On section 1 there is an amendment in the name of Deputy Dowling.
Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
Before we proceed with the Bill, I want to make a protest not in relation to the Minister for Labour but in relation to the Minister for Education. I sought some information this morning from civil servants in the Department of Education relative to the discussion which will take place on this Bill and I was told by the civil servants that all information must go through the Minister's office. All I wanted was simple statistical information. Now I have no intention of crawling to this supercilious crawthumping snob for simple statistical information. I have as much right as anybody else to ask for information and, when such information is required, I think I should get it freely from the Department. I must say in relation to the Minister for Labour that he did indicate to me that I could get any information I required from him or from any officer of his Department authorised to give such information, without reference to the Minister. In the case of the Department of Education I could not get the simple statistical information I required for the purpose of the discussion here this morning. Apparently one has to crawl to the Minister's office to get such information. This is an intolerable situation and one that needs to be remedied.
I want to add my protest to that of Deputy Dowling.
We cannot have a discussion on this.
Surely we are entitled to protest about something that is actually threatening the democratic system? This means that bureaucracy is taking over and, as elected representatives, we will not be able to get from the Department of Education information to which we think we are entitled.
Having allowed Members to make their protest we must now proceed with the business before the House.
Is it possible——
We really must not continue this discussion at this stage.
This is a very important piece of legislation and, as Ceann Comhairle, are you not in a position to help Members to procure this information, even to the extent of making an approach yourself to the Minister for Education?
No, it is not my function.
But you do agree there is a problem?
On a point of order.
I may be wrong, and I stand corrected if I am, but if my memory serves me right there was a question down to the Minister quite some time ago and his reply to that question was that nothing has changed in the Department of Education.
That is not so.
I protest. I stood up, a Cheann Comhairle, and you endeavoured to stop me speaking and you have now let two other Members speak.
The Chair has sought to get Members to come to the business ordered.
But you endeavoured to stop me speaking and you then let two other Members speak.
I suggest that Members opposite should approach the Department of Education. The Minister is a most reasonable man.
The information we were looking for is information we require in dealing with this measure and, since we have not been able to obtain the simple statistical information we require from the Department of Education, we may not be absolutely accurate in dealing with the Bill. As a Member I think I have a right to use civil servants for the purpost of eliciting information——
The Deputy is now continuing on the same issue. Will the Deputy come now to his amendment to section 1. I am asking Deputy Dowling to please move his amendment.
Before moving the amendment may I refer to the definition section because we find that there are——
We are dealing with section 1 now.
We are dealing with section 1. There are quite a number of factors involved and there is one particular matter I want to bring to the attention of the House. The ministerial amendments appeared on Monday. We got them on Monday. In examining legislation like this it is essential that we should be in a position to examine it in depth and in detail because ministerial amendments can make fundamental changes. In a Bill of this nature we should have the amendments at least seven days before the Bill is debated here to enable us to examine any fundamental changes as a result of ministerial amendments. We are in the unfortunate position that the Minister has the power to pilot this measure through with the majority on those benches irrespective of what amendments we table. Amendments should come to us in a reasonable time to give us a reasonable opportunity of assessing them in depth in order to perfect the legislation. Because of the present situation we will now have to go through the Bill line by line so that we will be able to table amendments for the report stage. This is a most unsatisfactory procedure because a Member may speak only once on the Report Stage. There can be no prolonged argument and we are therefore at a disadvantage. It may be that this was the procedure in the past with other Governments but, if it was, it was an unsatisfactory situation.
I am sure the Minister will agree that in order to examine in depth Bills of this nature it is necessary that we should have the amendments for a reasonable period so that we may examine them to ensure there are no fundamental changes being made. If there are changes any amendments we might have submitted would be of no value, and in some cases they could look silly.
I should like the Chair to give me some guidance on the following point. If we want to raise a question on Report Stage must we discuss the matter now line by line or is it sufficient to say we may have further amendments to section 1 on Report Stage?
That is quite adequate.
I take it that applies to all sections of the Bill? We do not want to discuss it line by line because we do not think it is necessary. However, in the event of amendments being put down on Report Stage, we are anxious to ensure that they will not be ruled out of order on the grounds that they were not discussed on Committee Stage.
I should tell the Deputy that amendments for Report Stage must have arisen out of Committee Stage. The Deputy must have adverted to the matter on Committee Stage.
Therefore, the only way we can deal with this matter is to discuss the Bill line by line. That is unsatisfactory and it will take a considerable time to discuss the clauses relating to "agreement", "child", "collective agreement" and the other matters. It is necessary to give Deputy Fitzgerald an opportunity to analyse the situation and we would be glad to have an assurance if we raise a matter in a general way that the Chair will be lenient when it comes to Report Stage.
As the Deputy understands, the Chair is governed by precedent on this matter. Amendments on Report Stage must arise out of Committee proceedings.
Does that mean that if the Deputy opposite raises in a general way sentiments relating to a particular section that would be the basis on which to come back to the matter on Report Stage? Is that too wide a reading?
If the Deputy indicates on each section what he wishes to have done this would justify raising it on Report Stage.
The Chair has said, "if the Deputy indicates on each section what he wishes to have done". If that is carried to its logical conclusion, I take it the Chair is saying, "if the Deputy gives an amendment or a loosely worded amendment"? Surely it should be enough to say that we question a certain point and then come in with an amendment on Report Stage?
That would be sufficient but the Deputy must give the House a broad indication of what he requires to justify raising it on Report Stage.
I want to assure the Deputy that this is open Government.
That has not been very noticeable.
I want to assure the Shadow Minister's shadow that there will be plenty of legislation from this Department in the coming year.
That will be very welcome. We were wondering what had happened to all the legislation that was promised.
In relation to the inspector, we may have an amendment on this matter on section 1 during Report Stage. Section 1 states:
"representatives of employees" means such trade unions as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of the employees in relation to whom the expression is used, or where there is no such trade union, such persons as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such employees;
We consider parents and guardians should have some rights in relation to children and young people but this Bill does not contain any such rights. Their rights should be specified in this section and I would ask the Minister to make this provision. The Minister has put down some amendments on other sections to this effect and I would ask him to accept my amendment which endeavours to recognise the rights of parents and guardians in the case of child labour.
I realise we are on Committee Stage but I should like to express my good wishes to Deputy Dowling on his appointment as Opposition spokesman for Defence. As the convention goes, I wish him long, successful years in that position. Likewise I welcome Deputy Fitzgerald in his role as spokesman for Labour. I welcome him to join me on this bed of nails, as Ray Gunther, the British Minister, described the Department of Labour. It is not quite as bad a bed of nails for a member of the Opposition who is spokesman in this area as it is for the Minister concerned, who must lie on the bed of nails.
Deputy Dowling's amendment seeks to insert the words "a parent or guardian of such an employee ..." but I consider the definition we have in the Bill is wide enough for the purpose we have in mind. In other sections of the Bill I am required to consult representatives before taking action either as to changing conditions or raising the age. For example, under section 6 I am permitted to raise the minimum age for employment in special cases where there might be danger to the health or safety of young persons but before doing so I am required to hold consultations with representatives of employers and employees interested in that class of work. Under section 16 I have a similar obligation imposed on me before I give any exemptions or exceptions by means of regulation or licence issued in accordance with that section.
Deputy Dowling's amendment would place us in the rather cumbersome situation where we would have to seek guardian or parental approval for all persons under 18 years, that is roughly 65,000 persons. It would be a cumbersome procedure and what we have here is a more convenient and better frame of reference. The terms "trade unions" or "representatives of employees" are sufficiently wide and they do what Deputy Dowling hopes to achieve in his amendment. In the circumstances I do not think there is any need for this amendment.
The section says, "... such persons as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such employees". It has to be in the opinion of the Minister but surely a parent or a guardian is a representative of the child? The phrase "in the opinion of the Minister" is too wide. Ministers may vary and their opinions may vary. I feel that it is absolutely necessary that the rights of the parents and guardians should be written into this Bill. The Minister has already indicated that he will be writing these rights in in some section.
Yes.
This is an important section and it deals with the representative of the employees but surely a parent or guardian is a representative of an employee. The Minister should reconsider this on the basis that his opinion may not always be the best opinion. Is the opinion of the Minister to supersede the right of the parent or guardian? The Minister should be reasonable and give recognition to the rights of the parent or guardian. In this regard I am not merely referring to the present Minister for Labour. Other Ministers may have different opinions to the present holder of the office. It is desirable that something on the lines of my amendment be written into this interpretation section.
The Minister should not rely merely on a ministerial opinion. We had a ministerial opinion this morning to the effect that certain people were not to get information. Ministerial opinions change daily. Ministers have one opinion in private and another opinion in public with the result that there can be a variety of opinions. In my view the rights of a parent or guardian cannot be superseded by the whims of a Minister.
The Deputy is correct in saying that at later stages in the Bill parents are involved. What is questioned here is the practicability of the Deputy's suggestion. I believe that the section as drafted is sufficient guarantee that there is consultation with interests representing the employee and, of course, it would not simply be the unfounded opinion of a Minister to decide exactly who the representatives are. Representatives here would have the sense as understood in industrial relations and laid down in previous legislation, trade union or association acting on behalf of the employee.
Therefore, there would not be this clashing of claims on who exactly is the representative in that sense. As the Deputy has his amendment drafted, there would be an obligation to consult with every parent of young people of this age, that is, with parents of some 65,000 young people. I submit that this would be impracticable. At a later stage when parental or guardian approval is required in specific instances we have built in these guarantees at the points where it matters and where it would be of importance. The position of the employee is adequately safeguarded by the framing of this legislation.
The Minister has now made the position very clear, that it is trade unions or associations who would be representing the employee. The Minister should consider the point that a child of 14 may not be a member of a trade union or of an association. In the case of a child of 14, does the Minister indicate that such a child must be a member of a trade union or an association? They are the only bodies the Minister has indicated.
No.
I do not want the Minister to go to 65,000 parents but I want the rights of parents or guardians written into this Bill. The Minister has made it clear that in his opinion trade unions or associations would be the bodies to represent the employees. I hold that it is not reasonable of the Minister to indicate that a child must be a member of an association or a trade union. If a child is not a member of an association or a trade union, who then is the representative of the child? In view of the statement the Minister has made he must accept my amendment. The Minister's statement is a fairly harsh one in relation to a child of 14 who is in employment because he feels that that child's representative must be a trade union or association.
In my view a child of that age need not be a member of a trade union or association. The bulk of children at that age are neither members of a trade union nor of an association and for this reason we must protect their rights in this section. There is a valid reason for including the rights of parents or guardians in this section.
I must assume that the Minister had consultations with the Congress of trade Unions before introducing this Bill. I should like to know if a child of 14 can be a member of a trade union? Are trade unions catering for children under school leaving age?
I suppose that since the school leaving age changed there would not be children under 14 years of age in trade unions at present. The section is so drafted that we do not assume that young people of this age are in trade unions. The section as drafted covers all of the possible variations in the situation of representation. The section states: "representatives of the employees in relation to whom the expression is used, or where there is no such trade union, such persons as are in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such employees". In my view that mirrors the actual situation, it meets the needs of it. At a later stage in the legislation where we feel there is a compulsory need for notification and consultation with the parents that provision is included. At this point, considering the practical difficulties of the situation, I do not see that need because the section as drafted adequately covers the idea of consultation.
The section does not lay down that the representations must be brought forward by a trade union or association because, as the Deputy rightly remarked, the trade unions cannot in all instances here claim to represent people of this age and, perhaps, in the majority of cases they do not. In my view the section as drafted is adequate.
Would the Minister not agree that there could be some division between the representative of the child and the representative of the young person? The child is more vulnerable than the young person and for this reason it is necessary that there should be some protection for the child as distinct from the young person. Would the Minister consider including at some stage the rights of parents or guardians in relation to a child? It is broadly covered here on the basis of employees but the child must be fully protected.
That is the intention of the amendments I have put in. At later stages we do bring in consultation with parents at a certain age.
Would the Minister not write that in here to ensure that the child is fully protected?
I will give some consideration to that for Report Stage. I believe the section is adequate but I will look at it again considering the age groups the Deputy has in mind.
At the outset I should like to convey my thanks to the Minister for his comments. I welcome the fact that the Minister is introducing legislation because we were beginning to wonder if the Minister had forgotten some of his promises. We look forward to the Minister bringing more legislation before the House. On the amendment of Deputy Dowling, the fact that the Minister has introduced the parent or guardian at a later stage of the Bill indicates that the Minister feels that in the definition section after the trade union the first person that should be specifically mentioned is the parent or guardian.
I am sure the Minister will note that Deputy Dowling has deliberately put into the amendment "a parent or guardian". To cover any contingency which might arise, it is in the singular. The Minister has a duty to give preference to the parent or guardian in the definition. The Bill covers a wide spectrum of the young in our society. I fully appreciate the Minister's difficulties in introducing it. We are disappointed with many aspects of the Bill. We would not have brought in this Bill ourselves. Being the first such Bill legislating for young people, there are these difficulties. As a parent myself, I certainly feel that the parent is entitled to be specifically mentioned in the definition section. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment because I think he believes, as I do, that this preference should be given.
I have indicated that I will look at it between now and Report Stage to see whether we could include "a parent or guardian". On my reading of the Bill, it does include the possibility of consultation with a parent or guardian even as it is drafted.
This is a fairly simple matter and it could be clarified once and for all.
I undertake to come back on that point on Report Stage. I will give it full consideration.
There is no reference in the Bill to paid holidays, or insurance, or social welfare. The school leaving age has been changed from 14 years to 15 years. Very often young persons who are working are dismissed at the age of 16 years because the employer has to contribute to the social welfare system. We feel that young people should be covered somewhere along the line by some form of social insurance. Now that the school leaving age has been raised to 15 years, we would hope that there would be some such provision somewhere. It is not written into the Bill.
The Minister may say this is a question for the Department of Social Welfare and that it covers quite a considerable field. We want to ensure that these young people have full and adequate protection in this new legislation. The question of paid holidays, social welfare and insurance should be covered. We will consider submitting amendments to broaden the scope of the Bill to ensure that there will be complete and adequate cover for young persons.
Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether there is any move to give some type of limited insurance cover. In the past we have heard of far too many unfortunate accidents occurring where children were at the mercy of baby farmers who employed quite a number of children to do one type of work or another and no compensation was available. Many of these children were injured to a degree which affected them in later life. We want to ensure that this Bill is comprehensive. Holidays are another factor. The Minister may say the Bill is not concerned with holidays, but we would like to hear his views on the question of insurance, holidays and social welfare to protect the child adequately.
Before we proceed to discuss the section as such, may I have an indication from Deputy Dowling that amendment No. 1 is withdrawn?
I withdraw it on the basis that the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Is the intention to ensure that young people are covered in this Bill or in some other Bill?
There is a gap. The Deputy is right. This matter is not proper to this legislation. It will have to be considered in social welfare legislation to parallel the development in this legislation. I have no doubt that examination is already under way in the Department of Social Welfare. Of course, the Holidays Act, 1973, covers the people mentioned here.
The Minister will understand that in relation to child labour where there are baby farmers, people who are unscrupulous enough to take advantage of young children, they are cut off completely from holiday entitlement if they find themselves unemployed. I want to ensure that they are protected.
They are covered under the 1973 Act.
Most of them work part time. They are very vulnerable.
Does the Deputy mean they will not know the provisions of the Act?
The employer will know them, and he will know when to release them.
I take the Deputy's point.
Will the Minister have another look at it?
Yes.
This is a small but very technical point. This legislation can be confusing. It covers a child and a young person. What is involved is clear to us here in the House. The Bill provides that the school leaving age means the age at which the School Attendance Act, 1926, ceases to apply. We know what the school leaving age is but, if the age of 15 years had been included in the Bill, it would have been brought home forcibly to employers that this was the age referred to. In this type of legislation we should be very specific. The Minister spoke about open government. I want to make sure that the message gets through to very many people because, human nature being what it is, when people see something about the School Attendance Act, 1926, they skip over it, whereas if the age of 15 years is specified it may register with an employer or with a young person.
There is a drop out rate of about 2,000 in the number of school leavers who go on social welfare. These people cannot be accounted for anywhere each year. If there was some tie-up with the Department of Social Welfare they could be accounted for. In Dublin alone 900 cannot be accounted for between the school leaving age and the time they go on social welfare.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 provides that industrial work means work in the transport of persons or goods. Would the Minister regard a messenger boy as a person employed in the transportation of goods? He is prohibited under this section if he is regarded as being a person working in the transportation of goods. Would a newspaper boy who is delivering papers or a milkboy who is delivering milk be regarded as working in the transportation of goods? If so, they are debarred under this section from working. I should like to know the Minister's views on it.
In a later section I have power to decide what is industrial and what is non-industrial work. I have power to decide that any of the cases mentioned by the Deputy would not be transportation of persons or goods as contemplated under the 1936 Act.
This section is somewhat confusing. When a child is employed during the summer period he may be doing clerical work. He could be sent out to deliver parcels. How do you define that?
There is flexibility to decide whether the kind of work mentioned is light non-industrial work. How to decide is another problem. The definitions in the 1936 Act do not bind us. We are not bound rigidly to that interpretation. These definitions might not apply in modern conditions. In certain circumstances we might regard the circumstances as not being those envisaged under the 1936 Act.
I have always been puzzled by certain things in legislation: Perhaps it is my lack of legal training or, perhaps, there is not sufficient emphasis on detail, but when something is written in I like to be sure why it is there and to question it for that reason. For example, in subsection (1) (b) the Minister mentions work carried out in mines. It is readily understandable that such work should be classed as industrial work. But why then would the Minister not include, particularly at this time—and this is of particular importance to the development of our economy—work carried out in mines or in offshore exploration? Why is work carried out in mines specified? The Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 is already mentioned in (a) as being disciplined industrial work; (c) refers to the transport of persons and goods and (d) is the provision which gives the Minister discretion to declare any other industrial work, work. You first have what is described as industrial work under the 1936 Act; later, it is provided that the Minister can make the order and you have the transport of persons and goods, but why are mines specified while offshore development is not mentioned?
We took over the definition from the 1936 Act. It is a common feature of legislation of this kind that you take over previous definitions. One could add other items that would, perhaps, be more contemporary than what is in the 1936 Act. But I emphasise that we have power to decide, for purposes of exclusion and so on, in a later section what is light non-industrial work. What the Deputy is worried about, whether certain items are mentioned or not, is not really material. We have the power of exemption and exception.
Yes, I accept that but why do you specify one particular aspect of industry? It is right that it should be mentioned specifically and I presume there is some reason for it. I have mentioned offshore exploration but there are many activities if one went through the 1936 Act that are not mentioned. Why, in introducing a Bill like this in describing industrial work, do you specifically mention mining?
I have just been told that mining is not covered in the 1936 Act which is why it is specifically included here.
But there must be other industries also—this is why I mentioned as one example, offshore exploration—which would not be covered in the 1936 Act.
I think it would come under the definition in that Act especially if carried out under the jurisdiction of the State.
But why does the Minister say that offshore exploration would come under the Act when mining does not come under it? Surely you could put it in more or less the same category?
I do not have a copy of that Act before me——
I trust the Minister does not mind my asking the question.
No. For the purposes of the legislation before us the Deputy will appreciate that I have powers of exemption and otherwise from the definitions we have taken over from previous legislation. One often comes up against the use of archaic terms when changing legislation. If only for the reason that each piece of legislation must carry on the pattern of what was there before this is understandable. It has often struck me that one could add fresh things to previous legislation. For the practical problems before us, the powers of exemption, exceptions and exclusion are mine under the legislation.
This is just a technical point. When a Bill like this which is the first one——
I am sorry to interrupt but here is a note which says that among other things the 1936 Act covers work of construction, laying or removing foundations laying out or clearing sites for any such construction. One could spend the day arguing whether it covers this or that operation. The 1936 Act was brought into this legislation because it is the nearest thing we have to an attempt at having a comprehensive formulation of what is industrial work. One could claim that any particular operation was not covered adequately under it.
I take the point the Minister made about the use of archaic terms in new Bills. But this is a new concept of legislation, legislation for young people being introduced by a young, progressive Minister and one would think he would bring in a new section, get away from the old concepts and have something new and define what was meant by industrial work as it affects young people in the Protection Of Young Persons (Employment) Bill.
There is a great deal of interpretation but the operative consideration here is what would be the elements of light non-industrial work and matters of that kind. That is what concerns us and that will be an exercise in judgment really.
This will be difficult legislation to enforce and this is something the Minister must realise. That is one reason why I have already said it should be the most simple legislation ever passed in the House with technical detail explained in layman's language as far as possible. I can see the position in which the Departmental inspector would have to adjudicate on what is industrial work and what is not industrial work. For that reason I think it should be specifically considered by the Minister's Department at this stage. I should like the Minister to have included a section defining for the purposes of this Bill what is industrial work and what is not. That would relieve the workload on the inspector.
This is difficult legislation. I think it would require the wisdom of Solomon to set down in statute form all the variations of what should be described as industrial work. The previous formulation is incorporated in this legislation because that is the usual practice in changing legislation—one refers to previous definitions. I remind the Deputy that under section 2 (2) I shall have power to declare any form of work to be industrial work for the purposes of this Act. If that is not considered enough, under section 4 (5) I have a double-barrelled power of describing exactly what is light non-industrial work.
That, I agree, leaves a heavy burden of further work on myself and the Department to chart out in modern conditions what constitutes industrial and light non-industrial work, but it would have been an impossible and probably a vain task to try to set out in statute form all the variations required if one sought a completely comprehensive definition. Therefore, flexibility and a possibility of meeting conditions in a modern setting are given us under this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
In relation to subsection (1) (c) of section 3—"an out-worker"—does the Minister not feel there is a loophole here for people who wish to apply child labour outside the scope of the Bill? "An outworker" is very vague. People could be classified as outworkers in order to get round the balance in the Bill. I should like to know why the Minister has specified a fisherman, a lighthouse or lightship keeper and a seafarer but with particular emphasis on "an outworker".
Subsection (2) of section 3 reads:
This Act, other than sections 4, 5, 13 and 14, shall not apply to work in the Defence Forces.
Does that mean that if a boy joins a band, the Army School of Music or one of the apprenticeship schools he can be employed without restriction in relation to hours of work or to the hours a young child can work at night? Would the boy in the apprenticeship school not need to be protected because such a boy may be performing other duties at night? If the Minister is excluding certain sections of the Bill from young people surely they should apply to people who are vulnerable in this respect?
The Deputy raised first the question of an outworker. I would remind the Deputy that section 4 and all of its provisions do apply in this case. We shall be coming to section 4, laying down the minimum age for employment and what hours are permissible. Therefore, all of these excluded categories in section 4 do apply to them.
There are provisions in relation to the Defence Forces. In the present emergency situation there are exceptional demands for guard duty and Border duty on a minority of persons under the age of 18, a small but sufficient number to whom we could not with consistency see these provisions applied. That is the reason for the exception in the case of the Defence Forces mentioned here.
Would the Minister make a distinction between an apprentice in the apprenticeship school either in Naas or Baldonnel and a soldier on guard duty in an infantry corps?
Yes, there is. I see that apprentices are recruited by the Air Corps at the age of 16, by the Army at the age of 15 and they recruit trainee bandsmen at the age of 14. Of course, they come within the exception in subsection (4) (2). That, of course, would be light non-industrial work.
Could the Minister explain his hesitancy in applying section 3 to a fisherman or seafarer? Let us take the example of a boy going out as a galley boy on a fishing vessel on which he could have a most dangerous existence. It could be on part of national territory. He would need a lot more protection than a boy working in, say, a supermarket or a store. The same would apply in the case of a seafarer. This Bill, being for the protection of young people, I feel the Minister should explain his hesitancy in applying section 3 to the categories mentioned here. It amazes me that they are not included. I know the Minister has power to do so. Therefore, he makes the suggestion that he may well do it. Why not do it now? We should ensure that any boy going to sea as a galley boy, or, shall we say, as a seafarer is protected. I think it would be fairly easily done because the owners of those ships operating in national territory could be made amenable to the law.
The main problem has been that such work is of a seasonal and intermittent nature and the obvious difficulties of including them in other sections of this legislation. I would remind the Deputy that section 4, as in the other cases, does not apply in these.
Why the hesitancy? Why not include them in section 3?
The obvious difficulty of implementation is one reason. The nature of the work is another. The work involved is done on a shared basis. For those practical reasons they have not been included.
Does the Minister feel he will apply it in, say a year or so?
I would say to all the Deputies concerned about exclusions that they are there at this stage but, as we examine the way this legislation progresses, we have the power to include particular categories at present excluded. But at present I would say that the best advice available to us would be to exclude such categories from the many sections of this Bill though to include them under the terms of section 4.
I am disappointed to hear the Minister say that one of the reasons for the exclusions here is obvious difficulties involved in implementation. That would not appeal to me as being a good reason. I am disappointed that this legislation for young people has not taken a clearer form. Before I entered politics I remember well that to read and interpret a Bill even one relevant to something in which I was interested was hard labour. I would recommend that any legislation for young people be drafted in the simplest possible form. I can assure the Minister that in any future legislation he will be introducing here for young people I will be pressing him to change the approach to such. What I should like to see is a Bill easily read and understood by young people and not one referring them to this or that other Act. I would avoid that as much as possible or be specific and give explanations where necessary.
The term "an outworker" there affords wide scope. Deputy Moore made a very good point about the fishermen. The fact that it is seasonal work may make it possible for a young lad to engage in it and earn a few shillings. If he can do that it is doubtful if legislation is good because he is prevented from doing it on foot of the obvious difficulties that would be encountered if this legislation allowed him to work. For that reason, we will be considering an amendment on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (2), page 5 lines 4 and 5, to delete "the age of fourteen years" and substitute "an age fixed by order of the Minister".
The Minister is aware that during school holidays many children, particularly in Dublin, engage in such temporary employments as fruit picking, delivering milk and newspapers. If our amendment is accepted, the Minister may by order fix an age under which children may not be so employed. At the moment many children under the age of 14 can earn pocket money during school holidays as fruit pickers. Is it the Minister's intention that such children will in future not be able to engage in such temporary employment?
We agree that the employment of young people should be strictly controlled, but is the Minister sure that this age in this instance will be enforceable, or rather that the law will be enforceable in this respect? Does this section mean that in future no person under the age of 14 may be employed as a fruit picker?
In regard to other sections the Deputy asked me to be specific. A legitimate approach is that the legislation is vague—that intentions should be more clearly expressed. However, the Deputy here asks me to be deliberately vague. He has changed his footwork and said that I should drop the specific age and that I should by regulation remove from the ambit of Oireachtas decision the question of age. This is a matter for the Dáil to express its views on, it is not an area in which we should shirk from expressing our opinions. It is not an appropriate matter for a Minister or his officials to decide. It is natural material for decision by the elected representatives, subject to all the practical problems that arise in fixing a particular age. We are faced with the predicament that there has not been any legislation in this area for nearly 30 years and it is obvious that a particular attitude, a particular social behaviour, has grown up and that we have, perhaps to an extent not fully appreciated, become accustomed to the employment of young people in all kinds of occupations.
The age I have set down here is in my opinion the correct starting point, though I should like to point out that in section 16 I have the authority to vary the age. However, at this stage I do not think we can escape from our obligation to set down a minimum age. That is a matter for Members of the Oireachtas. We could then review the situation consequent on that.
Will the law now be enforced in regard to this matter? Will children under 14 years of age not now be employable as fruit pickers or can employers continue to recruit those young people?
Will the Deputy give me his opinion of what the age should be?
I was endeavouring to give the Minister discretionary powers so that he could vary the age.
Is the Deputy in favour of varying it upwards?
I have an open mind.
The Deputy is not of very much help. I can see the proximity of an Árd-Fheis.
I merely wanted to get from the Minister his views on the enforceability of this age limit.
We will have to look at the matter very closely.
That is fair enough.
What is the Minister's objection——
I believe the Oireachtas should make known its opinion.
I think that in legislation of this kind, rather than have the Oireachtas put down a certain age the Minister should be given certain powers so that he could then introduce what he thinks is the correct age. If we accept the age as it is in the Bill we might find after three months that it was impractical or inoperable and that his inspectors were having tremendous difficulties. He has already admitted the difficulties of enforcement that will arise. The Minister's successors from this side of the House will, in the not too distant future, have the opportunity of making up the leeway.
The Deputy can amend the Bill when he gets into office.
Yes. I would rather that the Minister did not specify an age so that when we get back into office in the near future we can adjust one way or the other the Ministerial Order that is made. Seriously, I would appeal to the Minister to leave himself leeway in relation to the reports that will come back from the inspectorate. I suspect there will be reports back from the inspectors that they are finding it impossible to get compliance with this section. There must be flexibility. If the Minister makes an order under the Bill and finds in three months that it is inoperable he can change it. Would the Minister consider this?
In social legislation it is desirable that Deputies of all parties should indicate what they think the main features of that legislation should be. They do not have to wait for the distant day when their party return to these benches here. I think Deputy Dowling will vouch for the fact that I have been happy to accept amendments from him, which, I may say, were very helpful additions to legislation in my area. On this matter I would be happy to hear the opinions of Opposition spokesmen on what should be the minimum age below which we would not permit child labour. This, Deputies will agree, is one of the crucial features of this legislation. It is the point at which the Oireachtas puts its stamp on this legislation. My suggestion is 14. I am aware of the difficulties involved in ensuring that that legislation becomes a reality. We are working against the background of almost 30 years' absence of legislation in this important area. Customs and practices are now in being which possibly would not be so strong if the Oireachtas had spoken before now on the matter.
Now that we are introducing legislation I would be happy to hear the opinions of Deputies opposite of what the age should be. The Opposition spokesmen suggest that no age limit be mentioned, that the matter be left totally to my discretion. That is to downgrade the position of the Oireachtas in terms of legislation of this kind. I would like Deputy Moore, Deputy Dowling, Deputy Fitzgerald and others who have spoken frequently on social legislation, to make known their minds on what the age should be.
The Minister has indicated that he accepts there are practical difficulties, and we are satisfied that he has power under the Bill. What we are mainly concerned about is the enforcement of the law. I am quite satisfied that the point is covered. The Minister has our views and we have his.
I should like the Minister to have a look at section 4 prior to the Report Stage. Subsection (2) reads:
An employer may, subject to the conditions specified in subsection (3) of this section employ a child who is over the age of 14 years to do ...".
A child who is 14 years and one day is over 14. Anybody who has done school attendance committee work will find that, in this city particularly, youngsters who are under 15 are taking jobs. Then they are brought before the committee and the committee say: "You must go back to school." You realise, of course, that probably they need the money at home, and the case is made: "Young Jimmy or Mary has only six months to do. Do not force them back into school, because they will lose this job." People will say that this legislation enables them to do work at 14, but the school attendance legislation does not. Therefore this Bill is contrary to the School Attendance Act. We are touching on a grave social problem here in regard to the youngster who does not want to go to school or the family who need his earnings. I cannot suggest a solution to the Minister at the moment beyond asking that he would look at this whole section with Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment and Deputy Dowling's remarks here in order to frame a better section 4. It is ambiguous, and it is anti-School Attendance Act, and we shall have to do a lot more thinking on it before we get a proper solution.
We do not wish to be anti-School Attendance Act, but we do permit children between 14 and 15 years to work for two hours outside school hours and 35 hours in each week during summer holidays.
I accept there is this problem of young people who desire to work outside school hours, in many cases for too long hours under the age of 14. The representatives of the National Youth Council have been with me and indicated their unease at the actuality of the situation throughout the country where large numbers of secondary or other forms of school-going pupils do work outside school hours. The difficulty I have been placed in is that we must start somewhere. I am not putting forward this legislation in ignorance of certain problems that may arise consequent on its passage. I have power under section 16 to make exemptions in relation to sectors and particular services.
When this legislation is enacted we propose to review the situation and see how any problems that may arise can be met in the spirit of the legislation. As I said on the Second Stage, we have very little official statistical information in the whole area of youth employment, and one of the purposes of this legislation is to reverse that situation of official ignorance, and there will be a great deal of work arising from this legislation.
The Minister dealt with the point I made about succeeding Ministers, but I introduced that in a light vein. I shall endeavour to co-operate with him in every way to ensure that this legislation is the best for our country. My reason for rising again is to say that the Minister himself made the best case for this alteration when he said a while ago that this is new legislation, that we are catering for something on which there is no statistical evidence available to us. The Minister is drawing his lines very fine at this stage, and he will see that as the various officials try to implement this legislation he will come across different problems. Rather than specifying an age in respect of holiday work, the matter should be left open and to the Minister's discretion. For social reasons there are many families who are glad to have their incomes augmented by the earnings of young persons during the summer holiday period and, perhaps, during the school year as well. However, it is only in the light of experience that we will be able to determine what should be the statutory age at which these children might work. A lot would depend, too, on the type of work involved. For some work a person of 14 may be too young while he may be too old at that age for other types of work. I appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy Dowling's amendment.
I see the Minister's problem.
I see the Deputy's problem, too. If the Deputy is anxious to give me any other age, I should be willing to hear it. Would he suggest 12, 13 or perhaps, 15?
We are aware of the Minister's views on this. I accept that further in the Bill the Minister has powers of discretion which will enable him to change this age, if necessary.
I am willing to consider any other age the Deputy may wish to give me.
This is an experimental measure.
In view of Deputy Moore's statement regarding school-leaving age, would the Minister be prepared to look again at this matter?
Yes, and if the Deputy suggests another age, I shall be willing to consider that, too.
In his amendment Deputy Dowling is giving the Minister a way out.
I do not mind taking an age fixed by Fianna Fáil. Have they an age to suggest?
I am giving the Minister plenty of flexibility but I know there are practical difficulties involved.
We wish to help the Minister. If, say, the amendment were to read that the age would be fixed by the Minister for Labour in consultation with the Minister for Education, would that be acceptable?
We are not running away from the practical difficulties. We are satisfied that the Minister has discretion and will act in accordance with that power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (3) (a), page 5, line 14, after "each day" to add "subject to a maximum of ten hours in each week".
Subsection (3) allows for a situation in which a schoolboy might be working seven two-hour days per week. These 14 hours would be in addition to his school hours of approximately 30 hours, giving a total of a 44-hour working week plus time spent on homework. This is something that should not be allowed and, consequently, our amendment is to ensure that young persons would not be allowed work for 14 hours during school terms and we suggest that the maximum be ten hours so that what would be involved would be two hours on each of five days. I trust the Minister will accept the thinking behind this.
In paragraph (a) of subsection (3) a child is being permitted to work 14 hours per week during the school term. Throughout the country there may be many young people who can work a few hours per week but this work may be available only on Saturdays and Sundays. They may get four hours on both Saturdays and Sundays. They would be prohibited from doing these eight hours' work according to this subsection but my amendment is designed to allow these people to work those hours at week-ends, subject to a ten-hour maximum.
In subsection (3) of section 4 we are talking about children who are over 14 but under 15 who are permitted to do light non-industrial work, subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions is that their hours of work during the school term must be outside school hours and must not exceed two hours each day. There is a different arrangement for school holiday periods where we permit 35 hours work per week. This formula of two hours outside school hours seemed to me to be one that would be appropriate for a variety of part-time light jobs which might be undertaken by young people. There is a wide variety of jobs that one could put forward in respect of different localities but we are considering the national situation. The formula here is the one which seemed most appropriate to meet the criteria of not over-straining the young person and of not interfering with his school work.
The amendment put forward by Deputy Fitzgerald would be more restrictive and would result in too long hours being worked at weekends. Weekends, too, are a feature of the school week in so far as study is engaged in by the student at weekends. To permit the two four-hour periods suggested by Deputy Fitzgerald would be to allow unduly long hours to be worked in a concentrated way during the weekend. Governing everything we are doing in this legislation there may be a greater ignorance than we would wish to admit of where the areas of greatest trouble may be but one that comes up constantly is the use, by supermarkets and certain retail liqour outlets, of child labour. The areas of greatest business activity for child labour is at weekends and the longer hours permitted at week-ends would give the basis for a continuation of a practice that we wish to see ended. For these reasons I ask Deputy Fitzgerald to reconsider his amendment. I do not think it meets the objective which he would desire.
I take the last point made by the Minister of the danger of long hours of work at week-ends. I consider my amendment to be suited ideally to cover the situation in, say, supermarkets, but how can the Minister justify a situation in which a child who attends school from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. is allowed work for two hours on school-going days while at week-ends when he is free from school he is not allowed work for four hours? I cannot go along with the Minister's reasoning and say that this is an overconcentration of work. As I have said already, he is at school from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and before or after that he does two hours work. I take the Minister's point about the danger of exploitation of young people at week-ends and I would oppose it. I want to provide, and the Minister has a duty to provide for the young person who needs a few hours work on Saturday to bring home much needed money for his family. He is precluded under this legislation from doing this while another child is at liberty to work two hours a day, seven days a week—five of them school days.
We must be very careful with this Bill if we are not to deprive a child of part-time after school employment. We could also worry employers in this respect. In my view, the implementation of this Bill will be at the Minister's discretion. I find it particularly difficult to understand how this section will be implemented. For instance, some children will go to an employer after school to do two hours work. They might then go to another employer and perhaps do a little cleaning. At night they might go to the lounge bars to collect and wash glasses. How is an employer to know the number of hours a child has worked after school. How is the parent to know? Who will keep a check on the number of hours?
The Minister did not answer my point about the ten hours over seven days.
One could consider variations on this theme over a long period. One argument could be produced to counter another. Deputy G. Fitzgerald is looking for a maximum of ten hours' work. He says that in terms of this legislation anything outside ten hours would be illegal. He wants to crowd most of the working hours into four and four at weekends. Under this legislation we would permit a more even development of work, that is, 14 hours a week for two hours outside school hours every day, but excluding any hours worked over two hours in any one day at light non-industrial work. The possibility of permitting longer hours to be worked at week-ends, as suggested by Deputy G. Fitzgerald, would seem to favour those interests who apparently up to now have most exploited youth labour, that is, supermarkets and lounge bars.
Deputy Wyse referred to double employment. Section 15 refers to this and we will be discussing the problems associated with that later. I readily concede that there are problems. In fact, there is not a section in this legislation where one cannot foresee difficulties of implementation in practical terms. On the other hand, much of this legislation which is new and attempts to put forward in a progressive way and change modes of behaviour, can be described at the start as impractical. It will take time, both of public education and implementation, before we can say it is an actual reality in terms of social behaviour. We are confident that our inspectorate and the provisions of this legislation will render this legislation obeyable. One of the reasons why we ruled out certain areas was because we did not feel confident we could monitor them. We will be discussing double employment on sections 5 and 15.
The employer is not involved in this Bill. We are concerned about the protection of young persons and justice to allow them equal opportunities as far as possible. I cannot see the line of the Minister's argument. He says he is allowing these young people 14 hours a week in addition to the 30 hours school, and their study and homework hours, spread over a period. This means that from Monday to Friday a young person may work ten hours plus homework and study hours and four hours at weekends. My suggestion is far easier on the child. Many children are unable to get part-time employment during the week in many parts of the country.
Another section deals with the time limits which will control the hours they may work. In my view, my amendment is valid: I am asking that the 14 hours be reduced to ten hours and allow young people the opportunity of working two four-hour days on non-school days rather than working five two-hours days on school-going days.
Section 3 (b) reads:
the hours of work during school holidays shall not exceed seven hours in each day or thirty-five hours in each week.
Clerical workers in the many major concerns do not work more than 33 hours.
They are the maximum number of hours.
As the Minister knows, the maximum can become the norm.
There is a definition later for "normal hours". There is a separate description for "normal hours" for the purposes of overtime. If, for example, the average hours worked by clerical staff is 33, it would be inconceivable that the maximum laid down in this legislation could be used to force them to work those hours.
If this Bill becomes an Act it will allow that to happen. The employers could then say that as it is mentioned in the Act there is nothing illegal in increasing the number of hours to 35.
The Deputy knows it is a well-known trade union suspicion of any legislation which sets down maximum that that becomes the minimum.
Except in wages.
That is a danger but I do not think it will be a real problem with this legislation because we do set down clearly what the normal should be and that is described in later sections.
The Minister is prepared to change it if it does?
Yes.
The Minister proposes to allow a child to work an uninterrupted period of seven days without a break so that he has his school hours and the two hours work per day. Deputy Fitzgerald in his amendment has suggested a maximum of 10 hours which would allow leisure time on at least two days a week. His amendment also seeks to permit four hours work on Saturdays and Sundays. The Minister has rightly pointed out the problem of supermarkets which, in some cases, exploit child labour but there are clerical jobs that children can do to further their education and prepare them for greater things in life. Such jobs exist in the accountancy field and so on. Children may be unable to avail themselves of the opportunity of doing this work on week days.
I know the maximum hours will be difficult to enforce. If an employer is unscrupulous enough he will keep the child back for two and a half or three hours instead of two hours per day but we must try to get the balance which is best for the child. We should ensure that a young person, if he wishes, has the opportunity to advance himself by taking a clerical job at the weekend.
I do not think there is any real disagreement between the Minister and ourselves in this area. The Minister must recognise that there can be a situation in which a child cannot work during the week and wishes to do so on Saturdays and Sundays. Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment is a reasonable one. We can all point to some section that will possibly exploit child labour. Perhaps supermarkets will not exploit them to the degree some people believe. They may pay reasonable wages and have them working reasonable hours. However, there are people who will avail themselves of any opportunity to exploit young people. I do not think it would be a good thing if a child who was studying for an examination could work every day of the week. If he could work at the weekend it might even advance his prospects in the examination. Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment gives the child an option: the Minister's proposal gives him no option. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at this and if it would not interfere with the child's education he should consider giving him the option.
Deputy Fitzgerald's suggestion would, perhaps, further abridge the options available to the child because it would make completely illegal work on most days of the week in any part time capacity. Deputy Dowling is right in saying we could discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of either approach in this area. One could say that in one particular business it would be better for the child and the business that he would be available for certain hours at a particular time of the week and somebody else could equally cogently say that it would be a better educational experence and of more benefit to employer and employee at another time of the week and at different hours. One of the things I want to see as great a sharing as possible, a large number of young people having the possibility of part-time work and to guard against any excesses either of effort or the kind of work engaged in. We confined it to two hours each day over the whole week so that in a small town where there would be limited opportunities of part-time work there would be as great a spread of that work as possible. There is the danger in the amendment of a monopoly, of one group managing to get the limited amount of work available.
There is also the other consideration that I do not wish to see labour of this kind displacing adult labour and there is the possibility in weekend work of such extended hours that we are not too far from displacing an adult in employment over that period. So as to provide maximum opportunities for the largest number of young people and for educational reasons I think the section meets the case. However, I will continue to review the situation before Report Stage and if we can have a meeting of minds on this matter I will be prepared to look at it.
The Minister is not really serious about a child of 14 replacing an adult worker?
I am talking about the possibility of a number of young people working over concentrated hours having the effect, in certain instances, of displacing adult labour. That possibility is there.
But the type of work they can do is within the Minister's control.
The Minister speaks about working seven two-hour days but in some areas young people may not have that kind of work available to them or because they must travel by bus to and from school may not be able to avail of those two hours but could work for four hours at weekends.
I will consider that.
With regard to the question of work which is not harmful to health, is there anything in the Bill whereby a child may be brought into work at 11.30 at night and work until 1 o'clock in the morning? We know this has happened.
Sections 13 and 14 go into that question of rest hours.
In relation to paragraph (b) the Minister indicated that 35 hours a week was the maximum. Does he not consider that is too high? Has he not power to vary the maximum or must this remain?
I am told I do not have powers to vary the maximum.
Would the Minister consider inserting an amendment on Report Stage giving him power to vary the maximum if he so desires?
I will give consideration to that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) The Minister may by order declare any form of work specified in the order to be work which is light non-industrial work."
During the Second Stage Debate Deputies made points about the definition of industrial work in section 2. This section, as we have discussed already, sets out the reservation that people had in definitions relating to the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. During the Second Stage debate Deputies referred particularly to difficulties which might arise in the case of certain employment which, though traditionally regarded as non-industrial, might possibly come within the definition of industrial work for the purpose of this Bill. This amendment will give me flexibility to decide if particular types of work should be deemed to be light non-industrial, which could be undertaken by children of 14 and 15 years for limited periods, subject to the conditions specified in subsections (2) and (3) of section 4. I think this meets difficulties Deputies mentioned on the Second Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 6:
In subsection (1) (a), page 5, line 38, after "person or child, and" to insert "obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian of the young person or child, and".
This refers to the duties of young persons or children. The section states that any employer who employs a young person or child shall before employing that young person or child obtain a copy of the birth certificate of the young person or child or obtain other satisfactory evidence of the age of the young person or child. We want to have inserted here "obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian of the young person or child". My amendment covers the young person or child. I am not that anxious to have "young person" inserted. The employer is under an obligation to obtain a copy of the birth certificate of the young person so the child should also be fully protected by the permission of the parent or guardian being obtained to allow him to work.
We all know that many children are working and sometimes the parents are not consulted. They would not like their children to be employed because they are often paying for special studies for them. The child's schooling could be affected by having him employed. It is the parents or guardian of children who can decide if being employed will affect the plan of schooling they have for them. Children are the most vulnerable section of employees. They do not know what their rights are or even how to obtain them.
The question of the permission of the parent or guardian in relation to the employment of children is very important and it should be written into the Bill. I am sure the Minister will agree that if a child, rather than a parent, can make the decision as to whether he can be employed then a serious situation may develop because the child may put himself in a disadvantaged position in relation to his education at a later stage. It is on the basis of education, the child's future as planned by the parents or guardian, sometimes at considerable cost, that they should be consulted in relation to child labour as distinct from the employment of young persons. I ask the Minister to give some consideration to this amendment because the point I have raised is a very valid one. The ages of 14 and 15 are very impressionable years in the life of a child. I am sure parents would like to know the type of employment their children were engaged in and the type of company they were working with and also other factors in relation to employment.
Many children may avail of the opportunity of leaving school and may be enticed to go into employment at a very early age. The parents should be consulted in this matter. We are endeavouring to protect the future of children under this Bill. The Minister should give consideration to this amendment or a similar type of amendment which he could introduce. It has been suggested by some of the organisations which deal with youth problems that many of the parents of children aged 14 and 15 who are in employment when they should be at school, are not aware of this. If the employer was under an obligation, when employing children, to consult with their parents we might have a much happier situation. This is a weakness in the section. I think there is a necessity to give the type of consideration I have indicated.
I would point out to Deputy Dowling that the amendment as it stands would impose an obligation in respect of about 65,000 young persons in the 15 to 18 age group although I gather from what he said that his real concern is children between 14 and 15, those permitted to do the non-industrial work as set out in the Bill. I have had consultations with the National Youth Council on this matter and I have been considering it myself. I am in broad sympathy with the idea they put to me that there must be a place for the parent or guardian for that category, not for all those up to 18 who would be covered by the amendment. The group between 14 and 15 are the most vulnerable group in the terms of this Bill but, since that is the most vulnerable group if Deputy Dowling agrees to withdraw his amendment I will have an alternative amendment drafted for Report Stage.
With that assurance from the Minister I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
Before subsection (2) to insert the following subsection:—
"(2) The Minister may make regulations providing that an employer within the meaning of subsection (1) of this section shall, at such intervals as may be specified in the regulations, furnish to the Minister a copy of the register or other record maintained under the said subsection (1)."
If only the employer is required to maintain the register the Minister will have no one with access to the register and there will be no duplicate records. In that case it would be quite easy for an employer to write up the register to suit himself. It is both necessary and desirable in the protection of young people that there should be information lodged either with the inspector or the Minister which could be consulted. People might be inclined to take advantage of young people over a period and it would be a simple matter to lose the records, have them destroyed by fire or rewrite them to suit the employer. If that habit developed employers could do this over again. Duplicate records might not be prepared on every occasion and on the visit of the inspector there would be no record other than the employer's record and that might not show the information I think so vital.
Those who employ child labour should be compelled to lodge some type of record with the inspectorate or with the Minister so that there could be constant supervision. These records should be kept for a considerable period. Strict control is vitally necessary. I am sure the Minister will agree that the record I suggest is necessary. The employer would have the advantage of the many options open to him. It has been known in the past that records have been destroyed. There are people who will resort to such tactics. The protection of young persons is a complicated area. There might be a great deal of work involved but for reference purposes there should be some record available other than that in the custody of the employer.
A great deal of work would be involved because some 65,000 young persons will be covered by this legislation. If we were to do what the Deputy suggests the Department would be flooded with this kind of information and that would throw an additional heavy burden on the shoulders of the inspectorate. The inspectorate will be busy enough ensuring the provisions of the Bill are complied with. As well as that, the particulars specified in section 5 will be subject to variation over a year or over the period of employment. I doubt if the amendment would be helpful. I agree there is need to assess the information contained in the register kept by the employer. That register must be kept under pain of penalties. It will be subject to inspection. I do not think we need go further than that. If there is a dearth of statistical information we will have to extract what we can under the obligation now placed on employers to keep records. I could not contemplate having the returns about which the Deputy speaks filed in the Department and neither could I place the obligation of collection on the shoulders of the inspectorate. The inspectors will have plenty of work as it is under the Bill. I accept the Deputy's argument that the information should be collated. That will be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
We touched on this area earlier. With regard to the power of the Minister to raise the minimum age the same arguments apply as were used earlier in regard to fruit pickers and others. The Minister's power would relate to raising the age only. Is the Minister prepared to have a look at the general situation? The restriction here is much greater than the restriction in the amendment we tabled. Does the Minister feel the section is adequate? Can it be amended to give him the power we sought to give him on an earlier section?
We covered this to some extent when discussing section 4. I have discretion in particular sectors of industry to alter the minimum age and that discretion would be used where it was considered the general minimum age of employment equivalent to the school leaving age was not sufficiently high.
Upwards.
Upwards, if necessary. The Deputy was rather coy: does he want to move it downwards?
The section does not give the Minister that power.
Upwards only.
We were more flexible. Would the Minister have another look at this to see if it is necessary to take this power? It is a question of abuse which might arise in regard to the categories we mentioned earlier.
I will have another look at it and I will welcome suggestions.
This is new legislation and we are asking the Minister to take power to fix a particular age, an age he can vary by order if he so wishes.
I have the power to vary it downwards in terms of exemptions over particular areas. That arises in section 16.
Is this not rather dangerous?
We want to protect the Minister's interests. We are quite prepared to give the Minister a certain amount of flexibility.
I have the power to vary the age upwards and, under section 16, I have power by exemption to vary it downwards.
Would the Minister consider it from the point of view of health, safety or morals rather than raising the age?
These are vast questions but so far as my powers go they relate simply to minimum ages as laid down in the legislation. Obviously my intervention would simply be to specify the age.
It might depend more on a mental age than a physical age.
I would not set out to be an arbiter in that area.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 8:
In subsection (1) (b), page 6, line 30, to delete "fifty" and substitute "forty".
This section deals with the maximum hours of work for young persons over the age of 16 years and my amendment seeks to delete "fifty" and to substitute "forty" as the maximum number of hours. As Deputy Moore has pointed out, frequently the maximum number of hours becomes the norm.
At the moment many workers are on a shorter working week and the general tendency is to reduce the 40-hour week. The documents we receive from the EEC deal in detail with hours of work and the desirability of establishing a 40-hour week for adults but in this legislation we are setting out a 50-hour week for young persons. We consider this much too long, that young people should be able to avail of the shorter working week. For many years people have been viewing with alarm the introduction of machinery and mechanisation and probably in a short time the normal week will be 35 hours. In fact, trade unions have indicated this is their goal. Consequently, we consider there should be a reduction of the 50 hours specified in this legislation in order to keep in line with the common tendency to reduce the working week.
If we are mechanised and have large-scale unemployment, the shorter working week will give a larger number of people the opportunity to obtain employment. This is a fairly complex question but a start must be made at some stage. It is regrettable that in a Bill dealing with the protection of young persons we are legislating for a 50-hour working week for them, especially at a time when there are demands for shorter hours.
By this provision we are giving an opportunity to employers to employ less people and this is an important consideration in the specifying of a maximum number of hours. Probably employers will avail of this opportunity to keep as few people as possible working the longest number of hours to facilitate book-keeping and the records they must keep with relation to social welfare, redundancy and other matters. If we are in earnest about meeting the demands of the EEC and the social policy, we should reduce the number of hours specified in the Bill. The Minister has an opportunity of bringing a new dimension into the whole question of the number of hours of work for young persons between the ages of 16 and 18 years.
I hope the Minister will accept the amendment put down by Deputy Dowling. However, although this Bill relates to the protection of young people it can be a menace to the older worker. If a man is employed in a job and is restricted in his hours of work by trade union regulations to 43 hours or 45 hours, it would pay an employer to sack that man and to employ a boy over 16 who could work for 50 hours per week for less money.
I appreciate what the Minister is trying to do but we may find out afterwards that although we set out to protect the young we have done so at the expense of the older workers. I hope the Minister recognises the point I am making about the employer sacking the older man and employing the young boy to work longer hours at lower wages and that he will accept Deputy Dowling's amendment. Unless the section is amended in some way it is open to abuse. I cannot see anything to stop an employer taking on a young boy who can work up to 50 hours per week and getting rid of a man whose trade union would not allow him to work more than 43 or 44 hours per week.
There is a bit of confusion here. One may work longer than the hours set down in collective agreements and it is not a matter of illegality but the position here is that working longer than the hours set down here is a question of illegality. Collective agreements in general or those drawn up between employers and unions are not in the same category as when we state in statute law that beyond a certain hour it is illegal for a person to work. Obviously, the hours are the maximum. When we come to laying down the maximum with the type of penalties we have attached for infringement the hours bear little relationship to the hours worked out in collective agreement.
Even since they are laid down in the area of maximum hours it does represent a real improvement from the position laid down in the acts relating to conditions of employment from 1938 to 1942. Those Acts dealt mainly with shops, hotels, restaurants and retail outlets which are the main concern of us in this legislation. In those conditions the maximum hours laid down were far longer and the maximum hours in this Bill are a real improvement on that situation. I stress again that beyond these hours it is illegal to work so that they cannot be compared to those hours devised between employers and unions in normal collective agreements. To contrast the maximum with what would appear to be the going hourly rate in industry is therefore to compare two different things and the argument cannot be advanced on that basis.
Even at the area of the maximum hours, even understanding that this is what we are about, I have power under section 7 (4) to vary downwards the maximum hours to be worked. Here I have discretion. I want Deputies to understand that we are not talking about the normal hours in industry when we talk about maximum hours set down in statute the infringement of which means that the person infringing would be committing an offence. Even on the maximum Deputies can see that over the four week period we provide under this section that only 190 hours at maximum may be worked. That works out at an average of 47½ hours at maximum beyond which it would be illegal to work. Over the entire year it is 2,160 hours which would give a maximum average of a 45 hour week. While it sets it down in the form of one week maximum at 50 hours taking all the provisions of this section into account on average around the year the maximum hourly week worked for this age category would be 45 hours. Infringement of that kind of working week over the year would be an illegal act.
Can the Minister under subsection (4) make individual orders?
Generally.
The Minister has indicated that over the year one could work 45 hours per week but the EEC recommendations to member states is that the principle of the normal working week before overtime rates become applicable should not exceed 40 hours. This is to be applied in all sectors throughout the Community by 31st December, 1975.
That is the normal working week.
This applies to adult workers and there must be a difference between an adult worker and a young person as defined in the Act. Here we specify 50 hours but I believe there should be some reduction in this period. I do not think that the normal working week which could be 45 hours per week should be anything more than 40 hours per week with the provision that the employee can work the maximum if the employer permits him to do so. I do not believe we should exceed the 40 hours with these young persons. There must be a difference between the number of hours a child can work, the number of hours a young person and an adult can work.
I am sure that in relation to adult employment very few of them would be working the 50 hours. The tendency is that the whole structure would be recoiled to some degree, that there would be this retraction and that we will have the shorter working week. Then the maximum working week will be considerably shorter. The Minister should be reasonable on this occasion. He should show clearly that he has this concern for the protection of young people and that he will give a chance to those of 16 years of age so that there will be no avenue open where they can be exploited. Deputy Moore's point was a good one. In my view the Minister must consider it unreasonable that over a period of a year these people can be forced to work 45 hours per week. At the same time where the maximum becomes the norm older people can be injured in the process.
Does the Deputy appreciate that if we drop the maximum to 40 and the norm is described as 40 in fact this cuts out all possibility of overtime for this group?
I realise that but I still believe the maximum should be dropped to 40. The normal working week for a young person should be the same as if not less than that of an adult worker. It should be much less for the child. There must be a variation between the various sections.
The Minister said the amendment was eliminating overtime from the child between 16 and 18 but this is not correct. What the amendment proposes is to limit the number of hours to 40. I do not understand what criteria was used in reckoning the number of hours. The maximum at first is 50 hours per week, then it is reduced to 47½ and over a year it becomes a 45 hour week. What basis did the Minister work out for the scaling down of those hours? It does not seem sensible to me. I appeal to the Minister to accept the maximum of 40 hours. For a 16 year old the 40 hours per week seems a reasonable number of hours for that young boy or girl to work and it seems an adequate maximum. It does not seem right that with the present unemployment position an 18 year old could be interfering with the employment of an adult or the father of a family. I see nothing wrong with the Minister accepting Deputy Dowling's amendment as it is.
Under section 7 (4) I have power to vary downwards this maximum. I agree that, looking at certain industries, it might be considered to be too high a maximum. I want to emphasise that it is a legal maximum. We have a tendency to confuse this with normal hours. It cannot be compared with the hours worked in industry under collective bargaining. Employers will be forced to comply with the legal provisions of this legislation. The other is a voluntary agreement. As with other sections of this legislation I will be in a position to come back and vary or amend it with the approval of the House.
This is one point on which we just cannot give way. This legislation must be progressive. A start should be made here whatever the situation was in the past. We must keep in step with the general trends. The way should not be open for victimisation of adult workers by the imposition of the 50 hours provision. People between 16 and 18 years should have a shorter working week than 50 hours.
Even a 45 hour week is high today as the Minister knows.
That is the maximum. It is not the norm.
We know that the maximum becomes the norm.
It covers 16 year olds. It is very very high.
The Minister should see the merit in Deputy Dowling's amendment and make the alteration.
We provide for the normal hours of work. Deputies have an undertaking that this will be looked at on the basis that it is the maximum. They must understand that it relates to breaking the law. Maximum hours cannot be compared with normal hours work. That is a different matter. For normal hours worked we have a lower figure of 40 hours. The maximum is pitched at 45 on average around the year. In certain instances we allow for longer periods over a shorter period, over a period of a week. Over a four-weekly period it is down to 47½ hours. It is the old problem we meet in bringing in legislation after a long absence of work in this area. You will find current practices have gone away beyond what the legislation dealt with in its previous intervention in this area. One must begin from a certain figure. As we began with a certain figure for the minimum age, 14 years, we must start from a figure which allows for the actual situation before us and yet is a solid improvement and gives us the power to amend it in the light of experience.
It is 47½ hours over the whole year. The Minister should give us that good old left wing swing and adopt a radical approach to the problem and accept 40 hours. The Minister should be progressive on this occasion.
We must be accurate. Here we are talking about the maximum hours.
For 16 year olds.
This is for 16 to 18 year olds which is different from an adult worker. This can well affect the future of adult workers. We cannot give way on this section. If the Minister will not give way we will have to have a vote on it. It is as simple as that.
May I put the question?
Why will the Deputy not admit the confusion there is between the normal and the maximum? That is what baffles me.
There is a difference between the normal and the maximum. The Minister has pointed out that on a monthly basis he can work 47½ hours, and over a year he can work 45 hours. The trend is to establish a 40 hour week within the EEC, while the trend here is towards a much reduced working week and, indeed, in Britain and elsewhere. If the maximum is 50 and the norm is somewhat less, it must be less than 40 for people of 16 to 18 years if the norm is to be 40 for an adult worker. There must be a difference.
The Deputy knows that in the area of collective agreement the maximum hours, as laid down in legislation almost 40 years old, have not held up the advance to a shorter working week. The maximum hours mentioned here are a solid and real improvement.
What was the maximum before the Minister introduced the Bill?
It was 60 hours for shops and 66 hours for hotels.
That is long out of date.
That was the situation when the Deputy was sitting in these benches and I did not hear him quarrelling about the maximum number of hours worked then.
We now have a Bill going through the House.
We now have a real improvement in the maximum hours: normal hours, 40, and over 45 on average over the year, a legal infringement. I see the attraction for the Deputy for cosmetic purposes in suggesting that he is cutting down the radical figure of hours worked. The Deputy is riding on what he knows is not the real situation. We are talking about maximum hours. I understand that those who might not know the position might consider that we were talking about normal hours when we are not.
I see the attraction for the Deputy in Opposition in his last hurrah as spokesman before he hands over to Deputy Fitzgerald in making this point in such high profile. He was not quite so forthcoming on the kernel of this legislation in saying whether we should begin at 14 years of age. He left that to my discretion. I asked him to tell me what age they suggested and I was confronted with silence. The argument he accepted in coming to the central decision on the age at which it should commence is still valid. He produced an amendment giving me total discretion. Under section 7 (4) I have power to vary downwards those maximum hours considering the trends and in the light of our experience. They are not the normal hours. They are the maximum hours. In view of the Deputy's undoubted knowledge of the difference between normal hours and maximum hours, I am surprised that he should adopt this rather strange attitude.
In a few years' time when this Bill is being re-examined, people will say that the man who introduced this Bill in 1974 was not very practical when he specified 50 hours as the maximum. At that stage it will be in the lower 30s. The Minister has an obligation to young persons between 16 and 18 years. Does he think it reasonable that a child of 16 years could be forced by an employer to work 50 hours a week? The Minister knows that if a person refuses to work overtime it can well be the beginning of the trot to the Labour Exchange. Does he think it reasonable that a young person could be confronted with that situation at a time when there is a contraction of hours worked throughout industry in general?
I do not know how many hours are worked in the Civil Service, or in the services here, or in some of the more enlightened places where they work much less than the 40 hours which are normal. It is intended to establish this in the EEC by the end of this year. We have established it for some time. The Minister should be progressive and he should reduce the maximum for young persons of 16 years and upwards.
The Minister admits that they are a very vulnerable section of society and can be exploited. If they could not be exploited there would be no need for this Bill. Deputy Moore has pointed out the problem in regard to adult workers—that this can have a serious effect where adult workers can be displaced by people who can work up to 50 hours per week. This certainly would be an attraction to unscrupulous employers. The maximum should be lowered and the normal working week should be somewhat less than the maximum suggested here. We have amendments in rgeard to the normal working week also. If one were taken in conjunction with another one could see the significance of what we are saying because we have endeavoured to change not only the normal working week but also the maximum hours a person may work.
It is wrong for the Minister to say we are taking it in isolation. We have already put down amendments covering the aspect to which the Minister referred, the reduction in normal working hours for young persons. I see no reason why we should divert from our original intention to have this House specify a period of 40 hours as the maximum and when we come to the other section we shall ask for a reduction from the 40-hour week laid down here to bring it in line with more progressive thinking on a shorter working week for this section of young people. Our case is comprehensive and takes into consideration the factors the Minister has suggested we are not concerned about. We are concerned; we must be progressive and we have the opportunity now. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity on this occasion to be more progressive. It shows a very conservative approach when, in dealing with the normal working week, he specifies a 40-hour week. Quite a substantial amount of industry has a working week considerably less than 40 hours.
I hope to take an opportunity soon further to reduce the maximum hours of work.
That is what we want to do at this stage. This Bill is entitled Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, legislation which we welcome to cover and control certain aspects of exploitation of children and young people but, for the Minister not to bring in or not to accept Deputy Dowling's amendment of 40 hours per week or 160 hours per four weeks and 2,000 hours per year, approximately, is adopting a conservative old-fashioned approach that goes back to the introduction of the previous Act where, I understand, 60 hours approximately was the figure mentioned very many years ago. Surely, in addition to the protection of young persons' employment there is also the fact that we are talking about a 16-year old boy or girl and in a country now in the EEC and supposed to be adopting its social concepts we are not prepared to legislate for the protection of these young people and of the adult workers also.
I strongly support Deputy Dowling's amendment and appeal to the Minister to accept it because he said that he would be coming to the House in a short time with legislation to reduce the number of hours. I say to the Minister: "Take courage; forget what your colleagues say; be your own party man; be the man you promised you would be when you were in Opposition. We are giving the opportunity." The young people of Ireland will remember the Minister for this. He should agree with Deputy Dowling in this case. He deserves support and the Minister believes he is right in what he seeks. Possibly the Minister is restrained by the influence of his colleagues. The Minister should accept the amendment because by doing so he will be doing a good day's work for the young people and for the industrial situation and employment in general.
If it was a principle of the Bill that no young worker would work more than the normal working week for adults, we would be out of all our troubles. In this case the Minister is not protecting the young worker but making him a menace to the adult worker and making him very unpopular. If the Bill said that no young worker should work more than the normal working week for adults the Minister would save a good deal of trouble and also help the young people.
I accept that the role of Opposition occasionally means that Deputies must beat drums and we have had a bit of that here and it is understandable. In general, I must commend Deputy Dowling for his responsible role as Opposition spokesman on Labour over the past two years and occasionally——
Is there an implication in that?
No. I am sure Deputy Fitzgerald will continue the tradition because it is in the interest of good legislation here. I accept that it is incumbent on the Opposition from time to time to contrast their higher social objectives with the performance of the Government of the day. We have brought in this legislation and Deputies opposite may come to their own conclusion. They had many years to ponder the necessity for legislation in this area and in my years in Opposition I never heard them produce any proposals in that area. Young people may judge who was serious in this area and who was merely rhetorical.
Deputy Dowling, Deputy Fitzgerald and other Deputies, I suspect, know that there is a difference between maximum hours and normal hours and therefore to compare the maximum hours stipulation, infringements of which lead to offences punishable under this legislation, with normal hours is to compare two different things and an argument on that basis cannot be taken too seriously.
We have an amendment on the normal hours also.
The maximum hours set down here will be reviewed by me as I have authority to do under the section and I have no doubt that at the appropriate Stage I shall be back looking for changes even in the maximum hours. For the young people under 18 I have power in a later section to control rest periods and ban certain night work. These provisions should also ensure that the kind of work engaged in by such young persons will be qualitatively different from that engaged in by their adult counterparts. In the circumstances, although I accept the role the Opposition must adopt at times, I appeal to them to accept the section as drafted. I readily understand the opportunity for being merely rhetorical in suggesting unreal comparisons is very attractive. I think, now and again, they must take that particular path.
The Minister's smokescreen is all very well. We recognise the difference between maximum working hours and normal working hours. Section 9 deals with normal working hours. We have amendments down to section 9 to deal with the question or normal working hours as distinct from the question of the maximum hours of work. If the Minister considers section 7 with section 9 he will see that we have examined the situation comprehensively in relation to the maximum and to the norm. When we get to the normal working hours, the position is even worse than it is in section 7 because we have a lot more to say in relation to the question of the normal working week of the young person. I shall not comment now on section 9 because we shall have a substantial debate on it, just as we had on section 7.
There is no use in the Minister saying we are taking it in isolation; we are not taking it in isolation. We fully comprehend the problem in relation to the maximum hours of work and to the normal hours. We have tabled amendments to deal with both cases and to say any more at present would be unnecessary repetition. We feel this is desirable. The Minister has it within his power on this occasion to produce a progressive document. This is one aspect in relation to which he can be progressive. I do not think he should tie a young person of 16 or so to the 50 hour per week tag. A variety of reasons have been given as to why he should not do so. Deputy Moore made the excellent suggestion that the maximum hours should be the norm of the adult worker and, as he said, this would create a situation which would bring the matter into focus in a distinct way.
I would ask the Minister to accept our amendment. I shall not say any more on it but we shall press it if the Minister does not concede acceptance.
Deputy Dowling says he understands the difference between the normal and the maximum, and he understands fully also that on the maximum front it cannot be compared to what happens in normal collective bargaining. In any protective legislation there is set down the figure, the hour, or the condition which must be met and, failing its being met, there follows an infringement and penalties ensue.
All of us here who watch legislation in any area appreciate that that kind of legislation may not be compared with the ongoing situation that we know around us because, in one case, we are saying that if such a condition is not complied with the law is broken. Obviously, conditions of that kind must be pitched a little less accurately, a little off target, in terms of the conditions we know around us than if there were no penalties attached to the infringement. That has been the difficulty that faced us here. In other sections of this legislation we have discussed Deputies have noted the difference between the reality and what we have set out to do. That was noteworthy in earlier sections this morning. Deputies had nothing to say on what the central part of the legislation should be, at what age we should commence——
We offered the ideal solution; we depended on the Minister's sense of responsibility.
At what age we should say the Act commenced? Deputies opposite were willing to allow me the whole central portion of the legislation, were willing to permit me to make up their minds with my officials, on what should be the age; they did not want to know.
Such is our confidence in the Minister.
Now we come to a point where we talk about the setting of maximum hours beyond which an employer permitting employment would be breaking the law, penalties would follow, and we find Deputies opposite saying that the maximum hours should be lower in comparison with the hours they know operating in industry. Deputies acquainted with the subject know that the hours worked in industry are the freely wrought bargain of employer and union, that it is a matter which may in fact be changed within the next few weeks if there is any central bargain between employers and unions. It is a tardy progress always after the actual changes made in hours, wages or anything else. The maximum are always way behind these conditions. In this case, over the year, we have on average kept reasonably within prospect of the actual bargain negotiated in the labour market—the average of 45 around the year is a not unreasonable target with which to have commenced.
Depending on developments and consultation with groups interested it will be possible to review those maximum hours. In fact, I have every confidence that it will be possible in the very near future to do so. I am merely making the point that I consider it a little unreasonable, certainly unrealistic, of Deputies who do appreciate the true situation to adopt the attitude they have been adopting in this discussion because the argument would not appear to bear out that approach. Therefore, one is left in the position of asking exactly why this approach should be adopted when one considers the facts of the case. Deputy Dowling put forward some argument about a threat to adult employment. I do not know what he means by that actual situation.
Does not the Minister know that the wage rates for 16- to 18-year-olds is different to those for adults.
I take it that the amendment is not being withdrawn?
No.
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand part of the section."
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Seán.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
9. In page 6, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(d) two thousand, one hundred and sixty hours in any year.".
Amendment No. 10 is related, and I suggest we take amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together.
This is the matter to which I was referring in earlier discussion, that in addition to the maximum hours per day, per week, and for four consecutive weeks, as specified in this subsection, there should be an annual limit on the maximum number of hours worked. This amendment achieves that purpose and will operate as an additional constraint on possible instances of excessive working. That gives an average working week of 45 hours.
How does the Minister arrive at the figure of 2,160 for the full year? We already have a figure of 190 as a maximum for four weeks, or an average of 47½ hours per week. Is it just a figure taken off the top of somebody's head? Is this guideline to bring it to an average of 45 hours a week?
It represents a substantial reduction in the annual maxima in the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1963, which was 2,900 hours per year in hotels; 2,600 hours per year in shops. It is a figure arrived at in discussion with the interests involved.
Is there a similar ratio to that in the 1936 Act for the hours for a four-week period and total hours for the full year?
The four-week period was in the 1936 Act, and it was a much higher maximum.
I accept that, but is there a comparable ratio for the four-week period and the full year?
Yes.
That is what the figures are based on?
That is the model.
We cannot allow the Minister to bring in legislation which will permit exploitation. We have underlined that in regard to the section on which we have just divided. Here again there is the same argument about 45 hours over the yearly period and 47½ hours over the monthly period. This is far too long. The 1936 Act needs to be updated. That is 40 years ago. We have come a long way in 40 years. When we come to section 9 we shall be having a full discussion on this whole question. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this in relation to present circumstances, in relation to modern trends in industry and in relation to what is likely to take place in the weeks to come when the new agreement will be drawn up. We are falling behind. Why should our young people be victims of our legislation? Substantial improvements have taken place in working conditions over 40 years, and we are not moving with the times. This figure of 2,160 hours will have to be reduced considerably before we are satisfied. We divided on the last provision and we must be consistent in our actions. Under this amendment it is possible for a child of 16 to be working for a year at 45 hours per week. We are surprised the Minister did not take a more radical step in this regard. Could the Minister give us an assurance that he will have a look at this with a view to making some modification in it? Would he agree to withdraw his amendment and give the matter further consideration?
I shall consider it before Report Stage. However, my opinion is that it is sufficiently satisfactory in the light of the criteria we have been adopting on this legislation and of the powers of review I have.
The Minister would not reconsider that whole question?
No.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
No.
Would the Minister be prepared to withdraw the amendment and, having reconsidered it, put it in again for Report Stage, if necessary?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 19, 22 and 42 may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, line 41, to delete "A person" and substitute "An employer".
The provision here is to ensure that the onus is on the employer but the draftsmen and the legal people were of the opinion that to substitute "employer" for "person" would make our intent clearer.
Regarding the word "person", is there any restriction in relation to an employment agency because in relation to double employment an employment agency would be aware of the hours worked previously by a person but they would not be concerned with this and could attempt to divert a person into two jobs during the period specified. This may not apply in particular to this section where there is reference to "employer" but there are sections in the Bill whereby a person in an employment agency as distinct from an employer could be an important factor on the question of the contravention of some sections of the Bill.
We are talking about the employer.
Only the employer can break the law.
I do not follow the Deputy's argument.
We can come to that, perhaps, while discussing the section.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (2) of section 7 provides that:
The hours of work specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section may be varied by an agreement or by regulations made by the Minister: provided that, under any such agreement, or by such regulations the maximum number of hours to be worked by the young person in any period of four consecutive weeks does not exceed one hundred and ninety hours.
The agreement referred to is a collective agreement or a registered employment agreement. That is all right but I am concerned regarding an agreement involving young people because of the possibility of there not being a trade union working on their behalf. It is important that there be no loopholes in this Bill but there is the real danger that the Bill may inhibit the employment of young people. That is something we must guard against and that is why I see a danger in this subsection. I accept the definition of "agreement" but I am concerned with the possibility of an agreement being reached between an employer and a group of young people. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the subsection. I want to guard against an agreement being reached without there being reference to the definition of "agreement".
If there is no trade union involved there can be no collective agent acting on behalf of young persons and, consequently, the danger the Deputy envisages, would not arise.
Would it not be possible for the young people to come together and reach a collective agreement?
I do not think that would be accepted because of the drafting we have employed. We disposed of that possibility in section 1.
I accept that but I would like the Bill to be clear and explicit. An employer and a group of young people, reading this section in isolation without reference to the definition of agreement in section 1, could reach an agreement.
The matters raised in the section refer back to earlier definitions. Therefore, this section cannot be taken in isolation.
I accept that but I wish the Bill to be such as may be read by young people and understood by them. There is a reluctance on the part of most people to read Bills. I am concerned that, this section being in isolation, might be open to abuse.
If there is no trade union, subsection (1) of section 7 must be complied with. Does that not cover the point the Deputy is making?
That is not spelled out clearly.
Subsection (2) of section 7 could hardly be read in isolation from subsection (1) of the section. It is governed by the other clauses in the section.
The agreement states you are not confined to ten hours in any day provided that under such agreement the maximum number of hours worked by a young person in any period of four consecutive weeks does not exceed 190. In other words, if that is read in isolation you are not adhering rigidly to the ten hours per day.
The Deputy's worry is that I would give authority for a regulation——
I have no worry about the Minister. There are two options. It may be varied by an agreement or by regulation made by the Minister. The Minister's regulation is clear but it is optional.
The agreement is understood to relate to an agreement entered into by a collective agent or trade union acting on behalf of the person involved. Where there is not such an organisation it is treated on an individual basis and the other provisions of the section would apply in that case.
The Minister is aware of that and I am aware of it but I fear that an employer could read this section in isolation or a group of young people could say they were not contravening anything in the Act by working three 20 hour days in one week. They could say they were still keeping within the 190 hours within four weeks. Would the Minister have a look at that subsection?
We will have a look at it.
The word "agreement" is defined in section 1 (1).
I have said that six times but my point is there is a danger that an employer or a group of young people could read that section in isolation and reach their own agreement which would contravene the Act.
Acting Chairman
The Minister will look at it?
I think it is covered but we will have a look at it again.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 12:
In subsection (1) (b), page 6, line 52, to delete "forty" and substitute "thirty-six".
I do not think the Minister can be really serious about this section. It refers to the maximum number of hours for people between 15 and 16. We considered that 50 was too great and that 40 should be the figure for 16- to 18-year-olds. It is completely out of the question to have a person of 15 working a 40-hour week and a nine-hour day. We should be more progressive at this stage in relation to child labour. This is a most vulnerable group of people. We propose to substitute 36 for 40 and even the 36 hours would be regarded as excessive by some people. I hope the Minister will indicate to the House that he would not expect a child of 15 to work nine hours a day and 40 hours a week. Surely that would tax a young person beyond his capacity. We would expect the Minister to introduce more enlightened legislation and we are amazed at the hours proposed here for a child of 15. The House will have to decide whether it agrees with this piece of legislation which places young people at risk and does not move with the times. We will be dealing with this again on the Report Stage and we will table a number of amendments. I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of this amendment and that he will keep in line with the thinking of progressive employers. I believe there are very few employers who would ask a child of 15 to work those hours. I do not want to go over the ground we covered on amendment No. 8 but this is a still weaker section than the 16- to 18-year-olds. Surely there should be some difference between the working week of a 15-year-old and that of an adult worker and most adult workers at present have a 40-hour week and many have a shorter working week. The tendency is to reduce the hours further. The hours specified in former Acts are of no concern here. We want a progressive piece of legislation so that people in years to come can say we did a good job. This is very far from what is required and we will not allow any Government or any Minister to open the way for the exploitation of young people. This could do just that. This is new legislation and even enlightened people may reflect and say: "If that is what the Government's view is why should we consider the workers who are seeking a shorter working week if the maximum for young children of 15 is set at this high figure?" We hope the Minister will see his way to reducing this to 36. Even at 36 I am doubtful if the reduction is sufficient, but it will be an advance. At the moment certain people are looking for a 35-hour week. Some are working a 35-hour week. To avoid any more smokescreens, may I point out that in another section we are also dealing with the age group 15 to 16 years and also the age group from 16 to 18 years of age. I ask the Minister to be reasonable. He probably feels a 40-hour week and a nine-hour day are excessive.
We will be dealing with hours per week on the Report Stage and we shall have a great deal to say on the subject then. I thought the Minister would be more liberal on the question of the maximum and this was put in as a basis for argument and the necessary amendments would follow. We cannot support the idea of a child of 15 working a nine-hour day and a 40-hour week. The Minister should be realistic and move with the times. He should not allow himself to be pushed back into the 1930s.
For the Deputy's information, legislation governing the conditions of employment of young people lay untouched for years by the Deputy's party. For almost 16 years they did absolutely nothing. They did not make any attempt to amend legislation passed much earlier in the century. So committed were they to the conditions in existence that not one backbencher over that period of years raised any question about the desirability of amending the legislation. In the same period the actual situation changed. Unions and employers bargained for improvements. I do not know if the party then in power had youth conferences but they ignored this whole area of legislation governing youth employment. When we, late in the day, introduce legislation we are naturally suffering from the neglect in the past and right at the start there is difficulty in deciding the points of departure. One can argue as to what should be the maximum hours in any particular week. Existing legislation is based on the Conditions of Employment Acts, 1936 to 1944, and the Conditions of Employment Acts, 1938 to 1942. The earlier Acts from 1936 to 1944 deal mainly with industrial workers. Later legislation deals with shops, hotels, restaurants and retail outlets. A whole section was not covered by any legislation at all, almost one-third of the total at work, with maximum or normal hours of any sort. There was no protection in legislation. Under the Conditions of Employment Acts, 1936 to 1944, for the under 16s it was an 11-hour day and a 40-hour week; in the case of shops and hotels it was a 50-hour week.
This legislation is quite an improvement on those conditions in areas of maximum hours. To suggest that anyone on the Opposition benches can now argue that our credentials are wrong is really standing logic on its head. This is reforming legislation, even if the maximum figures do not accord in every respect with what we know to be the actual situation on the ground. I have explained more than once that the maximum figures are not the going figures. The going figures are a different matter entirely. When we come to the appropriate section I shall explain normal hours. I cannot see how in conscience Deputies opposite can argue that what they are suggesting comes from a record of concern and achievement in this area. I rather think—I am sorry to so categorise their attitude—that this is bandwaggoning on a very weak basis of argument indeed.
Having listened attentively to the Minister, it is quite true that some sections in legislation were not changed over the years. However, if the Minister casts his mind back to the early 1930s and the progressive development of industry, he will know there was need to bring in legislation to eliminate sweated labour. Great advances were made from the point of view of legislation and down the years legislation was up-dated to ensure better conditions of employment. The various Acts stand out. There was the Conditions of Employment Act, the Holidays With Pay Act and the Redundancy Acts and various other Acts passed over the years. It is wrong to say no attention was paid to the general area of worker concern. What we are trying to do now is to keep abreast of modern trends. Blame is no solution to the problem. The further back we go the greater the difficulties.
There is much legislation that needs to be up-dated. It is wrong to say that members of the Opposition when they were on the Government back benches did not press for this. I know Deputy Moore and many other trade unionists have been pressing constantly and some of the legislation that has emerged is a result of the pressure applied. One has only to examine the legislation regarding conditions of employment, redundancy and various other matters to realise that we were concerned about the workers. What we are doing now is up-dating legislation. We can point to good legislation passed in former years and we can point to legislation that went through this House in the last year and that is in need of up-dating at the moment. We can also point to legislation from the Department of Labour that, to our mind, is disastrous but that is another matter. In years to come people may say that the legislation regarding equal pay and other matters is bad——
The employers say that now, at any rate.
Many of the workers will say it when the time comes for implementation. We must keep abreast of the situation and in some instances we must move ahead. Why should our workers and young people lag behind in relation to the conditions laid down in the Bill? The conditions specified are inferior and we cannot allow the Government to enact that legislation. I am not blaming the Minister because I realise there are pressures and influences that prompt him to compromise. I think he is more progressive than the Bill indicates but, nevertheless, his attitude is a very conservative one, that we should not move with the times and that our people are not entitled to the best.
We must ensure that our workers and young people are able to avail of the opportunities that present themselves—in this connection I am referring to educational opportunities also. Why should a person of 15 years be tied to a 40-hour week or a nine-hour day? This is completely out-dated and I would ask the Minister to accept our amendment or to divide the House. We will not withdraw our amendment; we consider we have just and valid reasons to present it and we have given them to the Minister. We are not going to allow young people to be discriminated against in any way.
I listened with interest to the Minister claim credit for the introduction of legislation to cover the situation that arises now. I have also heard him criticise the previous Administration for not introducing legislation of this nature. I came to working age during the period of the last Coalition Government and I can remind him of the situation that existed then. At that time there were no opportunities for young people and unemployment was at a very high level. Let us hope we are not returning to that situation.
A large section of this Bill is devoted to governing young people working during school terms and holidays. Because of the progressive state of the country, achieved by the previous Government, young people have employment opportunities. I remember when I was at school there were no such opportunities for young people. We welcome the introduction of this legislation but it is the result of improvement of opportunities for young people, created by those who have gone before.
We are legislating for young people of 15 years. The Minister did not approve of my earlier amendment. He thought the school-goer was being asked to do too much by working two four-hour days at weekends but now he is stating in this section that the 15-year-old person can work nine hours in any one day or 40 hours in a week. Deputy Dowling's amendment appears reasonable. In common with the Deputy I am not confused between the maximum and the normal hours of working. I have always considered that there should be a close relationship between them, particularly with regard to people of 15 or 16 years.
Our party has always worked for better conditions for our people and we regard 40 hours as an excessive period for a boy of 15 or 16 years, the equivalent of five eight-hour days. I would appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy Dowling's amendment. As I have stated, we know he is a progressive, young Minister. We realise he has milestones tied to him and chains dragging him from the benches beside him but we ask him to accept the amendment and to prove himself to be working for the interests of the young people.
I listened to the Minister's remarks regarding Deputy Dowling's amendment. He has taunted this side of the House with not having introduced legislation on this subject but I think he has introduced legislation purely for the sake of change. That is wrong. The Minister may think he is fulfilling a want but this Bill does not achieve that.
Section 7 (1) (b) is a dangerous section. Perhaps the Minister would consider putting forward an amendment on Report Stage on the following lines: "notwithstanding anything in this Bill no young person shall be permitted to work more than is permitted by the regulation governing adult workers". This would get him out of trouble and it would save Deputy Dowling and others from submitting amendments on this matter. The amendments put forward by Deputies Dowling, Fitzgerald and myself are for the purpose of protecting the young worker but we realise that the older worker should not regard them as a danger.
If a young worker is allowed to work 50 hours a week the unscrupulous employer will regard him as cheap labour. We want to protect this young person but we cannot do so at the expense of the adult worker. The amendments put forward by Deputies Fitzgerald and Dowling would improve this legislation and I appeal to the Minister to tell us on Report Stage that he accepts the principle of the amendments proposed.
I am not going to repeat the arguments. I am not blaming Deputy Fitzgerald because he is a new Deputy, but whatever about the mid-fifties my point was that the record of the party in government in the sixties was dismal with regard to social legislation. In my own case the situation is that I am far from finding restraint within this Government in the area of advance in social legislation. I am pressed forward by our objective of reforming in every area. That is what I am seeking in this legislation.
I do not make a point of simply arguing pro and con but against that dismal record of the Opposition Deputies in their period in Government in this area, an area untouched by them in legislation, I cannot accept the points made here in good faith. Personally, the Deputies opposite may not have been involved in that rather pitiable record of their party in the 1960s but they cannot, on the basis of that record, suggest an amendment today in the area of maximum hours under this section.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
It does not give them any basis for considering that the suggestions they are making come from a record of proven concern over the period in question.
The Minister did not answer the point that it was because of the performance of our party in Government that the necessity arose for this legislation.
The necessity for this legislation has been there for some years and this Government meets the need to bring in that legislation. There is a problem where one starts after a great period of official neglect in this area and it is an open question of whether one should begin either in setting the maximum or normal hours. I have begun at what I think is a realistic figure and I have the power to amend it at a later stage. I look forward to so amending it but I do not understand the attitude expressed by the Deputies opposite. I ask them to drop their amendment.
The Minister spoke about our lack of social concern——
When in Government.
——and that no effort was made by this party to bring forward productive legislation. The Minister indicated that this was the reason he could not accept the amendment.
No.
That is what the Minister said.
I said I could not accept the Deputy's amendment on the basis of concern expressed by the Deputy having regard to the record of his party in office.
The concern now is very real and if the Minister is trying to base his rejection of this amendment on the basis that legislation was not brought in in the past it is a poor argument. Blame-placing is no solution to the present problem. We must face the situation as it is or as it will be in the future. Legislation must be far reaching and not the type of legislation that would go out of date next week. This Bill will do a grave injustice to the young people and we are not going to allow the Government to exploit young people as this Bill tends to do. It is a poor argument for the Minister to indicate that because something was not done in the past he does not accept the sincerity of the Members in opposition. Does this mean that if he accepted the sincerity of the Members on this side he would accept the amendment? We are going to stand by this amendment and if the Minister does not change his mind we will divide on the issue.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Andrews, David.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmins, Eugene.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Kenneally, William.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 13 has already been discussed with amendment No. 11.
I move amendment No. 13:
In subsection (2), page 6, line 53, to delete "A person" and substitute "An employer".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 14:
In subsection (1) (a) (ii), page 7, line 10, to delete "forty" and substitute "thirty-seven and one-half".
We are now dealing with normal working hours. The section provides:
(1) In this section and in sections 5 and 10 of this Act, "normal working hours" in relation to an employee means—
(a) if the employee is a young person over the age of sixteen years—
(i) eight hours in any day, and
(ii) forty hours in any week;
We are beginning to wonder why the Minister hates young people so much. We have seen this in other sections when he insisted that he would not reduce the maximum from 50 hours to 40 hours in the case of 16- to 18-year-olds and he would not reduce the maximum working week for 15-to 16-year-olds either. The Minister said earlier that there was some confusion in our minds about the maximum working hours and the normal working hours. There is no confusion at all. We are concerned that young persons be fully and adequately protected under this Bill. As we indicated earlier, we had hoped that the Minister would introduce enlightened legislation for young people. Now we find that we are back in the Dark Ages and the normal working hours for a child of 16 are eight hours in any day and 40 hours in any week.
As was pointed out, the EEC directive indicates that the normal working week for adult workers should not exceed 40 hours and that it should apply to all sections of the community before 31st December, 1975. But the Minister and the Government feel that young persons at the tender age of 16 should work 40 hours a week on the basis of an eight-hour day. We are expected to support a measure for the protection of young people that victimises young people, a measure that does not move with the times and which is, in fact, a step backwards. Is the Minister serious in suggesting that a young person aged 16 should work a normal week of 40 hours and work an eight-hour day? We think far more of the young people than that. The Victimisation of Young People Act, 1974, would be a more appropriate title if the hours specified here as the normal working hours are carried by the House. The Government will have to stand up and be counted on this issue.
There must be a difference between a person of 16 and an adult worker. Most, if not all, adult workers are at present working a 40-hour week while some have a 36- or a 35½-hour week. Many people with progressive employers are working less than 40 hours but the Government indicate in this Bill that the normal working week for a child of 16 should be 40 hours. There is no use in the Minister referring to the 1936 Act which is 40 years out of date. We have come a long way since then. We are now in a very enlightened age and if there was a reduction in hours on a weekly and on a daily basis many young people could divert their activities into educational fields where opportunities exist which they would wish to avail of.
We hope the Minister will change his mind on this section. He is fully aware that the normal working week for the adult is 40 hours and there is no confusion in our minds between the maximum and the normal working week. We are dealing with persons aged 16 to 18 here and we hope the Government will be realistic and look to the future and realise that progress will be made. This Bill does not take that into consideration. What will the young people say when they read through this measure when—if ever— it becomes an Act and see what it provides? It can only become an Act by the force of numbers in this House because no reasonable person would accept the situation it envisages.
I do not know why the Government hate young people. Apparently, this Bill is to victimise young people. We will not stand for it. The Minister has the opportunity of reducing the hours on the reasonable basis suggested in my amendment or asking the House to divide. He can then use the forces at his disposal to bring about acceptance of his 40-hour week.
Deep down, the Minister probably feels as I do but he should be his own man and say: "I agree that we have progressive elements in the country moving towards a shorter working week for adults and that even if 40 hours is the norm at the moment it will not be long so, that there will be a reduction." We have given the reasons why there will be a reduction —mechanisation, industrialisation, people seeking more leisure hours. Reducing the normal working week to 35 hours would allow more people to participate more fully in employment. This trend of thought is found among many responsible employers and trade unionists at present. There are responsible employers who have already reduced the normal working week to less than 40 hours. This Bill indicates no difference between the adult and the child of 16. That is victimisation of the young people.
My amendment may not go far enough—37½ hours. It is purely an expression of disapproval of the Minister's 40 hours per week proposal and while it would be a step in the right direction it may not go far enough. The Minister must decide now whether he wants to force through his proposal for a 40-hour week as the norm, as laid down in the Bill. On Report Stage of the Bill we shall deal with the eight hour day which the Bill also specifies. The Minister is aware of all the arguments and there is no need for me to say more except to ask him to be practical and realistic in relation to the young persons he proposes to protect and is, in fact, victimising in this section of the Bill.
Deputy Dowling has made what I think is an unanswerable case for his amendment. No section of this Bill is more conservative and out of date than this section. It is inconceivable that a Minister in a Government in 1975 in this country should think that a normal working week of 40 hours is the type of normal working week to introduce by legislation for a 16-year-old boy or girl. A working week of 37½ or 35 hours is commonplace in many fields. Surely when introducing legislation we cannot relate the 16-year-old boy or girl to the adult worker who has been on a 40-hour week for some considerable time and whose aim is to be on a shorter week. Many of them are already on a shorter week and many more will be. It certainly is an outdated section. I would appeal also to the Minister not to divide the House on it but to say that for once he will step out of line, he will not be drawn back by the elements within the Government that he fully agrees and accepts are preventing him from introducing legislation I know he would like to bring in if he were his own master.
The Deputy's imagination is running away with him. After all, we have introduced this legislation. I appreciate the point made about not dividing the House but Deputies have not given me much opportunity at 3 o'clock when I think the Ceann Comhairle wants to come in with Question Time.
We will give the Minister plenty of time afterwards.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.