Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Feb 1996

Vol. 461 No. 7

Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Ms E. Fitzgerald)

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This legislation is about young people. It is about protecting them in their most vulnerable years, when they are moving from full-time education into the world of work. It is about ensuring that the law is clear and specific in stating that at this vulnerable age, education must come first. It is about our duty as legislators to ensure that our laws and public policy create the framework necessary to ensure that future generations get a good start in life. The legislation offers a statutory guide to parents, guardians and employers in ensuring that those years between the world of school and the world of work are properly regulated.

I believe that this Bill strikes a balance between the need to put school first, on the hand, and the recognition of the growing independence of the child during these years, an independence often shown by a desire to work a few hours while still at school. The legislation recognises this. It also recognises the desire of many parents to instil a work ethic early in life and to generate an acceptance of working, earning and saving as good principles.

Over very many years, there has been a process of concerted action by Governments at international level to prevent the exploitation of young people in employment and to establish basic safeguards. In 1919, at its first meeting, the International Labour Organisation adopted the first of 11 conventions on the minimum age for working, along with the first of three conventions on night work for children. The United Nations has adopted successive instruments to protect the rights of young workers. These protections are also central to the Council of Europe's Social Charter. The EU Directive on Protection of Young People at work, to which this Bill gives effect, follows an honourable tradition of collective international action to protect young people.

The focus of the earliest protections was on protecting children's health and physical development. There is international legislation which prohibits the employment of very young children and outlaws the employment of young people in heavy work such as mining. In more modern times the focus of protection has moved towards emphasising the importance of putting young people's education and development first. That is a context which is particularly important for Ireland.

Those who are unemployed, particularly long-term unemployed, are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of those who left school early. Some 48 per cent of our long-term unemployed are people who left school without qualification. About 5,000 young people leave school with minimal or no qualifications and 60 to 70 per cent of those end up on the dole, some maybe for life. These are the unemployed of the future. Put bluntly, today's early school leaver is likely to be tomorrow's unemployed person. That is why the Government puts the emphasis on schooling rather than on earning during these important years of a young person's life.

This Bill raises the minimum age for normal employment to 16 years of age. It updates and strengthens the protection afforded to young workers and offers a new channel of redress to young workers victimised for seeking compliance with the law. It brings our law fully up-to-date with EU law giving effect to important principles in the Social Charter.

As well as the new measures in the Bill, the legislation consolidates the law relating to young people in one legal instrument. It repeals and re-enacts those provisions of the 1936 protection of employment legislation and the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, in relation to young people's employment, which will remain unchanged. This is important in that young workers and their employers can check their legal rights and responsibilities in one text. I am following through the decision to repeal and re-enact the provisions of those Acts taken by my predecessor, Deputy O'Rourke, because it is important to clarify the rights of young workers and employers in one instrument to avoid cross-reference between three pieces of legislation.

This Bill raises the minimum age for normal working from 15 to 16 years of age or the school leaving age, whichever is the higher. Those under 16 years of age may work a maximum of eight hours a week during term time and a maximum of 35 hours a week during the holiday period. There must be a three week break from work during the summer holidays to enable students return to school refreshed. Those aged under 16 may not work after 8 p.m. These rules place working for students clearly in the context that their schooling must come first.

Since I published the Bill I received support from teachers around the country who emphasised that in the longer term interest of young people it is important they put their education first and earning additional money should be kept in perspective. It is particularly disheartening for teachers to teach students who are tired from working late hours or those who have not had time for a balanced mix of study and recreation and who are not getting the full benefit of their studies.

The Bill re-enacts the existing law which prohibits the employment of young people aged 16 or 17 years of age after 10 p.m. That is not new. It has been the law since 1977 when we enacted the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act and ratified the ILO Convention on night work by young people adopted by international labour organisations as part of our international obligations as far back as 1946.

This aspect of the Bill has caused some public controversy and it is important to restate some basic facts. Currently, it is illegal for employers to employ young people under 18 years of age after 10 p.m. That has been the law for the past 18 years. Most young people in that age group are in fifth or sixth year, important years for their future life chances. These provisions have a sound educational basis as a concern for the health and potential exploitation of young people. In the bar trade where abuse is most widely reported there is a double legal prohibition on employing young people at night not only under the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, but under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, which prohibits young people under 18 years of age from working in bars at night.

This Bill gives effect to the terms of an EU directive which has its origin in the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers or, as it is more commonly known, the Social Charter. The Charter states that the minimum employment age must not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age and appropriate measures must be taken to adjust labour regulations applicable to young workers so that their specific developmental and vocational training and access to employment needs are met. The Charter declares that the duration of work, in particular, must be limited for young workers and night work prohibited in the case of workers under 18 years of age.

The provisions of the existing legislation are similar to the terms of the directive in many respects. There is good protection in existing legislation, but the introduction of new measures in this Bill strengthens the educational context in which the legislation operates. The existing legislation prohibits the employment of children under school-leaving age and sets statutory maximum working hours. It provides for minimum intervals of rest, restrictions on night work and for offences and penalties for breaches of the legislation.

There are some differences between the provisions in the EU directive and our existing law. That is why we are amending the law and I am introducing new measures which, in some respects, go beyond the provisions of the directive. Certain categories of employment which are excluded from some provisions of the existing legislation come within the scope of the directive. The directive requires a specific authorisation procedure for the employment of children in cultural or similar activities such as in films, the theatre and so on. The directive is more restrictive than the existing law on the maximum working time for those aged 16 to 18 years of age. It provides for a longer minimum rest period to be given in any seven day period, putting the health and safety of young workers first. The directive permits the employment of children for a limited number of hours during school term time, something that is not permitted under existing legislation. I am allowing 14 year olds to work seven hours a week and 15 year olds to work eight hours a week. This means their schooling will come first and that they will not work at night.

In one respect the Bill goes beyond the terms of the directive by generally prohibiting the employment of persons who are under 16 years of age or the school-leaving age, whichever is the higher. The existing minimum age for entry to employment is 15 years of age, but the proposal to raise the minimum age for entry to employment is consistent with the White Paper on Education which proposes a similar increase in the school-leaving age. Young workers aged 14 and 15 years of age will be allowed to work a limited number of hours during school term and holidays, but they must have a three week break during the holidays so that they may return to school refreshed and gain full benefit from their education. It is important that young people strike a proper balance between work and study and between recreation and general development.

This Bill will provide that for the first time young people will have an avenue of redress against employers who penalise them for not working longer hours than the legislation allows. They can appeal to the Rights Commissioner Service in the first instance, following which they may appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Under existing legislation they have redress to the courts, but it is appropriate that they have redress under labour law.

I have no doubt this procedure is needed. My Department has received complaints about the employment of children over long hours for low wages. The areas of complaint include, in particular, employment conditions in supermarkets, pubs, catering and fast food establishment, petrol service stations and the services sector generally. The level of such complaints has increased in recent years. That is evident given that the Labour Inspectorate of my Department carried out 686 inspections under the protection of young persons legislation in 1995 compared with 486 inspections in 1994 and 121 in 1993. It is important to ensure that employers do not exploit young people by employing them as illegals, but meet their legal obligations in that regard. I am increasing the penalties for employers who abuse the law by exploiting young people.

The Bill will not interfere with the opportunities for young persons aged 15 to participate in approved training or work experience schemes which will offer valuable training or worthwhile genuine work experience skills, thereby enhancing their job prospects. The new legislation does not seek to impose a ban on employing young people in the labour market, but to prevent abuse of young people's labour. It supports measures designed to give young people the opportunity to obtain a certificate or diploma without having to prematurely leave the school system or an appropriate training course and, at the same time, boost their chances on the labour market. It supports school programmes designed to provide students with work experience through structured training schemes.

I stress the importance of striking a balance between providing all the necessary protection for young people at work while not unduly hindering their access to suitable employment and to the type of experience they may need to make the transition from school to work. I am satisfied this legislation strikes the right balance between the developmental and educational needs of young people and the need to provide for that important transition.

Section 1 of the Bill is a standard interpretation section. Section 2 empowers the Minister to declare any form of work to be industrial work for the purposes of the Bill because young people tend to engage in light, non-industrial work.

Section 3 generally prohibits the employment of children under 16 years of age but allows children to be employed in certain circumstances by licence or regulation. The employment of children in cultural, artistic, sports and advertising activities may be authorised in individual cases by licence. The employment of children over 13 years of age in such activities may also be authorised by regulation. There is an important provision allowing the Minister, to draw up conditions regarding the protection, welfare and the educational training and developmental needs of young people who are employed under licence or by regulation.

A child over 14 years of age may engage in non-industrial light work outside of the school term provided the hours of work do not exceed seven in any one day or 35 in any one week. However, it is important that a child has an adequate rest period during the summer holidays before returning to school and is prohibited from engaging in any work for at least 21 days during that period, which has been increased from 14 days under existing law.

A child over 15 years is permitted to engage in light, non-industrial work for up to eight hours per week during school term. While this is not permitted under present legislation, it is considered that short periods of light work — such as newspaper delivery, baby-sitting and so on — as long as it does not interfere with schooling, can help a child's development. A child over 14 in full-time secondary education may be employed as part of a work experience or educational programme for up to eight hours in any one day or 40 hours in any one week. A child over 15 years may participate in a training or work experience programme arranged or approved by the Minister or FÁS for up to eight hours in any day or 40 hours in any week.

Section 4 specifies additional provisions relating to the employment of children, where permitted by licence or regulation under section 3, relating to night work, minimum rest periods and breaks. A child may not be employed between 8 p.m. in the evening and 8 a.m. in the morning and must have a minimum rest period of 14 hours in each 24-hour period and two days in any period of seven days. If it is found necessary for technical or organisational reasons, this two day period may be reduced, by regulation, to 36 hours. This section also provides for a minimum break period of 30 minutes in any period of work which exceeds four hours.

Section 5 outlines the duties of an employer in relation to the employment of young persons and children. Before employing a young person or child, the employer must obtain a copy of the birth certificate or other satisfactory evidence of age and, when employing a child under 16, must obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian. The employer is also required to maintain a register containing particulars in relation to every young person or child employed by him or her. These provisions — which we are consolidating — are already in the 1977 legislation.

Section 6 specifies the circumstances in which an employer may employ a young person between 16 and 18 years of age. The young person must not be required to work for more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. As in the 1977 Act, a young person must not be required to work between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. He or she must have a minimum rest period of 12 hours in each 24-hour period and two days in any seven day period as well as a 30 minute break in any period of work which exceeds 4½ hours.

The shipping and fishing sectors are exempted from the minimum rest provisions, provided there are objective grounds for not complying with the provisions and provided that the young persons receive compensatory rest times at some time during each 24 hours of work and night work provisions will not apply to members of the Defence Forces in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions.

Sections 7 and 8 permit, by licence or regulation, the employment of young persons on terms other than those specified in section 6 provided that the terms of such licences and regulations comply with the Directive, the health, welfare and safety of the employees is not endangered and compliance with the terms of section 6 would be impractical for technical or organisational reasons. Under the 1977 Act, regulations were made to exempt close relatives and agricultural workers from certain provisions of that Act.

Section 9 prohibits double employment. This provision is already in the present legislation. Section 10 provides that any time spent by a young person working under a combined work-training scheme or in-plant work experience scheme is deemed to be working time. This provision is also in the present legislation. Section 11 specifies that every employer must display an abstract of the Act. Section 12 preserves existing pay and conditions of employment of employees where, in order to comply with the provisions of this Act when it comes into operation, the hours of work might be reduced or altered.

Section 13 provides that it will be a defence to any proceedings taken against an employer for a breach of the act to show that the breach resulted from an emergency. Section 14 specifies that the employer must keep records, for at least three years to show that he or she is complying with the Act. Section 15 makes provision for the recovery of money due to an employee. Section 16 provides that an employee who refuses to co-operate with an employer in breaching the Act shall not be penalised.

Section 17 provides that the parent or guardian of a child or young person may refer a complaint to a Rights Commissioner if the employer has contravened section 12 — preservation of pay and conditions — or section 16 — refusal to co-operate in breaching the Act. This is a new provision allowing additional legal protection and an avenue of redress in such situations.

Section 18 deals with appeals from and enforcement of the recommendations of a Rights Commissioner. A party may appeal such a recommendation to the Employment Appeals Tribunal within six weeks and the tribunal will issue a determination which either affirms, varies or sets aside the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The section allows a party to appeal a determination of the tribunal to the High Court on a point of law and also provides that the Minister, at the request of the tribunal, may refer a question of law to the High Court for determination.

Section 19 deals with enforcement of determinations of the tribunal and provides that, in circumstances where an employer fails to implement a determination of the tribunal — which has not been appealed — the District Court, on application to it by the Minister or the parent or guardian of the child or young person concerned or the trade union of the young person concerned, may make an order directing the employer to implement the determination without hearing the employer or requiring further evidence.

Section 20 deals with evidence in relation to prosecution of a person for failure to attend before the Employment Appeals Tribunal or refusal to give evidence or failure or refusal to produce documents. Section 21 empowers the Minister to appoint inspectors for the purposes of the Act and sets out the powers of these inspectors. This is similar to the present legislation. Section 22 provides that where an offence is committed by a body corporate, senior officers who act on behalf of a body corporate shall also be deemed to be guilty of an offence if they either knowingly or through neglect allow a breach of the legislation. This provision is already in the 1977 Act.

Section 23 provides that offences may be prosecuted summarily by the Minister. An offence — other than an offence under section 18 and 21 — may also be prosecuted by the employee's trade union.

Section 24 proposes penalties for offences of up to £1,500 on summary conviction. Where the person after conviction continues to contravene the provision concerned, a fine on summary conviction of up to £250 per day is proposed. This increase in penalties I hope, will act as a deterrent against the contravention of the legislation by employers.

Section 25 repeals sections 15, 41 (1) (b), 45, 47 and 49 (7) of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 and the entire Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. While the present legislation could have been amended by regulation or an amending Act in order to implement the Directive, it was felt that a single new composite Act would be the more efficient option and easier for the public to follow.

Section 26 is a standard provision dealing with expenses incurred in the administration of the Act. Section 27 is a standard requirement relating to orders and regulations made under the legislation and section 28 is a standard provision dealing with the short title and date of commencement of the Act.

This Bill represents further evidence of Ireland's commitment to the full implementation of measures adopted by the European Community in the context of the social dimension enshrined in European Community policy. Ireland is a signatory to the Social Charter and I am happy to introduce this Bill which implements important provisions of that charter. Good, responsible employers have nothing to fear from these provisions. They will be seen as an asset to the continued development of good relationships in the workplace and will protect the best interests of young people in education generally.

Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. T. Kitt

This Bill arises from a European Union Council Directive of 22 June 1994 when my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, was Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment. I am conscious that all member states of the European Union must implement legislation to comply with this directive not later than 22 June 1996. I am also conscious that we must repeal and replace the 1977 Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act. My party supports Government efforts to protect the health of young workers, ensuring they are not exploited and endorses its emphasis on the importance of young persons remaining in school and obtaining adequate education.

However, I cannot agree that the Minister of State has managed to strike the right balance on this occasion. I believe the provisions of the Bill are too draconian and heavy-handed in relation to young people who take on part-time work. I would go so far as to say that this legislation shows the Minister and the Government are out of touch with reality. Most of us who went through third level have experience of working part-time. My children, two of whom are in third level education and one who is sitting the leaving certificate, are involved in some shape or form in part-time work. That is the reality on the ground for most people and they are contributing to the family income.

The 1995 USI student poverty survey of 400 second year university students indicated that 50 per cent were in part-time employment and 84 per cent were working for more than 16 hours. This legislation should accommodate the reality.

I welcome the adoption of the EU Directive and the recognition in law of the academic rights of young people. The Government is failing to face up to the fact that thousands of young people have to work to support themselves financially. Their parents simply cannot afford to cover their maintenance costs, clothes, pocket money and so on. In the vast majority of cases the young student is contributing to the family household income and is working out of necessity.

This legislation would prohibit a 17 year old student from working after 10 p.m. the reality is that many 17 year olds are already in third level education and working part-time in bars, fast food restaurants and in the service sector. In this context, the legislation which prohibits students from working after 10 p.m. would be extremely impractical to implement. While I support the need to ensure that young people are not exploited by employers — that goes without saying — the legislation should allow for flexibility in relation to 17 year olds involved in part-time work. Provision should be made in this legislation for consultation with trade unions and employers in regard to exemptions and derogations. I note the EU Directive refers to the need for the collective agreement of the two sides of industry.

I welcome the provisions which allow for a young person to go to the Rights Commissioner or the Employment Appeals Tribunal if his or her rights are not being upheld by the employer. I am conscious that there are abuses by employers, to which the Minister has referred. I have heard some horrific examples of young workers being locked into supermarkets until they completed their work. This type of exploitation has to be rooted out. I am convinced that further work is required on the Bill in order to get the right balance. I also welcome the increase in fines. However, the legislation is seriously flawed in that no provision has been made for resources to ensure the law can be enforced. In calling for exemptions I am conscious that this could lead to abuse of workers unless proper enforcement procedures are in place. I am conscious that no enforcement of the existing legislation has taken place for some time. In order to get it right exemptions are needed on the one hand and proper enforcement procedures on the other.

Will the Minister address the issue of 17 year old apprentice bar staff? For example, an apprentice bar person who has decided to pursue a career in that industry would, as I understand it, be required to work after 10 p.m. In those circumstances it is difficult to understand how this legislation will not be an impediment. I am concerned when a sledge hammer approach is adopted in regard to any area of legislation. Unfortunately, this legislation falls into that category.

We welcome the provision concerning employment of persons under 16 years. The exemptions are well made in regard to cultural, artistic, sports or advertising activities. We support the fact that they should not affect their school attendance and that educational programmes, work experience, FÁS programmes etc. are not part of the prohibition. I support the limit on work during school time to eight hours per week.

I have read carefully what the Minister has to say about work during school holidays. There is a limit of 35 hours per week for a young person and he or she must have 21 days off, an increase of one week on the existing legislation. From the consultations I have had and from experience, this is an area about which we should be careful. The reality is that many young people get an opportunity to work for three months during the summer. Are we saying to that person, whose family is often in a difficult financial situation, that he or she must have three weeks off? I appreciate what the Minister is saying and, as a teacher, I support the educational system and agree that students should have holiday periods. However, I would ask the Minister to examine its practicalities. In effect, the legislation follows the EU directive closely. It does not affect the majority of employers. It affects mainly vintners, family shops, catering and areas of intensive labour.

I support the Minister in regard to the prohibition on double employment but how will it be implemented? How can the employer know, if he is not told, whether a young person he employs is also working elsewhere? There is a question of being aware of what is happening in relation to double employment and perhaps the Minister will examine that issue.

I am sure the Minister has a copy of the student poverty survey, to which I referred. It is useful when examining this type of legislation, to look carefully at what third level students are seeking. This is clearly linked in with this debate. So far as the students are concerned, the Minister and the Department should concentrate on a number of areas, including student grants which they recommend should be increased substantially from £1,523 to £3,000; that all the various grants should be amalgamated; that all the existing third level student support schemes should be amalgamated to avoid confusion; that student grants — this is a worthwhile suggestion — should be paid monthly in advance to the nominated account of the recipient; that financial institutions should ensure that they fully comply with relevant legislation by informing students in writing as to the cost of borrowing money — clearly, this is the alternative to putting restrictions on young people from earning money — including the total sum which will be repaid at the termination of a loan and a detailed schedule of fees and charges; that students should be encouraged to open accounts with credit unions; that employers and trade union organisations should seek to eliminate the black economy which exploits students and others who are low paid — an area that will be addressed by this legislation. They refer to the Department of Social Welfare and acknowledge it made changes to the operation of the students summer jobs scheme in the past two years. Those changes have made the scheme more attractive for students but the USI believes the Minister for Social Welfare should act to restore the rights of students to supplementary welfare benefits and encourage scheme sponsors to introduce training elements on their summer programmes. They also say that private sector landlords — an issue close to the Minister's heart — should be advised that rent books are a legal requirement as well as supplying tenants with basic information. They refer also to the need for third level students to have access to medical cards.

The students have made specific proposals and we should consider those before introducing legislation restricting their only avenue to financial support which helps them through third level education. There is no reference in the White Paper on Education to the real cost of living for students and the Department of Education has shown little interest in students outside the lecture hall and the library. I acknowledge the various developments with regard to fees but the Government should urgently address the broader issue because there are enormous pressures on young people.

The real needs of students are evident in their own survey of student poverty. They suggest that many students in receipt of full time maintenance grants are living well below the national poverty line. No Government agency or Department has responsibility for students or their welfare yet such agencies exist in other EU countries.

This is protective legislation and we all want to protect our vulnerable young people but the Minister of State will be aware that the costs incurred by students in third level education are enormous.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I have two of them.

Mr. T. Kitt

For many young people part-time work is a means of supplementing the family income and in that regard one is reminded of the extreme cases, namely, the young person attending third level education whose parents are on social welfare. That example highlights the need to be careful of becoming too draconian in this legislation. One could argue that the legislation in its present form would deny hundreds or even thousands of young people the opportunity to participate in third level education.

Work experience is valuable and many employers believe that academic training alone is not a sufficient attribute of a good employee. They are of the view that not having any experience of work can be a major handicap. I am in favour of a combination of education and work experience.

The growth areas in employment are in the services area which incorporates the food, catering and leisure sectors. Many of those sectors operate outside the traditional working hours of 9 to 5 and it could be rightly argued that the effect of this legislation would be to cut off a growth area in which many young people are employed. In gaining work experience in these sectors, young people are exposed to the opportunities to become the entrepreneurs of the future. Successive Governments have referred to the need to expand the services sector. The majority of employers are fair but we must ensure that young people are protected by introducing legislation to deal with those who are abusing young people in terms of employment.

That raises the question of EU directives. As a former Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs I have some experience of such directives which have been debated in this House. I am a strong supporter of social solidarity and partnership and in that regard we have put in place worthwhile protective measures for workers. Much more work is needed in that area, however, and we must proceed with that as a matter of urgency.

This raises the question as to whether there are too many rules and regulations at EU level and I am reminded of the case of the small firm versus the large German company employing 10,000 people. The question is whether we can have EU rules and regulations governing all types of employment. People in the small companies sector are of the view that flexibility and co-operation are the hallmarks of success and that is the case provided appropriate protection measures are in place. I know the Minister of State is examining this area but is it feasible to introduce EU directives appropriate to both a large factory in Germany employing 10,000 and a small operation in the west of Ireland employing two or three? That is not possible and there is strong resistance on the part of small firms to this complicated structure of directives. To understand how complicated they are one only needs to examine any EU directive.

This whole area should be examined when we take over the Presidency of the European Union because many business people say that if they must choose between taking on an additional staff member or buying a machine, they will buy the machine because there are not as many problems involved. That is unfortunate. We should examine those EU protection directives which allow for flexibility and co-operation, particularly in regard to small firms which provide many valuable jobs, particularly in the services sector.

I congratulate the Minister of State on her work on the Bill but improvements are required in order to achieve the right balance. I highlighted the case of the 17 year-old student and I ask the Minister of State to consider introducing exemptions for that type of person in relation to working after 10 p.m. The Minister can do that by consulting with trade unions and employers. If that element of the Bill is tackled, the right balance will be achieved and if the Minister of State accepts the suggestions I made, we will have a much better Bill.

Miss Quill

Any right-minded person would welcome legislation to protect and promote the well-being of young people, as do I, but I have mixed feelings about the overall effect of this Bill. I am concerned that in certain cases it may have unintended results but we can deal with that matter by way of amendments on Committee Stage. The Minister would be open to amendments that improve the Bill and Members could ensure that would be the case.

Legislation that aims to reinforce young people's educational attainment has to be welcomed. The Minister couched the Bill in those terms. We recognise how vitally important it is that our young people get the best education possible. Education is not just a passport to employment, but to a wider range of employment opportunities, to a higher quality of life and a higher standard of living. Today those who fall off the educational ladder at an early stage are seriously disadvantaged in the employment market and elsewhere and statistics bear that out. Failure to gain educational qualifications can blight the career prospects of young people and prevent them from realising their full potential. Accordingly, I agree with the basic premise of the Bill that nothing should interfere with the education of school going young people. However, we must ensure that in aiming to help our young people we must not enact legislation that has the unintended result of impeding their all-round education.

It is a relief that we do not have to legislate for children in full-time labour, as was the case a century ago in Victorian times when children were used as chimney sweeps. The main target of this Bill is part-time and casual employment. In most cases young people are working in the services sector, in hotels, bars, supermarkets and filling stations. Many thousands work in these businesses on a part-time basis and there is no doubt that if young people work excessive hours, it could have an adverse effect on their education because they will have insufficient time to do their homework, their powers of concentration will be reduced in class, their ability to learn will be impaired and in some cases their attainment in crucial exams may be affected. It is important that we seek to regulate the amount of time young people spend working. I welcome and am in full agreement with the provisions stipulating that a young person of 15 years will not be allowed to work for more than eight hours per week during school term.

This Bill arises directly from the necessity to comply with the European Union directive, a channel from which much of our social legislation flows. As with other aspects of EU social legislation we must ask ourselves whether this Bill might introduce an undue element of bureaucracy. A common complaint when we attempt to introduce EU legislation into our framework is that it gives rise to wasteful and unnecessary bureaucracy. That leads to resentment among employers, many of whom are struggling to generate badly needed jobs. We must be conscious of this as we attempt to transpose EU directives into our legislation.

Section 4 prohibits persons under 16 years from working after 8 p.m. Effectively this prohibits young people from working in bars and lounges and evening work in restaurants and hotels, all of which are important sources of part-time work for young people. This provision would fall particularly heavily where a young person was in the habit of helping at busy times in a family business. The same provision could also be used to prevent young people from earning money babysitting, though I am unclear whether that is the case. I am sure the Minister will clarify this point in her reply. If it does apply to babysitting, it would be very foolish and needs to be amended.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Parents would not get out at night.

Miss Quill

For the most part this is a safe environment for young people to earn badly needed cash.

When the contents of the Bill were first made public, a vox pop conducted on RTE television news to ascertain young people's views on the matter showed that they did not perceive the problems, the consensus was that the legislation would be unnecessary interference. Many young people rely on part-time jobs during school term to earn a little extra money to enhance the family budget and to help with expenses directly related to their own needs, for example, clothes and recreation. We have all worked. When I was 17, 18 and 19 years I spent my summers working in factories in London and was able to earn money that helped to buy books and other necessities when I came home. I spent my summer holidays in Kerry every year, I see young people working in bars and restaurants and when I come back to Cork at the end of the summer I meet them on the street because they are back at university or the regional college, and their summer work has not interfered with their educational attainment.

We must be careful to differentiate between working during holiday time and school term. Young people who go out and get jobs for themselves and work during the holidays bring to their later life a spirit of initiative and enterprise which sometimes is the best education of all for life. I would be very slow to put in place legislation that would inhibit that. It will test our skills to enact legislation that is flexible enough to identify and differentiate where young people do themselves damage by working and where they do not. It is a fair enough ambition for young people to earn money to make a contribution to the family budget and it gives them a feeling of independence. Where we are so burdened with dependants because of the high rate of unemployment we should be trying to cultivate a spirit of independence in our young people. I remember with great pride the day I brought home to my parents at the age of 17 my first pay packet which I earned working at the Ascot gas geyser factory in north London. No other penny that I ever earned in later life gave me more pleasure. We must take these factors into account and not kill off this spirit of enterprise.

Section 6 will prohibit a young person in the 16 to 18 age bracket from working after 10 p.m. This is unrealistic. Young people in that age bracket regard themselves very much as young adults and 10 p.m. is long before their bed time. This provision will preclude them from accepting offers of lounge or bar work, particularly at weekends. No bar owner will employ a young person to work from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. and another to work from 10 p.m. until closing time. That will not happen and young people will suffer as a consequence.

I would place a strong obligation on employers to look after the welfare of young people. In the Middle Ages employers treated young apprentices as if they were their own children. It is a matter of attitude which cannot be legislated for, but it would be nice to think that employers adopt such a caring approach to the betterment of young people.

It is my fear that if this section is applied, young people will not be offered any work because it will be easier for employers to take on someone to work from whatever time they are needed until closing time. They will not employ two people as that would make the matter far too complicated and expensive.

Part-time employment provides young people with valuable work experience and, if included on their CV, will stand in their favour when they later seek full-time employment. That is another factor I would be slow to overlook. Part-time employment can be particularly advantageous for those in the 16 to 18 age group. Is it right, therefore, that we should discourage them in this way? Would it not be better to relax the time limit?

This legislation will inevitably introduce a new layer of cumbersome bureaucracy involving licences, registers and regulations. Has the Minister of State conducted any compliance audit to calculate the cost to the business sectior of satisfying the terms of this legislation? How does she propose to police it? Will there be a team of government inspectors to visit pubs and hotels late at night to look for birth certificates and, if so, how much will this cost? In this connection will the public service recruitment embargo be breached? Has the Minister of State calculated how many additional civil servants will be needed to carry out these duties and monitor the implementation and enforcement of this Bill?

Mr. T. Kitt

She can seek them from Proinsias.

Miss Quill

B'fhéidir go mbeadh sé sin ciallmhar. If legislation is introduced, we should be prepared to enforce it as the law is brought into disrepute when it is not enforced. There is an onus on the Minister of State to demonstrate that this legislation will be policed and indicate the cost.

How many prosecutions were brought under the 1977 legislation? Former Deputy Michael O'Leary, now a judge, once admitted that much of the legislation in this area was a dead letter because of the lack of political will to police it. Are we going through the motions of satisfying the European Union demand that we incorporate one of its directives in Irish law? Is it realistic to expect the resources of the State to be used in prosecuting a family which gives a neighbour's son or daughter £10 for babysitting for an hour or two at night time?

What will be the position of young paper boys who sell morning or evening newspapers on the street? I am thinking in particular of the boys who sell the Evening Echo in Cork. Will their employers be in breach of the law and who will police them? Is it envisaged that a prosecution will be brought against them? All these questions will have to be answered.

While there is a need for legislation to protect young people we ought to concentrate our scarce resources on making sure the existing legislation is properly enforced, particularly that dealing with school attendance. Thousands of children drop out of the system each year long before they reach school leaving age and many take the first step on the road to crime. Little is being done about this in urban areas. It is now commonplace to see small children, many of primary school age, begging openly on the streets of our major cities, breaking not one but two existing laws. The State turns a blind eye to this activity. The legislation is not being enforced and nothing is being done to ensure these vulnerable children are protected.

If this legislation is rigorously enforced, huge numbers of young people will be displaced from part-time jobs. Does the Minister of State believe they will be replaced by adult workers or will these part-time jobs disappear altogether?

Each year we consume huge quantities of products manufactured by child labour in Third World countries which do not share our concern for the welfare of children. In Morocco young girls of primary school age earn as little as £11 for a 55-hour working week making clothes that adorn the displays of some of our leading supermarkets and department stores. Is it the Government's intention to address the issue of child labour imports into the European Union and avail of the opportunity when it assumes the Presidency to raise it at a wider level? As the trend towards free trade continues to rise we in the developed world will find ourselves importing more and more goods produced by child labour in Third World countries. At international level there must be a level playing pitch in terms of the cost of labour. We should extend the same concern to other countries where cheap child labour seems to be the norm.

We have a huge unemployment problem; one person in four is unable to find a proper job. We should be careful in introducing new legislation that we do not make a bad situation worse. Discouraging young people in the 16 to 18 age category from working is not likely to enhance their long-term employment prospects. If they want to work and earn money to pay for clothes, holidays or books, should the Government stand in their way?

I welcome the legislation and look forward to the Minister of State's reply to the points I have raised and my party framing amendments on Committee Stage with the aim of making this better legislation.

Debate adjourned.