Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Apr 1987

Vol. 371 No. 8

Employment Equality (Employment of Women) Order, 1986: Motion.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—

Employment Equality (Employment of Women) Order, 1986.

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 28th February, 1986.

There are approximately 61,000 women workers engaged in production industries in Ireland which are covered by legal limits on working hours which were introduced in 1936. Just over 18 per cent of all women workers are affected by these restrictions which apply to women only. Most women workers have no legal limits on the hours they work. Outside manufacturing industry, many women are engaged on nursing duties before 8 a.m. in the morning and after 10 p.m. Women workers in public transport, women in cleaning and in catering establishments and women engaged in ancillary work in hospitals and residential homes are not prohibited from working outside those hours.

The purpose of the order before the House is to bring to an end the longstanding legal prohibition on the employment of women in industrial night work and on Sundays. At present, women may be denied access to employment opportunities in situations where shift work and Sunday work are involved. Because of this ban, women may also be denied additional opportunities for training and promotion, and lose out on the higher premia attaching to such work. Men who are involved in a three-shift system usually get a higher premium than women who normally rotate between two-day shifts. These differences currently represent an important element in the gap between the hourly earnings of women and men. The Employment Equality Act, 1977, makes specific provision for the review of protective laws when the concern for protection which originally inspired them is no longer well founded.

Section 14 of the Employment Equality Act recognises that certain requirements in four Acts administered by my Department may in effect be forcing employers, by law, to discriminate against women in employment. It accordingly empowers the Minister for Labour to repeal or amend any such requirement by Affirmative Order. The Employment Equality Agency in a review of the prohibition on the employment of women at night undertaken at the request of my predecessor as Minister for Labour, Gene Fitzgerald, recommended the repeal of the nightwork ban.

The agency also recommended that the scope for further relaxations of the 1936 restrictions be explored, and that the necessary steps be taken to enable the State to waive its obligations under Convention No. 89 of the International Labour Organisation to which Ireland had been a party. In response to a more extensive review of protective legislation which the agency has also undertaken, modifications were recently made to a prohibition on the employment of women in mining and the process of denouncing an ILO Convention on work in mining is now under way.

I fully endorse the approach which was taken by the Barrington Commission on Safety, Health and Welfare at Work which recommended that not only our legislation, but also the wide range of alternative means of influencing conditions at work, should embrace all workers. The commission saw no reason why restrictive conditions should continue to apply to women working in a small factory while at the same time large numbers of women in other types of work remain unaffected by such restrictions. This order is in some respects a forerunner to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill which I hope to introduce in the Oireachtas before the end of this year. The new Bill will represent a very comprehensive reform package and will give effect to the recommendations of the Barrington Commission.

In addition to the original report by the Employment Equality Agency, which provided the initial impetus for repealing the nightwork ban, we have had the benefit in recent years of the studies of shiftwork and nightwork undertaken in various EC countries on behalf of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

In view of the obvious concern among workers and their families about stress arising from nightwork, it is very important that every effort is made to ensure that good working conditions are provided. The effects of shiftwork, for instance, on family or social life is greatly influenced by workers' lifestyles, by their level of pay, by local customs and by whether they live in a rural or urban area. The involvement of workers in determining the kind of shiftwork system used — and not just at the level of trade union negotiations — is extremely important. Naturally workers will feel more commitment and enthusiasm about the success of a system if they are directly involved in bringing it about. This is even more true in the case of shiftwork preferences since individual needs differ and the most satisfactory compromise is likely to emerge through joint discussion.

I feel that it would be useful if, after the making of this order, the situation were to be monitored for a period. The purpose of this would be twofold: firstly, to find out to what extent the change in the legislation is leading to an increase in the number of women being employed and secondly, to identify any new developments in relation to patterns of work. My Department has been in touch with the Employment Equality Agency with a view to arranging the necessary follow-up action.

I have pleasure in submitting this order to the House for approval.

Mr. Birmingham

Since this is my first opportunity to do so, I preface my remarks by congratulating the Minister on his appointment. He received a warm welcome to Mespil Road where he was well known as Opposition spokesman. He developed a very good relationship with the people in that Department.

The measure before the House is unlikely to provoke any great controversy given its legislative history. The measure cleared its first hurdle during the lifetime of the last Seanad when it was piloted through that House by my colleague, Deputy Enda Kenny. The motion does not stand alone because it is one of a series of measures which have come before both Houses in recent years. The relevance of some of our protective legislation and the question of whether it represents an outdated paternalism resulted in a series of those measures coming before both Houses for review and reconsideration. I remember about a year ago bringing before both Houses a measure out of the same stable relating to the mining industry.

This measure is welcome because it removes an inappropriate paternalism and corrects what at this stage is an anomalous restriction. It is a measure of some practical importance. Studies which have been carried out by Mr. John Blackwell have established that the differential which exists between average male industrial wages and average female industrial wages are to a substantial part attributable to the fact that men are in a better position to benefit from overtime, shift work and bonuses of one sort or another. This measure is to be welcomed in so far as it opens up opportunities for women in these areas.

Its importance is probably going to be tempered by the fact that the regulations governing the conditions of employment are so complicated that a number of employees, many employers and, dare I say, some of the employees' trade unions, are unclear as to which categories of workers this legislation applies to. I see the Minister nodding his head in agreement and I hope this means he is going to put it on his work programme to sort out all those complications in double quick time. No doubt as soon as he lays down the onerous duties of being Lord Mayor of Dublin to devote himself full time to the needs of Mespil Road he will be in a position to do this.

The area of equality was a major priority for Fine Gael when they were in Government. Nowhere was that shown more clearly than the vigour with which Deputy Gemma Hussey addressed the question during her few short weeks as Minister for Labour. One thinks of her intervention with AnCO in order to ensure that it was established beyond doubt that access to apprenticeships would be equally available to men and women applicants. There were other areas in which that enthusiasm was also seen. The action taken by the then Minister for Labour, Deputy Hussey, was entirely consistent with the approach she took as Minister for Education. What happens in the school area is of vital importance to what happens in working life and she established an emphasis on ridding the educational system of much of its inherent sexism. I hope her successor in this area will follow suit because there are areas of concern there, for example, the extent to which girls in vocational schools have access to practical subjects. The Minister for Labour should concern himself with this because any programmes he might put in place will come to nought unless the support, the groundwork and the framework have been provided within the educational system.

The priority which Fine Gael afforded this area is not evidenced from this Government even at this early stage. The Minister for Labour in his speech on the budget when he indicated his legislative work programme made no reference of any intention with regard to amendments of the equality legislation. I regard that as a regrettable omission. We had the extraordinary spectacle of the now Minister for Agriculture, the then Opposition spokesman on Finance, taunting AnCO because they had provided apprenticeships for girls in non-traditional areas, such as welding and bricklaying. The Minister suggested that they should be punished for this eccentricity by having their funding reduced. I very much hope that that sort of nonsense does not permeate this Government's approach and that we will see them taking the question of equality seriously. There is a view in some circles that this is an issue which can wait for better times when the economy is going right and that when everything is going smoothly we can then turn our attention to these matters. That is an entirely fallacious approach. The question of equality is one of fundamental principles and arises in good times as well as bad times. We have to be concerned at how little progress has been made in this area. Even though it is now 13 or 14 years since the impetus of our membership of the European Community led to a series of legislative measures in this area, the gap between average industrial wages for men and women has not narrowed. This should be a cause of concern to every Member in the House.

As I have said, I am sorry the Minister did not indicate in his Budget Statement that the equality area would be one of his legislative priorities. It is the case that for some time — and I accept for all of that time — we were in a position to respond and were beginning the task of responding. The Employment Equality Agency have been pressing for reforms, some of which are of a minor nature, housekeeping matters, which would facilitate them in their work. Others are of substance and it is highly important that the Minister should take out that file and restore it to his legislative priority table.

Specifically, we are seriously in default in that our equality legislation deals only with the question of equality in employment. It does not deal with wider questions such as equality in education and access to services, and of particular importance in the financial area, the question of entitlement to credit. We undertook as part of United Nations Women's Year to adhere to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

During Question Time I asked the Taoiseach what his intentions were in that area and he indicated that it might be a matter for an interdepartmental committee and that no doubt the Department of Justice would have a role. I have since been informed, in what must be one of the quickest U-turns on record — although under this Government that is called a clarification — that this will be a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not mind who looks after it, but it is an area where the State has undertaken responsibilities and it is important that those responsibilities should be fulfilled as speedily and as fully as possible.

The measure before us is of limited importance but of potentially not inconsiderable importance. It is to be welcomed. I am sure it will receive a welcome from all sides of the House but, in so far as it is largely a housekeeping exercise, I want to repeat to the Minister that I hope he will see to it that the equality area will receive a degree of priority within his Department.

Miss Colley

I should like to join with Deputy Birmingham in congratulating the Minister, Deputy Ahern, on his elevation and to wish him well in his work.

I welcome the bringing forward of this order by the Minister for Labour, Deputy Ahern. It arises as a result of a report to the Minister for Labour by the Employment Equality Agency. This report was published in 1978. It is to be welcomed as a long overdue small step in providing the framework in which equality of opportunity will be given to women in the workplace. As policy decisions regarding equality of women and men in the work-place have been taken and equality legislation has been passed, it has become evident that some of the employment legislation already in place is at odds with the newer legislation. A number of Acts, including the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, and the Safety in Industry Acts of 1955 and 1980, required amendments.

The order before the House is intended to make the relevant amendments recommended in the report of the Employment Equality Agency. However, even though in their annual report of 1984 the Employment Equality Agency drew attention to anomalies contained in the Safety in Industry Acts of 1955 and 1980, dealing with the use of lead and lead compounds, the agency specifically asked the Department of Labour to treat in a more urgent way the preparation of amending legislation to remove discriminatory aspects of existing statutes regarding employment.

I have to say that, if this is the manner in which the Department of Labour treat submissions of an urgent nature from the Employment Equality Agency whose role is specifically to review existing legislation in the light of equality legislation and recommend changes, I cannot hold out much hope of radical reform in labour legislation in the near future. I am aware that the other House passed this order on 19 March last year but there has been no further movement towards implementing it since then.

It is interesting to point out to the House that just under one-fifth of all women workers are affected by their exclusion from night and Sunday work. This represents a very sizeable proportion of women in the workforce. It is also interesting to note that the 1936 Act restricted women engaged in manual labour in factories or in industry at night. It was permissible for women to carry out other forms of work in factories such as overseeing, directing and managing industrial work. It was also open to the relevant Minister to make exclusion regulations on application to allow women to take part in shift or continuous process work. However, the Minister had to have regard to the provisions of international conventions at the time being ratified and binding on the Government.

The convention which was relevant to this order now before the House was Convention No. 89 of the ILO. I understand from the Minister's speech that we intend to denounce this convention which we would have to do before bringing in this amending order. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to what I believe to be the regulations concerning any denunciations of that convention and they are that, after the expiration of ten years from the date of ratification which we did in 1952, a State can denounce that convention but they must do so either within the first ten years or else at the expiration of each ten year period after that. It seems to me — and I remain open to correction from the Minister — that the last time we could have denounced this convention was in 1982 and the next time we may denounce it is 1992. Would the Minister in his reply address this matter and say what his intentions are?

Presumably, women manual workers were not very numerous when this legislation was introduced. Neither was it thought at the time that this type of work was entirely suitable for women. However, as the numbers of women engaged in industry have increased, and along with their male counterparts have become more organised and had their status increased, these regulations appear to be unnecessarily paternalistic and restrictive. Women are now, and have been for a long time, losing out on additional opportunities for training and promotion because of lack of experience of working all shifts. They also lost out on extra payments which are made in respect of night work or liability for night work. Employment opportunities were also restricted because, where a firm operated on a shift system overnight, the management could not legally employ women on the same basis as men.

When the report was being prepared by the Employment Equality Agency a number of other factors were referred to which deserve mention here. Over the years since this restiction on women working has been in place, Ireland has become more and more industrialised often attracting foreign companies who have set up a plant or plants. Their willingness to do so has been based on the ready availability of well educated and skilled labour. However, there is no doubt that the restrictions referred to in this order have been a disincentive to attracting female employing industries such as electronics and textiles. The Industrial Development Authority are strongly in favour of abandoning the prohibition on the employment of women at night in industry and are of the view that the growth in the trade union movement together with the advent of equal pay was sufficient to ensure that the exploitation which was feared when the legislation was introduced would not now take place.

The point was also made in that report that many of our industries are under-capitalised and that shift work would have the effect of maximising the use of industrial plant. This would be particularly useful where plant becomes obsolete so rapidly nowadays that maximum use should be got from it. Shift work, therefore, is one answer to the problem of rapid obsolescence. There is also the reasoning that in a situation such as ours where there are large numbers of people unemployed, shift work represents a chance of employing more workers and yet using the same plant. It also allows us to increase the volume of output by firms without any extra capital investment. As we move into the nineties, and we hope that demand for our products will increase, particularly in the export market, we must recognise the essential role many women workers play in industries which we hope will provide great output and therefore create more wealth for the country.

We must provide the framework for women to play their full part in this expansion. However, if we are to promote the idea of shift work as a means of increasing output and employment, it is essential that we have regard to proper safeguards for the operation of such a system of working. A number of reports have been completed in this area including that of the Commission of Inquiry on Safety, Health and Welfare at Work who sat under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Donal Barrington in 1983 and who reported in 1984. There is an urgent need to update occupational health and safety legislation to include women. Many of the areas excluded from the present legislation are those in which the majority of women workers are in employment. This is because of the small numbers of women in the workforce, as I mentioned earlier, when this legislation was framed.

I noticed in the report of the debate in the other House on this Order in March of last year the Minister stated that he would be undertaking a monitoring programme of the change in legislation and its effects. I feel it should be said that any supervision of the working and effects of this order should include supervision of shift working in general as it applies to male and female workers under the 1936 Act. I would wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation from the Employment Equality Agency that present arrangements for licensing shift work, besides providing for consultation with both employer and worker representatives, should also take account of local conditions affecting hours of work, transport and rest periods. Too often before now these factors were never taken into account where shift work was concerned because it was only men who were affected and they were assumed not to have to take part in the work of parenting. This is the type of factor which must be taken into account when women are put on the same footing at work, so as to allow both men and women their full role in the world of work and in their family situation. Certain other restrictions would, of course, also have to be included, for example, protection for pregnant women and presumably those who at any given time are medically unfit for night work.

There is a whole body of real reforming legislation needed in this area of health and welfare in working conditions. As I have stated, many of the occupations where employees are predominantly female or where there is a growing number of women — for example in new types of employment in chemical or pharmaceutical and computer-based industries — face real hazards to health. Any changes in legislation or regulations should deal with issues affecting both men and women. Very often the dangers affect both sexes equally, for example, lead poisoning, lifting of heavy weights, laboratory work in hospitals and industry and so on. The so-called clean occupations are often those occupied by women at present. They include work at dental surgeries, hairdressing shops, dry cleaning shops, laundries, laboratories and so on.

I strongly urge the Minister to press ahead with the necessary legislation prompted by the Employment Equality Agency and Barrington reports, and also those emanating from the EC and the international labour organisation. Much of the protective legislation in place at present is outdated and neither takes account of social developments or changes in industry and the development of the electronics industry.

I note in the Minister's budget speech he made reference to his intention to give priority to implementing European Community standards on precautions in the use of lead and other materials. Given that the European Council directive on protection of workers from risk related to exposure to lead and lead compounds required member states to bring in the necessary laws and regulations by 1 January 1986 at the latest, and that we are now over a year behind time, I would like to hear from the Minister a commitment to a time scale for the introduction of this and the other very necessary reforming legislation envisaged.

In conclusion, I want to place on record the support of my party for this amending order. Over the last number of years the legislative process has moved very slowly where updating legislation was needed in the area of employment equality. This has meant unnecessary hardship and frustration for many thousands of women, not just in the area of work governed by the order before the House today, but also in the area of social welfare and, in particular, for part-time workers. This Minister now has a golden opportunity to bring forward the proposed legislation to which I have already referred regarding safety, health and welfare at work, the preparatory work for which has largely been done, and also the legislation which has been in preparation for some years to update and amend the equality legislation of 1974 and 1977. This has become necessary in the light of our experience and also the experience throughout the EC of how the equality legislation worked in practice.

I strongly believe that there should be equal access to opportunities for work, for promotion and for benefits under the welfare system. The longer we do not accept this and act on it, the longer we are confining ourselves to making use of only one portion of our highly educated and well trained workforce. I support this order and the speed with which the Minister has introduced it and appeal to him to proceed as soon as possible with the more complex but necessary legislation I have mentioned.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I should like to extend to the Minister for Labour my kindest regards and to wish him well in his new post. I am aware that he contributed quite a lot to the industrial debate during the lifetime of the previous Government and that at all times he gave a fair and balanced performance. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome this order and to add that it is not before its time. The order pertains to the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, an Act which set the maximum working hours for women industrial workers and restricted their employment on shifts and night work. Those restrictions only applied to women engaged in the industrial field, women workers who are largely unskilled and, in many cases, in the lower income bracket.

Needless to say, the Labour Party welcome any measure which attempts to improve conditions for those women and to enhance their earning potential and promotion prospects. During the Seanad debate on this Order the then junior Minister at the Department of Labour, Deputy Enda Kenny, stated that the number of women workers engaged in the production industries covered by these legal limits totalled 62,600, a figure refered to by the Minister today, and of this number approximately 18 per cent were directly affected. So, in effect, 11,268 women will benefit from the change brought on by this Order.

This is a crucially important step because at the moment the structures are piecemeal, as mentioned by Deputy Colley. I have no doubt that the Minister will bring them together. Pockets of industrial women workers have acquired exemption from the conditions of the Act because their employers have applied for licences from the Department. Having to acquire a special licence to obtain permission to work after 8 p.m. is not satisfactory. The licences operate for specified industries and for specified places of employment but this still leaves the vast majority of industrial women workers having to comply with the archaic legislation. The fact that they have had to wait 15 more years before a change was brought about is an indictment of the system. When one considers that many people during that period had to work from a disadvantaged position one realises how archaic the system was.

It follows that if women workers cannot avail of night work their position in applying for industrial jobs is weaker and they are, in effect, discriminated against. In addition, they are deprived of any extra allowances or favourable promotional positions which would require a commitment to after-hours working. Those involved in the high tech industries must work long hours if the companies are to keep up with the challenges facing them. People must work beyond normal working hours in those industries.

It is a sad reflection on the legislative process that almost a decade since the initiation of the equality legislation which came to us from the European Parliament that Ireland still lags some considerable lengths behind other member states on its attitude to women workers. In European terms Irish women work the longest hours and in many cases in conditions inferior to their European counterparts and for still only 68 per cent of the average male industrial earnings. The 1936 Act which prohibited people from working on shifts and enhancing their earnings militated against female workers.

During the current economic recession the position of women workers has deteriorated even further. Thousands of women work in industrial plants for a very low wage and then return home to face another days' work in the home caring for children and getting them ready for school. Their conditions are many years behind some of the more advanced European states, where women workers enjoy a shorter working week, with equitable rates of pay and creche facilities to provide for children during the working day. It is indeed regrettable that not alone do Irish women not enjoy the average European standards, but that in 1987 we are discussing an Order to allow women to work after 8 p.m.

For many women night work is the only opportunity to get out of the home to earn money to supplement the family income. It may be possible for the husband to be at home to cater for the children so that women do not have to worry about paying for child minders or leaving the children in the care of friends, relations or neighbours.

While I accept that the order advances the cause of equality for women, I would ask the Minister if it is possible to add conditions to the order to make provision for meals, transport and more flexible working conditions for pregnant women. A woman who is pregnant is still vulnerable under the system and there must be a far more tolerant approach. There are physical and mental stresses involved in industrial employment. Physical effort such as lifting can endanger the life of a pregnant woman who may be compelled for economic reasons to work.

The implementation of the order is to be monitored by the Employment Equality Agency to ensure that it works effectively and to highlight any problems which emerge.

As the Minister will be aware, there are a number of temporary licences in existence already and since 1980 quite a number of women have availed of these temporary licences. These incidences will have given the Minister some measure of information about the working of the night scheme and some obvious problems will have already come to light. Problems such as pregnancy and transport will already have emerged and it is regrettable that the Minister did not take this opportunity to attach some appropriate conditions to cover these problems at this stage, rather than waiting for a report from the monitoring agency.

The Minister will be aware that our society has become more violent and that women are particularly at risk travelling to and from work at night. These risks are pertinent to both city and country, but women in rural Ireland do have very particular problems with transport. A condition in the order pertaining to transport facilities would have made it easier for rural women to opt for night duty without having to worry about any danger in travelling home. While women have to worry about the normal problems which arise with a pregnancy or have to worry about transport problems, it must be stated that they cannot opt for night work as freely as men. In this respect conditions in the order would have made the situation more equitable.

I would ask the Minister to give some serious consideration to these points, to attach conditions and not to wait for another two to three years for a report from the monitoring agency.

With regard to the monitoring of the order I would ask the Minister to ensure that the Employment Equality Agency, the body specified to monitor the order, be given adequate finance from the Department of Labour to carry out this important work.

I note from the budgetary estimates that the finance to the Department of Labour is in line with 1986 figures. If this is to be the case, I would like to put it to the Minister that he ensure that money be set aside for monitoring work to ensure that the workings of the order are watched carefully to prevent any further hardship on women workers.

Finally, I should like to make one point about equality legislation and its implementation in Ireland. It is a great weakness that some of the aspects of the equality legislation have not yet been implemented and other aspects are not even workable at the moment in Ireland. On this very point I would mention the Fianna Fáil statement during the Seanad debate of 19 March 1986 on the Employment Equality (Employment of Women) Order, 1986, when Senator Hillery stated:

I would like to register my disappointment that the amending legislation has not been before us up to now. In fact, I would ask the Minister to give us his best estimate of when we can expect the publication of the amended legislation. I am happy to support the order and wish it a speedy passage through the House.

I would join with Senator Hillery in that regard and hope that this can be taken as a Fianna Fáil commitment to equality legislation. I look forward to seeing a greater emphasis on equality for women workers both on the industrial front and for women workers in the home.

Lastly, I would ask the Minister to ensure that the numbers of women involved in industrial work after 8 p.m. be listed as a separate category in the Department of Labour annual reports in order that we may keep a close watch on the situation. This is a reasonable request. If there are problems arising from this order it is only right that Members of this House should be afforded the opportunity of commenting. This would not be possible without the proper information and statistics.

Mrs. Barnes

As time is running out I will endeavour not to cover ground already covered by other Deputies. I could not let this opportunity pass without welcoming this tardy legislation into the House. Other Deputies have referred to the time it has taken to come before us. I was a member of the Employment Equality Agency in 1978 when these recommendations were made and it was pointed out at that stage that it was totally contrary to the Employment Equality Act that any obstacle at all should exist to deny women equality of training, work and promotion. Yet this has been happening.

I express my best wishes to the Minister for Labour. I am letting him know that I shall be monitoring very carefully certain aspects of labour legislation and that I hope to be able to give constructive support.

These various pieces of legislation have been introduced in a long drawn out fashion since 1978 when the recommendations were made. They went through the Seanad in 1986 but did not reach this House until 1987. I make a heartfelt plea to the Minister and his officials to show by action that we have a genuine commitment to equality of opportunity and equality of rights for women. The tardiness of all administrations in bringing forward the necessary legislation does not show such a commitment. As usual in times of economic crisis there is a certain amount of pressure to discourage women from participating in the workforce. In these circumstances it behoves us to bring in this legislation, not just to remove obstacles but to move on to a second phase by looking at the practice of equality legislation here and throughout Europe and recognising that it is not as effective or fast moving as it should be. The reason is that all legislation regarding equality between the sexes, particularly in regard to employment, training and opportunity, must have a built-in affirmative action programme. I would be delighted to have a conversation with the Minister on this topic at any time.

I also welcome the Taoiseach's statement at Question Time today that he will re-establish as soon as possible the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights as he sees this as the best possible source of proposals for positive action. I absolutely approve of that; it is one of the areas from which positive action will come. I would ask the Minister for Labour to use his influence to help in setting up that committee. I am not trying to pre-empt what a future joint committee will do, but the former members worked very constructively together on a non-party basis and had decided that the whole area of employment for women and the monitoring of relevant legislation would be the next part of the agenda. Hopefully that will be high on the agenda when the committee are reconstituted. I welcome what other Members have said with regard to the fact that the order will provide necessary monitoring to ensure that the health and safety not alone of women but of men, will be safeguarded. I know the Minister will be looking at this area with regard to other pieces of legislation. The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions which is based in Loughlinstown have made some recommendations. They have been monitoring the situation.

I will quickly refer to some of the points both the foundation and Deputy O'Sullivan have made. One is that adequate transport, adequate conditions of comfort and adequate breaks between shifts would be seen to be important. This is very good and should be the foundation of all our legislation. In an ever changing technological work structure the search for solutions must be flexible. We must monitor always the effects of new technology and new work on ourselves. I know the Minister will always take into consideration that we must be flexible to change.

I am aware the time is passing and I would like to give the Minister an opportunity to reply. I look forward to all sides of this House working towards more affirmative legislation than we have here today. Both Deputies O'Sullivan and Colley referred to the necessity of safeguarding the health and safety of women on shift work. I reflect cynically on the fact that women were prevented by legislation from working at night in certain jobs yet were always allowed work in long drawn out and very badly paid jobs where they were totally disorganised such as cleaning, without any thought being given to their health and safety. May I add my plea to those who have asked the Minister to give high priority to the whole area of protective legislation for part-time workers. Women make up a great part of this group. When we open up opportunities for women at work, whether training or promotion, we must ensure that at the same time we relieve them of some of the burden of the household tasks. Men will have to share this burden because otherwise women will be pushed merely into pressured, burdensome and hardworking lives so that instead of their being liberated, they will be oppressed further. This has got to be the bottom line for every piece of legislation we bring in.

Perhaps I can cheer the House up by telling about the experience in Cuba. As you can imagine that country had a certain difficulty with male attitudes to sharing family and household responsibilities but the Cubans were inventive enough to draw up a family code which spelled out very directly, seriously and authoritively to men where their responsibilities lay in the house. I suggest to the Minister that when we consider the legislation we need we should think about having as a foundation, a family code which would ensure the sharing of tasks and parenting within the household.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

I thank the party spokespersons for their kind remarks and I congratulate Deputies Barnes, Birmingham, Colley and O'Sullivan on their promotion. As it is an honour to be a Cabinet member, I always considered it an honour too, to be a shadow spokesman. Unfortunately, I have spent longer here in the latter role than in my present role.

May I say briefly, though not in any contentious way, that we cannot be proud of our failure in the past few years to implement legislation that was necessary. I assume that the Minister and Minister of State of the day did their utmost. It is only with the co-operation of the other parties that I can succeed in having passed the legislation I am anxious to have enacted. I certainly have the will but the records of Dáil Éireann down through the years is full of the will of Ministers. Their legacy, after leaving office is a different matter. I know I speak for the Employment Equality Agency, of which Deputy Barnes was an active member, probably the most active member for several years, when I say that they received a lot of commitment from Ministers. At the start of my reign I am anxious to bring forward this motion today to show that at least we can bring forward something. With the co-operation of the spokespersons we can enact legislation. I do not mind saying it was difficult enough to get the motion ordered for today but I hope that with the co-operation of the spokespersons we will achieve a little more than has been achieved in the past.

This Government have shown their commitment to facing up to their responsibilities. We will bring forward in a timely manner practical measures which will serve to effect improvements in workers' rights and promote greater flexibility in the labour market. An extensive review of the Equality Acts is underway but requires more time to complete. As I indicated at the outset this order is in some respects a forerunner to the safety, health and welfare at work legislation which will lay the foundations for a universal and effective system of safety covering all employees, employers and self employed. I hope to introduce this legislation with your help in the House in the autumn session. It is fairly fundemental and detailed legislation.

I will deal quickly with some of the queries. I noted the points Deputy Birmingham made and I will endeavour to pursue them. Deputy Colley asked about the conditions attaching to shift working licences. I think Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned this also. Conditions attaching to these licences will in future require companies to provide hot meals at night. In addition, there will be a recommendation to employers to consult employees about possible transport arrangements. These arrangements will apply to both men and women. With regard to monitoring the order, I consider the order to be a very important exercise which must be developed well. The area is one of concern both domestically and within Europe. It is one which Ireland is approaching more vigorously than most other member states of the European Community. There is also the consideration that removal of the ban on industrial nightwork by women has obviously direct connections with the broader issue of labour market flexibility.

I have proposed that monitoring the effects of the order will be by way of a research project, the parameters of which will be worked out beforehand between my Department and the Employment Equality Agency. The agency have agreed to act as advisers in this process. We had meetings yesterday with the chairperson of the agency on this matter. The intention is that they would take part in the monitoring process for a limited period, say, the first six to nine months of the operation of the order.

We need to get a clear picture on the ground of the order and whether the measure is enough to facilitate greater equality. There may be also the related question of the impact on employers of the recommendations currently attached to shift work licences. I envisage discussions taking place between my Department and the agency very shortly in order to settle satisfactorily the necessary concrete arrangements for getting the research project underway. In that context we will examine the points made by the Deputy in relation to the scope of the monitoring. The Deputy who referred to the ILO Convention 89 may be unaware that that was denounced in 1982. I think the other Convention relates to mining.

Miss Colley

On a point of information, may I ask why it is not in the Library and if a copy of it will be placed in the Library?

Mr. B. Ahern

Yes, that will be done. The Taoiseach has answered some of Deputy Birmingham's questions at Question Time but regarding the amendment of the Equal Payment and Employment Equality Acts, a subject mentioned by the other Deputies too——

Mr. Birmingham

The Taoiseach answered one question but circled another.

Mr. B. Ahern

The legislative proposals designed to amend the two Acts have been prepared. However, I have requested that a review of these proposals be undertaken by my Department. I want to have them assessed to ensure, first, that the proposals concerned are valid and, secondly, that they seriously address the real difficulties which the operation of the two Acts may have brought to life. I put a timescale of approximately one year on the work when I discussed the issue yesterday with the Chairperson of the Employment Equality Agency because I believe the amendment is important. A little more time spent in getting the Bill right is more appropriate.

A number of things have happened since the first review of the legislation. My officials advise — I think it is correct advice and the advice would be supported by the agency and, I hope by the spokespersons for the parties — that it would be better to take some time to ensure that the two Acts are amended properly. As has been pointed out, it is ten years since they were reviewed. The reviews that take place will be proper reviews and we will bring in a Bill — we will not rush it thus leading to a series of further orders, amendments and difficulties over the years. I would rather spend a year trying to get matters right. I would be very happy to keep the spokespersons briefed on the progress through the year to avoid any difficulty.

I thank the Deputies for supporting this order. It is just a measure to put something on the programme and I ask them for their support in legislation which I hope to bring forward in my term of office.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Hilliard)

It is 5 p.m. In accordance with the Order of the House the debate must now be concluded.

Question put and agreed to.