Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Nov 2001

Vol. 168 No. 17

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

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

I am very pleased to be in the Seanad to discuss this important legislation. Since the Bill was published last December I have had lengthy correspondence and discussions with the social partners and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government in relation to a number of central issues in it. During its passage through the Dáil a number of important amendments, which have strengthened it, were made. The relevant EU directive on part-time work should have been transposed into Irish law by 20 January last. However, it was important that any outstanding problems such as pay and pensions were sorted out so there would be no practical difficulties for part-time workers following enactment. Against this background I am very pleased the Cathaoirleach has facilitated Second Stage discussions today, just over a week after the Bill was agreed by the Lower House. Indeed, if all goes well we will be able, with the Seanad's agreement, to take Committee, Report and Final Stages next week and the Bill can be enacted before the end of the year.

Last February, when this Bill was first presented to the Dáil, none of us could have foreseen the economic slowdown that took place in recent months. The dramatic changes have made us all reassess and re-evaluate where we are, what we want to do and where we want to go, not just as an economy, but as individuals in a democratic society. Social partnership involving employers, employees and Government has been the driving force of change in society and, in particular, in the workplace over recent years. Thankfully, this process has not been broken by recent traumatic events globally. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, which underpins our economic policies until the end of 2002, has enabled all the stakeholders involved, namely, the social partners, the ICTU and IBEC, as well as Government, to take stock and see how best we can reposition ourselves to maintain our economy in the short to medium term. It is important for us all to continue to work together through this partnership process in the months ahead.

One area where this social partnership process has played an important role in recent years is the area of employment rights and labour legislation. Social partnership has been backed up by a well balanced suite 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.

Ireland has been to the forefront, in the past 20 to 30 years, in ensuring 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 workplace at both national and international levels through, for example, the introduction of "home-grown" employment rights legislation, the transposition of EU directives, and reflecting in Irish domestic law the standard setting activities of the International Labour Organisation, ILO, and Council of Europe. Such legislation has covered a wide range of areas, including minimum notice and terms of employment, payment of wages, organisation of working time, protection of young persons at work, safety legislation and the introduction earlier this year of entitlement to carer's leave.

One area where employment rights legislation has dramatically affected peoples' work and lifestyles is that of the organisation of working time. This area covers issues such as holiday entitlements, rest periods, maximum working time and night work. Our respective work places have changed over the years. For example, the industrial revolution, especially the mechanisation of industry, together with scientific and technologi cal advances, have over the years greatly improved the ways in which 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 workplace.

A practical example of how things have changed is the area of working time. In the 1930s the State set the maximum number of hours people worked at 55 hours. This level of hours has been reduced over the years. In 1997, the Organisation of Working Time Act, which transposed an EU directive, set the maximum number of hours which may be worked in a week at 48 hours.

All 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 1.7 million today, an increase of one third. Part of this number includes some 284,000 part-time workers. This number represents 17% of the workforce with the majority of these being women. In 1997, women accounted for more than three-quarters of all part-time workers. The incidence of part-time working among women increased from 16% of all women at work in 1983 to 23% in 1997. The number of part-time workers is expected to rise further in the coming years.

The growth in part-time employment is not exclusive to Ireland. In the EU the increase in the numbers working on a part-time basis has continued up to 1998, the date of the latest figures available. Total numbers of part-time workers in the European Union have risen by an average of 14% overall during the period 1994 to 1998, with 6% of men and around 33% of women in employment working part-time. However, these figures vary greatly from country to country, with the Netherlands at 39% in 1998 and Greece at 6% in 1998 being at the higher and lower ends of the scale respectively in terms of participation in part-time employment.

Despite these welcome trends in Ireland and Europe, there are, at present, severe skills shortages in our economy and in others throughout Europe. To address this major problem, the European Commission and the European Council has each year since 1998 under the Luxembourg Process requested member states 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. As part of this process member states' respective annual employment action plans are required to set out policies which facilitate opportunities for women who have raised their families and are keen to come back into the workplace and formulate family-friendly policies which facilitate, in particular, greater female participation in the workforce. The European Commission guidelines for 2001, which is 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.

As regards the taxation system, the Government has in recent budgets substantially reduced the burden of PAYE, thereby making the option of working more attractive. The Government, also 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, which was announced in last December's budget. In July 2000 the Government also extended the provisions regarding entitlement to parental leave. Members will be aware that, earlier this year, I steered the Carer's Leave Bill through the House. The Carer's Leave Act, 2001, which came into effect on 2 July, provides up to 65 weeks' unpaid leave from employment to care for persons requiring full-time care and attention.

With regard to developing policies to facilitate older workers, recent research indicates, for example, that by the year 2020, the numbers of people in Ireland aged 65 and over will be in the region of 700,000. Initiatives under the auspices of the Swedish and Belgian EU Presidencies in the area of quality of work 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.

Three types of measures 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 three measures are: one, increasing the official age of retirement or eligibility to a full pension; two, 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 three, the provision of incentives to encourage businesses to retain older employees in work for longer.

In the context of the above, on Second and Committee Stages of the Bill in the other House a number of Deputies from all parties made specific references to areas in the taxation, social welfare and EU agriculture grant procedures which can sometimes unintentionally act as obstacles to people either entering for the first time or re-entering the workforce to work on a part – time basis. I acknowledged these genuine concerns and raised the specific problems involved with the respective Ministers. I acknowledge that perhaps we need to look at these issues on an ongoing basis to ensure we do not unwittingly deter people who feel they have something to offer society by working on a part-time basis. This would be in the case where people wish to do so. There is no question of forcing people to work beyond their retirement age. People who have worked long and hard deserve their just reward. However, if there are people, and I believe there are many, who wish to re-enter the workforce after retirement, there should not be any obstacles in their way.

In the light of the desire by more people to balance their working and family lifestyles, the timing of our discussions in the House on the Bill is opportune. The legislation seeks to implement the provisions of a directive 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, namely, UNICE, CEEP and ETUC. The directive was adopted by the Council on 15 December 1997 and should have been implemented by 20 January 2000. My Department notified the European Commission of the intention to postpone the implementation date by up to one year, that is, up to 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 and to improve the quality of part-time work and, second, 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 ICTU, and relevant Departments, was set up to discuss the measures necessary for the implementation of the directive in Ireland, and the deliberations of the group have contributed to and influenced the composition of the Bill. I thank both ICTU and IBEC for their work at both European and national level in framing the Bill which I believe 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. As I have already said, we have had detailed discussions with the social partners, and both support the intent of the Bill. Both have raised a number of issues, most of which have been addressed during the Bill's passage through the other House

One area of the Bill that I would like to mention specifically is that of pension entitlements of part-time workers. The Bill honours the Govern ment's commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness that the definition of remuneration in the Bill would include occupational pensions. In the course of discussions with my Department's legal advisers, the question as to the propriety of interpreting the directive as covering remuneration and pensions arose. A view emerged that protocol 14 on social policy annexed to the treaty establishing the European Union, which constitutes the legal basis of the directive, is clearly expressed as not applying to pay and, by extension, pensions.

Accordingly, my Department sought from the Office of the Attorney General a formal legal opinion on the matter. A response from that office was recently received to the effect that in its view the wording of protocol 14 precludes the application of the part-time workers' directive to remuneration and pensions.

Accordingly, while the Bill applies to remunerations and pensions, it does so because of the Government's commitment to this effect in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, not as a requirement of the directive. The important implication of this advice is that as regards remuneration and pensions, any benefits accruing to part-time employees arising from the enactment of the Bill will not be retrospective and will apply from a future date only. That is the legal position. There will be no question of backdating arising in these areas in respect of the period since 20 January last when the directive was due for transposition into Irish law.

However, in terms of practicality, section 9(4) of the Bill provides that, in so far as it relates to any pension 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 whose normal hours of work constitute less than 20% of the normal hours of work of a comparable full-time worker.

It was considered that such persons should be excluded from such schemes on the grounds that the administrative costs of providing for such access to persons with such little service would be far in excess of any benefits that might accrue to them from such pension schemes. There was some confusion on this issue on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil. I wish to make it clear that employers are free to allow such employees access to pension schemes on equal terms with full-time employees, with the proviso that such employees would not be able to insist on such equal terms under the Bill when enacted.

I would like to outline to the House in detail the main provisions of the Bill. In Part 1, 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. A number of these sections were amended on Committee Stage. In particu lar, the definition of "remuneration" was broadened to provide for a more comprehensive definition of remuneration and pensions. I have just referred to the issue of pensions and the legal advice that was received in this regard. A definition for "framework agreement", under which the agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 was established, was also inserted in section 3.

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. An amendment was made to this section on Committee Stage to ensure that commencement orders as provided for under section 2 of the Bill should not have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, which is standard practice. Section 5 repeals the Worker Protection (Regular 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 moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

In Part 2, section 7 deals with the definitions associated with Part 2 of the Bill. This section was amended on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil with a view to improving its clarity and intent. Such an example is the substitution of the expression "relevant part-time employee" for "first mentioned employee" wherever it occurs in the Bill, for ease of reference. This amendment had been sought by IBEC to make the definitions simpler.

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. Section 9(4) provides that a part-time employee who normally works less than 20% of the normal hours of a comparable full-time employee may be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee in relation to pensions. It was considered that persons who work for less than 20% of the normal hours of a comparable full-time employee, should be excluded from such schemes on the grounds that the administrative costs of providing for such access to persons with such little service would be far in excess of any benefits that might accrue to them from such pension schemes.

I have referred to the legal advice obtained from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government in relation to pension entitlements under the Bill. Section 10 provides that a benefit accorded to a part-time employee under section 9(1) of the Bill shall be on the basis of the principle of pro rata temporis, that is, it 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.

A new section 10(3) was inserted on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil for the avoidance of doubt, to make it clear that the annual leave entitlements of part-time workers under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, would not be adversely affected by the provisions of this Bill. 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.

Following Second Stage of the Bill in the Dáil, the ICTU raised certain concerns with me about the reference in section 11(4)(b) of the Bill to certain collective agreements. It was concerned that this subsection allowed a collective agreement with no standing in law to derogate from the legal definition of a part-time employee who works on a casual basis. This effectively meant that, potentially, all types of part-time employees could be excluded from the provisions of the Bill if they were regarded in a collective agreement as working on a casual basis.

These concerns were brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government and were addressed through a number of Government amendments which are reflected in sections 11(4) and 11(5) of the Bill as currently drafted. These amendments are based on section 24 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, and provide that, to be covered by the Bill, a collective agreement referring to an employee who works on a casual basis must be approved by the Labour Court in accordance with the proposed new Schedule to the Bill. These amendments have strengthened the Bill in relation to the entitlements of casual workers.

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 shall, 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 any obstacles identified in such study could be eliminated. The commission shall report to the Minister in relation to 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.

Following Second Stage in the Dáil, the ICTU, IBEC and FLAC raised the issue of the implementation of clauses 5(2) and 5(3) of the framework agreement annexed to the directive on part-time work relating to the review of obstacles to part-time work. A number of Government amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil resulted in the insertion of a new section 13(5) in the Bill. This new section addresses clause 5(3) of the agreement by providing that the Labour Relations Commission should consult representatives of employers and employees to discuss the preparation of a code of practice and, if forming the view that such a code would be of sufficient practical beneficial effect to employers and employees, they should prepare and publish a code accordingly.

A second Government amendment agreed on Committee Stage is the new section 13(6). This section also provides for the amendment, revocation and replacement of codes of practice, and the publication of such replacement codes or notice of the making thereof. These amendments have substantially strengthened this section of the Bill in relation to the review of obstacles to part-time work.

Section 14 provides that a provision in any employment agreement shall be void in so far as it is inconsistent with any provision of this 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 not seek relief against such penalisation under this Bill and under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

This section was amended significantly during Committee, Report and Final Stages in the Dáil by the insertion of a new section 15(1)(c). The new section implements ICTU's and FLAC's requests to transpose clause 5(2) of the Framework Agreement annexed to the directive into the Bill. Clause 5(2) of the directive states:

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, without prejudice to termin ation in accordance with national law, collective agreements and practice, for other reasons such as may arise from the operational requirements of the establishment concerned.

The amendment as drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government goes further than clause 5(2) of the directive in that it not only forbids termination of the employee's employment contract for refusing to accede to an employer's request to transfer from full-time work to part-time work or vice versa, but it also provides that an employee, or indeed another employee giving evidence on behalf of an employee, cannot suffer any unfavourable treatment or change in conditions of employment for such a refusal. The anti-penalisation clause is a standard provision in employment rights legislation.

I received some very helpful suggestions from the Opposition in relation to this section when it was being discussed at Report and Final Stages in the Dáil. The section as now drafted is stronger for both employees and employers alike.

Section 16 provides that a complaint by an employee, or by a trades union of which the employee is a member, that the employer has contravened section 9 or section 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 16(3) of the Bill was amended at Committee Stage in the Dáil to prevent employees attempting to pursue grievances, particularly in the area of pensions, years after they have left the service of their employer.

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 trades 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 provides that the redress mechanisms set out in sections 16 to 18, inclusive, of the Bill shall not apply to members of the Defence Forces who have their own redress procedures under the Defence Acts. This new section was sought by the Minister for Defence.

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. In addition, a Government amendment agreed on Committee Stage in the Dáil widens the category of employee covered by this section to cover not only posted workers, but also foreign workers who work in this country but are not strictly speaking posted workers, that is, those working here under a visa or a work permit.

The broader definitions proposed are an important amendment, given recent media publicity and controversy regarding alleged abuse of non-national workers here in Ireland. As highlighted in recent parliamentary questions these workers, regardless of nationality, have the same entitlements under employment rights legislation as Irish workers. This Government amendment copperfastens the position. It was necessary to amend the Long Title of the Bill as a consequence of this amendment.

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 €12,500, 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 take a proactive approach in ensuring that any such future legislation reflects the needs and expectations of both employees and employers, 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 a great 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, I firmly believe, 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. There are some 284,000 part-time employees waiting for its enactment so that they can continue to work in the knowledge that they will for the first time have statutory entitlements which will facilitate their continuation in employment and encourage even higher numbers of part-time workers on to the labour market in the years ahead, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I thank Members for their attention and I commend the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000, to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and also the introduction of this Bill. Those covered by the Bill are often a forgotten segment of the workforce. I am pleased Members have the opportunity to address the many issues involved for part-time workers. In the past they have often been overlook and ignored but obviously their role will become more important in the years ahead.

The Bill implements the EU Council Directive concerning the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work included by the social partners at EU level. That directive was adopted on 15 December 1997 and was to have been implemented by 20 January 2000. I note that Ireland obtained a deferral of this deadline for implementation to January 2001 owing to special difficulties in relation to implementation. I wonder why there should be a further delay but I note what the Minister has said in his contribution.

The purpose of the directive is to prevent part-time workers from being treated less favourably than full-time workers, to provide for the removal of discrimination against part-time workers and to improve the quality of part-time work. The directive is also intended 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 both employees and employers.

The Bill which transposes the provisions of the directive, as published on 15 December 2000, passed Second Stage in the Dáil on 14 February, Committee Stage on 3 October and Report and Final Stages on 21 November and is expected to be signed into law by the end of this year. With our assistance and co-operation next week, hopefully that will happen.

It is welcome that the Bill provides protections against discrimination against part-time workers where any such discrimination exists. I welcome the laudatory aims of improving the quality of part-time work, facilitating the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis and contributing to the flexible organisation of working time in a manner which takes into account the needs of both employers and workers. The guarantee contained in the Bill that part-time workers may not be treated less favourably than full-time workers is welcome. I welcome the various amendments made on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil. Not alone have they tidied up the Bill but I concur with the Minister that they have strengthened it and eased our work in this House.

The Bill replaces 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 benefited from it. As the Minister of State outlined, this Bill is expected to cover the 284,000 people classified as part-time workers, as it provides for no hourly or weekly threshold except in regard to pension entitlements. Once the Bill is 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 to full-time employees has increased from one in 15 to one in eight of the workforce, but that ratio will probably have decreased owing to the recent downturn in the economy in the aftermath of the horrific events of 11 September.

A study carried out a year or so ago shows that employees work fewer hours than previously. Over the past 17 years or more the average working week has fallen from 44 hours to 38 hours per week. That study found most full-time workers wanted to shorten the full-time working week while most part-time workers wanted to work a longer part-time working week.

Another feature has been that the number of women participating in the labour force has increased, bringing it closer to the number of men participating in it. Women are leading the way towards a greater fragmentation of the time structure of all those at work. Only a short time ago labour shortages were one of the greatest threats to our continued prosperity. However, all that has changed dramatically and drastically since the sad events of 11 September. Nonetheless, new forms of flexible employment relations, particularly part-time work, will remain increasingly important to the labour market in order to provide for consolidation and further expansion of industry in the future.

Arrangements regarding employment and social insurance legislation have failed to keep up with developments since the organisation of such arrangements continues to be based on open-ended full-time employment relationships as the norm. Part-time workers are discriminated against in 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 social insurance such as unemployment, pension and sickness insurance. More than 80% of part-time workers are women and the legislation does not contribute to making part-time work more attractive for them.

The Minister of State referred to the European Commission guidelines, which state that a more employment friendly approach with necessary benefits in tax, training and so on are needed. This legislation sets the minimum rather than a maximum standard, but many employers will see it as a maximum standard. Thankfully, the Bill will guarantee that part-time workers may not be treated less favourably than full-time workers. Employers, in order to fill vacant positions, will be required to treat part-time workers more favourably.

As a result of the downturn in the economy, which maybe only a transitional or temporary setback, although commentators and economists differ widely in this regard, more will have to be done to facilitate the reintegration of women back into the workforce, coupled with suitable measures designed to make family life and work more compatible. I note Senator Cox is looking at me very seriously. I look forward to her contribution in this regard.

This is all about equity, justice and fair play. The more successful economies are the ones that are more competitive naturally and have highly flexible labour markets. We must fully support the role of women in the home and in the workplace. We must respect the choice of women who work inside or outside the home. Depending on family circumstances, that choice must be reversible, if necessary.

Together with all this, we must develop an adequate public child care policy, otherwise increasingly women will not be able to participate in the workforce. It is estimated that child care costs can represent more than 20% of average earnings compared to 8% to 10% in the rest of Europe, which is a rather wide disparity. I am reliably informed that it is extremely difficult to obtain quality child care at affordable rates in most parts of the country. Already the implementation of health board regulations, which I am not decrying, has resulted in the loss of approximately 4,000 child care places nationally. Naturally the quality of child care provision is an increasing concern for parents and greater attention must be given to improving it.

To date part-time workers are excluded from eligibility for company pension schemes, but thankfully this legislation will entitle them to the same provisions as full-time workers, once they work more than eight hours a week. I note what the Minister of State said about this. I also note the legal advice and what is intended to happen and that, on the basis of the legal advice, the legislation may not be retrospective in that regard. Was there not a ruling from the European Court of Justice which entitles part-time workers to backdate their pension rights? I am not certain of that. How will developments in European equality law on part-time workers impact here? I presume they will not have to be tested in our courts before the rights of Irish workers are clarified. The Minister of State might wish to comment on that.

I note that some European countries have raised the official retirement age for eligibility for full pension. In some of those countries people over the age of 65 can remain in full-time or part-time employment and receive a partial pension. Will similar measures be introduced here? The Minister of State said something about this, but he may want to expand on that.

People in receipt of an occupational or non-contributory old age pension experience a sizeable drop in income on leaving employment. Quite a number of these people, who are still very alert and able-bodied, would welcome the opportunity to do part-time work. A number of them need to work in order to augment their pension payments. I take it that they will not be penalised. To what, if any, clawback would they be subjected?

Early retirement pensions have created obstacles for people who wish to return to the workforce. Nurses who availed of early retirement are an example, particularly those who worked in psychiatric care and are prevented from returning to the system. I take it the Minister will not create further barriers in this area.

I know the Minister favoured the idea of older people being allowed to return to the workforce, if necessary. Many of these people have a great wealth of experience to offer and, for that very reason, employers would welcome the opportunity to engage them on a part-time basis, yet compared to their permanent counterparts, there is a discrepancy in the remuneration awarded. What impact will this legislation have for the large number of substitute teachers? They have the same qualifications as their counterparts in the profession. Surely this legislation and the thrust of what we are trying to achieve will ensure the ending of such discrimination.

There are other categories in need of our attention and help. They include home helps who have been a necessary element in the provision of services to the elderly and many farmers, with small to medium sized holdings, who out of economic necessity have had to supplement their incomes with off farm work in order to survive. I take it that the discrimination in those areas will be ended. The Minister of State might briefly comment on that.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials from whom I received a fair and broad briefing. I am grateful to the Minister of State for facilitating that.

I intend to talk about recruitment agency workers and training. It is only fair to declare my personal interest in this area in that I am the managing director of a recruitment agency and my knowledge of this area stems from that. There is a training division in our company. Having listened to the debate, I should probably say also that I am a woman. We seem to be talking only about women and it is getting a little obsessive.

I am sure the Senator is not implying that we would not have noticed.

Having declared all my interests, I want to pick up on some of the points made by Senator Coghlan, which were fair. We talk about the role of women and the importance of part-time work to them in terms of the contribution they make to society, but the issue of child care is not only a woman's issue, it is an issue for society and business. It is not an issue that can only be discussed when we talk about women, we should be talking about it all the time. That is an important message to get across to people because some fail to get it.

The Minister of State referred to the continued need to make our society more family friendly, and I will quote shortly from an IBEC survey, but I want to take this opportunity to raise the enhanced provisions of the maternity leave Act. We need to bear in mind that one of the provisions of that Act is that the mother must take four weeks off before her baby is born. If anybody was to examine the statistics they would find that Ireland is the only country in the world with so many babies born two weeks before the due date. If we do not do something about that legislation and stop doctors writing down dates that are a little longer than they should be, we are not being fair to women. We need to examine that issue – I have talked to people in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law because I understand it comes under its aegis – and change that legislation. If a mother to be is able to work up to two or three weeks before her baby is born, it should be a matter of choice for her, in consultation with her doctor. We need to listen to the doctor's advice on that.

While I am on this subject, one of the reasons it has taken us so long to introduce family friendly policies and make changes in part-time working and child care is that we do not have enough female public representatives. The reason is that life as a public representative is certainly not family friendly. The challenge for the Government and future Governments is to determine how we can encourage more women to get involved in political life. In 2001, we still do not have a crèche in Leinster House. I would not use it because I would not bring my children from Galway to Dublin to be cared for in the crèche, but it is an indication of the priorities we put on the support structures that are necessary to get women involved in work.

Maternity leave is still not available to female Oireachtas Members, and I know the Minister of State is sick listening to me talk about this issue. We need to have a system in place whereby if I were on maternity leave but wished to cast my vote in the House, I would have an automatic right to cast my vote with the Government or the Opposition. That should be a simple matter. That is important also at local council level, where we need more female members, particularly when considering Estimates and electing chairmen or mayors because votes count. Do we expect women to leave the maternity hospital having just had their babies to come to the Chamber to vote on the election of a chairperson? We all know that in the reality of politics, these are the issues that are important. I am sorry the Minister of State has to listen to this message again—

Perhaps technology will sort out that problem.

I hope it will. Having got off my hobbyhorse, I will now talk about the Bill. Why is part-time work so important? It is important because it is about family friendly policies. It is also important because if two people share a job, that synergy results in more productivity and a better attitude from the employees. That is a clear benefit from protecting and encouraging part-time work.

Deputy Coghlan mentioned teachers. I have some experience of teachers job-sharing. Last year, one of my children had two teachers on a week on, week off basis and it was the best year he had in school because the two teachers involved were more focused, less tired and more committed. In all areas of work, including nursing and teaching, part-time working is to be encouraged, not just because men and women want to stay at home and look after our families, but because it provides a competitive advantage.

Deputy Coghlan referred to the major change in the economy in the past few months. The situation is not that bad, and there has not been such a terrible change. There is a slowdown, but there are still jobs that need to be filled. We still need to recruit people outside Ireland who have the kind of experience that is needed here. Replacements are needed for various reasons. There is growth in the economy and we should not talk ourselves into a recession. There is a slowdown, but there is no harm in that.

I hope the Senator is right. I am being optimistic and hope for the very best.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Coghlan, you are out of order. Senator Cox, without interruption.

I thought I expressed my remarks through the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Sorry, Senator, if you persist I will have to ask you to leave the House. Senator Cox, without interruption.

He will be turned into a part-time Senator.

It is important that there is no discrimination against part-time workers. They need and deserve our protection. There have been major changes in the area of home helps, mentioned by Senator Coghlan. In that regard I want to take some credit, as should the Minister of State, in terms of the minimum wage. Home helps were being paid £1 and £2 an hour by health boards and it was not until we introduced the minimum wage that they began to be paid at least the minimum wage. They probably deserve to be paid even more and they also deserve the protection this Bill gives them.

We talked about women in the workforce. A total of 70% of the workforce are part-time and the majority of those are women. The IBEC national survey on rates of pay and conditions of employment in manufacturing and wholesale distribution in 2001 asked some questions about flexible working arrangements. A total of 89% of part-time work is in the services sector, both public and private, and 7% is in the manufacturing sector. The largest group of part-time workers in the services sector – 24.2% – is to be found in education and health, followed by wholesale and retail. A total of 15.5% of part-time workers are in the hotels and restaurants sector, approximately 6% of all employees in the manufacturing sector work part time and approximately one quarter of all employees in the services sector work part time. That is an indication of the complete picture in terms of part-time workers.

In 2001, IBEC included a number of questions about flexible working arrangements in its annual sector survey. It examined the overall incidence of a variety of flexible working arrangements and the take-up by employees. A number of questions were asked as to whether employees have increased their usage of flexible working arrangements over the past 12 months and whether there had been an increase in demand from employees for such arrangements. A total of 35% of companies reported increased usage of flexible working hours over the previous 12 months, with 44% of companies reporting an increased demand from employees for flexible working hours. That indicates a demand for flexible working hours. I am aware the Minister and his officials have worked hard to get this protection for part-time employees put in place.

Another important aspect of the Bill has come about as part of the collective bargaining process and our partnership approach to the way we do our business. That is one of the reasons it will work and that it is important we continue the partnership model, which will give us a competitive advantage in this global economy.

I am delighted contract agency workers have been recognised in the Bill. The way that area was dealt with in the Bill is important. When making comparisons, one must compare like with like. This is not the place to start making all sorts of changes regarding agency workers. Other legislation must be looked at in that regard and I understand the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is doing this. The Minister has got the legislation right in terms of how it handles agency workers and I am delighted this group is included.

It is important to publicise the information. The Minister of State informed the Dáil of his intention to widely distribute leaflets publicising the information. It needs to be publicised in newspapers, on the web, in FÁS and social welfare offices and elsewhere. Employers should be given attractive brochures and big posters which they can put up, particularly in public sector organisations such as hospitals and schools, but also in hotels and the industries I mentioned earlier, all of which have large numbers of part-time workers. I have no doubt the Minister will do this and allocate an appropriate budget to the task.

We have discussed the importance of part-time work. Sometimes we forget it is important to make part-time work attractive for the employer as well as the employee. This is a great challenge and needs to be taken on board by the Department of Finance in partnership with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We must create an environment in which it makes sense for employers to decide to allow employees to job share, work part time or work in the evenings. Small companies in particular – the Minister is very familiar with the number of them – work extremely hard just to stay in business. Small businesses view part-time work as something for big multinationals, hotels and public service organisations such as schools and hospitals. Companies with, say, 20 employees need help if they are to envisage job sharing. The Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Finance must provide initiatives, guidance and direction to small indigenous companies, which are the lifeblood of the economy, to help them implement part-time and flexible working arrangements.

The Minister mentioned training and the ways in which we will formulate family friendly policies under the European Commission guidelines for 2001. He also stated there would be a more employment friendly approach through a review, where necessary, of benefits, taxes and training systems. Training is the most important feature of our economy and we must continually invest in it. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has introduced a very successful programme, Skillnet, which has achieved huge things for small organisations throughout the country. The north Mayo Skillnet organisation, with which I am involved, brought together companies from the whole region and completed a training programme. Without the backing of the Skillnet organisation the programme could not have taken place. The programme is under review. I appeal to the Minister to decide soon whether to proceed with the programme. We should continue training and retraining for the future. It is vitally important if we are to maintain the competitive edge which created the tiger economy.

I very much welcome the Bill. We have taken the right track. It has taken longer than anticipated, but we needed the time. Out of a proper partnership approach comes very good legislation. It is important to establish a date for reviewing the legislation, perhaps in three or four years' time, so that we can make timely changes where necessary.

With the permission of the House, I will share my time with Senator Henry.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He is always a genial and well-informed presence. While I agree with the general proposition that this is a welcome legislative development, I have a couple of points which I hope will open up a discussion. I am critical of some provisions in the Bill and the absence of others.

I was very impressed by Senator Cox's cogent, clear, well argued speech in which she illustrated the positive impact of two people sharing a job in terms of productivity and its socially constructive aspects. She is absolutely right. Senator Coghlan also gave a very positive view of the matter although, in my view, he was a little too optimistic. I will quibble certain aspects of his statement and raise a couple of anomalies in the legislation. He stated, for example, that discrimination against part-time workers, where it existed, has been removed. This does not appear to be absolutely accurate. It was also stated that the legislation contained a guarantee that part-time workers must not be treated less advantageously than others, which is not the case because certain people appear to have been excluded despite recommendations to the contrary.

However, I wish to start on a positive note by welcoming the Minister of State's comments about foreign workers entering the country. A Government amendment to extend the protection of this legislation to categories of foreign workers, including those who are here on a visa or a work permit, was accepted in the other House. The question of visas and work permits may not directly be in the purlieu of the Minister of State. If not, I ask him to raise it with his colleagues because there is growing agitation about the way in which foreigners are treated such as having to queue from 5 o'clock in the morning to get visas and work permits stamped.

This does not only apply to foreign workers. It has been raised as a particular concern of the universities because foreign students, who pay multiples of what Irish citizens pay for university education, are required to queue earlier to have their visas renewed, sometimes losing several academic days because they are not dealt with by the noon cut-off point. This is total bureaucratic inefficiency and something needs to be done about it.

This legislation addresses the plight of part-time workers, who are traditionally the most vulnerable group in our economy. The reason the discrimination, in so far as it existed and exists, is particularly invidious is that a large proportion of these workers are and were women. I have been asked, in particular, to raise a specific area in which anomalies still exist, namely, the position of part-time workers in Trinity College. Again, they are mainly women and are generally considered to be the poorest and most vulnerable workers in the college. As far back as 1980 SIPTU sought to establish the right of part-time staff in the college to have access to the same pension scheme as their full-time colleagues. They went through all the necessary hurdles and procedures. More than ten years after the case was initiated, it came before the Labour Court in 1991-92. Following much toing and froing, including threats of industrial action, the involvement of the Rights Commissioner's office and the Labour Court, the recommendation in favour of the SIPTU case eventually issued in 1997.

When the recommendation was implemented it was applied to all staff in permanent part-time positions regardless of whether they had been named in the case, in other words, it extended to the entire workforce. However, this turned out to be a very optimistic interpretation of the position but the delight of the staff and the union was fairly short-lived when it transpired that, while equal pay had been established as a right for all part-time staff, they were still being refused access to the same pension scheme as their full-time colleagues. As a result of that, still abiding by the procedures and regulations, SIPTU took a pensions case to an equality officer which lasted for three years. A favourable recommendation was issued in October 2000.

The college, the Higher Education Authority and the funding authorities were unable to find loopholes or any reason to appeal the case and, therefore, it was assumed that it would go through. However, despite the clarity of the case and the recommendation that the pension to which the part-time staff were admitted should be the same as that for the full-time staff, the Departments of Education and Science and Finance would not give sanction for access to the pension scheme to be applied to all part-time workers in the college. This means that some people who work part time are in the pension scheme while others are not.

I do not know of a clearer case of discrimination. Of the two groups involved, one was admitted to the pension scheme while the other was not. I do not understand the reason for this. I understand that new staff who are taken on will also not be admitted to the pension scheme. In other words, the injustice of the past is still being compounded and those vulnerable low-paid workers are being treated appallingly despite the fact that SIPTU has won the case. That is a major anomaly and I would like the Minister of State to take action in respect of it. I am glad he is nodding. I accept that he may not be able to do anything but I know he will at least take it into consideration. That is no less than I would expect of him.

The glorious aspect of political life in this beautiful building is the kind of serendipity that exists and the coincidental nature of the meetings one can have here. A few moments ago I left the Chamber to make a telephone call and I met a party of school children from Clonmel who were being led by their teacher. They wanted to know if I was going to speak and about what I intended to speak. I informed them that we were going to discuss part-time workers, etc., and stated that I had been briefed about a particular anomaly. Their teacher inquired whether I would like to hear about another such anomaly. I replied that of course I would because I like to be briefed on the hoof.

No better man.

That is correct.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I apologise for interrupting Senator Norris. Senator Coghlan should—

Senator Norris would make a good teacher.

I was a teacher and that is one reason for my having sympathy with members of that profession. However, I taught adults which is somewhat easier than teaching very young people and for which I simply would not have the temperament.

The teacher in question pointed out that supervision work and substitute teaching, which, increasingly, are elements in their remuneration packages, are excluded from their pension entitlements. Teachers retire on 50% of their salaries, but if their remuneration packages increasingly consist of payments for supervision, extra-curricular activities, substitute teaching, etc., in respect of which they receive no pension entitlements, their pensions sink to less than 50%. That does not seem right.

I ask the Minister of State to consider the points I have raised. I look forward to reading his reply because, unfortunately – I do not mean to be discourteous – I must leave.

The Senator is a marvellous man, but not even he is like Sir Boyle Roche's bird.

I never met her.

He cannot be in two places at once. I welcome the Bill although, like Senator Norris, I have a number of reservations about it. In the debate on the referendum on the Nice treaty, I was interested in how rarely women raised the subject of how much European Union directives had done for women, particularly women workers, during the past 30 years. I would like to see the benefits in which Irish women have shared being given to women in other parts of Europe. I am old enough to remember the great difference the equal pay directive made to women when it was introduced in 1972. When I inform people that women were given a different rate of pay prior to the directive's introduction, they believe I must have been alive when the dodo still existed. However, that is not the case. When I consider the amount of progress that has been made on foot of EU directives, I feel sad that more women did not vote in favour of the Nice treaty. Everyone would have been obliged to swallow something they did not like about the Nice treaty if the referendum had been passed. To see the benefits to which I refer extended across Europe would have been worth it, however.

Senator Cox wisely declared her involvement in an agency. It is a pity agency workers are excluded from this Bill. I will explain the reason for this later. We are a year late in introducing the domestic law covering the EU directive on part-time work. In reply to the debate in the Dáil, the Minister of State indicated that we are awaiting a directive on agency workers which is currently being discussed in Europe. No one knows how long it will be before agency workers are included. I wish to highlight one area where this will place us at a serious disadvantage.

As previous speakers pointed out, the majority of part-time workers are women. I work in the medical field. There is at present a serious crisis in the nursing profession and the health strategy unveiled earlier in the week referred to it. Only this morning the academic Dublin teaching hospitals produced an overall plan in respect of what they hope to do, not only to encourage more women to take up nursing as a career – the majority of nurses are women – but also to try to retain them within the profession. As a result of the shortage of nurses, the conditions of those in the profession have become steadily worse. The involvement of part-time workers is absolutely essential, and no one realises this more than the hospitals. The Mater Hospital placed a newspaper advertisement stating that it would accept people prepared to work two, four, eight or 12 hour shifts. Matters are becoming desperate when employers are prepared to be so flexible.

I am concerned about the exclusion of agency workers from the legislation because agencies are used to a considerable extent to provide nursing personnel. There is a sort of myth abroad at present that private hospitals are better than public hospitals. Knowing that I am speaking to a discreet audience, I am in a position to state that if I am ever ill I make sure to attend a public hospital. In my opinion the public hospitals in this country are excellent. We want to ensure that this level of excellence is maintained by having an adequate number of nurses available.

Public hospitals have traditionally treated nurses in as fair a manner as possible. However, the establishment of rosters is one of the main reasons we are losing people from the nursing profession. Hospitals cannot guarantee that nurses who are due to finish work at 6 a.m. will be able to do so because there may not be anyone available to replace them and they are obliged to remain for the rest of the day.

When they first came into operation, private hospitals, to a large extent, employed agency nurses. From an economic point of view this was considered satisfactory. However, a person might work until 6 a.m., but if there was no one available to relieve them it would be stated in their contract that they could or must remain until 8 a.m., 10 a.m. or noon. This is an entirely undesirable way to staff hospitals. I do not know if this happens to the same degree in private hospitals at present because of the shortage of nurses. However, consideration must be given to this important issue.

The position in nursing is not as bad as that which obtained in the retail trade when, until a few years ago, zero hour contracts existed. I welcome the legislation the Government has introduced in respect of many areas to improve the situation, particularly for working women. Zero hour contracts stipulated that people had to be on call for the retail trade in particular but if they were not called they received no pay. In such circumstances, women would still have had to ensure that their children were cared for and they might have ended up in a negative economic situation as a result of having to pay for such care but not being paid themselves.

Part-time workers have been badly treated for many years. It is only now that we are recognising their value and importance to the economy. However, I would not like the use of agency workers to become more desirable than having people in proper part-time employment. There could be a hiatus of years if agency workers are excluded from the legislation. I accept the difficulties outlined by the Minister of State but we must somehow try to include these workers.

Senator Cox was right to point out that employers get more work out of two part-time workers than out of one worker. I recall that a particular physiotherapy department, as a result of a shortage of qualified staff, was once obliged to employ part-time workers. The head of the department informed me that she got one and a half times the work from these people that she would from ordinary staff because they were prepared to remain that little bit longer to see to patients' needs. They always ensured they had fulfilled the quota for the day and they were not as tired.

There has been excellent progress in this country. My personal experience of nurses working on a week-on week-off basis is that the work they put in is unbelievable. Country hospitals, which are frequently denigrated, are run to a large extent on people working on a week-on week-off basis and I particularly praise the quality of work in Mallow Hospital where many of the women are married to local teachers, farmers, doctors, solicitors, etc. Because of their family responsibilities it would be impossible for them to work in a full-time capacity. What they give to the health service by working on a week-on week-off basis is incalculable and it is marvellous to see that their contribution will now be better recognised. I am delighted with that.

The issue of older workers is important. More and more people are taking early retirement and this problem has not had enough attention. I am most involved with the hospital sector where more consultants are taking early retirement. One thing that has not been addressed is the issue of the health of the individuals involved from 60 to 65 years of age. We must have more flexibility in this area and this Bill may encourage that. Perhaps the Minister of State will put forward this notion.

There is a serious problem at present with the early retirement of hospital consultants because of the inflexible contracts which do not allow them to continue work on a part-time basis. This became a serious issue when at a meeting of the Irish Hospital Consultants Association some years ago someone mentioned that an insurance survey had been carried out which showed that if a person retired at 62 years of age he drew his pension, on average, for 11 years but if he retired at 65 years he drew it for two and a half years. Imagine what effect that had on the assembled group. Of course, each member considered his or age and wondered how much longer he or she should continue working.

We need to look at this issue from a health point of view to see whether it would be wiser to try to get people to work from age 62 to 67, at a decreasing level of activity, before they get a full-time pension rather than insisting on a rigid age of 65. I suggest that the Minister should extend his examination of this area to see what influence full-time work has on people if they have to continue until the age of 65. Would it be better to try to make the system more flexible to take in the ages from 60 to 67?

In Germany people retire at an older age. I stayed in a small hotel in Bavaria and I was very interested to see that very few of the staff were under 60 – the vast majority were over 65. When asked if I would be in late I replied that I would be back by 9 p.m. They gave me a key because that was late so I suppose everything is relative at that stage. We must become more flexible on the issue of retirement age.

I support Senator Cox on the lack of a crèche in Leinster House. Shortly after the Minister, Deputy Wallace, was elected she and I and some other Deputies and Senators went around what was a brownfield site here and we planned where we would have the crèche. It was agreed we would have the crèche here but then we were told we would have it in Kildare House and later in the basement of the Leinster 2000 building. We have been told that it would be located in a number of places on this site and I sometimes believe we will have indoor and outdoor swimming pools before we ever get it. There is no commitment to providing a crèche. This is not just important to the Members, it is of much more importance to the staff.

We visited the Civil Service crèche which is heavily over-subscribed and we saw the ESB crèche which also has a waiting list. I am in consultation with Trinity College because the crèche built for the students is so heavily over-subscribed that people are falling out of academic life and cannot continue their studies. I know that is not the Minister's problem but some staff of the college also have to give up work because they cannot get child care. This area would provide the opportunity to employ more part-time workers.

I commend the Bill but I suggest that the Minister look again at the issue of agency workers. Those workers, many of whom are involved in part-time work, teaching, nursing, medicine, physiotherapy, paramedics, retail, tourism, manufacturing, etc., are absolutely vital to the workforce. Part-time workers are involved in every area and I would be very anxious if we created a loophole to employ people through an agency. That could happen though I know it is not what the Minister wishes, but if we are to wait for the EU directive on agency work to be introduced it may be too late. The Minister accepted amendments from the Seanad before so I ask him to consider this issue before Committee Stage. There is enough time between now and Christmas to get a brief slot in the Dáil for it. I hope we will take the other Stages next week.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, to the House and thank him for the detailed explanation he has given of this important legislation. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution.

The Bill seeks to implement the provisions of yet another EU directive. Its main objectives are to provide for the removal of possible discrimination against part-time workers and to encourage greater participation in the workforce by those who want to work part time while taking into account the real needs of employers and workers. The provisions of the Bill have been influenced by the input of the ICTU and IBEC, both of which participated in a working group leading up to the publication of the Bill.

This partnership approach has been a feature of employment rights legislation and has contributed greatly to ensuring improved conditions of employment to the satisfaction of employer and employee alike. This Bill is to be welcomed, given that the 1990 legislation referred to by Senator Coghlan only provided protection to those who worked at least eight hours per week. The Bill brings with it the benefit of protection for the majority of the 250,000 plus workers in the State now classified as part time. Such workers can look forward to holiday pay, sick leave and all the other benefits on the same basis as those in full-time employment, following the passing of this legislation. They can also look forward to protection in the areas of redundancy and unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal of part-time workers has been a problem in the past.

The merits of the legislation are obvious and the Bill will have a major effect when implemented. It will change the employment landscape in the years ahead in a positive way. Recent years have seen a dramatic change in the profile of our national workforce. There are now 480,000 more people at work than in 1994 and more than 284,000 of those are classified as part-time workers. Employment rights legislation, such as this Bill, has an important role to play in promoting labour market stability and in the growth of the indigenous workforce.

Our economy, in common with many of our European partners, is experiencing significant skills shortages. Senator Coghlan expressed some concern as to where our economy is headed and we remain confident that this challenge will face Government well into the future. The formulation of family friendly work policies is one way of achieving greater participation by homemakers in the labour force. While nearly 80% of those currently classified as part-time workers are female there is still a need to encourage greater participation by women who have reared their families and who wish to return to the workforce.

The Government is to be commended on introducing a whole series of measures aimed at achieving that objective. These measures have included reduced PAYE levels, increased levels of paternity and maternity leave and a range of courses such as those provided by agencies such as FÁS and vocational education committees, not least being the vocational training opportunities scheme, which successfully equips thousands of people for a return, or first entry, to the workforce. As all of these measures will continue to have a positive affect, it is probable that the Minister's estimate of 500,000 people in part-time employment by 2005 will be reality.

The Bill also provides the framework within which it should be possible to encourage a greater number of older people, and those who retire early, to return to work on a part-time basis. Gay Byrne, through his morning radio show, promoted the greater involvement of older people in the workforce and often referred to the trend in the United States where employers actively sought older employees. Gay took a leaf from his own book when he returned to do part-time work after retirement.

In County Kildare it is not uncommon to meet people in their forties or early fifties who are retired on pensions from the Defence Forces but who still have much to offer to an employer. The Minister might elaborate on section 19 which provides that the redress mechanisms shall not apply to the Defence Forces. It is anomalous that in the voluntary early retirement scheme, people who retire from the Defence Forces cannot return as part-time or full-time civilian workers, even though this was the tradition. Members of the Garda Síochána are obliged by regulation to retire at a relatively young age. In the teaching and nursing professions, many able and talented people also avail of early retirement opportunities. The economy and society would benefit by having such people, if they so choose, return to paid employment, albeit on a part-time basis.

The legislation will also benefit the farming community, who will welcome it. It is now accepted that full-time farming will be the preserve of an ever decreasing number, which is regretted by all of us. A parent's task of encouraging a son or daughter to retain the family holding as a viable farming unit will be enhanced by legislation which secures and protects the son or daughter in part-time employment off the farm.

I support the points made by Senators Cox and Henry on persons employed under contract or by agencies. I am sure the Minister will elaborate on the Bill's provisions in that regard. All in all, the Bill represents another excellent piece of work by the Minister and his officials. I commend it to the House and look forward to the early and full implementation of its provisions.

I, too, welcome the Minister to the House. It is always good to see a Minister with legislation which aims to protect workers, and, in this case, a vulnerable section – part-time workers. Only casual workers are more vulnerable.

The Bill implements a European Union directive, but it builds on the 1997 legislation on the organisation of working time, which was seminal in providing holiday pay, maximum hours and rest periods. It is an excellent development to extend this, particularly in relation to pro rata payment in terms of remuneration and pensions. It also recognises the extent to which this section of workers was vulnerable and exploited.

As Senator Coghlan stated, two part-time workers exceed the productivity of one full-time worker. The sum is greater than the parts because there is a fresh worker for one half of the day and then another fresh worker for the other half.

The major question is whether or not there are loopholes in the legislation. Can employers get round it? There are more than 250,000 part-time workers. If it is possible through agency work and contract work for employers to avoid the legislation, then we will not have done a good day's work. It is important to ensure there are no such loopholes because in the Celtic tiger economy part-time workers comprise 16% or 17% of the workforce

The agencies providing contract workers have also increased. Although legal, they can be a means of abusing workers' rights. Ryanair workers, for example, are supplied almost entirely by the Marlborough Group and so Ryanair does not give the true figures on its workforce vis-à-vis other airlines, particularly Aer Lingus, which is frequently castigated by Michael O'Leary. The true picture is concealed in the agency workers it employs part time. These workers must be entitled to the full benefits of this legislation. If they are not, agency work will increase and part-time work will take place in that form.

Agency work already covers a plethora of professions, particularly nursing, teaching, the retail sector and the construction industry. We are all concerned that the legislation should be broad enough to cover these workers. If it is not, then we must ensure amendments are brought forward in this House to do so.

Women are most involved in part-time and casual work. The Minister cited the statistics for the EU as a whole. This legislation will, therefore, be proportionately more beneficial to women, which is desirable as it has taken a long time to end discrimination against women in the workforce. It is often more difficult for women to remain in employment for their working lives, usually because of the demands of motherhood. This legislation ought to result in more women joining the workforce.

The Bill provides that 20% of a full-time working week is required to benefit from the legislation. Why was this figure decided on? Was it because a round figure was required? How will 20% be measured? A teacher's working week, for example, is between 18 and 22 hours but may also include other activities not included in the timetable, like supervision. The Minister is talking about doing it, but he is not prepared to apply pension rights to supervision in the new offer that he made. Even within the narrow framework of 18 to 22 hours, what is the norm and what is 20% of the working week? Is it five hours, four hours, five and a half hours or eight hours? Eight hours is the norm in a 40-hour week. As the explanatory memorandum refers only to eight hours, which I presume is inaccurate, I do not know precisely what guidelines the Minister will put in place to work this out.

There are ancillary activities that are not in the timetable. Supervision is one good example and there are many other ancillary activities that are unpaid. If this legislation were extended to supervision, that would cover exactly what the teachers are seeking and would bring an end to the dispute between the teachers and the Minister for Education and Science. The Minister should tease this out and give me a response.

If I take the principle laid down by Senator Cox, three seven-hour shifts would allow three part-time teachers do a full-time teacher's job without coming under the terms of this legislation. So the legislation will have been bypassed if the work is calculated on the basis of the eight hours indicated in the memorandum. How will we get around this in the case of an employer who dips just below the eight hours in cases where it is not a standard 40-hour week? It could be a 30-hour week or in this case an 18 to 22 hour week in terms of actual work in the classroom or at the coalface, but there may be considerable other work to be done. A part-time teacher has to take copybooks home, do preparation, carry out supervision, etc. There are further matters to be teased out there.

Does this legislation apply to community employment schemes? Community employment schemes are the equivalent of 20 hours of the normal working week. What are the benefits to people on community employment schemes, which are renewable annually up to three years? These are part-time workers and it is not casual work they are doing. Will they now be entitled to pension and pay rights proportionate to the work carried out? Will they be entitled to holiday rights and rest periods?

I welcome the legislation. It took a European Union directive to get us moving on this. We are not moving as fast as we might and this should have been implemented 12 months ago. I accept that worthwhile improvements have been introduced, but these are not retrospective for the people who would have benefited in the past 12 months. They have lost out in pay and pension entitlements and may have suffered other discrimination in the absence of this legislation.

I hope this Bill will pass all Stages by next week. I will listen to the Minister and I am sure he will be willing to consider amendments we may put forward.

I thank all the Senators who contributed to this debate. Many issues have been raised and I will do my best to address them. In general the comments have been positive, but some important questions have been raised.

The objective of the directive on which the Bill is based is to provide for the removal of discrimination against part-time workers, to improve the quality of part-time work and to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis. In his contribution, Senator Norris referred to this as a moving agenda and sometimes we are briefed on the hoof. As the debate was proceeding, I was being briefed on the number of part-time workers. The CSO announced statistics today and the figure I gave earlier of 284,000 has increased to 291,000. It is important that these people are given proper protection in the workplace.

Senator Coghlan spoke about pension entitlement and the European Court ruling in relation to part-time workers. The Bill allows part-time workers access to pension entitlements proportionate to full-time workers. Details related to pensions will be a matter for the Pensions (Amendment) Bill, which is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. The Senator also mentioned small farmers and home-helps. Both of these categories of people will be eligible to be treated as part-time workers under the Bill.

I thank Senator Cox for her comments on child care and maternity issues. In general I agree with many of her points and will bring those remarks to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, who has responsibility for that legislation. I was also interested in her views on the teaching profession. Senator Henry and others made the point that the sharing of one job by part-time workers may have a particularly beneficial effect. Senator Cox also referred to the number of part-time workers. As I mentioned, I have just got the new figure, showing an increase of 7,000 in the third quarter of this year. I also welcome the Senator's comments on training and retraining, and that is something I have been saying for many years.

The central point of Senator Cox's contribution related to agency workers. This was also raised by Senator Henry and others. In the case of a part-time agency employee performing work in an enterprise other than an agency, the ICTU in particular feels it should be possible for such an employee to compare himself or herself with a non-agency full-time worker in that enterprise. Lengthy discussions took place on this issue on Committee and Report Stages and included a division in the latter stages.

Negotiations recently took place at EU level between all the social parties on the issue of temporary agency workers. However, these discussions collapsed in May 2000 because the parties could not agree a definition of agency worker. The European Commission now proposes to introduce a new directive on agency workers and the Commission under its right of initiative intends publishing proposals by the end of this year. A meeting of national experts to discuss the proposal took place on Monday, 15 October in Brussels. In the light of these developments, it would not be appropriate or advisable for me to change from the arrangements that currently exist for agency workers in other employment rights legislation. This also applies to the Employment Equality Act, whereby agency workers compare themselves with other agency workers in an undertaking. I propose no changes in advance of finalisation of negotiations on this proposed directive to the satisfaction of member states and the European Commission. I propose to retain section 7(4) of the Bill as currently drafted.

I thank Senator Norris for his contribution. He mentioned the issue of work permits and visas. I have positive responses on the two issues he raised. The issue of visas is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The inclusion in the Bill of employment rights and entitlements of non-national workers is to make it clear that these workers have the same entitlements as Irish workers. I agree with the Senator and others who spoke about this issue. I have been involved in this area for some time and it is important to copperfasten that right.

The Senator also mentioned pension entitlements of workers in Trinity College. He referred to the teacher he met from Clonmel early in the morning. Senator Henry also raised this issue. I recently received correspondence from SIPTU about the TCD case. When the Bill is enacted, all part-time workers will have pension entitlements of full-time workers on a pro rata basis. The Pensions (Amendment) Bill will be the vehicle dealing with the final details of pension schemes and entitlements. This Bill addresses the right of access to pension entitlements of part-time workers.

Senators Henry and Costello referred to agency workers, a matter with which I have already dealt. I thank Senator Ó Fearghail for his supportive comments. He raised some of the issues I have already covered, but he also commented on the issue of excluding members of the Defence Forces from certain sections of the Bill. That exclusion is only from the enforcement aspect. Members of the Defence Forces are covered by the Bill. However, if a dispute arises, it is resolved through their own local mechanisms and not through the rights commissioner. They are protected in that regard.

Senators Henry, Costello and Norris mentioned part-time teachers and lecturers. I want to clarify the issue in terms of the 20% and the number of hours. During the discussion on the Bill in the other House pay and pensions were major issues of concern, particularly the problem of teachers and lecturers who work only 22 hours a week. The threshold of eight hours in the Bill as drafted was, therefore, considered too high and consequently excluded many teachers and lecturers. I agreed with Members who expressed that concern. It was suggested that a threshold should be expressed in the Bill as a percentage of the hours worked by a full-time employee in order to bring more part-time employees who worked regular, although short hours, such as teachers, into the pensions net. I presume that was what Senator Norris was referring to when he mentioned the teacher. It was considered that persons who worked for less than eight hours per week, which would be 20% of a 40 hour week, should be excluded from such schemes on the grounds that the administrative costs of providing such access to persons with such little service would be far in excess of any benefits which might accrue to them from such pensions. If one takes 20% of 25 hours, for example, one is talking about five hours.

We have substantially improved the Bill. The Government amendment was passed on Committee Stage which provides that the pension exclusion in section 9(4) shall apply only to such workers whose normal hours of work are less than 20% of the normal hours of a comparable full-time employee. The amendment addresses the genuine concerns about access to pension entitlements of certain categories of part-time employees, such as teachers and lecturers.

I thank Senator Costello for raising the issue of work on a casual basis. As I said in my speech, following Second Stage of the Bill in the other House, ICTU raised concerns with me about the reference in section 11(4)(b) of the Bill, as originally drafted, to certain collective agreements. It was concerned that this subsection allowed a collective agreement with no standing in law to derogate from the legal definition of a part-time employee who works on a casual basis. This effectively meant that, potentially, all types of part-time employees could be excluded from the provisions of the Bill if they were regarded in a collective agreement as working on a casual basis.

These concerns were brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Counsel by the Government and were addressed through a number of Government amendments which are reflected in sections 11(4) and 11(5) of the Bill as currently drafted. These amendments are based on section 24 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, and provide that, to be covered by the Bill, a collective agreement referring to an employee who works on a casual basis must be approved by the Labour Court in accordance with the proposed new Schedule to the Bill. These arrangements have worked effectively under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. I do not see any reason the same should not happen under this Bill when enacted.

I thank all the Members for their contributions. We have managed to cover a lot of ground, as we did in the other House. We have amended the Bill substantially. I thank Senators for their constructive remarks. I would appreciate if Senators facilitated the speedy passage of the Bill through the House. I am encouraged by their response today. I know Senators, like myself, are conscious of the need to put this legislation in place to ensure that 291,000 part-time workers are adequately protected. With the Senators' help, we can ensure that will happen sooner rather than later.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4 December 2001.
Top
Share