Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on this relatively important Bill. The Bill was published last July, but it was agreed to address the issue under the Towards 2016 process. I got the impression from my research that there was a commitment this would happen three or four years ago. I often wonder why things take so long, especially when a Bill like this is relatively simple and most people agree with it. I do not understand why Bills slowly seep in here, when we could have put them to bed a long time ago.

The main purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the regulatory framework for the operation of employment agency services by requiring them to have a licence to operate an agency. I agree with some of the comments from ICTU on this. I do not know why everybody should not be required to have a licence. I have a difficulty with the idea that agencies with licences in their own EU state can operate here without an Irish licence. I have a difficulty with that because it leaves the issue open to different rules for different countries and it is not clear how that will happen. I accept there will be a difficulty addressing this due to other EU directives, but if we cannot have a licence for every agency operating here, we should at least have an assessment of the licences agencies already have. Some of the trade unions have suggested that a fast track approach be taken to endorsing an agency of another country. It is wrong to say the company does not need a licence specifically granted by this country. We either have it or we do not.

This is an important Bill. Many agencies are still operating in Ireland. Figures for past year show 300 to 400 employment agencies or companies operating here. Prior to the 2007 general election we were invited to meetings about abuse of agency workers. I thought this Bill might deal with that matter but it does not. It deals with agencies and that is one step that may fix many of the problems that exist. We are changing the working environment in our country and this may lead to problems going away. There was definitely abuse of people working for agencies. All the authorities and organisations we have cannot catch everyone so it is important to have whistleblower legislation in order that people can speak up. Even when legislation is in place, people are still unsure where to go for help and are still afraid to speak up. It is important we monitor the situation and follow this up with further legislation to protect and grant more rights and entitlements to the agency worker.

I cannot agree with all of the unions' recommendations for the rights of agency workers but there must be some clarification on when workers gain entitlements. I do not agree with Deputy Willie Penrose, who expressed the view in previous debates that agency workers deserve full entitlements immediately. There is a case to be made for a number of months to pass before they gain entitlements. That is not addressed in this Bill but it should be.

If an agency contravened the provisions of the Bill the Minister will be empowered to prohibit the company from carrying on a business for a period of up to three years. Why the period of three years? I am very blunt; I would say never again. It depends on how bad the abuse is. Is the period limited to three years? Can one point out that the agency blatantly went against all the rules and should be restricted for a period longer than three years? In some cases the licence may lapse or there might be another minor reason a company does not have a licence. Is there some flexibility or is a three-year period set in stone? What happens if the owners of an agency set up another agency under a different name and reapply for a licence? Can the Minister note the name of the owner of the past agency? It is not that difficult to set up a new agency or a new company in this country. We must be careful of this. Will it be similar to the disqualification of a director? This must be strong law or there is no point in having it. It is not clear from reading the Bill whether this point is provided for. I did not hear all the speech of the Minister of State and perhaps he dealt with this point. However, it must be clarified.

Do I understand correctly that the agency cannot provide training or charge a fee? The agency makes its profits through the worker being employed. I would like to hear the logic behind that because it seems a little harsh. Some agencies automatically provide training or another section of the company may provide the training. If one wants to bring in workers and get them fixed for the job, one may want to organise training.

See this speech in context