Mr. Kieran Mulvey:

At the moment I could not envisage a case where the Labour Court would not register an agreement where the parties themselves are seeking one if the initial negotiations had taken place under the aegis of the Labour Relations Commission by which either a group of employers and trade unions had combined to discuss and agree, as they apply to their employments. If we return to the efficacy of the situation, it is important to remember that no major employer really attempted to set aside these agreements. We must remember that. By and large, the Construction Industry Federation, the major contractual body and the unions within those areas did not seek to set aside these agreements because they have brought industrial harmony and peace. Contracts could be fulfilled, end dates decided, penalty clauses avoided, and arrangements made for travelling time, overtime, shift premiums, sick pay schemes, and so on. There is a value in that one gets, not so much a uniformity, but certainly a sector-wide arrangement. The alternative to this is a free-for-all. We would not have the capacity in the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court to service the number of disputes that would emanate in individual employments across the country if we did not have some kind of agreed sectoral arrangement.

We just simply could not have that because every huckster arrangement in the country would have a dispute. While I do not mean that in any disparaging manner, it would affect any small arrangement, any small employer with a group of employees, and we just simply could not service that.

In a sense, that arrangement satisfied the interests of all parties. I believe we are going to need it more than ever now, with the recovery in the economy, in particular in the construction industry. Members will remember that, recently, when the TEEU, the union representing electricians, threatened the group of employers that if they did not adhere to the terms of the old registered agreement, there could be industrial relations difficulties, we had to intervene in those situations, and we have had no strikes. It is about the value of maintaining the continuity of service, the continuity of employment and the continuity of business. We are going to need that more than ever as we recover from the recession.

We should remember what has happened over the course of the recession. Now, SIPTU and its unions are beginning to negotiate collective agreements of 2%, 3%, 4% and beyond that, and that is beginning to take root within the economy. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has already indicated that, for the Haddington Road agreement, he would be in a position to invite in the parties at some stage early next year for discussions. The Haddington Road agreement for all practical purposes is a national registered employment agreement, if one wants to take it that way, for the collectivity of the 300,000 public servants.

Ms King made a very important point that registered employment agreements are not necessarily confined to construction or to the electrical industry, and, for example, airport fire and police workers have a registered agreement with the Labour Court, as have some other enterprises. These are going to be vital around essential services or services that are vital to the economy, where there is an understanding in these areas. Also built into these will be dispute resolution mechanisms, which I referred to in my opening address. One of the most vital components of the parties in promoting good industrial relations is the use of the dispute resolution bodies of the State, which have a very good record, if I may say so, of resolving the most intractable of industrial disputes. The issue of collective bargaining may be raised at another stage.

The vital importance in all of these issues is that we use the processes available to us, because they are free, independent and have a track record of resolving disputes, which applies equally to unions and employers. In the context of the question the Deputy asked, I believe the economy as a whole will benefit from this because the issues of competition are linked to many other issues. There is no competition on the minimum wage; the competition will now be on the living wage - minimum plus, whatever shape that may take. This is the real problem which will be facing us in the coming years, and the Conservative Party Government in the United Kingdom has already started to address it. I hope it will be addressed in the context of the low pay commission, which may need to be renamed the "living wage commission" or something like that.

That is what is going to happen. As we always say in the adage, the construction industry lifts all boats. That may happen again, although we hope we do not get into the same problems that related to other elements of the construction industry in terms of its financing through financial institutions. The economy is reflecting that at the moment and we must try to have, if not so much organised change, then a situation whereby all parties who are central to this have, first, a forum by which they can address the issues that arise for them in their employment and, second, a reasonable mechanism by which these can be independently adjudicated.