Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

Deputy Mick Wallace who has practical experience in this area has made the point that the nature of temporary agency work is often intermittent and serves to meet the need to fulfil additional work obligations as they arise. That flexibility is needed in many workplaces and the reason temporary agency work arrangements have developed. Such arrangements suit certain workers who are not seeking a full week's work.

In regard to the Swedish derogation, we are providing that agency workers must be paid the same basic rate. The Deputy has mentioned that there has been friction on some sites as a consequence of different rates being paid to different workers. That will no longer apply under these provisions. The only situation in which a company could seek not to apply the same basic rate is where it makes a commitment that during the down time, when workers are not employed, they will be paid at least 50% of the basic rate. That will only be allowable where the agency has informed the workers concerned that they are entering into an arrangement where some elements of the package will not apply to them but that on the days they are not working they will be paid a retainer.

That is the exemption the directive allows in order to facilitate people who want to enter into that type of contract. They undertake to be available at short notice but will have the confidence that on the days they are not asked to work they will be paid something. The directive anticipated that this would be a possible arrangement into which people would willingly and knowingly enter and a flexibility that would be required. We are transposing it into Irish law, with the proviso that people be formally notified, by way of a written notice, that they are giving up something to which they would otherwise be entitled by entering such an arrangement. They will only agree to this where it suits their own circumstances and requirements.

Deputies Joan Collins and Seamus Healy have raised the broader question of why we are not insisting on pension rights being afforded to agency workers. I have responded to this point. The purpose of the legislation is not to introduce new provisions generally to Irish employment law. There is no obligation on an employer to provide a pension. The only obligation now on an employer is to ensure that a worker has access to a PRSA into which the employer has no obligation to contribute. We cannot under this provision introduce new far-reaching provisions in Irish labour law. Pension and sick pay are not included because this was designed to protect people from abuse in respect of basic pay and employment conditions. It does not seek to assert that arrangements in place in respect of an employee who has been working with an employer for years, such as sick pay, share options, pension provisions and so on would apply to a person on a short term assignment. That is not the intention of the directive and is not what we are seeking to transpose into Irish law.

We are not seeking to include new entitlements in this area, rather we are seeking to protect against abuses that are known to occur. The purpose of the directive is to protect people from abuses. While I can understand the Deputies' desire to see better working conditions, what we are doing is setting minimum protection that will apply. Issues such as longer term pension provisions and whether we should have compulsory pensions and so on are for another day. We are not seeking to introduce them in this legislation.

See this speech in context