Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter of importance, namely, the need for the Government to ensure the amendment to the working time directive does not impact negatively on opportunities for women in the labour market. It is very important we have a say in the scrutiny of EU legislation. The working time directive has served as very important legislation in recent years. It established a framework in which workers have been protected against excessive working hours and wage exploitation. There has been much progress in recent years in Ireland and throughout Europe in increasing opportunities for women to enter the workforce and remain in the labour market, to share to a greater extent with men domestic and family responsibilities, and to achieve parity of pay and opportunity among genders. Much of the country's progressive legislation in providing increased opportunities for women has come from Europe, which is important to acknowledge.

However, the draft amendment to the working time directive agreed by the Commission last month could result in a move back in time rather than forwards. I urge the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to do all she can to have the current proposals reviewed in three particular areas.

The draft directive allows for an opt-out clause on setting the working week at 48 hours. If the opt-out is retained and availed of in Ireland, it will have a disproportionate affect on women. If employers are allowed to force employees to work more than 48 hours in an average working week, it will mean women more than men will have to reconsider their positions in employment, given their traditional role as carers in the home which often makes many women reluctant to work long hours outside the home. Moreover, with the flexibility proposed for the health care sector, the imposition of long hours in the caring professions could deter many women from remaining in employment in what are often female dominated sectors.

The second item of concern relates to the length of the working week. In the initial proposal for amending the directive, the maximum reference period for calculating the average maximum working week of 48 hours was four months. The proposal to extend this reference period to 12 months through collective bargaining or other legal protections, along with the proposed opt-out clause, could mean that 12 and not four months becomes the norm.

If irregular and unpredictable working hours become the norm for part-time and full-time workers, as might well happen following this proposal, many women could find themselves in an impossible position as they try to secure and retain work schedules which are incompatible with child care support, one of the key determinants of many mothers' ability to enter the labour market.

I seek the Minister's views on the "on-call time" proposal. My understanding is that this proposal would allow for inactive periods at work, such as time when a person is on-call or certain travelling time, to be treated either as working time or as rest time. It is possible that such a provision could exacerbate the current gender gaps in terms of choice for women and men in the labour market. On-call time must be counted as real working time so that women and men can be given the best possible chance of being designated full-time.

I ask the Minister to remember that the draft directive promotes the reconciliation of work and family life. If this directive is really to support work and the position of women within the workforce, then the issues of opt-outs, reference periods and on-call time need to be seriously re-examined.

See this speech in context