Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

On behalf of Fine Gael, I welcome the Sinn Féin-Labour motion, which is timely, has real merit and proposes some valid solutions to the problems that exist. It clearly exposes the Government's failure to honour the commitments it made in the partnership agreement, Towards 2016. Consequently, Fine Gael will be opposing the Government's amendment and supporting the motion. We have one or two reservations, which I will outline later in my contribution.

Research has shown that agency workers are at a major disadvantage compared to directly employed workers in a number of ways. Research conducted in the United Kingdom shows that agencies are paid 68% less, on average, than directly employed staff in similar jobs. They have fewer entitlements and suffer from higher levels of workplace injury across Europe.

In the past, agency work tended to be associated with temporary positions, such as those that arose on foot of maternity leave or unplanned vacancies. In many cases, agency workers tended to be students or workers in the home who were not in full-time employment. Agency work provided flexibility for both workers and employees but the nature of such work has changed significantly in recent years, thereby giving rise to the problems we face today.

In the United Kingdom it is estimated that the percentage of agency workers has increased from 2.6% in 2002 to 5% in 2006. In Ireland, it is estimated that there are approximately 27,000 to 30,000 temporary agency workers. It is likely that this figure is significantly underestimated and it will therefore be interesting to see the results of the quarterly household survey when the question on agency work is included.

Agency work is commonplace in a number of sectors, including construction, retail and hospitality, and food processing in particular. There is no question but that the expansion of agency work has led to a deterioration in conditions and a decrease in pay. In some cases, although not as many as one might be led to believe, it has led to the displacement of directly employed permanent staff. It will be interesting to see what terms and conditions will apply to the employees of Arnotts when it reopens after its redevelopment. When the Burlington Hotel and some other hotels were reopened, it is clear that agency workers replaced the directly employed permanent workforce and were hired under what most would consider to be inferior terms and conditions.

Fine Gael agrees fully with the introduction of legislation to regulate employment agencies properly. This should be the key to this debate. The Employment Agency Act 1971 is clearly insufficient and I understand there have only been approximately 50 inspections of agencies in the past three to four years. This is entirely inadequate. The new legislation has yet to be published. It is indicated in the legislative programme that it is to be published this session, but the session, which has only three weeks remaining, is drawing to a close rapidly. I certainly hope we will see the legislation by the end of the month, as the Taoiseach promised, or, if not, at least before St. Patrick's Day, as the Whip promised. The new legislation should make provision for a new licensing system, a proper code of practice, proper enforcement and, crucially, a requirement that employment agencies be underpinned financially. The latter is not the case at present and this should be of concern to everyone.

We are concerned about agencies that tie their employees to their work in unusual ways, including agencies that provide transport for their employees to and from work, agencies that provide accommodation and expect their employees to use it, or agencies that deduct the cost of accommodation and transport from their workers' pay. Where this occurs, the conditions are worryingly close to those that exist in countries such as China, where employees are expected to live, eat and spend their lives within the factory compound.

While I accept that many agency workers are not immigrants, it is not a coincidence that the countries that have been least enthusiastic in the protection of the rights of agency workers, namely, the United Kingdom and Ireland, are those that have had a significant increase in immigration.

As some Deputies stated, there is no evidence that properly regulated employment agencies or reasonable protection for agency workers has a negative effect on competitiveness or labour market flexibility. The labour markets in The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden are among the most competitive in Europe and those countries enjoy much higher labour force participation than Ireland, even if one allows for the fact that they have many more women with children in their workforces. The countries have greater protections than are afforded in Ireland. It is open to question as to whether Denmark and Sweden have enshrined the principle of equal treatment in law. It might be appropriate to say they have not but that is a technical point.

The key point to this debate should concern the regulation of agencies and the enforcement of existing laws, which is very poor. Enforcement would achieve much more than any new domestic legislation or EU directive. A very useful booklet produced by SIPTU points out that there are approximately 17 legislative measures applying to agency workers. Therefore, there are extensive protections for agency workers but the reality is that many of them are not aware, or made aware, of their rights. In many cases, the rights are not respected.

The applicable Acts include the Adoptive Leave Act, the Carer's Leave Act, the Employment Agency Act, the Employment Equality Act, the Industrial Relations Act, the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, the National Minimum Wage Act, the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Parental Leave Act, the Payment of Wages Act, the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, the Protection of Employment Act, the Redundancy Payments Acts, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts and the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

If we regulate agencies properly and ensure they are reputable, and ensure agency workers are aware of their rights, we will probably achieve more than we would with new legislation or EU directives.

It is fair to state that any reasonable person would support the principle of equal treatment, but the key issue concerns its definition, application and the timing of its application. It is important to recognise that employees should receive additional benefits and just remuneration with time and service. The package of terms and conditions an employer agrees with permanent employees should be reflective of the ongoing commitment that the employer is entitled to assume on the part of those employees who have made a long-term commitment to that employer. As there is no expectation or entitlement of such an ongoing commitment from agency workers or temporary workers, it seems reasonable that an automatic right should not apply. What should apply is a period after which the same rights should be enforced. Where a genuine temporary vacancy arises in an office, it is not unreasonable to afford better pay, conditions and pension rights to the person who normally holds the position and wants to retain it after his or her temporary absence than to the person who is employed temporarily. The difficulty arises where temporary positions actually become long term and the agency employee is occupying what should be a permanent position.

Probably uniquely among Members of this House, I, as a medical doctor, am signed up with an employment agency. I receive texts all the time asking me whether I want to do a weekend shift in Crumlin Hospital, for example. Every now and again, €1,000 is suggested as the pay and I do not feel too exploited by it. I know many nurses, as opposed to nurses' aides or care assistants, who have left their jobs to take up agency work because the pay is much better.

In many ways the best argument to be made for better pay for nurses is that the free market, which operates through the agencies, shows that nurses should be paid much more because they are paid more as agency workers than they would be paid if they were employees of the HSE.

We join Sinn Féin and Labour Party Members in condemning the Government's failure to honour the commitments it made under Towards 2016. We call on the Government to immediately introduce legislation to regulate employment agencies, to introduce domestic legislation allowing agency employees to be covered by registered employment agreements, REAs, and, crucially, to properly enforce existing laws. We also affirm our support for a common EU directive that would protect agency workers while ensuring competitiveness and crucial to such a directive must be the setting of a reasonable time limit after which agency work becomes permanent work.

See this speech in context