Just before I revert to the point I was at before the adjournment, as the Minister of State, Deputy Flood is sitting in, may I avail of the opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment and wish him every success there?
Before we adjourned the debate I was about to quote from an article by Patricia O'Donovan, Assistant General Secretary of the ICTU. It appeared in Newsline, July 1990 issue, and I quote:
Women and young people predominate amongst low paid workers. The results show that nearly half of all women workers, 140,000 out of 300,000, are in low paid work. The age divisions are also striking. About half of the low paid are under 25 years of age. The part-time/full-time distinction is also crucial because nearly 60 per cent of all part-time workers are low paid.
The Minister has come forward with further figures which reflect the growth of part-time work.
There are a few aspects of the Bill on which I wish to express my views. I do not wish to go over the ground that has been gone over by previous speakers. I believe from the debate, as I have listened to it, that very many aspects of the Bill are being covered very thoroughly. I would suggest that the growth we have had in part-time work over the past 15 years, which is the period referred to by the Minister in his speech, is more or less a response to a need. I want to suggest that that is a need that is shared—perhaps not equally—by both employers and employees.
I believe that the growth that we have had, particularly in relation to women in part-time employment, is more of a response to the general economic conditions we have, such as the need to balance the family budget, than it is in itself a desire to find work outside the home and the family. Both the growth in part-time work among women, and particularly the type of women that are engaged in part-time work, actually reflect this. I concur with the views that have been expressed here that a very high proportion of young married women are in low paid jobs in part-time work. That highlights social and economic problems that go far beyond the capacity of this Bill to address.
I also want to put on record that, as far as I am concerned, I am absolutely opposed to exploitation of part-time workers or of any workers. I have to say that if there is exploitation, and I accept other peoples views on it, during my time as a public representative I have not met part-time workers who have come to me on the basis that there is discrimination in their job, that they are at a disadvantage in some way or other or that they have sought my assistance in rectifying a problem that would fall within that category. Perhaps it relates to the part of the country I come from. However, I accept the views expressed by others that there can be exploitation and that it probably exists.
This word "exploitation" has been mentioned on a number of occasions during the discussion this afternoon and with it goes the implication that most employers could be guilty of this charge. I would like to reject that. I accept that there can be examples. In any society— and we have yet to find the perfect society —there will always be a few bad apples capable of damage. If that is the case— and I am not disputing it may well be the case in a limited number of instances —it is wrong to suggest it should have general application to the whole body of employers. Perhaps I misunderstood some of the observations made, but I got that impression and I feel I should put it on record.
More is needed than what this Bill can achieve. We have to look at the environment in which this legislation is being introduced. That environment in itself puts effective constraints on the objectives of the Minister and on everybody in this House. It is a Bill brought in, to a degree, in isolation even though its net effect is to extend the provisions of seven separate pieces of legislation that at present apply to part-time workers.
The Minister quoted figures in his speech. I want to suggest to him that the figures he used relate to the numbers known to him and his Department who are in part-time work but there are many others who are unknown to the Minister and to his Department. There are those who work in the black economy, who will not declare their position as part-time workers and they will not do that for one simple reason. It is because of the inequities of our tax system. Our general tax system and the manner in which it penalises initiative, work and effort is the environment I am referring to. It is the existence of this inequity in our tax system in relation to work and enterprise that will effect the capacity of this measure to be as effective as we all might wish it to be. Many of those who work in part-time employment and who are unknown to the Minister and his Department will remain outside the ambit of this legislation. Perhaps there is a hope on his part that this Bill and its provisions will encourage them to come out in the open but I question that. I look forward to the Minister's response in this regard.
I want to take, for example, the woman in part-time work, the wife in part-time work whose husband is in full time employment. Let us be realistic about this. If the wife gets part-time work and declares it, so much of what she earns will be deducted from her in tax as to not make economic sense for her to take up part-time employment at all. That is the difficulty that will curtail the effectiveness of this Bill in the workplace or marketplace. For as long as our tax laws discriminate against work and enterprise, many part-time workers will not declare their correct returns.
The Minister mentioned the protection of seven different enactments which will now be available to part-time workers. The part-time worker's sole interest will be to earn that additional few pounds week by week simply to balance the family budget. That is the chief objective. The protection that will be available under this legislation will have a far lower priority. So long as the overall tax situation continues, this is something we will have to contend with and face up to.
There is also the question of the maintenance of the threshold of eight hours and the 13 weeks. I accept this I do understand — although I have no personal experience of it—that certain large-scale employers perhaps here and elsewhere throughout the country devised a system whereby they could ensure that their employees would work some minutes less than the present 18 hours and, therefore, were able to exclude them. That is a type of practice we all find objectionable and to the extent that reducing the threshold is a method of meeting that situation, I welcome it.
I was interested to hear the Minister say in his speech:
In introducing a 13 week threshold in the Bill it was the intention that this would ensure that students and other short time temporary part-time employees would not be covered by the Bill and that the Bill would not create a disincentive to such short periods of employment. The 13 week period ensures, on the one hand, an element of commitment and permanence on the part of the regular part-time employee and, on the other, that the casual or occasional workers will still be largely excluded from the provisions of the protective legislation involved.
On the one hand, I welcome that because I believe students have found that this part-time work is useful for the provision of pocket money and helps to ease the cost on their families in maintaining them. On the other hand, I would like to know what happens in relation to the student once the 13 week period is exceeded.
There are two categories of work that students avail of: I am speaking in particular of my own area. There is the tourist season and the employment that hotels and other such establishments provide in tourist areas for students. Certainly, the 13 week period is more than adequate to cover that. I am also aware that students at third level here in Dublin and elsewhere avail of the opportunity to work part-time, sometimes nights and sometimes at weekends. That would certainly take them for a longer period than 13 weeks. Perhaps when the Minister is responding he would indicate to me what is the position of the student who has part-time employment during his school term and which extends beyond the 13 week period.
Senator Ó Cuív suggested an interesting development that could occur under this legislation. He spoke as an employer of some experience and suggested he saw opportunities for people to move from full-time employment to part-time employment under the provisions of this legislation. That is an interesting observation. I have not thought it out, but I was quite intrigued by the suggestion. I have a fear that the Bill may reduce the opportunity for casual part-time work, because employers—I am talking about responsible employer in this regard— are likely to reassess their role in view of the implications of this legislation and may reduce the availability of part-time work. They may do that by replacing one or more part-time workers by one full-time worker. It may have certain positive effects. It may very well—and I believe that this will be the case — create a number of permanent full-time jobs that would not be created in its absence. But I want to raise with the Minister the question of whether the Bill is going to have a negative effect by reducing the availability of part-time work and that those seeking part time work will, because of the Bill, be pushed further into the black economy.
Unless our tax laws are adjusted to ensure that a second income earner in a household can retain a worthwhile portion of his or her earned income, many of the people will continue undeclared in part-time work. That will continue while economic conditions remain as they are and while our tax laws penalise those who are progressive, penalise the work ethic. To a very great extent this is what is happening. Tax laws, as they stand, punish the second income earner in many households. If that is the case, the objectives of the Bill will remain for many nothing more than an academic exercise, by an large. The opportunities for the casual and part-time worker will remain a feature of the work place. If the effects of the Bill are to reduce the opportunities in decent, open employment, the risk is that it will force those seeking part-time employment to remain undeclared. That is the major reservation I have in relation to the Bill. However, I am quite sure the Minister will be capable of reassuring me that my fears are groundless.
I want to say, finally, that for its many good points I welcome this legislation. I wish it well, but I feel I had an obligation to raise genuinely held fears on my part and also to defend the honest employers —and they are by far in the majority— from any implication or to have their reputation damaged in any way by the unacceptable activities of the few who go wrong.