Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo, atá curtha chun tosaigh ag Páirtí an Lucht Oibre. I welcome the Bill proposed by the Labour Party which comes some weeks after Sinn Féin and the Labour Party tabled a Private Members' motion on agency workers in the Dáil. While I welcome the Bill, it is a pity it has been left to the Opposition to introduce legislation that is worthy and necessary.

The exploitation of agency workers has blighted this State and the Six Counties for the best part of a decade. During this period, we have had promises from Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and now the Green Party that legislation would be forthcoming. It was even alluded to in Towards 2016. During the discussion on the Private Members' motion there were protestations from the Government benches to the effect that legislation was pending, yet three weeks later we are debating legislation on agency workers put forward by an Opposition party. Tonight again, Senators on the Government side claim the Government is committed to introducing legislation. When will it be introduced? Let us include it on the Order Paper and deal with it.

The excuses and delaying tactics of the Government have been ridiculous. It has claimed the evidence of agency workers being exploited is based on hearsay. When my colleague, Deputy Arthur Morgan, attended a SIPTU campaign meeting on this issue in Waterford, he noted it was attended by a Fianna Fáil councillor who, having met agency workers, spoke at length about the problems faced by them. If Fianna Fáil had attended any of the other campaign meetings held by SIPTU throughout the State, it would have direct evidence from agency workers regarding their having to work for lower pay than that received by directly employed workers, and regarding their having to work in poorer conditions while doing the same work.

SIPTU and all the other unions have countless cases of the abuse of agency workers on their books. If the Government asked the social partners to give it the details of these cases, I am sure they would do so. Who are we really kidding? If the Government did not know its friends in the world of big business were benefiting from the exploitation of agency workers, there would be no problem introducing legislation on agency workers.

The Government, along with the authorities in the United Kingdom and two other member states, has stalled the proposed EU directive on agency workers. I heard Senator Callely denying this but he is incorrect. The Government voiced concerns over the lack of competitiveness that would ensue if it legislated in this area. This is the nub of the problem. When a British Member of Parliament from the Labour Party introduced legislation on agency workers in Westminster last month, the British Chambers of Commerce stated the clampdown on flexible workers would put Britain at a competitive disadvantage.

We cannot sustain the economy with a race to the bottom in respect of wages and conditions. Doing so is madness. We cannot compete with the economies of China and India, even with agency workers, and anyone who believes we can needs to do a refresher course in basic economics. The future of the economy in this State lies in high-end quality industries such as those that engage in research and development. It lies in our having a qualified, educated workforce that wants to build that economy. The rights of this workforce must be protected or labour disputes will multiply and harm the economy we would like to see developed.

We need to develop workers' rights on the basis of equality, which also means equality for agency workers. Agency workers are being used by employers to avoid employee legislation that has been in force for 30 years. The exploited loophole, like the one that allows the employers' rich friends to avoid paying tax, has been left alone because unscrupulous employers will run riot if flexible employees, including agency workers who, with no recourse, can be treated like rubbish, are clamped down upon. In this regard, I welcome this legislation and hope that, with some amendment, it will receive the support of all Members of the Oireachtas who claim to represent, or work on behalf of, the people.

I have some questions on the Bill which I hope my colleagues in the Labour Party can answer, if not now perhaps on an another day. Sections 5 and 6 refer to incidents in which an agency worker can be treated in a less favourable manner when that manner can be justified on objective grounds. The Bill lists such objective grounds. I seek clarification because this could open up a can of worms in terms of what constitutes objective grounds for less favourable treatment.

When composing section 5, did the authors of the Bill consider reducing the number of weeks of continuous work after which an agency worker should be treated as comparable to a direct employee, except under the conditions set out, from six to four? Did they consider making them comparable from the day of commencement of employment? I ask this because it has been brought to Sinn Féin's attention, especially by employees in the construction sector, that the six-week timeframe has the potential to allow employers to continue to use and exploit agency workers owing to the short-lived nature of many construction jobs. The EU directive recommends a period of six weeks but some debate is needed on this issue. After all, we do not have to accept every EU recommendation.

I have some less serious concerns about the Bill which I can deal with on the upcoming Stages. I hope the Bill will be supported as a first step in dealing with the problems faced by agency workers. I commend the Labour Party Senators on introducing it.