Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, which concerns the introduction of important legislation, and not before time. It is a crucial directive involving agency workers. It is important to remind ourselves of some issues as I have listened to much of the debate, including contributions from colleagues who are sceptical and have difficulties with some aspects of this legislation. I do not have such difficulties. I am not referring to the comments of Deputy Boyd Barrett but rather other issues, including those relating to the derogation, which I will discuss later. These are items of protective legislation for workers and there is an important strain of legislation and directives from the European Union to this end. The Minister quite fairly pointed this out in his speech.

People know we have had protection of part-time workers for a number of years, as well as legislation protecting fixed-term workers. There are other areas of protection required for what are sometimes known as posted workers. The basic principle is relatively simple but nevertheless very important. Deputy Catherine Murphy mentioned earlier that she had worked with somebody in a similar post who was paid less than she was. We should have the principle of equal pay for like work. It should not be a throwaway aspiration but should be made a reality. These directives have that aim and this legislation will achieve it. Deputy Calleary and others have sought to set up a conflict between the principle of protective rights on one hand and cost and competitiveness on the other. If there is any element of a risk to cost, there is a suggestion that we should in some way consider differently the basic principle of protective rights, but I do not agree with that.

These must, of course, be the subject of negotiation and one cannot say there is no right for businesses and the representatives of employers to have a very strong say on the nature and extent of protective rights to be introduced. They have such a say. There have been rights for part-time and fixed-term workers for years and the sky has not fallen. These are important rights which have been in place for quite a long time. The notion that the extension of the principle of equality to agency workers would be done grudgingly or that we are doing it because we have been told to do it by Europe should be rejected. I do not accept Deputy Calleary's argument that this is setting back job creation. I would like to understand that argument a little better. I have read the departmental documentation and the assessment of this legislation and there is no compelling argument that giving people the same rate for similar work erodes competitiveness. There is an issue of cost but we should consider workers' rights as well.

I was struck in a positive way by Deputy Barry's comments. He indicated that he is an employer and had some concerns about the derogation issue, which I will address. I do not want to paraphrase the Deputy unnecessarily or misrepresent him but he lauded the principle of long-term quality work. He is anxious to recruit the right people with associated reputation and skills. I would suggest such people could have a stake in employment and the job that they hold. They would not be dispensable or work for a few days at a time. They would have a commitment and by virtue of the stability of the employment, they would have a commitment to the job carried out. As Deputy Barry illustrated well, this is not just a positive for the worker but for the employer, industry and business in general, as people would be able to work together and have a long-term stake in collective action.

It was never a really good objective to seek to promote agency work at the expense of whole-time work. By all means let us promote agency work and make it attractive in the sense that where there is a requirement for flexibility in filling a gap for a particular period, it should be possible to do it. In that sense I do not mind the promotion of agency work but not for it to be used as a replacement for whole-time work. That was the principle enunciated by Deputy Barry and I hope I do not misrepresent him. His point was a fair one.

There is a case for promoting temporary agency work right across the board in the normal operations of many businesses, small and large, and in the public service for having a legal procedure whereby a gap can be filled by a temporary or an agency worker. I accept this. Such flexibility is required in certain circumstances, but this does not give an ability, as some seem to think, to pay such workers less. By all means let us have flexibility in the law to have temporary workers, to fill the absence of an existing employee on maternity leave or meet other exigencies in a particular employment, but why should that mean we should be able to pay them less? That is where I part company with some of my colleagues with whom I do not agree. That is why I have a problem with people who appear to have a difficulty with the derogation. Let us strip out what it means. What is the position on the period of 12 weeks that people say is so important? It means one can bring in an agency worker and pay them perhaps substantially less than they will otherwise be entitled to if the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be. That is the bottom line. There is nothing else because they have pretty much all of the other rights. It is only about pay.

When Deputy Calleary referred to the need for flexibility and railed against what he called the failure of the unions to agree to this measure, what he and others should have said bluntly was that they wanted to be able to pay agency workers less, to use cheaper labour for a period. I respectfully part company with the Minister who said it would not in any sense disadvantage temporary agency workers as they would on the expiry of the qualifying period benefit from equal treatment. The truth of the matter is that if one has a period of 12 weeks many agency workers will be employed for 12 weeks or a little less, which is often the pattern of employment in such circumstances when people are taken on for a short period. They never receive the additional pay because they are never kept on after 12 weeks. That is the experience right across the board. Let us not fool ourselves in that regard.

It is right to have flexibility and introduce legislation, which is important and which I hope will be passed quickly through the Houses. The only material difference is that people appear to be seeking flexibility to pay less money. I do not believe any case, let alone a strong one, has been made for this. I would not be critical of the unions on this occasion for standing up for the rights of agency workers. They are right. I do not know what went on in the negotiations or between IBEC and the ICTU, but if the ICTU and the trade unions were not standing up for the rights of agency workers in these circumstances, the simple truth is that they would not be doing their job.

I wish to refer briefly to a couple of points raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett. They are not as big a problem as he believes. I accept the points were raised in good faith. Section 7 deals with collective agreements which, in effect, amount to a derogation. It would be something on which trade unions and employers could agree but they cannot create a less favourable environment than that provided for in the legislation. That is the important point.

See this speech in context