Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. The Bill is worthy of attention and I congratulate him on what he is doing. I have been with him in Drogheda and at the city of science launch recently so I know what he is doing.

The aim of the Bill is worthy but we must ensure it achieves what it sets out to achieve. The Minister has told Members that there are estimated to be 35,000 agency workers. Many of them, or probably all of them, work in businesses that depend on agency workers only at certain times but employ far more people than the 35,000. We want to ensure those businesses succeed and that we do not hinder them in any way. There are some areas to which the Minister referred that I would like to touch on because I have concerns.

First, I propose that if two or more direct recruits meet the definition of a "comparable employee" contained in the Bill, then the hirer company should be able to identify one such comparator - a lovely new word that I had not heard until recently - to be the comparator for the purposes of the Bill. At present there is a danger that where there are a number of different potential comparators in respect of an agency worker, the hirer company might pick one and the agency worker might pick another and the parties would end up going to court to find out which terms and conditions would apply to the agency worker. We want to overcome that and I do not think we have done so. We must ensure we avoid such cases going to court.

Second, the Bill should contain greater clarity so that where an employer has changed his or her payscales since hiring the comparable direct recruits, a newly assigned agency worker would be entitled to what I call the new hire rate, not the old rate. This has happened quite a lot recently. People were paid far more three to five years ago but the new rates are a lot lower in many cases, yet we are going to have a dispute in this situation unless it is cleared up. It is fundamental to the viability of many jobs because many employers have introduced new payscales as a way of maintaining employment levels during the current crisis.

Third, the Bill should allow reasonable defences for employers, including allowing employers to demonstrate that if there are grounds, other than a person's status as an agency worker, which justify a difference in basic working and employment conditions, that does not amount to a form of discrimination. This idea comes from the Employment Equality Acts, which make clear that where a difference in treatment has nothing to do with gender, it is not discrimination. Similarly, where an agency worker and a comparable direct recruit have different rates of pay, but the differences have nothing to do with the agency status of the agency worker, there should be no claim against the employer. That is a very good example.

I was with the Minister at the launch of the city of sciencewhich will take place in the summer. If a business is relying on a scientist or, to use Senator Leyden's example, if a hotel is relying on a chef, and the scientist or chef is out sick and have to be replaced, the replacements might not have the same talent, qualifications or ability. If there is a doubt about how much they are to be paid, a clash will occur.

We must do everything to remain competitive. We have brought down costs significantly and we must continue to do this. While the Minister says the Bill will keep costs on employment to a minimum, I am not sure this will be the case. The delay in introducing the Bill may have a detrimental effect on businesses and perhaps the Government could have introduced the Bill with a lead-in or changeover period of 12 to 18 months to give businesses an opportunity to adapt to the new provisions. The UK adopted the legislation two years ago. It is also strange that the directive is considered to apply to the private sector. Legal experts state that it is an unprecedented move to transpose the directive while national legislation has not been introduced in the area to transpose the directive. That the legislation was applicable to the private sector from 5 December, and not from the date when the legislation is passed, could leave it open to legal challenge. Will the Minister comment on that? My mind has not been put at rest in this area.

IBEC argues that up to 6,000 temporary agency workers could lose their jobs in the coming months because of the implementation of the legislation. That is not the aim. The aim is the opposite, but I am worried that the Bill will mean less flexibility for businesses. That flexibility is extremely important to businesses to hire extra help as is needed. In the UK, estimates by employer organisations put the cost at up to €2,000 to €3,000 extra for small businesses, increasing to more than €80,000 for large firms. What estimates has the Minister come up for Irish businesses? One must also consider that flexibility of the workforce has attracted a lot of foreign direct investment. If we get rid of this, it will make us less attractive. Certain companies need temporary agency workers at increased production times. Every business has peaks and valleys. We should always undertake a measurement of how new legislation will affect businesses and their ability to compete.

It is interesting to note how this legislation is being viewed in other countries. Although Norway, as a non-EU state, does not have to implement the legislation, it is expected generally to go along with most EU directives. The legislation is dividing the three-party coalition government there. Critics are concerned that the legislation will lead to increased use of temporary workers, at the expense of more secure, permanent jobs. Norway is not a country in economic difficultly, but the legislation is still controversial. Thus, I believe the view there is very interesting.

The aim of the Bill is to harmonise Europe-wide legislation on temporary workers; it varies considerably between countries. We have existing legislation which is strong in this area, but the position is somewhat different in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. For instance, there is a ban on the use of agency workers in the public sector in Spain, and in the construction sector in Germany.

This transposition into law of the directive will increase the unit cost of agency staffing for the HSE. In 2011, the HSE negotiated new agency contracts that involved lower unit costs. At a time in which costs are being cut should we be looking for an exemption from the European Union? The United Kingdom and other member states were successful in gaining a derogation in having a 12 week qualifying period. This is an island; why, therefore, are we going down a different route from the one taken in the North, as has been mentioned on two or three occasions? Did any meetings take place to seek co-ordination on this issue about which I have concerns?

I am supportive of the legislation and what the Minister is trying to achieve. However, the Bill needs to be tweaked. We must make some changes to it, as we want a Bill that is good for Ireland and temporary workers, but which is also good for other workers in those businesses which employ so many.