Deputy Roche moved the adjournment but as he is not here at the moment I will call on Deputy Cotter.
Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am glad of the opportunity to speak briefly on this Bill which deals with a problem that needed to be addressed. I welcome the Bill in that respect.
The Bill is wide ranging in its application and it offers quite a lot of support and protection to the part-time worker. It will extend to part-time workers the benefits of the Redundancy Payments Acts, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, the Holiday Act, the Worker Participation Act, the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act and so on. That is very necessary and I congratulate the Minister on bringing this before us.
The Bill will certainly have repercussions in the marketplace. I wonder if we will see the black economy being given a boost. How will this be policed? I suppose the Department will try to police it, but it will be an enormous task. This will, I am sure, be a penalty on employers and I have no doubt that hard pressed employers will make an attempt to evade the cost penalties which might be involved for them under this Bill. There are thousands of people looking for part-time employment which is in very short supply, in the provinces at any rate. Wives whose children are attending school want work for short periods every day. Because of the poverty traps we hear about every day, these people are not alone anxious for part-time work but they need it to pay the bills, to clothe and feed their families and to keep them in shape to be able to get value for their schooling.
The growth in this part of the economy has been dramatic in the past decade. The reasons are fairly obvious. Many part-time workers are unofficial and the Department have definitely closed an eye to the existence of this practice in some sectors of the economy to date, because they know there are sections of the economy that could not afford to pay official rates and have used a sort of black economy approach to survive. Because our economy does not reward a number of sectors at the moment, we have difficulties of this nature.
There is no doubt that the numbers involved in part-time work are likely to grow because it suits employers and, now that it is made official, some employers will get more involved in this area than heretofore. It often suits employers to organise their workforce in a different way. Part-time workers were frowned upon in the past; trade unions were not in favour of factories taking on part-time workers when they were trying to get full-time jobs for their members.
This Bill is being debated against the background of the recently published Programme for Economic and Social Progress. There are very fine objectives and strategies in the programme but at this stage, I am afraid some of them have already missed the target. The key objectives purport to bring about a substantial increase in employment. The figures we heard a few weeks ago from the Minister for Finance are already out of date. Last week it was confirmed that there are 243,000 people out of work, and that does not include people on social employment schemes and other courses who were taken off the live register. The real figure is quite frightening.
Last year every Minister told us they had beaten the unemployment problem, that the figures were coming down and would continue to come down, and that the future was rosy. Now, nobody believes there was a modicum of truth in that. The international economy was a little healthy and some inroads were made, but we can predict now that the next 12 months will be quite awful for us and any gains made in the past couple of years are likely to be lost. We can predict that the figure of 243,000 people unemployed will be surpassed and that we will have a mini-budget some time after the local elections to try to heal the wounds which have been created in the meantime. Generally speaking, the news reported in the press is beginning to get to people. We have a problem with morale right across the country.
Another objective in the programme relates to fair conduct in business dealings. However, the Government are not doing a lot about that because people do not believe that justice is even handed. Not alone do they feel hard done by with the Government sitting on their back from the point of view of income tax and PRSI but they notice from time to time that people in high places who get involved in fraud seem to be above the law, and our laws are not able to cope with them. I raised this issue with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business on Tuesday and Wednesday last, as it has been suggested from time to time that the Criminal Justice Act is inadequate, but he failed to respond on either occasion. He does not seem to understand this business and appears to be a very innocent individual who does not seem to know that we have a financial services centre across the road, that the banking business in the city has grown and that what we call white collar fraud, perpetrated through the use of modern technology——
I must ask the Deputy not to stray from the Bill which deals with part-time employment.
This is central to the whole business of fairness and equity. The Taoiseach does not seem to recognise that we will have more and more white collar fraud and this will do nothing but put more pressure on the morale of those who are struggling to pay their bills. I hope the Government will take it upon themselves to ensure that there is equity and justice and gradually get off the backs of ordinary people. I am not very familiar with the position in Dublin but the morale of workers in provincial areas is very low. Nobody is satisfied with the amount of money they take home on a Friday evening and they put the blame on the Government who are taking far too much money out of their pockets.
It is also quite clear that low technology work, which very often is the only work available in the provinces, gives a lower reward relative to other jobs. As we have read during the past few days, a family with an income of £12,000 per year from employment is worse off than a family of corresponding size on unemployment assistance. This is a desperate and unbelievable statistic. On a quick calculation, £12,000 a year works out at about £230-£235 per week. The people in my home town and in my constituency who are earning that kind of money are few and far between. The normal wage is much less than that. Therefore a huge number of people realised all of a sudden on reading the newspaper yesterday that they were selling their skills for peanuts. I have no doubt that they already suspected this but it was clarified for them in the press.
What effect is this going to have on them? Many of them will no doubt ask why should they bother or make an effort. They will further ask why should they not join the dole queue, reap all the benefits and perhaps do part-time work on the side to supplement their income. I have no doubt that when people realise the position they are in they will find that option more attractive; in other words, the system we operate encourages dishonesty. I know of many young people who are working in low technology factories for a salary a lot less than £230 per week. They start at a figure of £100 per week and gradually over a period of a few years their wages climb to £120 per week. Not alone does the tax man take his slice but if, for example, they need a car to go to work their insurance bill will be horrific — a figure of £40 per week is normal. Therefore the system bears down very heavily on the shoulders of our best young people, who have a great sense of justice, have loads of energy and who want to work.
What do we hear young people leaving school talk about? We hear them talk about the career they are going to follow. Not one of them wants to go on the dole. However, after six months or a year in employment we find that the system has destroyed their morale and seen to it that they will seek out ways to improve their lot; in other words, we are forcing people to become dishonest. There is no incentive or reward for going out to work. I wonder what the future holds for us in provincial Ireland where there are many low technology factories. Over time wage levels will deteriorate with the result that we are going to face enormous problems.
While this is not very relevant it does outline the background to the Bill. Last week I met a young lad who told me that he had bought a car for £600 as he needed one to go to work. He did not tell me what his wages were but I am aware that he is on a salary of £120 to £125 per week. His third party insurance, even though he had never had an accident or a conviction was £1,545 per year. On getting a full licence he went to reinsure the car but was quoted a figure of £2,250 for third party insurance. That is a fact and I can prove it. This kind of case proves totally destructive and it is not an isolated one. The insurance companies have to take the blame for this because they are not managing that end of the business properly. People in Ireland — I tend to say Dublin — have pseudo-accidents from time to time — two old bangers come together, an accident is reported and a claim is made to the insurance companies. Even though no accident occurred the insurance company pay out thousands of pounds for a whiplash injury as they did not bother to investigate the case properly. This is an absolute disgrace. It goes on in Dublin as one can hide something in Dublin better than they can in the country but the investigation procedure in the insurance business has to be overhauled. The insurance companies will have to take the responsibility for managing that end of the business and will have to work in co-operation with the Garda in straightening it out. We find injustice everywhere. The reason people have pseudo-accidents is that they are not reaping any rewards in the economy with the result that they create their own rewards by whatever means.
I hope the Government are aware of this, as the difficulty, once there are no rewards, is that one has come down with the heavy hand and force people to comply in a system which they do not want and which does not offer them the things that they want. We have some ferocious problems to deal with. Indeed, the Minister is doing one hell of a job and is working very hard in an effort to improve things for people who are being exploited, and there is no doubt that part-time workers are being exploited. As I said earlier, quite often they are involved in the black economy where there is little reward gained. A housewife, when offered a position, will run at it and accept 99p per hour for work for which other people are getting £4 to £6 per hour. I doubt very much if this Bill will address that issue. The economy will have to improve before we see any change in that area.
While we have a huge number of people available for work, there will be mistreatment of both full-time and part-time workers. Ruthless employers can exploit heavily. Lower income earners on the PAYE system are probably too busy trying to make ends meet, to pay the mortgage and feed and educate their children to create much hassle for the Government. They seem to be very docile. They are organised mainly through the trade union movement but they are not making their voice heard where it matters most by using the ballot box.
In these extremely tough times ordinary individuals vote the same old way year after year. I saw this during the Presidential election in my own constituency when there was not a whimper of dissatisfaction, despite the fact that the farming community are feeling aggrieved because we did not get an equitable share of the extension of the severely handicapped areas. We are a most amazing race. Our noses can be rubbed in the potholes and the mud and we actually say "thank you" rather than "leave us alone". It is an amazing trait.
There is much exploitation throughout the economy, particularly in the area of part-time work. This Bill will definitely help to tidy it up, provided its enforcement is policed to ensure that its provisions are adhered to. I hope the Government will find some way of unlocking the energy of the nation and ensuring that the ordinary Joe Soap, who is very dissatisfied with his lot and is paying the bills of the nation as well as his own, is looked after and begins to feel that there is some justice.
The acid test of any society is whether it looks after the vulnerable within its community. This Bill dealing with the rights of regular part-time workers exhibits the fact that the Minister and the Government have a social conscience. For many years the exploitation of part-time workers has been an absolute scandal. I will not say that all employers have been engaged in it but a significant minority of employers have been engaged in what I could only describe as discriminatory practices against part-time workers. Present legislation in statute law is inadequate to deal with this extremely serious social problem.
I sincerely congratulate the Minister for Labour on this progressive and enlightened Bill. It would not be an overstatement to say that this is the most enlightened legislation in labour law since the seventies. Many people have asked why we require this Bill. The question is, why not. For many years the rights of full-time workers have not been applied to part-time workers and they have suffered as a consequence. Many ask whether the State has the right to interfere in matters between part-time employees and employers. The State has a paternalistic duty to interfere in every aspect of society when it becomes abundantly clear to Government that discriminatory practices exist and are being pursued with vigour.
The tragedy of part-time workers over the years has been that very often they were the most vulnerable people in society. Often they were engaged in the services sector with low levels of skill and very low levels of pay. A person employed for many years on a part-time basis could be dismissed by an employer without reason and without any consideration for that individual's rights. It is only just that this should no longer be the case.
When the threshold for part-time workers was reduced from 21 hours to 18 hours there were some unscrupulous employers who simply reduced to less than 18 hours the number of hours an employee could work. These practices must be watched very carefully. Most employers would not do such a thing, but a significant minority have exploited the position of part-time workers. There is no good reason regular part-time workers should not have the same protection under the law as whole-time workers.
There has been a considerable increase in the number of part-time workers since 1977. I understand the figure is now nearly 77,000 and this Bill seeks to address the plight of 20,000 of this number, 16,000 of whom are women. It is tremendous to see legislation brought in to assist women who very often cannot work full-time because of family responsibilities.
If I have a criticism of this Bill it is in relation to the 13-week period during which a person must be employed on a continuous basis working at lest eight hours a week before qualifying for the benefits in the Bill. This provision is open to abuse. In the tourism trade, for example, the high season is July and August, a total of eight weeks. It is open to employers to take on part-time employees for 12 weeks and then let them go. This would mean that the provisions of this Bill would be circumvented without adversely affecting the employer. The 13-week qualifying period should go and there should not be any qualifying period in respect of continuity of service. No matter how many weeks are specified, it is always open to abuse. The best way to eliminate the abuse is to eliminate the requirement.
I recognise the difficulties the Minister has faced. He has had to balance the rights of the employers against the rights of the employees. It was an extremely difficult thing to do and he has succeeded admirably in general terms. It is of crucial importance that there should be flexibility within the terms of the Bill. Without flexibility the possibility exists that the intentions of the Bill would not be achieved and more damage than good would come of it.
There are four very good reasons that this legislation should go on the Statute Book. First, there should be no discrimination against regular part-time employees; second, part-time workers are the most vulnerable sector of the workforce; third, every European country apart from Britain and Ireland, has such legislation, and forth, a small but significant number of employers abused the privileges which hitherto existed and did not treat part-time workers with the respect and dignity they unquestionably deserve.
There has been a considerable shift towards the services sector which, of course, lends itself to an increase in the number of part-time workers. There is still a very serious problem in regard to the levels of pay in this country. Deputy Cotter has referred to this. I would like to express my concern on two areas; the exploitation of part-time workers should not be allowed to translate itself into the exploitation of part-time work. By this I mean that part-time work should not be allowed to replace full-time work, where such opportunities exist, and on no account must this Bill be used by any employer to create more part-time jobs at the expense of full-time employment. This is always a very real danger in the workplace and we must be absolutely vigilant to ensure that this does not occur.
There are employers in industry and other places of work who do not give a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The Minister for Labour now or in the future will have to address the question of introducing a minimum wage across the broad spectrum of the Irish workforce. It is true, whether we like it or not, that a significant minority of employers, while making great profits for themselves, do so on the backs of people who are vulnerable and whom they do not remunerate adequately. No society in this modern age can tolerate that. A message should go out from this House that exploitation, discrimination and abuse of the workforce is something that will not be tolerated in the future and this Government and this Minister will look at the question of part-time or full-time workers being underpaid for the services they provide.
This Bill exhibits yet again that this Government and the Fianna Fáil Party require no nudge from the extreme left or no push from the extreme right to do what is best for the Irish people. I congratulate the Minister on this excellent legislation and sincerely hope that the progressive steps he has taken since becoming Minister for Labour will continue for the betterment of the Irish workforce, and in particular for the betterment of those who are most vulnerable and have been subject to discriminatory practices in the past.
In my constituency there are a considerable number of part-time workers and I sincerely hope that the aspirations which the Bill seeks to achieve will continue in future labour law in this country. I welcome this Bill.
The Labour Party spokesman on Labour, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, stated that we will not be opposing the Bill on Second Stage. We welcome the Bill, but we will be seeking to make some amendments on Committee Stage.
This Bill addresses a very large problem but it highlights other problems that require attention by way of legislation or regulation. I can give instances of some part-time workers who start work at 11 p.m. and finish at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. For social welfare purposes this constitutes two days, and where their part-time work allows them to sign on for social welfare benefit for the days they are not working, they are excluded in a very artificial way.
We have a problem also with the eight hour threshold and we will be seeking to have that removed from the Bill. A problem that arises in this context for the person who works for one hour per day and, again for social welfare purposes, because he has worked any time in a given day, he cannot apply for the three day week type of social welfare cover. We believe this is inequitable and should be addressed. Obviously it cannot be addressed in this Bill because it is a matter for social welfare legislation. However, I would ask the Minister to consider these points and to refer this problem for solution to his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare.
Since the provisions of this Bill were made known, some unscrupulous employers have taken certain actions against their employees in anticipation of the legislation passing through both Houses of the Oireachtas. A case was referred to me this morning where a women had been doing domestic work for the same employer for 14 years but she was let go when there was publicity about this Bill. I think that is a terrible injustice and the Minister will have to address the unfair and unscrupulous behaviour of some employers.
Yesterday I got information about a major supermarket chain in Dublin who employ young boys for 17 hours per week, but they have now been informed that their hours of employment will be reduced to between six and eight hours per week. This gross malpractice is being introduced in anticipation of the legislation. I would ask the Minister to look at this problem to see what means he can devise so that, in these instances, workers get justice. It is very wrong, and I believe it is totally against the spirit of what the Minister is trying to achieve that such practice should continue.
I will now deal with part-time employment in a more general way. Part-time employment is a phenomenon of developed industrial societies. All major industrial societies have a part-time workforce of between 15 per cent and 25 per cent. In all countries a greater percentage of women are in part-time employment, as much as 55 per cent in the Netherlands, compared with just 10 per cent for males. In the UK the ratio of women to men in part-time employment is even greater, 45 per cent of women and just 4.6 per cent of men. This, along with the Netherlands, is the highest incidence of female employment being of a part-time nature.
Across the Community part-time employment constitutes about 12 per cent of the working population. For Ireland the 1987 labour force survey reveals 65,000 regular part-time workers of whom 47,200 were female, or 72 per cent of all regular part-time workers. The majority of these women, 72 per cent are married.
We know that part-time employment is concentrated in a number of occupations. Service industry workers make up 25 per cent, and this includes catering and cleaning workers. Part-time workers in agriculture make up 19 per cent. Commerce, insurance, finance workers, including shop assistants and bar staff, make up 16 per cent. Professional and technical workers make up 16 per cent. What is obvious is that we are dealing with a social reality of married women who have to work to keep their families. The growth of unemployment and, in particular, long term unemployment amongst men, will force more married women to try to supplement the social welfare income received by their husbands.
The magnificent struggle of contract cleaning women in securing a joint labour committee, after a lot of obstruction from employers, was a milestone in the recognition of the rights of part-time workers. These women were fortunate inasmuch as they had a trade union to fight for them. This does not apply to a great number of part-time workers in rural Ireland and this problem will remain, particularly in terms of the eight hour threshold. There is a huge area where unscrupulous and uncaring employers will be able to operate in such a way that the employees involved will not get the rights the Minister wants to give them under the Bill.
What we need to address head on in this Bill is the reality of a labour market with mass unemployment which we have. Any loophole in this legislation will be used by the unscrupulous minority to deny vulnerable non-unionised married women, who desperately depend on the income from part-time jobs, their rights and to put competitive pressure on the good employers who will be paying their full whack of taxes to carry the people who are avoiding paying.
We need two instruments to prevent gross exploitation. An hourly minimum wage on a scaled basis relating to age and application of benefits which full-time employees enjoy should be paid to all regular part-time workers and contract employees irrespective of hours worked. We come back again to the eight hour threshold.
The question of a minimum wage needs to be addressed. The Minister should have a separate Bill before the House later this year establishing a minimum wage as a statutory right if this Bill is to give effect to the intentions which the Minister has outlined.
We believe that a minimum wage would have to be fixed in law on an hourly basis — not any weekly amount — so as to cover all forms of employment. Our economic affairs spokesperson, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, has called for an hourly adult wage of £3.50 per hour and two-thirds of this amount to apply to those on a junior rate. The latter is essential to reflect the established practice of those under 18 years of age being paid a proportion of a full wage.
In all honesty, the need for a minimum wage for thousands of women involved in part-time work, who have no trade union representation and may be terrified of losing their jobs if they seek a pay rise, is a responsibility which we as legislators cannot avoid.
While I welcome the speed with which the Government are prepared to change the law in relation to condoms, I would urge the Minister to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable in employment.
They deserve the same urgency in their plight.
There is a weakness in confining the application of this Bill to employees and I suggest that the definition of those who are covered be extended to include contract and casual employees who may be defined as self-employed for reasons which suit those employing them or the nature of the business they are working in.
The other major change we will be seeking is the abolition of the hours threshold. I will instance two cases which have come to my notice where unscrupulous employers are already in there abusing this system and taking what they see as corrective action to protect themselves before this legislation passes into law. What is to stop the entire catering and cleaning services from doing the same as the major supermarket chain I instanced?
The Minister must know that on the basis of simple supply and demand, high unemployment already permits employers to secure the maximum flexibility in the manner in which they offer employment.
I want the Minister to reconsider the hours threshold for two reasons. First it can be used to create a new form of part-time labour which essentially will rely on exploiting the social welfare part-time work scheme, and will be used to displace some currently employed part-time workers who otherwise would remain in work. Second, it can be used to effectively penalise the employer who does the right thing but cannot compete with those who deliberately circumvent the law and use cheap labour to undermine his business.
Professor Charles Handy's predictions on future patterns of work in the UK, with one quarter of the labour force in part-time employment, one quarter in casual/contract employment and only one half in full-time employment, is one view of the future.
Another view which appears a lot more attractive is that we are prepared to look at the issue of labour market flexibility, as it is called, from a different perspective.
We do not have to work on purely theoretical alternatives. For example, Aer Lingus have a job-sharing scheme which in their current difficulties would seem to offer a much more acceptable form of controlling costs than resorting to redundancy.
What probably will be dead in ten years is the 40-hour, five day week and the 40-year working life.
In the context of the European Community, which is the wealthiest trading bloc in the world, I do not accept that full employment is a pipedream. It will undoubtedly involve new patterns of work — a re-organisation of work so that those who want to work are allowed to participate.
Part-time employment should be seen as simply one form of varying the definition of a job. Similarly, work-sharing as practised to date, whereby two people share one job, will have to be expanded to include other options, with, for example, five people sharing four jobs, thereby creating a vacancy which could be filled by an unemployed person.
The key here is incentives and a sense of fair play. We are allowing the issue of new working arrangements to be simply driven by market requirements of particular businesses, when we could be developing through cash and tax incentives, socially beneficial forms of alternative work and work patterns to allow more people back into employment.
I believe Ireland's unemployment problems cannot be solved simply by domestic policies but we can begin to face the issue of distributing work through a variety of measures which will begin to deal with the reality of fewer people having work if we insist on clinging to rigid, outdated working patterns. If we can align ourselves with other peripheral regions in Europe to ensure that we get our fair share of increased investment and employment, then we surely have an obligation to redistribute work in society to overcome the unemployment crisis we are enduring. By providing in law for pro rata conditions of employment irrespective of hours worked, we are at least given the possibility of the redistribution of work to include the unemployed and give them a chance of getting off the ground.
In conclusion I would like to sound a warning note which ties into what I have been saying. In the "Cheap Labour — Britain False Economy" document written by Peter Brosnan and Frank Wilkinson it is stated:
The Council of Europe, in assessing compliance with the terms of the European Social Charter, has singled out the UK, together with Ireland, for the extent of its failure to maintain a "decent" minimum level of wages.
We welcome the Bill but in itself it will not solve the problem unless, as Deputy O'Donoghue said, legislation is introduced to provide a minimum hourly wage rather than a wage related to a week's work. As sought by the Labour Party spokesperson on economic affairs we agree talking about £3.50 per hour for adults and two thirds of that sum for people under the age of 18 years. We welcome the Bill but we will be seeking to amend it on Committee Stage.
I will, of necessity, be brief. I welcome the Bill but the Minister introducing it is no stranger to the indignities under which many part-time workers in our constituency labour and to the hiring and firing process which can in many ways be a very inhumane system.
The most recent figures indicate that in the EC 12 per cent of total employment is part-time and that figure is growing. Ireland is at the lower end of the scale with between 5 per cent and 6 per cent, but it is rising. There are multiple reasons for the growth in part-time employment. The change in work patterns and the change in the composition of the labour force means that many more women with family responsibilities are either remaining on in the labour force or are re-entering it in order to bring in more income to raise their families. There is an economic pressure on them.
Another factor that will possibly increase the number of part-time workers in the labour force is the part-time job allowance introduced by the Department of Social Welfare. This will materially affect the composition of the workforce over the coming years. The main necessity for this Bill is to protect the rights of part-time workers, and as legislators in Dáil Éireann that is the least we should do. Everybody, whether part-time or full-time workers, should be treated equally or at least on a pro rata basis. As we know from our own experience, part-time workers do not, in many cases, unless they are very highly skilled, receive just and equal treatment.
Finally, I would ask the Minister when reviewing the Bill on Committee Stage to look at the 13 week threshold. Deputy O'Donoghue pointed out that many of the part-time workers work in the tourist industry and in most years the tourist season does not last 13 weeks. When this Bill is out of the way I would ask the Minister to take a hard look at introducing a minimum wage. It is badly needed to protect the rights of part-time workers.
I am glad of the opportunity to make a short contribution to the Bill. This Bill, together with the measures taken by the Minister for Social Welfare, represents a balanced approach by the Government to protect the position of part-time workers. It extends the application of seven sets of Acts dealing with protective labour law to a large number of part-time workers, mainly women. I would like to refer to those seven areas.
Under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, most workers are entitled to be given a written contract of employment. This right to written terms of employment applies only to those who work for 18 hours or more per week. If you work less than 18 hours per week you may, of course, ask your employer for a written contract but he is not obliged to give it. One must look for at least 18 hours per week in order to benefit under the provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts.
Under the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, one must work 120 hours per month or 1,400 hours in a leave year in order to be entitled to paid holidays. For those under the age of 18 years the minimum hours worked is 110 per month or 1,300 hours in a leave year. The hours requirement for holidays may make it rather difficult for part-time workers to have a statutory entitlement to paid leave. In relation to public holidays a part-time or temporary worker who has worked at least 120 hours, or 110 hours for those under 18 years of age, during the five weeks ending on a public holiday, has the same public holiday entitlement as a full-time worker. Anyone who works less than those hours has no public holiday entitlement.
The Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, applies only to employees who have worked at least 18 hours per week. There is very little protection against unfair dismissal for those who work less than 18 hours. The Redundancy Payments Acts apply to employees who work 18 hours or more per week. If one is under the age of 18 years the same protection is not extended. In the area of maternity leave, expectant mothers have a right to 14 weeks maternity leave if they work 18 hours per week; if they work for less than 18 hours per week; if they work for less than 18 hours they have no statutory leave entitlement.
The importance of this legislation is clear, and I compliment the Minister for bringing it forward. Most Members in the House have personal experience of part-time workers being exploited by unscrupulous employers. I acknowledge that the vast majority of employers carry out their business and treat their workers in a responsible and humane way but unfortunately there are employers who do not treat their employees in a proper manner. I am delighted that we have the opportunity today not alone to pay tribute to the Minister and to the Government but to ensure that this legislation is in place as quickly as possible to protect the people who are most vulnerable. Despite the employment equality legislation of the seventies, the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, the available statistics indicate that while women make up almost 50 per cent of the population they only account for less than one third of the full-time labour force but almost three quarters of the part-time labour force.
Debate adjourned.