Ivor Callely (Fianna Fail)

I congratulate my Seanad colleagues in the Labour Party for putting this Bill before the House. It provides for the protection of agency workers, requires the principle of equal treatment to be applied in respect of their employment, provides for the enforcement of their rights and for connected matters. I also thank the Leader of the Seanad, Deputy Cassidy for his accommodation, without a division and in the spirit of unity of purpose, in having this Bill before the Chamber to facilitate discussion.

In a rapidly changing global environment of work and working relationships, newer forms of employment and management pose new challenges for legislators. There must be open discussion and consultation with all stakeholders. This is all the more important in times of economic difficulty and uncertainty such as we are experiencing. We open this debate with confidence in our cause, goodwill towards our objective, satisfaction that we have achieved much in this area, especially in the past decade, and are in preparation for further considerable improvements in the protection framework for workers.

We have made good progress in the broad sense but we must continually review and take account of changing trends and needs in the workplace. Much has been said and reported about agency working. I listened with interest to Senator Donohoe's comments about higher rates of pay and so on. Much of what has been reported and said includes an undercurrent of concern about exploitation. It is essential, therefore, that whatever further protection measures the Oireachtas considers and agrees reflect the current realities based on the available evidence and statistics. In principle, the Government is committed to equal treatment. I listened with interest as the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, spoke about the Bill. I agree with his remarks on the six-week qualifying period and the need for a definition of equal treatment.

Senator Kelly spoke about the opportunities before us, the great labour movement, the priority of this legislation and the fundamental importance of putting something in place. He and Senator Hannigan indicated that Ireland and the United Kingdom had delayed the legislation at EU level. That is not the case. There was no vote on the matter and a consensus emerged that it was not opportune to proceed. Moreover, I understand the Government is on record as indicating a desire to see progress and a balanced outcome on the matter.

I have genuine concerns about the six-week period. It is important when making comparisons with other countries that we do so to the fullest extent possible. My understanding is that some of what was alluded to by Senators Kelly and Hannigan would not be compatible in terms of what is applicable in Ireland compared with some of the other countries mentioned. They would have derogations and exemptions should this legislation be applied.

I noted with interest that we all seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet in expressing our support for providing protections. If that is the case, we should proceed with unity of purpose, with all the stakeholders fully supportive and no one being forced into a particular position. Do my Opposition colleagues propose to force a division on this Bill and, assuming it can be carried, present it to the social partners as something that will be forced upon them, like it or lump it? This is not the correct way to approach the social partnership discussions. It is not the method by which we have achieved success in our social partnership negotiations to date.

Senator Donohoe is right that it is difficult to find helpful statistics. I understand the only available data, which were compiled back in 2005, indicate that temporary agency workers represent 2% of the workforce. I welcome the commencement of work by the Central Statistics Office in this area. We will be in a good position to reflect on the existing realities when the latest quarterly national household survey is published in the coming weeks.

As the Minister of State outlined, the Department is finalising a draft section of a Bill which will require employment agencies to comply with the terms of a statutory code of practice. This legislation will strengthen and enhance further the effective enforcement of the employment rights of agency workers. Under existing employment rights legislation, agency workers, regardless of the type of work, their nationality or whether posted by the employer to temporary work overseas, already enjoy certain protections. Such workers are entitled to take complaints to the labour inspectorate and to have their case heard by the State's dispute resolution machinery, which includes the rights commissioner service of the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

I ask the Minister of State to clarify a specific issue for me. When the Labour Court, for example, makes a recommendation on a matter that has been the subject of dispute between an employer and employee, is the Department satisfied that there is a mechanism in place to ensure such recommendations are adhered to? I am aware of a case where the employer refuses to adhere to the Labour Court recommendation. I will not name anybody but the case number is CDO7299, recommendation LCR18977. My understanding is that the Minister is aware of this case but has stated that he cannot intervene. The recommendations of the various bodies that make up our dispute resolution machinery should be binding.

It has also been brought to my attention that legislation relating to contracts of indefinite duration may require some amendment. I was told of a woman who was much valued and appreciated by her employer. On reaching 65 years of age in November 2005, she was given a year-to-year contract. She has now been advised, however, that due to the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and legislation concerning contracts of indefinite employment, she must be offered permanent employment or let go. Does this represent discrimination against the over 65s?

It is our responsibility as legislators to have a reliable and constructive debate with an appreciation of our evolving economy and its many competing demands. There must be unity of purpose and a mutual understanding of the needs of all stakeholders — employees, employers, trade union leaders, representative bodies, State and semi-State sectors and the Government. If we genuinely wish to have an improved employee social protection framework and, at the same time, tap into the maximum potential for job opportunity and creation, we must achieve this without becoming so rigidly bureaucratic as to damage either job opportunities and creation or the competitiveness of the economy. This debate will give rise to different views. I hope it will lead to the unity of purpose, mutual understanding and co-operation that are required if we are to achieve the potential that exists. The expertise, knowledge and input of all stakeholders are required if we are to ensure the appropriate protection is in place, specifically designed to bring about the right balance between the relevant competing demands.