get Congress back around the discussion table of the Commission, or what action does he propose to take?

We are getting into argument.

I have outlined that.

Perhaps for the sake of clarification the Minister should repeat it.

I have answered it and should not be called upon to repeat something I have said.

I would be grateful if the Minister would extend to me and the House the courtesy of repeating his reply.

If the Deputy has not the courtesy to listen to my replies—I gave a lengthy reply when I outlined what I had hoped I could do—that is an insult to me.

I am calling the next question.

We will leave it to the country to decide what the Minister's performance has been.