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.