Seanad debates

Thursday, 2 February 2012

5:00 pm

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I join the Cathaoirleach in welcoming the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House. This motion has been prompted by the agency worker directive, which was adopted in 2008 and was to have been implemented by the end of December 2011. However, all Members recognise that the Irish economy is in a far different place now than it was in 2008. The Government has stated that jobs and economic recovery are the top priorities and all Members would subscribe to that. The Minister will recognise from his background in business that many organisations use agency workers to give them flexibility and competitiveness in the marketplace. It allows them to introduce different terms and conditions of employment and prevents a haemorrhaging of jobs from the economy to other jurisdictions with lower labour costs. I have been contacted by employees from many such organisations who are not agency workers. The workers within such companies, most of which involve foreign direct investment, work beside agency workers and have expressed concern that if agency workers are no longer available to the company, it may have implications for that company's policy on remaining in Ireland into the future. Consequently, this does not only pertain to agency workers. It also potentially affects permanent workers in such companies.

The purpose of my Adjournment matter is to ask whether an evaluation has been undertaken by the Minister and his Department on the impact of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill 2011 and whether an estimate has been made as to the number of jobs that are at risk and may be lost on foot of its introduction. Moreover, has an evaluation been undertaken to ensure the legislation does not go beyond the transposition of the EU directive in question? This is set against the background of Ireland's current serious economic and employment issues. When the present Government took office nearly 12 months ago, it stated that job creation was being prioritised. Several measures were taken, about which some reservations were expressed as to how successful they might be or the impact they might have. However, the statistics do not lie. Unemployment has increased in the interim, which means there must be greater emphasis and urgency on ensuring that we avoid introducing measures that could undermine this policy.

The Bill states "the basic working and employment conditions to which an agency worker is entitled shall be the same as the basic working and employment conditions to which ... a comparable worker is entitled". However, the directive's wording is much more restrictive. It states "the basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers shall be ... at least those that would apply if they had been recruited directly by that undertaking to occupy the same job" now. That is different because a person could be doing a job that may have commanded a higher rate of pay some years ago. Alternatively, someone else doing a similar job may have been recruited many years ago and may have seniority and skills. In general, the nature of temporary agency workers is that they arrive relatively unskilled and their skill base must be built up. However, the Government now proposes to ask companies to take on people and that they be paid the same from the outset.

This runs counter to the stated policy of the Government. It definitely runs counter to what the economy needs at present and is somewhat reminiscent of what amounted to a populist decision to go back on the decision to reduce the minimum wage. If our economy is not competitive and does not become competitive, we will have serious difficulty in generating growth, attracting foreign direct investment, new business or new industries, both domestic and international, to create and generate these jobs. The proposed measure could lead not only to this not happening but to a haemorrhaging of existing jobs. I am concerned and those to whom I have been speaking in this regard share my concerns. I ask the Minister of State to take on board this point and to bring it back to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, whose very title incorporates the objective of generating and creating jobs.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.