Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS debate -
Wednesday, 3 Oct 2001

Vol. 4 No. 10

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

The select committee is meeting to deal with the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000, and I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, and his officials. Members were circulated with a list of proposed groupings of amendments for the purposes of debate.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (2), line 31, to delete "and Terms of Employment".

This is a technical amendment of the phrase "and Terms of Employment." Since the Minimum Notice Act, 1973, as amended, no longer deals with terms of employment, the Labour Party is of the view that the reference in the Bill is no longer appropriate.

Opposition amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Broughan attempts to delete the words "and Terms of Employment" from the Title of the collective citation. It is not legally possible to amend the Title of an Act already in force. Section 1(2) of the Bill merely cites the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts and this Bill, when enacted, together as the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2000, to reflect the introduction of the Bill and its provisions for part-time workers. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment as it is, simply, not legally possible.

Unfortunately, Deputy Broughan, it is not technically possible.

Perhaps we can discuss the matter on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

As amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 9, both may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (4), line 38, after "Act" to insert ", section 39 (other than subsection (2)) of the Social Welfare Act, 1991".

I am advised that this would be a correction of a technical error because there is already a reference to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1991, in the Social Welfare Act, 1991.

My advice is that the proposed amendments which relate to amendments of the Redundancy Payments Acts provided for in the Social Welfare Act, 1991, are unnecessary. I do not propose to accept them on that basis. The Deputy's concerns are met by the Bill as drafted.

I will adopt the same position that I adopted on amendment No. 1. I will withdraw the amendment and return to it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 is a drafting amendment while amendment No. 11 is related. They may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, subsection (7), line 11, to delete "and 1988" and substitute " to 1993".

I accept the Deputy's amendments as they reflect a correct citation of the Acts in question.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I ask the Minister of State to clarify the reference to commencement, "This Act shall come into operation. . . " The Labour Party is of the view that the Government is in breach of the EU directive which we are trying to transpose into law through the work of the select committee by failing to transpose its provisions by the deadline, 20 January 2001. The provisions of the Bill should have effect from that date. The directive has had direct effect since that date in respect of employees of the State——

The Deputy wants it to be backdated to 20 January 2001.

Yes. I wish to make an important point. In the circumstances the Minister of State should commit to make the commencement date order effective from 20 January 2001. I refer to the direct effect principle on European directives. In all cases where a member state fails to implement a directive within the time limit set down the European Court of Justice has developed the concept, as the Minister of State is aware, of direct effect. This means that both treaty articles and directives may, where they have not already been implemented in member states, be relied upon by individuals in court in the member states concerned. This means effectively that the failure by Ireland to transpose the EU part-time work directive does not prevent an individual from relying on the rights as set out in the directive.

The Deputy has made his point. Minister of State, is he correct?

There is a history in relation to the directive and the delays in bringing it forward. The Deputy has rightly raised the issue and I wish to outline the Government's position. In the course of discussions with the Department's legal advisers the question as to the propriety of interpreting the directive as covering - this is but one related issue - remuneration and pensions arose. A view emerged that Protocol 14 on social policy annexed to the treaty establishing the European Union and which constitutes the legal basis of the directive is clearly expressed as not applying to pay and, by extension, pensions. Accordingly, the Department sought from the Office of the Attorney General a formal legal opinion on the matter. A response has recently been 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 does apply to remunerations and pensions, it so applies 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 apply from a future date only. That is the legal position. There will be no question of any backdating arising in these areas in respect of the period since 20 January last when the directive was due for transposition into Irish law. That is the position and I accept the Deputy's right to raise the question now.

It is clear from the agreement that when the directive was drafted originally by the European Commission it certainly seems to have been the view that it would begin on the date quoted. It could be argued later that workers should have the right to pursue back money and other rights and conditions under it. Perhaps the Minister of State will consider this on Report Stage. When I was a member of the select committee I found it particularly frustrating that there was such a plethora of directives in the areas of enterprise, trade and employment and conditions of work which were not being transposed into Irish law. I welcome the efforts of the Minister of State and his staff who have worked hard on this and many other Bills dealing with workers' rights. It seems that we are ignoring the principle of direct effect and the central drive of the new Commission in bringing forward this legislation.

We can go over everything on Report Stage if members desire, but the Minister of State has outlined the legal position and the Deputy has made his point with regard to the commencement date.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 24, after "thereto" to insert "(and, in relation to any pension scheme or arrangement, includes conditions for membership of the scheme or arrangement and entitlement to rights thereunder and conditions related to the making of contributions to the scheme or arrangement)".

Deputies will recall that the issue of remuneration and pensions was discussed in detail on Second Stage in February. Since then and following representations from the ICTU I have had the issue examined in detail by the office of parliamentary counsel to the Government. Government amendment No. 4 reflects the text prepared by that office and clarifies for the avoidance of doubt that the term "conditions of employment" includes pension schemes. This amendment meets the ICTU's concerns. Opposition amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Broughan is unnecessary. Government amendment No. 4 addresses the need for a more comprehensive definition of remuneration and pensions.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.

Amendment No. 6, in the name of Deputy Broughan, and No. 43 are related. Amendments Nos. 6 and 43 are to be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 42, after "including" to insert "a member of the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána or".

On Second Stage I think my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, made the point that the reference to employee did not include members of An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. As we included a specific reference - the Chair may remember this - to both these categories, which include some of the most important workers in our State, in the Parental Leave Act, 1998, and the Employment Equality Act, 1998, it is bizarre that we should exclude them from this Bill. I was expecting the Minister to introduce an amendment in this regard. Members of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána should be included in this provision.

I am satisfied that the Garda and the Defence Forces are included in the provision as drafted. Neither class nor category is specifically mentioned in the text as being excluded, which implies that they are covered by the provisions of the Bill and I obviously want to put that on the record. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 6 which is unnecessary.

With regard to amendment No. 43, this provides that while members of the Defence Forces are covered by the Bill, in cases of dispute such members should have recourse to their own redress procedures as provided for under the defence Acts, rather than to the rights commissioner service. This is in line with the approach previously adopted in the legislation on parental leave and carer's leave. I think Deputy Broughan's concerns are met here.

The concerns are met in the Bill, Deputy Broughan, how stands amendmentNo. 6?

I would prefer if the Minister had spelled it out but he has put it on the record and that is a step forward. I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments No. 7, 31, 32 and 50 form a composite proposal and No. 30 is an alternative to No. 31. We will take amendmentsNo. 7, 30, 31, 32 and 50 together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following new definition:

" 'Framework Agreement' means the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December, 1997 of the Council of the European Communities;".

Amendment No. 7 is consequential on No. 50 and was drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to the Government as a technical amendment to provide for the following definition of the framework agreement attached to the directive: " 'Framework Agreement' means the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December, 1997 of the Council of the European Communities," under which the directive on part-time work was agreed in 1997.

I propose to discuss amendments No. 7, 31, 32 and 50 together. Following the Second Stage of the Bill, ICTU raised certain concerns with me about the reference in section 11(4)(b) to certain collective agreements. They were 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 Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government and are addressed in Government amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 50. These amendments, which are based on the section of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, 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. Deputy Broughan’s amendment No. 30 is alternative to the above proposals and, accordingly, I do not propose to accept this amendment but recommend ministerial amendments No. 7, 31, 32 and 50 to the committee.

Will the Minister of State clarify that what we are saying is that it will not be possible to exclude part-time employees who work on a casual basis from the rights and protections of the Act. If the part-time employee is regarded in a collective agreement as working on a casual basis, the Minister of State seems to have come most of the distance towards meeting the concerns that were raised. I was not expecting that these amendments would be taken together, but in that context we can, for now, accept the Minister of State's suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 8 and No. 10 is consequential on No. 12. Therefore, amendments No. 8, 10 and 12 can be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(a) the Carer’s Leave Act, 2001,”.

This is a brief amendment to extend into——

May I be helpful here? I think we are all interested in ensuring the Bill is passed as quickly as possible. I accept Deputy Broughan's amendment and withdraw my two amendments.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, subsection (1)(f), lines 20 and 21, to delete “and 1998” and substitute “to 1993”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Is it possible to extend the definition of remuneration to include any consideration whether in cash or kind which the employee receives directly or indirectly from the employer in respect of employment, access to any pension scheme or payment of employer contributions where applicable and any amounts the employer will be entitled to receive on foot on any pension scheme or arrangement? I know we have incorporated the reference to a pension scheme, but I am just trying to extend the reference to the payment of employer contributions.

I think Deputy Broughan's concerns are covered under remuneration and pensions but I will examine what he has suggested.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, subsection (5), line 10, after "Act" to insert "(other than an order under section 2)”.

This amendment was provided by the office of the parliamentary counsel to the Government to ensure that commencement orders as provided under section 2 of Bill should not have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, which is standard practice.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

We now move to amendmentNo. 14. Amendments Nos. 15 to 22, inclusive, and 24 to 26, inclusive, are consequential. Amendment No. 23 is an alternative to Nos. 24, 25 and 26. Amendments No. 15 to 26, inclusive, can be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 32 and 33.

I propose to take amendments Nos. 14 to 26 together. On 5 February I received a detailed submission from IBEC on the Bill in relation to, among other things, the definition of first mentioned employee. IBEC considered that there was some confusion arising from the various references to first mentioned employee throughout the Bill as drafted. IBEC suggested a reference to first mentioned employee should be replaced with a simple reference to part-time employee. I asked the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to Government to prepare an appropriate amendment to reflect this concern.

Amendment No. 15 deletes the definition of "first-mentioned employee" and replaces it "with relevant part-time employee." This amendment addresses satisfactorily the concerns raised by IBEC. Amendments Nos. 14, 16 to 22, inclusive, and 24 to 26, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 15.

Opposition amendment No. 23 arises from concerns raised by the ICTU which is of the view that, in the case of a part-time agency employee performing his or her work in an enterprise other than an agency, it should be possible for such an employee to compare himself or herself with a non-agency full-time worker in that enterprise. I inform the select committee that negotiations recently took place at EU level between ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on the issue of temporary agency workers. However, these discussions collapsed because the parties could not agree a definition for an agency worker. The European Commission is proposing to introduce a new directive on agency workers and the first meeting of national experts to discuss the proposal will take place on Monday, 15 October 2001, in Brussels. In the light of this development I propose to retain section 7(4) of the Bill, as currently drafted. I do not propose, therefore, to accept Opposition amendment No. 23.

As the Minister of State outlined, that helps clear the path on a number of fronts.

As we now know, due to recent developments in the economy, this is a very critical area. Clauses three and four of the EU directive on part-time work do not provide for special treatment for agency workers. This is confirmed by the fact that the EU directive on fixed term contract work specifically excludes workers placed by a temporary work agency at the disposition of a user enterprise. There is no such position in the part-time work directive. Part-time workers working in an agency as, for example, the agency's administrative or recruitment staff would compare with full-time workers working in that agency. The concern particularly centres around a part-time agency worker working in a triangular relationship, that is, placed at the disposition of the third party. What protection will that part-time worker, who is an agency worker, have when working in an enterprise other than the agency? The non-discrimination clause of the EU part-time work directive——

The Minister of State has already answered that question.

——is the key provision of the directive aimed at ensuring part-time workers are not discriminated against simply because they are part-time workers. The need for equal treatment for agency workers who work on a part-time basis is, therefore, extremely important. Section 7, as proposed——

The Minister of State indicated that they will be treated as——

I am confident that this issue will be dealt with comprehensively under the directive.

This section will still result in an agency worker never having a worker to compare with in the enterprise in which they are working and performing like work. In view of recent reports about the way in which agency workers from other states who have come to work in this country have been treated it is extremely important that the rights of these workers are protected. The Minister of State appears to be saying that there will be legislation forthcoming in this regard. Is it not possible to strengthen this legislation?

I remember a previous discussion with the excellent officials accompanying the Minister of State today during which they gave me a very good briefing about the development of agency workers from abroad. I am not sure what is happening now, Chairman, as the Government leads us into a recession, but up until recent months it certainly was the case that there were huge numbers, many thousands, of such workers. I wonder if we have given them sufficient protection.

I note the point made by my colleague, the President of SIPTU, Des Geraghty, yesterday at the annual conference of the largest labour union in Ireland. He said we will not allow rogue employers to drive a coach and four through the legislation and gains that we, at this table and in the Dáil, have made on the rights of workers during very hard and bitter struggles, particularly in the last 20 to 30 years. To do so would be to render valueless the work of the Oireachtas, including the work during the past four years of Deputies D'Arcy and Perry and the Chairman.

The Deputy has had a good run at this.

I want to place this matter on record. Is there a way in which we could strengthen this legislation?

The right way to approach this is to deal with it through the directive on agency workers, who have clearly become an issue throughout Europe. Deputy Broughan briefly mentioned non-nationals. I assure him that amendment No. 44 deals with that issue. This legislation will strengthen their rights.

That is helpful.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 7, subsection (1)(c), line 9, to delete “duration.” and substitute the following:

"duration;

'relevant part-time employee' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2).”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 12, to delete "(the 'first-mentioned' " and substitute "(the 'relevant part-time' ".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 7, subsection (2)(a), line 14, to delete “first-mentioned” and substitute “relevant part-time”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 7, subsection (2)(b), line 19, to delete “first-mentioned” and substitute “relevant part-time”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 7, subsection (2)(b), line 22, to delete “first-mentioned” and substitute “relevant part-time”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 7, subsection (2)(b), line 25, to delete “first-mentioned” and substitute “relevant part-time”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 7, subsection (2)(c), line 28, to delete “first-mentioned” and substitute “relevant part-time”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 7, subsection (3)(c), line 44, to delete “first-mentioned” and substitute “relevant part-time”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 7, subsection (4), line 49, to delete "first-mentioned" and substitute "relevant part-time".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 8, subsection (4), line 2, to delete "first-mentioned" and substitute "relevant part-time".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 8, subsection (4), line 5, to delete "first-mentioned" and substitute "relevant part-time".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 8, line 11, after "manner" to insert ", and subject to the like exceptions not inconsistent with this section,".

This section extends the application of relevant enactments to part-time employees in order that each relevant enactment applies to part-time employees in the same way that it already applies to the full-time employees to whom that enactment relates. The relevant enactments are the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984, Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Acts, 1984 and 1990, Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1990, Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 1993, Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977 and 1988 and the Carer's Leave Act, 2001.

The amendment provides, where the relevant enactments referred to in the Bill exclude certain categories of full-time employees, that part-time employees in those categories should also be excluded for consistency purposes. This is an important amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.

As amendment No. 29 is an alternative to amendment No. 28 in the name of Deputy Broughan, we will discuss them together.

I move amendment No. 28.

In page 8, lines 25 to 27, to delete subsection (4).

Before I move on I refer to the phrase in section 9(1), "in a less favourable manner." I ask the Minister of State what is meant by it. My information is that the EU directive on part-time work does not provide for less favourable treatment. On the contrary, it prohibits less favourable treatment. What is permitted in certain circumstances is "different treatment" where it may be justified on objective grounds. Has the Minister of State transposed the directive on part-time work incorrectly in that area? I know what he is trying to achieve, but could he not have used "different manner" rather than "less favourable manner?"

The legislation may be amended to cover a 20% relationship with the normal working hours of a full-time employee. There would still be difficulties, however, if such a threshold were introduced.

It might be helpful to draw the Deputy's attention to amendment No. 29 in the name of the Minister of State.

I will discuss the two amendments together. The Minister of State has inserted the 20% rule. However, there may still be problems. Teachers, for example, had problems with the 20% figure, which would amount to significantly more on a teaching week. The provision is a blanket exclusion of all part-time workers who normally work less than eight hours per week on the basis of protection afforded to part-time workers in the directive in relation to "any pension scheme or arrangement." We are of the view that this subsection is in breach of the EU directive, including clause 4.4, on the following grounds: the directive does not permit a blanket exclusion such as that proposed in this subsection; no objective grounds exist for the exclusion of all workers who work less than eight hours per week from all pension schemes or arrangements; the Bill provides no objective ground or grounds for this provision; there are no provisions in the Bill for this exclusion to be reviewed periodically having regard to the principle of non-discrimination. Currently, there is no legal barrier to an employee——

The Deputy has asked for the deletion of a line and if he——

I want to make a case to the Minister of State. We have all day to discuss the matter, there is no rush.

I have been helpful to the Deputy. The Minister of State's amendment states the same thing.

We may still have difficulties with the Minister of State's amendment which contains the reference to a figure of eight hours. Currently, there is no legal barrier to an employee who works less than eight hours per week joining a pension scheme or arrangement. The Bill is introducing a new legal barrier to membership of such a scheme and as such marks a reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers in this country by clause 6.2.

I find it hard to sit and listen to this discussion. We are discussing the two amendments together and I am trying to be helpful. There is no point in us reading from documents that are not——

I understand that. I am reading from my document.

In the interests of everybody, we are not here to listen to somebody reading a document. We will discuss amendments Nos. 28 and 29 together.

I did not like the way in which a previous Bill was rushed through the select committee. It is very important that we discuss this Bill, we have all day to do so. The Dáil resumed today. While you, Chairman, may be under a particular time constraint, I will be here until the Dáil adjourns. I have no problem with sitting all day. I need to tease out certain aspects of the Bill and will take my time in so doing.

If the Deputy has a problem with my chairing these proceedings, he should, please, let me know. He has not drawn that matter to my attention in the past.

I said, during our discussion on the Carer's Bill - the Minister of State will remember this - that you were rushing the debate. We are finding it hard to keep up with the amendments. We have to deal with many complex issues and the least we should do is take our time doing that work.

I have not interrupted the Deputy. If he has a problem with my chairing of the select committee, he should, please, let me know. He has not indicated any such problem to me in the past.

We are discussing amendments Nos. 28 and 29 together, as agreed. Some of the rhetoric which the Deputy used is covered by amendmentNo. 29. I am trying to use time efficiently. There is not much between Members of the House regarding competing demands. I am merely trying to assist the Deputy.

I want some of the references to the figure of eight hours to apply to the 20% rule. I was merely taking the opportunity to do so. I came here at short notice in substitution for Deputy Rabbitte. We are galloping through the amendments. That is not how I, or the Labour Party, do business.

If we look at the way in which the amendments are grouped, the Minister of State's amendment, amendment No. 29, deals with part of the request made in amendment No. 28. We have all day to discuss the Bill; we have not put any time constraints on the debate, it is very much open-ended.

I welcome that.

Time might better be spent on areas that may not be addressed to the Deputy's satisfaction. Amendment No. 29 goes some way to achieving what the Deputy is asking for. If he looks at the amendments, as grouped, he may find the answer he requires in the grouping as tabled by the Minister of State.

Deputy Broughan made a very important point. There is enormous growth in the area of part-time employees and it is important that entitlements are proportionally geared towards it. It is also important that people are able to avail of their benefits and pension entitlements. People will be disqualified from their entitlement to avail of education grants if they work more than a stated number of hours. Deputy Broughan raised a very valid point regarding employers who are in a position to offer eight hours work in a period of one week. I am anxious to hear what the Minister of State has to say on the matter. This provision will affect a considerable number of people.

I agree with everything that has been said. This is very important legislation and I thank you, Chairman, for facilitating the Government on the matter. I have been trying to secure a meeting room for the select committee for some time. We are meeting to discussthe issue on the first day of resumption of theDáil.

We are going further in the Bill than is required regarding the payment of pensions. I will explain how the 20% rule will work. Section 9(4), as currently drafted, provides, in effect, for the exclusion of part-time employees who normally work less than eight hours in a week from access to pension schemes or arrangements under the Bill. It was considered that persons who work less than eight hours per week should be excluded from such schemes on the grounds that the administrative cost 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. That was the logic behind the decision.

Deputy Rabbitte, to his credit, on Second Stage hinted at the idea of a pro rata situation. I have taken this option on board. Members will recall that this issue was raised in the debate on Second Stage when some Deputies were of the view that, in the case of certain full-time teachers and lecturers who normally work a maximum of 22 hours per week, the threshold of eight hours would have the effect of excluding a high proportion of such part-time teachers and lecturers. It was considered that in such circumstances the threshold might be better expressed as a percentage of the hours of comparable full-time workers.

The threshold of eight hours per week provided for in section 9(4), as originally drafted, represents 20% of a full-time working week of 40 hours. Amendment No. 29 provides, therefore, that the pension exclusion provided for in the section shall apply only to such workers whose normal hours of work are less than 20% of the normal hours of comparable full-time employees. The amendment addresses the genuine concerns of Deputies about the access to pension entitlements of certain categories of part-time employees such as teachers and lecturers. Deputy Rabbitte raised the idea of taking a pro rata approach which I have taken on board.

Amendment No. 28 proposes the deletion of section 9(4). I do not propose for the reasons outlined to accept it. I ask Deputies to take into account the matter of administration in this area. We have to be practical in what we do. We have come up with a very fair solution. I remind Deputies that Deputy Rabbitte signalled this direction as an acceptable course to take.

That clarifies the situation. Deputy Broughan asked about the phrase "treated in a less favourable manner" used in line 15.

This goes back to legal terminology.

It is not——

No, it is a simple matter of the legal terminology as reflected in the directive.

Before I was rudely interrupted by the Chairman I was trying to make the point that——

This is a north side relationship.

A north side row. I have been asked by some advocates to raise the matter of PRSAs. Is 20% not a very high barrier from a pro rata point of view? Also, from an agenda point of view, the national household survey shows that three quarters of part-time workers are women. What is the situation in relation to this? Does the Minister of State not fear that having a barrier, even at 20% of the normal hours of full-time workers, will be used as a justifiable ground for excluding part-time workers from other employment conditions?

People's option to pay into a pension scheme is a very important one as they like to have this assurance when they come to retirement. The Minister of State indicated, however, that this may not be the case. Even taking into account the minimum wage, eight hours represents one fifth of the full working week. When people reach a certain age the non-contributory pension is means tested and they receive an entitlement. If they decide, or their finances allow, they could pay into a pension scheme to receive a higher entitlement. The Bill prevents that option. The job may be a form of occupational therapy in that they enjoy the work, but at retirement age, a person wants financial resources or funds. That option is being excluded.

I made it clear that as the Bill was being drafted - I am now amending it - the exemption was for pensions only, not any other entitlement. I referred to the argument made about administration and the actual value to the worker. Like any other legislation, the Bill will be monitored closely.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 8, subsection (4), to delete line 27 and substitute the following:

"employee whose normal hours of work constitute less than 20 per cent of the normal hours of work of a comparable full-time employee.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Are the provisions of certain conditions of employment subject to other statutory provisions such as the 1997 Act on the organisation of working time?

I understand that they would be.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 9, subsection (4)(b), line 20, to delete “a collective” and substitute “an approved collective”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 9, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) In subsection (4)(b), ’approved collective agreement’ means a collective agreement that stands approved of by the Labour Court under the Schedule to this Act.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 10, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsections:

"(5) The Commission shall, after consultation with organisations and bodies of the kind referred to in subsection (4), determine the extent to which the preparation of a code of practice under this subsection with respect to the steps that could be taken by employers for the purposes of Clause 5.3 of the Framework Agreement would, in its opinion, be of practical benefit to employees and employers and may, if in its opinion the preparation of such code would be of sufficient practical benefit to those persons, prepare and publish such a code accordingly.

(6) The Commission may, after consultation with the organisations and bodies referred to in subsection (5), amend or revoke, or replace with another code of practice thereunder, a code of practice under subsection (5); the Commission shall publish any such replacement code or, as appropriate, publish notice of the making of any such amendment and its nature or any such revocation, as the case may be.”.

On Second Stage in the Dáil last February it was indicated that the ICTU, IBEC and FLAC had 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. This amendment, in addressing clause 5.3, provides in the new section 13(5) that the Labour Relations Commission should consult with representatives of employers and employees to discuss the preparation of a code of practice, and informing the view that such a code would be of practical beneficial effect to employers and employees, they should prepare and publish a code accordingly. It 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. I hope my colleagues will welcome this.

What does the Minister of State mean when he uses the words "code of practice?"

The framework agreement indicates that we should look at reviewing any obstacles to part-time work. We have other codes of practice, in relation to Sunday work, for example. It is a practical measure which strengthens the provision and is voluntary. We should facilitate those who want to work part-time. The code seeks to do this by strengthening the position of workers, ensuring there are no obstacles.

Are clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the directive included in the Bill?

Is the Labour Relations Commission the only body which will define obstacles? Bearing in mind small companies which would not have much to do with the commission or not have many resources, it is hard to define obstacles. They are open to varying interpretations.

The Labour Relations Commission carried out this task in respect of Sunday working. It will conduct an inquiry into obstacles through which all parties will be able to make their views known, including the small company sector. Other representative organisations will be involved.

Is it the Minister of State's intention to seek submissions from representative bodies, particularly in the services area, where there is a fast growing part-time sector? The Labour Relations Commission does not normally deal with such companies. Today's economy is driven by small companies.

There will be employers' representatives involved and also organisations representing employees. That is the correct manner in which to proceed.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 11, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

"(a) for giving evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings under the Act or for giving notice of intention to take any step referred to in this subsection,”.

This amendment would support the prohibition on the penalisation of an employee by an employer which should be extended to cover an employee's giving evidence in any criminal or other proceedings, or notice to do anything within the section. An employee should have a legal right to relevant information in pursuit of his or her case. In this respect section 76 of the Employment Equality Act is relevant. We tried to include the first part in my amendment. We also wanted to include a section which would give a right to information where a person was discriminated against because he or she was a part-time worker in contravention of the Act, or had been dismissed or penalised in other ways amounting to victimisation. The Minister of State has received representations on this matter and I hope he will return to it on Report Stage.

I understand what the Deputy is saying and know that the ICTU has a view on this section. My advice and that of the office of the parliamentary counsel is that this amendment is unnecessary as the matters referred to are implicitly contained in subsection (1)(a). If the Deputy reads that subsection, he will see that what he seeks to deal with is adequately covered. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary and I do not propose to accept it.

It is spelled out more succinctly in the other——

In the Employment Equality Act. The Deputy's reference is from the Employment Equality Act. My advice is that it is not necessary. Our legislation covers the concerns expressed by the Deputy.

Will it be possible to return to this amendment, Chairman?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 36 is related to amendment No. 35 and amendment No. 37 is consequential. All may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 11, subsection (1)(b), line 6, to delete “Act.” and substitute the following:

"Act, or

(c) for refusing to accede to a request by the employer to transfer from performing-

(i) full-time work to performing part-time work, or

(ii) part-time work to performing full-time work.".

The deletion of the word "Act" is a minor textual Government amendment to facilitate the introduction of a new section 15(1)(c) in amendment No. 35. Amendment No. 35 implements ICTU’s and FLAC’s requests to transpose into the Bill clause 5(2) of the framework agreement annexe to the directive. Clause 5.2 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 termination in accordance with the 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. 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, it also provides that 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.

Amendment No. 36 expands section 15(2)(b) as currently drafted in order for the employee to invoke the protection of the anti-penalisation clause in section 15(1)(c). The employer must not have substantial grounds for justifying his request for the employee to transfer from full-time work to part-time work or vice versa.

Government amendment No. 37 is a drafting amendment, which is consequential on amendments Nos. 35 and 36, to define full-time work and part-time work. These amendments taken together clarify and improve the text of section 15 of the Bill as currently drafted.

These amendments are welcome. The role of the employer is important. We must not forget that they are the people who make the investment and create the jobs. It is very important to look after the employee but it is also very important to have safeguards for the employer. To date I have seen very few safeguards for employers in this Bill.

I welcome what the Minister has done to transpose a directive.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 11, subsection (1), line 22, to delete "section 9 or 15” and substitute “this Act”.

I propose to delete "an employee or any trade union of which the employee is a member, with the consent of the employee, may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that the employee's employer has contravened section 9 or section 15" and replace it with "has contravened this Act." It would allow more scope for an employee to make a complaint under the Act to the rights commissioner. The existing wording seems to exclude section 11(4), the section dealing with casual workers. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment.

I understand Deputy Broughan's concern and I thank him for his amendment which attempts to ensure that all contraventions of the Act are referable to a rights commissioner. I am advised, however, by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government that the Deputy's intention is already achieved by this section as drafted. That is very clear in the explanatory booklet.

The Minister seems to be ahead of you, Deputy.

It was an issue about which the ICTU was concerned. Legislation can sometimes sound a little confusing but we will make it clear in explanatory booklets. The rights are very clear.

May I ask the Minister if the employer has the same rights to go to the rights commissioner? Most companies have contracts of employment with their employees and they state clearly the conditions of employment. If the situation arises where an employee has not matched up, it is important that the employer has equal rights also to go to the rights commissioner and have the case adjudicated.

I do not think it is included in this Bill but we will see what the Minister has to say.

I cannot see that situation applying in relation to this Bill.

I think there could be protection of employers as well.

The Deputy should come up with a Private Members' Bill.

As Deputy Perry is a successful businessman in the west, I will take his point. It is an issue that is spoken about in the marketplace, in the real world. There are difficulties in the real world——

Where is the real world? It is not just Clontarf.

——where people are doing exactly what Deputy Perry says, taking the risks, putting in the investment and creating the employment. Their side is sometimes let down.

Every employer today has the highest respect for their employees. That is the basis of a good foundation for any agreement. When people sign employment contracts it is important that all the safeguards are in place for employee and employer.

You have made the point, Deputy. It is possibly an issue that should be given some attention by the Department and I take this opportunity to say so to the Minister. I must draw your attention, Deputy Perry, to the fact that the Bill before the committee is the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill.

The employer is most important because the employer creates the jobs.

I usually try to keep things on track and I accommodated you because——

Will the Chairman and Deputy Perry not bring in a Private Members' Bill for the protection of employers?

I would prefer to see the Minister and his Department addressing the issues raised by Deputy Perry.

Deputy Broughan is the first man to fight for employees when jobs are lost in his own constituency but it must be ensured that there are good employers to create the jobs.

I agree but our recent boom was fuelled by the fact that so many workers have worked flat out, very often in part-time and casual work, and sometimes with very little protection.

With excellent guidance and good government.

With a Government and certainly a senior Minister, the Tánaiste, who has been lethargic in bringing forward directives. That is an unfortunate reality.

My final word on this amendment is that there are provisions throughout this Bill where we have taken heed of some of the suggestions from IBEC and mainly ones from the ICTU. I am watching the potential for future government disappearing all the time.

We are all watching that.

We decided in Dublin the other night that the only viable option after the next election is a Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael grand coalition since we will be in very bad times indeed.

Did you wait until you came back from Cork before you decided that?

No, that was my policy there as well. I will withdraw the amendment for now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 11, subsection (3), line 44, after "months", to insert (which may be extended to 12 months if sufficient cause is shown)".

Six months is a very short period of time and it is certainly out of line with the Employment Equality Act, 1998. Our amendment is an attempt to bring the appeals mechanism under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000, into the model of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. We wonder why that period is so short. In regard to amendment No. 39 which states "which may be extended to 12 months if sufficient cause is shown" and amendment No. 40 which states "or most recent contravention", I ask the Minister to look at the models which his civil servants probably drafted. I know it is in the earlier legislation in 1998.

To answer the first question, I refer Deputy Broughan to section 16(4) because the opposition in regard to amendment No. 39 is not necessary. What is proposed is already covered by section 16(4) of the Bill as drafted.

Our position on amendment No. 40 is that it is an alternative to Government amendment No. 41 and accordingly I do not propose to accept this amendment but recommend our amendment, which is self-explanatory. This amendment is seen as necessary to prevent employees attempting to pursue grievances, particularly in the area of pensions, years after they have left the service of their employer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 11, subsection (3), line 45, after "relates" to insert "or the date of termination of the contract of employment concerned, whichever is the earlier".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.

Amendments No. 42 and 47 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 13, subsection (7)(c), line 18, to delete “£1,500” and substitute “\1,900”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

This section allows for proof of matters essential to a criminal prosecution for non-co-operation with the Labour Court. It is essential under the Constitution that proof of such matters are given by oral evidence, not by certificate. We believe that this section which allows proof by certificate is unconstitutional and is similar to the section declared unconstitutional in the Employment Equality Bill case.

Is there need to produce a document?

Our position is that it is a reasonable requirement to provide for the provision of evidence by the Labour Court of the failure of a person to attend before, or give evidence, or produce documents to the Labour Court in proceeding before the court. I believe it is necessary and accordingly reject the Deputy's opposition on those grounds.

Is the Minister confident that it would withstand a challenge?

I am advised by our legal advisers that this is a reasonable requirement.

They can give evidence or produce documents.

Would it be possible for an individual to appoint an agent to attend if they could not attend themselves?

This is in the case of the chairman not attending. A statement could be made on his behalf.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 14, before section 20 but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

20.-Sections 16 to 18 shall not apply to a member of the Defence Forces.".

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are alternatives to No. 44 and all amendments may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 14, lines 44 to 47 and in page 15, lines 1 to 17, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) For the avoidance of doubt, every enactment referred to in subsection (3) that confers rights or entitlements on an employee applies and shall be deemed always to have applied to-

(a) a posted worker (within the meaning of the Directive), and

(b) a person, irrespective of his or her nationality or place of residence,

who-

(i) has entered into a contract of employment that provides for his or her being employed in the State,

(ii) works in the State under a contract of employment, or

(iii) where the employment has ceased, entered into a contract of employment referred to in subparagraph (i) or worked in the State under a contract of employment,

in the same manner, and subject to the like exceptions not inconsistent with this subsection, as it applies and applied to any other type of employee.

(3) The enactment mentioned in subsection (2) is one of the principal functions under which are vested (disregarding functions vested in the Labour Court, the Employment Appeals Tribunal or any other person who is not a Minister of the Government or a Minister of State) in-

(a) the Minister or a Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, or

(b) the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or a Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.”.

Amendment No. 44, as drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government, widens the category of employee covered by this section to cover not only posted workers but foreign workers who work in this country who are not posted workers, in other words, those working here under a visa or work permit. That is what I referred to earlier, the broad definition of proposing important amendments, given recent media publicity and controversy regarding alleged abuse of non-national workers working in Ireland and highlighted in recent parliamentary questions. These workers, regardless of nationality, have the same entitlements under the employment rights legislation as Irish workers. The Government has sought to copperfasten that. The amendment also replaces a table of enactments as set out in the Bill as originally drafted with an all-embracing, generic definition of employment protection legislation under which the aim of protection of posted and non-national workers has been met.

Opposition amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are alternatives to the Government's amendmentNo. 44 and are not necessary as a result of this Government amendment. As I have already stated, the table of enactments set out in the original section 20 of the Bill has been discarded in favour of the wording adopted in amendmentNo. 44, which is self-explanatory.

It has already been accommodated in amendment No. 44. Is that all right, Deputy Broughan?

Is the Minister convinced that it is enough? He has covered the territory and listed the enactments. Why is he excluding carer's leave from the table?

All Acts are included, even future ones.

Why not mention that, or mention the current Act?

I could do it, but to be fair to the advice we have on the drafting legislation, it is genuinely not necessary and it even covers future legislation. I am delighted Deputies have recognised that. It is important legislation and the Deputies helped bring it through the Dáil before the recess. It is not necessary.

Subsection (2) states: "For the avoidance of doubt, every enactment referred to in subsection (3) that confers rights or entitlements on an employee applies and shall be deemed always to have applied to”. It categorically covers every enactment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 15, after line 19, to insert the following new section:

22.-Where proceedings have not been brought by way of criminal prosecution in respect of an alleged breach of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 as amended by section 21, a complaint in that regard may be made to a rights commissioner or to the Employment Appeals Tribunal in like manner to a complaint of unfair dismissal.".

This amendment will allow a complaint to be made to a rights commissioner or to the Employment Appeals Tribunal in the way one would do in a case of unfair dismissal and, as I said, would further enforce a breach of the Protection of Employment Act, 1997.

Deputy Broughan is linking this amendment to section 21 of the Bill which provides for an amendment of the Protection of Employment Act, 1997, in relation to increasing the fines for indictable offences under that Act. That latter amendment was necessary on foot of a reasoned opinion from the European Commission. However, additional extraneous amendments of the 1977 Act such as Opposition amendment No. 48 are not appropriate under this Bill. I cannot accept the amendment.

This Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill is very much needed. The implementation and policing of this Bill, once enacted, will result in additional costs on top of the various EU directives on employee protection which have been introduced, including legislation on the minimum wage. I note that the maximum fine the court can impose has been increased from £3,000 to £10,000. Past experience with legislation has shown that few, if any, claims brought before the courts have resulted in such a fine being imposed.

Does the Minister of State envisage a need for significantly more staff in his Department to deal with this legislation? Will one section in his Department deal exclusively with it? Employers need to be made fully aware of this legislation when it is enacted, similar to when the minimum wage, which has been very effective in establishing a wage structure in companies, was introduced.

Obviously the Deputy is concerned. My Department will obviously be conscious of resources and will review its staff and inspectorate in light of any new legislation. That also applies to the Labour Relations Commission and various other institutions.

Will this remit be incorporated into the work of inspectors who currently visit companies as part of the implementation of the minimum wage, thus increasing their workload?

No, effectively this will go to the rights commissioners and will, in that sense, be self-policing.

Is there a case for taking a more civil route than the criminal prosecution route given its relative ineffectiveness in the past?

I think that is the case under other regulations but not under unfair dismissals.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 15, after line 19, to insert the following new section:

22.-A decision of a rights commissioner or the Labour Court under this Act or of the Employment Appeals Tribunal under an enactment referred to in this Act shall be pronounced not later than 2 months after the conclusion of a hearing before such body.".

This amendment arose from the fact that some of our practitioners who appear before the Employment Appeals Tribunal feel that decisions can be up to six months late and should be pronounced much more speedily. Justice should be seen to be done but should also be fairly speedy, perhaps not as speedy as the Chairman is running through this legislation, but speedy nonetheless.

I am delighted the Deputy likes speedy decisions. We shall see how speedy the Minister can be on his decision on this amendment.

Amendment No. 49 seeks to have decisions of a rights commissioner, the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Bill, or an Act referred to in the Bill, issued within two months of the hearing before such a body. We believe it would not be appropriate to impose a time limit on such bodies having regard to the large workload being carried out by them. Furthermore, the amendment, if adopted, would raise the question of the status of any decision issued outside the proposed time limit by such bodies. This is a matter for the administration of these bodies. I thank the Deputy for those of his amendments which I have accepted, but for the reasons outlined I cannot accept the amendment.

Maybe we should not rush things. Deputy Broughan might wish to reconsider amendment No. 49.

I will reconsider it, yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 15, after line 19, to insert the following Schedule:

"SCHEDULE

Approval of collective agreements for purposes of section 11(4)

1. In this Schedule, 'collective agreement' means a collective agreement referred to in section 11(5).

2. (1) On an application being made in that behalf by any of the parties thereto, the Labour Court may, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, approve of a collective agreement.

(2) On receipt of an application under this paragraph, the Labour Court shall consult such representatives of employees and employers as it considers to have an interest in the matters to which the collective agreement, the subject of the application, relates.

(3) The Labour Court shall not approve of a collective agreement unless the following conditions are fulfilled as respects that agreement, namely-

(a) the Labour Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to approve of the agreement having regard to Clause 2.2 of the Framework Agreement,

(b) the agreement has been concluded in a manner usually employed in determining the pay or other conditions of employment of employees in the employment concerned,

(c) the body which negotiated the agreement on behalf of the employees concerned is the holder of a negotiation licence under the Trade Union Act, 1941, or is an excepted body within the meaning of that Act which is sufficiently representative of the employees concerned,

(d) the agreement is in such form as appears to the Labour Court to be suitable for the purposes of the agreement being approved of under this section.

(4) Where the Labour Court is not satisfied that the condition referred to in clause (a) or (d) of subparagraph (3) is fulfilled in relation to a collective agreement, the subject of an application under this paragraph (but is satisfied that the other conditions referred to in subparagraph (3) are fulfilled in relation to the agreement), it may request the parties to the agreement to vary the agreement in such manner as will result in the said condition being fulfilled and if those parties agree so to vary the agreement and vary it, accordingly, the Labour Court shall approve of the agreement as so varied.

3. Where a collective agreement which has been approved of under this Schedule is subsequently varied by the parties thereto, any of the said parties may apply to the Labour Court to have the agreement, as so varied, approved of by the Labour Court under this Schedule and the provisions of this Schedule shall apply to such an application as they apply to an application under paragraph 2.

4. The Labour Court may withdraw its approval of a collective agreement under this Schedule where it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for so doing.

5. The Labour Court shall determine the procedures to be followed by a person in making an application under paragraph 2 or 3, by the Labour Court in considering any such application or otherwise performing any of its functions under this Schedule and by persons generally in relation to matters falling to be dealt with under this Schedule.

6. The Labour Court shall publish, in such manner as it thinks fit, particulars of the procedures referred to in paragraph 5.

7. The Labour Court shall establish and maintain a register of collective agreements standing approved of by it under this Schedule and such a register shall be made available for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times.".

Amendment agreed to.
Title agreed to.

Maybe I should request the Bills Office to put shorter titles on Bills. As we are concluding the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000, I will comment on an issue mentioned by both Deputy Perry and Deputy Broughan. We have seen a tremendous increase in the number of part-time workers. I believe there is further potential for increasing the number of part-time workers. Perhaps the Department could look at this. I am referring to the people who opt for an early retirement package. I know the Minister of State is taking action on the older age group.

However, I am not referring only to persons aged over 55, but also active people of 60 or 70 years who want to continue to participate in employment in the community and the marketplace and have knowledge and skills to offer. There is potential and scope for the Department to look at the current tax and RSI laws - I know there has been a reduction in RSI - as well as other matters that may impinge on either the employee or the employer to find an innovative way of ensuring that we can accommodate people who are deemed pensioned off but want to contribute and have much to offer.

We all know there are people in the 60 and 70 age bracket who could certainly work several hours per week. I have seen them and I am sure many people who look at the record of this meeting will concur that one sees them participating at all levels of employment in our community. Perhaps the Department should take this on board and address it appropriately. I would very much welcome that and I am sure some of my colleagues would like to see——

I fully support the Chairman's excellent recommendation. There is huge talent out there among people who have decided to participate in the workforce to a lesser extent. If they had pension entitlements a greater number of those people would participate. There are many areas within the community and voluntary sector that could benefit from such possibilities. We must provide encouragement in this area which will be a massive asset to the private sector also.

I agree with the Deputy. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, need to look at the situation of, say, a person with a small occupational pension and how he or she is affected if he or she takes up work. I am thinking now of a constituent who, following retirement, took up part-time employment as a tourist guide and found the job very enjoyable. We must also look at the social welfare code whereby somebody may work for ten hours but if he or she works for longer he or she is faced with significant problems regarding benefits.

The House and the Government need to work on more family friendly work practices. Politicians are also affected given the considerable number of hours we work. A more family friendly approach would enable more people to return to the workforce. Politicians representing the north side of Dublin have targeted people such as ex-offenders, those coming out of serious addiction, people from the Travelling community and those who do not, for various reasons, want to work a 40 hour week but are willing to make a contribution to society. Perhaps the Minister will take a look at those areas. I thank him for accepting some of our amendments. Perhaps we may come back to deal again with some of them on Report Stage.

I have raised this issue with the Minister in the past. There are people, for the reasons outlined by my colleagues, who may have had to step out of high pressurised positions on medical grounds and who are willing to return to the workplace on a part-time basis. Many employers are finding it difficult to recruit employees on a permanent basis. There are many people within the community who would like to participate in the workforce but they are afraid of the impact in regard to tax regulations or secondary benefits, medical or otherwise, which this would have on their benefit entitlements. Many employers are seeking employees from abroad with no guarantee that those people will remain here. There are many benefits to be gained from having somebody who is happy to participate at one level or other. We need to make comparisons in this area. These people have a wealth of knowledge and experience. Specific legislation to accommodate the more senior pensioner - those aged 55 and over - would benefit the employer and the employee.

I am very conscious of the question of older workers, but the question then arises as to what is an "older worker?" I agree totally with you, Chairman, and with members that there are people who feel that more can be done to create incentives for them to work. We will not force such people back to work, they must do so on a voluntary basis. There is a very important distinction to be made here. There are people who worked hard all their lives, now have enough to live on and wish to enjoy their lives. There is also another group of older people who have a huge contribution to make to the workforce. We need to take another look at the tax-pension system to help them. Work is under way in a number of Departments, including mine, to deal with this issue. It is timely that the Chairman should make these comments. We can do something in the tax-pension area to ensure their remuneration is less punitive.

What we are doing today will assist that category of workers and others. There are many people, who, from a quality of life point of view, wish to work part time. We should facilitate them and erect fewer barriers to them. This legislation makes it easier for people who wish to work on a part-time basis in the voluntary sector to do so. It also eases the situation for employers who, I am sure, welcome what we are doing here today.

I thank members for their co-operation. We have managed to get through our business efficiently. I look forward to meeting members again on some of these issues on Report Stage.

I thank my colleagues, Deputies Broughan, Perry, D'Arcy, McGuinness and Collins for their participation in the debate on the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Workers) Bill, 2000. I thank the Minister, Deputy Kitt, and his officials for their assistance in dealing with the Bill. I also thank the clerk to the committee and my secretariat. We have completed a good day's business.

Top
Share