I move amendment No. 18:
In page 14, subsection (1) (a), line 28, after "months," to insert "or".
It struck me that the word "or" should be included so that the reference to weekly working hours would read "four months or six months". I hope I am correct in this.
Our draftsperson has informed me that the word "or" should be inserted between paragraphs (b) and (c).
Does the Minister accept the amendment?
My advice is not to, but I will take further advice on it.
The wording would read "four months or six months". What does the Minister think about that?
I accept the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 18(a) and 47(a) are related and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 18a:
In page 14, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect subject to the Fifth Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the period of 24 months beginning on the commencement of that Schedule).".
This amendment proposes to phase in the 48 hour week. Following the publication of the Bill a number of representations were made to me, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the committee. These representations indicated that certain sectors of industry would have difficulty with the immediate application of the 48 hour week, despite the flexibilities included. Unions and employers in the dairy, building materials, construction and security sectors made representations in favour of a lead in period. This resulted in further negotiations between ICTU and IBEC on possible lead in arrangements and so this amendment has the agreement of both social partners.
The text of the amendment provides for a two year phasing in period permitting 60 hours to be worked per week in the first year after commencement of the Act and 55 hours to be worked in the second year. The amendment also gives a role to employee representatives to agree to their members and other employees in the category represented by the union or accepted body working more than 48 hours, provided each employee has given his in her agreement in writing.
Where a union or accepted body is recognised by the employers as representing that category of employee, that body can decide whether to agree to longer working hours for all the employees of the category. Where a union or accepted body does not agree to members working more than 48 hours an employer cannot seek the employees' individual agreement to work such hours.
Where there is no union or accepted body representing the category of employees, the employer must seek the individual employee's agreement to work more than 48 hours. In either case, both the union's collective agreement and the employer's list of employees willing to work more than 48 hours must be notified to the Labour Court who will have the final say in permitting the agreement or notification.
The Labour Court may consult the Health and Safety Authority regarding the safety implications of working in excess of 48 hours. The court may also approve agreements or notification, subject to conditions and restrictions and vary or revoke such approval.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 18 which permits working more than 48 hours, the Schedule further provides that employees shall not be subject to any detriment if they do not wish to work more than 48 hours. In addition to the provisions of Article 18, the Schedule provides that a health assessment is to be made available to employees who work more than 48 hours on average. This assessment will be optional, agreement must be given voluntarily by an employee and the Labour Court will have a role in verification. This will ensure the employee is protected from pressure to work long hours.
The amendments in the names of Deputies Kitt and Harney are not acceptable as they provide for an open ended opt out. This would be in breach of the directives. Article 18 permits the opt out for a maximum period of seven years from November 1996. Deputy Harney's amendment does not give unions any role in this area. Working hours have long been the subject of collective bargaining. My amendment respects this tradition while, at the same time, permitting employees in categories where there is no union or accepted body to avail of the transition period for the phased reduction of working hours.
The draftsman has indicated he would like the option of bringing forward technical amendments on Report Stage.
It is contained in the document of 12 February.
There is a typing error in the list of additional amendments. In the Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, the fourth line should read "average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours',."
This brings us to the heart of this legislation. We have supported this and Deputy O'Rourke was involved with the then Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, in agreeing to the EU working time directive. At that time there was an opt out provision. Fianna Fáil's interpretation of that opt out is based on the position of the worker. Individuals should have the right to chose the number of hours worked. This only relates to 6 per cent of the work force. However, it is important that the provision be included from the point of view of the worker, the economy and our way of life.
In my amendment I was careful to include the individual opt out provision and the collective bargaining option as approved by the Labour Court and to ensure that an employee who refuses to give his or her consent to the waiver should not be subject to any detriment by the employer. I also stated there should be an upper limit on the number of hours to be worked. I suggested this should not be more than 60 hours calculated over a 12 month period.
I also stipulated that the employer should take the necessary steps to ensure that health surveillance is made available to the employee in question within the meaning of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Regulations, 1993. My amendment provided that an employee to whom this section applies may, at any stage, withdraw his in her consent by giving one month's notice in writing to their employer.
On Report Stage I will add that an employee who gives such consent shall not receive any other benefit other than compensatory remuneration. We should ensure against discrimination in favour of someone who is willing to work more than 48 hours.
The Minister has gone some way towards dealing with this issue in allowing for a two year transitional period. However, it makes no sense to have an opt out on an individual or collective basis for only two years. One either has an opt out or does not have an opt out. Fianna Fáil consulted a wide range of interested parties and we are anxious to maintain a balance between protecting workers' rights and business interests. My amendment gets that balance right as it leaves the optional flexibility for all time. If we introduce legislation we should get it right. The Minister has tried to achieve a balance but what she has come up with is worthless.
There comes a time in a legislator's life when he or she must get off the fence. This is a classic example of a Minister being challenged to take a position but failing to do so. It would not have been detrimental to employees to give them an opt out, but the Minister has only given this option for two years. Many members of Fine Gael are very concerned about this, especially in relation to the small business sector. The management and employees of some multinationals are also concerned, as is the security industry. The volume of submissions this committee received is testament to the concern which exists, but it is impossible to bring both sides together on this issue. The Minister has fudged, she has stated that a provision will exist for two years but after that we are back to the drawing board. This is a missed opportunity to introduce legislation which would benefit this small, open economy and its workforce.
This section is clearly the main issue of dispute in relation to this proposed legislation. The Minister said that the amendments in the name of Deputy Kitt and myself were not acceptable because they allowed for an open ended opt-out. She said the directive does not provide for that. That is not the case. I have the directive here which says that by 23 November, 2004, the opt-out on the derogation must be reviewed but it does not say it will not be allowed indefinitely. It is wrong to suggest the opt-out ends in the year 2004, as the Minister suggests.
I have made many points both on Second Stage and elsewhere and to me it is about freedom and choice. I cannot understand why any Government would say to someone who wishes to work for more than 48 hours that they cannot do so. This is not just about capping working hours but also about capping income. I have received a number of letters from constituents, mainly those working in the security industry who work more than 48 hours a week and are horrified by these proposals because they know what the consequences will be. I can think of nothing more damaging to one's health or security than to suffer a loss of £10, £20 or £30 in one's income, when it is low. The security sector and other sectors such as the co- operative movement are concerned about this. In the security industry there are many cowboy operators who do not care about directives, legislation, tax laws or PRSI. It is a competitive business. If we implement this legislation in the manner suggested by the Minister, we are putting a further burden on blue chip, legitimate companies, a handicap in the way of genuine employment and capping the earnings of Irish workers.
As regards the transitional arrangements, I am surprised if it is the case that this is acceptable to employer organisations because the transition does not change the principle but simply delays the evil day. It does not allow any employee to opt for the transition if their union decides they will not avail of it. If, for example, a company which employs 100 people is unionised and 51 workers opt for the transition, that company will not be able to avail of it. The kernel of what is involved here is freedom and choice. The economy has very high levels of unemployment. The UK, which has chosen the opt-out, has one of the lowest levels of unemployment in Europe at 7 per cent, together with the Netherlands. They are the only two countries in the EU whose unemployment levels are in single digit figures. They are doing well in the labour intensive sector. I accept Ireland is doing well in electronics and computer software , but we are not attracting many of the big labour intensive industries which employ up to 2,000, unlike Britain. This is because of the attitude we adopt as regards regulations, bureaucracy and matters of this kind. In a competitive world industry has to be mobile and flexible. All other things being equal, when industries see a country has signed up to many of these regulations, they will opt to go to a country that has a degree of flexibility.
I am not suggesting that any worker should be forced to work for more than 48 hours. I am suggesting that a worker should have the freedom to do so. Most people in this room work more than 48 hours a week. Most successful politicians work far in excess of that. If it is really a health and safety issue, why can a prison officer earn so much overtime? Last year one prison officer earned over £40,000 in overtime alone, which makes one think about the number of hours that person worked. The average prison officer earned £7,000 a year in overtime. Why is the Government saying it is all right to work in the prison service, the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces for as many hours as one likes? It is not all right if one works for a small private security firm to work more than 48 hours a week. That is inconsistent, wrong and unfair. It is far too rigid and inflexible in a labour market that has to be, by its very nature, the opposite.
The Minister has indicated she wishes to move a drafting amendment to correct a typographical error. She wishes to insert the word "to" between "is" and "say" in line 4 of amendment No. 47a. Under standing order 110 it is proposed to agree to allow her move this drafting amendment. Is that agreed? The amendment will not be moved until we reach it, but it is agreed that the Minister can move it.
I have been consistently critical of this section of the Bill. Most people have strong views on it. I am taken aback that the Minister has continued to pursue this, even in a watered-down version. It is draconian legislation. The Minister talks about health and safety. It takes away from the choice and freedom to work. I am not aware of any workers who are in favour of that section of the Bill. The Minister should have accepted the spirit of the agreement in Brussels.
Two great men in the Irish labour movement — James Larkin and James Connolly — fought for the rights of workers and the right to work. We now have a member of the Labour Party who wants to stop people working. There is huge opposition to this section. Yesterday, on Cork local radio, I heard Senator Sherlock, the champion of the Irish worker, criticising this section and speaking about the loss his constituents would suffer. He cited the case of a man with four children who will lose £4,000 per annum. I thought we would have no problem with this amendment because it would have the support of everyone. If someone like Senator Sherlock, who was a trade union official, asks for change, something has gone wrong.
I have seen the letter to the Chairman containing 200 signatures from Peter O'Sullivan, the secretary of an action group and a member of SIPTU. I know Peter O'Sullivan well. He is an ordinary man who is not an organiser of any kind. He has a casual approach, is a good worker and a reliable person. His letter states:
I am writing to you in connection with the Organisation of Working Time Bill, 1996. I fail to understand why the Minister did not allow for Irish workers to be exempt from the 48 hour quota, as did the vast majority of her European Ministerial counterparts.
Failure to give this exemption will be seen as a kick in the teeth to the workforce who for the last ten years have given the Irish economy the means for it to become one of the leading economies of Europe. This was brought about by workers accepting low wage deals, while at the same time improving productivity and competitiveness, which has resulted in huge growth in our exports which has led to the creation of thousands of jobs. It would appear that the minister has failed to recognise the efforts of this country's workforce and their families, in all of this, by imposing on them a 48 hour restriction which is of course an attack on the earning potential of these families.
The vast majority of these families have been for years dependent on overtime earnings. In particular, in an industry such as the dairy industry, workers have to do long hours during high season. This is for a number of reasons. Because of the raw material that goes into dairy produce, workers have to work a 7 day shift. This happens for long periods of the year. Many workers are doing these hours in an effort to meet the financial demands placed on their families. These would of course include mortgage repayments, and anybody who takes out a mortgage does so on the strength of their earnings. It is grossly unfair of the minister to say to these people that find themselves in this situation that she is going to put a cap on their earnings, which is far less than what they have been enjoying up to now.
The Minister seems to be of the view that working in the PAYE sector is like running your own business. The minister seems to want people to clock in for 48 hours, take your pay and come back and do another 48 hours and so on for 52 weeks of the year. The dairy industry does not work like that. In addition to that, PAYE workers are not allowed to hold on to their tax until well into the following tax year like others, such as the self-employed. People in general who have this type of overtime use it to give their families a few of the small comforts of life such as a holiday or some improvements in their everyday standard of living. For most people this is their only disposable income.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, no words of mine could adequately express the anger and frustration that exists among the workforce of Dairygold — one of Ireland's largest food companies — at this time. There is genuine fear among people here that this measure is pushing the PAYE sector of this country backwards into the poverty trap which we are hearing so much about lately. I ask you as do all the other people whose names I enclose to ask the minister to allow Irish workers to be exempt from the 48 hour rule.
I estimate that 200 people signed the petition.
I am aware of that.
Peter O'Sullivan is chairman of the Action Group and lives in Carhue, Kildorrery, County Cork. There is another letter——
I permitted the Deputy to read Mr. O'Sullivan's letter but there are 27 major submissions and I do not intend to allow each of them to be read into the record in connection with this amendment. The submissions were circulated to Members and the Minister of State and her officials for consideration. I allowed the Deputy to read the letter because he is concerned about the interests of those who signed it. However, I will not permit him to read all 27 submissions unless they emanated from his constituency.
Those submissions did not emanate from my constituency, by and large, but other Members have concerns about them.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is not possible to deal with all 27 submissions. We would be here until next Christmas if I permitted him to read them into the record.
The letter to which I referred covered people's capacity to earn. The agricultural sector is up in arms and the committee received submissions from the Irish Farmers' Association and the Farm Apprenticeship Board, which will suffer greatly as a result of the legislation. The ICOS, which represents the dairy industry, also made a submission and, as a food producing nation, I fail to understand why we cannot address the problem.
I believe everyone has a human and civil right to decide when and where to work. Are we removing those rights? Will Ireland become part of the Third World or return to the dark ages on foot of this legislation? Since the committee structure was introduced, I have never seen so many submissions from all sectors of the community. By and large, workers are opposed to the legislation. I ask the Minister of State to be sincere and face reality. She should not try to impose the legislation on the sectors to which I referred.
There are approximately 270,000 unskilled, long-term unemployed people in Ireland. They will have some future if the requisite climate is created. Deputy Harney, who I admire because she understands the difficulties faced by working people, made a very fair case. Ireland has an open economy and, because it is an island nation, goods are more expensive here due to transport difficulties, etc. I appeal to Fine Gael Members, who are the only representatives in Government with an interest in this country and are concerned about small business, industrial development, the agricultural community, the Farm Apprenticeship Board — to which, I am informed, commitments were made — and so on, to vote in favour of the amendment. If they do, we will be able to reject this stifling legislation which will restrict people's right to work and destroy the economy.
It is important to clarify the position in the interest of the general public. The committee received 27 major submissions and there was a substantial difference of opinion on the Bill. Some of the organisations which made submissions are opposed to the legislation while others are in favour of it. It is important to place this on record so that it will not be assumed all 27 submissions espoused the same view.
It is hard for me to support this difficult legislation. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Small Business and Services, to which extensive submissions were made by interested parties both opposed to and in favour of this legislation, the task of supporting it is not made any easier. If one considers the current situation, under legislation dating from the 1930s the upper limit on the working week is 53 hours. However, this is widely flouted and there is no great adherence to the provisions of that legislation which makes it a bad law. If enacted, the Organisation of Working Time Bill will probably be seen as progressive legislation. Nonetheless, that does not make it any easier to swallow because certain sectors will have difficulty with its provisions.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Joint Committee on Small Business and Services received submissions from the ICTU, IBEC, ISME and some of the sectors referred to by other Members, including the security industry which has substantial difficulties with the legislation, a SIPTU official, in an article published earlier this week in The Examiner, expressed serious reservations about the Bill. This brings into question the capacity of national organisations to speak authoritatively on behalf of their members and one queries the extent to which they were consulted. The point raised by the official in question was that the legislation would affect the earnings of his organisation’s members. He was extremely concerned and asked that the legislation be amended to take account of this. To what extent can ICTU come before a committee of the House and pose as the champion of workers while advocating the introduction of legislation and asking Members to support it? Its net effect is to reduce the take-home pay of its members. That is the dilemma which faces us.
I acknowledge what the Minister has endeavoured to do since the legislation was published with regard to the phasing in arrangements. A cynic might say Deputy Tom Kitt tabled an amendment dealing with the non-consultant hospital doctors, a group with which I have considerable sympathy, and they have been exempted. The security sectors of the State have also been exempted. A cynic might also say that they have been exempted because there might be a knock-on cost effect to the State. I can understand why the Garda, the Army and the Prison Service should be exempted given the nature of their work but it is difficult to sustain an argument for the State to exempt its own employees while putting the onus on others to adhere to the legislation.
In the context of the Minister of State's attempts to bridge the gap between employers' and employees' representatives, did the question of the loss of earnings arise? Was it raised by either side? The people who were not at the negotiations — the workers — are concerned that their earnings will be reduced. Socially progressive as this legislation might be, was there serious debate about the loss of earnings? The capacity of the ICTU to speak as a single voice for workers must be questioned because trade unions representatives in certain sectors are now breaking ranks and reflecting the views expressed by Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. One wonders how authoritatively they can speak for their members on the issue.
It is all very well to adhere to sound principles but it is the small print that will affect the take home pay of these workers. Everyone would like to work a maximum 48 hour week — I would like it myself. However, the important point is how the legislation will impact on the workers on the shop floor. Its effect may be painful. I acknowledge that the Minister of State is in a difficult position having inherited this directive which was agreed by a previous Government, certain elements of which are now attempting to disown it which is not altogether fair or honest but the loss of earnings is the critical issue and I would like to know if it arose in the discussions.
As a former national trade union official perhaps I might clarify the matter. The policy of the ICTU is formed at its annual conference by the affiliated unions. That does not necessarily mean that all the affiliated unions will agree to all the policy but it is the majority of the members of the affiliated unions who decide the policy of congress. That may explain why individual constituent unions or officials might have a different point of view.
I received many representations on this issue. The cost of living and the pressures on young people bring this issue sharply into focus. I received a letter recently from a person in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul who forcefully expressed his concerns about the Bill. He indicated that in the company in which he works seven men had got married in the past three weeks and had taken out mortgages and many of them would have done so on the strength of being allowed to work flexible hours.
Not enough consideration has been given to this matter with the objective of arriving at a logical solution. When we adjourned discussion last week I anticipated an improvement to the Bill. I could not recommend the improvement suggested — a two year phasing in of the provisions — to the people who had approached me because the provisions would be implemented inevitably.
Our economy is acknowledged as a tiger economy. We receive a large amount of inward investment from US companies such as Intel, Hewlett Packard and Compaq. Those companies come to Ireland for an educated workforce, the labour rates and the flexibility of the workforce. Hewlett Packard recently set up in Leixlip. It employs 800 people and anticipates reaching a level of 2,000 employees. However, it is concerned about this proposed legislation because it requires flexibility from the workforce in its start-up period. With this legislation such international companies will compare us with the UK which has a benign attitude to the social chapter and legislation such as this. In addition the benign regime will operate in the North in direct competition with us.
I am concerned that there will be a loss of jobs. The goodwill shown to Ireland by US and other investors may not be as strong in the future. Investors will look at the bottom line and consider whether they are better off setting up in another country. I have always been concerned about this legislation. I do not think we have adopted a flexible approach.
As a Government Deputy who always participates and backs the Whip, it depresses me that I will be coerced into voting for a provision in the Bill in which I do not believe. As a member of this committee, I must face this issue and speak out. For example if this is implemented, in any company certain people will be anxious to work all the hours they can while others will not and a dissatisfied workforce will result. To achieve a company's production targets, people who do not want overtime will be asked to do so while, in other companies, people prepared to work overtime, perhaps to meet personal commitments, etc., will not be able to do so because of this Bill. Rather than talking about the tiger economy in Europe, we are pulling out the teeth of that tiger in this Bill. In a letter on this issue Mr. Padraig Flynn, the EU Commissioner, stated:
In addition there is a provision allowing a member state not to apply the maximum working week provision under certain conditions, in particular that the worker concerned must give his agreement to work more than 48 hours.
I am amazed that if a worker wants to work more hours, is not coerced into working them and is monitored from a health and safety aspect, he will not be given the opportunity to do so. I regard a two year phase in period as unsatisfactory. It would be better if it was introduced in 2004 which would allow for a seven year phase in period. I am very unhappy with this legislation.
I refer to the IDA's letter. It made a submission on 9 January and withdrew it on 12 February. On withdrawal of its submission, the IDA said:
The submission did not take account of a series of discussions that were taking place on the same issue with several other parties and does not, therefore, represent IDA Ireland's position. It was forwarded in error——
It spent a week preparing the submission. How much Government interference was there with the IDA? It is obvious that there was some and that the IDA was slapped on the wrist. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, chastised the IDA because it presented a realistic submission. If the IDA is right, there will be 500,000 long-term unemployed on the dole rather than the 260,000. It said "Although at present the UK has no statutory limit on working hours, according to the European Commission, its average weekly working hours are less than Ireland — 37 hours in the UK and 42 in Ireland. Consequently, the 40 hour limit presents Ireland with great difficulty.
If the IDA was an independent body, as it should be, it would not have been dictated to or chastised. This is very serious and I seek information on this issue. Who interfered with the IDA? Who chastised the IDA and put it under pressure? Everyone knows the difficulties the IDA faces trying to procure investment and create jobs in a hostile environment. The UK and Europe bid for jobs knowing this to be the case. We will create a jobless environment if this situation prevails. If that is the attitude of some Government partners, we will not be waiting until November for an election. We should have it this evening.
At the request of Opposition Members, tomorrow's meeting has been cancelled. It has been agreed to meet next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m.
I thank you for that. The Credit Union Bill will be taken in the House tomorrow. It is important legislation which will be received by this committee. I greatly appreciate your co-operation.
We have again seen the merit of the committee system. I pay tribute to Deputy Finucane for an honest presentation. He made a number of significant points, one of which related to Commissioner Flynn's letter, lest there be any doubt that this debate is just not taking place in Ireland but at Commission level and throughout Europe also. In a letter to Matthew Lacey of St. Vincent De Paul who wanted clarification, Mr. Flynn said that a provision for member states not to apply the maximum working week provision under certain conditions was available, in particular that the worker concerned must give his agreement to work more than 48 hours. He suggests that Mr. Lacey should contact his local TD to find out what was going on or if he wanted to influence this debate.
Deputy Finucane has received similar representations as I. However he holds an equally strong view on this issue. The Minister of State will not listen to the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party on this but perhaps she will listen to the very genuine arguments put forward by Deputy Finucance. He supports the thrust of my amendment and Deputy Harney's. This is a serious matter. We will cross a line today in regard to workers' rights on the one hand and opportunities for investment on the other. Deputy Finucane made a pertinent point on the competitive situation in which we are placed with regard to multinational investment especially in the high tech area. Do they come to Ireland, Scotland or Wales? I am concerned this issue will still remain in two year's time.
I echo Deputy O'Keeffe comments. He referred to the IDA backing down under serious pressure from some quarters and withdrawing from its earlier position on this debate. In its earlier submission it had serious concerns and in recent days it has drawn back from that for some unknown reason. I cannot understand it because of all the organisations in this field it should be the one most concerned about the need for Ireland to be competitive internationally. I do not understand what caused its change of mind. Will the Minister take note of Deputy Finucane's comments and respond as positively as she can? If we do as she suggests, we will do enormous damage to the interests of our workers and to the Irish economy and the potential for outside investment.
First, I wish to correct the record. On Second Stage, Deputy O'Rourke said that she and the Minister, Deputy Quinn, had negotiated the opt out, and that was repeated again here today. In fact, Deputy O'Rourke was mistaken. The issue about which she and the Minister were so concerned related to the nature and definition of collective agreements, and she fought her corner extremely ably on that issue. In fact, Article 18 had been disposed of under her predecessor as Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen. Deputy Quinn's name has been drawn into this controversy in error and I just want to make that correction.
The minutes of the Council of Ministers at which the directive was adopted state that Belgium, Spain, France, Italy and Luxembourg would not make use of the option provided for in this provision given that an agreement between an employer and a worker would be totally inadequate in a matter as important as that referred to in Article 6 — which is the 48 hour week — which must be governed by stringent and uniform provisions. Deputy O'Keeffe suggested that all European countries were availing of the opt out. One European country has stated it will avail of the opt out and five countries, including Luxembourg which has an unemployment rate of 3 per cent, have had it written into the minutes that they are not availing of the opt out. Therefore, Britain is out on its own in this regard.
Much play was made of the IDA and job prospects. Since this legislation was published and companies knew what was in prospect, 9,300 new jobs have been announced by the IDA. In response to submissions, we talked to both congress and IBEC and this amendment is a reasonable compromise which has been accepted by the social partners. It provides for a phased introduction of the 48 hour provisions.
Some of the Deputies mentioned that the existing law provides for maximum working hours of 53, which was set in the 1930s. Since then, average working hours have reduced very substantially.
Various Deputies mentioned flexibility. This is flexible legislation. We have availed in full of the flexibility available to us under the directive. There is built-in flexibility in relation to the 48 hour week; it is averaged automatically over four months and over six months in specified sectors, including those with major seasonal components; it can be averaged over 12 months by collective agreement.
Furthermore, the definition of working time is very tightly drawn to include only time spent on the job. Therefore, when maintenance workers, for example, must wait around for an operative to be finished with a machine before they can start maintaining it, that is not counted as work time. Lunch, tea/coffee and toilet breaks are not counted as work time. Therefore, in the ordinary course the ordinary net working week could translate into a 55 hour week. There is substantial flexibility and this amendment provides additional flexibility in allowing a two year phased introduction on something which was signalled as long as three years ago from last November, that is, on 23 November 1993 when the directive was signed. Effectively, business is getting a five year lead in time.
This is a health and safety measure, as affirmed by the European Court, and it is important to recognise that. We have evidence which shows, for example, that the risk of heart attacks is twice as high in people who work over 48 and 50 hours compared to people who worked fewer hours. It is important to make those points. This is a balanced amendment in balanced legislation which tries to steer a balance between many conflicting positions proposed by the representatives of workers and management/ business. The Bill, and this particular section with the inclusion of this amendment, represents a fair balance.
I was not aware which countries were availing of the opt out. I spoke about European countries on the Sunday trading Bill. The Minister may have misunderstood me. However, she did not address my question as to who asked IDA Ireland to withdraw the letter and I am very interested in that.
The Minister indicated the European countries which were not availing of the opt out. She mentioned a small number of countries. What about the rest of the EU member states?
The history of the opt out was that Britain did not want the directive and it negotiated an opt out for itself. At one EU Council of Ministers meeting it was agreed that it would not be available to Britain alone, that it would be available to other countries. In response, five countries wrote specifically into the minutes that they would not avail of the opt out under any circumstances. The other European countries are not availing of Article 18, which was originally conceived by the UK, which did not want the directive anyway and challenged it in the European Court.
Is the UK availing of the opt out?
Yes. It is the only country.
As Ireland's nearest trading partner is the UK when one considers Northern Ireland, would the Minister not concede that, despite the announcement of 9,300 jobs since this came into effect, IDA Ireland will not be telling the companies which it is trying to attract about the 48 hour measures which the Minister is introducing?
The Chairman has been generous in allowing contributions so I do not want to be repetitive. We constantly hear in the House that the committee system is a great success. If it means anything, the majority here — in fact, all the members present — do not favour what is happening. It seems to be a complete farce. I understand the position in which Deputy Creed and Deputy Finucane find themselves and I understand real politics. I am not suggesting for one moment that they should have to put their careers on the line, but it is very unreasonable of a Minister to insist we will not get the opt out before a committee in which all the Members want it.
Second, with regard to the calculation of the hours, that an unscrupulous employer could have people at work for about 70 hours a week. If one is a scrupulous employer, one will honour this measure in spirit as well as in the letter of the law. I can see huge problems in that regard.
Lastly, I do not want to repeat the reference to the IDA Ireland letter. The reality is that Ireland and Britain are the most loosely regulated economies in Europe. It is among the reasons they have been the most successful countries in recent times. The Germans and French, who are heavily regulated, have been trying to impose those regulations for years. Unlike the British, who see what is being done to them, we do not seem to understand what is happening. The letter from Mr. Kieran McGowan is very strong even if he withdrew it. He is an intelligent man. It is a very forceful letter in which he states clearly that this clause puts us at a competitive disadvantage vis-�-vis the UK, which is our real competitor. We share this island with the UK economy. I do not believe anybody should be forced to work more than a 48 hour week but I cannot understand why the Minister will not allow those Irish workers, who wish to work more than 48 per week, to do so.
The Minister referred to the rate of heart failure among those who work more than 48 hours per week. If that is the case, why do we exclude so many people, such as prison officers, the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána, politicians, managers, etc? We use health and safety grounds when it suits us. If we want to be fair, we must be uniform. The State cannot say that because it is such a fantastic employer it will allow people to work all the hours they can but it will impose restrictions on other people in the exposed, trading sector. This will add substantially to the costs of Irish industry. It will cost jobs and decrease the earnings of Irish workers and, for all those reasons it will have a detrimental effect on their health and safety.
I would prefer if we could delay having a vote on this issue until next week because the Minister of State might like to consider what has been said here by all parties and by what Senator Sherlock of Democratic Left said. The Minister of State might come forward with a more flexible amendment than one which just delays the evil day.
The Minister of State did not answer the two points I made. The first was that the directive does not say that it ends in seven years; it says it has to be reviewed by 23 November 2004, which does not mean that the derogation will not be allowed for indefinitely. Is it not the case that all that will happen in 2004 is that it is going to be reviewed? Second, is it now the case that a worker whose union does not opt for the transitional arrangements will not be able to avail of them? The transition only applies if the union opts for it by a majority vote.
Some party play is being made of this. The heads and text of this Bill were approved by the all three Government parties. The Government was well aware of the different views being expressed on all sides. This is not an Eithne Fitzgerald measure but a Government one.
I congratulate the Minister of State on allowing individual workers to opt out of the 48 hour maximum period for two years under certain conditions. However, that does not give an opportunity to people who are willing to do overtime. As there is a great deal of confusion about this legislation, even in Europe, could the Minister of State extend the two year opt out period to the full life of the Bill? That would give the powers that be an opportunity to change the legislation; perhaps it will be changed when it is reviewed in 2004.
There are very strong views on both sides of that argument. Some people have misunderstood the degree of flexibility in the provision and how it will affect them or their business. There has been a great deal of scaremongering about its potential effects. Fewer than 6 per cent of employees will be affected by this provision.
I would have thought that a society with less overtime would have more people at work than one with more overtime. That represents a greater sharing of the available work among the potential workforce. There have been discussions with the social partners and the amendment represents a balance between the views expressed on both sides and one which both sides are happy to accept as fair. The amendment, which offers a two year phasing in period, is reasonable in all circumstances.
We have had a fair debate on the amendment. The Bill will not be law today, irrespective of the outcome of this or any other amendment moved today. We only have to deal with what is before us today.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahearn, Theresa. |
Crawford, Seymour. |
|
Bell, Michael. |
Finucane, Michael. |
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
Fitzgerald, Brian. |
|
Bree, Declan. |
Fitzgerald, Eithne. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Ring, Michael. |
|
Byrne, Eric. |
Sheehan, P. J. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Byrne, Hugh. Fox, Mildred. Harney, Mary. Kitt, Tom. Nolan, M. J. |
Ó Cuív, Éamon. O'Keeffe, Ned. Power, Seán. Ryan, Eoin. |
The committee will resume its deliberations next Wednesday, 26 February, at 2.30 p.m. on section 15, amendment No. 19 in the name of Deputy Harney.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5 p.m.
