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

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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Social partnership involving employers, employees and the Government has been the driving force of change in the workplace in recent years, although I appreciate a number of significant disputes have recently required attention. The social partnership process has been backed up by a well balanced mix of employment rights and labour legislation, which, together with measures designed to stimulate employment, provides an appropriate framework for the purpose of achieving an efficient and competitive business environment.

Employment rights legislation covering a range of areas, such as conditions of employment, has an important role to play in promoting labour market stability and minimising conflict. In keeping with Ireland's voluntarist tradition, collective agreements are generally the primary method of determining conditions of employment. The role of statute law has generally been limited to that of setting minimum levels of protection or entitlement.

Over the past 20 or 30 years Ireland has been to the forefront in ensuring that reasonable conditions of employment exist which set out clearly for both employers and employees their respective entitlements. Successive Governments have enacted legislation in the area of employment rights reflecting changes in society and the work place at both national and international levels, through, for example, the transposition of EU directives and reflecting in domestic law the standard setting activities of the International Labour Organisation and the Council of Europe. Such legislation has covered a wide range of areas including minimum notice and terms of employment; protection against unfair dismissal; payment of wages; organisation or working time; safeguarding of employees' rights on the transfer of undertakings; protection of young persons at work; safety, health and welfare; redundancy entitlements; and minimum wage entitlements.

The organisation of working time is an area where employment rights legislation has dramatically affected people's work and lifestyles. This area covers issues such as holiday entitlements, rest periods, maximum working time and night work. For example, 100 years ago people were primarily concerned with the industrial rev olution, especially the mechanisation of industry. Scientific and technological advances have in the interim greatly improved how we work while at the same time changing social needs and demands have influenced the length of time in terms of days and hours per week spent in the work place. In the 1930s the State set the maximum number of hours per week people worked, at 55 hours. This has been reduced over the years and in 1997 the Organisation of Working Time Act, which implemented EU Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993, set the maximum number of hours that may be worked in a week at 48.

All of these changes in employment rights legislation have also influenced employment trends and the numbers in employment, which have risen from 1.22 million in 1994 to 1.67 million today, an increase of one third. Part of this number includes 281,000 part-time workers. This represents 17% of the work force, with the majority being women. In 1997 women accounted for more than three quarters of all part-time workers and the incidence of part-time working among women increased from 16% of all women at work in 1983 to 23% in 1997. The numbers of part-time workers are expected to rise in the coming years and estimates suggest that for Ireland these figures could be as high as 500,000 by 2005.

The growth in part-time employment in the EU has continued up to 1998, the latest figures available. Total numbers of part-time workers in the EU have risen by an average of 14% overall during the period 1994-98, with 6% of men in employment and approximately 33% of women working part-time. However, these figures vary greatly from country to country. In the Netherlands the figure was 39% in 1998 while it was 6% in Greece, these being at the higher and lower ends of the scale respectively.

Despite the welcome trend in Ireland the economy is experiencing severe skills shortages. This is happening across Europe and to address this major problem the European Commission and the Council of Ministers have since 1998 and under the Luxembourg Process, each year requested member states to prepare an employment action plan setting out their respective Governments' proposals on how to improve the overall economic environment in terms of people at work. As part of this process member states' respective annual employment action plans are required to set out policies which, inter alia, facilitate opportunities for women who have raised their families and are keen to return to the work place, and formulate family friendly policies which facilitate, in particular, greater female participation in the work force. The European Commission guidelines for 2001, the fourth year of this process, set out a number of horizontal objectives aimed at building conditions for full employment in a knowledge based society. These detailed guidelines require member states to formulate policies involving a more employment friendly approach through a review, where necessary, of benefits, taxes and training systems and positive measures to maintain the skills and working capacity of older workers in particular, through sufficient access to education and training and flexible working conditions, such as part-time work.

With regard to the taxation system, the Government has in recent budgets substantially reduced the burden on the PAYE sector, thereby making the option of working more attractive. Furthermore, the Government, recognising the need for improved family friendly policies, introduced a series of initiatives, including the extension of paid maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks and unpaid maternity leave from four to eight weeks, announced in last December's budget. Last July the Government also increased parental leave. Last week I moved the Second Stage of the Carer's Leave Bill, 2000, which provides for up to 65 weeks unpaid leave from employment to care for persons requiring full-time care and attention. This social legislation is a first for Europe and I expect its early passage through the House in the coming weeks.

With regard to developing policies to facilitate older workers, recent research indicates, for example, that by 2020 the numbers of people in Ireland aged 65 and over will be approximately 700,000. At a recent conference held under the auspices of the Swedish EU Presidency, entitled Work Life, 2000 – Quality of Work, a number of speakers highlighted the need for Governments across Europe to fill job shortages through innovative policies which would involve people working beyond the current retirement age of 65 on a part-time basis. In this connection three types of measure have been introduced in some member states in recent years to reduce the extent of early retirement and to encourage people to remain longer in work. These include increasing the official age of retirement or eligibility to a full pension; the introduction of partial retirement schemes which enable older employees to work part-time while receiving a partial pension and so withdraw gradually from employment; and the provision of incentives to encourage businesses to retain older employees in work for longer.

The scenario I have just painted set us all both a challenge and an opportunity. In this context the timing of our discussion on this Bill is, therefore, opportune. The Bill seeks to implement the provision of EU Directive 97/81/EC 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 – the UNICE, the Union of Industrial Employers Confederations of Europe, the CEEP, the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation, and the ETUC, the European Trade Union Confederation. The directive was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 15 December 1997 and was to have been implemented in member states not later than 20 January 2000. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment notified the European Commission of the intention to postpone the implementation date by up to one year, that is, 20 January 2001, as allowed for by the directive, to take account of special difficulties.

The main objectives of the directive 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. A tripartite working group, including representatives from the social partners, IBEC and the ICTU, and relevant Departments, the Departments of Finance, Social, Community and Family Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, was established to discuss the measures necessary for the implementation of the directive in this country. The deliberations of the group have contributed to and influenced the composition of the Bill. I thank ICTU and IBEC for their work at European and national level in framing the Bill, which will have a major social impact in Ireland in the years ahead.

The scope of the directive is expressed as applying to part-time workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreement or practice in force 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 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.

The provisions of the Bill are influenced by the terms of the directive. In addition, we have had detailed discussions with the social partners, ICTU and IBEC, and both support the intent of the Bill. ICTU and IBEC have both raised a number of issues, mainly of a technical nature, which are being considered and which we can discuss further in committee. In this context, I would like to mention specifically the pension entitlements of part-time workers. The Bill honours the Government's commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness that the definition of remuneration in the Bill would include occupational pensions. However, in terms of practicality, section 9(4) provides that, in so far as it relates to a scheme or arrangement, the entitlement of a part-time employee under section 9(1), that is, not to be treated in a less favourable manner than a comparable full-time employee, shall apply only to such part-time employees who normally work more than eight hours in a week.

I will outline in detail the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 is a standard provision dealing with the short title, collective citation and construction of the Bill. Section 2 provides that the Bill will come into operation on a day or days to be prescribed. Section 3 sets down the main definitions associated with the Bill. Section 4 empowers the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make regulations and orders prescribing any matter or thing which is referred to in the Bill as prescribed or to be prescribed or for the purpose of enabling any provision of the Bill to have full effect. Section 5 repeals the Worker Protection (Regulator Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991. Section 6 is a standard provision in legislation stating that the expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of the Bill shall be paid out of money provided by the Oireachtas.

Section 7 deals with the definitions associated with Part 2 of the Bill. Section 8 provides that each relevant enactment, as defined in section 3, shall apply to a part-time employee in the same way as it applies, other than by virtue of the Bill, to an employee to whom that enactment relates. Section 9 provides that, generally, a part-time employee shall not be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee in respect of his or her conditions of employment. Section 9(2), however, provides that a part-time employee may, in respect of a particular condition of employment, be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee provided that treatment is based on objective grounds. Also, section 9(4) provides that a part-time employee who normally works less than 8 hours per week may be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee in relation to pensions.

Section 10 provides that a benefit accorded to a part-time employee under section 9(1) shall be on the basis of the principle of pro rata temporis, that is, shall be related to the proportion which the normal hours of work of that employee bears to the normal hours of work of the full-time comparator concerned. Section 11 provides that a part-time employee who works on a casual basis, as defined in the section, may be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee if objective grounds exist to justify such less favourable treatment. Section 11(6) provides that the Minister shall, from time to time, review the operation of this section and may, following such a review, prescribe a class or classes of such employee to be a class or classes of employees to whom this section shall not apply.

Section 12 provides that a ground for treating an employee less favourably shall not be regarded as an objective ground for that purpose unless it is based on considerations other than the part-time status of the employee. The less favourable treatment involved for the employee must be for the purpose of achieving a legitimate objective of the employer, and such treatment must be appropriate and necessary for that purpose.

Section 13 provides that the Labour Relations Commission may, and at the request of the Minister, in order to identify obstacles to a person being able to perform part-time work, study every industry and sector of employment and make recommendations as to how obstacles identified in such study could be eliminated. The commission shall report to the Minister on any study and shall publish such study and recommendations. Section 13(4) provides that, in drawing up recommendations, the commission shall invite oral or written submissions from appropriate organisations representative of employers and employees and shall take account of such submissions in preparing its recommendations.

Section 14 provides that a provision in any employment agreement shall be void in so far as it is inconsistent with any provision of the Bill. Section 15 provides that an employer shall not penalise an employee for having lawfully opposed an Act which is unlawful under this Bill. Section 15(2) states that penalisation for this purpose includes dismissal, unfavourable change in conditions of employment or any unfair treatment, including selection for redundancy. An employee may now seek relief against such penalisation under this Bill and under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

Section 16 provides that a complaint by an employee, or by a trade union of which the employee is a member, that the employer has contravened sections 9 or 15 of the Bill in relation to that employee, may be presented to a rights commissioner. The rights commissioner shall issue a written decision in the matter and communicate that decision to the parties. The decision of the rights commissioner may require the employer to pay compensation, subject to a limit of two years of the employee's remuneration. A complaint to a rights commissioner must be made within six months of the date of contravention of the Bill. This period may be extended by a further 12 months if the commissioner is satisfied that failure to refer the case within six months was due to reasonable cause. The hearing before the rights commissioner shall be conducted in private.

Section 17 provides that a decision of a rights commissioner may be appealed to the Labour Court within six weeks of the date of the decision. The Labour Court shall issue a determination in writing affirming, varying or setting aside the decision of the rights commissioner. The Labour Court may request the Minister to refer a question of law arising in proceedings before it under this section to the High Court for final and conclusive determination. Where a decision of the rights commissioner has not been carried out by the employer, and an appeal against the decision has not been brought within the time allowed for doing so, the employee may, within six weeks after the expiry of that time, refer the complaint to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall, without hearing any evidence, make a determi nation to the like effect as the decision of the rights commissioner.

Section 18 provides that, where an employer fails to implement a determination of the Labour Court within six weeks from the date it is communicated to the parties and the determination has not been appealed within the appropriate time limit, the Circuit Court shall, on application to it by the employee concerned, a trade union of which the employee is a member, or the Minister, and without hearing any evidence, make an order directing the employer to implement the determination.

Section 19, relating to prosecution, is a technical section relating to the evidence of a person's failure to attend before, to give evidence or to produce documents to the Labour Court.

Section 20 confirms that Irish employee protection legislation conforms to the requirements of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. In this regard, the section provides that a range of employee protection legislation applies to workers posted to work in this country, both within the meaning of the directive and otherwise, in exactly the same way as it applies to Irish workers covered by the legislation.

Section 21 provides for an amendment of section 14(2) of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 – relating to collective redundancies – to increase the amount of the fine provided for therein from £3,000 to £10,000 in regard to an indictable offence.

As Minister with responsibility for labour affairs, I am satisfied that the right to reasonable conditions of employment should and will continue to be enshrined in employment rights legislation. It is our duty as elected and accountable legislators to play a proactive approach in ensuring any such future legislation reflects the needs and expectations of both employers and employees, is framed in such a way as to respond to the needs of society as a whole and reflects the ongoing changes taking place at an enormous pace in the labour market.

The Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000 is, without doubt, a major change in our employment rights legislation and will change the employment landscape in the years ahead. There is an obligation on us as legislators to move ahead with its swift passage through the Houses. Right now there are some 270,000 part-time employees waiting for its enactment so that they can continue to work in the knowledge that they now, for the first time, will have statutory entitlements which will facilitate their continuation in employment and encourage even higher numbers of part-time workers onto the labour market in the years ahead, for the reasons I have outlined.

Clearly there is strong evidence that part-time work will become more common in the years ahead. Some of the figures I outlined, particularly in relation to older people returning to the workforce, are revealing. There has been much debate about our role in Europe but in this regard we are in tandem with Europe. I regularly attend the Social Affairs Council and I am conscious of the strong influence Europe has on Ireland in this area. It is a positive influence and is in accord with the way Ireland is developing.

I am delighted to be able to bring forward this legislation. I explained in my replies to various parliamentary questions the reasons for some of the delays. There are also issues my colleagues in the House will be anxious to deal with on Second and Committee Stages and I will be happy to listen to their contributions. I commend the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Bill to the House.

Mr. Naughten

I welcome the introduction, at last, of this Bill. It affords Members an opportunity to address some of the issues in relation to part-time workers. These workers have been largely ignored in the past but they will become more important in the years ahead.

The Irish business sector has undergone a remarkable transformation in the 1990s. Private sector non-agricultural employment has increased by 400,000 or by more than 50% in the last decade. Almost 80% of employment growth has come from indigenously owned companies in the manufacturing or services sectors. In the more open global marketplace where Ireland must now compete, competitiveness will be more important than ever. We must protect the competitive strengths we have carefully built.

Despite our economic success, Ireland still exhibits certain structural weaknesses. To succeed a small open economy must be more nimble than its competitors. 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 the route to high paid employment which Ireland must take.

The Government failed to meet its commitment 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. Part-time workers, as a consequence, have lost 12 months' pension entitlements, pay and so forth. Sadly, the Minister did not mention the issue of retrospective pay and entitlements for the workers who missed out due to the 12 month delay in introducing this legislation. I hope the Minister will give a commitment that at least the Government Departments that employ part-time workers will make up those contributions.

The Government was obliged to implement the 1997 EU Council directive on part-time working by 20 January 2000 but received a derogation until 20 January this year. During the negotiations on PPF, commitments were given that the Bill would be before the Oireachtas no later than last June. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, gave a number of commitments that the legislation would become law by 20 January this year, the final deadline permitted by the European Commission. Alas, the standard practice of this Government, to drag its heels on vital legislation, is again evident.

This Bill will replace the 1990 legislation under which part-time employees had to work at least eight hours per week for 13 weeks to be eligible for protection. Only a fraction of part-time employees, therefore, benefited from it. The new Bill is expected to cover most of the 280,600 people classified as part-time workers as it provides for no 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 on the same basis as full-time employees. They will also be covered by unfair dismissals, minimum notice and redundancy legislation.

Since 1987 the ratio of part-time workers has increased from one in 15 of the workforce to one in eight. Furthermore, a recent study shows most employees are working fewer hours than before. Over the past 17 years, the average working week in Ireland has fallen from 44 hours per week to 38. The study found most full-time workers want to shorten full-time weeks and most part-time workers want to work longer part-time weeks. While the debate to date has been about women's labour force participation becoming closer to that of men, it would be more accurate now to see women as leading the way towards a greater fragmentation of the time structure of all those at work.

Labour shortages are one of the greatest current threats to the continued prosperity of many businesses. Firms are now reporting vacancy rates approaching 10% across all grades. The tightest grade is computer professionals where more than 15% vacancies are recorded. New forms of flexible employment relationships, particularly part-time work, are becoming increasingly important to the Irish labour market to provide for the consolidation and expansion of Irish industry.

Arrangements regarding employment and social insurance legislation have failed to keep in step with this development, since the organisation of such arrangements continues to be based on open ended, full-time employment relationships as the norm. That is far from the reality of employment in Ireland today. Part-time workers are discriminated against by comparison to full-time workers with open ended contracts in respect of terms of employment, such as protection against dismissal, paid annual leave, continuation of pay in the event of sickness, parental leave, vocational training and so forth, and in respect of social insurance, such as unemployment, pension and sickness insurance.

This is further compounded by the fact that more than 80% of part-time workers are women and that this legislation does not contribute to making part-time work more attractive. The Minister referred to the European Commission guidelines for 2001 which state that a more employment friendly approach with necessary benefits in tax, training and so forth was needed. However, he made no further mention of the matter. Perhaps he will deal with that in his reply and enlighten the House on the discussions he has had with ICTU and IBEC in that regard. This legislation sets a minimum, not a maximum, standard but many employers could see it as a maximum target. If that is the case our economy will groan due to the lack of staff to fill the labour shortages. While the Bill will guarantee that part-time workers may not be treated less favourably than full-time workers, employers will, in order to fill vacant posts, have to treat part-time workers more favourably than set out in this legal requirement.

We must introduce targeted measures for women in employment in the areas of training and equal pay for equal work. A large number of women – 32% of the female workforce – are in atypical or casual work and there is a need for practical measures to bring this division in the labour market to an end. Efforts should also be made to create more part-time jobs covered by social contributions, offering women both social security and the possibility of combining employment with child rearing. This requires measures to facilitate the reintegration of women into working life and measures designed to make family life and work more compatible.

For my generation the debate is about equity, fair play for all and how we use the wealth we have created in the interest of all our people. The most successful economies are ones that are competitive and have flexible labour markets. Fine Gael aims to support the role of women both in the home and in the workplace. We will not support policies that seek to conscript women into the labour force, as this Government does with the introduction of individualisation. We will respect the choice of individual women to work in or outside the home. Depending on family circumstances, the choice to work within the home or outside of it must be reversible. While female participation rates in the work force have increased dramatically, the failure to develop an adequate public child care policy has made it difficult for many women to participate. It is estimated that child care costs in Ireland represent 20% of average earnings compared to 8% in the rest of Europe. In many cases, both parents work outside the home as the prohibitive cost of housing leaves them no other choice. Of the mothers of younger children, 42% are in employment. For working parents, the stress of rearing a child commences within weeks of its birth when maternity or paternity leave ends.

It is now almost impossible to obtain quality child care at an affordable price in many areas. The implementation of health board regulations has already resulted in the loss of at least 4,000 child care places nationally. The quality of child care is an increasing concern for parents. Existing regulations concentrate on the physical features and staff ratios of child care facilities. Greater attention must be given to improving the quality of child care provision. This must not be achieved by setting rigid qualification requirements, as these will only drive out existing providers, but through the provision of access to support and training for child care providers through local networks.

Fine Gael proposes five key steps – two local and three national – which must be taken in the area of child care provision. 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. Unused primary school rooms should be franchised for the purposes of child care provision in after-school hours. Child benefit payments should be significantly increased for children under five years of age and a smaller increase should be provided in regard to children between five and ten years. That would guarantee the 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. Individual families should have the resources to make their own choices.

Additional mortgage relief up to £500 per child should be provided to reflect that a child takes up as much housing space as its parents, space which is becoming increasingly expensive. Extra mortgage relief would increase the disposable income of families on whom mortgage and child care costs are a heavy burden. A proper capitation system for child care providers, placing special emphasis on low income families, should be introduced. Payments of the order of £10 per week must be considered if we are to have a range of quality child care services.

To date, part-time workers have been excluded from company pension schemes. This legislation will entitle them to the same provisions as full-time workers, once they work more than eight hours. However, the legislation is not retrospective, a fact the Minister failed to mention in the course of his speech. Will the Minister enlighten us on the implications of a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice which may entitle part-time workers to backdate their pension rights to 1976? In the British Preston case, part-time workers were discriminated against on gender grounds by not being allowed to join their employer's pension scheme. Only full-time employees were eligible to join and most of the part-time workers were female and most of the full-time workers were male. Therefore, the full-time requirement indirectly discriminated against part-time workers. How will such developments in European equality law on part-time workers impact here and will these developments need to be tested in Irish courts before the rights of Irish workers are clarified? The Minister will be aware that pension litigation is quite rare in this State.

The Minister touched on the issue of pensions in his speech and pointed out that some European countries have raised the official retirement age for eligibility for full pensions. In some of these countries, people over 65 years of age can remain in full-time or part-time employment and receive a partial pension. Does the Government intend to introduce similar measures here and, if so, does it intend to inform pensioners or those approaching pension age of its objectives? This is a fundamental question which the Minister must address.

People in receipt of an occupational or non-contributory old age pension experience a sizeable drop in income on leaving employment. Many elderly people would welcome the opportunity to work part time. Some of them need to work to subsidise their pension payments. The Minister seems to be indicating that such people will be penalised. They will not be able to avail of their occupational pensions at 65 years of age and, even if they can, they will not be able to subsidise their pension payments because they will be subject to a claw-back if they take up part-time work.

Early retirement pensions have created obstacles to people who wish to return to the work force. Nurses, particularly psychiatric nurses, availed of early retirement and were prevented from returning to the system. The Western Health Board cannot get sufficient psychiatric nurses for some of its services, yet such staff were offered early retirement as recently as five years ago. The nurses are willing to return to the work force but the legislation is putting obstacles in their path. Does the Minister propose to create further barriers in this area through a claw-back provision rather than encourage people to return to work? That is what I understand from his speech.

An increased age limit on pensions will not increase flexibility in the area of employment. People in their late fifties and early sixties are crossing off the days until they can get out of the rut in which they find themselves. These people may have experience to offer to other employers if they could avail of part-time employment and receive their occupational pensions. It is important that the Minister clarifies his position on this matter. I know many people in receipt of occupational pensions who are returning to the work force with a heart and a half—

Mr. T. Kitt

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy but I would be happy to clarify my position. The message I sought to convey was that I favoured older people returning to the work force.

Mr. Naughten

That was not indicated in the Minister's speech and I would welcome further clarification on this issue which is of concern to many people.

I would also like the Minister to address the treatment of substitute teachers. Temporary and qualified teachers perform the same duties as their permanent counterparts yet there is a discrepancy in the remuneration paid. Will the Bill resolve that? Furthermore, what impact will this legislation have on the so-called unqualified substitute teachers? Many of them have the same qualifications, and some are even more qualified, than their counterparts in full-time employment in the teaching profession but because they do not have the required Irish, they are severely discriminated against in terms of remuneration, earning just over half the salary of those doing the same job but who have Irish. Will that be defined as objective grounds under this legislation?

While in general terms these measures will be welcomed by the farming community, where part-time work helps to support small holdings, serious implications arise from part-time work which should be brought to the attention of both the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the European Commission. The main one is the exclusion from certain EU sponsored schemes, for example, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development debars applicants from the EU's early retirement scheme if they are found to be engaged in part-time work for a period prior to their application. At the same time the Commission, through this 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 in relation to pension entitlements.

Those farmers with holdings of 15 or 16 hectares who simply must supplement their incomes with off-farm work in order to survive are currently being discriminated against. Surely it was to these 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 of their off-farm income. I hope the Minister will address that issue also in his response because on the one hand the EU is talking about promoting part-time work while on the other, through its arm in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, it is discriminating against part-time workers. As the Minister knows, coming from the west, many of the holdings are not viable. A farmer, especially under the current regime, cannot survive in agriculture and farmers need to supplement their incomes through part-time work.

I also hope this legislation will now support home helps who have been a key element in the provision of services to the elderly in the community. These people have been blatantly discriminated against in the past and I hope that not only will the Department of Health and Children fulfil the legislative requirements immediately but that it will make provision for the back payment of moneys to this vital sector of our health services.

Last night and tonight we debate the issue of the scandal surrounding the nursing home subventions. There is a similar scandal in relation to home helps. We have talked about the abuse of part-time workers here in the past and this legislation is to protect their rights. However, one of the biggest culprits involved in the abuse of part-time workers has been the Department of Health and Children in relation to home helps and I hope it will now give a commitment to repay those moneys and ensure that their rights are protected and that those people are encouraged to stay in that sector.

With regard to sections 9 and 12, will the Minister elaborate on the type of objective grounds which would debar part-time workers from being treated as favourably as their full-time colleagues? Section 9(2) provides for such discrimination on objective grounds but the Minister in his contribution did not outline those objective grounds or give an example of what we are talking about. Is it the case that the example I have already given in relation to substitute teachers will be considered objective grounds, where people are doing the same hours and the same work but because they are not full-time or permanent employees they are being discriminated against and paid, on an hourly rate, much less than their full-time or permanent colleagues? Is that the type of objective grounds we are talking about? Is section 9(2) a loophole for the Government to get out of paying people their just entitlements? Will the same thing happen in relation to home helps? Will they be left behind because of this clause in section 9(2), and the same issue is addressed in section 12 in relation to causal work? That issue should be addressed.

Will these objective grounds discriminate against part-time farmers? I want to make sure that we do not leave loopholes in this legislation so that Departments can continue to ignore the rights of part-time workers. I want a commitment from the Minister of State today that that will not happen in relation to this section because it is futile for us to come in here and talk about protecting the rights of part-time workers if an opt-out clause is left in the legislation for various Departments, some of the major employers in the country, to avoid paying part-time workers their full entitlements.

Section 20 protects the rights of posted or contract workers in employment outside Ireland and foreign workers posted in Ireland. Will the Minister expand on this section to specifically deal with the abuse of foreign workers on work permits in Ireland? I welcome section 20, which will protect the rights of Irish workers doing posted or contract work abroad, but I will make one point in relation to that. If the going rate for a tradesman here is £500 a week and we bring in German employees or people from anywhere else in the EU or outside it to deliver on our national development plan, where the going rate is £600 or £700 per week, what will happen in that situation? They are guaranteed £500 but they will not come to Ireland for £500 per week if they can get £600 or £700 per week working in Dusseldorf. I would like the Minister to address that point.

Coming back to the issue of work permits, I have raised in the House on a number of occasions media reports that eastern Europeans are being paid less than the minimum wage in a company in the midlands, that a Filipino national was threatened with deportation because she worked a day and a night shift for 18 hours without any meal breaks and that six nurses coming here had their contracts changed on arrival. A further report was of an Irish-based agent who is an employee of a semi-State company and who charges a 10% fee on individual Romanian salaries. Sixty people are under such a contract. I was amazed that when these reports were published in the media, the individual involved who works in a semi-State company had no problem admitting that he was charging this 10% levy, which is totally contrary to the 1971 Employment Agency Act. I would be surprised if this individual is even registered with the Department under the Employment Agency Act.

I hope the Minister can enlighten us on the types of investigations that have taken place in this area. He has said that he is reviewing the legislation. There is no question that there are loopholes in it in regard to people who come to this country being abused by citizens or residents of this State. I fully accept it is more complex in terms of the country of origin, but we have a certain amount of control in relation to problems which arise here and in fairness we should deal with them. I know the Minister is dealing with other issues – it is a complex matter and I fully support him. What investigations are taking place and what progress has been made on these matters? The only way employers and employment agencies will change their ways is if these investigations are conducted and prosecutions take place.

What progress is being made in the departmental investigation into the sale of work permits for £6,000? It is claimed that a group of businessmen involved has secured dozens of work permits. This is a fundamental issue which questions the integrity of the entire work permit system and of the staff working in that section. The investigation should be completed as soon as possible and the results published for the sake of those staff who are doing a very difficult job under huge pressure.

In the years ahead it is likely part-time working will prove an accelerating phenomenon. Where within the State will the additional labour come from to fill our skills shortage? It seems there are a number of very limited possibilities, one being women in the home who have skills and who left the workplace because of the obligations and responsibilities of raising children, which are taken on not exclusively but predominantly by women. Those women have acquired significant skills and retraining, if necessary, would be a very brief exercise. Given family friendly workplaces, more women would return to the workforce, and that is one area towards which the Bill is directed, though we still have a long way to go. For example, Deputy Naughten dealt with child care and he is correct in what he said. Parents are immensely concerned about the quality, and the absence, of child care facilities. Women working part-time is likely, therefore, to be an area of continued expansion and will be a source of domestic labour which is necessary to the economy.

Another area where we can find domestic labour is older people. No more than lifelong learning, the notion of having to quit one's job at 60 or even 65 years of age is not necessarily absolute. If the workplace arrangements are flexible, older people with immense experience can be induced to return to the workforce in circumstances which suit them.

There are areas of acute need in some professions. Deputy Naughten dealt with nursing, for example. It is incumbent upon us to facilitate, even if only for one night a week, the re-entry of nurses who have acquired valuable skills and who, because of child and family responsibilities, cannot return to the hospital service. It is happening in the teaching area. In the teaching area, it is quite common that teachers contribute what are described as part-time hours. In that regard, I am disappointed that the Minister has gone out of his way in the Bill in section 9(4)—

Mr. T. Kitt

Is it the matter of the eight hours?

Mr. Rabbitte

—to exclude from pension entitlements, workers who do less than eight hours per week.

On the face of it, people listening to this debate at 2.15 a.m. tomorrow morning when RTE broadcasts it may ask why I complain about people on eight hours not getting a pension. If one examines this, one sees that for instance the Teachers' Union of Ireland would consider eight hours to be a significant teaching burden for a part-time worker. There are many people in universities who do not teach for 16 hours per week. They teach for considerably less, so eight hours is a significant complement of teaching hours. To remove the entitlement of those people to pensions is wrong. Will the Minister of State think about it again?

Mr. T. Kitt

I thank the Deputy for his suggestions. I will ask my officials to examine that in the context of the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. Rabbitte

I appreciate that. If we must leave in some kind of threshold it would be better to express it as a proportion or a percentage. If one works in the normal 40 hour week workplace environment, eight hours may seem to be a low threshold and it would only be a fraction of the normal working week. However, in an area like teaching, if it was expressed as a proportion, it would bring teachers over that threshold and that would be a positive contribution.

From time to time, a Bill comes before this House, whose language is incapable of penetration. Such a Bill has now come before the House. I have no idea why it is necessary to present a not too complex issue in such impenetrable, opaque, obtuse language. This beats all, in terms of the unfortunate people who might be expected to benefit from it.

For example, to examine something as fundamental to the Bill as the definition of part-time worker, "part-time employee" according to section 7, 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." What does that mean?

It defines that "comparable employee" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2);". Subsection (2) is utterly incapable of understanding. What is a "comparable employee"? For example, subsection (2) states "For the purposes of this Part, an employee is a comparable employee in relation to the employee firstly mentioned in the definition of "part-time employee" in this section (the "first mentioned employee") if–" paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are there. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are similarly circular and difficult in the language.

The learned lawyers and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government have good reasons for many of these things but this is as difficult a Bill in that sense as one would meet in a long day. The persistent use of double negatives throughout, the use of circular language that brings one back to where one was before and so on, makes it a very difficult area.

In terms of the definition of a casual employee, for example, he or she is defined as a person who works on a casual basis and does not fall within a class of employee prescribed under subsection (6). Section 11 (2) states:

"Notwithstanding section 9 (1), a part-time employee to whom this section applies may, if such less favourable treatment can be justified on objective grounds, be treated, in respect of a particular condition of employment, in a less favourable manner than a comparable full-time employee.”.

There is no definition in the Bill of a "comparable full-time employee". There is no such thing in the Bill. There is a "comparable employee" and a "part-time employee". There is no such thing as a comparable, full-time employee.

As Deputy Naughten said, I hope much of this is not for the purpose of providing loop-holes and escape hatches for when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. T. Kitt

I appreciate the Deputy's point. We will have explanatory booklets for the consumer and worker.

Mr. Naughten

We could do with them.

Mr. T. Kitt

And for Members of the Dáil.

Mr. Rabbitte

I appreciate the commitment the Minister of State has given to produce intelligible brochures or leaflets for trade union officials and others that will be concerned with this, explaining what these circular terms mean. Certainly, in so far as the transposition of Directives of European Union law into Irish law is supposed to pass the intelligible language test, this does not and on occasions the language is so circular to make it difficult to define what is intended by it.

It is not accessible to the majority of employees who are likely to benefit from it. That the Minister uses this circular language, which departs, for example, from the definitions used in the Directive, makes it more difficult. For example, a "full-time employee" in the Bill means an employee "who is not a part-time employee" and a "part-time employee" is someone "whose normal hours of work are less than the normal hours of work of a comparable employee" who, in turn, is only defined in terms of his relationship with the part-time employee. This kind of definition succeeds only in bringing us around in circles.

The Bill appears to create three classes of part-time worker – first, a class of part-time employee who cannot be treated less favourably or discriminated against, second, a class of part-time employee, against whom the employer may discriminate in certain circumstances and third a class of casual part-time worker who would appear to have no rights under the Bill. Since the Bill purports to repeal the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, it is not clear whether there is any class of worker who had some entitlements under that Act and who now loses those entitlements. I hope the Minister of State can say there is no such class of worker.

Section 11, for example, differentiates between a "part-time worker" and a part-time worker who works on a casual basis, although the difference between the two is not clearly set out. Section 11 (3) seems to state that part-time employees who work on a casual basis are still entitled to the protection of employment legislation, that is, the relevant enactments. Does this mean that part-time employees who may be described as regular part-time employees and part-time employees who work on a casual basis have the same entitlements in terms of the existing employment legislation?

For example, if I work four hours per week for one year, I should now have the protection of the unfair dismissals legislation. However, if I work for 15 hours most weeks in the same year but am not offered any hours of work during some weeks of that period, am I still protected under the Unfair Dismissals Act even though my employment might be considered by my employer to be part-time on a casual basis?

Section 11 attempts to define a part-time employee working on a casual basis. However, the following points seem to emerge. To be part-time on a casual basis the employee must have been in the continuous service of the employer for a period of less than 13 weeks. In addition, that period of service and any previous period of service with the same employer must not be of such a nature as may reasonably be regarded as regular or seasonal employment. Service is deemed to be continuous unless it is terminated by dismissal of the employee by the employer or by the resignation of the employee. People can be part-time employees working on a casual basis if they fulfil conditions specified in a collective agreement that applies to them and designates them as working on a casual basis. Presumably this will be a matter for trade unions and employers to agree on.

These points serve more to provoke questions than to provide answers. Is it safe to presume that a part-time employee with 14 weeks' service cannot be considered to be working on a casual basis? What if that employee only worked 12 weeks during the 14 week period? Given that service is continuous unless broken by dismissal or termination, this would still appear to be 14 weeks' service. Do these provisions allow an employer to terminate employment after 12 weeks, rehire the same employee some weeks later and claim this part-time employee is working on a casual basis on the assertion that his or her employment is not regular or seasonal?

These provisions do not appear to explain the position of the part-time employee who may not be offered work every week by the employer. If they have over 13 weeks' service they are not casual. If they have not been dismissed, their service is continuous even though there may be gaps in their employment. The question is whether a part-time employee who works on a sporadic basis would be entitled to bring, for example, an unfair dismissal claim if they have been in the job for over a year without being dismissed even though they may not have worked every week.

I recommend to the Minister and his officials a commentary on the Bill prepared by FLAC. It raises questions the answers to which are not clear from the legislation as it stands. These people work at the coal face in terms of welfare and employment rights in this area. They have a good deal of experience on the ground and made a valuable commentary on the Bill dealing with minimum pay.

Section 13 seems to relate to clause 5 of the directive which is entitled "Opportunities for Part-time Work". The Minister has omitted parts 2 and 3 of clause 5. I wonder why. Part 2 states that a worker's refusal to transfer from full-time to part-time work or vice versa should not in itself constitute a valid reason for termination of employment subject to national law and practice. In this respect given that in Irish employment and contract law, a contract cannot be unilaterally varied without consent, such a refusal should not be allowed to give rise to a valid termination of employment. However, part 3 appears to be the more serious omission. It requires that, as far as possible, an employer should give consideration to a request by workers to transfer from full-time to part-time work that becomes available in the enterprise; requests by workers to transfer from part-time work to full-time work or to increase their working time should the opportunity arise; the provision of timely information on the availability of part-time and full-time positions in the establishment in order to facilitate transfers from full-time to part-time work and vice versa; and measures to facilitate access to part-time work at all levels of the enterprise, for example, the provision of appropriate information on part-time working in the enterprise to existing bodies representing workers.

These are very important omissions. I have no idea why the Minister chose to exclude them. I do not differ with many of the sentiments he expressed but if he is serious about his aspirations towards a more flexible, family friendly workforce, why should he want to excise from the provisions of the directive the facility to transfer from part-time working to full-time working and vice versa? For example, one of the main purposes of those parts is to encourage job sharing. As I understand the thrust of the directive, where a suitable job sharing opportunity exists it requires the employer to facilitate that arrangement. We heard many fine words from the Minister and I do not impute any lack of genuineness to him. We heard about the nature of the modern workforce, the responsibilities of families, the duties of, most frequently, the mother and the desirability of increasing the rates of participation by women in the workforce. Yet a pivotal section of the directive that is designed to facilitate the transfer from full-time to part-time working and part-time to full-time working and facilitate job sharing is not in the legislation. I am sure the Minister will deal with that issue in his reply. There may be a good explanation but it escapes me. We should re-import that into the legislation as was intended. It would be in keeping with the Berlin as distinct from the Boston model and I know that recommends itself to Deputy Kitt even if he has difficulty in getting it past his senior Minister.

The Minister referred to the fact that legislation was enacted in the 1930s to cap the working week at 55 hours. It is remarkable when you look at developments here over the past 20 years. A number of experts wrote booklets explaining the difficulty we would have coping with our leisure time in 2000. We would be working four day weeks, just like journalists, and would find it difficult to fill our leisure time. It is remarkable that we work more hours now than we did 20 years ago. The advent of new technologies and the information age were supposed to bring about a situation where we could earn greater income for half the time at work. It has not turned out that way for a variety of reasons. Twenty years ago a great many clerical white collar employees worked a 35 hour week, whereas the trend has been the other way in recent times. When one takes into account the length of time it takes one to travel to and from work the working week is much longer now than it was then.

This is an additional reason for us as a society and for those in charge of managing the economy to plan for the participation in the workforce of irregular, atypical and part-time working. We ought to do everything we can to facilitate these on a flexible basis. Therefore, the two parts of the directive not enshrined in the Bill ought to be brought on board.

There are many other points I would like to make but time does not permit me to do so. Nevertheless I will have the opportunity to do so on Committee Stage. For example, the number of areas remitted to the rights commissioner is narrow. There are other matters the rights commissioner could reasonable be asked to adjudicate on. Congress raised a point about the provision under which workers shall not be treated less favourably as distinct from the directive which prohibits the less favourable treatment of workers. I will examine that nuance and a number of other points on Committee Stage.

Mr. P. Carey

I welcome the Bill. Last week we debated the legislation dealing with carer's leave, while prior to that we debated the minimum wage legislation. Tomorrow we will debate European directives and the impact they have had on domestic legislation. If Deputy Rabbitte is interested, I prefer Berlin to Boston for a range of reasons.

There is little doubt that there has been a dramatic change in the profile of the workforce during the past number of years. I will not recite the statistics given by the Minister as we can see evidence of this all around us. The opportunities created by the Government have made it easier for workers to participate in the workforce at different levels. There has been a huge increase in the number of women who are opting to return to the workforce. They are doing this for a variety of reasons, for example, pure economic reasons, career reasons and self-development reasons. Many older people are remaining in the workforce. This is an issue I would like to return to. Younger people and students are entering the workforce in a unique way. In ways they are almost para-workers as they are neither fish nor fowl. Hopefully the legislation will take account of these categories.

We talk about the need for family friendly policies, flexibility, etc., and the Bill goes some way towards addressing these issues. Section 9 states that part-time employees should not be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee if that treatment is based on objective grounds. This is an important provision.

Deputy Rabbitte referred to the teaching profession, in which I was involved for a number of years during the early stage of my career. There has been an increasing level of "part-timeism" in the teaching profession during recent years. As the Acting Chairman, Deputy Coughlan, knows from her involvement in vocational education committees, part of this has been regulated and EPT teachers have made significant progress in terms of their conditions of employment. However, as others have rightly said, there is an increasing number of teachers who work very few hours. They may be providing home tuition for difficult students who have been excluded from school, working on a specialist basis in schools or working across a number of schools. I was happy to hear the Minister say that a provision would be introduced under section 9(4) to deal with people who work less than eight hours per week. The number of these people will increase in the future. Agency care workers are being employed by residential homes, child care centres, etc., on a low threshold. These workers need to be protected.

I wish to refer to a number of categories of work which are mainly related to women and are all related to part-time working, that is, contract catering and contract cleaning. Hundreds, if not thousands, of women in my constituency get up at 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. to clean office blocks in town, universities, etc. They work extremely hard for a not very good reward. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that the conditions under which they work are extremely poor and much less favourable than the conditions for day-time workers and those in the normal workforce. An investigation into the alleged practice by some contract cleaners to hire people under assumed names would be merited. The implications of this practice are enormous both from a moral point of view and its significant impact on the workers' entitlements under their real names. This issue has been brought to my attention and I am concerned about it. As I understand it, this practice is not confined to smaller companies. I have a similar concern about outdoor catering and to a lesser extent about the security industry. A Bill which will regulate the security industry will shortly be brought before the House.

Another category of worker is second and third level students. Some third levels students work a great number of hours of necessity. The Minister has publicly expressed concern about this on a number of occasions. We must make the point to employers who recruit third level students that they must abide strictly to the hours these students are allowed to work. In many cases uni versity or third level education is a rest from employment for students. Many students have significant disposable income. Only yesterday I came across a case where students who live away from home and look after themselves are working virtually full-time. I question how they will achieve a third level qualification which is commensurate with their ability.

I have previously expressed this concern in regard to second level students. Last night I attended a school board meeting at which we were advised of the very high absentee rate among junior certificate, transition year and leaving certificate students. On some days of the week the rate can be as high as 30%. These days are Monday, when students are too tired after working the weekend, and Friday, when they are preparing to work the weekend. It went as far as the board asking that the approach to educating these young people be looked at by way of modular provision or part-time or continuing education. This is worrying. There is a shortage of workers but we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of the late 1960s when I first started teaching. The economy was booming at that time and young people took the first available job and worked as helpers on milk lorries and bread vans or took apprenticeships in what appeared to be fairly secure employment. However, these people were the first to lose their jobs when there was a downturn in the economy.

The Minister of State should reinforce the message to young people to stay in school and obtain the best possible qualifications. If necessary he should embark on a campaign aimed at employers, many of whom are small employers such as shopkeepers, restaurateurs and so on, not to exploit young people, even when they are willing to work long hours.

I also wish to address the issue of the employment of older workers. The Minister of State referred to this in his speech and the matter is also referred to in the employment action plan under the Luxembourg process. There is a significant pool of talented workers who are prepared and anxious to remain in the workforce. However, these people are being asked to retire at 65 years of age. Last weekend I was approached by someone who works in a Department who could not understand why she was being advised that she could not work beyond 65. When I started working one could teach up to 68 years of age. There is no reason that option should not be available to people if they wish to remain in the workforce for a few extra years and build up their pension entitlements. Not everyone is burnt out by the time they are 55 or 65.

Many older people aged 59 or 60 years of age are involved in CE schemes or have completed three years on these schemes. At that stage these people leave the schemes and have nothing to do between the ages of 60 and 65. These people sit at home and suffer serious loss of self-esteem. The Minister of State and the Minister should re-examine ways whereby such older people can remain on CE schemes. Voluntary organisations, meals on wheels, sports clubs and football clubs all over the country would benefit from these people's expertise as they are good at a variety of work. It would be preferable if these people were working 20 or so hours per week rather than sitting at home. There is a limit to the number of times one can paint the windows, cut the grass or walk the dog. It would be far more productive, and it would not cost the State much money, if these people were allowed to remain in the workforce as CE workers.

There has been a significant decrease in the level of long-term unemployment. However, large numbers of people still have very poor or no skills. I am not sure which section of the Bill to address in this regard but the Chair will advise me if I am wandering from the subject of the Bill. The Government's action plan on employment and local employment services are providing a wide range of courses for such people and a task force has been set up to deal with them. We need to upskill workers who have recently entered the workforce and who, with some in-service training, could move up and make way for workers waiting to enter the workforce. Such people have low skills and low levels of literacy or numeracy but are waiting for the opportunity to enter the workforce.

A number of measures will enhance people's capacity to avail of this legislation. One such measure is the Government's policy on the provision of child care places. There has been a significant improvement in this area. However, one further provision would be worthwhile. Last year's Finance Act allowed employers to set up child care facilities and crèches. However, very few employers did so. In the interests of good worker relations and promoting family friendly policies, would it be possible to allow workers to contract out the provision of a crèche in a workplace where only a limited number of employees need to be catered for? We contract out many other services. I am not suggesting that because one contracts out catering or cleaning one can also contract out child care. I do not wish to reduce child care to such a mundane level but it might be possible to get people who would otherwise not be interested in setting up a child care facility to set one up in a workplace. The extension of paid maternity and adoptive leave is another significant improvement which will make a difference.

I do not claim to be an expert in the area of the rights commissioner which is dealt with in sections 16 and 17 but we must revisit the issue of access to a rights commissioner and the grievance procedure for part-time workers. I am not sure whether the Bill is too convoluted or whether, like Deputy Rabbitte, I find it difficult to understand the terminology used in these sections. However, I am concerned that the legislation is skewed in the direction of the rights of employers more than the rights of employees.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with miscellaneous issues and outlines that the legislation applies to posted workers. An increasing number of agency workers are coming from countries such as Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. I come across quite a number of such workers in north County Dublin working in the horticultural and construction industries. I am concerned that we do not always accord these people the same living, working, employment and pay conditions as Irish workers. If for no other reason than to protect this category of workers, I am glad the Minister of State is bringing forward this legislation.

This is enlightened legislation which will be teased out forensically on Committee Stage. I would ask the Minister of State to address my concerns, particularly the issue of those working less than eight hours and older workers. Can we be as enlightened as regards the continuation of employment opportunities for older workers as we are for younger and other workers? Can we ensure that employers are made to adhere rigidly to the provisions of this legislation?

Mr. Ring

I welcome this Bill. This House has introduced more legislation than any other European parliament. What is the point introducing legislation in this House when we do not have people to implement it? Many Bills have been introduced here over the past 12 months but we have not seen any action. If this legislation is passed – I am sure there will be amendments on Committee Stage – will we have the people to implement it?

Many changes have taken place in the past ten years. The biggest change is the shortage of workers in the workplace. In the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s women did not get the credit they deserved. They stayed at home during the day, got the children out to school and made the dinner and tea. They worked at night-time to help raise their families. However, the State did nothing for them. It put every obstacle it could in their way. For many years women, like the Irish when they went to America and England – I am glad the trend is changing and that people now want to live in this country – got the most menial jobs and the worst pay. In some cases Irish people who did well abroad did not pay other Irish people they employed or look after them. Women had to work in hotels, guesthouses and restaurants because they needed money to raise their families. The State did not help or protect them.

I do not care about employers, although I am one. I am glad the tide has turned. I am glad to see advertisements in major restaurants which state that they will pay £7 and £8 an hour. This is not because they want to pay it but because there is a shortage of workers. Thank God the tide has turned. Women were treated like dirt for long enough. They were paid only £2 an hour while home helps, which I will mention later, were paid £1 an hour. In some cases if they did not smile at an employer at the end of the week, they would not be paid. These women had no one to turn to because there was no protection for them. If they told anyone, they were laughed at. If employers want people to work for them, they must treat them properly and pay them. Thank God these workers are now protected in legislation. The minimum wage is a step in the right direction. It took a long time but I am glad it is in place. People, particularly those in part-time jobs, were badly treated for too long because employers did not have any difficulty getting people to work.

Deputy Carey is right when he speaks about older people. Gardaí can retire at 55 years of age. However, while some of them go into full-time employment they can still retain their pension. Will that pension now be taken from them if they accept full-time employment? Pensions should be made available to people who want to retire. However, if people want to stay in the workplace when they reach the relevant retirement age, depending on the company in which they are employed, they should be allowed to do so on a part-time basis and to pay tax. I have seen many fine men and women, who do not look the pension age, give up work and become old overnight because their structure has changed. They are used to getting up in the mornings, working five days a week and planning their lives. When their lifestyle suddenly changes, some of them feel there is nothing left for which to live. It is fine for those who have planned their retirement, are self-employed or have families in business whom they might be able to help. However, we should accommodate people who, when they reach pension age, want to work specific hours and take their pension. The tax code should reflect that these people have made a major contribution to society and they should be helped and encouraged to stay in the workplace.

As regards part-time workers and women who have stayed at home but who want to go back into full-time employment, every advertisement for jobs includes a sentence that if they do not qualify under a FÁS scheme there will not be any work for them. Women, whose husbands may be working and who stay at home to raise their families, may not want to sign for social welfare or to go into the dole office. They should be assisted and given the same rights and benefits in terms of PRSI as someone who is unemployed for more than 12 months and is on social welfare. These people have made a sacrifice for this country by staying at home to raise their families. However, when they want to get back into the workplace, they should be helped not hindered. I hope legislation is introduced in the near future to change that.

The introduction of the minimum wage means things are not as they were 20 years ago. Everyone wants everything to be right. They want their employers to pay tax and they want to pay their PRSI. The time has come when people believe that everyone in the State should pay tax. It is only right that employees are looked after. Part- time workers get a few hours of work per week and some of them are on low incomes. If, for example, a woman who is separated and has a few children, receives the lone parents allowance and has a part-time job in the local chip shop or hotel, looks for a medical card, she will be disqualified because the income limit is £95 for her and £16.50 per child. That woman's income from her part-time job should be disregarded. It should not be calculated as means for any scheme, whether it is lone parents allowance or the medical card. These people are only subsidising their income to help their children and to live from day to day because they cannot live on social welfare. I hope the Minister considers that.

Other speakers mentioned farmers' wives. They have also been discriminated against. They have not got the recognition for the work they do on the farm. Every obstacle is put in the way of some of these people who want to go into full-time employment. They are penalised because their husbands are receiving headage payments or payments under the farm retirement scheme. The Minister should deal with that on Committee Stage.

As regards part-time teachers who are employed by the Department, which is the biggest offender, they worked a number of weeks of the year. When the school was closed at Easter or Christmas, it was degrading to see them going into the social welfare office and signing for social welfare. They did not get a pension or any rights from the State. I know some changes have been made in that regard. If someone works on a part-time basis, they should get part-time rights and contributions and their pension entitlements. They should not be discriminated against. We saw a case a number of years ago where the State discriminated against women. They won their case in Europe and the State had to pay them millions of pounds. That will happen in the area of pensions at a future date, particularly for people who worked on a part-time basis and who should have got their part-time rights and pension entitlements. These people should be looked after.

I am glad there is a woman in the Chair, and I mean that sincerely. I came from a big family and I have to say the women of the house do not get the credit, respect or honour they deserve. In the west of Ireland, when husbands, like my own father, had to go to England, the mother had to play the role of father and earner. She did everything that had to be done. In the past, these women did not receive the respect and honour they should have had. Women today would not put up with what women had to in the past, and they are right. I compliment the women of the past, however. They were great women to put up with what they had to do. They were loyal, did the job, worked hard and raised good families.

We are living in changing times now, however. Every day I listen to Ministers telling us how well we are doing and what a great lifestyle we have, yet we were never as unhappy and never had less time off. Not only in politics but in every other walk of life, people see less and less of their families and they do not seem to be any happier. They are working harder and have more commitments, including bigger mortgages, yet if they get £1 million they want more. If they are given a house they want two, and if they are given two houses they want three. There seems to be no way of satisfying people now. I never had any great love for money, although I always wanted to have enough.

Mr. T. Kitt

Same here.

Mr. Ring

I would not deny that I always wanted to have enough to be able to pay my bills, but I did not ever wanted to be a millionaire. I always wanted to be secure in the hope that I could educate my family and do whatever else had to be done. We seem to be becoming more unhappy, however, and people are becoming more violent. We are drinking more than ever before and we have less and less social life. Even sporting organisations cannot get anybody to bring young people out to play sports. My town of Westport has three great clubs catering for rugby, soccer and GAA games. Last week, however, we could not get people to take up officers' positions in the soccer club. We cannot get anyone to take people out on a Saturday to play football. We cannot get people to look after children in sporting organisations. We can no longer get them to assist in any voluntary capacity.

We have become mean, greedy and selfish, like people in America. I heard Deputy Noonan saying at his press conference that while he would like to live in America he would not like to grow old there. I would hate to see this country becoming like America. We have our own special qualities. There was a time when one could go into a neighbour's house to sit down and talk. There was a time when one would know everybody in the street. There was a time when one could have a chat and talk to people, but now they are speeding around in motor cars or they are flying up and down by plane.

Nobody knows who is living beside them. Recently, three people were found dead in a house where they had remained for three or four months and nobody knew about it. That would not have happened 50 years ago. At that time, people may not have had much but they had pride in their families and their local areas. That has all gone now and it is like America. I would not like to live in America. They have no sense of humour, they go to bed at 7 p.m. and are up at 6 o'clock in the morning. They are like machines, all computerised, and there is no bit of fun in them. There was always a bit of life in this country and we always liked to be able to live here. Wherever we went in the world we were able to sell the message of Ireland. I hope that does not change, but I think it has been changing in recent years. People may consider that they are better off, but I do not think they are. We are worse off and we are becoming more selfish, viol ent and unhappy. I do not know what the answer is.

People who work on a part-time basis should be protected and I hope the Bill will achieve that because they were unprotected for long enough. I hope those who need protection will be protected. Is the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act actually working? Are officials of the Minister's Department examining the situation? Young people were abused for a long time, working in places for 16 or 17 hours. This happened simply because they came from poor families and needed the money to supplement the family income. I welcome the Bill and hope it will help part-time workers who have been abused for too long. They should be protected and given every assistance they need. I hope that whatever amendments are required will be tabled on Committee Stage so that the legislation will protect people working on a part-time basis.

I wish to pay tribute to the women of the country. They are not honoured or looked after enough.

Mr. T. Kitt

They will never forget Deputy Ring.

Mr. Ring

Even in political life they are not well looked after, but they should be. In order to be elected to this House a woman must work twice as hard as a man, and that is not right. It is not equality.

Acting Chairman (Ms Coughlan)

Thank you, Deputy Ring. I now call on Deputy Callely. It has to go to the Government side.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): On a point of order, I thought there was a convention, if not a rule, that Deputies who had been in the House for about half an hour got precedence – particularly when they are already listed by agreement – over a Deputy who comes in a few minutes before because it suits his work schedule. I also have a heavy work schedule.

Acting Chairman

I have seen Deputy Callely here. He was not sitting down but he was in the Chamber for some time. The way things are going, we are almost at the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): May I be listed after Deputy Callely?

Acting Chairman

You are listed. You are next after Deputy Callely, yes.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Thank you.

(Dublin West): I accept your ruling, Chair, but I was listed to speak before Deputy Callely. I was in the House 20 minutes before him.

Acting Chairman

Leanfaimid ar aghaidh leis an mBille.

Mr. Callely

I dislike the way in which some Members try to read into the record matters that can be interpreted incorrectly. I would like, without interruption, to clearly put this on the record of the House again. Via the Whips' Office which, I understand, orders the Business of the House, I was informed that I was to speak after the last Opposition speaker who, as we now know, was Deputy Ring. I understand that I am correct. I came to the House at the appropriate time to ensure maximum efficacy and use of my time so that I could work in my office and come into the Chamber when necessary. I understand that is the practice of Members of the House to use their time to maximum benefit. It is important to put that on the record in case somebody might interpret incorrectly what Deputy Higgins has said.

I concur with Deputy Ring's tribute to women and the comments he made about the gender question.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt has already stated, the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill is important social legislation. As Chair of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, I will make a number of comments. Employment rights legislation covering a range of areas, such as conditions of employment, has an important role to play in promoting labour market stability.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 14 Feb 2001