Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Mar 1990

Vol. 397 No. 7

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Insurance Cover for Part-time Workers.

Eric J. Byrne

Ceist:

1 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the opinion expressed by the Free Legal Advice Centres that the exclusion of part-time workers from full insurance cover by his Department is in breach of the EC Directive on Social Welfare Equalisation, especially in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in a case (details supplied); if he has considered the judgment; if he intends to take any action in relation to the insurance class of part-time workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mary Flaherty

Ceist:

2 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on the implications of the recent European Court of Justice judgment regarding part-time workers, the majority of whom are women; and if he accepts that female part-time workers are entitled to reclassification

Patrick McCartan

Ceist:

26 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the increasing number of part-time workers in the labour force and the indications that some employers are employing only part-time workers, he has any plans to extend to part-time workers social welfare benefits that are currently denied to them; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Madeleine Taylor-Quinn

Ceist:

36 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on the implications of the recent European Court of Justice judgment regarding part-time workers; and if he accepts that female part-time workers are entitled to reclassification.

Richard Bruton

Ceist:

76 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the implication of the recent European Court ruling which granted full social welfare rights to part-time workers in Holland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2, 26, 36 and 76 together.

Workers who are employed for less than 18 hours per week and who are not mainly dependent on their earnings from that employment are regarded as part-time under the social welfare Acts and are insurable at a reduced rate which gives cover for occupational injuries only. Workers who are employed for 18 hours or over are regarded as being in full-time employment and are insurable accordingly under the social welfare Acts.

One of the original objectives of the regulations governing part-time employment was to ensure that persons who are insured and thus eligible for the full range of social insurance benefits pay more than a minimal contribution to the social insurance fund. This was widely accepted at the time as being in the interests of insured workers generally.

I have been concerned about the position of part-time workers under the social insurance system especially in the light of the growing extent of this form of employment in particular sectors. I am aware that there are certain anomalies and inefficiencies in the provisions for these workers in the social insurance system, and I am examining the question of changing the present criteria for insurability so as to provide a greater degree of coverage for workers in this situation. This is, however, a very complex matter and one where there could be considerable financial and other implications for the social insurance system depending on the course of action which is taken. As part of this review the European Court judgment, referred to by Deputies, is being examined.

I have also specifically asked the National Pensions Board to examine the question of pension entitlements of part-time workers. I expect that they will report by the middle of this year.

As Deputies will have been informed by my colleague, the Minister for Labour, during the discussion on the Private Members' Bill on the Protection of Part-Time Workers, a Social Action Programme has now been drawn up by the European Commission. As part of this programme it is expected that the Commission will be in a position to publish a draft directive on a typical work during the summer. The Government will have regard to these proposals to ensure compatibility between the draft directive and our own proposals.

The issue of social welfare coverage for these workers will also be considered in the course of the discussions at the forthcoming informal Council of Social Welfare Ministers to be held in Ireland next month.

I appreciate the Minister's response but I must ask him why he has given the standard response that somebody is looking into the matter and that he has to wait for them to report to him? The judgment in the Ruzius-Willbrink v. Public Service Insurance Board has quite clearly made the case on behalf of our much discriminated against part-time workers.

I would very much like if we could proceed by way of direct, brief and relevant questions.

In the light of the Ruzius-Willbrink finding,——

The Deputy is bringing in a very specific matter, worthy of a separate question.

——would the Minister not agree that women part-time workers are discriminated against in the main and that he should reclassify them as class A PRSI contributors, as a first step in recognising what has happened as a result of the European case?

I had already started this investigation long before the court finding. Deputies who have been in the House for some time longer will know that we have discussed this issue before. It is a very important and complex issue. Indeed, the Commission on Social Welfare discussed this issue but found that it was too complex for them to deal with so I then had to set up a group specifically to tackle this question, which I did. I am sorry that the Deputy does not like this. There are groups tackling various questions because we want to resolve these questions.

The Deputy must be aware that if we make changes, everybody involved will have to pay the full rate of PRSI, but not everybody involved may want to pay the full rate of PRSI, for instance, married women may or may not wish to pay the full rate and they will ask why they should pay the full rate and what extra benefits they will get. We also have to ask how this will relate to the income level and whether there should be a cut-off point: for instance, if a person is paid £10 per month does he have to be included in the category that pays full PRSI? There are many implications in changing PRSI and the matter is being urgently examined at two different levels. The case the Deputy referred to is very specific and the implications of this very recent case are also being considered. In the Dutch case it appears that part-time workers were the only group not covered by a subsistence income scheme which applied to other groups. Therefore the situation is not strictly analogous to what we are concerned about. The judgment will have to be considered in detail before any position can be taken on it. We have to ask whether the judgment precludes any insurability threshold, if it affects one group more than another. This will have to be considered as part of the review and has been included in the review.

As I have already said, the study of this matter was already under way and the case which the Deputy referred to is being considered in that context.

Would the Minister not agree that the significant point, and the reason the case was successful, was that it could be proved that women were over-represented in the group of part-time workers. In view of the statistics which show that Irish women make up 78 per cent of the part-time workforce, would the Minister not accept that he is in breach of the EC Directive and the women who are applying for reclassification as Class A contributors are entitled to be reclassified under the EC Directive? What legal advice has the Minister received concerning the immediate demands on his Department from part-time workers?

There is an established appeals procedure for those who feel they should be included. A case is being appealed and I do not think I should be asked to comment on it. I should like to tell the Deputy that the National Pensions Board, as part of an investigation they are carrying out, have been looking into the extent of part-time employment. It is worth bearing in mind that Ireland is one of the EC countries with the lowest proportion of employment which is part-time — I understand that it is 6.4 per cent. Married woman accounted for 52 per cent of all part-time employment and the EC average was 70 per cent. There is a heavy concentration of part-time jobs in the services industry such as retail outlets. The reason I took an interest in this matter was that some people were working 17½ hours per week, just below the limit.

The nature of part-time working has changed here from being occasional part-time working to being regular part-time working. It is my hope that the matter will be resolved in the not too distant future.

Will the Minister agree that 20,000 women are affected by this? Will he also agree that they could be eligible for class A insurance and will he facilitate those who desire to take up class A insurance? This relates to the EC Directive 79/788 on sex equality, married women and social welfare rights. The Minister had to accede in the famous Cotter and McDermott case.

I should like to appeal for brevity. It seems that the Deputy is not interested in disposing of the sections before us.

The Deputy has put a different question.

When will the Minister pay the 40,000 married women the £20 million he owes them in the form of back payment arising out of the Cotter and McDermott case?

I will not intervene in this matter again.

The Deputy is using this question to make a political statement about a totally different matter.

The Minister will have to be dragged through the European Court.

I presume that the case that is on appeal is a test case.

What legal advice has the Minister received in regard to that case? What principle is involved?

The normal principles apply. Those who have a grievence in regard to their coverage can follow the standard system set down by the House for appeals. A case is being appealed and the usual procedure is to take legal advice and whatever precedents exist are taken into consideration. It should be remembered that that is done under the independent appeals process. That should answer Deputy Byrne's question.

Barr
Roinn