Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and compliment him on his tremendous efforts in the recent jobs initiative. He has made a great start. He is well aware of the major challenge he faces as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the great difficulties facing the country generally. I also welcome this important Bill which transposes into Irish law the EU directive on temporary agency work. I remind Senator Jim Walsh that the Minister inherited this legislation and that responsibility for the transposition of the directive into Irish law has fallen to him when the matter should have been dealt with much sooner. However, I agree with the Senator that it is unfortunate, despite the Minister's best efforts, that agreement on a 12 week UK-style qualifying period could not reached with the social partners. This puts us at a disadvantage with the United Kingdom.

There is much scaremongering on the number of jobs likely to be at risk, with figures ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 being mentioned by different sources. However, this is unlikely to happen. It is welcome that the Minister made a significant number of amendments to the Bill during its passage through the Dáil and it is to be hoped there is room for further tweaking on some of the issues raised today.

The comparator issue raised by Senator Feargal Quinn requires serious consideration. I hope the Minister will take on board some of the issues raised by the Senator.

On section 7, two issues of concern have been brought to my attention, one of which is likely to impact on approximately 650 jobs in my county of Galway and County Kildare. The company concerned employs direct recruits on historic pay scales. However, because of the economic crisis it has not hired new employees on these scales since 2007. While production had been scheduled to be relocated to Asia and eastern Europe, the company decided instead to hire new agency workers on lower but good pay scales well above the minimum wage and to retain existing employees on the higher scales. In this situation there are live comparators, namely, the direct recruits on pre-2008 pay scales. Under section 7(1)(a), agency workers will be entitled to be paid the same rates, even though they were not hired at these rates. This will significantly increase production costs and threaten jobs.

The second issue relates to a situation where there is more than one comparator. Where there are two comparable direct recruits on different rates of pay, should the agency worker be paid at the higher or lower rate? He or she will obviously ask for the higher rate and the employer will want to pay the lower rate. The Bill does not clarify which of the two rates should apply. I am told that the hirer can select the comparator, but the courts may decide differently.

These issues need to be addressed during the passage of the Bill through the House to ensure agency workers will continue to enjoy good working conditions and rates of pay and that employers will be in a position to maintain current levels of employment. Every move we make as a country in the years ahead must ensure the maintenance and creation of as many jobs as possible. If we are ever to dig ourselves out of our current economic difficulties, it will be on the basis of massive job creation.

I commend the work the Minister is doing and ask him to iron out the creases in the legislation, as drafted.