Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Jan 2012

Vol. 751 No. 2

Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill 2011: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When we adjourned yesterday evening I had expressed my concerns over the lack of a derogation and particularly the impact that would have on our cost basis by comparison with the Northern part of the island and other locations in the UK with which we compete for industry. The consequences of that will be felt throughout IDA Ireland's work in coming years as it seeks to sell Ireland as a location for investment. It will be immediately obvious that we have this difficulty and I reiterate what I said last night. There is an onus on ICTU and IBEC in the few remaining days to try to reach agreement on this. They should knock their heads together in the interests of what everybody in the country and in this House seeks, which is job creation. We need to remove another competitive anomaly, which in this case is in our own hands.

Existing domestic legislation gives very substantial protection for temporary workers, which this directive reinforces. To make a point, as some have, that temporary workers are treated in some sort of third-class way is wrong and ignores the legislation already in place. Temporary agency workers work in many spheres. Last night, we spoke about the health area and there is also the service industry. However, there are also very high level agency workers in IT, agriculture, banking and finance - areas that are already under significant pressure. This legislation has been in gestation for some time - the negotiations began ahead of the crisis we are experiencing. Unfortunately, its imposition comes at the worst possible time. What was good in 2007 and 2008 in terms of worker protection may now be another negative for our cost base management in 2012.

The responses of the various organisations are starkly different. The American Chamber of Commerce Ireland submission in 2010 stated: "Transposing legislation needs to strike the appropriate balance between the need to maintain temporary agency work as an instrument of business competitiveness and labour market flexibility, and fairness in the protection to be afforded to agency workers." I do not believe we have that balance. While we have given the protection, by not getting a derogation we have struck the balance on the other side in terms of competitiveness. That is the biggest danger of its operation. Given that the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland represents organisations employing nearly 300,000 people here, we should sit up and take notice.

This needs to be placed along with the other decisions taken in recent weeks affecting our competitiveness and thereby impacting on the Government's aim for job creation, which everybody shares given our current unemployment crisis. Increasing the rate of VAT by 2 percentage points adds directly to companies' bottom line in terms of fuel and inputs. The decision on the redundancy rebate will hit many companies this year and force them to make decisions they otherwise might not have had to make. There have been various decisions from Departments, including the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government waste management costs coming down the tracks in 2012. A large number of companies have received invoices this year for waste costs for the first six months of the year and not beyond that because waste management companies claim they cannot predict what the cost of waste disposal will be in 2012. All of those changes are eroding our competitiveness and sending the signal to businesses that while employment creation is an aim and aspiration, the reality is that we are introducing many terms and conditions that are blocking employment creation and will ultimately cost jobs.

Some 340 employment agencies will be affected by this. I welcome that an RIA for the Bill has been published - a number of Ministers could learn from the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, in publishing RIAs with legislation. Approximately 35,000 people are directly affected by this directive. The National Recruitment Federation claims the figure is approximately 42,000. While as a proportion of our labour force it is relatively small, it is sending the wrong message and is anti-competitive.

It is a message that will be used by competitors seeking investment around the country as a means with which to beat Ireland and run down its reputation as a place to do business.

I have no doubt that the Minister and his officials put every effort into sorting out the qualifying period issue. If we are serious as a society about job creation - I address this directly to IBEC and ICTU, in particular, ICTU as it is an all-Ireland organisation - then the social partners, rather than walking up and down O'Connell Bridge and putting banners on Liberty Hall, must explain why, in terms of this directive, workers on the Northern part of this island have one level of protection while workers on this part of the island have another. It is the lack of agreement between the social partners, in this case between IBEC and ICTU, that is forcing this uncompetitive situation on us.

As politicians, including Members of this House and the Seanad, we are blamed for everything. However, the organisations blocking agreement on this, and who because of the construct of this directive in terms of the European understanding of social partnership, have that veto, have a bigger responsibility in this case. They have a responsibility to knock their heads together, to on this occasion leave outside the door whatever grievances they have with each and to, for a change, act in the interests of job creation. This is a test for them. Implementation of this directive is a test for the organisations who hang on to what used to be social partnership. So far, they have failed that test and they have failed it abysmally. They now have a chance to step up to the mark and to get agreement before this legislation progresses to Committee Stage, thus sending to the people in 2012 the signal that they as organisations are real about job creation and are willing to do what needs to be done to facilitate it. If they did that in 2012, they would do the State some service.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Barry.

Ireland's failure to implement the Temporary Agency Work Directive by 5 December has been widely reported in the media. Enactment of this Bill will implement that directive. The purpose of the directive is to ensure that employees and agency workers are treated equally in terms of pay and basic working conditions, as if recruited by the hirer to do the same job. In essence, all agency workers are entitled to the basic working and employment conditions as those to which a comparable employee is entitled, or, if there is no comparable employee, to those to which a comparable employee would be entitled were one employed. There are 35,000 temporary agency workers in this country, representing 2% of our workforce. They are employed in the private sector, principally in the security industry, manufacturing and ICT and, in the public sector, in the health service, mainly as nurses.

The Bill is stated to come into effect from 5 December 2011. Consequently, it is likely that employers will be obliged to backdate pay once the legislation comes into force. However, the retrospective provisions will not apply to the offences created by the BillThe Bill's provisions apply to those who work under the supervision and direction of hirers. Consequently, self-employed persons, contractors and those working on managed service contracts are likely to be excluded. To determine if someone is genuinely self-employed, the courts apply a number of tests which examine all angles of a relationship, including contractual documentation and the conduct of the parties. If the courts conclude that an individual is not self-employed but works under the direction and supervision of a hirer or that the arrangement is an avoidance tactic, the individual will likely fall within the scope of the Bill.

Managed service contracts are based on a contract for services which sets out certain service level arrangements. The managed service contractor has responsibility for managing and delivering the service and employs, rather than supplies, the workers. The managed service contractor must be genuinely engaged in supervising and directing its workers on site on a day-to-day basis and must determine how and when work is done to avoid the scope of the Bill. Basic working and employment conditions are protected by the Bill which expressly excludes sick pay, payments under a pension scheme or occupational social security schemes. However, a collective agreement may be entered into to provide for conditions of employment that deviate from the basic conditions envisaged by the Act, provided they are balanced to ensure the overall protection of agency workers and this can be approved by the Labour Court.

All agency workers are entitled to the basic working and employment conditions as those to which a comparable employee is entitled. Basic working conditions include working time, rest periods, night work, annual leave, public holidays and access to collective facilities such as a canteen and child care. A comparable employee is one who works for the same employer, does the same work and is interchangeable with another. The definition of "pay" in the Bill is exhaustive and, therefore, anything not included in that definition falls outside the remit of the Bill.

The part of the Bill which refers to access to collective facilities such as canteens is the only element of the Bill where there can be "objective justification" for treating the agency worker less favourably. In this regard, there can be a reason for treating the agency worker differently but it must be a good reason. Issues such as cost or practical and organisational considerations could be put forward as such reason. It is worth noting that access to facilities does not mean that agency workers will have an entitlement to enhanced rights. For example, if there is a waiting list for child care facilities there is an entitlement only to join the list. It is worth noting also that the list of collective facilities in the Bill is not exhaustive. Perhaps the Minister will examine this. Along with the list of facilities specifically outlined, this entitlement may extend to additional items such as car parking spaces or shower facilities.

As stated by Deputy Calleary, an important element of the Bill is that there is no qualifying period of service for equal treatment. We know that in the UK and Northern Ireland a qualifying period of 12 weeks applies. This Bill ensures that agency workers will receive equal treatment from day one. While this is positive news for agency workers, it is less positive for employers. Employers and employment agencies are naturally concerned about the additional costs and red tape which this legislation will impose in order to ensure equal parity with direct employees. I agree with Deputy Calleary that this is a difficult time for businesses. They are already facing many challenges and the introduction of this legislation will make their situation more difficult. It is a shame and a pity that the social partners, IBEC and ICTU, could not reach agreement on a qualifying period. That is unfortunate. However, they have up until the eleventh hour to do so. It is hoped that will happen.

As regards liability, the agency is liable for failure to provide equal treatment in respect of pay or basic working conditions and the hirer is liable for failure to provide access to collective facilities or information on vacancies. Hirers must inform agency workers of any vacant positions about which they are also providing information to a comparable employee. Agency workers who allege contravention of their rights under the Bill must furnish their complaint to the Rights Commissioner of the Labour Relations Commission within six months of the date of the alleged breach. Maximum liability under the Bill is two years' remuneration.

This Bill is welcome. Elements of the Bill allow scope for differing interpretations. This flexibility is necessary on a case by case basis. Agencies will be required to review their contract documentation with hirers and will have to seek information from hirers in regard to how much the hirer is paying or would be paying a comparable employee. Agencies will also be required to furnish information to hirers about how individual employees are retained by them. Hirers will need this information to determine who in their organisations will come under the remit of this legislation. Clearly, hirers have a significant amount of work ahead of them. They will be obliged to group together workers and to determine which groups come within the remit of the legislation. They also will be obliged to determine what a comparable employee would be paid and this information, where applicable, must be furnished to the agency. Obviously, much work will be entailed in ensuring that agencies and hirers are compliant with this Bill's provisions. However, from the perspective of workers, it will lead to a fairer and more transparent working environment for many agency workers. One disadvantage of the Bill is that employers are likely to use existing employees, rather than recruiting new agency workers, because of the additional cost involved in this regard. Consequently, they are likely to squeeze more out of the existing employees. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and express my hope that some kind of 11th hour decision can be made on introducing a qualifying period into the legislation.

The objective of this Bill is to transpose into national legislation Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008. While I welcome this opportunity to speak on this legislation, at the outset I wish everyone present a happy new year in 2012. Hopefully, it will be another year of emergence from the economic crisis in which we find ourselves and I assure everyone who may be looking in on proceedings in the Chamber that all Members will work towards a better outcome for the country.

The transposition has the aim of providing protection to temporary agency workers on the basis of the principle of equal treatment in respect of their basic working and employment conditions. This means the same conditions will be applied to the agency workers as if they had been recruited directly by the undertaker, that is, the hirer, notwithstanding the nature of temporary workers' contractual relationships with the employment agency, which remains as the employer. The employment relationship of an agency worker is of a triangular nature between the agency worker, the employment agency and the hirer that undertakes where the agency worker ultimately will be assigned. The directive points out the objective to be pursued in respect of agency workers, that is, the employees, who are to be assigned by an employment agency, that is, the employers, to work under the direction and control of a third party, the hirer, and it is estimated that 35,000 people are in this position in Ireland.

As other Members have noted, I am disappointed the discussions between the social partners did not reach a satisfactory conclusion on the issue of derogation that would have allowed for a qualifying period, as is the position in the United Kingdom, where a 12-week period obtains. The administrative burden this measure will add to companies may be significant and is not welcome in that regard. Similarly, there is much trade between this jurisdiction, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. We also compete with them and this may put us at a slight disadvantage in this regard. I note the social partners were mad about social partnership during the good times when in essence, reaching an agreement simply meant paying more money. They now are being asked to reach agreements using methods other than more money and this requires leadership. However, the social partners have failed in their duty and have failed to recognise that for the country to emerge from this crisis, flexibility is required. One must sell what sometimes is a difficult story but they have baulked on this occasion.

I hope the issue of short-term contracts in particular industries can be re-examined at a later time in order that this necessary and broadly legislative development does not lead to job losses or unsustainable financial pressures on small enterprises that are already struggling. A review is scheduled for 2013 but hopefully it will not take that long because this may cause trouble in the short term. There is a strong argument in particular circumstances relating to some industries for a modest lead-in period before equal employment conditions should apply, particularly for businesses that only need employees for a short term. The Bill transposes the 2008 directive into national law and provides protection for temporary workers, which is positive. I am an employer and to achieve productivity, one's employees must be happy. They must go to work in the knowledge that their employer is being fair to them. One works on the basis of partnership with one's employees and one desires to have them treated properly. I have yet to see, particularly in smaller businesses, instances in which people would treat their employees differently. It would lead to dissatisfaction right across one's business, which ultimately leads to a lack of productivity. However, there are many issues in this regard. Perhaps during the good times too much pay was being given for working unsociable hours. As for Sunday working, I have never really agreed with it. I considered it unfair to push workers to work on a Sunday, which essentially is a family day. Certain tasks of course must be done and coming from a farming background, I am aware that one sometimes must work on Sundays. Cows must be milked on a Sunday and some jobs must be done. However, other jobs are not necessarily important on a Sunday.

This Bill also provides equal access to collective facilities and amenities in respect of employment opportunities. However, one must consider the ratios of workers in temporary employment. According to a report in the Irish Medical Times, the amount paid in 2010 by the Health Service Executive to external employment agencies was €151 million. This was almost double the €77 million paid in 2009 and in 2008, the outlay was just €15 million. Consequently, there has been an absolute surge in temporary employment and perhaps this should not have been encouraged. It was a quick fix, which in some respects has led to this legislation. Why is so much State money being spent on temporary workers and on subsidising recruitment agencies? They have done very well and Members may recall that recruitment agencies were being bought for multi-million amounts. The only reason this was the case is they were making fabulous profits. One could say this was achieved on the backs of workers, which in essence is another cost that employment cannot bear.

This issue should be considered in the context of hiring people. It is very important in business - I see it myself - to hire the right people. Instead of handing out this important job to a third party, which may not necessarily have the best interests of one's company at heart because they have a lot of other business to do, perhaps recruitment should be carried out in-house. One should hire people on the basis of their ability, reputation and drive because, ultimately, it is about ensuring the business remains in business. The idea of external recruitment never really washed well with me. Any time I employed someone, I sat down with and spoke to him or her and secured a reference for that person, thereby getting a good idea of the individual with whom I was dealing. This is important and I believe employees also would be glad to go in this direction because they would have more contact with the companies for which they were working. In addition, Members must examine the recruitment practices and embargoes within the health service because value for money is important in this regard. Perhaps by tweaking things in this respect, better value for money could be achieved for everyone.

Across the workforce, there are 35,000 temporary workers in Ireland, which comprises 2% of the active workforce. This is a large number, which represents many families who will enjoy more secure employment conditions. I always have been an advocate of fair play to workers. A sign of a good company is one in which the employees have worked for a long time. When I walk into a company and talk to the staff and hear one member has been with the company for 15 years and another for 20 years, that is a great sign that they are happy and contented. While they might not always be happy as there are days when things go wrong, on the whole everything is working out right for them and that is a great sign.

We need to focus on trying to move from having temporary workers to having full-time permanent positions. Such a move will be beneficial for the State in that people will have a secure position and may consider purchasing a house or a car, and that settles things down. When one is in a state of flux and employed on a temporary basis, one is fearful that things may change, especially in the current environment. It is important for us to be cognisant of that fact.

Coming from a business background, I am keen to point out that employers are anxious to protect the interests of their employees - I certainly am. In small businesses, employees are not only work colleagues but become personal friends. I have always used the term working with someone rather than for somebody. My business grew from a very small basis to being a reasonably large one and it was built on the abilities of the fabulous people who worked with me. That is the guideline we must have, namely, to respect people who work with us. Everybody has different abilities. Some people are good at organising others while others are good at getting the work done.

We have been good at subcontracting work. We left the manufacturing industries behind us in the good times and such industries moved to India and China. We have to get our hands dirty once more and get back to work. I have no doubt this legislation will ensure that matters will be better in the long run. As an employer, I can anticipate issues that will arise, but ensuring there is fairer treatment of workers and getting more people into permanent employment is what we are about.

The Government is tidying up many of our affairs. I am involved with the Minister, Deputy Bruton, in the policy committee and we are lining up all our ducks in a row. We are trying to get this country into a position where it will be ready for business. The jobs initiative was a bit like Food Harvest 2020 in agricultural sector - it has set a benchmark. We will have bank guarantee, micro-finance and credit guarantee schemes, and all these initiatives will assist and encourage business. I welcome the Bill.

I note Deputies Tom Fleming, Catherine Murphy and Finian McGrath will share time in the next speaking slot. I call Deputy Fleming.

This Bill will be beneficial for employees, employers and society in the long term. The transposition of the EU directive into Irish law is long overdue, as there has been a great increase in the number of agency workers here, particularly in recent years. There was a sudden dip in the number of agency staff a few years ago due to the dramatic decline in the construction industry, but during the past 12 months there has been a steady increase in number of people on the agencies' books. That is mainly due to people who were previously unemployed having completed upskilling courses and highly qualified people in various disciplines seeking work with employment agencies. By and large, agency workers are of the highest quality, have excellent qualifications and are a vital component in the efforts to revitalise our economy.

The process of consultation with the various stakeholders was commenced by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as it was then titled, as far back as October 2010 and subsequently pursued by the current Minister, Deputy Bruton, since he took office but, unfortunately, with the non-agreement of some aspects of the directive, there has been undue delay in the introduction of the Bill. I must give credit to the Minister for making the Bill retrospective with effect from 5 December 2011. I welcome that initiative. I hope it will ensure the agency workers will have the same pay as the workers they replace with effect from that date. Up to now, they have not enjoyed the same terms and conditions of employment as workers they have replaced. The company paid the agency and the agency paid the agency worker, but the agency took a cut of the worker's pay and made huge profits on the back of the agency workers. The agencies took a disproportionate rate and that should not have been the practice, but at last they are being brought into line.

One aspect of the Bill about which I am unhappy is that pension provision is not properly covered. Also, bonus payments, sick pay schemes and benefits-in-kind do not come within the scope of the Bill. I strongly believe the Bill should be amended to address these issues. The fewer agency employees who are covered by occupational pensions, the more of these people who will be dependent on the State at a later date for the old age pension. In terms of a defined contribution scheme, at a minimum, 5% of the salary of an agency worker should be paid into a fund to ensure that when that worker retires, he or she will not be completely dependent on the State.

Another aspect that is relevant in terms of employment is that the level of unionisation in the private sector has greatly decreased. I ask that the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, to convey to the Minister for Finance my request that he reinstate an earlier scheme that was removed in the 2010 budget. Under that scheme, union subscriptions were allowable as a tax deduction. As in the private sector, the level of professional representation by unions for workers has fallen to 23%. This is an alarming figure, given that such workers should be entitled to professional representation. The measure that was introduced in the 2010 budget was a deterrent. The significance of the decease in union representation in the private sector is highlighted by the fact that there is 100% union representation in the public service. I ask that this request be conveyed to the Minister for Finance.

While people have major questions about the European Union, one of its achievements is its vindication of the rights of employees. This Bill primarily stems from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is the only reason I could find to talk myself into voting "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty. I have felt that up to now the charter has been torn up and thrown away. It is good that this legislation and other positive initiatives from Europe in the area of workers' rights have stemmed from that charter.

I know what it is like to sit in an office and work beside somebody who is paid more for doing the same work. I was one of those workers who in 1975 opened my pay packet to find that I had got equal pay with male workers, and I remember that morning. That arose under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 and women received equal pay in 1975. I think I got a 20% increase in my wages as a consequence of that and that is not something one easily forgets. Neither does one easily forget what it is like to do the same work as somebody else and feel a sense of injustice when that person is paid more. I received complaints from people last year who were working with people who were being paid less. They felt a sense of social solidarity that prompted them to contact me about the position of those agency workers. I had hoped we were nearing the day where that position would be redressed. It was women who were discriminated against in 1974. While this is not a gender-based discrimination that has taken place up to now, it is predominantly women who have been affected by it because it mainly involves people who work in child care, heath care, canteens and such jobs. Women will predominantly be affected by this measure.

There has been something of a casualisation of labour which has driven down standards and affected people's rights. It is only right and proper that the position in this regard should be addressed. However, the Bill does not address the issue of equal conditions. Deputy Tom Fleming drew attention to the fact that matters such as pensions, maternity rights, sick pay, and so on, are not dealt with in the Bill.

I have previously been very critical that in the context of the legislation we enact, we do not consider how, from a practical point of view, the rights we intend to confer on people will be vindicated. I have serious concerns about the capacity of the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission - which it is proposed to amalgamate - to vindicate the rights to which I refer. I am also concerned with regard to how long the process will take in this regard. These organs of the State are already overworked and we now propose to confer yet another responsibility upon them. Consideration must be given to this matter.

As a previous speaker indicated, temporary or casual work do not always lead to savings. For example, the agency workers used by our hospitals are often placed several points higher on the incremental pay scale than nurses who are on temporary contracts. Whereas nurses on temporary contracts might come into employment at point 1, agency nurses are often taken on at points 5 or 6. The agencies will receive a cut in this regard and will make a profit. As a result, we do not obtain the kind of continuity that would result from someone who is aware of the routine in a particular hospital and who is familiar with the wards, and so on, being in situ. As a result, good value for money is not obtained and the outcomes achieved are poor.

There are ways in which - even in light of the current economic climate - we might deal with this matter. One of these would be to put in place a floor below which hospitals should not fall in the context of bed-to-nurse ratios. Some hospitals have been seeking a solution of this nature. Everyone is aware that we are in an extremely serious economic situation and that there is limited money to spend. If a floor such as that to which I refer were put in place and if hospitals could employ people, even on a temporary basis, we could achieve more satisfactory outcomes for everyone, with the exception of the agencies which are operating at a profit. There is a need to consider options such as that to which I refer. Predominantly, the type of scenario to which I refer obtains in the public sector. I ask the Minister of State to draw the attention of the Minister for Health to this issue. Having someone in place on an almost permanent basis is very different to taking on a person who does not know where things are to be found, who is not familiar with the culture that obtains in a particular hospital. There are some aspects of this which are intangible in nature but which are worthy of consideration.

I have several concerns with regard to the exact nature of section 7, which deals with the social partners. The position here must be teased out in much greater detail on Committee Stage. I am glad the Bill refers to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I thought that it had been torn up and thrown away. I am no longer so much of the opinion that my vote in respect of the charter was wasted.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill 2011. In the context of the debate, we have been presented with the chance to address the issue of the protection of workers' rights, nationally and across the European Union. This matter is clearly back on the political agenda in view of the levels of mass unemployment and issues such as the announcement earlier today that Ulster Bank is to lay off staff and the fact that the Vita Cortex workers are protesting outside the gates of Leinster House. Earlier, I met the Vita Cortex workers and expressed my complete solidarity with them. The situation regarding these workers is disgraceful, particularly in the context of employee rights and matters relating to treatment and equality. The individuals to whom I refer have been engaged in a sit-in at the Vita Cortex plant since before Christmas as a result of the disgraceful way in which they have been treated by the company. They were informed that they would not receive any redundancy payments but were offered €1,500 each by the company just prior to Christmas in an attempt to buy them off.

I raise this matter because it is relevant to the debate on the Bill. It is important that all Members should express their support for the 32 Vita Cortex workers in the context of the terrible way in which they have been treated. When discussing the protection of employees, it is important to note that three shareholders in Vita Cortex received €2.5 million while the 32 workers to whom I refer, who have 846 years of service between them, received nothing at all. This is an example of the kind of injustice that exists in Ireland at present. Such injustice is not acceptable. Neither is it acceptable that people are being obliged to engage in a sit-in to obtain justice and achieve equality. All the workers in question are seeking is 2.9 weeks' pay per year of service, which is line with the redundancy deals previously given to former workers at the plant. The Minister of State should do his best in respect of this matter and he should ensure that the organs of State work for the rights of the Vita Cortex employees. It appears that a Pontius Pilate-type approach is being taken to these individuals, for whom there is massive public support. Sitting on the fence in respect of this issue is not an option.

The Bill is required to give effect to Directive 2008/104/EC of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work to give equal treatment in terms of basic working and employment conditions for temporary agency workers as if they were recruited directly by the hirer to do the same job. This is the key element in the context of the legislation and the debate on it.

Section 1 gives the Short Title of the Bill and enables the legislation to come into effect from 5 December 2011. The retrospective provisions will not apply to the provisions of the Bill that create offences. While I welcome the broad thrust of the legislation, I am obliged to note that the trade union movement has a number of concerns in respect of it. The Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, must be brave. He must listen to those concerns and take the necessary steps to ensure that they are addressed in the legislation.

I am in complete agreement with Deputies Tom Fleming and Catherine Murphy with regard to the concerns they expressed in respect of issues relating to pensions, sick pay, professional representation and maternity rights. These are fundamental rights and issues which must be contemplated within the legislation. The Deputies also expressed reservations regarding whether the organs of the State would be able to deal with the issues in question. That is an extremely important matter.

Another matter upon which several speakers touched is the concept of stability and continuity of service in the context of agency workers. This is an issue to which consideration must be given. We must ensure that when staff are employed, there is some degree of stability and continuity of service in place. I have direct experience in this regard in the context of disability services, and so on, and I am aware that it is necessary to ensure that the right people occupy the right positions on a regular or continual basis. We know from direct experience that chopping and changing staff can sometimes cause major difficulties for people with intellectual disabilities. This is particularly the case with regard to respite services. We should examine this matter in the context of the concerns relating to the legislation.

We need to engage in a detailed consideration of section 7 on Committee Stage. Section 10 provides that an agency worker is entitled to be provided with information on job vacancies within the hirer that would be available to a comparable employee. This section is an important, relevant and progressive section. We can talk all we want about agency workers and legislation to protect the rights of workers. However, we must also ensure that everyone is treated with the maximum of support and equality.

I agree with some of the comments made by Deputy Tom Barry about small business people and how they treat and work with their staff. This is an important issue. Before Christmas one constituent of mine told me of his small business which employs seven people. Because of the downturn and the crisis he has taken a salary cut. He used to earn €81,000 per year and he has down-sized his personal salary to €35,000 per annum so that he can keep his staff. This is the type of story I like to hear about employment. The business person in question is on the northside of Dublin and I take my hat off to him. Many small businesses treat their staff with integrity and respect and they work with their staff. Anyone who knows anything about the matter will know that this increases productivity. It is important that one works with and motivates one's staff and gives them the key skills so that they can do the jobs that they are best at. One does not hear many stories of people taking a personal hit for themselves and their families to retain staff.

I put it to my colleague from Dublin North Central, the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, that when he is examining these issues he should look closely at improving and trying to support these people rather than making life more difficult for them. The Minister should not be afraid to go back and examine the rent problem and deal quickly with the issue of rates and so on. Anything that will help to employ people with meaningful jobs and which treats staff with respect is good for the country, the economy and good for any attempt to try to turn around the situation.

Section 12 prohibits the charging of work-seeking fees by the employment agencies. It strengthens the current provision under the Employment Agency Act 1971. I strongly welcome section 12, which is important. Section 13 provides that an agency worker is entitled to be treated no less favourably than a comparable employee for access to collective facilities and amenities provided by the hirer to employees.

I welcome the publication of the legislation and I welcome the debate. I note in the section dealing with the financial implications for the public sector and the health sector, in which agency workers feature prominently, it is estimated that based on the current usage levels of agency work, additional costs will be incurred by the Exchequer in terms of providing equal treatment in basic work and employment conditions for agency workers. This is a hit we can afford to take and it is important. Everyone in the House has an interest in creating jobs and providing for the rights of agency workers, supporting them and treating them with respect.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill and to comment on certain aspects of the legislation. The Bill will implement an EU directive, the overall objective of which is to provide a boost to the work and employment opportunities for temporary agency workers in Ireland. While exact figures are unknown, available data from work carried out in the regulatory impact analysis shows that there are approximately 35,000 temporary workers currently employed in Ireland through 340 operating employment agencies. It is therefore necessary that guaranteeing equal treatment for agency workers in terms of pay and basic working conditions and entitlements is given due priority. I commend and pay tribute to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, on his work in this regard.

Many people are struggling to find employment and take every opportunity to secure whatever length of employment may be available. Those who take on temporary work through agencies should be safe in the knowledge that the work they do will be financially beneficial and worthwhile. A certain degree of stability is the least these workers deserve. While protecting the basic rights of temporary agency workers, it is important that a fair and balanced approach is taken so that costs on employment are kept to a minimum and the impact of economic competitiveness is minimised in what are difficult economic conditions.

Under the Bill, pay is defined as basic pay, along with any pay in excess of basic pay in respect of shift work, overtime, piece work, Sunday work and unsociable hours. The basic working and employment conditions protected by the Bill expressly exclude sick pay, payments under a pension scheme or other occupational social security schemes. I agree with Deputy Tom Fleming and Deputy Catherine Murphy that it is most unfair that sick pay and pensions should be disregarded in this Bill. In general, agency workers are paid significantly less than comparable full-time, permanent and directly employed colleagues. Should the Bill become law, basic working and employment conditions to which an agency worker is entitled shall be the same as a comparable employee and I wholeheartedly welcome this. A reality of the recession is that employers are more inclined to employ workers on a temporary basis through an agency rather than committing to employing workers on a permanent basis. It is therefore essential that these temporary workers' rights are protected. The main benefit for agency workers is the elimination of any pay differential that may have previously existed between them and employees directly employed by the hirer.

An important issue raised by my constituents on several occasions is the consideration of long-term agency workers for permanent positions that arise. I am aware of an agency worker who has been in the same employment for three years and who is dependent on a place on an employment panel to be considered for such positions. However, these panels have expiration dates. Agency workers should get the opportunity to apply for permanent positions in the case of retirements and other situations.

Information provision in respect of employment, equality and industrial relations rights and obligations will bring about major improvements in workplace relations. The Minister's objectives are to encourage early resolution of disputes, vindication of employee rights and the minimisation of the costs for employees, employers and Government and these are welcome goals. The introduction of these new and improved rights for temporary workers is a positive step. The Bill will help temporary workers to achieve better working conditions and, in turn, attract more people to take up these kinds of employment opportunities.

I will share time with Deputy Phelan. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and the opportunity to speak on it today. I also welcome the clarity that the introduction of this Bill will now bring for many agency workers, employers and agencies as to how the equal treatment for agency workers is to apply. I am on record as having raised my concerns about this directive in the House under Topical Issues last November.

As we approached the implementation date of 5 December last year there was considerable uncertainty and confusion among employers and agencies as to how the directive would be implemented in Ireland and, crucially, whether a derogation would be negotiated between the social partners as happened in Britain and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately agreement was not subsequently reached on a derogation and I strongly believe that the unions should have agreed a minimum period of three months in order not to put us at a competitive disadvantage with our nearest neighbours, as is now the case.

The Department's regulatory impact analysis recommended the policy option that included a qualifying period. The unions' failure to agree this has led to many of the difficulties currently experienced by recruitment agencies and businesses. We expected these employers to have applied the terms of this legislation before they even knew its precise terms.

Is it possible to review the retrospective start date of 5 December? I ask this because I believe it will cause practical issues. From a financial point of view, it will create large pay bills for employers and agencies covering a period when there was no legislation in place. However, I believe it will also result in legal challenges which will place pressure on an already backlogged employment appeals system.

I am not sure if the provisions of this Bill have been applied in practice since 5 December, as many employers were expecting a derogation to be agreed and the late confirmation that there would not be such a derogation did not allow time for employers to amend their systems. That has only been happening since guidance was issued from the Department through the employer groups about how the equal terms should apply, and this has only been since 5 December. Indeed, this Bill was only published on 22 December, so it will be difficult to expect employers to adhere to the terms of a Bill from a date before its publication. While there will be difficulties for many agencies and employers, the potential impact on the HSE alone is very significant.

It has been reported that the estimated staffing costs of the HSE will rise by €33 million a year as a result of the implementation of the provisions of this directive. Through the use of parliamentary questions, I asked the Minister for Health about the cost of using agency nurses. The following is the information I received. In 2009, the Department spent in excess €48 million in 2009 on the cost of nursing, medical and allied health and social care, rising to in excess of €110 million in 2010. I expect that figure to increase again when we receive the information on the amount spent in 2011.

I understand the constraints on staff numbers that the Minister is under following the memorandum of understanding agreed by the last Government with the troika, but I believe we are now at a point where we must renegotiate our staffing levels in the health sector as part of that agreement. It is costing us more to hire agency nurses than full-time staff and this directive has widened that cost even further. On a practical level, there are more problems associated with the extensive use of agency nurses. For example, there is a far greater burden placed on the remaining full-time staff if agency staff make themselves unavailable during holiday periods such as Christmas and New Year's Eve, as happened recently. This leads to an extremely low morale among our health care professionals and this is not good for our health system. Agency staff represent a good short-term measure in the health sector, but not a good long-term policy, and I would like the Minister for Health to push for changes in this regard.

It is estimated that there are about 35,000 agency workers employed in Ireland. Their use provides a degree of flexibility for struggling businesses that cannot commit to full-time employees or who have seasonal work. I welcome the clarification this Bill provides on their position in the Irish workforce which recognises the huge contribution they have made to many industries, including the health system.

Apart from the equal pay and terms for agency workers which many people associate with this Bill, there are also other entitlements which are now confirmed for agency workers which are welcome. The confirmation that agency workers should now be informed of vacancies and other employment opportunities at their hirer company is a welcome addition. Many speakers last night also mentioned the access to shared canteen and crèche facilities where they are available. I would expect that in most cases, this shared access is already the case, but its confirmation is welcome.

I hope that employing agencies, hirer companies and agency workers can work together to implement the changes this EU directive will require, and I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their work on this Bill.

I call on Deputy Boyd Barrett, who has 20 minutes available.

Twenty minutes.

I need a lot more than that to say what I have to say. It is pleasant to begin by welcoming the basic aspiration of this legislation, which is to ensure that the rights and entitlements of agency workers should be equivalent to those who are directly employed. That is a very laudable and long overdue measure. In that context, I am disappointed at the reservations or outright opposition of Deputy Calleary from Fianna Fáil, who spoke about the dangers such measures represent for competitiveness in the current economic environment. Frankly, I am amazed how economic buzzwords such as competitiveness and flexibility always seem to be more important for certain schools of thought than the rights of workers. It just defies comprehension.

While I want to make a number of specific points about this Bill and how well or otherwise it discharges its basic aspiration to give equal rights to agency workers, it is important to respond to Deputy Calleary on a general point. From the point of view of workers and trade unionists, the use of agency workers - not the agency workers themselves - has in many cases been a dagger pointed at the heart of workers' rights in this country and right across Europe. They have been used to undermine basic rights and conditions that workers have won and fought for over decades and, in my opinion, they have been used consciously by certain unscrupulous employers and some governments deliberately to weaken, divide and undermine the trade union movement and its role in trying to represent the best interests and rights of workers. Anything that moves to address that problem and ensure that agency workers are not used to undermine existing wages and conditions should be welcomed.

The idolisers of flexibility and competitiveness, such as Deputy Calleary, who seem to think that those things are so important, might just consider a few macroeconomic facts about our economy and the global economy in recent years. There has been a fetish for competitiveness and flexibility which has led to the undermining of workers' rights and the idea of a permanent, safe and secure job. The use of agency workers has played a very considerable part in trying to undermine that notion, as if there was something wrong with the idea we should have a permanent, safe and secure job. Is that not what we should strive for? Is that not what people like Connolly and Larkin fought for? Was the trade union movement not built in order to get away from a situation where workers were disposable objects, hired and fired at will by unscrupulous employers? Is that not what 1913 was all about? In recent years, some people want to go back to those dark days, and agency workers have been used to undermine the rights and entitlements that workers have won over the years. To my mind, that defies comprehension, but even in macroeconomic terms it has been a disaster. Economists and the political establishment need to understand that. The ratcheting down of wages, which happened systematically in this economy as a share of national wealth, has had disastrous economic consequences. It is worth spelling them out, because this is rarely commented upon in the big debates about the economy.

During the period of the boom in this country, the share of national wealth going to wages and salaries was reduced by 10%. That led to a direct correlated increase in the share going to profits, shares and bonuses. There was a reduction in the take of workers as part of the national cake, and an increase in profits going to the wealthy, shareholders, employers and so on. The result of this was that demand had to be sustained in the economy through the extension of credit by the banks. Banks extended credit to people whose wages were not high enough in order to fuel demand for property, retail and so on. The demand was being fuelled on the never-never and was part of creating the bubble that crashed the economy. The people who tried to push down wages and conditions and increase their profits helped create the conditions for the bubble which have backfired on them and led to the economic crash.

It is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face for short-term gain to think that by depressing workers wages and salaries one is somehow gaining.

On an international scale this fetish with competitiveness, flexibility and driving down wages and conditions has played a very substantial part in the financialisation of the global economy which played such a key part in causing the current economic crisis. Since the late 1970s in the hunt for profits, because profits were falling from the early 1970s onwards in the manufacturing industry and other areas, there has been a move towards pushing down wages and conditions, financialising the economy as companies try to keep up their profits, and pouring money into financial speculation and into all these obscure, weird, wonderful and ultimately very dangerous financial tools that were developed for making short-term profit. This is what companies did with their extra share of profits as they drove down the wages and conditions of workers. Simultaneously, they were depressing the buying power of ordinary workers to buy the goods and services that were being produced in the real economy.

People need to understand that the underlying reason for the systemic nature of the current global economic crisis is not only the individual greed of bankers and speculators but is precisely because of the fetish sustained over 20 or 30 years to drive down the share of wealth that goes to wages and salaries in favour of shares and bonuses which end up sloshing around in the financial markets destabilising the global economy, the European economy and the Irish economy. This is an important macro-economic point to make. Deputy Calleary is utterly wrong in his thinking, morally and economically.

The aspiration of the legislation is very good. Section 6 states that the basic working and employment conditions to which an agency worker is entitled shall be the same as the basic working and employment conditions to which a comparable employee is entitled. This is excellent and it will remove the danger that can be represented by the misuse and abuse of agency workers undermining existing wages and conditions and can mean a levelling up for the rights and entitlements of agency workers themselves. If Deputy Heydon is concerned about the excessive costs of the use of agency workers in the health service - and he is absolutely right - the way to deal with this is not by introducing this type of legislation but to directly employ them. If this Bill leads to a decision by the HSE and other bodies in the public sector to directly employ more people because it is better value for money, not to mention far better for the workers involved, it would be a very good thing indeed.

However, there is a very big problem with the legislation which comes in section 6(2) following the very laudable aspiration I outlined. It states:

This section shall not, in so far only as it relates to pay, apply to an agency worker employed by an employment agency under a permanent contract of employment, provided that, in respect of the period between assignments and subject to Part 3 of the Act of 2000 and any registered employment agreement or any order under the Industrial Relations Act 1946, he or she is paid by the employment agency an amount equal to not less than half of the pay to which he or she was entitled in respect of his or her most recent assignment.

This is the Swedish derogation and effectively undermines the entire point of the legislation. It means it is allowed to pay less to agency workers, such as nurses in the health service, if they are employed permanently in a health division of an agency. An agency can employ them and pay them less than a nurse would be paid by a hospital. In the periods when the nurse or other employee is not assigned to a particular company or a body such as a hospital, the agency is required to pay only 50% of what the employee receives when working in the company or hospital. What that person receives for working in a hospital can be less than an ordinary nurse receives for doing the same job. I use a nurse as an example but it could be any employee. In other words, agencies and employers can get around this by the agency permanently employing people and contracting them at a lower wages and conditions and paying them half this when they are not on assignment. I put it to the Minister that if he is serious about giving effect to the central aspiration and objective of the legislation, which is to give equal rights to agency workers and full-time employees, this subsection should be deleted because it is a major loophole and way out which will undermine and subvert the central aspiration of the legislation.

Section 7 allows for sectoral derogations. There are considerable conditions and qualifications for this, all of which are generally good. There cannot be a derogation from section 6 which contains the central objective of the legislation without there being collective agreements between representatives of the employees and employers and this must be registered with the Labour Court also. So far so good, but the question is raised as to how to define a representative of the workers. In this case, it is required that the union or representative body must represent 90% of the agency workforce. It is practically impossible given the nature of agency workers for a union to have 90% membership in the agency itself. It is entirely plausible that 90% of the workers of the company, body or organisation contracting the agency workers could be represented by a union but not the agency itself. Putting these types of restrictions on the ability of unions to represent workers in this sector and requiring high levels of representation in the agencies themselves is unrealisable practically for the unions and therefore leads to the possibility of abuse.

Is this in section 7?

Yes, it refers to union representation.

Is the Deputy sure about this?

I am working off notes from Unite trade union so I will have to examine it, but according to section 7 the Labour Court shall not approve a collective agreement unless in the opinion of the court the representative body is sufficiently representative of agency workers.

It does not state 90%.

Yes, but it mentions agency workers. Unite states that the proportion being considered is 90%. Even if it is less than 90% it will be very difficult for unions to have a high level of representation among agency workers because unions tend to organise in the workplace in the organisation or body and not among the agency workers. How can they be organised? It would be extremely difficult to do so. This is a major problem which needs to be dealt with.

There is also the question of comparators. If the job for which somebody is being contracted has an obvious comparator within a company or organisation contracting the employees, there can be a fairly easy direct comparison. If such a position does not exist in the company, there must be a kind of hypothetical comparison, which can be problematic as there can be a difficulty in defining the comparison. There is a particular difficulty as there is a requirement in the directive for three types of comparability, as the comparable employee and agency worker must do the same work under the same or similar conditions, the work done must be of the same or similar nature, and the work must be equal to or greater in value than that of the comparable worker, having regard to skill, physical or mental requirements. In equality legislation only one of those criteria must be met. As a result, the comparison may not be broadly defined, leading to the possibility of employers undermining the ability of the agency worker to make a reasonable comparison between the work he or she does against a person doing similar work. That issue must be considered.

Section 22 concerns penalisation of employers who abuse agency workers. I hope what is contained in the section is a mistake or a printing error and if it is not, there should be an explanation. Section 22(2) states:

If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under Schedule 2 and under those Acts.

If somebody is dismissed in contravention of subsection (1), it appears relief may not be granted. I assume this is a mistake but if it is not, the Minister might explain the reasoning behind it.

There is a question of training and the need to include an element in the Bill which would give some right to agency workers to access training courses that may be available to full-time and directly employed staff. There may not be the possibility of precisely the same rights to courses if a person is employed on a short-term basis but there should be some provision for training in employment.

The key issue is the so-called Swedish derogation. It should be deleted because if it remains, it would fundamentally undermine the entire point of the legislation and provide a way for agencies or employers to get around the central purpose of this legislation, which is to ensure equal rights for agency workers and those with direct employment.

I understand Deputy Alex White is sharing his time.

I wish to share time with Deputies Anne Phelan and Keating. Perhaps the Acting Chairman might indicate when I have used eight minutes.

To be helpful, I only need one minute or 90 seconds.

I will use ten minutes if that is the case.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, which concerns the introduction of important legislation, and not before time. It is a crucial directive involving agency workers. It is important to remind ourselves of some issues as I have listened to much of the debate, including contributions from colleagues who are sceptical and have difficulties with some aspects of this legislation. I do not have such difficulties. I am not referring to the comments of Deputy Boyd Barrett but rather other issues, including those relating to the derogation, which I will discuss later. These are items of protective legislation for workers and there is an important strain of legislation and directives from the European Union to this end. The Minister quite fairly pointed this out in his speech.

People know we have had protection of part-time workers for a number of years, as well as legislation protecting fixed-term workers. There are other areas of protection required for what are sometimes known as posted workers. The basic principle is relatively simple but nevertheless very important. Deputy Catherine Murphy mentioned earlier that she had worked with somebody in a similar post who was paid less than she was. We should have the principle of equal pay for like work. It should not be a throwaway aspiration but should be made a reality. These directives have that aim and this legislation will achieve it. Deputy Calleary and others have sought to set up a conflict between the principle of protective rights on one hand and cost and competitiveness on the other. If there is any element of a risk to cost, there is a suggestion that we should in some way consider differently the basic principle of protective rights, but I do not agree with that.

These must, of course, be the subject of negotiation and one cannot say there is no right for businesses and the representatives of employers to have a very strong say on the nature and extent of protective rights to be introduced. They have such a say. There have been rights for part-time and fixed-term workers for years and the sky has not fallen. These are important rights which have been in place for quite a long time. The notion that the extension of the principle of equality to agency workers would be done grudgingly or that we are doing it because we have been told to do it by Europe should be rejected. I do not accept Deputy Calleary's argument that this is setting back job creation. I would like to understand that argument a little better. I have read the departmental documentation and the assessment of this legislation and there is no compelling argument that giving people the same rate for similar work erodes competitiveness. There is an issue of cost but we should consider workers' rights as well.

I was struck in a positive way by Deputy Barry's comments. He indicated that he is an employer and had some concerns about the derogation issue, which I will address. I do not want to paraphrase the Deputy unnecessarily or misrepresent him but he lauded the principle of long-term quality work. He is anxious to recruit the right people with associated reputation and skills. I would suggest such people could have a stake in employment and the job that they hold. They would not be dispensable or work for a few days at a time. They would have a commitment and by virtue of the stability of the employment, they would have a commitment to the job carried out. As Deputy Barry illustrated well, this is not just a positive for the worker but for the employer, industry and business in general, as people would be able to work together and have a long-term stake in collective action.

It was never a really good objective to seek to promote agency work at the expense of whole-time work. By all means let us promote agency work and make it attractive in the sense that where there is a requirement for flexibility in filling a gap for a particular period, it should be possible to do it. In that sense I do not mind the promotion of agency work but not for it to be used as a replacement for whole-time work. That was the principle enunciated by Deputy Barry and I hope I do not misrepresent him. His point was a fair one.

There is a case for promoting temporary agency work right across the board in the normal operations of many businesses, small and large, and in the public service for having a legal procedure whereby a gap can be filled by a temporary or an agency worker. I accept this. Such flexibility is required in certain circumstances, but this does not give an ability, as some seem to think, to pay such workers less. By all means let us have flexibility in the law to have temporary workers, to fill the absence of an existing employee on maternity leave or meet other exigencies in a particular employment, but why should that mean we should be able to pay them less? That is where I part company with some of my colleagues with whom I do not agree. That is why I have a problem with people who appear to have a difficulty with the derogation. Let us strip out what it means. What is the position on the period of 12 weeks that people say is so important? It means one can bring in an agency worker and pay them perhaps substantially less than they will otherwise be entitled to if the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be. That is the bottom line. There is nothing else because they have pretty much all of the other rights. It is only about pay.

When Deputy Calleary referred to the need for flexibility and railed against what he called the failure of the unions to agree to this measure, what he and others should have said bluntly was that they wanted to be able to pay agency workers less, to use cheaper labour for a period. I respectfully part company with the Minister who said it would not in any sense disadvantage temporary agency workers as they would on the expiry of the qualifying period benefit from equal treatment. The truth of the matter is that if one has a period of 12 weeks many agency workers will be employed for 12 weeks or a little less, which is often the pattern of employment in such circumstances when people are taken on for a short period. They never receive the additional pay because they are never kept on after 12 weeks. That is the experience right across the board. Let us not fool ourselves in that regard.

It is right to have flexibility and introduce legislation, which is important and which I hope will be passed quickly through the Houses. The only material difference is that people appear to be seeking flexibility to pay less money. I do not believe any case, let alone a strong one, has been made for this. I would not be critical of the unions on this occasion for standing up for the rights of agency workers. They are right. I do not know what went on in the negotiations or between IBEC and the ICTU, but if the ICTU and the trade unions were not standing up for the rights of agency workers in these circumstances, the simple truth is that they would not be doing their job.

I wish to refer briefly to a couple of points raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett. They are not as big a problem as he believes. I accept the points were raised in good faith. Section 7 deals with collective agreements which, in effect, amount to a derogation. It would be something on which trade unions and employers could agree but they cannot create a less favourable environment than that provided for in the legislation. That is the important point.

I referred to section 6(2).

It is mentioned in section 7.

My point relates to section 6(2) and concerns the Swedish derogation.

There should not be any concern. It is a positive measure. I am coming from the same perspective on this issue as the Deputy and do not think that is a difficulty.

On the other article to which the Deputy referred on penalisation, I respectfully say to him that what it means is that someone who is penalised and dismissed cannot recover twice. in other words, they cannot bring a case and recover compensation under this legislation and also under the unfair dismissals legislation.

What about section 6(2)?

The Deputy referred to section 7.

No, I referred to section 6(2).

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this measure introduced by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, to address the closing of the entitlement gap for agency workers. This entitlement is contained in the EU directive on temporary agency workers for transposition into Irish law which could aptly be described as a human right for agency and other workers. In that regard, I am greatly influenced by SIPTU's vice president, Ms Patricia King, who played her usual sterling role in defending the concept of equal status for agency workers. It is worth mentioning her statement made in transposition talks between the Government and the social partners on the EU directive on temporary agency workers: "No persuasive case was made as to why the application of the directive should be different here in Ireland from the situation in the majority of other European countries." She went on to state:

Workers have a right to be paid equal pay for equal work. It is a fundamental principle; and a question of equality; and that was what our campaign for this Directive and these rights was all about in the first place.

Because agency workers do not benefit from the same basic working and employment conditions as directly recruited employees, differences attached to equal rights and privileges in the workplace have become a contentious element of friction. It is, therefore, correct that we now align entitlements in areas such as health and safety, payment of wages and unfair dismissals, and that agency workers can seek redress in the same manner as directly recruited employees.

I am aware that ad hoc additional legislation was added since the early 1990s which has resulted in the onus for the protection of agency workers being placed on either the good will of the employment agency or the hirer. These measures have failed workers and resulted in confusion in the law in this area. It is clear that the time has come when we cannot ignore the need for change to ensure fairness and equal treatment for agency workers. In the regrettable absence of mutual agreement between the Government and the social partners on a derogation in respect of the directive on temporary agency work, Directive 2008/104/EC, in respect of a qualifying period for the provisions on equal pay, the Minister is correct in taking this course of action to transpose the EU directive. The Bill attempts to establish a suitable framework for the use of temporary agency work with a view to contributing effectively to the creation of jobs and the development of flexible forms of working. I, therefore, welcome the assurances contained in the Bill to ensure agency workers will have the same working and employment conditions as if they were directly employed by the hirer. Likewise, clarity on employment conditions relating not just to pay but also to public holiday and annual leave entitlements is a comfort to those being exploited.

Perhaps one of the most contentious items is the question of premium payments for unsocial working time, as well as Sunday premium hours. It has become a bit of a farce in some workplaces where a directly recruited employee is working alongside a less well paid agency colleague doing the same type of work.

Section 2(1) is an important legal remedy for workers who have difficulty with dodgy employers when questions arise as to whether it is the assignee of the client or the employment agency who is for responsible for meeting certain welfare obligations in dispute. Section 2(4) clarifies that the buck will stop with the employment agency. One of the most annoying problems reported to public representatives by constituents who have had outstanding issues with an employer is trying to pin down who ultimately pays when a dispute arises between the agency and the hirer. Thankfully, section 14(2) binds both parties to a resolution process which will impose an onus on the party who actually benefited from work carried out by the worker.

I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett's argument that agency workers have been used to undermine the workforce, and we all know of this practice.

Once again, I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, on his work in expediting passage of this Bill and I commend it to the House.

I thank Deputies Alex White and Ann Phelan for giving me some time following what was a misunderstanding with the schedule. In speaking on the protection of employees I am reminded of this Government's commitment and reiterated yesterday by the Taoiseach when he renewed his new year's resolution which is central to this Government's plan. The Tánaiste has referred on a number of occasions to the Government's commitment to the creation of employment as being at the heart of the programme for Government.

I am not in favour of creating jobs at any price. The musical, "Oliver", was staged recently in the National Concert Hall. It tells the story of London society in the 1800s and some employers want to drag us back to that era. I welcome this Bill which will introduce equality. I cannot but help refer to my visit last night to some employees in Liffey Valley who are being treated disgracefully by their employer. They are so badly treated that they are refusing to leave their current place of employment. They are employees of a company which has recorded profits of €100 million in 2011. I was struck by the integrity of the people and I am full of admiration for people such as Tara Kane and others. I thank the Minister and I am pleased the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Sherlock, is in the House today because he responded immediately following the intervention by the Acting Chairman, Deputy Joanna Tuffy, when she raised it in the House on the Topical Issues debate. The Minister of State has intervened and is liaising with the trade unions. I wish him well in this work. However, the workers are still there today and they face a fourth night sleeping in unfortunate and very inappropriate conditions, but such is their determination that I know they will remain there.

I welcome this legislation. The Minister and the Government are intent on protecting workers' rights. I wish the Minister well in protecting the rights of all workers, including those who have been treated in such a shabby way in recent times. I hope I have allowed time for Deputy Keaveney.

I warmly welcome this Bill, the purpose of which is to ensure fairness across the economy. The notion that temporary agency workers spend a brief time in their place of employment runs contrary to my own experience. In all sectors of the economy, agency workers are used indefinitely in the workplace. They often work shoulder to shoulder with comparable and like workers but they earn significantly less money per hour. An agency worker is a person who has an agreement to work in a workplace but, most likely, is working for less money than a comparable permanent worker in the same place of employment.

It is significant that this Government is associated with fairness. It is a downright disgrace that a directive has been in existence since 2008. It was digested by the previous Administration for nearly three years while agency workers were being treated unfairly in all sectors of the economy in terms of their right to equal pay and conditions compared with other workers.

The European Union has experienced a dramatic increase in the participation of agency workers in the workplace. Even in bad times in 2010 there was an 8% increase in the employment of agency workers in the European Union economies. This has provided an opportunity for some people to continue to treat people unfairly. In this country, part-time workers and fixed-time workers have the protection of legislation. I ask why agency workers are used as an opportunity to pay less and to avoid liability under existing legislation. A fixed-term or fixed-purpose term worker will know his or her terms and conditions, and the same applies to those on temporary contracts, but an agency worker is sent from one place to another. I am delighted at the stance of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which is to fight for its members to ensure that for the purpose of the domestic economy, people will earn a fair wage.

Deputy Nulty will be in possession when the debate is resumed.

I thank the Technical Group for facilitating me in making my contribution to this important debate. I support this legislation. We must bear in mind the wider context of this legislation which is the struggle of workers in this economy to protect their rights, to fight for their entitlements and to achieve secure and safe pay. I refer in particular to the Vita Cortex workers who were outside the House today and also the brave young women in the La Senza shop in Liffey Valley who are fighting tooth and nail for their rights and their basic entitlements, as well as the nearly 1,000 workers who today lost their jobs in Ulster Bank. We must remember those people today as we discuss this legislation. I come to this debate as a democratic socialist and as a member of a trade union. I support those workers and stand shoulder to shoulder with them as we debate this important legislation.

The response of the Fianna Fáil Party to this legislation is quite contemptuous. Not only has the party had it sitting on the books while it was in government and failed to act but the mealy-mouthed response from Fianna Fáil to attempts to protect agency workers and ensure they achieve equality in pay and in the workplace is absolutely deplorable. I refer to examples of a particularly lukewarm response in some sections of the Fine Gael Party but I do not include Deputy Keating who has made a very positive and fine contribution. However, right across certain sectors of conservative Ireland there has been resistance to this legislation, but I, for one, am very happy to support it. I regard it as an important step forward on behalf of agency workers.

It must be remembered that within the mainstream debate, the rights of workers are increasingly considered to be disposable, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented by many studies. I refer to academic works such as The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson which shows that more equal societies always do better and create more and better jobs, more growth and a more harmonious community in which people can live and develop. There are still those who say that Irish wages must be slashed and the rights of Irish workers must be eroded further if we are to remain competitive, as they perceive it. I reject that analysis wholeheartedly because those conservative forces in our society - epitomised by the previous Government and others who have criticised this legislation - ignore the evidence of countries such as Scandinavia where high wages, secure work and strong trade unions are central to and the backbone of their competitive economies.

It is in the context of the efforts to make workers here more secure that this legislation is important. It is worth noting that the Bill did not make it to the House without opposition. While the Bill was opposed by the Government originally in 2002, its basic objectives have now been realised and I am glad to see it brought before the House. We must transpose into Irish law the EU directive on agency work to ensure agency workers are treated equally with direct employees in terms of basic pay and working conditions.

The Bill is a consequence of the work of trade unions throughout Europe, particularly the European Trade Union Confederation, which is dealing with the consequences of the deep changes in workplace organisation that have taken place in recent years. We must remember today the march by more than 100,000 workers in December 2005 against the exploitation of workers in Irish Ferries. That was a powerful demonstration against the race to the bottom. That was a vital show of strength by workers, but we still, not just in this country but across Europe, face a struggle against the race to the bottom and against attempts by organisations like the IMF and the European Commission to attack the rights of workers, our social welfare system and our public services all in the interest of the markets.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share