Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Naughten.

I am happy to contribute on this important motion tabled by the Labour Party. I compliment the party and others for their work in this area as they have been fighting for people's employment and other rights for a long time. I compliment a Labour Party member, Anton McCabe, on doing trojan work in exposing unscrupulous employers in my home town of Navan and elsewhere in County Meath. He deserves recognition as a strong advocate of employees' rights.

I disagree with the Labour Party motion in certain respects but in general I support the need to improve rights of workers, especially those who come from abroad and do not fully understand employment legislation or are afraid to report abuse. I accept that more information has been made available and, in some instances, SIPTU has translated information into different languages at its own expense. However, the Government needs to take a more proactive role in encouraging employees of all nationalities to seek help and report issues. Exploitation and discrimination are not acceptable. I regularly encounter cases involving employers who bring workers from abroad by offering them accommodation, which is often substandard, transport and money. The employees think the offer is great but fail to realise they are receiving less than the minimum wage.

The Minister spoke about the measures being introduced by the Government and stated that the labour inspectorate will have a full complement of 90 inspectors. However, that "will" is a long time coming and the full complement is not yet in place. There are insufficient inspectors to catch all the rogue employers operating in Ireland. I do not imply that everyone who does agency work is being mistreated but employers are getting away with exploitation in some cases.

A number of Deputies asked why the Minister refuses to accept this motion given that his amendment is quite similar. My interpretation of his response is that he wants to await the commencement of partnership talks so that he can use this as a bargaining tool. That has happened repeatedly in this House. During debates on adoptive and maternity leave Bills in the last Dáil, the Minister clearly accepted my arguments and wanted to make changes but he kept saying that we have to wait for the partnership talks. Who is in charge in this country? If something is right, it should be done straight away. We should not wait to hold talks with other groups. We are repeatedly being told that the Government cannot make decisions before consulting the partners. That is not good enough because Ministers should make decisions.

While I support the motion, I have concerns about the suggested six-week timeframe for a temporary worker to become a full-time employee. I am not convinced this is a practical period of time because, for example, seasonal workers are employed for three and four month periods. An extension of the period to three or six months might be more acceptable. However, we cannot accept the practice whereby agency staff work in Government bodies for three or four years on the same pay. These people are even employed in certain Departments. A person should be entitled to a full-time job after working two consecutive 12 month terms but I realised when researching the issue that is not the case.

Deputy Penrose referred to countries which had introduced changes. We could learn from some of these countries, especially those which have implemented collective and sectoral pay agreements. We need changes and we certainly should ensure that Departments set an example by treating people properly.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael endorses the call for legislation to regulate employment agencies and supports this particular motion, subject to the reservations outlined by my colleague, Deputy Varadkar. I accept that it is not just migrants who are employed as agency workers and that not all agency workers are being exploited. Many nurses, for example, leave HSE jobs to take up agency work because the salaries are significantly better. However, people can be exploited and those from foreign countries are more vulnerable to exploitation. They do not know their basic entitlements or lack the necessary language skills and are afraid to ask questions in case they lose their jobs and are sent home.

I visited the website of the National Employment Rights Authority to find out the information available from it in foreign languages. It makes information available in a range of languages, including Chinese, Czech, Polish, French and Irish, but it is not very detailed. Much more needs to be done if we are to properly police this area or ensure migrant workers are given their fair entitlements and can access the basic information they need. This is further frustrated by the limitation on access to benefits and services for persons who are unlawfully present in the State under the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008. Section 6 of that Bill seeks to limit access to services such as the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Equality Tribunal. Access must not be limited on the basis of a person's residency status.

Last night the Minister made the excuse that he was going to await the commencement of the partnership talks and use this issue as a bargaining tool but he has already broken commitments he made in Towards 2016. The Government set a target in the partnership agreement to employ 90 labour inspectors by 31 December 2007 to address employment abuses and the underpayment of workers but the National Employment Rights Authority employed just 50 labour inspectors on that date. It will be summer before the rest of the staff conduct inspections. It is a damning indictment of this Government's lack of commitment to the issue of labour exploitation that 1,500 fewer inspections were carried out in 2007.

It is important for both Irish people and immigrants that the law is not abused and that immigrants are given the same entitlements as Irish citizens. There have been countless examples in the construction industry of Irish workers who were replaced by migrant workers at much lower rates. Some stories, such as the treatment of Gama construction workers from Turkey and the Polish workers at the ESB station in Moneypoint, County Clare, have hit national prominence. However, under the proposed EU directive providing for sanctions against employers of illegally remaining third country nationals, both the contractor and subcontractor are held jointly liable for the exploitation of workers. The procedure will start with the person who directly employed them and will then continue up along the line. The present loophole in the legislation must be closed off. Currently, a contractor who does not directly employ a worker can wash his or her hands of the situation by claiming the subcontractor employed the exploited individual at below the minimum wage or failed to pay PRSI or proper tax. In the vast majority of such cases the main contractor knew from the outset the subcontractor could deliver the contract at the price offered without exploiting labour.

It is critical that migrant workers are given legal rights and that their employers do not undercut Irish workers because a dangerous level of resentment is developing which must be stamped out. The only way that resentment can be effectively eradicated is ensuring the labour inspectorate takes aggressive action by prosecuting directors of such companies. Notwithstanding the many reputable companies who employ both Irish and migrant employees and abide by our employment laws and wage rates, those who abuse the system must be weeded out. Unless this problem is addressed, reputable companies will go out of business because they are being undercut by the cowboys within the system. I commend the motion to the House.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The biblical admonition that labour deserves its wages is one of the most ethical and moral precepts in existence. Over time, this simple but effective principle has led societies throughout most of the world to develop laws to protect workers' rights. The process began with the abolition of slavery and continued with the introduction of the minimum wage in America by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938. Although Ireland introduced the minimum wage at a somewhat later date, I am proud my party was a member of the Government which brought it into being.

The law in this area is extremely important and Ireland has one of the most progressive minimum wage systems in the world. The minimum wage is not subject to the whim of the Oireachtas or the Government of the day. The Minister takes advice in respect of it and regular increases have been forthcoming.

Together with the minimum wage legislation, the other laws governing terms of employment, equality and dismissals are, in the main, progressive and pro worker in nature. Not only does my party have a fantastic track record as regards introducing progressive employment legislation, to be fair, so does the Oireachtas as a whole.

The extensive rights to which I refer apply to agency workers. As representatives and legislators, we will always do our best to apprise these workers of that fact. Exploitation is wrong and must be stopped. I welcome the Minister's commitment to beefing up the inspection system, particularly through the appointment of inspectors with skills in foreign languages.

The social partnership system we have developed is a model of stability and economic progress. In the early days of new Labour in Britain, social partnership would probably have been considered anathema. However, our system is a welcome and progressive one. In Towards 2016, the Government agreed with the social partners to enact key reforms in respect of agency workers. These relate to licensing, a code of practice and the establishment of a monitoring and advisory committee. I look forward to the introduction and eventual enactment of the employment agency regulation Bill.

The Minister outlined to the House and the social partners the Government's position on the proposed EU directive on temporary agency workers. Further work will be done on this matter at forthcoming Council meetings in the near future. It is ironic that Ireland is being blamed for delaying the passage of the directive, with which the Minister has issues. However, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty we are being informed that we have no power in Europe and that everything is being imposed upon us. Ireland has issues with the directive but I hope progress can be made on it in the near future.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government, in an unholy alliance with its British counterpart, has been delaying it for five years.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is true.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has been delaying it for more than five years at this stage.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is correct. It is almost six years.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Naughten referred to the HSE, which uses large numbers of agency workers. Many nurses and medical staff are happy to engage in agency work, particularly because such work offers them, at least for a period, some level of flexibility. However, agency work is costing the HSE a great deal of money and it would do well to examine how cost savings might be made in this area. It could then give pharmacists a break.

I pay tribute to the Labour Party for raising the issue of migrant workers. There has been a political controversy in respect of this matter in the north east. The motion before the House has helped to highlight this issue and I hope it will remind migrant workers that they have rights and should not be exploited. I also pay tribute to the Minister and the Government on the work they have done in recent years.

In Government, my party has given a warm welcome to workers from all over the world. I refer, in particular, to those who have arrived from the states that most recently acceded to the European Union. The welcome given to these workers was extended by our own choice and was not extended by all of our fellow EU member states. Discrimination against migrant workers in respect of pay or any of their terms and conditions is legally and morally wrong and must be stopped. As the Minister of State indicated, such workers have the same rights as their Irish counterparts. That fact must be emphasised at all times.

Deputies are going to be inundated with queries from migrant workers and perhaps also their agency counterparts. That will be a positive outcome from this debate. Obviously, further work must be done in respect of the legislation and hopefully people will come to know more about their rights. Regardless of whether they are black or white, yellow or brown, labourers deserve equal wages and everyone in the House is in favour of ensuring that they obtain them.

M J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to support the Government's amendment. However, I commend the Labour Party on tabling the motion, which gives Members an opportunity to highlight the difficulties they have experienced in recent years.

Part of the problem is that we would not be experiencing such difficulties were it not for the inordinate success of the economy in the past 20 to 25 years. None of us would have been exposed to migrant or other foreign workers to the extent we have were it not for the fact that the economy was growing at an average rate of 8% per annum for approximately ten years. We were not in a position to supply the labour needed to keep the economy going forward at that rate and we were obliged to bring in between 40,000 to 45,000 migrant workers per annum. Economists state that just to maintain what, by comparison with the previous position, will be relatively low levels of growth in the next two to three years, we will be obliged to bring in between 10,000 to 20,000 workers. Those people will be very welcome.

It is important to acknowledge that any non-Irish workers employed in the State are entitled to the same protection under legislation as their Irish counterparts. As previous speakers indicated, the major difficulties arise in labour-intensive industries such as agriculture and aquaculture and in the services sector. There are those who say that because many of the foreign workers employed in these areas do not have full command of the English language, unscrupulous employers tend to take advantage of them. It is in that context I urge the Minister to fast-track the introduction of the employment agency regulation Bill. I am aware that it has not yet gone to Cabinet but the Minister must ensure that the introduction of this much needed and probably overdue legislation be fast-tracked. I hope the Bill might pass all Stages in both Houses by the end of the year.

Abuses relating to migrant workers have been highlighted in the past five years. I refer, in particular, to two cases involving non-Irish workers who seem to have been employed on contracts and at rates of pay that were not the same as those enjoyed by their Irish counterparts. There are those who claim that it is in the interests of the agencies involved to have some of these workers being paid at such rates. Others would say that it was for tax reasons that they were being paid in such a manner and that some of the payments came under the radar of the tax authorities. For whatever reason, it is important that we should close off whatever loopholes exist. Irish and non-Irish workers should be paid the same rates and enjoy the same conditions of employment.

As a result of the slowdown in the economy, an element of competition has entered the workplace. This is particularly the case in the building sector, where competition has arisen between Irish and non-Irish workers. It is unfortunate that this has happened. There is a large population of non-Irish families and workers in the country. I would be sorry to see a situation develop in which there would be competition between those on both sides. It would be wrong for those on one side to accuse those on the other of undercutting them by reducing prices.

A number of non-Irish workers have claimed that the Department only provides information in the English language and that they cannot understand it. I commend the unions for taking part in the debate on this issue and for ensuring that workers, be they Irish or non-Irish, are catered for and will have someone to make the case on their behalf. The extraordinary changes which have taken place are part of the problem we have. The Government and the Irish people are to be commended for the welcoming approach they have given to non-Irish workers in so far as we were one of the few countries that accepted Polish workers when they acceded to the European Union some years ago.

I commend the Minister of State on what is being done but ask him to bring forward the promised legislation earlier rather than later.

Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this debate as parties to the Towards 2016 commence the formal review of the agreement, which provides for opportunities to re-focus and re-prioritise the overall goals of the agreement in a much changed Irish labour landscape in which one in eight workers is a migrant. It also comes in the context of continuing efforts at European Union level to standardise the work environment to bring about parity in pay and employment conditions between agency and non-agency workers.

I will address several aspects of the amendment to the motion moved by the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher. It is very important all sides of the House recognise the good work performed by the National Employment Rights Authority, based in my home county town of Carlow, and that the Government's promise to put it on a statutory footing is a very positive development.

In 2007 the National Employment Rights Authority conducted 14,000 inspections and took 93,000 calls regarding issues of employment rights and employer responsibilities in the area of the minimum wage and protecting young workers, particularly in the construction sector. That is an impressive workload by anyone's standards. The body also recovered €2.5 million in wage arrears for the workers in question.

This agency is working hard, having announced recently its next targeted sectoral campaign in the security industry. The Government announced in January a very extensive advertising and information campaign through all forms of the media, with which they hope to gain the attention of approximately 85% of our population so that workers can know their rights and entitlements. I have heard those advertisements, which are extremely good and informative.

Much good work has been done on improving the protection of workers, and the many social partners acknowledge that with us in the House. The employment agency regulation Bill is a little more complicated. There can be naked exploitation of migrant workers through employment agencies but the Bill looks to tie down in legislation equality for these workers, as is desired by all sides in the EU directive on temporary agency work that must provide for a level playing field for employers throughout the Union.

There is a danger in Ireland that we could go from insufficient protection of agency workers to being exposed because of derogations in the said directive for collective agreements. For those of us interested, article 5.3 outlines that very succinctly. Article 5.4 of the proposed directive is a derogation from equal treatment in respect of short-term temporary agency assignments of a maximum of six weeks. Many people feel this timespan is far too short.

As other speakers have outlined, flexibility and recognition of certain labour market realities, such as seasonal workers, particularly in the fruit and vegetable and aquaculture sector, must be recognised in any agreed directive. I am sure that will be progressed.

The employment agency regulation Bill of 2008 will modernise the regulation of the employment agency and I welcome that as a very positive move for employees. We will have a greater system of licensing for agencies, a statutory code of practice which they must follow and a monitoring committee comprised of representatives of the social partners.

I welcome other aspects of this Bill aimed at strengthening and enhancing the directive and the enforcement of employment rights of agency workers. I welcome the statutory footing of the National Employment Rights Authority and the new employment agency regulation Bill. I look forward to a carefully balanced European Union directive on agency workers' rights. It is fitting we should strive for the aspirations of the 1916 Proclamation to be fulfilled, "equal rights and equal opportunities to all citizens". In Ireland we have the opportunity to secure that as we review Towards 2016.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is one speaker left in the slot after Deputy John Curran and there are 14 and a half minutes left.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. At the outset I compliment both Sinn Féin and Labour for putting down the motion. In some respects it is a pity we will have to vote on the motion as the issue is fundamentally important.

Considering what has happened in Ireland in the past decade, we have seen significant growth in the economy and virtually full employment. We have also seen a big demand for workers. That rate of growth will not be repeated over the next decade so we now stand at a crossroads. The decisions we make and implement now do not just have historical significance — we reflect the issues as they have arisen — but they will also indicate how we will manage the future.

Agency workers are not just confined to the hotel and construction sectors, as highlighted in the motion. They are employed right across the economy in areas such as accounting, information technology, pharmaceuticals, secretarial and health services. I personally know people who for one reason or another have left permanent employment to take up agency work. This may be a result of the degree of flexibility offered etc. In some particular areas, agency work has proven to be very effective and some — not all — have opted for it. There are some areas that have difficulties.

Provisional figures indicate about 2% of the workforce in Ireland are engaged in agency work. This is a significant number of people and considering there are 2 million in the workforce, it comes to approximately 40,000 people. In relative terms the figure is low but it is important agency workers are protected in the workplace by employment law.

Agency workers are entitled to decent and fair standards of employment. It should be noted that in the past ten years, employment rights have been extended to cover the protection of working conditions of temporary workers. By extension, that includes agency workers.

I appreciate that many agency workers may and do feel vulnerable in their employment. They may feel employment law does not apply to them and they may be fired and hired at will. They may feel they can be paid any rate with no regard for the minimum wage. They may be afraid to complain. We pass legislation in this House to address those fears. However, without adequate monitoring we can pass all the legislation we want and not achieve the results we desire.

In the 15-year period from 1991 to 2006, the workforce of the country doubled from approximately 1 million to 2 million people. Importantly, the dynamic of the workforce changed radically at the same time. Women returned to the workforce in greater numbers and migrant workers made up a growing percentage of it. Part-time and agency work became a growing feature of the workforce, as did subcontracting and so-called self-employed subcontractors. What did not keep pace with the radical change in the workforce was the number of labour inspectors. I am pleased that in this regard, the National Employment Rights Authority is now up and running. When it has its full complement, it will have 90 labour inspectors. Reflecting the times we are living in, ten of the inspectors will have specific foreign language skills.

From time to time we hear stories suggesting unfair or improper treatment of all workers, not just those of the agency kind. Rather than repeat these stories for a headline, any of us with such information should pass on such complaints to the National Employment Rights Authority. They should be investigated thoroughly and the appropriate sanctions taken.

Agency and part-time work is here to stay, as it is a necessary feature of the diverse work practices necessary to sustain our economy. We should not take employment creation for granted as we must work at it. In the challenging economic times we face, we should redouble our efforts in that regard. We must be conscious of the needs and requirements of employers and recognise the varying degrees of flexibility required in some sectors. While recognising the requirements we must meet our obligations and protect the rights of agency and part-time workers. I welcome the fact that the Government is committed to the early delivery of further primary legislation aimed at enhanced compliance with employment rights generally and including legislation to regulate the operation of employment agencies and the statutory code of practice for employment agencies. The previous legislation on this goes back to the early 1970s.

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kelleher, said last night that he and the Minister, Deputy Martin, are considering the final elements of the proposals for the draft scheme of a Bill to regulate the employment agency sector. It will be presented for the Government's consideration soon. Some might argue we have waited too long for this.

I am glad that the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher is here because often the relevant Minister is not present in the Chamber. I spoke recently to representatives of SIPTU in my constituency who are concerned about the replacement of existing workers, with part-time, agency or other workers. We did not discuss specific cases but they need not have come to my office to say this because in a constituency such as mine many are employed as labourers, particularly in the building industry where activity has declined significantly. The fears of the SIPTU representatives echo those that individual constituents had brought to my office.

We must pay attention to the displacement of workers when net employment this year will grow by 500 jobs per week compared with 1,000 or 1,500 per week in previous years. I have spoken about this in private with the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher. This issue was less significant before now but as economic growth slows the Minister of State should be warned that we are seeing it trickle through and as a Government we need to deal with it.

While I raised concerns regarding safeguards for agency workers, I wish to acknowledge the significant legislative changes of the past decade. The proposed new legislation that the Minister of State outlined last night, the establishment of the National Employment Rights Authority, with the provision of 90 labour inspectors, are welcome developments, and on that basis I support the Government's amendment tonight.

Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak here and contribute to this debate. It is important to mention some facts about integration. I appreciate that the focus tonight is on workers' rights but in the case of migrant workers we must also deal with family and other related issues. The number of non-Irish people living here stands at 10% of the population according to the official census figures of last year but the Central Statistics Office was quick to point out before Christmas last that this is an underestimate of the population which could be anything between 12% and 15%. We must devise a system that can respond to the needs of migrant workers and put them to good effect to develop our labour market and the productive capacity of our economy.

Half a million of the people living in Ireland today were not born here. That is a higher percentage by a considerable margin than is the case for the United States, the United Kingdom or France which have a much greater history of inward migration than we do. It is a tribute to the people who have migrated here and to those already living here that we have not experienced some of the problems evident in other European countries despite the short time of ten years within which migration has occurred here. We welcome people and value their contribution to life here in every sense, economic, social and cultural. We have an obligation to assist people to integrate into society not just because they contribute to the labour force but also because migration and how countries manage migration is and will be a defining way to manage social stability.

It is not often acknowledged in this House that social stability, through the partnership process created by Mr. Charles Haughey in 1987, has been the anchor for recent Irish prosperity. It has defined our success. Many have concentrated on other issues such as tax cuts but the partnership process has guaranteed rights, put minimum wage legislation in place and guaranteed, protected and developed a culture of developing the rights of workers.

We have an obligation to assist people to integrate within Irish life not just for moral reasons but for productive and capacity reasons such as improving the capacity of our trained workforce. The establishment of the National Employment Rights Agency is important for Irish and non-Irish workers alike. The agency has employed ten people with foreign language skills, an appropriate and proper response by such an agency to the diverse nature of our workforce and society.

I am sure I was not the only Member to be shocked by reports of recent cases of exploitation of vulnerable workers. The only consolation anyone can take from these cases is that the system came to the assistance of the injured party. Hopefully the new agency will be better equipped to detect and deter further wrongdoing. I join my colleagues in urging anyone who suspects exploitation of workers to report their suspicions to this new agency.

The implementation of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill will also assist vulnerable migrant workers. It is important that people see the positive side of this Bill which is going through both Houses. It will provide for permanent residence in Ireland, giving migrants every entitlement short of voting in general elections and availing of consular services when abroad. All other entitlements enjoyed by citizens will flow to those who have long-term residence here. The Bill is a ground-breaking attempt to deal with what will be a defining feature of Irish life for the next ten to 30 years, inward migration due to affluence and our improving economy and society.

The establishment of my office for integration to co-ordinate the actions of Departments and other service providers will help the vulnerable migrant worker. One of the best ways to improve life for migrant workers is to improve their language skills. In primary and post-primary schools we employ more than 1,900 language support teachers, compared with 262 in the school year of 2001-2. That is a significant jump over a short period. The Department of Education and Science provides this service at a cost of the order of €120 million a year. The Department and my office are also addressing those who are beyond school-leaving age. Many VECs already provide English language classes and public libraries do valuable work, for instance, the work of Dublin Corporation through the ILAC library.

More needs to be done in this area and my office and the Department of Education and Science have engaged independent consultants to review the area to help the development of policy and the delivery of language classes to adult migrants. The estimated demand for English language learning is four times the supply. There is a major challenge to ramp up the level of service provision, to allow the many migrants to make an even greater contribution to our productive capacity.

According to the CSO data the profile of the migrants is distinctly different from that which has obtained traditionally in large European countries. They are predominantly from central and eastern Europe, of Judeo-Christian background, half are Catholic, in the key working age demographic, 28 to 44, and are overqualified for the jobs they do. Therein lies the challenge for this Government, and I suspect everybody in the House, of how to develop the productive capacity of those who are overqualified for the type of jobs they do.

We must break down the barriers that prevent them from progressing within our society and in so doing, even from a self-interested, economic and rather narrow perspective, we can improve the productive capacity of our economy and society.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's approval, I wish to share time with Deputies Kathleen Lynch, Martin Ferris and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

This is a particularly important motion that deals with the plight of temporary agency workers. I believe this motion essentially is about greed and exploitation. It is about the trafficking of migrant workers and the exploitation of Irish workers. It is about modern day slavery, as Jack O'Connor, president of SIPTU, stated when he recently described the burgeoning practice of employing agency workers, particularly in the construction and catering industries, the services industry and seasonal work.

Ireland has aided and abetted this practice and abuse for more than a decade. Tens of thousands of workers from eastern Europe have been recruited by employment agencies within and without Ireland. By 2006, an estimated 30,000 such workers had been recruited to work in Ireland through more than 500 employment agencies. I believe the figure is much higher and although anecdotally this appears to be the case, no proper Central Statistics Office, CSO, figures are available and no labour force survey has been carried out. The Minister stated last night that he was about to conduct a labour force survey, which would provide a more true version of the real position. Moreover, the Minister of State with responsibility for integration policy has just told Members that effectively, the CSO figures are guesstimates. In other words, the figures in respect of migrant workers, immigration and the families of migrant workers and immigrants are far higher than the CSO figures with which Members have been supplied. The inability of the Minister for Education and Science to make provision for primary school places also indicates that this is the case.

Agency workers have no job security, no access to sick pay or pension entitlements or to other non-pay benefits. Their rates of pay invariably are much lower than those enjoyed by the direct workforce. They are subject to exploitation as a pool of cheap labour. However, exploitation of agency workers is not only a problem for the workers concerned as it also poses a serious threat to the rest of the permanent workforce, whose pay and conditions of employment can, and eventually will, be undermined by the unregulated use of agency workers. It depresses pay for all and facilitates the race to the bottom.

The Government, regardless of its protestations, has stubbornly refused to introduce necessary legislation to have employment agencies licensed in Ireland, to regulate the practice of recruitment and placement of agency workers or to provide for equal treatment in respect of pay, conditions and employment status of agency workers. I believe it suits certain sections of the business community to have a large pool of unprotected migrant and Irish workers recruited on the basis of temporary agency employment instead of permanent employment. It provides maximum flexibility with the minimum of security and constitutes a capitalist seventh heaven.

I refer to an article that appears in today's edition of The Irish Times by Brendan McGinty, the director of industrial relations and human resources at the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC. Both the text and the article's heading, which states "Flexible labour market crucial to economy", are interesting. The article is peppered with the words "flexible" and "flexibility". However, there is no mention of security. Mr. McGinty is talking about a flexible labour market without reference to security for the worker, which is what is most lacking at present. The article's sub-heading states: "Restricting employers from using temporary workers serves no one's interest." While this is true, no one advocates restricting employers from using temporary workers. I advocate regulation, licensing, equal treatment and rights. I am not talking about restrictions. I recognise that fine employment is provided by agencies to agency workers in sectors such as information technology, nursing and so on. However, there are whole swathes of vulnerable areas in which there is now a burgeoning industry in agency workers, about which I am concerned.

In 2002, the European Commission, recognising that abuse was taking place, decided to regulate agency workers to prevent such abuse. Consequently, more than five years ago, the much-maligned European Commission drew up the draft directive on temporary agency workers, which provided for a qualifying period or "a grace period" of six weeks before the principle of equal treatment would come into operation. Ireland, Britain and a third member state have opposed that directive for the past six years, thereby depriving temporary workers of rights in the workplace, creating an inferior category of worker, depressing pay levels and replacing direct employment and a permanent workforce.

Incidentally, the Minister of State might be interested to learn that Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Lisbon treaty goes a long way towards outlawing the current exploitation of agency workers. Subsection 3 states: "Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of the citizens of the Union." Clearly, it would be very difficult for this Government to deny equal treatment for equal work once the Lisbon reform treaty is in place.

The Irish trade union movement has long campaigned for a fair and equitable solution to the current iniquitous situation. It has experienced many cases of abuse taking place in respect of agency workers, particularly in the construction and catering industries, in the services industry and among seasonal workers. As talks begin on a new social partnership agreement, the Government should do the honourable thing. It should draw up the necessary legislation in consultation with the trade union movement. I welcome the promise made last night — at least this debate elicited that commitment — for new primary legislation to replace the outdated Employment Agency Act 1971 and to provide for a proper inspectorate and code of practice. This should be passed by the Oireachtas before the ratification of the Lisbon reform treaty and before the new talks on social partnership are completed. For too often in the past, Irish people, and Irish workers in particular, have been obliged to wait for the European Union to vindicate their rights when successive Governments have refused or have been negligent in so doing. Were the Government truly committed to social partnership, it now would seize the initiative while it can.

The Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher, is probably aware that an employment Council of Ministers meeting will be held on 29 February. Another will not take place until the end of June, which is a long time away. Were the Minister to give a commitment that he will proactively raise the issue of agency workers at that meeting, it would be most welcome. He attended the last meeting and I expect he will attend the next one. He should indicate that the Government is withdrawing its opposition to the European Union directive on agency workers.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Deputy Willie Penrose on tabling this motion. Although that might appear somewhat hollow as he is my party colleague, it is important nevertheless. For as long as I have known Deputy Penrose, he always has been a strong and highly vocal supporter of the underdog.

History will judge us harshly. When the Celtic tiger first started to roar, there were no agency workers in Ireland. The circumstances that led to the boom in Ireland's economy were not achieved with the help of agency workers, shoddy practices or lack of protection for workers. I know someone with lifelong involvement in the labour movement who often makes the point that protection for workers in Ireland 20 years ago was better than is the case at present. For example, if one entered employment 20 years ago, one was guaranteed a pension. Twenty years ago, when one took up employment one was told one's rights and that one should join a union that would protect one, but those protections no longer exist. Twenty years ago, the current Taoiseach told us he would introduce a Bill that would ensure workers would be protected and would have the right to join unions. We are now building our economy and its wealth on the backs of others, which is despicable.

I know people who worked in England in the 1950s for no more than five or six years and the pensions department contacted them and told them that, as a result of their having done so, they are entitled to a pension, albeit small. I refer to the old enemy across the way that we often blame for all our woes. However, it treated us with respect and decency when we went there to work, which is all we ask in respect of those who come to Ireland to work.

There are 600 recruitment agencies in Ireland, which has a population of 4 million. Poland, which has a population of 40 million, has 700 such agencies. One may ask whether the agencies in Ireland are here for the good of their health or because they know we need them. They are here because they know there is money to be made and people to be exploited.

I listened to the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, speak about integration. I live in Blackpool, which has a large number of foreign workers, many of whom are from eastern Europe. The Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, knows the area well and will know there is no integration and that immigrants come and go. If one says "hello" to them on the street, they will reply, but there is no integration because they do not feel welcome or wanted and they know they are being exploited. They will not stay in Ireland.

The home countries of immigrants have infrastructure that we do not yet have and they had it before they joined the European Union. As soon as these countries get up off their knees, their emigrants will return home. If we do not start looking after them, it will undermine the protections our workers should enjoy. We should start telling Irish workers to look out for their fellow employees because as long as their employers get away with exploiting other workers, it puts their own jobs in jeopardy. This undercuts the wage structure and protections for Irish workers. It is not fair on good employers and they should not have to compete with others who are clearly not paying the same salaries or affording the same protections.

When the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, goes to the meeting of the Council of Ministers, he will have to tell the attendees that Ireland withdraws its objection. Objecting is not becoming of us as a nation whose citizens went everywhere, built economies abroad and were treated fairly and decently when doing so. There was no Irish man or woman in England who was paid less than the English citizen with whom he or she worked side by side. It just did not happen and they were afforded the same protections. If there was exploitation, it was usually by our own.

It does not serve us well to allow people to be exploited. We should prevent it because we can. We will need our economic migrants in the future and this need will be far greater than their need for us. Whenever I consider such matters, I first ask myself how I would feel if I, my daughter, son or sister were exploited. I know the answer: I would not like it, I would feel abused and used. The people to whom I refer feel they do not have the right to protest. They are not here because they love us or for the scenery, and God knows they are not here for the weather, they are here because they do not have a choice. It is immoral to exploit someone in such circumstances. We should not be surprised by it but we really need to ensure it does not continue.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is clear that those who warned about the consequences of the last enlargement of the European Union, as outlined in the Nice treaty with regard to what the promised "mobility of capital and labour" would mean, were correct. It means there are now fewer restrictions on employers in that they can either move their enterprise to another country or gain access to cheap labour from other EU states. As Sinn Féin and others warned at the time of ratification of the treaty, the process was designed to facilitate a race to the bottom in which conditions for workers, hard won by trade union movements, would be undermined by the employment of people earning less than the norm and, in many cases, without the traditional protections that workers in more developed states enjoyed in regard to labour legislation and union membership.

The case of Irish Ferries probably best encapsulated the kinds of forces that were at work and the motivations of many employers in trumpeting the benefits of European enlargement. The same incentives lie behind the support of most employers for the reform treaty. It is rightly seen as a further loosening of national sovereignty and social control on capital that gives big business even greater freedom at the expense of workers.

It is interesting, therefore, that more and more trade unionists are realising that issues such as those under discussion are intimately connected with the loosening of control. ICTU declared only last week that it might oppose the proposed treaty because of the issue of agency workers and the growing feeling on the part of trade union members here that the downward pressure on wages and job displacement are intimately connected to enlargement in the interest of big business. IBEC has no doubt that this is the case and will once again mobilise its considerable resources in support of the treaty.

The issue of job displacement has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. I was approached a year ago by workers in a factory in Tralee who became aware that not only had the company they worked for advertised for new staff exclusively through an agency in Poland but that the workers who were employed subsequently were earning less than them. They did not join the trade union of which the local workers were members.

When I pursued this through questions to the Minister, I was informed that the employer in question had not broken any law as he was entitled to advertise anywhere within the European Union and was under no obligation to advertise the jobs locally. The serious aspect of this matter is that local people had submitted curricula vitae and had done interviews for vacancies that had arisen previously and were not even notified thereafter. Since advertisements for the jobs in question appeared only in agencies in Poland, local workers could not apply for the positions that became available. That this could occur while the existing workforce was unaware of the conditions under which the Polish workers were employed illustrates the abuse to which the recruitment of staff through agencies can lead.

Such practices have taken place in many locations around the country. There have even been cases of entire workforces being laid off and replaced by non-Irish workers employed through agencies. One such example, which came to light because the workforce was unionised, involved Doyle Concrete in Kildare where 16 members of SIPTU were sacked and replaced by lower paid non-national workers. This came to light because SIPTU was involved, but displacement and attacks on wages and conditions generally escape national attention.

We are all familiar with sectors, such as those involving hotels, bars, catering and cleaning, in which the Irish worker traditionally employed has to a large extent disappeared. The impact of displacement in these sectors has perhaps been somewhat obscured by the fact the jobs in question were often taken by middle-aged women or students on a part-time basis. The income earned was crucial, particularly for many working-class households. Now workers in those sectors are almost invariably non-national workers employed through contract agencies. One wonders what is the economic incentive for employers in replacing one relatively low paid and poorly protected group of workers with a group of workers who are even more vulnerable. One of the concerns expressed by the union members in Tralee at that time was that the agency workers employed there refused to tell them how much they were being paid. Obviously this was done on the instructions of the employer and it raised suspicions about their being paid less than the prevailing rate.

Anyone who suggested that employers may be employing people at such low rates, or even below the minimum wage, have been scoffed at as if there was no question that any person with money here might evade legislation designed to ensure he or she abides by proper standards. Unfortunately, such fears were confirmed by figures recently released which showed that in 2006 and 2007, 296 cases of employers paying below the minimum wage were detected, but only one prosecution was taken. That is hardly a major deterrent for unscrupulous employers willing to access cheap labour through agencies. It is also likely, given the relative lack of inspectors available to monitor adherence to wage legislation, that the above figures represent a gross underestimate of the scale of abuse involved. It is clear the type of legislation proposed in this motion is urgently required.

Further proof of that, if it was needed, was provided by a comment made last night at a meeting of Louth County Council by the chairperson who claimed that non-Irish workers should be paid less for doing the same job. He was responding to a Sinn Féin motion on the same issue under discussion here. Furthermore, this man is an employer. Irish people who were forced to emigrate from this State during the past 100 years worked for similar employers who unscrupulously exploited their labour to the extent that some workers here are currently being exploited.

This legislation needs to be put through. The Government will be as guilty as unscrupulous employers unless it proactively pursues legislation that protects the rights of workers and, thus, workers from being exploited.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is maith an rud é go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí Morgan agus Penrose, a chuir an rún seo os ár gcomhair.

The primary focus of this debate is on the need for urgent legislation to end the abuse of agency workers. It is about getting a seemingly oblivious Government to understand the urgency attached to this matter. It is also about getting it to appreciate the impact of the current position on ordinary workers whose standards of living are being gravely undermined by the lack of legislation for which we are calling in this motion.

The assertions made by Ministers last night that they are committed to decent standards of employment ring very hollow while at the same time they are attempting to downplay this serious issue and minimise the extent of the problems related to it. The Government and employers' representatives have so far refused to go beyond legislating for what are mainly procedural issues about the organisation and operation of the agencies. Both the Government and employers try to convince us that working as an agency worker is a lifestyle choice for these workers when the opposite is the case. Most of these workers would prefer a permanent contract and have little choice but to work as temporary agency workers.

I was astounded to hear the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs raise some doubts about what the unions have been saying. He said there were "strong assertion from trade unions that agency workers are being used increasingly to undermine basic. . .standards". As to whether they are true, those are the doubts he raised. The Minister of State is clearly not doing his job if he is unaware of the plethora of specific cases that have been highlighted by a range of unions. The Government, as its amendment suggests and any reading of it would confirm, is in denial about the abuse of agency workers.

Last night the Minister, Deputy Martin, said "it is too broad a generalisation to equate agency workers with migrant workers". He is correct, but it is grossly misleading to suggest that this is what we, in Opposition, or the trade unions, have been saying. We have been clear in saying this is an issue for all workers, with more Irish workers finding themselves faced with little prospect but to accept employment as an agency worker because no legislation on this area has been introduced since 1971.

The contributions of senior and junior Ministers to the debate last night confirmed what Sinn Féin has long argued, that protecting and defending workers' rights is not a priority for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We are being asked to bring forward cases of exploitation yet only one employer has been prosecuted for failing to pay the minimum wage. Almost 300 have been found guilty of this practice over the past two years but have not been prosecuted. Clearly, exploitative employers are not being held to account.

Again, and against all international evidence, the issue of competitiveness was cited by the Minister, Deputy Martin, as a stumbling block to the legislation that is needed for workers, if current standards of living are to be protected. The message must be that we can have both competitiveness and strong protections of workers' rights.

In 2005, tens of thousands of people who supported workers took to the streets to protest at Irish Ferries' plans to replace its employees with workers supplied by an offshore employment agency. Irish Ferries wanted to pay rates substantially less than the minimum wage and the public were rightly outraged by that. The dispute occurred within six months of the Gama Construction scandal, which revealed what was happening to Turkish workers employed here through another offshore employment agency.

Ghlac an Rialtas aréir agus roimhe go bhfuil gá le athrú iomlán a dhéanamh ar an Employment Agency Act 1971. Níl an Rialtas tar éis a rá linn nó le éinne eile, nó a léiriú trí aon moladh a chuir chun tosaigh, cad a bheidh sa reachtaíocht. Tá buairt orainn, ón méid a bhí le rá aréir agus roimhe sin, nach mbeidh aon fiúntas sa reachtaíocht má thagann sé ón Rialtas seo.

The Government has known for years about the problems that have developed around agency workers, yet it has done nothing to legislate to protect them or address the position of agency workers being used to casualise work places and depress wages. The Government has not, as it claimed last night, adopted a constructive approach to the proposed EU directive on agency workers. Yet it is important to emphasise that this State does not have to wait for that directive to be agreed, it can legislate now. That is for what this motion calls. It can legislate for the equal treatment principle. Equality already applies in Ireland in respect of fixed-term workers and part-time workers. It is not, or at least it should not be, a huge step to develop legal provisions that would provide that agency workers be guaranteed equal treatment.

I will summarise what we are seeking and what our motion contains. We seek legislation that provides for agency workers to be entitled to pay parity; that allows for the entitlements and conditions of their directly employed co-workers, such as sick days, holiday leave, protection from dismissal and company benefits; and that allows for trade union membership. We need legislation that prohibits the use of agency workers in certain situations, that is, to replace workers on strike; and that makes the agency and the user company jointly responsible and liable so workers can ensure enforcement of their rights. Such legislation must prohibit agencies from charging the employee for an aspect of their recruitment or placement process and prohibit unfair discriminating "profiling" practices. We need legislation that makes it an offence for employers to use unlicensed agencies and requires an agency operating in Ireland, where it may be based, to be compliant not only with the law in Ireland but European law, whichever is the highest standard. We seek legislation that will increase sanctions on employers who ignore workers' rights and improve redress for the workers concerned. Also, it must place restrictions on the number of times employers can fill a post with an agency worker before he or she becomes permanent. How many agencies are contracted to supply workers to the State sector to overcome the public service embargo? That is a question for the Minister of State. How many agency workers work for the State, and why not grant them permanent contracts?

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I open my remarks by saying that the Government side has listened carefully to the useful and important contributions on temporary agency workers, from various sides, both last night and this evening. Contrary to the common assertion from most Opposition Deputies during last night's debate, this Government is deeply committed to decent standards of employment, and that these should also apply to temporary agency workers. Significant and substantial measures have been taken over the past ten years to underpin employment standards, including the introduction of the national minimum wage, which is currently at a level in Ireland that is among the highest in the European Union, and which applies to temporary agency workers. This is backed up with strong employment rights enforcement through the full redress mechanisms of the State. Our colleagues in the benches opposite have noted the contributions from the Government side with particular reference to the protection already afforded to agency workers by existing employment law and to the fact that commitments entered into by Government in the context of the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, will shortly be reflected in new legislative proposals now being finalised.

In considering the contributions to the debate, I have been struck by the apparent belief in some quarters that Irish society and employment law does not provide any rights or protection for agency workers — with particular reference to agency workers from overseas. This perception was most surprising as the laws in question have been enacted in this House. Lest there be any doubt, I reiterate that the full range of Irish employment legislation applies to agency workers and others from abroad posted to Ireland temporarily by their foreign based employers. This Government would not tolerate the emergence of a two-tier system.

Having regard to the large corpus of legislation already in place, it is undoubtedly true that the rapidly changing economy and steady evolution of new working relationships has increased the potential for abuse of work practices and for exploitation of those not aware of their rights, or how to vindicate them. The Government's response to this reality has been to avail of the social partnership process — to agree with the social partners a new framework to bring about greater compliance with employment law and provide the administrative means to give effect to these commitments. Already the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, has started work, with a significant increase in staff and a regional structure. A new Bill to give effect to the new compliance model is being finalised. NERA's mission is to achieve a national culture of employment rights compliance. One of the ways it aims to achieve this mission is by providing information on employment rights and obligations to employees and employers in a factual and impartial manner. The effect of this should not be underestimated.

In the light of recent public comments it is worth noting that very few cases of abuse of agency workers have been brought to NERA's attention. The Employment Appeals Tribunal has also seen very few agency cases.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It cannot deal with those cases of outlaw dealings.

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The rights commissioner service of the Labour Relations Commission has only seen a handful of cases each year involving agency personnel. I am sure that Deputies will agree this pattern is very much at odds with the situation as represented in public debate in recent months. A clear message from the debate this evening must be that the very considerable resources put in place by this House should be used, when necessary, for the greatest effect. I suggest to Deputies that the House can be proud of its response to challenges encountered in the area of employment rights and employment law compliance. The work, of course, is not finished and the House will before long have the opportunity to consider proposals included in the forthcoming employment law compliance Bill and the employment agency regulation Bill, which will replace legislation from 1971 and meet the Government's commitment to new legislation set out in the social partnership agreement.

I must reject the Opposition contention that the position adopted by Ireland in EU negotiations to date on the proposed directive on temporary agency work is misplaced. In our negotiations in Brussels we have not been seeking a special position for Ireland. We are simply seeking balance in this important European instrument which respects the rights of employees and employers alike, and the different legal and industrial frameworks and traditions in Europe. I suggest to Deputies there is no benefit to Ireland in putting ourselves at a disadvantage to our continental counterparts in this area. This will do nothing to safeguard jobs and grow employment and is certainly not beneficial in the current challenging economic climate. I commend the amendment to the House.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sharing time with Deputy Gilmore, with the permission of the House.

On behalf of Sinn Féin I want to thank everyone who has participated in this debate, particularly those who have spoken in support of the motion, who will vote for it here this evening. This is an historic motion and debate, as it is the first such jointly tabled by the Labour Party and Sinn Féin in the Oireachtas. More important, it is a statement of intent that exploitation will not be tolerated. It is an act of solidarity with those workers who are being abused and the trade union movement which represents them.

The Government has refused to acknowledge the gravity of the issue we are raising. It has refused to accept the extent of the problems, despite mounting evidence and the specific testimonies gathered by the trade union movement. When Ministers exhibit such ignorance of the issue, is it any wonder it is not being dealt with? The Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, in particular, has attempted to confuse the issue and give the misleading impression that agency workers have access to rights and entitlements, which they clearly do not. The Minister of State tried to sow further confusion by stating last evening that migrant workers have the same protection in legislation as Irish nationals. That is not the issue. Agency workers, whatever their nationality, are being denied the full protection of labour law.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, has no evidence that the exploitation of agency workers is precipitating a race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions. I can only ask what planet they are all living on because this is happening all over Ireland, and sadly, all over Europe. The trade union movement is united in demanding that the Government legislates for the principle of equal treatment of agency workers. Outside the Dáil, the leaders of the largest unions in the country, including SIPTU, Unite, IMPACT and Mandate, gathered to demand that Government Deputies demonstrate their concern for workers' rights by supporting this motion from Sinn Féin and the Labour Party. These unions and their members have identified a significant growth in the use of employment agencies across the economy, particularly in unskilled and low skilled sectors. All the evidence suggests that the 2% figure which the Minister quoted as the percentage of the workforce who are agency workers, is a serious underestimation. These figures are a number of years out of date. It is likely that there has been an increase similar to that in Britain, where the TUC did a report in 2006 which found that the figures in Britain had risen from 2.6% in 2002 to 5% in 2006.

Exploitation of agency workers is a particular problem in the construction sector, in hotels and services, retail distribution, transport and logistics, food processing and the meat and mushroom sectors. However, I want to put on record this evening my welcome of the recent initiative by Monaghan Mushrooms that deserves to be both recognised and applauded.

The Minister asks where is the evidence. In 2002 a report from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions found that temporary agency workers earned only 68% of the wages of their directly employed colleagues. They had less entitlement and control over the work they do than directly employed counterparts. This is not about the country of origin of workers, it must be emphasised. It is about agency workers versus directly employed workers, full stop, end of story. That was clearly missed by the Minister of State's contribution last evening and that of the Minister, Deputy Martin. as clearly evidenced in the amendment tabled to the motion jointly presented by Labour and Sinn Féin for discussion. The Government cannot, in all seriousness, expect the trade union movement to enter a new round of social partnership negotiations while this issue remains unaddressed nor should unions be forced to bargain in order to have this issue addressed.

Recognising the short time I have left, we are demanding legislation on agency workers, and its content is crucial. The Government says it will bring forward legislation to address the concerns during the course of this debate, but if the Government thinks it can get away with bringing in legislation that deals with this issue in a half-hearted way, it is deeply mistaken. The Taoiseach and his Ministers, from listening to their contributions last night, are, like their leader in Government, masters of mutter when it comes to confusing the issues. It is well known that they have been blocking progress on agency workers at EU level, yet they pretend they are part of a search for a consensus. They clearly have no wish to confront exploitative employers, especially in the construction sector, but their foot-dragging penalises agency workers and their families. It allows the scourge of exploitation to spread in our economy and it penalises good employers who provide decent wages and conditions.

Workers and trade unions and progressive elected representatives of the Labour and Sinn Féin parties and others, I hope, who will join us here this evening, are not prepared to drop this issue. We will pursue this Government until it is forced to relent and to vindicate the right of all agency workers without exception.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In concluding this debate I thank my colleague, Deputy Willie Penrose, for proposing the motion and Deputy Arthur Morgan for seconding it. I also thank his Sinn Féin colleagues for co-signing the motion with the Labour Party. I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate in which, it is fair to say, there has been broad agreement on the necessity for legislation to protect the rights of temporary agency workers. I compliment the trade union movement on campaigning on this issue and engaging with public representatives about it.

I understand very fully the nature of negotiations that trade unions enter with employers and Government and the nature of the negotiations that lead to a social partnership agreement. I believe strongly that the issues of pay, issues of the wide gaps which are opening up in the levels of reward that people get for work and issues relating to the exploitation of workers and the rights of workers are issues that are wider than those who directly participate in negotiations about pay, whether at local or national level. Those issues should increasingly be debated in this House. We have serious issues of inequality in our society, inequality and unfairness in the workplace and in the labour market that require to be publicly debated and the forum for that is this House.

We have made progress on this issue in the course of the past two days. When we returned to this House after Christmas, the promised legislation to give rights to agency workers had been relegated by the Government to division three in the legislative programme. I am pleased that as a result of the tabling of this motion over these two nights, the Government is now promising to bring forward that legislation to have it published and dealt with in this session, which is what I understood the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs promised yesterday evening.

I express some caution on two fronts. First, there are many precedents for Government promising to bring forward legislation in the heat of debate during Private Members' motions and, when the heat of debate has died down and those who are interested in the issue have left the Visitors Gallery, the foot goes off the pedal and the legislation disappears on to the backburner. The second caution I express has to do with the small print in the Government amendment to the motion. The Government is proposing to introduce primary legislation "aimed at enhanced compliance and enforcement of employment rights generally, including legislation to regulate the operation of employment agencies and a statutory code of practice for employment agencies". That does not commit to what is required in the legislation, which is the principle of equal treatment being applied in respect of the employment of agency workers and a comprehensive provision for the enforcement of those rights.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With that caution in mind, the Labour Party intends to progress this issue somewhat further. I am disappointed the Government is insisting on amending the motion because, given the degree of agreement in the contributions made, including by Ministers and members of the Government parties, I thought this was an occasion when the Government might have accepted the motion. If the Government insists on pressing its amendment and in effect defeating the motion tabled by the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, the Labour Party will progress this issue by introducing our own Bill to protect temporary agency workers. My colleague, Deputy Willie Penrose, has been working on this issue for some time and has been preparing legislation for introduction in the House to give to temporary agency workers the equal treatment which they deserve, to give them the fairness and the protection of their rights which they and their representatives are seeking. The Labour Party has completed its preparation of that Bill which we will publish next week and introduce in the House on First Stage at the first available opportunity.

This is an important issue which cannot be allowed to rest on the basis of a promise from Government. Too often in the past, we have seen Government being all things to all people on issues like this.

I do not intend to introduce a contrarian note into this discussion but I disagree with the point made by Deputy Ferris where he attributes the difficulty here to the Lisbon treaty or to the European Union. Our problem with this issue is much closer to home. As Deputy Penrose pointed out last night and as is contained in the very fine document which has been circulated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, 18 member states of the European Union have domestic legislation which protects the rights of temporary agency workers. The European Union has been attempting to introduce a directive to give rights to temporary agency workers and the Government is just one of three governments which, despite what the Minister of State said this evening, has been blocking that legislation. It is in this country that the legislation needs to be introduced and it is here in this Parliament that it needs to be enacted to give those rights to temporary agency workers, irrespective of whether they are Irish agency workers or from elsewhere.

This issue is critically important now as this country is turning an economic corner. It was very easy for Government to be all things to all people when times were very good; to be on the side of the worker, business, the entrepreneur, the builder and the housebuyer, all at the one time, but we are entering an era where certain choices will have to be made. One of those choices is whether we as a country and the Government and its agencies, and this House, stand by those who are most vulnerable in changing economic circumstances. Those who are most vulnerable are those who earn the lowest levels of pay, those in the most insecure employment, those first out the door when things begin to tighten in an enterprise. In this case, they are the people who are employed on an agency basis.

The issue of agency workers, which is the subject directly addressed by tonight's motion, is one that requires urgent attention. It is estimated there may be as many as 120,000 workers involved. I heard the Minister say yesterday that it is 2% of the workforce, which is not quite in line with the point made by the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who effectively acknowledged that a very large number of undocumented workers are working in economy and need to be protected.

I welcome the supportive comments made on this motion tonight. I hope the Government will stand by its commitment to introduce the legislation. However, just in case it does not, the Labour Party will introduce its own Bill on the issue and we will pursue it at the first available opportunity in the House.