I welcome the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton.
Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill 2011: Second Stage
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This important legislation is the first Bill I have introduced in the Seanad and I am pleased to have an opportunity to hear Senators' perspectives on it. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to a European Commission directive adopted in 2008 on temporary agency work. It provides a legal framework in which agency workers are afforded equal treatment in respect of their basic working and employment conditions as if they were directly recruited by a hirer to the same job. Other entitlements concern the right of access by agency workers to the collective facilities and amenities at the hirer's undertaking, including canteen, crèche and transport facilities, in the same manner as these may be available to direct employees of the undertaking. In addition, agency workers must have access to notifications in respect of job vacancies at hirer undertakings to allow equal opportunity in terms of such employment.
Senators will be aware that it has long been a view that agency workers were being abused in respect of their rights and action was needed to remedy the position. Some unfortunate cases have come to public attention and it is timely that the Government is correcting the matter by ensuring basic rights are protected for agency workers who are on temporary assignment.
The Government is fully committed to decent standards of employment across the spectrum of employment. It is clear that agency workers have, on an incremental basis, been brought within the scope of employment rights legislation over many years, including legislation on health and safety, payment of wages, redundancy payments and unfair dismissals. In terms of minimum standards of pay, temporary agency workers are already covered in legislation governing the national minimum wage. As Senators will be aware, the Government has, true to the commitment given in the pre-election period last year, reversed the reduction in the minimum wage rate. In addition, agency workers can seek to vindicate their rights and pursue grievances under employment law by accessing the same avenues of civil redress as are generally available to directly recruited workers, namely, the rights commissioner service and National Employment Rights Authority.
The Bill builds on existing standards of protection that are conferred on agency workers and reflects the Government's willingness to fully support the principle of fairer treatment for agency workers. Equally, the Government must have regard to other equally valid concerns that have been expressed in terms of the need to create a positive environment for businesses to grow and develop. A fully functioning labour market that contributes to the retention and future growth of jobs is important in these challenging times and we must maintain labour market flexibility in all areas, including the area of agency work, which provides flexibility for both workers and employers alike.
Although established statistical sources in Ireland do not capture data on this type of atypical work, in general estimates based on surveys conducted by private employment agencies suggest that temporary agency workers constitute approximately 2% of the active working population. This would equate to approximately 35,000 agency workers operating in both the private and public sectors. Agency work is a feature both in the public and private sector, with the preponderance of agency work in the public sector in health. Agency work has a legitimate and valuable role to play in the economy and is the option of choice for some people who benefit from the flexibility, personal freedom and income it provides. It also serves the business needs of employers in that this type of atypical working can be used to assist in managing the peaks and troughs encountered in the normal business cycle.
The Bill does not propose a change to the employment status of agency workers, nor will their entitlements to existing employment rights, including the right to a safe working environment and the right to claim redress for unfair dismissal, be affected.
As is the case, the triangular employment relationship between the agency worker, the employment agency and the hirer undertaking will continue under the Bill such that the employment agency that pays the agency worker's wage is the employer. In the case of unfair dismissal however, it will continue, as in the past, that where an agency worker is dismissed by a user undertaking, he or she may bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts against the user undertaking which, in that instance, is deemed to be the employer.
The fair treatment that the enactment of this Bill will bring about for agency workers will confer on them a greater level of employment protection than that which obtains and provide a harmonised floor of entitlements. Understandably, there are concerns among employers, employer representative groups, user undertakings and employment agencies about the additional costs the legislation will impose in meeting the equal treatment entitlements of agency workers in the same way as applies to direct employees. I acknowledge this is challenging at a time businesses are facing serious challenges endeavouring to maintain and sustain a competitive cost base. It is for this reason I have sought in this Bill to achieve the necessary balance of fairness and equity for agency workers against the legitimate concerns of employment agencies and hirer undertakings. It is imperative that we maintain, to the greatest possible extent, labour market flexibility, which will act as an incentive for employers and user undertakings to continue to avail of the important flexibilities that agency work provides.
Since publication of the Bill in December 2011, and during its passage in the Dáil, I have taken the opportunity to bring forward a number of significant amendments to strengthen its intent in certain aspects to provide greater legal certainty for all stakeholders affected by it. I believe the legislation before this House represents an appropriately balanced approach to meeting fully the directive requirements and the concerns that stakeholders have expressed.
The Bill is divided into four parts and has two Schedules. Part 1 contains standard preliminary provisions. The main Part of the Bill, the protections that are applicable to temporary agency workers under employment law, are set out in Part 2. Part 3 contains a number of amendments to earlier enactments and to certain statutory instruments. Part 4 sets out the means of achieving redress in the event that a claim by an agency worker for breach of equal treatment in terms of basic working and employment conditions or other entitlements is made. The intention is that, on enactment, the Bill will, with the exception of sections 13, 15 and Part 4, have retrospective effect to 5 December 2011.
I refer to the most substantive provisions that I would like to bring to the attention of Senators. The first is the issue of retrospection. The directive has a transposition date of 5 December 2011 and I have obtained strong legal advice to the effect that the legislation should, on enactment, have retrospective effect to 5 December 2011, with the notable exception of the offence creating provisions in sections 13, 15 and Part 4. These latter provisions will come into effect upon enactment of the legislation. My advice in this context is based on the fact that implementation of the directive provisions is necessitated under obligations arising from membership of the European Union which, therefore, enjoy protection under the Constitution.
The intention to make the legislation retrospective to the date on which the directive was due to be transposed has given rise to considerable comment. The predominant reason for late transposition of the directive arises from the last-minute failure by the social partners to reach agreement in November last year on the derogation available under Article 5.4 of the directive to have a qualifying lead-in period to the provision of equal treatment for agency workers. This, in turn, created uncertainty around collateral amendments to the basic provisions of the Bill that would be necessitated if such an agreement was negotiated.
In the interests of providing the greatest clarity for all parties affected by this legislation, my Department moved quickly, following the breakdown of negotiations with the social partners on 30 November 2011 on the qualifying period, to communicate with the various stakeholders. Advertisements were taken out in the national newspapers and the Department produced a guidance document and placed it on its website to cover the issues of greatest interest to all parties. My Department had at a much earlier stage engaged in a consultative process on the draft legislation in 2010 and, therefore, since the adoption of the directive in 2008 and the transposition date, there has been significant engagement and discussion on the proposed content of the legislation with stakeholders.
The directive provides also for certain derogations that may be availed of by member states under Article 5. The first under Article 5.2 is generally referred to as the "Swedish derogation". This allows member states to exclude from the scope of the equal pay provisions agency workers who are engaged on a permanent basis and paid between assignments. Section 7 invokes this derogation and has, since publication of the Bill, been strengthened to provide for a greater level of protection to guard against potential abuse of the provision. The amendments that I brought forward to the Bill define a permanent contract as a contract of indefinite duration and require that agency workers must, in advance, agree to opt in to this type of contract arrangement with the employment agency. This is in addition to the existing requirement that such workers be paid between assignments at a level of not less than 50% of the pay to which they are entitled in respect of the most recent assignment and which should not, at the least, be less than the national minimum wage. While this model of permanent contract is not well known or used in Ireland, it is the case that if we do not legislate for it now in an appropriate manner as proposed in the Bill, as amended, we will lose the possibility to avail of the derogation for all time.
Article 5.3 of the directive provides the possibility for the social partners to conclude collective agreements that deviate from the basic working and employment conditions. While the system of collective bargaining envisaged under this article is more suited to the well established system of collective bargaining associated with mainland Europe, in the Irish context, it would cover registered employment agreements which are essentially sectoral or workplace agreements. The derogation recognises the national traditions, custom and practice in member states and allows a necessary level of flexibility in the workplace to the mutual benefit of employees and agency workers alike. Use of the derogation is not without limit but must have regard to the need to ensure overall protection for agency workers. Provision for the derogation is contained in section 8 and enables existing collective agreements to be upheld and facilitates the negotiation and conclusion of future such agreements at the level of the user undertaking or at enterprise level. The provisions for oversight and approval by the Labour Court of such collective agreements as set out in the section mirror that already in place in the context of agreements reached under the terms of section 24 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.
The final derogation available under Article 5.4 of the directive recognises the voluntarist nature of industrial relations in the United Kingdom and in Ireland and was designed to meet the needs and flexibilities required in the labour market to accommodate the system in place in both countries. The derogation includes the possibility for a "qualifying period" before the principle of equal treatment would apply to temporary agency workers. In Great Britain and Northern Ireland a qualifying period of 12 weeks applies to temporary agency workers assigned to hirer undertakings. As I mentioned, agreement on this issue has not proved possible between the national social partners and, as a result, the Bill provides for the application of equal treatment to temporary agency workers from day one.
Why?
Please allow the Minister to continue, without interruption.
Because that is the default position in the directive. It is only possible to derogate if the social partners agree.
There are no social partners in other countries.
There are no social partners——
There are not.
The predominant system of negotiation in other countries is through collective agreements and there are two derogations, one through the UK and Irish model in which there is national social partnership and the other through the more common European model in which it is done on a local basis. For us, outside registered employment agreements, the most relevant derogation is at the national social partner level where agreement was not possible.
The interruptions and interaction are inappropriate on Second Stage.
Social partnership is no more.
I ask the Minister to proceed.
I will pick up on the point in the conclusion of the debate.
It might be more appropriate to deal with the matter on Committee or Report Stage.
Section 7 is the core provision that outlines the entitlement to basic pay and working conditions for agency workers. It must be read in conjunction with section 3 which sets out the criteria for establishing a "comparable employee". The requirement in the directive is that agency workers should enjoy at least the same basic working conditions as someone recruited by the hirer to do the same job. As a concept this is rather nebulous but it is for us as legislators to build on the spirit and intent of the directive and provide more concrete solutions in legislation. Thus section 7, read in tandem with section 3, seeks to develop this concept to provide clarity for employment agencies and hirers alike. The relevant terms and conditions applicable to agency workers are those that are included in enactments, collective agreements or other arrangements that are generally applicable in respect of employees. This would include, for example, terms and conditions ordinarily found in contracts of employment of directly recruited employees of the hirer which are binding and generally in force in hirer undertakings.
During the passage of the Bill in the Dáil there was much discussion on this key aspect of the Bill. It is one that generates a great deal of concern. For this reason, I brought forward amendments to the Bill to clarify this aspect to the greatest possible extent in the legislation. I am satisfied that the Bill, as amended, provides this clarity. Section 7 builds on the spirit and intent of the directive and develops a practical solution around the concept of a comparable employee. The section provides for two separate and distinct possibilities.
The first of these in section 7(1)(a) provides for a situation where there is a comparable employee, and close regard must be had also to section 3 that defines the criteria for establishing a comparable employee. The criteria set down are very specific, cumulative and do not allow for a broad interpretation of a comparable employee. They require that the employer of the agency worker and the employee must be the same, the agency worker and the employee work at the same place and the work undertaken must be the same or similar in nature and carried out under the same or similar conditions that are effectively interchangeable. Finally, where it is a relevant factor also in the recruitment of direct employees, skills, qualifications and length of service are reckonable factors to be taken into account.
Separately, section 7(1)(b) provides for instances where there is no comparable employee, in which case the terms and conditions applicable will be the same as those to which a comparable employee would, if directly employed, be entitled. I am aware there are concerns around the issue of the possible selection of inappropriate comparators, for example, where a company has hired direct recruits on different occasions over a period and the fear that a challenge will be taken that a worker should be placed on more favourable rates that applied at an earlier point in time. As Senators will be aware, we have many instances in the civil and public service where new entrants are taken on under less favourable terms and conditions than those that previously applied and it is difficult to see how a successful challenge could be mounted in favour of the application of previous terms and conditions.
As in the case of section 7(1)(a), this provision also must be read in conjunction with section 3 of the Bill. A further amendment I brought forward in the Bill to assist with legal certainty on this issue is that contained at section 7(3), which provides effectively that in respect of agency workers on assignment prior to 5 December 2011, although the assignment may end after that date, the effective date for the purpose of establishing equal treatment is 5 December 2011.
Apart from the more substantive provisions of the Bill which I have just outlined in some detail, I will now refer to other notable provisions. Section 2 defines pay as basic pay, shift premium, piece rates, overtime premium, unsocial hours premium and Sunday premium. Pay does not extend to other aspects that are provided in recognition of the longer-term relationship between an employer and a permanent employee. There is no intention to include other elements that are not required by the directive such as pensions, sick pay, maternity top-up or benefit-in-kind. The legislation is being viewed in terms of the directive requirements. The latter are discretionary elements that are not, in the words of the directive, binding and generally applicable. Given current economic circumstances, now is not the time to in any way try to gilt-edge conditions of employment when the creation of employment on a fair and equitable basis is what is needed.
Section 13 prohibits the charging of work-seeking fees by employment agencies. Section 14 provides that an agency worker is entitled to be treated no less favourably than a comparable employee with regard to access to collective facilities and amenities provided by the hirer to employees. These include canteen, workplace crèche or transport services. It provides that less favourable treatment in terms of access by agency workers to these facilities can only be justified if this is based on objective grounds.
Section 15 outlines the relative responsibilities of the employment agency and the hirer, the obligations of both parties and the necessary flow of information to comply with the Bill. Subsection (2) is designed to allow the employment agency to be compensated in the event that the hirer fails to comply with the terms of subsection (1).
Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, meet the terms of Article 7 of the directive by providing that agency workers should be included in calculating the thresholds above which bodies representing workers are to be formed and in the thresholds for the establishment of representative bodies in the temporary work agency in respect of the information and consultation requirements of the various enactments on the issue. Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, include whistleblowing provisions that have been customised to take account of the unique three-way relationship that applies in the case of agency workers.
Section 25 provides for the manner in which complaints in respect of the contravention of provisions included in the legislation will be dealt with and must be read alongside Schedule 2 to the Bill. Schedule 2 contains standard complaints and redress provisions applicable and the procedures to be followed by the various parties where there is a breach of the right to equal treatment. The employment agency will be responsible for dealing with any breach of a right for which it is responsible such as liability in aspects other than access to employment notices, collective facilities and penalisation by the hirer. These aspects fall solely on the hirer as the agency has no role in this regard. The redress provisions in the Schedule are modelled on the provisions in existing employment protection legislation such as in respect of fixed-term work. I commend the Bill to the House.
The Minister is welcome. I accept that the Bill is necessary to comply with the terms of the EU directive on agency workers. As drafted, however, it is anti-employer and anti-job creation. Small Irish businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage, given the failure of the Minister to find agreement between trade unions and employers on a derogation for a period from the provisions of the Bill. I fail to understand why this could not have happened before the Bill was introduced. In Britain a derogation for a 12 week period was agreed to, while much longer periods were agreed to in other countries. The Bill could cost up to 10,000 jobs as employers refuse to take on temporary workers. The Minister admitted in September that the lack of a derogation could cost jobs. This comes at a time when the level of unemployment continues to increase. The absence of a derogation will have a highly negative effect on employment creation and we will be at a competitive disadvantage compared to Northern Ireland in which there is a 12 week derogation period. This is one of the most important aspects of the Bill and I fail to understand why the Minister had not provided for a derogation in the Bill. It is vital that an amendment be inserted to allow for it.
The Minister has stated he received strong legal advice that the legislation should, on its enactment, have retrospective effect from 5 December 2011. In most Bills retrospection is not provided for. There are occasions on which we seek to have legislation made retrospective, but such requests are turned down by the Attorney General. Has the Minister received strong legal advice from the Attorney General or some other legal source? This is surprising, given my experience in the Department, because legislation with retrospective effect is always risky and open to challenge in the courts.
I presume the Minister has received many representations on the Bill. We have been lobbied by Mr. Brendan McGinty of IBEC who has sent us a detailed document on the topic. IBEC is concerned about the Bill and has stated Ireland has already been placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to Britain because ICTU has refused to agree to the introduction of a qualifying period for coverage under the Bill. In Britain agency workers must be in place for 12 weeks before they are covered by equal treatment provisions. In Ireland there is coverage from the first day of an assignment. This means employers will not want to take on short-term agency workers because the cost of paperwork and risk of litigation will be too great. I presume the Minister has received a detailed submission from IBEC and that he will consider the points raised by it in this regard on Committee Stage. He will have an opportunity before Committee Stage to consider amendments to allow a derogation. I fail to understand why it has not been provided for in the Bill. My colleague Senator Walsh will probably make this point also. It is the most essential aspect of the legislation that we not be at an unfair disadvantage compared to our friends and colleagues in Northern Ireland. On one island the legislation should be absolutely equal. I accept the Bill is based on the EU temporary agency workers directive which the Minister believes must be made retrospective; at this stage that aspect will not cause great difficulty.
There are 440,000 people unemployed. I commend the Minister for the announcement of jobs which he will accept were in the pipeline before he took office because such announcements take time to mature.
That is a good one.
The Minister of the day will always accept credit for jobs announced. It is one of the most pleasant aspects of the Department in which I served for four years as Minister of State with responsibility for trade and marketing. At the time our trade figures were soaring. The Taoiseach's office asked whether it could announce the good news, due to the work of the then Department of Industry and Commerce and my contribution as Minister of State. I informed it that if it was accepting that things were very good, it should also accept responsibility for announcing the figures should there be a downturn. That brought that debate to an end. However, I assume the same applies now, although responsibility for that part of the Department's work has probably been transferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Minister will accept that job creation takes years of negotiation. We must compliment IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and all the staff associated with them, as they are at the top of their game in attracting industry. However, we must ensure the legislation we introduce supports the creation and maintenance of employment, whether temporary or permanent, as every job counts.
The Minister has considered the issue of sectoral agreements. I have received submissions, as he has, from the entertainment industry — particularly the hotel and restaurant industry — on its concerns about the risks to employment owing to the requirement to pay double on a Sunday and so on. I would like the Minister to consider this aspect. I commend him for the work he is doing; he was in the Department before and returns to it with great experience. It is a difficult one. These are the good days; he knows there will be dark days when it comes to trying to maintain employment in various parts of the country when he will be called in to assist.
I commend the Minister for his contacts with NAMA through which he found a solution in terms of a job application. I am taking this from the newspapers. The negotiations were at a critical point and ministerial intervention was absolutely essential. It is also essential that the Government have the power to intervene to secure jobs for the economy. I commend the Minister for whatever action he took in that regard.
This is important legislation, as it is important that agency workers, particularly temporary workers, have protection. When the directive was first mooted, it was about ensuring potentially vulnerable workers across the European Union would be afforded the same rights. It is unfortunate that the Minister was forced to introduce legislation and stipulate 5 December 2011 as the date from which it would be implemented. Unfortunately, there was no agreement on a qualifying period between IBEC and the ICTU because, as mentioned by previous speakers, there is a 12 week derogation period in Northern Ireland and Great Britain which places us at a disadvantage. Nonetheless, it is clear from the directive that there is no provision by which the Oireachtas could introduce such a qualifying period — it has to be agreed by the social partners.
We no longer have social partnership. It came to an end four years ago.
We were in a position where the directive had to be implemented as and from 5 December 2011.
Many Members received correspondence on the issue when the legislation was going through the other House. That the Bill will apply retrospectively from 5 December is a source of concern, although I heard what the Minister said. I read the transcript of the debate on Committee Stage and the advice of the Attorney General is clear, that the legislation has to have retrospective effect from 5 December 2011. I am sure, however, that the House will have an opportunity to tease out the issue on Committee Stage.
Temporary agency workers are important to employers. Temporary agency work offers individuals an opportunity to gain experience and such workers have become very important in both the private and the public sector. In the public sector the HSE spent more than €40 million last year on hiring such workers. In the private sector they are associated with the provision of secretarial assistance, security work, the IT sector and, particularly, the pharmaceuticals industry, as I am aware from speaking to people in the Cork area. It is important that they are recognised and given employment protection.
Prior to the coming into force of the directive, temporary agency workers had certain rights under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the Redundancy Payments Act, the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Payment of Wages Act, the Maternity Protection Act and the Employment Equality Act. Nonetheless, the legislation will ensure such workers will have equal treatment with permanent workers and the same basic employment rights as if they had been directly recruited to do the same job. This means they will have the same conditions and entitlements in respect of pay, duration of working time, overtime breaks, rest periods, night work, holidays and public holidays. The principle of equal treatment also applies to rules aimed at the protection of pregnant women and nursing mothers in their basic working and employment conditions in terms of access to canteen, crèche and sports facilities.
The Bill defines basic pay. Payments in excess of basic pay rates in respect of shift work, overtime, unsocial hours and hours worked on a Sunday are mentioned. However, bonuses, holiday pay, sick pay and maternity pay are not included within the definitions.
A number of questions were raised on the matter of the comparator numbers, and I am sure that the Minister will draw out the issue on Committee Stage. For example, if a person is employed today as a temporary agency worker and their pay and conditions are to be compared with an equivalent worker, if pay rates have been reduced in many agencies and employment areas in the past six months, with whom do we compare these agency workers? The legislation is clear. Section 7(1) states that the conditions of agency workers will be the same as those "to which either a comparable employee is entitled, or ... where there is no comparable employee employed" the same as those "to which a comparable employee would (if ... so employed) be entitled". The term "if so employed" will allow the hirer to use the going rate at the time of recruitment, and it is important to say that. Legislation cannot be specific in all cases. The Bill's provisions will give the hirer some comfort should a question arise over the pay and conditions afforded to a temporary agency worker.
I welcome the Bill. It is important that we have similar provisions for temporary agency workers across the EU, particularly in light of our membership of the European Union. These workers are important to employers. They provide flexibility, particularly for seasonal work, and provide cover for maternity or extended sick leave. It is an important provision in the workplace and I welcome the fact that these workers are afforded additional protection in the legislation.
I welcome the Minister. The Bill is worthy of attention and I congratulate him on what he is doing. As I have been with him in Drogheda and at the city of science launch recently, I know what he is doing.
The aim of the Bill is worthy but we must ensure it achieves what it sets out to achieve. The Minister has told Members that there are estimated to be 35,000 agency workers. Many of them, or probably all of them, work in businesses that depend on agency workers only at certain times but employ far more people than the 35,000. We want to ensure those businesses succeed and that we do not hinder them in any way. There are some areas to which the Minister referred that I would like to touch on because I have concerns.
First, I propose that if two or more direct recruits meet the definition of a "comparable employee" contained in the Bill, then the hirer company should be able to identify one such comparator — a lovely new word that I had not heard until recently — to be the comparator for the purposes of the Bill. There is a danger that where there are a number of potential comparators in respect of an agency worker, the hirer company might pick one and the agency worker might pick another and the parties would end up going to court to find out which terms and conditions would apply to the agency worker. We want to overcome that and I do not think we have done so. We must ensure we avoid such cases going to court.
Second, the Bill should contain greater clarity in order that where an employer has changed his or her payscales since hiring the comparable direct recruits, a newly assigned agency worker would be entitled to what I call the new hire rate, not the old rate. This has happened quite a lot recently. People were paid far more three to five years ago but the new rates are a lot lower in many cases, yet we are going to have a dispute in this situation unless it is cleared up. It is fundamental to the viability of many jobs because many employers have introduced new payscales as a way of maintaining employment levels during the current crisis.
Third, the Bill should allow reasonable defences for employers, including allowing employers to demonstrate that if there are grounds, other than a person's status as an agency worker, which justify a difference in basic working and employment conditions, that does not amount to a form of discrimination. This idea comes from the Employment Equality Acts, which make clear that where a difference in treatment has nothing to do with gender, it is not discrimination. Similarly, where an agency worker and a comparable direct recruit have different rates of pay, but the differences have nothing to do with the agency status of the agency worker, there should be no claim against the employer. That is a very good example.
I was with the Minister at the launch of the city of science which will take place in the summer. If a business is relying on a scientist or, to use Senator Leyden's example, a hotel is relying on a chef, and the scientist or chef is out sick and has to be replaced, the replacement might not have the same talent, qualifications or ability. If there is a doubt about how much they are to be paid, a clash will occur.
We must do everything to remain competitive. We have brought down costs significantly and we must continue to do this. While the Minister says the Bill will keep costs on employment to a minimum, I am not sure this will be the case. The delay in introducing the Bill may have a detrimental effect on businesses and perhaps the Government could have introduced the Bill with a lead-in or changeover period of 12 to 18 months to give businesses an opportunity to adapt to the new provisions. The UK adopted the legislation two years ago. It is also strange that the directive is considered to apply to the private sector. Legal experts state that it is an unprecedented move to transpose the directive while national legislation has not been introduced in the area to transpose the directive. That the legislation was applicable to the private sector from 5 December, not from the date when the legislation is passed, could leave it open to legal challenge. Will the Minister comment on that? My mind has not been put at rest in this area.
IBEC argues that up to 6,000 temporary agency workers could lose their jobs in the coming months because of the implementation of the legislation. That is not the aim. The aim is the opposite, but I am worried that the Bill will mean less flexibility for businesses. That flexibility is extremely important to businesses to hire extra help as is needed. In the UK, estimates by employer organisations put the cost at up to €2,000 to €3,000 extra for small businesses, increasing to more than €80,000 for large firms. What estimates has the Minister come up for Irish businesses? One must also consider that the flexibility of the workforce has attracted a lot of foreign direct investment. If we get rid of this, it will make us less attractive. Certain companies need temporary agency workers at increased production times. Every business has peaks and valleys. We should always undertake a measurement of how new legislation will affect businesses and their ability to compete.
It is interesting to note how this legislation is being viewed in other countries. Although Norway, as a non-EU state, does not have to implement the legislation, it is expected generally to go along with most EU directives. The legislation is dividing the three-party coalition government there. Critics are concerned that the legislation will lead to increased use of temporary workers, at the expense of more secure, permanent jobs. Norway is not a country in economic difficulty, but the legislation is still controversial. Thus, the view held there is very interesting.
The aim of the Bill is to harmonise Europe-wide legislation on temporary workers; it varies considerably between countries. We have existing legislation which is strong in this area, but the position is somewhat different in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. For instance, there is a ban on the use of agency workers in the public sector in Spain, and in the construction sector in Germany.
This transposition into law of the directive will increase the unit cost of agency staffing for the HSE. In 2011, the HSE negotiated new agency contracts that involved lower unit costs. At a time in which costs are being cut should we be looking for an exemption from the European Union? The United Kingdom and other member states were successful in gaining a derogation in having a 12 week qualifying period. This is an island; why, therefore, are we going down a different route from the one taken in the North, as has been mentioned on two or three occasions? Did any meetings take place to seek co-ordination on this issue about which I have concerns?
I am supportive of the legislation and what the Minister is trying to achieve. However, the Bill needs to be tweaked. We must make some changes to it, as we want a Bill that is good for Ireland and temporary workers, but which is also good for other workers in those businesses which employ so many.
The Minister is welcome. I congratulate him on his work in attracting high-end jobs to the country which sends a signal to the rest of Europe and the world that Ireland is definitely open for business. It is heartening to hear job announcements in Dundalk and Cork. I hope in the next week or month an announcement will be made in Donegal by the Minister and IDA Ireland.
Or Waterford.
It is a long way from Donegal, but I wish Waterford well.
I support the Bill. As an employer for over 25 years, I would seize a definite advantage and have used temporary workers on occasion. In my experience, the profile of the temporary or agency worker in the private and the public sector is different. Obviously, because of the moratorium on recruitment the HSE uses many temporary or agency workers. Small business employers such as myself must use temporary workers on occasion to cover for those on sick leave or holidays, or merely to provide extra help during busy periods. I have always found such workers to be more than willing to learn.
It is only now that I realise this legislation is probably too late, but nonetheless it is still welcome. During the years I thought temporary workers might have been compromised because they knew they could be let go at any time by their employer. Most of the agencies with which I have dealt are exceptionally good and have provided good temporary workers. The labour market has changed so much. I am aware of many young people who prefer to be temporary workers or who are only allowed to be temporary because they only have expertise in one field. However, they are quite happy to work for a few months in one part of a business. They see this as being their future until they reach their mid-30s or 40s. Many of them work as hard as permanent employees and bring much to a business and they should be looked after. This is common sense. It shows that as a community and country we look after all workers. However, there should be a distinction. There are certain young people in temporary employment who are a little afraid and, at times, put under pressure by their employer and who cannot see the future clearly without this legislation being in place. Many of them will welcome it because it will give them stability.
I am aware that there are submissions from employers' groups stating the Bill may lead to a loss of competitiveness or cost businesses extra money. That is something we must factor in because each worker should be treated equally. This shows maturity on our part, as I think employers will accept. However, I understand from where they are coming. Chambers Ireland, IBEC and other groups consider it will be a cost to business. From my own experience, it does not cost a businesses to show temporary workers more respect. In many cases, it leads to an increase in work rate and helps a temporary worker to progress and mature in his or her job. I am an employer so it could be my son or daughter that is in this position. Employers should look at this from the point of view that it is not just about the business they run but about the business someone else runs that might give a member of their family an opportunity and give them equal status.
It is a complicated directive given Northern Ireland and the UK are treated slightly differently, which is an issue we have to live with. If the Government is producing jobs, young people are taking up employment and the economy starts up again, this issue will not be a game winner or game loser, but it is something that will help everyone. While it was suggested it might cost the HSE more given its use of temporary and agency workers, we have to accept this is how we must treat workers. We cannot simply say it is a cost to the Exchequer because, in the long term, the Bill is working towards helping people find employment and giving them equal status. It is helping the country to move to the next phase of employment and labour, which, as I said earlier, is an area that has changed greatly. Many young workers in their twenties and thirties are happy with temporary work and we must reflect this.
I support the Bill. Senator Quinn would have more experience in this area and some of the issues he raised are worth considering. In an overall context, the directive should be embraced.
Yesterday morning, all of the Oireachtas Members in Wexford attended the local radio station to talk about the major challenge and the greatest crisis facing the country, which is undoubtedly the unemployment problem. Without covering all of the ground covered there, several items arose during the programme, including the issue of the VAT increase of 2%. We saw the effect of this during the January retail sales, where there was a 3.7% reduction, and this will obviously result in a commensurate shedding of jobs in the retail sector. We discussed redundancy costs being heaped onto companies by the reduction of the rebate, the proposal to heap sick pay back on small businesses when it had been taken up by the State, which will have a consequent adverse affect on jobs, and the reinstatement of the JLCs, in which the Minister was involved and which imposes on employers unsustainable salary and wage levels that the Minister knows give support to maintaining, if not increasing, the unemployment level. We also raised the issue of the minimum wage, which is undoubtedly one of the highest in Europe and is adding to our uncompetitiveness. These are all important issues.
It strikes me that a Government which has three times announced 100,000 jobs as being its target up to 2016 would at least have instituted a policy whereby all policies, legislation and decisions were job-proofed and that any Minister of any Department coming forward with proposals that might adversely affect jobs, or, conversely, help create jobs, would carry out an evaluation. That has not happened.
This directive came about in 2008. We would all agree that the first part of 2008 was an entirely different economic era to the current situation in Ireland. Jobs and economic recovery must be a priority, and my party, the Opposition in general and I will support constructive measures in that regard. However, when the Government is going in the opposite direction, it is not alone our right to raise the issue but it is required that we would strongly challenge and oppose this.
With regard to the competitiveness of our country, for many organisations the employment of agency workers was to get over the fact the JLCs had set wage levels on an uncompetitive basis. This was often with the connivance of unions, which had an easy life because they were operating nationally and were not involved in local collective bargaining, where greater work is involved. We should have moved on this more than a decade ago and I raised these points at that time within my own party, at conferences and in this House. We should have moved in this direction sooner and abandoned social partnership.
To the best of my recollection, the unions withdrew from social partnership some three years ago. The Minister has observed that because those involved could not reach agreement social partnership is the reason we now have in place a system which is unfavourable to employers, even when compared with counterparts in the North. The directive allows the hiring company to choose the comparator and provides that the comparable rate which may be paid to the agency worker is the rate the hirer company would offer to a new recruit it was hiring today. As I interpret it, the Bill does not seem to reflect this and that change may be significant. It has been put to me, as I am sure it has been put to the Minister, that where a company has historic pay scales which may not have been used for five or six years or more and where it moves to an agency service in order to maintain its presence in Ireland, it will be disadvantaged in that it may have to offer these scales. There is also the issue of the two pay scales the Minister mentioned.
I understand last September the Minister wrote to the unions on the issue of a derogation. He has mentioned that without the benefit of leeway in transposing the directive in the shape of a framework agreement, Ireland will be at a significant competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis our European trading partners. This will be particularly significant, given that our immediate and major trading partner, Britain, has already secured agreement for a waiting period of 12 weeks, an arrangement which I understand also extends to Northern Ireland. In the current climate in which we face significant challenges on the road to economic recovery we must avail of the flexibilities afforded by the directive. I understand Hungary has been granted a waiting period of six months and Slovakia a period of three months. I am sure the Minister can give other examples.
If we are serious about the maintenance of jobs which surely must be our first step before we look to creating jobs, we must ensure we are not haemorrhaging existing jobs. Unfortunately, I am concerned that this is precisely the effect the Bill will have, and the Minister has acknowledged as much in his letters to the unions. The economist Jim Power has predicted that it could cost in the region of 10,000 jobs. There is no point in having a plan to create 100,000 jobs in the next five years if we are endorsing legislation which will have the opposite effect.
The Minister is a person for whom I have some respect. He has his own difficulties within the Cabinet with colleagues who have different philosophies and ideologies.
I remind the Senator that the directive was not negotiated in my day.
Our ultimate objective must be to find a solution for the people who are suffering day in and day out. Many of the generation experiencing the brunt of unemployment were never out of work before the downturn. For them, the social and psychological effects of the inability to secure employment are horrendous, before one even considers the economic impact. The least we can do is to ensure we do not put obstacles in the way of recovery and securing and maintaining existing jobs. I, therefore, appeal to the Minister at this late stage to introduce whatever amendments are necessary in order that we will have a Bill with a less negative impact.
I welcome the Minister and compliment him on his tremendous efforts in the recent jobs initiative. He has made a great start. He is well aware of the major challenge he faces as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the great difficulties facing the country generally. I also welcome this important Bill which transposes into Irish law the EU directive on temporary agency work. I remind Senator Jim Walsh that the Minister inherited this legislation and that responsibility for the transposition of the directive into Irish law has fallen to him when the matter should have been dealt with much sooner. However, I agree with the Senator that it is unfortunate, despite the Minister's best efforts, that agreement on a 12 week UK-style qualifying period could not reached with the social partners. This puts us at a disadvantage with the United Kingdom.
There is much scaremongering on the number of jobs likely to be at risk, with figures ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 being mentioned by different sources. However, this is unlikely to happen. It is welcome that the Minister made a significant number of amendments to the Bill during its passage through the Dáil and it is to be hoped there is room for further tweaking on some of the issues raised today.
The comparator issue raised by Senator Feargal Quinn requires serious consideration. I hope the Minister will take on board some of the issues raised by the Senator.
On section 7, two issues of concern have been brought to my attention, one of which is likely to impact on approximately 650 jobs in my county of Galway and County Kildare. The company concerned employs direct recruits on historical pay scales. However, because of the economic crisis it has not hired new employees on these scales since 2007. While production had been scheduled to be relocated to Asia and eastern Europe, the company decided instead to hire new agency workers on lower but good pay scales well above the minimum wage and to retain existing employees on the higher scales. In this situation there are live comparators, namely, the direct recruits on pre-2008 pay scales. Under section 7(1)(a), agency workers will be entitled to be paid the same rates, even though they were not hired at these rates. This will significantly increase production costs and threaten jobs.
The second issue relates to a situation where there is more than one comparator. Where there are two comparable direct recruits on different rates of pay, should the agency worker be paid at the higher or lower rate? He or she will obviously ask for the higher rate and the employer will want to pay the lower rate. The Bill does not clarify which of the two rates should apply. I am told that the hirer can select the comparator, but the courts may decide differently.
These issues need to be addressed during the passage of the Bill through the House to ensure agency workers will continue to enjoy good working conditions and rates of pay and that employers will be in a position to maintain current levels of employment. Every move we make as a country in the years ahead must ensure the maintenance and creation of as many jobs as possible. If we are ever to dig ourselves out of our current economic difficulties, it will be on the basis of massive job creation.
I commend the work the Minister is doing and ask him to iron out the creases in the legislation, as drafted.
The Minister is welcome. In giving the Bill a cautious and qualified welcome I will express some of my concerns about some of its aspects. I have also been inundated with opinions from organisations and individuals on the Bill. Senator Terry Leyden mentioned IBEC, to which I will return, but I have also received representations from trade unions and people who were agency workers and exploited in the past. They suffered exploitation because of the lack of protection for such workers because agency workers were not on a par with other workers in the State. I was among those who supported the campaigns conducted by SIPTU and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to ensure the provision of proper safeguards for workers.
I genuinely believe workers should be treated equally and that the State has a responsibility to ensure employment rights for them. It has a responsibility to put safeguards in place and ensure workers are not exploited. This is a core, fundamental aspect of the work of any Minister. It is fair to state the Minister may have preferred a derogation, as others in his party may have. Moreover, as he stated to Senator Terry Leyden, the directive was not negotiated in his day. I accept that had he then been in office, it would not have been. He is, therefore, bringing forward this legislation begrudgingly, which I welcome, in so far as it goes.
As for the position adopted by IBEC to which Senator Terry Leyden referred, I also received the correspondence. When I encounter employers' organisations using phrases such as "competitive disadvantage" as reasons not to put safeguards and rights in place for workers, I wonder from where they are coming. This appears to stem from a desire to maximise profits and the interests of business and employers, not a wish to have due regard for the interests of workers. It beggars belief that such organisations do not accept that those who work for a living should have proper and equal rights.
A clear gap appears in the Bill with regard to a category of agency workers who are identified as permanent agency workers. As the Minister mentioned, the legislation provides for what is known as the Swedish derogation which excludes from equal pay entitlements those agency staff retained on half pay by an agency between assignments. Section 7(2) reads, "Subsection (1) shall not, in so far ... as it relates to pay, apply to an agency worker employed by an employment agency under a permanent contract of employment”, after which the provision outlines the relevance to an agency worker or workers. I read through the Minister’s speeches in the Dáil, as well as the transcripts of some extracts, and he stated in the Dáil that the Bill represented an important step forward for agency workers by guaranteeing equal treatment in pay and basic working conditions with directly recruited workers, unless, of course, one happens to be one of the aforementioned permanent agency workers, which is part of the problem. I cannot help but wonder why the Government is excluding such workers and what is the motivation in this regard. I consider the maintenance of this loophole to be a cynical action that panders to some of those I mentioned previously who seek to undermine workers’ rights and drive down wages for the low-paid. The Government appears happy to allow for the loophole and perhaps even to benefit from it. I am aware that my colleague, Deputy Peadar Tóibín, has queried the number of agency workers being employed by the State. All Members have experience in their constituencies of agency workers being employed in the health service, local authorities and right across the board. The HSE spent €48.6 million on agency staff in the first quarter of 2011, which is more than was spent in the previous year. Moreover, in excess of €14.5 million was spent on agency doctors, €21 million on agency nurses and a further €13 million on agency care services. It is evident that many people are employed by the State as agency workers and if they are permanent, I hope they will be perceived to be on a par with any other worker in the State.
I also note this category of worker is excluded from entitlements such as sick pay, occupational pension schemes, benefits-in-kind, financial participation payments and bonus payments and ask the Minister to include them. In addition, how many workers with equal length of service and doing the same job with approximately the same skills have different sick pay entitlements? I revert to the fundamental principle I hold, that all workers should be treated equally.
There appears to be a drift or move towards employing agency staff. Some of the profits then go to the agencies and the workers who often are low paid are the victims of exploitation in which regard there is a responsibility on the State. As I stated, one of the Government's primary responsibilities is to protect the rights of citizens and workers. In this context, a number of Members mentioned the United Kingdom. I would prefer to see in place a harmonised system in which there was movement towards a position where the rights of agency workers were also safeguarded in the United Kingdom, rather than one in which people here used what was happening there as justification for not doing the right thing.
While I reserve the right to table a number of amendments to deal with some of the concerns I have raised, I offer a cautious and guarded welcome to some of what the Minister is attempting to do. Nevertheless, I have concerns about some of the exemptions to which I have referred.
I thank all Senators for their contributions. While Senator Jim Walsh was highly critical of the manner in which social partnership was dealt with in the directive, I simply was pointing out to him that the negotiations in this regard took place in 2008. If terms were improperly used, I must deal with the directive as presented, which is an important point. Senator Cullinane is probably trying to use the legislation to establish new rights for agency workers, rather than applying basic conditions to ensure the provision of basic rights. This measure is about protecting from exploitation persons in temporary agency positions and making sure they receive the basic entitlements that prevail elsewhere. It does not pertain to suggesting, for example, that sick pay or pension schemes which essentially form part of longer term working conditions be applied to temporary agency workers.
I was talking about permanent agency workers.
That pertains to the Swedish derogation. Permanent agency workers are permanent with the agency, not with the hirer. As far as I am aware, the Swedish derogation is not used in Ireland, but the idea behind it is that it suits some employees and employers for the former to be paid a retainer when they are not employed. Some employees might see this as an attraction. They are on call, work certain hours and receive a retention payment. This is an act into which they must freely enter and they must be informed that they are opting out of agreements that otherwise would apply. They must also be permanent; consequently, it cannot be used as a ploy by an agency to take on someone for a period and then terminate the arrangement. I am providing for this arrangement to be available, but protections are built in. For many employers, committing to paying at least the minimum wage during the period the person is not working constitutes a large commitment. This is an unusual arrangement for which I am making provision. The Department certainly will monitor the position to establish whether such a system is being abused. However, it is a derogation that applies in other member states which offer similar protections to those the Government is offering and one should not stop it from happening in cases in which it suits both sides and they knowingly enter into the arrangement.
To revert to Senator Terry Leyden's points, it is disappointing that there is not a derogation to allow a longer qualifying period. However, I wish to make it clear that the directive is crystal clear in this regard. The Government has no role in introducing amendments to provide for such a qualifying period; it must be negotiated between the social partners.
Senator Walsh stated that there is no social partnership. While there may not be a social partnership agreement at national level, there are still social partners.
In the public sector only.
IBEC and the ICTU are social partners. They provide collective representation for employers, on one hand, and workers, on the other, and they are recognised nationally. My officials and I engaged in discussions with the social partners to discover whether agreement could be reached in this area. The directive explicitly provides that if, at national level, social partners can agree to its terms, a qualifying period can be put in place. Other European countries have workplace and sectoral partnerships and the directive also provides for derogations in respect of these. As a result, there is a series of national, sectoral, regional and other derogations. The derogations which apply to Ireland are those relating to registered employment agreements, REAs, which are a form of sectoral agreement, and to national social partnership.
The Attorney General provided advice on the issue of retrospection. When a European directive is transposed into domestic law it then applies and we respect that fact.
Reference was made to 10,000 jobs being at risk on the basis of similar predictions in respect of the UK. Legislation is already in place in the UK and, to date, the adverse impact on agency workers there which some feared has not materialised. I am hopeful there will also not be an adverse impact here. Nonetheless, most of us here would be happier if the same qualifying period which will apply here also obtained in Northern Ireland. However, there is no avenue open to us in this regard.
Senator Clune highlighted the fact that there are certain sectors in which this pattern of work has developed. It is used in the pharmaceutical sector at peak periods and some other sectors use it more as a baseline. Senator Mullins pointed out that some parts of the food industry use it on quite a systematic basis. As Senator Clune also indicated, the going rate is that which applies at the time of employment.
Senator Quinn inquired as to who will choose the comparator. He advocated that the employer should do so. The directive is quite clear: the comparator is what would happen if a person were employed on a particular date on a permanent basis. The comparator will apply on the date on which a person is employed, for example, 5 December 2011. It is the employer who, de facto, chooses the comparator and also what will be the rate of pay. Of course, this may be challenged with the rights commissioner. Senators Quinn and Mullins cited examples where the going rate now would be much lower than that which obtained when existing employees were taken on. The rate which applies in such cases is that which obtains on the day on which a person is taken into employment. Where an employer cannot show that he or she took on another permanent employee on that date, he or she must be able to support his or her argument. If an employer states that the going rate has dropped by €5 per hour since those employees were taken on, he or she must be able to support this with evidence. The legislation also assists in underpinning the position in this regard by making explicit reference, in section 3, to the fact that an employer can recognise that a person who has experience or existing skills is obviously a more valuable employee.
An employer must be in a position to show that the choice of comparable wage is legitimate and based on experience in the relevant sector. He or she must be able to prove that what he or she has done is reasonable. In that context, we are implementing the terms of the directive. We cannot go beyond that and state that employers can opt out of the obligation which exists in this regard. That is the obligation we are seeking to transpose. We cannot give employers the right to make certain choices in the way the Senators suggest because in such circumstances we would not be transposing the directive as it is currently formed.
The position is the same in respect of the Senator's argument with regard to reasonable grounds of defence. If an employer is challenged before the rights commissioner, the reasonable grounds of defence which he or she will have will be to show that the selection of the going wage rate was on fair grounds. We have tried to provide something which is reasonable and which is faithful to the directive.
Senator Quinn inquired as to whether the legislation could be subject to legal challenge. I do not know but I am aware that anything can be open to such challenge. We are of the view that the Bill is robust and we have taken legal advice in respect of it. We believe it represents the correct way to implement and transpose the directive. As stated, meetings took place in respect of the qualifying period.
Senator Harte rightly made the point that in a time of recovery such as this, temporary workers have an important role to play. Employers should not see them as merely a cost to be avoided. Some people see temporary work as a legitimate career path. That is an important point and it is vital that groups of people should not be arbitrarily discriminated against. In a recovery period, employers may not be certain that their order books are sustainable and they will want to take people on an a temporary basis until their businesses establish a level of permanency. The recognition of the role of agency workers and their fair treatment under legislation is an important principle to establish.
Senator Walsh complained about reforms being introduced in respect of JLCs. The programme for Government contains a commitment in respect of bringing forward such reforms to make the JLCs more job-friendly and flexible. That is what we are doing.
Why not allow people negotiate at local level? I know individuals who were prepared to work for a particular employer — there was agreement between both parties — but they could not do so because the rate agreed between IBEC and the unions——
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
The people concerned are on the dole now. They would be working if this difficulty had not arisen.
The point I am making is that we are introducing changes which will affect both JLCs and REAs and which will make it possible for them to respond to altered economic conditions. Under the current model, it is extremely difficult for them to respond to such conditions. It is necessary to encourage both sides to agree. One cannot expect unions to agree to a unilateral reduction in respect of rates which they negotiated three or four years ago. They are not doing that.
Just abandon the national agreements and allow them to——
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
There have been some examples of rates being negotiated downward. However, we are introducing a much more flexible mechanism whereby the Labour Court will be involved. If there is deadlock and there is not an agreement to reduce a rate to facilitate new employment, the Labour Court will be in a position to intervene and advocate a rate that would be fair in all circumstances. We are introducing a flexibility which has not previously existed.
We are forcing people onto the dole. That is the effect of what is being done.
The Senator cannot have it both ways. He cannot pretend that we are not making the system more flexible.
I accept that.
We are making it more flexible.
I acknowledge that.
The Senator's party was in government for a long period and did not choose to take action on this matter.
I accept that we should have done something.
We are introducing a mechanism which allows for flexibility but I accept that it will not suit everyone. Everything in the area of industrial relations involves balancing the views of different people. I am of the opinion that what we have put forward is a fair system in the context of achieving such a balance. The Labour Court has a long record of being fair to both sides and it will be pivotal to the change we are bringing about.
We are also introducing flexibilities in respect of the JLC system. Previously, inflexibilities existed in the context of the way in which Sunday work was dealt with. Instead of having an absolute and rigorous criminal law in respect of how provision is made for Sunday work, we will be applying to grocery shops and restaurants the same general provision that obtains in respect of Sunday work in bookshops and bars. That is reasonable and we are introducing a flexibility which is not unfair but which is balanced.
As the Minister is aware, they were introduced as a result of anti-competitive practices.
Senator Walsh should cease interrupting. These points can be raised on Committee Stage.
Exactly. As stated, Senator Mullins referred to the comparator and highlighted the position of people who were recruited in 2007 versus that of agency workers who were taken on afterward. The issue that arises is what was the fair rate on 5 December. The issue is not the rate used in 2007. The employer in question must show that in selecting a fair rate to set on 5 December, it has acted in a reasonable fashion. The employer should have looked at comparable prevailing rates and if a person was employed at a going rate, that would be relevant. A case must be presented for what is being done and an employer cannot pluck a figure from the air without being able to back it up. In the case outlined by the Senator, the employer must show that circumstances are now different from those pertaining to the 2007 rate. There must be fairness.
I thank Senators for their contributions as legislation in this area is always difficult and there is a constant attempt to balance the needs of both sides and create sufficient flexibility to facilitate employment. There is also a need to protect those employees who are open to abuse because they are poorly organised or similarly vulnerable. There have been some very notable cases of abuse of agency workers and we are trying to balance the issue. The piece of legislation that has been produced is a fair way of implementing the directive and will bring security to people who could otherwise be exploited. It has sufficient flexibility where employers are seeking to cope with difficult conditions, and they can use agency workers in a flexible way. We are striking a balance and I look forward to the Committee Stage debate, when we can go through the sections in more detail.
Question put and declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Thursday.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 1 March 2012.