David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the letter. It sets out that the main difference between both positions, the directly employed ones and the agency staff, is the pensions. Tusla does not have to make a pension contribution to an agency worker. In fairness, Tusla recognises that if it directly employs people, the workers themselves have better benefits in terms of maternity benefit, career break options, shorter working year etc. I welcome all that.

There is a contradiction between the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection’s stated view that there is a big problem with pensions - it is a ticking time bomb, we need employers to be paying into people’s pensions, and we need people to have private pensions - and the State employing agency staff who do not have pension protection. It is something of a false economy. There are a number of false economies involved in hiring agency staff. There is a contradiction between one Department talking about encouraging private sector companies to pay into their employees’ pension pots while other Departments are not doing so.

We had a similar situation with RTÉ with if-and-when contracts. We had it with other bodies as well. There is a price to be paid down the road for all of this in terms of people’s pension contributions that needs to be factored in when Government organisations are looking at employing agency staff versus direct employment.