Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 1975

Vol. 79 No. 12

Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

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

Firstly, I propose to explain to Senators the main features of this proposed legislation. Having done so, I will then talk about various other aspects of youth employment, some of which extend outside the scope of my ministerial responsibilities.

When one comes to look at the broad subject of employment of young people in our society, it must be acknowledged that there is a scarcity of hard facts. The official statistics do not contain enough data about the employment experience of young people. While it may be true to say that the worst examples of exploitation of young people in employment relate to the last century, there is nevertheless evidence from intermittent complaints that all abuses have not been removed. From time to time my Department receive complaints about the employment of children and young persons over long hours and at times for low wages. There are also complaints about late night employment of young people. In the circumstances I have considered it desirable to give priority to the introduction of this Bill dealing with the conditions of employment of young people in advance of general legislation on hours of work and related subjects about which I have been consulting the social partners.

It may assist in understanding the general philosophy behind the legislation if I attempt to explain further in general terms the aims of the Bill. These could be summarised as follows:—

(1) To extend the scope of the legislative protection given to young people in employment.

(2) To raise the protective standards incorporated in the legislation in accordance with modern trends and international standards for the employment of young people.

(3) To improve the enforcement of legislative provisions relating to the employment of young people.

(4) To enlist the support of all sections of the community in the observance of this protective legislation.

(5) To increase the available information about the employment conditions of young people.

(6) To contribute towards awakening the interest of the community in the creation of a better working environment for our young people.

Coming to the detailed provisions of the Bill, I should firstly mention that under its definitions those in the 15 to 18 age group are regarded as young persons while those under 15 are deemed to be children. The term employee used in the Bill relates to both categories.

The provisions of the legislation will have very wide application and will cover young persons in almost all types of employment. There are limited exceptions in respect of a few categories of workers, where the nature of their activities would pose serious problems of application. These exceptions are confined to young persons employed as fishermen, light-house-keepers, out-workers, seafarers, and members of the Defence Forces, though I should add that these categories together with all others will be covered by section 4 which specifies the minimum age for employment. I am taking power to bring excluded categories within the scope of the legislation if this appears to be desirable at a future time.

As I have indicated already, there is a deficiency in the statistics available in this area. While such data cannot be related directly to the scope of the Bill, it has been estimated that approximately 65,000 young employees in the age group 15 to 18 years would be covered by its provisions. Many of these have already had the protection of the earlier statutes but approximately one third of that total will be brought within the scope of this protective legislation for the first time and the provisions of the Bill in relation to maximum hours, rest intervals and so forth will apply where previously there was no statutory protection.

While the extension of the coverage of the protective legislation to a greater number of young employees is a major improvement in itself, I should also mention that the various standards set out in the Bill have also been improved in favour of the young employee. Compared with the Conditions of Employment Acts, 1936 and 1944, which cover mainly industrial work, there are changes in relation to the minimum age for employment, maximum and normal working hours of young persons under 16 years and in the night work restrictions. The improvements are more marked when this legislation is compared with the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Acts, 1938 and 1942, covering employees in shops, hotels, restaurants and similar establishments. Here the changes relate to minimum age for employment, maximum and normal hours for all young employees and night work restrictions. I should also mention that under section 19, where the hours of work have to be reduced in order to comply with the provisions of the Bill, there would be no reduction permitted in the remuneration due to the employee.

Section 4 of the Bill provides that the employment of children under 15 years shall be generally prohibited. In setting the minimum age for employment at 15, the Bill removes the anomaly whereby the existing minimum age for employment is 14, although the school-leaving age has been raised to 15 years. I recognise that for young people at school, some familiarity with working environment could be an important educational experience. I was therefore disposed to grant a limited exception subject to strict conditions for the employment of children under the age of 15. My idea for this exception is contained in section 4 which permits children over 14 years to do light non-industrial work. In the discussions on the Bill it was suggested in the Dáil that instead of stipulating the age of 14 years it would be preferable if the Minister for Labour had the power to set the age by ministerial order. However I did not accept this suggestion because I felt that the choice of age for this limited exception was a very important one which should be made by the Oireachtas.

The limited exception in favour of children over 14 years permits them to be engaged on light non-industrial work during school term for up to two hours a day outside school hours and during holiday periods they may be engaged on such work up to seven hours a day subject to a maximum of 35 hours per week. The additional conditions are that the work must not be harmful to their health or normal development and must not prejudice their attendance or performance at school.

While the formula in the section of two hours daily during school term seems to me to be the most appropriate, I realise that there are diverse views on this question. In the debates in the Dáil it was suggested that alternatively there should be during school term a concentration at week-ends of the permitted working hours for children over 14. I have not finally made up my mind on that suggestion and I would welcome any views which Senators might wish to put forward in relation to it. In addition to that aspect of the subject, I have taken power to vary the provisions regarding working hours of children in the 14-15 age group subject to Affirmative Resolution by both Houses of the Oireachtas. If in the light of future experience it seems that a change would be warranted, I can put a proposal before both Houses and seek their approval to it.

Section 6 also deals with the minimum age for employment and contains a power to specify a higher minimum age for entry in respect of any work which might endanger the health or safety of young persons. This power, which would of course be exercised after consultation with the social partners, gives me a measure of flexibility in dealing with special situations. The provision is in line with the general thinking on the subject of the International Labour Organisation. I have no immediate plans to make use of this power but I would be willing to consider any proposals supported by adequate evidence which were put to me.

Section 5 requires employers to obtain proper evidence of age before they take children or young persons into employment. They are also required to keep records of ages, working times and rates of pay. An important addition was included in the section following consultations with youth organisations and the views expressed by Deputies in the Dáil. This is the requirement that employers must obtain the written permission of parents or guardians before they employ children under the school-leaving age.

On the basis of the case put to me I was prepared to include this additional requirement but I considered that it was unnecessary to have a similar requirement in relation to the 65,000 young persons in the 15-18 age bracket. These general requirements in regard to evidence of age and record-keeping have been strengthened to facilitate enforcement of the legislation. Contraventions by employers and complicity by parents or guardians will be offences. I expect that the application of these provisions will enable me to monitor the conditions of employment of young people more adequately and should the need arise I would be prepared to initiate further corrective measures.

Sections 7 and 8 deal with maximum working hours for young persons and section 9 covers their normal working hours. Normal working hours are those which an employee works before overtime payment becomes due. The maximum hours required is essentially a protective measure and constitutes an absolute maximum beyond which it is unlawful to permit the employees to work. I would like particularly to draw the attention of Senators to the more favourable provisions under both headings for young persons under 16 years.

I consider that these young people, undertaking their first experience of full-time employment, are deserving of special consideration and these provisions should help to assist in their transition into the working environment. There are provisions in section 7 and 9 for averaging hours within the overriding limits in accordance with the terms of collective agreements, employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements but I have not made any such provision in section 8 because it would, in my view, be inappropriate for young persons under 16 years.

The various levels of working hours specified in those three sections represent the best possible compromise following consultations with unions and employers. It will be noted particularly in section 7 that the overriding limits in relation to the maximum hours in a four-week period and the maximum hours per year impose an additional constraint which must be complied with. Indeed the annual maximum limit means effectively that maximum hours must be cut on average to 43 per week for a young person in the 16-18 age group. There can of course be differences of opinion as to whether these are the right levels to specify in the Bill at this point of time.

I consider, having heard a variety of conflicting opinions, that these levels are reasonable. However I have taken power by affirmative Resolution of the Oireachtas to vary the hours specified in sections 7, 8 and 9 in order to take account of future developments in the trends of working hours in employment generally.

Section 10 provides that time spent with the consent of the employer on vocational training during normal working hours shall be deemed to be hours worked by the young person for the purpose of calculating the maximum working hours. I should mention that in the discussions in the Dáil a totally different concept was raised and I should like to explain the distinction in order to avoid any confusion. The other concept discussed related to the right to paid leave for undertaking vocational or training courses solely at the choice of the employee.

This is a totally different concept which would be outside the scope of this Bill. It has been the subject of a convention and recommendation adopted by the annual conference of the International Labour Organisation in June, 1974. These instruments define paid educational leave and leave granted to a worker for educational purposes for a specified period during working hours, with adequate financial entitlements.

The member states of the ILO, which feel able to adopt these particular instruments, would be required to formulate appropriate policies in this area. In common with the other member countries Ireland will be examining these suggestions to see to what extent their implementation would be practicable.

I should however emphasise that the proposals contained in the two ILO instruments would have wide-ranging implications in regard to the assessment of potential demand for such facilities, the evaluation of the capacity of our education and training systems to provide such facilities on a wide scale, the financing arrangements, together with related questions such as the integration of these proposals with existing policies in regard to employment, education, training and hours of work. Other questions would arise in regard to the forms of participation by public authorities, social partners and education and training authorities.

Until all these implications have been examined in detail by the various Government Departments and agencies involved, it would be quite impossible to indicate what our approach to these international instruments would be. This is quite clearly an instance where there must be adequate preparatory investigation before we could embark on this new area of activity.

Sections 11 and 12 deal with intervals for rest. Following a period of five hours work, an employee must be allowed an un-paid half-hour break. Before he commences overtime expected to last more than one-and-a-half hours, the employee must get an un-paid break of a half-hour. This particular break may be varied by agreement provided the revised break is not less than 15 minutes and is paid for. In addition, an employee, who works more than five days in a week and more than three hours on a Sunday, must be allowed a 24-hour break without pay every seven days. In this respect, a similar but more restrictive provision in the 1936 Act will continue to apply to young employees engaged on industrial work.

While the provisions in sections 11 and 12 of the Bill set out the minimum legislation standards, they do not debar the negotiation of better terms in regard to rest intervals under the collective bargaining system.

There are restrictions in sections 13 and 14 on the employment of children and young persons at night. The enactment of these provisions will enable us to ratify two ILO conventions on night work.

It will be noted that under the terms of section 13 a young person must stop work at 10 p.m. and must also be given a 12 hours overnight break. I have received representations from employer interests that a later hour than 10 p.m. should be specified. In addition there was some discussion during the Dáil debates as to whether I was choosing the right time for stopping work. However, no specific suggestions about alternative times were put forward. I consider that the hours chosen are reasonable both in relation to our own requirements and to international standards. Nevertheless, I would welcome any views that Senators might wish to put forward. I consider however that we must be rather careful about what we do in this regard so as to avoid possible exploitation of young people in the course of late night employment.

Senators will have noted that I am taking powers in section 16 to grant exemptions by regulations or licence. Having regard to the previous experience of administering similar protective legislation and to the various problems suggested to me by the employers and unions in relation to general hours of work legislation, I consider it essential to have some such powers provided to ensure the Bill will be a flexible instrument of social reform.

Under the provisions of the section I am required to hold consultations with the appropriate workers' and employers' organisations. Following the debates in the Dáil, an additional subsection was inserted with my agreement which will require me to publish notice of my intention to make exemption regulations and to allow a period during which interested persons may make representations. I think it can be said that there will be ample scope for consultations with all interested bodies prior to the granting of exemptions. For my part I should make it clear that such powers of modification would be used only in cases where I am convinced by the evidence presented that special measures are essential.

I should like to direct attention particularly to subsection 5 of this section. This permits of licensing arrangements by me in consultation with the Minister for Education which would meet the requirements of combined schemes for work experience and education or training. There are few such schemes in existence at present since the general concept is at its infancy and many adjustments have to be made to perfect such arrangements. Nevertheless, the subsection will facilitate such desirable developments in the future. Following publication of the Bill it was suggested to me by youth organisations and people involved in child welfare that a special provision along these lines should be made. The subsection recognises that, though the school leaving age is 15, the idea of introducing selected non-academically inclined children to carefully controlled experience of employment before finally leaving school would have much to commend it. The subsection will ensure that the provisions of the Act do not inadvertently constitute a barrier to the development of such schemes. I will refer later to certain other developments which could influence the active promotion of these schemes.

The task of enforcing this legislation would be undertaken by the inspectors of my Department. Over the past year I have increased the number of staff engaged on such enforcement. Section 26 deals with the powers given to inspectors in the execution of their duties and is similar to provisions in other legislation.

Sections 21 to 23 deal with prosecutions and penalties. In line with a general consensus among Deputies during the debates in the Dáil, the penalties have been set at £100 for a first offence with £10 per day for a continuing offence. For a second or subsequent offence the fine would not exceed £200 plus £20 per day.

I would ask Senators to read these provisions concerning prosecutions and penalties along with those sections 5 and 25 concerning evidence of age and the keeping of records. From such examination I think it would be clear that I have considerably strengthened the formal provisions related to the enforcement of this legislation. Nevertheless, I do not in any respect underrate the magnitude of the task which will be involved and I would therefore welcome the co-operation of all sections of the community in ensuring that the very necessary provisions of this legislation will be observed.

I intend to monitor closely the additional data on employment conditions of young people which can be obtained under the mechanisms created by the Bill and if necessary I will be ready to bring forward proposals for additional legislative measures. Following enactment of the legislation I also intend to arrange for publicity material setting out its provisions in simple terms. This will be made widely available so that all sections of the community may join me in what I hope will be a voluntary co-operative effort towards ensuring observance of this law.

You will have noted that power has been given to me under various sections to alter the standards set down there. This gives a necessary measure of flexibility to the legislation which is desirable so that it can be adapted to changing hours of work and other conditions of employment. I have nevertheless been conscious that the Oireachtas must play its appropriate role in relation to major alterations. Consequently there is a requirement in section 27 that drafts of orders in relation to major alterations in the sections dealing with non-application of the Act, hours of employment of children, maximum hours and normal hours must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas with a view to securing their approval by means of affirmative resolution. In this way, it will not be necessary to introduce amending legislation on each occasion when a change would be warranted.

The rights of parents and guardians in regard to their children in employment were discussed at some length when the Bill was before the Dáil. In response to representations by Deputies and by youth organisations, I have ensured that the specific role of parents and guardians is recognised in two sections. In section 22 they had the option to initiate proceedings in relation to an alleged offence under the Act. In section 17 their right to bring proceedings for recovery of money due to an employee is also recognised. On the other hand I should point out that parents and guardians have serious obligations under sections 4 and 5 of the Bill in relation to the minimum age for employment requirements, the giving of their written permission for the employment of children and the correctness of age evidence produced. I confidently expect that parents and guardians by playing their parts in these matters will help to ensure that the employment of young people is in accordance with the terms of this protective legislation.

Early on, I acknowledged that there were many aspects of youth employment which, though important, were outside the scope of this Bill. The discussions during the Dáil debates and the representations which I received from interested groups indicated that one of my aims, namely, arousing interest in the employment of young people, was being achieved. Many of the subjects raised in these discussions were not merely outside the scope of the Bill but even went beyond my own ministerial responsibilities.

In response to the considerable interest already around concerning the diverse aspects of youth employment, I have already indicated my intention of holding a seminar which will examine the whole range of problems associated with youth and employment. I intend to invite a wide range of interested groups to be present. I would hope that the participants from their specialised experience will be able to give an indication of the range of problems and the possible priorities. The seminar or meeting may also be able to develop ideas concerning the kind of co-ordinating links needed between the efforts of Government agencies and private organisations.

One of the topics raised during the Dáil debate on the Bill reflected a further idea of mine. This was a suggestion that an advisory committee would be set up representative of various interests. This suggestion was related to the specific scope of the Bill but my own idea is that the advisory committee would have wider terms of reference which would cover other aspects of the youth employment question. I do not wish to comment in more detail on the possible functions of the advisory committee until after I have had the benefit of the views of the interested groups at the proposed meeting which I referred to earlier. However, I consider it desirable to give Senators a full outline of my thinking for further action in this general area.

Finally, I should say that I would welcome the suggestions of Senators on any aspects of the Bill which they consider might be improved. If there is general agreement in favour of such changes, I would be happy to agree to their being made. In taking the Bill generally, I consider that it represents a positive legislative advance in the conditions of employment of children and young persons. I would, therefore, recommend the Bill to the House and look forward to the passage of all its Stages.

Cuirimid ar an taobh seo den Teach fáilte roimh an mBille seo an cuspóir dó daoine óga a chosaint. Tá athas orainn go bhfuil iarracht á déanamh ag an Aire ins an mBille seo a lán rudaí a dhéanamh mar mhaithe leis na daoine seo. Ba chóir, ar ndóigh, imní a bheith orainn go léir mar gheall ar an sórt oibre a dheineann na daoine óga agus na háiteanna ina mbíonn siad ag obair. Ba chóir gur cás linn gach rud a bhaineann lena bhfostaíocht agus lena gcuid sláinte fosta. Ar an ábhar sin cuirimíd fáilte roimh an mBille seo.

We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. Indeed, anything that helps in any way to ensure that people have adequate protection of their health, their morals and their standards is commendable. There are quite a number of people who, for various reasons are not working and those who are working have to carry them by way of contributions, if you like, and by keeping the economy going.

Down the years various Governments have made efforts to try to frame legislation of benefit to the work force. A reasonably contented, efficient work force is a very important arm of any economy. One of the best methods of ensuring we have such a force is by the enactment of laws ensuring reasonably good conditions of employment.

This legislation deals with youth employment. People talk about youth and the part they are playing in the development of the nation. Youth today have many advantages that their forefathers never had. In particular, they have post-primary education which gives the majority of our young people now a fair chance of acquiring for themselves post-primary and even higher education. We can now look forward to having a more educated population and we can safely assume that our youth in the years to come and, indeed, at the moment are much more advanced intellectually and better equipped to deal with conditions than their forefathers were. We did not have a great tradition of industrialisation until we secured native government but it was not until the late 1930s that much useful legislation was framed giving to the work force, in particular those employed in offices and industry, the benefit of a regulated number of hours per week, half-days and holidays with pay and so on. That was a substantial and important advance.

We are talking here about people at a very impressionable age, people who are leaving the national school and who have not finished post-primary education. There are numbers of such people. It has become the custom in later years, especially in the cities, for many of these people to try to support and help their parents by taking some job during the holiday period. We should encourage this because I remember reading long ago of students in America and in various other countries who worked during the vacation period and, by doing so, they were able to get together some cash to augment the money being spent on them by their parents. Indeed, many of them educated themselves through their own industry during the holiday period.

We all know that holidays in the post-primary schools are reasonably long. Most adults get only two weeks' holidays. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to say that adolescents, having the benefit of post-primary education and three or four months' holidays as well, would be more gainfully employed in some position and earning some money. This would have the twofold advantage of taking these young people off the streets and at the same time would inculcate in them the habit of working and earning some money.

Manual work has been downgraded for far too long. Everybody should have the experience of some manual work. A little work does nobody any harm. The Bill provides for a certain number of hours. Certain individuals feel they do not owe the community or their parents anything by way of compensation and that they can spend all their time enjoying themselves. They forget they have an obligation to their parents as laid down by the Fourth Commandment. The country is now passing, in a fairly prosperous state, to the young people. They have amenities which their parents did not have.

It is wrong for anyone to think he is above work. Germany is an example of a successful nation where, after the war, nobody thought they were above doing any type of work. We should encourage people through education to take on different types of work — at home, on the farm and in the factories — in order to augment their college fees and so on. Our future citizens would be none the worse off for having done this. It might remove both a sense of inferiority complex and snobbery and prepare them for the hard knocks which people get irrespective of how rich they may be.

There are a few points on which I should like the Minister to comment. The main provision in the Bill is to safeguard young people and it is only proper to have such legislation. Since the Industrial Revolution in England many young people have been exploited in factories. They had to work long hours and the remuneration was very small. If they suffered injury they were not compensated. There was the case of Michael Davitt, who lost an arm while working in a factory.

Children who are studying cannot be expected to work long hours, but it is no harm to allow them to do a little. Many parents ask me to try to get employment for their children during the summer holidays. It would be too bad if these people were denied that employment if it was available. This situation could lead to emigration during the holiday period and perhaps some of the young people would return not having much regard for law and order or for the continuance of their educational career.

The protection of children between the ages mentioned in this Bill is accepted internationally. The labour movement in general deserve credit for their activity in this area. In later years these children will appreciate the protection afforded them. Had these regulations been in force in the past many people who lost limbs might have been saved these injuries or, at least, they would have got much better compensation. It would be unfortunate if people went through life maimed and without proper compensation because of lack of proper legislation.

The protection of young people is reasonably safeguarded in this Bill. However it is possible in legislation of this kind to go to the other extreme and cases may occur where the legislation, although designed to protect people, may prove too difficult for some employers to observe because the type of employment concerned may not be suitable in terms of this legislation. For instance, mention is made of a 10 p.m. limit on the working hours of young persons. There may be cases where it would be necessary to have children employed at a later hour. For example, travelling companies going round the country performing plays may have children employed. These shows often continue later than 10 o'clock at night. Often these companies visit seaside resorts and might remain there for the holiday season. I wonder how they would be affected by this legislation.

The Minister has stated that there would be consultations on difficult points which arise. I am glad to note the interest of youth organisations in this matter. People who own restaurants and hotels will need clarification of the legislation. They must know what the conditions of employment will be before the summer season begins. Some of them may not be able to stay in business because of this legislation. How would a family man be affected by this legislation? Would he be allowed to employ a member of his own family? In many family businesses children of various ages lend a helping hand and there is nothing wrong in that; but, perhaps, because they are not employed they may not be affected by this Bill.

There is also the question of evidence of age, but this is a minor point which I am sure will be rectified. On the whole I consider the Bill to be a good one. It is no harm for young people to be employed. It is beneficial both for themselves and for the nation but it is important that there be some regulations such as those proposed here when young people take up their first positions in life.

The fact that they will be under discipline and taught responsibilities such as arriving and leaving on time, is very important. The training they get when they are in these part-time jobs is very important. It will be their first opportunity of earning money. Those in charge of saving certificates should contact them because from 15 to 16 years is a delicate age and if they have an overflow of cash they might start off on the wrong foot.

Far too many young people are frequenting "singing pubs" and such places. I am not a kill joy but where these people are placed in employment is important. To have them working after 10 o'clock, in some cases, is not correct and it might start them off on the road of no return. The youth of today are responsible and it is just a matter of the right standards being set and the glorification being taken out of places where people drink and take drugs. There are other ways of enjoying life and people should be taught that it is a noble thing to work. It is very important for every young person to realise that they have a duty to their parents and to the nation and that they are expected to make a reasonable attempt to pay their way on all occasions. If these standards are observed and if this is made known to them everything in this Bill will right itself.

I am in agreement with the concept of this Bill. Nevertheless, I object to some features of it. I should like to ask the Minister to confirm that all workers are covered by this Bill, other than those specified in section 3. I am anxious to have his confirmation that agricultural workers and telecommunication workers are included. I should also like the Minister to give an assurance that he will consult with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions before he makes any order under section 3.

On section 4, I am opposed to the employment of children of school-leaving age during the school term because such work would be harmful to the health or the normal development of the child. There is a possibility that such work will affect the attendance of the child at school or the child's capacity to benefit from the instruction given him therein. Section 4 states:

An employer may, subject to the conditions specified in subsection (3) of this section, employ a child who is over the age of 14 years to do light non-industrial work...

This work should not be harmful to health or affect attendance at school or capacity to learn. Who will ensure that the work is not harmful to the child or that it will not affect attendance at school or capacity to learn?

I am not trying deliberately to be critical when I say this but I am assured by educationalists, and others, that work during the school term would have the effects I described in many cases. I do not think there is any way in which the Minister can ensure that these things will not take place. Whose function is it, for instance, to ensure that work during the school term will not affect the health of the child or his capacity to learn? Will this be a function of the inspectors in the Minister's Department? If it is, what authority have they to make such assumptions? How do they go about dealing with the capacity of the child to learn if he is working during the school term?

Apart from that I do not see that this section, and the specification about the number of hours a child may work during a day or week, can be implemented. Even if the Minister had an army of inspectors he would not be able to ensure that the provisions of the Bill were implemented. The Minister has indicated that he intends engaging additional inspectors but the job would be far beyond even a doubling of the present number of inspectors.

The Minister is aware that under section 13 (1) of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, employment of children under 14 years of age is prohibited. The Minister spoke of children over 14 years — admittedly there is one year of a difference — but the same principle embodied in the 1936 Act should be applied to this Bill in respect of industrial and non-industrial work.

During the discussions between the Minister and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, congress indicated that they:

would accept a provision whereby the Minister had power to permit the employment of children, over 14 years of age, during holiday periods in employments specified by Ministerial Order. Such Ministerial Order should specify the number of hours to be worked and such employment should be limited to a period of weeks. Children so employed should be registered and the provision of Ministerial Orders should be such as to guarantee adequate protection against exploitation and the provision of adequate supervision.

I know there are problems arising in respect of sections 7, 8, 9 and 13. I do not propose to refer to these sections because I am aware that talks between the Minister and congress have not been completed. I ask the Minister, in finalising those talks with congress, to bear in mind what I have said and to indicate to congress, and to this House, whether he is prepared to accept the suggestions put forward by congress. My suggestions are put forward in a spirit of helpfulness. I compliment the Minister on introducing this Bill which has many fine points in it but the trade union movement are worried about the sections I have referred to.

I should like to join with other Senators in giving a general welcome to the Bill. It will do much to tidy up the whole area of employment of youth and it will give a new awareness of the importance of youth in work. It is coming at a time when it will make a useful contribution to the whole outlook of youth. I hope all of us will be serious and constructive about the Bill because it deals with our youth and they are the most valuable asset we have. I welcome the Bill. I disagree with a few sections but I agree with most of it.

In section 4 the Minister gives himself power to grant a licence. I would have thought this should have been done in a different way. I would imagine that rather than have inspectors or agents from a Department finding out the particular type of area where there is suitable employment for people under 15 years of age it would have been easier to specify the types of employment in the Bill. If the Minister cannot do it when a Bill like this is being drafted and introduced how can he expect with much more restrictive machinery, to come up with a more correct result? It would have been useful to specify the type of business that people under 15 years could be employed in.

The one aspect of the Bill with which I would not agree is the change in the employment age from 14 to 15. The age should have been left at 14. It is important to realise that educational standards have improved. To qualify that, I agree with Senator Kennedy who said that no school-going child should be employed during the school term. It is a dangerous practice to allow a child to be employed for two hours because this gives an opportunity that can only be abused. I would strongly oppose the employment of a young person during the school term.

Outside the school term I would strongly support the authority of employers to employ youth from the age of 14. Most of this employment would be during the summer season and a boy or girl who has reached the age of 14 is certainly fit for general work. There should be restrictions on the type of work. Heavy industry or any type of heavy work should be excluded and it should be excluded in the Bill rather than putting the onus on an industry to apply to the Minister for a licence.

I am personally interested in the hotel industry and have a knowledge of the value of young people in that industry. In this area I could see hardship being imposed because of the vast number of youths who apply for work. The Minister should give serious consideration to the hotel industry. We were very glad to have the Minister in Donegal not too long ago to present prizes to hotel trainees there. I am sure the Minister realises the value of young people who make a good contribution to the hotel industry and who are engaged in a useful training job.

I would ask the Minister to examine the question of hours. In section 13 the Bill provides that a youth may not be employed after 10. p.m. One could not expect a youth in the hotel industry to finish his working day at 10 p.m. Many people would be very disappointed if meals were not served in hotels after 10 p.m. Certainly in counties like Donegal where the industry is largely dependent on youth to work in seasonal hotels — it benefits the youth and the industry — we should not prevent children over 14 years of age being employed after 10 o'clock. I would ask the Minister to change this to 12 o'clock. At the same time I would ask him to change the hour from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. It is unreasonable to ask a child of 14 years to begin work at 6 a.m. I would ask the Minister to look at this aspect of the matter again because it will not be an arrangement which will be satisfactory either to the employer or to the employee.

I think the Bill is a very important one. The whole scene is changing and we need to encourage youth to work. We are living in an age in which there is a tendency not to work. Those of us who do work find, as somebody said recently, that for every man who works there are two sitting on his shoulders for whom he has to pay for education and social welfare and to subsidise housing. The incentive to work is becoming less and less. If we are to spread the burden evenly there should be an awareness of the importance to teach young people to work and survive in an ever more competitive world.

I hope the Bill will be supported and I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the points I have raised.

The Minister rightly sees the necessity for control in this field, which is a very emotional field. This is a very emotional field. The more one ponders on the subject of the Bill the more one's emotions are involved. That there have been abuses in the past in regard to young persons employment is a fact without question. Sometimes we are inclined to think that those bad old days are gone for ever and we cannot envisage such abuses being repeated. But the pressures of society, be it the cost of living or otherwise, have produced the present situation. As more young people are finding employment, there are increasing opportunities for abuses. The Minister rightly recognises this danger and he sees the need for control.

This Bill, to be really effective and successful will call for a considerable amount of vigilance by the Department and by the public, who will have to play their part in bringing abuses to the Minister's notice. There is no doubt that the Minister can expect to receive repeated representations from many quarters from time to time for exemptions and reliefs in regard to the provisions of this Bill. I ask him to resist these representations because I can think of very few other fields in which a person, it given an inch, will try to take a mile.

Part-time work by young people is a worthy practice and should be encouraged. It can go a considerable way towards strengthening the character of schoolgoers and giving them a broader outlook on what life will eventually hold for them when they leave school. But if it is a desirable practice, it can be abused. It is unfortunate that these abuses can be compounded by complicity, a knowing complicity, a silent complicity or worse still an open complicity on the part of parents. I have seen young people of 15 and 16 years of age employed in hotels serving drink to people at midnight. This is reprehensible. Some of these young people were on the point of falling asleep. Being young people they take a certain pride in working. I am afraid that in some instances when parents ask if they enjoy their work, pride being what it is, they are inclined to say "Yes, I love it". In other cases parents do not ask their children how they are getting on at work. I am completely against any extension of the 10 p.m. embargo included in the Bill. Unfortunately in practice 10 p.m. possibly means 10.30 p.m. As I mentioned earlier, extending 10 p.m. under law to 11 p.m. will mean almost a midnight cessation for young people. I do not contemplate that with any great pleasure.

The fact that the work is only part-time can also be a factor. When parents are considering the severity of conditions of employment, the tolerance of those conditions and the feeling that it is perhaps only for a week, or a few weeks, in the summer holidays can have a lessening effect in their attitude towards late night finishing. I agree with the Minister when he said 10 p.m. is an adequate time and 8 p.m. for children under 15 years is also an adequate finishing time.

I am not in favour of schoolgoers working other than at the weekends. The young person attending school has enough to do if he attends his school tasks and lessons. He should not do anything which would interfere with his education. He has only a few years in which to educate himself. It would be remiss of us to do anything which may, even marginally, affect the end product. I therefore ask the Minister to consider an embargo on working at night time by schoolgoers.

There is a need for ample publicity for this Bill. It is necessary that the public be acquainted of its provisions. Pressure from the public can have a very important effect on any employer. First, the employer should be told there is a Bill in existence and that the public are aware of it. Pressure from the public can have a very considerable effect on any unscrupulous employer. The inspectors in the Minister's Department will have an invidious task. They will be subjected to pressures to turn a blind eye to certain abuses. The efficacy of this Bill in the final resort depends on the vigilance these inspectors show in their work. If the Bill is complied with, it will prove of benefit to all concerned in our State. It will prove to be of the greatest benefit in the protection of young people. It is the young people who must receive priority under this Bill.

I am sorry I was not here for the Minister's opening speech.

Unfortunately I have only just arrived from Brussels. I tried to read his opening speech in the time available. I join in the general welcome this Bill received. There is no doubt it was needed. Even in the places where one may disagree, the Bill is an improvement on the existing situation. Therefore, I congratulate him on introducing it.

This Bill will cause problems for the Department, for certain sections of the economy and particularly for families and parents, who have been used to the idea that when children reached a certain age they were able, in a fairly unrestricted way, to take up employment. This was a help to the family. This is primarily a Committee Stage Bill. It is fairly detailed, technical legislation. At this stage I should like to make just a few points on the various sections which I think could be changed.

I am a little puzzled by some of section 3. This section exempts certain types of employment. The categories exempted are fishermen, lighthouse or lightship keeper, an out-worker or a seafarer. One can see that these occupations would raise problems, particularly with regard to hours of work. I should have thought that section 5 could be very usefully included in that part of the Bill.

As it stands, it means that a young person, or indeed a child aged 14 years, could work as a fisherman or a lighthouse keeper, without the permission of his parents, without the necessity for the provision of a birth certificate, without any obligation on the employer to maintain a register or a record of the particulars set out in section 5. When one comes to subsection (2) (b) one finds with regard to the Defence Forces, that section 5 is included with section 4 in the parts of the Bill which apply.

Why did the Minister not provide that parents' permission should be obtained in the case of young persons working in these sectors? Surely a seafarer or a lighthouse keeper would be employed by organisations which are well able to comply with the provisions of section 5. I cannot see any reason why they should be allowed to conduct their business in this casual way, and it would be a bad thing if they were allowed to do so.

We come then to section 4 which deals with young people between the ages of 14 and 15 being permitted to work. I agree completely with what has already been said by Senator Kennedy and others. There can be no justification for the employment of children between the ages of 14 and 15 on schooldays. I am not too sure about weekend employment because this does not appeal to me, although it is less undesirable than their employment on schooldays. I can see no objection to employment during school holidays, under the safeguards of this Bill. As the Minister said in his opening speech, familiarity with the working environment would be an educational experience.

The Minister has provided in section 4 (2) (b) that employment is only allowable provided the child's capacity to benefit from the instructions given to him in school is not affected. The Minister could go separately to every school teacher in the country and I do not think he would find one teacher who would not say that a child's capacity to benefit from instruction would clearly be unfavourably affected by spending two hours working after a long day in school.

Of course, there are more than two hours involved, because time must be allowed for travelling to and from work. He may have come home at about 4 o'clock after a long day in school. Having had a meal, he goes off to work so there is no question of his being able to do homework. He is, in fact, merely putting in time in school until such time as he may be able to leave. There can be no other attitude on the part of the child or of his parents. This situation is clearly undesirable and in the unlikely event, at this stage, of an amendment being put down to eliminate altogether the possibility of this type of employment, I hope the Minister will accept it. This is a serious defect in what is otherwise a highly desirable Bill.

The hours set out are too high for children and young persons between the ages of 15 and 16 and 16 and 18 years. In section 11 the Bill says that an employee, which includes these young persons and also children aged 14 years, can work for a period of five hours without a break. This is an excessive period. One would be appalled to think of children working for such a long time. I hope this period will be reduced. Even allowing for the fact that these are maximum hours, and that many people would work for shorter periods, they seem excessive.

In view of the fact that an EEC directive has laid down that by the end of this year there is to be a universal 40-hour week, it seems undesirable that in legislation of this type there is provision for the working of up to 50 hours in a week. A 40-hour week presumably means a normal working week; anything beyond this would be overtime working. The introduction of a 40-hour week only makes sense if it means that it is a normal working week. There can be no justification for bringing in a 40-hour week and then working on as before for longer hours. There may be more money to be made in overtime pay. The introduction of a 40-hour week is to provide more leisure time for workers to relax and enjoy themselves. There is no justification for legislating for a 40-hour week, and allowing people to go on as before, working long hours but making more money.

The Minister should further study this directive from the EEC and he will see that 40 hours is the desirable maximum. In view of this, to allow young persons to work 50 hours seems a retrograde step. The Minister said in the Dáil that to legislate for a working week of 40 hours would mean that a person could not earn overtime. Overtime working should not be available to young persons as it is a highly undesirable form of economic activity. A 40-hour week should be the maximum allowed to them.

Many young people are not members of trade unions and do not come within the provisions of trade union agreements. They are mostly employed in small concerns where the employers have no particular regard for trade union arrangements. If it is laid down that they may work for 50 hours a week, in many cases that is the number of hours they will be expected to work. I hope the Minister will reduce this figure and, indeed, other hours mentioned in various sections of the Bill.

In section 7 (1) (a) it says that a person of 16 years cannot work more than ten hours in any day, or such other number of hours which may be specified in an agreement, which is defined in section 1 as a collective agreement. This seems to imply that a collective agreement could increase the number of hours which could be worked in any day. I hope this would not happen. It should state that a lesser number of hours could, by agreement, be worked. Certainly, to leave it open to having the already long number of hours increased — the same applies to the 50 hours a week in paragraph (b) — seems undesirable.

Going back to section 4, there is a small matter of a technical nature which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. On Report Stage in the Dáil the Minister introduced a new subsection (4) saying that he may, by order, vary the hours specified in subsection (3) of the section applicable to children at school. This was a desirable amendment on which the Minister is to be congratulated. He is to be congratulated also for having brought it in in such a way that, under section 27, it can only become law if it is agreed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

But this has created a problem. If the Minister will look at subsection (9) of section 4 he will find that he may, by order, revoke or amend an order under this section, which includes of course the new type of order he has introduced under subsection (4). But this is a different kind of order. Under the second subsection of section 27, he can do this and lay it before the House, which is the usual procedure. It becomes law immediately and can be revoked only by a decision of either House of the Oireachtas. This is not the Minister's intention. What has happened, in fact, is that the Minister can, once having made an order under subsection (4), vary this order. He can amend this order without, as he had intended doing, providing that there must be the earlier agreement of each House of the Oireachtas. It is a small technical flaw which I think ought to be remedied. I will try to devise an amendment which would meet this requirement.

There are various other points which I will raise on Committee Stage. For the moment I will do no more than mention these matters and congratulate the Minister again for bringing in a Bill which, in spite of what one must deem to be defects, is nonetheless a very considerable improvement on the existing situation.

It is quite right to say that we have had many complaints over the years about young children not only working late at night but also getting up very early in the mornings to work with people on milk floats and so on before going to school. Of course, we have heard the question of the long hours in bars. We have not had any reference at all to some of the underlying causes. The Minister, in bringing in this legislation, could not possibly take account of everything in this respect, in the sense that very many of these children who work at night or before going to school in the morning do so of necessity.

One cannot cover every aspect of society when one brings in legislation of this kind. In my view it is a good Bill. There is in it scope on which to build and it lays the foundation for the future with regard to the employment of young persons. This Bill seeks to remedy the questions of long hours and low wages, to extend the scope of legislation to protect young people in employment, even to protect the standards incorporated in the legislation to keep up with modern trends and international standards, having regard to our membership of the EEC. These are all good things to have embodied in legislation and everybody would agree that they are very desirable.

While I think the Bill is heading in the right direction and has great prospects, I would express one or two reservations, not in the same way as did Senator Kennedy. I refer to the question of employment of young children, on the basis that sometimes it is of necessity. When one speaks about the protection of young persons, even though there are other types of legislation, is it not right also that, in a Bill of this nature, which sets out deliberately to protect young people, there should be some indication given in it of the social responsibility on companies to respect the dignity of all employees, particularly of young persons. We know that the trade unions, through their own collective bargaining strength, can exercise a lot of influence in this direction. As was said earlier, not every job is organised and not every boy or girl joins a trade union when they come into a business.

However, the reason that I mentioned this question of the employer having this obligation, or where it might be written in, is that one can go into jobs, in general good jobs, but there may be areas where the symptoms of unrest lie in a particular area, where there may be dissatisfaction, excessive absenteeism and so on. In some cases there may be even an unclear indication of the responsibility falling on the child. I know it may be difficult to write that in in any specific section but it is something worthy of serious thought. If we want to build a healthy labour force, we must begin with the young or, at least, we can begin with the young because we have got to have the balance in the age groups. At least the young should be encouraged by responsibility being shown by the employer when he is placing them in employment. Apart from knowing everything about their age, having their parents' consent and so on he should try to place them in an area where they can reap the greatest advantages of a good environment. This is part of the protection of young people.

The other question is that of the new training grants being given by the industrial training authorities. If one wants to protect young employees it might be necessary to encourage companies to do so by some means. It may cost money but it would be very worthwhile. There should be some sort of pre-employment period during which people might undergo a brief course of three or four days, perhaps a familiarisation course because training is about people. If we can manage to put across that the organisational aims are within an industry, then place people in the proper organisational section of the company trying to avoid the areas of unrest the company knows exist for various reasons, a good job could be done in this respect.

The other point on which I would like to touch is that of the best way that a young boy or girl can be protected. This can best be achieved also by understanding what are his or her rights. For example, it is all right having legislation on the question of minimum notice and terms of employment and so on. But in the familiarisation course this could well be one of the subjects that should be explained to them. Their rights regarding holidays should be explained to them.

The final point I should like to make is with regard to handbooks. They cannot be provided in all forms of employment but where it is possible, and where the organisation or the enterprise will allow for it there is no reason a young employee should not be provided with a handbook stating the aims and objectives of the enterprise, and how it operates in general as to welfare and health safety and other protections that are available. All of these are in other forms of legislation but if they are not written for a young employee it is likely that the employee will not be protected to the fullest extent. If there is not some form of handbook for the employee this can lead to accidents and a lack of knowledge of fundamental rights, and in the long run may mean a lesser contribution to the enterprise. It can also lead to a lack of ambition if the employee is put into an area of unrest, and if this is not taken cognisance of by the employer before placing the employee.

In general the Bill is a good beginning. To some extent I share the reservations of Senator Kennedy. I realise there may be a cause for young people being in employment but unless you can remove the reason for their having to work you cannot deal with the effects. Young people may have to work before or after school hours in order to bring in more money to supplement the family income and I realise this may be a difficult problem. At the same time the general principles should be observed.

The question of immediate medical examination and periodic medical examinations thereafter should be a matter of law. It should be incumbent on the employer, even if he has no medical facilities himself, to see that a young employee has a regular checkup. The employee may have some disorder that may be aggravated in the course of employment. These are my general observations. I think all aspects have been well covered by the other Senators that have spoken. I would hope that some of the points I have made will be incorporated in section 5. We should be serious about the protection of young employees.

At the start I said that, taking it up on a statistical level we were dealing with an area which does not give us full account of the facts in that area. That is why it will prove of some assistance to us that there is this obligation devolving on employers that it is part of their obligations under this Bill to keep records of age, age of entry of the young employee and hours worked. This will prove of assistance in building up a factual statistical record of the extent of youth employment and of the ages covered by this Bill. At present the official position is that we do not accurately know the extent of this.

At the outset I should also like to thank the Senators for their comments. These fall roughly into two categories, as they fell into similar categories in the Dáil. Some people felt that the cut-off point at 15 years — allowing for certain exceptions between 14 and 15 — was at too high an age level and others felt that it should be a lower age. Generally there is room for this difference of opinion between both points of view.

Part of the difficulty is that there has been such little intervention by the State in this area of law over so long a period. I think the last time any legislation was started or passed in this area was between 1938 and 1940. It is after a long interval of nonintervention by the State in this area that this legislation is coming into being. Over that period a lot of practices that might not otherwise have come into being have been accepted, perhaps too uncritically. When I developed my own interest in this area it was really because I had received a number of complaints from around the country about allegations of late-night working by very young children. There were the well-recorded cases of the horror of tourists who were always pointing to the scandal of young children working in lounge bars, supermarkets, public houses and hotels and contrasting this unfavourably with the customs in their own countries where this was not permitted. This is the kind of background on which I acted and I should like Senators to understand that this was the initial background which suggested that there was need for legislation on the part of the State.

Senator Kennedy was worried whether all employees under 18 years of age were covered. All those are covered except those excluded by section 3. Section 3 gives the areas that shall not apply: fishermen, lighthouse keepers or seafarers. Under section 4 we have only limited permission to work under 15 years of age. There is a difference about this question. Senator Kennedy, rightly perhaps, looked upon it as others have looked upon it and said that work under 15 years should not be permitted. Yet all of the youth organisations working in this area with whom I have discussed this matter are pretty strong on the idea that there should be controlled exceptions permitted under the age of 15 years. They point to the practical situation where this happens widely, perhaps too widely, and they make the point that it would be impossible to depart from present practice completely. They suggest that if it is controlled it need not interfere with the educational progress of the child. Among educationalists there is a strong opinion that work in this controlled fashion can be an ideal complement to work within the school.

The formula we hit on under section 4 is that two hours per day in school-term during the week, permitting a longer period at weekends, was a fair compromise. There is some opinion about whether we should give greater latitude to work at weekends; and we are looking at this. When we come to the Committee Stage we may have further amendments along those lines.

Senator Kennedy asked whether the inspectorate would be up to the task of enforcing the hours of work under section 5. That is a good question to ask in any area under this legislation. We have doubled the inspectorate in the past year, but it is still a small force. There are a number of separate pieces of legislation which I intend bringing in during the next year in relation to unfair dismissal, worker participation, the whole area of anti-discrimination, which will make this a vast area for enforcement. If there is no co-operation forthcoming from the public and the employers, then they will not be up to the task. But I hope that we have reached the point at which our society as a whole can agree that the provisions of this legislation are worthy of support.

I had a similar experience in considering this question of enforcement of rates of pay in the hotel industry under the Conditions of Employment Bill which was passed last year. I discovered that we did not bring prosecutions because of some convention that the tourist industry should not be obliged to obey the law in this area, that it was a weak industry. I changed that, because I believe that, however difficult the competitive position of an industry may be, it should comply with the law. We initiated prosecutions where there were grievous cases of underpayment. In one case in County Wexford we collected £800 arrears of wages due to employees in the hotel concerned. It is the example of such enforcement in a locality that is the important thing. Only a minority of employers refuse to carry out their civic duty but they give the majority of good managers a bad name. The short answer to the Senator is that if the inspectorate had to work alone against the full spate of public and employer hostility towards it, they would be inadequate, but I do not conceive that that will be the situation.

Employment under 14 years is, of course, totally prohibited. After such a long lapse of years of non-activity in this area, we had to take an age point which might be regarded by some as impractical but to go under which would have been very bad socially. Therefore we decided that employment under 14 would not be countenanced under the law. We are permitting exceptions between 14 and 15. I made the point that youth organisations do not agree with total prohibition of employment under the age of 15, and the compromises we have reached are on that basis.

Senator Kennedy referred to meetings with both youth organisations and trade unions. We have been in constant touch with them to see how far we could meet the conflicting desires of the various interests involved in order to enact the best legislation. This legislation cannot simply be invented out of the heads of civil servants or a Minister in a Department. The legislation which emerges is the result of much meditation and discussion with the interests concerned.

Senator Dolan asked whether young persons helping their parents or working in holiday periods would come under this Bill. If their parents are so hard-hearted that they insist on exploiting their children by having them work the kind of hours outlawed in this Bill, they certainly will be prosecuted. I do not think this is likely to happen. In the past there has been some evidence of complicity on the part of parents or guardians in permitting exploitation of their children by long hours in over-heated conditions late at night in hotels, public houses and so on. The Senator raised the question of light non-industrial work during the holidays. I must say that other Deputies and Senators raised this question of the kind of work which could be described as light non-industrial. That will be for me to decide, but I will be taking the criteria adopted and used in other ILO instruments in deciding what is light non-industrial work.

I think it was the same Senator who raised the question of the employment of children who referred to the question of late-night working. Section 14 provides that under 15 years, they shall work up to only 8 p.m.; between 15 to 18 years, up to 10 p.m. It must be remembered that there must be a rest period after the young person finishes work after 10 p.m. Senator Yeats referred to the early start at 6 a.m. but there must be a 12-hour break in between, so it would be illegal for a child or a young person finishing at 10 p.m. to start again at 6 p.m.

The same Senator raised the question of the power to make exemptions and regulations. I have that power, but I would need real evidence of a variety of circumstances that would lead me to bring in these exemptions.

Senator McGowan felt that the minimum age for employment should be left at 14 years, and that viewpoint illustrates the dilemma in choosing any formula that would meet with agreement on all sides. The Senator advocated youth employment right across the board. Admittedly the Senator qualified this by saying that he wished to exclude heavy work, but I would say that long hours, even in the hotel industry, constitute heavy work, and I would certainly be against long hours for people under the ages of 15 or 16 in the hotel industry. He referred also to the important work being done by young people in the hotel industry. I am all for their doing important work in the hotel industry with good staff accommodation, of course, but, the hours must be controlled; otherwise we have the kind of scandal which this Bill seeks to tackle, that scandal which saw young people who are eager to get pocket money, not too concerned about working long hours and, therefore, exploited in seasonal occupations such as hotel work by a minority of employers. Young persons who for one reason or another took up jobs during the summer holidays were not averse to working long hours thus endangering their health, and so the employers escaped the charge that they were exploiting such young people.

I and other Ministers, and perhaps other representatives here in local authorities, may have down the years received the shocked comments of visitors to our country who are not impressed by this exploitation of Irish children in the hotel industry. It is only a minority who are doing this, but they are giving a bad name to a very important service industry.

The question was raised whether those in the 15 to 18 age group should be permitted to work after 10 p.m.. You come back to the argument as to the hour at which you say "not after this hour". There is the 12-hour break which I referred to in another instance. I think Senator McGowan was also interested in the definition of types of non-industrial work at which children under 15 could be employed. Section 2 defines that industrial work for the purpose of the Bill, and consequently the types of work which are non-industrial. By exclusion you can see what would be regarded as light non-industrial work.

It is my intention at a later stage to produce a pretty clearly understood handbook so that workers in industry around the country may understand their rights, obligations, duties and so on. I intend, subsequent to this Bill going through, to publish material on the terms of the Bill.

Senator Yeats referred to the exempted categories and the non-application of records of section 5 to these excluded groups. I will look at this point on Committee Stage and it may be necessary to improve the drafting as he suggests.

The conditions in section 4 (2) for light, non-industrial work are in line with the provision of the ILO Convention on minimum age for employment. He mentioned hours of work in general. I will look at the case for variation downwards of normal hours but it must be considered that there is a difference between the normal and maximum hours of work. In this legislation, under the various sections, there is a maximum hours clause and a normal hours clause. Naturally, there is a big difference between the two. When the Senator referred to the recommendation of the EEC he is referring to normal hours of work and it will be quite some time before that recommendation of the EEC becomes a directive. When the hours of work situation changes, I will certainly look at the question of varying the order under my control. The maximum hours are a different conception completely. If one looks at the maximum hours permitted, one sees that ten hours per day are permitted in section 7 (1) (a) but when it is worked out over the entire year it will be seen that the average is cut down to 43 hours per week; it must be measured between the yearly average and the daily average permitted under maximum headings. There is a complete difference between the maximum and the normal. After the maximum, there is an actual breaking of law; an actual offence is committed, carrying heavy fines. The fines under these headings are pretty large, up to £100 per day; these arise if the actual maximum hours of work clauses are infringed. Under the normal hours clauses it is a completely different situation.

Senator Markey referred to the problems of enforcement. I have already covered that question in reply to another Senator. This problem will require a great deal of co-operation from all sections of the community. Senator Markey also raised the question of exemption and I will look very closely at any requests for exemptions, for hotels or any other sectors. However, I will need considerable persuasion before I give anything away in terms of downgrading certain of the provisions contained in this Bill.

I accept the need for publicity on some of the terms of this Bill because they could be considered as rather arcane, hard to understand; when one thinks of the people who must gain advantages from them, they might, perhaps, be the last to understand their provisions.

It was at the annual meeting of the National Federation of Youth Clubs in Gormanston this year that I announced this Bill. I hope with the aid of the youth organisations to make known the provisions to their members. It may not be very popular with many of their members when it prevents them from working under the age of 14 but it is undoubtedly in the interests of young people in the long term that this Bill should go through.

There are other interesting sections here which we will probably look at in more detail in Committee. The section on which I hope to have this meeting, at a later stage, with all those concerned with youth employment with co-operation between the Department of Education, my own Department, employers and other bodies interested in this area is bringing in a kind of educational experiment which would permit young people to have a blend of work and school for particular age groups. That is possibly outside the scope of this legislation but I would hope that the enactment of this Bill will lead on to measures of that kind. It seems to me in all of the legislation going through the Oireachtas, over so many years — I have to mention the figure of 30 years — the plight and problems of young people in our society have not been dealt with. If any of the Senators were listening to a news bulletin this morning, they would have heard that of all the EEC countries we have the largest population under the age of 14; of all the EEC countries in coming years, this country will increasingly be one of young persons. The legislation of the Oireachtas must come to protect their real needs and reflect their problems more and more in our society. It would be my contention that we have not done that up to now.

I thank the Senators for the points they have made. I hope we may come back and answer or meet some of their suggestions on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

I think we should fix it for the first sitting after Easter, although it might not be possible to take it that day.

Second Stage ordered for first sitting day after Easter.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That disposes of the business ordered for today. When is it proposed that the House sit again?

I think we could adjourn sine die but it may be about 9th April.

On that question, while I appreciate that it is not yet known on what day the House will resume, might I urge the Leader of the House, if at all possible to avoid 9th April because the European Parliament is meeting that week? While it is not always possible to avoid clashes with the European Parliament, at the same time if there is any choice, I should prefer 16th April.

Yes, if we can facilitate the Senator, certainly, but Senator Yeats knows the problems. We shall do the best we can. We are conscious of the points raised.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.25 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share