I thank the Ceann Comhairle and his helpful staff for contriving a mechanism to permit me to raise this important issue. However, I am extremely concerned, although I do not say this in any ungracious way because your office has been most courteous and helpful, about the implications of the decision which prevented me raising it last week on the grounds that it was not eligible for inclusion on the Adjournment. In so far as I can interpret it, the decision to disbar its discussion was because the Minister has not made any comment on it and, therefore, the Minister is not responsible. That is not in accordance with precedent. In no spirit of ungraciousness, I feel compelled to bring the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If this House was disbarred from discussing an industrial dispute in a major industry, it would be a matter of some import with many implications.
The scaffolders' dispute, according to the Construction Industry Federation, now involves some 800 workers, threatens further lay-offs and is beginning to have a deterrent effect on planned investment. Certainly there is considerable hardship being experienced by the families of the workers and the tentative initiatives taken this week are the first indications of any serious attempt to resolve the dispute. A major industry is threatened with slowdown, if not close down, and for whatever reason the employers have been slow to engage meaningfully.
We are talking about an industry which is booming, where the local bargaining clause in Partnership 2000 has been used to allow other workers, for example, the craft grades, to share to some extent in the success of the industry. The industry, we are glad to see, is recording unprecedented profits. It is, therefore, entirely understandable that workers would seek to share in this performance. It is especially understandable when we realise that this industry is a difficult task master, where workers burn out young, often endure conditions of considerable hardship and may be unemployed for periods for a variety of reasons. These employees also work in hazardous conditions in an industry which last year recorded 27 fatalities. Therefore, we cannot feign surprise that this pressure point has arisen within an industry whose leading individual companies are doubling their profit performance and in some cases doing better than that.
If certain categories of workers benefit from local settlements, it is inevitable that lesser paid workers will seek such settlements. Our objective should be to meet these local demands in a fashion that does not do permanent damage to social partnership. The fact is extensive settlements have taken place which have not been deemed to be outlawed by Partnership 2000, not least in the public sector. Therefore, rather than promoting confrontational advertisements, I would like to see both parties using the industrial relations machinery to resolve this dispute. It is noteworthy that, despite the poor safety record of some companies in the industry, no prominent advertisements were taken out advising employees of their rights and employers of their obligations.
It is not for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the issues in the dispute. However, it is plain that the dispute may yet have far-reaching implications for pay bargaining determination in the wider economy. As such, the proactive involvement of the Government is necessary.
As regard the dispute itself, I will say this much. The Labour Party wants to see training, certification, health and safety included on the bargaining agenda, not just because their inclusion may be helpful in facilitating a resolution of this dispute but because they merit urgent attention in their own right.
