I wonder. There has to be a reason why businesses want to use agency workers for a longer period. It may well be that companies decide that they do not want to go down the route of having a human resources department, which will cost their business a fortune. Instead, they outsource to agencies such as Manpower, and then how much it costs to employ people is much more transparent. When the company takes everything into account, it may well be that the amount they pay for a permanent worker is substantially higher. All the extra rules and regulations—all well intended, no doubt—have a massive impact on employers. I guess that that is why the costs are substantially higher now.
I referred to agency nurses being paid £120 an hour by health trusts. That was on the front page of Metro and in The Times. That is a staggering amount of money. That money should be going into employing permanent staff in hospitals, which would lead to substantial savings that could be spent on front-line services for the people who need to use the hospitals.
Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nigel Evans
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 22 February 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c688 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:24:23 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447795
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447795
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447795