Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

While people have major questions about the European Union, one of its achievements is its vindication of the rights of employees. This Bill primarily stems from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is the only reason I could find to talk myself into voting "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty. I have felt that up to now the charter has been torn up and thrown away. It is good that this legislation and other positive initiatives from Europe in the area of workers' rights have stemmed from that charter.

I know what it is like to sit in an office and work beside somebody who is paid more for doing the same work. I was one of those workers who in 1975 opened my pay packet to find that I had got equal pay with male workers, and I remember that morning. That arose under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 and women received equal pay in 1975. I think I got a 20% increase in my wages as a consequence of that and that is not something one easily forgets. Neither does one easily forget what it is like to do the same work as somebody else and feel a sense of injustice when that person is paid more. I received complaints from people last year who were working with people who were being paid less. They felt a sense of social solidarity that prompted them to contact me about the position of those agency workers. I had hoped we were nearing the day where that position would be redressed. It was women who were discriminated against in 1974. While this is not a gender-based discrimination that has taken place up to now, it is predominantly women who have been affected by it because it mainly involves people who work in child care, heath care, canteens and such jobs. Women will predominantly be affected by this measure.

There has been something of a casualisation of labour which has driven down standards and affected people's rights. It is only right and proper that the position in this regard should be addressed. However, the Bill does not address the issue of equal conditions. Deputy Tom Fleming drew attention to the fact that matters such as pensions, maternity rights, sick pay, and so on, are not dealt with in the Bill.

I have previously been very critical that in the context of the legislation we enact, we do not consider how, from a practical point of view, the rights we intend to confer on people will be vindicated. I have serious concerns about the capacity of the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission - which it is proposed to amalgamate - to vindicate the rights to which I refer. I am also concerned with regard to how long the process will take in this regard. These organs of the State are already overworked and we now propose to confer yet another responsibility upon them. Consideration must be given to this matter.

As a previous speaker indicated, temporary or casual work do not always lead to savings. For example, the agency workers used by our hospitals are often placed several points higher on the incremental pay scale than nurses who are on temporary contracts. Whereas nurses on temporary contracts might come into employment at point 1, agency nurses are often taken on at points 5 or 6. The agencies will receive a cut in this regard and will make a profit. As a result, we do not obtain the kind of continuity that would result from someone who is aware of the routine in a particular hospital and who is familiar with the wards, and so on, being in situ. As a result, good value for money is not obtained and the outcomes achieved are poor.

There are ways in which - even in light of the current economic climate - we might deal with this matter. One of these would be to put in place a floor below which hospitals should not fall in the context of bed-to-nurse ratios. Some hospitals have been seeking a solution of this nature. Everyone is aware that we are in an extremely serious economic situation and that there is limited money to spend. If a floor such as that to which I refer were put in place and if hospitals could employ people, even on a temporary basis, we could achieve more satisfactory outcomes for everyone, with the exception of the agencies which are operating at a profit. There is a need to consider options such as that to which I refer. Predominantly, the type of scenario to which I refer obtains in the public sector. I ask the Minister of State to draw the attention of the Minister for Health to this issue. Having someone in place on an almost permanent basis is very different to taking on a person who does not know where things are to be found, who is not familiar with the culture that obtains in a particular hospital. There are some aspects of this which are intangible in nature but which are worthy of consideration.

I have several concerns with regard to the exact nature of section 7, which deals with the social partners. The position here must be teased out in much greater detail on Committee Stage. I am glad the Bill refers to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I thought that it had been torn up and thrown away. I am no longer so much of the opinion that my vote in respect of the charter was wasted.

See this speech in context