I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that part-time workers who are normally expected to work for at least eight hours a week for an employer and have completed 13 weeks continuous service with the employer, will enjoy the same protection under labour legislation as full-time workers. By "labour legislation" I mean the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1990, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Acts, 1984 and 1990, and the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973. I am accordingly in this short Bill amending seven separate sets of enactments.
It is as well for me to emphasise at the very outset that all workers including part-time workers are already covered by labour legislation which deals with occupational safety and health, employment equality and the payment of wages. Their exclusion from the Acts which I mention is the result of the weekly hours threshold of 18 hours contained in those Acts or in the case of the Holidays Act, a threshold of 120 hours a month or 1,400 hours a year. By shifting the threshold from 18 to eight hours I achieved the dual goal of bringing the very great majority of the unprotected part-time workforce within the protection of the law and, at the same time, of moving the threshold to a point so low that there will be little incentive for employees to create new contracts below that threshold, as has happened in the past.
This is the third occasion in about two years on which we are having a major discussion in this House on part-time workers. It was quite clear to me on the last two occasions that there was considerable concern that such workers were treated differently from full-time workers, particularly under labour law. In the interim, I concluded my discussions with both sides of industry and with other interests and was able to put my proposals before this House on 18 December last. I am pleased at the initial reception which they have received. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have welcomed the publication of the Bill and have accepted that it is broadly in line with the Congress demand for equal rights for part-time workers. I look forward to a constructive debate on the proposals, and eventually their passage by the Oireachtas.
Many Deputies who participated in the previous discussions on the protection of part-time workers emphasised the need to move beyond labour law and to comprehend also the treatment of part-time workers under social security. It was never the intention of the Government to deal with both matters in the same Bill: that would be a recipe for confusion. The Minister for Social Welfare has, in recent days, abolished the 18 hours' threshold which hitherto applied and provided social security cover to all employees earning £40 or more per week. In this way many part-time workers, for the first time, will be entitled to claim weekly payments from the Department of Social Welfare because of illness, unemployment or maternity.
By way of introduction I would like to focus on four main themes: the extent and the nature of the growth of part-time work; the characteristics of part-time workers including the important gender dimension; the present situation of part-time workers under labour legislation and the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the real needs of firms which require greater flexibility in the organisation of production and on the other, workers' needs for stability and society's concern that particular categories of workers should not be discriminated against.
The labour force survey of 1975 provides the first set of data on part-time work in Ireland. Between that year and 1989, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of part-time workers increased from 71,500 to 82,000. Although this represents an increase of 10,500 part-time jobs over 14 years, or 15 per cent over the 1975 level, the proportion of persons working part-time in Ireland has remained relatively unchanged. In 1975 part-time workers represented about 6.7 per cent of those with an occupation and the share in 1989 was only slightly larger at 7.5 per cent. It has not been a steady growth, moreover, but a fluctuating one with part-time workers accounting for 7.3 per cent of persons with an occupation in 1977, 5.1 per cent in 1979, regaining in 1983 the 1975 level of 6.7 per cent and peaking in 1988 at 7.8 per cent before declining slightly in 1989.
There have, however been a number of important changes over that period. One of the most important is the distinction made in the labour force between "regular" and "occasional" part-time workers. Regular part-time employment has increased very significantly since 1975 when it stood at 42,500. In 1989 that figure was 70,000. The lesson which we can draw from this is that part-time work is becoming a more permanent feature of the labour market.
There are two further points of note concerning the composition of the part-time labour force. One is the change over time in the sectoral composition. In 1975 one in three part-time jobs was in agriculture, forestry and fishing. That figure has now declined to one in seven. Commerce — which includes retail distribution, banking and business services — and professional services both increased their share largely at the expense of agriculture.
It is in the services sector that the most significant change in part-time work has taken place. In 1975 part-time workers in the service sector made up half of the total part-time labour force. By 1989 this figure had risen to about three quarters. This increase had been particularly rapid in the eighties and hence it has been in services that the real growth in part-time employment has occurred which has tended to be camouflaged by the static levels of part-time work in manufacturing industry or the falling levels in agriculture.
The second point relates to the gender dimension of the part-time labour force. Relative to other EC countries, a higher proportion of men work part-time in Ireland. While an examination of part-time work between 1975 and 1989 demonstrates that it is a predominantly female option there are still a substantial number of men working part-time, albeit for different reasons than women. Men account for about 30 per cent of all part-time workers and are more likely to work part-time either upon entry to the labour force, possibly to facilitate study or multiple job holding or at an age close to or following retirement. In contrast women account for more than three quarters of all part-time workers in the 25-44 age bands which are associated with child rearing. Over 70 per cent of female part-time workers are married; about 60 per cent of the males are single; about one third of the part-time males were under 25, with a further third aged 25-44. In the case of females, fewer than one sixth were under 25, more then half were aged 25-44 and about 30 per cent in the 45-64 age group.
To sum up the scale and trends, part time work and particularly regular part-time work has increased in the last 15 years; while it is a predominantly female option, there are still a substantial number of men working part-time in Ireland, but for different reasons from those of women. The classic part-time worker is female, aged 25-44 and married with dependent children. Nearly three quarters of part-time workers are employed in the service sector.
I have already referred to the extent to which Ireland departs from the EC norm in regard to the gender of part-time workers. That is not the only important difference. In 1988 the percentage share of part-time employees in relation to all employees in the Community overall was 13.6 per cent. This ranged from 4 per cent in Greece to 29.4 per cent in the Netherlands. Other big users of part-time workers were Denmark, 25.5 per cent and the UK, 22.8 per cent. Ireland, at 8.2 per cent ranked seventh among the EC member states, at slightly above half the European average. In other words, we have a very low level of part-time work by international standards.
I would like to turn briefly to what we know about the conditions of part-time workers. While it would be very wrong to equate part-time with precarious or sub-standard jobs, there is some empirical evidence in Ireland that the hourly earnings of part-time workers tend to be below that of their full-time equivalents. Research by the ESRI disclosed that the low paid part-time workers are predominantly women.
In general, existing data have not been able to answer key questions about the work history of part-time workers. Limited evidence on these issues is provided by the reasons given for working part-time in answers to the labour force survey. These show that most women work part-time because of family responsibilities or did not want a full-time job; most male part-timers reported that they could not find a full-time job. But almost 25 per cent of part-time women workers cited inability to find a full-time job as the main reason they were working part-time. These figures do not imply that the negative connotations associated with part-time work do not exist; merely that they are not sufficient to overcome preferences and family responsibilities which at present result in women choosing to work part-time rather than full-time.
If it is the case, as some researchers have speculated, that part-time workers tend to be limited to moving frequently between low status, low skilled jobs with few fringe benefits, the increased protection of part-time workers under the law and measures to assist them to break into the wider labour market need to be placed high on the agenda. The major area of concern, as I have already noted from the contributions of Members in earlier debates, relates to part-time employees who are heavily dependent on this form of employment and who are employed permanently or semi-permanently on a part-time basis. I am concerned that regular part-time workers who are employed on a long term basis are denied entitlement to the most basic protections which are afforded under labour law. This is the inequity which I am seeking to redress.
The present position is that some labour legislation, for example in the areas of occupational safety and health, employment equality and payment of wages, makes no distinction between full-time and part-time employees. However, a requirement that the individual must work at least 18 hours per week applies in a number of statutes. This was originally designed to exclude persons whose employment was of a subsidiary nature or of inconsiderable extent. This also was a requirement of social security legislation and will also be removed by my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, by regulations which will come into force on 6 April 1991. The primary protective employment Acts which currently exclude workers who are not employed for a minimum of 18 hours per week are the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984, the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1990, and to some extent the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Acts, 1984 and 1990. Based on labour force survey figures, the 18 hours threshold has the effect of excluding approximately 20,000 employees, of whom at least three-quarters are women, from the benefits of the legislation which incorporates that threshold.
The Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, does not apply an 18 hours eligibility threshold. Instead it excludes from annual leave entitlement those who do not work at least 120 hours per month or 1,400 hours in the leave year; and in order for a part-timer to gain entitlement to a public holiday, he must work for at least 120 hours in the preceding five weeks. The higher hours thresholds which apply under the Holidays Act have the effect of excluding approximately 45,000 part-timers, of whom 76 per cent are women, from annual leave entitlement, and an estimated 38,000, 78 per cent women, from public holiday entitlement.
During the detailed and prolonged consultations which preceded my proposals the FIE made clear their reasons that employers want more part-time work. Their reasons relate to changing market conditions and extended hours of opening, particularly in services which cannot be undertaken within the standard working day or week. The major benefit of part-time work in businesses is that it provides flexibility, allowing the employer to respond to increased competition and the changing demands of customers.
Further information on the reasons which motivate Irish employers to use part-time work emerges from a survey in course of competition in the Dublin-based European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. This survey indicates that in this country the introduction of part-time work is more a result of economic considerations — cost advantages to the employers — than a response to employees' wishes. In this respect the position in Ireland is comparable to that in Britain where, of course, part-time work is much more widespread.
I share with the Social Affairs Commissioner of the European Community the view that in no circumstances can the need for forms of employment relationships such as part-time work be brought into question. It is quite clear that in this country, as in other Community member states, employment relationships are diversifying considerably in response to international competitiveness and to radical changes in the organisation of production, often stimulated by technological change. Very often these changes on the demand side of the labour market are accompanied by supply side changes in the matter of workers' aspirations and individuals' needs.
These developments, it has to be said, have helped to maintain competitiveness and to maintain and to create jobs. Part-time work meets real needs of firms and seems to satisfy better the aspirations and individual and family needs of a number of workers. Part-time work can offer a valid and useful entry point to the labour market for people who are excluded from it, although, so far in Ireland, there is little evidence to support that. Part-time work will for some be a valid and long term employment form, providing them with the flexibility to fulfil the varied demands which they face.
My objective, therefore, in approaching the thresholds which kept some 20,000 workers beyond the pale of labour legislation, was to ensure that safeguards such as exist for their full-time colleagues also exist to protect part-time workers, preventing insecurity and segmentation in the labour market and at the same time avoiding the danger of over-regulation which would jeopardise flexibility, hinder employment growth, and drive some of those jobs into the black economy.
The simple strategy which I employed was to extend that legislation to those who worked eight hours or more a week and had completed 13 weeks with the same employer, that is to say, to regular part-time workers. Regular part-time workers would be treated similarly to full-time workers in relation to all the various statutory rights and would have to fulfil the same service and other conditions as full-time workers to become eligible for those rights.
I have decided to retain a threshold of eight hours. There are arguments for the elimination of all thresholds. In choosing to retain a threshold and to cast it at eight hours a week I was influenced by two considerations. One was the argument by Vasso Papandreou, Social Affairs Commissioner, that her proposed directives on non-standard forms of employment, including part-time work, should not apply to wage and salary earners whose average weekly working hours were less than eight. The Commissioner's reasoning for the retention of a threshold was perfectly sensible: to rule out any disproportionate administrative costs which could run counter to the objectives sought. It is instructive that the Commissioner has made it clear that she intends to maintain the idea of a threshold and has, indeed, only in the last few days included an eight hour threshold in her proposals for a directive on a form of proof of an employment relationship. The other consideration which influenced my selection of an eight hour threshold was to limit the possibility of employers deliberately adjusting their working hours to bring them below the new hours threshold.
Let me explain, now, the terms of the Bill in some detail. As I have already said, this Bill, although relatively short, attempts the complicated task of amending seven separate sets of Acts. Because of this, the Bill may seem relatively obscure and inaccessible to the casual reader. However, I would like to assure the House that every attempt has been made to simplify the Bill while still ensuring that it achieves its objectives without having other unintended effects on the body of legislation which it seeks to amend. In passing, I would mention that adequate explanatory literature will be prepared and disseminated when these proposals have been enacted.
The Bill is structured so as to define "regular part-time" employees in section 1 and to then apply the various Acts to that group of employees in the subsequent sections. The complexity which arose when attempting this task was that the specific provisions which currently exclude regular part-timers from each of the enactments vary. The particular group of individuals who would be categorised as "regular part-time" employees under one Act would not be identical to the group currently excluded under another Act. For example, employees are excluded from the Unfair Dismissals Act by virtue of an 18 hour per week requirement but are excluded from the Holidays Act by a 120 hour per month requirement. Because of this fact, I set out in section 1 each of the "excluding provisions" which at present prevent "regular part-time" employees from coming within the scope of each particular Act or set of Acts which it is intended to amend.
The concept of an "excluding provision" is the key to understanding the Bill and to avert any confusion I want to clarify it. What I mean by an "excluding provision" in section 1 is the provision or provisions which exclude certain workers at present from the seven sets of Acts that I am going to amend. If workers are excluded from those Acts by virtue of those provisions, and meet the minimum criteria in this Bill they are regular part-time employees. "Regular part-time" employees, the target group of this Bill, are therefore defined as those who have at least 13 weeks' service, are normally expected to work at least eight hours per week and who are not at present covered by the relevant enactment because of an excluding provision. As I have already argued, I felt that the minimum qualifications of eight hours per week and 13 weeks service were the appropriate thresholds to define the group of regular part-timers who could and should benefit from the protection of labour law.
In introducing a 13 week threshold in the Bill it was the intention that this would ensure that students and other short term temporary part-time employees would not be covered by the Bill and that the Bill would not create a disincentive to such short-time periods of employment. The 13 week period ensures on the one hand an element of commitment or permanence on the part of the regular part-time employee and, on the other hand, that casual or occasional workers will still be largely excluded from the provisions of the protective legislation involved.
In order to ensure that the 13 week qualification period under the Bill could not be abused and used as an artificial barrier to exclude regular part-time employees by offering them employment for repeated periods of less than 13 weeks, I decided, as set out in section 2, to calculate the 13 weeks in accordance with the First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. This is the mechanism used to calculate continuous service for full-time employees and since its inception in the early seventies, has proved to be an effective and satisfactory method of determining continuity. Where any disputes arise in this respect the employees will be able to put the case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal for determination.
I would like to mention in passing that because of changes in the insurability of part-time workers which have been brought about by the Minister for Social Welfare it will be necessary for me to adjust and update accordingly the references in the definition of an excluding provision in section 1 and this I will do on Committee Stage.
Section 2 specifies that where a service qualification of 13 weeks or longer already applies in an Act which this Bill seeks to extend to regular part-time employees, then the original 13 weeks which is required under this Bill, to qualify as a regular part-time employee, will count towards the longer service period. An example of this arises under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, where an employee must have one year's service to be fully covered by the Act. Under this Bill the regular part-timers' first 13 weeks will count towards the one year requirement. This provision in the Bill is justifiable on equity grounds but, in any event was considered necessary to avoid confusion and to reduce administrative difficulties which might arise if the 13 week qualifying period were not to be incorporated in the longer service requirement.
While the first 13 weeks of employment will count towards longer service periods it will not confer any other benefits or rights under the various Acts. Section 2 (3), for instance, ensures that no entitlement to holidays will be built up in the initial 13 week period. If this were not provided for, a real cost barrier to employment beyond 13 weeks would be created, leading to a reduction in regular part-time employment opportunities. Some employers who would on the beginning of the fourteenth week of employment become liable for a back dated holiday entitlement might be tempted not to retain people beyond that time and section 2 (3) is intended to prevent this disincentive to regular part-time employment.
Section 3 is a key provision. This provides for the application of all the relevant Acts to regular part-time employees, with the exception of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973. In other words section 3 (1) extends to regular part-time employees the benefits of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1990, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981 and the Protection of Employees (Employers Insolvency) Acts, 1984 and 1990. Because of the definition of regular part-time employee which has been used in section 1 of the Act it is possible for me to extend in this clear and simple provision all of these Acts to the target group on essentially the same basis as they are applied to full time employees.
The provision in section 3 (2) was necessary because of the structure of the social insurance system but will require reconsideration in the light of the change in that structure as a consequence of the Social Welfare (Employment of Inconsiderable Extent) Regulations, 1991, signed by my colleague the Minister for Social Welfare on 14 February.
The provisions of section 3 are very important as they give regular part-time employees the protection of basic labour laws which have been built up in the State over the last 25 years and which are relied upon by most other workers to regulate and protect their employment. Regular part-time employees have been very vulnerable to exploitation and when this has arisen they have not been able to call on the basic legal protection that exists for other workers. For example, a regular part-time employee could be employed for ten or 15 years with the same employer, giving sterling service and could then be let go at the whim of the employer. Those workers could not in the past rely on the Unfair Dismissals Act to protect them, they could not appeal their dismissal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and they had no entitlement to a redundancy payment after their 15 years service. It is this type of vulnerability which the provisions of the Bill seek to redress.
Another area of vulnerability arose in relation to female part-time employees who became pregnant. Women constitute almost three-quarters of the part-time labour force and when these women became pregnant they were not protected from arbitrary dismissal due to their pregnancy as they were not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act. Neither were they covered by the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, and hence they had no entitlement to take maternity leave and have their job protected until their return. These women either had to give up their job when their baby was born or else hope that the employer would hold the job open for a couple of weeks by which time they might be able to return to work. This again was inequitable as the same period of maternity leave is clearly required by all women workers. The provisions of section 3 will now provide that all women regular part-time employees will be entitled to that minimum period of 14 weeks maternity leave enjoyed by other female employees and they will be entitled to have their job held open for that period with full protection from dismissal during the period of maternity leave. I am sure that the extension of these entitlements will be welcomed by all parties in the House and by the many thousands of women who are working part-time on a permanent basis.
Section 4 deals with the extension of holiday entitlements to regular part-time employees. Basically, the Bill provides for the application of the provisions of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, to regular part-time employees in the same way as they are applied to full-time employees, with the broad exception of the way in which annual leave entitlements are calculated.
Under the 1973 Act, employees who work at least 120 hours per month or 1,400 hours per year are entitled to three weeks annual leave. There is no obvious equivalent to the 120 hour requirement for regular part-time employees as defined in the Bill. Therefore, the Bill attempts to provide an alternative mechanism which will give regular part-time employees an approximately equivalent level of entitlement to annual leave as full-time employees. Section 4 (3) (a) provides that regular part-time employees, as defined in the Bill, will be entitled to annual leave at the rate of six hours for every 100 hours worked.
Other important provisions of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, such as the public holiday entitlement and the method of determining times and pay for annual leave, are being extended under section 4 to all regular part-time employees. I regard this section as one of great importance as, in the past, a regular part-time employee could be working year in, year out, without getting any annual holidays or any time off or compensation for public holidays. This was an intolerable position and it was not correct that people who are permanent members of the labour force should be left open to this form of exploitation. Accordingly, the provisions in section 4 will also be welcomed by all in the House and will safeguard the rights of these employees to an annual holiday and to the public holidays which are at present enjoyed by the vast majority of the labour force. Because the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 is a relatively complex Act drafted primarily with the intention of providing entitlements to full-time employees, a number of the provisions of that Act have had to be amended to make them applicable to regular part-time employees.
I would like to explain the purpose of some of these provisions as they may seem somewhat obscure to some Members. Section 4 (2) is intended to ensure that provisions in the 1973 Act which are not appropriate to regular part-time employees are not applied to them. Section 4 (3) (b) provides that time spent by regular part-time employees on annual leave shall count as time worked for the purposes of earning annual leave entitlement. The subsection replaces an equivalent section in the 1973 Act, part of the wording of which is not appropriate in the context of regular part-time employees.
Section 4 (3) (c) modifies further provisions in the Act of 1973, the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees. Under the Act of 1973 a qualifying employee with eight months' service is generally entitled to an unbroken period of leave of two weeks. Section 4 (3) (c) provides an equivalent entitlement for regular part-time employees. Because the annual leave entitlement of regular part-time employees is to be reckoned in terms of hours rather than weeks, it is necessary to provide an alternative to the full-timer's two week entitlement. The alternative provided in the Bill in section 4 (3) (c) is a choice between the leave entitlement earned over the eight months' period concerned or of two-thirds of the total leave entitlement earned in the year concerned. Either way regular part-time workers will be entitled to an unbroken period away from the workplace as their full-time colleagues are at present.
Section 4 (3) (d) of the Bill also modifies a provision of the 1973 Act part of the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees. Section 5 (1) of the 1973 Act provides for payment of compensation for annual leave due on termination of employment. However, the method of determining compensation in the 1973 Act is based on the concept of the employee having a "qualifying month of service". This is not applicable in relation to regular part-time employees as under this Bill they will receive entitlement on the basis of six hours for every 100 hours worked. Accordingly section 4 (3) (d) provides for compensation on a basis which is proportionate to the normal weekly rate of pay.
There is one further point in relation to section 4 (3) (d) on which I would like to alert the House. This drafting is not clear as it stands and its meaning would be much clearer if the words "in case the cesser occurs during the first half of that year" were inserted after the comma in the middle of line 33 of page 6 of the Bill; I will be seeking to have these words inserted on Committee Stage in order to complete the sense of this provision.
Section 4 (3) (e) modifies a further provision of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees. Section 5 (3) of the 1973 Act provides that where employment ceases in the five week period ending before a public holiday and the employee has worked for the employer for at least 120 hours in the part of the period prior to the cessation of employment, the employer must pay any extra day's pay in respect of the public holiday. There is no obvious equivalent to the 120 hour requirement for regular part-time employees, so instead the Bill provides that they must have worked during at least four of the five weeks prior to the cessation of employment in order to qualify. I feel that this four week requirement for regular part-time employees imposes a similar obligation to the 120 hour requirement in the 1973 Act.
Section 4 (3) (f) also changes a provision in the 1973 Act, part of the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees Section 6 (3) (b) of the 1973 Act provides that payment for annual leave should be "at the normal weekly rate of remuneration". However, as regular part-time employees are to be granted annual leave at the rate of six hours per 100 hours worked, this Bill provides that they be remunerated "at a rate which is proportionate to the normal weekly rate of remuneration". The concept of the "normal weekly rate of remuneration" is well established in the 1973 Act and was, therefore, retained as the general basis on which payment will be determined for regular part-time employees in this Bill.
Section 4 (4) provides that nothing in this Bill shall have the effect of granting retrospective entitlement to annual leave or public holidays prior to the commencement date of the Bill in relation to the holidays provisions. The reason for introducing this provision is to prevent part-time employees claiming on the commencement date a retrospective entitlement for holidays. Such a retrospective entitlement would impose a severe cost burden on certain employers.
Section 5 of the Bill provides for referral to the Employment Appeals Tribunal of any dispute relating to the 13 weeks continuous service required to qualify as a regular part-time employee. This is something entirely separate from disputes relating to period of service required under, for example, the Unfair Dismissals Act or the Redundancy Payments Act, which as far as it concerns regular part-time workers, will continue to be resolved under the mechanisms which are already used to resolve these disputes for employees qualified under the individual Acts. I believe that this is a fair and equitable way of dealing with disputes in relation to the service of part-timers and it will allow the Employment Appeals Tribunal to examine the specific circumstances of any particular dispute as to whether the employee was a regular part-time employee for the purposes of this Bill.
Section 6 simply deals with the regulations which will control how these disputes are referred to and considered by the tribunal.
The remaining sections of the Bill are standard. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a reference to the Unfair Dismissals Act has been accidentally omitted from the collective citations in section 8 and I will be seeking to have it included on Committee Stage.
To conclude, I would simply like to reiterate that the Bill represents a major social advancement through the extension of the whole body of protective labour law and individual employment rights to a substantial category of employees who, heretofore, were vulnerable and increasingly subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. The good employer has nothing to fear from this legislation. It simply extends the rights already enjoyed by the vast majority of employees to this rather marginalised group. As a well balanced and progressive response to the needs of these employees, I commend the Bill to this House.