Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

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

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Ms E. Fitzgerald)

The Protection of Young Persons Bill is a timely updating of the law which protects young people during an important stage of their lives. As legislators, we have a duty to put in place laws which protect vulnerable sections of our community. This legislation aims to protect young people at a stage when they are moving from education into the world of work, from the home into independence and when they are combining work with education.

Naturally we want to encourage young people toward independence and adulthood, but in doing so we must ensure that the legislation we design sets its priorities right. A young person's education should be at the top of that priority list. The Protection of Young Persons Bill sends a very important signal to parents, employers and young people that education comes first. It offers a statutory guide to parents, guardians and employers in ensuring that the period between school and work is properly regulated in a balanced way which recognises the growing independence of the teenager. It is also important to protect young people from exploitation by employers and ensure that they benefit from education during their growing years. By following this route, it is hoped that they will then pursue a fulfilling career.

I believe the Bill strikes the correct balance between regulating and protecting vulnerable people and allowing them enough independence to taste the world of work while at school. Many parents like to instil a sense of the work ethic in their children; this Bill allows them to do that while still recognising the primacy of school and its importance in the child's future development.

Historically, children and young people have always been a convenient source of cheap labour for employers and there has been a need to introduce protections of young people as a result. In the 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, horrific exploitation of young people occurred and various social reformers introduced legislation to raise the minimum age at which children could go to work, while the maximum hours they could work were gradually reduced. In the 1930s Ireland replaced the old British legislation with its own laws, which restricted the type of jobs young workers were allowed to do, and when they might do them. This legislation was updated by the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977.

Over the years, at international level, Governments have taken action to prevent the exploitation of young people in employment and establish basic principles. At its first meeting in 1919, the International Labour Organisation adopted the first of 11 conventions on the minimum age for admission to employment, as well as the first of three conventions on night work for children. The Council of Europe's Social Charter, which was signed in 1961, states that children and young people have the right to special protection against the physical and moral hazards to which they are exposed. The United Nations has also adopted successive instruments to protect the rights of young workers. In 1992, Ireland ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in which children were defined as people under the age of 18 years. Article 32 of the Convention states that

...Parties recognise the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development ...

Consequently, this Bill, which implements an EU Directive, consolidates and builds on existing international standards designed to protect young people at work. In 1994, Ireland signed an EU Directive which originated with the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers and states that the minimum employment age must not be lower than the minimum school leaving age.

It also states that appropriate measures must be taken to adjust labour regulations applicable to young workers so that their specific development and vocational training and access to employment needs are met. The European Social Charter declares that the duration of work, in particular, must be limited and night work prohibited in the case of workers under 18 years of age.

We signed up to the EU Directive which gives effect to the principles of the European Social Charter and this Bill brings that directive into law. In fact, it goes further than the directive in that we are raising the minimum age for normal working to 16. However, we provide for employment of young workers by licence or regulation, for example, in the film industry or advertising and cultural activities. We allow 14 and 15 year olds to work during the school holidays and for a limited amount of time during term time. Generally speaking, the minimum age for holding a normal job is being raised to 16.

I am providing a new avenue of appeal for young workers and their parents to enable them to go to the rights commissioner and the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I am ensuring that where young people are working during the school holidays they will be allowed a minimum of three weeks off so they will come back to school refreshed. The important thing is that schooling comes first. The best thing we can do in the long-term interests of young people is ensure that work and school are kept in proportion. The benefits of education come first and where young people are working part-time while still at school, work should not interfere with the most important thing to them, which is getting an education.

The Bill also relaxes the conditions on night work. Under the 1977 Act young people under the age of 18 are prohibited from working after 10 p.m. That rule is breached widely at the moment — for example, in the licensing trade, cafes and so on. I have taken careful note of various points made to me, not least by young people themselves, who say this is the only kind of work they can get which fulfils their need for independence and money of their own. I am also cognisant of the fact that education must come first.

I have taken legal advice and the furthest I can move in terms of our international obligation is to allow an extension up to 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday during the school holidays and on days not followed by a school day. We are relaxing to some extent the existing law relating to young people aged 16 and 17 engaged in night work which had been there for the last 18 years.

I have taken the decision in this Bill to consolidate the existing law. Some laws relating to the employment of young people go back to the 1930s. The main legislation is the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. In addition to the new provisions I am repealing and re-enacting that legislation so that we will have, in one single instrument, the law relating to the employment of young people. That will make it easier for employers to know their legal obligations and for young people, their trade unions and their parents to find out their legal rights.

I intend, on the passage of this Bill, to undertake an information campaign among young people and workers and among the major employers of young labour to ensure the provisions are met. I am also raising the penalties in the Bill for breaches of the legislation because it is important to ensure that the health, safety and right to an education of young people are respected and that the laws are upheld by their employers.

I will outline the main areas of difference between the directive which we are implementing and our existing laws. Certain categories of employment which are excluded from specific provisions of our existing legislation come within the scope of the directive. The directive requires a specific authorisation procedure for the employment of children on cultural or similar activities. The directive is more restrictive than the existing legislation relating to the maximum working time for those aged 16 to 18. The directive provides for a longer minimum rest period to be given in any seven day period. The directive permits the employment of children for a limited number of hours during school term time. This is not permitted under the existing legislation.

The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the provisions of the EU directive which must be implemented by member states by 22 June 1996. I am repealing and replacing the 1977 Act as well as the relevant provisions of the 1936 legislation. This Bill is comprehensive and covers all areas related to the protection of young people. The safety and health provisions of the directive — Articles 6 and 7 — are not covered by this Bill. They will be implemented by way of regulation under the 1989 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act.

The Bill goes beyond the terms of the directive by prohibiting the employment of people under 16 years of age or the school leaving age, whichever is the higher. The existing minimum age for entry into employment is 15 years of age but the proposal to raise the minimum age is consistent with the Department of Education's plan to raise the school leaving age to 16. Our intention is to encourage young people to remain in education and training beyond the age of 15 for the purpose of furthering their education. Young people who leave school early are most likely to end up as tomorrow's long-term unemployed. We will use this legislation to encourage young people to stay at school rather than leave it prematurely for a dead-end job only to find themselves at 18 years of age signing on for unemployment assistance and, perhaps, signing on for the rest of their lives.

The Bill will provide for the first time that young people will have an avenue of redress against employers who penalise them for not working longer hours than the legislation allows. Their right of appeal is the rights commissioner after which they may appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The Bill supports measures which are designed to give young people a chance to obtain a certificate or diploma without having to leave the school system or an appropriate training course prematurely and at the same time to boost their chances on the labour market.

The Bill will not interfere with the opportunities of young persons aged 15 and over to participate in approved training or work experience schemes which will offer valuable training or worthwhile genuine work experience skills, thereby enhancing their job prospects. The new legislation does not seek to impose a ban on the employment of young people on the labour market but to prevent abuse in the way young people's labour is utilised.

I have examined the issue of working hours for young people. In 1946 we signed up to the ILO convention on night work by young people and that was implemented in 1977. The directive to which this Bill gives effect provides that we should not reduce the level of protection currently afforded to young people. Within the flexibility offered by the directive, the furthest I can go is to allow young people to work up to 11 p.m. but that is restricted to days which are not followed by a school day. It is extremely important that young people with a part-time job will not be working to the detriment of their schooling. The Bill provides that 14 year olds cannot work more than seven hours per week and 15 year olds cannot work more than eight hours per week during school term. Young people under 18 cannot work after 10 p.m. mid-week and after 11 p.m. on days following which there is no school. Young people should not arrive at school boggle eyed and unable to avail of their education.

It is important that young people realise that their education must come first and that their schooling must take priority at this stage in their lives. There is no problem with working short hours but there is a problem when young people work long hours for low wages, often with the complicity of parents or guardians. In addition, the local community tends not to question cases where young people are working late hours. The main areas of complaint received by my Department are supermarkets, pubs, catering and fast food establishments, petrol service stations and the general services sector. Children and young people attending school cannot work until late at night without such work affecting their physical and mental development and having a detrimental effect on their education. While such children are attending school, everything possible must be done to ensure that they benefit to the greatest extent possible from their education.

I stress the importance of a balance being struck between providing the necessary protection for young people at work while not unduly hindering their access to suitable employment and to the type of experience they may require in making the transition from school to work. I am satisfied that this legislation strikes the right balance in this area. It protects young people from exploitation and gives them a new channel of redress; it increases the penalties for employers who are in default and it provides a regime for working in term time which is complementary to education and does not cut across it. We have provided the necessary flexibility in the Bill to deal with particular situations, such as young people who baby sit, who work in a family business and those in apprenticeships. I can make such exemptions and regulations provided I am satisfied that the health, safety, welfare and education of the young person is respected in whatever alternative arrangements are put in place.

Section 1 is a standard interpretation section. Section 2 empowers the Minister to declare any form of work to be industrial work for the purposes of the Bill. Section 3 generally prohibits the employment of children under 16 years of age. However, it allows children to be employed in certain circumstances by licence or regulation. The employment of children in cultural, artistic, sports and advertising activities may be authorised in individual cases by licence and the employment of children over 13 years of age in such activities may also be authorised by regulation. That is to allow a group of children, for example working in a film, to be brought under a particular regulation. Those regulations will deal with the health, safety, welfare and schooling of the young person while they are working in a particular project or film.

A child over 14 years may do non-industrial light work outside the school term provided the hours of work do not exceed seven hours in any day or 35 hours in any week. However, it is important that a child has an adequate rest period during the summer holidays before returning to school and so is prohibited from doing any work for at least 21 days during that period. There is at least a three week holiday break so that the young person will go back to school refreshed and in a position to derive benefit from the next year's school work.

A child over 15 years is permitted to do light non-industrial work for up to eight hours per week during school term time. While this is not permitted under the present legislation, it is felt that the short periods of light work, as long as it does not interfere with schooling, can help a child's development. A child over 14 years and in full-time secondary education may be employed as part of a work experience or education programme for up to eight hours in any day or 40 hours in any week. A child over 15 years may participate in a training or work experience programme arranged or approved by the Minister or FÁS for up to eight hours in any day or 40 hours in any week.

Section 4 specifies additional provisions relating to the employment of children, where permitted by licence or regulation under section 3, relating to night work, minimum rest periods and breaks. A child — any person under 16 years — may not be employed between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. and must receive a minimum period of rest of 14 hours in each 24 hour period and two days in any period of seven days. If it is found necessary for technical or organisational reasons, this two day period may be reduced by regulation to 36 hours. The section also provides a minimum break period of 30 minutes in any period of work which exceeds four hours.

Section 5 outlines the duties of an employer in relation to the employment of young people and children. Before employing a young person or child, the employer must obtain a copy of the birth certificate or other satisfactory evidence of age and, when employing somebody under 16, must obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian. The employer is also required to maintain a register containing particulars in relation to every young person or child employed by him or her. These provisions are already in the 1977 legislation.

Section 6 specifies the circumstances in which an employer may employ a young person between 16 and 18 years of age. The young person must not be required to work for more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. A young person must not be required to work between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. This period may be changed to 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in exceptional circumstances. He or she must have a minimum rest period of 12 hours in each 24 hour period and two days in any seven day period as well as a 30 minute break in any period of work which exceeds four and a half hours.

The shipping and fishing sectors are exempted from the minimum rest provisions, provided there are objective grounds for not complying with the provisions and provided the young persons receive compensatory rest times at some time during each 24 hour and seven day period. The hours of work and night work provisions will not apply to members of the Defence Forces in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions.

Sections 7 and 8 permit, by licence or regulation, the employment of young persons on terms other than those specified in section 6 provided that the terms of such licences and regulations comply with the directive, the health, welfare and safety of the employees is not endangered and compliance with the terms of section 6 would be impractical for technical or organisational reasons; examples are young people who work as racing apprentices and who may have to work later than the normal hours after a race to put the horses back in the stables. Provisions in the regulations would ensure they get compensatory rest and that their health, safety and welfare would not be endangered. Such flexibility can be made by regulation.

Section 9 allows regulations to be made which would exclude employment by close relatives from certain provisions of the legislation. Such regulations must comply with the terms of the directive and ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the employees will not be affected.

Section 10 prohibits double employment. This provision is already in the present legislation. Section 11 provides that any time spent by a young person working under a combined work/ training scheme or in-plant work experience scheme is deemed to be working time. This provision is also in the present legislation. Section 12 specifies that every employer must display an abstract of the Act.

Section 13 preserves existing rates of pay and conditions of employment of employees where, in order to comply with the provisions of this Act when it comes into operation, the hours of work might be reduced or altered.

Section 14 provides that it will be a defence to any proceedings taken against an employer for a breach of the Act to show that the breach resulted from an emergency.

Section 15 specifies that the employer must keep records for at least three years to show that he or she is complying with the Act. Section 16 makes provision for the recovery of money due to an employee. Section 17 provides that an employee who refuses to co-operate with an employer in breaching the Act shall not be penalised.

Section 18 provides that the parent or guardian of a child or young person may refer a complaint to a rights commissioner if the employer has contravened section 13 or section 17. This is a new provision allowing additional legal protection and an avenue of redress in such situations.

Section 19 deals with appeals from and enforcement of the recommendations of a rights commissioner. A party may appeal such a recommendation to the Employment Appeals Tribunal within six weeks and the tribunal will issue a determination which affirms, varies or sets aside the recommendations of the rights commissioner. The section allows a party to appeal a determination of the tribunal to the High Court on a point of law and also provides that the Minister, at the request of the tribunal, may refer a question of law to the High Court for determination.

Section 20 deals with enforcement of determinations of the tribunal and provides that, in circumstances where an employer fails to implement a determination of the tribunal which has not been appealed, the District Court, on application to it by the Minister or the parent or guardian of the child or young person concerned or the trade union of the young person concerned, may make an order directing the employer to implement the determination without hearing the employer or requiring further evidence.

Section 21 deals with evidence in relation to prosecution of a person for failure to attend before the Employment Appeals Tribunal or refusal to give evidence or failure or refusal to produce documents.

Section 22 empowers the Minister to appoint inspectors for the purposes of the Act and sets out the powers of these inspectors. This is similar to the present legislation.

Section 23 provides that where an offence is committed by a body corporate, senior officers who act on behalf of such a body shall also be deemed to be guilty of an offence if they knowingly or through neglect allow a breach of the legislation. This provision is already in the 1977 Act. Section 24 provides that offences may be prosecuted summarily by the Minister. An offence, other than an offence under sections 19 and 22, may also be prosecuted by the employee's trade union.

Section 25 proposes penalties of up to £1,500 on summary conviction. Where the person after conviction continues to contravene the provision concerned, a fine on summary conviction of up to £250 per day is proposed. This increase in penalties will, I hope, act as a deterrent against the contravention of the legislation by employers.

Section 26 repeals sections 15, 41 (1) (b), 45, 47 and 49 (7) of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, and the entire Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. While the present legislation could have been amended by regulation or an amending Act in order to implement the directive, it was felt that a single new composite Act would be the more efficient option.

Section 27 is a standard provision dealing with expenses incurred in the administration of the Act. Section 28 is a standard requirement relating to orders and regulations made under the legislation. Section 29 is a standard provision dealing with the short title and date of commencement of the Act.

In recommending this Bill I believe it is important that we protect young people from exploitation by unscrupulous employers and that we ensure their physical and mental health and well being and educational future are safeguarded. It is important to put work in perspective for young people of school going age. At present, 84.5 per cent of young people stay on at school to do the leaving certificate. The White Paper on education proposes that this should be increased to 90 per cent. Virtually all young people covered by this legislation are going through the education system. This is why there is such an emphasis on striking the balance between the worlds of education and work. In enacting this new Bill and in updating our legislation, we are bringing our laws fully into line with best European practice. We are showing our practical adoption and concern for our obligations under the European Social Charter and as a member of the International Labour Organisation.

Good employers have nothing to fear from this Bill. I am confident that its provisions will enhance the conditions of employment of young people and ensure that their future and the contribution they can make through their work will benefit everybody. I will be in consultation with the different employer bodies involved on the passing of this Bill to draw attention to the new provisions. My inspectorate in the Department will be very much involved in trying to ensure that this legislation is respected and honoured.

During the course of preparation, it has come to my attention that the 1977 Act is being broken in a number of respects. It is important for young people and their employers to ensure we have respect for the law. I have built a reasonable flexibility into the Bill as drafted. I have gone as far as possible while reconciling the two objectives of the legislation and keeping to our international obligations. I expect that employers in turn will respect this law and the young people who work for them and will ensure their future is safeguarded and is not set back by them taking up jobs in their important teenage years.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Miss Ormonde

I welcome many aspects of this Bill. I am in favour of its overall thrust, for which I compliment the Minister and her predecessor, who also followed the 1994 EU directive. While both the Minister and her predecessor were coming from the same base, there are some parts of the Bill I would like to discuss.

This Bill is welcome because it brings the 1936 and the 1977 legislation for the protection and employment of young people under the one umbrella — the Minister said it would avoid cross references and confusion. Anything we can do to facilitate people knowing their rights is welcome and we should be aiming to make the process more user friendly.

This Bill deals with the protection of young people between 14 to 16 and 16 to 18 years of age in employment. Its thrust is facilitating, in the transition from education to work, whether one should take precedence over the other, whether there should be a balance between the two and how best we can get that right. This is not easy because there is a difference of opinion about the age a young person should be before being allowed to work or if they should only be allowed to work part time. It is arbitrary in the sense that it may work well for one student while not for another.

We are trying to put education first, to ensure that every child gets a good education before they start working and to prepare them for working while they are being educated and not send them straight from one to another. One should complement the other; that is the new change in second level schools. Many education commentators would strongly support playing a joint role judging how best we can work together as a community and the school developing the potential of every student.

The legislation is mainly concerned in consulting with parents and teachers — I did not hear much about that process in the Minister's speech but it would have to have been there. When a consultation process involving young people between 16 and 18 years of age is taking place, school authorities, parents and employers like to know what is happening. We are becoming more community oriented in our education process. It should be strongly reinforced that we are not just glibly saying in the legislation that only consultation is involved; it is more than that. It is part of our current education process that parents come to the schools to meet the teachers and vice versa. It is not a case of a parent calling a teacher to say that their child is starting employment; it is a growing process. I want to strengthen that consultation aspect of the Bill on Committee Stage. We must find a balance between education and maturity. An 18 year old may not be able to do a certain job but a 14 year old might be ideal for it. It is not right to set down arbitrary lines in the Bill, such as saying that nobody under 16 years of age should be working longer than one hour per evening or eight hours per week.

We want to put school first. However, I am conscious of the number of young people who drop out of the education process. Many students in my school and living in the surrounding areas would leave education if they could find a job. Many of them want to get their junior certificate and move into an apprenticeship. They do not want to stay in school any longer because there is nothing there for them. While I encourage education, I would also tell 15 and 16 year olds to take work if they can get it. If they are interested in the catering or service industries, for example, they should get a part-time job on a Saturday or Sunday. Teachers will know quickly if they are suffering from exhaustion or tiredness. The majority of them can cope with it and want to do so. Many do not have much choice because of their disadvantaged backgrounds — they may not have any back up services.

We should try to keep them in school and let them take a part-time job. They are being introduced to a work ethic and, at the same time, are being given the space to do their schooling and hold down a part-time job. Many school subjects are practical and hands on in nature and do not need much study. These young people can follow a good leaving or junior certificate programme without suffering major study pressures. Two hours' study can get a 15 or 16 year old through the junior certificate if they wish. Most students will not want to do any major work at that stage, but there is a percentage of students who would need to be able to do two hours' work in the evening. Alternatively, they may work two nights per week in the local bar. In such cases they come in at 8 p.m. as a lounge boy or girl, are picked up by their parents, older brother or sister at midnight and are able for school the next day.

Teachers would be the first to say to the student or parents that he or she cannot work any more because they are suffering from exhaustion. Therefore, the Minister should allow the school authorities and parents to take a greater role in monitoring the situation. Students under 15 years of age should be allowed work one hour per night, not after 8 p.m. I have no difficulty with the 35 hours per week during the summer and three weeks holidays, but students should be allowed to work two or three nights per week in service industries. I am working with the system so I know it can work, but I agree with the Minister that it is important to strike a balance. The Minister should really leave that particular aspect of it be more flexible. She should allow the parents and the school authorities to have a big say in it because these are the people who monitor the situation closely.

Students between the ages of 16 to 18 are in senior cycle. Many of these students are in transition year, the first year, and much of that programme is hands-on project work, which is often tied to a particular local issue. Work experience is incorporated into that year, which, I appreciate, is excluded from the provisions being discussed. I have no difficulty with that at all — that is as it should be. Many of these students do not need to study that year. It is not a study year; it is a transition from junior cycle to senior cycle. It is an improving year for the student, yet the Minister is denying these students a job for themselves. That is not right. It is extremely wrong that she should make a blanket statement that no student between the ages of 16 and 18 can work during term. I know the Minister has changed this today so that students can work up to 11 p.m. and are restricted to the extent to which she referred. I must come down strongly on this. It is incorrect to enforce such a draconian measure on those students. I know; I work with them. I know exactly what they are capable of doing. I know there are fine students who would gain from working and being at school. They would like the concept. If the Minister deprives them of that, they will leave school and get a job because many of them do not want to be in school at all. These students are looking for the right job. If it comes right and the Minister deprives them of it with this legislation, it is not right and I would be strongly against such a measure for that particular year group.

I have no difficulty with it for leaving certificate students when there is pressure and much study to be done. I have seen students exhausted and undernourished in class because of the pressure of study. In such cases I would tell students that they cannot be working late and studying, that they must take periods of rest. Again, that should be left to the school authorities and parents or guardians, as the case may be, to facilitate students. That can happen only from February to June. From September to January, and particularly in the lead up to Christmas, there is a great opportunity to get their own sample of work experience, which has nothing to do with schooling and the work experience programme. It gives them a golden opportunity to make a little money. You will not find them in school anyway during the three weeks before Christmas because the attendance falls off totally around the first week of December. The Minister has not taken that into account. She has deprived them of working in the first week of December in the run up to Christmas when students need extra money for their Christmas shopping. This is a golden opportunity for young people to get involved in the world of work and I see no mention of that in the Minister's contribution.

Another aspect of the matter which would worry me is if the Minister made it too hard for the youngster to stay on at school and get a job for fear of working beyond the times to which she referred. She is saying that the employer must demand a birth certificate, have a register and a licence and that she must police it. Such provisions would put off an employer immediately. If I telephoned an employer on behalf of a 16 year old student and said that the student had been on a work experience programme, that this was not part of this year's work experience programme but he was dying to work and needed the money; and if the employer had a little job between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. everyday, the child could not take the job because the Minister would have put an embargo on such employment. The employer would also be obliged to see the student's birth certificate, have a licence and register the job. If the employer did not abide by these regulations, there would be a penalty. That is so off-putting in this day and age that I would not want to put an employer in that situation.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

It is currently the law.

Miss Ormonde

I know, but it is the fact that the Minister is highlighting it in that way. I questioned an employer about it today before I came into the House. He said that he would not be bothered with the regulations yet he would abide by the law.

The Bill provides that young people cannot work after 11 p.m.

Mr. Farrelly

It was 10 p.m.

Miss Ormonde

The Minister has amended that now and I appreciate that.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

Senator Ormonde without interruption.

Miss Ormonde

Most new career paths are in service industries. Most relevant jobs are in the restaurant business, the fast-food business, recreation and leisure centres, and baby-sitting or child care, all of which are outside of the traditional 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. day. It will be difficult to regulate it. Employers will have to measure it in terms of when a student can work as a result of the changes in the regulations.

The old school of thinking was based on a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. day and this Bill is based on that thinking too. It does not take into consideration the variation of career paths and opportunities for young people which are coming on stream today. It makes it difficult to facilitate the transition from education to work and to allow people to combine both. My big problem with this Bill is that it puts a stop on people's development, even though the Minister made a point of balancing education and work in her contribution. I do not think the Minister is getting that balance right. She must examine that matter again in the context of the service industries.

I welcome the aspects of redress in the Bill, which provides an avenue, in the rights commissioner and, eventually, the Labour Tribunal, for young people who find themselves being exploited. It is useful to know that these provisions exist. As educationalists, we know how to link in with the rights commissioners should a young student of 14 to 16, or one of 16 to 18, be caught in this situation.

Many young people start third level education at the age of 17, and many of that age I know of are doing arts degrees at the moment. I asked some how they were managing to do it. According to this Bill every one of them would be outside the law, yet they have no difficulty working for money to buy books and cover their weekly expenses. Employers do not mind either and they treat young people very well. The students did not like to think there would be a curtailment on work by 17 year olds in third level education.

While they want to work, they will now be impeded from doing so in fast food outlets, bars and restaurants as well as by baby-sitting. They will do anything to cover their maintenance costs and earn pocket money to stay in college because maintenance grants are insufficient to cover all the expenses involved. This is a draconian measure for many 17 year old students who are starting college having passed the leaving certificate.

I welcome the fact that the school leaving age will be raised to 16, but many students sitting the leaving certificate at 17 will be caught in this situation. I have huge reservations about the Bill's provisions as regards part-time work for the 16 to 18 age group. I also have reservations regarding transition year students, who do not have to have the same curriculum in the school as leaving certificate students. We are trying to hold them in school at that age, but there should be flexibility to allow them to earn money doing part-time jobs before Easter and Christmas. In my experience of dealing with young people, it is very difficult to keep them at school from the first week of December because they want to get jobs to earn pocket money coming up to Christmas.

The Minister should consider how best we can facilitate students in that regard. It goes without saying I welcome the fact that the Minister is allowing flexibility in relation to cultural activities, artistic adventures and educational programmes. However, has the Minister taken into account the variety of change that has taken place within educational curricula? One can take a variety of subjects in the junior certificate, for example, that do not require a huge amount of study or pressure, particularly if one is taking a lower level paper.

Many students would like to be able to work and educate themselves at the one time, but the Minister is saying education must come first. However, many parents left school early themselves in order to work and all they want for their children is a job. I am all for education but it may not be what many parents want.

I am an educationalist by profession so I am promoting the thrust of what the Minister is saying, but many parents just want their children to get jobs. Such parents have told me that if their children could get jobs they would not stay on in education. If jobs arise in the local supermarket or elsewhere these parents are delighted to send them down at 4 o'clock because it may provide an opportunity to work there full-time next year. Why should children not do that?

Parents acknowledge that most teachers like to strike a balance for their students between education and work. The Minister should leave it to school authorities to decide what is important for the 14 to 16 age group because while one student may be mature enough to cope with work, another of the same age may not. In that sense it is hard to make a ruling in a Bill that puts everyone under the same umbrella concerning the right thing to do.

The law is important and we must abide by it, but we should thrash this issue out carefully in consultation with teachers. The Minister said she spoke to many teachers and so have I. I discussed all these points in my own staff room with a cross section of 20 teachers, each of whom pointed out that the measure was too strong for many students who could cope with part-time work. They said the Minister should allow flexibility for parents and school authorities to work closely together. The Minister mentioned the word "flexibility" but it needs to be spelt out in more detail.

I am not disputing that overall the Bill is a good one. We must, however, get a balance in education, which should come first. I am experienced enough as an educationalist to say that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 are a bit tough, involving children in the age categories 14 to 16, and 16 to 18. I do not know whether the Minister got a consensus of opinion when she consulted teachers. Most teachers I spoke to felt that part of the Bill lacked flexibility. While the Minister should re-examine that, I congratulate her on the overall thrust of the measure which contains many good elements.

I am well aware there has been exploitation by employers both in supermarkets and the fast food business because I am a link person dealing with school and workplaces. Once school authorities link in with employers, however, they are very co-operative. Employers whose businesses are near to schools are anxious to help and work with the school system relating to both age groups, although it is more difficult with the 16 to 18 year old group. At that stage one is talking about adults so it is a different ball game.

The Bill is not flexible enough, but perhaps improvements can be made on Committee Stage. I would be delighted to have a further discussion with the Minister then. Many people I have spoken to say the Minister has not got it absolutely right. I know it is difficult to get it all right, but I am anxious about that aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Farrelly

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As the Minister and Senator Ormonde indicated, we are talking about a substantial number of students of school going age. Some 84 per cent of students today will sit the leaving certificate and a substantial number of them, particularly those doing transition year, want temporary employment. We must ensure they are not exploited.

This legislation will bring us in line with European Union regulations. I understood Senator Ormonde to say that each employer would contact the school about potential employees. According to my information, many schools would not know that students were working long hours and would only find out when they fell behind or there were problems with their school work.

Many students like the opportunity to earn some money, particularly in the service industry, to help pay for school books or for socialising. Many commentators will say that some of the students we are trying to protect are being exploited — we could all cite examples of this. We are talking about extending working hours to 11 p.m., but I wonder how many prosecutions have been taken against employers. Have we successfully convicted and fined anyone over the years? Do we have any data in this regard? Often employees want to work all the hours God sends. What are the penalties?

These issues are frequently discussed on local radio when presenters throw out a carrot. It seems that the majority of students like to see if they can hold down a job, even a temporary one. It gives them the opportunity to gain experience before they go out into the world. As Senator Ormonde said, a number of parents will say that their children are still at school because there are no opportunities for them in the workplace or for apprenticeships. There are not enough opportunities and incentives for employers to give young people the chance for an apprenticeship. Not enough people are going into apprenticeships today. A person only discovers that when they must wait a week or a fortnight for a qualified person to carry out work in their house.

When Deputy O'Rourke was Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment we discussed the need for a system in which local authorities, when building houses, would, with the help of FÁS, take on and train people in apprenticeships, such as carpentry and bricklaying. Many of my colleagues in primary school who went to vocational school ended up in trades and now successfully run their own businesses. This is not happening today and it is the reason 84 per cent of students sit the leaving certificate and that so many children are looking for temporary employment at a young age. We have not dealt significantly with this issue. The Culliton report did not take on board and emphasise what should be done in this area.

Trade unions do their best to make their members aware of the laws. In County Meath the Council of Trade Unions has a say in the approval of FÁS schemes in tourism and other areas. It has the power to withhold approval of some schemes and this has happened with the tourism company of which I am chairman. There must be some give and take. Many young people who want the opportunity to obtain six to 12 months' training in tourism, which is the fastest growing industry, have come to me because of my position. Perhaps these young people, who are disappointed that they will not get the opportunity to gain experience and training, will miss out on the possibility of a permanent job.

The Bill updates and regulates procedures in terms of our European Union commitments. However, it is hard to get everything right. Although we are changing the hours of work, we all know many of these young people will work longer hours because they want to and their employers will not pass any comment. I do not foresee the scenario Senator Ormonde outlined as regards the involvement of schools because they have an enormous amount of work to do. I am delighted to hear that many employers in the Dublin area, in which Senator Ormonde works, contact schools for recommendations. I have no problem with that, but it is not the case in the country where people deal with each other more on a one to one basis. Individuals know the families involved and the picture painted by Senator Ormonde does not compare like with like. I concur to some extent with Senator Ormonde's point about the transition years. Students get an opportunity during this year to work for six weeks, if they can secure a placement, and many of them are glad to have the chance. It gives them an appetite for work and, as soon as they get their holidays, they want to earn some money.

The Bill seeks to protect vulnerable students. Some cowboy employers exploit their positions and pay people the least amount possible. It is right to have legislation to ensure people caught doing this continuously are punished. The details of the Bill regarding the fines which can be imposed will be teased out during Committee and Report Stages. However, I am interested to know the number of people prosecuted since the legislation was introduced in 1977. I have not read many reports in newspapers about such cases, and I am sure there were not many.

Mr. Farrell

Employers did not violate the law; they never do.

Mr. Farrelly

If that is the case, there is no problem.

Mr. Farrell

I assure the Senator it is not for the want of inspectors.

Acting Chairman

Senator Farrelly without interruption.

Mr. Farrelly

If the Senator is correct, I welcome it because the purpose of the Bill is to protect young students. When one reaches 17 or 18 years of age, one is capable, if one is willing, of a fair amount of work. However, such work takes much more out of younger people. I know how tired they get and how quickly, from watching my children and others who have been in that position. The aim of the Bill is to protect them and ensure they are in a position to take full advantage of their time in school.

I welcome the Bill and look forward to the Minister's reply. However, I am not 100 per cent happy. I have no problem with the idea that every student should have the opportunity to do the leaving certificate but I have a serious problem when students, who do the leaving certificate and want to do apprenticeships, say they are two years too old and they are not willing to enter the system. Ample jobs are available in that area, and not just in Ireland. I am not suggesting they should go abroad but many people are seeking trainees and they cannot find them.

We must look at the overall picture to see whether thousands of people can be brought into trades annually. Given the way the system has been geared over the past ten years, people are not entering trades. A neighbour in the building business told me six months ago that he wanted top class qualified people with specific skills but they were not available. I asked him how many apprentices he had. He said he did not have any because the system is too costly.

An overall package to rejuvenate the system, which would give such employers an incentive to take on apprentices, should be considered. There is no doubt that a percentage of the students in second level education wish to learn a trade but the opportunities do not exist. The Government must create the environment for industries to provide these opportunities. This would relieve much of the pressure on third level education places. I hope something can be done about this matter over the next couple of years.

Dr. Henry

The Minister should be congratulated for introducing the Bill. Deadlines for the introduction of EU directives seem to arrive quickly and the final furlong has been reached regarding this matter. I hope the legislation will be in operation before the end of June.

It is difficult to find out how many children are involved in employment, but a considerable number work in cafés, restaurants, shops and supermarkets. It is difficult to get statistics but I was lucky to come across a book by Dr. Jean Whyte, the senior lecturer in psychology in Trinity College, Dublin, called Changing Times: Challenges to Identity which examined the situations of children between the ages of 12 and 13 years in west Belfast, east Belfast, London and Dublin. The main purpose of the research was to consider the effects of the troubles on children in Belfast and compare them to children elsewhere. However, the book also contains much other useful information.

I am particularly interested in the lower end of the employment spectrum and I am delighted Senator Ormonde and Senator Farrelly took the other end. The book contains interesting statistics about children between the ages of 12 and 13 years in working class areas of west Belfast, east Belfast, London and Dublin. The children were asked if they had paid employment on a regular basis and 74 per cent in Dublin said yes. This was the highest level; in west Belfast 72 per cent of the children said they had regular employment, while the levels were 66 per cent in east Belfast and 44 per cent in London. The figures changed slightly over ten years, but the biggest change was in London where there was a decrease. This was not due to the fact that children in London had more money but rather that job opportunities decreased there.

The researchers found that those who had the least opportunity to work had the lowest level of work. It is interesting that children from more affluent areas were just as likely to try to get jobs as those from poorer areas. The group measured affluence in terms of whether the family had a car, a television set, a telephone, etc. The children's socio-economic criteria were perhaps different from those of the researchers. However, they found that children from middle class homes were just as keen to get work and the important point was its availability. This is also important in terms of adults.

In addition to the 74 per cent at work in Dublin, children there also earned the most. They earned more than children in the other areas and, over a ten year period, their earnings increased the most; indeed, earnings increased everywhere except London. I do not know whether to blame Mrs. Thatcher or Lady Porter for what has happened to employment among 12 year olds in London but I am sure one of them is responsible.

The children earned surprising amounts of money. Some earned over £20 in Dublin, which is not bad, but most only earned £5. Girls were inclined to earn less than boys. Women earn 70 per cent of the average male industrial wage and it is interesting that in 1992 girls earned £4 to nearly £6 for boys — not too far off the 70 per cent rate for adults.

The amounts of time worked in the various jobs were not given. However, an indication was given of the jobs done. Gardening and car washing were popular in all locations. In west Belfast more children were employed in shops and cafés while in east Belfast and Dublin children did paper rounds. Boys were more inclined to be involved in paper rounds than girls. In London children did housework. Baby-sitting, shopping and pet care were also mentioned, but the sought after jobs were paper rounds, car washing, working in cafés and shops and these were twice as likely to be the jobs held by boys — 27 per cent — as opposed to girls — 15 per cent. They were also inclined to be the better paid jobs.

A lot has been said about the deleterious effects on children of working when at school. However, the research found that children who had jobs were much more likely to be independent, to have greater self-esteem and to be more self-reliant. Therefore, there are positive aspects to their employment. The children involved were young teenagers who did not have to face imminent exam pressure. The children did not feel their homework had suffered. They seemed to do an incredible amount of homework — apart from boys in west Belfast who appeared to do no homework — and they suggested they did up to two or three hours homework in the afternoons.

The research also looked at why the children wanted to earn money and what they did with it. Although some of them got respectable amounts of pocket money, they were keen to get money for themselves. The vast majority of the money went on sweets. Clothes were popular with girls, although by 1992 boys were catching up in that regard. The money was also spent on tapes, comics, records, space invaders, charities, youth clubs and, in surprisingly large numbers, savings. Nearly 80 per cent of children in Ireland, North and South, saved. In 1981 in Dublin the figure was 90 per cent whereas in London the figure was about 60 per cent. The economic situation in both countries having changed, the children in Dublin decided they could be more flaithiúlach with their money and the number saving reduced to under 80 per cent, while a terror had seized the hearts of those in London and the figure increased to the same figure.

We have also talked about the deleterious effect of work on children's academic life. However, work may have an effect on the amount of time children have for sport and games, which are very important in the early teenage years. Little emphasis is put on sport in national schools because primary school teachers feel they do not have enough training in physical education and there is a fear of litigation in the case of accidents. Some teachers who have an interest in sport are good at organising games for children.

Too little emphasis is put on physical fitness for children and in the early teens life patterns may be set regarding health. This may be healthy eating week, but it is not just what one eats that is important. Exercise is also very important for fitness. Dr. Tony Watson of the physical education and sports sciences department of the University of Limerick carried out a study into the fitness of Irish school children between the ages of 9 and 12 and its results were worrying. The survey was published in the Irish Journal of Medical Science and a précis was published in the Irish Medical Times. Over 1,100 children in Counties Cork, Galway, Mayo, Limerick, Waterford and Wexford were measured, weighed and tested for physical fitness, muscle co-ordination etc. and were compared with similar groups in Northern Ireland, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Finland.

A histogram was produced which was depressing because on international averages of physical characteristics and fitness the Irish children only exceed the mean in one category — skin folds or, in other words, fatness. The study ties in well with the Kilkenny health project which found that 50 per cent of people were overweight and that about 20 per cent of women and 14 or 15 per cent of men were obese. It seems this phenomenon is setting in as early as 12 years of age.

The study indicated there was much less physical education in our national schools and little structured work on the development of balance, flexibility, the strength of arms, shoulders, trunk and upper back etc. It found that 46 per cent of boys and 71 per cent of girls do not undertake the minimum amount of aerobic exercise required to have a training effect on the cardiovascular system. Whatever exercise they may get working in shops or restaurants, very little of it could be described as aerobic. It is important to focus on the health aspect in this debate.

In the flexibility category Irish children were at only 60 per cent of the mean and this may be an important factor in so many of the adult population having serious back problems. We have poor muscle development and little knowledge of how to bend correctly. In the arm and shoulder strength category the Irish children were at 80 per cent of comparable values and the study concluded that this indicates poor strength and muscle development of the shoulders, arms and forearms. The scores were very low for hand to eye co-ordination, suggesting a low level of participation in activities that develop co-ordination and motor skills. A large amount of employment requires dexterity, co-ordination and motor skills and the study's results would seem to bode ill in that regard. The Irish children did not score badly in the 25 metre sprint, where the boys were almost up to the average.

We must be careful not to focus exclusively on academic life and schooling. The jobs gave children good self-esteem, a sense of indepedence and self-worth. It is interesting to note that stress was placed on young people's economic needs. Children in their latter teens must deal with the high cost of books and college fees and I recently spent £50 on a paperback book for one of my children. Time spent in college is extraordinarily expensive, particularly for people whose mothers are not capable of providing financial support.

We must carefully consider the lack of emphasis placed on physical fitness for children and young people. Much of the bone structure, muscle co-ordination and power developed in childhood becomes established during teenage years. Young people also develop an interest in certain sports. In Dr. White's survey, children were questioned about games, sports, etc., in which they were interested and most of them only appeared to be in a position to undertake team games. Such games are often fun, but a person playing as a defender in a good hockey team might be left idle for the duration of the game. Children were asked about tennis, swimming, table tennis, athletics and bowling. It is a depressing fact that while many expressed an interest, it was very hard for children in Dublin to become involved in such sports. This problem seemed to worsen between 1981 and 1992.

It also came to light that the availability of facilities for gymnastics in Dublin is 7 per cent. This is incredible when we consider that the sport of gymnastics does not require a large amount of equipment, particularly if instructors are trained to teach floor exercises. Children need not leap about on balance beams or jump over vaulting horses to take part in gymnastics when they can be taught floor exercises in large groups. There is a serious lack of people who are in a position to become involved in teaching children in this regard. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on sending PE teachers to visit groups of primary schools to see if this can become a more important part of the curriculum.

The survey in question also uncovered the fact that the greatest increase in numbers of people watching television occurred in Dublin. There was a very large increase in people watching TV soap operas in the Dublin area between 1981 and 1992. Soap operas cannot be described as promoting physical exercise or furthering educational progress. The children surveyed did not watch programmes which dealt with nature or learning trades or skills. The increase in watching soap operas is unfortunate.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister of State, when promoting the legislation, will try to stress that it is important that children's time should not merely be spent attending school and becoming tired from doing too much homework. There must be a serious consideration of findings such as those of Dr. Watson regarding the health of our children. Irish people have the highest levels of coronary and cardiovascular disease in Europe. Northern Irish people experience similar levels and, therefore, it is perhaps a genetic predisposition or reflects our liking for fried food — which is being improved by our consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. Irish adults also have very high levels of blood lipids which can be reduced by physical exercise, etc.

Perhaps too much blame is being placed on genetics, the Ulster fry or cabbage and bacon. It is possible that we have become a nation of couch potatoes who sit around and do not take enough exercise. This begins in childhood and continues into the teenage years when people stagger to the local café where they work in the evenings, eating chips as they do so. This problem must not be underestimated because Irish men and women experience the highest level of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease in Europe. Women in particular are seriously affected in this regard. Considering the low level of involvement of Irish teenagers in sports, we must look carefully at this area. When the Minister of State discusses the legislation with employers, etc., perhaps she could emphasise that we are anxious about the amount of time children spend away from their school books and she might stress that the amount of time to be devoted to physical exercise is extremely important.

Ms O'Sullivan

I welcome this piece of legislation. I am glad that Senator Henry widened the debate to take account of activities enjoyed by teenagers other than those of studying and working. From my experience, teenagers lead very busy lives and have a wide variety of things on their minds apart from reading books or earning money. I agree with the Senator's point about the amount of time people, particularly children, spend watching television, which seems to be increasing dramatically. It cannot be good for health or education when programmes such as the "Oprah Winfrey Show" and soap operas occupy the minds of many teenagers.

Last night I spent 90 minutes watching an under 16 soccer final and I concur with Senator Henry's statements about the importance of sport for young people. Sport was by far the most important event in the day of those I watched playing soccer last night and it was certainly more important than the time they spent at school earlier in the day.

As the Minister of State and other contributors stated, this Bill involves balancing some level of flexibility with regard to young people being able to work while attending school. However, I am also of the opinion that education must come first. If we consider the unemployment figures and statistics relating to the long-term unemployed, there is no doubt that young people who leave school at an early age or do not obtain educational qualifications are much more likely to join the ranks of the long-term unemployed than those who complete their leaving certificate, obtain a qualification and pursue third level education. It is crucial that we ensure that education takes precedence in relation to this legislation.

I agree that working to a limited extent can be very positive and often makes young people more mature, selfreliant and self-confident. I have met teenagers who are unsteady, giddy and not particularly interested in doing well at school. Taking a summer job or working at weekends often gives such people a sense of self-worth and makes them feel that they can do something worthwhile. These children like to have money in their pockets to buy designer jeans and fashionable running shoes. Access to their own money also means that they can look after themselves if their parents do not have high incomes. The opportunities young people receive during transition year to become involved in work experience can be very valuable. They can also avail of the many opportunities to which Senator Henry referred such as lifesaving, sport, leadership training, helping to organise events and engage in community work with elderly people, etc. The balance must come down in favour of education.

Work can be very seductive for young people, particularly 16 and 17 year olds. Earning money can be more seductive than doing school work and therefore, there must be some regulation. There must be a point at which it is made clear to a young person that he or she needs to get an education and that, if they want long-term prospects of earning a decent living, school work is more important than the work they do outside of school.

There is an argument — and Senator Ormonde used it to some extent — that if one works part-time it gives one an opportunity to gain experience and, to some extent, that does happen. However, sometimes employers exploit young people and this Bill aims to stop that. I remember hearing a man say that his son, who was working in a petrol station, would have to give it up because he could no longer work for what he described as "boy's wages". He had turned 18 and obviously his employer was not going to pay him what an 18 year old should be paid.

There are sectors — and I would put petrol stations and some pubs in this category — which exploit young people and use them as cheap labour. These would not necessarily be sectors which are doing any worse than other employment sectors. We seem to accept that in certain categories of work it is all right to exploit young people while we do not accept it in other categories. Young people are employed mainly in service industries.

The operation is the legislation is obviously more honoured in the breach than in the upholding. I would also be interested to hear the answer to Senator Farrelly's question about how many people have been prosecuted under the 1977 Act which prohibits young people aged 16 and 17 years from working after 10 p.m. This Bill will give more leeway and allow them to work until 11 p.m. provided they do not have school the following day. Therefore, it is not true to say that this legislation is more restrictive in that area. It is being a bit more honest and facing up to the issues.

I agree that the working hours of people under 16 should be curtailed during school time. Many teachers talk about children coming to school looking tired and unable to perform. They are the very children who will lose out and may, in ten years' time, end up as part of the unemployment statistics. Admittedly, sometimes they are tired because they stayed up late at night watching some violent film on television but, one way or the other, it is not a good thing. We can control what they do in work terms but I do not know how we can control what happens in their own homes if they are watching television late at night. That is for another debate.

I welcome the inclusion of rest periods. There is a danger that eagerness to make money might mean that young people would be exploited. The legislation implements the EC directive under the Social Charter, which is about the protection of people generally. The charter tries to find a balance and ensure that people are not exploited. There are many measures under the Social Charter and this is just one. However, it is an important aspect because we are all aware of the problems associated with young people now and their vulnerability to all sorts of abuse. We will be talking about drugs tomorrow but there are many areas in which young people can be abused and we must do what we can to protect them.

We can all look back and say a good education is important. Many adults are taking the opportunity under VETOS and other schemes to further their education while others regret the fact that they did not stay in school longer. That is all very well to say that with hindsight but often young people only look to the immediate term. They look at the few bob they will get in their pockets and they may not appreciate that their education is important. It is not particularly trendy to like going to school or to want to stay in school. It is understandable, therefore, that if young people had a free rein they might leave school in their droves.

The current figures are very good. Senator Farrelly and the Minister mentioned that 84 per cent of young people go on to sit the leaving certificate. The White Paper on education aspires to having 90 per cent going on to leaving certificate level in the near future. There is no doubt that provides the best opportunity for young people in the long term. Times are different now. Many people of my generation left school at 13 and 14, got a trade and got a good living. They were not particularly adversely affected by the fact that they left school early. It is not like that now. We must look at the reality of the current competition for jobs and accept that leaving school early is not a recipe for a successful career or life. Obviously, there are exceptions but generally that is the reality.

How will the policing aspect of the Bill be implemented? The current legislation to protect young people does not seem to be effective in relation to late night work. The Minister will have the opportunity to introduce regulations to appoint inspectors. I hope they will be effective and that there will be enough of them to ensure that young people are protected.

It is important that young people have a right of appeal to a rights commissioner and, if necessary, the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Senator Ormonde was concerned that employers would not abide by the rules and would not bother to look for birth certificates or to keep records. If they are not obliged to do that there is no way a young person can get redress. The employer could just say he or she did not know the young person was only 16 or 17 years of age. If records are not kept, one cannot prove that a young person was exploited. Whether employers like it or not they will have to comply with a certain amount of what might be described as red tape.

The only way one can protect people is to ensure that the person who might exploit them abides by certain rules. Most employers probably would not want to exploit young people but some do. We all know of situations where young people work long hours late at night, get low wages and, in effect, deny adults the possibility of getting jobs. If employers are using many underage people and paying them low wages, they are obviously not employing adults. There are many people on the live register and no sector can be allowed to overuse young people to the detriment of adults who need jobs. That is an important factor.

Babysitting was touched on but the Minister spoke about it in the Dáil. My understanding is that there would not be any great curtailment of young people's opportunities to babysit. It is traditional and works quite well in that young people babysit in their spare time in the evenings. It provides a good service for many stressed parents who need to get away from their darlings. It also provides an opportunity for young people to earn money in their own community. It is a safe way for young people to get out and begin to make some money for themselves.

I welcome this legislation. It gets the balance right between protecting young people and giving them an opportunity to get out, spread their wings and learn to rely on themselves to earn some money. They are considered responsible enough to do a job but it should not be the overriding factor in their lives. Many of them might come from families which do not have large incomes and there might be pressure on them to earn money to supplement those incomes. That is fine so long as it is not to the detriment of the child's future opportunities. The children must be protected.

Young people like to have part-time work. It brings variety as well as income and experience into their lives. They are well capable of balancing their lives and of fitting in the various aspects of education, sport, recreation and work. Obviously, there are times when employment is not appropriate and the Bill covers that area. The legislation permits young people to work during school holidays and is restrictive on work during school terms so they will put the emphasis on their studies. During the holidays many parents are delighted to see their children secure employment. I am a parent of teenagers and the holidays are very long, particularly if the children are not in examination classes. Holiday work, in addition to giving teenagers an opportunity to earn money, occupies them during the summer, a time when some of us might be a little worried about what they might do otherwise.

I welcome the Bill and look forward to further discussion of its provisions on Committee Stage.

Mr. Farrell

I see nothing wrong with the Bill but I also see nothing right with it. I doubt that it will do anything more than militate against young people getting jobs. There is huge unemployment in this country, but unofficially there is little unemployment. The quantity of red tape involved in employing people is so great that nobody is taking on employees. Instead, employers use lump or contract systems and offer limited employment. Our big problem is that we have gone over the top with bureaucracy.

I do not accept that there are many cowboy employers who exploit young people. I have been an employer for a number of years and I live beside Bundoran, which is a famous holiday destination and which I have visited on numerous occasions. I have never seen young people being exploited there. The "exploitation of youth" is a great slogan but it is unproven. Most employers are parents themselves who have reared or are rearing a family. They know how to treat young people. Listening to some Senators, one would think that employers had never had their own families and were awful monsters who do not respect human beings. That is far from the truth. By and large, employers are parents who have reared families and know how to take care of people. It is grossly unfair to use the word "exploitation" and I take grave exception to it.

The Minister of State said that she did not want children arriving boggle-eyed to school. What teacher has ever told her about a child arriving at school boggle-eyed from overwork? Every teacher in the country will tell her that children as young as 12 arrive at school boggle-eyed with the effects of drink and drugs. That is where the trouble lies. It does not lie with cowboy employers but with parents not taking sufficient interest in their children and letting them get involved with drink and drugs. If we are serious about taking care of children that is the problem we should tackle.

When I see children begging on the streets I wonder about our caring society. What are we doing about those children? When I drive through Sligo at ten and 11 o'clock at night I regularly see children of ten and 12 years of age around the streets. What are we doing to take care of those children or the children who rob cars and go joyriding? They are the children for whom we should care. If they were with employers they would not be as badly abused as they are on the streets.

Many children are not at school today. Go to any housing estate and one will see many children out playing in the middle of the day instead of being at school. What are we doing about inspectors to ensure that those children go to school? We talk so piously about education one would think we were saints, but we do not care about those children. Where are the school attendance officers? We employ inspectors to prosecute employers, but why can we not employ school attendance officers? We are told that there are no resources, but that is where we should direct our money and our efforts. We are also great at talking about EU directives and, of course, we must comply with them. However, when it comes to cheap motor cars or taxation we find a way around them. We do not benefit from all EU directives. We get the harsh winds and none of the sunny breezes.

I worked every Saturday after reaching 12 years of age. I agree with Senator Henry that children who go out to work have an aptitude for work. Employers are also educators. They teach young people to be punctual and how to do the job properly. Years ago young people who started work at 15 or 16 years of age learned how to read the newspaper at work, often because their workmates were reading it and talking about sport. They also learned far more from employers and their colleagues at work. If any member of the workforce tried to blackguard a young person, there was always a solid individual to defend that employee and advise the antagonist to take on somebody his own age and size. There was always a senior member of the workforce to ensure that the young person got a fair crack of the whip. There were checks and balances to ensure that there was no exploitation.

This Bill will make it impossible for anybody to employ young people. They will not want to hire them and will not have to. There is something wrong with a society in which everybody is getting out of employment. The reason for it happening in our society is the plethora of rules and regulations. Now, if a woman calls to a shopkeeper and asks him to take on a youngster for two or three months of the summer, the answer will be no. An employer will not take on the bother of more administration; he already has too much. The result of this legislation is that an employer will not take on a young person for holiday employment. This legislation will not help young people.

I was a vocational student and the vocational education system was great. The schools had work experience courses and got involved in the workplace. In recent years, however, that involvement has decreased. The vocational schools always ensured that there was work for pupils. They would give the pupils references and direct them to where they would get a summer job and, on leaving school, to where they would get a permanent job. Senator Farrelly pointed out that he, too, went to a vocational school and that the pupils always secured jobs on leaving those schools. However, that has changed.

We should start to look after children at a tender age and ensure that they receive a good primary education. There is a great shortage of tradespeople at present because nobody is training them. People are sent to FÁS and other agencies and, as a builder explained to me, they are trained in a hot house setting. They are trained to build and plaster a small wall inside a house, after which it is knocked down and built again for the next exercise. What does that man know about building a three storey building? We have generated a system whereby no builder is training people because of rules and regulations. We will experience a severe shortage of real workers in a few years.

It is time we stopped attacking employers and labelling them as exploiters. Employers do not exploit anybody. It is time we gave employers some credit rather than continually jumping on them. If there are one or two involved we should name and point to the firms which are exploiting people. However, we should not blame everyone with a blanket expression.

Ms O'Sullivan

I was not blaming everybody with a blanket expression.

Mr. Farrell

The Senator is not naming the few, if she knows them. If I knew them I would certainly name them; but I will not stand here while good hardworking people, who are employing young people in shops and other businesses, are accused of exploitation. They are fathers and mothers themselves who came up the hard way and know how to treat people. There is always some senior employee who will ensure that a young person does not get the wrong end of the wedge.

Everybody should get a fair crack of the whip. Children should be allowed to take a little job at 14 years of age if they want. We have a peculiar situation at present. Many young girls are mothers at 15 and, as mothers, they are adults. If a mother wants to keep and rear her child, do we say she cannot get a job or work? If a person is a mother she is an adult, but she cannot work because she is a child under this legislation. We are tying ourselves up in knots. Do we tell a teenage mother that she cannot work? Is that mother an adult or a child?

Ms O'Sullivan

She is a child under law.

Mr. Farrell

She may be a child under law but she is also an adult under the law because she is a mother. Is a mother an adult or a child? That is a nice question.

We are tying ourselves up with regulations and there is no need for half of them. Many children worked at 14 and 15 years of age. I worked on Saturdays when I was 12 and I used to get a shilling, which was grand pocket money. It never caused me any injury. Many of the good businessmen in this country started as messenger boys and doing paper rounds. Many good ladies started as office girls and became top administrators. It did not injure them.

A percentage of the people who are out of work did not sit their leaving certificate. In ten year's time there will be nothing but people who sat their leaving certificates walking around unemployed because we are not creating jobs. The work is not there. As Senator Quinn said, one does not create a job; but if one can produce a product and sell and market it at an economic price, a job is created automatically. One does not create the job, rather one creates the environment in which to create the job. Education on its own will not do that. One must have the will to work and one must have the interest.

I am not opposing the Bill, but I think we are too harsh on children. We are not giving them an opportunity. We say on one hand that children should have their freedom and are entitled to be looked on as individuals and to their own free will. However, on the other hand we say that they are not entitled to work until they are 16 years of age and then can work only for a few hours. Where is the balance? They are individuals and either they can do what they like or they cannot. Under this law they cannot.

Senator Henry was able to prove my view with figures. My experience is that children who worked were far more on the ball at school because they were learning over the weekend. They were far more active and enthusiastic. They knew more about sport because they learnt from their peers reading the newspapers on Saturday. Work is not a bad thing and we are going too far here. Any boy or girl of 14 years of age is quite capable of doing some work. What is the alternative? We cannot give them work because of all these regulations. They cannot draw the dole because they are too young. What do they do? They run about the streets. FÁS schemes were mentioned. I do not know of any FÁS schemes which children of 14 years of age can attend during the summer. Have we anything of that kind? I would love if the Minister set up in every town and village a training course for eight weeks of the summer and three weeks at Christmas when the children are on holidays. They could go to this training course and earn some money.

They cannot get dole, they get no assistance from the State and they cannot work. What options are open to them? We are heading for more robbing of cars, more joyriding, more drugs and more running around. We are making children redundant by saying they cannot work at the most vulnerable time of their lives. They are between childhood and their teenage years and want some work so they can get out and be with people. However, we are telling them to stay home with their parents. They will not stay at home; they will stay out on the street and idle hands find mischief.

This Bill stops children from working. We are denying them the one thing we should not deny them, the right to get a small job at 14 years of age if they want. It is wrong to stop them from doing so. I would love if someone could come up to me and say working at 12 or 14 years of age injured them, or if some professor would come up with some statistic to prove that point. I would say, without any statistics but having watched things for years, that I have never seen any young boy or girl who went out to work at 14 or 15 years of age, whether in a café, a pub or elsewhere, who did not grow up more street wise and industrious and with a better education.

We should not heed what Europe is doing. We should look back at how well people of past generations who started work at 14 did. They worked all their lives. One will find that many of the people who are unemployed did not work when they were young. That is a misfortune. This Bill does nothing to enhance things for children.

I appeal to the Minister and the Government. If we are to do anything for children, we should go into housing estates in every town and city and do something about drug abuse and ensure that all children go to to school until they are 14 years of age. They would get on all right if they never went any further, but unfortunately some of them are not going to school at all. When we talk about caring for children we should start at the very beginning with the young and vulnerable. This is where we should channel our resources rather than paying inspectors to go around prosecuting good, honest to God employers.

Mr. Enright

This legislation implements a European Union directive with which we are obliged to conform. I have reservations about what is contained in such directives. There is a great distinction between what is happening in Germany, France, Belgium and even Britain and what is happening in this small country.

A considerable number of young boys and girls are employed on a regular basis in places such as supermarkets, licensed premises, petrol stations and so forth. Most of those young people would have been introduced to those jobs by parents and acquaintances. Friendship between the employer and employee would be involved in many of these employments, or at least the employers would know the young people they are employing. In about 98 per cent of such cases no exploitation takes place.

There will always be a small percentage of exploitation and that is difficult to eradicate. However, it is not widespread, although I could not be as definite as Senator Farrell that there is no such exploitation. Human nature is human nature and there will always be people who are prepared to exploit others, irrespective of what place they hold in society. Nevertheless, in the case of the jobs to which this legislation refers, the vast majority of the employees would have been introduced to their employers by friends or acquaintances.

A huge number of young people are never given the opportunity of obtaining part-time employment. Many young people living in the larger urban centres never get a chance to work in a shop, petrol station or lounge bar. Working in different spheres of activity is in its own way part of growing up and the education of young people in addition to providing them with pocket money to enjoy their youth. We should endeavour to broaden potential employment for young people and encourage employers to take on more of them during weekends and holidays. That will be difficult because there are so many young people. There are only two large urban areas in my constituency, Portlaoise and Tullamore. However, in the smaller urban centres, such as Birr, Ferbane, Clara and Mountrath, everybody knows everybody else. Shopkeepers and petrol station owners know the surrounding population and know the young people to whom they give employment. It would be of benefit to examine how we could get other young people involved in employment.

The problem the Bill seeks to address is not part-time employment. The main problem of exploitation arises when young people, and particularly young boys, are expected to do heavy, manual, dirty work. There are not many such occurrences but it does happen that young boys of 16 or 17 are given the long end of the stick all the time in employment. They are expected to carry out heavy work in industries and we should try to provide safeguards for such young people. It is essential that we assist them.

I remember going for a drink in north Tipperary with a friend and having a long discussion with him about life. The most memorable comment he made was that there is no free education in the school of experience. He was correct. One rounds off one's education by travelling around and meeting people. It broadens one's mind. The workplace is particularly important in that regard because it is a tough environment and that is part and parcel of life.

A huge number of young people in this country are exploited, not by employers but by lack of parental care and guidance and by society in general. This Bill will do nothing to help such children. The problem with young people is most visible on weekends of international football matches. The greatest affluence can be seen on such weekends by walking around St. Stephen's Green or down Grafton Street. The wealthiest people in Ireland can be seen. However, such weekends also see the greatest number of poor people on the streets of Dublin. They might be begging outside pubs or simply hanging around. These people are actually starving and often their clothes are threadbare. They are the people society left behind long ago.

It would be interesting if on one of those weekends, rather than carry out a survey to find out how so many people got into such situations, somebody made an effort to find out how they could be assisted. Perhaps the Eastern Health Board or the Departments of Health and Social Welfare could find out how these people live during the rest of the week. We are discussing the protection of young people, but there are young people out begging on the streets with their parents beside them. Elderly people also beg and many of them probably have not had a decent meal for months. We must see if we can assist those people.

Many will say that it is their own fault and that they are well paid and can draw social welfare benefits. That is nonsense. Many of those young people are living in the worst possible tenements and many do not have any proper accommodation. We must see how we can help those young people, who, if they got an opportunity or assistance, might be able to achieve a semblance of order and normality in their lives. It will not be easy. That is the most glaring example of the exploitation of youth. Under this legislation many inspectors will be calling to employers and businesses, but we should see how we can assist the young people to whom I have just referred.

I have spoken to a number of people who were involved in consultations with the Minister of State and the Department's officials about this legislation. The Bill meets many of the problems they discussed and some of the people to whom I spoke gave the Minister of State the height of praise. They were not pleased with what was being done but they felt a genuine effort was made to try to meet many of their concerns. The National Youth Council of Ireland praised the Minister for meeting it to discuss the problems experienced by young people. I am glad the Minister's efforts are being recognised.

The Minister mentioned age limits and the fact that young people under the age of 16 should not be allowed to work after 8 p.m. I was brought up in a licensed premises where I worked before I was 16. I learned a lot from listening to people talking. I see nothing wrong with people under 15 years of age working after 8 p.m. The Minister also said that people between the ages of 16 and 18 should not work after 10 p.m. She indicated that could be changed to 11 p.m. in exceptional circumstances. I was in Courtown during the last bank holiday weekend and because the weather was beautiful there was no one in the hotel bars until 11 p.m. If employers must make arrangements to leave young people home at 11 p.m. when customers are coming in, they will not employ them.

While we must adopt European directives, we must also take account of our local circumstances. We work in small rural communities where most people know one another and there is a lot of goodwill. I see nothing wrong with young boys and girls under 18 years of age working in a licensed premises until 12.30 a.m. or 1 a.m., provided the following day is not a school day. Many young people are better off working inside a licensed premises rather than trying to obtain alcohol and cider outside it.

We should make every effort to encourage young people into the workplace, even on a temporary basis, so that they can learn about job satisfaction. We need regulations but we should re-examine the hours specified by the Minister. Many people will query these hours because they are anxious to get temporary employment for their sons and daughters. We must strike a balance, therefore the Minister should try to extend the hours.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to share my time with Senator Lee.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

I am advised that is not allowed on Second Stage.

Mr. Quinn

Perhaps it will be possible for Senator Lee to speak this afternoon as well.

I congratulate the Minister on this Bill. She said that as legislators we have a duty to put in place laws which protect the vulnerable sections of our community. One only has to look at this Bill to realise how far we have travelled from Victorian times when children were expected to climb up chimneys and down mine shafts. As we consider this Bill, we should also give some thought to parts of the world where child labour is still widely used and children work in appalling conditions. People who sell goods in the developed world, and especially people who buy goods, should ensure that those goods have not been produced by child labour. That is part of the development of customer power, which is continuously growing. During the 1830s, Drummond, the Under-Secretary for Ireland, said — I am sure Senator Lee will correct me if I am wrong — that property has its duties as well as its privileges.

Professor Lee

Right on both counts.

Mr. Quinn

The same message must be sent to customers today that we have both rights and responsibilities as regards the products we buy. We must have more information about what customers buy. Ireland should be prominent among those in the European Union who are pushing for controls to ensure that Europe does not import the produce of child labour. There is nothing protectionist about such a stance. There is no justification for using teenage children in sweat shops. We should not be slow to insist that our values in this regard are followed when buying goods.

We are at a different stage in Europe and in this country and this is reflected in the Bill's emphasis on protecting the integrity of the young person's education. We do not want the work which children do to get in the way of their schooling. We do not want work to compete with schooling so that young people are presented with an irresistible temptation to drop out. We are just beginning to realise that dropping out is the short cut to "life-term" unemployment and to all other social problems. The young people most at risk of dropping out are those whom the education system has failed. Economic pressures can play a great part for a 16 year old and sometimes for their families, as Senator Enright said. The attraction of even a small wage can be overpowering for that family.

The main reason young people drop out is that the education system has nothing to offer them. In some cases they have been branded as failures from primary school. If they get an opportunity to succeed in the world of work, they grab it as soon as they can. We are only now beginning to face up to the fact that our education system does not suit the talents of a large number of those who go through it. The new leaving certificate-applied in which I was involved, is one aspect of what is being done. If we succeed with the leaving certificate-applied and with the other measures being introduced to modernise the curriculum, we will have attacked the problem of dropping out at its source.

A central part of the leaving certificate-applied is work experience. There is a vital need to build a bridge between the world of education and the world of work so that young people are properly equipped to make the transition from one to the other. Formal work experience schemes are specifically excluded from the scope of this Bill and that is right. It also needs to be said loudly and clearly that for adolescents to work towards the end of their schooling is good but the danger is that we could make the error of thinking it is bad but the Minister has not done so and this principle is well protected in the Bill.

We must make sure that neither the education nor the health of young people is threatened and that they are not exploited. With these safeguards, we should encourage work by 16 and 17 year olds. Such work is not a necessary evil or an evil of any kind. Work by senior cycle school children can be a positive good in many ways. I am not talking about eight year olds going down mine shafts or up chimneys or Third World children working in sweat-shops instead of going to school. I am talking about young people, who will soon be school leavers, preparing for the world of work by experiencing its disciplines at first hand.

The Bill provides for a large number of exceptions which might dilute its general thrust. The Minister will have the power to exempt by licence whole industrial sectors from many of its provisions. Given that the number of sectors where young people are employed is small, one is tempted to wonder whether there is much of substance left in the shell of the Bill. This is empowerment legislation and the making of these exceptions will depend on the Minister of the day, but this power to exempt sectors is a concern.

Several times in the House and outside I have said — the Minister may have heard me — that all social legislation we pass has two effects. It has a desired effect but it also has the undesired effect of inhibiting job creation. This is not an argument against social legislation. I have been actively involved in attempting, and in some cases succeeding, to have beneficial changes made to such legislation. However, there is always a price to pay in terms of jobs.

My company employs over 600 young people at weekends to pack bags for customers and to wheel trolleys to their cars. None of them is under 16 years of age so they will not be affected by this legislation. We do not employ people under 16 because, under the previous legislation, it became too much hassle to ensure we operated within the law. The 15 year olds we employed were keen, enthusiastic and anxious to get to work. They were sharp enough to cheat on their hours and were motivated enough to want to do it. To police this situation to make sure we stayed within the law became too much trouble. We decided to stop employing 14 and 15 year olds even for that limited number of hours. We still employ over 600 16 and 17 year olds so the net result is not much different but it is the principle to which I want to draw attention.

All social legislation discourages employers in some form or other from taking on as many people as they might otherwise employ. We can mask this reality but we cannot avoid its consequences. All social legislation is worthy and desirable but this does not take from the inescapable fact that there is a price in lost jobs which must be paid.

Last year I told the Minister that, in the United States, I joined a table of business people and was introduced and welcomed as somebody from Ireland. A man at the table said to the others that Ireland is a wonderful and marvellous country and that they should go there as it is a great place for a holiday because of its golf, fishing and great places to stay. However, he told them they should never open a factory there. I was jolted. I basked in his lovely words about Ireland until he explained that he was on the board of a company which had to close a factory. He said that people would not believe the attitude in Ireland to having to let staff go. He said he was referring not just to trade unions, agencies and legislation but to the fact that people in Ireland do not understand that in order to create employment some jobs will fail and some will only last for a time and then have to go. As a member of the boards of a number of companies, he discouraged the creating of jobs in Ireland. This was a reminder to me that every time we do something worthy, we must also remind ourselves that we inhibit in some form or other the ability to create jobs.

I do not have a problem with the Bill. We must learn to live with this problem but we must also keep it in our minds. I do not make this point to speak against the principle of the Bill. In any case, I do not think it has teeth. I make this point to provide yet another reminder that we cannot go on ignoring the general problem forever. I welcome the Bill and I wish the Minister well.

Mr. Lydon

I will not be long and I hope this will allow Senator Lee a chance to contribute. I welcome the Bill. Last week when I spoke on points in a Bill, I was told I was giving out about the Minister, even though I was not. I hope this will not happen now. I have some difficulties with the Bill but these have nothing to do with the Minister. Her intention to encourage young persons to remain in education beyond the age of 15 is laudable and necessary. We all know what happens when they do not. She made another laudable point, that is, that the new legislation does not seek to impose a ban on the employment of young people but merely to prevent abuse. The main message is that it is not work but abuse and exploitation which are wrong.

There are a few points I wish to have clarified and the Minister might do so when she is concluding. Section 3 states that a child over 14 may be employed to do non-industrial light work. The definition in the directive of such work is vague. It defines it as work which "is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and is not such as to be harmful to their attendance at school...." I would like to see this definition clarified.

Section 3 is complicated because it contains provisions on 13, 14, 15 and 16 year olds. I have no problem with the general thrust of the Bill but with its detail. The section states that during the period of the summer holidays, children are prohibited from doing any work for a period of at least 21 days. Are they prohibited from working during Christmas and Easter holidays? Many children like to work during the Christmas holidays and maybe work for people like Senator Quinn.

Section 3 provides that a child over 14 years in full-time secondary education may be employed as part of a programme of work experience or education programme for up to eight hours in any day or 40 hours in any week. Earlier, the section provides that a 14 year old may be employed to do non-industrial work outside the school term provided the hours do not exceed seven hours in any day. The section is complicated and will be a minefield to police. The Bill states that there will be inspectors, but God knows how many inspectors will be needed to ask young people whether they are 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18 years of age.

Under section 5 an employer, before employing children, must obtain copies of their birth certificates and written permission from their parents or guardians. Identity cards should be used at some stage, particularly for young people.

Section 6 provides that a young person must not be required to work for more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week or between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. It also provides for minimum periods of rest. It will be difficult to police this, particularly in the case of young people working in two jobs. The minimum periods of rest provided for in the section are not to apply to the fishing and shipping sectors.

I understand the directive allows for exceptions in the case of work performed in service with the armed forces and in hospitals or similar establishments. However, there is no reference in the Bill to hospitals or similar establishments or to work in agriculture. From my experience of working on a farm, there are times when hay must be brought in quickly and the family concerned may have to work late into the evening. They often do it for other families as well, for which they get paid. Will this practice be prohibited? I am not sure it should.

Senator Enright referred to the tourism and catering industries where children are employed in bars, hotels etc. which nobody comes into until 10 or 11 p.m. EU countries have different customs and habits. Germans go to bed early. When I was in Sweden I was advised to go for dinner at 6.30 p.m. because I would not get anything to eat in a restaurant otherwise. People there seem to get up in the middle of the night and go to bed in the middle of the day. In Portugal, families stay up until 2 a.m. because they have been in bed for up to four hours in the middle of the day. There is room for flexibility. I want the Minister to look at this matter carefully. We are making regulations which will affect a great number of young people. I am not against the legislation but it needs more clarification in a number of areas.

Section 14 gives a defence to an employer if he breaches any provision of the Act in employing a young person if he can show it was necessary because he anticipated "fire, flood, storm, violence, a breakdown of plant or machinery or any other emergency". Employers could use this as an escape clause. They may say they feel a storm is coming and make the child work late that night. This section is not clear. Section 14 (b) states this is all right when "adult workers are not available". This is negative in its thrust. What does the section mean by an outbreak of violence? I would like the Minister to examine this again. If an employer is brought to court he can offer as his defence that he needed to keep these young people working because there was a threat of an outbreak of violence, a flood, storm, that the ice cream machine would break down or another emergency. I am not saying this in a light hearted or joking manner, nor am I trying to oppose the Minister, but I ask her to re-examine this section. It is a way out for employers who wish to exploit children.

Senator Quinn said he was at a dinner in America and was told that Irish workers were unreliable. I was at a lunch in Italy before Christmas where an industrialist said exactly the same thing. He could not depend on Irish workers because a high proportion were alcoholics and he would never open a factory here. This man had factories in various countries. It is a sad indictment. An OECD study showed that Finnish workers took approximately 3.6 sick days per year while Irish workers took 33 sick days per year.

Like other Senators, I think it is good for children to work. While a child is defined in the United Nations Charter as being under 18 years of age, there is a great difference between a child of 18 years of age and one who is 12 or 13 years of age and there are differences between children of the same age. I know we must draw a line somewhere, but to say that a 17 or 18 year old cannot work past 11 p.m. on a summer's night, for example, is not right. The Bill also says young people cannot start work too early in the morning. Many people start work early in the morning and it does not do them any harm. This is a cultural matter.

This Bill will be difficult to police. Will it prohibit student nurses or nurses' aids, for example, from doing night duty? There is a great difference between working during school and holiday time. I agree with the Minister in that anything that harms the child in any way or encourages late night working should be prohibited. I do not like to see young people working in bars.

We must strike a balance and I am not sure we have got it exactly right in this case. There are cultural differences across the Community and between rural and urban Ireland which may allow for differences between young people working different hours. I have difficulties with sections 3 and 14 and maybe we can come back to them on Committee Stage. I welcome the thrust of the Bill and I commend the Minister for it. Differentiating all these various ages makes it unduly complicated, hard to police and perhaps we should re-examine these areas.

Professor Lee

I am embarrassed by the kindness with which Senator Quinn and Senator Lydon made time for me. I cannot rival their dedication in dining for Ireland abroad at this stage. I am not an expert on this area. I have a few questions for the Minister. Like previous contributors, I welcome the general intention behind the Bill.

My queries relate to how much we know about what we are doing and how competently we can anticipate the consequences? In her statement the Minister said that the intention is to encourage young persons to remain in education training beyond the age of 15 for the purpose of further education etc. She rightly points out there is a disproportionately heavy long term unemployment record among those who left school early — we all know the data. However, the implication seems to be that if we can give them an extra year in school, their unemployment levels will decline.

My questions are basic; I should know the answers if the data is there, and if not, I hope the Minister or her Department can tell me. How many people are we talking about here and where do they live? Reference was made to rural areas. I would have assumed the bulk of 15 year olds live in the high unemployment areas clustered around Dublin and in parts of Cork and Limerick etc. but I may be wrong. We may be largely talking about a systemic situation.

I have a question about the connection between leaving school at 15 years of age and long-term unemployment. In her speech the Minister said that once young people become unemployed and remain so for a period of time, they are likely to remain long-term unemployed. She also said that she wants to discourage young persons from leaving school to take up low grade work with poor job prospects. How many of these long-term unemployed have been unemployed from the moment they left school without any work experience and how many got some work, however low grade, and then became unemployed in due course because they went into dead end jobs? That may be a potentially significant distinction.

I am not at all confident that raising the school leaving age by one year, which I approve of in principle, will make much difference. I assume those who leave school at 15 years of age have already acquired a disposition which will make them reluctant to be willing participants in school up to 16 years of age. They are likely to follow the same trajectory at 16 years of age as they would at 15 years of age unless something changes their attitude towards education and work in the wider sense. Senator Quinn may be right in saying that the changes envisaged in the type of curriculum etc. will attract their enthusiasm in a way the conventional curriculum failed to do. Is there a danger that all we are doing here is postponing by one year the experience these people will have anyway?

I assume the main reason we have these unemployment levels is because the jobs are not there. If they became more educated and got some of the jobs available, there would be a displacement effect among those who already have jobs. Saying they will be unemployed for the rest of their lives if they leave school at 15 years of age assumes they would have jobs if they were better educated. If the jobs are not there in the first place, the net effect would be different. Will this change make much difference in that regard?

We are talking all the time about integration and the Minister of State was central to the idea of integrated programmes for the Structural Funds. When we are talking about the relationship between work and education, that implies integration presumably between the Minister's portfolio, which includes the Department of Labour, and the Department of Education. A little further on, the Minister talks about how her Department will receive complaints about the employment of children over long hours for low wages, often with the complicity of parents or guardians. That is a historical phenomenon going back as far as we want to go.

What happens if we block employment for these children? I do not know how many are involved, but if these children live in the high unemployment areas, that is, the ghettos, and no alternative income becomes available for themselves or their families, what are the implications for the families? This is not a justification for what is happening but is there a Government policy to take cognisance of the consequences or is this one more piece of ad hoc or disconnected legislation which just creates a new problem a little along the line, for which the responsibility for coping lies either with the Minister's Department or some other Department. Is it possible at this stage to think in more “integrated” ways about the totality of the implications of this? I am not saying that in an adversarial or aggressive sense. I welcome the general thrust of what the Minister is trying to do but I hope these types of implications have been thought through and can be handled.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Ms E. Fitzgerald)

I thank the Senators for what was an excellent debate. Everybody brought their own life experience to it as parents, career-guidance teachers or as people involved in psychology, the business or the academic world. It has been a very useful and fruitful debate.

Senator Ormonde worried about whether we were being too restrictive with students under 16 years of age. The framework we are talking about is, first, the under 13s who may be involved in artistic or cultural events, advertising, the theatre, etc., by regulation or licence, where we can lay down the conditions to ensure their health is not abused by the kind of hours they work or the nature of the job, and that their welfare and schooling are protected.

Fourteen year olds are allowed work seven hours per week during the school term which is a new provision as this was not allowed to date. We do not cover employment under contract for services, so the Bill does not cover areas of casual work, such as baby sitting, newspaper deliveries, etc., where the youngster can decide his or her hours, and allows flexibility. There is also flexibility in relation to farm work, work in a family business, etc.

Fifteen year olds can work up to eight hours per week during the school term. To date, 15 year olds could work a 40 hour week. We are trying to raise the school leaving age to 16, so I am raising the general work age to 16 years and making this provision for work during the school term for 15 year olds. During the school holidays, 15 year olds can work a 40 hour week but they must get a three week break in the summer but a break is not necessary at Christmas or Easter.

Senator Ormonde raised the question of transition year students. She said that it was not a study year and perhaps such students should be allowed work longer hours. Most transition year students are 16 years of age, although some may be 15 years of age. There is flexibility, which we can tease out in the course of the legislation, to examine this particular issue looking at it as work experience which is sanctioned through the school. I would not agree that it is good for 14 or 15 year olds in general to be working three hours per day, because what we are trying to ensure is that young people can balance their education and training which is obviously central to their long-term chances in life. Part-time work, which is an excellent maturing experience, should be kept in proportion.

Senator Henry emphasised the need for recreation, sport and physical development because these are the growing years when people need a little time and space for themselves. They need space and time for homework and school, and work must fit in with that in a general way. We are trying to strike a balance and I think we have struck a balance here. There is a provision for flexibility by regulation to examine other circumstances provided we meet the terms of the directive and the health and safety requirements. We can look at them on a case by case basis because there is that flexibility, and we are trying to look after the long-term interests of the young people concerned.

As Senator Lee said rightly, young people who drop out of school early are likely to be tomorrow's long-term unemployed. Many of these people may end up signing on at 18 years of age and not signing off until they are eligible for old age pensions. We are doing nobody any favour if we encourage youngsters to drop out of full-time education for a couple of months, take a full-time job, get bored and end up sitting around without work. We know from surveys of school leavers surveys and other research that the likelihood of being long-term unemployed is directly related to lack of skill in early life, so, if we can, we should encourage people to get an education and training the first time round instead of trying to catch up with second chance education. That is important.

I accept everything Senator Quinn said about the importance of an appropriate curriculum, particularly for students who do not have the academic abilities which seem to be the most valued in our points mad curriculum. I know he has done a huge amount of work on the leaving certificate-applied, which is very important.

Senator Farrelly and a number of other Senators asked how many prosecutions there had been. Over the years, the inspectors spoke with employers, etc., and that sorted out most cases. However, a minority of prosecutions were taken. We referred 19 cases to the Chief State Solicitor's Office for prosecution since 1977 and he proceeded with ten cases, nine of which were successfully prosecuted. Prosecutions are an end of a process but I hope we would engage in a process of public education and encouraging employers to come with this. Criminal sanctions should be the end of the road, not the beginning. The penalties are £1,500 for a breach or £250 per day for a continuing breach of the legislation.

A number of people said there are not enough apprenticeships and I agree. There is a real problem getting employers to take on apprentices. Ten years was spent negotiating a new system of apprenticeship, moving from the old "time served" system to one which alternates periods of on and off the job training. Employers have been slow to take up this new system although it took a huge amount of time to negotiate. It is sad to hear that employers, such as the building employer we heard quoted complain of a shortage of bricklayers but they are not willing to take on apprentices. I have talked to the CIF, IBEC, etc., about this.

The Department is developing the new model of traineeship, which is a more flexible approach. We have provided for it in the national plan, there have been some very successful pilot projects and we are working to mainstream on the job training in companies with a more flexible approach to a much wider range of training areas. I hope that goes well.

Senator Henry quoted from some wonderful research. One area she talked about, the 12 year olds, would not be covered by the Bill because it is casual work, that is, the odd gardening job, washing the car, etc. I agree with her point about the need for young people to have time for themselves for their recreation purposes as well as trying to balance time for school, homework and work.

Senator O'Sullivan asked about policing. There are labour inspectors and Congress has recommended an ongoing regular monitoring review with the different interests coming together a couple of times a year to see what is and what is not working. I will follow up that idea.

Senator Farrell felt that he had never seen young people being exploited by employers. That is not the feedback I get and I would not agree with him. I know many a young person who, many years ago, left school at 14 years of age and did very well, but we are living in a different world and we know that only a fraction of those who drop out at that age — and I have some figures for Senator Lee — will end up in decent jobs. The world has moved on, and I think we are doing many people a disservice. Currently, the minimum school leaving age is 15 years and it will be raised to 16 years.

Senator Quinn talked about the labelling of goods in terms of the exploitation of child labour in the Third World. We must never forget the horrific things that go on there and we should not collude with it by buying cheap goods. He asked if the exceptions dilute the legislation. I do not believe they do because the legislation is governed by the directive and our international obligations. We must bring the spirit of the directive to bear on the application of the exceptions.

Senator Lydon asked about light work, which is defined in the directive and in the Bill. It is work that is not so heavy that it will interfere with the young person's physical growth or work that is so heavy and difficult that it will inhibit their chances of getting education and training. There is no restriction on work during the Christmas holidays, once people get the three week break. Exceptions are provided in the agricultural area because there are a few nights at this time of the year and in July when people work late on a farm because they are saving hay.

With regard to the tourism and catering areas, it has been argued that people in this country have a different attitude to time. I took legal advice from the Attorney General's Office to ascertain whether we could offer more flexibility at weekends and during the summer holidays with regard to the 11 p.m. finishing time. The answer I got was that we could not. Given our international obligations under the EU directive, which says we cannot dilute our existing protections and our ratification of the 1946 ILO Convention, it is not open to us to extend it beyond 11 p.m.

The point has been made by ICTU — and it is worth bearing in mind — that in many cases young people working in pubs have to stay later than 11 p.m. to clean up. They receive no pay for this work and end up walking home at a dangerous hour of the night. We must keep the overall welfare and health provisions in mind. I have gone as far as I can legally and it has been a reasonable move in this direction.

Senator Lee asked about the number of early school leavers. About 5,000 youngsters leave school before their junior certificate or equivalent every year. The total number of people who leave early every year, including those with no junior certificate and those who leave with only a junior certificate or having failed their junior certificate, is 15,000. Some people leave school because of the short-term attraction of a job. If a young person is only getting a couple of pounds pocket money from his or her parents a job paying £30 or £40 a week looks attractive.

The experience has been that young people who take up full-time work at that age are discarded as soon as they start looking for more money or, alternatively, they begin to feel exploited and drop out. They do not tend to come back into the school system so it is a false inducement to encourage youngsters to go into full-time work. We should encourage them to stay in the school system by making it more relevant. There are programmes such as Youthreach and so on.

Senator Lee may not be aware that the National Economic and Social Forum has done much work on the relationship between early school leaving and youth unemployment. We had many papers and a plenary session on the issue. I hope we will identify many of the gaps and problems and areas where we can improve our system. For example, there are a number of excellent pilot projects being funded under the Horizon programme — there is one in Dundalk. They are aimed at early school leavers and potential drop outs and have succeeded in holding them in the school system. We need to learn from those experiences and ascertain the gaps in our systems.

We should mainstream this good practice and ensure that, instead of having 15,000 people leaving school with no leaving certificate, we should provide appropriate training or education which will enhance their prospects of education for life. This Bill has a part to play in the encouragement of the balance and I have worked hard with my staff to strike an appropriate balance.

We had a good debate in the Dáil and the Bill was improved as a result of that listening experience. I have listened with care to Senators and I look forward to the Committee Stage debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22 May 1996.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 15 May 1996

Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Acting Chairman

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 1996