I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, line 9, to delete "eight" and to substitute "seven and one-half".
Two groups are involved in these amendments, young persons under 16 and young persons of 16 and over. The Minister is well aware that the eight-hour day has been the norm for the adult worker for a considerable period. He is also aware that the 40-hour week has been the norm for the adult worker for a considerable period. In this Bill the Minister proposes an eight-hour day and a 40-hour week for a child of 16. This is a backward step. This is something that cannot be tolerated. In formulating legislation like this we should project that legislation into the future. Apparently the Minister is dedicated to the past. We should ensure that our law is progressive. Young people will object to these provisions, and rightly so. As I pointed out on an earlier amendment, we have to consider the young person of 16 or under who wishes to pursue his or her education at night. Surely the Minister is not serious in this.
This is slave labour. This is exploitation of youth. This is seated labour. Our legislation should be equal to or in advance of that in other European countries. This legislation is not progressive. The Minister will have to have second thoughts on this. No explanation could convince me and my colleagues that there is any good reason for this exploitation. Let us hope some Members on the Government benches will see fit to point out that there is room for improvement here. How many of them will troop into the Division Lobby in support of slave labour and the exploitation of young people?
The rights of parents and guardians are disregarded. The child is placed on a par with the adult worker. This slave labour attitude is to be deplored. We expected great things from a Labour Party Minister. We expected he would be progressive. He led us to believe he would be progressive when he was in opposition. He is not progressive in this legislation. We could not possibly agree to the exploitation of child labour. We hope the Minister will change his mind on this when the Bill goes before the Seanad.
Is this the collective wisdom of open government by Fine Gael and Labour? The Minister has the opportunity now to do something progressive. It may be his last opportunity. Will he grasp the opportunity and make this Bill a Bill of which we can be proud? The thinking behind this is not progressive thinking. It is stagnation. We could not possibly tolerate this. Surely there is some progressive thought somewhere in the Government. It seems to me that the members of the Labour Party are now completely submerged in the dictates of the reactionary Fine Gael Party. We know what their attitude was in the past in regard to workers and the protection of workers. The Minister has this opportunity now to show the people he is his own man and, if he does not take it, the finger will inevitably be pointed at him. This Bill needs to be drastically overhauled. We must ensure that our legislation keeps pace at least with that of other progressive countries.
We have our own thinking to do quite apart from Continental or other legislation. We have to think of our own young people and their special problems. The Minister apparently accepts the dictates of the Fine Gael Party because as I understood it the Labour Party thinking was on the side of the weaker section of the community, especially young employees. Now we find a completely different situation when they are in office. Why should the young people be hounded into this situation by the Department of Labour and the Government? Young people will be condemned to those conditions for quite a considerable period to come. We know when legislation passes through this House quite a considerable period elapses before there are any changes made to it or before new legislation is brought in to keep abreast of the times. It is likely we will have to wait for a long time before our legislation is brought in line with European legislation. We should not have to wait until other countries move. We should instead move on our own and show the world that we are progressive in our thoughts and that we are not creating slave labour conditions or have slave labour attitudes in relation to young people.
When this Bill goes through, people who do not read the Dáil debates will think that the Opposition are as bad as the Government. They will say that the Bill is the collective wisdom of Dáil Éireann and that it is a poor reflection on the House. The bell will ring in a few moments and we will see how many Deputies will go into the division lobby in support of this slave attitude. I did not think the Minister for Labour would bring in a Bill such as this. I expected much more of him because I know that in many ways he is progressive in thought. He is selling out on the young workers of this country, those from 14 to 16 years of age. We are going far beyond the number of hours an adult works in a day in relation to the number of hours young people can work. An adult working day is eight hours. In some cases it is less. In this Bill we are condemning children of 13, 14 and 15 years of age to work longer hours.
This Bill is called the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill but it is the greatest farce that ever went through the House. How will the Minister answer the people who really wish to protect young people? He has completely disregarded the rights of parents and guardians. He has taken unto himself the right to decide who is to be the representative of those young people. They have no trade union to back them up. Young people who leave school at 14 years of age and often work in inferior employment are the most likely to be exploited. Have the Government any conscience in relation to those young people? Is this the attitude of the advisers in the Department of Labour? Is this the Minister's attitude or the collective attitude of the reactionaries in the Fine Gael Party? If it is I am sorry for him because he is weak if he yields to that pressure. Some of those people are 20 years behind the time.
There is no need for me to go any further in relation to this matter because I have spoken at length on it on Committee Stage. The Minister seems to think that children under 16 years of age can work longer hours than adults. He should decide to do what he thinks is right and accept the two amendments I put forward. There are other amendments we have to discuss but these are the most important because this is the area where children can be exploited. They have nobody to guide or guard them. They depend on the legislation passed through this House.
When the Minister was on this side of the House he very often expressed concern for those young people in employment. Now that he is Minister for Labour and can do something about the matter he should be as concerned about them as he was then. There is no use quoting to us Acts of 1926, 1936, 1946, 1956 or 1966. We are concerned with the 1980s and the 1990s and with the young people of the future. The Minister should have some progressive thought in relation to them and should be prepared to accept our amendments.
I do not think that the Minister agrees wholeheartedly with many of the provisions he is putting forward but he has to accept responsibility for legislation he brings before this House. We will oppose the slave-labour mentality of the Minister and the Government but we are giving the Minister an opportunity to meet our reasonable amendments. Notwithstanding the fact that the amendments are in my name, I do not think they go far enough. However, they will give the Minister an opportunity to move from his present rigid position with regard to this legislation. This Bill is not designed to protect young people, it is designed to exploit them. Even at this late stage I hope we will hear some progressive statements from the Minister so that ultimately we can look back on this legislation with pride. If this Bill is enacted it will be one of the most repressive pieces of legislation. It is aimed at the most vulnerable section of the work force, the young people who have no one to protect them. The rights of their parents and guardians are disregarded; we are the only people who can help them but we are not doing that now.
I am sorry for the young people who will be affected by this legislation. Fianna Fáil have done as much as they can but the Minister has not been progressive. Even at this stage he should consult with trade unions or some competent organisation; perhaps he might consider setting up a committee of parents, guardians, trade unionists and others who could decide on what they would consider a reasonable number of hours to be worked. There must be some people who would help, apart from the reactionary groups now advising the Minister. It should be possible to get a group of people from different walks of life: married women with children in the work force, workers, trade unionists and the more progressive people in the Minister's Department so that justice may be done to those whom we purport to protect.
The Minister is a good friend of mine and I am sad he has found himself in this situation. We are doing our best to help him; it is up to him now but if he is determined not to be progressive in this matter we will have to test the House in the division lobbies.
