Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996

Vol. 461 No. 8

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I said earlier that I had reservations about parts of this Bill as it does not strike the right balance between looking after the education and development of young people on one hand and giving them a work ethic and a degree of independence on the other. How will the Bill be policed and is it enforceable? There are provisions and clauses to that end but how will they work out in practice? I am concerned, now that it has been enshrined in legislation, and I hope it does not lead to some young people who may be employed against the law taking actions against their employers.

I do not support the compensation culture which is rife in society. I hope we do not have cases in the coming months in which 15 or 16 year olds get compensation from their employer because they worked beyond the set hours. Will 18 or 19 year olds inform on 16 and 17 year olds because they want their jobs? Who will be able to make complaints — the person who is being abused or victimised or a third party? It could be dangerous to target people who only exceed the time limit on occasion. I would not like to see people targeting the jobs of others.

Has the Minister of State any idea who will fill the jobs held by young people at present? A report on job-sharing was issued by the NESC last week. I hope there is not an ulterior motive in this Bill whereby the children will be sent home and housewives or the unemployed will take their jobs. The unemployed have always been free to go for these jobs if they so wished and if they have not taken them to date there is no reason to believe they will take them in the future.

Many families need the few pounds a young person may earn to supplement the family budget. In recent years access to second and third level education has been extended and become available to families who might not have considered it previously. Although second and third level fees are free there are many other costs involved in full-time education. Many families need the support of the extra few pounds the child may earn and the Government cannot replace the money overnight.

I fear some of the jobs involved may enter the black economy and the young people may be paid out of the till rather than be registered for PRSI and tax. In recent years advances have been made in having people employed legitimately and this legislation should not reverse those advances.

I agree with the Minister of State that school drop-outs are potential candidates for long-term unemployment. In my constituency many people drop out of school at second-level and some have even dropped out at primary-level. A gang of children who hang around a certain area get a bowl of soup and sandwiches at lunch time from the health board. However, those who drop out of school will not take up the jobs targeted by this Bill.

What is the intention of the EU directive to which this Bill gives effect. Is it the intention that there should be a legislative framework to control and avoid the abuse of children? Does it state when the working day should start or end? I do not understand why a 16 or 17 year old cannot work after 10 p.m. on a Friday or Saturday night. In Irish cultural life 10 p.m. has a different meaning to 10 p.m. in Germany — the Germans may all go to bed after the evening news and get up at 5 a.m. Who came up with the 10 p.m. limit? I would be more worried about my teenagers getting up at 5 a.m. to go to work than if they worked until 11.30 p.m. on a Saturday night. Are we setting this 10 p.m. limit on ourselves? It would be more damaging for teenagers to get up at 5 a.m. That may affect their development, health and concentration during the day, yet it would be permissible under the legislation.

I am not convinced about the three weeks annual leave provision. A change is often as good as a rest. The Minister of State talked about children being refreshed when they go back to school but no matter what a person does while away from one's usual occupation that person is refreshed on return to it. Getting away from the usual routine and doing something different can be equally refreshing. I am not convinced three weeks is needed; a week or ten days would be sufficient.

Section 1 defines "light work" as work which "is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children". I do not know what is meant exactly by "light work". Perhaps I may have been damaged because I worked when I was a teenager and it was not all light work. I am worried we might reach a stage where young people will reach 20 years of age and will never have had any more exertion than playing video games.

Section 9 is either brilliant or crazy and whoever concocted it should be seconded to the Department of Justice. Subsection (3) states that the parent or guardian of an employee, presumably a young person, who aids or abets an employer shall be guilty of an offence. If I conspire, co-operate or give approval to my 16 year old to work until 11 p.m. on a Saturday night I will be guilty of an offence. However, in the context of the juvenile justice Bill, I have heard many advance the view that parents should be responsible for their children's behaviour. The do-gooders always reply that one could not legislate on that basis.

If we can legislate to make it an offence to allow one's teenager to work on a Saturday night I hope the Government will be consistent and include in the long awaited juvenile justice Bill similar provisions of responsibility.

If I commit an offence by co-operating in my child doing something useful I should be responsible and liable for prosecution if I permit my children to run wild. Parents should be responsible not just for their children's good work but their damage and misbehaviour.

I ask the Minister of State to examine some of these issues, particularly the provision with regard to working on Friday and Saturday nights when the following day is not a school day. It does not damage a child's health or educational prospects if they work to 11 p.m. or midnight because they would not be going to bed or doing their homework at that time on a weekend night.

(Laoighis-Offaly): I imagine most of the contributors to date were unaware of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. In my last job I used to give talks and training courses on that legislation to young people in schools and it was always a source of amazement to them to discover the legislation. It was the experience of many of them that its provisions were not implemented.

I welcome any legislation introduced under the provisions of the social chapter of the European Union. The European Union is very remote from many people and relates to the market, finance, economies and other abstract matters. However, the partnership of the European Community, now the European Union, has been an important force in improving working conditions, the position of women in society and environmental standards. While this Bill is welcome in its own right, it is also welcome in the context of part of our obligations as signatories of the social chapter.

In addition to our EU obligations, this Bill also updates our legislation. It updates the 1977 Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act and sections of the Conditions of Employment Act which date back to 1936. I welcome the fact that instead of piecemeal amendment of prior legislation, the Minister has presented a new Bill. I recommended such action during debates on previous legislation. It is much easier for those who use the legislation if it is all available in one Act rather than having to refer to three or more prior Acts.

Part of what we are amending dates back to 1936. From listening to some of the debate, one would think that the Minister was introducing something radically new or different. Some of the obligations which we are trying to meet through this legislation stretch back as far as 1919 and the decisions of the International Labour Organisation. Further decisions were taken by the International Labour Organisation in 1946 which were only brought into effect by the 1977 Act. We cannot be accused of going ahead of the posse on this one.

The Bill forces us to look at the conditions and terms under which children and young people are often expected to work in our society. I worked for seven years in a centre which provided education and training and encouraged work for early school leavers. Nobody has anything to fear from good legislation which is intended to promote their welfare. It does not remove the incentive to work but states that we, as a society, recognise that children and young people cannot be expected to work under the same terms and conditions as fully grown and mature people.

This debate dates back to the last century and the time of Dickens. In the early days of the 19th century, when people tried to introduce restrictions on child labour following the industrial revolution, many of the arguments and much of the ill informed comment which has taken place — mostly outside this House — since this Bill was published were also trotted out. One would swear that there were thousands of lovely jobs for young people to take. I worked with young people for many years and good jobs were damn hard to come by. Many low grade and low quality jobs were available but I did not encourage them to take such jobs. If their first experience of the world of work when they are 16 and 17 years of age was a low grade and low paid job with unsocial hours, they were not given an incentive to continue to participate in the world of work. When they signed on at the age of 18 years they did not try for further employment and stayed on the unemployment register as long-term unemployed because their first experience of the world of work was so bad.

We are not talking about preventing young people from working but severely restricting children at work, for which we should make no apology. Within those provisions we are still allowing them to do certain types of work and to work during school holidays. Children and young people must be employed in a responsible way and in a fashion which genuinely contributes to their general development and welfare, shows them that work is worthwhile and should be followed up, and gives them an incentive to participate as adults in the world of work. There has been a great deal of ill informed criticism of this Bill. I recognise that, as many Deputies stated, the legislation we pass in this House must be good legislation capable of being enforced.

I agree with the general prohibition on night work for young people. However, within that general parameter and in compliance with the European directive, we can try to build in as much flexibility as possible. There is a choice in the directive between banning night work between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. or between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. One could say that there is not much difference. If we can ban night work but still allow for some measure of flexibility, we can take account of many of the concerns expressed by Deputies. However, in my experience of my first job and my schooldays, many of those who, against the advice of their parents and teachers, persisted in long hours of night work did not do well at school. According to teachers and those who work in organisations such as FÁS, the evidence shows that over emphasis at a young age on work and earning money when young people should be trying — for their long-term benefit — to get the best education they can, can be detrimental.

I am concerned about enforcement. The fact that many speakers in this debate and outside the House did not know that a law was passed on this issue in 1977 shows that the public is not aware of this legislation and many other areas of labour law, particularly many of the laws which were passed in the 1970s. We have relied too much on the inquisitorial approach to enforcement — that if somebody does not comply with the legislation they are immediately visited by an inspector. I would like to see a much more co-operative approach to the dissemination of this information and the enforcement of the legislation on the ground.

In other European countries, organisations such as trade unions, employers' organisations and chambers of commerce take a much greater responsibility for informing their members about such legislation and putting it into practice on the ground in a co-operative rather than confrontational fashion. Too often in this country, we make regulations which are policed by inspectors who land people in court before they know what has happened. I would welcome a much more co-operative approach.

Trade unions do their best to make their members and the communities in which they operate more aware of such legislation. They also facilitate those who seek redress because their rights have been infringed. I would like to see a greater involvement of employers' organisations as this legislation benefits them as much as anybody else. We should ensure that a young person's first taste of work is a good experience which shows them that work is worthwhile and rewarding and gives them an incentive to participate in the world of work as they get older.

Employers' and business organisations are well organised and represented at national level. While they may express reservations about pieces of labour law, at the end of the day they generally go along with them. However, employers' organisations and chambers of commerce are very badly organised at local level. I want them to play a much fuller role in, first, making their members aware of this type of legislation, second, explaining to their members why it is in their interests to go along with it, and third, co-operating in some type of local mechanism of redress where that is possible. While I welcome the fact that redress, where, for example, somebody has been discriminated against in respect of this legislation, is now being made available through the rights commissioner and the employment appeals tribunal, I and other Deputies know that many people do not know how to gain access to it. If one lives in a town or village away from where these people are located, it is hard to find out where they are, it can be hard to get to see them and the whole mechanism, whereby documentation goes back and forth and one must appear at a hearing and make a submission, has become complicated over the years. This latter point is evident, in particular, in relation to the tribunal where one would nearly be afraid to advise anybody now about going to a tribunal without having first consulted a solicitor. The method of redress can be inaccessible and bureaucratic and I want the Government, the trade union and the employer organisations to examine methods of investigating complaints under this type of legislation at local level in a non-confrontational way as far as possible which may lead to a better result.

Often, under this type of legislation. if people make a complaint, they get a bad name in an area and employers decide not to employ them because they went to the tribunal or the rights commissioner. The confrontational way should be the last resort. Will the Minister examine how redress under labour legislation, including this Bill, can be effected in a more accessible, understanding, less confrontational and more effective way?

In general, the objective of the Bill is to ensure that young people and children are encouraged as much as possible to stay in school and, where work is available to them, to take it up under conditions which ensure they will not be exploited. We can congratulate ourselves on the fact that more and more young people are remaining in education but, in dealing with legislation, we must be cognisant of the fact that many young people are not staying in school. We do not want to put them in a situation where they are being forced into unsuitable employment and find they or their employer are breaking the law.

More attention needs to be given to the sector of our school-going population which is likely to drop out and end up in casual or low-grade employment and who will not have the protection of a trade union. I agree in principle that responsibility for that group should lie within the education sector but schools clearly cannot do the work for everybody. The Departments of Enterprise and Employment and Education need to refocus on the needs of potential early school leavers — and early school leavers — to ensure they are given as much education and work experience as possible and that effective measures are taken to encourage and assist them into the world of work.

I worked in this area for seven years before I became a Deputy and when the social guarantee for young people was introduced in 1986 and the National Manpower Service had initial responsibility for its implementation and monitoring, there was a good local liaison unit in my area which brought the school principals, manpower, social workers, probation officers and providers such as myself together to identify who was dropping out of school, to pick up on what they were doing and to try to get them into suitable education and training programmes. I regret such an arrangement is not available in my area at present. On paper, more young people are being catered for but the quality of the monitoring of those young people needs further examination. I have discussed this matter with the Minister of State and with the Minister for Education and will continue to address it because many of these young people end up doing the type of jobs in the conditions which the legislation is attempting to curb. If they are being forced to do that through having no other option or forced to earn between £20 and £25 per week because they cannot get anything else and their families need it, there is an obligation on us and the Departments of Enterprise and Employment and Education to ensure these young people are identified early, monitored at an early stage after leaving school and offered a worth-while programme of education or training which has an allowance which will not oblige them to take up much of this low-paid work. There is also an obligation to ensure the same type of resources, attention and value which other school leavers will get during their further two to three years in the secondary sector and, perhaps, two, three or four years in the third-level sector is given to the early school-leaver or the potential early school-leaver. While, as I said, much attention in terms of policy has been given to this matter, there is a dearth of attention and lack of priority given by many of the agencies concerned.

A special programme needs to be put in place for these young people. Reports and experts have identified this need but the problem still exists. While we can congratulate ourselves on the overall standard of our education sector, it has been clearly shown that this group ends up as the long-term unemployed. National and European resources and policy exist to ensure these young people can and should be helped and redirected from much of the undesirable work which this legislation attempts to combat.

We can all identify young people who are in undesirable types of work during unsocial hours. Maybe we can examine including as much flexibility as possible in the Bill while still meeting the aim of protecting young people in particular, in night work. We should examine weekend work and the evenings of Friday and Saturday, in particular. Again, it is not desirable for young people to work long hours at weekends but we must have something which is workable, which people will respect, which people will not fear and which they will see as being in their own interests. Unfortunately, the portrayal of this legislation outside, and sometimes, inside the House has not done this.

Going back to my first job, which was in the hotel and catering trade, at the age of 15; I should not have been there at all — the type of hours which we were expected to work were such that I would have been glad if somebody had told my employer I had to finish by 11 p.m. and could not be expected to work until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. on a Friday or Sunday night.

The impression may have been given that we were out to stop people working. We are not trying to discourage people from working but to ensure that where they work, they do so in a controlled and beneficial fashion.

When the Minister has considered Deputies' comments on the Bill and it is passed. I ask her to consider some sort of programme to disseminate information on it. I was engaged in that type or process in my last job. It was interesting and rewarding because it was the first time many of the young people I met had ever heard of any protection under the law.

I was sorry to hear Deputy Ahern refer to transition years as "doss" years. I do not regard them as "doss" years. The work completed in transition years is very beneficial in encouraging young people to enter the world of employment. Transition years, the new civic, social and political programme and the work carried out by youth organisations, training workshops, Youthreach programmes and FÁS programmes provide young people with the ideal opportunity to discover what is available for the future.

I compliment the Minister of State for introducing this legislation and urge her to proceed with it as quickly as possible. She is assured of my support. I commend the Bill to the House and the general public.

When I read the title of the Bill I realised there was a danger that a person criticising any aspect of it needed to be careful in the choice of words. I would not care to be accused of being against the protection of young persons or persons of any age. I am deeply concerned that the welfare of children and young people remains paramount.

Documentaries are occasionally shown on television which depict the appalling treatment of very young children in sweatshops around the world. Such documentaries usually involve what is called the "rag trade". The pay and conditions endured by these unfortunate children enable unscrupulous employers to sell their products at rock bottom prices to chain stores in countries that are regarded as some of the most civilised. This is child slavery at its worst.

Thankfully, Ireland does not have to deal with this issue. However, we must guard against the possible removal of the time honoured rights of young people in the 16 to 18 age group to earn money, subvent low family incomes or provide funds for extracurricular activities such as sport or the arts. Consider, for example, the number of successful people who worked their way through school and college. As a Fianna Fáil Deputy, I am proud of my party's achievement in providing secondary education to virtually the entire population and third-level education to an ever increasing number of people. I am aware that the taxpayer cannot provide every item required, at least until we strike oil or some other resource in very large quantities. This applies to the area of third-level education in particular which, it must be remembered, most students enter between the ages of 16 and 18.

The Minister of State acknowledged that most young people derive part-time earnings by working as unskilled persons in licensed premises, hotels or discos. The main part of the work in such places is undertaken after 10 p.m., by which time it is illegal under the provisions of the Bill and existing legislation. I see nothing wrong with young people carrying out this type of work provided that certain specific conditions are laid down. There is no reference in the Bill to the wages that should be paid to young people, a part from section 12, which deals with the preservation of existing wage agreements at the time of enactment. Other conditions such as maximum hours and rest periods are dealt with under the Bill. Some mechanisms should be enshrined in law to ensure that rogue employers cannot take advantage of prevailing conditions by offering excessively low wages to young people desperate to obtain a job of any kind, if only on a part-time basis. Perhaps this issue might be addressed in the wider area of employment.

To return to the employment of young people in nightclubs and hotels, I have inquired in various quarters as to what happens in this regard. The Minister of State is rightly concerned about the need to ensure that, as far as possible, part-time employment does not harm the educational development of young students. The reality is that very few students are harmed in this way, apart from those who come from families whose parents do not take the necessary care of their children in the first instance. Many parents arrange employment for their children with employers they know personally. In these cases, the parents or employers make arrangements for the safe return of people to their homes. Meanwhile, many of their schoolmates are attending discos as customers or roaming the streets without any parental or other supervision. Which of these groups of young people is in the more desirable situation?

We must rely on the good sense of parents to ensure that their children are in the right place at the right time and are not unfairly exploited if engaged in part-time employment. I agree with the condition that, during school terms, young people should not be permitted to work, except at weekends. Even then they should have proper rest periods. I was informed by a nightclub owner that he employed several children from many families. He was not aware that any of the children's educations had suffered. He believed that the opposite was the case, that the young people involved seemed to benefit from the discipline of work and placed proper value on the money they earned. I appeal to the Minister of State to bear these points in mind before finalising her proposals.

I thank Members for a very constructive and positive debate. Good points have been made on all sides of the House. It was not surprising that the main Opposition spokespersons, Deputies Kitt and Quill, come from a teaching background. I believe they agree that this legislation involves the transition from school to employment and that it works for young people in the context of obtaining a good education.

I would like to address a number of specific points that arose during the debate. Deputy Gallagher emphasised that much of the content of the legislation is not new. I decided to repeal and re-enact aspects of the Protection of Employment Act, 1936, and the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. The most controversial provisions in the Bill are not the newer ones but those that have been law for the past 18 years.

When considering enforcement and resources for enforcement, we are faced with a situation where legislation is already in place and an inspectorate is responsible for enforcing existing law. The resources are already present. I take Deputy Gallagher's point in relation to establishing a co-operative approach, in terms of information, which will involve local people, employers and trade unions. A co-operative rather than a draconian approach to enforcement is the positive way to proceed. My Department issues a series of guides to labour law. A composite guide is also available. There is an excellent information section in the Department but its expertise is probably not available this afternoon, for obvious reasons. It is important that this legislation is enforced in a positive way. The Department is informing employers, young people and their representatives of what is contained in the legislation and their rights. The Department also has available to it the services of its labour inspectorate.

I do not accept that this is a sledge-hammer approach, it is realistic and balanced. There is broad support across the House to limit young people's working hours during term time. It is important, given the age groups dealt with by the Bill, to emphasise what is under discussion. Working hours during term time are limited to seven hours per week in the case of 14 year olds and eight hours per week in the case of 15 year olds. Restrictions are not placed on 16 or 17 year olds because they are entitled to leave school. I am glad of the support I received in terms of raising the minimum age for regular work to 16 years. This is a new aspect of the Bill.

I was asked about the number of cases that had been prosecuted. During my opening speech I provided figures relating to the number of inspections taking place which have increased substantially in recent years in line with the number of complaints received under existing law. Since 1977, 19 cases have been referred to the Chief State Solicitor's office for enforcement. That office proceeded with ten cases, nine of which were successfully prosecuted. Fines were imposed in six of these cases and the Probation Act was applied in two. We are not bringing in the big guns, but we will encourage employers to meet their legal obligations under existing law. As regards the new protections for young people in this Bill, the same positive attitude towards enforcement will apply.

Deputies Kitt and Quill expressed concern about third level students in part-time jobs. However, I disagree with Deputy Edward O'Keeffe who said that most third level students are 16 years old. If a child starts school on their fourth birthday and does a transition year, they will be 18 years of age when entering third level education. Most 16 and 17 year olds are in fifth and sixth year at school, a minority either do not do a transition year or leave school earlier and then enter third level education later. However, the restrictions in this Bill do not apply to third level students. Deputy Tom Kitt is concerned about third level students and their need to earn money. I commend the action of the Minister of Education in abolishing third level fees because that has lifted a huge financial burden off young people.

The most controversial aspect of the legislation is not new but restates the law since 1977 — the ban on 16 and 17 year olds from working after 10 p.m. There is broad support across the House for the proposition that young people should not work late at night during the normal school week. Views were expressed that young people could work in bars or elsewhere on a Friday or Saturday night when they do not have to get up for school the following morning. However, in 1946, as part of our international obligations, the ILO signed a resolution which stated that children under 18 years of age could not work after 10 p.m. In 1977 we enacted that into our law. Part of the provisions of the social chapter which we signed and of the directive on which this Bill is primarily based and which Deputy O'Rourke negotiated as my predecessor state that by implementing that directive we cannot lessen the protection already offered to people. It is not open to us to review the position in relation to Friday and Saturday nights for 16 and 17 year olds. Under the terms of the directive we cannot lessen the protection offered to young people which is incorporated in existing law.

Deputies Tom Kitt and Quill mentioned people working in family businesses. Under the 1977 Act regulations were made to exclude close relatives from certain provisions of the Act. I intend to continue that on a common-sense basis because we need to apply reasonable flexibility.

Deputy Quill expressed concern about the requirement for a three week break in the summer. This applies to 14 and 15 year olds; we do not have such restrictions for 16 year olds because they are allowed to leave school. As a parent, I feel it is reasonable that young people have such a break. I am sure Deputy Tom Kitt, as a former teacher, believes that a child needs time not only for the family holiday but also to kick a football around the streets. A child needs unstructured time so that when they go back to school they can enjoy and avail of their school time. A young person who works for the school holidays or within two weeks of going back to school is not refreshed when school restarts. We are talking about 14 and 15 year olds who are not fully grown and who need to enjoy their youth. This is an important protection.

Deputy Quill raised the issue of costs. There are no extra costs associated with this Bill because our labour inspectorate is already in place monitoring existing protection for young people in this area. It is also not expected that the legislation will involve any significant or extra costs for employers. The majority of young people are covered by the existing rules. There are some technical changes to those rules in that we are raising the age to 16 and giving a new avenue of redress to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Where licences are required, for example, for young people to work in films, it is not proposed to charge for them. We will issue a simple guide for employers because it is important in this area of labour law and protection to have laws which are user friendly for both sides so that young people, their parents, the trade unions and employers know their rights. The Department of Enterprise and Employment has a good track record in user friendly guides in this area and I will do anything I can to disseminate that more widely.

Deputy Crawford mentioned people working in agriculture. There is a provision in the Bill which allows the Minister to make regulations to exempt any group or category of employers from a particular provision or provisions of the legislation if they are causing problems. The Deputy asked if a person working late on the harvest in mid-summer can work after 10 p.m. Regulations were made under the 1977 Act for agricultural workers and we propose to apply a common-sense and flexible approach in this area. The Minister may also, by licence, allow an individual employer to employ young people on terms other than those specified where compliance with the terms of the Bill would be impractical. We would look for pro rata protection for young people in this regard.

I expect that the passage of this legislation through the Oireachtas and the publicity given to our debate today will heighten awareness of the existing law and the new provisions being enacted. That increased awareness is important in terms of looking at how people operate.

Deputy Quill mentioned baby-sitting which is not covered in this Bill because it is not employment under a contract of service or as an agency worker; it is usually a private arrangement with a next door neighbour. We do not have an army of labour inspectors.

Deputy Quill made a good point about ensuring that our existing laws on school attendance are enforced. Deputy Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly) made an excellent contribution during which he spoke about his own experience of dealing with early school leavers and of the conflict between low grade exploitative work and the type of opportunities faced by young people. Deputy Gallagher made a number of points which are not on this agenda but which I accept in this regard. I am anxious that the National Economic and Social Forum should look at the issue of early school leaving and try to co-ordinate action. The practical points made by Deputy Gallagher will be brought to the attention of the forum at our meeting next Tuesday afternoon.

Deputy Ring made a thoughful contribution. He asked if it would be possible to extend the working hours for 16 and 17 year olds to 12 a.m. and Deputy Gallagher asked if they could be extended to 11 p.m. I have explained our legal constraints in that regard.

Deputy O'Leary asked if there would be costs for people who go to the rights commissioner, the Employment Appeals Tribunal or the High Court. There is no cost for the rights commissioner or the Employment Appeals Tribunal but I accept the point made by Deputy Gallagher that people might feel it is difficult to gain access to them. They are meant to be simple avenues of redress. We have given people an alternative to going to court on these issues. The appeal to the High Court is included in all legislation regardless of whether we write it in because anyone is entitled to go to the High Court on a point of law. However, it is a hypothetical right. In practice, people will go to a rights commissioner and the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which are free.

I accept Deputy Gallagher's point about making the Employment Appeals Tribunal more user friendly. I am working on that with the chairperson of the tribunal, Ms Mary Faherty, who has done an excellent job since her appointment. The tribunal has been improved and this has resulted in more people using it. There are delays in taking cases before it but my Department is working to change that.

Deputy O'Leary asked about young people who are working illegally and being paid under the counter. That is something to which our inspectorate must be alert.

The Deputy asked also about the position of other EU member states. All EU member states signed this directive in 1994 and must enact the legislation by 22 June 1996. As far as I am aware, all other countries are, like ourselves, on track to meet that deadline. This directive is not unique to Ireland; it is part of our European citizenship. The Deputy also mentioned the importance of consulting employers and unions. I had consultations with the employers, trade unions and the National Youth Council before finalising the proposals in the Bill. However, if employers or unions have further points they wish to make, my door is always open. We make progress in consultation.

Deputy Crawford raised the question of tractor safety and young people working on farms. There are health and safety provisions in the directive which are not being implemented in this Bill but rather by regulations which I will make under the health and safety legislation. On Monday I launched the Health and Safety Authority's work programme for the year which has a particular focus on farming and the involvement of farming organisations in training youngsters to use tractors safely. It is an important programme aimed at saving lives. The Deputy talked about small businesses and about inspectors having a reasonable attitude. I hope my Department inspectors have a reasonable attitude. This is constructive legislation which we want to see operated in a user friendly way.

Deputy Noel Ahern asked if this Bill is for the well to do and will protect only those who can afford to choose whether to work. It is about protecting everyone, advantaged and disadvantaged. There is a particular focus on the early school leaver. It is not in anyone's interest that young people be encouraged to leave school early. Many of those who do not complete their education end up on the dole at the age of 18 or 19 and may remain unemployed for the rest of their days. Members smiled when Deputy Ahern mentioned the cost of teenage gear. Those of us who are parents are well aware that sometimes our youngsters work to pay for Nike runners that can cost up to £96. I suppose that is part of our consumer society.

The lounge trade is probably the biggest single problem area in the context of existing prohibitive legislation. The 1988 Intoxicating Liquor Act forbids youngsters under the age of 18 being in pubs without their parents. It also forbids young people working in pubs. I have a problem with young people working not just until 10 p.m., 11 p.m. or closing time, but staying on through drinking-up and cleaning-up time and walking home at 2 a.m. That is not good for their health or safety, and we are not protecting them in that respect. I recognise there is a need for flexibility concerning weekend and holiday work and I have explained to Deputy Quill the legal restrictions in that regard. However, we cannot allow the licensed trade to exploit youngsters of 16 and 17 and have them going home at 2 a.m. We will look at the issue of family businesses again. A point was made about the working hours of bar apprentices who are under the age of 18. I will look at that issue on Committee Stage where we can tease out the problems.

I want legislation that is workable, balanced and flexible which gives priority to young people's health, safety, education and protection from exploitation first. This Bill has been welcomed across the House and I look forward to teasing out the sections constructively on Committee Stage. I am sure with co-operation we will have the legislation on the Statute Book by our 22 June deadline.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share