Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 1990

Vol. 397 No. 6

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. J. Mitchell

Last night I tried to highlight the fact that part-time working should play a much bigger role than in the past in easing or solving our unemployment problems. If this does not happen, tens of thousands of our people will be doomed to long-term unemployment with no hope of a job for the rest of what should be their working lives. That is why part-time working is so important, and this Bill is a welcome opportunity to address the problem.

I reiterate my view that we need a department of employment. Such a department has existed in the UK for the past five years with notable success. We have a Department of Labour but it is not a department of employment. This Department has a role in industrial relations and education in the workplace but they do not consider replacement ratios, the interaction of social welfare with labour costs and industrial development; and there is no co-ordinating department. The Department of Industry are there to entice industry here and protect the industry that is already here but they have no role in relation to training, industrial relations, labour costs, etc. Nor do they participate in wage negotiations or in productivity negotiations. The Department of Social Welfare make social welfare payments and make proposals for increases in social welfare which are completely unrelated to the labour market or to tax and social insurance proposals. Thus many people at work, especially if they are married with three or four children, are worse off than if they were on unemployment assistance. Therefore people on unemployment assistance who are married with children are trapped in unemployment, trapped in poverty. While they do not want to be unemployed, many at work feel they are worse off than if they were unemployed. All of this happens because of the lack of a coherent approach on the part of the Department and the lack of a department of employment.

Another reason I welcome this Bill is that there is now widespread abuse by employers of the provisions and exemptions in relation to part-time workers. For many it is an unavoidable arrangement which suits their industrial needs. For others it is merely a way to shirk their commitments under the social legislation; it is a way to avoid coming within the ambit of the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, the Holidays Act; it is a way to avoid having to pay full PRSI contributions. In amending this legislation we must be objective in analysing its effect on employment. We know the motivation is excellent but the results of much of this legislation are quite different from those intended and it impedes the creation or maintenance of jobs. Many employers are using it as a ruse to deny their employees the rights which are the norm in the European model of democracy, which model is distinct from the American one.

There are other ruses which employers use to avoid their obligations under legislation. Increasing numbers of people are working under contract. Many employers have made their drivers redundant, sold the lorries to them at concessionary rates and rehired them on contract, leaving the employer free of the obligation under social legislation to pay PRSI contributions for employer and employee, PAYE contributions, etc. There is widespread abuse in this area. Not everyone who resorts to this arrangement is abusing it, but this arrangement allows many employers to avoid extra costs and responsibilities of employing people directly. If this Bill goes further than the Second Stage or if the Minister introduces his own measures, I hope we will not just deal with issues directly connected with part-time working but also with the employment of people under contract or as consultants.

The time has come to more clearly define a consultant, a contractor and an employee. We cannot allow loopholes to remain whereby employers can avoid having to pay tax on social insurance or to grant workers their legitimate rights. It would be a grave mistake if this House were to make provisions rendering it more difficult to employ people either as full-time or part-time workers. The end result must be that we protect adequately the social needs of all employees, whether part-time or full-time, in a way that lessens the impediments to employment and reduces the cost of employment.

Undoubtedly one of the great inhibitors to employment and one of the reasons the good economic indicators of the past five years have not resulted in more jobs is cost. Sometimes the cost is obvious and visible but in many other cases it is not. We have had discussions on a number of occasions in the past year or two regarding the total cost of putting £1 in a worker's pocket. The CSO and Eurostat in Brussels, the central statistics office of the European Community, accept that over and above the gross wage of an employee the average overhead of an Irish employer per employee is 35 per cent. The average industrial wage last year was about £210. If we add 35 per cent to that the figure we see that it costs an employer an extra £73.50 per employee, or £283.50 to give a gross pay of £210. That £283.50 frequently ends up in a disposable income of about £120. A married worker gets no allowance for children in the tax system. I am not just taking account of tax, PRSI, trade union contributions, voluntary health contributions and pension contributions but also post pay packet costs like mortgage costs, increased differential rents or transport costs to and from work. That is the central problem. The major component of what has become known as the tax wedge between the £120 disposable income and the £283.50 gross cost is mostly tax and social insurance. We can throw in things like public liability and employers insurance.

There is a widespread view that nothing can be done about our unemployment problem. I want to repudiate that dismal analysis. Much can be done about it if we get our structural and other problems right. They have got them right in the UK during the past five years. In the last 46 months, notwithstanding the dramatic increase in inflation and interest rates, unemployment in Britain has gone down without a break. That is because they have got their costs and structures right. The same challenge faces this House and this Government.

I hope that the Minister will bring forward his own proposals speedily if he intends to reject The Workers' Party proposals. We cannot be very confident since he has been promising provisions for a long time. He said last night they are coming soon but not in this session — after the Industrial Relations Bill. This is certainly not the hallmark of an aggressive attack on the problems of workers whether full-time or part-time.

Dr. Hillery

I will be sharing my time with Deputy John Browne.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I thought the next speaker was to come from the Labour Party.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Boylan)

No. The next speaker is from the Government side.

Dr. Hillery

The Bill before us is obviously concerned with the protection of part-time workers. This is an issue which needs to be addressed. The debate offers an opportunity to express the latest thinking of Members in this regard. We might first look at the scale of the issue. In recent years in Ireland — and this has been the continental experience as well — there has been a significant increase in the number of part-time workers entering the labour force. Of particular importance is the number of regular part-time workers which in this country has doubled between 1977 and 1978, rising in 1988 to a total of 72,000. A further breakdown of this figure shows that more than two out of three of these regular part-time workers are female and almost all of them in the Irish case are married. This reflects the European experience where the great majority of part-time workers are female.

Deputy Rabbitte's Bill and his contribution last night highlighted a number of important points but my view is that the thrust of his Bill largely reflects one side of the coin only. That is in no way to detract from the importance of the issue and the views he has put forward. The job of the Minister for Labour is obviously to strike a balance, to reach a compromise between on the one hand providing basic protection for part-time workers while at the same time not discouraging the important development of part-time work as such. There are many people in the workforce who want only part-time work. Many women find that this type of work gives them the flexibility they require to fulfil other roles, including those of housewife and mother. Furthermore, part-time employment is literally keeping the bread in many people's mouths. Part-time work is not in any way confined to the better off. There are many people, including many women, who need both the flexibility afforded by part-time work and the money it brings to meet their basic needs. Of course there are two sides to it. The flexibility in work patterns that part-time work affords employers gives them the competitive edge they need in the marketplace. Deputy Mitchell has just referred at some length to the importance of costs and they are particularly important in the competitive sense.

The eighties, a decade which has reflected much change in terms of part-time participation in the labour force, have been characterised in Ireland and in countries around the world by an intensification of international competition, of deregulation in several industries, of recession, of changing technology. In Ireland we live by our exports and therefore the focus on costs, particularly on labour costs is getting much attention. In terms of work and employment patterns, we still have a substantial amount of full-time conventional employment but increasingly we have the part-time model and contracting out.

By achieving and maintaining a competitive edge companies are in a position to provide valuable employment for both part-time and full-time employees. In a nutshell, the flexibility that part-time work brings is now often a requirement for both employers and employees. All the indications are that part-time work is here to stay and that it will form part of the employment patterns of the future, all the more reason that we in the Oireachtas should be addressing the social implications at this time.

While accepting that part-time work is here to stay, there is justifiable concern that the availability of part-time workers will lead to exploitation by employers. Deputy Rabbitte underlines the exploitation pattern, and that is indeed a legitimate concern for the Oireachtas. There is the obvious risk that some employers are getting off the hook, that they are not meeting their social obligations and that there are loopholes in the law which allow that. There is exploitation and, as far as possible, it needs to be regulated. However, over-regulation by the State could be detrimental to part-time workers who for one reason or another need that type of work as well as to employers who need flexibility in order to compete in the marketplace. The Minister and the Government, therefore, are faced with the normal challenge in legislative affairs, that is, of striking a balance between the desirability of part-time work for both employer and employee while providing basic protection to prevent exploitation.

At present under many employment Statutes the requirement that the individual must work at least 18 hours a week is the norm to qualify for statutory benefits. The legislative intention originally in the context of this 18 hours was to exclude persons whose unemployment was of an incidental or subsidiary kind. What has emerged during the eighties in particular, however, in common with the experience in other countries is a substantial increase in part-time employment, especially in part-time jobs. The nub of the matter, therefore, as we enter the nineties is that there are permanent part-time workers who are not entitled to the basic protections which are afforded to others under our labour law.

For example, after many years' service with the same employer there are employees with no entitlement to holidays, no entitlement to maternity leave, no entitlement to a minimum notice, no entitlement to redundancy payments and these people do not have redress in respect of unfair dismissal legislation. That needs to be redressed and that is the task of the Government. From what the Minister told us, he is tackling this vigorously and hopes to have legislation before the House within a year.

Turning to Deputy Rabbitte's Bill, the main drawback is that it presents a one sided picture and it has not been preceded by the necessary consultation with both social partners, or representatives of them. It does not, therefore, represent a balanced approach to the problem. The Bill tries to be all things to all people. It would, I feel, reduce the flexibility which many companies undoubtedly require in the labour market. It could well have the effect of reducing the possibility for part-time employment with the substitution of machines for that work. If the provisions in the Bill as proposed were introduced, we could end up in a worse position.

The Bill could also have the effect of reducing the possibilities for part-time employment with the substitution of machines, as I have just said. Given the surplus of labour in the country and the clear preference of some people, including many women, to work part-time, the last thing we want to do is to reduce part-time opportunities for them. We have to be careful, therefore, that as legislators we enhance the possibilities for maximising employment growth by way of full-time employment in the first instance as well as by way of part-time work. If we come down as heavily as the Bill before us suggests, we will be discouraging women, whom employers need and want.

This brings me back to the requirement from a legislative viewpoint of full consultation with both employers representatives and workers. Consequently the Minister has been engaged in discussions with ICTU and the Federation of Irish Employers, with a view to working out acceptable and workable legislation for the protection of part-time workers.

There is a tendency in other countries and a pattern is beginning to emerge of two different classes of employees. First, there is the core labour force characterised by highly skilled status jobs with good pay and a range of fringe benefits, and second, there is the risk of a peripheral labour force which is viewed as low in status, low in skill and with few or no fringe benefits. As legislators we must be concerned that such an undesirable division in a dual labour market is checked. The specific role of the Government and the Oireachtas is to provide protection for those who are not in traditional, full-time, well remunerated jobs.

The Blackwell Report, entitled Part-Time Work — The Facts published last year, provides a valuable basis from which to inform policy making in this area. I pay tribute to the author of that report because it is precisely the kind of hard nosed data and research that are required to produce informed policy making and it addresses a number of the key questions. The Government are well aware of the importance of protection for part-time workers. The status of part-time workers was identified as an issue to be addressed by the Programme for National Recovery, reflecting the interests of both sides. The Minister for Labour initiated the review of the situation in September 1988 — he has a track record in this regard and he sought the views of the ICTU and the FIE. Predictably, the ICTU and the FIE are not at one on what needs to be done. There is a gap there. I understand the ICTU would like to see pro rata entitlements for all part-time workers while the FIE do not want such radical legislative change.

Getting back to the Minister's record, in May 1989 he initiated a seminar on part-time work. The focus of the seminar was a debate on the differing concerns which exist in relation to the application of employment law of part-time workers. The Minister wants to bridge the gap and to build concensus, and in that regard he has an excellent track record. He believes in concensus. Reference was made to experience across the water; consensus is not characteristic of the approach to such matters there.

Arising out of this seminar and meetings with the two peak organisations, the FIE and the ICTU, progress has been made on the road to agreement towards the goal of providing greater protection of persons employed on a regular part-time basis. The Minister has been active and proposals are already in place, as he told us last night, which are now being finalised with a view to submitting them to Government and producing the necessary legislation. I understand that the Minister's intention is to improve significantly the protection for most regular part-time employees who are at present denied those benefits of a wide range of labour laws because of the 18 hours per week limit.

The Minister quite clearly wants to improve the lot of part-timers, especially those employed on a permanent basis. At the same time he has to be constantly conscious of not over-regulating the market to such an extent that it would reduce opportunities for people who want and need to work part-time. Furthermore, we all have to face the fact that part-time work will be a feature of our society in the immediate years ahead. Therefore, in the interests of labour market flexibility and efficiency, the Minister has to ensure that the provision of more part-time work should be encouraged — with safeguards for the employees — and he should especially tackle the exploitation we know exists. The Minister in his Government role will be concerned to provide statutory support for good employment practices and to respond to the genuine concerns which have been expressed about the exploitation of marginal groups. This legislation which the Minister has promised will also help to counter allegations that at present the unprotected status of part-time workers represents indirect discrimination against women since more than two-thirds of the people in the part-time work category are women.

I welcome the efforts the Minister has made and I am as anxious as anybody else that this legislation reach the House as soon as possible. I know the Minister is treating the legislation as a matter of top priority and I look forward to debating the Government Bill in the near future.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): There are a number of flaws in The Workers' Party Bill but the fact that it has been introduced opens up a debate on part-time workers. It is an area about which I expressed concern on a number of occasions in the past. Indeed, I expressed concern as recently as last week during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill.

Any debate about jobs is welcome because so many people are unemployed. Whether we are talking about full-time or part-time jobs, it is good for political parties and politicians to discuss the different ways and means of trying to tackle the problem. It is unfortunate that the number of full-time jobs over the last ten years has been more or less on the decline. Wexford has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and there is a need for part-time work. In many cases the wife must work part-time to earn money to provide a decent standard of living for the family. Part-time work, in some ways, suits the social welfare system in that if the wife is earning over £50 per week the husband cannot claim for her. Therefore, it suits many women to earn under £50 per week but that is the only thing in its favour.

Over the last ten years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of part-time workers entering the labour market. The number doubled from 39,000 in 1977 to something in the region of 72,000 in 1988. There are also up to 16,000 people working occasionally or part-time; 4 per cent of the work force in 1977 were regular part-time workers and in 1988 the figure rose to 8 per cent which shows that there has been a dramatic increase in this area. Seventy per cent of regular part-time workers are females and while such work suits women — particularly married women — any new legislation must take that into account. Usually married women have a family to look after and part-time work allows them to earn extra money while, at the same time, rearing their families and looking after the house.

In many cases flexibility of working hours usually suits the employee and the employer and this will continue to be the norm over the next couple of years. The growth of part-time employment is one thing but how such workers are treated and protected is another and we all have concerns in regard to this area. Politicians, trade unionists, the media and a variety of other groups and individuals have expressed growing concern about the increasing number of regular part-time employees who are not protected by some of the most important protective employment legislation and who are open to exploitation.

These concerns have been reflected in collective bargaining efforts to negotiate normal protection and benefits for part-time employees. A number of concerns have been expressed in the last few years in different areas about the abuse and exploitation of the regular part-time worker. A number of protective employment Acts contain a requirement that an individual must work for at least 18 hours per week to be covered by the provisions. The Unfair Dismissals Act, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, the Workers' Participation Act, the Redundancy Payment Acts and the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act were designed to exclude persons whose employment was not regular or full-time.

It is estimated from the 1988 labour force survey that the 18 hours' threshold has the effect of excluding approximately 20,000 employees, mostly women, 83 per cent according to the Minister's figures last night, from the benefits of the legislation which I outlined.

The status of the part-time worker was identified as an issue to be addressed in the Programme for National Recovery. As a politician who has expressed concern here on a number of occasions, I welcome the fact that this area was identified and is to be part and parcel of that programme because, in relation to this or a future Government, it is important to have debate, discussions and conclusions in this whole area to improve the status of the part-time worker.

The Minister of Labour initiated a review of the situation in September 1988 and, as part of the consultative process, he sought the views of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federation of Irish Employers. Naturally, there is a difference of opinion between those two organisations as to what type of legislation should be introduced but I would be inclined to side with ICTU. The fact that I was a former union member and a shop steward makes me realise that there are areas about which the employer would be concerned if radical changes were introduced——

Mr. Rabbitte

Then Deputy Browne will support my Bill?

Mr. Browne

(Wexford):——because of the way part-time workers are exploited in some areas at present. The right to written terms of employment only apply to those who work for 18 hours or more per week. The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act only applies if you work for 18 hours per week. Annual leave also gives cause for concern in that a person must work for 120 hours per month or 1,400 hours in a leave year to be entitled to paid holidays. For those aged under 18 the minimum hours worked are lower — 110 hours per month or 1,300 hours in a leave year.

The hours requirement for holidays makes it rather difficult for most part-time workers to have statutory entitlements to paid leave. The Minister must look at this area because it needs to be changed. A part-time or temporary worker must work at least 120 hours, or 110 hours if under 18, during the five weeks ending on a public holiday to have the same entitlement as a full-time worker. Anyone who works fewer hours does not have an entitlement to a public holiday and it is an area which poses serious problems.

The Unfair Dismissals Act applies only to employees who work at least 18 hours per week. Many employers dismiss workers, they use and abuse this Act, especially in relation to people who do not work 18 hours per week and there is nothing the person can do about it. The Minister must redress this in new legislation.

The Redundancy Act also applies to employees who work 18 hours per week. If you work fewer than 18 hours you have no hope of getting redundancy. Some people negotiate redundancy payments with their employers but more often than not it is a non-runner and they find themselves dumped on the scrap heap without any redundancy payments whatsoever. Maternity leave is another area that is abused by the employer. While expectant mothers may have a right to 14 weeks maternity leave if they work 18 hours or more per week, that is not always adhered to and this is of grave concern.

The proposals and suggestions outlined by the Minister last night are worth while and need to be teased out. The Minister should ensure that there is a balance between the employer and the employee. The flaw that I see in The Workers' Party Bill is that it crosses a divide between the Department of Labour and the Department of Social Welfare. There are two different Ministers and two different Departments involved and that needs to be dealt with. I understand the Minister for Social Welfare is considering the matter at the moment and there is a pensions group carrying out in-depth investigations into the social and financial implications of this system. It is only right that the Ministers for Labour and Social Welfare should consider this whole area.

There are good employers and bad employers. Employers in supermarkets, petrol stations, hotels and pubs, cleaning contractors and security firms exploit the part-time workers and this is nothing short of a national disgrace. Some of our major supermarkets and hotels are the worst offenders. In my town some of the supermarkets have staff working for 17 hours per week, which means they have no absolute rights and no entitlements. They work on a day-to-day basis. When they finish work in the evening they may be told they are not needed the next day but they are contacted next morning to say they are needed. After a couple of hours they are told they are not needed for the rest of the day, in case they go over the 18 hours which would mean the employer would have to pay for their entitlements.

This scandalous exploitation of our workforce should not be allowed to continue. It is important that the Minister introduce a Bill as quickly as possible following the ongoing discussions with the social partners. Not alone are the people whom I have mentioned abusing the staff on the hours system but they are also abusing them by way of the mere pittance of wages they are paying them. In my county — I will speak only for my own county — people working in supermarkets, petrol stations and so on are being paid £1.27 an hour, slave labour in my opinion. Recently a girl came to me seeking a county council loan and I asked her to bring along her P60 in order to fill the forms and apply for the loan. That girl was working as a hotel receptionist and her total earnings for a full year were £2,984, less than £60 a week. That is total exploitation of a young lady who has a leaving certificate standard of education and who had also completed a year's secretarial course.

Mr. Rabbitte

We need a national minimum wage.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Is it any wonder that a large number of our CERT trainees are going abroad to seek work when hotels are exploiting the workers in this way? We need to look at the area of part-time workers, their entitlements, disability benefit, unemployment benefit and maternity benefit. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that the minimum wage certainly needs to be looked at because workers are being exploited and abused at present. The Minister has expressed his concern in this House on a number of occasions and I know he will ensure that legislation is brought in as quickly as possible to protect part-time workers and also to put in place proper wage structures for part-time workers, while at the same time ensuring that there is a balance whereby employers will not be penalised for employing people.

I would ask the Minister to bring in that legislation as quickly as possible to protect the most abused section of the community, part-time workers who are, in the main, women. We should not allow that practice to continue.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome this measure which is timely given Ireland's Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the commitment by the Governments of the European Community to implement a social charter to protect workers' rights as an integral part of the completion of the internal market in 1992. The philosophy of the Bill is spelled out in section 4 (1) which states: "A part-time worker shall be entitled to equal treatment with a full-time worker in respect of his terms of employment and working conditions". That spells out clearly that this is a nondiscriminatory Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to rid the workplace of discrimination which now exists.

Part of the frustration of sitting on this side of the House is that there is acceptance in the Minister's party that there is exploitation, and terms are being used in this House such as slave labour, with CERT trainees, who are funded to a large degree by the State, having to emigrate to earn a wage. Nevertheless the only flaw that I have heard of in regard to this Bill is that it crosses a divide between the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Social Welfare, and I would have thought that this was a simple administrative problem that could be resolved by officials from both Departments sitting down and hammering out the differences. There is acceptance on the part of Government Deputies that things are not right. I do not see anything in this Bill that any Minister should find reason to reject but something — I think it is an element of one-upmanship — prompts the Government not to accept any legislation from the Opposition. That is one of the shortcomings of this House. There was another manifestation of this some time ago, and I was somewhat surprised, when Deputy Hillery jumped the gun, while I had sat here throughout the debate last night waiting to contribute. This one-upmanship prevails all the time and I regret that this is the case.

When we talk about the part-time worker, who precisely are we talking about? The Blackwell report has been quoted by every speaker who has contributed so far. Were it not for that report, this House would not have been able to quantify the extent of the problem with which we are faced. Professor Blackwell quoted from the EC Commission and stated: "The EC Commission proposed Directive on part-time work of 1983 defines it as work performed on a regular basis in respect of which an employer and an employee agree to shorter working hours than the normal hours of work". Since then there has been little agreement between employers and those who have to avail of part-time work. If the vast majority of these people had a choice or were offered full-time employment they would readily take it up, but unfortunately people are now being pushed into the situation by unscrupulous employers. I will now quote from the figures given in the Minister's speech. The number of regular part-time workers increased from 39,400 in 1977 to 72,000 in 1988, and an additional 15,200 were working on an occasional part-time basis in 1988. At the real bottom of the scale are the 15,200 occasional part-time workers who do not have regular part-time work and this means when they report for work in the morning they may be told they are not needed. I worked in the State sector all my life and in the fifties and sixties I used to see a temporary postman who had reported for duty being told to cease because he was surplus to need. I regret to say that 40 years later this still prevails and we have not advanced a great deal in this regard, if anything there is greater exploitation than ever before in the history of this country. For that reason I unreservedly support this Bill which is timely.

I regret that the Minister, who is already burdened by the duties of his Presidency of the EC, cannot do a normal week's work and that we have been asked to shorten the session to enable Ministers to participate in our Presidency. I am glad that we hold the Presidency and I wish the Minister every success in his role as President but how can we come up with legislation that is urgently needed if the Government are trying to serve two masters? I do not think it is possible. Deputy Browne has said that part of the problem is that the matter transcends two Departments, without considering Europe where the Minister is fulfilling his dual role. I do not think he is in a position to produce legislation in the short term before the summer recess. Will we have legislation before summer to substitute for this Bill, which I find quite acceptable?

The issue of the treatment of part-time workers is in many cases tied to the question of real equality for women. We know from a survey carried out by John Blackwell of University College, Dublin, that the majority of part-time workers are women. Discrimination against part-time workers has been inadvertently facilitated in a minority of cases by the social insurance code which means that the contribution rate of employers is higher for workers, working 18 hours per week or more compared with the employer's contribution rate for an employeee working 17 hours per week. The standard contribution rate of 12.2 per cent compares with the 0.5 per cent in the latter case. In the case of the employee's contribution rate there is a 5 per cent differential, the standard rate is 7.7 per cent compared with the 2.2 per cent rate for part-time workers. In practical terms there is an economic incentive for employers to avoid employing any part-time workers for 18 hours or more a week. The general thrust of this Bill is timely and we strongly support the general principle of applying pro rata conditions in every aspect of employment for employees without exception.

The experience in this country as in the UK in relation to the hours threshold suggests that no matter what mechanism is put in place, employers in certain types of employment such as distribution, and supermarkets in particular, will, because of the fierce competition in their business, resort one way or another to get around the hours threshold no matter how it is formulated. However, if the Government are prepared to lauch a new measure in relation to part-time working, they will have to take on board the reform of the social insurance contribution rates to remove the economic incentive for employers to circumvent the hours threshold whether defined on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis. In countries such as Australia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden part-time employment covers about 20 per cent of the workforce but the latest data from the 1988 labour force survey reveals there is a much lower level of part-time working in Ireland, although this has doubled in the past decade. If the predictions of the international management consultant, Charles Handy, are to come about, then the pattern for work in the United Kingdom in the year 2000 will see 50 per cent of the workforce in full-time jobs, 25 per cent in part-time jobs and a further 25 per cent in casual or temporary employment. The flexible workforce is now standard jargon and unfortunately for workers involved this has translated in practice to a downward flexibility where pay and conditions are concerned in many cases.

The Blackwell study found that 40 per cent of part-time workers had equivalent earnings of less than £3.50 per hour in 1988. It is also known that in the majority of cases part-time workers do not receive the many benefits of their full-time colleagues, particularly in redundancy where they virtually have no rights and are in effect summarily dismissed. It might be said that the case being put for comprehensive reform of labour law, social welfare and taxation in relation to part-time workers could be expected to be advanced by the trade union movement and by the parties on the Left. However it is credible to put forward the proposition that if the workforce in the future are to be the so called flexible workforce then it is totally unrealistic to believe this flexibility will be accepted by workers if it involves a growing social apartheid in the terms and conditions of work of so-called peripheral workers. I reject the concept of the necessity for a peripheral workforce. It smacks of a new form of division simply encrusting the old division between management and workers which we all recognise has to be transformed from the model based on antagonism to the partnership model.

It is in the interest of society and employers in the long run that part-time staff are valued for their contribution. I would like the legislation to promote conditions where part-time work is taken up as a matter of individual choice. If we look at how job sharing operates in the public sector, for example, we can see precisely the kind of flexible work patterns that meet the requirements of employers and employees. Those who opt for job sharing do so on a voluntary basis and cannot be required to take up an offer of job sharing unless they wish to do so. Second, they have the right to return to full-time jobs and their service during job sharing accounts for entitlements such as pensions and other benefits. The free market lobby believes that the operation of market forces, if allowed full pay, will eliminate unemployment and ignore the discriminatory conditions which would effectively attach to those outside core employment. It is very easy for any of us to eliminate unemployment at a stroke by reducing wage rates and lessening employment conditions, but, unfortunately, the bitter experience of the trade union and labour movement is that the solution to this problem of unemployment is not through wage cutting. I make this point because the argument put forward by the free marketeers against protective legislation for part-time workers is that ultimately this may lead to a reduction in employment. This will not happen if the legislation is such that it applies equally in every country, and given that Ireland has the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, there is a unique opportunity for our Government to take the lead to implement a code of best practice legislation for part-time employees.

While I alluded earlier to the economic incentive to employ part-time workers for less than 18 hours a week, it should be noted that approximately one-third of regular part-time employees work less than 18 hours a week and the real effect of this Bill, if taken on board by the Government, would be to remove discrimination against the occasional part-time employee where approximately three-quarters of the part-time workforce work under the correct hours threshold. Based on the 1987 labour force survey, this effectively means granting pro rata pay and conditions to 5,000 male and 21,000 female regular part-time workers who work less than 18 hours a week. The people who would benefit most from pro rata treatment would be mainly in the catering and distribution trades. In both cases of regular part-time workers and occasional part-time workers, we are talking mainly about women, in many cases married women, and the measure would provide equality of treatment for women as much as equality of treatment for part-time workers.

The Bill puts forward a very wide definition of equality, and rightly so, which goes beyond the issue of equality in relation to statutory conditions governing holidays, redundancy, short-time, dismissal and other important conditions such as occupational benefits, particularly pension benefits. So far as I am concerned the future structure of the workforce will involve many more people than at present working less than full-time hours. We need to adopt an approach to deal with this development. First, we need to have a sustained European Community-wide Directive to gradually reduce working time in respect of the standard working week. This needs to be done on a Community-wide basis so that the benefits of the integration will be distributed fairly. Second, unless we are comfortable with a growth of inequality as an essential feature of the new Europe, which I suggest none of the member states who have backed the Social Charter have indicated they want, then we also need a levelling of the playing field, so to speak, in an area of conditions of employment. The third leg of social legislation in this regard is, of course, a European-wide Directive on minimum wage legislation. I would support Deputy Rabbitte in his call to the Members of the Government in this regard.

Experience to date here where the hours threshold has been reduced — and I refer here to the scheme negotiated by the Teachers Union of Ireland and the Department of Education — shows that even the Government as an employer are inclined to resist full application or the pro rata conditions, particularly with regard to pensions and are, in effect, powerless to prevent vocational education committees from abusing the lowered hours threshold. In practice, therefore, only a minority have benefited from this scheme. I am a member of a vocational education committee and I regret to say that there are some VECs who are not implementing this agreement in full. This should act as a warning to the Minister, and the House, with regard to the likely action by employers in the market sectors of the economy if legislation contains a new threshold. While I am aware that the trade union movement do not in many cases wish to facilitate part-time employment at the expense of full-time employment, they have come around in recent years to the view that legislation is absolutely essential on the basis of a full pro rata treatment for all workers regardless of the hours worked.

The women's affairs official of SIPTU, May O'Brien, speaking to the 1988 National Consultative Conference on Women's Affairs organised by the ITGWU made it clear that only legislation which would apply to workers, irrespective of hours worked, would be adequate and that pro rata conditions should extend to pension rights, pay and conditions, and equality legislation, in addition to the standard labour legislation. Recent development in the banks where employers have sought the introduction of part-time casual empoyment further underline the need for a comprehensive approach, if the financially secure companies in the market sector of the economy introduce discrimination against part-time employees. It is folly to expect employers in weaker positions to do anything but follow their lead. It is regrettable that profitable banks are introducing this type of workforce.

Fortunately, it appears that at least one of the major banking groups have taken a leaf from the example of the more progressive employers and are providing full pro rata pay conditions for this new part-time workforce who, I believe, work an average of 28 hours per week. This would be more in keeping with the 1983 EC Directive. Some of those who opted for the 28 hour week did so by agreement, unlike others who were forced into it.

The Labour Party fully endorse the provisions of the Bill and we urge the Minister to take not only the spirit of the Bill but its substance on board when he comes to formulate his own proposals. I regret that he is not going to take the Bill on board given that Ireland is in the so-called second division of the European Community. It is important to set a standard which reflects an aspiration of the convergence of living standards and conditions of employment as being the policy which the Community must pursue in the nineties. Anything less would be a poor reflection on what our concept of equality is. It is not a time for half measures in this area. If we accept second class pay and conditions for a minority of workers, the so-called peripheral workforce, how can we expect the richer regions of the European Community to accept our proposals for affirmative action in the case of peripheral regions which the Government and Opposition parties here equally support.

The Minister has already indicated his reluctance to take on board this Bill. However, I have no doubt that he will take into consideration some of the points raised when he is formulating his own policy. The weaker sections of the workforce are being exploited and members of the Minister's party have already acknowledged that. I regret to say, and as a trade unionist I do not derive any pleasure from this, that a number of these people are not members of trade unions through no fault of their own. There is a reluctance in some trade unions to accept them as members. I am not happy with this reluctance because, effectively, what we are doing is throwing part-time workers to the wolves. I can understand that some firms to remain viable find it necessary to employ part-time workers but the banks, which are the greatest example of all, have callously introduced part-time work and that is not acceptable.

It is the intention of my party to fully support this Bill and I ask the Minister to take on board some of the points which I have made.

Mr. Roche

There can be no doubt that the issue of part-time workers is one which demands attention. The only issue on which we differ is how rapidly the attention is needed. I accept that speed is of the essence and that attention is urgently required but it would not be wise, prudent or, indeed, in the interest of part-time workers if we surrendered thoroughness or thoughtfulness just to achieve speed. We have all come across disgraceful cases of blatant and unforgivable exploitation of part-time workers. For example, last Friday a woman with two children, who was recently separated, came to my house. Earlier that day she had presented herself to a new restaurant in my town. This restaurant seemed to have money in abundance for everything except for the workers. She was offered the princely sum of £1.20 per hour for a split-hour day, starting very early in the morning and ending very late at night. The manageress was told by the lady, with all the dignity that she could muster, what she could do with the job and the exploitation. The woman, though badly in need, retained her dignity and went elsewhere. I hope she will find some employment.

Another scandalous case concerned a major hotel in south county Dublin. A man came to me recently and told me that he was working very odd hours, he worked 70 or 80 hours in the month and was paid on average £1 per hour. There is no doubt that there is a need to give urgent attention to this area. However, I do not think that the answer is simple. The problem is complex. Individual case histories aside, one of the striking things that emerged during the course of the debate in the last two days, a reason the debate is good and welcome, has been the highlighting of the extraordinary growth in part-time workers in our economy. As has been said by the Minister and a number of other speakers, as recently as 1977 we had under 40,000 people who were categorised as part-time. The last survey for 1988 suggests that we have in excess of 72,000 people in part-time employment and up to 15,200 people working part-time on an occasional basis.

Such growth has, as the Minister suggests, been particularly fuelled by the number of women coming back to participate in the labour force. If one looks at the breakdown of those figures in the survey one finds that 50,000 of the 72,000 part-time workers, and who work full-time on a part-time basis, are women and about 33,000 of those are married women. That again illustrates not just the complexity but the tendency and the danger that people will be exploited because they are very vulnerable.

While the statistics are dramatic it would be wrong of us to suggest that we in Ireland are in some way novel or ahead of the pack in this regard. In fact, we are very far behind the experience in Europe. If one looks at the Blackwell report which was cited by the last three speakers one will find that in the Netherlands 25 per cent of people in the labour force are working in part-time employment and that the female proportion of part-time employment is as high as 55.2 per cent. They are extraordinary figures. In Sweden the figure is about 25 per cent, in Denmark it is 23 per cent, Norway 23 per cent and the UK 21 per cent. The other EC member states, with the exception of Portugal, Italy and Greece, are all significantly higher than us in terms of the proportion of the workforce engaged in part-time work and, in particular, in terms of the proportion of the female labour force engaged in part-time work. That is not just to throw out a blizzard of statistics with no particular purpose because I believe that one of the things we can do is learn — we are lucky in the sense that we are coming to the legislative process — from the experiences in EC member states.

The growth has been dramatic here but we are not unique. The data produced by the Minister, and the data produced in the various studies that have been cited in the debate, illustrate the extent of part-time work and the particular vulnerability of women and the specific vulnerability of married women who come back into the workforce through economic necessity or otherwise. We have to admit that the former is happening all too frequently and that there is an unwelcome increase in that. Women return to the workforce also because they have reached a turning point in their lives. Their family may be reared and they may wish to work again outside the home but not wish to work on a full-time basis.

Other data recently emerging illustrates where the concentration of part-time working is and where the problem needs to be addressed. If we refer to this data we will be convinced that this is a very complex problem and not one which lends itself to one line or a two section resolution. Part-time work, as we know is dominant in the service industry. Four occupational groups account for the great bulk of part-time workers. The service industry is high in part-time workers, particularly in catering and cleaning. I understand that 25 per cent of those involved in catering and cleaning are there on a day-to-day basis throughout their working lives on a part-time basis. That is an extraordinary high statistic. Agriculture, surprisingly enough, is the next highest at 19 per cent. The labour force in the commercial group of occupations, which includes shop assistants and those in the bar trade, accounts for about 16 per cent and the percentage is about the same in the professional and technical occupations.

The data provides us with an indication of the complexity and the nature of the problems which need to be addressed. Clearly, it should be said that not all part-time workers are exploited. Many part-time workers, particularly women making their way back into the workforce are facilitated by part-time work. They find part-time work sufficiently remunerative and stimulating to be attractive. We should not lose sight of that or suggest that every case of a part-time worker is a case of exploitation. I do not think any Member suggests that and I should not be regarded as saying it.

This, however, raises another aspect of the problem. We must ask the question, why is there an increase in part-time work? What are the imperatives that come forward on the take-up side — the employers' side — or on the supply side? What factors give rise to part-time work? If we do not understand the factors, and are not careful to understand them, we could do more damage than good if we seek a quick and simplistic solution. It is accepted generally that there is a general shift in the composition of employment trends towards the services sector and the services sector is one where there will always be, and has always been, a large proportion of part-time work. That is a historic fact and it is not one that will change whether we would like it to change or wish it to change.

Unit costs to employers for part-time workers are lower and that is another unassailable fact. We have to consider whether measures we bring forward will so change those unit costs that they may deny people who would wish to have part-time work that type of work. Non-wage labour costs are lower for the part-time workers and, therefore, non-wage labour costs are always an element in the calculations of employers. We should try to keep them low for the simple reason that they are the margin that make an employer make the decision to bring a person into employment or not.

Statutory provisions are less onerous and several speakers made reference to the way some employers, in particular some of our national supermarkets, manipulate the hours of workers in order to avoid those statutory provisions and, specifically, in order to avoid in the case of women maternity leave and benefits. It redounds to the discredit of those supermarkets and some of the larger institutions, particularly banks who are moving in this direction, that they seek to manipulate them within the law without observing what Deputy O'Sullivan referred to as even playing field conditions or conditions of fairness.

The desire by employers to achieve more general flexibility is another reason we have had part-time workers. As we try to increase the protections available we should be conscious of the fact that we are creating an inducement to an employer to create several part-time jobs instead of one full-time job. In Ireland the social employment scheme and job sharing have given rise to an increase in the number of part-time workers. However, the point made by Deputy O'Sullivan about job sharing in the public sector and the way it works to the advantage of the workers should be borne in mind. Hopefully, when the legislation is introduced we will have the concept of proportionality of benefit included.

Mrs. Barnes

Only women take up job sharing at the moment and that is the problem.

Mr. Roche

I am not denying that but I am suggesting that the model which has been adopted in the Civil Service is one which is a damn sight better than what operates elsewhere.

Mrs. Barnes

But men should take up job sharing also.

Mr. Roche

That may be so.

Mr. Rabbitte

If the Government extend the protection envisaged in the Bill there will be plenty of scope for job sharing.

Mr. Roche

The conclusion one must come to is that the problem of part-time workers is not a simple one. The phenomenon is not particular to Ireland, it is widely spread. The solutions which we must bring to bear on that issue will not be easy ones. The Workers' Party's Bill is a short one. The first two sections deal with the Title, the commencement and the interpretation. The final section deals with other enactments which are to be repealed by the Bill. The Bill focuses on the problem in only three short sections. The first section runs to only two lines. This is by no means a charter for the part-time worker. It is not sufficient; it does not go far enough and it does not deal comprehensively with the matter.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will hold the Deputy to that when the Minister introduces his Bill.

Mr. Roche

Please do.

Mrs. Barnes

I hope the Minister is listening.

Mr. Roche

It deals with the issue from one particular focus and if one does that one is doing damage to the issue. That is the danger of dealing with a particularly complex problem from one mental set. That is the problem with the Bill. In essence the problem is not that the Bill is short but that it is narrow in its focus. One cannot legislate for the problem in this manner. It is an act of self-delusion to suggest that this is a charter that will resolve the issues of part-time workers. The question of part-time workers, and their rights, ranges over a wide area — over revenue, social welfare, social insurance and so on. The implications are massive.

Mrs. Barnes

What about child care facilities?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should resist the temptation of helping Deputy Roche by compliment or omission. The Deputy should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Roche

I have to admit that from time to time I indulge in that game myself.

Mr. Rabbitte

I hope the Minister is listening because I will be holding rigid to this view.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a practice to be recommended.

Mr. Roche

I accept that and I will not respond in kind. As I have said the question of part-time workers is one which has very wideranging implications and is one that cannot be addressed in the simple legislation before us. That is not to say I am questioning the bona fides of the people who have introduced this legislation. I am simply saying it is inadequate.

The Minister has given clear indications here and elsewhere that he is not just familiar with and conscious of the problem of part-time workers but that it is a problem to which he will give his energy and will seek to resolve. He has gone further than simply saying he is conscious of the problem. He has initiated steps which deal logically with the issue. The issue is adverted to, as Deputy Hillery said in his contribution, in the Programme for National Recovery. The Minister has, as he outlined last night, commenced a review of the problem. Correctly, the Minister not being of a dictatorial inclination, as one or two of the sponsors of this Bill may be, has sought to establish the views of the social partners——

Mr. Rabbitte

I beg your pardon.

Mr. Roche

——and has sought to bring forward the views of both sets of the social partners.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I wanted to forewarn the Deputy.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is getting excessively difficult.

Mr. Roche

While Deputy O'Sullivan was reading the very fine piece of prose, with which he had been provided, I did not interrupt him. I was going to ask for a copy of it because it was an excellent contribution and I would like to see it in some detail.

Mr. Rabbitte

Is the Deputy going to publish it in some journal?

Mr. Roche

It did seem to me that it would be published in some journal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Sullivan, we all see how what initiates itself as a friendly tete-à-tete can occasionally lead to little barbs which lead on to interruptions, therefore, ciúnas le do thoil for the Deputy in possession.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Ciúnas from all people.

Mr. Roche

I certainly did not mean to suggest that the script the Deputy was reading had other than been prepared by himself. Maybe he is sensitive on this issue but, if so, I do not know why.

Mr. Rabbitte

Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile.

Mr. Roche

In May 1989 the Minister and his Department organised a seminar. Indeed, it was an important date in regard to the issue of part-time worker. The Minister tried at that time to get both sides of the social partners to give their views on the subject and, indeed, he engaged a number of academics who had done research work on the subject. These included John Blackwell who has been referred to frequently here. Both the ICTU and the FIE gave their views. Following the election draft proposals were prepared and were put forward by the Minister dealing with this very complex issue. The Minister seeks in those draft proposals — and no doubt we will see them soon — to deal with the issue on a comprehensive basis. They have been circulated, as the Minister has told us, among Government Departments. That is the right and appropriate way for it to happen because this is a multi-faceted problem. It is a problem that touches on many Government Departments. This is the way one would expect that this particular issue which needs to be dealt with on a serious basis should be dealt with and is being dealt with.

Following the circulation of the draft memorandum the matter has now come back to the Minister and to his Department. The Minister has given this House, and the sponsor of the Bill can take some credit for this, an undertaking that he will be bringing proposals before the Dáil soon. That is the Minister's intention and I do not think his bona fides in that regard can be questioned because he has proven himself to be a man of his word on other issues. The Minister has rightly suggested that it would be prudent to have due regard to the experience at European Community level in this matter before concluding our proposals. I would submit to Deputies who are impatient, rightly so, and understandably so——

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Part-time workers.

Mr. Roche

——that it would be foolish, given that we expect a directive to come forward at EC level in May or June, to produce our proposals far in advance of that. It would not serve any great purpose. I would draw attention to the fact that a draft directive was circulated as far back as 1983. That is a fact to which Deputy Rabbitte will advert to.

Mrs. Barnes

It is a shame that it has taken so long.

Mr. Roche

That is quite true. I accept that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I wonder why Deputy Barnes was so silent while her party were in Government.

Mrs. Barnes

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle demanded it of me.

Mr. B. Ahern

She did not even have a file on it.

Mr. Roche

In regard to women's rights and to the underpaid, Deputy Barnes has a distinguished record but in this particular area I would not, were I Deputy Barnes, be highlighting my silence which she has done on this matter. Within the last two or three months the EC Commission has issued a draft directive on the issue.

Mrs. Barnes

The Deputy did not even read the document.

Mr. Roche

If Deputy Barnes was other than silent I apologise and I withdraw that remark but clearly her colleagues in Government did not pay sufficient attention to her advice and that rebounds to their disfavour. Within the next two months the EC will be completing what they have quaintly termed a directive on a typical work. I think the drafts have already been circulated and I believe very strongly and very firmly that there would be no sense in our progressing further until we can actually produce sets of proposals that will dovetail with those. Whatever else can be said about our European partners in this regard we have to accept the fact that they have a great deal longer experience with the issue of part-time work, particularly in the Nordic countries where the issue is an extraordinary one, where 25 per cent of the workforce is employed on a part-time basis and as high as 55 per cent of women are employed on a part-time basis. Clearly the solutions they have been experimenting with and putting in train are something we should look at before we address the issue.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Are we going to go outside the EC as well?

Mr. Roche

The Deputy will have to address that question to the Minister. I think we would be foolish if we were to progress — and I use the word lightly, in this most sensitive area — on the basis of some ill considered, and should I say without being unnecessarily controversial, half baked measures.

Mr. Rabbitte

I do not think the Deputy has read the Bill. I know he has been busy with his research.

Mr. Roche

Arrogance is something which comes in abundance from the ranks of The Workers' Party. Throughout the last two days a number of other Deputies and myself sat here contributing to the Defence Bill. Deputy Bell who was here was dismissed as somebody who really did not know about the law, Deputy Durkan was dismissed as somebody who was not around and did not listen carefully enough, Deputy Hillery and myself were dismissed by The Workers' Party as being mere emissaries of the Tánaiste and now it seems I am accused of coming in and speaking on a Bill without even having read it, despite the fact that I have taken some trouble to prepare by contribution. I think Deputy Rabbitte should do me more justice than that. He knows me better than to make such a suggestion. Given the experience of part-time work in other developed EC countries and in European states in general, to press ahead on this matter without adverting to the work which has been done and which is being done at EC level within the social action programme would be not only foolhardy but arrogance of a high order on our part.

The Minister in his contribution, outlined his concerns in this area as have other Government speakers. There is one thing we can say about the debate: it has not been acrimonious because we all share a common concern that the problem be addressed in a comprehensive way and in a way that will serve the interests of part-time workers. I have to say — and I do not mean to be dismissive because I am sure Deputy Rabbitte put in a great deal of effort into preparing this Bill — that I do not believe the Bill looks after the issue adequately. It would be wrong for Deputy Rabbitte to go out of this House with the view that he or those who sponsored the Bill have a monopoly of compassion for those who are exploited and underprivileged. That is not the case. Compassion for those who are underprivileged and down trodden and, in particular, people who find themselves exploited, as in the cases I have outlined at the beginning of my contribution, is evenly spread around this House. What all of us should aim to do, is to illustrate our compassion by producing a well drafted charter of rights for the part-time worker. I hope and I have every confidence that the Minister will produce such a charter. In spite of the efforts Deputy Rabbitte has undoubtedly put into this Bill I do not think it could be reasonably characterised as a comprehensive and well-thought through charter for part-time workers. Such a charter could only be produced following careful study of the precise nature of the problems and very close consultation with the social partners.

Mr. Rabbitte

Can we expect the Deputy to bring forward amendments?

Mr. Roche

I am not in office yet——

Mr. Rabbitte

The Deputy is trying very hard.

Mr. Roche

We will have to wait a little while. I am glad that somebody in this House recognises——

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

The Deputy should wait by the phone.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am obliged to ask the Deputy to agree to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Roche

Because you ask in such a civil way I could do nothing but move the adjournment of the debate at this point.

Mrs. Barnes

Will the Deputy add the word "commitment" to the word "compassion", which is what we need.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Rabbitte

May I ask how many minutes Deputy Roche has left?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A little over five minutes.

Mr. Rabbitte

I think we can just about endure that.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

A consumation devoutly to be wished.

Debate adjourned.