Private Members' Business. - Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 21:
In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) This section shall not apply to an employee who is employed by an employer to do industrial work within the meaning of section 3 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 (as amended by section 2 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1944)."
—(Minister for Labour.)
On acceptance of this amendment the situation will be that section 49 of the 1936 Act will still apply to young persons doing industrial work. Subsection (1) of this Act will only cover young people. This was the problem referred to in regard to earlier sections that certain groups of young people had not been covered in existing legislation. In this section we include those people.
In the case of those working in shops and hotels and in employment not covered by previous legislation this amendment will afford additional protection. I commend it to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In subsection (2), page 8, line 14, to delete "A person" and substitute "An employer".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Why must the Minister stipulate "without pay"? I do not agree with the proposition that 24 hours of rest with pay or without pay is an adequate rest for a young person. It contravenes all the regulations of shift work and everything else. To me, it is a most unjust section because the last paragraph reads:
.... the employer shall ensure that the conditions of employment of every such employee are such that the employee will have at least twenty-four consecutive hours rest without pay in every period of seven days.
I do not know why that is in the Bill because, in the first place, I think it is very punitive if the Minister presses this. On any shift work they would be given more than 24 hours continuous rest a week, so why must the Minister stipulate that the employee should not be paid for it? Surely that is superfluous? If the employer wants to pay an employee let the employer pay him, but do not put in the Bill that he cannot pay him.
Deputy Moore asked the Minister a question.
The question does not relate to the amendment I have here.
It relates to subsection (1) of section 12.
Why must there be the deletion of any mention of payment? That way it would be fair to both sides.
The employer must relate section 12 to other sections. He must comply with the maximum hours section; he must comply with the light work restrictions and they must be taken together with section 12.
That was not Deputy Moore's question.
Why must there be the provision in the Bill that the employee will have at least 24 consecutive hours rest without pay in every period of seven days? First of all, I think 24 hours is rather short for a person of 15 or 16 years of age. Then there is the fact also that we say without pay.
What is the Deputy's problem? Is he referring to the 24 hours' rest or the "without pay"?
Why must it be said that he shall not be paid? If an employer wants to pay a man for the time he has lost, why should we debar him from so doing?
We come back to the problem which crops up again and again in this legislation. We are dealing here with several areas; we are talking about the maximum, we are talking about the norm and about the minimum. When we speak about this matter of rest, again we are speaking about the minimum period of rest. There is nothing to prevent an employer from paying anything he wishes. We are here simply ensuring that, in extreme cases, in regard to the question of the possibility of the legal problems, which are comprehensive in character, and how to settle them, I must try to seek an answer to each, even rare, eventuality. That is what I am seeking to do here. I seek simply to make sure that these periods of rest are available to the employee but it does not debar the possibility of payment to the employee.
But the employer would say, according to this legislation when it becomes an Act: "I cannot pay you because it says in the Act I cannot pay you. I must give you 24 hours off, certainly, according to the Act, but I am prohibited from paying you."
It does not prohibit an employer from paying an employee.
Perhaps the Minister would have a look at that question of the provision of "without pay".
I shall have a look at that on Report Stage but I can assure the Deputy I am satisfied with it as it is now.
Would the Minister examine it for Report Stage because we should like an explanation as to why it is there?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are cognate and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In subsection (1), page 8, lines 16 and 18, to delete "any" and substitute "a".
This is purely a drafting amendment, as is amendment No. 24.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 13, as amended, be agreed to."
Is there not confusion there? Does not amendment No. 24 relate to section 14? Amendment No. 23 relates to section 13.
In relation to section 13, did the Minister not give consideration to the question of young people taking evening jobs? Subsection (1) reads:
An employer shall neither permit any young person to do any work at any time between the hour of 10 p.m. on any day and the hour of 6 a.m. on the following day nor permit any young person to do any work until the expiration of 12 hours from the time at which he ceased to do work on the previous day.
The question of evening jobs was raised by one of the outside organisations. They asked us to impress on the Minister the necessity for him to review the situation in relation to evening jobs, jobs going on until 10.30 p.m., or possibly 11 p.m. which young people may wish to take in one place or another. Has the Minister given any consideration to that aspect?
We are back to the familiar problem in this legislation. Is the Deputy seeking a relaxation of the provisions we have here? Is that what the Deputy is seeking— that they should be later than 10 p.m.?
I asked the Minister did he take into consideration the question of young people under 18 years of age who may have evening jobs that run past the hour of 10 p.m. Did the Minister take that into consideration in the framing of the Bill? Does it mean at present that no person under the age of 18 years can take up any employment which ceases after the hour of 10 p.m.? There may be young people who work in restaurants, publichouses and did he take that into consideration in the drafting of this section?
The section is carefully drafted here in that it says:
.... shall neither permit any young person to do any work at any time between the hour of 10 p.m. on any day and the hour of 6 a.m. on the following day nor permit any young person to do any work until the expiration of 12 hours from the time at which he ceased to do work on the previous day.
That point has been taken into consideration. We have set those hours down and if the Deputy is dissatisfied and feels it should be a later hour, he is at liberty to say so. But, in answer to his question, we did take it into consideration.
The Minister knows this will be difficult to enforce. Will the Minister ensure that this section is enforced now that he has indicated that a person of 18 cannot accept work that expires after 10 p.m.? There is a problem here. If you are unable to enforce legislation, it is bad legislation. I wonder whether there was adequate consideration given to this? There would seem to be a point in the representation made to us in relation to young people who might like to take work after school hours or, indeed, after the hours they would be studying at university which could take them up to 11 o'clock or midnight. It applies to people at 18. I have no desire to change it but I would like to know if the Minister has given this full and adequate consideration. Quite a number of people of 18 and younger do part-time evening work and if they are barred from doing work which expires after 10 p.m. we have created a new situation. We want to ensure that the law can be enforced and will be enforced for the protection of the younger people.
If the Deputy wishes me to consider another hour, which hour does he suggest?
Has the Minister had the same representations as we have had in relation to this problem?
The Minister's opinion is down on the paper before you in the statute. Now, what is your opinion?
I was seeking information from the Minister to know if he has given this comprehensive consideration.
In future, a person of 18 or younger will be unable to work after 10 o'clock at night.
Have you an alternative opinion to offer?
If I were over there, I might have an alternative but the Minister is the one who presented the Bill to the House.
I give you a fair offer, Deputy. I respect your knowledge of this area, your contacts in this area but have you another hour to offer, a later or an earlier hour? I will give consideration to it if you have.
If I were over there, I would have given comprehensive consideration to the Bill.
But I have given it comprehensive consideration. There are my ideas in the Bill.
I want to know whether the Minister consulted with the people who employ young persons on a part-time basis on work that expires after 10 p.m.? Will he be able to ensure that the law is maintained and not abused?
This difficulty obtains in other provisions of this legislation. There will be a difficulty in implementation which we accept and we think that the provisions we have taken, both in regard to maximum hours and normal hours and all the other provisions in this legislation, give us the possibility of practical implementation, but not, perhaps, in all respects as high or as low as we would wish. We have followed a similar course here, consulted with as many interests as possible and here are the hours we have settled for. In the absence of the Deputy having any alternative hour, this is the hour I would adhere to.
At times, I am concerned about the Minister's attitude. I do not like that last comment from him: "this is the hour I will adhere to". If he had valid reasons for saying that this is the hour that is best, that would be fine. But if your attitude is one of that this is the hour we will stick to I certainly could not go along with that. As Opposition members we are entitled to question him to know what investigations or considerations he took into account before reaching these hours. I do not think it is for us to say to him that the hours should be this or that. He, as Minister is responsible for introducing and implementing this Bill. There will be many difficulties involved in implementing it properly. The Minister has already admitted he is aware of that difficulty with this section——
And with other sections, also.
——but has he taken into consideration the representations that were made to him about difficulties that may arise because of the 10 p.m. situation?
Of course we have taken them into account. I do not list in relation to any section when we come to figures the people we have talked with. Obviously, we have seen as wide a section as possible and finally it fell to my lot to make a decision in this matter. I have made the decision. There is an hour down here. When the Deputy said I would stick to a certain hour, I was speaking in the context of the absence of any other suggestion from any other Member of the House. It is obvious that the hour I had arrived at, set down here in legislation after consultation and making a decision on the basis of the consultations, is the hour that in the circumstances of no other suggestion being made will be adhered to.
I will have a look at it for the Report Stage.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 8, line 23, to delete "any" and substitute "a"; and in line 25, to delete "any" where it firstly occurs and substitute "a".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Is it the Minister's opinion that the hours he has chosen from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. are the best suited to cover this situation? Has he taken into consideration the problems that may arise at either half-an-hour before or half-an-hour after, in implementing this section of the Bill? If he is satisfied beyond doubt that there are no other situations that could arise——
I am never satisfied beyond doubt. In this situation, again, I had to make a decision, in view of the representations made to me on the actual situation. Again I would ask the Deputies to tell me, if they are dissatisfied, what are their alternative proposals?
The Minister must realise that we have to question your legislation. It is his duty to introduce and implement it but it is our duty also to question it on behalf of the people we represent.
There is no question about that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 25:
In subsection (1), page 8, to delete all words after "employer," in line 32 down to and including "day" in line 36.
Although I say so myself this has all the quality of a Ministerial amendment. The Minister is seeking here to restrict double employment and if this amendment were adopted by him, it would have that effect. Once you start meddling around with more than one employer, you are in all kinds of trouble. It should be restricted to one employer per day. It is not a great deal to ask but I think it would make it much simpler. It would also make it a better Bill by being more specific as regards employers or employment of a young person on any one day. I propose in the amendment that all words after "employer" in line 32 to the end of that paragraph be deleted.
There are difficulties as the Deputy mentions. The only concern we have is that the provision in relation to the obligation to work the hours set down should be fulfilled. How many employers were involved in this process, whether one or two, does not concern the purpose of the legislation. It is equitable in terms of the provisions of this legislation that if the young person involved decides to work for more than one employer that he should not be prevented from doing so, provided his overall hours of work stay within the maximum hours permitted for his age group under the Bill. The amendment proposed by Deputy Moore would have the effect of preventing outright an employee covered by the Bill from working for more than one employer in a working day. I wish to restrict areas of exploitation in this legislation but I do not wish to intervene where that intervention is not called for. Therefore, I do not wish to be prohibitive just for the sake of being prohibitive and restrictive for the sake of that. As long as the hours clause is complied with, I do not propose to interfere and I would ask Deputy Moore in consideration of that to withdraw his amendment.
In relation to the dual employment, like Deputy Moore, I feel that this would strengthen the Bill. The Minister is well aware that it is going to be difficult to implement this section dealing with double employment. It could be treble employment or a variety of employments. How is the Minister going to decide in the case of a person who is hauling turf? If he is hauling for 10 different people, is that employment by one person who pays him or is it employment by 10 people who pay him or can he only haul turf for two people? It is going to be a difficult section to implement where there are a variety of employments concerned. I feel, like Deputy Moore, that this section can be abused and will be abused and legislation which we will be unable to implement will be bad legislation.
We would like to ask the Minister how extensive was his examination of this particular problem. What percentage of people who were examined worked in double employment? Is there a large sector employed by two employers in the one day or is this a very small minority? If it is a very small minority and if it is difficult to enforce is it not far better to eliminate it at the moment to ensure that the law can be maintained in a very easy way.
If we refer back to the suggestion made this morning in relation to some sort of insurance cover for a young person this would ensure absolute control of the situation. These young people now have no type of insurance cover and there is absolutely no check that one can make on whether in fact they had dual employment and whether they exceeded the hours for two, three or four employers. There will have to be some means of checking so that the law can be fully enforced in order to protect them to the fullest extent and to protect them to the extent that the Minister wants to protect them in other sections of the Bill.
I am loathe to interfere with the employment situation of all employees in the State up to the age of 18 where a principle is not being infringed. The effect of Deputy Moore's amendment would be that in fact, for the first time since 1936, because a similar provision was involved in the 1936 legislation, we would invoke a new principle in this area. We would lay it down that in the area of employment up to 18 a new principle was announced that you could not have dealings with two employers even though you complied with the provisions of maximum hours. I would put it to the common sense of the Deputies opposite that such a step away from the main body of legislation should not be undertaken save in circumstances which call for such action. The Deputies plead the extra difficulties of ensuring that there is not infringement of the law because there are two employers involved. There are other sections of this legislation where similar formidable difficulties of implementation apply. I would, therefore, plead that as a matter of principle where there is no infringement of the hours situation, which is our main concern under this section, the problem of implementation and the practical difficulties related to it in terms of the inspectorate being able to follow through infringements, that those difficulties should not be pleaded as an excuse for laying extra burdens or laying completely outside the law, the case of the young person up to 18 who simply worked one hour a day for one employer and worked the remainder for another employer. I do not think we should outlaw that practice just because difficulties of implementation might suggest this was the wiser course.
While it is easy to check on the insured person it would be difficult to check on a large section of the people who are affected by this Bill.
If one reads subsections 2 and 3 of this section one finds the unfortunate young person is left to carry the can for the employer. Subsection (3) reads:
Whenever an employer is prosecuted for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for him to prove he did not, or could not, by reasonable inquiry, have known that the employee had done work for any other employer on the day in respect of which the prosecution is brought.
The young person could be left in the dock while the employer says: "I asked the boy had he worked and the boy said `No'." So, therefore, the young person is going to bear the brunt of this. It is very unfair to the young person who might be working for a very big employer. I can see the Minister's point in saying we should not restrict it to one employer. That is fine. We are not doing that, but we are placing the young person in jeopardy. He may be tempted to earn more money and work for one employer for the maximum number of hours allowed and then go to another employer and possibly he would through human frailty say: "I was not working before." So, the unfortunate boy or girl could well find himself or herself prosecuted while the employer says, like Pontius Pilate, "I asked him whether he had worked and he said `No' so therefore, I am clear on this".
I do not think we should add extra provisions which are not essential. We have compulsory insurance so that is not the problem. The main problem is the question of the extra burden on the inspectorate involved in chasing up infringements under two employers. I would say that acceptance of the amendment will not enhance the chances of enforcing this prohibition because it makes the stipulation more restrictive, brings the law into intervention in areas where it is not called for and increases the chances of evasion. So, I do not know if the job of the inspectorate would be made easier or if the job of implementation would be made easier by the addition of this amendment. On principle I would say that I think it would be a departure that I would not welcome from the main body of the 1936 legislation.
This could be a grave injustice. I would not be in favour of withdrawing the amendment but I will leave it to our spokesman.
Would the Minister have another look at it? We may put down a further amendment on the Report Stage.
I am sure you will put down amendments on every thing proposed.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 26:
In subsection (1), page 8, line 35, to delete "worker" and substitute "employee".
What is the difference between a worker and an employee?
In industrial relations legislation "employee" has a more explicit identity than "worker".
Is he the same sort of person as the worker?
I would not be in favour of using the word "worker" there at all in fact.
I know the Deputy does not like the word "worker".
No, I do not. Do not get me wrong now. The Minister is trying to put a slant on this. I do not think it is the right word to use in legislation.
It is just that the draftsman thought it more explicit. There is no tremendous issue of principle there.
Why did the Minister say he knew I did not like the word "worker"?
The Deputy's sense of humour is becoming strained.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In subsection (3), page 8, lines 42 and 43, to delete "it shall be a defence for him to prove that he did not, or could not by reasonable inquiry, have known that the employee" and substitute "it shall be a defence for him to prove that he did not know, or could not by reasonable enquiry have known, that the employee".
What is intended in this amendment is the rectification of a grammatical inaccuracy.
I accept that. I have no objection to the amendment but I have an objection to the wording for the reason pointed out by Deputy Moore. It appears to throw the onus back on the young person concerned. The employer may prove that he was ignorant of the fact that the employee had already worked. A young person will not be likely to read this legislation closely and, because of information he gives the employer, the employer may be exonerated. I do not think it is fair the onus should be put on the young person. Deputy Moore made a very valid point. It is a point I would ask the Minister to consider. The amendment certainly corrects a grammatical error and there is no objection to that, but I am not at all happy with the section as it stands.
What is the Deputy's objection?
It is wrong to put the onus on the young person. The Minister will agree that a young person is the last person to study a Bill in detail. I welcome the amendment made by the Minister earlier this evening that he intends to issue this in a very simplified form for the benefit of young people, but the Minister will agree that there are a great many young people who will never read it and who will never be familiar with the provisions. Innocently, they may not make known to a second employer some particular aspect of their day's or of their week's activities and, because of that, the onus of the offence committed then passes from the employer. There must be some amendment here.
It shall be a defence only for the employer but that does not mean that he will be able to justify it. It shall be an defence for him to prove that he did not, or could not, by reasonable inquiry have known. These are rather stringent requirements. "Reasonable inquiry" has a long legal history and there is case law to show what the precedents are. It will only be a defence for him to prove it and he must prove it. The onus remains on the employer. The onus of proof is not removed here. While the Deputy is not worried about the drafting amendment, he is worried about the substance of it. The substance is that it leaves the employer with quite a heavy liability in terms of proof.
It shall be a defence for him to prove "he did not, or could not, by reasonable inquiry, have known that the employee" had worked for any other employer on the day in respect of which the prosecution is brought. Does "by reasonable inquiry" merely mean asking the employee if, in fact, he had worked for another employer?
No. "Reasonable inquiry" does not simply leave the employer in the role of simply lifting up a telephone. It would be for those inquiring to decide in each particular instance what constituted "reasonable inquiry". If we did not have this section, automatic conviction of the employer would follow, even if he had been misled by the employee. I am not suggesting that we should always automatically see through the eyes of the employer. Neither must we automatically assume the innocence of one side and the guilt of the other. In this section we put quite a heavy onus on the employer. He has got to pursue reasonable inquiry and it can only be a defence as long as he proves reasonable inquiry. That leaves him with a heavy liability and that is the kind of situation we want. We do not wish to place automatic guilt and we do not wish to leave the employer totally defenceless, where he might be faced with an unscrupulous employee.
It would be much better to set down in simple form the procedure that the employer must follow in order to ascertain the information required rather than phrase it in the manner in which it is phrased here:
it shall be a defence for him to prove that he did not know, or could not, by reasonable inquiry, have known, that the employee ...
The situation could be that, when a young person presented himself for employment, the employer would ask that young person: "Were you employed previously today?" and if the young person said: "No, I was not", would that be accepted as a reasonable inquiry?
It is not simply a passive role. Questions will be directed at the employer. It will be the person investigating who will inquire as to the facts. "Reasonable inquiry" will be based on precedents and a conclusion reached as to what was the reasonable inquiry on the part of the employer. This will change according to circumstances. That is the power in this particular section.
I am satisfied that this gives sufficient cover; the employer will be forced to fulfil what is required here under "reasonable inquiry". However, if it sets the Deputy's mind at rest, one can consider an elaboration of what constitutes "reasonable inquiry". I think the Deputy should have no misgivings. We will look at it again to see if we can add to what is required here under "reasonable inquiry", although the difficulty in amplifying legislation designed for all kinds of cases lies in trying to cover every aspect. However, I undertake to have another look at this between now and Report Stage.
We will accept that. I feel strongly about this. In addition, I should like "reasonable inquiry" defined.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 9, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Before making regulations under subsection (1) of this section, the Minister shall publish in such manner as he thinks fit notice of his intention to do so and give persons desiring to make representations in relation to the proposed regulations a period of twenty-one days to do so."
This amendment is on the lines of an amendment proposed by Deputy Moore. The amendment, as drafted, will precipitate the making of regulations under this section. I include a specific welcome to persons desiring to make representations, and the comments on proposed regulations by interested authorities would be welcomed. We simply improved the general objective desire of Deputy Moore and related it more closely to the object of the legislation.
I do not want to waste time but I would not like this to pass without complimenting the Minister——
I think the Minister should be thankful to Deputy Moore for setting him off on the right line.
Why can Deputy Moore not be thankful he has somebody like myself who is willing to accept suggestions from the Opposition?
The Minister can see that the calibre of the Opposition is so good now and I am glad he is accepting our suggestions. Could the words "as he thinks fit" be tidied up a little? That is the only fault I have to find with the Minister's amendment. Why use that expression specifically?
There may be a case where it may be a purely local matter and I will be governed by the regulation of the section. That I "think fit" is in accordance with the case with which we wish to deal. That is the intent and direction of the phrase "as he thinks fit".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are consequential.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 9, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Education, by licence, exempt any class of employers from complying with any provision of this Act or of regulations under this Act in any case where that class of employers is participating in an approved scheme which combines limited employment experience with education or training."
I am proposing this amendment in order to ensure that the terms of the Bill may not be a barrier to desirable developments under this section in the future. It would be of advantage to schoolchildren who may not have an academic bent to be able to participate in specially designed schemes which would combine limited employment experience with education or training. This has been attempted elsewhere. It has not been attempted here yet but I believe it is a task we will embark upon shortly. This section is designed to ensure that we may avail of this opportunity when the plans and the schemes are at the operational stage. These amendments will enable me, in consultation with the Minister for Education, to exempt by licence from compliance with any provisions of the Act employers who participate in such approved schemes. This will leave the way open for the development of suitable schemes through mutual co-operation between educational authorities and employers on a course. This greater co-operation between employers and the educational authorities is absolutely crucial and will become more crucial in the years ahead. It is co-operation for itself and we do not see the limit. Undoubtedly in the future we certainly would hope to see this development in this section designed to facilitate that situation when it comes.
I welcome this amendment but I would like to say that when discussing section 10 the Minister referred to the difficulties that arose regarding my amendment in relation to vocational training and to the difficulties that would be experienced in relation to contact between one Department and another. As I pointed out at that time, there was a section in the Act where the Minister for Education was, and would be consulted in relation to a scheme proposed by the Minister. I would have thought that the Minister would have given the same consideration to section 10 as he is now giving to this subsection. We welcome the amendment but we are sad to think that the whole question of technical training and training schemes of one kind or another was not fully and comprehensively examined to ensure that amendments, such as we had on section 10 or other modified amendments, would be brought forward to meet the same type of situation. The Minister indicated that there was an ongoing situation in the national agreement whereby there was development towards this type of participation. That we welcome but we hoped that the whole Bill would have had within it several forward-thinking suggestions to keep us abreast, if not in front, of continental thinking. We had the opportunity here through our legislation where we could project an image that would be copied in the future, even by the continentals, rather than lagging behind.
We welcome this amendment. We hope that the Minister will consider redrafting section 10 and that it will get the same consideration this amendment received. The amendment is one which gives additional recognition to people who wish to participate in the schemes outlined in the amendment. In relation to this amendment can the Minister now say if there were practical difficulties with the Minister for Education in relation to section 10 as against this particular section?
No, of course not. As I told the Deputy earlier this morning, the Minister for Education is a most reasonable man. I can assure Deputies opposite that this legislation is another step into what I think will be an exciting future in this development between education and employment agencies. This section is designed to ensure that we meet those possibilities in the future. I can assure Deputies that the legislation under this section will ensure that I will be coming back to this House of the Oireachtas again—I hope in co-operation with the Minister for Education—to lay before the House further schemes in this area. I have no doubt that the Minister for Education will co-operate fully in that endeavour as I know his deep interest in technological education and in the advancement of education generally in our country.
I pointed out to the House this morning that I was unable to obtain information from the Department of Education who referred me to the Minister's office where his civil servants could not impart simple statistical information to me.
What type of Irish does the Deputy speak?
Perhaps the Deputy should have used Munster Irish in the Department of Education.
The supercilious Minister for Education certainly will not get a Deputy from this side of the House to crawl to him seeking ordinary statistical information. When he is asked questions in the House he will not answer them. When one tries to get information from the Department——
The Deputy should speak on the amendment.
I agree with Deputy Dowling in welcoming this amendment and with the Minister's reasons for introducing it. As the progressive party in this country, we certatinly welcome this innovation and commend the Minister for this type of thinking, but I am sorry I cannot share the Minister's sentiments regarding his colleague. The Minister describes him as being a reasonable man but this side of the House and the people of the country could not agree with him on that score. I wish to comment on the section afterwards.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In subsection (4), page 9, line 9, to delete "subsection (3)" and to substitute "subsection (3) or (4)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
We are back to what I have been saying about this Bill. This Bill is consistent for its lack of consistency. I cannot understand subsection (1) at all when I relate back to our efforts this morning to get the Minister to accept an amendment from us asking him to fix a particular age. The Minister argued that it is the Members of this House who should fix the age and that it should not be at his discretion, which I think would have been far better.
We are on section 16 (1) which contains as broad a power as could be given to any Minister. It contradicts everything he said this morning. There are dangers in this Bill. I certainly support the sentiments of the Bill. I would certainly commend all the good things in it. My concern is for the young people. It covers the whole scope of what I am talking about.
The Chair is concerned that we keep to the section. We can deal with the Bill later.
Section 16 is very broad in its scope.
If it is a good section why did the Minister not accept our amendment this morning?
That was in relation to section 10.
Under section 16, subsection (1), the Minister is given powers which I do not disagree with because this being a new concept of legislation there are various aspects of the young person's employment which he must look at. It gives him the opportunity of looking at individual types of work, seasonal work, and so on. Under section 16 (1) he can make an order covering them. He has to take into consideration the economic circumstances in the homes of these young people and the conditions which he will specify by order for the particular class of industry or the nature of the work. This is why I am disappointed that he did not accept our amendment. What we were asking for in that amendment was very much in line with section 16 and with the powers being given to him there. It was a lesson to me to realise that a Minister, for political reasons or otherwise, was not prepared to accept a sensible amendment. I would ask him again to reconsider it before Report Stage.
The Deputy is very adroit but he should get back to the section.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is watching me very closely. As the Minister will remember, we did refer to section 16 this morning. I welcome the fact that the Minister has discretionary powers under this section but I appeal to him to examine this more closely in relation to section 16 (1).
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 33 is an alternative amendment to amendment No. 32.
I move amendment No. 32:
In subsection (2), page 9, line 21, after "his trade union" to insert "or his parent or guardian".
I am moving this amendment to recognise formally in the drafting of the Bill the rights of parents and guardians to take action on behalf of young persons for the recovery of moneys due.
My amendment would meet portion, at least, of Deputy Dowling's objectives. I am doubtful of the wisdom of his suggestion that I should have power, in effect, to designate other parties to take legal actions on behalf of young persons. I might find myself adjudicating between different parties claiming to represent the person in question. The concept should not be confused with the choice of representatives of employers or employees I am required to consult under section 6 and section 16. Therefore, it goes some of the way to meet Deputy Dowling's amendment. I think his amendment is reasonable but I part company with him in the section of the amendment where——
We should compliment Deputy Dowling for dragging more from the Minister and pointing out to him an obvious discrepancy in the section.
I consider my amendment is superior to the Minister's in many ways. There was a vacuum in the Bill and I am glad that the Minister recognised this. This follows on what we had this morning—the question of recognising the rights of the parent and guardian which was completely omitted from the Bill as drafted. Since we recognise their rights, and the Minister now recognises their rights, it is difficult for me to understand how the Minister regards my amendment as inferior to his. The exact phraseology used by the Minister in section 1 is used in my amendment, that is, that "such persons as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such employees".
The section provides:
(1) Any sum of money due to an employee from his employer under any provision of this Act shall be recoverable by the employee from his employer as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) Proceedings for the recovery of any sum due by an employer to an employee under any provision of this Act may be instituted and maintained on behalf of the employee by his trade union.
If we use the same argument as the Minister did on section 1, the Minister must prefer the amendment submitted by me to his own. In the event of a parent or guardian not being available in the event of a trade union not being the organised body that would support the individual's claim, there must be some other person who, in the opinion of the Minister, would be suitable to pursue the claim. I believe that, once the Minister has accepted the definition of the representative employees under section 1, he must also accept my amendment. My amendment is more comprehensive and falls in line with the definition section in the Bill.
The Deputy will accept that in sections 6 and 16 we are talking about different matters.
This is the definition section. "Representatives of employees" is defined as "such persons as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such employees". Surely this is more comprehensive? It means that if a young child is pursuing a claim, and the union, or parent, or guardian, were not available, someone would be deemed suitable by the Minister.
Might I point out to the Deputy, with respect, that in the previous definition it relates to sections 6 and 16. In section 6 I have power to raise the minimum age for employment and I have to consult with representatives of employers and employees. The Deputy will accept that section 6 relates to something more than the individual, it relates to the class of work, to a group.
Section 16 refers to exceptions and exemptions, the welfare and safety of employees. The distinction between those sections and the section we are now dealing with is that in this section we are dealing with the rights of an individual. The Deputy seeks to give me the right or the discretion to decide between different persons, who amongst those persons will represent that individual interest. I do not wish to have that embarrassing power because it could very easily place me in a rather difficult situation or place any Minister in my position in a difficult situation of choosing between rival claimants to represent the individual who has the case. For that reason I suggest to Deputy Dowling that the previous section is excluded in the terms of the representative bodies. I would point out that there is a right of action existing in common law for the individual. I do not wish to intervene in that contentious area. That is why I do not seek those powers.
Assuming that there is no trade union, no parent or no guardian, what then?
In common law, without any section, a person acting on his behalf can sue on his behalf. That is a right.
If there is a necessity for having the Minister's amendment, once that amendment does not apply for the three reasons I said then surely Deputy Dowling's additional one "or such person as the Minister may think fit", would fill that purpose.
Since there is this common law right there is not a human being for whom the person may not act in loco parentis, but I would not wish nor would I deem it correct at any time for the State to actually arbitrate in those remote or minority cases where there might be people contesting this particular right. That is an area the State should not intervene in.
In relation to what the Minister has said, the interpretation section 1 states that 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, representatives of such employees.
Mr. O'Leary
That applies only in section 6 and 16 in totally different circumstances from section 17.
Section 1 applies to representatives of the employees irrespective of what section they are in. In the interpretation section of the Bill there is an interpretation of "representatives of employees" and this applies to "representatives of employees" in every section of the Bill and is specified.
Of employees. We are here talking about an employee, and that is the distinction between this section and others.
That is right, but our amendment is in line with the interpretation section. The Minister indicated that if a young child, and this Bill refers to young children of 15 and 16 years of age, possibly an orphan, who is not a member of a trade union, has no parent or guardian, he may process his case through the court. Surely it is ridiculous to throw the onus of processing the case for the recovery of moneys due by an employer to a young person, an orphan who has no parent or guardian, through the courts. Surely there must be some other means of rectifying this situation in order to ensure that justice is done to this very vulnerable section of society, that we hope will be safeguarded by this particular Bill.
It is obvious that the Deputy, despite my explanations, has still some disquiet about this section. I have no reason to wish to leave the Deputy with that reasonable disquiet which apparently he feels, even though on looking at the application of the definitions to section 6 and 16 he will see, on reflection, that these are different circumstances. Section 17 relates to the individual, it is a complicated area of intricate common law and my own reluctance to intervene in this area where there is this right of the individual to act on behalf of the particular claimant. I undertake to furnish a fuller statement to the deputy at Report Stage on this matter and explain my reservations at greater length. I feel that we could be at it for some time tonight and the Deputy would still feel the disquiet he has already expressed.
Is it reasonable that a young child of 15 years who has no one to make representations on his behalf to an unscrupulous employer who wishes to deprive him of moneys due will have to pursue it to the courts. There must be some other way that the Minister can protect young people. If the Minister is not prepared to accept our amendment we may put down a new section to deal with this type of problem for the Report Stage. Can we put down a new section or do we just amend this particular section?
The position, as the Chair pointed out, is that No. 32 has been agreed to and No. 33 has not been moved.
Who agreed to No. 32? The Minister only moved it. The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to take another look.
What the Chair is saying is that if No. 32 is agreed No. 33 cannot be moved but any outstanding issues can be raised by way of amendment on Report Stage.
Can a section be added if necessary?
What we are seeking is protection for the person who has no organisation, parent or guardian to pursue his claim rather than to leave it to a child of 15 years to go to the courts to recover money from an employer, which is a ridiculous situation.
Common law provides for a measure there in loco parentis.
There is confusion here, because what is confusing me is the trade union. I asked the Minister this morning when he introduced the Bill had he consultations with the Congress of Trade Unions? He mentioned in Section 17:
On behalf of the employee or by his trade union
I take it that trade unions cater for a boy or girl of 14 or 15 years. I never heard of it so why is the word "trade union" being used here?
I do not think that there is anything wrong in putting in "trade union" if the young persons happen to be in a trade union.
A boy of 14 years takes up employment and he goes to a trade union office to join the trade union. We all know that there is no such thing. Can he join a trade union at 14? In my view he cannot and therefore there is a weakness in this section. Does anybody know of a trade union catering for a boy of 14?
Certainly, why not? The school leaving age is 16.
It is 15. But what about a boy of 14?
(Interruptions.)
Therefore, the words "trade union" should not be included at all. It should be as Deputy Dowling said "a guardian" or——
There is a different definition of those over 15 as young persons under this legislation.
A person of 14 is also a young person.
(Interruptions.)
We are talking about that person.
The parent and the guardian will operate.
I am talking about the words "trade union" now.
The Deputy will accept that the trade union may have a role for children over the age of 15 quite within our legislation as it is, not under 15, I admit, but in that case we talk about parent or guardian and Deputy Dowling wishes me to take over the role of deciding who will represent the child in that instance. I decline that role, and I have undertaken to explain why at greater length at the Report Stage to Deputy Dowling. Deputy Dowling, for his part, if he continues to be dissatisfied on that matter may put it to the test of an amendment.
A suggestion on that point—if a young person has no trade union, no parent or no guardian, and he is owed money, he could be made a ward of court and given the full protection of the Attorney-General.
A person may act for that person.
The authority is the Attorney-General. He would be sure of getting the full protection of the State. He would not have to depend on a Minister.
There is the doctrine there that a person may act for the person the Deputy mentioned in that situation. It is established in common law that a person may act for him or her.
It may be, as sometimes happens, that a child got a raw deal.
Could we ask the Minister to withdraw amendment 32? We are obviously not happy with the situation.
I am quite happy with it. However, I will explain to those who are unhappy about it at Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move Amendment No. 34:
In subsection (1), page 9, line 26, after "of this Act" to insert "and shall make available to his employees any other material published by the Minister advising them of their rights under this Act.".
We have a situation here concerning the display of abstracts of Acts. It states:
Every employer shall display at the principal entrances to the premises where any of his employees work, and in such other places as an inspector may require, in such a position that it may be easily read by the employees so employed, the prescribed abstract of this Act.
We want to insert the addition to this. The Minister is not taking into account the literacy problems that exist among young people of school-leaving age and under. There is little use in publishing abstracts of Acts which one cannot read or understand. It is difficult at times to understand the manner in which Parliamentary draftsmen present this kind of legislation. I know the Minister finds it difficult to understand some of the terms used, but we still expect a young person of school-leaving age or younger to understand abstracts from Acts as published and put up somewhere at the entrance of employment.
I have seen the Conditions of Employment Act, the Truck Act and other Acts displayed in places of employment. After a time one is not able to read them because of the grease and dirt that covers them, apart from that, the language and phraseology used is difficult to understand. One would need a legal advisor on entering employment to advise on the person's rights if they were to rely on the abstracts. Usually one finds at the bottom of the abstract words to the effect that the abstract does not give the full text so that the worker does not get the whole picture. The abstract contains only some elementary information in order to satisfy the inspector or Minister.
I think there are a number of other ways in which the Minister could impart this information to young people, for example, public announcements, television and distribution of casettes or leaflets. We should like to see a more imaginative approach to communication. Posters are another means of advertising which have become popular in different campaigns. Announcements could be made over the intercom system. These are various ways in which the Minister could make known the rights of the individual. Very often, if an employee stopped to read these abstracts on his way into work, he would be sacked for stalling. I can imagine a variety of circumstances in which the employee would never be able to read these abstracts. I have worked in places where these abstracts were displayed. I never read them, except the large print at the top of the notice which indicated that it was the Conditions of Employment Act. I was not able to get near enough to read them as in some cases they were placed behind machines or else they were up too high. Even if I was able to read them, I am sure—considering the confusion of Deputies in relation to the phrasing on this Bill— that a child of 14 would not be able to assess his true position from some obscure abstract. A more imaginative approach should be adopted and the Minister should use some modern methods in this area. The system which is in operation at the moment is completely outmoded.
There is the familiar contrast, of course, between attempting to frame sections to deal with all possible cases and the actual imparting of the information to employees in any particular work situation throughout the State. I do not know enough about Deputy Dowling's career when he was in factories and how he got on with the abstracts of the factories legislation. As he says himself, he read the headlines and, apparently, it never did him any harm in his political career.
The Minister agreed a few moments ago that——
I did indicate this morning that we would be publishing some kind of a more simplified handbook which would, by cartoons, pictures and drawings, attempt to bring across the provisions of this legislation. I would say in respect of this amendment that under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, passed last year, employees are entitled to receive, after one month's employment, a statement of their terms of employment. It follows in the case of young people that these terms must comply with the provisions of this legislation. Deputy Dowling's amendment would mean that I would have to pursue something like 65,000 cases throughout the country to see that the terms of his amendments were complied with. I think Deputy Dowling stressed the necessity of using imagination. We shall attempt to do that by distributing in the schools leaflets which explain the situation in simple terms and, of course, our inspectorate will also help to ensure that the provisions of this legislation are made known. I agree that we always have the problem that we cannot simplify legislation in this House to the extent that, in a court of law, clauses in particular cases will not stand up to a particular case. Remember what maybe regarded as archaic terminology may, in fact, express an important legal point which is at the moment of proof of great assistance to the person claiming his or her rights. It would be no help to the person claiming his or her rights in that situation to know that the legislation was in modern pop language but that it had neglected to defend his or her particular situation at that time.
There is always that tension between the necessity for legislation here to be comprehensive to meet all particular cases and if, at times, we stretch the English language to the point of absurdity, if that helps in particular situations, then it is worth doing. I agree that that does not absolve us from the necessity of explaining to the persons who must benefit what the provisions are and that I propose to carry through, completely.
Is the Minister accepting the amendment?
No, I am not accepting the amendment. The intent of the amendment is already there in legislation and the minimum legislation was passed last year. The import of the Deputy's further amendment would mean that there would be extra legal obligations devolving on employers and the inspectorate. This would represent a further burden on a Bill that will mean a lot of extra work for the inspectorate to see that its provisions are implemented.
The Minister still misunderstands the amendment. It is a simple amendment, in terms which should be understandable, even to the Minister: "and shall make available to his employees any other material published by the Minister advising them of their rights under this Act."
Therefore, if the Minister produces a document of any type stipulating that the employer is under obligation to give it to the employee, that will not cause a burden. The Minister has now, as on previous occasions, quoted a figure of 65,000 people. If one of that 65,000 people is going to be deprived of his rights, then we have fallen down on the job. The Minister must ensure that every person is protected; we cannot protect a limited section of young persons or child employees only. We are merely asking that when the Minister produces a document or documents the employer would be under an obligation to make that material available to the employees.
Surely that is a simple procedure. If the Minister does not produce documentation then obviously the employer cannot distribute it. If he does produce documentation freely available to employers it is only right that it be made accessible to employees. This Bill refers to young people. One would think the Minister was dealing with adults all the time. These are people of 15 or 16 years, or possibly less, entering employment for the first time who are unaware of their rights and unaware of how to find out what are their rights without any protection from trade unions, without advice from their employers. We are merely asking that there be some better means of communication with the young person than by the exhibition of some document framed at the entrance to the place of employment.
The Deputy is aware that if we do impose this extra obligation, since there are penalties attaching to this legislation, if the obligation is not carried through, we penalise. That means we must ensure that the inspectors must go out to ensure that that obligation is carried through. That means that the provisions of section 23 apply; that means that we exact fines not exceeding £25 for an offence. I would suggest that it could go up to a fine not exceeding £50 on a second or subsequent offence, under that section, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a fine not exceeding £10. I am simply suggesting that since we are dealing with legislation which has these onerous penalty clauses attached to it, we are not in any two minds at all about the necessity of informing employees. I want to ensure that an already overburdened inspectorate, in terms of the provisions of this legislation, are not given extra obligations to carry through, obligations which would have to extend to something like 65,000 fresh employees, which is the number covered by this legislation. The Deputy, in his time of employment, may not have looked at the charts over the machines. His mind may have been perturbed by other matters. I think he will accept the reality of that case, that what we should concentrate on is to ensure that we have the right literature with the right information and see that it gets to the right people.
The Minister has indicated that he will have this booklet of cartoons available to project the rights of the individual. I agree with the production of any document that will convey to a young person his rights. But the display of an abstract of an Act is a different matter. It is a very vague thing, especially for people with literacy problems. Young people in the early stage of their employment may be nervous and concerned. Certainly they are not reading documentation displayed on the walls of workshops. It is during the first few days or weeks of one's employment that one is assessed on one's capacity to do work rather than to be curiosityseekers reading documents. I know how management operates in many firms. Often even adult workers are unaware of their rights and when they try to obtain that information—which the employer is duty bound to give— they find it difficult to get it. I was one of those persons. Therefore, I understand the problems of an adult worker as against the child worker.
I am glad the Minister will produce a document. If the Minister does not produce it in sufficient volume to meet the needs of these 65,000 people, then he will be doing an injustice to some of these young people about whom he has spoken freely on occasion. This morning I tried to obtain information from the Department of Education about the number of people who leave primary school each year, the number of people attending primary school and the number entering employment. The Minister has a figure but I have another figure which does not quite measure up to the figure the Minister got. I shall not dispute the situation because of 5,000 or 6,000. The Minister must make documentation freely available to the sections that he is concerned about in this legislation. If he is going to print a smaller quantity for the purpose of economy or some other such reason, he is failing in his responsibility.
The terms of the amendment are simple and direct. They merely ask that the employer make available to the young person any material other than the aspects of the Bill that the Minister has published advising them of their rights. The inspectors have a job to do and they will have to do that job in relation to every aspect of this Bill. If the Minister feels that this is going to create a burden on the inspectors then he will have to increase the number of inspectors to ensure that there is adequate and proper protection. Regarding the argument the Minister has used that this will be a great burden on these people who are to get the jobs of inspectors, he will have to think again and ensure that he creates enough posts in order to meet the situation which he has outlined here in this Act. Our resolution is simple and direct. It does not say that the Minister must produce documentation but if he does, the employer should pass that documentation to the employee he is taking on. In taking up employment in all large firms today one is given a booklet indicating the conditions of employment. One can read this and get a clear picture of what is involved. In many cases young people are unaware of their rights. We do not want to see these people pushed around. We want to ensure that everybody fully understands what the Minister wishes to convey. I do not think that an abstract of the Act is sufficient in this case to convey it to young persons.
I ask the Minister to accept this simple amendment. It does not complicate or confuse but merely indicates that if he produces documentation and passes it on to the employer, the employer is under an obligation to pass it on to the employee so that he can understand the position.
I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.
I am surprised at the Minister's attitude.
I have been quite understanding about amendments but I want to save you energy on this matter. I am not accepting it.
The only argument the Minister used to Deputy Dowling against accepting what I believe to be a very sensible amendment was because of the extra obligations and the danger of penalty on employers.
Has the Deputy forgotten the obligations on an already overworked inspectorate when they will be carrying out work to do exactly what the Deputy desires. It is impractical to do what he is suggesting.
I would remind the Minister of what he said and the record of the House will prove that you referred to the overloaded inspectorate and to the fact that the employer was having other obligations put on him which carried a penalty. Deputy Dowling's motion, as far as the employer is concerned, is a very minor detail. It is probably one of the simplest acts that an employer would have to perform within the context of this Bill. All he has to do is to get some of these booklets that the Minister will be producing, that he has said are necessary. How does the Minister intend to get them around to all these young people— 65,000 to quote his own figures? Is it not a very simple matter for the employer to get, 100, 20 or whatever his needs are for the number of young people employed and issue them to the young people. The Minister has agreed with Deputy Dowling's amendment in every syllable but because it has come from this side of the House from a Deputy who has put some thought into it, it is not being accepted. I fully support what he says about the notices in workshops being absolutely ineffective.
Has the Deputy forgotten that I said that under previous legislation passed by me last year the terms of this legislation would have to be part of that and if the employee enters a firm he will have to be given that information within a month. Has that filtered into the Deputy's head?
Of course it has. There is no problem there, Minister, but we are talking here about a separate Bill, about a Bill protecting young persons. Deputy Dowling is asking the Minister to put in a simple amendment that appears to me to be an avenue to have this documentation distributed among these people. The fact that it has already been incorporated in previous legislation does not alter the situation of this being a separate Bill for the protection of young persons.
Do we understand the Minister to say that each young person a month after entering the employment will get this document?
Under the Minimum Notice of Employment Bill they would have to be informed of their conditions of employment.
The document that I refer to is the document in relation to the——
All I am anxious to avoid here is that we do not put an extra burden on an inspectorate in all of these employments.
The Minister did indicate that under previous legislation there is an obligation on the employer to give to an employee documentation within a month of entering the service. Is that so?
A statement of the terms of employment which of course would have to incorporate, once this Bill is enacted, the changes involved for the age groups concerned in this legislation.
Therefore, the Minister is to give documentation to each of the 65,000 employees within a month of their taking up employment.
The employers will receive that legislation and pass it to the employees.
That is exactly what I am concerned about.
The Deputy is neglecting to realise that the penalty clause means that we must go ahead and try to enforce it. If we do not enforce it there are heavy penalties involved so we are under obligation to enforce it.
I have listened to the Minister——
I am not accepting the Deputy's amendment so you had better make up your minds as to what you should do.
We are merely trying to get the Minister's views on the situation. He has given us his view that the inspectorate may be understaffed and not able to cope with the situation, that would be very undesireable.
It is protecting the employer.
The Minister is concerned about the penalties that will have to be imposed on an employer who fails to comply with the legislation.
Duplication of argument is not in order.
There is a lot of new matter being injected into this discussion in relation to inspectors and in relation to the documentation which the employer would be under an obligation to give within a month. Where it applies to a child or a young person there is no obligation on anyone to give the documentation that we say is necessary and desirable. This is an important aspect. The Minister has given us an insight into the situation that will develop in relation to the under-staffed or over-worked inspectorate that will endeavour to operate the Act. I want to say at this stage that I am not going to press for a division, but I will put down an additional amendment or amendments, to rectify the situation on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 10, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsections:
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply in relation to every order made under this Act by the Minister fixing hours of work in relation to any form of work subject to the modification that every reference in the said subsection to the commencement of this Act shall be construed and have effect as a reference to the coming into operation of such order and every reference in the said subsection to compliance with this Act shall be construed and have effect as a reference to compliance with such order.
(3) This section shall apply to piece work wages (within the meaning of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936) and to wages calculated by direct reference to the number of hours worked but with the modification that for the purposes of such application every provision in this section to the effect that a rate of wages or a minimum rate of wages or a restriction on a rate of wages is to remain unchanged shall be construed and have effect as a provision that the rate of piece work wages or of wages by the hour (as the case may be) shall be so adjusted or varied that the average weekly earnings shall remain unchanged.
This amendment is intended to strengthen the requirements of section 19 in regard to the preservation of rates of wages, and the additional provisions reflect similar requirements which were in the 1936 Act.
Can the Minister indicate how wages will be fixed for a child or for young persons as defined in the Act?
The hours will be fixed as we set down in the Act. The Act does not go into the area of wage bargaining, and the Deputy knows that.
It refers to the preservation of the existing rates of wages. Where there are no rates of wages for a job how will wages be indicated? Is there any basis for the establishment of wage rates?
On an earlier section we discussed this morning. There is a register which the employer must maintain where the rates of wages must be recorded. That is an obligation inserted in that section.
Does it relate to age or to the job?
From my memory of what we were discussing this morning the wage rates would be a matter as set down, and this legislation does not enter into the area of wage fixing. That is not the purpose of this legislation. It is simply relating to conditions. The wage rates would have a relationship with going rates in that particular industry or sector. Other protective legislation deals with wage rates, and that is not the purpose of this legislation.
If an employer takes on a young person, as defined in this Act, for a job where there is an established wage rate and then puts him into another job where there is no established wage rate, is there any means of ensuring that there will be no worsening of the young person's or child's conditions by virtue of the fact that he has changed his employment?
If there happens to be a change in the hours of work and a change in wages this obviously relates to that area where there might be a downward move in wages. This is a necessary provision in case there is a change in the hours of work.
If the Minister would accept Deputy Moore's amendment it would help in that respect.
We must firstly dispose of amendment No. 35.
Amendment agreed to.
May I suggest to the Minister that he redraft that whole section, including my own amendment? There is a certain untidiness about it and the Minister may feel that it needs redrafting. There are five subsections and the Minister has inserted two amendments which are rather large and I have got one amendment in. Would the Minister consider between now and the Report Stage redrafting the whole section?
We have had this on other sections, the continued dilemma of confusing certain provisions, whether the norm provisions, whether maximum provisions or whether minimum provisions, in this legislation which has sections to deal with all eventualities and all situations, confusing these with the circumstances of a particular industry, of the bargaining disposition at any particular moment in time. Section 19 continues the position of the 1936 Act and is merely intended to ensure that if the hours are reduced by my orders—as I have provision in other sections to amend the normal hours of work and to amend the maximum hours of work—if I amend the normal hours of work and they are reduced, to ensure that there is no following subsequent reduction in wage rates paid. It is an unlikely eventuality, and something that is not of very large concern, but we have got to provide for it. That is why this section is included.
This legislation in general does not enter into the area of wage fixing. There is no part of this legislation which relates solely to the conditions of employment of young persons divided up into particular wage groups, rest hours, hours of work and so on provided, but it is not legislation to deal with rates of pay. It would not be acceptable that any legislation passed by the House laid down particular wage rates set down by Parliament. That would be against the policy of the trade unions as enunciated at frequent conferences. The employers would certainly not agree with it. They themselves they declare are the people who decide the wages and matters of that nature, not the Parliament.
The Minister knows that in regard to other trades, even apprentices, there are certain statutory powers setting out wage limits. This is a huge untidy section.
We must firstly dispose of the amendments before we deal with the section or the section as amended. May I take it the Deputy has moved his amendment?
At least one Member of the House is confused by this whole thing. I do not know how a youngster of 15 will understand it when it is law.
We must proceed in an orderly fashion. Will the Deputy move his amendment?
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 10, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsection:
(2) The Minister, after consultation with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers, shall recommend, in respect of each category of industrial and commercial undertaking minimum rates of salary, wages or other reward which shall be payable to young persons other than apprentices.
The young person will need a legal adviser for this section; and if my amendment simplifies the matter I will ask the Congress of Trade Unions and the FUE to set some guidelines to ensure that no young person is going to work for less than a just wage.
The Deputy's amendment would appear to go against what those referred to in EEC language as the social partners, the employers and the unions, conceive to be their own particular arena of operations. They look upon their role as one of wage bargaining and fixing the rates of pay in their own particular area. They do not wish the intervention of the State in that area. Whilst this is the situation and while I understand that there is need for wage fixing, it is outside the scope of this legislation. It is not a matter with which it is chiefly concerned since it really belongs to other areas of labour legislation. I am, however, prepared to consider extensions from the joint labour committee system which have the agreement of both unions and employers for the kind of task the Deputy has in mind. I am prepared to consider their extension to employment sectors where additional protection in the form of wage fixing under the statutory procedures could be shown to be necessary for both young and adult employees. This would be a preferable method of attaining the same broad objectives sought by the Deputy and I am prepared to consider that.
In addition, is he prepared to consider the other request for tidying up the section? This is in line with what we have been saying all day and the Minister might ask the draftsman to have another look at the section. It does appear to be an untidy section.
I have already dealt with section 19. There is nothing wrong with it.
I appreciate that, but what I am asking for is a simplification.
Possibly this was taken from the 1936 Act. In case hours for adults are reduced we want to have some machinery to protect the wages of young persons.
The 1936 Act has stood the 40 years' test. Surely that is the greatest tribute the Minister could pay to the people on this side of the House who enacted it but surely after 40 years we should be able to simplify this. Would the Minister have another look at that? Would he incorporate Deputy Moore's suggestion and his own?
The matter raised by Deputy Moore is a separate one and I will have a look at it in the direction I mentioned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 10, lines 32 and 33, to delete subsection (1) and to substitute the following:
"(1) Proceedings in relation to an offence under this Act relating to an employee may be brought and prosecuted by the Minister or by the trade union of which the employee is a member."
This is designed to recognise formally the participation of trade unions in securing compliance with this law. I will welcome, of course, the interest and co-operation of all sections of the community in this endeavour and I hope Deputies will support this amendment.
Would the Minister be prepared to add there "parent or guardian"?
It is a separate matter. We have gone over this in relation to other sections.
Under section 22. It can hardly be regarded as a facet of other sections.
This is a matter of prosecution under this section.
Have guardians rights in this regard?
I will consult with the legal experts again, but there are difficulties involved.
Who will decide who will prosecute.
I have the power to initiate proceedings.
Who advises the Minister. Is it the inspector?
He collates the information.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 10, line 40, to delete "£25" and substitute "£100"; and in line 41, to delete "£5" and substitute "£10".
This is simply increasing the fines.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 are related.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 10, line 44, to delete "£50" and substitute "£200"; and in line 45 to delete "£10" and substitute "£20".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 42:
In subsection (3), page 11, line 12, to delete "A person" and substitute "An employer".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 11 to delete subsection (2).
The provision here reads:
The powers conferred on an inspector by subsection (1) (a) of this section shall not be exercisable in respect of a private dwelling house unless the Minister (or an officer of the Minister appointed for the purpose) certifies that he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this section in relation to an employee has been committed by the employer, and the inspector in applying for admission to the house produces a certificate.
Can the Minister indicate what constitutes a dwelling house? Is it a private dwelling with a garage attached, which is converted into some sort of factory or office where people are employed? I feel this subsection needs to be redrafted. There are factories in the top storeys of houses. One sees private dwellings with some sort of factory attached and a number of people employed in them. What constitutes a private dwelling house? Could it be a garage converted into a factory or could it be a house without a garage?
Again, there is a very large body of law as to what exactly constitutes a private dwelling house. I believe this subsection is important. There is a limitation under common law against entry and it is mentioned in our Constitution in Article 40. It says that a private dwelling house cannot be entered except in accordance with the law. There would be many instances in which the employer's records would be kept in the dwelling parts of premises which would also pass as places of business, remembering that many of the people affected by this legislation will be engaged in small businesses. Shops with living accommodation overhead are examples of what I have in mind. To enable the inspector to examine the employment records kept in the private dwelling areas of such premises, it is necessary that specific provisions on the lines of subsection (2) should be made. That is why I would ask that it be retained and I would say to Deputy Dowling that his suggested deletion would seriously weaken the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
This section is probably the most important section in the Bill. The inspectors constitute the link in the chain for the successful implementation of the Bill. While the Minister has indicated that these inspectors may be over-worked or that we may not have enough of them to do the job properly, I would hope that there is an adequate recruitment to meet this situation to ensure the enforcement of this Act.
Specialisation in young people requires special training and we hope the Minister will have not just any inspector but specialists in the field of communication between the Department and the employer. This is a highly specialised field. Far too often we have too many do-gooders or people seconded from one place to another to carry out a particular job. As I have said, we have here the key to the success or otherwise of this Bill. Inspectors should not be located in just one or two centres and they should not operate from Dublin or Cork. We should have inspectors to cover a wide area. It is desirable that they should be known to the parents, should be acquainted with the locality, with the school attendance officers, the manpower services or any other social workers in the area. We hope that the inspectors who will be recruited or who will be given the task will have the necessary qualifications to meet the demands that will be placed upon them by this Bill. The Minister should indicate now that he is just not going to employ any inspector, that he will have the necessary power to ensure the full implementation of the Bill and that there will be adequate inspectors even if there is to be a distribution of some leaflets at some stage to the people who require them.
I accept the Deputy's remarks and I will bear them in mind.
Contrary to what the Minister has said, I cannot find where we agreed with regard to the employment of inspectors. I do not think it is there but I support all that Deputy Dowling has said in that respect. It raises for me one query on the Minister's speech on Second Stage. With reference to the Bill the Minister said, "the enforcing agency will be the inspectorate which, over the past year, I have increased by an appreciable number."
I think we dealt with this earlier this morning. The Deputy has probably forgotten.
The only place it is mentioned is in the section dealing with definitions.
(Interruptions.)
Did the Minister say in his Second Stage speech that the enforcing agency will be the inspectorate which in the past year he has increased by an appreciable number? One could read into that something to the effect that the Minister already has in his Department an adequate inspectorate. I would not like to think that is the case. I am sure the Minister will be recruiting many new men for this job. These people have a very important role to play in their approach to young people. The statistics and information that will be accumulated from their work will be given to the Department so that any changes that may be necessary can be made.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 12, line 23, to delete "money" and substitute "monies".
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
Is there, or should there be a repeal of subsection (3) of section 20 in the 1938 Act?
I do not know but I undertake to look at the matter. I applaud the Deputy's erudition in this case and I will refresh my mind on the matter before Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
May I refer the Minister to this bag of bones that we have here? It is going to take some time to produce amendments and to put some flesh on them. A fortnight may not be long enough and, as I indicated previously, it is essential that we be in a position to put down amendments. At the outset I said that we would require that permission at an early stage in order to get to the Bill quickly. In view of the fact that there are so many defects and so many deficiencies in this bag of bones it is going to take a little longer than the fortnight that the Minister has suggested.
The party opposite had 30 years to do something about the matter but they did nothing about it.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th February, 1975.
