Jimmy Harte (Labour)

It is a long way from Donegal, but I wish Waterford well.

I support the Bill. As an employer for over 25 years, I would seize a definite advantage and have used temporary workers on occasion. In my experience, the profile of the temporary or agency worker in the private and the public sector is different. Obviously, because of the moratorium on recruitment the HSE uses many temporary or agency workers. Small business employers such as myself must use temporary workers on occasion to cover for those on sick leave or holidays, or merely to provide extra help during busy periods. I have always found such workers to be more than willing to learn.

It is only now that I realise this legislation is probably too late, but nonetheless it is still welcome. During the years I thought temporary workers might have been compromised because they knew they could be let go at any time by their employer. Most of the agencies with which I have dealt are exceptionally good and have provided good temporary workers. The labour market has changed so much. I am aware of many young people who prefer to be temporary workers or who are only allowed to be temporary because they only have expertise in one field. However, they are quite happy to work for a few months in one part of a business. They see this as being their future until they reach their mid-30s or 40s. Many of them work as hard as permanent employees and bring much to a business and they should be looked after. This is common sense. It shows that as a community and country we look after all workers. However, there should be a distinction. There are certain young people in temporary employment who are a little afraid and, at times, put under pressure by their employer and who cannot see the future clearly without this legislation being in place. Many of them will welcome it because it will give them stability.

I am aware that there are submissions from employers' groups stating the Bill may lead to a loss of competitiveness or cost businesses extra money. That is something we must factor in because each worker should be treated equally. This shows maturity on our part, as I think employers will accept. However, I understand from where they are coming. Chambers Ireland, IBEC and other groups consider it will be a cost to business. From my own experience, it does not cost a businesses to show temporary workers more respect. In many cases, it leads to an increase in work rate and helps a temporary worker to progress and mature in his or her job. I am an employer so it could be my son or daughter that is in this position. Employers should look at this from the point of view that it is not just about the business they run but about the business someone else runs that might give a member of their family an opportunity and give them equal status.

It is a complicated directive given Northern Ireland and the UK are treated slightly differently, which is an issue we have to live with. If the Government is producing jobs, young people are taking up employment and the economy starts up again, this issue will not be a game winner or game loser, but it is something that will help everyone. While it was suggested it might cost the HSE more given its use of temporary and agency workers, we have to accept this is how we must treat workers. We cannot simply say it is a cost to the Exchequer because, in the long term, the Bill is working towards helping people find employment and giving them equal status. It is helping the country to move to the next phase of employment and labour, which, as I said earlier, is an area that has changed greatly. Many young workers in their twenties and thirties are happy with temporary work and we must reflect this.

I support the Bill. Senator Quinn would have more experience in this area and some of the issues he raised are worth considering. In an overall context, the directive should be embraced.