Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Callely

Before Question Time I indicated the importance of this social legislation and its role in promoting labour market stability. I also indicated that successive Governments have enacted legislation in the area of employment rights which reflects changes in society and the workplace at both national and international levels and covers a wide range of areas, including protection against unfair dismissal, payment of wages, organisation of working time, redundancy entitlements and minimum wage entitlements. Significant technological developments, changing lifestyles, well educated workers and a general expectation by people to balance home and working lives have greatly influenced the hours and the way we work over the years.

The numbers in employment have risen from 1.22 million in 1994 to 1.67 million. Of these, 281,000 are part-time workers. This figure represents an increase of 32,000 since November 1998. Some 75% of these part-time workers are women. That number represents 17% of the total workforce. The influence of part-time working among women increased from 16% of all women at work in 1983 to 23% in 1997. Expectations are that these numbers will continue to increase at that level in the years ahead.

The increase in part-time workers is not exclusive to Ireland. Numbers of part-time workers across the European Union have risen by an average of 14% between 1994 and 1998, with 6% of men in employment and approximately 33% of women working part-time. As part of the member states' annual input into the European Union's employment guidelines and action plans, governments are examining and devising policies aimed at encouraging increased part-time work. This is aimed specifically at addressing skills bottlenecks and encouraging greater participation in the workplace by women, particularly those who have reared their families and would like to get out of the house and back into the workplace.

Recognising this emerging scenario, the Government introduced a series of measures aimed at encouraging women back into the workplace. These include reduced PAYE levels, the provision by FÁS of a number of courses aimed at improving the skills of workers in the context of the information age – this is often referred to as lifelong learning – increased levels of paternity and maternity leave and the introduction last week of the Carer's Leave Bill by the Minister of State. All these measures are already having an effect, as evidenced by the figures I outlined above. They will continue to have a major impact on the labour market in the years ahead.

More can be achieved. We enjoy almost full employment and many facets of enterprise, including State and semi-State bodies, have engaged or encouraged non-nationals to come to Ireland given the current economic climate and the need to fuel the Celtic tiger. I welcome this development as the Minister of State knows from my contact with his Department and from parliamentary questions I have tabled on the need for user friendly systems to be put in place so that people have easy access to work permits. Deputy Boylan knows this is an issue the Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has discussed at length with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney. We all appreciate the benefits of a multi-cultural society. However, I remain to be convinced that we have the necessary infrastructure, given that 200,000 to 300,000 overseas participants will be required in the next number of years. I am not convinced we have the housing units, the rented accommodation, the public transport network, the hospitals and the other vital supports to accommodate such numbers.

There is a tremendous opportunity to tap into the fund of wealth and experience available among people who are forced to leave their workplace at a young age, for example, members of the Garda Síochána. Any reasonably minded person, regardless of their age, would acknowledge that a person aged in their mid-50s – the nearer I get to that age barrier, the younger it seems – and of the calibre and integrity of a member of the Garda Síochána has still a great role to play in the workplace. Many other groups of people may not wish to remain in full-time work. An incentive should be put in place to encourage such retired people to continue to participate in the workplace at whatever level they may decide. I have put my ideas on this matter to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance and I understand that the matter is under consideration. We should encourage retired people to participate in the workplace but this is not happening, particularly for those who may have paid contributions at source all their working lives. Now that they are working to remain active and participate, they still see PAYE and RSI deductions from their pay slips at the end of the week. The RSI deduction could be the health levy and may not be the full RSI rate, particularly for those over 65, but incentives should be put in place regarding such stoppages on people who have contributed all their working lives.

Many Members of the House know people who are working part-time, in many instances for their own sons or daughters. Those involved in such work are unhappy with the current procedures, especially relating to Revenue and RSI. Because of that, they may not be able to participate, or show their participation, in the way they wish. I would like to hear from groups with an interest in this area, including the older network groups, such as age and opportunity and others, that do great work and give encouragement in our society.

I regret that the following matter was brought to my attention by an eminent consultant working in age related health care. In a letter dated 11 February headed "re: Ageism", he quotes from one of the national Sunday newspapers. His letter states:

You may have read a piece on the front page of [and he quotes the name of the newspaper] of 11 February, by [and he quotes the author] which takes an outrageous, prejudicial view of older people and older people's organisations. It also trivialises the efforts of the older people's organisations and the Equality Authority to counteract the enormous, prevalent scourge of ageism in our society. This ageism is a barrier preventing older people from participating fully in our society. It also undermines their access to appropriate health care and equity of income.

He goes on to say that if the language and use of negative stereotypes in this article were used in other areas there would be justifiable outrage. I concur with that view. I read the article myself and I was perturbed by it. I am pleased to say that following the communication I have received, I will be pursuing the matter with the appropriate authorities. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is aware of my interest in this regard. I have briefly mentioned to him the question of providing opportunities for older people who wish to participate in the workforce, along the lines of the proposal I have put to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. I have also raised this matter at the parliamentary party meeting so my views are clearly known. We can easily address the issue of ageism and I look forward to having the opportunity of raising this and related issues in greater detail with the Minister. I would encourage network groups for older people to write either to myself or to the Minister so that any issues they wish to raise can be given due consideration.

The Bill seeks to implement the provisions of EC Directive 97/81 of the Council of the European Union concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by the general cross-industry organisations at European level: UNICE, the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe, CREEP, the European Centre of Enterprise with Public Participation, and ETOS, the European Trade Union Confederation.

The directive's main provisions are to provide for the removal of discrimination against part-time workers, to improve the quality of part-time work, to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis and to contribute to the flexible organisation of working time in a manner which takes into account the needs of employers and workers. The scope of the directive is expressed as applying to part-time workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by law, collective agreement or practice in each member state. In this context, Irish labour law covers persons employed under contracts of service and agency workers.

The directive provides that, after consultation with the social partners, member states may, for objective reasons, provide for the exclusion, wholly or partly, from the provisions of part-time workers who work on a casual basis. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on why such an exclusion is provided for in this section? I note that it was after consultation with the social partners, but I would like further clarification exactly why there should be provision for the exclusion, wholly or partly, from the proposals of part-time workers who work on a casual basis.

The directive requires the implementation in member states of measures guaranteeing that part-time workers may not be treated less favourably than full-time workers. It also requires the removal of discrimination against part-time workers where such exists, and contains measures aimed at improving the quality of part-time work, which we all welcome.

I do not intend going into the Bill in much more detail as the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, has already outlined various aspects of the legislation in great detail. However, the provisions of the Bill are generally influenced by the terms of the directive to which I have referred. In addition, I understand that detailed discussions have taken place with the social partners, ICTU and IBEC, and both support the intent of the Bill. ICTU and IBEC have raised a number of issues, mainly of a technical nature, which are being considered and which we can discuss further on Committee Stage. I have listened to the debate intently and I note that Deputies have raised a number of important issues which can also be considered on Committee Stage. With suitable compromise we can improve the content of the Bill even further. It behoves us to move quickly and ensure the early passage of the Bill through both Houses. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, I am pleased to inform the House that, subject to the approval of the Bill on Second Stage, I will facilitate its early discussion in committee, in consultation with both convenors, Deputies Boylan and McGuinness.

There are 181,000 part-time workers in the workforce who are waiting for their entitlements to be set down on a statutory basis by this legislation. By doing so, this House will be sending a clear signal to part-time workers of the increasingly important role they are playing in our society both within and outside the workplace. I am happy to commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I begin by welcoming Deputy Callely to the ranks of the advocates of multi-culturalism.

Mr. Callely

I have always done so.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): It was not evident on various occasions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is wandering from the Bill.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I did not try anything earlier except to have my right respected as a speaker on the list recognised. Deputy Callely came into the House five minutes before the time I was down to speak.

Mr. Callely

Rubbish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, could we have order?

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Because the Deputy was a Government speaker he got precedence.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Joe Higgins to continue with his contribution.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I have as busy an office as Deputy Callely.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should speak through the Chair.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I will. I assure you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I have an office as busy, or maybe busier, than Deputy Callely.

I have read the Bill and various related documentation and have read the Minister's contribution in detail. The Minister said the main objectives of the directive, which is enshrined in this Bill, are to provide for the removal of discrimination against part-time workers, to improve the quality of part-time work, to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis and to contribute to the flexible organisation of working time in a manner which takes into account the needs of employers and workers. I know the Minister will forgive me if I have to express scepticism about this Bill enshrining what the Minister states are the main objectives of the directive.

When replying to the Second Stage debate, I would like him to be much more specific about what changes this will make to the life, working environment and working conditions of part-time workers. The Bill does not spell out with any clarity what advances it provides over and above what is enshrined in existing legislation. I am sceptical that this is simply a bit of window dressing making perhaps some minor changes. I would like the Minister to state very clearly and in concrete terms what his legislation means to the workers concerned.

The Minister really only highlighted one specific thing in regard to pensions. He said: "In this context, one area of the Bill that I would like to specifically mention is that of pension entitlements of part-time workers." He went on to detail that but that was the only specific issue he mentioned. He then went through the technicalities of the Bill.

I think it is very ignorant that the Minister be engaged in conversation by a Member of the House when another Member is speaking and addressing the Minister. I am trying to make serious points.

Mr. T. Kitt

I am finished now.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I know the Minister does not agree with much of what I say but he should at least to try to take on board—

Mr. T. Kitt

I assure the Deputy that his comments are being noted.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The Minister gave some interesting statistics – fittingly, I think – as an introduction to his speech today. There are 281,00 part-time workers, which is 17% of the workforce. In 1997, 75% of those workers were women. An astonishing projection is that by 2005, there may be up to 0.5 million part-time workers in the economy. I would like the Minister to state how many of the 281,000 workers are specifically affected by and whose living conditions will be improved as a result of this legislation. I hope I will be in the Dáil for his reply but if not, it will be on the record for examination. How many of the 281,000 are excluded by virtue of this legislation on the basis of the eight hours per week threshold or the 13 weeks per year threshold? How many of the projected 0.5 million will be excluded?

My concern is that although the Minister says the objectives of the directive are to improve the quality of part-time work and to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis, the experience so far has been that, in many cases, employers use part-time work and treat part-time workers in quite a ruthless manner. In 1997, there was a very bitter strike involving workers from Dunnes Store who were obliged to engage in industrial action on the basis of zero hours contracts. It reflected an increasing trend among employers, including large-scale employers, where part-time working conditions suited them, to insist on zero hours contracts. Effectively, they were trying to create a large pool of part-time workers who could be called on morning, noon or night at the whim of the employer. It had got to the stage where employers insisted that these workers, with no guaranteed minimum payment, be at the end of a telephone to be called and told to get to their place of work at one hour's notice.

I would have welcomed it if the Minister had used the opportunity to enshrine the EU directive in legislation to deal with some of these issues because he and other speakers have spoken about trying to make part-time work more attractive for workers so that more people are available, etc. While we have employers taking advantage of part-time workers, who are largely unorganised as far as the trade union movement goes, we have a major contradiction. I fear that this Bill does not really deal with that situation.

A thought that came to me as I studied the Bill was that along with the secretarial colleagues Deputies have who work hard on our legislative proposals as well as on our constituency and other work, is that there is an increasing need to be given legal expertise in order to come to grips with some of the convoluted provisions and definitions within a Bill such as this. Part 2, section 7(1), which sets out what a part-time employee means, states:

"part-time employee" means an employee whose normal hours of work are less than the normal hours of work of an employee who is a comparable employee in relation to him or her;

The next page of the Bill tries to define an employee vis-à-vis a comparable employee. Why can we not have a simple statement. A part-time employee is a worker who is not in full-time employment. I am not aware of the reason for it. Notwithstanding the fact that part-time employees must not be treated less favourably than full-time employees, section 9(2) states:

Without prejudice to section 11(2), if treating a part-time employee, in respect of a particular condition of employment, in a less favourable manner than a comparable full-time employee can be justified on objective grounds then that employee may, notwithstanding subsection (1), be so treated.

Will the Minister spell out precisely what that means? I fear we have an escape hatch here for the most difficult type of employer, recalcitrant and mean employers, who will want to find escape clauses from the full rigours of any legislation that might protect the rights of workers. What does "justification on objective grounds" mean? Given that it is not defined in the Bill there is an onus on the Minister to spell it out. A previous speaker gave an example – it is one which occurred to me – of substitute teachers as opposed to full-time teachers. Does it mean that the employer can gather together spurious objective grounds or create objective grounds through some devices to discriminate and treat part-time employees less favourably? Certainly this Bill is wide open to that.

Section 11(4) deals with part-time employees who work on a casual basis. Why is it necessary to include this subsection? Why should a worker who works less than eight hours per week or works 13 weeks per year not be protected in the same way as any other part-time worker? Why make such a distinction? There is disturbing evidence that employers can legally dismiss a person before the end of 13 weeks and thereby evade their responsibilities under this legislation. There is disturbing evidence of immigrant workers who have their working conditions and even their employment and employers changed without their consent. I am not happy with that situation. A simple Bill providing for all workers is what should be brought before the Dáil.

I was curious to hear a number of Deputies from the major parties speak particularly about the position of women, since women form such a major part of the cohort of part-time workers. If I could take them seriously I would, perhaps, have been impressed. I am referring to some male speakers from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The record of those parties in some cases has been particularly shameful in failing women who have found themselves highly discriminated against. The case of the home helps in the health boards was an acute case of scandalous treatment of women workers. In 1997 – it is hard to credit it today – £1.40 per hour was paid by the Southern Health Board on which was represented all the main political parties in the Republic. That continued for many years and not one of them cried stop until those women organised themselves for decent wages and conditions. I am proud to say this was with the active support of the Socialist Party in Cork and our representative, Michael Barry. Through their own action and militancy, all health boards have to pay £6.50 per hour. It was not done by the charity of the main political parties—

Mrs. Barnes

Or the trade unions.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I agree fully with Deputy Barnes in that regard. That is a worse scandal. I urge the leadership of the trade union movement to go on a crusade of recruitment of part-time workers who are being neglected. The trade union leadership who are too tied in with the Government and employers, and part of the establishment unfortunately, is forgetting the basics of trade unionism. The basis of trade unionism is that part-time workers are among the most vulnerable in society and should be drawn into the ranks by having demonstrated to them the benefits of trade unionism by virtue of an active campaign by the trade union leaders on their behalf. The attitude of some leaders is that it is a bit awkward having part-time workers and it is messy etc. etc.

The home helps in the Southern Health Board are in the courts fighting the health board to get holiday pay entitlements to which they should be entitled by virtue of the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991. They have to take a State agency to the court to get their rights. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, will take note of that and ask the Southern Health Board to concede that case immediately as it is outrageous.

Because of the boom in the economy, perhaps conditions for part-time workers are slightly more favourable to workers vis-à-vis employers. We have to prepare for a situation when the US recession begins to blow on this economy and workers can be in a less favourable position where employers can pick and choose. That is what we have to prepare for when legislation is being enacted. In the context of this Bill which deals with part-time workers, it is a pity that the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which we have discussed with the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, in the committee is so weak in regard to granting trade union rights to workers. Given that the Government refuses to enshrine recognition of trade unions as mandatory in the law of the land that would be a concrete gain for part-time workers. Tá mo chuid ama istigh, agus dá bhrí sin beidh níos mó le rá agam ar an mBille ar na céimeanna eile.

Cecilia Keaveney

I compliment the Minister of State for introducing this Bill. It is a technical Bill in so far as it implements the provisions of EU Directive 97/81/EC of the Council of European Communities concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by general union and industry organisations at European level, including UNIC, CEEP and ETUC. The Bill is very important because it aims to remove discrimination against part-time workers where such exists. It also seeks to improve the quality of part-time work to facilitate the development of such work on a voluntary basis and to contribute to the flexible organisation of working time in a manner which takes account of the needs of both employers and workers. It also guarantees that part-time workers may not be treated less favourably than full-time workers.

Unfortunately, the Bill is of more significance to me than I would like because there are probably more part-time than full-time workers in my constituency. I would like to see that redressed. I hope the Bill will encompass all workers. Deputy Joe Higgins outlined the improvements he wishes to see implemented, although he also extended a back handed compliment to the Minister of State when he acknowledged that workers today are better protected. In saying this I do not underestimate the seriousness of his points on the home help issue. For many years people involved in home help have been treated as if they were part of a charitable organisation rather than as workers. It is right and fair that they should be properly recognised.

The skills shortage at national level has drawn increasing numbers into part-time working. This Bill is part of a number of measures the Government has introduced in an attempt to make entry to the work force family friendly. The provisions on maternity, including unpaid leave, and parental leave introduced in the budget, and the provisions in the Carer's Leave Bill represent significant improvements.

Many people in my constituency will not be covered by this legislation. For example, many in the marine sector are part-time because of the nature of the work and the conditions, such as the weather. Yet, when they are unable to fish they probably do not get as much support as they are entitled to. Perhaps the Minister would consult with the Minster for the Marine and Natural Resources and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs with a view to addressing this aspect.

Many of those involved in on-shore work, whether it be in aquaculture, fish filleting or the added value sector have not had as fair a deal as they could have. I hope the provisions in the Bill will assist them. Many problems have arisen in the marine sector in terms of supports. In addition, many of those involved in textiles have been involved in job loses. This is the case not only in respect of Fruit of the Loom but in Moville, Carndonagh, Buncrana, Raphoe, Lifford and elsewhere in my constituency. Before being made redundant people were moved to part-time work. While many employees wanted a full-time job there was an advantage in working part-time, especially as it meant that people with young families could spend time with them while earning a decent wage. I am disappointed that Third World labour can be so much cheaper and that others elsewhere are being exploited at a time when this legislation seeks to ensure that nobody in this country is exploited.

Tourism has great potential in a constituency like mine. Part-time working in the industry could be further developed to the point where people could be employed full-time, especially if peace continues in the North. This is the first of many years where the calm has been such that the tourism industry might have a chance to develop. In that regard I welcome the allocation by the Minister for Finance of funding alongside area five funding for a car ferry from Magilligan Port to Greencastle and from Buncrana to Rathmullan. This will provide accessibility to the north-west of the County Donegal, which will give a chance for people to take up part-time and full-time employment.

Part-time work should always be available. It is good to ensure the household incomes can be subsidised in this way. It provides an opportunity for spouses to participate in the work force, for both economic and social reasons while enabling them to be at home for family time. In this regard the Government has done much to facilitate family friendly working. For example, part-time workers have been assisted by tax measures in the budget. For many years extra money was highly taxed, so there is a need to continue to improve the position of part-time workers because they are at the hub of many families and are central to meeting the demands of the labour skills shortages.

I call on the Minister of State to look at the position of those involved in CE schemes. They are engaged in valuable work for their communities, have acquired a sense of self worth and contribute significantly to those they work for. Every community is better for having a CE scheme. I hold strong views on this because there are people who, for one reason or another, may have been on long-term unemployment when they reach the age of 40 or 45 years and who will not get full-time or part-time work. Even if they get part-time work they could continue to do good work on a CE scheme. The Minister of State should give serious consideration to providing for experienced, perhaps professional, CE personnel. For example, I know from my own area that thousands of small jobs need to be done in every town and village, whether it be in community sport fields or elsewhere. People involved in these schemes provide this vital service in the absence of an alternative. There is a need to make permanent those involved in such schemes.

I do not apologise for being parochial when I say my area of Inishowen needs greater employment, both part-time and full-time. There has only been intermittent replacements of the litany of companies that have closed recently and that have moved elsewhere to exploit other labour forces. I will not go through the litany of closures that have taken place but I must thank the county council for its initiatives, which cannot be under-estimated. It has been the driving force in trying to bring work back into the area. I thank Enterprise Ireland for its substantial support to existing industries, not just it terms of expertise, but in relation to advice and its work to try to attract new industries to the area.

I ask the IDA to try to step up its efforts in relation to County Donegal, particularly my area where thousands of jobs have been lost. I thank the Government for our Objective One status which has given us a chance to create employment. I do not think any other political party was in favour of dividing the country in relation to Objective One status.

Mr. Boylan

I supported the Deputy in her campaign.

Cecilia Keaveney

The Border Deputies may have supported it but whether the party leaders supported it is another aspect. I recall my party leader, when in Opposition, promising he would do what others were not favourably disposed to do. That status gives us favourable grant aid, therefore there is no excuse for not investing in the area. Things are not all bleak. There is the expansion of Atlanfish, which is doing very well. These types of jobs rely on seasonal factors for their development and I wish the company well. The shirt factory in Moville has risen like a phoenix and has been able to re-adapt itself with the help of Enterprise Ireland. Many of these jobs have been secured. I am pleased that community groups in places like Moville and Carndonagh are developing units so they can set up their new industries.

I welcome the new technology park at Lisfannon, which is working very well, Clubman Omega's expansion into Carndonagh and Forward Emphasis in Malin. There are more positive than negative aspects in relation to Donegal. Network365, the County Wicklow based e-commerce software solutions provider, announced on Monday that it will locate its research and development centre in Letterkenny. This will lead to the employment of 30 software developers by the end of the year. The new advanced research and design centre, which is allied to the company's offices in Japan and Scandinavia, is representing a global initiative behind Network365 to lead the world in mobile commerce software solutions. The software engineers who will work at the new centre will use cutting edge technologies to build the world's most advanced wireless platforms. This indicates that we have the facilities and ability to look after companies who locate in Donegal. It is one of the best, friendliest and environmentally friendly counties in which to locate.

I welcome the infrastructural developments in Buncrana. I also welcome the Government's injection of £5.6 million into Derry city airport, which has got the Dublin-Derry airlink off the ground. I welcome the ferry development which will help tourism. We have the potential to create more part-time and full-time employment. There is no excuse for anyone within the State agencies, in particular, not to deliver on this issue.

I agree with Deputy Higgins that the United States' economy is not as vibrant as it was but perhaps it is not on a complete slippery slope at the moment. Given our Celtic tiger economy, if industries are not located in Donegal when times are good, there will not be much hope of this happening when times are not so good. Therefore, I use every opportunity to outline the advantages for workers and employment in Donegal. While this is very important legislation to protect part-time workers, I hope that together with much more part-time employment, we will be dealing with the protection of full-time employees.

Mr. Boylan

I join previous speakers in welcoming the Bill which gives us an opportunity to debate this complex and wide ranging issue. I have no doubt the Minister of State's heart is in the right place but I doubt if the Bill is the answer to all the anomalies that will be thrown up as a result of part-time work. To try to make common sense in layman's terms of what is in the Bill will be difficult, therefore, it will be fodder for the legal eagles over many years as they try to tease out the various complexities of the Bill. To me, part-time work means part of a day, part of the night or part of the week. It is worth reading sections 9(1) and 10(1) to try to make sense of them. Section 9(1) relating to conditions of employment for part-time employees reads, "Subject to subsections (2) and (4) and section 11(2), a part-time employee shall not, in respect of his or her conditions of employment, be treated in a less favourable manner than a comparable full-time employee.” Section 10(1) in relation to proportionate provision of certain conditions of employment, reads, “The extent to which any condition of employment referred to in subsection (2) is provided to a part-time employee for the purposes of complying with section 9(1) shall be related to the proportion which the normal hours of work of that employee bears to the normal hours of work of the comparable full-time employee concerned.” The legal people will have a field day, they will try for hours in court to tease out these two sections.

I agree with Deputy Callely, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, that when the Minister of State attends the committee there will be an opportunity for a question and answer session to tease out this whole area. This is an important discussion on what is not a new development. However, the development is wide ranging in that part-time work is now more applicable to more people, particularly young housewives, who have young children and who are under pressure to provide a home and buy a car. Many housewives decide to take up part-time work so we must be definitive about what constitutes part-time work. Perhaps when a housewife leaves the children off at school, there is an opportunity to rush down to the local supermarket, hotel or restaurant to work for a number of hours. That is part-time work. She may give the children to another woman who looks after them part-time. Young people work in pubs, restaurants, as petrol pump attendants, car wash bay attendants and so on. Housewives, young people and others work in supermarkets on a part-time basis. What conditions, terms and protections have these people who are entitled to protection? Of course they are grateful for the employment and extra income but it also suits the employer to employ them. However, if these people are doing a good job, they cannot be told at the whim of the employer that they are no longer needed. Likewise, the employee should not think he can come and go as he pleases.

I welcome the fact that there is now almost full employment. Employees now have an opportunity to change jobs, which is welcome. Everyone is entitled to improve his lot in life if he believes he might be happier in another position. However, there must be ground rules and some understanding so that business and living can exist side by side. People are coming here from third world countries, some of whom I have met. Many of these people are excellent workers who must also be protected. However, they cannot take up the part-time jobs of our own people. A group of marvellous people from Romania told me that they will work all the hours God sends them. It is great to see it but I would not like to see them abused in such a way that they must work from dawn until dusk, even if they would get the minimum wage. They could also be taking this type of employment from Irish people who would need it. There has to be regulation and an understanding that there is a place for everybody.

The carer's leave legislation which was before the House last week is extremely important and relevant to this legislation. It will give an opportunity to people to look after the people who brought this country through poorer times to its current level of development. There is also flexi-time which affords another opportunity to people to do a few hours work to make the necessary income for their families. There might even be a schoolgoing child working flexi-time at the weekend. There are also home helps who do marvellous work. Do they come within the remit of this legislation? They travel to help out in a household where, perhaps, the young person must go out to work. It is part-time work which generates necessary income. There is also casual labour where somebody is available to do various jobs as they arise. It is generally menial but important work, such as tidying up the supermarket or working on a large building site.

These are areas where there should be ground rules so people will know where they stand. After a number of years of part-time work they should have some pension rights and recognition for their work. I have read the Bill but it is difficult to comprehend. Perhaps a more understandable document will be made available.

Mr. T. Kitt

We will produce booklets for the workers concerned.

Mr. Boylan

I knew the Minister had his heart in the right place and that he would not try to fool us. The Minister will take responsibility for that. I am not downgrading the officials; they have their job to do.

This is an important Bill which will benefit many people. Part-time work is part and parcel of life. I welcome the development of a major new industry in my county. Terradyne is an American company. These large American companies work 24 hours a day through the use of 12 hour shifts. Intel in Leixlip operates shifts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. The worker works three days on and four days off followed by four days on and three days off. However, it might suit a person to work from 7 p.m. to 12 midnight or from 12 midnight to 7 a.m. That would be considered part-time work; it is not the full 12 hour shift. The companies are prepared to take people on to work those hours but those employees should be protected. They have rights and, although they are not working a full shift, they are working for a period of time over a number of years and there should be recognition for that work and the contribution they make. There should also be insurance and pension rights available to them.

There is also reference in the Bill to people taking early retirement. I cannot understand anybody retiring from work other than for health reasons. One hears people say: "Thank God, I will soon be retiring", but they must not be happy in their jobs. I would be happy to continue as a Deputy but I do not have a say in that.

Mr. Connaughton

The Deputy is making a good attempt at staying.

Mr. Boylan

We have to go before a tribunal every five years and the people decide. People who retire at 50 or 55 years could still make a contribution. It is sad in many ways that they decide to retire. I have spoken to people who did it and they have often regretted it. They thought it would be great to have time on their hands. However, they are usually available for part-time work and would like to get back into the workforce. There is nothing wrong with that and they should be encouraged.

Other speakers will be anxious to contribute to this debate. It is an interesting and important discussion and I look forward to teasing out further aspects of the Bill on Committee Stage.

Mr. Connaughton

There are many complex issues involved in the Bill and I will not be able to discuss all of them in the time available. The objectives of the Bill are to stop the exploitation of part-time workers and, equally important, to provide flexibility so people can take up vacancies that cannot be filled at present.

I have seen how things have changed over my last 20 years in this House. For the first 15 of those 20 years our problem was creating full-time jobs, regardless of how we managed it. Now there has been a sea change and it even affects rural areas, the areas that are most familiar to me. Flexibility is everything. People want to be able to work outside the normal structure of employment. For years a normal job consisted of a five day working week with working hours from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. If the person could not fit into that structure, they did not get the job. Now, employers are prepared to do almost anything to get the staff they need.

The strange new phenomenon in this country – it is not a new phenomenon in other developed countries – is that the number of part-time workers has rocketed. There were 107,000 part-time workers three years ago. The figure is now 280,000 and I do not doubt that it will be even higher in two or three years, provided we can find extra pools of labour from which we can draw.

There is scope for finding new labour on the live register. We talk about full employment but many things can be done to encourage people out of unemployment. It would be a useful exercise if various Departments worked in a co-ordinated manner to get people off the live register, for a variety of reasons. I will return to this later.

Between 70% and 80% of the huge increase in part-time workers is due to the number of women who have returned to the workplace in one form or another. Everybody is aware of that fact. The problem is, however, that there is a huge suspicion that these women do not have many rights. If anything should happen, they will be the first to go. They are the front line troops, as such. The guarantees they are offered that their rights will be protected are not actually believed by many people. If one loses one's part-time job in the local garden centre, supermarket or mart, I doubt that there will be anything more than crodocile tears to help them. I am not sure that this Bill will do much to help them either.

I see the Bill as an enabling measure, an all-embracing concept of the legislation already on the Statute Book. I will refer to the Bill's provisions shortly but I have not heard anything during this debate which would, if I were a part-time worker, lead me to believe that I will be any safer in my job tomorrow than I was yesterday. If that is the case, the Bill misses its objective. However, we will allow the system to develop until we see what results from it.

During the debate on the training Bill, we talked about the new concept of training. Obviously, there will have to be massive retraining. In fairness to successive Governments, they took the training issue seriously. We are gradually approaching the American concept. The US was the first place I saw people holding up to three jobs at one time, the nature of which was usually entirely different and required people to undergo three types of training. That kind of flexibility has obviously served the US economy well and it is a concept to which we are gradually coming around. I was reared in the belief that a person took a job on leaving school or college and kept it until retirement. Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, that day is gone. Young people, including members of my own family, do not really know what they want to do on leaving college and can change jobs at the drop of a hat in our tiger economy. However, such flexibility means people have to be retrained. Young people do not have any difficulty, having spent three or four years at university, spending a further year undergoing in-house training. That is a very helpful attitude.

The child care sector is a huge and expensive growth area and we must be careful to avoid exploitation therein. Child care provision is not a simple task. Parents expect high standards in return for which they must pay a high price. The nature of child care provision makes it eminently suitable for part-time work.

There are now more job descriptions and specifications in the health care sector than there are letters in the alphabet. Some of the jobs are good and others are less so. We must be careful to ensure that people working in this sector, particularly in a part-time capacity, are properly treated.

What provisions, if any, are contained in the Bill in regard to the protection of school children under a certain age who work part-time in pubs, supermarkets, hotels, etc., due to their desire to earn their own money? Does this Bill specify the dangers of such employment? The Minister will be aware that there comes a stage in young people's lives where the prospect of earning sizeable sums of money sometimes outweighs their desire to pursue their education and careers. I do not doubt that some of these young people are being exploited and would like to know what impact the Bill may have in this area. The Minister may tell me that this is a matter for parents and teachers, not legislators. However, it is akin to our liquor laws into which the State, of necessity, has a huge input. I am extremely concerned about the position of under-age workers and feel that it is deteriorating steadily. Children can now earn sums of money which they have never previously handled and there are myriad outlets in which they can spend their income. We must call a halt in this area because huge problems are emerging.

The live register is a valuable reserve of potential employees, although I acknowledge that a great deal of retraining would be required to make some people employable. People's attitudes must change and some people must be taken by the hand through what is a slow process. Some of the people on the live register genuinely want to work but require assistance to take the initial step forward. The Minister will be very familiar with this from his own constituency. It is extraordinarily difficult for people from a household in which the members of two generations have never worked to decide to take up part-time work because they will be afraid that they will lose their entitlements. Aside from the work being carried out by county development boards, etc., a huge emphasis must be placed on encouraging several thousands of the people on the live register to take up employment.

Deputy Boylan and others raised issues in regard to retirement. Some countries have increased the official retirement age at which people will be eligible for a full pension and provide a partial retirement pension to older employees who wish to work part time. Incentives are also offered to businesses to retain employees for a longer period of time. I am not aware of the Government's view on this matter but I assume it considers it socially unacceptable to increase the retirement age. There would be a national outcry if that were to happen. People work hard for 40 years of their lives and expect to receive a pension on reaching a certain age.

Older people have a great deal of good sense and professionalism to offer although they may lack some fire in their bellies having done the same job for 40 years. These people have a great deal of experience and it should be possible for them to obtain their retirement pension – which should be set in stone – and supplement it through any income earned on returning to the workforce. Many men and women would welcome that. They would be highly motivated employees and would appreciate their work being recognised. A demand certainly exists for their skills.

In regard to the organisation of working time legislation which deals with holidays, rest periods, night work, safety, etc., it is interesting to note the changes which have occurred over the years. In 1930, people worked a maximum of 55 hours per week. The figure now stands at 48 and is decreasing steadily.

Deputy Keaveney referred to participants on FÁS and CE schemes who do very valuable work. As Deputy Keaveney rightly said, and I could not have said it better myself, there is much work yet to be done throughout the country. It may not be commercial work because if it were there would be money to be made out of it and somebody would already have it done, and the county councils and the corporations do not have the money to do it. They have gone away from that over the past few years. From the point of view of the national economy, and particularly tourism, it is hugely important that we continue that programme.

To illustrate the daftness of what is going on, in the little village of Caherlistrane, outside Tuam, which the Minister knows well, there is the best workmanship I have ever seen. Admittedly it is only a stone wall but the way it is designed and its location changes the character of the village in a very positive way. The people involved in that scheme went to the trouble of travelling around the country to get the type of stone that was in keeping with the character of the area. They had various local raffles, etc., to get this scheme going, and they did that. However, the Tánaiste, and whoever else was with her, decided last April that there would be a major change in this scheme and as a result there is a half built wall in Caherlistrane. It is now much worse than it was when they started. There are 15 people trained to build the wall. Nobody else in the area can build it, yet the FÁS office in Tuam told me that because of what has happened at Government level, they cannot touch the wall for almost another year. What is even worse, most of the people who participated in the scheme will not be eligible the next time.

In fairness to Mr. Roddy Molloy, the four Galway TDs met him recently on this issue and I have to compliment him because he certainly seemed to understand what we were trying to do but I always understood that once legislation was brought in, it applied to everyone. Like my other colleagues, I have a bag full of applications for social employment schemes from the sponsoring committees but I have been told, and I have to accept it because that is the way I operate, that because of the changes made last April, it is not possible to commence them. However, four or five schemes have commenced which obviously did not come under the legislation or the conditions of the schemes. I am delighted for those people. I made representations on their behalf and I am not the only one who did that – the Minister of State knows about whom I am talking – but I will want an answer shortly why four or five groups can get through and 24 or 25 cannot. What is the determining factor in that regard? I would like the Minister to raise that issue with the Tánaiste.

Mr. T. Kitt

I will certainly pursue all those issues.

Mr. Connaughton

We must have equality in the way we apply the rules. I want to go back to the position pre-April of last year. I believe a genuine mistake was made and if Mr. Roddy Molloy, can implement changes to better the scheme, we will be delighted with that but we certainly will not stand for schemes being prioritised, for whatever reason, at the expense of everybody else. I want to know the reasons for that. I will not mention the schemes today but I will come into this House in the not too distant future and name them because I find it difficult to go back to the people who contacted me, and indeed other public representatives, and tell them that the rules will not allow them to start a scheme when five miles up the road a scheme started a few weeks ago under the same conditions. If there is a ruling it should be the same for all. It is against that background I would like the Minister of State to check that matter out for me.

I had many other comments to make. I hope the Bill will do what it sets out to do but we would certainly like the Minister's help with the matters I have raised.

Mr. Crawford

I, too, welcome the Bill although I accept the fact, as pointed out by my colleague, Deputy Naughten, that it is overdue.

The Irish business sector has undergone a remarkable transformation in the 1990s. Private sector non-agricultural employment has increased by 400,000, or over 50%, in the past decade. Almost 80% of employment growth has come from indigenous companies, much of it in the manufacturing or service sectors in my own constituency of Cavan-Monaghan.

In the more open global marketplace where Ireland must now compete, competitiveness will be more important than ever before. We must protect the competitor strengths we have carefully built up. Despite our economic success, however, Ireland still has exhibited certain structure weaknesses. A small open economy must be more flexible than its competitors to succeed. It must anticipate and master change and build on its long-term competitiveness on the basis of high skills, innovation, quality and flexibility. This is a route to high paid employment which Ireland must take.

The Government failed to meet its commitments in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to give 270,000 part-time workers new rights to pensions, holidays and other entitlements. This legislation was due to be presented in June but is only now before the House. As a result, part-time workers have lost 12 months.

This Bill replaces the 1990 legislation under which part-time employees have to work at least eight hours per week for 13 weeks to be eligible for protection. Only a fraction of part-time employees, therefore, benefit from it. The new Bill is expected to cover most of the 280,000 people classified as part-time workers as it does not provide for an hourly or weekly threshold, except in regard to pension entitlements. When it becomes law it will entitle part-time workers to occupational pensions, holiday pay, sick leave and other benefits, all of which are important, on the same basis as full-time employees. They will also be covered in respect of unfair dismissals, minimum notice and redundancy.

Since 1987, the ratio of part-time workers has increased from one in 15 of the workforce to one in eight. The reality today is that both parents have to work to pay a mortgage and it is important that the person who wants to look after the children, be it male or female, has the opportunity to do part-time work if necessary.

On the issue of child care, Fine Gael proposes five key steps, two local and three national, which must be taken in this area. Local authority planning guidelines should facilitate the provision of child care in residential areas. It is wrong for planning authorities to insist that a house in a residential area cannot be used as a crèche for children in the immediate locality. In my own home town, a child lost his life on the road so it is important that we have these facilities in the local area. Unused primary school rooms should be franchised for the purpose of child care provision in after school hours. Child benefit payment should be significantly increased for children under five years of age and a smaller increase should be provided for children between the ages of five and ten.

What would guarantee equal treatment of all children, be they in receipt of paid child care or care in the home by a parent, grandparent or relative? Paid child care should not be a privilege over unpaid child care or vice versa. Not long ago, a group of us saw the situation in Finland where 70% of the children were looked after by the state in terms of child care.

There has been much discussion in recent months regarding part-time teachers, an issue which also concerns children. We need more teaching staff who can deal with all the problems in the education sector. Temporary unqualified teachers perform the same duties as their permanent counterparts, yet there is a discrepancy in terms of remuneration. Will the Bill resolve the current problem? Furthermore, what impact will the legislation have on so-called unqualified substitute teachers, many of whom have the same qualifications, or are more qualified, than permanent teachers? There are more problems in this regard in Border areas with teachers from across the Border who do not necessarily meet all our qualifications, taking up posts. Because they do not have the requirements in Irish, they are severely discriminated against in terms of remuneration, earning just half the salary of those doing the same job but who have Irish. Will this be defined as "objective grounds" under the legislation? Will the provisions in the Bill deal with the difficulties in the sector?

Farmers are also being forced into part-time employment, particularly as a result of the BSE crisis. There is no doubt that if the rules being proposed by the Commission are allowed come to fruition, there will be a major exodus of farmers from the livestock sector. While in general terms the measures will be welcomed by the farming community, where part-time work helps to support small holdings, there can be serious implications for farmers working part-time if this is brought to the attention of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the European Commission. The main problem is exclusion from certain EU sponsored schemes. For example, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development debars applications from farmers for the EU early retirement scheme who are found to be engaged in part-time work for a period prior to their application. At the same time the Commission, through a directive, is attaching great significance to the need for proper provision of social security and pensions for part-time workers. This seems to be a contradiction in terms of pension entitlements. Farmers with holdings of 15 to 16 hectares, who must supplement their incomes with off-farm work to survive, are currently being discriminated against. Surely, it was to such farmers that schemes such as the early retirement scheme were directed. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development excludes these part-time workers from certain premium payments by making an assessment against them on the basis of their off-farm incomes.

I hope the Minister will address these issues in his response as on the one hand the EU is talking about promoting part-time work but through the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development it is discriminating against part-time workers. The Minister comes from the west and I come from the north west, and we know that many holdings are not viable. There is no way that under the current regime a farmer in these regions can survive in agriculture and they need to supplement their income through part-time work.

Another sector which has been dealt a major blow in recent times as a result of BSE is the meat industry, including boning halls and burger manufacturers. There must be very flexible rules in the system to ensure the people in this sector are not discriminated against. They have lost full-time or part-time jobs solely because of situations outside their control, and their short-term needs must be facilitated. Many of these people are highly skilled operators. Some have left the country to find jobs elsewhere at a time when we are trying to bring in workers from outside the State. I am not sure if this is addressed in the legislation, but it must be dealt with.

The Department of Health and Children, despite all the moneys available to it, is closing down a maternity unit in Monaghan General Hospital, and staff there will not necessarily be near a similar unit and may have to be facilitated in terms of flexible hours. Many nurses, particularly in rural communities, have been in part-time work or in temporary employment for between four and six years, and I hope the Bill will give them rights which they have not had previously. It is vital that their commitment to the health services is recognised. In the case of Mon aghan General Hospital it is hard to understand at times why workers getting £8 per hour on a part-time basis are replaced by workers from outside contract bodies who are being paid £12 or £13 per hour, something which is happening under contract structures. This must be examined to ensure that people who are committed to a job receive their just rights.

It is very important that flexible working be facilitated to ensure we have a family friendly policy, something mentioned by the Minister in his speech. Part-time work is often necessary to allow one parent to be at home when children return from school or a crèche, something which can also be facilitated through work sharing. I want to ensure that this Bill caters for such structures. It is necessary that parents have an opportunity to be with their children as much as possible. Many young people are getting into trouble, and they are not all from the very poor areas. Recently I came across a case where 14 year olds had to be taken in by the Garda as they were involved in breaking windows and all sorts of vandalism. If parents were able to be more available then the long-term upbringing of children would be benefited and the need for security, etc. would be curtailed.

Another area is care for the elderly and the handicapped. There are many groups involved in looking after the elderly, including home helps, carers and others. I hope the Bill will give some of these workers rights which they have not previously had. Under the minimum pay legislation there have been fairly significant changes. These people provide an extremely positive service for the elderly and the handicapped, and we must encourage them and ensure more people, especially women, are prepared to make themselves available for such work. In this regard not only am I talking about pension and sick leave rights, but also the issue of medical cards. A worry of some women accepting small amounts of money for providing care is the threat of losing the medical card, which is very serious. It is one reason why Fine Gael has put forward proposals to double the means test for medical cards so as to allow people become involved in part-time work.

Only last year I came across a similar problem in terms of a person who was doing the necessary and important job of a fire fighter in a small rural town and who applied for third level grants for his children. For the sake of a few thousands pounds a year, they lost £1,400 pounds per year over a four year period for the education of their child. We must examine these areas if we are to give proper rights to those who are prepared to do these necessary part-time jobs.

Deputy Connaughton has already covered the issue of people for whom it is not possible to get back into full-time employment. Until recently people in the 50 to 55 year old age bracket could work for three years on FÁS schemes, get a turn-over and get another run on very necessary work for their local communities. The work done through these schemes has been magnificent. The redevelopment of small villages, rural communities, churchyards and so on would not have happened if those schemes had not been put in place. Many of these people are in receipt of early retirement benefit because they cannot get other jobs. We should reconsider that system which allowed such people to work for approximately 20 hours per week, or a new scheme if necessary, to ensure the developments that have taken place in local communities in the past few years are maintained.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be aware of the Kavanagh Centre in Enniskeen where EU, cross-Border and locally raised funds have done a magnificent job. However, since Kavanagh's poems were taken off the school curriculum the centre no longer benefits from visits by bus loads of school children. The Border area does not benefit from the same level of tourism activity as Killarney, Donegal or elsewhere. Without people to work in and maintain that centre through community schemes, the good work of the centre will not be able to continue. While Monaghan County Council has provided some assistance for the centre, in the long-term a change in the FÁS rules is necessary if the older people – from memory I think approximately 18 people from the local parish were involved – are to benefit. I urge the Minister of State to consider this. These people have pride in their community and want to contribute something to it in their latter days. If these rules, or if necessary the FÁS structure, were changed to facilitate them, we could maintain the community structures that were built up through FÁS in the past few years. Other towns, villages and communities within cities would also benefit if such facilities were maintained and developed.

Some excellent Bills have been put through the House, for example, the legislation which dealt with the business expansion scheme passed in 1989. However, while excellent laws were put in place under that legislation, it took six years for the personnel to be put in place to operate them. I hope that when this Bill is passed – I understand all parties support it – the necessary personnel will be provided to ensure those entitled to benefits receive them and that the entitlements are clearly publicised. Every week in our clinics we meet people who should have been getting assistance for many years from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs or elsewhere, but because they do not know to what they are entitled, they are not getting what is rightfully theirs. We have to sell the provisions set out in this Bill and ensure the structures are properly manned and financed. Otherwise, we support the Bill.

Mrs. Barnes

I welcome the Bill. I have had the privilege of welcoming much legislation on conditions of work, particularly equality at work. This legislation is particularly welcome at a time when the economy can, I hope, support it and work positively to even enlarge and develop it. As my colleagues know, from the point of view of European Union legislation, we have been often almost dragged screaming to introduce legislation but work structures and in particular the economy did not allow its positive endorsement or the allocation of resources to enable it to be developed fully. I hope this will not happen in this case and that much of what is contained in this legislation will be market driven. In all legislation, particularly with regard to equality, that is a significant benefit as circumstances and skill shortages will inspire employers and workers' associations to work towards developing a more family-friendly work environment.

In that context I refer to the 1993 Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women in which the section on women and work focused on atypical work. The report defined atypical work as including part-time, temporary, casual, seasonal, agency and home working. At that stage those categories of work probably were atypical, but less than ten years later they have become very typical and will become even more typical. I welcome this humanising of work and family that was not allowed until now. It is astonishing, although welcome, that we have reached a stage where we can label most of these categories "typical".

The report also defined those categories of work and welcomed the Worker Protection (Part-Time Employees) Act, 1990. This Bill is a significant improvement and much progress has been made, particularly with regard to the pension rights and the protection and rights of part-time employees, vis-à-vis what we still recognise as full-time employees. The report also highlights – I know the Minister will note this – the areas where discrimination still existed and the fact that employers often take for granted the importance of the work being done. While this is not the direct responsibility of the Minister present, I hope this Bill is not introduced in isolation. Some speakers dealt with areas that, while they do not come directly within the Minister's responsibility, would be part and parcel not just of Government but European policy. One area to which they pay particular attention is PRSI for child care and domestic workers in private houses. That area has been exploited for many years. I am old enough to remember the marriage bar which did not permit married women to work outside the home until 1973. That led to great difficulty and discrimination. Such women discovered that they did not have PRSI cover in their own right for the years they spent doing valuable work in the home, child-rearing and so on.

An area that caused most stress to a generation that is passing because of new work practices and the working partnership between men and women and where there was no acknowledgement of the work women did, was in regard to pensions. If the pension paid to the husband exceeded a certain amount the wife and homemaker found she had no pension in her own right. She was included only as part of the husband's pension. The Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights made a strong petition that, even if it means adjusting tax or the partner's pension, the value and contribution to the State of work within the home could be rewarded by way of paying direct pension to the partner. We will continue to work on that in the context of the debate on pensions at Irish and European level.

An area to be encouraged is home working. If we could encourage people to work, even part-time, from their home it would relieve many traffic, child care and other problems. However, such people would need to be protected. There is a focus on that issue at European level. The Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women states that the problem with home working is it is often entirely unregulated as regards health and safety aspects and there is also the likelihood that many forms of it operate in the informal economy. Is the Minister involved at European level with the guidelines being drawn up which will shape policy in this area? While this approach might solve many of our problems, employers are reluctant to trust people to work from home.

Much part-time work is performed by women and, as a result, has been the subject of discrimination. Women suffered from lack of choice in that it might have been the only work available to them. They would sacrifice full-time jobs and careers because of domestic and parenting responsibilities. I was interested to note in the Minister's speech that each year member states are requested to prepare an employment action plan setting out their respective Government's proposals on how to improve the overall economic environment in terms of people at work. They highlight opportunities for women who have raised their families and are keen to return to the workplace. They formulate family friendly policies which facilitate greater female participation in the workforce. I noted with interest that the Minister mentioned the European Commission guidelines for 2001, which is the fourth year of this process, and said they will help to formulate policies involving more employment friendly approaches and positive measures to maintain the skills and working capacity of older workers in particular. I would welcome any information the Minister may have on that.

I recognise what has been done in the area of child care but a great deal remains to be done. It is not just a question of how the State will provide and support greater State child care. We must consider how developments in other areas would help to resolve our child care problems. The Minister is probably too young to remember but, as a result of pressure from women, flexi-time was introduced. At the time, most employers looked on it with horror and believed it was a feminist threat to the structured workforce. However, when it was put into practice productivity increased, absenteeism decreased and it led to a much more ordered life for those, including men, who took advantage of it. More can be done now that we have technology. We could have core working times and, at either end of those, people could work from home. There should be greater initiatives in this area.

I understand that there is still great difficulty regarding job-sharing. While there may be the will, there are practical difficulties that do not receive much sympathy. Many women who did not have access to job-sharing were forced out of employment. With greater flexibility and job-sharing we could have retained women in the workforce and allowed them to continue their careers.

Deputy Naughten paid special attention to section 20 which is central to working in both Ireland and Europe. He said:

In relation to section 20 of the Bill which protects Irish posted or contract workers in employment outside Ireland and foreign workers posted inside Ireland, will the Minister expand this section to specifically deal with the abuse of foreign workers on work permits in Ireland?

He then gave examples. We must ensure we do not have a two-tier society and that the standards applied to foreign workers are the same as those which apply to Irish workers. I am sure the Minister will address this issue.

Like previous speakers, I ask the Minister to advertise the new provisions and to give as much information as possible to employers and employees so that they know the provisions are backed up by the Labour Court, commissioners and necessary legal measures. When introducing new legislation sometimes a few model cases serve notice on all concerned that it will be implemented.

The Minister is aware that contract cleaners are very much exploited due to various circumstances. They work unsocial hours so they can help their families. Some years ago a group of cleaners attempted to strike to secure some protection in terms of their employment and the minimum rate of pay. They were told by their employer in no uncertain terms that if they went on strike they would bring a bus into another housing estate and fill it with other workers. These cleaners were totally unprotected. Despite our booming economy a large number of people still rely on this type of work. This is due to educational and training disadvantage and because many of these workers have to look after their families during the day. Will these disadvantaged categories be covered by the legislation? How much more work must be done to ensure all workers have choices and flexibility and, above all, can enjoy the same standards as the rest of us?

Mr. Bell

My colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, clearly outlined the Labour Party's position on the Bill. I broadly welcome the Bill, however late it may be. Many years ago when I was a national trade union official for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I called for legislation to deal with part-time workers. Even though the situation was bad at that stage – I am going back more than 20 years – strange as it may seem the situation has got substantially worse in spite of our booming economy and record number of job vacancies.

I want to follow up on the point made by Deputy Barnes in relation to foreign workers. Two weeks ago a number of foreign workers came into my constituency office. I was horrified by their accounts of how they are exploited. I want to deal with this issue in the context of the agencies which have sprung up all over the place. We imported this concept from the UK. It started in the building industry but it has spread across the board. These unfortunate workers, who are far from home, work 60 hours per week and are not paid overtime for working Saturday and Sunday. They do not receive holiday pay and have no proper meal breaks. In addition, the agency puts 14 or 15 of them in a house and deducts the rent from their wages. The Bill does not specifically cover this problem as these people work 50 and 60 hours per week. However, I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to extending the scope of the legislation to cover this type of exploitation.

These agencies effectively get more from employers than the people who are working. I am aware of many such cases. For example, in a case involving a member of my family the agency took £15 per hour from the employer but paid only half of this to him. The agency was earning as much per week as this member of my family who worked on a building site. I raised this matter with the CIF and the other agencies which came before the Committee of Public Accounts last year and they undertook to come back to us on it.

The problem of the exploitation of part-time workers is well known and well established. This is why I welcome the Bill. Deputy Barnes referred to a number of the categories, for example, contract cleaners, domestics, workers in the food industry involved in mushroom picking, etc., and workers in the hotel and catering industries, which are notorious to say the least. There is a JLC in the hotel and catering industry which lays down statutory conditions on pay for part-time and full-time workers. There is no doubt these conditions are repeatedly ignored in every area.

I was a member of five JLCs when I was in the trade union movement. The Department does not have an adequate inspectorate to cover the wide range of employments where exploitation of part-time workers takes place. I ask the Minister to outline how he proposes to deal with this in the context of the Bill. This area cannot be policed for one specific reason, that is, most of the people in these employments work late at night, long after the Department's inspectorate has gone home. These people work late at night or start work at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. and it is not possible—

Mr. T. Kitt

The position has changed in recent times and the inspectorate now works at night. This is an important issue.

Mr. Bell

I am glad to hear that and would like to see some evidence. The Minister might give us the facts and figures. It may happen in Dublin but it certainly does not happen in Border areas. I have no reason to doubt the Minister and I hope he is correct.

I welcome the Bill but there is no point putting legislation on the Statute Book if the Department does not have the manpower to police it. Inspectors need to go into hotels to see the unfortunate women who have to work until 1 a.m., 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. in kitchens, bars etc. These women are not registered for social welfare, PRSI, taxation or pension purposes even though many of them are covered by the conditions of the JLCs. The JLCs do valuable work but I ask the Minister to tell us the number of extra people in the Department who will be employed to police the implementation of the legislation. It is important that we do so, otherwise the legislation is not worth the paper on which it is written.

The majority of part-time workers who are exploited are women. There are two reasons it is difficult in many cases to establish that employers are breaking the law. First, they employ these workers on a part-time basis, usually at weekends, late at night or early in the morning and, second, they do not register the workers for anything. This is mainly because the employers do not wish to pay what they should be paying on behalf of the employees. However, in many cases the workers are on so social welfare, their husbands are working and they would prefer to receive a few pounds under the counter than have their employment registered.

It is only when these unfortunate women reach pensionable age that they discover they are not entitled to an old age pension and, at best, they will receive a non-contributory pension if their husbands are on low pay. A woman can work part-time all her life yet find she is not entitled to anything when she reaches pensionable age.

The Bill should make it compulsory for every employer and agency to supply a register to the Department. In other words, they should have to provide the name, address and PRSI number of each employee and the penalties for non-compliance must be severe. This would mean that departmental inspectors could see whether the law was being applied.

What effect will this Bill have on joint labour committees? Will the employment regulation orders be revised, deleted or amended to cover the categories of workers to which I referred, most of whom have been covered by JLCs for the past 30 or 40 years? Will the Minister of State outline how the Bill will operate in conjunction with JLCs and employment regulation orders? Employment regulation orders are rarely displayed, as required by law, in hotels, pubs, clubs and other establishments covered by such orders.

The national minimum wage legislation is on the Statute Book yet many workers are not receiving the national minimum rate. Employers have complained that they cannot get workers. They want to attract workers but at less than the national minimum rate. People come to Members' constituency clinics and complain that their son or daughter is only being paid X amount of money. The obvious advice Members can offer is to ask for the details and report them to the relevant section in the Department. However, people then complain that if this was done their son or daughter would be sacked. The Minister of State will have to strengthen the legislation regarding the register of employees. In 99% of cases it is employers who are breaking the law, yet employees are being penalised and will lose out on a weekly basis and for most of their working lives.

There are also cases where a couple have a mortgage and a young family, the husband is paying a high rate of tax and the wife receives a few pounds for part-time work. Many such couples are reluctant to declare this income. In such circumstances the onus should not be on the worker but on the employer to declare that income, and the penalty for non-compliance should be very severe. How many employers were taken to court in the past year for exploiting part-time workers or for non-compliance with PRSI, tax, overtime pay and other labour legislation? Most if not all these workers never receive holiday pay.

In his speech the Minister of State said that part-time workers will be covered for the purposes of a variety of labour legislation. How does he propose to achieve this? Will his inspectors examine a hotel's records to discover whether, for example, part-time workers are recorded as working in the establishment and, if they are recorded, whether they receive holiday pay, paid leave or other entitlements under labour legislation? Every employer should be obliged by law to register every full-time and part-time worker and the penalty for non-compliance should be severe.

Two years ago the Revenue Commissioners sent a team of inspectors to a particular town which I will not name. This team discovered that half the employers, including those in the hotel and catering sector, were not paying what they should have been paying in tax. Many pubs were refused licences because they were not paying the correct amount of tax. This is the kind of effort we need from the Department on behalf of workers who are being exploited. The Minister of State should send a team of inspectors to a town to examine every shop, hotel, mushroom plant, domestic cleaning company and employment agency. Such an approach would mean that employers and the public will know we are serious about dealing with the exploitation of workers.

This legislation was prompted by organisations such as the Council of Europe, the International Labour Organisation and the EU. It is a pity we always have to be directed by Europe to introduce social legislation. However, such legislation is welcome no matter how late it is introduced. The problem is that many EU labour directives have not been enacted. I will pursue this matter as workers' rights could and should be strengthened by the introduction of EU directives which have not been transposed into Irish law.

I wish to return to the issue of agencies. Will the Minister of State take a serious look at this new anti-social evil which has crept into Irish society? This practice is more prevalent in Dublin than in provincial areas. One has only to look at the local and national newspapers to see agencies looking for part-time and full-time workers. Will the Minister of State give serious consideration to enacting a regulation under existing labour law, introducing a Bill or amending this Bill to ensure that these agencies operate under licence? The licence should be issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and its operation should be subject to labour law and supervised by the Department.

This Bill is a major step forward. Will the Minister of State give consideration to some of the points I raised? The Labour Party welcomes the Bill.

Mr. Neville

I also welcome the Bill. Before I deal with the essence of it I will raise the issue of discrimination of part-time employees. Perhaps this issue is more relevant to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, but I ask the Minister of State to convey my points to him and to the Government.

I refer to a situation which has arisen in the AIBP packing plant in Rathkeale. For many years part-time employees were in receipt of social welfare. However, the Department has now decided to withdraw any entitlements to social welfare from them, although some have been in receipt of social welfare for 12 years. These people have worked for up to 30 years with the company. They were employed on a full-time basis but that was changed to a one, two or three day week. They were able to maintain a certain standard of living because they built up credits for unemployment benefit. However, they have now been informed that after all these years they are not entitled to any further unemployment benefit. This will have a severe effect on their incomes, families and standard of living. Some of these people have for 30 years paid into a pension scheme and other schemes which are service related.

The Minister is giving them a choice of a low standard of living where they cannot support their families or of finding employment elsewhere and losing the credits they have built up during their years of service. That is mean and wrong. There is a custom where up to 12 or 15 years of short time working is augmented by an entitlement to unemployment benefit. Can someone with a family survive on one or two days' pay without an augmented income? Is the Minister expecting a person who is 50 or 55 years of age, who has worked in a company since he or she was 17 or 20 and who has a skill in the meat industry to walk away from it and to try to find employment elsewhere? That is the stark choice those people must face. It is unfair to expect people to abandon their pension and other rights and to find alternative employment where they do not have any experience and where their skills will be redundant.

While I appreciate that the Minister of State has only some responsibility in this area – it is an issue for the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs – I ask him to seriously examine this situation. It was examined a few years ago and the Department decided that the right thing to do was to continue the payment. Why, one and a half or two years later, has it changed its mind? What has happened to cause it to change its mind and leave those employees and their families in a serious position?

If these employees leave the company, they will probably be replaced by workers from eastern Europe who have work permits. Some of those people are already employed there. I am not making judgments about anyone. However, we should question a system which forces Irish workers to leave their employment after 20 years of service and replaces them with people from abroad. I have made representations on behalf of people to get work permits as quickly as possible so they can come to Ireland because we need them in certain employment areas. We need them to respond to the economic boom and to fuel the engine of the Celtic tiger. We must ensure that those employees who come from abroad are not discriminated against. I am extremely concerned that unscrupulous people may use foreign employees for cheap labour. We must not tolerate that.

I concur with Deputy Bell about the JLCs. While things might have changed, my experience in that area is that few inspections are done. I am only speaking about Limerick and the midwest. We often debated this issue on local radio. People, particularly those in the catering industry who were not in a union, were exploited, while those who were in a union were taken care of. I am talking about smaller fast food outlets. Inspections were not carried out and controls were not enforced. Perhaps the Minister of State, who hinted at changes in this area, could clarify if they have taken place.

Three quarters of part-time employees are women. We need innovative policies to attract more people into the work force including men and people who have retired. In the past we had a discriminatory approach to tapping the skills of those who were over 65 years of age. We must ensure that we tap the skills of someone who is 66 or 67 years of age and who has great skills, whether professional or technical, such as those involved in the motoring or personnel areas, including bus drivers, nurses or any person in State or private services. If there is a body of people who are retired, we could increase the number of part-time workers who are over 65 years of age. We must ensure that pensions are paid and that incentives are put in place to tap this available resource.

I am concerned about the approach of public bodies, such as the health boards, to part-time employees. They do not give the same pro rata benefits to part-time employees. I know of one case where part-time nurses were not entitled to their increments. This meant they stayed at the bottom of the incremental scale. I am glad that does not happen as frequently now. I come from a rural area, part of which is quite wealthy but much of it is very poor. We have seen a total change in the social fabric of many rural communities which to a large extent were based on small family farms, but people can no longer survive on such farms. They either augment their income by having a spouse working or by working part-time themselves, or both. It is important to have programmes in place to train people who are rural based and come from an agricultural background, to ensure that at any age they will have an opportunity to augment their income because a small family farm can no longer sustain them. If we do not do so, people will leave remote rural parishes. In fact, they are already leaving such areas of which there are many in my constituency. We see schools declining and losing teachers while GAA and soccer teams are unable to field teams as they could ten or 15 years ago.

In the late 1960s, Carrigkerry in County Limerick had a vibrant community. Young people from the area were working in Rathkeale, Listowel, Newcastle West and Foynes. The village had a large lounge bar which could hold 700 or 800 people at night, but it is no longer there. The people have gone and so have the houses. It is now becoming a forest area. Those are among the stark changes we have witnessed in rural areas and we must do everything possible to reverse them.

I appreciate that the Minister is anxious to complete Second Stage this evening. I had planned to speak for 20 minutes but I will facilitate the Minister in allowing the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I sincerely thank the Deputies opposite, first, for their contributions to the debate and, second, for facilitating me in trying to deal with as many of the issues that have been raised as I can. If I do not deal with all of them now, I promise Deputies that I will do so on Committee Stage. If Deputies wish to raise any issues between now and Committee Stage, either with me or with my officials, they should feel free to do so. Deputies will appreciate that, for obvious reasons, there is a sense of urgency about this Bill.

Interventions and suggestions have been made by various Deputies in a positive manner and I will be as constructive as possible in examining them. The objectives of the directive on which the Bill is based are to provide for the removal of discrimination against part-time workers, to improve the quality of part-time work, to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis and to contribute to the flexible organisation of working time in a manner which takes account of employers and workers.

I would like to respond to some of the points that have been raised during the debate. Deputies Rabbitte and Carey referred to the possible adverse impact of this proposal on pensions of groups such as teachers and nurses who, for example, might work for a long period of years on the basis of a seven hour week. Deputies suggested that an exclusion which is based on falling below the threshold measured by a percentage of the normal working week might be a preferable alternative. This suggestion is worthy of examination and I will ask my officials to look at it. We can return to the matter at the Select Committee.

Some Deputies also criticised what they saw as the convoluted and circular wording of the Bill and questioned whether it could be understood by the average worker or trade union official. That is a legitimate criticism. I am assured that the language used in the Bill is necessary for the precise transposition into Irish law of the provisions of the directive. However, my Department, as is usual in this situation, will be providing an explanatory booklet on the Bill when enacted and this will be couched in every day language.

Deputy Ring pointed out correctly that if one wants people to work they must be treated properly. People are now more aware of their rights and entitlements and because of this my Department has an information unit which last year dealt with over 120,000 inquiries from the public about their employment rights. That proves that important issues have to be addressed. Deputies will appreciate that I am examining many other issues, including bullying in the workplace which is the subject of a task force. I know that both Deputies opposite have an interest in ensuring that we will deal with that issue. There are many workplace issues which we need to advance.

Deputy Bell mentioned inspectors and asked whether they can visit workplaces at night. We only recently negotiated that provision with the inspectors. Seven new inspectors have been appointed recently.

Deputies Carey, Callely and Neville raised the issue of people working beyond 65 and I agree that people should be able to do so. This may require amending the relevant pension legislation. I assure Deputies Naughten and Rabbitte on this point as they mentioned the taxation of pensioners. I have been clear about this. In my view, we should be giving older people a chance to go back to work if they wish to do so. The issues raised need to be examined in the context of older people wishing to return to work. I will formally convey those views to the relevant Ministers. Basically, age is an opportunity and not a threat.

Deputy Barnes referred to teleworking which is an issue for my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, to whom I will pass on her remarks. She also spoke about the employment action plan and, yes, member states' proposals in that area go to a summit for approval.

I look forward to dealing with this Bill on Committee Stage. ICTU and IBEC have suggested a number of changes which I will have to examine in the context of the Bill.

Deputy Callely welcomed the legislation and as Chairman of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business he will obviously be anxious to help us to ensure that the legislation is enacted as quickly as possible.

As regards the specifics of the Bill, a number of points mentioned by Deputies raise important issues which we can discuss in greater depth at the Select Committee. Deputy Barnes raised some technical issues which I will be dealing with on Committee Stage.

Many Deputies referred to issues which relate to other parts of my Department. Important points were made about community employment, and many of my colleagues on this side of the House have been raising these issues recently. I assure Deputies that I will convey those matters to the relevant sections in my Department and to the Tánaiste. They are issues of which people are very much aware. Deputy Connaughton from Mayo, an area I know well, raised some important issues. My brother, Deputy Michael Kitt, shares that constituency with Deputy Connaughton so I am very much aware of those matters.

Mrs. Barnes

I gathered that.

Mr. T. Kitt

I will be favourably disposed towards amendments within the context of the requirements of the directive which will help to improve the operational aspects of the Bill. I may not have dealt with all the issues but I assure Deputies that we will deal with them comprehensively on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 14 Feb 2001

Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 2001