Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 1975

Vol. 80 No. 1

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

Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete line 18.

This is just a drafting amendment. The definition of "day" meaning a period of 24 consecutive hours has little meaning in relation to other sections in the Bill and I am informed that it would be better in terms of the general drafting of the Bill that the normal interpretation of the word "day" meaning midnight to midnight will suffice.

The Minister leaves me in some puzzlement. He was at pains to insert this rather curious definition that a day means a period of 24 consecutive hours. He said it had little meaning and one should forget about it. It must have had some meaning. There must have been some reasoning for it. I would assume that to me, to the Minister and to most people a day is a day that begins at midnight and finishes at midnight the following day. This is a totally different type of day, any period of 24 consecutive hours.

There must have been some reason for putting this rather eccentric definition of the word "day" into the section. Indeed, if one looks at section 7 (1) (a), section 8 (1) (a), section 9 (1) (a) and (b), the word "day" appears and would have some importance with the original definition inserted by the Minister. It would mean, for example, as in the original definition, in the case of a young person who worked five hours for an employer one afternoon and five hours the following morning, that that employer would be committing an offence because the employee would have worked too long. I take it this must have been the intention of the Minister in bringing in this definition and he now quietly drops it.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he had this definition which wrenches the meaning of "day" out of its normal sensible meaning to which we are used all our lives and into a totally different type of meaning. Now he comes along and says, "Well, after all, perhaps it does not matter and it is going to be dropped." There must have been some reason for putting it in in the first place.

Is the Minister satisfied that if the definition which appears in the Bill goes out there will not be any danger that you might have a situation arising where a young person might work six hours before midnight and six hours after midnight making a total of 12 hours in 24 rather than ten hours as provided for in the Bill?

There is nothing more complicated behind this change than that we were informed on looking at this again there was a possibility of conflict with sections 13 and 14 and that this was an improvement on it. There is no heavy weather to be made out of this change. As I say, this seems to be an improvement which makes the meaning clearer and avoids potential areas of conflict with later drafting.

I know we have a lot of amendments to go through and I do not want to waste too much time on this one, but it puzzles me why this was put in in the first place. The Minister says—and I think he is right— that the Bill is better without it, but the fact remains that it was put in for some reason and I would be interested to know what the reason was.

There is no doubt about it that under section 8, for example, which covers the employment of a person between the ages of 15 and 16, with the original definition of a day meaning a period of 24 consecutive hours, if an employer employed a 15-year-old for five hours in an afternoon and five hours the following morning he would be committing an offence because he would have worked for ten hours in a 24-hour period. This is the point which the Leader of the House was bringing in—he would have worked for ten hours in a 24-hour period, that is a day, whereas the maximum he is allowed is nine. With this change he is allowed to work for ten hours. I am not making any point about that because the number of hours he works in all will not be any higher. There is, nonetheless, a legal change as a result of this and it must have been put in in the first place for some reason. Was it put in in order to ensure that, for example, under section 8 that if you were a 15-year-old you could not work for five hours one afternoon and five hours the next morning? Has the Minister any idea why it was put in?

Whatever about the idea why it was put in I am quite clear about the reason it is being taken out.

Very well. If the Minister does not know why it was put in and he has decided that it is better out, OK.

The Senator can glory in his superior knowledge.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1) after "service" in line 19 to insert ",contract for services".

This amendment is more or less a technical one. It has regard to the fact that the Minister is endeavouring to protect the employment of young people in every conceivable way. My amendment will afford him an opportunity of ensuring that they will not be taken advantage of in other areas. This is why I am making the suggestion that there should be "contract for services" included in this section.

I have in mind, for example, what are very well known now as "lumpers" taking advantage of the scene, people who are not covered or who would regard themselves as not being covered by the Bill if it became law. I consider this as being purely technical and I should like to have the Minister's view on it before I say anything more.

I should like to support this amendment. It is very much in the spirit of the Bill, which purports to be a comprehensive measure to protect young persons. I can see that it might be more than just a technicality. There could be a loophole which could be taken advantage of. In many cases it is a matter of the surrounding circumstances whether the relationship is a contract of employment or a contract for services. I could see a possible avoidance of the protective measures of the Act when it comes into force by a clever way of adapting the relationship so that it became a contract of employment rather than a contract for service and I should like to see the term broadened to include "contract for services" for this reason.

I accept the general intention behind Senator Mullen's amendment. Senator Robinson will know that the concept of contract for services covers many kinds of contractors or proprietors who have little in common with and certainly no relationship to employees as we know the term. I therefore would put forward the following formulation of Senator Mullen's amendment which I think would meet his objective. If Senators have reservations about the revised formula, it could be dealt with on Report Stage, but I would be agreeable to accept it at this Stage. In page 3, line 20, where Senator Mullen wishes to have his amendment inserted, after "contract of apprenticeship" to insert, and I quote:

A contract personally to execute any work or labour.

That could be introduced on Report Stage, if that satisfies Senator Mullen. I think it is more or less what he has been seeking to bring about.

I suggest it would be wiser to leave it until Report Stage so that everyone can have a look at it in print.

Perhaps Senator Mullen would withdraw amendment No. 2. This does not prejudice his right to put down exactly the same amendment on Report Stage if he wishes, if he stills feels he would prefer it, but leave it open to the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (1) to delete "does not include" in line 29 and substitute "includes".

This amendment has been suggested because as far as I can see there is no definition of rest periods in this Bill. If there is, and the definition was in respect of short periods of rest that occurred in every employment apart from tea breaks, periods from five to ten minutes, I think that "period of rest" so defined should be included in the hours of work. Without a definition of periods of rest, the section could be interpreted as meaning the period during which a worker ceases work for the day and resumes the following morning. It could be a period of 16 or 17 hours, and of course no one would suggest that such a period should be included in the hours of work. But bearing in mind that, as far as I can ascertain, there is no definition of periods of rest, the periods of rest I have in mind in interpreting this section should be included in hours of work.

It was not my intention to have in the legislation a provision which would include lunch hour in the hours of work. Certainly it is my intention that the rest periods, afternoon tea or coffee breaks, be normally included in an employee's daily hours of work normally calculated. I would not be in favour of the inclusion of lunch hour breaks in such hours of work because that could lead to many abuses. I could look again at this point put by Senator Kennedy about there being an absence of definition of "rest period", of the period he has in mind and I have in mind. I am assuming that the normal position throughout industry obtains here. That is my intention. I certainly would look again at Report Stage to see if we can copperfasten what I understand, and what I am sure the Senator understands to be the normal position.

Arising from what the Minister said, it is important to bear in mind that we are seeking to protect young people in employment. There are various types of rest periods. I do not regard the lunch break as one of them because people must have a lunch break. It reminds me very much of some people being inclined to think that you should give persons a mash of bran and leave them working. I am concerned with breaks and I think that if a child comes under the responsibility of an employer during the course of breaks the employer should bear that responsibility and it should not be calculated when deciding what hours he should have.

We all recognise that a rest period is socially necessary. Why should we legislate otherwise having regard to the fact that we are setting out to protect young people in employment? I would urge the Minister to give consideration to rest periods, and I am talking about the 10 o'clock break or the 11 o'clock break or the afternoon break. There is legislation in existence at the moment that one must have a break within a certain number of hours. I see no reason why the worker should have to pay for such a break by way of that time being taken into consideration. If one goes out to lunch it is a different thing entirely—one has a lunch break not controlled by the employer.

The amendment does not have anything to do with pay—it is on the question of hours. The net effect would be to shorten the maximum permitted hours of work. Is that not right?

The employee should not be required to pay in any way whether it be in cash or time for a break that he is properly entitled to, to afford him an opportunity of standing up and working.

The point I was putting was that the net effect of the amendment seems to be to shorten the maximum permitted number of hours of work. If you include breaks in the maximum number the actual number of hours worked would be less. You could plead this in either of two ways, either reducing the maximum permitted hours or else include breaks up to, say, an hour or whatever it might be in the maximum number.

After all we are talking about young persons in employment and we are not to compare them with adults who would go for the same break as the child will. I agree with what the Senator has just said.

There is a lot to be said for the later remarks of Senator Mullen. I think that really what we need to refer to is the rest periods laid down in section 11. As Senator Mullen said, of course we cannot expect people to pay for lunch and so on, but in section 11 there are various rest periods laid down. For example, if a young person is employed for five hours at a stretch then there must be a half-hour period of rest. Alternatively, at the expiration of normal working hours, before any overtime of more than one-and-a-half hours can be worked, there must be a gap of half-an-hour.

In these cases it would seem that one could put up a very strong argument saying that where these hours are compulsorily laid down by the Act, very particularly as Senator Mullen has pointed out, the worker is not in his own time. It is not like going home for lunch or anything of that kind. He is there at the behest of the employer; he cannot leave; he has got to be around.

Again, section 11 provides in subsection (5) that the period of half-an-hour shall be provided where the normal working hours end and overtime is beginning. This can be cut to 15 minutes by agreement between the worker and the employer, but in this case the employer must pay. It is specifically provided there. If an employer can pay for 15 minutes why on earth should he pay for 30?

The Leader of the House raised the issue of whether this would increase the number of hours worked. I take it that the payment for rest periods would not be counted as part of the number of hours worked, although strictly speaking one might put up a case that it should because he has to be there anyway. If this amendment were to be drafted to refer specifically to the rest periods laid down in section 11 there would be a very strong case to be made for accepting it.

There is general agreement on the intent but both the original text and the amendment are inadequate. Perhaps the Minister would think about redrafting this?

Certainly I shall have a look to see if anything can be done on Report Stage. There is a problem in that it is very difficult to define legally what is meant by a short rest period. I shall have a look at it for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

First of all, the definition "employee" means a young person or a child as the context may require. I know what is intended here, but it does not seem a very good use of the English language. To say that a young person or a child is the same as an employee is nonsensical and as a definition it is entirely inadequate. If it is said an employee includes a young person or a child, that makes sense. It is nice and tidy to say that a definition means such and such, but in this case tidiness has led to a breach of plain English. I shall try to draft an amendment for Report Stage to embody what "employee" includes, not to change the effect of the definition, but to put it into plain English.

The second point is merely a query. In line 26 it says "a trade union is a body entitled under the Trade Union Act of 1941...". I have been unable to trace the section in which this phrase occurs and perhaps the Minister could tell me where it appears in the Bill.

I am informed that the title "trade union" is in the definition of collective agreements—"By or on behalf of an entitled trade union or entitled trade union representative of employees."

We have a definition section which I take it refers to a particular section. I have not been able to find it and I am wondering where it is.

It is a definition referring to another definition.

I have already pointed that out.

I did not hear the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I am a little worried about subsection (2) where it states:

The Minister may, by order, declare any form of work to be industrial work for the purposes of this Act.

There is a similar subsection in section 4. This seems to represent a certain pattern running through part of the Bill. We have in section 4 "The Minister may, by order, declare any form of work to be work which is not, in fact, industrial work" while in the following subsection the Minister can say that any form of work is industrial work. In other words, he can declare work to be light industrial work simply by order and I am not clear on the necessity or the desirability of this. We can declare work to be industrial work here in this House, and this can be reversed overnight by order of the Minister. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views on this.

There is some flexibility needed so that we may be in a position to declare a form of work to be industrial work for the purpose of the Act. This power enables me to clarify any case in relation to exceptions to the general rule concerning the minimum age of employment contained in section 4 where we set down the minimum age. It provides the necessary flexibility to decide in borderline cases and to lay down clearly what exactly we include in the definition.

Am I right in thinking that here the Minister is taking a quite distinct point of view from the point of view in the British legislation on the same topic? In the British legislation the powers given to the Secretary of State are very wide, whereas what the Minister is attempting to do here is to define various categories of work in section 2, and to a certain extent in section 3. There is a relevant section in the British Employment of Children Act, 1973, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations "with respect to the employment of children and any such regulations may distinguish between children of different ages and sexes and between different localities, trades, occupations and circumstances and may contain various further provisions". There seems to be two different philosophies here: the philosophy which gives a Minister or Secretary of State complete discretion with regard to what he may or may not define by order, and the question in this Act where there is a very serious attempt to import some of these definitions, which in the British context would be made by way of order, into the actual legislative instrument. Is the Minister satisfied that this is the right way of going about it and has he considered the possibility that he might perhaps be trying his hands too much by putting this definition into the legislation rather than making it the subject of regulation?

I think it better to set out as clearly as possible the areas of application. In general I am against the excessive use of regulatory powers. I think the best blend is to set down as clearly as possible what can be done and to retain a certain power to interpret or clarify, which is all I seek under this power. It is arguable whether the British procedure may be marginally more effective, but in general this way is better from an accountability point of view to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The matter of defining what is industrial work and what is not industrial work can be a very important one. Section 13 states that an employer in effect shall not allow a young person, that is a person between 15 and 18, to work at any time between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The Minister has put down amendment No. 46, to which I must refer, which states that this section will not apply to an employee who is employed to do industrial work. We will come to this in due course. Subject to what the Minister will say in due course, it seems to me that this suggests that the 15- to 18-year olds can work through the night if they are in industrial work. I hope that will not be the case. It has some legal effect which we will get to in due course.

The fear expressed by the Senator is not justified because this is covered in later sections of this legislation.

I am happy to hear that. The mere fact of the existence of Government amendment No. 46 shows that there is an importance attached to whether the work is industrial or not. Therefore, this power to declare any form of work to be industrial work for the purposes of this legislation has an importance which is increased by the existence, and I presume in due course the acceptance, of this Ministerial amendment. I accept that legislation of this kind tends to have this type of subsection. One may regret it but one hopes that the Minister will use this power only in very exceptional circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 4:

In subsection (1), page 4, to delete "section 4" in line 36 and substitute "sections 4, 5 and 6."

Section 3 provides that this legislation —other than section 4 which deals with employment of children from 14 to 15 years of age—shall not apply to a fisherman, a lighthouse keeper or seafarer. One can see clearly that these types of employment are such that it would be very difficult, and in many cases impossible, to enforce the various provisions in this Bill for hours of work and so on, but I think the Minister has gone too far. He includes section 4 for these people. That is perfectly all right with its limitations on the employment of children between 14 and 15, but I cannot see why he excludes section 5 which states that any employer who employs a young person or child shall get a birth certificate, the written permission of the parents or guardian, maintain a register giving the name of the person and the amount of work they do, what they get paid and the number of hours. Why should a fisherman not do these things in respect of any child or young person he employs? I cannot see why the Irish Lights authorities should not keep these records and obtain birth certificates and parental permissions. For example, steamship companies keep all kinds of registers and I do not think it would be an additional burden on them. At the very least, the Minister should include section 5 in the provisions of this subsection.

With regard to section 6, I am not given to urging Ministers to take power on themselves but I think in this case we must do so. Section 6 provides that the Minister, after consultation with representatives of employers, in the case of any work which by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out is likely to endanger the health, safety or morals of young persons, can by order raise the minimum age at which the young person may be employed in such work. He is specifically taking power from himself to do this in respect of children who are employed by fishermen, lighthouse keepers, lighthouse workers or seafarers. I am not suggesting that there is any obligation on him to take such action in section 6. He may never wish to do so but he should at least keep that power. Why should the Minister say to himself that he is never going to have to make such an order to deal with the health, safety or morals of young people who are employed as seafarers? Even though he may never wish to use it, he should keep the power. Therefore, he should be willing to accept this amendment which would in effect provide that under section 5 birth certificates and parental permission must be kept. This would give him, as Minister, the power, if he ever wished to use it, to safeguard the health, safety and morals of the people concerned.

Generally I feel that the people involved in these areas are engaged in a work pattern which is notably different from the rest of the population and other forms of work, especially work on shore, which is really the division involved here. There would be little point in asking these employers to fulfil the obligation of record-keeping set out in section 5. They have the obligation of complying with section 4 and the minimum age. I consider that the banning of employment under a certain age in these work patterns is an adequate safeguard. The obligation of filling in forms of other details would be inappropriate for these categories. It is for that reason that I am providing that the minimum age will operate here but not the other sections which in consideration of the nature of the work involved, it would be impossible to monitor and to police adequately.

I find this difficult to follow. I am not clear to what extent 14-year-olds are employed as fishermen, in lighthouses and as seafarers, but because the Minister has specifically included section 4 under this head I presume that at least some 14-year-olds must be employed. Otherwise there would be no reason to refer to section 4. If, for example, a 14-year-old has been employed as a seafarer I find it altogether extraordinary that the Minister should say that it is not necessary to have parental permission. I cannot see the obligation to maintain a register in any way as a burden on these people. If their method of doing business is so defective, then the fewer young people they have working for them the better. The very minimum that should be done is to add section 5, particularly in respect of children and young persons. Young persons can be anything from 15 years of age upwards. I know in the case of a 15-year-old it is not necessary to have the permission of parents, although I am doubtful whether that is a good thing. In the Bill as it stands it is not necessary to have permission of the parents except for those under 15 years. At the very least I would have thought that a birth certificate and some kind of register ought to be kept in respect of people as young as 15 years and I do not think it would be a burden on them.

The Minister is right in saying that the work pattern is different. We are talking essentially of certain precautions that ought to be taken in recruitment. Even though the work pattern may be quite different I think that the name, date of birth and other particulars of the young person should be stated and also the wages paid. There cannot be all that many involved. The Minister has said that 65,000 young persons over 15 years are involved in this Bill but the proportion of those involved in the section 3 category must be quite small.

The Minister has not referred to my point about section 6 where he would have power to deal with possible dangers to the health, safety or morals of young persons. He is deliberately excluding himself from dealing with fishermen, lighthouse workers or seafarers whom one might consider would be in more danger in regard to these matters than many other categories. The Minister should include section 5 and certainly he should give himself the power under section 16 to deal with any problems that may arise.

With regard to this section, I should like to consider the situation that arises in rural areas where 14-year-olds may be employed on their parents' farms, or in certain circumstances where parents send their children to neighbours to help out at harvest time or at busy periods. Listening to the debate, one gets the impression that work is being discussed here as if it were necessarily a case of exploitation or of danger. In fact I always regarded these children, these 14-year-olds who had work to do on their parents' farms, as extremely lucky children. I thought they were given a wonderful experience and opportunity to learn something about work to discipline themselves. Indeed I knew children, and had the experience myself, where this work was a greater pleasure than a game of football.

I should like to know if provision has been made here to cover this situation. Often in this city I see 14-year-olds, big, strong, healthy young people bashing windows and kicking walls. If they were given the protection the Minister is seeking to give them, perhaps some of their energy could be channelled into doing something useful during the summer months. I think it would help them to be better citizens and it would make life an awful lot easier for them at a later stage.

The question of payment is another matter. The Minister most definitely in his own good way will look after that but even work without payment is not necessarily exploitation. It could be a very useful channelling of energy. I feel very strongly about this. I would not like the attitude to be adopted in this legislation that work is necessarily something which we must do, just because we have to live. It can be a wonderful thing to teach young people to work; it can be good for them and I think it can help to make life a lot easier for them later on. As I come from a rural area I should like to bring this situation——

The Senator is talking in very broad terms now when one considers section 3.

I realised I was straying from the section but I was coming back to the special situation in rural Ireland. What is the situation where a person sends his child to help a neighbour who has no children? A 14-year-old could find himself in a situation where his parents needed his assistance on the farm or perhaps in the family business. One found that children got a very useful training there. There must be other legislation to prevent cruelty to children and to protect them in these special circumstances but I would not like to see a situation in which work for 14-year-olds was regarded as wrong in all circumstances.

I cannot understand why the Minister does not appear to be willing to agree that section 6 should be included, because it is arguable that the categories that are mentioned in section 3, for one reason or another, might not be brought under section 5. However, they are brought under section 4 in relation to minimum age, and presumably if the minimum age applies at all it should be possible to vary it in the future. I presume that it would be the intention of the Minister, in due course as we progress in regard to the protection of young people, that minimum ages in many areas would increase. Consequently, it is difficult to understand why a certain category of young people are being put in a less advantageous or a less protected position. They should not be put in that position. Consequently, whereas I support the amendment put down by Senator Yeats to include sections 5 and 6, I am particularly anxious to know why the Minister should not at least include section 6.

We had this in the other House as well. I asked Deputies who had ideas about what should be that higher minimum age to state what that year should be. I am not clear whether, in fact, the Senators are suggesting a higher minimum age in these categories. What I do not understand in Senator Yeats' suggestion is why we should seek the inclusion of the keeping of detailed records listing obligations when, in fact, the employers will not have to fulfil those obligations. Why should we ask them to fill in records when, in fact, these will not apply in these cases?

If the Senators are suggesting a higher minimum age I will be glad to hear their suggestions but I think that there has been enough argument about the minimum age. I think it was Senator Markey who talked about the benefits of children working under 14 years. I would like to make it clear that all such work is outlawed under the terms of this legislation here. I am aware that there have been family situations on farms and so on but I am aware of other situations where there has not been trust on both sides and where there has been a strong element of exploitation. I am aware that the provision under this Bill that any such work under 14 years will be totally outlawed will be bad news for many people who have exploited such young people in the past, but I do not know whether Senator Yeats is suggesting that there should be a higher minimum age. I do not wish to have this power of amending by order what should be the minimum age. I prefer to have the debate out here in the House, to come to a decision on it and to put that down in a later section.

Surely the Minister has retained the power to vary the minimum age for all kinds of other categories. He cannot say that he does not want to retain that power, that he wants this House to decide it. The Minister is retaining the power to raise the minimum age for every category of young persons except fishermen, lighthouse keepers, outworkers and seafarers. All that is being suggested here is not that the Bill should be changed at this moment, but merely that the Minister should retain the power in the light of events, of representations made to him, and of the progress we may make in regard to the protection of young persons, to vary the minimum age in years to come.

I am giving consideration to section 6. As I look at it now I do not see the point but I would be ready to give some thought to it on Report Stage. But I really do not see that section 5 is an imposition here.

If a boy of 14 years and nine months seeks employment at the end of the school year in the month of June, working in a catering establishment or public house gathering bottles, washing glasses, or something like that, I take it that his employer will have to obtain a copy of his birth certificate, obtain the written permission of the parents and maintain a register with names, wages and so forth. Three months later, when that boy is 15 years of age, do I take it that he can get a job on a fishing trawler, that he can go out to sea throughout the winter under very dangerous circumstances, work very hard possibly returning in the early hours of the morning and that he can get this employment without having to give his employer who in many cases is the skipper of the trawler, a copy of his birth certificate or, more important, without having to provide the written permission of the parents and that the employer does not have to maintain this very important and useful register? Could the Minister tell me is that the position?

Is the Senator suggesting that fishermen—and he is from a fishing constituency—should be brought under all provisions of this Bill?

Certainly. I think that if, for example, some 14-year-old runs away from home and comes to me for employment I must comply with section 5 of this Bill. On the other hand, if a 15-year-old runs away from home and gets a job on a trawler, a very dangerous occupation as the Minister knows, none of these provisions must be compiled with. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this matter.

If the Senator produces between now and Report Stage an amendment to that effect I will be very glad to look at it.

Let us be realistic about this.

I was urging Senators to be realistic.

I should like to ask the Minister a simple question. I would like a simple answer without any smart cracks. Does the Minister think it is right in this day and age, 1975, that a child aged 14 should be allowed by his Bill to go off to sea without his parents' permission, without any obligation on his employer to get a birth certificate, to keep any kind of records, any kind of register, any kind of details as far as this Bill is concerned, about his employment? Let us have a candid, straightforward answer. Does he think it right that under his Bill a boy should be able to go off to sea at 14 without his parents' permission?

I was just going to say to Senators that we had this type of argument throughout this Bill. It is one of the strange things in this country that when you try to remove an evil, as soon as the reform measure sees the light of day it is attacked from both sides, those who do not want to see any change in the bad status quo or those who say that it is not good enough, that it must be much better. I understand there is a legitimacy in both points of view, but for the person bringing in legislation after an absence of almost 30 or 40 years of legislation in this area, obviously a start must be made at some point.

I accept that it is not possible, and any reasonable man would accept it is not possible, to meet both points of view. I adhere now to the second point of view. I hope that any reform legislation is as good as it possibly can be, but I do not accept the kind of criticism of a reform measure which hides itself in obscurities. What I am asking the Opposition here now is if they wish this difficult category of workers to be brought under the provisions of this legislation, if they want the fishing fleets to be subject to this legislation. If they do, let them put down an amendment on Report Stage and I will look at it very closely indeed. But I will not be subject to rhetorical questions or requests without a factual basis. If the Opposition are making a request that we include fishermen under the full provisions of this legislation I certainly will look at that very seriously.

I must remind the Minister that he is no longer in Opposition. He is now a responsible Minister of State——

I should like to remind the Senator——

He is coming into this House with legislation dealing with small children and young persons. He must get out of this business of thinking he is still in Opposition. I tell him here and now, and it may save a lot of time later in this discussion, I do not care a hoot what happened 30 years ago. I accept there has been a long gap without legislation. When we were in office, we were at fault. The Minister's own party, when their Leader held the Ministry of Social Welfare on two occasions, and did nothing were also at fault. We were all at fault. Now, having admitted that, let us get on with the business. I do not care what happened 30 years ago. I am dealing with a Bill the Minister is introducing. I am not asking rhetorical questions.

The Minister seems to be under a misunderstanding. On the Second Reading of this Bill, I congratulated him for bringing in this Bill and I meant it. I congratulate him again: I think he has done a good job. But he does not seem to be able to distinguish between an honest effort to improve a Bill, on which I have already congratulated him, and criticism. A couple of months ago I was present at a meeting in Brussels where he told the assembled members of the European Parliament that they would be amazed at the vehemence with which Senator Yeats opposed his efforts to reform social welfare legislation. I regarded this as a half-joking remark and so on and did not take it too seriously. Nonetheless I think it does and did show an element of feeling that a discussion of a Bill of this kind is necessarily an attack. It is not.

The Senator's sense of humour should be sufficient to enable him——

It is not. I would put this to the Minister. If, on the Report Stage, I put down an amendment to add, besides the reference to section 4, paragraph (b), subsection (1) of section 5, would he agree to that? All right—leave out the register, though I cannot see why seafarers and so on should not keep registers so that there would be some inkling as to what is happening to the unfortunate children. But if I draft an amendment so that at least the parental permission is needed for 14-year-olds going to sea, will he accept that? That is a simple issue. That is the first point.

The second one is on section 6. The Minister said, as he said in the Dáil, that people were asking him to raise the minimum age and so on and the indications were quite good and the Opposition could make their own suggestions. This is not an issue in this case. If he asked me what I personally think the minimum age should be I would tell him straightaway it should be 15 and I would be happy to vote for any suggestion that nobody should be allowed to work under the age of 15. But that is not an issue. What is an issue in this is that he has, in his own Bill, given himself the power to raise minimum ages. This is not what the Opposition asks him to do at all. This is his own section 6. In order to safeguard the health, safety and morals of young persons, he has taken the power to raise the minimum age. I am merely asking him to give himself the power to do this. He may never wish to exercise it and nobody is forcing him to do anything. I am merely asking if he or his successors ten or fifteen years from now should not be put in the position of having the power to raise the minimum age for seafarers, lighthouse keepers, fishermen and so on. He may never wish to do it but this places no obligation on the Minister or these employers. It merely leaves the door open. I cannot see why the Minister should not agree to that.

I can certainly have another look at it for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5.

In subsection (2), page 4, after "sections 4, 5," in line 42 to insert "6, 8.".

This is a similar case, though of less import. It covers the Defence Forces. Here again most of the Act is excluded, and for reasons which one can perfectly understand, but here both sections 4 and 5 are put in. I find this puzzling because the Minister made the point that there was no advantage in keeping registers and so on when they were not covered by the hours of work laid down in the Act but the Defence Forces are, in fact, made keep these registers.

I do not see why the Minister should not have the power to raise the minimum age at which young persons should be permitted to take work in the Defence Forces. He may never wish to do it, and I have no doubt he would wish to consult his colleague, the Minister for Defence, before doing so, but nonetheless I think it would be a good thing to do. I take it that there is no other Act under which this can be done. I would have thought that the Minister in charge of labour affairs should keep the power to do that. I am attempting to add in section 8, which is the one dealing with the employment of young persons under 16, that is those between 15 and 16. The reason is this: in the Defence Forces, quite obviously when they are on Border duty and so on you cannot simply say that the number of hours per day or week or per month will be limited in a certain way. It is not practical.

This section deals with 15-year-olds. I understand the Minister mentioned in the Dáil that the people concerned are Army apprentices. It seems to me that if the Defence Forces run their business with any kind of efficiency they must be able to organise the life of an Army apprentice in some relatively straightforward fashion and it should be possible to lay down that a 15-year-old who is an Army apprentice will work for a certain number of hours a day. I do not see why they should ever be excluded from the provisions of section 8 which would say that an Army apprentice aged 15 or up to 16 could not work for more than nine hours in any day or 40 hours in any week. I think this is an eminently reasonable—perhaps even too wide—latitude given to them and I would suggest therefore that section 8 and section 6 should be added to the number listed already in subsection (2) of this section.

I would be prepared to consider the inclusion of section 8 but section 6 would, I think, present certain difficulties. I will have a look at it for Report Stage but I cannot say at this point. I could accept section 8, anyway.

I am not that worried about section 6, because after all it is open to the Minister for Defence to lay down rules for employing his apprentices, but I would hope that the Minister would add in section 8 which would be an encouragement to those in authority not to overwork them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Can the Minister tell us what his intentions are on subsection 3, where he says he may by order extend any provision of this Act to any work to which this Act does not apply. I am not clear what is intended there.

I do not have any specific area in mind at present but I thought it a useful power to have. I have made it clear in relation to this legislation that I am anxious to see how it works in practice and then bring in any further changes that may be necessary by affirmative order. We are in the difficulty that we do not know the extent of youth employment. We may all have from our particular interest area an idea of its extent but I sense it is an area which has been neglected for quite some time and it will take us some time to discover—and I would hope the record section of this legislation will help us—the extent of it, the categories of age groups involved, the income groups involved, the kind of work that is done in the majority of cases. With that kind of information and experience I would hope to come back to both Houses shortly with affirmative orders bringing in further improvements in this legislation. In its passage through both Houses many points have been made by Deputies from the various interests in their constituencies. The very appearance of this Bill has evoked a certain amount of public interest in the area. I have been approached by all manners of organisations with their ideas on what should be done. Provisions such as this give me the possibility of adding to it in the way I have mentioned here. At present I do not have any specific action in mind.

I am not quite clear about the Minister's point. The subsection says the Minister may by order extend any provision of this Act to any work to which this Act does not apply. The question is: to what work does the Act not apply. It seems to be that the only things listed are (a), (b), (c) and (d) under subsection (1) of this section. Is it to these he is referring or is there some other kind of work that the Act does not cover? It seems to me that since this section says that this Act shall not apply to work as (a), (b), (c), (d), fishermen and so on, then every other kind of work must be covered. Therefore, the only people that could be covered by subsection (3) are these four classes. Perhaps I am wrong but I would be interested to know.

It certainly could apply to the four items.

Could it apply to anything else? That is what puzzles me. As I understand it, the Bill says that these four are excluded and unless I am wrong this means that everything else is included. Therefore, all subsection (3) does is to give the Minister power which, indeed, I hope he would use as soon as possible, to cut down these four items. Is that all it does?

I think that is all it does.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.

Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 are related. Amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 9. Accordingly, is is suggested that all of these amendments should be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 6:

To delete subsections (2) and (3).

In moving the deletion of subsections (2) and (3) of section 4 I can do no more than repeat some of the remarks I made during the Second Stage of this Bill, and principally, the fact that the trade union movement, out of its vast experience of these matters, is totally opposed to the employment of children during the school terms. That opposition is based on the contention supported by many educationalists and others that such work in most cases is harmful to the health or the normal development of the child. In most cases it will affect the attendance of the child at school or his capacity to benefit from the instruction given.

There is, of course, the serious possibility of moral danger and the absolute certainty of exploitation of some children by some employers. In this connection may I quote from the report of a survey conducted by eight local teachers into part-time working by school children in two towns in this country? The report was published in The Irish Times of April 5th, 1975. It begins by saying that large-scale exploitation of post-primary school children in part-time jobs is taking place.

It goes on to say:

The survey, which was carried out by eight local teachers, calls for the total ban on part-time employment of post-primary pupils of 15 years or over during school term.

It expresses dissatisfaction with this Bill which it describes as "inadequate" and recommends parents to take greater care because of the adverse effects of part-time employment of their children. It continues:

The number of pupils who filled in the questionnaire was 1,930, of which 354 were working part-time and were earning, on average, less than 50p an hour. Four examples encountered showed a pupil of 15 years working 41½ hours for £4.50; a 14-year-old working 18 hours for £1.60; a 13-year-old working 29 hours for £2.75 and a 12-year-old working 18 hours for £1.74.

Further on, the report states:

The Committee held discussions with a local union.

And the report continues:

The latter are greatly perturbed at the extensive use of pupils in shops and requested the Committee to do all it could to bring it to an end. Apart from contributing to the current unemployment level pupils engaged in part-time employment damage their own chances of full-time employment in that they themselves are replaced by other pupils.

I take the point the Minister made a short while ago that at the moment there are, and for many years past and indeed at the time this survey was carried out, there were no legal regulations at all about this important matter. The Minister is to be complimented on introducing this Bill which does introduce some measure of control.

For instance, young people are confined to working two hours in any one day during the school term. This is a tremendous improvement on the present situation but I would suggest to the Minister that it would be quite impossible to implement this provision. Even with an army of inspectors I do not think it could be implemented. I would ask the Minister to give further consideration to withdrawing these two subsections. If he finds himself unable to do that, he should make some provision to ensure that, if within a period of six months or nine months it is evident that the Bill is not working out in that there is tremendous continuing exploitation of young people or that work during school term is shown to be having an adverse effect on the pupils' capacity to learn or to attend classes, then he should amend the Bill deleting these two sections.

I must say at the outset that I sympathise very much both with what Senator Kennedy has said and with what I believe is an honest and serious attempt by the Minister to come to grips with this problem of age of employment. I hope the Minister will bear with me a while on this point. It is a point that one cannot really go into too often, if only for the sake of awakening public opinion to this very important issue.

It seems to me that there are two basic questions involved. I take it that on this series of amendments we are talking exclusively about children who are still under the compulsory school leaving age. First of all, there is the question of whether such children should be allowed to work at all at any time. Secondly, there is the question of whether, if we allow these children to work, when should we allow them to work, what kind of differentiation are we going to make between the way in which they work and the times at which they work. We have to decide further whether they should be allowed to work during term time at all or whether we can simply make a differentiation between the amount of time they work during term time and the amount of time they work during holidays.

The Minister has made on several occasions what I think is a very valid point, that to a certain extent we all work in the dark. There are no statistics on which he can base legislation of this kind. He has to approach it to a certain extent intuitively, basing his proposals on individual case histories, on his general "feel" of the situation and on his general "feel" of what needs to be done. The Bill before us is in many respects an honest and serious attempt to come to grips with that question.

The survey of which Senator Kennedy spoke is one of the first pieces of scientific evidence in this field that we have. It can be called scientific as it is being carried out very rigorously and is being very carefully monitored. Some of the statistics from the report itself which were not mentioned in the newspaper report to which Senator Kennedy referred, are, I believe, even more alarming. For example, there is a table in the report in relation to the range of hours worked by 14-year-olds. In this table reference is made to the total number of 14-year-olds working, which is 116. If you look at the histogram for the number of hours worked by these 14-year-olds you will see that fewer than half of them worked for a number of hours lower than the maximum envisaged in this Bill. In other words, more than 50 per cent of them were working for a number of hours partially or substantially in excess of the maximum which would be allowed under this Bill. Two of the 116 were actually working between 40 and 50 hours every week. Again, we notice that the average number of hours worked by all 14-year-olds was 14.7. In other words, even the average was above the maximum which would be permitted by this new legislation. The report further notes that the average number of hours worked by 14-year-olds is significantly greater than that for pupils as a whole. The average for 14-year-olds is, as I said, 14.7 hours. The average for all the pupils is 13 hours. This indicates to my mind that the 14-year-olds are the category of pupils who are most open to this kind of exploitation.

This Bill, even if it were passed in its present form without any amendment, could not but improve this state of affairs. In some cases I would hope that it would improve it dramatically or at least in the cases for example, of these two 14-year-olds who were working between 40 and 50 hours a week, nine 14-year-olds who were working between 30 and 40 hours a week and 13 14-year-olds who were working between 20 and 30 hours a week. If this Bill is to mean anything, and I hope it will, it will catch the exploiters of these children and deal with them as they should be dealt with.

What I would ask the Minister is whether, in the light of the factual and statistical information from this fairly substantial survey which has become available since the Bill was introduced—in fact, since his Second Reading speech in this House—he will now consider again sympathetically the appeal that is being made to put a total ban on the employment of children under the compulsory school leaving age at least during the period of term time.

The economic aspect mentioned by Senator Kennedy is one I would also like to stress. This report calculated simply by totting up the hours worked by these young people, that in one supermarket alone in the town of Drogheda the equivalent of 14 full-time adult jobs were being lost as a direct result of this exploitation of child labour. There are multitudinous aspects of this. As a result of the exploitation of children, 14 adults in Drogheda have not full-time well-paid jobs and are unable to support their families. If they were employed presumably they would not be leaning on the State for unemployment benefit and other forms of assistance.

This new evidence seems to be enormously strong. I ask the Minister to consider it. I have no doubt he has seen it already. We would be very grateful for his views on this evidence and on whether, in his mind, it changes the situation with which he and we are dealing in this Bill.

There is another point with regard to the employment of children under the school-leaving age which I feel I should bring to the attention of the Minister and the House. In Britain, where there is a parallel legislation relating to the employment of young people, there are marginal differences between age limits, hours and so on, which I do not propose to go into in any great detail. But there is one substantial difference between Britain and here which is to our disadvantage. In Britain, a Secretary of State makes regulations about the kind of employment that can be taken by young people, at what kind of age and subject to what kind of conditions. There is also a wide-ranging and comprehensive network of local education authorities. Under the relevant British legislation these local education authorities have substantial supervisory power with regard to these regulations, how they are being observed and so on. In fact the local education authority there has power to make its own regulations and to require employers to conform to these regulations, subject to fairly substantial penalties for breach. Presumably it does so in order to safeguard the educational welfare of these children.

We have no education authorities here who could operate this kind of supervisory role in relation to children of compulsory schoolgoing age who are in employment. I tried to think of ways of introducing amendments into this Bill which would give persons involved in the education of these children some kind of responsibility and power in regard to supervising any work these children may be doing. I found it totally impossible to do so because our education system is so fragmented and has so many different foci of responsibility.

The Bill before us goes as far as any Bill can go in its attempt to make sure that what must be done will be done. There is this huge lacuna. It is very much a Bill which operates from a central government authority. In trying to fight the situation we are hampered by the lack of something which is provided in Britain: the input from the local education authority who know the circumstances, who know the people and are aware of the injustices and dangers, is missing. The Minister is fighting with one arm tied behind his back. Because this second arm of enforcement is missing, I would again make a strong case, especially for these children under the age of 15. In the light of the evidence available to us in this survey, the Minister should think again.

I support what Senator Kennedy said on this matter and, indeed, all Senator Horgan said. The important thing to bear in mind is that none of us knows all about everything and some of us know a lot about some things and less about others. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is flatly opposed to the employment of children under school-leaving age. I recognise also that this is a real effort on the part of the Minister to do something that has been neglected for a long time. Might I ask the House to consider why we arrange for children to have school holidays? Surely it is not to put them to work.

My understanding is that men and women at work try to have their holidays with their children. I submit that this section is not capable of being put into operation, because we would need an army of inspectors to put it into operation for a small number of school-going children, taking into consideration the need for inspectors in other areas. I am sure the Minister and his advisers are aware of the existence of joint labour committees under the aegis of the Labour Court. These joint labour committees provide for minimum wages and working conditions for all types of people. There is nothing like that suggested in this section of the Bill. The recommendations of the joint labour committees are legally enforceable. They do not contain Shangri-la for working people. As a matter of fact, in trade union circles we regard them as the starting points from which we can improve. The Minister should look at the various joint labour committee recommendations particularly those affecting messenger boys. The entire Executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are opposed to this section. They want to delete it. They consider this matter could be tackled by ministerial order, if the Minister so wishes, provided of course that he guarantees there will be an advisory committee, sufficiently representative, to properly advise on matters of this kind.

I am not attempting to enter into a controversy about this section but I believe this: no matter what one's politics are, there is a certain amount of credit given to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for knowing working class needs. Within the confines of congress there are all shades of political thought. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the proposals made by Senator Kennedy and myself on behalf of congress that this section be deleted.

I thank Senators for their contributions on this very important section. Senator Horgan is right in saying that there is a great deal of ignorance about the exact extent of exploitation. I, too, commend the authors of the Drogheda report. I am glad to think that this had some part to play in the motivation of those who undertook that very valuable survey.

Senator Kennedy and Senator Mullen referred to the enforcing of certain sections of this legislation. Undoubtedly, in enforcing any section of this legislation I would be the last to pretend that the inspectors available to me—though I did, in fact, increase their numbers in the last year by 50 per cent—even with round-the-clock surveillance, would be able to enforce every section of this Bill. This Bill cannot operate without the support of the community, of the trade unions, of the employers or without genuine community assent. That is what I have been attempting to achieve in selecting a point of commencement. This is something which our community, on all sides, has neglected to attend to for too long. There has been no public controversy on youth employment; that has been a neglected area. Now there is a welcome interest in the subject. But at what point does legislation take effect?

The worst cases of exploitation referred to in the Drogheda Survey will have to end the day after the President signs this Bill. The information provided in that survey will have the early attention of the inspectorate of my Department. That area is well-chronicled and we can inform the employers of Drogheda that the days of exploitation will be over with the enactment of this legislation. I do not wish to single out any particular area because there are cases of exploitation of young persons all over the country. I am sure the employers of Drogheda are as good as employers anywhere else. There is no greater concentration of unscrupulous people in Drogheda than anywhere else; the same average mix exists there as anywhere else in the country. Because our community have ignored this area of employment for too long, certain unwelcome practices have grown up and are widely prevalent.

At what age should the Bill commence to take effect? There are those who say that the age of 14 years chosen by me is unreal, that a lower age should be specified. Others say the school leaving age should be the age of commencement. I believe that the mixture chosen in this legislation, which is to outlaw all work by young people under the age of 14 years and to control the period of hours of work between the ages of 14 and 15 years, both in the school term and during school holidays, is the best possible point of commencement. Enforcement will need the support of the community and the inspectorate. As Senator Hogan pointed out, the British local education committees have a role to play. There is no such provision in this legislation which I hope will be supported by the community in general.

I stated in the Dáil that I intend to set up a committee to monitor the progress of this legislation and to report in a matter of months how the terms of this legislation are taking effect and where omissions are occurring. We have not a great deal of information at our disposal to give us a reliable picture of the national position. There have been some isolated surveys, such as that carried out in Drogheda, but an equally alarming situation could occur in any town or district without our knowledge. Therefore it is necessary to have a committee representative of educational, trade union and youth worker interests so that we can accumulate reliable information on this subject. This committee would report back to me relatively quickly on amendments or certain improvements required to this legislation. I have already announced my intention of calling a conference in Dublin of interested parties to discuss youth employment. If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that, apart from guesswork or uninformed opinion of what may be happening in a particular area, we are ignorant of the actual situation existing around the country.

The Bill will provide much-needed information. We will have evidence of age and we will have the written permission of parents. The Bill will be more effective in remedying undesirable situations if it commences, as we suggest, at the cut-off point of 14 years of age, with a controlled period between 14 and 15 years. We think this is the best way to obtain community support for the Bill, which is so necessary if the provisions of the Bill are to be effective. There is no point in choosing an age point which may not have general consent. It might have support from one side and attract the opposition of another section. I have received representations from people well acquainted with problems of youth employment in both town and country. There is a vast difference in the employment pattern of young people in town and country. They told me that the provisions for prohibiting employment of children under 14 years of age are unrealistic and unworkable and will not gain acceptance. These are not the opinions of reactionaries. They are the opinions of people who believe that the situation is bad and the best remedy would be to begin at a more modest age group, understanding, as they do, the many problems arising in urban areas, especially in Dublin.

Having studied various opinions and representations from many sources, I believe the provisions in this legislation are the best possible to enable this Bill to be effective. There were no great differences expressed here as to what was desirable for our young people but there may be a difference in deciding what is the best commencement point for legislation of this kind.

I hope to be back very shortly to both Houses of the Oireachtas with affirmative orders making the changes sought by Senators to have the age set at 15 years—the age at which in my opinion it should be settled. I also hope to raise it to this age as soon as we assess all the information about conditions which the Bill is designed to unearth. If this legislation is passed it will be in operation during the summer, the worst months for exploitation of youth in employment. I have brought in an amendment ensuring that over those summer months there will be a period which will be completely excluded.

I hope therefore that in thanking Senators for their contributions they will understand the approach I have adopted to this legislation. I respect the views of Senators Mullen and Kennedy. As representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions they are in a good position to know exactly the kind of exploitation that has been going on in years past. I perfectly understand why, with that knowledge, they should seek for a higher age. I hope there will be recognition of the fact that it is equally important to choose a point of beginning for this legislation and then work up towards a situation which is even more perfect than the age we have chosen. I believe that the answer to much of the exploitation of the lowly-paid and the young in particular, lies in an extension of the joint labour committee system to shops and restaurants. In another area I have spoken about my intention, with the co-operation of the unions, to seek extensions of the joint labour committees in these directions.

On a point of order, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, as I understand it, we are taking amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 together. I take it the Minister has now moved No. 8 in which case my amendment No. 10 would seem to be——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No, we are discussing them together. They will be moved separately.

Is there some kind of priority to move one's own amendment?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When amendment No. 6 has been moved, there was agreement that a discussion take place but we can have separate decisions.

I am using the wrong technical term. Is it not normal that if somebody has an amendment down he should be allowed speak on it? I have not yet been able to speak on my own amendment. I am wholly in favour of Senator Mullen's amendment. To my mind, in principle, it is a ridiculous situation where the State declares that no child shall leave school until the age of 15 and then allows him under that age to continue working. If we take education seriously, or are serious when we say that children will remain from 14 to 15 at school in full-time education and get the best possible benefit from that education, then it would be impossible to achieve that aim if the child could work two hours after school. Perhaps he left home for school at 8 o'clock in the morning, came home at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and had his dinner. Then he went to work in the local supermarket, when he should have been resting or doing his school work.

Senator Mullen knows better than I that one of the great problems with education in Ireland is at university level. Only about 2 per cent of students at university come from the working class, or trade union circles. This is not so much a matter of income, because often a skilled worker will have a higher income than, say, a minor bank clerk. The bank clerk will traditionally send his children to university but the plumber or carpenter traditionally will not. One of the reasons, obviously, is that the whole educational process is taken more seriously in one case than the other; there is a more learned background in one case than in the other.

If there is a tradition of a child going out to work at a very early age when he should be engaged in full-time education, inevitably education stops at a certain point. Even when it does continue, it is less satisfactory than it ought to be. I would be completely in favour of the amendment by Senator Kennedy and Senator Mullen. I am not sure that it is framed in the right manner from a technical point of view, but its contention is that no one under the age of 15 years should be able to work. My amendment does not go nearly as far. I confined myself to saying that no child should be able to work during a school day. I am not particularly enamoured of the idea that a child at school, aged 14, would be able to work for four hours on Saturday and four hours on Sunday, and during school holidays. I proposed this because, as the Minister said, there is an economic problem involved. There is a tradition that at a certain age children will be able to go to work. In families with a very low income the money brought in, even though it may be small, is very valuable and it would be difficult to do without it. As the Minister has rightly said, there have been suggestions from surprising sources that the age for children to go to work should be 12.

There is the problem. It would be difficult to obtain general approval for a suggestion that all work by children under 15 would be banned. Personally I would be in favour of making the attempt and banning it altogether. I have framed my amendment as a compromise so that, at least during the hours of day when school is taking place, no child under 15 would be allowed to work.

Of the three non-ministerial amendments before us, I prefer Senator Mullen's after that Senator Horgan's who would allow them to work during the school holiday but not during term, and only then my own amendment which, as I said, is a compromise. The Minister's amendment is in two ways an advance on the Bill as it stands. It provides that on Saturdays and Sundays the child can work for approximately two hours a day only. It also provides him with a fortnight's holidays in the summer from any work. All this is obviously a limited advance only because the 14 hours a week permitted during school term is still there and the two hours a day while school is on is still included in the Bill. While the Minister's amendment is certainly a minor improvement, I would urge him to take the bit between his teeth and eliminate this action altogether, as was suggested by Senator Mullen and Senator Kennedy.

While initially the Minister might have to face considerable opposition from a number of quarters, in the long run he would gain a considerable amount of kudos for something which would be accepted very rapidly as a very useful forward step. The concept that a child who was still compulsorily at school, and under the school leaving age, was allowed to work, would be looked upon in most countries as a retrograde attitude. I would urge the Minister to accept the proposition that no child under 15 should be allowed to work.

I hope the Minister's amendment is not passed. The last sentence reads: "Provided that during the period of the school summer holidays, the child does not do any work for a period of not less than fourteen consecutive days" is a most unfelicitous phrase. I worked at this for some time and was unable to get any meaning out of it. Only when I came back to Ireland and found some people whose command of the English language was greater than mine did I find out what it really did mean. It seems to me that it could be rephrased in a way which would do less violence to the English language. I will do my best to do something with it on Report Stage. At the moment the succession of double negatives is mind-boggling in complexity.

I understand that we are discussing section 4, amendment No. 6. Senator Yeats has complained about the wording of the amendments submitted by Senator Kennedy and me. We are arguing for a deletion of a subsection.

I think it is important to put this on the line. Senator Yeats made a comparison between trade craftsmen and minor bank clerks. I think he is all wrong. There is a great need to emancipate the craftsmen here because they are not being paid anything like what a bank clerk is being paid.

I did not mean as a group. I meant individuals.

I want to make the point that I have been trying to express the views of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. For the Minister's benefit, let him understand clearly and distinctly we are not hung up on the age of 15. We have no hang-up about that age. We are quite prepared to accept the age of 14, providing of course that there is some real way of regulating this whole process. This is why we suggested that there should be a ministerial order. With due respect to the Minister, what he said was that he would have what to me conveys a watching committee. We have far too many of these committees without any real result. I think that the best way of doing it is in the light of all our experience. Again, I go back to the joint labour committee for formulating wages and working conditions in the hope that they would be enforced. We have found that it is almost impossible to enforce them. I would suggest to the Minister that he bear that in mind and think in terms of having a committee working in conjunction with the power which he can obtain through ministerial order. Then this job can be properly tackled.

The Minister is on record, he used the expression here when he was dealing with this amendment, as making a point about exploitation. The Minister has very rightly taken time to refer several times to exploitation and the difficulty experienced by his Department in doing away with exploitation. Let us not add to the load. I again say to the Minister that he should take lessons from our experience of minimum wages and conditions and have regard to this in particular. This is not out of disrespect to the Minister's advisers, I would describe them as being attritions. We will have to have regard to practical experience. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, when considering the Bill, did not consider it lightly. They had regard to experience.

I would earnestly entreat the Minister to do what has been advocated in this amendment and delete the subsections. In place of them he can make his ministerial orders and set up his committees and have them working. There are oodles of joint labour committees in existence and there are many complaints in existence about their inability to enforce their regulations. They provide for minimum rates of pay and working conditions which are described as being legally enforceable, but it is almost impossible to do that. I am not saying that every employer is an exploiter. One would want to be up all night watching the people who set out to take advantage of young people.

I am grateful for the frank way in which the Minister has approached those amendments. We learned a number of important things from him—for example, his personal conviction that the cut-off age should be at least 15 years, and his undertakings, or proposals at any rate, with regard to the monitoring of the progress of this legislation. When he was speaking about the need to have a general consensus working behind this legislation, or any legislation of this kind, there was a whole grey area that he to a certain extent and all of us have been treading rather delicately around.

We have had representations in the course of this debate and even outside these Houses from two very substantial interests connected with this Bill, from the trade unions on the one hand and from educational interests on the other. Both these interest groups, for different, equally valid reasons, have expressed themselves alarmed by the continuation or even regulating employment for 14-, 15- and 16-year-olds. The one group of people we have not heard from are the people most directly concerned themselves, the children and their parents.

I am not saying that children like being exploited or that parents like their children to be exploited, but it is a hard and bitter fact of life for many of these children and for many of their parents that without these earnings, pitiful and miserable though they may be, those families would be in a very much worse off state than they are at the moment. I say this with a very heavy heart because it is not a situation that anybody should be proud of. We have learned a lot since the days when free education was introduced. We have learned a lot about the costs of education. We have learned a lot about the fact that the real cost of education is not simply a matter of fees paid to a school manager. It is also a matter of the cost of what that child would have been bringing in to his household were he to start working at the age of 15 instead of staying on at school. This can be critical, not just for the children but for their parents.

It is not just a question of children allowing themselves to be exploited in order to earn pin money and drink pints with it, if, indeed, today they are drinking pints at the age of 15. It is a question of providing something, however pitiful and miserable, to help balance the family budget. It was a very great tragedy that at the time when the free education scheme was introduced it was not accompanied by some form of income supplement for the less well-off families to enable them to take advantage of the educational opportunities then being offered but which were kept from them by their poverty—not by their alleged class attitudes to education but by their inability to forgo the income they would receive by going out to work instead of staying at school. It is a particular irony that many of the children who are out earning money in this part-time fashion and in this way are doing it precisely in order to be able to stay at school; and yet it happens time and time again that their money-earning activities, the ways in which they are occasionally being exploited by employers, conspire together to rob them of so much of the benefit that they can get from that education.

These points must be firmly stated and must be eventually faced up to. When I spoke on my amendment earlier I described the Minister as attempting to fight this problem with one arm tied behind his back because while he had the central regulatory authority he had no local supervisory authority. Looking at it again I would say that he is trying to fight it with two hands tied behind his back because not only does he lack this local supervisory authority but he lacks, as far as I know, the power or the statutory authority to give to the lower income families the kind of financial assistance that would enable this form of exploitation to be brougth to an end and allow these children to continue on at school.

It is often said by people who should know better that the only reason children of a certain social stratum do not continue on at school is because they lack the social attitude towards education which would encourage them to participate in education beyond the minimum school leaving age. I would say to these people: "If that is what you believe then offer these families money, offer them the difference between the net total family income for the child going to school and the child going to work, because if as you say it is true that their class attitudes alone are preventing them from continuing in education, then you will save your money. The children will not take advantage of it, they will go out to work anyway." But this is a risk that many social planners are unwilling to take. They are unwilling to put up the money because they know in their heart of hearts that the real obstacle for many of these children and for their parents is financial.

It is on the existence of this obstacle that employers are capitalising and that children, families and parents are being crucified. I cannot make this point too strongly. I have been encouraged by the Minister's response to the amendment and would merely ask him to take these points into consideration when he is instructing any committee and furthermore to press on his partners in Government, especially on the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare, the absolute need for approaching this problem on a broad front. He will not end the problem of exploitation of child labour by this kind of legislation alone. It will have to be ended, among other things, by increased emphasis on the educational side and the social welfare side to make it unnecessary for these children to allow themselves to be exploited in this way.

If he is appointing a committee, as I hope he will, I would urge him to have them report, as he suggested, in a very short period of time. I would also urge him to give them the resources necessary, also under a very sharp time guillotine, to provide the maximum amount of information in the shortest possible time so that any amending legislation or regulations can be brought in with a minimum of delay. That, I would hope, would be by full community consensus based on facts. We will never get all the facts but in a short time with a reasonable amount of money we ought to get enough facts to awaken the public conscience to help to end this misery.

There is just one dimension I should like to add to this discussion. Looking at section 4 and at the amendments put down to it, I must say I tended to support the section as it stands in the Bill. Since I have come in and heard the very sincere and, indeed, impassioned views of Senator Mullen on the matter, I have perhaps changed my ground a little. There is one point that I would put forward for the Minister's consideration. The emphasis in the Bill seems to me to derive very strongly from an urban milieu, an area where exploitation of children obviously takes place. I accept Senator Mullen's view that it does, and it apparently takes place to a far greater degree than I realised.

On the other hand, I come from a rural area. The emphasis on children working there was not the emphasis on workers' exploitation at all. It was work very often as adventure and as a means of moral edification. It was constantly believed, and it is still believed in rural areas, that the really responsible parents are those who see that their children are not idle for a great deal of the day and who do not have the economic incentives and necessities that Senator Horgan spoke of. Very often they are quite well-to-do parents who think it is a very good thing for their children to go to a neighbouring farm and work for a few hours and maybe collect a few bob at the end of the day.

During school hours?

Not during school term, during holidays, very often on a summer's evening after a day's work in the meadow when their hay is there and so forth—by no means during school hours. That would be regarded as deliquent even in the society to which I was referring.

That is what is in the Bill.

So as not to delay the thing, let me proceed to my point which is a very simple and perhaps old-fashioned one. Within that framework, work was not seen primarily as exploitation at all but, from the point of view of the child, very often adventure, the chance to make a little money on the side. It was often open-air work which in no way could be injurious. It was, in fact, character building and health building too. On the other hand, the parents saw it not merely as a means of getting money but of seeing that the child was kept out of mischief. That is certainly part of the ethos of rural Ireland. I am not sure how familiar the Minister is with this ethos. He is a very learned man in every other respect and perhaps in this too.

It is a dimension to the problem and I wonder whether legislation quite as Draconian as is being suggested in some of the amendments would not do a good deal of harm in that direction. I would counsel moderation in the matter—the balance of one thing against another. For instance, I have just come back from America and the attitude there towards work would be almost radically different. It is regarded as a good thing, even in quite affluent middle-class homes, for a young fellow to distribute newspapers in his spare time, to learn what work is, to be industrious and not to spend all his spare time idle—in other words, work off his animal energies and develop the qualities of ambition and perhaps the puritan respect for work at an early age and so forth. What I am suggesting is that work seen, merely in a negative way, as exploitation and so forth is perhaps too narrow a way of looking at work from the viewpoint of the argument in relation to this subsection.

First of all, one ought to recommend Senator Martin to the amendment by Senator Horgan which meets his requirements. I can assure Senator Martin with regard to this Bill that the provision in section 4, not amended by the Minister's amendment, is that on each day on which school takes place a child may work for two hours. I, and many of us, think this is wrong. I am happy to hear Senator Martin thinks it is wrong. But, it is in the Bill.

I did not say I thought that was wrong. I think during school hours would be wrong. But on a long summer's evening, two hours in the meadow I would not regard as wrong at all.

Or a short winter evening when it gets dark at 4 o'clock. That is the scale that is in the Bill, unfortunately. These romantic rural meadows on a long summer's day with the sun shining are very nice and I would be the last to wish that a child would not be able to work on his parents' farm and, indeed, obviously one would encourage this. What we are dealing with here, this applies in rural and urban Ireland, is a poor family who need the money and little Johnny aged 14 goes down to the local pub and washes the glasses and collects them in the lounge bar, or little Joey goes down and takes in the money at the local supermarket, or more likely he fills paper bags at the checkout. That is what we are dealing with. We are not dealing with romantic sunny evenings in the hay-meadow.

And under a contract of service.

As Senator Ryan points out, under a contract of service. We are not dealing with the odd shilling that a young man gets from the local farmer. I think it is highly unlikely that they should be covered by any section of this Bill. We are dealing with an actual contract of service as a commercial proposition—the kind of work usually in dreary buildings, which has little inspiration behind it and does nothing for anyone except bring in a few pence into the family.

There have been certain suggestions, and by the Minister himself if I understand him right, that by some means he may be able in due course to achieve his end—and I am happy to hear he has it—of raising this age of 14 to 15 by some sort of ministerial order. My interpretation of this section and of the Bill is that there is no provision anywhere in it for the Minister, by order or any other means, to raise the age from 14 to 15. He can vary the hours of work and so on but he cannot raise the age to 15. To do this he has to come back again with a new Bill. I think I am right in my interpretation of this Bill. So no matter how many committees and so on he sets up, he cannot by ministerial order amend this Bill in this sense. If the age goes out from us at 15, that is where it will remain until new legislation. In 1975 we should send the Bill out from this House with the age of 15, or at the very least some such suggestion as Senator Horgan has made that there would be work in the school holidays but not during the school term. We must decide once and for all whether we are going to take education seriously and whether we can take seriously the step that has been taken in recent years to raise the school leaving age from 14 to 15.

One can exaggerate the financial element here. Clearly, there are families who would be at a loss if they were unable to send out their children under 15. It is a postponement of only 12 months. Little Johnny is 14 in 12 months he will be 15, and under the other sections of this Bill, with which we are not quarrelling, he will then be able to work. The worst that can happen to any family is that between 14 and 15 there will be this relatively short period during which this extra income will not come in. Undoubtedly it would be important to some families, but I think its importance can be exaggerated with regard to many.

I am not suggesting for one moment that there is any real valid comparison that one can make, but I think it is worthwhile pointing out that way back in the nineteenth century, when there were suggestions made that little children should not be sent up chimneys to sweep them, the argument against making a change was that the families needed the money. I am not making any comparison with social thinking then and now, but the same kind of argument is being used in very different circumstances. There are things that clearly should be done.

The Minister agrees, and there is hardly a Senator who as regards school days does not agree, that it is better for the child not to work when school is on. The only problem the people are raising is—and I can understand it—that certain families need the money and that this would lead to hardship. However, the time has come when we have got to say "Well we regret this". In so far as there may be hardship, and I think it will be very limited, the State should try and step in to deal with it. We cannot undermine the whole educational process of 14-year-olds for such reasons. Therefore we should accept once and for all that at least during a school day a child is not entitled to go out under a contract of service.

I should like to emphasise that every contract of service is covered under this legislation. The child under 14 goes out and does one hour's work and gets paid £1 for it, that is totally excluded. Anybody who talks about the age 15 as being the age to be brought in here is talking about that kind of situation. The amendment, which I accepted in principle from Senator Mullen earlier this afternoon and which we will draft for Report Stage, will further copperfasten that exclusion under the age of 14 in the Bill as it is here. If the age were 15, all such acts would also be outlawed under this legislation.

Certain Senators give me the impression that they imagine it has to be a continuous working week before it comes under the provisions of this legislation. Theoretically, if you asked a child to get a bag of sweets for you and if he is under the age of 14 and there is a reward, it is covered. My instinct in that situation is that when you have a social evil neglected over many years I am sceptical of the efficacy of advance in that area by taking a kind of universal age like 15 after so many years of neglect and saying that all under that age is outlawed, excluded.

That is my impression of the situation and it is the impression of many I have listened to. Some Senators, particularly Senator Horgan, said that the people really affected are the people doing the work. They are not here naturally: we have not yet got to an age of 14 or 15 for Senators in this country, though probably that will come.

I have received many letters from children telling me that they think this legislation is completely mistaken. That is true. These were not dictated notes. I am as good as the next at realising when a note is dictated by some employer anxious to have some child write to me conveying some sort of information that I might not care to receive. Any letter I have received from children on this legislation have been uniformally against. That may not be a scientific sample of the children of the country. It may be a very biased sample but I want for the records to put it that way.

All from children?

I make the qualification that this is not a scientific sample of all children in the country. It may be only a selection of a particular grouping of children. I would say that all of the notes I have received from children have been against the legislation as proposed.

We have to take an age that is in the circumstances realistic. That is what I have been attempting to do in the age chosen here. By outlawing it under the age of 14 and confining it with certain safeguards between the ages of 14 and 15, I think we are in a position to see this legislation will gain the necessary support essential for its success. There is no difference between us in our desire to see 15 as the age below which we would not wish to see children in employment. I do not think there is anyone here against such a situation coming about, a situation which does not exist at present. As evidence of my goodwill in that direction and my acceptance of that desirable outcome—Senator Yeats is right in saying that the legislation as drafted would require new amendments—I have indicated my willingness to come back here in what I hope will be a relatively short time to bring in the change that 15 would be the age, even in controlled conditions, to work under contracts of service. What I would suggest is that I will come back on Report Stage and I will be ready to put forward a new subsection giving me power by affirmative resolution to delete the provisions regarding 14- to 15-year-olds working, that I would have that power by affirmative order under the legislation to bring in that change when conditions warrant it.

We are working in an area where there is little information available to us on which we can reliably see the full picture. I have indicated that I would like to see this representative committee in operation, this committee representing educationists, trade unionists and youth workers. If in our experience of the working of the legislation we see it is possible to proceed earlier than I now see, then I want to see our legislation in itself constituting no bar to that welcome development.

I will withdraw my own amendment here and on Report Stage I will come back with a new subsection giving me that power—the power to delete the provisions regarding 14- and 15-year-olds working. At that stage we will have a legislation which will bring in a total ban on those under the age of 15. As legislators we would not be acting responsibly in the existing situation which has existed for so long, in moving directly without adducing all the evidence, collecting it and getting the full picture. None of us is in possession of the full picture. Our feelings may incline us to one way or another but there is quite an amount of conflict about what should be the age.

I have received representations on this matter—admittedly I have received predictable representations from certain sections that it should be at a particular age—but I have received sincerely meant criticism from people who do not differ from me in many of my political and social objectives, who point to the actual situation and say that putting it at the age of 15 years is really unrealistic in that given situation. Therefore, I will withdraw my own amendment and on Report Stage I will come back with a new subsection giving me power by affirmative resolution to delete the provisions regarding 14-and 15-year-olds.

I want to be honest with the Senators. I still adhere to my belief that 14 years is the correct age in our circumstances but I accept the criticism made by Senators that this legislation as drafted does not give me the power by affirmative order to move rapidly on this question of age. If the representative committee we have set up recommend that we should move in that direction then I do not want to have our legislation here a bar to that desirable movement. I would therefore ask Senators to bear with me in that suggestion and let us look at it again on Report Stage. Perhaps there could be some sort of a quid pro quo here? Could I ask the Senators if they will withdraw their amendments?

On the basis that other Senators withdraw their amendments I would appeal to the Minister not to withdraw his amendment. I cannot see any point in that operation because, while I do not think it is much of an improvement, it clearly is an improvement on what is in the Bill. It provides, for example, for an extra two weeks holidays for the child in the summer and it provides for limited work at weekends. Therefore, it would be a great mistake to withdraw his amendment. On the basis that the various non-ministerial amendments are withdrawn, I would hope that the ministerial amendment, which is an advance, would be inserted. Secondly, I should like to thank the Minister for his proposition regarding the affirmative order which I think would be a considerable advance and would, I hope, bring us closer to the day when we would be——

I am prepared to deal with this amendment which is an improvement and also to add the powers that Senators have sought.

What amendment:

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It has not yet been moved.

So long as the Minister's amendment will eventually be moved that is all right, my worries are over on that point of view. I thank the Minister for his offer to put in the provision regarding the affirmative order. While he is considering in terms of affirmative orders, I would like him to have a look at the affirmative order that he says he is withdrawing in subsection (4). I know that strictly speaking I should deal with this under the heading of the section but since we are having a quid pro quo I might perhaps mention it now and I promise not to mention it again later so that we will not waste any time.

This subsection (4) says:

The Minister may by order vary the hours of work specified in subsection (3) of this section.

My interpretation of this may be wrong. The Minister can only vary the hours. I would like the Minister to take rather more power than this so that he could say, for example, that work on a school day should be banned and so on. To my mind he can only vary the two hours a day, he can vary to one or to three, but he cannot say that the child is not to work on a school day. That is my interpretation of it, which may be wrong. If I am right, then he should take increased power in subsection (4).

The Senator is correct in his point and I think the amendment which I have undertaken to bring in on Report Stage would cover that.

The Minister's affirmative order would, in other words, (a) give him power to raise the age to 15 years and (b) give him power regarding weekend work, work during holidays and in term times and so on. On that basis I am happy to withdraw my own amendment.

To escape the vigilance of the Senator's drafting suggestions at Report Stage, I will let him have the draft beforehand.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I should like to thank all Senators for their constructive approach in this matter. I do not think there is any difference between us on the question of what we hope will be adopted very rapidly.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Government amendment No. 8:
8. In page 5, subsection (3), to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:
"(a) during school terms, the hours of work shall be outside school hours and shall be——
(i) not more than two hours on any day, other than a Saturday or Sunday,
(ii) not more than fourteen hours in any week,
(iii) not more than four hours on a Saturday or a Sunday:
Provided that—
(A) if a child is required to work for more than 2 hours on a Saturday, he shall not work on the next following Sunday, or
(B) if a child is required to work for more than 2 hours on a Sunday, he shall not have worked on the immediately preceding Saturday.
(b) during the school holidays, the hours of work shall be—
(i) not more than seven hours in any day, or
(ii) not more than thirty-five hours in any week:
Provided that during the period of the school summer holidays, the child does not do any work for a period of not less than fourteen consecutive days."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 11:
In page 5, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) The Minister may by order—
(a) vary the hours of work specified in subsection (3) of this section, and
(b) revoke or amend an order made under this subsection including an order under this paragraph."

Senator Yeats brought to my attention on Second Stage a desirable drafting amendment in relation to this subsection. He tabled an amendment to this subsection but I am advised that my particular amendment, which is a little bit more specific—at least, so it is argued on our side—could be accepted. I do not think there is much difference but this is what I have been advised.

I accept the Minister's amendment and thank him for bringing it in. Of course it is a very temporary phenomenon because he is going to change it anyway.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 13:
In page 5, to delete subsection (9) and substitute the following:
"(9) The Minister may by order revoke or amend—
(a) an order made under subsection (6) or (7) of this section, or
(b) an order under this subsection."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I have a query under subsections (6) and (7). The point about this section is that the only type of work a child of 14 to 15 years is entitled to do is light non-industrial work. Under subsection (7) the Minister can add any form of work to this type of work and, on the other hand, in subsection (6) the Minister can say that work which is accepted as light non-industrial work, is not such work. So, in this subsection he can add to and subtract from indefinitely the type of work which a child can do. I can see there is a problem in regard to the area of light non-industrial work, but it seems to me that the Minister is taking rather extensive powers here. I am perfectly well aware that he has no intention of saying that a child of 14 years is to be allowed work in a steel mill and so on, but nevertheless he has the power to do it under these subsections. It does seem undesirable that powers so wide should be included in the Bill. One wonders whether there would not be some rather simpler, more restrictive form of power that could be given to the Minister. It seems to me that under these subsections very extensive powers indeed are given to the Minister to declare that any form of work is work which a child of 14 can do. I appreciate he has no intention of doing such a thing but, as we are legislating, we should try to legislate in a form which is less vague than this.

The powers available to me are not quite as wide as that. They are pretty carefully defined under the section and in previous legislation. There is also the further limitation imposed in section 4 (2) (a) in that it should be work that is not harmful to the health or normal development of the child. This might require that certain work, perhaps not covered in previous definitions under previous legislation, could be declared harmful to the child. That is why this double-edged power is considered desirable.

The section, as amended, faces this very basic problem which I spoke about in my last intervention, that very often children of very young age nowadays are simply itching to go out to work. Teachers, trade unionists, and parents to a certain extent, may throw up their hands in horror, but it is a fact of life and we have got to approach it in a sensible way. This section now approaches it in a particular way. I am not at all in favour of the approach which has been suggested by the National Youth Council, for example, that it should be approached in an even more different way by reducing the age at which people can start work to 12 years. We have got to face the fact, whether we like it or not, that very often children, especially in the urban environments and perhaps very different reasons in the rural environments, see access to work and to work experience as a very important part of growing up, a very important way of establishing their own independence as human beings and their independence indeed from their parents, teachers and other authority figures as well. In much the same way we can accept that, while many of the reasons for wanting to prevent young children from working come from the highest motives there are always some people who prefer not to see young people working precisely because they resent the independence that an independent source of income gives these people. The question is what is the best form of work and work experience for young people.

To my mind the conflict we are trying to resolve in this Bill, and in this section of the Bill in particular, is very often based on the fact that school in particular becomes a bit of a ghetto for the child. It reacts to the child's wish to establish his own independence, to go out working, by attempting to build the walls higher and higher, often for the best of motives. There is another worry of introducing children to work within the context of school and this is not dealt with in this section as it exists at the moment. Perhaps it may need a Report Stage amendment in order to make it possible. What I am talking about here are schemes of work experience for children. Very often these schemes of work experience are forming a substantial part of many school programmes in these islands. They have been part of school programmes in Britain for some time. They are being introduced into some schools in Northern Ireland and only the other day I heard on the radio an example of an experiment in Tuam which was carried with the co-operation and assistance of the Minister's own Department involving the release of pupils from school for a certain time to work in local enterprises.

This is a particularly appropriate way for children to be introduced to the work experience. I am glad to see them starting off in this country. On the other hand I would hate to think that the restrictive provisions of this legislation would operate in such a way as to limit the possibilities children may have to engage in this kind of work experience programme, a programme often devised by and with the full approval of their school authority and their parents. I suggest that I put down a Report Stage amendment designed to exclude from the operation of this scheme work experience schemes of this kind carried out with the full knowledge, authority and cooperation of the school managers and perhaps the children and parents. Otherwise you might find yourselves unable to take advantage of this very important educational experience and experiment. This is a useful option, a very valid alternative to the kind of exploitation that we see nowadays. I would urge its benefits on the Minister and I would urge him to consider favourably my Report Stage amendment when it comes because I intend it to be a facilitating amendment, one which would facilitate the right kind of work experience formed at school.

I agree with what Senator Horgan has said here. There are regrettably in our society probably significant numbers—I had occasion to consider this problem in the course of preparation of this legislation—of young people between the ages of 12 and 15 years for whom the present alternative to work-school—is meaningless and irrelevant. That is a problem arising from the raising of the permissible age for work. It should be studied and the solution sought and I agree with the Senator that we want to see the possibility of these work-school experiments commencing. The exact number of young people in this unhappy situation is probably unclear, like a great deal of other statistics relating to employment of youth. The opinions of probation officers and school attendance officers indicate that the numbers involved are significant and therefore the need for an alternative, a link-up between school and work, a connected educational experiment for such children, is very important and is a serious question. The experience of teachers in many of the large Dublin vocational schools would bear this out. In some schools there are large numbers of young people in this age group—I have been informed probably as high as 40 per cent —whose presence is simply physical and who derive no benefit at all from the school. After nine years at school many come out illiterate.

Therefore the need for discussion of this matter is clear. It means that we must act on it. I would remind Senator Horgan that this was raised in the discussion on this legislation and I think we move towards it in section 15, which we will be discussing later. In section 16 (5) we permit co-operation between myself, the Minister for Education and employers who might be willing to co-operate in such a measure where we could begin to tackle this problem. I hope that at the conference on young people and their employment, which will take place in some weeks' time, this matter can be further explored and again, like everything else connected with this legislation, we can begin to assess and collect the facts relating to youth employment. I thoroughly agree with what Senator Horgan has said and I think the legislation gives us the possibility for proceeding into that area.

Business suspended at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

I just want to make a few observations. Unless young people are being exploited, they are far healthier in mind and body if they are doing some light work. We should concentrate more on the provision of youth leaders and youth groups such as Macra na Feirme and Macra na Tuaithe. We need more voluntary effort to provide sports and leisure activities for boys and girls. This need is greater now than ever before, because the present generation is more reckless than the youth of ten years ago. Parents are very anxious to take part in school management activities but they would be better engaged in organising the young people in their areas during their leisure time and holiday periods. There is much to be done in organising games and outings to places of interest, musical events and so on.

There is an element of danger in young people being employed at too young an age because when they begin earning a pay packet, very often they do not want to continue studying and entering for examinations and they take the first job that comes along. We should ensure that there is more career guidance for young people who are about to take up any work during holiday periods.

There is one relatively minor point which I should like to raise on section 4. In subsection (2) (a) the Bill refers to work not being harmful to the health or normal development of the child. A variety of terms is used throughout the Bill and they appear to be all different. In this section we have reference to the health or normal development of the child. In section 6 it refers to endangering the health, safety or morals of young persons, which of course covers only those from 15 to 18 years, and in section 16 there is reference to the health, welfare and safety of both children and young persons. I am not sure why there should be a distinction. Health is involved in all cases but otherwise the words used are different. I am not sure what "normal development" means. I put it to the Minister that it would be better to use the phrase that appears in section 16, "health, welfare and safety". By using these words "normal development" would be covered and it would avoid having different wording in various sections of the same Bill. This would improve the terms of the Bill. I shall put down an amendment on Report Stage and perhaps the Minister would consider this point.

The Senator is not questioning the substance here? He is suggesting alternative wording?

The wording of the various sections should be the same.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 15:

In subsection 1, paragraph (c), line 44, to delete ",or other satisfactory record" and substitute "to be supplied on request by the National Manpower Service and paid for by the employer".

This amendment is an attempt to tighten up to the maximum possible extent the control mechanism which the Minister agrees is all-important. This amendment has been suggested to me, and perhaps to other Senators, by the National Youth Council, and they feel that it will make the job of the Minister's inspectorate a great deal easier. If this amendment is accepted it means that when the inspectorate are trying to control the employment of young people or children they will have a readymade record of persons who are already employing such children. Therefore, they can apply their energy and researches in seeking out people whom they suspect of illegally employing young people and only secondarily come back to the people who are actually keeping the registers and check whether the registers display anything which may lead to comment on their part. I do not feel that he has pressed this very strongly and perhaps the wording might be improved. It is suggested purely to tighten up yet again the work of enforcement in what is going to be a very difficult section to enforce.

A similar suggestion had been considered earlier but the real purpose of the register to be kept by the employer is to help in the collection of information more than anything else. This legislation puts new obligations on employers, but I am not anxious to insist on a uniform record system where there may be different forms of records in the hands of employers. Many of the employers I have in mind would be small employers probably adopting different methods of collation or retention of information and probably not having access to computerisation. I do not think that the existence of separate registers will be of any great assistance to us as far as the collection of statistical information is concerned. It must be recognised also that if the requirement sought were to be fulfilled it would have to be fulfilled in respect of about 65,000 new persons who will be covered by this legislation for the first time. I am therefore reasonably satisfied that we will be able to obtain the required statistical information as a result of visits to inspectors and of records being kept.

With the arrangements made in the Bill we should be in a relatively short period of time in a position to have definite information where now we simply have surmise. While I understand the motivation of the Senator's amendment I hope he will understand why I am not in a position to accept it.

A great deal of information is sought by this section and it seems that employers may very often be at some difficulty in remembering precisely which items of information are sought in respect of which employees and so on. Quite apart from the enforcement side of things, if the Minister is interested in getting the information it might well repay him, not necessarily to issue registers to employers, but at least to issue standardised sheets of account which the employer could fill up in respect of each child employee rather than have to fabricate his own which might or might not contain all the information which might lead to extensive correspondence between the inspectors and himself or the Department and himself. It is important and right that all this information should be sought. If the seeking of information is not to be used as a method of enforcement it should be made as easy for the employer as possible. One way in which it could be made easier for the employer and which would encourage compliance with the legislation is if some standard form could be made available by the Department for this purpose.

We are satisfied with what is there but we will have another look at it again on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

On the section, I have a couple of points to raise and in the interests of clarity I will deal with them one at a time. Before the interval I was urging that the various registers listed in this section should be used in cases other than as provided in the Bill. I hope the Minister will not think me inconsistent in suggesting that there may be other cases where it would be very difficult to deal with the provisions of this section. I am thinking in particular of the type of employment that Senator McCartin so eloquently spoke of: the typical case in rural Ireland, where a neighbour offers the youngsters half-a-crown to come and help with the hay or something of this kind. There are numerous transactions of this kind that take place. Even though I am appalled by it I am sure the Minister was quite right in saying that such a transaction would be covered by the Bill. The mind boggles at the thought of a farmer asking his young neighbour to come and help with the hay and saying: "You have to get a birth certificate" and so on. This will not be done and anyone who suggests such things would be thought to be mad and yet they would have committed an offence under this Bill and could, in theory be prosecuted.

Up to a point the Minister has power to deal with a situation in the fourth subsection of section 16. It says "The Minister may, by licence, exempt any class of employers from complying with any provision of this Act ...." That is not merely a class of employers and he would have to say that all farmers were excluded. We are not on section 16 but I will not raise this matter on section 16 again so that there will be no time lost.

I would suggest to the Minister that he might consider elaborating on this provision and add to "class of employer""class of employment" or "form of employment" or "temporary" or something of that kind. The kind of typical part-time, unofficial, informal type of employment that takes place all over the country and, even in towns, while it is covered by the section, is of such a kind that nobody will pay any attention to this legislation in regard to it. Nobody will provide birth certificates or set up the registers with the full name of the young person, date of birth, time of commencement of work, time of finishing, rate of wages, total sum paid to each person and so on. Yet, under subsection (4) of this section the Minister says an employer who fails to comply with the provision of this section and the parent or guardian of a young person who aids and abets an employer in a contravention in this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of £100 and £10 a day while it continues and so on. Some kind of let out is needed and it would have to be done by ministerial order or regulation. Therefore I would urge the Minister to consider taking power, possibly under this section 16 to deal with that matter.

The Senator again comes up against the difficulty that appears in every section of this kind of legislation. If one seeks to limit the area of operation of the legislation at what point do you stop and how can we put that into legislative form? If the Senator wishes to put any suggestions under this heading I will be glad to look at them on Report Stage. The Senator and myself and the officials of my Department will be aware of the difficulties of drafting of that kind to allow for those exceptions he mentions. If one commences on the exceptions one has the difficulty of where to cut off. I do not think that one can relax this provision. I do not see how we can legislatively do it but if the Senator has any suggestions about areas which could be regarded as involving merely trivial or small periods of employment, we could look at them.

I hesitate to embark on this kind of operation without the assistance of the parliamentary draftsman but I will do my best. The way to do it is probably in subsection (4) of section 16, so I will see what I can think up.

The other point I have on section 5 is in regard to the otherwise useful provision for getting a birth certificate without having to pay for it where it is required by the employer. Subsection 2 provides that forms for the requestion—that is, to get the certificate for nothing—should on request be supplied without any charge by every registrar of births and by every superintendent registrar or other person having custody of the register. In view of the fact that the Minister has told us that there are approximately 65,000 people over 15 and I presume there are few more thousand under 15, say, 70,000 in all, would it not be sensible to have these forms in the post office also? There are a considerable number of people involved and it is not so easy for a parent, perhaps when little Joe is sent down to go to a local supermarket, to start finding the registrar or even finding out who he is going to get the form from. I would have thought that the post office, which has the largest number of forms anyway, would be a sensible place to have them.

In support of that point I feel that if some arrangement other than what is here could be made it would be preferable, because anyone who has the experience of going down to Pearse Street or other places like that knows it is a dreadful task to get hold of a birth certificate. There may be some urgency in the boy getting the certificate to get the employment because nowadays one does not go on his own to get a job: he may be sent by Manpower in a group of perhaps 50 other boys. They are sent in numbers now as distinct from before when one went on one's own to look for a job and the best of the boys are picked out. Consequently you may have about 50 people converging on Pearse Street with all the delays that involves. All certificates are written in longhand and so it is a fairly tedious job.

Under this section we have the ordinary procedure as adopted in the other Acts of a similar nature in welfare; we have taken them over the same kind of procedure. I think it is quite sufficient. I do not see that the Senator will have any cause for dissatisfaction on the grounds that this will not be adequate.

I think there is a difference between someone who is looking for a pension, actually going to get a profit from getting the birth certificate from the State, and this type of case. There is also the point that, I take it that once the Department of Social Welfare have your birth certificate, then no matter how often you deal with them they have this on a file somewhere and you have done the job for life. Now, in this instance every time little Joe goes to a new employer he has to get a new birth certificate. He could be at a job a week and each time, I take it, he has to have a birth certificate. I suppose, in theory, he could get it back from his employer but we all know that this kind of thing does not work out. It is likely, in fact, that many parents have to make numerous applications for birth certificates. To have 65,000 people involved —perhaps 70,000—fairly frequently in this job of collecting birth certificates seems unwise. We do not want to have parents coming to Deputies and Senators saying: "How am I going to get a birth certificate for little Willy because he needs a job in a supermarket?" Let us make it as easy as possible. Even with regard to other social welfare matters the fact that it has always been done this way is not a reason for not changing. There is much to be said for changing this in all social welfare legislation. The necessary forms for acquiring birth certificates could well be made available in post offices and, indeed, the Minister could do a good day's work by arranging this so that there will be forms available in the post offices for everyone who is entitled to free birth certificates in that way.

Senator Yeats might say what he means by a form for a birth certificate. Having been at one stage an acting superintendent registrar of births, deaths and marriages, one does have to go through official records and one is superintendent of those records. Does the Senator mean to requisition it so that it comes back a few days later?

The situation is that under section 5 an employer of a young person or child—any of these I think are affected by this Bill—must obtain a birth certificate from the parent. The Minister very reasonably does not see why the parent should have to pay for that. These forms which I have been talking about are forms which enable one to get a birth certificate without paying. Therefore you have to apply first of all for your form, then you fill it out, send it off to the registrar and he will provide you with a birth certificate without requiring whatever the sum is. It is merely to enable you to get it for nothing. I would not for a moment suggest that you should get a birth certificate in the post office, but merely a form which is a requisition. This would enable you to send it off in lieu of a cheque or postal order, to get your birth certificate for nothing. That is all that is involved. There is no complication with the State records or anything of this kind. It is simply a means of saving money.

Do they come back to you through the post?

I would hope so.

I can talk to the Minister for Health to see if he has any suggestions.

And the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

If the Minister could do this then I would put down an amendment for Report Stage to add the words "post office" to the other places listed in subsection (2).

An employer who fails to comply with the provisions of this section or the parent or guardian of the young child who aids or abets an employer in the contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence. Am I right in thinking here that contravention is a positive thing? In other words, if an employer forgets or fails to do something, it seems very difficult to prove that the parent or guardian aided or abetted him in his forgetfulness. Is this subsection over-stringent, I wonder?

That would be a question to be decided by the courts. If this matter comes to that level it would be for them to say what exact significance one would give to the contravention.

One of my problems has been trying to read this Bill in aeroplanes. I now realise with some horror that I have totally misread this subsection (2). I had thought it was the parent that was involved in looking for this birth certificate, but in fact it is the employer—no, it is not. I have read it correctly. I have read it right after all.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6 after "morals of" in line 23 to delete "young persons" and substitute "employees".

Amendment No. 17 is consequential and accordingly these amendments should be debated together.

These two amendments propose to give the Minister more power than at present he seems to be willing to take upon himself. This short section enables the Minister, after consultation with the various people concerned, in the case of work which is likely to endanger the health, safety or morals of young persons, to raise by order the minimum age at which a young person may be entitled to do such work. This means, for example, in the case of any kind of work that he considers is unsuited for 15 year olds, he can say this particular kind of work may not be done by anybody under 16. I am entirely in favour of that power being given to the Minister. But the problem I can see with the wording as it stands is that it only applies to young persons —people between 14 and 18—and in such a case it would still be open to an employer to employ a child from 14 to 15 in that work, because to my mind they would not be covered by this section, unless I have got it wrong. The purpose of my amendment is merely to ensure that both children and young persons are covered—in other words that if the Minister were to say, for example, that a particular kind of work was not to be allowed under the age of 16, then this would cover everybody under the age of 16 and not merely those between 15 and 16. It is a relatively simple amendment but I think it is needed.

I do not think this amendment solves the problem. The problem is to remove the danger to health, safety or morals whether young people or adults are employed.

I am not really convinced of the need for these amendments. Section 4, dealing with minimum age of employment, contains the general prohibition of the employment of children; and they are, by definition, young children under school-leaving age, at present 15. On the other hand section 6 deals with young persons in the 15-18 age group. Here I am given power to set a higher minimum age for entry to particular sectors of employment, if there is clear evidence of danger to health and safety there. Any order would be framed so as to prohibit completely the employment of young persons below the age stipulated therein. I do not see the need for the changes in the amendments as requested by the Senator. If he is convinced, after what I have said, I would be obliged if he would withdraw the amendments.

Suppose there is a certain form of light, non-industrial work of a kind which a 14-year-old is allowed to do under section 4. Of course, that type of work can be done by 15-year-olds as well as the 14-year-olds. In a particular instance the Minister might feel the morals of the young people concerned are likely to be affected and say: "All right, nobody under 16 is to do this work." This would not cover the section 4 cases. A boy of 14, who is allowed to do that work under section 4, would not be covered by the Minister's action under section 6. The Minister has no power under section 4 to prevent anyone doing work that might affect his morals. He has to take into consideration the health, normal development of the child, attendance at school, his capacity to benefit from instruction given to him therein, but when it comes to safety and morals these are not mentioned. Therefore it seems sensible that they should be included in section 6. I am not saying it would happen very often but it does seem sensible, if he is giving himself the power to fix the minimum age at which work can be done, that he covers any work under this Bill, and not merely this Bill minus section 4. He need not use this power but it is a power he should have and might need.

On the advice available to us, it would seem that any order made under this section would automatically cut out the age groups below 15.

This section refers to young persons. In the definition section, section 1, a young person is somebody who is beyond school-leaving age. In other words, the definition of "employees" in section 1 is children or young persons. Then there are children who are below school-leaving age, that is, below 15; and young persons who are 15 to 18. The Minister has specifically said "young persons" in this section, which is why I want to put in "employees".

I am satisfied with the section as it is, but I will look at it for the Report Stage.

Is amendment No. 16 withdrawn?

Yes, but can I put it back on Report Stage?

As the matter is being discussed on Committee Stage there is nothing to bar the same amendment or another version being put down.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to bring two drafting points to the Minister's attention. In line 23 there is reference to "work which may endanger the health, safety or morals of young persons". It might be a good idea to insert here after "safety" the words "education or educational welfare". There will be many young persons who are at school and whose educational welfare should take at least as high a priority as any of the other three things we are talking about. I would be interested in the Minister's attitude to this before I decide whether or not I should put something down myself on Report Stage.

The second point I want to make is again perhaps a drafting point. In the following line the Minister is empowered "to raise the minimum age at which a young person may be employed to do such work". I wonder whether the word "raise" is the right one. The Minister may decide after raising the minimum age that it was a mistake to do so, and would like to reduce it. A better word would be "specify" or "state"—in other words, give the Minister the power to move in either direction with regard to specifying ages of employment.

I will look at that point on Report Stage. It could be the raising of the minimum age by another means, but however, I will have a look at it.

I agree with Senator Horgan's first point: "Health, safety, morals or educational development" might be a useful term to put in because, after all, a 15-year-old may still be at school. As regards raising the minimum age, I would urge the Minister at all costs not to pay any attention to Senator Horgan on this. It is one of the advantages of this section that he says "raise the minimum age". I would hate to give him the power to reduce it. Our whole trend in this Bill should be to raise the minimum age and under no circumstances consider reducing it. On the contrary, I would be in favour of reducing the hours of work and would not be in favour of giving the Minister the power to increase them. In this case I would urge him to keep "raise".

I have no intention of trying to lower it.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

The question of grouping arises here. Amendments Nos. 18 and 29 are cognate and amendments Nos. 19 and 31 are consequential. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 18, 19, 29 and 31 should be debated together. If desired, there could be separate decisions on Nos. 18 and 29. It is agreed then and ordered that amendments Nos. 18, 19, 29 and 31 be debated together.

I move amendment No. 18:

Before section 7 to insert a new section as follows:

"7.—An employer shall not employ during school terms a young person over the age of sixteen years who is still attending school."

This section, and my amendment, both put me in considerable difficulty. I believe the whole question of work for school children assumes different proportions and different characteristics depending on ages. With regard to the younger children of 14, 15 or thereabouts, quite apart from the legal necessity for them to be in school, there is a more obvious health aspect to whether they should be allowed to work. With regard to the older children it is much more difficult in some senses to deny them the right to work or to restrict their right to work. At the same time it must be recognised that they are faced with a different set of stresses and strains in education and allowing them to work, and perhaps to work too much, could seriously affect their educational progress. We are all familiar with examination psychosis and the effect this is having on children in our society. It is commonly thought of in popular romantic fiction as being only the prerogative of expensively educated Cambridge undergraduates on drugs and that kind of thing. But it is also very prevalent in post-primary schools here, especially, as I said, coming up to examinations.

The section as it stands is far too wide. To give an indication of how wide it is, I again refer to the survey which pointed out that the range of hours worked in the 15-plus age group was not nearly as wide as is allowed in this Bill. The largest single category of people in this 15-plus age group—71—worked for between five and ten hours. In other words, they worked for no more than one-quarter of the maximum number of hours permitted by this Bill.

It seems to be anomalous in the extreme to have provisions in the Bill which are so greatly in excess of what seems to be the average obtaining in an urban area in relation to this type of employment. It seems equally anomalous to bring in such a major extension of the possibility of employing young people in a way which makes no differentiation between term time and holiday time. I believe it is quite unrealistic to expect 15-, 16-, or 17-year-olds at school not to work at some stage even during the school terms. I would prefer that this work be restricted to weekends. In fact, if Senator Yeats put down an amendment rather like the amendment he put down to the earlier section with regard to the younger children, I would support it, rather than the amendment down in my name at the moment.

One of the big problems we are facing here is that we are legislating for young people after the compulsory school leaving age. Putting too many restrictions on the employment of children who are at school may lead them to throw their hats completely at education and say: "If that is the choice I have, there is no choice for me, I am leaving school and going into full time employment". Perhaps they will go into a succession of dead-end jobs. We must strike a balance here. If we allow young people over the age of 15 to work, even though they are at school, we should make some differentiation as between the number of hours they should work in term time and in holiday time. The school day can be a pretty testing one for a 15- or 16-year-old. A couple of hours work on top of that could be as much as he could take. Yet we are allowing a situation here in which he could work up to 40 hours a week, even during the school term. The results of the survey indicate that no child in Drogheda, however exploitative his employers might feel, has been able to rise to that kind of challenge. The majority of them are working five to ten hours a week; a certain number are working ten to 20. After the 20-hour-week point the proportion diminishes very sharply. Only about 17 children out of 174 are working more than 20 hours a week. It seems strange to double this for all children and not make a differentiation between children who are at school and children who are not.

There are many implications of these amendments which probably begin to grow on you as you look at them. The kind of prohibition desired would cut right across the existing apprenticeship arrangements. It might be considered a good thing to scrap certain features of the present apprenticeship system, but it is the one we have and we do not have any alternative proposals as yet. That would require to be altered immediately because all these arrangements involve periods of attendance at school, on block release or day release, and the employment would have to be terminated if provision of the nature requested was made in legislation in present circumstances.

There are many examples also of young employees seeking to add to their occupational skills by attending night classes at technical schools or regional colleges. They could not continue to be employed during the school term if they were also attending school under terms of the proposed amendment. The net effect for many young people would become a choice forced on them by the law between full-time employment or full-time education without any intermediate choice being available to them. This is one implication we would see in the amendments suggested. This would also mean that there would be vast disruptions of the lives of many young people who at present have the arrangements which the amendment would seek to terminate.

In addition those who had to leave school early and who might later want to improve their education on a part-time basis would be debarred from re-entering unless they went back to full-time education, which would mean in our circumstances perhaps no further contact with education. There could be a definite barrier to part-time education assistance for disadvantaged young people. I have considered whether some variation of the concept would be more workable but I have not come up with a satisfactory solution. I do not know if as yet we have the arrangements in our society, educational and work alike, to provide what the Senator is seeking. In the light of these considerations there are many implications to be read into these amendments. These are some of my reservations to why I could not, at this stage, see my way to accepting the amendments.

The Minister's points are very powerful. Given the employment pattern for a 15- or 16-year-old revealed in the survey and the employment pattern legislated for in the Bill, is the Minister satisfied that passing this Bill would not actually worsen the situation by increasing pressures on these people who are in full-time education to leave it for full-time employment? Is he satisfied that it would not worsen the situation, especially in the light of the other argument he has put up against the amendments, which I feel I could not press?

I do not see it changing the existing situation. There is a free choice between full-time or part-time in the existing situation. Without alternative arrangements of a very wide reaching nature indeed, I do not think we could in this Bill proceed to take the steps mentioned by the Senator.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.

I move amendment No. 20:

In subsection (1) (a) to delete "ten" in line 29 and substitute "nine".

Here we should have a grouping of amendments. Amendments Nos. 20 to 28 are related and perhaps should be taken together. Would that meet with the agreement of the House?

The only point I make is it seems to me that amendments Nos. 21 and 26 are on a rather different point, as to whether the Minister should have power to vary up and down or simply downwards. The others are on figures. It might therefore be more convenient to take amendments Nos. 21 and 26 by themselves.

We have the alternative suggestion by Senator Yeats that we take amendments Nos. 19 to 28, with the exception of amendments Nos. 21 and 26, together, and then have the second debate on amendments Nos. 21 and 26. It is agreed then to take amendments Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28 together.

The reason for this amendment is self-evident. It is possible for an employer under the subsection as it stands, to require a young person to work for ten hours, five days a week. For instance, a young person could be required to start work at 8 o'clock in the morning, to continue until 1 o'clock, break for an hour for lunch and resume at 2 o'clock until 7 o'clock in the evening.

These hours, in my opinion, are excessive. Indeed, they are excessive even for adults. I know of very few adults who work these hours. I venture to suggest that on very few occasions Members of this House have worked such hours as Senators. Even the reduction of one hour, from ten to nine, would still make it excessive, but the Minister should give way on this problem. In my view, this is a very reasonable request.

Bearing in mind what you have just said, a Chathaoirleach, about the way we are taking these amendments, the same type of argument can apply to the amendment submitted in connection with 50 hours as compared with 45 hours, as we suggested. I want to emphasise this point. I understand that it is the intention of the Minister and all parties in this House to protect the employment of young persons. This is the purpose of the Bill. That being so, it is important that we take lessons from what is in existence. As my colleague, Senator Kennedy has said, no adult works 50 hours per week. I submit that to make provision for people to work ten hours a day or 50 hours a week is not consistent with what is happening around us. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of realising that we are comparing children or youths with adults. Common sense tells us that we should get away from this figure. With respect to the Minister and the people who helped him to draft this Bill, I believe it is insincere. It is not affording protection to the people we purport to protect.

Earlier I referred to joint labour committees. We get the same lesson there. It is almost the equivalent to legislation. There is not a single joint labour committee in existence, under the aegis of the Labour Court, which in turn is under the control of the Minister for Labour, which provides for a 50-hour working week minimum, a ten hour working day maximum, not even for adults. Why this should be perpetrated on juveniles is beyond my conception. As a consequence I ask the Minister to have another look at this. I do not think that our amendments are way off the beam but are very reasonable. The difference of an hour a day means five hours in the week. The Minister should remember that we are not dealing with adults.

The 40-hour week, for example, is recognised and approved. Here we have advocated a 50-hour week or a ten-hour working day for children. Adults who have the protection of the trade union movement would not agree to that. Where there is no such protection, it is incumbent on us to do everything we possibly can to protect children at work. I urge the Minister to have second thoughts on this matter. Again, I think he is badly advised here.

I should like to make two points. When we take into consideration that a person might work nine hours a day, or 50 hours a week, we must consider that a number of apprentices and boys may be attending technical school during the week. If a boy was in the type of employment that necessitated his giving the employer nine hours a day, and then going to the technical school two or three nights a week, or girls attending technical schools at night to learn shorthand and typewriting, then we are not talking about nine hours a day because even these classes could be considered as work.

I wish to support Senator Mullen's point. There was a campaign for the introduction of a 40-hour week. The idea behind that was to create more leisure time for adults. This amendment does not meet that idea in an area where, in my view it is more necessary than for adults.

Basically, while I have several amendments down, essentially I am trying to establish that 40 hours should be the maximum in any week. Just as the Minister has done, I scaled down the number of hours you can work in any period of four consecutive hours and the number of hours in any year—40 to 37½ down to 35 over a whole year. But one could discuss them on the basis of the 40-hour week. I agree completely with amendment No. 20 put down by Senator Mullen and Senator Kennedy. A ten-hour day is too long and nine hours would seem to be perfectly adequate and even perhaps too much. After all, we are dealing with 16- to 18-year-olds and ten hours is a very long time.

The reason I fixed 40 hours rather than 45 as suggested in the amendment by Senator Mullen and Senator Kennedy is that, as the Minister knows, while we are approaching the universal 40-hour week, it will soon be forced upon us by an EEC directive. The Minister, in the course of his Second Reading speech, at column 1094 of the Seanad Official Report, said that one of the general aims of the Bill was:

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

The international standard which will hit us hardest and most rapidly is this EEC directive which has been passed by Parliament and will in due course come before the Council, of which the Minister is the present President. I hope that at the Council whether as President or not, depending of course on when it comes, the Minister will be wholeheartedly in favour on our behalf of the 40-hour week. When that directive comes in, we will have a maximum working week of 40 hours. The Minister will tell me that this 40-hour week is not a 40-hour maximum, but a 40-hour normal working week. In other words, you could work 40 hours and after that you had to be paid overtime.

I must stress—and I am sure the Minister will accept my point—that the principle behind this directive and the international move towards the 40-hour week, is not simply to ensure that workers will get overtime after 40 hours: it is to ensure that workers, young or old, will have more time to enjoy themselves. Indeed, in the debate in the European Parliament in Strasbourg recently when this matter came before us, several leading figures in the Socialist group in the Parliament pointed out that it would be pointless if it meant that people worked longer and got more money. The aim was that people should spend less time on the job. The Commissioner, Dr. Hillery, agreed that this was indeed the aim behind the directive.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is only normal working hours and people are allowed under this directive to work longer. They are, but that is not the aim of the operation. The aim is that no one will need to work more than 40 hours. I am not suggesting that it is possible to abolish overtime; obviously it is not. Many circumstances occur in employment when from time to time overtime is necessary. What one wants to abolish is perpetual overtime, which is organised in a certain trade in such a way that people work week after week on overtime. Of course they get more money. That is part of this whole idea of the 40-hour week.

We have the position, then, that the 40-hour week fortunately is coming, but while it is 48 normal working hours everyone concerned with it hopes that it will end up in practice that people will not have to work, except as an exception, 48 hours. Yet we find that the 16-year-olds in section 7 of this Bill are expected to work 50 hours in a week. It is a maximum admittedly, but for 16-, 17- or up to 18-year-olds it seems far too much. If the norm is supposed to be that for adults, 40 hours would be the normal maximum. Surely it should be only that, and if possible less, for the young people dealt with in this Bill.

I would urge that 40 hours ought to be more than enough for a 16-year-old in section 7 and I suggest bringing it down, as the Minister has himself, even from 150 hours for any four consecutive weeks or 1,960 in respect of any year. If the Minister will not accept the 40 hours, I think he ought to if only because of this coming directive which will definitely have to be enacted in legislation here almost immediately as soon as it goes through the EEC Council of Ministers. If he would not accept that he should at least accept Senator Mullen's amendment and say 45 hours. To my mind a more realistic approach would be to say 40 hours in view of the fact that the 40-hour week is coming sort of willy nilly whether he wants it or not.

This is not a normal working week. It is maximum and beyond the hours here there would be an actual breaking of the law. Of course one must not forget that we have limited it during the entire year to an average of 2,100 hours which works out as a maximum on average, if you work around the entire year of 8½ hours per day. You break the law beyond that average.

Forty-three hours a week.

Yes. That is the maximum and there is a vast difference between the normal hours permitted and the maximum number of hours. The difference, of course, is overtime. None of us is in favour of overtime but it happens to be a fact of life and the Irish delegation at the Council of Ministers of Social Affairs will be very strongly moving for that directive for a 40-hour week. However, I fear we will have moved to that point in this country long before the European Community reach that point because, even if there is agreement in the Council of Ministers in Brussels on this matter, it will be still only a recommendation with no value whatever.

Is it not a directive?

No. We are many years from a directive stage. So we need not worry, Europe will not push us in this direction very diligently. We will have to do the pushing ourselves. The Irish delegation in Brussels will be moving very strongly for rapid progress towards the 40-hour week having the status of directive. But there is a vast difference, I must emphasise, between maximum and normal working hours. We have the provision whereby in effect it can only be, at maximum on average, around the year 8½ hours.

I understand the view of anyone seeing any hours suggested in any maximum capacity, in any maximum fashion, one should not seek to reduce them. That is natural enough and proper, but again one has the problem here of deciding what seems to be a realistic base to start with on the figures mentioned in the Drogheda survey. What are listed here as maximum hours are being at present worked by people in Drogheda under this age so we can see how bad the situation really is, a situation which has gone on without any publicity, no public outcry about it for a long time. The maximum suggested here will be lower than what they are working at present.

If we get that sense of proportion about that reality which has gone on unchecked and which our maximum hours will if brought into operation cut dramatically, we are beginning to see the proportions of the job before us. I think that as soon as we see the extent of the kind of hours being worked by young people—at present we are working very much in the dark; we have the advantage of the survey in Drogheda which has given us some very alarming figures indeed—we can consider further downward movement in the maximum hours area. Remember the normal working week as we had it is a 40-hour week. That is the norm and the maximum is on this basis of 43½ over the entire year. So I would ask Senators to see that between these proportions we have struck a reasonable balance.

I could understand this if it came from somebody other than the Minister because I could not accept what he has submitted just now in defence of this section. I am not concerned about what they are doing in Europe and I do not believe we should wait for Europe. We are introducing our own legislation here and I hope we do not look over our shoulders in the process.

Another point I want to refer to in particular is that the Minister has emphasised that this is the maximum. The reason why I said I could understand it coming from somebody other than the Minister is that the Minister is in the happy position of knowing what the state of play is and every time I have spoken here in connection with this matter I have referred to the joint labour committees where the minimum is found to be the maximum and where that is found to be the application all the time. I defy contradiction on this. I would invite the Minister to check up in his Department and he will find not a single joint labour committee operating which provides for the type of maximum he refers to.

I would hope at least that we bear in mind we are dealing with people of over 16 years in this section. We are talking in terms of people who are working during school leave. We are talking about children at work, and I hold that it is not right for this State to legislate for children at work with a maximum of 50 hours a week, when the trade union movement has advanced so well that a 40-hour week is recognised as the maximum, after which they get overtime, and in submitting my amendment I am sure nobody else is advocating overtime for people.

It is about time we faced reality if we are going to do what we purport to do. This Bill is described as the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill. Let us protect the young persons in employment and let us not compare them with adults. I repeat that the Minister is wrongly advised about this. I have often thought that people who are preparing legislation of this kind should indulge in a little bit of experience and see what is happening down on the floor. I and my colleague feel so intense about this one that we would rather see that this Bill eventually would provide for the minimum conditions —the minimum not the maximum. I would expect that if this goes through it will end up with union action to ensure that children who go to work and at 16 years of age are taken into employment will not in any circumstances be found to have regard to the maximum because there will be a different approach to it if the working week will be 40 hours or perhaps less after which they will be paid overtime, and there will be a limited amount of overtime that they will be allowed to do. It happens right through the trade union movement. I would entreat the Minister to have another look at this matter.

I suggest to the Minister that between now and Report Stage he might discuss these aspects with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with a view to carrying out an examination of the general run of trade union agreements in relation to working hours of young people, and have a look at the situation in relation to joint labour committees and industrial councils. If the general run indicates that ten hours a day in respect of young people is excessive, the necessary action can be taken on Report Stage.

I know that when one sees these maximum hours they seem excessive, but I would point out that there is a profound difference between the joint labour committees and what we are suggesting here. No joint labour committee sets out anywhere what maximum hours should be. They set down what the normal hours per week should be and the overtime rates applicable. So far as I know, the JLCs do not set down any hours of work beyond which, if worked, the employer will be prosecuted. That is what we are attempting to do here.

I challenge the Minister on this. His advice is wrong.

All right. I take Senator Kennedy's suggestion. I wish to conclude by saying that what Senator Kennedy said, I shall certainly accede to. On any contention here today, I shall examine it very carefully between now and Report Stage and consult with the people concerned.

Might I ask the Minister to have regard to the spreadover? When we speak of a maximum of ten hours, some of the people attempting to justify this Bill, including the Minister, have regard to spreadover. You can have a person at your beck and call with a spreadover duty of ten hours. There is no mention of that here. It stated "a maximum of ten hours", but the young person might be in the position where he could not go home.

This is not a point of argument but I should like clarification by the Minister. I was trying to have a look at this Bill in the back of a car and I can assure Senator Yeats that it is far more difficult than reading it in an aeroplane. I know of situations where young people between the ages of 16 and 18 have a working week of 37½ hours. Would the section, as it is written, facilitate any subsequent employment in these concerns if we increase the hours of work? I shall rephrase this. There are many employments where the hours of work for people between the ages of 16 and 18 years is 37½ hours per week. We like to stress the need for leisure time for sporting activities and, with the lower voting age of 18 years, for involvement in youth political work. In some areas the trade union movement has succeeded in achieving a 37½ hour week. The position is static at the moment. I am not quite clear whether this section would allow the employer, if he is subsequently going to employ people between the ages of 16 and 18 years, to say that this section states that the working week should be one of 40 hours.

If the law is not written correctly, the employer can invoke the law and say that he can now make employees work 40 hours a week. Some young persons may be in their jobs from about 14 years of age; and if a new situation develops where young people are employed at 16 years because of the higher school leaving age, this problem may arise. I should like to know if young people already employed to work a 37½ hour week can be protected? They might be in danger.

Like Senator Harte, I should like some clarification. Perhaps the difficulty here arises because of the way in which the section is drafted. It seems to me that there is a relationship between the hours to be worked in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) which goes in a descending order. In other words, you cannot work 50 hours per week for 50 weeks of the year. Therefore there is a danger that perhaps the Minister is being accused and the House, if it were to pass this legislation, could also be accused of legalising and authorising continuous working at the rate of 50 hours per week for 50 weeks of the year, assuming a minimum of two weeks' holidays.

Likewise, it is impossible to work 12½ consecutive periods of 190 hours for a period of four weeks. If one were to work continuously at the rate of 50 hours per week under (b), one would be working for 2,500 hours per year, which would exceed the maximum in (d) by 400 hours. If one were to work continuously at the rate of 190 hours in every period of four consecutive weeks, then one would be working 2,375 hours in a 50-week year which again would exceed the maximum as laid down in (b). My mathematics may be wrong, but it seems to me that the average number of hours in a year which is being permitted under (d) is 42 hours per week. So what this legislation is saying is that no young person may on average over the year work more than 42 hours a week in a 50-week year.

If somebody works a week of 50 hours then he has to work another week at the rate of 30 hours in order to work out the average over the year. In fact, the maximum number of hours allowed in (b) is not too far away from the necessary social objective which all of us have here of a 40-hour week because then over 50 weeks the maximum yearly hours worked would be 2,000. We are only 100 hours over that desirable maximum.

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the reasoning behind the relationship between (b), (c) and (d) because it seems to me that the relationship between these three periods is that one sets a base for the maximum amount of hours to be worked in any one year but there could be a situation where an unscrupulous employer could employ a young person for nine months of the year and in that nine months make him work the maximum number of hours. He could thereby increase the weekly average number of hours worked by one third. He would still be employing him for a number of hours below the annual average but he could grossly exceed the weekly average. If the employer were to condense the annual average number of hours into six months employment, he could be permitted to have somebody working for 84 hours a week.

It seems to me that the idea set down in (b), (c) and (d) was to prevent that type of situation arising. But there is another interpretation possible and that is that we are giving some kind of social acceptability of what would be extremely long hours of work. Anyone who would say that a young person could work for ten hours per day over 50 weeks of the year would be endorsing a very distressing social situation and one which none of us could condone or support.

Is the purpose of (b) and (c) in relation to (d) to permit a certain variability in the daily and weekly hours worked but imposing a limit on the variability so that on average a young person may not work for more than 42 hours a week? If young people, say, on a 37½ hour week as Senator Harte has indicated, go on overtime, say over a period of ten weeks, could we then have a situation where because of the maximum in (d) people would be forced to work perhaps 35 hours per week to comply with the legal maximum and then be at a loss in wages over five or six weeks at the end of the year. Towards the end of the year every employer will have to log up the hours by any young person in order to see that the young person does not exceed the 2,100-hour maximum. If people still object to the inclusion of (a), (b) and (c), the point can be met simply by excluding them altogether and simply by retaining (d). It looks as if (d) should be reduced to 2,000 hours which would meet the 40-hour week, but that would not prevent an employer using a situation to bunch somebody into a shorter period than 50 weeks.

It may be the House would decide to have (d) in in order to prevent a misrepresentation of (a), (b) and (c). On the other hand, I can see real danger unless the House not only ensures a maximum on an annual basis but also a maximum on a monthly and indeed on a weekly and on a daily basis. There is a great deal of social benefit to be gained by preventing young people from working more hours than a certain norm on a daily basis, on a weekly basis and on a monthly basis. In certain circumstances I once myself, to the ruination perhaps of my health, worked on the basis of 20 hours per day for six days a week over a period of some months. Young people would want to do that sort of thing in specific circumstances simply to make money. This is obviously wrong and has got to be prevented. As far as I understood, that was the intent in (a), (b) and (c), but if it is going to be misinterpreted perhaps the best thing would be to simply eliminate them altogether and leave in (a), perhaps amended downwards.

Senator Halligan has made an interesting point, but before I deal with it I should mention that his calculations in regard to (d) are not quite accurate. As I understand the Minister's calculation, what is involved is perhaps three weeks holidays. The Minister's calculation is 43½ hours on average taken over the whole year, not 42. It is quite substantially over 40 which to a 16-year old seems excessive. If it is spread over the whole year, 40 hours would seem to be the absolute maximum that should be authorised.

With regard to the point about an unscrupulous employer bunching the work, it could be done in this way. One is allowed 50 hours in a week or 190 in any four consecutive weeks, which is very high. That is three weeks of 50 hours and one of 40 hours. By running that consecutively in about 44 weeks one would have run out of time and the young person would have a remaining eight weeks. As against that, under the Minister's amendment of 42 hours, there would have to be 25 per cent extra in overtime for this period beyond normal working hours. The income of the young person concerned would probably be higher at the end of the year. He would have an enforced holiday at the end of the year but his income would be higher than by working in a more normal way.

He could spend the enforced holiday in a sanatorium.

There is a point and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on it. It is very hard to say how to stop it but it is fair to say that the young person would end up with more money than he otherwise would.

We must remember we are talking about the protection of young people here. To add further to the points made by Senator Halligan and Senator Yeats, I have been looking at it from the point of view of the casual employee. A youngster over 16 years of age taking on casual employment could be told by his employer that he wanted regular work done irrespective of who is doing it. He can work that youngster at 50 hours a week for three weeks and then let him go and take on another youngster and continue on the same routine. By doing that he is certainly exceeding the 2,100 hours in any year by employing a continuing number of young people and he is not breaking the maximum monthly figure of 190 hours because he is not keeping the youngster beyond three or four weeks. If he works them 50 hours for three weeks and then another 40 hours and then lets them go and take on another youngster, there is a deficit there, and we are talking about the protection of young people.

The point I want to make is that we all naturally support all efforts to prevent abuse and overloading of young people. I should like to call the Minister's attention to the overload that is very prevalent among many young people in the schools and in the universities where you have students in secondary schools who work four, five or six nights a week after a day's work in school and are putting in more hours than is mentioned in this section. I do not know if anything can be done about this but at least we should realise that there is a very significant overwork problem associated with education.

I am especially struck by the point made by Senator Markey there about the casual worker. Certainly it would not be our intention at all that that could happen. That would not be our intention but I am afraid it could happen as I see it at present. It is difficult to provide for all contingencies. We must remember the employee is the person concerned who went over the four-week period. From that point on there would be a check in the control. I certainly will go back on this in the Report Stage to see if we can prevent, even over the four week period, this kind of thing happening on a continuous basis.

Senator Halligan put some points. Over the year, taking in the holidays, our average would be a 43-hour week. That would be the maximum and I do not know if we are doing ourselves a service in attempting to mention the figure 50. That is what it would be over a year where a person was in continuous employment—43 hours is the maximum permitted on average. Above that the employer breaks the law. I will look very carefully again at this section to see whether there is any escape route that an unscrupulous employer could take whereby a young person would be penalised over long hours. Senator Harte has also raised the question of getting a 37-hour week. Of course there is no problem at all about that. There is nothing in this legislation that would in any way affect that being effected.

The point I made is that the fellow has been in the job since he was 14 years of age. Now the new people coming on because of the higher school leaving age will be employed at 16 and over.

Why distinguish between under and over 16 years?

It may be relevant to the section.

If the Senators will bear with me, we have worked it out on average. What we have been trying to do is to work it out over the year to see that it came up with a fair average, to get some reasonable check-off where there would be an absolute breaking of the law if somebody went above it. We have worked it out, as Senator Halligan has said, in a sort of gradation of circles, that over a shorter period a longer maximum is permitted while over the longer period the figure comes down. Perhaps we have adopted a complicated procedure in this but for Report Stage I will look at this again.

In a section desiring to cover all cases, legislation covering all sorts of work situations, it is possible that by a particular combination—for example, the casual person comes to mind—a young person even with this legislation possibly in a few exceptional cases could be penalised with overlong hours. To avoid that I will certainly look at it again because I am aware of the point made, I think by Senator Halligan, that the young people themselves may by spirit be inclined to work overlong hours. He referred to his own experience and it has been my experience. I recall at 17 working an 80-hour week and it did not do me any good either.

Trade union conditions, of course, obviously vary, but I can certainly assure Senators that I will look at this once more and I will discuss it with the interests involved to see if we can come up with something even better on this. As I explained in the other House, as well as in this House, I am only too happy to incorporate workman-like suggestions in legislation. I will certainly follow that out in this section because it is not my intention to produce legislation which does not do the utmost possible for the young people it seeks to help. I will have a look at that again for Report Stage.

I would never accuse the Minister of having bad intentions in connection with this Bill because I know his interest in working people and I take the point he has made that he is going to give this matter further consideration. I would ask him also to bear in mind that what we are seeking to do is to protect young people in employment not from good employers —I have already said there are very good employers—but from the unscrupulous employers. The Minister would be well advised to take into consideration lumpers in the building trade who can slash in all the hours they want with a young person or anyone else they employ.

I think we are inclined to get away from one original task, to protect young people. There is no doubt that we are talking about protecting young people from bad employers and these employers will be only too anxious to try and circumvent any regulations that may exist. They have been using the least well represented class of workers in this Irish community, namely the young people. They have nobody to represent them and to stand up for their side and we must not forget this. We must try and write everything into this Bill. We have got to write into it a specific regulation regarding casual and permanent work.

Perhaps the distinctions between sections 7 and 8 might be eliminated. The relationship between (a), (b), (c) and (d) in subsection (1) should be descending all the time. In other words, ten hours in any one day should not be 50 hours in the week; it should be less. It should not be possible to work five days at the maximum under (a). It should not be possible under (c) to work the maximum as permitted in (d); and likewise it should not be possible under (d) to work the maximum in (c) on a continual basis. The section has been complicated by the fact that (b), (c) and (d) have a specific relationship with each other but the relationship does not exist between (a) and (b). That is what is causing the confusion. Perhaps it might be looked at anyway. Perhaps there might be no distinction between those under and those over the age of 16 years, taking into account the point that Senator Harte has been making in regard to the new school leaving age.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 can be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 21:

In subsection (1), page 6, to delete "other" in paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute "lower".

In regard to amendments Nos. 21 and 26, they are both dealing with the same points. Section 7 refers to the maximum hours of work for young persons over the age of 16 years. None of us would consider for a moment that it should get any higher. Paragraph (a) states that ten hours in any day may be specified and paragraphs (b) and (c) refer to 50 hours in any week and 190 hours in any period of four consecutive weeks. I do not believe any trade union would make an agreement which would raise the hours beyond ten in the day but I think it would be a good thing just to establish the point and to say that it may be varied. My amendment says ten hours in any one day or a lower number of hours as may be specified in an agreement.

In section 9 subsection (2), we find that a similar point. The hours of work specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection—ten hours a day and 50 hours a week may be varied by an agreement or by regulation made by the Minister. I do not think that the Minister would for a moment think of increasing them but nevertheless I think it would be wise to say they be varied downwards by an agreement or by regulations made by the Minister. We should establish the point in this legislation that these are definitely maxima and that under no circumstances could they be made any higher.

I should like to support Senator Yeats. I harp back to the point that young people of 16 years and in that age bracket do not have anyone acting on their behalf. They do not have a trade union to make any agreement on their behalf. The agreement may have to be made between themselves and their employer. I think the State has got to act on their behalf if that is the purpose of this Bill in the first instance.

The most sensible thing to say is that we may take this in conjunction with the rest of our discussion on the hours. Most collective agreements do not have this provision about the upper limit but I certainly will have a look at it for Report Stage. I think I should look at it in conjunction, because it is possible to recast the section to make more clear our intent to stop some of the possible, perhaps rare abuses, we may have to change the order about.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 28, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Section 7 refers to persons over 16 years and section 8 refers to persons under 16 years. It seems to me that, as we are going through the Bill, we are going up the age bracket. There is a sort of inversion. What is the reason for it?

There is no great issue of principle here. I will see if we can change the order.

With regard to amendment No. 23, this is in accordance with what the Minister has said, that he is giving further consideration to this.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 29 has already been discussed.

Amendment No. 29 not moved.

I move amendment No. 30:

In subsection (1), line 53, to delete "of age".

This is merely a drafting amendment. I do not propose to speak on it unless the Minister feels that I should. The word "age" appears twice, once before and once after "sixteen".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 31 has been already discussed.

Amendment No. 31 not moved

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 32:

In subsection (1), paragraph (a), page 6, to delete "nine" in line 55 and substitute "eight".

We have had a lot of discussion on these general topics. Here again, nine hours in any day for a person under 16, and these are 15-year-olds, seems a great deal. In view of the fact that we are getting towards a normal 40-hour week, to ask a 15-year-old to work 40 hours, which is supposed to be the maximum for an adult, seems altogether excessive. I suggest, as Senator Mullen and Senator Kennedy have done, that eight hours ought to be more than enough in any one day. I suggest that 35 hours in a week for a 15-year-old is a very adequate working week.

I will have to look at it, with the other sections.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I should like to ask the Minister why in this case he does not have any paragraph (c). There is 12 months between the ages 15 and 16 years and it is rather puzzling to find that there is no mention of how long these young people can work in any four weeks. In section 7 a person can work 50 hours a week but, as Senator Halligan rightly points out, when it comes to four successive weeks they are cut down a bit, so it is 190 instead of 200 hours. In this case a person can work 40 hours in a week and then in any four weeks there is nothing stopping him doing 160 hours. I would have thought the Minister could have put in something like 150 hours or some figure like this. I did not put down an amendment because I thought there might be some reason for it but I would like the Minister to consider the question.

I thought it was a tighter formula than in the other cases and that is why we do not have that provision there. I will certainly have a look at it to see whether we can improve it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 35:
In page 7, to delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute the following:
"9. (1) In this Act ‘normal working hours' in relation to an employee means—
(a) if the employee is a young person over the age of sixteen years—
(i) eight hours in any day, and
(ii) forty hours in any week;
(b) if the employee is a young person under the age of sixteen years—
(i) eight hours in any day, and
(ii) thirty-seven and one-half hours in any week."

This is essentially a drafting amendment. The draftsman has advised us that in the light of the reference to normal working hours in the definition in section 1 there should not be reference in section 9 (1) to sections 5 and 10. Subsection (2), dealing with offences, is being transposed to the new section which follows in relation to overtime pay where it relates to the type of situation for which it was originally intended.

We are really in the same situation except this is on a different section. This is not a matter of maximum hours of work. This is a question of normal working hours.

In amendment No. 42, which I may not discuss yet, we cannot but recognise its existence. The Minister is providing that 25 per cent overtime pay should be paid to everyone who works more than these normal working hours. Essentially therefore we are not discussing here the actual hours that these young people will be working but the number of hours they have to work before they can begin to get overtime pay. I am not going into it in detail. We have had a good deal of discussion on this question of hours but I would suggest that for a 16-year-old, eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week seems a long time before the employer has to start paying overtime. Indeed, as maximum hours of work, they seem long enough without having overtime on top of this. In the case of a person between 15 and 16 years, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) they can work eight hours in a day before they start being paid overtime. I put down these amendments, which of course I am not going to press. These hours are excessive and I suggest they should be reduced, as Senator Mullen and Senator Kennedy also suggest in a couple of amendments. Perhaps the Minister would consider these along with the various other items he is considering between now and Report Stage.

I have considered that the 40 hours here is a reasonable provision as a normal working week. That has been my approach in this area, but I will certainly have a look at it since I have decided to have a look at other hour sections for Report Stage.

I am glad that the Minister is having another look at this. I would ask him to bear in mind that we are thinking in terms of a normal working week for young people. My understanding of things is that the State recognises the normal working week as being 40 hours. Consideration ought also be given to the amendments that Senator Fintan Kennedy and I found necessary to submit. We are looking for a distinct difference, not much of a difference, between conditions for a boy and a man.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 41, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On subsection (2), I am a bit puzzled why it says a person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence. The only offence I can imagine under this section would be the non-payment of overtime and the only person who could be guilty of such an offence would presumably be an employer. I am wondering why the Minister says a "person" since in other cases he says "employer" where offences are to be committed by the employer. I should have thought that in this case it would be clearer.

That is deleted under amendment No. 35.

This is subsection (2) which is not amended.

It is deleted.

I am refering to section 9, subsection (2), which reads:

A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Subsection (2) has been deleted by the House accepting amendment No. 35.

The Minister in introducing amendment No. 35 merely referred to the problem of normal working hours, referred to it in section 1 and said it was a drafting amendment. It is more than a drafting amendment. It is an amendment of some substance because it appears to eliminate the offence under subsection (2) and I wonder why this is so.

We transferred it to section 10. That is why I referred to it as a drafting amendment. It does not disappear, it is just transferred.

I am happy to see that in this case he uses the word "employer" and not "person".

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 7, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10.—(1) In this section—"overtime" means any hours worked in excess of normal working hours; "overtime pay" means the rate of pay which an employee is entitled to in respect of normal working hours increased by not less than twenty five per cent.
(2) Whenever an employer requires an employee to work overtime, the employer shall pay the employee overtime pay for any time in respect of which the employee works overtime.
(3) An employer who contravenes subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

This amendment provides that overtime pay at the rate of time and one quarter will apply to young workers covered by the Bill in respect of hours worked between normal hours and maximum hours. This preserves the entitlement under earlier legislation of young workers in hotels, shops and in industry. Representations had been made to me that there might be a worsening of their situation. We decided to meet that objection by this amendment and I would ask Senators to support it.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 43:

Before subsection (1) to insert a new subsection as follows:

In this section "stated number of hours" in relation to an employee means—

(a) five hours if the employee is a young person

(b) four hours if the employee is a child.

The problem here is that in section 11 the Bill provides that an employee can be allowed to work a period of five hours at a stretch and only after five hours must the employer give him a half-an-hour off before he can start again. Five hours seems a long time and it seems a particularly long time for a 14-year old. My amendment, therefore, proposes that if the employee is a child, that is aged 14 to 15 years, he should be allowed to work for four hours before he has to have the half-hour off. This would not apply in the school term but in school holidays when he can work seven hours daily. If he is 14 years old he should be allowed to work for only four hours without a break; if he is 15 to 18 years that he can work the five hours as specified in the Bill.

I accept that.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I should like to refer to subsection (7) of section 11. This provides—I am not altogether clear as to its implications—that, where an employee is employed to do industrial work within the meaning of the various Acts on shift work, the five hours does not apply. In other words, on shift work an employee could work more than the five hours provided in this Bill. The four hours will not apply because a child cannot do industrial work.

I can see the need for this but I think that it is going a bit far in the case of a 15-year-old. I suggest that we might limit this to perhaps people over 16 years and that the Minister might consider amending subsection (7) to say that it will not apply to an employee over 16 years who is employed to do industrial work, because a 15-year-old on shift work doing six or seven hours at a stretch seems rather a lot.

He will get his break after three hours under the existing legislation.

It is better for him rather than worse. I am happy to hear it and I am sorry we cannot insert the three hours in other places.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

I am not sure what this means. Subsection (1) of section 12 says that where the employee has to work more than five days in a week and is also required to do more than three hours work on a Sunday, then he must have a full day's rest in every period of seven days. This means that if he has to work on Sunday he must have at least one day off in the week. He has to work a six-day week. Subsection (2) states that this section shall not apply to an employee who is employed to do industrial work. Shift work is not mentioned here. I am not sure what is meant by saying that it does not apply. Does it mean that he need not have a day off, or that he has two days off? Perhaps the Minister could explain the implications of subsection (2) which, on the face of it, seems rather sinister.

The more restrictive sections of the 1936 Act apply here and they prohibit industrial work on a Sunday by young persons except in certain cases such as newspaper printing and publishing. The young person who works on Sunday in any of these accepted occupations must be allowed 24 hours' rest before the next following Sunday. That comes under section 49 of the 1936 Act.

That appears to be the same as subsection (1) of section 12, which says that if he works on Sunday he will get the day off anyway.

It is more favourable.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 45:

To delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:—

"(1) An employer shall neither permit any young person to do any work at any time between the hour of 8.00 p.m. on any day and the hour of 8.00 a.m. on the following day."

In moving this amendment I want to make the point that I do so as a result of serious consideration that has been given to this section by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I feel it is important that I should say this. We want the section amended to read:

An employer shall neither permit any young person to do any work at any time between the hour of 8.00 p.m. on any day and the hour of 8.00 a.m. on the following day.

There are a host of reasons for this. In order to have a proper understanding of it, it is important that I should say that section 13 prohibits the employment of any young person between the hour of 10 p.m. on any day and the hour of 6 a.m. the following day. The observation of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on this is they have to have regard to other legislation in existence.

For example, section 47 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, prohibits the employment of any young person between the hours of 8 p.m. on any day and the hour of 8 a.m. on the following day unless such young person is a male young person. In the 1936 Act the expression "young person" means a worker whose age is less than 18 years and more than 14 years. Therefore under this Bill the position of young females between 15 and 18 years has worsened. The existing prohibition in the Conditions of Employment Act should be extended to all young persons, every single one of them, and to nonindustrial employment. This is what we are advocating. I should ask the Minister to have another look at it. While he is doing this, would he also examine what I have already spoken about: the importance of keeping one's eye on the spreadover duty. I know the Minister understands what I am talking about from his own experience.

I am quite certain the Minister would not wish to worsen the legal position of women workers under any circumstances, particularly not in International Women's Year.

I am moving amendment No. 46 to preserve the conditions of young industrial workers covered by the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. Section 13 will then apply to all other sectors of employment and will represent an improvement in the conditions of shop and hotel workers and those not previously covered by legislation. This means that the section will represent for the first time protection under that section for about one-third of the young persons covered by the Bill. Taken with the provisions on normal and maximum hours the provisions of section 13 represent a realistic and good advance.

The Minister might consider them realistic but I submit that it is important to give this more consideration, especially having regard to the point I made about spreadover duty. In other sections of the Bill provision is suggested for a young person being employed for ten hours a day. If we are to take steps to ensure that they do not work within a certain period of time we must have regard to the spreadover and there is no point in regulating the situation at one end and forgetting about it at the other end. If the Minister will not give further consideration to this amendment I would suggest that we will not put it to vote but we will have something to say about it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 8, before subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) This section shall not apply to an employee who is employed by an employer to do industrial work within the meaning of section 3 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 (as amended by section 2 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1944)."

My anxiety is to preserve the conditions of young industrial workers who are covered by the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. Section 13 specifies that young persons may not be employed between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. and they must also be allowed a 12-hour break from the time at which work ceased on any day. It has been represented to me that the position of young industrial workers under the 1936 Act, where work is prohibited between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m., should be preserved and that is why I am proposing this amendment here. I would ask for the support of Senators on this because I think it makes for an improvement in the situation.

We agree cheerfully to this amendment of the Minister. I am sorry that this amendment, and indeed a few others of this nature are drafted in this way. If one is trying to find out the situation either by looking at the amendment now or in later years looking at this Act when one looks at the section, as amended, all one will see is the reference to section 3 of the Conditions of Employment Act which has, as the Minister knows, an extensive list of different types of employment which are classified as industrial employment. There is no reference to the specific section which governs the working hours of those who are covered under that Act. It would be much preferable, if an amendment of this kind is becoming a section of the Bill, that there be a reference to the actual section of the Act concerned which provides for the hours of the young person concerned. Otherwise, in reading this Bill you will find out on the first subsection of section 13 the hours allowed under this Bill but you will not see anything in the new subsection (2) about where the hours are to be found for the people concerned in the industrial work under conditions of employment as modified by the Conditions of Employment Act and so on. There is no reference of any kind as to where this legislation can be got and it seems unnecessarily complicated for anyone who is trying to look into this.

We will be providing explanatory material. This point has been made before. I think Senator Mullen spoke on this—and Senator Harte—on the last occasion. We will be providing clear explanatory material so that the people concerned will be able to understand its provisions.

I appreciate that, but the trouble is that lawyers who read these Bills are not really interested in pamphlets: they like to see in the legislation what it is all about. If the Minister would again tell me the section of the Act concerned I will see if I can exercise my ingenuity on this before Report Stage.

Section 47 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

This section is opposed for the same reason as we sought the deletion of subsections (2) and (3) of section 4. As the Minister has given us assurances of dealing with section 4 on the Report Stage, we take it the assurance applies also to section 14 and, on that basis, we withdraw our opposition.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 47.

Before subsection (3) to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(3) A parent or guardian of an employee who facilitates an employer in acting in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section."

We have submitted this amendment because we believe that the House should have regard to the fact that already there is provision in regard to employers having a good defence when a situation reaches a certain stage. I think it is imperative that we do not give anybody an opportunity of breaking the intention of the Bill, or this particular section of the Bill. It is important that no parent or parents should be given an opportunity of conspiring to defeat the Bill, bearing in mind that the objective is to act in the interest of the young person concerned. I am repeating now when I say that the employer will be considered to have a good defence and therefore I hold that, if there is a new provision made making a parent or guardian liable, it would be a greater protection to ensure that there is not multiple employment in excess of the hours fixed by the Bill. It would be wrong if we had any sort of outlet given to young persons to do two jobs. I am very conscious that adults, because of the way things are going, find it necessary to have two jobs, but in their own interests we should not allow children to do this.

I accept the sense of what the Senator is attempting to achieve here. Again, I think there was an amendment to accept it in principle earlier today from the Senator. We accept it, as I say and unless there are some drafting changes—I think it is roughly the same as what the Senator requests— we would suggest that a new subsection be inserted to read: "In page 8 before subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection to read: the parent or guardian of an employee who aids or abets an employer in the contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence." The Senators can have their choice of whether they are accepting that now or would prefer to have a look at it on Report Stage.

I would be worried about this. I am entirely in favour of the concept that parents should be prosecuted if they are allowing their children to accept obviously unsuitable and unlawful employment. We should remember that the concept in subsection (1) of section 15 is quite complex. First, there is no offence at all in allowing your child to work for two people on the same day. The only offence arises if he works beyond permitted hours. I am not at all sure that parents would know what these were. Take the Murphy family, for example. You have little John, aged 14. He is allowed to work for seven hours in the day if it is during school holidays. Joe, who is aged 15, is entitled to work nine hours in one day; and Bill is, shall we say, aged 16, and can work ten hours in a particular day. To expect parents to be able to remember these varying times and to add up the total time worked in respect of each child with two employers is a tricky operation and I am not sure that many of us, a couple of days from now, will be able to remember precisely the times involved for the different ages. While in other parts of this Bill I would be in favour of inserting subsections to fix the parents with responsibility, in this case it is peculiarly the employer who ought to know this and I am very worried about the idea of going to the parents.

I think the view has been expressed that without general co-operation from members of the community any part of this legislation would be virtually useless, because it would require that kind of support and assent to be really successful in all its provisions. We should make some attempt to involve the parents in this. That is my thinking on it and that is why I more or less agreed to that amendment of Senator Mullen, that we should try to arrange for the parents to be so involved. It does not, obviously, cater for parents who, as the Senator suggests, forget some details; it talks about aids or abets. But if the Senator has any different wording to suggest or what he considers a better formulation, I would be prepared to look at it on Report Stage, as I am sure Senator Mullen himself would also be prepared to do. What we are anxious to do is to try to nail the parent or guardian who is aiding or abetting.

I doubt if you will catch anyone; they will just say they did not know.

I can understand Senator Yeats's diligence. I appreciate many of the points he made and I admire him for the patience he has taken in examining this Bill. However, may I direct his attention to the fact that we are seeking to do something in connection with subsection (3). Subsection (3) reads:

Where an employer is prosecuted for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for him to prove that he did not know or could not, by reason of the inquiry, have known that the employee has done work for any other employer on the day in respect of which the prosecution is brought.

If we are going to do this, surely it follows that we must further protect a child with a view to ensuring that the parents do not get in on the act. That is the only purpose of the amendment and I am glad the Minister recognises that.

I think Senator Yeats is prepared to accept that. I would be prepared to look at it.

I am all for this. If the parents were brought to court they would just say: "We knew that he was working for two employers but we had no idea that the hours exceeded the permitted level." I am not sure that it would be very effective. If there could be some way of putting an obligation on the parents to inform each employer that there was another employer, then you could get after the employer to check on it.

Would the Senator bear in mind that these children have no real protection? The trade union movement cannot protect people who are not organised. I imagine that this Bill is directed at situations where there are unorganised children at work and, that being so, it is imperative that parents look after them. But in some cases, unfortunately, through force of circumstances or otherwise the parent does not take the necessary interest and it would be absolutely wrong to give an opportunity for a child to work twice, or for two employers in the one day.

Does the section refer to children? My reading of it is "... shall not permit an employee". In this section a child is not mentioned.

It covers children.

Does it cover employees other than children?

It covers both.

This is what I want to be clear about.

It covers both.

Yes, but the section reads "... shall not permit an employee...." I am referring to adults. Does this section refer to adults?

No. The Bill does——

(Interruptions.)

I am all for this proposed subsection about the offence committed by parents. But I think it could be put in more effectively in sections 13 and 14. Parents should know at what time of night children of 14 years of age should be home. I suggest that the Minister look at a number of sections in this Bill, particularly in regard to cases where it was fairly simple for parents to keep an eye on their children—as they should keep an eye on them— to see if he could bring them to accept their responsibilities. This refers not only to section 15 but to other sections also. Perhaps he could insert some sort of all-embracing section which would do the job.

I suggested a reformulation of that. I shall bring it in on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 8, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) Whenever an employer is prosecuted for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for him to prove either that he did not know that the employee had done work for any other employer on the day in respect of which the prosecution is brought or that he did not know, or could not by reasonable enquiry have known, that the aggregate of the periods for which the employee did work on that day exceeded the period for which he could lawfully be employed to do work for one employer on that day."

This is a drafting amendment and it arises from a recommendation made by our legal luminaries to the effect that it makes it more explicit in relation to sections dealing with hours of work and the dealing with hours of work and the nature of a defence which an employer who was genuinely unaware of the fact of double employment, can present. That is what it is designed to bring about.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On subsection (2):

Wherever an employer employs an employee in contravention of this section the employer shall be guilty of an offence under this section. The employee shall also be committing an offence under this section.

I am a little worried about young persons of 14 years of age being prosecuted. To suggest that a 14-year-old person who has worked for too long a number of hours, or who has worked for too many employers and so on could be prosecuted, is going a bit far. Perhaps the Minister could have a look at this. If he deleted the word "employee" and inserted "the parents" all would be solved.

Again, what we have been trying to ensure is that young people themselves, if they wilfully break the law, shall have the law equally invoked against them. But I shall have a look at it again.

I think a distinction should be drawn in that section between those of 15 years of age, those of school leaving age, and children over that age.

I shall have a look at it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 9, lines 3, 19 and 24, after "Act", to insert "other than section 4".

This is a very general kind of section which, putting it rather broadly, enables the Minister to do nearly anything. It states:

He may, in any case where he is satisfied that the health, welfare and safety of employees are not endangered by regulations, modify any provisions in this Act in respect of any undertaking....

I want to insert "other than section 4" because section 4, which relates to children of 14 or 15 years, should be the maximum and there should not be any suggestion that the requirements of section 4 could in any way be relieved. I am prepared to concede with regard to the rest of the Bill that circumstances could easily arise of a complex nature which would require the Minister, by regulations and so on, to make changes. The Minister has power in several subsections of section 4 by order, affirmative and otherwise, to vary hours and conditions. I think that in section 16 it would be wise to eliminate section 4 and just allow the Minister this general power to change the remainder of the Bill.

The purpose of the powers of exemption in section 16 is to ensure that there should be some flexibility in the application of the general legislation and the section, as drafted, already contains a number of constraints on my powers of exemption. There is the necessity to publish notice of my intention to make regulations under subsection (3) and there is a further obligation of consultation with representatives of employers and employees. Together these ensure that the community in general can know what is proposed by way of exemption under the Act at any time.

The suggested amendment would remove this element of flexibility in regard to the minimum age for employment covered by section 4, which might have the unfortunate consequence that it could frustrate particularly certain possibilities which I see in combined schemes of employment, experience and educational training which can be developed under subsection (5). Such schemes are a very interesting and important section of this Bill. They may not excite a great deal of interest but I think they are very important sections and in time it will be seen that they form some of the more interesting parts of this legislation—possibly the most interesting part.

There will inevitably be a period of experimentation in regard to the curricula and the combination of employment and experience. Senator Horgan raised this matter and referred to two schemes which are at present in operation. But such projects of combined work and educational training are in their infancy. Many problems remain to be resolved because we are not quite clear what the blend should be yet nor do we see any national pattern emerging. I should like to leave the way open for the development of suitable schemes for the 13 to 15 year age group, to whom I referred this afternoon, who may be less academically inclined. In the circumstances outlined I would not at this time see my way to accepting that amendment. The Senator will understand that this is not for any frivolous purpose.

I should like some information from the Minister. Subsection (4) states:

"The Minister may, by licence, exempt any class of employers from complying with any provision of this Act or of regulations under this Act, in any case where, in the opinion of the Minister, compliance with such provision would be impracticable.

"The Minister may, by licence, exempt ..."—this is too broad. It is like giving a licence to adult employees to work shifts. In that case, where workers are organised would the trade unions be notified to see if they had any objections to arrangements?

There would be consultation with unions. We covered that in another subsection.

The practice under the Conditions of Employment Act is that, where a change is to be made in working hours or conditions, the trade union must be notified.

In subsection (5) we speak about "any class of employers". I may suggest an amendment here on Report Stage which would possibly relate it to individual employers, because we must leave the way open for experimentation to take place in this area. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to see a class of employer taking part in such schemes for some considerable time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 50:
In page 9, line 23, after "Education", to insert the following:
"and with representatives of employers and representatives of employees."

This amendment provides that, after consultation with the Minister for Education, I may grant exemption licences where employers participate in schemes which combine limited employment experience with education or training. This provision arose as a result of suggestions made by both educational interests and youth leaders. I have been asked by the employee interests to consult with trade unions and employers. That is a good suggestion, and I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 51:

To add a new subsection as follows:

"(8) Every licence issued under this section shall be published in ‘Iris Oifigiúil' as soon as may be after it is made."

These licences granted under subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) cover a lot of ground. For example, under subsection (4) the Minister may, by licence, exempt any class of employers from complying with any provision of this Bill or with regulations under this Bill in any case where the Minister considers it to be impracticable. Under subsection (5) the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Education, by licence, exempt any class of employers from complying with any provision of this Bill or of regulations under this Bill where the employer is participating in an approved scheme which combines limited employment experience with education and training. The other subsections are consequent on these.

These are extensive powers. Unlike orders, which must be deposited before the Oireachtas, a licence is issued and disappears into the morgue. I do not know where licences go, but they are not available freely to the general public, although obviously they are received by the people immediately concerned. That would be desirable from the Minister's point of view because people would see that he was not in any way abusing the powers given to him under this section. Where licences are given to exempt all classes of employers from the provisions of this Bill, it would be desirable that they should be published in Iris Oifigiúil. This would show the public how the issue of licences was administered. As I said, these are fairly extensive powers and the Minister would benefit from being in a position to publish them.

The conditions imposed by this amendment would be somewhat wasteful because licences granted under the section would give exemptions to one or a small number of employers subject to conditions which would be imposed by me. There is an obligation on me before giving such licences to consult with representatives of the employees concerned. Naturally I have to comply with this part of the section. I will do this and will take full account of their observations. Therefore it seems unnecessary and contrary to the provision in other labour legislation to have such licences publicised on a nationwide basis after they have been granted.

They could be published for a particular industry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Do I take it from the Minister's remarks that any employer will be in a position to apply for exemption to the Minister under this section?

He can apply, but whether he gets it is another matter.

I welcome this section. It is useful that the Minister should have this power. Most people speaking here today appear to be violently opposed to the employment of school children. When I was at school the tendency during the three months holidays was to play tennis and lie about. Senator Mullen stated that school children are given holidays to enjoy. In recent years the tendency has been for young people to seek employment on a fixed or part-time basis for part of their holiday, at the same time ensuring that they would have a certain amount of holidays during the period.

I am interested in the catering industry and can speak personally of my establishment, which is not very big. An average of 50 or 60 school children apply to me each year for employment. There are a number of reasons why parents want to see young people working. First, it helps to discipline the children, secondly, it keeps them off the streets—these are the main reasons given for seeking employment—and, thirdly, they need the money they may earn. I accept that no industry has been more responsible for exploitation than the catering industry. I also accept that the trade union movement has played a major role in trying to eliminate this exploitation. It is also true that there are many good employers in the catering industry who have not been guilty of exploitation. There is a danger that they too may suffer as a result of this legislation.

In my 13 or 14 years in business I can think of many young people who became teachers and so on who in their earlier days earned sufficient money to clothe themselves and to buy the necessary books to go through school and college. The fact that they were in a position to get work was very useful. The catering industry is seasonal. It would be very difficult to get sufficient workers from June to September to carry out the work without relying on students.

I accept that children under 14 years of age should not be employed. I accept also the provisions laid down in section 5, but I feel that some latitude should be given. If people are in a position to apply to the Minister for exemption, his Department's officials will then have an opportunity of studying the conditions under which they are working as sympathetically as possible. That is important for those engaged in the catering industry and for thousands of young people who will be looking for employment in the catering industry this summer. It is obvious that, as a result of this Bill, certain people who had expressed a desire to work in my own establishment this summer cannot now be given employment. Some of them are too young, but I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to that industry when exemptions are applied for.

I did not intend speaking but I find it necessary to say something as a result of what Senator McGlinchey said. I have sympathy with part of what he said but if we were talking in terms of the ratio of juveniles as compared with senior people I could understand his point of view. We know from experience that there are many industries such as the catering industry, in which employment is described as "seasonal". This is not always true. All young people are employed in some areas. These people do not come under the trade unions and must be protected. We must also bear in mind the importance of maintaining good standards in the catering industry, because catering is the backbone of tourism.

We must also have regard to an important body which looks after the interests of people making a living out of the catering industry—CERT, the council for the education, recruitment and training of staff. They would not go along with the idea of training people for seasonal employment. We must bear in mind that we are trying to protect young people in employment and ensure they are not exploited. There are many good employers, even in the catering industry. But there are many who are exploiters. If we are to concern ourselves about children of necessity having to go to work, surely the obvious thing to do is to ensure that their parents are given better pay and working conditions, and so ensure that the children are left at school.

I would not be agreeable to giving wholesale exemptions. That would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. I will look at any applications from an employer on its merits. But it would not be possible to give specific answers to future hypothetical cases. The feeling that there is a scarcity of workers in the catering industry cannot be used as an excuse for excessive hours for young workers in that industry. The unorganised section of the catering industry is one of the areas it is hoped this legislation can assist materially. However, there certainly will be that possibility open to an employer to make an application. Then of course, consultation with the employees concerned would follow. It is only fair to say that whole exemptions are not in contemplation under this section.

CERT are involved in the hotel industry mainly but there are other branches of the catering industry.

The hotel and restaurant section.

We have never come across them and certainly they have never helped.

They have been extended recently.

I am not suggesting that there should be excessive hours. Nobody working for me works more than seven hours, no matter what their ages. But I feel that there would be exceptions. I know plenty of girls, in spite of what Senator Mullen might say, who want to work. Their main reason is that they are bored unless they are working during the summer. They are not prepared to spend three months doing nothing. This legislation could hit hard at many young people who want to work in this industry because they enjoy working.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 52:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—

"(3) If in any proceedings involving a prosecution for a contravention of any provision of this Act it becomes evident to the Court that a sum of money is due by an employer to a person or persons it shall be competent for the Court to order the payment of such sum to such person or persons".

This is not a contentious amendment. One of the main reasons we have submitted this amendment is because we consider there should be no vagueness about the intention in this legislation. Senator Yeats referred to the importance of ensuring that people knew what an Act meant. As we say in working class circles: "It is hard to understand civil service language when it comes to an Act." Very often one is told that the Act did not mean this or that. We are advocating in this section that the Bill be given teeth and that the court be competent to make an award.

There is one aspect of that amendment with which I hope Senators Mullen and Kennedy would agree. Take the case of a person who enters employment and his employer does not stamp his cards. Sometimes this is not discovered until four or five years later, when the young person goes to draw his National Health benefit or goes to the labour exchange and gets no money. That is a loss of money to that boy. I do not propose at this time to confuse the issue. I will leave it as Senator Mullen and Senator Kennedy put it.

When the Minister comes back on Report Stage, he might bear that in mind, because not only is the person cheating the young employee, but he is also cheating the State. There is no effective legislation at this time, ever introduced by any Government to make an employer pay the stamp. A certain amount of pressure can be put on him. One can write to the Minister for Labour to put pressure on the employer to stamp the card.

For example, we came across this problem on several occasions—I hope Chairman Mao does not get to hear about it—when the Chinese opened a few shops but refused point blank to stamp their employees' cards. One employee wrote to the Department of Labour. They did their best to put pressure on the employers, but before they knew what hit them the man had gone out of business or moved somewhere else. To my personal knowledge, this happened to four employees. Such a situation is not covered in any Bill. If people are cheated out of their money, it would be a good start if they could recover it through the courts.

I urge the Minister to accept this very good amendment. The great problem is that in many cases the employee would be suing the employer for quite a small sum. Subsection (2) states that proceedings can be instituted and maintained on behalf of the employee by his trade union or by his parent or by his guardian. If it is a trade union he is all right, although going to law to recover what may be a very small sum is still a cumbersome, expensive and long-winded process. In many instances there is no trade union involved, particularly where young children are concerned. If there is no trade union involved, it is highly unlikely that the parents would either have the ability or the wish to go to court on a matter of this kind. In many cases there could be a prosecution by the State, and the parents then have not all the worry and upset of having to go to court. If it becomes clear that the money is due, as the amendment suggests, then all the court need do is to say to the employer, "Hand it over". That would be a very useful, short-circuited process.

I accept the point made in this amendment by Senator Mullen. Again, I am advised by our legal mandarins, following the imagery of Senator Harte's Chinese restaurant, that we could amend it by adding to section 10 a new section 4 as follows:

Whenever a court convicts an employer of an offence under the section, the court may, if it is satisfied that the employer is liable to pay to any of his employees a sum of money in respect of overtime pay, order the employer to pay that sum to any such employee.

Can I take it that amendment No. 52 is withdrawn, because it is not possible at this stage to make an amendment to section 10?

I appreciate that——

I accept the point. There must be some redrafting of this.

There is more than overtime involved here. There could be money due under section 19, which says that if working hours are reduced wages may not be reduced. In the case where wages were reduced, and there would obviously be some due, it would be fitting not to include that in the provision the Minister is making.

There is another point I should like the Minister to take into consideration. What Senator Yeats said earlier reminds me of it, that is, the financial inability of a parent or guardian to be able to go to court and engage the services of a solicitor and so on. If the Minister can devise any way in which that can be overcome it would be very proper.

We will get a few shillings from the Minister to help us with the legal funds of the unions to process claims like this.

The legal funds of the unions are all right, but I am thinking in terms of the unorganised people. The trade union movement provide a service of this kind for a member. What about the unfortunate child not covered by any trade union membership?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

I appeal to the Minister to draft this document himself and not let anyone else do it. It needs to be in plain, simple English. I have the highest respect for civil servants and their work but if we start talking about young persons and all the other verbiage there is in this Bill, nobody will read or understand it.

It will be described in an abstract that must be displayed.

I have explained to the Senator that accompanying this legislation we will have notes that will explain clearly in more simple English some of the provisions of the legislation. It will be the abstract of the Act. Civil servants apart I do not know if any kind of drafting arrangement will get us away from the necessary obfuscations.

The Minister has me worried on this.

Every employer shall display at the principal entrances to the premises where any of his employees works, and in such other places as an inspector may require,

in such a position that it may be easily read by employees so employed the prescribed abstract of this Act.

It is there to be read by the employees, not by the Minister's inspectors or by the employer. In other words, it is children of 14 and young people of 15, 16 or 17 who have to read it. The abstract will be an utter waste of time if it is written in a legal fashion. It should be aimed at the 14- or 15-year-olds. Otherwise, the Minister can forget about it.

I am in agreement with the Senator. We will see what can be done in that direction.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

There are two points on this. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1), like the rest of this rather long section, deals with the situation where a young person is now employed for a shorter time than he was formerly and yet his total wages are not to go down. I would be interested to know what the position is if he was formerly paid by the hour. I am not sure if there is any answer to that. I am also puzzled why there is no subsection here dealing with offences by employers who do not maintain the level of wages. As I understand this section, if the hours of work are reduced the employer may not reduce the wages but if he does—if he pays the employee less than formerly—there does not appear to be any offence committed. Subsection (3) of the Minister's amendment to section 10, which provides for the payment of overtime, reads:

An employer who contravenes subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

I would have thought an equivalent subsection would have been required here.

It may be that we have to put in that amendment. We did not see this as exactly something having known mens re or intent, as we saw in the other cases. I will see whether it would make for consistency to have such a section here.

There would need to be some incentive for an employer to continue to pay the same wages for shorter hours.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.

I move amendment No. 53:

To delete subsection (2).

The trouble with subsection (2) in this section is that it could only be described as an act of charity by the Minister or other Ministers—you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. There is a tendency in legislation for Ministers to be exempted from all the requirements of the legislation.

Subsection (1) states:

It shall be a good defence to any proceedings taken against any person for a breach of any of the provisions of this Act if such person shows to the satisfaction of the court before which such proceedings are brought that any act occasioning such breach was rendered necessary or reasonably proper by the actual occurence or the threat or reasonable anticipation of fire, flood, storm, violence, a breakdown of plant or machinery or any other emergency.

Obviously if a man's premises are about to be flooded, it is a case of all hands on deck and they work all night. If a young person, who should not be working at midnight, is working in such a case, it is reasonable and it should be a bar to prosecution.

Subsection (2) reads:

A certificate signed by any Minister that an act done by or in relation to any person employed by that Minister was rendered necessary by an emergency shall be evidence that such act was so rendered necessary.

This seems outrageous. I cannot see why a minor employee of some Minister down the country who is employing people too late at night should be allowed to come into court and say "I certify that there was an emergency". Nobody can investigate this. I cannot see the necessity for it. I suggest that the Bill would be better if subsection (2) was eliminated altogether. The Minister's officials should take their chances, like everyone else, and let the courts decide.

I sympathise with Senator Yeat's viewpoint. However, there is this to be said for the subsection: it does not attempt to make the Minister's certificate absolute as evidence. It is simply evidence which the court presumably could accept or reject. It is really a distinction without a difference. I should imagine that, if this were operated and a certificate were given by the Minister, it would be automatically accepted by the court not merely as evidence which the court could have regard to but as an absolute defence. I should like to hear why this subsection was introduced. It seems to contain certain dangers which, I am sure, would not arise in the case of the present Minister—and I am not making suggestions against any other Minister. It could put a Minister in an awkward position. He might have to face political pressures to give a certificate in the event of proceedings having been taken.

The Minister will be aware, as I am sure Senators are, that it took a considerable time for legislation to be introduced which took away discretion from the Minister for Justice—for example, in the case of drunken driving. The Minister has no discretion and it is purely a matter for the court. Here we seem to be going in the reverse direction and we seem to be putting the Minister into a position where he will have discretion to give or not give a certificate, which in fact——

Any Minister?

Quite right— which would provide effectively an absolute answer to a prosecution. I should like to hear the Minister's reasons for this. I rather doubt the wisdom of it.

The subsection is rather similar to provisions contained in similar legislation. The equivalent of subsection (2) is section 20 of the 1936 Act. Therefore it is a habitual kind of provision for legislation of this kind. The purpose of it is that I can simply place before the courts in a convenient form what I hope would be an authoritative statement on the circumstances in which an alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act occurred, due to emergencies of the nature described in the section. The lodgment of such certificates by me does not in any way restrict the court. It can call for any further evidence or explanation which it requires in the circumstances. On the basis of that explanation, if the Senator is happy with it I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

I am afraid, despite the hour of night, I am not satisfied with this. We talk of fire, flood, storm, violence, a breakdown of plant and machinery and so on and it says at the end the sinister words "or any other emergency". In other words, a postmaster, shall we say, in some small town—it is not even, by the way, the occurrence; the threat, or reasonable anticipation will do—thinks that there is going to be some kind of emergency and so he employs all kinds of people at times which would otherwise be forbidden.

I do not mind having a look at this on Report Stage.

Bear in mind that if the postmaster is prosecuted it means that some other Minister is prosecuting him. Officialdom has decided that he has been naughty and that being so——

Senator O'Higgins pointed to a very salutary kind of example and I will certainly look at it again on Report Stage.

Is there any provision in the Bill which makes it illegal to discuss it after 10.30 at night?

Let me get amendment No. 53 dealt with.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator McGlinchey has anticipated the Chair, who at this time was going to point out to the House that at 10 o'clock we agreed to continue the debate in the hope or understanding that the discussion would be concluded relatively rapidly. Since then four sections have been passed.

I would say ten minutes should do it.

Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 11, line 21, after "A person" to insert "or body corporate".

In this amendment I seek to add in the phrase "or body corporate", the reason for this being that if you refer back to section 21 (1), where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate or by a person and so on, it states:

Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate or by a person purporting to act on behalf of a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any default on the part of any person, being a director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the body corporate, that person shall also be guilty of the offence.

We have a fair distinction made between the body corporate which is guilty and the official, the person, who is also guilty. Yet when you come to prosecuting them in section 23 you only say "a person who commits an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction ...". It seems to me that under section 23 there is no provision at all for summoning a body corporate, which clearly the Minister would want to do. I would suggest therefore that this amendment ought to be accepted which simply adds, as envisaged in section 21, the term "body corporate" along with the person.

It is in section 11 (3) of the Interpretations Act of 1937. The word "person" shall be construed as including a body corporate whether it be a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole. I do not therefore see the point in the amendment.

It does include a body corporate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to know about paragraph (b), which gives the Minister power to make regulations to amend or modify any provision of this Act so as to comply with any international obligations which the State has or has decided to assume. Would this cover EEC directives and such like?

That is the intent.

This is a bit drastic. If it covers EEC directives it would mean, for example, if there was an EEC directive, which normally speaking is an instruction to a national Government to introduce legislation, that there would be no need to come back to us at all. The Minister could make regulations, not even an order which would have to come before the Oireachtas. It seems a rather casual way of doing it. If the EEC brought in a directive, and they might, which covered the field of youth employment this entire Bill could be rewritten by the Minister by regulation.

It applies only to those which the State already has or has decided to accept. The obligation is assumed by the State.

We assumed a variety of obligations under the Treaty of Rome on joining the EEC. We passed various Acts to do this. The obligations are there——

What does the Senator desire in this case?

Taking this section, there could be no objection at all to the Minister making regulations for the purpose of giving effect to any of the provisions of this Act, nor does it prescribe any matter referred to in this Act. When he comes to (b), "to amend or modify any provision of this Act so as to comply with any international obligations", I would have thought that should be done at least by order.

I will have a look at that. I assure the Senator I do not visualise anything happening in Europe which will be ahead of anything in this legislation for some considerable time.

Bear in mind five years from now—who knows how many directives will have come out from the EEC by then. If we are going to start introducing them by regulation——

All regulations have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Still, a regulation is a very subsidiary type of operation.

I will look at it.

It is not that I object to the Minister having the power but it seems a very casual way of doing a very large rewriting.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Subsection (1) states:

The employer shall keep such records as are necessary to show whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with in relation to his employees,

I am wondering which records could be involved besides the fairly extensive ones already listed in section 5.

That is what it refers to.

Why say it twice?

That is drafts-man's advice. It was necessary to do this because of subsection (2).

It is too late at night to do anything about it now.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.

I move amendment No. 55:

In subsection (1), paragraph (e), page 12, to delete "(other than questions tending to incriminate him)" in lines 21 and 22.

This is the kind of thing that one could have two views about. While normally speaking one would certainly be in favour of the kind of words that appear in brackets in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) to the effect that an employer need not answer questions tending to incriminate him, one wonders what questions can be put if this is left in. The position appears to be under this section that an inspector visits an employer and starts cross-examining him, and so long as he is innocent he has to answer, otherwise he commits an offence. As soon as he is guilty or the inspector begins to get near the bone, all the employer has to say is, "Well, I am sorry, I have said enough, I am not going to say any more." If he is brought to the court he has the defence that the questions might have incriminated him.

Many of the questions that have to be answered by the employer are peculiarly in the knowledge of the employer: "Did you employ little Joe So-and-So last August and, if so, for how many hours?" Nobody else is likely to be able to answer that except the employer. If the employer is in the position of being able to say, "I will not answer", and then defend himself in court by saying that the questions could have incriminated him, one wonders what will be left for inspectors to inspect.

There are the records. There is a section which deals with the obligation of the employer to maintain pretty comprehensive records. The power of inspectors contained in the section is similar to those in comparable legislation. There are, I think, reasonable counterbalances between the rights of the individual and the powers proposed to be given to the inspectors under the legislation. The words the Senator is worried about are one element which protect the individual who may be a prospective defendant in a prosecution under the terms of the Bill. The wording in the brackets in subsection (1) (e) merely recognises the longstanding Common Law right of an individual to avoid self-incrimination in such cases. As I see it, at any rate, the amendment would take that right away and there would be the possibility of being somewhat unjust. However, if the Senator is very anxious about it I will have a look at it on Report Stage.

I would go completely against Senator Yeats in this because, not alone is there a question of answering questions, but coupled with that there is the question of signing a declaration which is going to commit himself.

I may seem inconsistent but I propose, as soon as this amendment is dealt with, to complain about the signing of a declaration which I think is going too far. I can quite see that there are two sides to this question of incriminating. I am a bit worried about it simply because, while the Minister rightly says there are records which the employer must keep, there are also certain matters on which he need not keep records— for example, whether he knew that little Joe So-and-So was working for another employer at the same time for excessive hours between the two of them. That would not appear in the employer's records which he had at the time he employed him and he might know perfectly well that he was working for somebody else but he can refuse to answer. This is what worries me, but I can quite see the general principle involved and I must accept that the Minister is probably right in leaving it there, so I withdraw the amendment.

I agree with the Minister completely in this matter. We are talking about protecting the individual or the young person or the child. At the same time, when we come to this section, if we did not have that particular wording inserted we would not be defending the right of the individual. I think subsection (3) actually brings in the balance because the employer has got to produce records and he has to allow the inspector to examine the position lawfully. If he goes against that and produces or causes to be produced or knowingly allows to be produced to an inspector any record which is false in any material respect, knowing it to be false, or wilfully fails or refuses to comply with any lawful requirement of an inspector under subsection (2) of this section, such person shall be guilty of an offence. The whole balancing factor in subsection (3) circumvents the effects that might arise through somebody having the right not to answer questions that might tend to incriminate him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."

I am a little worried about this requirement to sign a declaration as to the truth of the answers. After all, if you are involved in a road traffic accident and have some kind of problems with the Road Traffic Act you do not have to make a statement. Whether you are innocent or not, it does not make a difference, you are never required to make a statement. It is going too far to say that an employer must inevitably sign a declaration on the truth of the answers he is making to the inspector. It is all right to be cross-examined by the inspector but to have him write it all down and say you have got to sign this seems to be going rather far.

The second point I should like to make is on subsection (3), which says:

If any person—

(a) obstructs or impedes an inspector in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section, ...

I should like to know precisely what "person" includes. Naturally it includes the employer. Would it also include the parent or perhaps the employee? I am not saying that it should not, I think perhaps it should. I would be interested to know what it means.

The only answer really is that it is a pretty standard provision in several Acts.

About signing the declaration or the other one? I had two questions, one about the signing of the declaration and the other about the meaning of "any person obstructs" and so on.

Would the Senator repeat the question? I am very sorry.

I will ask one at a time. In subsection (1) (e), after putting all these questions the inspector may require the employer to sign a declaration of the truth of the answers. My first question is whether this is normal practice or whether it is necessary.

That is the normal practice.

The second question is: in subsection (3), if any person obstructs or impedes an inspector, refuses to produce a record, knowing that it is a false record or refuses to comply with any lawful requirement of an inspector and so on, such person shall be guilty of an offence. The word "person" obviously includes an employer, which it should. Does it also include a parent or perhaps an employee?

Any of these people?

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 27 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Government amendment No. 56:
In page 13, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) This Act or any specified provision of this Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may by order appoint".

This provides a drafting Schedule in the subsection in relation to the commencement dates. It would give some flexibility in bringing the provisions of the Act into operation.

Can the Minister give any very general indication as to which day or date he proposes to bring the Act into operation. Is it to be a fairly rapid process?

I appeal to the Minister in regard to the catering industry. Many hotels and catering establishments, lounge bars and so on, have geared themselves to the summer season, employing young people, some of whom may be employed after 10 o'clock at night. The arrangements are made and I am afraid it would be very difficult for them at this stage to make alternative arrangements. I would ask the Minister, in order to give this industry a chance, to consider making the operation period possibly September to give them 12 months to prepare for this situation.

I think the Senator is making the point that I should give some period between. Certainly I will give some consideration to that but my general line is to have the impact of this legislation felt as soon as possible and to have it operational for the summer season, but as soon as possible.

This is now the month of April and it is quite possible that the people I refer to had made arrangements from last season to bring back employees or students and so on this year. It may be very difficult for them. I feel this will create a very serious hardship throughout the country and every seaside town in particular.

Did the Senator say a month or 12 months?

I will think about it but I would not be in agreement with it—that is my first reaction.

I am trying to make the point that, if it becomes law before the summer season, it will definitely create very serious hardships. Listening to people here on the protection for the young and so forth, there are many young people who will be highly indignant at some of the provisions of this Bill. I do not think it is protecting them at all. What this Bill is doing is giving people the opportunity to get involved in all sorts of rascality and all sorts of trouble. Many of them will not get employment at all because of the sections dealing with hours, the time of night they must stop and so on. Above all, I think that people who have made arrangements—and I am sure that most people in towns have made their summer arrangements long ago— would have tremendous difficulty in changing them at this stage. For that reason I would ask the Minister to give consideration to my suggestion that, as far as the catering industry is concerned, this Act should not be put into operation until September.

Senator McGlinchey has made the point that we should postpone the bringing into effect of this legislation until next September, but I must say in response to that request that it is my intention to get it into operation as rapidly as possible and certainly to have it operating in the coming summer season, in the next two or three months. I will give that request consideration but it will take only a relatively short time after the enactment to produce publicity material. Publicity material is important to explain its provisions to the young people whom it seeks to assist. Obviously if we do not get the publicity material out, then the terms of this legislation will not be understood by the people whom we desire to assist and to help. It would not take that many months to get that publicity material out. I am not anxious to disrupt arrangements made by employers, but I am very anxious to end rapidly and as soon as possible certain abuses which are taking place and which this legislation is designed to end.

I take it that the Minister would have power under this Bill by order to declare for this summer that it was impractical to introduce the legislation in respect of any particular industry? He has the power so that he could say to any section of industry "All right we will not do it".

I would have that power.

Under this amendment has the Minister not the power? It states that any specified provision shall come into operation on such a day. The one that I feel would hit the catering industry most is section 13. I agree entirely with the suggestion that under-14s should not be employed at all, but section 13 also affects young people who are 17 years and 11 months of age. Many of these people would have been in employment last year and the year before and it could well be that they will not be given employment this year.

We will give consideration to what the Senator has been saying here. I have indicated my opinion that on Report Stage we will be back and presumably discussing this aspect of it. We do have power to listen to representations for exemption from it.

Subsection (4) of section 16.

Given the fact that this amendment commits the Minister in regard to the time sequence, could I make a point that perhaps on Report Stage the Minister might give consideration to transposing sections 7 and 9 which would add to the logic of the Bill?

Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7th May, 1975.
The Seanad adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10th April, 1975.
Top
Share