I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Protection of Young Persons (Employment) (Section 4) Order, 1979,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Eireann on 7 June 1979.
Protection of Young Persons (Employment) (Section 4) Order, 1979: Motion.
I should like first to thank you, Sir, and the Members of the House for the courtesy extended to me of being able to attend Question Time in the Dáil. I regret any inconvenience caused to Members.
The purpose of this motion is to seek the approval of the House for a draft order to continue in force for a further period of 12 months from 5 July 1979, subsection (3) of section 4 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. This subsection of the Act makes provision regarding the hours of work where children under 15, but over 14 years of age, are employed on light non-industrial work during school terms.
There is a general restriction in section 4 of the Act on the employment of children under the school leaving age which is at present 15 years. However, subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 4 permit children between 14 and 15 years of age to be employed in light nonindustrial work for limited hours provided that the work is not harmful to their health or normal development or their capacity to benefit from schooling. Subsection (3) deals with employment during school terms and subsection (4) during school holidays. Subsection (3) is much more restrictive—the maximum hours allowable are two on a weekday, four on Saturdays and Sundays and 14 a week. Under the terms of the Act, subsection (3) will expire on 5 July next unless the draft order is made with the approval of both Houses.
Other provisions of the Act impose extensive duties on employers in regard to the employment of young people including those between 14 and 15 years of age. Before employing a young person, an employer should require the production of his birth certificate or other satisfactory evidence of age. The written permission of parent or guardian should also be obtained. An employer should maintain a register or other satisfactory record showing, in regard to young persons, the name, date of birth, times of starting and finishing work each day, the rate of wages paid and total amount of wages paid. The employer is also required to display an approved abstract of the Act at the principal entrances to the place of employment in such a way that it may easily be read by the employees.
I appreciate the motives of those who maintain that there should be a total ban on the employment of children under 15 years of age during the school term. However, my Department's experience in the enforcement of the Act since it came into operation almost two years ago has not revealed evidence of any significant degree of exploitation of children in employment during school term. There is evidence, however, that the withdrawal of the right to engage in the limited employment during school term laid under the Act could be contrary to the wishes of many parents who consider that a limited period of work outside school hours can be useful experience for young people in the process of adapting to employment and in deciding on careers. I consider that the balance of the argument is in favour of continuing the present regime at least for another year.
I should also mention that I intend during the coming 12 months to review this legislation, particularly in regard to a possible drafting defect in section 4. An important point is that I have been advised that the lapse of section 4 (3) would not, in fact, result in a prohibition of the employment of children under 15 during school term as was apparently originally intended, but would allow such employment in work which fulfils the conditions set out in subsection (2)—the earlier ones to which I referred—but without any definite restrictions as to hours.
I would ask this House, therefore, to approve the making of an order to continue in force for a further 12 months from 5 July 1979 section 4 (3) of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977.
This party have no objection to the continuation of this order for a further year. On the question of the principle of permitting this type of employment at all, I can see force in the Minister's point that there is evidence that some parents would consider a limited period of work during school term but outside school hours, useful for the reasons set out by the Minister. Having regard to the economic times prevailing I could see, in addition to the useful work experience these people would get, the income they would earn could form a very valuable part of the household budget. I can see the other side of that argument too, the danger that improvident parents could begin to rely on their young children, sending them out to work much too soon. It is a point in regard to which one could adduce very strong arguments on both sides. Theoretically one would be compelled to take the stance that this work should not be permitted at all; in theory, the benefits from a total ban would be greater than limited permission, but I have to emphasise that would be in a theoretical perfect world. I can see the reasons why in, practical terms, there are arguments in favour of the limited permission provided by the Act.
The Minister said he considered the balance in favour of continuing the present regime for at least another year. I would ask him to monitor the situation very carefully in the meantime to see if any research could be carried out during that time to assess the advantage and disadvantage of continuing this present regime.
The other point I would make, in regard to the year in which this is going to be continued is the importance of ensuring that the desirable conditions imposed by the Act are honoured. It is one thing to have desirable conditions written into an Act of Parliament but it is another thing to see that they are enforced. I do not know, but I suspect from some cases that came to my knowledge, that there is some abuse of young persons in the category dealt with in this order. I wonder is the inspectorate available to the Minister sufficiently numerous, sufficiently active with all its other obligations, to monitor this area. I do not think it is of much use for the Minister to tell us that an employer is required to display an approved abstract of the Act at the principal entrances to the places of employment. Very few young persons between the ages of 14 and 15 would stand at the entrance to the place of employment and read an abstract of the Act and then protest that their conditions of employment do not comply with the Act. That is not a protection. The only protection is knowledge, on the part of employers who might abuse these young people, that there is an alert and active inspectorate available to watch out for abuses.
These people are vulnerable because of their age, vulnerable too, possibly, because of the family circumstances that sent them out to work. The majority of them go out to work not for the laudable motivation of gaining work experience but because of the economic necessity of their family situation. Because they are vulnerable they are more liable to be abused. Consequently there is an even greater obligation on the Minister and his Department to make sure that no such abuse takes place. For this further year I would urge him as strongly as I can to ensure that there is a very thorough inspection of the working of this subsection.
I support the extension of this order for another year. It is recognised that the Act has done quite a lot of good and has contributed towards the removal of any exploitation that has ever taken place of young boys and girls. The public are behind the Act, which is important because there is no point in having legislation if its spirit is not accepted. This Act has the full support of the public. There were outcries that children were working in lounges, cafes and restaurants and were being exploited. The Act has made a useful contribution to protecting young people and its intention was fulfilled. I agree that it is necessary to extend its provisions.
In saying that, I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the change in the pattern of life of young people, the necessity for training young people, even at a younger age. All of us recognise that the youth training programmes we have had have been tremendously successful. Certainly, speaking as somebody representing a rural area, we are only now beginning to place full value on the youth training programmes that have been undertaken. I would ask the Minister to consider recruiting boys and girls at the age of 14 for short courses during the summer, say a six weeks' course, under supervision. They should be trained and the whole attitude of the young person should be moulded towards working rather than lolling about the streets, having a carefree attitude. There is a very important contribution the Minister and his Department can make in this area.
This is important legislation. It is important to revise it. It is important also to take cognisance of what young people do and their whole attitude and approach to life. A work attitude, or an attitude not to work, is adopted fairly early in life. All of us recognise that once we allow our young people to get on to the streets, when they find they have no job and no future, then the next thing is that they are looking for social welfare benefit. I am greatly opposed to this because once young people get hooked on social welfare their attitude to work and to life changes. I am near enough to Northern Ireland, to Strabane, Derry and places like that, where young people just out of school are on social welfare, to know that their attitude is one of being totally opposed to work. The quicker we get our young people to realise that there is some work to be done by all of us, that the future will be better for all of us only if everybody makes a contribution——
The Senator will appreciate that he is going a little wide of this order. I have allowed him to, but I do not want anybody else to follow suit.
I am sorry if I am going a little wide. I was hoping to encourage the Minister to extend his youth training programmes which have been very successful. I would ask him to review the age limit for them and, if possible, to include groups of, say, ten boys or girls at the age of 14, under supervision, in these training courses.
The order has nothing whatever to do with the training of youth.
All of us realise that this is an area in which many improvements can be made. I welcome the order. The Act has been of tremendous help and has made a great contribution towards the protection of young persons and their future.
The Labour Members of the Seanad are not opposed to this draft order which would continue in force for a further 12 months the provisions of section 4 (3) of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. Undoubtedly, in the best of all possible worlds it would be desirable not to have the kind of provision for the employment of children that we are talking about here, although there is much to be gained by further emphasis on both work experience and training of children in their education, training in attitudes and perceptions and having the kind of work experience which would be very carefully controlled and monitored. That is the kind of world in which we live at present and for which our children should be better prepared. We must have very adaptable, very skilled young people to cope with modern technology, to cope with the kind of living experience that they are going to have. Unfortunately, we are very far from that. The major problem in this area is that so many youngsters have to go out to work during school term to supplement the inadequate income of the home, or because there is no regular income. Here the real danger is the exploitation of young people. That danger persists, although undoubtedly this legislation has been an important step in trying to protect young people; that is the title of the Act.
The Minister referred to the kinds of protection that exist in the legislation. When one reads section 5 of the Act these appear to be fairly strong and comprehensive. Section 5 refers to the need for the employer, who is under a duty to require the production of the copy of the birth certificate, to obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian. He is under a duty to maintain a register or other satisfactory record in relation to the children employed for the limited hours in this way, the number of hours they are employed and so on. I got the impression from the Minister's speech that by using the word "should" in that way he was implying that it was desirable that the employer did that. In fact, it is an obligation on employers and it is an offence not to do it.
I wonder if the Minister could give this House figures for the number of children employed in the State at present? These figures should be readily available if employers are maintaining the registers, as they are required to do under the terms of this Act. It would be helpful to this House to get an assessment, and presumably the Minister had this information when he was considering whether or not to extend this provision for a further year. It would be helpful if we could know the number of children between the ages of 14 and school-leaving age who are employed during term time and, indeed, the number employed during holiday time, and if there were any instances where the Minister had to institute prosecutions for failure to maintain registers in this way, and also to know if the Minister is satisfied that there is adequate monitoring of the safeguards. The pressure, such as it is, in relation to this area is pressure towards the exploitation of young people and to a considerable degree young people themselves suffer a pressure which makes them very vulnerable.
Given the cost of living for them, their own needs, the fact that the family income may be too low to allow them the kind of things they desire, which the consumer society encourages them to want and to seek to obtain—given those pressures on young people, given the possibility of exploitation and, indeed, I know of at least several instances where young people appear to be employed for many more hours than the prescribed number of hours, is the Minister satisfied that employers are maintaining the registers they are obliged to maintain and have the Department gleaned from these records figures for the number of children employed and are they satisfied that there is no exploitation of the provision? I ask this because these figures should be made available to the House if we are extending this order for a further year. They should be available particularly if the Minister is considering an overhaul of this legislation and a review of the whole question of the protection of children in employment. It is most important at this stage that we have statistical material so that we can know the scope of the numbers involved and the kind of situation obtaining.
The whole question of training clearly does not arise under this order, but I would agree with the view expressed that it is an essential component of the education of young people for modern living. A great deal of the employment we are talking about under this order is employment without any training component whatsoever and not really related to future careers or future prospects of children. It is very limited employment to supplement the family income and for that reason open to the possibility of exploitation. There were very careful, mandatory safeguards written into the legislation. It is an offence to contravene them. I should like to hear much more from the Minister about how these controls are working and what kind of figures he has in regard to the employment of children in the State.
Like other Senators who have spoken I am totally in agreement that this order should be continued for a further 12 months. I wonder, however, are we really getting at the people whom we need to get at. It has been said that it is implied in the Act that the regulations have to be displayed. I have never seen in a premises where young people are being employed on a part-time basis a copy of the Act. I have never yet seen an abstract of the Act. I think the Act is not being adhered to in this case.
It has been said that young people are being exploited. To a large degree the employment of young people is in the hands of their parents. If you look at the people who employ young people—people who run bars, lounges, farms, business people who employ their sons or daughters—to a large extent they are the people whom we should be getting at. However, they are not considered to be employers in the strict sense of the word; they are parents who are using their children as extra labour. The present pressures on children of 14 and 15 are enormous. The pressures at home, if they have not got enough pocket money, are enormous. But the pressure to which they are subjected in the educational system at present at that age should be taken into account also. Rather than trying to restrict the hours of work we should be trying to restrict the hours they must spend studying and endeavouring to pass examinations so that they can gain points which are often totally irrelevant to their job of work in after life. At that age, as Senator McGowan said, we should be endeavouring to train them for the job they are going to take up in after life. I do not think any of us here who worked at 14 or 15—and there are a large number in this House who did work at that age—felt that we were being exploited at that age; we were working and we were enjoying it. It may be that certain employers do exploit people. I feel that at 14 or 15 children are mature. They are maturing now faster than they were when I was 14 and 15 and to a degree are well able for the pressures. The pressures are not being put on by the employers. They are being put on by the type of system mentioned by Senator Robinson in which they have to have more and more of the good things in life that they really do not need. The pressure is on them to get these things and therefore they go to work to get them. Certainly in some households there would be pressure to supplement the family income. If the ratio between the number who are just helping out in their own family businesses, whatever type of business that may be, and those who go to outside employment was worked out, I would say the ratio is weighted towards the family-type business situation.
I should like to see the inspectorate increased. I should like to see the provision about the notices specified in the Act adhered to. I should like the inspectorate out at 12 o'clock at night in certain areas of employment where young children of eight, nine, ten and 11 are working. Whether it be for their parents or anybody else, that is something we must examine very closely. That is where the whole problem arises. These children are not getting enough sleep; they are going to school the next morning half asleep. During their school term they might be considered to be dull children, backward children, or even retarded children. What is wrong with them? They just have not had a good night's sleep. They are unable to concentrate in school. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a lot of these children that a good night's rest each night throughout their school term would not rectify. The draft order needs to be maintained for a further 12 months but unless it is enforced I am afraid it will prove to be an order on paper which is not terribly effective.
Mercifully we have moved a long way from the 19th century position where children were exploited. The circumstances of that exploitation have been harrowingly described by various 19th century writers, Dickens pre-eminently, perhaps. Today there is a school of thought which is at the other end of the spectrum. Many people would say that 14-year olds are very tender buds indeed. Many people would be altogether against the notion of this kind of youthful employment. As a friend of mine said, children should enjoy their childhood very much as adults enjoy their adultery. Nevertheless, there is a case to be made for certain defined areas in which this kind of experience is valuable training for life. A clearcut area, for example, is the universal practice in that bastion of free enterprise, the United States of America, of the newspaper round which is seen not only as providing very useful pocket money but as inculcating discipline and work habits at an early age. Nobody could take exception to that kind of innocuous and yet beneficial form of activity for young people. We should recognise, however, that there are limits to these areas in the physical sense and, in the wider figurative sense, the areas where children are employed.
I do not think children should be employed where employers could take on adult labour. It seems that in areas like the licensed trade there is obvious evidence that owners of large public houses have labour on the cheap. It is not simply a question of exploiting the young children; it is a question of these people avoiding their social obligations. I am sure the Minister will know as well as I do of premises where the bulk of the lounge bar help is drawn from children of a very tender age. Unless they are all desperately under-sized I find it hard to believe they are 14-year olds.
I support the general sentiments expressed by other Senators which amounts to this, that they have reservations about whether the order is being enforced, whether at the moment it is enforceable. Like Senator Lanigan, I have never seen a copy of the regulations although the order envisages that they should be displayed. I would like to know what is the extent of the policing service on the matter. How many inspectors are there? Are they really capable, in terms of their numbers, of seeing that this order is enforced? How many prosecutions have been brought in respect of violation of this principle? While we are all in agreement that the order expresses a proper concern for defending young people against exploitation we have some reservations as to what extent it is being and can be enforced.
The Minister in his speech has shown that he is sensitive to the issues involved and I am sure he will bear in mind what Senators have said. I would add my voice to those who saw that the importance of inculcating good work habits should be taken into account in balancing the negative aspects of this, which obviously are the exploitation aspects, and the positive aspects which are the developmental ones. In our times it is even more important that the work habit be introduced at a very early age. As a parent I am totally against the idea of pocket money for children. From an early age they should realise that payment of that kind is in return for service.
I would not be too concerned about the nature of the work. It is the discipline which is important. The big problem with the schools is that the teachers cannot possibly have the common sense that one can acquire working in the type of jobs that most people will be working in, which will be jobs in industry and commerce. It is almost impossible to convey the feeling of the work environment through classroom environment. There is a lot of good in this but it has to be watched. I am sure the Minister is sensitive to this.
I, too, am happy with this order that is before us, but there are a few things I would like to say about it. I would encourage young people to take up employment having the hours proposed in the Act—two hours a day and four hours perhaps on a Saturday, especially during school holiday time. It is a fact that children of this age get bored during their holiday period of seven or eight weeks. It is good for them to learn something from getting involved in employment, earning money and learning how to invest that money. There should be an onus on employers to encourage the children they employ to invest that money in a proper manner. I know the money might be needed at home, but at the same time investment in the future by them is a good thing. They should be encouraged to invest.
I am not too happy with one part of this, allowing four hours of employment on Sundays. In my opinion four hours on Sunday is too long a time for children to be working. I suggest that the next time the Minister is looking at that, that the four hours on Saturdays and Sundays should be reduced. I know it is a total of 14 hours a week but allowing a situation where children can be employed for four hours on Sunday is far too much. It lengthens the week for them. Sunday should be a time for playing games, enjoying themselves and meeting their companions and should not be used for their employment. That is the one matter I am not too happy about. I would encourage young people to work for at least two hours a day during their holiday period. I welcome the order that is before us.
I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate and I would like to say that I was impressed by the balance that they also were seeking. Some points were made about the enforcement and the experience of the Act. The initial approach to it was advice, exhortation and publicity. I will confess that it is not as easy to enforce, perhaps, as some of the other orders in this area for some of the reasons mentioned and because of the type of premises used, as mentioned by some of the Senators. If the Senators have any areas of complaint I would welcome those complaints being forwarded to me or to the Department. Senators asked about the enforcement procedure. The industrial inspectorate, in the course of routine inspections, investigate the position in relation to this Act where young people are employed. The general inspectorate also investigate in the course of their inspections under other legislation. They also carry out specific inspections under the Act and they investigate complaints.
Initially, as I said, the approach to it was one of publicity, advice and exhortation, Some complaints have been brought to the attention of the Department and to the inspectorate. The papers have now been sent for the first prosecution and some others are pending. Other prosecutions are also being considered at present.
There are areas of activity that are not as easily policed or examined as is the case in regard to the general duties of the inspectorate of the Department. As I said in my opening contribution the breaches of the Act to date have been insignificant. I believe there are areas of importance, including this area of youth employment. I, too, condemn, and will continue to condemn any exploitation of young people.
Work experience and training were referred to. Therein lie the real solutions. Since we introduced the work experience programme in September it has been a tremendous success. Here we are not dealing with employment as such; we are dealing with the protection of young people from the type of exploitation that has been referred to. All of us have a role to play. If there are areas where people feel there is exploitation, I would be only too anxious to hear of them. Senator Robinson asked for specific figures of the number of young people—I do not have that statistical information available.
Senator Cooney referred to monitoring. I repeat that the initial approach to the Act was one of advice, publicity and exhortation. Naturally, if a time comes when the Act continues to be flouted, then advice is no longer the approach to it.
There might be another way of approaching the figure. Would the Minister have any idea of the percentage of employers of children, within the meaning of this section, who keep registers setting out details under section 5 of the Act?
We do not have a register or a record of the numbers. The number of breaches that have been found is very small. In fact, during the course of routine inspections, the general inspectors discovered five cases of breaches of this subsection. In four of the cases the employers let the employees go. In another case the employee had reached the age of 15 years. As the Senator will appreciate, it is only during that period of 14 to 15 years that this applies. In another case, when the employer was approached he reduced the hours to comply with the requirements of the Act.
A number of complaints were also received and these were investigated. In one case the employee had left the employment. In another case the employee had reached the age of 15 years. As one can see, there are certain difficulties about ensuring that the Act is complied with. Every establishment will be working towards that. The inspectorate are working towards that. As well as that, I would appreciate any comments the Senators would like to offer.
Finally, as I said in my opening contribution, I intend during the coming 12 months to review this legislation, particularly in regard to a possible drafting defect in section 4. The lapse of the section would result now in no definite restriction applying in the case of hours. This is important. We will obviously give the Seanad the opportunity of discussing this within the coming year.
May I ask the Minister whether he is aware if the requirement that the abstract of the Act be displayed on the premises is being observed?
As I said in my reply, in regard to the breaches of the Act that have been discovered by the general inspectorate, I cannot specifically say that in any case the absence of the abstract was one of the breaches. It does not appear to have been. Senator Murphy asked me the number of inspectors. The total number in general and industrial and others is 59 to 63.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 June 1979.