Items 1,2,3 and 4 will be taken together for the purpose of debate. I call on the Acting Leader to move item 1.
Protection of Employment Order, 1996:Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Protection of Employment Order, 1996,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before the House on 1 November, 1996.
This is the first time I have been in the Seanad since the death of the Cathaoirleach, Senator Liam Naughten. I extend my sympathy to his family and the Seanad on their loss. He was a man of great dignity and kindness and was well respected by everyone. The Seanad has suffered much loss with the deaths of two other well respected and well liked Senators, Seán Fallon and Gordon Wilson.
The motion now introduced seeks the approval of Seanad Éireann for three sets of draft regulations which I propose to make under the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996. The Act, which was passed by both Houses and signed into law by the President last June, revises and extends the legislation relating to the protection of children and young people in employment. It repeals the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, and also gives effect to the EU Council Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work. This legislation repeals and re-enacts existing provisions and consolidates them in one Act.
It is proposed to bring the Act into operation by way of a commencement order as soon as these regulations, which are necessary to give the legislation full effect, are approved. The first set of regulations, being made under section 8(1) of the Act, modify the application of the Act to young persons employed in the fishing or shipping sectors. It is proposed that the provisions relating to working hours and night work will not apply to such young persons. These sectors were exempted from those provisions in the 1977 Act and the EU Directive, Articles 8(5) and 9(2), also allows a derogation for these sectors from those provisions where there are objective grounds for doing so. The employment of such workers is usually intermittent and seasonal and may entail long spells on and off duty. For these reasons, compliance with those provisions would be impractical.
It will be noted that young workers are covered by other provisions including minimum age. Furthermore, any young person assigned to night work must have equivalent compensatory rest time. Under regulations I propose to make under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, a young person will be entitled to a free assessment of his or her capabilities before assignment to night work and at regular intervals thereafter.
The second set of regulations, proposed under section 9 of the Act, exclude close relatives from certain provisions of the Act. These provisions are those on the prohibition of employment of children, duties of employer, working hours and time spent on vocational training. These regulations will replace similar regulations made under the 1977 legislation. Close relatives are family members — spouse, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister — who are employed in the private dwelling house or on a farm where both employer and employee reside or in a family undertaking. These regulations will facilitate young people who wish to work on a family farm or in a family business.
The third set of regulations being made under section 28 of the Act prescribe the abstract of the Act which is required to be displayed by every employer of young people at the premises where the young people work. An employer who does not display the prescribed abstract of the Act shall be guilty of an offence and may, on summary conviction, be fined up to £1,500 and a further £250 per day in the case of a continuing offence. The abstract summarises in simple language the main rules on employing people under 18 and will be available, free of charge, in both poster and leaflet from from the information unit of the Department of Enterprise and Employment. The poster is attractive and will be eye-catching to young people, unlike the usual boring regulations posters.
Senator O'Toole will be interested to know that, as promised on Report Stage, I also propose to make regulations under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, whereby the employer will be required to give a copy of the abstract to every employee under 18 within one month of the employee starting work. I have an abstract to show the Senator.
It is important that young people know their rights and entitlements under the legislation and an information campaign about the Act will be launched as soon as the commencement order is made. It will involve contacting schools, organisations representing young people and employers of young people.
I commend the regulations to the House.
I welcome the Minister to the House to discuss this issue again. It has been discussed in depth and the Minister is aware of my views on particular aspects of it. We are succumbing to an EU directive to the nth degree. Everything is based on a European model and there is nothing left of the Irish model; this worries me a great deal. However, the provisions concerning close relatives should be excluded from the Act. One could not possibly apply the rules of a normal business to a family business. I have no difficulty with that because in a family business relations are employed. There are many other areas, such as the shipping and racing industries, where it would be difficult to regulate and enforce the provisions of the Act. I raised this matter with regard to service industries which do not operate from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and do not have a normal working routine as I felt they were excluded. The type of work coming on stream is totally different. The nine to five job is gone; people work flexi-hours. How will these provisions be enforced? Will an inspector from the Department Enterprise and Employment be involved? If so, what will be his or her brief in terms of doing a spot check on a business, such as walking into a bar at 11 o'clock in the evening to check if someone under the age of 16 is working? This is a difficult area to monitor.
I agree with the thrust of this debate on protecting young people in employment but it has become too concerned with legalities. It should be left to the school authority and parents to decide whether a 15 year old child can work. They should be allowed to work if they can cope. Age and maturity cannot be described in the one vein because one 14 year old could act like a seven year old and another could act like a 20 year old. One cannot impose a chronological limit on them. More flexibility would allow school authorities to have an input. They have been excluded except in regard to work experience.
Education is of primary importance for young people. However, education and the workplace cannot be separated. It is crazy to suggest that a transition year student, who would not have much homework, cannot work in the local supermarket for two or three hours in the afternoon or evening because it would endanger their health and their studies.
These provisions will be difficult to enforce. Many young people would take up employment tomorrow morning if it were available. They would not stay in school until the age of 18 years, rather they would leave at 15 or 16 years if they could get a job or an apprenticeship. We should be more flexible and have greater consideration for Irish rather than European concerns.
These regulations, which are welcome, deal with close relatives, the fishing industry and the display of information. Schools, employers and the public should have information on the Act. Many people do not know what the legislation or the regulations are about. Some of my colleagues could not believe that young people who at present can work while in their transition year at school will no longer be able to do so.
At a discussion in another forum the view expressed was that the provisions should be much more flexible and that there should have been more consultation with the educational institutions and the employers. We must forge greater links between schools and employers. The future of employment lies in the preparation for work through education. However, it is not right to so limit the number of hours per week that children may work.
However, I endorse the regulations covering close relatives, the fishing industry, the racing industry and the display of information on the Act. We must ensure such information is made available in user friendly language so that young people will know their rights. I often have difficulty understanding the jargon in Acts and regulations. This is important legislation which will have a great effect on young people.
Unemployment is a constant cause for concern and I do not think this legislation will be helpful in that regard. Employers will not employ people because of the extent of regulation and bureaucracy. There should be more flexibility.
I think the Minister of State for her expression of sympathy on the death of the Cathaoirleach, the late Senator Naughten. A nice tribute was paid to him on "A Week in Politics" on RTÉ and it brought home to me that he will no longer be with us.
There will be much discussion about the regulations before the House but they will become law. We have passed many regulations over the years. Those relating to hauliers were referred to earlier. Such regulations were conceived by bureaucrats and they cannot always be implemented properly on a day-to-day basis. The bureaucrats are trying to ensure that children are not abused, especially those who have the opportunity to go to school. This legislation is to protect children who might otherwise be sent out to work full-time or almost full-time. However, I do not know if these regulations will achieve that objective but they will have a ripple effect on the employers and the young people themselves.
We are deciding to exclude the fishing, shipping and racing industries. Last night I spoke to someone involved in the mushroom industry about the employment hours and rules of that industry. In the summer young people could start work at 5 a.m. or 5.30 a.m. until 7 a.m. or 8 a.m. That industry should have been mentioned in this House. However, I would not have thought of it and I told him that nobody from his organisation had presented a case to any politician. I told him that if they wanted to put their case, they should make it professionally as other organisations do. He said he would. All parties should be aware of working hours, PRSI payments and other details of this part-time labour. Huge numbers of people in this industry work unsocial hours.
In my day one spent one's first four hours working on the farm everyday, including Saturday and Sunday. In the evening one got time to do one's schoolwork. There was not the same emphasis on education then as there is now and everybody had to do their bit. My uncle lived nearby and there were five girls and one boy in that house. In my house there were five boys and one girl but the five girls did the same work as the boys. It is unrealistic to make rules and regulations for a family business, be it a farm or small shop. Everybody likes to participate.
These regulations finalise a long and worthwhile discussion we had on this legislation some months ago. We cannot stop the clock but it would be interesting if, in 12 months' time, the Minister would give us an update on how these regulations are working. What problems, if any, are they causing for employers or young people who want to work? We have raised the age to 16 but all Members would agree there is no point passing the legislation and saying: "There it is. We have informed all participants, employers and schools, and provided glossy brochures". However, it would be nice to know in 12 months' time what impact it is having on the ground. We should not pass regulations, even if they are in response to EU Directives, and think they will stand forever. We should review the matter. I am sure the Minister would like a report on how the legislation is working and whether some aspects need to be changed. I hope she takes that aspect on board.
I welcome these regulations. The next major legislation from this Minister concerns the number of hours people will be allowed to work. I have been contacted by more people, particularly young people working in the service industry, about that Bill than about any other legislation proposed in these Houses. There will be long and hard discussions about who should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. The number of service industry jobs has increased substantially in the last few years and most people in that sector work far longer than 48 hours a week. We will have an interesting debate on that Bill.
I thank and compliment the Minister on the open and co-operative way she consulted people when dealing with the legislation. I raised issues with her Department and advisers who provided a good example of how to get the best from legislation. This was a fair, honest and effective attempt to meet the needs of different sides of the argument. I have no hesitation in supporting the draft regulations the Minister has put before us this morning. The Minister correctly and properly anticipated my question, which related to the next regulation. I accept her assurance that it will come onstream quickly.
An information campaign is crucial. I am glad the Minister has provided information in a creative way. It will not be just another boring document from a Department, it will be a bright, attractive brochure which will attract interest. I have a fundamental difference with Senator Farrelly as regards family businesses. Had these regulations been in place when I was a teenager working for my mother and uncle, I would have rammed them down their throats and gone to the disco.
Senator O'Toole might not be here if he had done that.
Unfortunately I was tied behind the counter. Much as I support the legislation, many young people working for their parents, uncles or aunts probably wish it was not being introduced because there is nothing as bad as being tied down when your friends and colleagues are going out.
I compliment the draughtspersons for their work on this legislation. They have supported the Minister admirably in putting across complicated viewpoints. We had many arguments in this House, especially on Committee Stage. That was healthy. It is good that we have been able to make progress.
On one of my days off, I was marooned on Lough Ree — my boat had broken down and was far away — when the Minister rang to discuss an aspect of the legislation. I was at a serious disadvantage.
The Bill aims to find a balance between the need to give young people experience of the workplace and to protect them from exploitation. I share many of Senator Ormonde's reservations. I raised the Order in Congress and other fora as well as in this House. I was reluctant to move along these lines but sometimes one has to decide which is the worst kind of exploitation — someone doing nothing and being offered drugs or someone being overworked by an unscrupulous employer. One should not have to make that choice. The Minister has struck the right balance. The regulations must be implemented. It is important that they meet the needs of Congress. I discussed them this morning with the relevant section of ICTU, which is delighted that the matter is being dealt with in such a pro-active way.
I am particularly pleased about the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) (Prescribed Abstract) Regulations, 1996, which provide for the display of the abstract in places of employment. I specifically asked for this and I am glad the Minister acceded to my request during the discussion. There is more to the legislation than a clampdown on unscrupulous employers. It also involves informing people about what they should be doing. The fact that the abstract must be displayed in every workplace means it will be read and even if people say it is ridiculous at least they will be aware of the law. Senator Ormonde was correct to argue that no one knows about this legislation. The same could have been said about the Employment Equality Act, 1977 — no one knew or cared about that Act either but when it began to impinge on some firms and a few headline cases emerged, people became aware of it. Regrettably, attitudes sometimes change after legislation has been implemented rather than before. That is how society works and it may happen on this occasion also.
I thank the Minister for being open to suggestion. In contrast to Senator Farrelly, I will be courageously on the Minister's side as far as the legislation on work hours is concerned and I will insist that her Government partners support her.
I welcome this debate and, like Senator Ormonde, I will not go into much detail because we have already debated the legislation. I am glad the Minister responded so positively during the deliberations in the Seanad, especially to the points raised by Senator O'Toole. It appears the information will be well displayed in the workplace and that employers will be obliged to inform young people. I am glad the Minister intends to make regulations under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in order to add to the availability of information and I look forward to the colourful posters which she promised.
The main point made during the debate on the legislation concerned the primacy of education for young people and the importance of protecting them from anything which might divert them from it. In that regard, it is most important that we have protective legislation. Senator Ormonde was concerned about transition year students; I thought they were covered by the provision allowing people aged 14 and over to work 40 hours a week if it counts as work experience or to work 35 hours a week during holidays. I am sure the Minister will refer to this but that provision appears to cover the Senator's concern.
Transition year pupils are aged between 16 and 18.
Then they would be covered by this provision, which refers to those aged 14 and over. It is my understanding that 16 year olds can work 40 hours per week but I am sure the Minister will clarify this.
I was concerned when I heard Deputy Harney say in the Dáil that these regulations would restrict the pocket money young people can earn. We should restrict their pocket money and we should emphasise the importance of education. Deputy Harney also implied this would restrict employers who are trying to compete in international markets. However, that is not the case because young people are doing service work. There are only so many supermarket shelves to be stacked, glasses to be collected and newspapers to be delivered.
It is important that young people do not take up work which could be done by people who are trying to make a living. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul published a report recently in which it expressed serious concern at the growing divide between the haves and the have nots. We must realise there is only so much work to be done, although we can increase jobs through international trading. Young people should not be allowed to work 17 or 18 hours a week when someone else has no work. I support the Minister in this regard.
If we are serious about family life and solving the problems in society we must look at the other side of the coin. If a young person spends too much time working while trying to get an education, how much time will they have for sport, for helping in the home, for their grandparents and their younger brothers and sisters? We must ensure there is a balance in young people's lives. Young people love money and they will work all the hours they can get so they can buy the more expensive jeans or runners. There is a social obligation on us to protect young people. We often allow people to work long hours. This means they may not have time to do their duties at home and the person who stays at home will have to care for elderly relatives or young dependent children. We must introduce legislation if we want to improve society.
I welcome these regulations and the availability of information. I hope the regulations will be implemented and monitored by the Department.
I am indifferent about these regulations because they should have been introduced with the legislation. It is only a few months since we discussed the Bill and already we are introducing exclusions. I dislike the idea of introducing legislation in May and, within the year, introducing regulations to provide certain exclusions. That creates uncertainty as to whether we are serious about this matter. It also allows a situation to develop where people who have already been excluded do not have to comply with these regulations. It opens the floodgates and creates disrespect for the law.
I recall discussing legislation on the employment of young people in these Houses 20 years ago and we do not seem to have advanced much. It is difficult to legislate for everyday activities if they continue regardless of whether we have introduced legislation. If we are serious about this issue, we should introduce a regulation so that young people would have to give an employer an identification card before they get work. When this legislation is fully implemented, will a young person be able to give an employer a certificate which enables them to get work? Will the employer be able to say they will not get employment if they do not have that certificate?
How many more exclusions and regulations will be introduced under this legislation? There are a number of provisions in the legislation for the making of regulations. Perhaps the Minister could clarify when she will introduce them.
I am concerned about exclusions relating to night work, especially for young people in the fishing industry. Fishing is a dangerous business; night fishing is dangerous work. I am not satisfied that it is wise to introduce exclusions in this area. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why she feels it is necessary to exclude young people from night fishing activities, probably the most dangerous activity in which any person could be employed.
I ask the Minister to clarify what type of research is being done to ascertain how many young people are employed and the type of work they are doing. Many young people are not concerned about pocket money, as Senator O'Sullivan said. In my experience, a big percentage of the money earned by young people is used to take some of the pressure off their parents who are trying to keep children at school and to keep the family together. Some of the money earned by young people is used to fund their further education. The point was raised when we discussed this issue before that the work done by young people to provide the necessary funding to see them through college might be curtailed. This is a good way to spend the money earned. I am concerned about the number of young professional people who cannot find employment and the fact that the State has given them little assistance in doing so.
We should introduce all legislation together rather than introducing a Bill in May, regulations in November and further regulations in the new year. This creates a lack of confidence and suggests we are not serious about this issue. In the long-term people will probably seek more exclusions and this will undermine the legislation. I do not oppose this, but it is unsatisfactory.
I thank Senators for the debate which included some of the issues we discussed in May and raised others we will discuss in the future in relation to working time. As a parent of teenagers, I strongly agree with Senator O'Sullivan about the importance of young people having balance in their lives. They must have time for school, school work and study, which is essential for careers, and for friends, sport and relatives. Work should be kept in proportion. Work experience is good for young people and it is permitted under the legislation. However, it is important to keep a sense of balance.
Senator Daly and Senator Ormonde asked about research. Research shows that young people who leave school early, whether to take up dead end employment or to do nothing, are most likely to become tomorrow's long-term unemployed. That is why under this Bill employment of young people is set firmly in the context that schooling comes first. The best thing we can do for young people is to encourage them to complete their education. There is a strong direct link between the age and stage of education at which a person leaves school and their potential to be long-term unemployed. Three-quarters of people who are long-term unemployed today left school with minimum or no qualifications. That is why this legislation puts work for young people in a context where schooling comes first.
Senator Farrelly displayed great confidence that I would have the same job in 12 months. I hope it is not a lack of confidence that he will be in the same place. However, if we are both in the Oireachtas I will be delighted to accept his invitation to return and report to the Seanad.
There might be a slight misunderstanding about the regulations. The racing industry is not included. Senator Daly asked why we are introducing new regulations. The legal position is that the 1977 Act is currently in force until the new law is implemented. My predecessor, Deputy O'Rourke, in making what were relatively minor changes to comply with EU rules, decided to consolidate two existing Acts in the new legislation. Most of what we are doing, therefore, is not new. Existing regulations exempt work at sea and people in family businesses. When the commencement order is made these regulations will basically continue an existing situation. That is why they are being introduced late. The parliamentary draftsman recommended that they be carried out by affirmative order — usually they are carried out by laying regulations before the House — and that is why they are being introduced at this time.
Will more be introduced?
No. The other regulations will consist of the commencement order, which is standard, and a regulation for licences regarding young people employed in the film industry. It will look after the welfare of such children and put their employment in the context of schooling, the ability to sit examinations and having teachers or chaperones on site. We have discussed this matter with the teachers' unions to ensure that we get the regulations right. That is all that remains to be done at this stage, even though there are broad powers under the legislation.
Senator Ormonde asked about monitoring and enforcement. We have a new means under the legislation through which young people, their trade union or their parents can apply to the Rights Commissioner of the Labour Court if young people are being discriminated against. In addition, if our inspectors find something wrong in a workplace they can take a case in that regard. I strongly believe in the value of education in this regard and in involving the employers of young people. We have already written to them and we will be in touch with them again about their precise duties. Good employers will want to conform with the law.
I will forward Senator O'Toole's compliments to the draftsman, he has done a good job and the text is clear in its presentation. Senator Daly raised the important issue of work at sea. These provisions offer flexibility if a boat is at sea beyond the permitted number of hours and cannot return to land on time. However, the young people concerned must be given compensatory rest. I have done a great deal of work with the fishing organisations, the Health and Safety Authority and fishermen's wives in regard to safety at sea. The sad aspect of deaths at sea is that so many of them occur because people are not wearing life jackets and protective equipment. Last year was a terrible year for deaths at sea. This year, as a result of greater awareness in the fishing community and much preventive work through involving fishermen in the advisory group of the Health and Safety Authority, the position is transformed and I hope that will continue. The Senator's point was valid and important. I will relay it to the Health and Safety Authority and advise it to pay particular attention to the safety of young people at sea.
The emerging fashion in both Houses of the Oireachtas is for Members to adopt a UK Tory policy in relation to Europe and to take on board the propaganda that European regulations have gone mad and will inhibit competitiveness. If one looks at the record, however, one will see that we created 93,000 jobs in the last three years. That is a record level of job creation not seen since the foundation of the State. Does this look like an economy that is sclerotic and throttled by European regulation? We do a disservice to ourselves, our economy, to social solidarity and to basic standards of minimum decency as set down by the European Community, from which we are happy to take £1,000 million per year to help fund our economic growth, when we take such an attitude.
Last week I met a group of major multinational employers and they told me that more damaging than the rules or regulations we introduce to set down minimum standards which good employers already obey, is the black propaganda whereby we take on the role of the British Tories or the British CBI, which wants to take our jobs, and claim that regulations are throttling the Irish economy. This country is a good place in which to do business. Our regulations and labour laws set minimum standards which good employers and unionised workforces already exceed. I am more concerned about young people being offered £1.50 per hour than introducing regulations which state that young people are not to be exploited in their work and are not to be asked to work hours detrimental to their schooling.
The additional European rules to the existing 1977 Act were minor and technical but I took the opportunity to strengthen our rules by raising the minimum age of work to 16 years, by putting work for under 16 years olds in the school context and by relaxing the rules to allow 17 and 18 year olds to work up to 11 p.m. when there is no school the next day. We should look at the facts and not propagate the myths.
I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.