John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)

Like the previous speaker I welcome the Bill's aim to provide the country's 35,000 agency workers with entitlement to equal treatment, pay and conditions of permanent staff in order that they cannot be used to drive down pay and conditions generally or to undermine the hard fought equality rights as has been happening in recent years. Many of us have encountered an increasing number of workers, notably in the construction sector, hotel services, contract clearing and red meat industries, who were displaced and left with little option but to work as agency workers with wages driven down and existing conditions undermined as a result of a failure to legislate for the principle of equal treatment.

Most EU countries have already counteracted the obvious risk of exploitation in agency working by enacting and enforcing dedicated legislation which recognises the equal rights of an agency worker from day one. It is imperative to follow their lead in regulating the agency worker business with commercial legislation and the assignment of workers to user companies with employment legislation which covers both.

It is crucial to recognise the potential of agency working for displacing direct employment by legislating for a limited duration, for temporary employment, after which a worker must be made permanent. While I have not read the legislation in detail, that issue may be provided for. While providing protection for agency workers there is also the question of protecting the directly employed worker from losing his or her job to a cheaper agency worker, a case well illustrated by the Irish Ferries dispute some years ago. It is possible to run a sustainable economy without the necessity to maintain a tier of workers who are poorly paid and badly treated. I welcome the elements of the Bill which address this issue.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty on particular elements of the Bill. For example, where breaches occur, the legislation is notably vague as to how liability will be apportioned between the agencies and the end user companies. There is a need for clarity on the obligation of the hirer to provide the agency with correct information on pay and relevant conditions which would have applied had a worker been recruited directly. Perhaps, in his summing up, the Minister would clarify that issue. It is important for workers to know where they stand and the conditions of employment when making application to the agencies. Many do not know the terms and conditions until they are employed by the main company.

I am concerned as to how the equal treatment of an agency worker will be determined under the provisions of the Bill. For example, to whom will that worker be compared to ensure he or she is being fairly treated? Creating a comparator could prove particularly difficult for SMEs who may not employ an equivalent permanent staff member. I acknowledge that not every agency worker will be comparable with a permanent worker, because of variations in qualifications and experience. The Bill is vague on that issue and needs to be tightly drafted in order that an agency worker is, nonetheless, treated fairly.

While I will support the Bill, clarification is needed on some issues. The Minister means well in dealing with agency workers who have been treated badly during the past ten years. In general, I welcome the Bill.

See this speech in context