I move:
That Seanad Eireann approves the following Order in draft:
Protection of Young Persons (Employment) (Section 4) Order, 1980,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 21 May, 1980.
Protection of Young Persons (Employment) (Section 4) Order, 1980: Motion.
The motion now introduced seeks the approval of Seanad Eireann for a draft order to continue in force, for a further period of 12 months from 4 July 1980, subsection (3) of section 4 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. A similar motion was approved by the Dáil on last Wednesday, 28 May 1980.
The Act provides that section 4 (3) was to remain in force for two years only from the date of commencement of the Act unless continued in force by an affirmative order. This two-year time limit expired an 4 July 1979 and with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad last year an order extending the section for a further 12 months was made. Since then, a full-scale review of the Act, with a view to its amendment, has been taking place in my Department. It was not possible, however, to complete the review before the expiry of the existing order in July of this year. I am satisfied that the status quo should be maintained until the Houses of the Oireachtas have an opportunity to consider amendments of the Act in more detail. Accordingly, I am seeking approval of this draft order which would continue section 4 (3) on force until July 1981.
The employment of children under the school leaving age, which is at present 15 years, is generally prohibited under the 1977 Act. However, the effect of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 4 is to permit children under 15, but over 14, years of age to be employed in light nonindustrial work for limited periods outside school hours provided that the work is not harmful to their health or normal development or that it does not affect their capacity to benefit from education and their attendance at school.
The Act also imposes other obligations 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 must require the production of a birth certificate or other satisfactory evidence of age. The written permission of a parent or guardian must also be obtained. An employer is required to maintain a register or other satisfactory record showing the name, date of birth, times of starting and finishing work each day, the rate and the 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 young people employed by him.
We all have an obligation to ensure that young people are given every opportunity to benefit fully from their attendance at school and that their education is not disrupted in any way. I can well understand the viewpoint 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 and I accept that their concern is for the health, education and moral welfare of young people. However, the experience of my Department in the enforcement of the Act since it came into operation almost three years ago, has not revealed evidence of any significant degree of exploitation of children in employment during school term or at any other time. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the withdrawal of the right to engage in employment without the strict limits laid down in subsection (3) of section 4 of the Act could be contrary to the wishes of many parents who consider that a limited period of work outside school hours can be a useful experience for young people in the process of deciding on careers.
I can assure Senators, however, that I have no intention of going soft on the enforcement of the Act. There is an inspection system operating on a countrywide basis, and there have been successful prosecutions and others are being considered. This is not to say, however, that there are no difficulties in regard to enforcement. I am hopeful that the review being carried out will indicate what should be done to ensure more effective enforcement. I intend to introduce amending proposals, if possible, during the next session.
While the original intention, was that section 4 (3) would lapse after two years unless kept in force by affirmative order, I am advised that the legal position appears to be that in the absence of section 4 (3), children under 15 years of age would be allowed to work during the school term but without the protection which section 4 (3) provides by way of limitation of their hours of work. For this reason, it is necessary to keep section 4 (3) in force.
As I have said already, the Members of the Oireachtas will have an opportunity to consider fully the future long-term position when the proposed amendment of the Act comes before the Oireachtas following the completion of the current review of the Act by my Department. Meanwhile, I would ask the Seanad to approve the making of an order to continue in force for a further 12 months from 4 July 1980, subsection (3) of section 4 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977.
It is good to hear the Minister say that there is a comprehensive review under way in the Department in regard to the employment of young people, particularly school children and young persons as they are defined under the Act. Whenever an amendment to the Act comes in, it will be necessary to have a more strict interpretation of what is meant by "young person" in that Act. Within the terms of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, it can apply to schoolchildren of 14 years of age. The Act draws a distinction between a young person and a child. It will be necessary to make that distinction far more explicit in any amendments that come before the Oireachtas.
Employment for young people can be very positive but it can also have its negative aspects as well. It can be very positive and desirable in that it can inculcate a sense of work habit among young persons. It can give them practical experience of employment and what they will face when they will finish their schoolgoing days and also what their service to the community at large can often involve. The negative aspect can be a very harsh experience for young persons in regard to employment particularly where it is in an environment which is not the most satisfactory or desirable or where it arises from pressures within the family for economic or other reasons and even from pressures that apply from children themselves.
For example, children feel that because other children in their class are working they should go out and obtain a position. Sometimes they go out and obtain the first position that comes to hand and the environment, circumstances and conditions may not be suitable at all and may leave a certain stamp on their attitude towards work for the rest of their lives.
We have to be very careful about providing employment for young persons and particularly school-goers. In 1974 when this Bill was debated by this House and came into operation, I said I had the gravest reservations about school-going children being given employment on school days, whatever about weekends. During school terms there is a certain danger which must be faced in employment being taken up by school-going children. The Act puts a limitation of two hours on it during school days. It is perhaps fortuitous that a survey which was done by the Dublin youth committee of the ITGWU arrived in our post today. It mentions a number of points in regard to employment for young persons and school children which are rather frightening. It is a fact of life that the major source of employment for young persons lies in lounge bars, in fish and chip shops and in restaurants. We see a lot of these young people employed in lounge bars late at night. I have always had the gravest reservations and doubts that the two-hour limitation period applies at all in those instances. We know that these lounge bars function until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. We know that it can be 10.30 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. by the time the place is closed up for the night. All the cleaning up and so on is done after normal closing hours. We know that young people are seen there for a number of hours on any night and it would appear that the two-hour limitation period has not been enforced at all. The obligation is on the Department of Labour to enforce this, whatever about the obligation on employers to ensure that they provide work for only a two-hour period. The Department of Labour, being the Department that brought in this legislation, must be seen to insist on it and to take necessary prosecutions as they arise where this limitation period has been exceeded.
Employment for young people is very desirable. It can give them a sense of work habit which is very good. It is not so good when it arises from pressures within the family, pressures to go out and earn a few pounds extra in the week or pressures that can arise within the classroom from seeing other children going out and obtaining work at night time and at weekends. The Act states that such employment should only be condoned where it does not hinder or affect in any way the capacity of the school-going child to benefit from the instructions in his class. I cannot think of any instance in which a couple of hours working at night would not hinder the capacity of any school child to improve his education. School can finish at 4 o'clock or 3.30 p.m. It is necessary that there be a few hours recreation period for any school-going child. He must then do certain home exercise. It is rather difficult and is asking too much of a child with the travel involved going home from school, having an hour or two at home to do his home exercise and then travelling to get to a place of employment, which can take up to an hour or a half an hour in certain instances, and then going home from that place of employment, perhaps as late as 10.30 p.m., 11 o'clock, 11.30 p.m. or even later. In no instance can I think of where those kind of conditions would not take away from the capacity of any school-goer.
The reservations which I had five or six years ago when the Bill was first introduced in regard to school children still continue as far as I am concerned. We have had a number of surveys since. At the time the Bill was debated in 1974-75, a survey was done in the town of Drogheda which produced rather shattering figures as regards exploitation of young persons in regard to employment. A survey was taken recently in Westport in regard to this matter. The survey which arrived today is also shattering in the information which it gives in regard to this matter. The Department will have to bring in certain modifications and amendments to this legislation if the public at large are to be satisfied that young persons are not being exploited.
When we look at the survey of the ITGWU youth committee we find there may well be a case for having a minimum wage introduced. If we take an example of a 13 year old working four days per week as a milkman's helper for £5, in no instance could we accept that as a reasonable remuneration for any school-goer. The survey gives other examples of where there is blatant exploitation of young persons. This can be done with the families condoning the situation, but where it affects the education of the school children there is an obligation on the State to look very closely at the matter. We hope that in 12 months time the Minister will not be seeking a further extension of this section. We hope that he will be bringing in substantial amendments to this Act.
Employment for young people is desirable if it is controlled but it must be monitored very carefully and the final responsibility rests with the State authorities to ensure that school children are not exploited in any sense. From the surveys that have been carried out by bodies ranging from junior chambers of commerce, the schools and the ITGWU, there is ample evidence that there has been exploitation. Perhaps it is a sad reflection on the state of society in Ireland today that the places which seem to present the greatest evidence of this exploitation are themselves the greatest evidence of a decline of standards. There is a lot of money spent on alcohol and beverages for many hours and there are extensions until 12.30 a.m. and 1.30 in the morning in these places. Perhaps that is a reflection on the State as a whole but we must remember that children, particularly school children, are innocent in this whole matter. The pressures are on them to go out and seek employment. If it was left to themselves they would far prefer to be out kicking a football around the streets perhaps. It is up to the State to ensure that if there is employment for young persons it is monitored and scrutinised continuously.
As regards the inspectorate which the Minister mentioned, I should like him to give some information in his reply on the success or otherwise of the inspectorate in pursuing blatant exploitation of school children in regard to employment. If there have been prosecutions, how many, how often and what are the findings of the inspectors in regard to the number of young people working during the day and working late at night? What has been the experience of the inspectorate regarding the wages given in these instances? All these matters are covered comprehensively in existing legislation. The employer is supposed to put in a prominent permanent place an extract from the Act. He is supposed to keep a register giving all the information which I have mentioned, namely the ages of the school children, the wages they have received and the hours they have worked.
All that information should be available to the Department. Perhaps the Minister will give some information in his reply as to what information he had compiled by his inspectorate in regard to these matters. A vote of gratitude is due to the bodies who have done surveys over the past number of years, starting with that survey that was carried out in Drogheda six years ago. It will be necessary to have a continuing monitoring of what is happening under this legislation. There is no point in putting legislation on to the Statute Book if we are not going to see it enforced and applied. Young employed persons, right down through history—indeed it was chronicled by famous novelists such as Charles Dickens—have been most prone to exploitation. It is necessary that the State should scrutinise this matter very closely. I welcome the surveys that have been done by the various bodies. I would ask them to continue such surveys in the next 12 months so that when the Minister comes to have this legislation modified in 1981 we will have up to date information available that will enable us, perhaps, to bring in certain amendments which will keep a strict eye on what is happening regarding the employment of young people.
What is revealed when one looks at the real situation about the employment of young people in Ireland is obscene. Senator Markey has done us a service in referring to previous surveys carried out by different bodies. We have all received, in the very recent past, a survey carried out by the Dublin District Council Youth Committee of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. We are vastly in their debt for the work they have done and on which I am going to spend a little time putting it on to the record of the House. The sort of initiative that they have shown and the sort of information that they have provided is exceedingly valuable. Historically, exploitation is always sharpest on those least able to defend themselves: historically, they have been women and children. We are acquainted, as Senator Markey said, with the polemic writings of Dickens and others more than a century ago on the question of the exploitation of children.
I find it nauseating, in a country with the ready profession of Christianity that we find on all sides here that the exploitation of children seems to have diminished very little in its ruthlessness. While I do not attempt to apportion blame in this regard to individual administrations or individual Ministers, I think that we have really shattering complacency on the part of the Minister of State and on the part of his Minister.
On 13 June last year we were discussing the extension of this order for a further year. The following sentence occurs. I want to read it in full because I want to compare it with what the Minister of State has read out to us now. On 13 June 1979, the Minister, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald said:
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.
But the Minister of State said to us a few minutes ago—it is interesting to see the little bits of fiddling with the text that civil servants do at times, I wonder why they fiddle in the way they do——
However, the experience of my Department in the enforcement of the Act since it came into operation almost three years ago, has not revealed evidence of any significant degree of exploitation of children in employment during school term or at any other time.
There is one version at the beginning. There is the addition of "any other time" at the end of the sentence and there is the substitution of "three" for "two". We are all a year older and neither the Minister of State nor, apparently, the Minister or his servants, have learned anything in that year.
The real situation is known to many people and is so scandalous and so public that it was in the early autumn of last year—even though we have only received the ITGWU Youth Committee report within recent days—that these investigations were undertaken into a situation which surely every public representative knows happens on a large and scandalous scale. I utter those words in anger but they are not carelessly chosen. It happens on a large and scandalous scale and every public representative knows it. That I affirm. Those who wrote the Minister's speech apparently do not know it. I do not mean to pillory them as individuals. They cannot defend themselves. Perhaps their Minister will do it for them.
What the people in the transport union did was something that, apparently, the Minister's inspectors cannot do. Senator Markey asked the Minister of State for figures of investigations, inspections and prosecutions. I have figures which perhaps the Minister would either confirm, amplify or deny that in the last three years there have been approximately 1,500 inspections, an approximate rate of 500 a year, two successful prosecutions and four pending. I do not know how big the inspectorate is or how many hours a year they give to this. It would be interesting to know because the exploitation of children is an important social issue. There is no putting that aside. What they did was simply to look, by means of questionnaire, at two schools in south County Dublin, both boys' schools in working class areas, a total of 310 students offering for group intermediate and leaving certificates. I am not going to put a lot of statistics on the record. They emphasise properly, and we must emphasise, that this is an extremely limited survey and it does not claim to be comprehensive or rigorous. The figures in it are no more than a guide, but they are so appalling that they at least tell us the approximate nature of the problem. In my view, they confirm what every public representative knows. Of the people questioned in that survey, 77 per cent—I will round off the per centages—never heard of the Protection Act of which we are now extending a section, 90 per cent had never seen a notice of the Act, although that is a statutory requirement, 77 per cent had never been asked for a parent's permission, and 75 per cent had never been asked for a birth certificate. That corresponds with many people's experience.
How does that compare with the statement of June 1979 which I read on to the record that experience did not reveal evidence of any significant degree of exploitation? How does it compare with the situation a year later? What are these inspectors doing? We know, from our own experience, that there is a real problem.
A survey done in this way revealed that there is a problem in very specific and concise terms. The number of relevant people was only 310. It is revealed that the great majority worked in lounge bars. This is a part of our society and our life and we can have our private opinions as to whether an appropriate percentage of people's incomes is spent on drink and is spent specifically in pubs. We are entitled to ask if the hours worked are excessive, if the time the hours are worked is in school term, that the times at which those hours are worked are not permissible hours under the law for people under 15 and older people. If we know that that is the situation, what do we think it does to those 14 and 15 year olds to experience the atmosphere in many lounge bars at that time of the night?
I believe passionately that school children ought to work, the earlier they are introduced to the habit of work the better. The separation of school and work is bad. Since there is no minimum wage we are not choosing the work which has an educational benefit for these people, we are letting them be used as cheap labour, in work which is exceedingly bad for them. We are being asked to extend this order for another year. The employment of people under 15 in a whole category of employments, including employments associated with the serving of drink, should not happen at all.
There are many forms of occupation where young people could and would find work, and there would be persons anxious to employ them, where it would be beneficial—almost everything in the countryside relating to farming, fishing and a whole number of craft industries, all magnificient things for school children to do which they would love to do and benefit from doing. Since there is no minimum remuneration for these children they are simply used as cheap labour, in the jobs that are dullest and are morally worst for them and that are most inclined to switch them off in regard to work and to their prospects in life. What we are, in fact, doing is setting up a machine to create—it is a tribute to their homes that it works in so few cases—the sort of delinquents who will cost the State a great deal of money later on. It is not even intelligent economically, however wicked it is, because it is creating further charges in further sectors, in further times of the individual's life.
It is appalling. No words that we would utter are strong enough for the scandal that this constitutes in our society. While I note the reservations—I am glad to see them—I note with pleasure the promise of a revision. I think it appalling that there was firstly a two year period, 1977 to 1979, and then a year ago we had the Minister for Labour saying "May I have one more year?" Now we have the Minister of State saying "May I have one more year"? The fact is shocking, but we need not be surprised if we know the history of what one would politely call private enterprise. If it is possible to exploit a defenceless group in society, private enterprise exploits them. That is the norm of the society we live in with its attitudes and morals. That is not surprising, however disgusting it may be.
It is surprising and it is shocking that there is a statement repeated a year later, initially made in the face of a fairly large amount of evidence to the contrary, that the Minister and the Minister's servants were simply not aware of any significant degree of exploitation of children. That is what the Minister said again today. I find that complacent and flying in the face of experience and indeed flying in the face of a certain amount of imprecise documentation. I find that shocking and distressing.
I would like to add my voice to the voice of other Senators in relation to this legislation. It is very important and sensitive legislation. It is necessary and desirable to update legislation. A survey of widespread variety is important from the department's point of view. We are dealing with the weakest section of the community. I applaud the trade unions who carry out surveys into the conditions of young people and many trade unionists themselves are working in places of employment where young people are being exploited. The terrible tragedy is that the trade unionists at that particular stage are prepared to deal with the problems that affect adults, while these people are unorganised to a large degree and are being exploited. They continue to allow them to be exploited. The trade unions as a whole have a responsibility to ensure that young people who are not members of trade unions get some protection at their place of employment from the trade unions. Trade unionists, whether in pubs or workshops or elsewhere, have a very grave responsibility to ensure that where the workforce is being exploited they take appropriate steps. While surveys and reports are all very fine, the place to stop the rot is at the job centre.
I hope that the trade unions will take the same type of interest that has been taken here in relation to the compiling of a report and that they will not rely just on a report but that appropriate action will be taken against unscrupulous employers. Many employers, if they had their way, would participate in this baby farming racket that has gone on for many and many a day in many a centre. Baby farming has become a way of life with some employers, cheap labour and exploitation of the young.
Every effort is made by the Act to protect, in so far as the conditions are laid down: having a birth certificate, obtaining the written permission of the parents or guardian, starting and stopping times and the wages paid. Responsible employers will meet that situation, but unscrupulous employers will not conform. They are the most difficult to get at, the ones that give them a few bob here and a few bob there, where there is no set wage, and take advantage because of the geographical location or because of other factors. In many cases young children have stayed away from school because unscrupulous employers had attracted them in such a way that there was no record and they just get a few bob. While lounge bars have been mentioned, a particular section who were very concerned when this Act was brought in were the jam factories where it is traditional that during the summer holidays young persons under the age of 15 are employed to pick fruit. They put forward a very good case to show how young people are employed, the conditions under which they are employed, the pay rate and how they conform with the regulations.
Unfortunately it is the unscrupulous employer who the factory inspector will almost find it impossible to get at, because he is hidden away, insulated and safeguarded, and it is he who has been exploiting the young people all along. I would ask the Minister to take into consideration, quite apart altogether from the responsible employer, that the greatest exploitation takes place outside the area where there is free access by factory inspectors or by other personnel. The trade unions should give a lead here and take up their case, just as they take up the cases of persons who are in a position to pay union dues. As trade unionists, we have a responsibility to ensure that exploitation does not take place in our area of employment. We have a very important responsibility to ensure that every single sector of the employment area is sealed off to some degree.
Irresponsible employers cover up accidents and at no stage do they meet the requirements of the Act. What Senator Keating said is quite true, that there are people who continue to exploit, and I hope that the Minister will now expedite the revision of this legislation and take into consideration the factors that have been raised here. It certainly is the most difficult one to detect, and where this difficulty exists there will have to be new thinking in relation to this type of exploitation.
I hope that in the re-assessment of the Act that is taking place that due regard will be taken of the people who remove themselves so far that they cannot be detected. I am sure the Department are aware that there are employers who entice young people from school, sometimes in remote areas and sometimes in less remote areas. If more inspectors are required, or a deeper study is required, that deeper study should take place at this stage. It would be wrong to come back in a year's time and look for additional extensions. The Minister must act now and further amendments can take place in the light of the situation as it develops.
I urge the Minister, as other Senators have urged him, to ensure that the Department, at the earliest possible moment, will produce something that will alleviate the distress that is being caused by the unscrupulous section of the community. I hope that shortly the Minister will be in a position to come forward with legislation that will bring relief and that will give the inspectors a greater degree of freedom to ensure that we track down the people who are exploiting the young. There is no doubt that this is happening and surveys have indicated that it is happening. It is a fairly broad situation and every aspect has to be examined. Consultation with school teachers and the principals of schools in various areas is a factor that should be considered, to get their view. I am quite sure that many of the school principals know of the enticement and will be able, maybe to a much greater degree than the inspectors, to throw some light on a problem that is a very serious one.
I welcome the opportunity of contributing to the discussion on this motion which is dealing with the protection of young people in employment. Let me say, before I go on to discuss it, that it is my first occasion to speak in the presence of the Minister in this House, and I would like to welcome him here and wish him well.
On the matter we are discussing, I would like to make this comment. The discussions we have had quite rightly put the emphasis on conditions and on the exploitation that exists in places of employment for young people. It is proper that the emphasis should be put there, but equally I feel that it is important that we would also discuss and give a certain relevance to the conditions that create the situation which push young people on to the labour market. There are a number of reasons for this. There is, first of all, in the consumer society in which we live, the pressure that can be put on people even of tender years to earn pocket money, and the pressure to obtain finance to purchase the things they desire to have and which their parents cannot afford to give them. There is a certain encouragement on the part of parents to have their children seek part-time employment at an early age.
I feel that some parents view the question of children doing part-time work at an early age as having a duel advantage. It means that part of the earnings, small as they can be, is returned to the parents and makes a contribution to the family budget. There is also the fact that the remainder of that money which is earned by the young person, which will be used as pocket money, eliminates the necessity of the parent having to provide that money. Therefore, we should not ignore that some parents encourage their children to go out and seek part-time jobs.
There is also the fact, of course, that we are unique in the situation that a very high proportion of our population are young people and, that being so, the tendency of young people to seek part-time jobs is a situation which is going to be with us for some time. Therefore, I support the call that has been made to ensure that the legislation is directed wherever possible, and whenever possible, to ensure that young people in part-time employment are not in a situation where they can be exploited.
One of the other reasons that creates pressure on young people to work is the society we live in. High-powered advertising through the media focuses on certain articles, be it clothing, records, or something like that, and creates a desire on the part of the young person to have a particular article. Perhaps, coming from a home where the family budget cannot enable the young person to have the money for that, you have the pressure to go out and get part-time jobs. You have also the long summer holidays. I have heard it said that children at secondary school find it difficult to face the monotony of a three months holiday. I think it is a peculiar attitude of mind but nonetheless it is there. In relation to that particular bracket of young people the pressure is there to find something to relieve what they regard as the monotony and they are again on the market and they are seeking these part-time jobs.
I want to tie in with that an attitude that I have heard described by parents which to a certain extent disturbs me: it is that they would find it difficult to put up with their children being continually around the house for a three-month period. It is an attitude that certainly disturbs me, and it probably raises the moral question that as a society we have failed. We have failed these young people by not providing and by not seeking to establish the facilities at the outset that would occupy the leisure time of these young students.
The question has been raised also in relation to part-time employment of young people as to whether young people should be allowed to work on school days. My attitude to that is quite simple: I do not believe they should. I believe that going to secondary school, indeed while going to any school, the teenagers have their hours that they must spend at school; they need a few hours of recreation and they need a few hours of study, and unless their education is going to be interfered with quite severely they cannot afford to engage in a part-time job at the same time. Therefore, as far as I am concerned part-time jobs during school days or school evenings, are something that I disapprove of and I do not think they should in fact be tolerated. A number of studies have been referred to but I have found interesting this particular one that we received in the post this morning from the Dublin District Council Youth Committee of the Transport and General Workers Union—School Survey Report.
In the short time available to me to look through it, I have found it to be an interesting document, and I want in particular to refer to what the survey has described as the extreme examples of the wages that they have found being paid to young people in part-time employment. And, as far as I am concerned, a wage or a figure of 37p per hour, a weekend for £6, another weekend as a milk round helper at £5 and a 14-year-old working at 65p an hour is without question exploitation. These are scandalous wages to offer to any youth or young person. I believe that there is a need to look very closely at the question of a minimum wage because even though, as the survey has indicated, these are extreme cases, nonetheless they do exist and it is scandalous exploitation to offer that kind of wages for the hours and the weekend to any young persons.
I noticed with interest the jobs and employment available, according to the survey, to young people, listed under eight headings. Somewhere, somebody else commented that going to work at an early age would be an advantage to young people in deciding their career of the future, but quite honestly I do not think that working as a lounge boy, as a garage helper or petrol pump attendant, in a chip shop or in a restaurant, as a milk roundsman, a glass-washer or a packer in a supermarket—which are the top six categories identified here—would help a young person to gain useful experience. I doubt if they would receive much encouragement to regard any of these occupations as a future career.
A Senator referred earlier here to the fact of young people under 15 years being employed in lounges. The fact, of course, is that they should not be so employed on two grounds: if they are employed as lounge boys during the hours that lounges normally operate they are operating beyond the hours which are permitted under the legislation we are talking about for young persons, and secondly, as far as the licensing laws are concerned no person under 15 years of age may be in a lounge bar or a public house. Under both these headings it is illegal that young people should be employed in loung bars at the hours when they are employed, or employed at all if they are under 15 years of age.
I hope that the Minister, when he returns in the reasonably near future equipped with the outcome of the surveys and deliberations that are going on in his Department, will be in a position to put a comprehensive package before the Oireachtas which will be of benefit to the categories of people that we are seeking to protect.
I merely want to register myself amongst those who would prefer that there should be a total ban on the employment of children under 15 years of age during the school term—at least during the school term. I find it very difficult to believe that in our now largely urbanised society the employment of children of between 14 and 15 years even for limited periods is not likely to be inimical to their health, education and moral welfare. Like Senator Howard I find it very hard to believe in this alleged wish of parents for the availability of a limited period of work outside school hours during school term, as a way of providing useful experience for young people in the process of deciding on careers. That does not make any impact whatever on me, and particularly so in view of the disturbing indications in the ITGWU Dublin Youth Committee Survey of how in fact these children are largely employed.
Senator Howard has already spoken with proper disparagement of the likelihood of experience as a lounge boy and in other blind alley occupations being of any help in a worthwhile future career. Also, I think that if employment of young people were of any real necessity as a means of adding to family income even in the poorest families, that point would have been brought out in the survey by the Dublin District Council Youth Committee of the ITGWU, but no such point is made. In fact, the clear inference to be drawn from this survey is that only a fraction of the below-market earnings of these youngsters goes back to their parents and most of it is spent by way of addition to pocket money. Some of it, unfortunately, even at that early age, is spent on drink. I hope that when the survey which the Minister referred to is completed we will be prepared to take a more restrictive view about employment of young people. I would urge that work should not be available at all for children under 15 years of age during school term. If I understand correctly what the Minister said in his speech, however, it appears that through some legal quirk we cannot actually oppose this order because if we do so we make the situation even worse because the limitation that applies at present on the number of hours that young people of 14 to 15 may work would disappear entirely. This is a Catch 22 situation which I hope will not last even another year.
I would like to join in the strong criticism expressed by a number of Senators of the Government's approach to the protection of young employees and to the approach apparently adopted by the Minister for Labour in this House last year and the Minister of State here today. Senator Keating has already referred to the almost identical texts the Minister used today and in June last year to renew by order subsection (3) of section 4 of the 1977 Act. I would like to refer to some of the things said by the Minister in that debate a year ago. They are echoed here today but we have made no advance. I think we have to look at the statements made to see where in the order of priority of the Government is the question of protection of young persons and specifically the protection of children against exploitation and abuse. In the debate in this House last year—and I quote from Volume 92 of the Seanad Official Report, column 393—the Minister for Labour in his brief speech introducing the motion said:
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.
That is the legal quirk to which Senator Whitaker referred. It was well known to the Minister a year ago when he referred to it in this House. It is a minor drafting point. Having read the section carefully, I think I agree that there is a minor drafting problem there but it is not one that poses any difficulties or need cause delay. It is one that could have been amended without any difficulty if the political will had been there. It appears that the Minister had some sense of priority at that time because in concluding at column 406 the Minister said:
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.
However obvious it may have been at that time to the Minister, we did not get the opportunity and apparently we are not going to get much opportunity today, because despite the fact that the Minister of State here today mentioned that a review has been taking place, he has given this House absolutely no details about the nature of that review. This is regrettable, because the only practical survey that Senators have at their disposal is a small but valuable survey carried out by the Dublin District Council Youth Committee of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union.
This survey has been referred to by I think every Senator who spoke because we all recognise the value of empirical research of that sort. I think it is not adequate or sufficient that we discuss a motion to extend by order the operation of that section for a further year, having been told last year that a survey was going to be carried out by the Government, having been told this year that the survey is being carried out but being told absolutely nothing else. If the survey has been genuinely carried out during the last year then the Minister must have preliminary results from it and he can at least tell us what shape the survey is taking, which matters are being surveyed, where the areas of concentration are, how it is being approached and so on. If this survey of the youth committee of the Transport Union can, by examining the position of boys in two schools in south Dublin, come up with as detailed a response and as adequate information as this then I think we deserve information from the Minister here in this House.
We deserve it because in a press release following the submission to the Government of this survey by the transport union youth committee, the Minister did give some information—he gave more information than he has given here this afternoon—of the inspections that have been carried out. In a press release issued by the Government, dated 28 May 1980 and referring specifically to this survey, it was stated and I quote:
Commenting today on a survey of young people at work carried out by the Dublin District Youth Council of the ITGWU, the Department of Labour said there had been more than 1,500 inspections in connection with the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act since it came into force three years ago. In addition, the Department's inspectors in the course of their countrywide inspections under the general worker protection legislation also investigated the position in regard to the Act. There have been two successful prosecutions under the Act and papers have been sent to the Chief State Solicitor in four further cases while prosecutions are being considered in a number of other cases.
The statement goes on:
The Act was widely publicised at its coming into operation and a special poster was distributed to schools and youth organisations.
It is quite clear from the survey carried out by the Youth Committee of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union that the publication at the present time and as of September/October of last year when the survey was carried out is totally inadequate. That is one of the main conclusions which Senators have referred to arising out of this survey. I will refer to the table at the end of that survey where the figures were that 77 per cent had never heard of the Protection Act, 90 per cent had never seen notice of the Act, 77 per cent were never asked for their parents' permission and 75 per cent were never asked for a birth certificate. We are not talking about a minority of the children and young persons who are to be protected by this legislation; we are talking about three-quarters of them, and in some cases over three-quarters of them in this particular survey did not know of the provisions of the Act and obviously it was not being brought to their attention and they were not getting the protection that they should have been receiving.
Since we are caught in the cleft stick of not being able to oppose this order on this occasion because of the technical drafting defect that has been known to the Minister and his Government for well over a year, if not earlier, all we can do, and it is important to do it, is to hope that the Minister in his reply will give us much more information about the survey that has been carried out by the Department in the last 12 months.
First of all, in relation to the 1,500 inspections carried out under the Act, how many of these inspections were carried out after 8 p.m.? One of the important protections which is intended to be afforded by this legislation is that children under the age of 16 do not work and may not be employed after 8 p.m. In the case of children from 16 to 18 they may not be employed after 10 p.m. Yet, we see from the survey that one of the main types of employment of the children and young persons interviewed in this particular survey was in lounge bars and similar places. In the appendix dealing with this, Appendix No. 3 of the survey, dealing with the protections of the Act, it refers to the fact that children under 15 may not work after 8 p.m. but of the 27 children under 15 years who were working and who were interviewed in this survey all worked after 8 p.m. That is the first point I would make, that it is extremely important that both the inspectorate of the Department and the survey of the Act by the Department place a great deal of emphasis on checking the enforcement of the Act after 8 p.m. In the case of those aged between 16 and 18, where the Act provides that they may not be employed after 10 p.m., all those who were working and who responded to the survey worked after 10 p.m. In the case of the under 18-year-olds who may not work on Saturday and Sunday, 21 of the under-18-year-olds, 21 of the 27, worked on both Saturday and Sunday. In the case of the under-15-year-olds working during term, where the Act says that they may not be employed for more than two hours a day, the average hours worked were four-and-a-half hours per day.
We are not talking about a small handful within this survey of cases where there were transgressions of the Act. We are talking about a blatant disregard for the protection of the Act and we are talking about the majority of children and young people covered by the survey who were working in conditions which were in fact in breach of the statutes, where the employers were in theory at least committing offences and where there appears to have been no adequate follow-up.
Like Senator Keating, I find it very hard to believe that the Minister last year and with almost identical wording this year can come in and say that his Department have not become aware of any evidence of substantial breaches of the Act in so far as it protects children under 15 or young persons in their employment. Like him, I do not need a survey although it is very helpful to have a survey giving the empirical research; like him I know of cases where particularly in lounge bars and public houses children under 15 are working late hours and in particular young persons under 18 are working after 10 p.m. We all know that and yet there is not enforcement of the legislation.
The Minister, to say the least, does not come with clean hands in seeking a further extension of this order; he does not give us any more information than the Minister for Labour gave here a year ago. He does not give us any details of this survey which is being carried out by the Department. We hope he will give us some details in his response. He does not really convey the kind of concern for those involved, for children who are undoubtedly being exploited. They are being exploited because there is not any minimum wage; they are being exploited because there is not enforcement of the hours; they are being exploited because they are working at night time after the hours when the Act prohibits them from being employed, and they are being exploited because they are working on both Saturday and Sunday on average although this is prohibited by the Act. This is a very grave indictment, and when laws are enacted and so flagrantly violated then they not only fail to achieve the purpose of the legislation but respect for the law and respect for the purposes of legislation is undermined.
I would agree with Senator Whitaker: I think that the survey produced by the Irish Transport and General Workers Union is very interesting in the evidence that it gives of both the wages received and how the money was spent. It seems, looking at this, that the main pressure on the youngsters has been a consumer pressure. The survey shows that although the students of the schools spent their earnings in a fairly varied way, only a small number gave any significant amount of their earnings to their parents and that most of them spent the money on clothes, records and drink. It was very much consumer-orientated, very much representative of the pressure on the kind of society we live in, the pressure of advertising, the pressure to have the pocket money to buy these things. This counters whatever purpose there may have been in allowing children, particularly children under school leaving age, under 15, a very low school leaving age, to work in school term, and there is no evidence of the kind of training and work experience which many parents would welcome, which I think is now very much part of a broader approach to the education of young people which will help to equip them for adult life and for employment and for coping with the stresses and strains of seeking employment and adapting to work.
This is not what is evidenced by this survey or what appears to be resulting from the provisions of this Act. It is not tending to encourage the provision of useful work experience and training for youngsters. It is tending to allow them to be exploited, exploited both in the very minimal wages they are getting and in the kind of dead-end and, as many Senators have said, inappropriate work which they are doing. I note from the Act itself, the 1977 Act, from section 4, that it is open to the Minister to make an order. Under section 4 subsection (8) it is provided that the Minister may by order declare any form of work specified in the order to be work which is not light, nonindustrial work, and any work which stands so declared shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to be work to do which a child cannot be employed. In other words the Minister has it in his power to make an order excluding certain types of work even under the existing provisions of the Act.
I would like to ask the Minister whether this has been contemplated, whether this aspect of the potential safeguards of the Act forms part of the survey and whether we can expect a definite commitment from him and from the Department that legislation will be brought in within this year. There is a credibility gap; we were told last year that we were likely to see legislation within this current year; we have not seen it; are we going to see it, or only in the form of a further order next year? If that is to be the case, certainly the Labour group would have to think very seriously about either a Private Members' Bill or, alternatively, opposing any further extension under the terms which we have seen at the moment. It was not the original purpose of the legislation. The legislation is clearly drafted in such a way that the provision for allowing employment of under-15-year-olds during school hours was only to be a temporary provision and it is clear from the text of section 4 that it was intended to be phased out. It was intended to lapse after two years unless renewed. It was renewed once last year and it is coming up for second renewal this year.
This is going in the face of what was a legislative attempt at the time; we are doing it without any adequate knowledge, without any evidence of the Government's survey and unfortunately with considerable evidence of flagrant abuse, of lack of enforcement of protective controls and of exploitation of the children involved. This is a very serious matter, and I am glad that so much criticism has been expressed by different Senators and, as I say, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to put much more factual material on the record of the House in his reply by telling us exactly what kind of survey his Department have been carrying out, what is the scope of it, what are the preliminary results of it and when he will be in a position to publish it, because if the Minister for Labour was already talking about it last year then something must have been done in the intervening 12 months.
I do not think I would have spoken at all but for the constant repetition of so-called evidence regarding exploitation of our youth on a large scale. It seems to be based mainly on a survey entitled "Dublin District Council Youth Committee ITGWU School Survey Report". Interestingly enough, that report concludes:
As outlined in the introduction this is a very limited survey. However, even the statistics from these two schools alone show many disquieting features....
Those two schools in the city of Dublin were the basis to slate the Minister, the Government and all concerned. We are all against exploitation no matter where it takes place or against whom. Exploitation does take place, it always did and always will. Never in our history has there been so much exploitation as there is presently of adults and children. The travelling public are being exploited and not long ago during bus disputes they were exploited. More recently the sick and aged in hospitals and elsewhere were being exploited.
The Minister has been adversely criticised for not bringing the report of the Government survey into existence before now. In my view no Minister in the Government has been working harder and for longer hours trying to prevent exploitation on a huge scale right across the human spectrum than the Minister for Labour. Every Member is against the exploitation of children. Where there is evidence of children being exploited it should be brought to the attention of the proper authorities and acted upon immediately. I have no doubt that it would be acted upon. Is it the view of many of the speakers that there is something against children working at all? From my own experience of life—I have been dealing with children and their parents in a close way—the sooner children learn to work and love work the better. That should not be lost sight of. I know of many children in my area who work at home, on their land, and help neighbours and enjoy it. Apart from whatever small monetary reward they get for that they have an experience of life and a love of work that will stand to them forever. Those children when they grow up will be the better for their experience of work and less inclined to depend on drugs and so on that so many people who are not used to work have to fall back on.
This discussion could be interesting and useful, but a proper balance should be kept right through. The sooner we begin to love work the better. On the other hand, exploitation, where it occurs, should be made known to the authorities and acted upon effectively.
The motion seeks permission to continue in force for a further period of 12 months section 4 (3) of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. The fact that it is for a brief period of 12 months means that I support it, but that support is given only because a full scale review of the Act with a view to its amendment is taking place in the Minister's Department. I hope we can be certain that the results of that review will be made known as soon as possible and that the Minister will then set about introducing a Bill that will clear up the situation that exists with regard to the employment of youth at present.
There is material in this limited survey carried out by the Dublin District Council Youth Committee of the ITGWU that should cause great concern to the Minister and Members of this House. I am sure we can take many of the statements as accurate. That report states:
The most staggering indication which arose from the survey was the general lack of knowledge of the Act and blatant breaches of it.
The report substantiated that statement by figures in an appendix. These figures should be a matter of great concern to us all. The vast majority of our citizens would be opposed to the ages of those involved in working, the hours they work, the situation they work in such as lounge bars and so on.
It is most essential that the review being carried out is wide-ranging and that people with experience of dealing with youth are given every opportunity to put their views forward. What are the views of teachers and social workers about the contribution young people at work make to the drop-out rates in schools? There has been for a considerable time a disturbing drop-out rate in vocational schools, and a relatively small percentage of those who enrol finish their five years. I should like to know, on the best authority that can be found, the contribution youth at work make to this drop-out rate from schools. I should like to have the opinion of teachers and others concerned with youth as to the rate of progress being made by students who do not drop off but continue at school in a part-time fashion and keep a job at the same time. What is the opinion of teachers with regard to the number of pupils who are engaged in youth employment but fail to reach their potential in their second level course? Those are matters of grave concern, and for that reason I hope the review will be thorough and very wide-ranging.
As a result of recommendations made by that ITGWU committee, or as a result of the opinions put forward or the facts given by them I hope we will be in a position next year, or earlier, if possible to deal with this problem as it should be dealt with. I agree partly with what Senator Cranitch said about work, in certain circumstances, doing children good. We all know that on the family farm or in the family business the young people contribute to the work done. It does them good, gives them an interest in life and an awareness of the need to contribute their share. That is completely different from taking young people out of their own homes, away from parental supervision and putting them in to work in lounge bars, chip shops, hotels or places like that.
It is disturbing to think that in many cases those young people work very late hours. That is injurious to their health and it denies them an opportunity of pursuing their studies. In addition, it has them spending too many hours during a very formative period of their lives in the wrong atmosphere. Those points deserve close examination. I hope that the Minister will see to it that the review body will take this study on a very broad base, that it will be examined carefully and in great depth. The opinions of people who by their business or profession are in a special position to know a good deal about this problem should be sought. I think we will be given an opportunity of enacting legislation that will cater in an advanced way for this problem of young people at work in the near future.
Senator Keating quoted the Minister and the Minister of State as saying that there was no great indication of exploitation. He also said that practically every Member of the Oireachtas should be aware of the exploitation. I am not aware of it. The only area I can talk about it Cork city. I have been in several lounge bars but I have not seen any boys or glass-washers there. I have seen milk lorries going around, and while in the old days one always saw a boy helping the milkman one does not see any boys doing that work today. I am associated with the bakery trade and I am aware that any boys employed by the trade in Cork city in a recognised bakery are covered by agreements with the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and they work in conditions governed by legislation. I have seen boys working at petrol pumps but from my experience I could not say there is great exploitation.
I may be wrong, but generally, how does one get a complaint if there is something wrong? If a consumer is overcharged or gets less weight than he should, that consumer complains. The report of the Dublin District Council Youth Committee does not tell us who sought the job. Was it the employer who advertised a vacancy, looking for somebody to do the work? Was it the young people who persuaded employers to take them on so that they could earn some money for clothes, entertainment, drink and sweets or records? The report does not tell us that or whether parents influenced children to ask for a job. Only three people were concerned. When there appear to be no complaints coming what can one say? In many cases it appears to be young people looking for pocket money who seek jobs. They do not know what they are entitled to and it is probable that the employer in the case is not giving them full-time pay for the number of hours they work. I do not think from the evidence we have, even with this report, that any Member can say there is great exploitation throughout the country.
Having read this report and from learning what young people spend their money on, I agree with Senator Whitaker that there may be a case that people under 15 years of age should not be allowed to work at all. There may be a case for a general review. That would be very difficult to legislate for. Out of school there are jobs, for instance, at fruit picking for jam-making, in good weather. That is good for children. Should we stop that by legislation? Is there something wrong with children doing that when on holidays? I cannot see great exploitation. The Minister has said there will be a review and I agree with that decision. There should be a review because there may be certain things that require changing but I do not think that this report gives us any evidence because it is not comprehensive enough and has not asked all the right questions.
I should like to associate myself with Senator Jago's words. While we are not specifically discussing this report one must congratulate the ITGWU for a very responsible report. However, it is one which they indicate was on a limited sample and very much on a pilot basis. It is excellent to see a trade union producing such a responsible and worthwhile report on such an important topic. I regret to hear some of my colleagues extrapolating that into the most astonishing comments about exploitation. One would think we were back in the Victorian days. This is not the case. Undoubtedly, there are some areas where there is some degree of exploitation. This is very much to be deplored and I am glad the Minister is to take steps in this respect. Any legislation introduced should be in a manner which takes the whole situation into account and should not be unduly restrictive. The object of such legislation should be the genuine protection, welfare and good of young people and our society as a whole. It is all too easy to bring in restrictions, congratulate ourselves and be very righteous about it, not realising that by being so restrictive we are preventing young people, who would be far better off doing a worthwhile job in appropriate conditions of protection and with appropriate and good remuneration, from undertaking work and employers from employing them. If we are unduly restrictive we then comdemn those children to a life on the streets, into a state of lawlessness and idleness which we are so quick to condemn in other respects.
While supporting this legislation and congratulating the ITGWU on their excellent work on this report, I nonetheless strongly urge the Minister and the Minister of State, to take a broad and balanced view when further legislation is introduced.
I should like to express my thanks to the Senators who contributed in a constructive way to this debate. I will ensure that the remarks made are brought to the notice of the committee at present reviewing the operation of the Act. The Act came into operation in July 1977. Initially, it was necessary to publicise its provisions in the media and by posters and advise employers, parents, schools and organisations concerned with young people of its main terms. It was necessary to exhort them to ensure that young people taking up employment did not do so in breach of those provisions. We circulated to all schools, primary and post-primary, and youth clubs documentation in relation to the provisions. I will arrange to have this documentation in connection with provisions of the Act circulated to Deputies and Senators so that they will be more fully aware of them.
I suggest that documentation be sent also to local authority representatives.
Yes. I was surprised to hear the remarks of Senator Keating who spoke of shattering complacency and exploitation on a large and scandalous scale. If the Senator, who was supported by Senator Robinson on this, was aware of this situation he should have brought it to our attention. If people know of this exploitation they should tell us about it. We do not want to evade our responsibility in this regard. It is important to record that there was only one official complaint from a public representative in relation to this Act.
Questions were raised by Senator Markey about the definition of a young person and of a child. A child is defined as being under 15 years of age, the school leaving age and a young person is described as being over 15 years of age and under 18.
I suggest that that calls for a change in the title of the Act.
I will bring the Senator's views to the notice of those who are reviewing it. The Act defines a young person and a child. I was asked about the number of inspections. In the course of their inspections in connection with general worker protection legislation, which are on a countrywise basis, the general inspectorate also investigate the position in regard to the Act. In addition, they carry out specific inspections under the Act investigating complaints. There are 17 general inspectors. The industrial inspectorate in the course of routine inspections under the Factories Acts also investigate the position in regard to the Act dealing with young persons where young person are employed. There are 47 industrial inspectors and the inspections are on a countrywide basis.
When moving a similar motion last year to extend section 4 (3) the Minister said that it was his intention to review the Act during the subsequent 12 months. This review has indicated other areas of possible amendment in the Act, apart from section 4 (3) such as the difficulty sometimes experienced by the inspectorate in obtaining proof of the age of a young person or the training of apprentices outside the hours prescribed by the Act. It was considered that more experience of the operation of the Act would be necessary before decisions could be made as to amendments which should be carried out. It was decided, therefore, to extend section 4 (3) for a further 12 months.
Since the Act came into operation three years ago—Senator Markey referred to this—about 240 breaches of the Act were dealt with. Of these about 180 were as a result of investigations by Department inspectors and the balance resulted from complaints made to the Department. Many were for minor breaches of the Act, non-display of the abstract, and when, on further investigations, the employer was found to be complying with the Act no further action was taken. In other cases a subsequent inspection revealed that the employee had left the employment, had reached 18 years of age, or that the employer was complying with the Act. There have been two successful prosecutions and in four other cases the papers have been sent to the Chief State Solicitor. Further investigations are being carried out in a number of other cases. Areas which are being considered by the committee at present—this is not a survey as Senator Robinson seems to think but a review of legislation, including section 4 (3)—include better enforcement, records, double employment, conflict between apprentice training and the Act and the display of the abstract. We have no definite figures for inspections after 8 p.m. but there were at least a few hundred. There would have been many more involving other legislation. I welcome the suggestions put forward. We expect the review to be completed soon and dealt with in the next session of the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.