Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 2003

Vol. 569 No. 5

Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Fahey)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to present this important Bill to the House. The Bill has been the subject of lengthy and fruitful debate in the Seanad. I believe the amendments made to the Bill in the Seanad have improved the Bill. I thank the Members of the Upper House for their time and effort in this regard. I have absolutely no doubt that Members of the Dáil will also approach our work on this Bill in a positive and proactive manner. I also thank my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, for bringing the Bill through the Seanad while I was away on official business earlier this month.

As he pointed out in the Seanad, it is widely acknowledged that social partnership involving employers, employees and Government has been the driving force of change in the workplace over recent years. This social partnership process has been backed up by a well-balanced range of employment rights and labour legislation which, together with measures designed to stimulate employment, provides an appropriate framework for the purpose of achieving an efficient and competitive business environment.

Employment rights legislation covering a range of areas such as conditions of employment has an important role to play in promoting labour market stability and minimising conflict. In keeping with Ireland's voluntarist tradition, collective agreements are, generally, the primary method of determining conditions of employment. The role of statute law has generally been limited to that of setting minimum levels of protection or entitlement.

Ireland has over the past 20 to 30 years been at the forefront in ensuring that reasonable conditions of employment exist which set out clearly for both employers and employees their respective entitlements. Successive Governments have enacted legislation in the area of employment rights reflecting changes in society and the workplace at both national and international levels through, for example, the transposition of EU directives, and reflecting in Irish domestic law the standard-setting activities of the International Labour Organisation and the Council of Europe.

Such legislation has covered a wide range of areas, including minimum notice and terms of employment; protection against unfair dismissal; payment of wages; organisation of working time; safeguarding of employees' rights on the transfer of undertakings; protection of young persons at work; safety, health and welfare; redundancy and insolvency entitlements; minimum wage entitlements; and protection of part-time workers.

One area where employment rights legislation has dramatically affected people's work and lifestyle is that of the organisation of working time. This area covers issues such as holiday entitlements, rest periods, maximum working time and night work. Changing social needs and technological advances have influenced the way we work and the length of time in terms of days and hours per week we spend in the workplace.

Nowadays, employers want a well educated and flexible workforce that allows their companies to be competitive in what are becoming increasingly globalised markets. Employees also want the flexibility that enables them to balance work and family life. They want to be allowed to move within and across employment and, thereby, enhance their work skills and educational needs through life-long learning programmes. Many such employees do this by means of temporary employment, either through the auspices of employment agencies or through fixed-term contract work.

In particular, fixed-term contract work provides these employees with both opportunities and challenges. Many of their contracts are fixed-purpose based or time based to coincide with the completion of a specific task or an event. This often involves meeting deadlines by the employee on the one hand, while giving employers increased productivity through clearly identifiable targets or outputs on the other. The combination of job satisfaction for fixed-term employees and increased productivity for employers has in many ways changed the environment in the Irish labour market in recent years.

All these changes in employment rights legislation have influenced employment trends and the numbers in employment. According to Central Statistics Office figures for the last quarter of 2002, the number of persons in employment has risen from 1.22 million in 1994 to 1.77 million in 2002. That is an increase of 45%. Part of this number includes 294,000 part-time workers. This number represents 17% of the workforce, with the majority of these being women. In addition to atypical workers such as part-time workers, there is also the category of fixed-term contract workers. While the CSO does not at present have figures for these workers, it is estimated that there are 70,000 fixed-term contract workers, that is just 4% of the workforce.

I should indicate to the Dáil that the CSO has been requested, as part of its review of the Quarterly National Household Survey 2003-2006, to include in its questionnaires a series of questions to ascertain the numbers and trends in relation to fixed-term workers. Despite these increasing and welcome figures, we have, over the past few years, been experiencing severe skills shortages in our economy. This is also happening right across Europe. To address this major problem, the European Commission and the European Council has, since 1998 under the Luxembourg process, each year requested member states to prepare an employment action plan setting out their respective Government's proposals on how to improve the overall economic environment in terms of people at work. As part of this process member states, in their respective annual employment action plans, are required to set out policies which, inter alia, facilitate opportunities for women who have raised their families and are keen to come back into the workplace. They are also required to formulate family-friendly policies which facilitate, in particular, greater female participation in the workforce.

The European Commission guidelines for 2002 – this is the fifth year of this process – set out a number of horizontal objectives aimed at building conditions for full employment in a knowledge-based economy. The detailed guidelines require member states to formulate policies involving a more employment-friendly approach through a review, where necessary, of benefits, taxes and training systems, and positive measures to maintain the skills and working capacity of older workers, especially through sufficient access to education and training and flexible working conditions such as part-time and contract work.

The Government and its predecessor have in recent budgets substantially reduced the burden of income tax thereby making the option of working more attractive. The scenario I have painted sets us both a challenge and an opportunity. In this context, the timing of our discussions on the Bill is opportune.

The Bill seeks to implement the provisions of EU Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by the general cross-industry organisations at European level, namely, UNICE, the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe, CEEP, the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation, and ETUC, the European Trade Union Confederation. The objectives of the directive are: to improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination, meaning that fixed-term workers must be treated not less favourably than comparable permanent workers; remove discrimination against fixed-term workers where such exists; and establish a framework to prevent abuses arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

The target date for the implementation of this directive was 10 July 2001. A tripartite working group, including representatives from the social partners, IBEC and ICTU, who broadly support the intent of the directive, and from relevant Departments and State agencies, was established to discuss the measures necessary for the implementation of the directive. The deliberations of the group have contributed to and influenced the composition of the Bill. Article 2 of the directive allows for its implementation in an individual member state by means of a collective agreement between the social partners.. However, both ICTU and IBEC declined this option for the implementation of the directive in Ireland. Accordingly, it was necessary to prepare the Bill.

I thank both IBEC and ICTU for their work at European and national levels in framing the Bill, which I believe will have a major social impact in Ireland in the years ahead. I also thank them for their contributions to my Department in recent weeks since the Bill passed through the Seanad. A number of important and constructive amendments have emerged which are being examined by my Department in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government. I hope to be in a position to table a number of Government amendments on Committee Stage next week designed to reflect some of these concerns and which should improve the intent of the Bill and result in its speedy enactment.

The scope of the directive is expressed as applying to fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by law, collective agreement or practice in force in each member state. In this context, Irish labour law covers persons employed under contracts of service. The Bill, which implements the terms of the directive, provides for measures guaranteeing that fixed-term workers may not be treated less favourably than full-time workers. It also requires the removal of discrimination against fixed-term workers where such exists and contains measures aimed at improving the quality of fixed-term work. The Fixed-Term Work Directive on which the Bill is based provides that the quality of work be improved by the application of the principle of non-discrimination, which means that people on fixed-term contracts are not treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers.

One aspect of the Bill to which I would like to refer specifically is the inclusion of pay and pension entitlements of fixed-term workers. This entitlement is covered under the definition of "remuneration" set out in the interpretation section of the Bill, section 2. The Government has decided to include pay and pensions in the Bill as a deliberate policy initiative without prejudice to continuing to maintain the validity of the legal advice received to the effect that, because of the wording of Article 137(6) of the treaty, such inclusion cannot be regarded as obligatory under Directive 1999/70/EC. The Government's decision on pay and pensions means that fixed-term workers should be treated in a similar manner to comparable permanent workers with immediate effect in so far as pay and pension entitlements are concerned. This is entirely consistent as the Government has already granted similar pay and pension entitlements to part-time workers under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001.

The granting of such entitlements to fixed-term workers will have the effect of increasing overall pension coverage levels. All parties to the new Sustaining Progress social partnership agreement share the objective that the level of coverage of occupational pensions schemes should be increased and are committed to co-operating to promote improvements in the coverage of schemes towards the national pensions policy initiative target of 70% of the workforce over 30 years. Employers who exclude employees from their pension scheme or who limit eligibility for a scheme must, from 15 September 2003, provide access to at least one standard personal retirement savings account, PRSA.

The cost to the Exchequer of the inclusion of pay and pension entitlements in the Bill in respect of the wider public service is estimated at €50 million annually. However, the economic and social benefits that will accrue, especially where workplace relationships and the promotion and encouragement of the process of change in work relationships are concerned, which will benefit both employers and employees alike, will be considerable. For example, fixed-term work can help people achieve a balance between work and family and fit in caring responsibilities. Term-time only contracts can benefit parents. It is important that those with caring responsibilities can provide for their retirement. Women are significantly more likely than men to be in fixed-term employment between the ages of 25 and 44 which are often the most important years for pensions benefit.

Section 8 indicates that fixed-term workers must be advised by their employer in writing of the objective grounds justifying the withdrawal of the contract of employment on a fixed-term contract basis. Section 9 specifically addresses the issue of the use of successive fixed-term contracts by employers. The effect of this is to provide in future that, following a period of continuous service of at least three years by a fixed-term employee, an employer may in effect renew a fixed-term contract once only. Thereafter, further renewal of the fixed-term contract concerned will be deemed to be a contract of indefinite duration. The thinking behind this is that a period of three years' service followed by one renewal, which as drafted can be of any duration, provides a link to permanency in the employment of fixed-term workers.

Section 9 provides those who have accumulated three years' service at a minimum with an employer will only have to complete one further contract before being deemed to be in a contract of indefinite duration. Employers are free to give such workers permanent employment through open-ended contracts of indefinite duration before the three year period required expires based on the performance of that fixed-term worker.

Senator O'Toole tabled an amendment to this section on Committee Stage in the Seanad which was essentially designed to place a time limit on how long workers could be employed on fixed-term contract before being offered a contract of indefinite duration. I thank Senator O'Toole for this amendment which is being considered by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government, and I will return to the House on this issue on Committee Stage next week with a package of amendments aimed at clarifying the intent of this section.

Mr. Broughan

Where will they be inserted?

Mr. Fahey

Sections 15 to 17 provide that where fixed-term contract workers are concerned about their treatment by employers, they will have recourse to redress procedures of the rights commissioner service of the Labour Relations Commissioner Service in the first instance and then, on appeal, to the Labour Court, with a further appeal on a point of law to the High Court. These redress procedures are a standard provision in employment rights legislation.

Many of the provisions to Part 2, entitled "Fixed-Term Work and Rights of Fixed Term Workers", mirror the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001, which also arose from a similar framework agreement at European level. Other provisions on complaints to rights commissioners and enforcement procedures reflect standard provisions of other employment rights legislation generally.

While I have already highlighted key areas of the Bill, I will outline in detail the main provisions as passed by Seanad Éireann.

Section 1 is a standard provision dealing with the Short Title of the Bill. Section 2 sets out the definitions. During the debate on the Bill in the Seanad, the Government accepted an Opposition amendment which brought the definition of "remuneration" into line with Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. In addition, the exclusion of agency workers from the scope of the Bill was specifically raised by a number of Senators. In response, the Minister gave a commitment that the Government would report on this matter on Committee Stage in the Dáil and update the Seanad of any developments after passage of the Bill through the House.

This exclusion was done in accordance with the terms of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC which provided that the agreement "applies to fixed term workers with the exceptions of those placed by a temporary work agency at the disposition of a user enterprise".

This was done for a variety of reasons, not least the intention since the very beginning to deal with part-time, fixed term and temporary agency workers separately. Although the first two agreements between the social partners at European level finally reached were similar in nature, this was achieved after a thorough discussion of each type of work.

Negotiations on a temporary agency worker directive between social partners at European level broke done in May 2001 and a draft directive in this area was subsequently published by the EU Commission in March 2002. This draft directive remains under detailed discussion in Brussels.

While it is unclear at this stage how the Italian Presidency proposes to advance the temporary agency dossier, we understand it will continue to work on the proposal with a view to possibly reaching political agreement during its Presidency, which ends in December.

Accordingly, under the definition of "contract of employment" in section 2, agency workers who agree with another person who is carrying on the business of an employment within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act 1971, and is acting in the course of that business to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person, whether or not the third person is party to the contract, are excluded from the ambit of the legislation because of the provision in the framework agreement on fixed-term work. Agency workers who have a contract of employment directly with an employment agency, however, are covered by the Bill as, in those cases, the employment agency would be the employer as defined in the Bill.

Section 3 empowers the Minister to make regulations and orders prescribing any matter or thing which is referred to in the Bill as prescribed or for the purpose of any enabling any provision of the Bill to have full effect.

Section 4 is a standard provision. Section 5 provides that the employee is a comparable permanent employee in relation to a fixed-term employee if the permanent employee and the fixed-term employee are employed by the same or associated employer and one of the conditions referred to in (i), (ii) or (iii) is met. Where that does not apply, including a case where the fixed-term employee is the sole employee of the employer, the permanent employee is specified in a collective agreement, being an agreement that for the time being has effect in relation to the relevant fixed-term employee, to be a comparable employee in relation to the fixed-term employee. Where neither of those apply, the employee is employed in the same industry or sector of employment as the fixed-term employee and one of the conditions referred to in (i), (ii) or (iii) is met.

The following are the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) referred to: (i) both employees perform the same work under the same or similar conditions or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work; (ii) the work performed by one of the employees concerned is of the same or a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each, either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant; and (iii) the work performed by the relevant fixed-term employee is equal or greater in value to the work performed by the other employee concerned, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.

Section 6 provides that, generally, a fixed-term employee shall not be treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee in respect of his or her conditions of employment. Section 6(4) was amended on Committee Stage in the Seanad to bring it into line with section 9(5) of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 so that a comparator for a fixed-term employee should be of the same or opposite sex to such an employee.

Section 7 provides that a ground for treating an employee less favourably shall not be regarded as an objective ground for that purpose unless it is based on considerations other than the fixed-term status of the employee.

Section 8(1) provides that a fixed-term employee shall be informed in writing by his or her employer as soon as practicable of the objective condition determining the contract – arriving at a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event. Section 8(2) provides that where an employer proposes to renew a fixed-term contract the employee shall be informed in writing, not later than the date of renewal, of the objective grounds justifying the renewal of the fixed-term contract and the failure to offer a contract of indefinite duration. Section 8(3) provides that the written statements referred to in section 8(1) and section 8(2) are admissible as evidence in any proceedings under the Act. Section 8(4) provides that a rights commissioner or the Labour Court may draw any inference he or she considers just and equitable if it appears to him or her that an employer omitted to provide a written statement, or a written statement is evasive or equivocal.

Section 9 is currently being revised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government and I hope to table a package of Government amendments on this section on Committee Stage next week.

Section 10 provides that in order for a fixed-term employee to have the same opportunity as other employees to secure a permanent position, an employer shall inform him or her of relevant vacancies which occur.

Section 11 provides that when calculating the threshold above which employees' representative bodies may be constituted in an undertaking in line with section 4 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996, fixed-term employees shall be taken into account. Employers shall, as far as practicable, consider informing employees' representatives about fixed-term work in the undertaking.

Section 12 provides that a provision in any employment agreement shall be void in so far as it is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill.

Section 13 provides that an employer shall not penalise an employee for invoking his or her right to be treated in his or her employment in the manner provided for in this Part of the Bill. Penalisation of an employee is also forbidden for having lawfully opposed an act which is unlawful under this Bill or for giving evidence in any proceedings under this Bill. Penalisation for this purpose includes dismissal, unfavourable change in conditions of employment or any unfair treatment including selection for redundancy.

Part 3 deals with enforcement. Section 14 provides that a complaint by an employee, or by a trade union of which the employee is a member, that the employer has contravened any provision of the Bill in relation to that employee, may be presented to a rights commissioner. The rights commissioner shall issue a written decision in the matter and communicate that decision to the parties. The decision of the rights commissioner may require the employer to pay compensation subject to a limit of two years of the employee's remuneration. A complaint to a rights commissioner must be made within six months of the date of contravention of the Bill or the date of termination of the contract of employment concerned, whichever is the earlier. This period may be extended by a further 12 months if the commissioner is satisfied that failure to refer the case within six months was due to reasonable cause. The hearing before the rights commissioner shall be conducted in private.

Section 15 provides that a decision of a rights commissioner may be appealed to the Labour Court within six weeks of the date of the decision. The Labour Court shall issue a determination in writing affirming, varying or setting aside the decision of the rights commissioner. The Labour Court may, under this section, request the Minister to refer a question of law arising in proceedings before it to the High Court for final and conclusive determination. Where a decision of the rights commissioner has not been carried out by the employer, and an appeal against the decision has not been brought within the time allowed for doing so, the employee may refer the complaint to the Labour Court and the court, without hearing any evidence, may make a determination to the like effect as the decision of the rights commissioner.

Section 16 provides that where an employer fails to implement a determination of the Labour Court within six weeks from the date it is communicated to the parties, and the determination has not been appealed within the appropriate time limit, the Circuit Court shall on application to it by the employee concerned, a trade union of which the employee is a member or the Minister, and without hearing any evidence, make an order directing the employer to implement the determination.

Section 17 provides that the Bill shall not apply to a member of the Defence Forces, a trainee garda or a trainee nurse.

Section 18 provides that relief may not be granted to an employee in respect of a penalisation in contravention of section 13(1) which constitutes a dismissal of an employee within the meaning of the unfair dismissals legislation, both under Part 3 of this Bill and under those Acts. It also provides that a person who is a fixed-term employee under this Bill and a part-time employee under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 may not obtain relief in respect of the same circumstances under both this Bill and the 2001 Act.

Section 19 raises the fines of £50 and £10 provided for in section 10(1) of the Employment Agency Act 1971 to €2,000 and €1,000 respectively. It also amends section 28(8) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and section 17(8) of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 by removing the time limit of six weeks which currently applies to referrals of rights commissioners' decisions to the Labour Court. It further provides for a technical amendment to section 39(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 relating to the powers of a rights commissioner, the Employment Appeals Tribunal or the Labour Court to amend decisions in certain cases.

I am satisfied that the right to reasonable conditions of employment should continue to be enshrined in employment rights legislation. It is our duty as elected and accountable legislators to take a proactive approach in ensuring that any future legislation reflects the needs and expectations of both employees and employers, is framed in such a way as to respond to the needs of society as a whole and reflects the ongoing changes occurring at an enormous pace in the labour market.

The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Bill 2003 is, without doubt, a welcome addition to our employment rights legislation. It will have a major impact on our employment landscape and, in particular, on professionals such as teachers and nurses, many of whom have been on fixed-term contracts without having the right to a permanent position. That will come to an end with this Bill and, accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Murphy

Fine Gael welcomes the Bill, which is overdue. Those working on fixed-term contracts will breath a sigh of relief at the increased level of job security provided by the Bill.

As with so much of the business of this House, the Bill allows for the transposition into Irish law of an European Union directive which seeks to give contract workers the rights they deserve and to end exploitation of some workers by some bad employers.

The Bill clearly shows the social progressive nature of the European Union. During the Nice referendum, many on the far left of the political spectrum condemned the EU as a body obsessed with the needs of the bosses. Many of those on the right continue to claim that the EU costs us jobs and holds back business. As a party of the progressive centre, Fine Gael recognises that the European Union is neither of those. The Bill gives employees protection, and it will not cost a single job. The people share our view of the EU which is that it is not a threat to employees or employers. Perhaps some day both elements on the extreme fringes will also agree with this concept. It is important to recognise that, were it not for the European Union, many of these progressive and socially-motivated directives would not be transferred into Irish law. That is the case currently and for the past six years.

It is generally accepted that this Government is the most right wing since the foundation of the State. Were it not for EU directives, social issues and workers' rights would not be a priority for this Government. The Tánaiste admitted that this Government was closer to Boston than Berlin. The Republican Party in the United States is obsessed with creating a favourable climate for big business, much like this Government's attitude over the past six years, where the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer. There is always a danger, however, that too many regulations will make us less competitive. That is why it is important to get the balance right, with flexibility to allow business to expand and change matched with fair and equitable legislation to protect workers' rights.

The recent agreed expansion of the European Union will further help to create a level playing field as the new entrants will have to comply with the same environmental and work-related regulations as us. It is important to highlight that because during the European debates, the question of how the EU benefits workers is often raised. The principal benefit is that they are afforded rights that Ireland would not otherwise be able to afford. If Ireland were seeking to act on its own, we would not be able to impose these rights unilaterally because it would involve a significant competitive disadvantage for us. We are only able to establish such rights on a European-wide basis.

It is important that the electorate realises that the benefits to individual employees are the other side to the EU and the Single Market. We all accept that social partnership, involving all sectors, has been a driving force for change. This process should be backed up with a well-balanced range of employment rights and company legislation, which we hope will continue to work in an efficient and competitive business environment.

Due to the downturn in the economy and escalating costs, major challenges must be faced to ensure we remain competitive. For this reason, it is important that reasonable conditions of employment exist. It is important also that the respective entitlements of employers and employees are clearly set out. We have lost some competitive advantage in the past 12 months but I have no doubt this is entirely due to Government inaction, or too much action in some cases with the introduction of stealth taxes and charges. Insurance costs now cost us thousands of jobs, and there is still no solution in sight. Having said that, we welcome the Bill. Everyone accepts that the needs of workers and employers have changed over the years.

The Bill is being introduced against the backdrop of a very different Irish workforce from that of ten or 20 years ago. There are now 294 part-time workers in the economy, representing 17% of the workforce. The idea of a job for life has gone. People may now carve out a career but they believe it is neither practical nor desirable to spend 20, 30 or even 40 years working for the same employer or institution.

Hand in hand with this is the concept of contract work which offers an attractive prospect for thousands of young people entering the labour market for the first time, unsure of whether they wish to pledge their lives to their chosen profession or to one employer. Unfortunately, such attractions come with a price tag – job insecurity, less favourable treatment by management and often a general sense that they are being undervalued. Frequently, it is the contract worker who is asked to do what a permanent employee would never dream of doing. This cannot be allowed to continue.

This debate is framed around the Fine Gael Party's key belief in the need for rights and responsibility. For employers, the right to run a thriving, successful business is enshrined in our democratic system. No one is suggesting it would be possible to do this without the flexibility of a system of contract workers. What is suggested is that employers have a duty of responsibility to such workers once they have been in their employ for a given period. This will be recognised by the majority of employers and only a few rogue employers will fear the Bill.

The Bill also points to the rights and responsibilities of employees. By allowing for easier passage to permanent status, workers will receive a share of the benefits, duties and responsibilities of permanent employees. In this way, employers win and employees' rights are protected.

I wish to address the timing of the Bill. My colleague in the Upper House, Senator Coghlan, drew attention to the fact that the European Commission has claimed that Ireland failed to properly implement the relevant directive, which should have been transposed into law in 1999. While the Government is not known for keeping its promises, failing to keep international commitments takes its lack of action to a new level. A long list of legal cases is pending against the State for non-implementation of European Union directives, notably on the environment but also on other issues. The Government should be more proactive in ensuring that EU directives, especially those on workers' rights, are promptly transposed into Irish law.

While I welcome specific aspects of the Bill, I also have a number of questions. It would be difficult for anyone to argue with the broad thrust of the legislation. Section 7 states that, generally, a fixed-term employee should not be treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee in respect of his or her conditions of employment. It is astounding that we are debating this issue in 2003 as it should have been achieved a long time ago.

Section 10(1) states the contract for fixed-term employment may be renewed only once after the employee has been in employment for a period of three years. I broadly support this move. It is not fair that it is possible for people to work for a company for 20 years without knowing from one year to the next whether they will keep their job. I hope it will be accepted that such circumstances will cease once the Bill is enacted.

The Fine Gael Party supports the dynamic economy in which we live, but justice and fair play must be available to employees. The Bill goes some way towards achieving this. I welcome the moves towards establishing a rights commissioner to adjudicate in alleged cases of contravention of the measures provided for in the Bill and that provision is made for referral to the Labour Court when the rights commissioner is unable to solve an impasse. There is, I understand, some degree of discomfort regarding the potential bureaucratic load which could be placed on employers upon enactment of the legislation. Employers must already deal with too much red tape. I call on the Government to assure business that the amount of red tape the Bill will entail will be minimised.

I ask the Government to outline how it arrived at the estimated cost of the provisions of €50 million. The Minister of State partially addressed the matter and we will consider his comments. While I agree the Bill will benefit the economy, these benefits are not always clear to the casual observer and accusations of big government can ring true.

The Bill is a step forward, particularly for those on fixed-term contracts who want only the security and respect they deserve. We have the European Union to thank for these measures and the Government for the shameful delays in implementing them. The Fine Gael Party commends the legislation to the House.

Mr. Broughan

On behalf of the Labour Party, I warmly welcome the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Bill 2003, which deals with the most vulnerable and sometimes most abused workers in the economy. According to figures cited by the Minister of State, there are some 70,000 such workers in this country. From experience, however, it appears inconceivable that their number could be so low. A significant proportion of the 1.7 million workforce, now approaching 1.8 million, to which the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, referred in the Seanad, are now covered by fixed-term contracts. The issue was obviously crying out for action.

The Minister of State noted the role of State and local authorities in employing workers on fixed-term contracts. He referred, for example, to teachers and nurses. Many other local authority workers and a plethora of workers employed in the community sector have minimal protection under one year contracts. These apply, for example, in the jobs initiative programme to which I recently drew the Minister of State's attention.

There are significant issues in the Bill which need to be examined, particularly the objective grounds for giving a worker successive, fixed-term contracts and their number and duration. I will return to these points.

As my colleague, Deputy Murphy, mentioned, the appalling aspect of the presentation of this legislation is that the House is being asked to implement a directive issued in June 1999, based on the framework agreement and arrived at after many years of discussion with the European Trade Union Congress, UNICE and CEEP. We were required to transpose the directive into Irish law by 10 July 2001, almost exactly two years ago, but the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, failed to do so. We were then allowed another year's grace until 10 July 2002 if we applied for special circumstances, which I understand we also failed to do. Now that we have been brought shame-facedly before the European Court of Justice, we are belatedly having to bring legislation before the House in the last few days before the recess and, once again, effectively force it through using a guillotine. The Government's lethargic approach to worker protection legislation is lamentable and typical of the Minister and the policy she has pursued for the past six years during one of the longest ministerial tenures in the history of the State.

In recent weeks, newspapers have carried a debate on the Government's position on the ideological spectrum. Last week, for example, Dan O'Brien of the Economist Intelligence Unit informed us that a consideration of the Government's spending policies, fiscal ideas, overspending in certain areas, agreement on benchmarking and consultation with social partners would place it left of centre. This is taking a snapshot at a point in time. As my colleague Deputy Quinn pointed out in The Irish Times yesterday, when one looks at the Government over the past six years, the countries to which we might be compared – which mostly have had Labour governments – would have a universal health system, would have put in place a full scale decent public transport system at some time over the past 50 years and have dealt with issues of access to education.

It is ludicrous to place the Government anywhere on the left of the spectrum. Nowhere is this more true than in the transposition of European worker protection legislation. I have been sceptical about some aspects of European development in the past and have not been afraid to articulate it. The best influence Europe has had on this State in our 30 years of EU membership has been in the area of worker protection legislation. There is a plethora of legislation on the Statute Book that ultimately came from directives of the European Commission, by agreement with the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The first Bill I introduced to this House asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, after years of neglect, to introduce the directive on the transfer of undertakings for workers. While this is a welcome Bill, why has the Government been so lethargic in introducing it? Is the Government doing this because the EU put it in the dock and left it with no choice but to do so? I regret that, once again, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has not been to the fore in bringing forward legislation to protect workers.

At this time, the Government, in conjunction with three other states, is blocking completion of the directive on temporary agency workers. Given that there are at least 100,000 such workers in this country, this is remarkable. The Minister of State has attended meetings on this recently, perhaps he will update us on the progress made.

Mr. Fahey

That is what the workers want us to do; they want flexibility.

Mr. Broughan

That is what the Minister of State says.

Mr. Fahey

That is what they tell me. Why should I not represent what they want?

Mr. Broughan

I understand the trade union movement in 11 EU countries, including Ireland, thinks this is appalling.

Mr. Fahey

Our trade union movement does not think that.

Mr. Broughan

The Minister of State cannot challenge the fact that he is blocking this temporary agency workers directive.

Mr. Fahey

It is not in the best interests of our temporary agency workers.

Mr. Broughan

I do not agree with the Minister of State. It is badly and urgently needed.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy is in a minority.

Mr. Broughan

I know, we have only 21 seats but I hope that will change. I urge the Minister to reconsider. There were meetings on this last November and the Minister was present at one earlier this month when four countries opposed it. We have tried to show that we need at least an 18 month commitment to host firms for these agency workers before they receive the same rights. This is the nub of the issue.

Since the vast majority of temporary workers fall outside the scope of equal treatment provisions, this temporary agency worker legislation is essential. I hope progress has been made in that regard. It was mentioned that the prime ministers would consider it at Thessalonika and that the Party of European Socialists, to which my party belongs, would bring that to the fore. The sad reality is that we have led the way in preventing the protection of temporary agency workers. The Minister of State made the point that due to skills shortages, the economy needs additional workers in a range of areas. Surely we should support a cross European, 25 country regime that would protect these workers. As the Minister knows, they are open to exploitation and gross abuse.

Mr. Fahey

That is totally incorrect.

Mr. Broughan

When I contributed to the debate on the work permits Bill I gave example after example of rogue employers that treated people disgracefully and some issues have ended up in the courts. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider and move on the temporary workers directive and then bring it to this House as quickly as possible.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy has a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Mr. Broughan

The Minister of State will have a chance to reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Fahey

I am amazed at a Labour Party Deputy going on like this.

Mr. Broughan

This legislation is welcome. Colleagues have referred to the massive changes in the labour market where there are now almost 300,000 temporary workers, many of whom are women and this sector now makes up 17% of the workforce.

I welcome what the Minister of State said about gaining knowledge of the precise number of temporary workers in the 2003-06 period. I urge the Minister of State to create better conditions for those workers and it is important for policy makers to know the numbers involved.

It is of critical importance that we prevent further maltreatment of workers and many features of the Bill are welcome. I note the Minister of State said he was open to amendment in one important matter. The Labour Party will table an extensive number of amendments, as it did in the Seanad. The core point of the Bill is that fixed-term workers will not be treated less favourably than permanent workers. I would like to tease out the objective conditions in this regard.

I have already mentioned that local and national government services have availed of fixed-term workers over many years and I welcome the Minister of State's comments that this legislation will help bring this to an end. While local authorities often take workers on for seasonal work for three to five months, the workers receive no permanent benefits.

I urge the Minister of State to look again at the issue of job initiatives. Deputies have been bombarding the Minister of State with notes from different community groups that are under severe stress because of fixed five year terms and rolling one year terms. Perhaps the Minister of State might look at this over the next three or four years, if the Government survives, and bring forward comprehensive legislation regarding the rights of all of those workers and providing full backing for community support programmes.

Debate adjourned.