Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 1990

Vol. 397 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Protection of Part-Time Workers (Employment) No. 2) Bill, 1989: Second Stage.

Mr. Rabbitte

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

There were a number of important issues contending for this first ever allocation of Private Members' time to The Workers' Party. The reason we resolved to progress our Bill, the Protection of Part-time Workers (Employment) (No. 2) Bill, 1989, is that we recognised that this is an area of widespread exploitation and abuse of employment practices and the ongoing failure to introduce legislation to protect part-time workers is tantamount to condoning their exploitation.

On 2 November 1989 the Minister for Labour told me in reply to a parliamentary question that there were 72,000 part-time workers, in the sense defined in this Bill, within the workforce. He said more than 60 per cent of these were women although in his definitive study for the Department and the IPC, Mr. John Blackwell, concluded that for 1987, 72 per cent of all regular part-time workers were female. The point is that the number of part-time workers in the labour force has almost doubled in the last 10 years and the current ICTU estimate is that there are 100,000 regular and occasional part-time workers. The vast majority of these have no protection against unfair dismissal or redundancy and have no entitlements to holidays, maternity leave or minimum notice. Frequently they endure poor working conditions, lack of job security, are afraid to join trade unions and suffer low pay — sometimes to the point of scandalous exploitation.

On this dimension of low pay, in the course of an address to the joint ICTU-Combat Poverty Agency Conference in December 1989, ITGWU economist Rosheen Callendar commented:

One of the main effects of the continuing exclusion of part-time workers from the scope of most existing protective legislation (unfair dismissals, redundancy, insolvency, etc.) as well as from most social insurance cover, is to dramatically reduce the total value of their work. In the vast majority of cases, the rewards for part-time working are grossly disproportinate to the rewards for full-time working and discrepancy can in no way be accounted for solely by the differences in hours worked.

Usually, even when hourly rates of pay are the same for full-time and part-time workers, the latter's conditions of employment are inferior: they tend to be excluded from pensions cover, various kinds of paid and unpaid leave, valuable fringe benefits, access to training and promotion and so on. Add to these factors the less immediate, long-term effects of their exclusion from PRSI and most employment legislation and you get a "total job package" which is considerably less valuable than their actual working hours would tend to imply.

Also on 2 November 1989 the Minister for Labour seemed to indicate that he accepted these facts and said he hoped "to have a Bill ready for introduction to the Oireachtas in the new year".

In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Independent on 4 February this year the Minister promised to “wage war on employers who exploit part-time workers” and noted that “even highly reputable companies are taking advantage of the current unprotected position of those who don't work a full day”. I acknowledge that this represents a significant step forward for the same Minister who, as recently as 30 April 1987 completely espoused the employers' line when he told my party colleague, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, that “it would not be possible to bring more part-time workers into the protection of the legislation governing dismissals and redundancy payments”.

Let me give one example to illustrate the reasons part-time workers require the protection of this legislation. I have a letter here from a part-time worker who first gives me her name and then goes on to say:

I am 19 years old and I am a low paid part-time worker. I started my career as a part-time worker at 15 years of age in a restaurant in one of Dublin's leading stores south of the Liffey. I worked a nine hour day on Saturdays and on holidays from school for which I was paid a pittance. I had no control over the work which was expected of me and I don't know what I was employed as. Was I a waitress? Was I a cleaner? Was I a porter? Was I a cashier? Was I a cook's help or was I all these things for just £15 a week? After a year and a half's work the restaurant closed down. I was given absolutely no notice, just my day's pay. When I left the store that evening I had no social welfare cover, no job prospects and no come back, nothing.

I have since worked in two major establishments, one a leading bakery with a chain of restaurants and the other a restaurant in another big department store north of the Liffey. These jobs were no different to the one that gave me my first taste of part-time work in catering, no job security, no social security, no job description and low pay.

One other thing they all had in common was that they all started by telling me the same two things, "at any stage of your employment we can let you go and because you work part-time you have no right to ask for an explanation; being a part-time worker you will have no need to join a trade union, if you have any problems you can always come up and have a chat with us about them".

There were plenty of problems but there was no time to chat about them. This experience is typical of what a part-time worker in this catering industry can expect. You just have to look down along O'Connell Street where we are surrounded by fast food joints. Many of these places subject their workers to disgraceful conditions. They give them no staff facilities and for their days slog they get £1-odd per hour. Yesterday I inquired about a vacancy on O'Connell Street and was offered £1.70 per hour. It must be made clear that neither I nor any other part-time workers choose to work under these conditions. Economic necessity forces us to do it.

The employers' line in response to that, when dressed up by the FIE, is that "the great benefit of part-time work is its flexibility" and then they threaten that any changes in national legislation which inhibit flexibility would have extensive and lasting negative effects by which is meant that such changes would adversely impact on job creation.

The General Secretary of the ICTU, Mr. Peter Cassells, at the summer conference on this issue, opened by the Minister for Labour, made clear that he did not accept that extending labour legislation and social insurance cover to part-time workers would inhibit job creation. To underline his point he invoked the Department of Labour's own survey of August 1986 on employers' perceptions of the effect of labour legislation which showed that less than 1 per cent of respondent firms raised any issue related to the area of labour legislation. In his study John Blackwell agrees with this and calls this factor, "hardly a major influence". Of course, those countries in Europe with the best track record in job creation such as Germany and Sweden are also the countries most heavily regulated with regard to job creation. Indeed, it is instructive that it was the countries with the highest proportion of part-time employment — Britain and Denmark — that buried the 1982 Draft Directive on Voluntary Part-time Work as published by the European Commission.

If the Minister has a copy of that Draft Directive to hand he will note that The Workers' Party Bill draws heavily on it for definitions and interpretation and stays as close as possible to the definitions in the existing labour legislation to which we have referred.

In Part I we deal with the short title and provide that the provisions of the Bill should come into operation not less than six months from the date of enactment. On the question of interpretation each of the terms stays as close as possible to the definitions in the Acts that will require to be amended if the Bill is passed. Part II contains the specific provisions to afford part-time workers equal treatment on a pro rata basis with their full-time colleagues. The final section contains a provision for disputes arising as a result of entitlements under the Bill.

The major study in this area was carried out by John Blackwell and it showed that in 1987, of 1,093,000 persons in regular employment, 65,600 had a part-time job. Since 1984 the number of regular jobs had fallen from 771,400 to 736,100; in the case of men with part-time regular jobs the number increased from 14,800 to 18,400. In the case of females over the same period the number of regular jobs has gone up from 344,300 thousand to 356,900, most of this comprising an increase in part-time regular jobs, from 39,100 to 47,200. In other words, the number of males at regular work is declining but part-timers are increasing and almost all the increase in women is due to the part-time phenomenon. So much for the economic miracle.

Blackwell found that half of part-time workers are found in the group consisting of distributive trades, insurance, finance and business services. By contrast transportable goods industries account for only 10 per cent supporting the OECD trend that mass production and capital-intensive industries employ a lower than average proportion of part-time workers. Part-time working, Blackwell found to be "almost non-existent in the public sector, in the security area and in many Government Departments" even where private contractors have increasingly been hired for cleaning work. If part-time workers are classified by occupation, he found that four occupations account for the bulk of part-time workers: service workers, including catering and cleaning occupations, account for 25 per cent of all part-time work; agricultural workers for 19 per cent; commerce, insurance and finance workers, who include shop assistants and bar staffs, for 16 per cent of all part-time work, and professional and technical for 16 per cent of the total.

Although he acknowledges that between 1977 and 1987 the proportion of all employment in services increased from 48 per cent to 57 per cent, Blackwell concludes that, on balance, he does not find "persuasive the argument that a great deal of the rise in part-time working can be explained by the shift to services sector activity".

Some of the increase in part-time working has reflected the demand on the part of employers. Some has mirrored an increase in labour force participation. Some of that increase in the labour force has consisted of people who — at least, for the moment — only wish to work part-time. On this point, the labour force participation rates of married women in Ireland are currently well below those of other European countries. There is a potential labour force which is at the moment hidden in part by the combined effects of attitudes in society and the discouragement due to the high unemployment and emigration rates.

One does not need the evidence of available research to conclude that it is the large gap between the total value, hour for hour, of part-time and full-time work that attracts employers to defending the status quo. Despite the increase in part-time work in recent years it is still the least preferred option — availed of mainly because of the lack of full-time opportunities.

I believe that employers are being short-sighted. Unless part-time work is fairly rewarded, in proportion to full-time working, in all respects — I must emphasise that — its potential economic and social value will not be realised, either by employers or employees. I would argue that if the FIE were to co-operate in placing part-time work on a truly equal footing it could open up many interesting and mutually advantageous possibilities in the future.

One of the major areas of discrimination against part-time workers is their eligibility for social insurance cover. The majority of people who work for less than 18 hours per week are considered to be part-time workers for social insurance purposes. Many part-time workers are not allowed to be in the full PRSI — class A, therefore, they are not entitled to employment benefit, disability benefit and other social insurance payments. This discriminates against women because the large majority of part-time workers are women.

In a recent case the Court of Justice of the European Communities has held that a rule which discriminates against part-time workers, where such a measure affects a much larger number of women than men, is in breach of the EC directive on equal treatment for men and women in social welfare unless it can be justified on grounds unrelated to sex. It would, therefore, appear likely that the exclusion of part-time workers from full insurance cover by the Department of Social Welfare is in breach of the directive since this affects far more women than men and since it is difficult to see what objective grounds could be advanced by the Department to justify this blanket exclusion.

The recent budget announcement and the provisions in the Social Welfare Bill introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare basically provide that workers' gross earnings which are at or below £60 per week will be exempt from their share of the PRSI contribution from 6 April 1990. Therefore, part-time workers whose gross earnings are £60 or less per week if reclassified by the scope section, in the light of the European case, would be fully insured for all benefits and would not have to pay any additional contributions. I am quite satisfied that the measures proposed in the Social Welfare Bill do not obviate the likelihood of a challenge in this country. In Ireland the vast majority of part-time workers, working less than 18 hours per week, only have class J insurance if, indeed, they have that at all, and this only covers them for health benefits and occupational injuries. The only exceptions are where people work less than 18 hours per week but can establish that their part-time employment is not "of a subsidiary nature" or of "inconsiderable extent". Since this is normally the case only where a person's hourly earnings are well above average and constitute the person's only or major means of support, it is rare for women workers to work less than 18 hours per week and be insured at the full class A rate. There is an entire major category of part-time workers for which there are major implications for Ireland.

In the Ruzius v. Willbrink decision the Dutch Government was found to be in breach of article 4.1 of the EC directive 79.7. This relates to a provision whereby part-timers were paid lower social welfare benefits when suffering from incapacity for work and was found to be indirectly discriminatory as more women than men were affected and was not "objectively justified". This would seem to have very specific implications for the situation in Ireland and in this context the German case, which was decided only last week, of Rinner v. Kuhn similarly will have implications here in terms of the minimum notice, unfair dismissals and Holidays (Employees) Act.

I would also like to refer to the report prepared for the National Pensions Board entitled Changing Employment Patterns in Ireland — Recent Trends and Future Prospects (1989), prepared by Donal Dinneen which concludes that:

Employment has been declining, unemployment rising and aggregate output increasing in recent years. Hence fewer people are required to provide the needs of the market place. The spectre of jobless growth for the next few years, especially in manufacturing, looms large.

He goes on to make the following projections:

Growth in the relative importance of part-time employment as women increase their participation in the labour force and services employment expands; limited overall employment opportunities to slow down the expansion of female participation rates so that part-time employment is unlikely to expand to more than 10 per cent of the total at work outside agriculture. Total atypical employment forms to account for between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of the total at work, perhaps growing towards the upper figure.

Dinneen records that these projections are based on a slowly growing total employment level and concludes that:

... if employment grows more rapidly the recent UK experience may be replicated, where most of the increased employment was part time. Based on international comparisons this is the one typical employment form which has most potential to grow rapidly in Ireland.

Therefore regular part-time workers are likely to expand to about 10 per cent of the total at work by about 1996 and I think the Minister for Labour is on record as accepting this likely trend. The current legislation is not neutral but actually encourages employers to convert full-time jobs to part-time jobs. The FIE is being less than honest when opposing the extension of protective legislation because they said:

Part-time work is an important element in labour market flexibility... which in turn is considered essential to ensure competitiveness and to maintain employment.

After the success of the Programme for National Recovery in securing unprecedented wage restraint, it would be manifestly absurd to continue bleating about wage costs in the Irish economy damaging competitiveness. Nonetheless this resistance to equal treatment for part-time workers is merely a continuation of the “competitiveness chorus” of the seventies by employers because part-time workers are bluntly a source of cheap labour. They can reorganise their work schedules at will, hire and fire with impunity and are liable to minimum indirect costs. The experience shows that “flexibility” can too easily become for many employers, synonymous with exploitation and expendability.

Flexibility can and should be preserved and can be mutually advantageous to employer and employee alike provided that part-time workers are fairly rewarded and properly protected. Indeed the FUE — they are now the FIE, the Federation of Irish Employers——

Mr. B. Ahern

Be careful to get it right.

Proinsias De Rossa

They regard themselves as a union.

Mr. Rabbitte

When it comes to a definition of "Irish", the FIE take an even more expansive view than the FAI. The FIE would, in my opinion, more properly be concerned that those employers who have company-union agreements which provide pro rata benefits to part-time workers should not be put at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis non-union employment not covered by such agreements. It should be the primary responsibility of the FIE to protect good employers who treat part-time workers fairly, rather than fighting a discredited rearguard action for sweatshop employers who are only interested in part-time workers as a source of cheap labour. I will give some examples in a few moments.

I referred earlier to the Minister's commitment in the House on 2 November to bring forward a Bill in the New Year. This has not happened and being realistic, given the scheduling of business in this House, it is unlikely that the Minister will be able to bring forward any such legislation before the summer recess and perhaps even before the end of this calendar year. Therefore, I plead with the Minister not to engage in technical objections to this Bill. The Workers' Party will be delighted to take on board any amendment from the Minister consistent with the objectives of the Bill. I ask him to support the Bill which I have moved on behalf of The Workers' Party because of the extent of exploitation of so many defenceless part-time workers and the urgency attaching to this matter.

The Minister has said elsewhere that it is his objective to attempt to achieve a practical balance between the two viewpoints of the unions and the employers. The Minister will have to wait forever if he expects all employers to voluntarily forego the benefits which currently attach to the use and abuse of part-time labour. I submit that this Bill is well balanced and seeks to do no more than provide equal treatment on a pro rata basis for part-time workers as compared to full-time workers. There is no middle way.

I was surprised and disappointed that the Minister, when confronted with questions concerning the extension of legislation to part-time workers and a national minimum wage, has on more than one occasion hinted that his middle way may consist of extending the role of the joint labour committees. Surely the Minister is well aware of the very limited success of the joint labour committees up to the present. For example, the data produced by John Blackwell illustrates beyond doubt the failure of joint labour committees to eradicate low pay in the industries covered by them. This has been confirmed by my union in an exercise carried out by their research department. An exercise was carried out recently to establish what proportion of available wage rates for each industry were below £140 per week. The highest by far, 77 per cent, was in industries covered by joint labour committees and joint industrial council agreements. This was followed by 53 per cent in the textile industry and 47 per cent in services. The remaining groups were all below 27 per cent and ten were below 17 per cent.

The evidence from other countries appears to be that while low pay is a major problem in countries without a statutory national minimum wage, such as Ireland and the UK, it is usually less so in countries which have adopted one. Furthermore, there is no record of countries abandoning this form of regulation once it is introduced. I am all the more surprised at the Minister apparently persisting with the joint labour committee mechanism as an effective method of tackling the low pay problem when as recently as 4 February this year in the exclusive interview with the Sunday Independent to which I have already referred the Minister is quoted as saying “there is a high danger of exploitation”. He also said “I have lots of evidence that the most sophisticated systems are used to keep people below the hours threshold and thus unprotected.” I fully agree with the Minister in this analysis and I presume he is well aware that the sophisticated systems to which he referred are also used to effectively avoid the impact of negotiations in some of the joint labour committees.

I want to refer to the £30 million per annum contract cleaning industry. I am sure every Deputy knows of individual cases of exploitation in this industry. In recent years the trade unions belatedly made a more concerted effort to organise this predominantly part-time female workforce and the hourly rate was painfully and slowly increased to the not very princely sum of £3.10 per hour today. Up to a few years ago the norm in that industry was 20 hours per week. Employers gradually began to evade the impact of the improved wages by reorganising work schedules so that the norm now is from 15 to 17 hours. Accordingly, these workers are predominantly not covered by the usual protective legislation.

This trend was bitterly accelerated by the manner in which the then Minister for Social Welfare, Mr. Barry Desmond, chose to belatedly implement the EC equality directive. The House will recall on that occasion that when women became so entitled to an arbitrary ceiling on earnings of £50 their male spouses who were in receipt of social welfare benefits could not claim their wives as dependants, which meant their benefits were reduced by a substantial amount which varied with the circumstances. As a result there is the horrific prospect of employers on the one hand preventing this type of contract worker in the contract cleaning industry, contract security industry, contract catering industry, etc., rescheduling their work so that they would have fewer hours and fall outside the scope of the legislation and evade the effect of wage increases by giving them fewer hours to work and on the other hand these unfortunate women colluding in this practice because they are afraid that if they go over the £50 ceiling their husbands will lose a good deal more than the few pounds they earn in excess of £50 per week. There are several examples of this.

Part-time workers in some of the major multiple stores are told to clock out after 17½ hours work each week and to continue working. This is in order to avoid social welfare and other protective legislation. One of the workers involved was owed 90 hours. Young part-time workers who one day worked from 8 a.m. to 4 a.m. the following day, in some cases against the law, had just one break and after they had completed their work they had to walk home. Part-time night crew workers who could not use the canteen at night because of the alarm system had to take their breaks sitting on the shop floor. This week I heard about part-time workers in a major store in Dublin who come in at 9.30 a.m. but are told there is no work for them and to come back when it is busy. They come back when it is busy and their domestic arrangements require them to knock off at 6 p.m. but they cannot do so because their employer wants them to stay on. In the case which came to my attention recently the part-time workers were locked inside the store because the security man closed it at 9 p.m. and the manager had hopped around to the local pub and did not return until 11.30 p.m. This is a good example of how many employers regard their part-time workers.

I know of several instances where part-time workers are given soft drinks and biscuits in return for working additional hours of overtime in supermarkets. In one case a part-timer was given a tin of paint and paint brush and told to paint the outside of the shop for £1.20 per hour. Part-time workers who turn up for work are often told to go home because they are not needed. The new emerging independent group of retailers who employ part-time staff for £1 per hour are paying their part-time employees out of petty cash, not giving them holidays, sick pay, pay slips, etc. Part-time staff are working between 12 and 16 hours per day for flat rates of pay. All hours are treated as equal in respect of pay.

A number of trade union agreements given to me today show that some extraordinary practices are being required of part-time workers who have to sign contracts which virtually sign away any minimal rights they have. Everything is at the company's absolute discretion and each new employee must accept and agree to the concept of change in practices and procedures and agree to co-operate positively. The best example is where any part-time employees who are suspected of dishonesty in any way are required to submit themselves to a polygraph test to establish whether or not they are telling the truth. These trade union agreements give some idea of the contracts part-time employees are expected to sign.

One agreement states:

Due to the nature of the business shift times may change with little or no notice and employees may be required to work alternative times to those originally posted. It is intended that all of our locations will trade on either a minimum 16 hour day, or a 24 hour day, 365 days a year basis. All employees whether part-time or full-time will be expected to work shifts and for the purposes of this employment all days of the week are considered to be equal....

Because of the nature of the trading hours of our business your hours will vary from week to week....

Employees have a collective responsibility to meet the Company's commitment to provide a public service, therefore employees must be available to work additional hours/overtime should the Company request same. The Company has the right to request reasonable levels of overtime....

The holiday year of the Company is the 1 April to 31 March and all accrued holidays must be taken within the relevant year or within six months after it ends failing which they are lost....

No payment will be made during the period of sick leave, injury and/or leave of absence. You must notify your manager immediately of any infectious/ contagious diseases in your family.

Any such disease would probably result from poverty if people have to sign an agreement like that.

The Company accepts no liability whatsoever for any accident not correctly reported, howsoever caused....

You are required to give a minmimum of two weeks' notice in writing should you decide to terminate employment failing which the company will impose a penalty of pay due.

That is a fine one coming from a company that gives absolutely no rights to the employees, but should they fail to give two week's notice they are liable to be punished by the imposition of a penalty of pay due.

In addition to any of the warnings in paragraphs 1-3 and if the company feels it appropriate, the company may suspend the employee with or without pay for such period as the company feels appropriate.

Needless to recall, in all of these agreements I have in front of me, the workers concerned are clearly given to understand that they may not join a trade union. Depending on the professionalism of the advice available to these employers, that is worded in different ways, the net effect is that there is no union in this employment and if an employee should attempt to join a union he will get his cards, presuming, of course, that he has cards to get in the first place.

The company operate extended hours retail stores under a licensed agreement with another company and the employees must be on call at all times should the business of the store at the time require it. The employee will be expected to devote his entire working time and attention to the company's business and so may not, without the consent in writing of the personnel department, be involved in any outside business or enterprise. This is an agreement to be signed by part-time workers receiving, in this case, £1.40 per hour. They virtually have to sign their entire lives away and be available on call should this particular employer require it. The last clause to be initialled by the employee in this particular agreement is:

The Company has no agreement with any Trade Union and does not recognise the right of any trade union to represent any employee....

Employees will pay a deposit to the Company, deductible from wages at source, for the use of the uniform, this deposit is refundable two weeks after termination of employment provided the uniform is returned to the Company in good reusable condition.

So, even if the nature of the work requires protective clothing the employees are required to pay a deposit to the company deductible from wages at source. Then if they return the uniform in good reusable condition, having brought it to the local dry cleaners, they will get the deposit back.

The Company has the right to question, test or search an employee and his possessions and to search any vehicle on Company property. An outside body may also do this on behalf of the Company.

It also goes on to say that they must submit themselves to a polygraph test if the company deems it necessary.

The Company reserves the right to change the terms and/or conditions set out above on giving seven days notice to its employees. The above terms and conditions ... set out all the terms and conditions of your employment for the purposes of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

I intervene to advise Deputy Rabbitte that the time available to him is now almost exhausted. He might now bring his speech to a close.

Mr. Rabbitte

I was merely trying to illustrate there, by those examples which are by no means exhaustive, how necessary to part-time workers and how urgent is the extension of such protective legislation as exists. These people are seriously exploited. I would hope that the Minister could take this Bill on board rather than promising, in the never never, a Bill from the Government. This is urgent and is in the interests of many workers who are enduring great hardship as a result of the conditions I have described.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

When this Bill was discussed in the autumn of 1988 I indicated that we would have to review various pieces of legislation, and we commenced discussions to follow this through to produce a programme of legislation covering about five different Acts. At the time I said it was important to get a balance and to conclude consultations with both sides of industry before putting forward my own proposals. We are much further down the road now and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter in the House. I will take careful note of what is said throughout what I hope will be a constructive debate.

I cannot argue with what Deputy Rabbitte had to say. In my capacity as Minister and previously outside the House I was involved in the issue of part-time workers. In the early seventies I was involved in the conferences and branches of Deputy Rabbitte's union when the issue of part-time working was being discussed. I remember being involved in the debates about the contract cleaning issue in 1972-73. Because of the growth in difficulties the issue is now more intense, particularly in the food and retail outlets. I have given details in this House several times relating to incidents I have come across with as Opposition spokesman and as Minister for Labour. I know Deputy Rabbitte's colleague, Deputy De Rossa, has attended a number of the conferences organised both by me and by the trade unions.

Like all legislation in the labour area this legislation is particularly urgent. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, has made it clear that in accordance with EC Directives, etc., he intends to bring in amendments in regard to social welfare issues. For my part it is incumbent on me to consult with both sides of industry in discussions. I accept that, as Deputy Rabbitte said, it is not possible at any time to get conclusive agreement between employers, trade unions interests and part-time workers. Our obligation in the Department of Labour is always to involve ourselves in discussions and to come to some conclusions with the social partners in the safety area, worker participation in the State area, in discussions on unfair dismissals, the Payment of Wages Act and the Equality Act, which is still under discussion. We have gone through the same process. I organised the May Conference and we are following it through. This debate is useful in that process.

There has been a significant increase in the number of part-time workers entering the labour force in Ireland over the past decade. The number of regular part-time workers increased from 39,400 in 1977 to 72,000 in 1988. In addition, a further 15,200 people were working as occasional part-time workers in 1988. The growth of part-time work is further illustrated by the fact that in 1977, 4.4 per cent of the workforce were regular part-time workers, whereas by 1988 this figure had increased to 7.8 per cent.

The growth of part-time work is associated with the increase in labour force participation by women. Studies throughout the EC have shown that in all member states the overwhelming majority of part-time workers are female. The same has been found in relation to other atypical forms of work such as temporary working and home based working. In Ireland 70 per cent of regular part-time workers are female and almost two-thirds of these are married. Part-time working allows many women to fulfil a dual role in society, continuing to work while engaged in child rearing and other family responsibilities.

Data collected in the 1987 labour force survey showed that 40 per cent of women worked part-time because of family responsibilities and a further 25 per cent because they did not want a full-time job. Many women find that part-time work and other atypical forms of work allow them the flexibility to fulfil the varied demands which they face. Similarly, many employers find that part-time working and other new forms of atypical working provide them with the flexibility they need to compete effectively in the market place. Because flexibility in work paterns is now often required by both employer and employee, it is likely that part-time work and other atypical forms of work will continue to increase into the 1990s. What may have appeared some years ago as a transitory form of employment arising from an economic recession now looks as if it will be a permanent and growing feature of the employment scene.

Given the problem of unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment, which developed in this country throughout the 1980s we must be careful of the way in which we address the whole issue of labour market regulation. Part-time work offers a valid and useful entry point to the labour market for many people who are excluded from it. Despite the growth in part-time work in this country, it is still at a relatively low level by European standards and we can expect to see significant employment growth in this area. Part-time work will, for many, be a valid and long term employment form. As legislators we must ensure that safeguards exist to protect part-time workers while simultaneously avoiding the danger of over regulation, which would hinder employment growth.

For the purpose of balance in this debate I must add that I have received delegations and deputations from workers in the supermarket trade, an area of which I have been quite critical at Question Time recently, and from the hotel trade, some areas of which I have also criticised. In my own constituency there are a great number of part-time workers. Women have outlined to me the benefits to them of such work, the flexibility and the advantages to employers. While I have several times been quite scathing about supermarket employment, very recently I had a deputation from the constituency represented by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputy De Rossa. They outlined the considerable benefits, advantages and perks organised by their employer. The point they made was that when talking about this issue I should recall that not all employers are in this category in the supermarket and fast food trade. I said I would keep some balance in the argument. I am not too sure if my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, would consider that all the perks they had were totally within the range of the Social Welfare Act, but I will not go into that now.

I mention this point only because most of the people I come across in supermarket work, retailing, the fast food area, cleaning and the security trade tend to be people who have difficulties because of contracts. I have seen many short-term contracts but I am not sure if I have seen any quite as bad as those mentioned today. I have no doubt they are authentic and it would be interesting if such companies were called on by the inspectorate of the Department of Labour. Some of the clauses in the contracts mentioned are extreme even compared to some of those I have seen in the cleaning companies.

The present position is that some labour legislation, for example in the areas of occupational safety and health, employment equality and payment of wages, makes no distinction between full-time and part-time employees. However, a requirement that the individual must work at least 18 hours per week applies in a number of statutes. This was originally designed to exclude persons whose employment was of a subsidiary nature or of inconsiderable extent. The primary protective employment Acts which currently exclude workers who are not employed for a minimum of 18 hours per week are the Unfair Dismisals Act, 1977, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984, the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977-88, the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-84 and to some extent the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act, 1984. Based on 1988 Labour Force Survey figures, the 18 hours threshold has the effect of excluding approximately 20,000 employees, of whom 83 per cent are women, from the benefits of the legislation which incorporates that threshold.

The Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, does not apply an 18 hour eligibility threshold. Instead it excludes from annual leave entitlement those who do not work at least 120 hours per month or 1,400 hours in the leave year and in order for a part-timer to gain entitlement to a public holiday, he must work for at least 120 hours in the preceding five weeks. The higher hours thresholds which apply under the Holidays Act have the effect of excluding approximately 45,000 part-timers, of whom 76 per cent are women, from annual leave entitlement, and an estimated 38,000, 78 per cent women from public holiday entitlement. These are substantial figures.

Because I was concerned about the adequacy of existing labour legislation, in a situation where part-time employment was growing rapidly, I initiated a review of this issue and I sought the views of the social partners. As part of the process of consultation, my Department organised a seminar on the subject of part-time work, which was held in May 1989 and was very well attended. The Federation of Irish Employers, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and a number of leading academics in this area outlined their views and examined the possibilities for, and implications of, legislative change with respect to part-time work. As a result of the discussion and debate arising from the seminar, I think it is fair to say that a measure of agreement has been reached that real steps need to be taken to give stronger legislative protection to persons employed on a regular part-time basis.

The review process was interrupted by the general election of last year but, subsequent to that, proposals for legislative change were drawn up in my Department. These were then circulated in October 1989 to other Government Departments for their views, as is the normal procedure when new legislation is being put forward. The views of other Departments have since been received and considered and my final proposals will be put to Government shortly. Since this area involves Finance, Social Welfare, Industry and Commerce and other Departments, there have to be discussions and consideration at official level. Because labour issues and the rights of trade union members are involved there was considerable discussion with the ICTU and the Federation of Irish Employers.

Before proceeding with any detailed legislative changes in relation to part-time workers I will have to give due regard to changes which are on the horizon at EC level. Following the adoption of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers in Strasbourg last December the European Commission has been engaged in the preparation of a social action programme to implement the charter. A social action programme has now been drawn up by the Commission and as President of the Social Affairs Council I have been working to ensure that the programme is implemented as quickly as possible. As part of this programme, I now expect that the Commission will be in a position to publish a draft directive on atypical work in May or June of this year. Obviously, I will have to take cognisance of these proposals and in as far as possible minimise any areas of conflict which may exist between the draft directive and my own proposals.

We have had an interest here at national level in the whole area of atypical work because it is an issue that has been raised continually over the last year or so both in the House and by the ICTU, though I have to say that in 1987 and 1988 I was one of the few speaking about it. Now there has been a great deal of debate on it and I have pushed and pursued to get a directive on atypical work high on the agenda of the social action programme.

The objective of my proposal will be to significantly improve the position of regular part-time employees without impeding the growth of this sector of the employment market. I am strongly of the view that the major area of concern on this issue relates to part-time employees who are heavily dependent on this form of employment and who are employed permanently or semi-permanently on a part-time basis. I am concerned that regular part-time workers who are employed on a long-term basis are denied entitlement to the most basic protections which are afforded under labour law. It is this inequity I am seeking to address.

Of course, the Bill which is before the House tonight addresses issues in the area of labour law and social welfare and is attempting to bring about change in both areas in a short Bill. The reality of this issue is, I am afraid, much more complex. The Minister for Social Welfare has, as I mentioned at the outset, indicated that he is concerned about the position of part-time workers under the social insurance system. He is currently examining the question of changing the present criteria for insurability so as to provide a greater degree of coverage for workers in this situation. This is, however, a very complex matter and one where there could be considerable financial and other implications for the social insurance system, depending on the course of action which is taken. As part of the broader consideration of this issue the Minister for Social Welfare has asked the National Pensions Board to examine the question of pension entitlements of part-time workers and it is expected that the board will report on that issue in the middle of this year.

Deputy Rabbitte outlined to the House tonight a number of areas on the social welfare code where difficulties arise. I will not in any great degree differ from the content of a number of his remarks on social welfare. We have all dealt with individual cases where people who are on part-time work over a number of years run into serious difficulties. Regrettably, the most serious difficulty of these issues is that often they are insurmountable when people come to raise them. I remember six or seven years ago having long discussions with people in different categories of employment in my constituency when I was spokesman for youth on the A.1 — J.1 benefits and the various related problems and issues. They are significant, but the Minister for Social Welfare has given a clear commitment to the House that these matters in social welfare legislation will be dealt with.

Deputies will appreciate that the proposals the Government will be putting forward later this year will have resulted from a comprehensive review involving detailed considerations with interested parties. The Bill before the House tonight must go through a process of consultation but I have to say that this Bill does not represent a balanced solution to the problem at hand. I am sure the Deputy will agree with that. While he is right in that there can be delays, a Bill of this nature, covering both labour law and social welfare issues and involving a number of Acts cannot be taken as simply as that, regardless of the benefits. There must be financial accounting and the question of what is right for the labour market must be considered as well as all the other aspects. I do not believe that is fudging the issue in any way but these are important issues where a balance has to be found.

Mr. Rabbitte

It would short circuit the entire process if the Minister would bring forward amendments where he thinks they are necessary.

Mr. B. Ahern

The Deputy will know that the basis of this Bill in the autumn of 1988 was formulated by one document which was put forward to me at that stage by the ICTU. That document which was based on a European document and on a totally one-sided view, put the social welfare issues and the labour issues together. Whatever about the rights involved, those issues have to be taken alongside the other circumstances that affect employment, such as the social welfare code, the pensions code and other relevant matters.

Mr. Rabbitte

If the Minister is giving an undertaking to bring forward his own Bill later in the year, surely some of this work has already been refined in his Department. If there is necessity for legal clarity then amend this Bill.

Mr. B. Ahern

I will come to that in a minute. The scope of this Bill is far too wide in that it attempts in a single, brief piece of legislation to deal with the whole area of labour law and social welfare. Secondly, the proposed Bill is also indiscriminate in relation to the target population it seeks to address. It seeks to regulate in the same way the conditions of employment of the student on a summer job, of the secretary doing a couple of weeks' work through an employment agency and of the long term part-timer, with whom I am mainly concerned. I would argue that within the group of workers this Bill seeks to address there is a variety of employment situations which require different types and levels of regulation. The Bill tries to provide everything for everyone in a way which I feel is inappropriate and which would result in a significant reduction in employment growth in this area as it would increase the non-wage costs and bureaucracy associated with short term and casual employment. It would reduce flexibility in the labour market and again tip the balance in favour of machines rather than jobs. Thirdly, the Bill is vague in certain respects. It seeks to determine issues related to remuneration which I firmly believe are best dealt with through the existing collective bargaining system.

There is at present a growth in all forms of atypical employment across Europe and new forms of work are emerging which are providing the main areas of employment growth in many countries. It is vital that as legislators we are fully aware of the possibilities for maximising the employment growth potential of these new forms of work and that we do not kill them off with a blunt legislative instrument before they have reached any great potential. The world of work and the whole employment scene are changing and yesterday's legislative responses may not be appropriate for tomorrow's world.

A recent paper on part-time work in Ireland prepared, as Deputy Rabbitte said, by John Blackwell of University College, Dublin showed that Ireland has a very low level of part-time work compared with international standards. Part-time work in Ireland is only about half the average EC level. Developed countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have very high levels of part-time work with between a quarter and one-third of their labour force being engaged in part-time employment. Ireland is grouped with Greece, Italy and Portugal as having the lowest proportion of part-time employees in the European Community.

Much has been said and written about the reasons some employers favour part-time employment but it must also be recognised that many part-time employees also prefer to work on a part-time basis. Information obtained in the 1987 labour force survey showed that 67 per cent of women worked on a part-time basis, either because they wanted to or because they could couple part-time work with their family responsibilities. The point is that for many part-time employees part-time work is the desired employment form and we must not do anything which would reduce the employment opportunities of these people.

The detailed research on part-time work shows that there is great diversity in its form and in the situation of part-time workers. No broad brush blunt approaches or sweeping generalisation apply in dealing with this subject. All the indications are that the continued expansion of the labour force and the increasing participation of women in the workforce will mean that part-time employment will continue to increase and account for a larger proportion of total employment.

In order to understand the growth in part-time employment it is necessary to consider the advantages — and the disadvantages — which it offers to employers and employees. I would be concerned if the debate on the issue focused only on the disadvantages of part-time employment. There is another side to this and one must have balanced legislation, particularly in the labour area when you are dealing with other people's jobs, circumstances and livelihoods. It is incumbent on all Deputies to make sure that every Bill is properly discussed, documented, ironed out and drafted in a way which means it will be properly implemented.

As I said, I would be concerned if we merely talked about the disadvantage of part-time employment and that as a result action would centre on an approach which would seek to outlaw this form of work or to regulate it unduly. This would be unfortunate. Of course I am fully aware of the disadvantages that are currently associated with this form of employment for many people. Nobody in this House has spoken more about them, researched the problem or spoken at more conferences than I have. Indeed I accept that some part-time workers have been exploited by employers who deliberately limit the working hours to keep them below various hours thresholds. Deputy Rabbitte gave examples. I agree that part-time work poses problems of protection for many workers and I accept that these must be addressed.

The Bill before us seeks to provide greater regulation for part-time employment agency workers than currently exists for their full-time colleagues. The Bill also seeks to involve the Employment Appeals Tribunals and the Rights Commissioners in areas in relation to part-time workers where they are not currently involved for full-time employees. In addition the definition of equal treatment in the Bill is vague and could result in part-time employees having greater entitlements than their full-time colleagues. What we must keep in mind in relation to part-time employment is that some of it is carried out in the black economy. If we legislate in the sweeping manner proposed in this Bill we will drive even more of it into the black economy, to the detriment of employees and the State.

It is clear from what I have been saying that, in responding to the growth of part-time work, we must, as legislators, delicately balance the need to stimulate employment growth in all areas with the equally valid need to safeguard against exploitation. Such balance in legislation only comes through widespread consultation and debate. As I have outlined, the Government are engaged in such a process, of which I have given details, and I hope that the views put forward by Deputies in this debate will help us to finalise our proposals.

I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that there are many Bills before the House but I have continually said that I will give priority to this matter. I discussed it today with the Congress of Trade Unions and I have had numerous discussions with employers. Perhaps some employers would prefer if there were no regulations but they realise that some issues must be covered and they are aware of the content of some of the contracts to which Deputy Rabbitte referred. They are willing to compromise on some of the views which they previously held but they — as well as the Congress of Trade Unions and I — argue against sweeping changes which would tilt the balance to one side, which would not help anyone. It would be the old story of two wrongs not making a right.

As Deputies are aware, the Industrial Relations Bill is already before the House and there are a number of other legislative measures which I wish to introduce this year on payment of wages, unfair dismissals and employment equality. Nevertheless, as I said at Question Time three or four times in the last few months, I assure the House that my proposals for the protection of part-time workers will receive priority. In the circumstances I hope that The Workers' Party could see their way to withdrawing the Bill under consideration in favour of the more balanced and considered proposals which I undertake to bring before the House later this year. The Opposition parties and their spokespersons are aware that the Congress of Trade Unions and the FIE, as well as academics, have put a considerable amount of time into the Department of Labour proposals and it is incumbent on me to bring them forward. We will be ready to do this before the Industrial Relations Bill is passed.

Mr. J. Mitchell

This is a welcome Bill as it provides for a very important issue. I welcome the opportunity to have a discussion on the principle of legislating for the protection of part-time workers. I congratulate Deputy Rabbitte and The Workers' Party for introducing the Bill.

I very much regret the Minister's slowness in regard to this Bill. For many months he has been telling us that he will be bringing forward a Bill dealing with the position of part-time workers. However, he seems to treat it as if it was an ordinary Bill. Of course it is not because it deals with an area central to the major problem facing us at the moment, the question of unemployment. I am disappointed, therefore, that the Minister is not agreeable to accepting the principle of the Bill on Second Stage and to propose amendments to it on Committee Stage.

Of course the Bill is not perfect and there are provisions in it which might, unintentionally have the effect of making the employment of people more difficult instead of less difficult. However, if the Minister perceives such defects in the Bill surely they can be corrected on Committee and Report Stages?

One of the few questions reached by the Minister for Labour at Question Time today was the one in regard to his proposals as President of the European Council of Social Affairs Ministers to deal with the long-term unemployed. I am as amused as many European Ministers for Labour are that the Irish Minister for Labour is bringing forward proposals to alleviate the problem of the long-term unemployed for Europe when he is presiding in this country over the worst percentage of long-term unemployed in any of the Twelve EC countries. I asked the Minister about this today but he was notably silent on the matter. What secret proposals has he to solve Europe's problems when they have not already been applied at home?

I have no doubt that the biggest failure of this Government, the Government who have been in office since 1987, has been to deliver jobs. There has been a background of low inflation for the past five years. I am glad to see a noted economist, Deputy Dick Roche, coming into the Chamber and he will be able to verify, as he did in writing in The Sunday Tribune last Sunday week, that inflation has been down to below 4 per cent since 1985.

Mr. Roche

Full credit to the Government.

Mr. J. Mitchell

We have also had a balance of trade surplus for the past five years and we have had competitive interest rates, until fairly recently, for the past number of years; yet the mystery, if it is a mystery, is that this has not generated anything near the number of jobs we need or that should have been generated. That indicates that there are certain structural problems which the Government have singularly failed to address. The Bill proposed by The Workers' Party has the merit of giving some thought to that question.

It would be wrong to say there has been no reduction in the unemployment register, there has been a small reduction but the extent to which that has been achieved by emigration is open to debate. The Central Statistics Office figures suggest that in the past five years — up to 15 April last, the last date for which figures are available — 152,000 people emigrated. We do not know yet what the figures will be for current year, which ends in a fortnight's time, but we do know that emigration is continuing. The unemployment register is down by less than 20,000 over the past three years. We know from the unemployment register that a lot of the jobs created are part-time. The question arises, for the purpose of statistics, as to what is a job. I will come to statistics and Dr. Blackwell, to whom the Minister referred, in a moment. In this context a job is when a person works a 40 hour week. We must be clear about this because we must know we are comparing like with like and not fooling others and ourselves with false statistics. In this contribution the Minister confirmed that there has been a very significant growth in the percentage of the workforce who are working part-time — I think he said the figure is close to 8 per cent now whereas a number of years ago it was close to 4 per cent. Those on part-time work do not appear on the unemployment register and that makes the unemployment register look a little better, bad and all as it is at present.

Nonetheless, unemployment remains the central economic problem facing this country. If we were able to solve the unemployment problem we would at the same time solve the Exchequer problem, because there would be fewer payments flowing out and more taxes flowing in. This would also solve the poverty problem. These are our three major interrelated economic problems but in a sense they are the same problem, that is, unemployment. Therefore, that must be the central focus of attention of all the parties in this House. In a sense the only party that have not made this their central focus in their policy proposals or in their actions are the Fianna Fáil Party who happen to be the predominant party in Government. The Workers' Party have made suggestions and proposals, even if one disagrees with some of them, as have the Labour Party and the Progressive Democrats, even though they are profoundly different from some of the other proposals. We in this party have also made our proposals regarding unemployment.

I would like to comment briefly on how I think these problems should be addressed. It is no harm to recall that, notwithstanding the fact that the approach of the present British Government is one that would not have very much appeal in this House, in the past 46 successive months in the United Kingdom they have been able to bring down unemployment each month, including last month. Despite the fact that for the last year or two or three, their inflation rate has been virtually double ours and their interest rates have been higher than ours, they have more than halved their unemployment figure, from over three million to less than one and a half million, and they have not had emigration on the same scale as in Ireland. We have to ask then why the same trend has not manifested itself here. Of course there is one big difference and that is the demographic trend. The position is different here because of a higher birth rate and because we are now at a stage where there is a growth in the labour force, but in a number of years that will begin to decline whereas Britain have long since got over any baby boom and their workforce in terms of numbers is in decline. That is only a very partial explanation for the decline in their total registered unemployment figure. Some people would say with a certain amount of merit, that some of the figures in Britain, like here, have been manipulated because certain categories have been pushed off the register, but again that is only a partial explanation. The reality is that in Britain, despite higher inflation and higher interest rates, they have managed to more than halve their unemployment figure and we should aim to do likewise.

In Britain there is a Department of Employment but in Ireland there is no department of employment. That was illustrated some months ago when I tabled questions to the Minister for Labour asking him to make comparisons across the board on certain issues that affect employment. The Minister, in his normal gracious way, answered about half the questions and said in respect of the other half that they were matters for the Ministers for Industry and Commerce, Finance or Social Welfare. I asked him if there was no Minister in the Government who could take a composite overview, and the fact is there is no such Minister. There is nobody taking the whole picture into account because of the way we in this State and this Government organise ourselves. We need a department of employment. There is an overwhelming case to merge again the Department of Labour and the Department of Industry and Commerce, or at least major sections of them, and probably the unemployment payments section of the Department of Social Welfare.

We need one Minister leading the attack, a Minister who does all the research and presents the facts to Cabinet, a Minister who knows the interaction of social welfare with pay, who knows the poverty traps but has the power and the authority to eliminate them. The fact is — and at a recent Question Time the Minister for Labour more or less agreed with me — that there are enormous anomalies and traps in our system.

We need to make a powerful attack on them in order to make employment possible for more workers and for more employers. Given the fact that for a long time to come we will have fewer long-term jobs than we need, part of the solution is part-time work. That is why I welcome wholeheartedly the principle of the Bill presented by Deputy Rabbitte tonight.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I remind him that he will have 16 minutes remaining tomorrow.

Debate adjourned.