The previous speaker had concluded. Is Deputy Mary Flaherty offering?
Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It is not a limited debate. I would rather be prepared. I am interested in contributing in a serious way.
I call Deputy Jacob.
In what is a short Bill one could be deceived into thinking that it related to short measures or a small number of items. On the contrary, however, if ever the adage of good goods in small parcels was appropriate it is appropriate to this Bill.
In this Bill we possibly have the most significant labour legislation for some time in terms of its impact across so many facets of the employment contract. Its impact on minimum notice, unfair dismissals, redundancy payments, worker directorships, holiday entitlements, maternity protection and the protection of employees in insolvent companies is so significant for so many thousands of workers that it justifiably deserves all the accolades that can be bestowed upon it.
The Bill emphasises the commitment of the Government and the Minister to the protection of workers and the security of their work environment. In this regard, we in Ireland have a record of which we can be very proud. This legislation follows close on the heels of the enactment of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act and even the Companies Act, recently enacted, which gives directors of a company obligations in regard to their employees. Piece by piece we have put a structured and responsible framework around the relationship between employer and employee, one which builds integrity and respect into that relationship.
We are all aware that the economic response to difficult times has led to rationalisation within companies and industries, and because of creative employment policies, many companies have been driven towards lesser numbers of full-time employees and larger numbers of part-time workers. In many instances these responses were justified in the interests of maintaining viable employment. In many other cases we are aware that they have resulted from a policy of exploitation of those least able to defend themselves and in many cases also those most in need. This matter of exploitation needed to be addressed. It is an evil, a malaise that can creep in almost inadvertently. Employers in certain areas, particularly in the service sector, may not set out to exploit those people whom they employ.
The influences which have guided or steered modern work practice towards part-time rather than full-time employment have evolved a situation in which exploitation becomes an integral part of things. Several warnings have been issued in recent times regarding this matter. People of the calibre of Mr. Jim Nugent, Chairman of CERT, our catering training agency, have come out strongly in recent times to warn us of the dangers and hazards involved in bestowing on workers and employees less than meritorious levels of pay and conditions and general treatment. Responsible employers, mindful of the needs for their workers and of the necessity that mutual trust and respect should obtain at all times, will welcome this legislation. Those responsible employers will ensure that this legislation will in no way act as a deterrent against the recruitment of workers to operate on a part-time basis.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, took a giant step in this important area recently when he signed regulations which brought 21,000 part-time workers within the scope of the social welfare scheme. This action ensured that henceforth thousands of women in part-time positions will now enjoy more security, will be entitled to social welfare benefits and, ultimately, to pensions. It is a welcome innovation indeed.
In this Bill I see the responsible approach of a Legislature which acts to intercede on behalf of those people. It is a measure which lifts the veil of exploitation from around thousands of part-time workers, gives to them a basis of a new self-respect and a more concrete foundation to their employment contract. More than any other category of workers, it affects women workers who work short but regular hours each week to support families or add to the household income.
The existing legislative framework allowed or provided for a situation in which a dual workforce could develop. On the one hand, we had those whose hours of work merited the safeguards of the many Acts referred to and, on the other hand, those on short hours who, only by that fact alone, were deprived of access to the many protections which we have striven to introduce over the past 20 years in particular. Those Acts were drafted and enacted to build around the employment relationship a set of values based upon a mutual respect and freedom to enter into contracts of employment. They were not enacted to cut across the values of commercial enterprise, to restrict unnecessarily or constrain employers or to impose upon them unjustifiable burdens. They were a necessary and just enshrining in law of society's values of respect for each working person and respect for the contract between employer and employee.
Equally the adoption or application of those values cannot be limited to the extent that they are calculable in terms of the number of hours worked. We must continue to reassess their impact in the light of experience and respond appropriately to that experience. It is from this accumulated knowledge that this Bill derives and I wholeheartedly welcome it.
As in all Bills or proposals, we must decide on a threshold, as we did in the past, and in reducing the number of reckonable hours to eight the Minister has taken a very bold step which I am sure will be appreciated by all. I understand that the 18 hour threshold excluded approximately 20,000 workers from the benefits of the majority of the legislation being amended by this Bill. Approximately 45,000 workers were excluded from the benefits of the Holidays (Employees) Act. About 38,000 workers were excluded from public holiday entitlements, and most of those excluded were women. The great expansion in the number of part-time workers in recent years led to a concern about the adequacy of existing employment legislation and the status of part-time workers was identified as an issue in the Programme for National Recovery. The proposals in this Bill give great credence to the concept of social partnership underlying such national agreements, the concept of working together for the betterment of society in general and the less priviliged in particular.
I know there are still some people or organisations who may decry this Bill. They may claim it lays additional burdens on the commercial viability of some businesses. I believe these concerns or objections are unsustainable. A regular part-time employee will have worked for a continuous period of 13 weeks, for a minimum of eight hours per week as specified in Part I of the Bill. Can it be that that person is not entitled to be treated fairly on dismissal, entitled to a minimum period of notice or proper conditions of employment? Should he or she not have redress to a tribunal to hear his or her case where there are disputes warranting a hearing? Is he or she not entitled to protection in proportionate fashion in insolvency to appropriate and proportionate holiday entitlements, maternity leave, etc.? No one could adduce an argument which could justify such deprivation.
Equally it must be remembered that the Acts carry mutual responsibilities for both employer and employee and all the safeguards and procedures to ensure fair treatment for both sides continue to apply in equal measure. I am sure we can all remember the concerns expressed before those Acts were enacted and I think we all now agree that they have been shown to be unjustified. The Acts and, in particular, the procedures and bodies established to oversee them, have survived very well and have come to gain the respect of all sides. This legislation provides for the umbrella of security and safeguards to be extended over many part-time workers, and in particular women, and I would like particularly to compliment the Employment Equality Agency for their work in assisting employees and employers to appreciate the value and respect owing to all workers, irrespective of sex. I believe we have made tremendous strides in this area. I know the agency will see in this Bill a much welcome addition to the achievement of even greater progress on that front.
I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill and its straightforward and simply put message, and I welcome it very much.
As the situation is obviously different from what I anticipated, I will take this opportunity to say that I welcome very much this legislation which deals with the entitlements of part-time workers. The patterns of employment in this country and throughout Western Europe have changed radically in the past ten or 15 years. The traditional picture of a firm, factory or enterprise of any sort has been radically transformed. Traditionally the firm or company was made up of a large body of full-time workers, with perhaps a small number of part-time employees and an occasional contract worker. That picture has been transformed completely and now there is a small corps of full-time permanent employees — the hub of the wheel, and the spokes and the rim would be the contract and part-time workers. Because of the volatility of world markets and the constantly changing pace of technological improvements which can make viable enterprise outdated overnight, companies have been choosing contract and part-time work as a means of making themselves more viable.
These are sound financial decisions but, in the midst of this, there are human beings whose traditional expectations in relation to employment had to change because they were exposed to much more vulnerable working environments. The group most affected, as all speakers here today have identified, have tended to be women because women who are not well established within the workforce have found that as a consequence of these radical changes in the nature and structure of work, places of work and the organisation of work, they are more and more marginalised and end up on the wrong side of the track. This legislation, which has come as part of an EC move — I am glad to say we have adopted not the minimum levels but generous levels — is a recognition of this reality and the very great change in the workplace, and is welcome. I am glad that we have responded as we have done in much of our labour and social legislation — we cannot pat ourselves on the back about our social legislation but our labour legislation is more advanced than other countries.
This side of the House welcomes this measure. In the seventies, as part of a radical coalition we introduced some major measures which gave protection to those in permanent employment — the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Employment Equality Acts and the Maternity in Employment Acts. This Bill is effectively giving the protection of many of these measures to part-time employees. This side of the House, and I as a woman particularly welcome this legislation. I also hope that what I think is the beginning of a stage will mean that we are adopting a new aspiration for work. We have gone for the expensive option, or what on the surface appears to be the expensive option. Like the previous speaker said — and I found myself in agreement with a lot of what he said — we must change our attitude. We must invest in our employees, in their dignity, status and rights. There are choices to be made, particularly with 1992 coming, choices that are exercising the minds of EC countries, whether countries on the periphery, like Ireland, will adopt what they describe as a dumping approach to employment and go for low wage, low protection employment. I would be very concerned that this should not be the direction we will go.
While people are cautions about taking on certain issues such as minimum wages because they believe they may hinder employment and the level of employment, I suggest that this is not so. When the equality legislation came into force the scaremongers suggested that if we gave women equal pay for equal work we would lose jobs wholesale. This has not happened. Since women got equal pay they have participated more and more in the workforce. I believe we can afford to go not necessarily for a high wage but for a fair and reasonable wage and maximum protection in employment. The positive side is that higher productivity, higher morale and a more effective industrial environment lead to higher profits and a happier workforce. I am encouraged by the bravery of this legislation which has adopted not the minimum standards that we often try to settle for but a level somewhat above them. We have said our workers are worthy of protection, are worthy of investment, and I hope further developments in policy in the future will be on the lines I indicated. I welcome the Bill and look forward to its speedy implementation.
The Bill is one of the most significant and progressive pieces of labour legislation to be introduced for many years. It reflects a thoughtful and critical assessment of an area that has been growing in recent years and seeks to redress the twilight zone in which so many part-time workers have found themselves without the protection or benefits of most of the labour legislation or, indeed, the social welfare legislation.
There has been a huge growth in the employment or part-time workers, particularly over the last few years, and we will see it more and more as we move towards the Single Market and European integration. There has been a noticeable increase on both the level and growth rate of what is usually referred to as atypical work in the most OECD countries. Today this accounts for over 10 per cent of the EC workforce the most important form of which is regular part-time work.
In 1982 it was recognised by the British Manpower Services Commission as Britain's major employment area, and with this in mind that commission proposed a long look at four different areas such as the practicality and desirability of such employment within structures that were designed for full-time work. The Bill is again looking at this; its implications for permanent work practices; entitlements for worker compensation across a whole range of workers and social welfare benefits normally thought to apply exclusively to full-time workers, and the increasing trend to associate part-time work with women.
We are starting into an era today with this legislation as traditionally legislation was thought of in terms of the full-time permanent employee. I am delighted to see that the nettle of this difficult area where there are a huge number of people working part-time has been grasped by the Minister and the Government through this legislation. It has not been easy and, perhaps, this is why unions and, perhaps, previous Ministers have been slow to move into this area. There are such huge numbers involved and people are employed in such diverse ways that it is not an easy area to regulate. I am glad the legislation is before us and that the Minister has tackled this.
The need to address these four areas is present in all EC countries, all the more so because part-time workers are often perceived as a source of cheap labour. This is perhaps the underlying difficulty in this. Accordingly, it has been a sensitive area to reform, as well as legally complicated, given its origins, development and variety.
Such work has developed for a variety of reasons, the growth of technology, economic redirection, organisational transformation, the tendency to subcontract in particular areas, and the demanded and accepted return of women to jobs where previously when they got married they left permanently. This is indicated in the figures which show that 50,000, or approximately 75 per cent of part-time workers are women. Therefore for both employers and many part-time employees, part time work, with the tacit agreement of both parties, suited the employer because of the flexibility and it suited the part-time worker who was glad to have access to this type of work. It grew without the regulations which perhaps should have been in place and there was even a relaxation of existing conditions. Because of the convergence of the aspirations of the part-timer and the expectations of the employer, trade unions and Governments found it difficult to address this until now. The Bill addresses the problem and sets a good balance between employer and employee far in advance of what exists in other EC countries.
Aside from this there has been a second difficulty in approaching the question of part-time work. For a long time it has been seen in a very traditional and old fashioned way. Part-time work is as old as the industrial revolution, as is its association with lack of skill and poor, if any, upward mobility. Traditionally, it has been convenient if not easy to forget the part-time worker in terms of the accrual of benefits, for example, in relation to holidays or pensions given to full-time employees. Given the reality of part-time work we need in the nineties to accept that part-time work is here to stay and give it greater legitimacy. We must recognise that greater flexibility in the workforce is not just a convenience but is part and parcel of labour trends. We must legislate for it in terms of the modern workplace, of the expectations of the modern workforce and not exclusively in terms of the full time worker. Part-time work suits those involved in it but it also suits employers because of the flexibility it allows.
The Bill is important in a second way. Over and above the detailed reforms it proposes, it reveals a new attitude to work in general and recognises the role and dignity of the part-time worker. This is vital in approaching the whole question of women and work because it is only with such recognition of worker dignity, whether that worker is male or female, that progress can be made on pay and conditions.
In Ireland, no less than in other EC countries, there has been a percentage increase in part-time work. Although it is slightly less than in other countries it still constitutes a significant part of the workforce, up from 42,000 in 1975 to about 72,000 in 1989 according to the most recent labour force survey. However, of those 72,000, some 50,000 are women. I am glad that many of the contributors to the debate have been women Members because this legislation is specifically helpful to women and will directly help 50,000 women in a very positive way. Of the 50,000 women, 60 per cent are married. This gives an importance to the figures for part-time workers far and above the statistical.
Reform is demanded if, in addition to the general problems which women face in the workplace, we are to avoid making the problems of part-time work the problems of women. There is nothing new about part-time work. What is new is the extent to which it has manifested itself in a wide range of occupations, particularly in the sales and services sectors. It has grown especially among women whether these are involved in more formal arrangements such as job sharing or informal arrangements such as seasonal or casual work, such as part-time work in the local supermarket, the bank or the local hotel. Broadly speaking it is women who are affected by this legislation which seeks to improve the situation for part-time workers. Of the estimated 14 million part-time workers in the EC, constituting about 10 per cent of the total workforce, 85 per cent are women, especially in the middle and older age groups. Some EC countries tend to pat themselves on the back in that they take these figures as representing the advance of women in the workplace.
However, such statistics often reveal something that is quantitative rather than qualitative. We have all heard stories about part-time women workers being trapped in circumstances of low wages and poor conditions, some in order to supplement their family income, others because they simply want to work. In any case, given that there are usually not enough part-time jobs to go around and that such employees are outside the scope of labour agreements, such female workers are left in a kind of limbo. Again it is a courageous move to give such workers their entitlements and I do not say this in a congratulatory way. Workers who are covered by this legislation are entitled to those benefits and it is the role of Government to ensure that part-time workers receive them. I am particularly pleased that of the 72,000 people who will benefit from the legislation 50,000 are women part-time workers.
It is even more important, as we move to 1992, to have this legislation in place. During the seventies and eighties most employers argued that their competitiveness could be recovered and consequently more jobs created only if working hours and working conditions were made what was usually called more flexible. As we approach the Single Market the implications of such views for part-time workers are even more immediate. Therefore, as businesses become increasingly centralised — which, by the way, is often a by-word for increased competitiveness in the larger internal market — and dominated by a more impersonal regime of labour relations, I see the Bill as ensuring that part-time workers will not be the special victims of the march to 1992. This is all the more important in that most economists see the incidence of part-time work extending outside its traditional areas in the service and retail sectors. Economists predict that as we move closer to 1992 part-time workers will be spread throughout the whole of industry and not only be in the traditional areas. The Government are exercising their leadership in this area and I welcome it.
In a sense the haphazard origin of part-time work is reflected in the existing legislation, with different criteria applying to different areas which are concerned only with the traditional types of employment, that is, permanent, full-time employment. Even for the trade union movement, as I said earlier, it has been a difficult issue to handle because of the problem of including part-timers in any kind of collective bargaining negotiations.
The Bill before the House today goes a long way to redressing these imbalances. As somebody who is particularly interested in the status of female workers, I welcome any attempt not only to secure and enhance employment opportunities for women but also, as this Bill proposes, to ensure that when and where women are employed they will not be exploited or deprived of the benefits of social welfare protection; in other words, that the inequalities that exist for women are not aggravated. This was referred to by the Minister at a seminar entitled "Women in 1992" held in Dublin Castle in conjunction with the Irish Presidency. I congratulate the Minister for organising that seminar and for his foresight in doing so. In that context it was agreed that with the changing demographic structure, falling birth rates and an increasing ageing population, women would become a greater feature of the labour market. This is evident from the statistics.
Some progress has already been made dealing with employment equality, wages and safety and health in the workplace. Last month, the Minister for Social Welfare announced certain initiatives in relation to the social welfare side of part-time work. These, too, were very welcome in the 1991 budget.
This Bill proposes to extend benefits in respect of various pieces of labour law, to those who up to now, because of the insistence of the 18-hour threshold were precluded from a wide range of benefits such as holidays — which is dealt with in section 4 — and maternity and various provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 — dealt with in section 3. Instead, as section 2 of the Bill outlines, the criterion of eight hours per week over a 13 week period is employed, as a result of which all regular part-time workers will be admitted to the various rights as detailed in the named seven separate labour legislative measures.
As section 3 recognises, if a part-time worker becomes pregnant she will no longer have to rely on the benevolence or arbitrary decision of the employer to keep her job open for her because she will now be covered by the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, and the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, in the same way and under the same terms as if she were a full-time worker, and have the right to a minimum period of 14 weeks maternity leave.
Moreover, I believe this legislation will suggest something to partners in both the EC and the ILO, where the status of a typical worker is far from certainly defined. Part of the reason for such uncertainty at both EC and ILO level is the laziness of national level to either propose or apply effective standards. Under each of these headings, the present Bill is suggestive and creative in an EC context.
Earlier in the debate today, the Minister reported that women accounted for nearly 75 per cent of all part-time workers in the 25-44 age bracket, in other words, women with dependent children. I have long believed there is a direct correlation between part-time work and inadequate child care facilities, family leave and inadequate parental leave. While the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights have been pushing these issues, they are not an adjunct to the workplace either here in Dáil Éireann or elsewhere; they should not be seen as part of the so-called grace and favour of employment policy but an intrinsic and core part of such policy, if full protection is to be achieved. As the Minister continues to look to the future and at labour law, I hope he will take this into consideration. I realise that as with some of the issues covered in the Bill, Government can push employers only so far, but even accepting that, where the old fashioned view continues to exist that créche facilities are just that — facilities — and not an integral part of the working conditions of workers, there will be continued problems for women in the employment area.
As I mentioned, the evolution of part-time work has been such that a kind of limbo has been created. However, there have been competing pressures on Government in this area, to allow Government address the question of balancing the expectations of the employer, on one hand, and the aspirations of the worker, on the other. Moreover, at a time when we are talking about greater integration of all types of EC systems, and the redress of various imbalances, we cannot move on labour law in an EC context in such a segregated way. Neither should we be making distinctions between related benefits awarded to part-timers and full-timers or between men and women. The Bill addresses itself to both the reality and the spirit of the EC Social Charter, the central import of which is the stress on equality of treatment and access for men and women across a wide range of objectives and benefits.
I also welcome the Minister's hope that if and when this Bill is accepted, he will publish — as he said this morning — explanatory literature and disseminate it to the interested parties. This is a Bill that has already been widely welcomed with good reason. It is pioneering not only in detail but also for the novel and timely thinking it brings to an area of work that has, for far too long, been ignored and regarded in the past, perhaps, by unions, the Government or whoever, as an area that was too troublesome to tackle or virtually impossible to regulate. This Bill has brought all the seven pieces of legislation together to cover part-time workers. It will be of benefit to the 72,000 people, and many more, as more part-time work becomes available over the coming years. I am delighted that the Minister has recognised the need for this legislation. He has been very forward-thinking in presenting this progressive legislation at this time. I commend the Bill to the House.
(Wexford): Generally the past month or six weeks has been a good time for part-time workers because, first, the Minister for Social Welfare announced the new protection legislation for 21,000 part-time workers. Thousands of women who participate in traditionally low-paid and often insecure employment will now have access to social welfare benefits and pensions. They will also be entitled to claim weekly payments from the Department of Social Welfare when they are out of work because of illness, maternity leave or unemployment and will be entitled to pensions on their retirement. For far too long part-time workers, particularly women part-time workers, have been excluded from benefits. Employers and, to a certain extent the State, have abused these workers.
The Programme for National Recovery identified the status of part-time workers as an issue which needed to be addressed. In September 1988 the Minister reviewed all aspects of part-time work and sought the views of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Federation of Irish employers and others. I am glad that one of the priorities stitched into the Programme for Economic and Social Progress is the position of part-time workers. It states:
The Minister for Labour will seek to have the Worker Protection Part-Time Employees) Bill, 1990 enacted as early as possible.
The Minister acted as early as he could and has done a very good job bringing forward this Bill today.
The issue of part-time workers was discussed during Private Members Time on two or three occasions. The Minister said then that he was preparing legislation and would take into account the views of Deputies. Today, the Minister recognised the role Deputies on all sides have played in bringing forward this Bill. Sometimes we criticise politicians and regard Private Members' Time as cumbersome, awkward and a little embarrassing for the Government, but very often Members from all sides put forward very good ideas. It is good to see a Minister take some of those suggestions on board and include them in a Bill.
I believe this Bill is welcomed by Members on all sides of the House. I have had an interest in the issue of part-time workers even before I became a Member of Dáil Éireann. I believed for quite some time that part-time workers got a very raw deal. The Minister has done a good job in striking a balance between ensuring that the rights of employers are protected and that part-time workers are protected. Unfortunately, many employers, particularly supermarkets, have taken advantage of part-time workers, Supermarkets in my county — I am sure this is the case in every other county — use part-time workers to their own advantage. In some cases they hire them for only 17½ hours because if they hire them for 18 hours they will have to pay their entitlements. In other cases part-time workers start work at 8 a.m. and are told at 10 a.m. by the supermarket manager that they are not needed any more for that day. There is blatant abuse of part-time workers by supermarkets and other employers. The Minister has gone a reasonable way towards tackling this problem. I hope employers will not be able to get around this legislation and make massive profits. Up to now they always seemed to find a way around legislation and took advantage of the thousands of young people who are seeking employment.
The majority of part-time workers are women. Many of them take up part-time work because they cannot get full-time jobs they need the money to supplement their husbands' earnings or social welfare payments, or they want to be able to buy the extra clothing and school books when their children return to school. Part-time work is very important to these women.
I read recently that supermarkets in England are now taking on what are known as "granny" part-time workers. Supermarkets regard these people as very dedicated and believe they are more reliable. Their families are reared and they can work four to eight hours a day, whenever they are needed. Shopping trends are changing. The experts tell us that 85-90 per cent of shopping is done late on Thursday and Friday nights and on Saturdays. Many employers only need to hire people at those peak times and as a result only part-time work is available.
I want to deviate for a moment and refer to the minimum wage. Part-time shop workers are paid as little as £1 an hour. A supermarket in my constituency pay £1.27 an hour, but most small shops pay £1 an hour. One young girl who works from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., with perhaps ten minutes for a lunch break, receives £8 a day, less than £1 an hour. There is a great deal of exploitation in the context of a minimum wage. This issue must be addressed by the Minister. Recently a woman who is looking for a loan from Wexford County Council visited my clinic. I asked her to produce her P60. This woman works 45 hours a week as a hotel receptionist and received £2,984 for 52 weeks work. She had trained in CERT and had all the necessary qualifications. I am not surprised that most of the young people trained by CERT go to London, Boston or New York where they can get decent wages in hotels, etc. I ask the Minister to deal with the issue of a minimum wage at some stage in the near future.
As I have said, at present people who work fewer than 18 hours a week do not have any entitlement to annual leave, public holidays, redundancy payments, maternity leave etc. — I could spend the next ten minutes listing the rights those people do not have. The Minister is reducing that threshold to eight hours. As he said, this will achieve a dual purpose — it will bring the great majority of the unprotected part-time workforce withing the protection of the law and at the same time will move the threshold to a point so low that there will be little incentive for employers to create new contracts below the threshold. I hope the Minister will insist that this provision is adhered to so that employers will have no way of getting around it and abusing the system.
There is unanimous agreement on all sides that this Bill is long overdue and that these workers need to be protected. The 1975 labour force survey was the first survey on part-time work in this country. Between 1975 and 1989, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of part-time workers increased from 71,500 to 82,000, an increase of 10,500 or over 15 per cent in 14 years. As a person with no back-up Civil Service information, I think the increase in the number of part-time workers is much greater. In every area of industry there appears to be part-time workers. The Minister pointed out the steady growth in this area but it is still well below — about half — the European average.
There has been a distinct change in the type of part-time work available. A lot of part-time work is regular. Five or ten years ago a person in part-time work would eventually be employed on a permanent basis — the part-time job was a step towards becoming permanent. Unfortunately, that situation no longer prevails. There has been a very significant increase in what is called regular part-time employment, and there are in the region of 70,000 people in that category. That is probably due to the boom in the supermarket area and different shopping trends. This is a cause of concern because employers continue to avail of part-time workers rather than employing them full-time. Some employers say it costs too much to employ a person on a full-time basis because of the PRSI payments. The Minister should look at that. The last Government, and this Government, introduced PRSI and other exemptions for employers employing persons on a full-time basis, and that was very welcome. More people would be employed full-time if employers were given an incentive to do so. The Minister should consider this matter.
Most part-time workers are women. I welcome the introduction by the Minister for Social Welfare of measures to protect these people and to ensure they get the benefits to which they are entitled. Heretofore people working as caretakers in schools, or giving out lunches in primary schools, were usually employed by the local urban councils, and received £40 to £45 per week. They were let go in the summer, at Christmas and Easter, during which time they had no income. That was very unfair. I am not singling out the primary school area; this happened in all areas where women worked in part-time jobs. From next year these people will be entitled to benefits and this is welcome.
I compliment the Minister for Labour, Deputy Ahern on this Bill. He gave a commitment in March 1989, and again in the Programme for Social and Economic Progress, to bring in this legislation, and he has honoured that commitment today. I like to see Ministers honouring their commitments to deliver on legislation, particularly where it is badly needed. I hope this legislation passes through the House as quickly as possible and without further delay because part-time workers should have the rights to which they are entitled.
This Bill has been welcomed by virtually everybody who is interested in justice in the workplace. I know it has the support of the major parties and of the trade union movement. Ms. Patricia Donovan, assistant general secretary of the ICTU, earlier this year spoke for many trade unionists when she said this is the most significant legislation since the early seventies, and I certainly endorse that. Ms. Sylvia Meehan of the EEA said the Minister's achievement in introducing the legislation is "a significant step in the direction of equality for women workers". She noted that 20,000 part-time workers would be directly affected by this legislation and that 80 per cent of those would be women. The only voice that demurred on this legislation in public was the FIE who indicated they had some problems with the proposed eight hour threshold. It is understood they favour a phased reduction.
There are a number of reasons this legislation is important and timely. First, there is no good reason to discriminate in the matter of protection from arbitrary dismissal, to take one example, between a person working regularly on a full-time basis and a person working on a part-time basis. The question is not so much why should statutory protection be extended to the part-time worker but rather why not. The same should be the case with social welfare benefits and all the other rights relating to work. The time for extending benefits and protection to part-time workers is long overdue.
The second reason this legislation is important and timely is that much part-time work in Ireland is carried out by female workers. As Deputy Browne has said, female workers dominate disproportionately the incidence of part-time work within the services sector. They are typically paid at a very low level and the skilled development of such workers is also very low. They have very poor pay prospects and a very low likelihood of union protection. The trade union movement has made efforts to move in that direction, but we all have to admit that much ground has to be made up. It is difficult to imagine any group in society more likely to be exploited, and for that reason more deserving of State support in terms of statutory standards, than part-time workers, particularly women who operate in the services sector.
Deputy John Browne mentioned a couple of areas where there are abuses and where the pay is low. The use of part-time workers on a very wide scale, particularly by some of the larger supermarket operators, and the use of female workers in these workplaces, with very low pay and none of the dignity which one would expect in the latter part of the 20th century to be associated with work, is a scandal and it is long past time that we statutorily introduced measures to overcome the abuse in this area. That is achieved in this Bill.
The third reason is that, with the exception of our nearest neighbour, most states in the European Community, and many states outside it, have adopted action to promote part-time work and to protect those workers' rights. It does us no credit that we are so far behind in this regard. In many European states basic terms and conditions apply equally to full-time and part-time workers with both categories enjoying the same state rights as well as the same employment rights. That is what the Minister, Deputy Ahern, is seeking to achieve in this Bill.
The fourth reason for endorsing and supporting the Bill and wishing it a speedy passage is that experience suggests that companies should adopt progressive policies in their own enlightened self interest but, where they have not done so, the State will have to encourage them to be a little more progressive.
The fifth and final reason for endorsing the Bill, apart from congratulating the Minister for introducing it, is that we should all have an interest in justice, not just justice for the part-time worker but justice in a general sense. The Bill is relatively simple. The first section includes the definition of "regular part-time" as someone who has been in contiunous service for at least 13 weeks, who is normally expected to work at least eight hours per week and who does not, at present, come within the scope of the legislation which it is proposed to amend.
It does us no credit as a nation that people have to flit about seeking employment at very low rates with all the marginal costs that full-time employment carries and none of the benefits. It is disappointing, therefore, that one or two employers put forward suggestions that the introduction of the measures should perhaps be on a phased basis.
Section 2 relates to continuous service and provides that the 13 weeks must be calculated in accordance with widely used mechanisms. That is a reasonable approach to it; in fact, throughout the Bill, one is struck by the fact that the Minister has sought to adopt a non-technical, user-friendly approach in the way the Bill is framed, which sets out the rights of the workforce in a self-explanatory manner, easily assimilable by them.
Section 3 simply extends the benefits of various Acts to regular part-time workers. It also provides that the contribution requirement under the Redundancy Payments Acts should not apply in respect of certain types of part-time work. On the face of it, this is a very simple Bill; however, it represents a major step forward for part-time workers.
As has been apparent for some time, a growing proportion of the workforce have been employed in some alternative form to the traditional full-time job. This has called into question the adequacy of current protective legislation which is, to a large extent, aimed at the traditional worker in full-time employment. The Minister for Labour is right to have been concerned, in particular about the position of regular part-time employees. As the law stands, workers can have many years of service with the same employer, yet they may have no entitlement to holidays, maternity leave or other rights such as minimum notice, redundancy payments. In other words, they do not have the right to be treated in a decent and civilised manner. In this Bill, the Minister is moving to bridge that gap.
There is, of course, nothing easy or straightforward about part-time work. Just as there is no single type of part-time work, there is no single remedy which will apply across the board. While this legislation will certainly address some problems, undoubtedly it will be skirted around in the not too distant future and other problems may materialise. The conflicts and issues which part-time work throws up are very diverse; it would clearly be better if we could look forward to an Ireland which had full-time work or the availability of full-time employment but, sadly, in the foreseeable future it is obvious that the existing trend towards part-time work, which I do not welcome, will continue.
It is also true that, because the problems thrown up by part-time work are diverse and complex, they must be approached in a reasoned and informed manner. The Minister has been presented with divergent views over the last two years. He has discussed the matter at some length with employers and employees' representatives, and has, of course, discussed the matter in this House in previous debates sponsored, I acknowledge, by other parties. A considerable amount of the thought process incorporated in this Bill has been teased out and some of the complexities of the issue have been debated. Therefore, it has been easier in a sense to frame the legislation. I should like to acknowledge that other parties in this House contributed to this issue. One of the attributes of the Minister for Labour is that he has a singular capacity to build consensus within the trade union movement and between trade unions and employers' representatives. In a sense, this Bill is a very real and lasting tribute to that consensus-building capacity.
Employers generally take the view that part-time work is an important element in labour market flexibility, and I can understand that. This is considered essential to ensure competitiveness and to maintain employment. That is the positive side of the employers' view: employers argue that the extension of positive protection in legislation to part-time workers could reduce the attractiveness of this type of labour. The trade union view, on the other hand, is that part-time workers are vulnerable to exploitation where they are not protected under the law: the trade unions — I concur with them — consider that, in equity, part-time workers should have the same entitlements, on at least a pro rata basis, as their full-time counterparts.
I take issue with the suggestion made by some employers that as you extend rights to certain workers, in some way you make the job of running an enterprise more difficult. That is a very negative, Victorian view of enterprise which cannot continue in the modern world. The Minister for Labour has, in this Bill, achieved something approaching an ideal balance between the two diverse views in relation to part-time workers. The Bill will certainly improve the lot of part-time workers, particularly those who work on a regular, almost permanent, basis and it does not impede the development of the sector. It simply channels developments in a way in which we would all wish. An unbalanced approach would have had disadvantages for employers and employees. Over-regulation in the workforce can, of course, lead to a variety of problems, not least to the reduction of job opportunities. We must ask ourselves, when we talk about employment creation, whether we have over-regulated in a general sense, leading to a situation where employers prefer, for safety reasons, to expand their working hours by overtime instead of bringing in new workers.
Over-regulation can impact on job creation in addition to having an impact on employers. We must look for a balance which I do not think we have struck in that regard. Conversely, if there is no legislation or protection for part-time workers, the situation will deteriorate and the problem outlined earlier by Deputy Browne will become more frequent. It would also facilitate the undesirable emergence of the dual labour market with two different classes of employee. This analysis is contained in John Blackwell's excellent paper.
Debate adjourned.