Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

Exactly. As already stated, Senator Mullins referred to the comparator and highlighted the position of people who were recruited in 2007 versus that of agency workers who were taken on afterward. The issue which arises is what is the fair rate on 5 December. The issue is not the rate used in 2007. The employer in question must show that in selecting a fair rate to set on 5 December, it has acted in a reasonable fashion. The employer should have looked at comparable prevailing rates and if a person was employed at a going rate, that would be relevant. A case must be presented for what is being done and an employer cannot pluck a figure from the air without it being able to stand up. In the case outlined by the Senator, the employer must show that circumstances are now different from those pertaining to the 2007 rate. There must be fairness.

I thank Senators for their contribution as legislation in this area is always difficult and there is a constant attempt to balance the needs of both sides and create sufficient flexibility to facilitate employment. There is also a need to protect those employees open to abuse because they are poorly organised or similarly vulnerable. There have been some very notable cases of abuse of agency workers and we are trying to balance the issue. The piece of legislation that has been produced is a fair way of implementing the directive and will bring security to people who could otherwise be exploited. It has sufficient flexibility where employers are seeking to cope with difficult conditions, and they can use agency workers in a flexible way. We are striking a balance and I look forward to the Committee Stage debate, when we can go through the sections in more detail.