The proportion of the female labour force, both full-time and part-time, which consists of married women has increased from 14 per cent in 1971 to 40 per cent in 1987; I think the most recent figures in 1988 show that figure increasing to around 46 per cent.
An increasingly important source of income for married women has been part-time employment. In 1986 for every married women working full-time aged between 25 and 29 years, five married women in the same age group worked part-time. This Bill seeks to provide protection for this important segment of the labour force. The measures contained in the Bill are long overdue and I hope that they will provide real protection for part-time workers in the future.
The existing 18 hour limit has been clearly abused by a number of unscrupulous employers. It was not unusual for employers to require part-time workers to work for 17½ hours a week, that is, just below the 18 hour limit. As a result the employers did not have to pay the full PRSI contribution for the employee. In addition the employee did not have the protection of labour legislation.
The Bill will ensure that part-time workers who are normally expected to work for at least eight hours a week and have completed 13 weeks continuous service with the employer, will enjoy the same protection of labour legislation as full-time workers. I am sure this is welcomed by all Members of the House.
The composition of part-time workers has been broken down as between regular and occasional part-time workers. There has been a major and substantial increase in the numbers of regular part-time workers from 42,000 in 1975 to 70,000 in 1989.
Part-time working is becoming a more permanent feature of the labour market. It appears that most women work part-time because of family responsibilities or because they do not want a full time job.
While most male part-timers reported that they could not find a full-time job, 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. It is clear that more people are employed part-time on a long term basis. These people are denied an entitlement to most basic protections which are afforded under labour law. This Bill removes those basic inequalities and provides protection in relation to unfair dismissals, maternity leave, holidays and minimum notice of termination of employment.
Part-time working suits employers and obviously in today's society it suits many employees. It provides a wide flexibility to employers in changing market conditions and allows them to respond to changing demands. It provides cost advantages to employers. This is acceptable in the market society provided the employees are not exploited and as I indicated earlier, there is clear evidence that is happening in many areas because of unscrupulous employers. The Bill will mark a major development in rooting out discrimination and exploitation by unscrupulous employers.
The main reason women either opt out of the labour force entirely or opt out for part-time working is that they have to attend to child care and other family responsibilities. These women must have regard to the extremely limited range of child care facilities which are available, the cost of arranging child care and the practical difficulties of combining homework and work outside the home. If we are to have equality of opportunity the root problem must be tackled by the employers and the State. Creche facilities which are urgently needed, would enable women who wish to work in the place of employment to do so while their children are being taken care of.
Employers expressed certain concern at the reduction from 18 hours to eight hours in relation to the cover which part-time workers will enjoy. It is reasonable that, with an element of additional cost, employers would be concerned. The FIE clearly recognise that we had to move in this direction to protect the people who were being exploited by a minority of employers. They expressed the reservation that, in arriving at the eight hour threshold in place of an 18 hour threshold, they would have preferred if it had been done on a phased basis. Nevertheless, they realised this step had to be taken and it is important that we say that.
The Bill has been welcomed also in other areas. For example, Patricia Donovan, Assistant General Secretary of the ICTU, said it was the most significant legislation since the seventies. Equally, Sylvia Meehan of the Employment Equality Agency said that the Minister's achievement in introducing the legislation was a significant step in the direction of equality for women workers. She noted that there were 20,000 part-time workers who would be directly affected by the legislation, 16,000 of whom were women. It is important to note that there is a cost element for the State because there are many part-time workers, whether in the area of education or in health care, who will benefit from this new legislation.
The proposed legislation also takes account of the eight hour threshold currently being considered by the European Community in a series of directives designed to protect part-time workers. I should like to say that the Minister is ahead of the pack here in relation to part-time work and I compliment him. I appeal to the House to ensure that on Committee Stage there is no undue delay and that this legislation is passed as quickly as possible so as to give the necessary protection to the many people in the community who urgently need it.
