Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

The case for what we are trying to achieve has been well made by Senators Mary Ann O'Brien and Feargal Quinn. As has been said, we are seeking to provide that agency workers would be entitled to the same conditions and terms of employment as a person directly recruited by a company today. I recall what the Minister had to say about teachers when in the House for the debate on Second Stage. I accept that it is in order for the Government to set new rates for new teachers whose position differs from that of others who have been teaching for a number of years. If that principle is accepted, I urge the Minister of State to take on board amendments Nos. 6 and 7 which adopt the same principle.

The amendments, as I read them, conform fully with the terms of the directive, Article 5.1 of which states the basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers for the duration of their assignment at a user undertaking shall be at least those that would apply if they had been recruited directly by the undertaking to occupy the same job. Obviously, this has to be considered in the current context. Our main argument about the drafting of the legislation is that it moves beyond the terms of the directive. We see real dangers as a result in today's vulnerable and fragile employment market. We are, therefore, asking the Minister of State to conform precisely with the terms of the directive and not move beyond them. I hope he is prepared to take this request on board. I had intended to press the amendment, but if the Minister of State is prepared, as suggested by Senator Feargal Quinn, to reconsider the issue before Report Stage, I will be happy not to do so. Ultimately, our only objective is to ensure the legislation is shaped in a manner which will do the minimal amount of damage to the jobs market.

The explanatory memorandum refers to derogations. Will this legislation, when enacted, pose a threat to jobs in particular industries and the retention of particular companies in Ireland such as those mentioned by Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, of which the Minister and others have been made aware? Am I correct from my reading of the explanatory memorandum in thinking unions at local level, or employees and their representatives, and companies may agree to do something to protect themselves and jobs which may vary the derogation process? Would this be acceptable and conform with the legislation? Would it be possible to do this at local rather than central level, where previously large employers engaged in anti-competitive practices in collusion with the unions? Unfortunately, that is what social partnership ended up doing in latter years.

My final question goes back to the Minister of State's earlier comment on amendment No. 1 with regard to jobs. The Minister of State said he had quite good regard for the economist, Mr. Jim Power, and I would ask for some clarity on the jobs issue. From his answer I was unsure whether the Minister of State indicated there would not be job losses as a result of this legislation, that he was unsure whether there would be job losses or that there would be job losses. That is the core of what is motivating many contributions and amendments.