asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his views on ministerial interference in industrial disputes; his views on whether the resolution of conflict should not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be subject to ministerial interference and should be left to the labour relations machinery provided by law.

I fully subscribe to the sentiment expressed by the Deputy that resolution of industrial disputes should be left to the labour relations machinery provided by law for that purpose. On occasion, however, ministerial intervention in disputes may be necessary due to very exceptional circumstances.

Will the Minister agree that, unlike some of his predecessors, he has not made the clear policy statements which they made about the undesirability of ministerial intervention? Will he agree that because he has not made that clear statement there is an expectation perhaps on the part of both sides involved in disputes that the Minister may intervene? That expectation means that they are less willing to place their trust in the disputes settling machinery which is available.

No, I do not agree. Thankfully, there are now far fewer strikes than heretofore, particularly in the past 18 months. I do not claim credit for that but the Minister for Labour must be flexible. I read some of the policy statements of my predecessors on all sides of the House over the years and, quite frankly, it is a handy way out for a Minister never to intervene.