Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)

I oppose the Second Stage reading of the Protection of Employees (Agency Workers) (No. 2) Bill 2008. However, I can advise the House that the subject matter of this Private Members' Bill is to be considered with the social partners in the course of the forthcoming pay talks. A number of significant matters require to be considered with the social partners and the Bill before the House is premature in this context.

I note the contents of the proposed Private Members' Bill, the stated purpose of which is to provide for the protection of agency workers, to require the principle of equal treatment to be applied in respect of their employment, to make provision for the enforcement of their rights and to provide for connected matters. It seeks, as a general condition, to provide that employment agency workers who have completed six weeks of continuous work or service with an end-user or associated employer shall not, in respect of conditions of employment, be treated in a less favourable manner than a comparable employee.

Senators may be aware that the issue of equal treatment is at the heart of the stalled draft EU directive on temporary agency work which did not win sufficient support at the European Council in Brussels on 5 December 2007. The draft directive proposes that equal treatment with regular employees in the end-user enterprise to whom agency workers are assigned would apply, except in respect of short-term six-week assignments, which is similar to that now being proposed in the Private Members' Bill. However, the directive provides a form of derogation from equal treatment in terms of pay for member states which have in place legally binding collective agreements negotiated by the social partners at member state level. This means that in certain instances other member states can, and do, avail of a six-month qualifying period whereas countries such as Ireland and the UK, which have a different legal and industrial relations system, are subject to the six-week qualifying period. Clearly, this is imbalanced and is unacceptable in an EU legal instrument.

The Government is deeply committed to maintaining decent standards of employment and to ensuring they apply to temporary agency workers. Protection is provided already to agency workers by the existing body of Irish employment rights legislation. The issues raised in the Private Member's Bill require further consideration in the context of the forthcoming partnership pay talks and of possible further moves by the EU Presidency to progress adoption of the directive on temporary agency workers by, possibly, mid-2008.

The Government's position on the draft EU directive has been that while we support the principle of equal treatment, the most recent proposals did not have the necessary degree of balance for flexibility between employee entitlements and the needs of enterprises in a competitive market economy. A number of other member states took a similar position and the Portuguese Presidency did not push the matter to a vote, indicating an acceptance that further work was necessary.

In essence, the Private Members' Bill does not contain the requisite balance to command Government support. It goes beyond the commitments agreed in Towards 2016. The Government indicated in the course of the debate on the Private Members' motion in the Dáil on 19-20 February 2008 that the principle of equal treatment is supported and that it is accepted that the matter will be the subject of discussion in the forthcoming pay talks. While, to meet the requirements of EU law, any agreement will be primarily for the social partners, the Government will obviously have a significant role in the process and in introducing the necessary supporting legislation. Any such talks will need to consider not alone the qualifying period for equal treatment but the constituents of equal treatment, namely, the various entitlements to be included in any package. The FDI sector, in particular, is concerned about any possible measure which might require enterprises to offer permanent employment to temporary agency workers following a specific period of employment.

It was intended that contributions from the Government side to the recently debated Private Members' motion in the Dáil would form part of a discussion on where we might want to go as a society and how best we might proceed. In summary, we are discussing an aspect of changing employment structures and relationships in an evolving market economy and it is accepted that the rate of change experienced in this economy in recent times can, in some areas, lead to unwelcome imbalances. In addressing emerging challenges in such periods of change, Government must try to establish where the broader public interest lies at any given time. Governments must consider the impact of specific decisions on wider society and these decisions should have an eye to the longer-term consequences of short-term decisions. It is important to remember that agency working as such has a very legitimate role in an economy such as ours and that many people benefit from the flexibility, personal freedom and good earnings it can provide. However, it is also clear that this does not suit everybody and that the very flexibility it offers can have negative consequences in some cases.

No government wants to see the emergence of agency working as the norm, to the extent it might begin to push out what might be termed "regular" jobs which provide for a stable and longer-term relationship between an enterprise and its employees and an enterprise and its host community. The longer-term development of a competitive economy and a healthy society requires the existence of a labour market where there are reciprocal responsibilities and shared benefits. Again, there is a need for a balanced approach here. Even in situations where we believe we have in place a good social protection framework, there is always a need to assess if further improvements are possible while ensuring our framework does not become so inflexible as to damage employment prospects. This is especially relevant for those attempting to get into employment for the first time or those wishing to re-enter employment following a period out of the labour market. In considering the nature and possible impact of any changes, all concerned must bear in mind the affect of such changes on a future labour market, one that may, perhaps, be more challenging than the one to which we have become accustomed in recent years.

I want now to turn to the next stage in this discussion. In the course of the recent debate in Dáil Éireann, Ministers acknowledged that talks on pay and related issues forming part of the current social partnership programme will resume shortly. The Dáil was also informed that some issues relating to the Private Members' motion before that House were likely to feature in those discussions and that the Government is always ready to participate in discussion on how further improvements can be made in legislation under preparation.

In light of some of the calls for new legislation in respect of agency working made in the course of that debate, I again emphasise that any discussions as to what constitutes "equal treatment" in any given employment relationship must take into account the legitimate expectations of workers in terms of fairness and employers in terms of flexibility. They should also have regard to the legitimate role played in a modern market economy by quality employment agencies and those who choose to work for them.

In the context of the developing Irish model of social partnership, all parties involved in such talks must accept that progress imposes responsibilities on all participants and that all must be willing to play their role in negotiating arrangements which meet, in so far as possible, the legitimate aspirations of all stakeholders and which do not damage our national competitiveness. Our social partnership model is not built on the basis of Government imposing its view on other participants. The Government has a vital interest in ensuring that eventual outcomes reflect the balance necessary to sustain long-term competitiveness. In this regard, the Government will take its responsibilities seriously. It is confident that if the right approach is adopted by all stakeholders positive outcomes for society can and will be possible.

It is noteworthy that as discussions on the issue of agency workers and the development of agency working have continued in recent months there have been a number of interesting developments at firm level. Unions and companies have been able to negotiate innovative arrangements for handling issues while continuing to facilitate the required flexibility in response to market forces. Of particular note has been the very pragmatic approach agreed in deciding how agency workers become entitled to benefit from terms of employment comparable to direct employees of the firms in question. The type of agreement reached has much in common with the incremental approach reflected in collective agreements in this area in a number of continental countries, often on a sectoral basis. I would argue that developments in Ireland on this subject should not reduce the options open to agency workers in this country nor put Irish enterprises at a disadvantage in respect of those in competing countries.

Given our particular partnership model and the EU legal dimension, it is clear that while the employer and employee representatives have the lead role in negotiating changes at workplace level, the Government has a role in assisting the social partners and in legislating for any new arrangements as may be necessary. There is a strong basis for stating that discussions on possible changes relating to agency working and the entitlements of agency workers must involve all parties to the Towards 2016 agreement and will require a pragmatic and co-operative approach from all concerned. The type of pragmatism and flexibility shown at firm level has demonstrated this is possible.

While not wishing to anticipate the outcome of any future talks, it may be that elements of an agreement may be best addressed at firm level because it is at that level that enterprises and their employees have the keenest appreciation of their situation, strengths and vulnerability. What may work for one company may not work for another. While legislation may be appropriate or necessary in some situations where there is agreement at partnership level on a principle or a basic workplace entitlement, some flexibility in regard to lesser detail may be more appropriately left to agreement at firm level.

This is a complex issue which will be considered further in the forthcoming pay talks. In the circumstances it would be neither prudent nor appropriate to offer support to the Private Members' Bill before the House, no matter how well intentioned it might be. A successful resolution of the matters at issue requires a broader, more carefully thought-through approach. The Government intends to ensure this happens.