Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1981

Vol. 96 No. 14

Protection of Young Persons (Prohibition on Employment of Children) Order, 1981: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann approve the following Order in draft:—

Protection of Young Persons (Prohibition on Employment of Children) Order, 1981

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 10 July, 1981.

I welcome the Minister on his first visit to this House.

Thank you. I am very happy to be in the Seanad. I welcome the opportunity to attend and I look forward to meeting the Senators on several occasions over the next four years.

The purpose of the motion now being introduced is to seek the approval of Seanad Éireann for a draft order under section 4 (6) of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, to prohibit the employment of children between 14 and 15 years of age during school term except second level students participating in work experience or other similar educational courses arranged or approved of by the Minister for Education. A similar motion was approved by the Dáil on 25 November last.

The 1977 Act defines children as persons under the school leaving age, which is at present 15 years, and prohibits their employment. It provides, however, that children over 14 years may be employed on light non-industrial work outside school hours for limited periods during school term and for more extended periods during the school holidays.

When this legislation was being debated in the Oireachtas there was considerable disagreement on the question of the employment of children during school term. On the one hand there were those who argued compellingly that such employment would be detrimental to the children's educational development. On the other hand it was claimed that it was economically necessary in less well-off families to supplement the family income. It was also argued that work experience is a part of the development of the young person, particularly those who leave school at 15.

The compromise agreed was that the provisions of the Act, which allow children to work during school term, would remain in force for only two years from the date of commencement of the Act unless continued in force on a yearly basis by affirmative order. Affirmative orders were made extending the life of the provisions in 1979 and in 1980. The provisions finally lapsed on 4 July 1981.

Most educational authorities hold the view that it is not possible for children to work during school term and, at the same time, obtain the optimum benefit from the school programme. I believe this to be the case and my experience as a parent confirms that belief. I am proposing, therefore, to prohibit the employment of children during school term except in the case of those who are second level students participating in work experience programmes or other similar educational programmes approved by the Minister for Education.

I should mention, however, that children will still be free to choose to work during school holidays for the periods specified in the Act. It is my belief that the changes now proposed will improve the legislation. There are, in addition, problems as to the enforcement of the Act. These are under examination, and I will make any necessary administrative or legislative changes to improve the enforcement arrangements.

A campaign was mounted, when the Act was passed in 1977, to bring its provisions to the attention of all who would be affected by the legislation, especially young people, parents, employers, teachers, youth clubs and trade unions. I believe a further campaign is needed, and I intend to undertake such a campaign when the examination of the enforcement arrangements is completed.

In the meantime I commend this order to the House.

By accident I am the first speaker this morning. This is not my portfolio, but due to the unavoidable absence of the Senator whose portfolio it is, I step in in the role of what one might call sop in ionad scuaibe. My first duty is to extend a very hearty welcome to the Minister. We wish him well in his work. He has a monumental task to get things sorted out, and from this side of the House we wish him every success in his endeavours.

With regard to this order, everyone in the House will find it reasonably acceptable. If we cast our minds back to what we have read regarding industrial countries and the slave labour that existed down through the years, especially as far as young people were concerned, we will know of the dreadful conditions in Britain in which young people were forced to work in the mines; these were young children of both sexes. If we read Dickens we are horrified of what we read.

We have been emerging for some time from a totally agricultural country to an industrial country and such regulations are necessary. Therefore, we at this side of the House welcome the order, and we have a few suggestions to make in regard to it but I am sure the Minister will give us his full attention.

What is work? On studying education down the years I was forcibly struck by a definition I got of "play". "Play" was defined by a professor as obair le saor thoil, in other words, work that you do of your own free will, for the pure enjoyment of it. I presume what the Minister has in his definition of work would be where you work not entirely of your own free will but in order to earn enough money for specific purposes. For that reason, I would like if when replying he would give us his definition of work with regard to this order. In most households, especially among the farming community, boys and girls attend to various jobs which could be regarded as work, and very serious, important and useful work, and they enjoy doing it. I live in the heart of a rural community, a milk district, and everybody in the farming family takes part in the business of milk producing, and they enjoy it.

I was particularly interested in a paragraph in the Minister's address. He said:

Most educational authorities hold the view that it is not possible for children to work during school term and, at the same time, obtain the optimum benefit from the school programme.

I can see the context in which he said that, but in my understanding of work done freely and for enjoyment, on the family farm, I do not see that that would not actually help the young person because it would be a break from his studies and that would be commendable. I would like the Minister to give his observations on that particular point. Apart from that, I welcome the order and hope it will have a speedy passage through the House.

I would like to join in the welcome accorded to the Minister on his first appearance in the House and the welcome given to this measure. It is a little difficult to respond to the Minister because his address has put in a most concise form and in a very comprehensive way what one would like to express on this measure. He has approached this problem from a very rational point of view. He sought to address himself to the major problem and at the same time has not adopted an approach which is excessively rigid, particularly with regard to the question of work experience. There is little doubt that over the last two decades there have been many opportunities for young people to find employment of a temporary or casual nature and that this has been extremely attractive to them and their families, and it has become part of the culture of our country. It was not the case to the same extent when many of those who are in this House at the moment were growing up. At that time it was not easy for young people to find casual employment. Many of those who were able to proceed to third level education or second level education often found that any employment they managed to get prior to taking up permanent employment was away from this country — in Britain or other countries further afield. What has happened in recent times is that this kind of employment has been available in our own country and has enabled young people to supplement the family income. It should be said here, and this is a relevant point, that often this has encouraged expectations among young people of a certain standard of living, a certain standard of income and a certain standard of personal expenditure often on luxuries and non-essentials and I am not in any way speaking in a puritanical way, which is now causing severe problems, because in an atmosphere in which this kind of casual employment is no longer easily available they find themselves with tastes and expectations which exceed their ability to realise them.

The problem of exploitation of young labour, possibly not child labour but of young labour, is still with us. It is fair to say that it has been most prevalent in the catering industry and licensed premises, where on one's frequent or infrequent visits to such places, one found oneself being served by very young people at a very late hour in conditions which in no circumstances could be described as healthy. I welcome the Minister's intention to review and strengthen the measures necessary to monitor the legislation in this area.

I presume the words "institute of secondary education" in section 4 means second level or post-primary. I presume that matter will be cleared up. I would also like to welcome the fact that the Minister has specifically made reference to work experience. It is very important in this area that we provide the means for work experience. I am speaking from a professional point of view as a guidance counsellor. It is clear from my personal experience of young people trying to come to an understanding of themselves and their future development, that they should have an opportunity to encounter work outside school. They should have as wide an opportunity as possible to experience work within the context of a work place. This is an area secondary education in particular could have developed further. The major point being made in this order is that young people find it difficult — or maybe teachers are more conscious of this than many young people — to give their full attention to and make a proper effort in their programme of studies if, at the same time, they are involved in tiring and demanding work outside the school. The employment in which many young people are involved exercises an immediate attraction upon them which their studies often do not. Again I am speaking as a guidance counsellor, not as somebody who is involved with the harsher administrative disciplines sometimes associated with the school but as somebody who is involved in trying to help young people to come to an understanding of the importance to themselves of their studies and educational development. Faced with the situation in which they can acquire fairly substantial sums of spending money, the attraction of that spending money as opposed to academic studies which often seem remote, is often more attractive. The fatherly figure of the Minister for Labour has a function in this area.

I do not think anybody could oppose this order in principle, but we ought to be aware of its limitations. It is significant in what it does not say about parts of our society. This is not to be taken as a criticism of the order. I fully support it. A thing can be right in principle and have the most extraordinary consequences; it may be right in principle, even if many people do not have the benefit of it. Senator O'Connell talked about the disincentive to young people to apply themselves to their studies. For many of our young people their home conditions make it impossible for them to study because they live in overcrowded conditions, maybe conditions of family violence, family dissension and so on. We have to keep these things in their proper context. There are other problems facing the majority of young people who work outside school hours in the age group of 14 to 15 years whom this order will not reach. That is not saying that the order is anything other than right, but it is important that it should be seen for what it is. It is one gesture in the direction of a vulnerable group in our society. In spite of my identification in the past with a certain charity, I would regard children as the most deserving group in our society because they are innocent. They are there because society does not look after them properly. Therefore, everything should be done to help them.

In many cases the children who will be affected by this order do not particularly want to be in school, see no relevance in school, and this order will not change that. Their home environment is such that they could not study even if they wanted to. In some cases it may mean extra pressures on them because they may be expected to earn an income. There is a case to be made for complete reassessment of the way children from some of our more deprived areas are educated, the type of schools they go to and what they do in those schools. It is a fact that 24 per cent of our children leave school at 15 years of age—19 per cent leave at the age of 15 years, and 5 per cent leave before the age of 15 years, and the children who make up the 19 per cent are the most likely to be working. We do not want to over-romanticise the effect another year at school would have on them.

I wonder is this order going to be enforced. I have yet to see a newspaper seller who looked more than 14 or 15 years. Many of them are under 14 years. In any pub in this city on a Saturday, any time after half past nine or ten o'clock at night, one is liable to be confronted by a succession of children selling Sunday newspapers. I do not know who employs them or who pays them, but not only are they not 15 years, they are not 14 years and some of them are barely ten years. I do not know whether that is illegal. I am not familiar with the legislation on child employment but — perhaps it is a special case — I have always found one of the most sickening things about Saturday night in Dublin is to see small children out in the most appalling conditions selling newspapers, usually with the figure of an adult — very often an unpleasant adult — somewhere in the background. The rigours of the law for many of these children are seen more in terms of Loughan House than in protecting them from the godfatherly figures who manipulate them, particularly in the newspaper business. From my knowledge of Cork, there is an under-current attached to the selling of newspapers which most of us would not like to upset. What I am worried about is that we might see this in oversimplified terms.

If we are going to make an order like this I am anxious to know if there is provision to have it enforced in the areas that are most visible. The two that come to mind immediately are newspaper sales and lounge boys in public houses. Let us not over-state what is involved here. Most of the children who are affected by this order will not thank us for it and would probably leave school when they are 15 anyway. We should not view it out of perspective. It is a step along a long road if we are ever going to protect our children from the consequences of the sort of a society we have but it is no more than a step. Nevertheless, it is a welcome one.

I should like to welcome the Minister on his first visit as Minister to the Seanad and, like the other Senators who have contributed, I should like to welcome the proposals in this motion to approve the order. I recall that in a number of previous debates in this House where the then Minister was bringing in a different order we had a considerable discussion on the need for greater enforcement of the measures to protect children and young people. I recall that undertakings were given that examinations were being carried out. I remember more than a year ago an examination was in the process of being carried out and at that time there was a considerable discussion in this House and a number of us referred to a very critical study which the youth section of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union had brought out where they had done some research into the employment of persons under the legal age. They had shown, as Senator Brendan Ryan has mentioned, that a number of them were employed in pubs at unsocial hours. The evidence they revealed appeared to show a pattern where in certain areas there was more observance of employing people under age than compliance with the law. More of the young people involved were being employed in situations the Act was intended to prohibit. It was clear that there was a serious problem which the youth section of the union had identified. They published a very useful booklet on it and called for urgent action. They pointed out that although there had been some evidence of inspection by the Department it appeared to take place during daylight hours. The Minister at that time gave an assurance that there would be more inspection at night and at appropriate times when children under age might be employed and, to that extent, exploited.

I accept, and, indeed, I am very sympathetic to the points made by Senator Brendan Ryan, who pointed out the reality for a considerable number of 15 year olds who leave on their fifteenth birthday or shortly afterwards or the early school leavers who leave before their fifteenth birthday. The percentage is very serious for our society, but, nevertheless, the legislation is an important part of the problem. Some other aspects of it we can discuss on the next measure to come before this House this morning. It would be helpful to have on the record of the House some idea of the kind of examination that has been taking place in the Department, some figures, perhaps, on prosecutions that have been brought, if any prosecutions have been brought in recent months against employers and if, perhaps, the Minister in his reply would give details of the kind of campaign he envisages. He referred to the fact that a compaign was mounted in 1977 and the evidence is that that campaign was not very effective, was largely ignored or was not brought to the attention either of parents or of children who were vulnerable. It would be helpful to know in what way it is proposed to re-publicise the terms of the Act and the precise provisions regarding the employment of young persons, what is legal and what is not legal and the element of exploitation. This has to be done very much in a context of ensuring as a society that we do provide possibilities both for work experience, for structured employment and an education component of that for those who dropped out of the school structure either before 15 or at the age of 15. They are the most critical group who deserve special attention from us.

That group was considered, to some extent, in a debate recently in this House on the proposal to establish an independent examinations and curriculum board. However, they were only referred to in the context of the need for a more flexible curriculum, more opportunities for relevant courses and relevant approaches to education and training in schools, and the need for so many young people to change the whole concept of teaching and of education and to provide them with encouragement and structure whereby they can equip themselves for adult life in our society. I would welcome information from the Minister as to the kind of examination which is being carried out by the Department and also as to the nature of the campaign which he intends to launch to re-publicise the protective provisions of the Act.

I can well understand the Minister's problem when he refers to the controversy which existed on the enactment of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977 and, in particular, section 4. That section deals with the minimum age of employment and goes on to make provision that children who are 14 years of age but have not yet reached 15 years of age may be employed during school terms to a certain limited extent. As I understand it this order proposes to prohibit this in the future. From an intellectual point of view nobody can have any serious objection to the merits of that proposal except in so far as one might have doubts about the way in which the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977 is, in general, being enforced and also the extreme switch of emphasis that there appears to be in the complete repeal of the section. I am speaking now specifically in respect of children who were 14 years of age but had not yet reached 15 years of age. They were covered by section 4 (3) of the 1977 Act.

Basically, the position as far as those children were concerned is that they could be employed during school term for two hours in any day other than on a Saturday or Sunday and on a Saturday and Sunday they could be employed for not more than four hours. There was a further clause which stated that the total period of their employment could not exceed 14 hours weekly.

It appears to me that to go from that situation, which was controversial, to a situation where we are absolutely prohibiting in all circumstances the employment of a person who is 14 but not yet 15 is going very much in the opposite direction to what was in the legislation. It is a pity that the legislation was not drafted in such a way that the number could be reduced to something like four hours a week, that a person could do a very minimum amount of work. The legislation may not permit that kind of an order at present, and if it does not I well understand it. We must look at this order in the context of a problem which has been referred to by other Members, that is the actual implementation of the provisions of the Act. The various categories in that Act appear to be those in excess of 16 years of age, those who are between 15 and 16 years of age, those who are 14 but not yet 15, and those who are under 14.

To the outsider it does not appear that the provisions of the Act in general are being adhered to by employers in general. There is a touch of unreality about the situation. It is easy to talk about deprived children. It is not only in respect of deprived children that it is not being implemented. I suspect it is not being implemented in respect of a whole range of children some of whom under no possible criterion could be described as deprived.

The problem about introducing further restrictive legislation, with which in principle I certainly agree, is that the actual enforcement of the general body of legislation becomes progressively more difficult. If there is not respect for the law any order which we might make will be more difficult for the Minister to implement. It is true to say that there is not an awareness of the law among employers or, indeed, among potential employees. It would be hard to expect it among potential employees in view of the fact that they are very young people. In respect of employers they do not seem to take their duties under the Act seriously. The more sections of this Act that are not being implemented the more the legislation will come into disrepute and, eventually, will not be implemented at all. That legislation to a casual observer like myself appears almost to have reached that stage. Successive Members have said that they have observed people who appear to be breaking the letter of this law from their position as outsiders looking at their employment.

The Minister is to be commended in so far as he has indicated to the House that he is going to pursue vigorously the various provisions to ensure that they are adhered to. He may be giving himself an additional problem which is going to make the implementation of that order, and the other orders which have been made under the Act, all the more difficult.

In conclusion I should like to repeat that it does not appear to me to be necessary that one should go from 14 hours a week which in my opinion — I was not a Member of the House at the time and I am not criticising those who were — in the context of a 14-year old during school term seems an excessive amount of work, to a situation where he may not work one hour. If somebody is doing his normal studies, or attending school even if he never studies, and doing 14 hours in addition to that that seems to be very big. However, to go from that to a situation where he may not even work for one hour appears to me to be throwing out the baby and the bath water together. It appears to be a reaction to the fact that the legislation was drawn up in such a way that during school terms in particular the amount of work permitted for those who are 14 but not yet 15 was excessive. I should like to encourage the Minister to ensure that the orders which have been made under the Act are rigorously adhered to and that prosecutions will be brought if necessary.

I should like to welcome the Minister to the House. I know him to be a man of good disposition and no doubt he has the singularity of purpose to pursue the type of legislation that will be essential in the Department of Labour. With a combination like that we will get legislation that will be most effective in this area.

I should like to welcome the order in principle. I am glad we have the distinction drawn between the work experience programmes because there is a great distinction between working in a factory or a lounge bar or whatever. One is supervised and well run and the other is not supervised. The young people in it are very vulnerable. I agree with Senator Ryan about the problems that implementation will present.

It has to be said that it is better for the education of children if they are not out working but we must face the facts. Most young children in corporation housing schemes and in the inner city areas have to go out to work to help to provide for the family, even at 14 years of age. In many cases in the inner city areas, and also in the housing schemes, children are told by their parents to go out to work to supplement the family income. It is not a question of whether the child wants to do it of his own accord or not. In many cases that is the position. Some of the children do not attend school the way they should because their parents want them to go out to earn an extra few shillings to supplement the family income. I do not know how extensive that is but if one applies this order in its most rigid sense, which is the way it should be applied if we agree with the principle of it, it poses the question of where do we go from here? Will their circumstances improve? Will they now have to try to find some other way to get money? Even if they are only working for pocket money the parents cannot provide, will the situation arise where they might have to turn to some other way, perhaps a dishonest way, of trying to get money?

I say that because my own experience was that I had to leave school at 12 years of age to work on a carrier-bike to supplement the family income. At that time one did not choose whether one was going to go to school or not, one was just told. As far as I can see, at over 61 years of age now, the facts have not changed. The emphasis and the locations have changed but the circumstances have not. This type of legislation is absolutely necessary. If we had a perfect society it would not be but I think it is necessary to bear in mind the points I mentioned.

The funny thing about bringing in legislation is that one cannot get the coordination between Departments and Ministers. It does not work that way and I suppose it is not practical. But if we are going to bring in legislation to see that children are properly directed there is also the question of whether we are going to seek out the cultural and educational activities they need to steer them in the right direction. There is a serious lack of amenities everywhere. Housing schemes are very badly planned and there is nothing done in advance about them. The whole question of the achievement of the full potential of children requires facilities. While it is necessary to introduce this motion and I support it wholeheartedly it is a shame that we do not have something running alongside it to the effect that we are going to put the skids under that but at least we can turn them in a different direction away from slot machine halls or pool halls where they can develop their own potential physically and mentally. That is a dream I have had for a long time and, perhaps, one day it will come true. I welcome the motion.

I should like to thank those who have contributed to this debate, and especially for the good wishes to me in the job I have to do. I was struck by the fact that without exception everybody welcomed the order being made. There were certain reservations mentioned and they were also mentioned in the Dáil. I should like to say that when the affirmative order lapsed last July there was no restriction whatsoever on children in this age group working. It was necessary either to bring back the previous arrangement or improve on it. If we allow children — as was done in the past — two hours work per day during school term it is more difficult to enforce and to keep surveillance on it than having a total ban. We would want, in the words of a former Minister, fields full of inspectors going around to know when children started work and when they finished. At least if children within this age group are working during their school term they are breaking the law and the people who employ them are breaking the law. The situation is much clearer in that respect. This restriction is necessary because it is damaging to their educational attainments to have them working for anything up to ten hours during their school days and four hours on Saturday. It cannot be a help with all the other demands on their time and the pressures they are under with television in the home, sport and so on. It means that less time is available for them to do work. I would not agree with the comment that only children in deprived areas go out to work. This is quite common at every level of society. I would not like anybody to think that this order applies only to the deprived areas.

Senator Cranitch mentioned the benefit of farm work for young children. The regulations exclude children employed by their parents on a farm. They also exempt work done on behalf of a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister in the home. We all agree that every child should do some work around his own home and help with some of the chores. It is of benefit to him. I am thinking more in the area of going out and being employed by separate employers. We want to prohibit that type of activity. Several Senators mentioned the monitoring of the order. I am far from satisfied with the way this was done in the past. The problem is simply that there are a very large number of children and, perhaps, we would like to have more inspectors doing this work. Nevertheless, I am aware that quite a good effort was made. In the present year 1,717 visits were made to various establishments and premises from 1 January to 30 September; 443 visits were made to catering establishments, 482 to hotels, 618 to public houses, 78 to supermarkets and shops and 96 to other miscellaneous activities. That represents a good deal of activity from the inspectorate. Nevertheless, the real problem arises with enforcement.

This is an area in which there is some legal difficulty. I have been in contact with the Attorney General to see how the legislation can be strengthened because there is real difficulty in enforcement. I am aware that very few cases, if any, in this area reach the courts. Senators who have knowledge or interest in this area should contact me or officials in my Department. I will be very willing to talk to them and hear their opinion on how enforcement can be improved. This does not mean that the visits of inspectors to premises have not a beneficial effect.

Senator Brendan Ryan felt this affirmative order was only a gesture for the vulnerable group. I hope to allay that fear. It is intended to deal with children who are working, from whatever area or sector of society they come. I am well aware of the work which the Irish Transport and General Workers Union have done in this area and I should like to add to the praise Senator Robinson had for the activity of Mr. Wall of that union. It was well deserving and we are aware of the results of his studies.

In conclusion, I should like to state that a very extensive campaign of information will proceed as soon as this order is confirmed. It will take the form of information for schools and television, radio and newspaper advertisements. I hope the media take up the details of this order and perhaps we will see some debates on television and radio about it. That would also be very helpful. I am not satisfied with the enforcement and I intend to pursue this with the Attorney General to see that the enforcement is improved. I should like to thank Senators for their contributions and their general agreement with what we are trying to do.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share