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

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

Mr. Ring

I compliment the Minister on bringing this Bill before the House. It is long overdue. There may be a problem with it, concerning young people who may not be able to work after 10 p.m. If that is the case it should be looked at on Committee Stage. I welcome the Bill, and I do not think anyone can object to it as it protects young people who should be allowed to work to supplement their income. It is useful for them to learn the value of money and, through their work, to learn the important quality of self-reliance. We should not encourage people who are able to support themselves to become too dependent on the State for support. At the same time we must ensure that young people are not exploited.

If I go to a chip shop at 2 a.m. it annoys me to see young people of 14 or 15 years of age whose faces are white from fatigue working there. They may have been on duty since 10 a.m. This has to be stopped and I am glad the Minister has put restrictions on such exploitation of young people.

Late night work is often poorly paid. One often finds people from working class areas working in chippers and discos to supplement their income, they depend on it. The son of a bank manager will never be found doing such work because he will probably get a summer job opening the door of the bank. He will never be found working in a disco or "chipper" at 2 a.m. The station master's job or the bank manager's job is kept for the son or daughter of the station master or bank manager.

I welcome the Bill because those it aims to protect need protection. I hope legislation will be introduced to protect the rights of people living beside "chippers" which pose a major problem in every town and village.

People should enjoy their youth and should not feel they have to work. Many low paid workers whose children attend third level colleges have to give them money for digs and other living expenses. We must also give them money for food and entertainment. Although some may qualify for exemption from fees, it is a drain on any family to sent a child to third level education and children also feel the pressure. It is far more important that young people are educated so that they can get a good job and then support their families.

Under this legislation young workers will have much needed redress against employers who seek to take advantage of them. It will afford them protection against those who seek to exploit their youth. I am glad there are ways in which they may appeal against such employers — through a rights commissioner and the Labour Court. However, I am worried about who will police the legislation and how it will be policed. There is no point bringing legislation to the House if its implementation will not be policed. There must be prosecutions so people will know the legislation has teeth and that if people do not obey the law, they will be brought before the courts. We must not tolerate the exploitation of young people.

The income of each family member is important, particularly for families who are struggling. We are in a consumer society and there are many demands on parents who must buy uniforms when children go to school. For many parents it is important that their children making their confirmation and first communion have the best possible clothes. This puts pressure on their resources. A simple law should be passed so that children making their confirmation or first communion must wear their school uniforms. Many parents would object but it would save some a great deal of trouble.

I welcome the provision requiring school children working during the summer months to have at least three weeks holidays before they return to school. It is wrong for children to work until the Sunday night before they go back. Some parents will say the Minister is trying to stop young people from subsidising their income, but that is not what this Bill is about — it is to protect young people.

I hope the people who will implement the legislation will go to discos and chip shops and take on those exploiting young people. Young people have been exploited for many years and it is time legislation was introduced to protect them. While I do not believe the restrictions are too severe, 10 p.m. may be a little early and perhaps the Minister will look at this on Committee Stage.

I support young people going out to work as it is important that they learn how to handle money and that the State will not always provide for them. They should get an honest day's wages for an honest day's work and should not be abused by having to work 12 or 14 hours per day. Such abuse could work against them by giving them the wrong impression about life. It is great that young people can work for a few hours as it will give them experience of handling money and of helping their parents.

Any problems with the Bill may be dealt with on Committee Stage. Much thought was put into it and I hope it will be implemented. The Minister and Members do not want to stop young people from supplementing their incomes for third level education but this Bill will ensure they are not abused and are properly paid. It is wrong for young people to work at 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. in discos or chip shops. Perhaps the State could assist young people who cannot find summer work. The summer job scheme has worked well. This Bill will not affect those taking on young people during the summer months because 90 per cent of such employers are decent and honourable people, but there are always some who will take advangage and treat them like skivvies and that must be stopped.

Mr. O'Leary

I welcome the thrust of the Bill. However, the Minister has gone slightly overboard and is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. She is being too draconian and heavy handed in relation to young people who take up part-time work. The Minister and the Government are clearly out of touch with reality. Thousands of young people must work and earn money to support themselves. Parents whose only income is social welfare cannot afford to provide clothes, footwear, books, pocket money, examination fees and travelling costs for their children in second level education, not to mention those attending third level institutions, such as regional technical colleges or universities.

This legislation will prohibit a 17 year old student from working after 10 p.m. Many 17 year olds are already in third level education. The majority of them work part-time in bars, restaurants, hotels, petrol stations, late night shops and supermarkets, particularly in tourist resorts, at weekends and during the holiday periods. I support the need to ensure that young people are not exploited but I am convinced this legislation should allow for flexibility, in relation to 16 to 18 years olds involved in part-time or holiday work.

It is important to provide for serious and meaningful consultations with trade unions and employers in relation to exemptions. I welcome the sections which provide for exemptions in the implementation of the Bill. There is provision for young people to go to a rights commissioner, an appeals tribunal and even to the High Court. A question which must be asked is how can the son or daughter in a family where the only income is social welfare afford to do this?

The tax code will also cause a problem in the enforcement of this legislation. How can a PAYE worker in the lower middle income group afford to educate his or her family without financial assistance from them? Working parents pay PAYE income tax at 27 per cent or, in most cases, 48 per cent in addition to PRSI. The tax code will add to the problems in enforcing this legislation.

How much money has the Minister of State provided in this year's Estimates for the operation of this legislation? How many inspectors are required to enforce it? Will the Minister of State set up a new section within her Department to oversee the operation and enforcement of the legislation? Will the Minister of State say how much it will cost the State and the taxpayer per annum to implement this Bill? I want answers to my questions and I hope the Minister of State will offer them in her reply.

Part-time and full-time holiday work can provide valuable work experience for 17 year olds. This has been proven over the years. It provides them with an insight into the happenings, the potential dangers and pitfalls of the real world. Young students learn the value of money at an early age. All of this is an education in itself and will help them in later life.

I welcome certain parts of the Bill, especially section 7 where the Minister is empowered to permit by licence the employment of young people on terms other than those specified in the previous section, provided that the terms of the licence comply with the directive, that the health, welfare and safety of the employee is not in danger and in circumstances where compliance with the terms of section 6 would be impractical for technical or organisational reasons. I strongly encourage the Minister of State to be lenient in granting applications for permits and to take into account family circumstances, the category of employer and the type of employment whether it be in hotels, bars or restaurants — in short all non-industrial work. I accept that it will be important for the Minister to be strict with regard to industrial work as it is different from the other categories I have mentioned.

I note with interest that it will be a defence to proceedings taken against an employer for a breach of the Act to show that the breach was the result of an emergency. Many busy employers, particularly in the tourism sector, will find it a burden to keep additional records, particularly for at least three years, to show that they are complying with the Act. This adds to the cost of running a business and it will be time consuming bureaucracy for small business people.

Has each of the EU member states implemented Directive 94/33/EC, 22 June 1994, on the protection of young people at work? If not, how many countries have implemented it? Often directives implemented in this country are not being fully implemented in other member states. This is true in other areas of administration outside the Department of Enterprise and Employment; It seems to apply across the administration. I often wonder why we must move before other member states. If other countries within the EU have not implemented this directive, why are we rushing into it now?

Many of the provisions in this Bill are already contained in the Intoxicating Liquor Acts and in the 1977 Act. I believe — although I am open to correction — that the 1977 Act was introduced by the then Minister for Labour prior to the 1977 general election. Perhaps the Minister of State could tell me if the provisions of the 1977 Act were ever enforced. I can envisage inspectors popping in and out of various businesses — hotels, restaurants, bars, petrol stations — without prior notice and causing the employment of young people to be stopped. There must be a close relationship between employers and inspectors before this Bill becomes law.

Could the Minister of State enlighten me as to how this legislation applies to the farming community? Are young people and 17 year olds employed in farm work during summer holidays confined to certain working hours and not permitted to work later than 10 p.m.? This will cause severe hardship for farmers and their employees, especially during the busy harvest season when the schools and colleges are closed and when the money earned by young people working on farms — which is a healthy lifestyle — helps to pay for their further education. Young people enjoy working on the land and being involved in activities such as saving the harvest, looking after sheep and cattle and general farm work. It is a good, healthy lifestyle for young people, particularly when they enjoy doing such work. I ask the Minister of State to grant an exemption for general farming activities.

Could the Minister of State give more information about the inspectors? When are these inspectors likely to be appointed after the Bill is passed? I welcome the thrust of the Bill — the protection of young people in employment — but I advise the Minister of State to be extremely careful in implementing the legislation. She must obtain the co-operation of the trade unions and employers before the Bill becomes law. I will listen with interest to the Minister of State's reply.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the Bill and hope that it will go some way towards regularising the position and prevent the possible abuse of young people in employment. I also welcome the Minister of State's statement that:

The new legislation does not seek to impose a ban on the employment of young people on the labour market but simply to prevent abuse in the way young people's labour is utilised. It supports measures which are designed to give young people the chance to obtain a certificate or diploma without having to leave the school system or an appropriate training course prematurely and at the same time boosts their chances on the labour market.

It is also important that the Bill will not interfere with the opportunities of young people aged 15 to participate in approved training or work experience schemes which offer valuable training or worth-while work experience skills that will enhance their job prospects.

While it is important to give our young people an education — and many of our young people receive third level education — we still have a problem in the skills area. One of Monaghan's furniture industries had to advertise in a number of newspapers, north and south of the Border, to try to find suitable workers. Many people have marvellous educational qualifications but they do not necessarily have the skills that are acquired as a result of being involved at a young age in the industries in which their fathers and forefathers were engaged. The points made by the Minister of State in that regard are important.

Children's health and physical development are very important, as is the education and development of young people. Reasonable pay for those in employment is also of paramount importance to the Minister of State. She wishes to encourage people to work and to be reasonably paid for their work. The minimum age limit of 16 for normal employment is quite reasonable. The facts show clearly that not only do people in high unemployment blackspots have a lack of education, those are also the black spots for serious crime. It is easy to demand the building of institutions but we must start at the beginning and ensure they have a proper education which will lead to full time and better employment, so raising the age for full time employment to 16 is an important step forward.

Previous speakers suggested the time limit of 10 p.m. should be reconsidered in certain types of employment. Provided the young person does not have to work continuously after 10 p.m. on four or five days, it may be possible to work late in the hotel and bar industry one night a week. There should be some flexibility because if the structure is not reasonable, the law is not adhered to and many difficulties arise. The number of inspections rose from 121 in 1993 to 486 in 1994 and 686 in 1995, which shows there is a problem to be tackled.

I welcome the rights commissioners' service. It is important that people can go somewhere which is easily accessible. I hope it will not be abused and only used where necessary. A person has a right to appeal from rights commissioners to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Ring, about the provision that the young person must have 21 days away from work before going back to school. I grew up on a farm and worked hard on it. We did not always get 21 days off but we got some relief from farm work before going back to school. If a student does not get some rest, his ability to learn and to be educated is affected.

Part-time work is important in rural areas, expecially in the summer — one thinks of poultry farmers, mushroom production, etc. It gives much needed pocket money and in some cases finance to allow students to continue in second level education which can be a heavy burden on people in small farms and in poorer areas. The pocket money from this work is important and in the legislation the Minister has allowed people to get that employment. People who live in cities may not realise that in rural areas, there are bus fares and other expenses. Young people who want to go to musical events must be driven to the local town by their parents. These all add to the costs, which are hard to meet from after tax income.

The wider matter is full-time employment, including in agriculture, for those under 16. While it is necessary to be over 16 and to have a licence to drive a tractor on roads, that has not been the case for using tractors on one's home farm, or even to use dangerous, heavy machinery. I am always scared by farmers who allow their children, nephews, nieces or other relations to drive and use heavy machinery when they are not capable of using the controls in an emergency. Over the last few years there have been serious accidents arising from this. The accident section of the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the farm organisations are working together and using every opportunity to highlight the dangers on farms and at sea, because young people are not capable of using and working the machines they are sometimes allowed to run.

I mentioned the need perhaps to allow young people extra work time in hotels, bars, etc. However, we must prevent them working every night in places like pubs and chip shops until 3 a.m. Those in this position are vulnerable. This work can lead to serious ill health and it may mean these people go on the dole queue forever, because they are fed up being abused at work.

Another speaker praised the summer job scheme. It has been a good scheme but it contains anomalies. Those who do not get a college place through failing an exam are not eligible for the scheme. There should be some leeway so that those people can be included. It is sometimes difficult for those people to get the dole. They will be annoyed about failing the exam and further handicapped by not being eligible for the scheme.

I welcome the thrust of the Bill. As a Member of the Joint Committee on Small Business and Services, I note that more inspectors will be calling as a result of the legislation. We must ensure the inspectorate takes a reasonable attitude because people should not be charged if an inspector finds a child or a nephew of the owner working on a once-off basis. The Bill aims to ensure there is not abuse but small industries are often set up by a husband and wife who are completely bogged down with paperwork and legislative requirements. I hope the Minister of State and her representatives take a reasonable attitude in implementing the Bill, so that it is seen to have been introduced for the right reasons and that those who blatantly abuse the system will be brought to heel.

Mr. N. Ahern

I did not realise there had been legislation in this area for many years. I thought the Bill as presented was daft but if a provision has been in place for some time there is no harm examining and revising it. My initial reaction, not knowing the law, was that it would be fine for well-to-do Dublin suburban families, with two parents working and an income between £60,000 and £120,000. Such people probably have the ideal number of children, which is two, and are sending them for second and third level education and further to take post-graduate degrees and doctorates. They are rearing their children in a sheltered world in which they are not expected to earn a penny before the age of 25. The Bill struck me as a little daft originally. Well-to-do parents can afford to send their children to summer camps and keep them through all levels of education without the children having to dirty their hands or earn a penny. However, many other parents cannot do so and I wonder if this legislation is geared for the real world which involves them.

I was surprised to find out there has been legislation in this regard for the past 20 years. Perhaps we will carry on as before and ignore the Bill when it is passed. However, I am against the idea of passing legislation without enforcing it; we may have become too fond of doing that in the past. Our job is to pass the legislation and it is for others to enforce it, but I do not believe in passing legislation which we know will not be enforced.

For many families the few pounds earned by children under 18 years is a necessary part of the family income. It can give independence to the young persons during their teenage years, allowing them to look after themselves to a degree. The children can make a worth-while contribution to the family income while at the same time relieving pressure on the parents to give them money.

Obviously, children have to be protected. I do not advocate slave labour or the mistreatment of children, as takes place in other countries. The Department of Enterprise and Employment is well aware of mistreatment as it is involved in implementing quota systems and approving applications for the import of goods, such as textiles and footwear, from low cost producer countries. The Minister of State mentioned instilling a work ethic in children early in life and is saying the right things, but I wonder if the balance is right. We want children to be educated and we do not want to put extra pressure on them when they are doing their homework and study. However, the balance is not right in the legislation.

Many of the children who go out to work are better adjusted in many cases. They manage to have a good deal of free time in any event as they are not doing homework from 4 p.m. to the time they start school the next morning. If it was a choice between children playing videos, hanging around drinking, taking drugs, misbehaving or earning a few pounds, I would choose the latter. The young people involved in work and sport are out of harm's way. Idleness is a big problem where young people are concerned because they will fill the time in some way and it is often those who are idle who end up in most trouble.

With the transition year concept schools are trying to introduce more enterprise oriented training. They are not trying to get away from academic achievements but are trying to instil an enterprise attitude in pupils. During the transition year the schools encourage pupils to get part-time or weekend jobs to earn a few pounds. When the children go on to the next year, parents may find it difficult to get them to give up the job and get down to their studies.

If a young person works as lounge staff in a pub he or she may be considered for apprenticeship in the pub at a later date. The advantage of the job may not just be the few pounds earned but that it may lead to something more permanent. It is not every parent's aim that his child gets a PhD. Many children are simply trying to get their leaving certificates and then hope to get a job. We can sometimes get a little carried away with ideas of access to education. Sending everybody to school and college to get doctorates is not the be all and end all. Many of the young people who work are developing a curriculum vitae. It can create a good impression on an employer if an 18 or 19 year old who goes for an interview can point to experience in part-time or summer jobs. It is about getting the balance right and children must be given time to concentrate on their studies.

I wonder how this legislation will affect some family businesses. I think of one family known to me who run a small shop and the children do their bit to help from an early age, even if it is only standing behind the counter to call their parents when a customer comes in. How will such cases be affected? I was surprised to hear Deputy Crawford, who is from the farming community, giving his whole hearted support to the Bill. I would have thought that children from farming or shop owning backgrounds would do their bit in the family business from their early teenage years. Will this legislation provide a means for children to avoid working? The legislation primarily relates to a work situation in which somebody is paid but how will it affect cases where people are not paid?

It is expensive to be a teenager now-adays, which is all right if one has wealthy parents. Teenagers seem to want expensive designer labelled clothes. It never ceases to amaze me when I hear of children buying £70 and £80 shoes — what I would have called "runners" in the old days. Many children earn a few pounds and spend it. It gives them a sense of independence and is good for them.

It was said that the number of inspections done has gone up and there are cases in which children have been taken advantage of.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996