Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Feb 1975

Vol. 278 No. 2

Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Debate resumed on amendment No. 14:

In subsection (1) (a) (ii), page 7, line 10, to delete "forty" and substitute "thirty-seven and one-half".

—(Deputy Dowling.)

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

The Deputy mentioned the possible recommendation at EEC level. That recommendation has to become a directive and that may take some time. I would point out that the normal hours referred to in the section as drafted refer to the problem that the majority of these young people work in areas and services where it would not be accurate to suggest that the going normal week in all cases is, in fact, at the 40 hour mark. In many of the industries and services where they work, the 40 hour week would not be what operates there at present.

Therefore, we think that the figure we have put down here is an advance over the old position. It marks a decided improvement. I have the power at a later stage to amend it again. This is a power to which I referred before in other sections and it applies on this section also. There is no bar on ordinary negotiations producing a lower normal hour in this area. We are again in the familiar situation, as we are in many other sections of this legislation, in which the minimum, the norm, the medium can be compared with the actual better situation in a particular section of industry. The point may be made why, therefore, not make these exactly identical in all respects with a better figure in a particular pocket of industry or even over a sector of industry. The answer to that question is that when one is dealing with desirable change in social legislation, the legislation should lift the horizons and objectives we have.

I am quite satisfied this Bill does that in the terms it sets out to achieve and in the improvements it sets out to gain. I know the Deputies opposite query its usefulness in terms of whether the objectives will be achieveable. In that sense they accept that it sets out to make a real improvement and marks a decided change for the better from the existing legislation which is very much out-of-date.

Again, I would emphasise that the normal is simply what we set down as an average, a mean, which we think is a realistic and good one. It marks a decided improvement and at the same time it is no bar against the ordinary bargaining situation. It does not impede employers, unions or those who organise people in this category from getting better conditions. As we look at the changing scene—and it is one which is fast changing—I have the power to alter even in this area. Therefore, I could not accept the Deputy's amendment. He may have a division if he wishes.

The Government stand here as the people who introduced this legislation. We had some argument earlier when we were contrasting previous records and I do not reject this amendment because of the previous record of the Deputy's party when they were in office. That would be a very childish reason for rejecting any amendment. I reject it simply on the basis of the case which the Deputy has presented. I have a pretty good record, as the Deputy knows, for accepting amendments which are reasonable and improve legislation. I have no particular hang-up that every section of a Bill which I bring into the House must be enacted into law precisely as I have introduced it. That would be to devalue the whole point of contribution in the Oireachtas from Deputies elected by the votes of the people. However, I must say that I do not see much merit in the Deputy's amendment.

With respect to him it is at times unavoidable for Opposition Deputies not to be forced to trail their coats, as the Deputy opposite is forced to trail his coat on this amendment. I quite understand the circumstances which force him to do that. I know that the Deputy is aware that it is simply a question of trailing his coat. Therefore, I reject his amendment.

Mr. Dowling

I have already made our attitude clear in relation to this amendment. The Minister has suggested that the normal working week is 40 hours in all cases. That may be so but if one is to take the average of the personnel employed at the moment I am quite sure it would be below 40 hours per week. The majority of responsible employers operate a 40-hour week. Many employers operate a 35 and a 38-hour week. The Minister is well aware of this. Why does he confuse the situation now by speaking about a mean average? We dealt with two sections of the Bill. One dealt with the normal working hours so we must deal with this. As I pointed out, the eight-hour day and the 40-hour week have been achieved for adult workers. We are specifying this as the norm for children of 16. This is unthinkable. It is quite true the Minister is not dogmatic in his approach to this Bill. He has accepted our amendments from time to time. I wonder why he is so dogmatic about the retention of this subsection. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister feels this is really necessary. Our amendment is much more suitable than the subsection in the Bill.

This Bill is for the protection of young people. The legislation must be forward in its outlook. One would expect to have these hours in a Bill introduced ten years ago. I cannot understand, in view of the changing attitudes of employers and trade unions, the social policies of the EEC and the general movement for a 40-hour week why the Minister would insert into the Bill a section authorising an eight-hour day and a 40-hour week for a child of 16.

We have passed that stage, and whatever the Government in the past may have done, or may not have done, they are not legislating for the future. We are, it is our problem now. It is not the problem of the previous Government; it is the problem of this House today and we must measure up to our responsibilities. We must show the young people that we are concerned about their future. We are concerned about their leisure; we are concerned about the amount of time they may have to devote to the educational opportunities which are available to many young people and are taken up by many young people after working hours. Adult education courses have been pursued by many young people and if this legislation is regarded as progressive by the Minister, then he is taking a backward step every day. We must protect young people to the maximum possible extent.

The Minister is trying to confuse this House when he speaks about the mean average, about the facts, about the norm. We know exactly what the situation is. There is a normal working week and there is a maximum number of hours that one may work. These are the two factors. Depending on the maximum number of hours, the maximum was too great in the case of children from 15 to 16 years and again from 16 to 18 years. We asked Members of the House to reject the subsection in the Bill that the Minister has inserted, and the House refused our request. Now we come to the normal working day. Again we asked the Minister to be fair and reasonable to the young people, to have a forward looking approach to this problem. Do not have people saying in two years' time that this Bill was introduced two years ago, that that particular section was even then out-of-date, because it will be out-of-date before it gets through the two Houses.

I thought the Minister would be a little more realistic. There may be pressures on him. I do not deny that there is a variety of pressures, but his concern now should be to make the best of this Bill. We will give him every assistance possible to ensure that this Bill does justice to the cause that he is hoping to help. It is our desire to do this. We cannot at this stage agree with the situation where young people of 16 would be tied to a normal working week of 40 hours. The Minister must agree that there must be some difference accepted between young people of 16 to 18 years and adult workers. There must be a difference in pressures, a difference in values and we must take it into consideration in the assessment of the working week and the daily hours of work.

I have already given all the reasons prior to Question Time. I ask the Minister to give these points sincere consideration. I felt the Minister was not sincere in the comments he made, because I believe that deep down the Minister would be more in favour of my amendment than he is with that particular section of the Bill. I genuinely believe that he may be defending the situation. I do not blame him for this. There are people who force him to defend it and who will come into the House and vote.

The young people will see that the Government are not progressive in their outlook, that they are not concerned with the future, that they are not concerned about their leisure time. We want to ensure that this Bill when it leaves the House will be a forward step and will be one that really can protect young persons. I ask the Minister, once again, to think about the situation and to give a clear indication that he is in favour of establishing in a Bill that the normal working week of a young person of 16 years would be 40 hours in 1975. This Bill will not come into force for many months and the discussions are still going on between the employers and the trade unions.

I am quite sure that by the time these discussions are terminated we may have a very different outlook in relation to the general situation and to the normal working week of the average adult worker. Here we have the opportunity of producing something beneficial to the young people and something beneficial to Dáil Éireann and we are failing to avail of the opportunity. I know the Minister thinks my amendment is an effective one and one which he would like to support but because of pressures on him, he is supporting something he does not believe in.

I hope that he is not going to victimise young people in the future by the insertion of this. Irrespective of what power he has in the Act, once it specifies something that is what the employers will seek to enforce. We spoke about the many employers who may be unscrupulous towards the young, who get the last possible ounce of work out of them within an Act. Irrespective of what powers the Minister may think he has, if he feels that the Act is defective in some way, it may take some time to amend it. During that period there can be victimisation of the young people. I hope the Minister clearly understands this. It is with sincerity we say this, not on the basis that we are in Opposition, not on the basis that we have to make a case. We genuinely believe that when legislation of this nature comes before the House, we should endeavour to perfect it so far as possible and to ensure that it will be progressive legislation, not a step backwards. This legislation is a step backwards into the Dark Ages when conditions such as these were imposed upon adults. These are the conditions the Minister is now imposing on children.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

One would think from the Minister's lectures and admonitions here that he and he alone claimed credit for having a social conscience. I say to him that the social conscience of the party and of the Members on this side of the House is far ahead of the social conscience of any people involved in this Government and has been for many years.

I want to know how he arrived at this average mean figure. First of all, we are talking about a 16-year-old basically. He already said today that statistics are hindered by the fact that adequate facilities are not available to him. How then does he arrive at a mean average figure for 16-year-olds? Surely he is talking about an imaginary figure for the normal working hour in the country at present, taking the average population into consideration and no amount of explanation can change what he is in fact doing, that for the 16-year-old he is setting, as Deputy Dowling said, a 40-hour normal working week as a basis, something that is outdated already and will certainly be archaic by the time this Bill becomes law.

There are other points. The Minister is now confusing the House. This morning he was inclined to tell us that his only guideline for these figures was the fact that it was an improvement, and a substantial one on a Bill produced in the 1930s. This was the basis this morning. He now tells us —no. His thinking has changed now. It is not because it is an improvement on the 1936 Act. It is a mean average he has achieved. What was the mean average? On what basis was it achieved?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We were talking about a different matter this morning when we were talking about maximum hours. I have been stressing throughout that there is a difference between the maximum and the norm.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I accept the difference. We are talking about two different things.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am saying that this is a fair minimum floor—the 40 hour week.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

On what basis?

Mr. M. O'Leary

On the average hours worked in industry of course. In case the Deputy is forgetting I would point out that in other sections the employment here under this age group cannot be compared with that of adult employees because there are provisions in later sections relating to night work and rest periods which do not apply in their case. Again, I would repeat that I regard this as the normal working week, not the maximum which we were talking about this morning. From this point on, overtime would be paid and at this normal rate. I pointed out that much of the sector of industry in which this would be invoked would be a sector of industry where 40 hours would not be the normal working week even on the going free bargain between employers and unions. Based on actual hours worked, I regard it as a fair bargain and it seems to me to be a fair move forward. It is a fair minimum floor. It takes into account current trends and I can take care of any changes in the future because I have the power under later sections by affirmative resolution to lower that norm. On two grounds it cannot be comparable in employment content to that of other adult employees because there were different conditions attached which are spelled out in later sections. Again, I would appeal to Deputies not to confuse the maximum, which is an argument we had earlier, beyond which if there is infringement, legal penalties apply to the employer. The norm simply sets the point that we regard as fair minimum hours of work per week to be worked by this category of young person.

Mr. Dowling

Can the Minister tell us one way they could work a 40-hour week?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We are talking about areas unprotected by trade unions. We are talking about services in respect of which the Deputy will appreciate there is a great deal of current thinking which suggests that the hours worked are rather longer than the average worked in main line industry.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The normal hours?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I could not accept that.

Mr. Moore

You cannot pretend to protect young people at the expense of adult workers. This, again, could be used against an adult worker. We have heard about the big industrial concerns where the men have less than a 40-hour working week, but a young person could be employed there for more hours than those worked by the adult workers. In section 2, subsection (3) the Minister may by order vary the hours of work specified which shows that he does not trust these figures here. What we are asking the Minister to do is to make normal working hours the maximum for young people. What the Minister is doing is increasing the hours. If we have full employment this might correct itself by the law of supply and demand but as we all know there is far from a shortage of labour today. Therefore, young people who are looking for work will accept what is laid down by the Minister. Unless the Minister amends this and accepts Deputy Dowling's amendment he will do more harm than good to young people. I see the Minister looking at Deputy Dowling very hard as if he were Oliver Twist or someone in a Dickensian setting, looking for more. This Bill is bad in that respect.

We suggested earlier to the Minister to say that, notwithstanding anything in this Bill, no young person shall work a longer working week than is normal for an adult as laid down in the various trade union agreements. We would be a lot happier voting for this Bill if Deputy Dowling's amendments were accepted. The Minister makes the point that it has been 30 or 40 years since we had previous legislation on this. It is like saying that we do not hang people for stealing sheep any more.

Mr. M. O'Leary

But as I was pointing out to the Deputy, I cannot understand his argument about the problem of the adult versus the worker under 18 because in the situation described by him where the working week is, say 37 hours, of course the person involved would be working a 37-hour week. What we are concerned about is the areas where there are no such bargains and where there are no trade unions. In that case we prescribe 40 hours as the normal working week. There is no problem for a young person regarding the bargain of the 20-hour week if such were in existence. The Deputy must understand that there is no difficulty for the young person who will benefit in this legislation being represented in the normal week described as 40 hours. If he happens to be fortunate enough to be in an industry or service where the working week is 35 hours, naturally he will work the 35 hours in common with all others who benefit from the agreements of the unions in their industry. But in a case where there is no union or where such a bargain does not exist to give them the benefit of this legislation, 40 hours a week would be the norm instead of what happens at present in such cases where unions do not operate and where they may be working any number of hours. When Fianna Fáil were in Government they did nothing to protect young persons in that situation.

Mr. Moore

Does the Minister think that 40 hours is a proper length of working week for a person of 15 years of age?

Mr. M. O'Leary

If the Deputies cannot accept the section they should put their misgivings to a vote.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister has made a point I should like to take up. Assuming that the next wage agreement is worked out on the basis of a 37½-hour week or maybe less, he said that this would apply more to services than to industry as a whole. Does this mean, in effect, that the young person who is employed in a service would be working longer hours than the persons who are affected by a national wage agreement?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am surprised the Deputy should ask this question. He should know that if it had not been for the bargains brought about by the trade union movement in negotiations in recent years, hours of work and a lot of other matters would have lagged far behind because our legislation is not a substitute for the role of the free bargainers in our mixed economy. That would mean the unions and the employers. Obviously, we have the situation at present that where a national agreement ordains a certain pay or certain hours of work, if the employer does not wish to comply with these in a non-union situation, we have no statutory means of ensuring that he will operate in accord with the national agreement. If the national agreement advances to a new front—to areas not represented by the unions—as I have been at pains to point out, I have power in a later section to amend both the law, the maximum and all the other areas which may be varied, with the permission of the House.

Mr. Dowling

We are facing a situation now where the average workers in general throughout this country will be working a 37½-hour week or maybe less while at the same time a child of 16 will be working a 40-hour week. What we want the Minister to do is to accept either Deputy Moore's suggestion or accept my amendment, that is, that the normal working hours shall not exceed the norm of the adult worker.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have explained at length how the norm is a fairer minimum, that it does not debar further improvements being brought about and that it relates solely in practical terms to those sectors or services where there is no organisation defending the employees, where the State must intervene on his part, where we do intervene, as in this section and bring in what I regard as a fair average. But we do not prevent an improvement of the situation where unions get a better bargain.

Mr. Crowley

If the Minister is saying that the norm is a fair minimum there should also be a fair maximum.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am sorry but I explained that at length this morning and at this stage Deputies who were present at that discussion appreciate the difference between the maximum and the norm.

Mr. Crowley

But the Minister does not seem to appreciate the difference between the minimum and the norm.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Governey)

I want to announce that I understand we are operating a new reporting system in the House and I think it would be much easier if Deputies would wait until they are called by the Chair to speak.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That means we had better all shut up.

Mr. Crowley

That is going to be a Utopian situation.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister has indicated that where people are outside the scope of a union agreement the State must make sure they are protected. But the State is a tyrant in this case if this is what they call protection. This is no protection for the young child. This is a worsening of conditions if anything. It is not keeping abreast of the normal conditions the average worker has achieved. The Minister must agree there is a difference between an average worker and a child of 16, just as there is a difference between a child of 15 and a child of 16. This is admitted in the Bill by the variation in hours. The Minister must take into consideration our endeavour to ensure protection of the sections who are unable to protect themselves. They have not got the necessary facilities. They would not be covered by the Act and probably would not be members of trade unions or associations. The State is going to cradle these people and bring them along to superior conditions. These conditions are not very superior.

This is a backward step and the Minister and indeed the Government, must accept this. I hope the Minister will now say to the House that he is prepared to accept something that is reasonable for the young people of this country. The young people deserve more than the Minister has proposed in this Bill. The Minister has the Opportunity now and the young people will make up their minds and make their decisions based on the attitude of the Government and the Minister to their future. I hope the Minister will change his mind. I do not want to force the House into a division on this issue. I hope the Minister will be realistic and that he will say a mistake was made and that he accepts our amendment. He will get more credit for that than he would for digging in on a section which would be a backward step and would not assist in the formation of constructive future thought. It would be a step back into the Dark Ages to condemn children of 16 to a 40-hour week that has been passed by the great majority of our adult workers.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I appreciate the Deputy's compassionate feelings for the House, his concern that it should not be forced into a division but I regret that those sentiments were not in evidence before 1 o'clock, or 2 o'clock, when he called the House to two rapid divisions in that many minutes. I do not know whether his Deputies have gone to take fresh air or not but as far as we are concerned——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We will do it again if the Minister wishes.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I sympathise with him in that he must hang their record in this area on a flimsy amendment of this sort because it is a flimsy amendment and the Deputy knows it. We have here the legislation which brings in the improvements and we have the hours per week worked on a normal and fair basis which do not hold up or impede improvements that may be gained elsewhere. I do have the power to amend these provisions at a later stage when it would be appropriate but at present I regret I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment. The Deputy knows from experience that I have not been and do not like to be thought to be intransigent on any minor point or any point on which I could meet the Deputy but on this matter I am afraid I simply see the Deputy adopting a familiar Opposition ploy within a few days of his Ard-Fheis. I do not, therefore, intend to accept his amendment.

Mr. Dowling

Does the Minister consider that this subsection is a reasonable subsection for the protection of young people?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think the section as drafted is reasonable and meets the case.

Mr. Dowling

Does the Minister think that 40 hours is reasonable?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think the section is reasonable.

Mr. Dowling

Then he is a bigger slave driver than I thought.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister continues to admonish us for introducing this amendment but if the Minister thinks back on his own argument he will realise that he is using the best argument we could possibly use for the amendment. I know the Minister is embarrassed about the 40-hour situation and that he would dearly love, if he had the freedom from other members of his Government, to stand up here and say: "I agree wholeheartedly with you. We will not divide on it and I will accept your amendment," but his hands are tied. The Minister said that 40 hours is there to provide for the people who are not organised. The Minister said and has accepted that the working week is being reduced and we are still talking about the adult situation rather than the tender 16-year-olds. The Minister also said that the trade unions are quite entitled to negotiate for 35, 36, 37, 37½ hours or whatever it might be but that he is legislating for those who are not so organised.

Mr. M. O'Leary

With respect, you lived with the situation which permitted 12-year-olds to work over many years without bringing in any legislation. We have now ended that situation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I already explained that to the Minister this morning. Deputy Moore's comment a while ago was relevant to that answer. We are talking about the future. The Minister is young and we want to guide him in the right direction. We want to improve the future. We want to make him conscious of the problems of youth. He has said that the 40 hours is only to legislate for those who would not be organised and would not be able to avail of an agreed situation of 35, 36 or 37 hours.

Mr. M. O'Leary

These will be mainly the people who will benefit.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

State protection. If that be so is he not anticipating something that is going to happen to a greater number of people and is by this act discriminating against those who are not organised? For that reason Deputy Dowling's amendment meets the situation as he sees it just as we do. We have divided this morning and we do not mind dividing now if the Minister wishes. In the interests of the youth we would say that this section is obsolete already. Go forward and break the 40-hour barrier and agree to Deputy Dowling's amendment to make it 37½.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided; Tá, 62; Níl, 55.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick. Tom (Cavan)
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 15:

In subsection (1) (b) (ii), page 7, line 14, to delete "thirty-seven and one-half" and substitute "thirty-two".

We pointed out to the Minister on the previous subsections that we will be bringing in further amendments on Report Stage in relation to the hours per day. We feel that the eight working hours per day is far too long for people of this tender age. It is far too long a number of hours for the Minister to specify in what will be an Act.

In relation to the 37½-hour week, the Minister agrees that there is a difference in the working hours between the young person under the age of 16 and the person over the age of 16 to the extent of two-and-a-half hours. The Minister did not agree that there was a difference between the person of 16 and the adult worker who maintains the 40-hour week. We repeat that 37½ hours in any one week for a child of 15 years is completely unreasonable when most adult workers at the moment have a working week of 37½ hours and some have 40 hours.

We are told the Government are the protectors of this very vulnerable section of society, the people under the age of 16 years. The Government are supposed to protect these young people but yet they want them to work 37½ hours, the same normal work hours as are being enforced at the moment for responsible employers throughout the country. The Minister did concede earlier on that point in the discussions that are now taking place between the employers and the unions and now there may well be an advance on the question of a reduction in the working week. There is a tendency to reduce the working week and it will be reduced in time but the protectors of the young children—the Government—have decided that they are going to work the same hours as the adult workers. There is no protection whatsoever for them. The same argument applies on these subsections as applied on the other subsections and possibly more so in this area in relation to a child of 15 years who wants as much leisure time as possible to take advantage of the educational, sporting and other facilities that may be available and in which he wants to participate.

It is completely unreasonable to have specified in the Bill that the normal working hours of a child of 15 years shall be 37½. Possibly the Minister is being pushed because this is not his attitude. It is a sorry state of affairs that at this stage when dealing with the most vulnerable section of society covered by the Bill the Minister would not stand up, be his own man and say: "I agree with the amendment. I agree that 37½ hours is too long to be the normal working hours of a child of 15 years." I hope that at least in this subsection the Minister will be sensible but if it is necessary the House will have to divide. We will see then who are the protectors of the young people. There is absolutely no protection against the exploitation of these young people. Valid points have been made by Deputy Moore in relation to the reasons why it is necessary that there would be a substantial difference between the adult worker and the child of 15 years.

We are not living back in the Dark Ages. This legislation is supposed to be progressive, dealing with the most vulnerable sections of society, people who are not covered by associations, by trade unions. The Minister will agree that under this section the bulk of these workers are not covered by any association, or organisation, or trade union. They have to rely on their protectors, the Government. Here the Government clearly indicate that their normal work-hours will be 37½.

The trend in Europe and at home with responsible employers is that the normal work-hours are 37½, and even less. Is it reasonable that we should specify in a Bill that the normal work hours for these young children would be such as these? I sincerely ask the Minister to accept our amendment, which suggests 32 hours. This would be much better than 37½ hours. It provides an hour a day at least in which people could use the facilities available. We hear so much about the furthering of education, of technical training, and of other facilities. We can have all the educational facilities in the world for additional training and adult education but, if people have not the time, they cannot avail of them. I would ask the Minister to be realistic about this subsection. We will deal with the eight hour day at a later stage, but we certainly cannot agree with the 37½-hour week, and we will not agree with it.

We must hear the views of the Minister and the Government on the pressures he is subject to, the shackles binding him. He should throw them off and show these people that their interests are being well looked after. Even if he reduced the hours to 32, some people might feel that that reduction was inadequate. The Minister is as well aware as I am that many responsible employers operate a 37½-hour week for adult workers.

I condemn the attitude of the Government and the parties supporting them, to 16- to 18-year-olds. They now have an opportunity to make amends to the people in the 15 to 16 age group. I hope they will have a change of heart and a change of attitude and that the Bill can be rightly called the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill and not the Persecution of Young Persons Bill. as this could well turn out to be.

There is no confusion whatsoever on the maximum hours of work of young persons and the normal work hours. We are quite clear on this. No amount of white-washing will divert us. We are sincere in our approach to this problem. We want to ensure that this legislation will be improved by our efforts and by the collective efforts of this House. We hoped we would get more co-operation on these amendments. I visualise that when we reach Report Stage the Minister may well introduce amendments to reduce the hours, based on the arguments we put forward on other sections. Common sense dictates that to dig in on this aspect will not meet with the approval of the people who sent us here. We want to hear from the protectors of these young people whether they are prepared to accept our amendment and to show some concern for this very young section of the community.

Mr. Moore

I wonder could the Minister tell us how many hours in excess of the normal schoolday are proposed in the subsection here? If we could align working hours to school hours, we could not very well kick against them. I am not sure about schools hours, but I am sure they are about 37½ hours a week, and that might be a good guideline for the Minister.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The guideline is really what is worked in the industry concerned. I am at a loss to know which Opposition case we should listen to here. There is a contest between both the shadows, and Deputy Dowling——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

For the Minister's information, this is Amendment No. 15.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Perhaps Deputy Dowling, at the close of his official career in the Labour shadow portfolio, wishes to make up for his years of solid stonewall defence of a very reactionary status quo. Certainly he has chosen to depart, not with a whimper, but with a crack of the fireworks, as we have here. It can only be described as verbal fireworks because——

Mr. Dowling

The Minister knows I was always progressive.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy always lamented his solitary situation in these benches when he was in Government. I always knew that he was on the right side——

Mr. Dowling

It is amazing how both of us changed, one in Opposition and the other side. The Minister was a radical when he was over here.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This legislation constitutes a sound improvement. I would much prefer at any stage to have in legislative form something which is a change for the better and which becomes law, which is an improvement, which I am satisfied changes a bad situation into a better one, and in which I have power to make future improvements. I would always prefer that situation to one in which I simply put down amendments with which Deputy Dowling has been associated and which he knows in all honesty are there for purposes of opposition cosmetics. We understand that the Opposition must exercise themselves in this area. That is part of the parliamentary process, and Deputy Dowling is perfectly entitled to it. However, I have enough respect for Deputy Dowling's real knowledge of this field to know what he knows and what he understands.

Mr. Moore

What is this all about?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am just putting it to Deputy Dowling that he knows as well as I do what is the strength of this particular kind of amendment. He knows that even the recent national agreement goes nowhere towards establishing the 32-hour week. He knows that.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We are talking about 15-year-olds.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We have introduced many provisions in other sections of this Bill relating to the kind of work and so on. All these things are established in this legislation and, of course, the overall aim of the legislation is to stop the exploitation of child labour. It brings that about. I do not mind Deputies opposite feasting on some of the crumbs. I applaud their efforts to hide the nakedness of their party's achievements in this area by hanging their record on an amendment. Knowing the true situation—as I know Deputy Dowling does—I cannot except that amendment. The levels that we have chosen in the section arise out of the real situation before us, arise out of consultation with interests involved. I consider the proposal for normal working hours, that is 37½ in any week for young persons under 16, represents an acceptable compromise in the area at the moment. That does not prevent —as I repeated on other sections—a better situation obtaining where the hours worked in a particular industry are negotiated between unions and employers. It does not prevent those hours being the normal hours worked in that situation.

There can, obviously, be differing views between any two individuals about what level the normal hours per week should be at any age. That is evident in the differing approaches of Deputy Dowling and Deputy Fitzgerald before they reached accord here this afternoon on what amendment should stand for both their differing viewpoints. It just proves the case very effectively that even Opposition Deputies belonging to the same party, naturally and legitimately, as any two individuals anywhere, might differ about what should be the best thing to do in a particular situation.

Mr. Dowling

Does the Minister not agree that we are both heading in the same direction?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We are both aiming in the same direction. I am only citing the case of their disagreement to show just how many disagreements there can be in this area. Obviously, I had to make a decision about what should be both fair compromise and a real improvement. That is why I have chosen the hours as 37½.

In conclusion, I would repeat that I have the power in subsection (3) to reduce normal hours by means of an affirmative resolution of the Oireachtas. I would, of course, in the future hope to avail of this means of amending by affirmative resolution this section and other sections in this legislation. I could not, therefore, in these circumstances accept this amendment.

Mr. Dowling

Does the Minister not agree as he did earlier that the people affected here would probably be people who are working in services that would not normally be affected by general wage agreements and that they are entitled to the special protection he is going to afford them?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

In reply to the Minister and in regard to what he has said, I offer him my sincere sympathy. I am fully aware of his dilemma. I know that he believes in his heart that his provisions in these sections—I realise his embarrassment about them—are completely and utterly inadequate to meet the present-day situation. He bases his argument constantly on going back to a situation that he alleges arose. I say to him that the performance of the Government that preceded him is the reason for the introduction of this legislation. Thank God we have reached or, to put it more accurately, we had reached up to a short time ago an almost full employment situation. If it has had a set-back recently it is no fault of ours. The reason, basically, for the introduction of this legislation is that more opportunities are there for our young people now. We welcome that and we want it to continue.

We also realise our responsibilities as the party who have by their progressiveness, by their foresight, by their united effort over many years of Government, given to this country a stability and a rate of progress unequalled in any nation in western Europe. If we get down to the specific province of this section again, the differences between Deputy Dowling's amendment and my original one, which has not been moved, were slight. Both were in the same direction as the Minister's. In not moving amendment No. 16 in favour of Deputy Dowling's amendment it was obvious that his was, in fact, the more accurate assessment of the hours of work that should be considered normal for a 15-year old boy. According to the Minister a boy who is one day short of his sixteenth birthday will be working a normal 37½ hour week. On the day after his sixteenth birthday, according to the decision a while ago, he will be working a 40-hour week. That is one of the anomalies of the situation. I am sure the Minister would be the first to agree that 37½ hours a week for a boy or girl of 15 years at present is absolutely out-dated.

We are introducing legislation here that will be frowned on next year as having been out-of-date before it had passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Again, I sympathise with the Minister. I know he almost told us, when he spoke to us a while ago, that his hands are tied to that extent and he has done the best he can, that he has pushed the Government to the limit possible and that he hopes to come back again when he can twist their arm a bit further and introduce more legislation. I would say to him: "Face up to your responsibilities in Labour. The young people will remember you for it." They may thank us for pushing him that bit harder to get him to do something for them. At the same time he will have done his duty for the young people; he will have been fair to them and will have given them what appears to be a sensible 32½-hour working week for a boy or girl of 16 years, who are merely children. We are not anxious to divide the House on this issue. We realise how embarrassing each of these divisions is to the Minister. For that reason we would ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. M. O'Leary

By the figures of voting I would imagine they are rather an embarassment to you.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is by numerical strength and there is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Some of your people are missing.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

By accident you will have noticed that we are numerically under strength at the moment.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am talking about those who are alive and well but are not coming in to vote.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That does not apply to this Bill at all. The Minister is referring to something he read in the papers and he should check that issue carefully.

Mr. Dowling

We shall have two more here after the by-elections.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Our voting strength is embarrassing you a bit further.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister is using the numerical strength he has at the moment to deprive young people of the rights they should have. He will be remembered for this. His Government will be remembered for it but he as Minister will have had the opportunity of doing it. He said to us a while ago: "I have gained so much. In a few months time I will come to you with more legislation". Surely now is the time to do so. While we are disappointed with the results of the other amendments we have put down, the Minister should realise that with 15-year-olds a 37½ hour week is absolutely outdated. That is what will be the normal working week for adult workers in a short time. It is not a realistic, normal working week for a 15-year-old.

Acting Chairman

I am putting amendment No. 15.

Mr. Dowling

Would the Minister consider reducing the number of hours to the number of hours he has there?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Certainly, but not now.

Mr. Dowling

But would the Minister not accept our amendment on this occasion as being a realistic amendment put forward in good faith?

Mr. M. O'Leary

How seriously can I regard an amendment in which there was a difference between the two Deputies to about an hour ago?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

There was no difference in the direction we were taking.

Mr. M. O'Leary

But you put down amendments of different content in both your names.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

But the Minister will agree that they were both reducing the number of working hours?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would accuse the Opposition of being confused about their role in this.

Mr. Dowling

We will give the Minister the option of taking either of the amendments.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is not an option. I think we shall have a vote.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This section is consistent for its inconsistency. That is about all I can say in favour of it.

Mr. Dowling

Is it the Minister's final word that a child of 15 years must accept this? The Minister, being the protector of these people, can only offer a working week of 37½ hours for a child of 15? It is the collective assessment of the Government that it is reasonable that a child of 15 would be called upon to perform the same working time as an adult?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

He does not believe it. It is the Government who believe it.

Mr. Dowling

That is the Government attitude to the child.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is a reasonable step in an area where there has been no legislation for so many years.

Mr. Moore

It is encouraging child labour.

Mr. Dowling

There has been no change from the past in regard to this sweat labour situation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Another William Martin Murphy.

Mr. Dowling

The collective wisdom of the Government has now decreed that all children of 15 and 16 work a 37½-hour week where the adults of 30 and 40 will have achieved something better. The normal working week of this very vulnerable section can in the future be greater in some cases than that of adult workers. Is that the Government's attitude?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am not convinced nor do I think any person looking at the record would be convinced by what I take to be a frivolous approach by the Opposition on this matter, frivolous when you consider that they could not make their minds up to an hour ago about what they wanted.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I object to the Minister alleging frivolity on the part of any of the speakers on this side of the House. The fact that there was a difference in the two amendments was certainly well-intentioned. I would remind the Minister that they both asked for a concession from a Minister who, obviously, has entrenched himself in the position that he is determined that the normal working week for a 15-year-old will only be in line with what it is for very many adult people in offices today, for people of both sexes. I am sure you are well aware that that is the case in very many offices, particularly in other industries where the normal working week is 37½ hours. You, as Minister for Labour, are dragging your heels to the extent that these young people will have to work the same number of hours. The Minister's predicament is a real one. His concern is real but he is being tied from making the move he had looked forward to making. Our concern is for the young people of this country. We also detest exploitation of young people. We, too, welcome any measure to protect the young people concerned.

This Bill is an inconsistent one. It is an impractical one in many spheres. For goodness sake let it be realistic in the maxima and the minima it imposes. For normal working hours we are setting a figure that the Minister knows, as well as we know, is absolutely unrealistic for the 15-year-old in 1975.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 58.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Bredan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 16 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 17:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"(2) A young person shall be entitled to eight hours in a week, during normal working hours, to attend vocational training or other educational courses without prejudicially affecting the contract of service under which the young person is employed."

Section 10 deals with vocational training in normal working hours. It reads:

Any time spent with the consent of his employer by a young person in vocational training during normal working hours shall be deemed to be hours worked by him for the purposes of section 7 and 8 of this Act.

The reason for this amendment is that in section 10 it states:

Any time spent with the consent of his employer

and this can mean a half-hour or hour as the case may be. The normal situation is for a day's release to attend vocational training or other educational courses. It is desirable that if a person wanted to obtain a day's release to attend vocational training during normal working hours this should be provided for in the Bill. As it stands, section 10 states that the employer may consent to a person attending vocational training for an hour or two hours as he specifies. We feel the provision should be in line with present-day thinking on this matter.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The section provides that time spent, with the consent of the employer, by the young person in vocational training during normal working hours, shall be deemed to be hours worked by him for the purpose of sections 7 and 8 of the Bill. These are the sections dealing with the hours of work. My main approach to Deputy Dowling's amendment would be that it raises issues which are outside the scope of the legislation here. There are before the International Labour Organisation certain instruments which have been adopted by the annual conference of that body in June, 1974, Convention 140 and Recommendation 148. Convention 140 is on paid educational leave and Recommendation 148 is on paid educational leave. The purpose of these two instruments is that educational leave is defined as "leave granted to a worker for educational purposes for a specified period during working hours with adequate financial settlements." The member States in adopting these particular instruments will be required to formulate policies in this area.

The existence of these instruments of the International Labour Organisation would call for the co-ordination of measures taken under them with general policies relating to employment, education, training and hours of work. A great deal of discussion will be necessary involving areas other than the area covered by this Bill consequent on our adoption or otherwise of these particular International Labour Organisation instruments. My point is that the Bill as drafted with section 10 permitting a young person to take part in vocational educational training, his participation in such courses approved and considered part of his working hours, thereby forbids the requirement that they would not be regarded as outside working hours but as part of the hours mentioned in section 7 and 8. Until we have adopted or made known our approach to these international instruments, which will call for a wide degree of consultation between different State Departments with repercussions on legislation elsewhere—in our educational policy and so on—I would not accept Deputy Dowling's amendment in its present form even though I agree with its sentiment. It would require a great deal further preparation which is outside the scope of this legislation. It would, in the first instance, be a matter for the Department of Education. It is in the area of educational employment and that requires a much more detailed preparation before we could even formulate our approach and the policies to be adopted. At present our best course of action is to accept that we have in section 10 what would be considered an improvement in the situation and it would guard against the vocational training of a young person being regarded as outside sections 7 and 8.

Mr. Dowling

Surely the situation at present is that certain sections of this Bill are referred to the Minister for Education. We should not lag behind other nations in ratifying international agreements. This Bill should include progressive trends. We should, where possible in our formulation of a Bill designed to protect young people, be ahead of some of those continental countries which may have ratified the agreements referred to by the Minister. We should not draft legislation solely on the basis of ratifying agreements but to suit our own particular needs and ensure, in consultation with the Minister for Education, that we embody in the Bill safeguards for our young people.

The Minister appeared sympathetic to the amendment but the section as it stands gives discretion to the employer as to the length of time allowed for vocational training. The employer might consider one hour sufficient when in fact the employee might require eight hours' technical training. In other sections of the Bill the Minister had no hesitation in setting down the normal working day as eight hours but when it comes to granting a concession to a young person in respect of furthering his education the Minister appears negligent. It is quite usual nowadays for 16- to 18-year-olds to attend vocational schools. The Minister has acknowledged that a day's release is granted at present to a large section of people by responsible employers. However, in regard to people who do not have responsible employers and who must rely on the provisions of this Bill, a certain weakness is apparent in this section. This is one of the most important sections of the Bill.

We are happy to know that the matter is being considered but we should not have to wait until such time as we are forced by international agreements to accept certain provisions. We must be more progressive than that. We must embody in this Bill some kind of protection for these young people. There is a definite weakness in section 10. Would the Minister consider redrafting the section, taking into consideration the views that have been expressed, views we believe of great importance. The Minister should consult with educationalists and try to formulate something more suitable to our situation.

Mr. Moore

I support this amendment. The Minister might have a look at this between now and Report Stage because the section is weak in the provisions for day and night release for young workers. With the consent of his employer a young person may go to school. May not the employer then look for a boy or girl who has not had vocational training and thus get a better return for his money? I doubt if this provision would help very much in the case of the girl or boy who wants vocational training. The Minister might also consider giving the employer some inducement to encourage the boy or girl to attend the vocational school. Many firms who allow day release complain that they get no tax reliefs. Again, the boy or girl may subsequently opt to go to work for another firm, having been allowed time off for training by the original firm. The Minister would do well to look at section 10 and, in particular, at Deputy Dowling's amendment. We might then have an improved section 10; as it stands at the moment it is not very helpful.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Certainly I will have a look at it again, but I think it is only fair to advise that this is one of the international instruments we must consider. I was referring to the need for domestic preparations if we are to prepare for the kind of changes that will be required to lead up to something along the lines of Deputy Dowling's amendment. That is what I meant by necessary preparation before anything like that can be embarked upon. Under the section as drafted we have the situation where, with the consent of the employer, we can permit hours being included as hours of work. Deputy Dowling would unilaterally impose on the employer extra costs. That is a small part of it; the real difficulty is the need for preparation in this area were we to adopt the amendment. I am not against the amendment in principle and I will certainly have a look at it before Report Stage.

Mr. Dowling

There is the case of a child leaving one employer and going to another. There is the question of continuity of employment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Moore

I move amendment No. 18:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 32, to substitute "four" for "five".

It is normal in any industrial or commercial concern for a person to work for four hours without a break. This is a simple amendment designed to ensure that a young person, who may not be over-robust, will not have to work for five hours without a break. This would be too much. We should adjust the subsection to bring it into line with common practice in shops and workshops. This amendment was put forward as a result of a suggestion made to me by a well-known women's welfare organisation in Dublin. The period should be cut from five hours to four hours. Five hours is too long.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I want to support Deputy Moore on this. I am sure the Minister will accept this amendment without question. Five hours without a break is far too long a period for a young person. He or she should have a rest period and the Minister should have no hesitation in accepting the period of four hours. Five hours seems to me to come from some obsolete legislation. Possibly this is something copied from the 1936 Act.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I stress again that this is purely a minimal provision; where there are other arrangements there will be no conflict. I thought this would cater for traditional rest periods in employment. There is a guarantee of a rest period of at least half-an-hour for work exceeding five hours. This is a minimum. I will look at it again before Report Stage.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister will want to do something about this.

Mr. Dowling

Would the Minister not accept Deputy Moore's amendment?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I will certainly look at the subsection again.

Mr. Dowling

Surely the Minister would not agree that a young person of 15 should have to work for five hours before getting a break.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife—if I had a wife.

Mr. Dowling

It is unreasonable for the Minister to impose such hardship on a young child.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I will look at it again before Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 19:

In subsection (6), page 8, line 4, to delete "A person" and substitute "An employer".

This is just a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 20:

In subsection (7), page 8, line 7, after "industrial work" to insert "(within the meaning of section 3 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 (as amended by section 2 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1944))".

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I should like to ask a question. What is the necessity for the words "for him" in the second line? "An employer shall not permit an employee employed by him to do for him any work for that period". That "for him" seems superfluous to me. Is there any reason for having it included?

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is a draftsman's suggestion. Draftsmen have strange ways of saying things.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The draftsmen may have strange ways of saying things, but I like things in very simple language and this being a young person's Bill this seems to confuse the situation. It is completely unnecessary. We should have a simple explanatory booklet published explaining the provisions in plain language. Are those two words really necessary?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We will drop the "for him", if that is the way the Deputy wants it.

Mr. Dowling

We pointed out on previous sections we may want to put down a number of amendments and we may want to put down amendments on this particular section on Report Stage. I do not want to have to repeat this on every occasion, but I should like to indicate that we shall be putting down amendments on this section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 21.

In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) This section shall not apply to an employee who is employed by an employer to do industrial work within the meaning of section 3 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 (as amended by section 2 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1944)."

I have included section 12 in the Bill as an essential constraint on six- or seven-day working patterns involving an appreciable amount of Sunday working. The section provides that an employee who is required to work on more than five days a week and is also required to do more than three hours' work on Sunday must be given 24 consecutive hours' rest in every seven-day period. Previously, again in minimum legislation, the young person engaged in industrial work had been covered by the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, but its conditions were much more restrictive. Industrial work on Sundays by young persons is not permitted except in certain cases such as newspaper printing and publishing. I consider that the position under the 1936 Act should be preserved and the amendment is designed to do this. Our acceptance of this amendment will mean that section 49 of the 1936 Act will still apply to young persons doing industrial work while subsection (1) of this section will cover other young people.

Debate adjourned.