David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

Amendments Nos. 8 and 21 seem to remove the reference to "comparable employees", as the Minister stated. They provide that entitlements would exist only by reference to the work employees are undertaking. Could the Minister clarify exactly the logic of this? I probably support his intention but I want to be crystal clear about it.

Let me refer again to the Swedish derogation, which we oppose. It pertains to the exemption of full-time agency workers from the legislation. We have a number of amendments that have been ruled out of order on this issue. Will the Minister rethink this matter because it potentially creates a loophole? If full-time agency workers are excluded from the protections under the Bill, there is a danger that some unscrupulous employers will exploit the circumstances that exist and hire full-time agency workers. Thus, we will end up having to return to the very problem we are trying to address regarding part-time agency workers.

I accept that only a tiny percentage of agency workers are deemed to be full-time. We fear there is potential for abuse by some unscrupulous employers. I accept that the vast majority are not unscrupulous but we know some seek to take advantage of loopholes where they see fit. Could the Minister revert to me on this? We have genuine concerns.

I accept the Cathaoirleach has ruled the amendments out of order. It is beyond me why amendment No. 13 was ruled out of order because we removed any references to the public sector. It fail to understand how it could constitute a draw on the State. Perhaps clarification can be given in this regard.