Patrick Nulty (Dublin West, Labour)

I am also disappointed that amendment No.19 has been ruled out of order. There is much in the Bill that I support but section 7 is deplorably inadequate. The Bill fails to provide for effective anti-avoidance measures. Article 5.5 of the directive places a clear duty on the Government to introduce appropriate measures to prevent abuse of the derogation. However, under the Bill, as it stands, it will be all too easy for employers or agencies to use the Swedish derogation to circumvent equal pay rights.

Legislation needs to be amended to provide for safeguards against abuse, including a guaranteed rate of pay, a guaranteed minimum number of hours, a guaranteed period in the last assignment or an averaging of the hours worked during a particular period.

While I am not in a position to move amendment No. 19, which was ruled out of order, the Minister could amend the legislation either today or at some future date. Amendment No. 19 did not emerge out of thin air. It is influenced by the regulations that have been put in place in Britain to prevent the type of exploitation to which Deputy Boyd Barrett referred. Britain has a flexible labour market which is similar to ours. However, it has put in place protections which are similar to those contained in amendment No. 19. There is no reason we could not introduce such protections. Disingenuous comparisons are often made between pay rates here and in Britain. These comparisons are usually out of context and incorrect. In the context of agency workers, the British authorities are a step ahead. Will the Minister reflect on amendment No. 19, which I cannot move, and consider amending the legislation? The amendment contains quite a detailed proposal which would strengthen regulation in this area and protect agency workers.

See this speech in context