Vol. 414 No. 10
7 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his views on current EC Commission proposals for directives on (1) part-time workers and (2) the length of working time; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his views on current EC Commission proposals for directives on (1) part-time workers and (2) the length of working time; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
12 Dr. Lee asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his views on current EC Commission proposals for directives on (1) part-time workers and (2) the length of working time; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
13 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his views on current EC Commission proposals for directives on (1) part-time workers and (2) the length of working time; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
38 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his views on current EC Commission proposals for directives on (1) part-time workers and (2) the length of working time; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 10, 12, 13, and 38 together. I assume that the reference in the first parts of these questions to proposals for Directives on part-time workers relate to proposals for Directives on non-standard employment which were contained in the Commission's Social Action Programme for the implementation of the Social Charter. Three such proposals followed from the action programme. In one case, a Directive was adopted by the Council in June 1991 with the full support of Ireland. This is a Directive supplementing measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of temporary workers or workers with a fixed-duration employment relationship.
The other two proposals for Directives on non-standard employment which have not yet been adopted by the Council are a proposal for a Directive on certain employment relationships with regard to working conditions and a proposal for a Directive on certain employment relationships with regard to distortions of competition.
The draft Directive on certain employment relationships with regard to working conditions is based on Article 100 of the Treaty. It proposes to extend to part-time and temporary workers access to company training, access to company social services and social assistance schemes, the right to be informed of vacancies on the permanent staff and the right for temporary agency workers not to be precluded from taking up employment with clients of the agencies.
The draft Directive on certain employment relationships with regard to distortion of competition is based on Article 100A of the Treaty. It proposes to extend to part-time employees, on a pro-rata basis, the same entitlements as apply to full-time employees in relation to holidays, dismissal allowances and seniority allowances. It also proposes to prevent the exclusion of part-time and temporary employees from occupational social security schemes and proposes the imposition of significant restrictions on the renewal of temporary contracts.
These two draft Directives on non-standard employment were discussed at working group level during 1990 and there was a preliminary exchange of views on the proposed Article 100A Directive at the Social Affairs Council on 18 December 1990. However, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, who held the Presidency of the Council during the first and second half of 1991 respectively, did not place the proposals on the agendas of the Social Affairs Councils during 1991.
In the discussions which have taken place to date on the proposals, this country has made it clear that it supports the view that there is a need to ensure that persons in non-standard employment are afforded adequate protection. In that regard the House will be aware that we have earlier this year put on the Statute Book progressive legislation to extend a wide range of protective legislation to regular part-time employees.
Our responses to the proposals which have not yet been adopted have been generally positive and constructive, although we, like other delegations, consider that certain features of the Commission's proposals need to be clarified further. In this regard, Deputies will appreciate that measures which might have an impact on employment must be very carefully assessed and that it will not be possible to take final positions on the proposals until they have been discussed further under a future Presidency.
The second part of the Deputies' questions refer to the proposed Directive on the organisation of working time. This proposal has been presented by the Commission as a safety and health measure based on Article 118A of the Treaty as inserted by the Single European Act. It deals with such issues as the limitation of maximum weekly working time, the limitation of the maximum duration of night work and the provision of daily, weekly and annual rest and rest during work.
Ireland supports the principle that minimum legal standards in respect of working time or rest periods should be set in respect of certain types of employment or certain categories of employee, specifically for employments in which excessive working hours could be injurious to safety of health. We are also concerned to avoid placing undue burdens on employers as this could endanger competitiveness and employment. We favour a Directive which lays down minimum standards where necessary but which can be applied flexibly according to the circumstances of individual member states.
In our view, the terms of the Commission's proposed Directive are too rigid, as they seek to set out a regulatory framework which it envisages would apply in a relatively inflexible manner across a great variety of employments. The Commission's proposals could also have an adverse impact on employment and competitiveness. I expressed reservations about the level of regulation being proposed when the draft Directive was discussed for the first time at the Social Affairs Council on 3 December. In particular, I was concerned at proposals that all workers should be limited to a maximum of 48 hours work each week and that all workers, in every situation, should have 11 hours consecutive rest between two periods of daily work. I was also concerned about a proposal in relation to Sunday rest which I would regard as inappropriate in a health and safety Directive. The proposals would, in my view, introduce an undue level of inflexibility and we have, therefore, been seeking amendments which would achieve the same objective without adverse consequences for employment. The combined impact of the provisions on unemployment and competitiveness was my primary concern.
Ireland's concerns about the proposed Directive, based on the text presented to the Council on 3 December, were recognised and shared by several other member states, including Germany, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. Following the discussion, the Dutch Presidency agreed to consider the points made by the various member states and to forward the proposal to the incoming Portuguese Presidency for further consideration.
In future discussion, my overall approach to this proposal will be constructive, but I will have regard to the likely impact of the final provisions on employment in Ireland. I will continue to seek improvements in the text with a view to arriving at a Directive which will enable our particular employment circumstances to be taken into account.
I am loath to ask the Minister a supplementary question for fear of getting an extraordinarily lengthy reply, but in fairness to the Minister it is a complicated topic.
Will the Minister indicate briefly the Government's reservations about the first Directive he referred to: has he had discussions with the Social Partners, particularly the FIE and the ICTU about this Directive? Is it the Government's intention to do nothing about the Directive until some other country, which happens to have the Presidency, puts it on the agenda of the Social Affairs Council or will they actively seek to have it as a draft put on the agenda of the Social Affairs Council in the new year so that difficulties with it may be teased out?
In relation to that particular Directive, the Government do not have any major reservations. However, as I indicated to the Deputy, the Presidencies concerned did not bring it to the Council for discussion. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate — and this is also relevant to the second part but I shall not deal with that now — that Directives are not adopted on the first day they go to Council. In respect of the general principle of the first Directive, I assure the Deputy that the Government do not have major reservations but it is up to the Presidencies concerned to bring it to the Council.
Having passed legislation in relation to part time workers earlier this year, which had the support of all sides of the House, though some of us had reservations about the implementation of aspects of it, would the Minister not agree that it is in the interests of Irish workers, working part time, that the additional protections that the Directives seek to prescribe are put in place, obviously, subject to the proviso that that does not generate a problem in the creation of employment? Would the Minister agree also that we should actively pursue having these Directives addressed, and, indeed, having any problems with them addressed?
I agree absolutely. Perhaps if I get to know my colleagues on the Social Affairs Council as well as I knew those on the Agricultural Council, from the next meeting on I will be in a position, in informal contact with them either before meetings or afterwards, to underline the importance we attach to this issue. Perhaps we may be able to give an encouraging boost to the next Presidency, the Portuguese, to have that directive brought forward.
On several occasions the Minister has used the term "measures which might have an impact on employment". Perhaps he could explain that a little further, since any improvement in working conditions may be said to have an impact on employment.
In relation to the meeting of 3 December at which the Minister oppossed the Directive to limit working hours to 48 hours, to reduce overtime, to provide for weekend rest periods and so on, could the Minister give his reason for considering that those measures would have an adverse effect on employment since, presumably, if hours of working, overtime and so on are restricted, there would be an increase in employment?
This instance was the first time that the proposals were brought to the Council of Social Affairs Ministers. From my experience over five Councils now I can tell the Deputy that with something as complicated as this issue you do not immediately give our agreement without even considering the implications.
We are teasing out just some of the anomalies, and I shall give the House one example in that regard, although I cannot provide all of the examples. The proposals to limit working hours to a maximum of 48 hours each week and that in every case workers should have 11 hours' consecutive rest between two periods of daily work seems reasonable on the face of it.
It is not unreasonable.
The Commission was asked, but they would not give a definitive indication as to the position of, for example, a factory maintenance man, an electrician or a fitter, who was called to do important work for a quarter of an hour at, say, 10.30 at night. Under the proposals that worker would not be free to resume work until at least another 11 hours had passed after that 15 minutes' attendance.
There is a derogation for emergency workers.
But this would not involve emergency work. It would be normal maintenance of one form or another. We asked for clarification on a range of issues of that kind.
My second point is that I was very anxious to ensure that what was decided would be implemented evenly, and I am sure that everyone in the House would want that to be done. At this stage I am not satisfied that that would have been the case. From discussions I have had since in other member states with business people, I have reason to believe that they seem to take a different view as to what their obligation would be if their governments did adopt the Directive.
Having said that, I assure the House that after the Government have considered the impact of the Directives and the way in which they will be implemented we will have no reservations. But we will not agree to adopt something without even giving consideration to the implications and then find that others agree but take a completely different view.
In the Minister's reply he said that many improvements would be considered to determine whether they would distort the market. A pre-condition was that if an improved measure was likely to distort the market it was unlikely that it would be introduced. The existing legislation deals with regular part-time workers but there is a growing body of casual part-time workers who have practically no protection. Does the Minister intend to initiate action within the European Community or are we to wait until the Commission take action? Will Ireland initiate any action that would improve the lot of the casual worker?
I agree and I repeat that at all times the Government have made it clear that we support the view that there is a need to ensure that persons in what one might call non-standard employment are protected by European and domestic legislation. It is my responsibility to make that point clear beyond "yea" or "nay". I assure the House that that will be our priority. However, the Deputy must know that we cannot act as if we were permanent presidents of the Council of Ministers.
Can we not initiate?
We cannot initiate, that is a matter for the Presidency, but we can certainly suggest to them that they do so.
Can we make a submission?
No. Informal discussions with the Commission and the Presidency proposals can be made, but there is no procedure for making a submission, as might be done here at home.
What about the distortion to the market?
We are talking about procedures in the European Community. I assure the Deputy that in contacts with the Commission and with the Presidency for the time being we will bring those points across forcibly. There is no procedure for us to take up the issue other than to introduce it under "Any Other Business" or a similar heading, but that will not lead to a regulation or a decision.
What about the distortion in the market? Would that change some of the Minister's responses?
I wish to extend the scope of the question slightly in relation to the very important issue of part-time workers and the Bill passed by this House some time ago. The anomaly that arises in relation to part-time workers' liability for PRSI is having a devastating effect on the mushroom industry in my constituency. The people employed in that industry part time are quite willing to forego contributions of PRSI but there is an understanding with the mushroom growers that the levy on turnover or on the number of units on a farm would probably meet the requirement if there was a little flexibility from the Minister's Department. I accept that the Minister is new to the responsibilities of his portfolio but I should like to draw his attention to that serious and ongoing problem.
I have to point out that the Deputy is injecting new matter.
Can the Minister comment on what I have said?
If the Deputy gives me more information I shall consider the matter. I am not sure that it is a responsibility of my Department in any event, but I should be glad to consider it.
The department of mushrooms.
I do not think it is mine.
The Minister might have familiarity with it from his previous briefing.
