Before we start considering the amendments from the Seanad I should like to point out that it has been a long time since this Bill was before this House. In fact, it is more than two years since it was sent to the other House and it is difficult to understand the excessive delay. The Bill was steered through this House by my predecessor, Deputy Dowling, and many of the amendments we have before us are directly as a result of his efforts in this House and those of our collegues in the other House. I would ask the Minister to spell out clearly in respect of each amendment the reason why it is necessary.
Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1974: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
I will explain it in the normal course as we go through the Bill.
I think it needs more explanation because of the very long delay.
We will deal with amendment No. 1.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1.:
Section 1 : In page 3, line 18 deleted.
The definition of "day" as it stood had little meaning in relation to the other sections and the normal interpretation of the word "day"—meaning midnight to midnight—would be more reliable. It is purely a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 3: In page 4, line 36, "section 4" deleted and "sections 4, 5 (1) (a), 5 (1) (b), 5 (4) and 6" substituted.
The effect of this amendment is to extend the application of certain provisions of the Bill to the excluded categories of employment mentioned in section 3. In that section certain categories are excluded and the intention of this amendment is to extend the application of certain provisions of the Bill to them. The additional provisions which will now apply will be those relating to the production of birth certificates, the written permission of parents to employing a child and the related offences provisions.
Certainly this amendment is an improvement on the Bill as it left this House to go to the Seanad. We should be particularly grateful to Senators Yeats and Lenihan who were mainly responsible for getting the Minister's acceptance of this amendment on Report Stage in the Seanad having discussed it in detail on Committee Stage. Its effect can only be beneficial.
I referred earlier to the long delay with regard to this Bill but if worthwhile amendments are accepted delay can be beneficial.
On the section itself, would the Minister notify the House if changes have to be made?
We cannot discuss the section.
This is a new procedure. Surely the Deputy is entitled to ask a question?
Yes, on the amendment.
The Deputy should be entitled to ask a question when the amendment is amending section 3.
The Deputy would be entitled to ask a question relating to the amendment.
If the Minister made an order under section 3, would he notify the House?
Yes, I would.
By what procedure?
By an affirmative order.
Will the House have an opportunity to discuss it?
Section 27 deals with reference to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In page 4, line 42, after "sections 4,5,""8" inserted.
The effect of this amendment is to apply to the Defence Forces the rules in section 8 which deal with the maximum hours of work for young persons under the age of 16. It gains general acceptance in the Seanad and is uncontentious.
Question put and agreed to.
As amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 27 are consequential, I suggest we debate them together with separate decisions if required.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
Section 4: In page 5, subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) deleted and the following subsections substituted:
"(1) Subject to the subsequent provisions of this section an employer shall not employ a child to do work.
(2) An employer may, subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section, employ a child who is over the age of fourteen years to do light non-industrial work which—
(a) is not harmful to the health or normal development of the child, and
(b) is not such work as will affect the attendance of the child at school or his capacity to benefit from the instruction given him therein.
(3) (a) Whenever an employer employs a child during school terms pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the hours of work of the child shall be outside school hours and shall be—
(i) not more than two hours on any day, other than a Saturday or a Sunday,
(ii) not more than fourteen hours in any week,
(iii) not more than four hours on a Saturday or a Sunday:
Provided that—
(A) if a child is required to work for more than two hours on a Saturday, he shall not work on the next following Sunday, or
(B) if a child is required to work for more than two hours on a Sunday, he shall not have worked on the immediately preceding Saturday.
(b) This subsection shall remain in force only until the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the coming into force of this Act unless it is continued in force by an order under subsection (5) of this section.
(4) Whenever an employer employs a child during school holidays pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the hours of work of such child shall be—
(i) not more than seven hours in any day, or
(ii) not more than thirty-five hours in any week:
Provided that during the period of the school summer holidays, the child does not do any work for a period of not less than fourteen consecutive days.
(5) The Minister may by order at any time when subsection (3) of this section is in force provide that that subsection shall continue in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the commencement of the order.
(6) The Minister may by order—
(a) vary the hours of work specified in subsections (3) and (4) of this section,
(b) specify that children may not be employed on a particular day or during a particular period, and
(c) revoke or amend an order made under this subsection including an order under this paragraph."
What is included here is the provision for limited light non-industrial work by children between the ages of 14 and 15. Deputies will recall that that was the subject of a good deal of discussion on Committee Stages in the Dáil and Seanad. The formula incorporated in this amendment should gain general all-party acceptance, as it did in the Seanad, as a compromise solution to a difficult issue. For two years after the Act comes into operation, the intention is to ban employment during school term for those aged 14 to 15. We can extend that two-year period by coming to the House again if circumstances dictate. On the other hand, if it is not tampered with in two years' time this exception lapses. That is what these amendments are about. Amendment No. 27 is necessary for reference to the House for these powers.
This amendment is the result of extensive debate in both House on the very difficult problem of young people working during school term. In my opinion this amendment substantially improves the Bill. The period of two years is a safeguard to allow the Minister of the day to examine the position as to whether an extension should be catered for. We agree with the amendment.
Is there anything in the Bill to penalise an employer who employs a person who is under age? At school attendance committees we hear of people employed at 14 years of age and because there is nobody else working in their houses, these children must work. Can an employer be tackled in any way about this?
There are penalties under section 4 to deal with that.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (9) deleted and the following substituted :
"(9) The Minister may by order revoke or amend—
(a) an order made under subsection (6) or (7) of this section, or
(b) an order under this subsection."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 5: In page 5, line 39, "obtain" deleted and "require and production of" substituted.
This amendment simply requires the substitution of "require the production of" for "obtain" in relation to certificates. The problem raised in the Seanad was that the original wording of the section might be said to have required the acquisition of a fresh birth certificate each time a person was seeking a job. The revised formula meets the objective of this requirement and overcomes the possibility that somebody might have to get a fresh birth certificate each time he looks for fresh employment.
This matter has been discussed in both Houses. This amendment simplifies matters for a person seeking employment because there is a strong chance that a birth certificate, which can be used, will be lying around his house. If a person had to get a fresh birth certificate each time he looked for a job, it could cost a great deal and cause a great deal of inconvenience. We agree with the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No.7:
Section 6: In page 6, line 23, after "health,""welfare," inserted.
Throughout the Bill we refer to "health and welfare" and it was pointed out that "welfare" might be added here for consistency.
That amendment was suggested by Senator Yeats. Therefore, we agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are cognate and I suggest we take them together.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
In page 6, line 23, "young persons" deleted and "employees" substituted.
These amendments are inserted to ensure that there will be power in the Bill to raise the age for employment which endangered health, welfare, safety or morals in the case of children aged 14 and 15 as well as persons aged 15 to 18 who are already covered in the section.
This empowers the Minister to raise the minimum age of employment. There are probably advantages in substituting "an employee" for "a young person" in amendment No. 9, but I want to be absolutely sure——
It was not felt that this helped people aged 14 to 15 as much as it obviously helped people aged 15 to 18 which was our intention and we wanted to make it clear that it helps the older age group rather than the younger age group.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
In page 6, line 24, "a young person" deleted and "an employee" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 are related. I am suggesting, therefore, that we debate them together.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
Section 7: In page 6, line 29, "ten" deleted and "nine" substituted.
Deputies will remember that we had a very long debate here on the provisions relating to the maximum and normal hours in sections 7,8 and 9. I undertook at that time to review these matters as soon as possible. I did so and I have had consultations with both the unions and employer interests. I believe that what we have now are improvements, in the form of amendments, to maximum hours in sections 7 and 8. These improvements met with general approval in the Seanad. I consider that these proposed charges set the levels appropriate at this time. I should point out that these levels of maximum hours can be reduced at appropriate times in the future by means of the powers contained in the section.
I might add also, for the information of Deputies, that I was asked in the Seanad if, in the interests of better presentation and clarity, sections 7 and 9 could be transposed. This is simply a change in the layout which was agreed by the Seanad and which will appear in the final Bill. I do not know if this point was raised in the Dáil but certainly it was in the Seanad. These amendments relate to improvements in the hours position on questions already raised in both the Dáil and Seanad.
This was one of the very controversial sections of the Bill when it was being considered in this House and there was a lot of discussion on it. Sections 7 and 9 are very closely related with regard to the questions of the normal working hours and maximum hours. The amendments do constitute improvements for young persons. The reduction in the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly maximum hours is a vast improvement and is something we encouraged when the Bill was being discussed here. However, having done that, one would have expected that the normal hours in section 9 would have been reduced.
The problem there is that if one tampers with normal hours—and this is the problem throughout legislation of this kind— one begins to set off a chain reaction in terms of hours of adult workers. One is then in the difficult area of finding the negotiations themselves being affected. That is a problem inherent in legislation of this kind which makes it very difficult to do what one might wish.
I take it the Minister is not saying that he is against a reduction in the hours of work for adult workers. However, the amendments to section 7 are definitely an improvement. I entirely support the idea of sections 7 and 9 being transposed for ease of interpretation. In the debate in this House I remember that some confusion arose between the maximum and normal hours.
Would it be an offence for a young person working on a casual basis for a number of employers to exceed the time allowed?
It would be an offence. I think it arises under section 15. It would be an offence for the child working in those conditions between different employers.
Let us take, for example, the nine hours, perhaps worked in the proportions of four hours in the morning time—such as in the hotel business or something like that—that could well be four-and-a-half in the morning and five or six at night.
We have stated latest hours beyond which a person cannot work, which would obviate the confusion.
It says 10 o'clock. Has that been amended as well? I think there is an amendment to that latest hour.
Yes it is 8 p.m. for children and 10 p.m. I do not think we have amended that.
I did think there was something in the amendments that affected that. Perhaps there is not.
No, we have not. It is just the extent of hours we have changed. So far as my memory serves me that matter was not raised in the Seanad.
The time factor was not raised?
I do not think it was.
I am somewhat concerned about the time factor on the basis that, for example, in summer time, the working hours may not be near maximum hours—they might amount to only half the maximum hours being worked by a young person who in certain circumstances is anxious to do so. Now, under the licensing hours, we have an 11 o'clock and 11.30 p.m. closing. In summertime 11.30 p.m. seems so much earlier taking into consideration the weather, daylight hours, it being holiday time for young people and so on. I question if that is not somewhat rigid. I do not expect that a person should be allowed work nine hours up to 11 o'clock at night. But, in relation to somebody who might only start work at 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. such a person would have to finish at 10 o'clock although he had got in only two and a half hours. Is there any way around that?
Those have not been altered by amendment. What we have been trying to do is to keep within ILO specifications and international conventions for latest times of work permitted to those age groups. The times we have chosen for latest periods of work are in line with those international conventions and standards. This is something that will have to be looked at closely in practice through our inspectorate. As will have been seen, we have the power later to amend it. It was not remarked on greatly in the debate in the Seanad. Certainly I shall keep in close touch with the inspectors and it will be vital in all of these operations to see what reports they come back with.
In the beginning their interpretation would probably not be as rigid; at least they would be less inclined to impose penalties at the commencement but rather to warn people and encourage them to observe the regulations.
I agree with the Deputy that we shall have to watch it very closely because it could be the subject of some trouble.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:
In page 6, line 32, "fifty" deleted and "forty-five" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:
In page 6, lines 35, 42 and 43, "one hundred and ninety" deleted and "one hundred and seventy-two" substituted.
Question put and agree to.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:
In page 6, lines 37, 43 and 44, "two thousand, one hundred" deleted and "two thousand" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:
Section 8 : In subsection (1), line 53, "of age" deleted.
This is purely the deletion, in line 53, of section 14 of "of age". It is merely a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15:
In page 6, line 55, "nine" deleted and "eight" substituted.
We are talking now about the maximum hours of work for persons under 16. I am not too happy here that we have not gone that little bit further to the weekly maximum in this case. We have reduced the nine hours maximum per day to eight but we have left the 40 hours per week. Particularly in the case of a person under 16, while taking the Minister's point earlier on the normal hours perhaps as they would apply to a person over 16, no adult could, or should, expect to follow the lead of working hours given to a young person under 16. In these circumstances the nine hour provision should be reduced to eight but the case is very strong for an under-16-year-old to have a shorter working week. We refer to a maximum daily period in the amendment but that cannot be divorced from a maximum weekly period. The original section provided that an employer shall not permit an under-16-year-old to work for more than nine hours in any day. That has been reduced to eight but the employer may still permit him to work 40 hours per week. I am not so happy with that situation.
I am wondering if this does not contravene existing regulations and legislation governing young people in employment. I refer particularly to the Act relating to apprentices.
There is no danger of this upsetting existing law. Here we are dealing with 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds and the normal period in section 9 is 37½ hours, with 2½ hours overtime.
The overtime might not stand up if the young lad worked four days. There would be nothing to prevent him from working eight hours' overtime.
He may not work more than 2½ hours continuously in any one week. That meets the problem referred to by the Deputy.
I see it now.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16:
Section 9: In page 7, subsections (1) and (2) deleted and the following substituted:
"9. (1) In 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;
(b) if the employee is a young person under the age of sixteen years—
(i) eight hours in any day, and
(ii) thirty-seven and one-half hours in any week."
This is a drafting amendment. The draftsman advised that in section 9 (1) there should not be reference to sections 5 and 10 and that is the reason for the amendment.
There is no objection to the amendment although we should have liked to have the maximum hours reduced. There are still the very important matters of pay and the exploitation of young people which, of course, would be very difficult to legislate for. I agree that there are few employers who would indulge in exploitation but there is nothing in the Bill to provide against it other that the mere activities of an inspectorate to ensure that when hours are being checked there will be less likelihood of unfair practice. I still hold to the argument that the maximum of 40 hours is too high for under-16-year-olds.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17:
New Section: In page 7, before section 10, the following new section inserted:
"10. —(1) In this section—‘overtime' means any hours worked in excess of normal working hours; ‘overtime pay' means the rate of pay which an employee is entitled to in respect of normal working hours increased by not less than twenty-five per cent.
(2) Whenever an employer requires an employee to work overtime, the employer shall pay the employee overtime pay for any time in respect of which the employee works overtime.
(3) An employer who contravenes subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence."
This amendment provides for overtime at the rate of time and a quarter for young workers in respect of hours worked above those provided for in the Bill.
The only problem was that we had no base for the time and a quarter.
The minimum rate would be the basic one.
But we have not got one.
They have in the various JICs.
It is not in that area that the problem exists.
Our purpose here is to make clear what overtime rates will be.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 is consequential on amendment No. 18 and I suggest that the two be taken together.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No.18:
Section 11: Before subsection (1) a new subsection inserted as follows:
"(1) In this section 'stated number of hours" in relation to an employee means—
(a) five hours if the employee is a young person
(b) four hours if the employee is a child."
These amendments represent an improvement of the Bill in relation to rest intervals for children. A young person as defined must be allowed a half hour after five hours' work and a child must be allowed to rest after hour hours.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:
In subsection (1), page 7, lines 32 and 34, "five hours" deleted and "the stated number of hours" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20:
Section 13 : In page 8, before subsection (2), the following new subsection inserted:
"(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)."
This amendment preserves the position of young industrial workers as covered by the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. Section 13 will then apply to all other sectors of employment. It will represent an improvement in the conditions of shop and hotel workers and those not previsouly covered by legislation. In fact, this section will give first hand protection for about one-third of the young persons covered in this Bill.
Is it true that the person now covered by section 13 is the person employed to do industrial work within the meaning of the Acts of 1936 and 1944? Is the Minister saying that the section on restrictions does not apply to those groups of people and if that is so who does it cover? Are we mainly talking about apprentices? What does "industrial work" mean as distinct from service industry or does it include service industry? There should be some way of defining "industrial work".
The point is that night non-industrial workers were not covered up to now. They are now covered here. We are saying that the 1936 Act shall not apply to an employee who is employed to do industrial work within the meaning of that Act. The section gives the extension to the night non-industrial worker who up to now was not covered.
The section states:
An employer shall neither permit a 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 a young person to do any work until the expiration of twelve hours from the time at which he ceased to do work on the previous day.
Are we now amending that restriction and saying that the 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 1936 Act and section 2 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1944? Does this mean that any young person who is employed to do industrial work within the meaning of those two Acts is not covered now by the section under discussion with the result that an employer shall permit him to do work at any time between the hours of 10 p.m. or 6 a.m. or on the following day even if 12 hours have not expired? It is possible that my interpretation is wrong?
The 1936 Act continues to apply to those covered by it. We are now extending this provision to groups not covered and that is the intention of the amendment.
Is there not discrimination somewhere? To be happy here we must define "industrial worker" because an industrial worker can be allowed by his employer to work any time between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., yet his brother, who may be older, if he is working in a hotel cannot work after 10 p.m. My interpretation of industrial work is that it would be heavier than hotel work. If anything, the position should be the other way round.
The Bill provides that children will stop at 8 p.m. and young persons will stop at 10 p.m. Under the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, there is an outright prohibition on all work after 8 p.m. and it should be clear that we have to have a change there. The Bill extends the protection of this legislation to groups not covered before. It is necessary to make these changes to ensure that there is no clash between the provisions of this and the other Acts.
I am not happy, and I do not believe the Minister is happy, that this is the way to do it. My opinion is that if we were to do it this there would have to be an amendment of the earlier Acts or a definition of "industrial worker". A factory inspector would be at a disadvantage in many cases. How does one differentiate between industrial work? Is the service industry considered to be industrial work? It could be interpreted as being industrial work of a kind. As I see it a young lad pulling pints or employed during the summer in one of our hotels is not allowed work after 10 p.m. while his counterpart, who may be younger than he, if he is in industrial work can work almost at any time of the night. It also appears to me that he can be put on shift work, provided he complies with the other sections of the Bill. There appears to be a contradiction or conflict that needs more investigation. I would hate to see a blatant opportunity of abuse given that might be availed of by certain people.
Is "industrial worker" defined in the earlier Acts?
The conditions of Employment Act, 1936, continues in full operation and there is nothing in the Bill which limits it in any way. We are extending into the non-industrial work area. Section 13 will operate in that area.
Although it cuts off the people mentioned at certain hours it allows young people in the same age group in industrial work under the other Acts to work at different times.
It does not because the other Acts operate in the industrial area. I should like to reassure the Deputy that there is no disimprovement involved. I should like to add that the Congress of Trade Unions who are normally vigilant about these matters are fully satisfied with this section. If the Deputy has any doubts about it, I can assure him that it has passed the scrutiny of the ICTU.
I have very high regard for the ICTU and I must say that they examine in detail and make submissions on all legislation to all sides of the House. They obviously go into depth in examining legislation and the Opposition, as well, must investigate possible loopholes. I am amazed that the ICTU have allowed this to pass because it appears to me that there is a difference between the two sectors which should not exist in fairness to both young people and to employers. There is no reason why one type of industry should be treated differently from another type. This is basically what is meant in this amendment. What is the history of this amendment in the Seanad?
The Deputy does appreciate that the non-industrial workers were not covered under the 1936 Act and we are extending the protection of this measure to them for the first time, subject to the limitations and protections included in section 13.
I am not being critical of this. I am trying to help the Minister. I accept entirely what the Minister said but we are creating a difference here and we should not have amended that section. Whether a Bill was passed in 1936, 1944 or 1977 is not relevant if the conditions imposed are uniform. It is imperative, particularly in the area of youth employment, that there should be no difference between the two sides or between two different industries. It now appears to me that an employer or an employee may do things in a heavy type of work, because of the amendment to this section, which are not allowable to employers or employees in a lighter type of work. The same conditions should apply to both.
I am uneasy because the Minister said that this had been vetted by the ICTU as if they can do no wrong. The ICTU may be like the Fianna Fáil Party, not infallible but at least divinely inspired. I feel we should have another look at this matter. The Bill has been long delayed already but I should not like to let it pass without supporting Deputy Fitzgerald. In saying that the ICTU had vetted this, perhaps the Minister is uneasy about it too?
I would suggest that the wise course would be for the Minister to withdraw this amendment. This would have our entire agreement. I certainly do not want to delay the Bill any further.
If we do not amend it in this way young industrial workers would be working until 10 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. This amendment makes the time 8 p.m.
I do not agree. I do not think the Minister is reading this correctly. We are on amendment No. 20 but it is the section that prevents the young person from working after 8 p.m. or 10 p.m., as the case may be, but the amendment excludes this section for certain people and that is why I am not happy about it. My advice would be to withdraw the amendment rather than divide on it because I can see no justification for it.
Section 47 of the Conditions of Employment Act provides that the young industrial workers must stop work at 8 p.m. That stands and is not altered. This permits non-industrial workers to go on until 10 p.m. The term "non-industrial worker" is defined very closely in this Bill. If we do not amend the section the position will be slightly worse for the young industrial worker in that he could go on until 10 p.m.
I take the point that he is covered under section 47 of that Act. I see no benefit for anybody in this amendment. What is the basis for the amendment?
It is to make it quite clear who is covered and how many hours he can work. If the amendment is not carried a certain category of worker could go on until 10 p.m., whereas according to the amendment they could work only until 8 p.m.
Which category?
The young worker involved in non-industrial work.
Where is "industrial" defined, Minister?
In section 2. We are covering them for the first time and making sure they do not work beyond 8 p.m. and I would emphasise that the Conditions of Employment Act will continue in force.
Which group are we covering for the first time?
Non-industrial.
Where are we providing that they do not work after 8 p.m.?
Because of section 47 of the other Act. If that be the case, why then the necessity for this?
"Non-industrial" is defined very closely in the Bill. It is a new definition for groups not covered before. We are providing that they cannot work beyond 10 p.m. and the Deputy is in agreement with that.
That is section 47.
That states the young industrial worker must stop at 8 o'clock and that stands.
What are group is controlled there in section 47?
Over 15 and over 16.
I will accept the amendment but I am not happy that the Minister has gone about this in the right way.
The Deputy will accept my word that the position would be worse if the amendment were not accepted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21:
Section 15: In page 8, line 46, after "employee"", if he is a young person," inserted.
The Seanad felt that it was undesirable that children of 14 and 15 years of age should be guilty of an offence and this amendment is designed to exclude children from the offences section. That section will be confined to young persons of 17 and 18.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 22:
In page 8, between lines 47 and 48, before subsection (3), the following new subsection inserted:
"(3) The parent or guardian of an employee who aids or abtes an employer in the contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence."
The effect of this amendment is to make parents or guardians who aid or abet an employer in contravening the section guilty of an offence.
I approve of the principle of the amendment but problems could arise here. I can envisage cases where, because of economic circumstances, a child has to go into employment out of sheer necessity. Would the parent or guardian in that case be liable? I think we are being too strict. I do not know how the Minister will get round this but could he ensure that in cases where economic hardship is proved that will be taken into consideration in mitigation of the offence alleged by the parent or guardian in aiding or abetting the employer? I would ask the Minister to give particular attention to cases where the boy or girl is merely working for pin money but in cases where a child is compelled to go out to work through economic necessity there should be no offence. I am trying to bring a more socially humane aspect into this Bill. Could there be a provision whereby parents or guardians who act out of sheer economic hardship will not be subjected to the rigours of the law? I think it was either St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine who said that it was lawful for a man who was starving to steal a loaf of bread. It is known as occult compensation. There are shortcomings in our social code. The parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare has stressed this on numerous occasions and, until such time as these shortcomings are redressed, the fact that children are compelled to work through sheer economic necessity should not result in their parents or guardians being subjected to the rigours of the law.
It was stressed in the Seanad that there should be some responsibility on parents and guardians. I can assure the Deputy that before I would embark on any prosecution under the section I would take all relevant factors into consideration.
Fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 23:
In page 8, subsection (3) deleted and the following substituted:
"(3) Whenever an employer is prosecuted for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for him to prove either that he did not know, or could not by reasonable enquiry have known, that the employee had done work for any other employer on the day in respect of which the prosecution is brought or that he did not know, or could not by reasonable enquiry have known, that the aggregate of the periods for which the employee did work on that day exceeded the period for which he could lawfully be employed to do work for one employer on that day."
This is a drafting amendment introduced on legal advice. Its effect is to make more explicit the nature of the defence an employer can present—that is, an employer genuinely caught out in a double employment offence.
We expressed concern about that on Committee Stage. The amendment is desirable. It would have been possible for young people to get around the law in regard to working for two employers on the same day and the amendment gives a little bit of deserved latitude to an employer who may be genuinely caught by being ignorant of all the facts.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24:
Section 16: In page 9, line 23, after "Education" the following inserted: "and with representatives of employers and representatives of employees."
The aim of this amendment is to ensure that after consultation with the Minister for Education exemption licences may be granted to employers where they participate in a scheme which combines limited employment experience with education and training. That met with approval in the Seanad and I think it would have general support here.
There would be no objection to this amendment. The Minister refers to representatives of employees. What type of representatives specifically has he in mind? If it is representatives of young persons the chances are that in many cases there would be no spokesman other than one of themselves. Is the Minister thinking in terms of more mature representatives, such as trade union representatives? If he is, what happens in areas where young persons are employed and there is no union situation?
This is defined earlier in relation to trade unions. We define it as those who are representative of the employees in question and where there is no such trade union, such persons, as it is defined here, as are in the opinion of the Minister representatives of such employees. In other words, we will have to allow discretion in cases where there are no regular trade union organisations. We will have to look at each case in that eventuality. We could not get a legal formula to decide whom they would be other than in this fashion.
We are talking about young people. If it was only young people who were the representatives, I would not regard them as experienced or mature enough.
I think the Deputy will agree that we must allow for some discretion in this. I take the Deputy's point to look at the situation in relation to trade union groups.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 25:
Section 17: In page 9, after line 41, the following inserted:
"(3) Whenever in a prosecution for an offence under this Act, it appears that a sum of money is due by an employer to an employee, and the employer is convicted of that offence, the Court may, if it is satisfied that the employer is liable to pay to his employee a sum of money, order, in addition to any penalty which it may impose pursuant to this Act, that the employer pay any such sum of money to the employee."
This amendment relates to prosecutions under the Bill which may involve the non-payment of money due to an employee. The civil court in imposing a penalty on an employer should be able to award the employee money due to him. This provision will save the employee from having to pursue a separate case through the courts to recover money due to him. It is a common-sense amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 26:
Section 19: In page 10, after line 48, the following inserted:
"(4) An employer who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence."
The section of which this amendment is part provides that the implementation of the requirements of this Bill in relation to reductions in working hours should not result in any worsening of wages. That provision has met with everybody's agreement. This amendment attaches an offences provision to the section to ensure that implementation of the Bill should not result in any worsening of wages.
The amendment says "shall be guilty of an offence". What about penalties? Is the offence covered under the other section of this Bill?
This links in with section 23.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 was dealt with with amendment No. 4.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 27:
Section 27: In page 12, lines 49 and 53, "4 (4)" deleted and "4 (5), 4 (6)," substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 28:
In page 12, line 56, after "resolution""annulling the order or regulation" inserted.
This is simply a drafting amendment and brings the subsection into line with similar provisions in other legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 29:
Section 30: In page 13, subsection (2) deleted and the following substituted:
"(2) This Act or any specified provision of this Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may by order appoint."
This is a minor drafing change in the subsection relating to the commencement dates. It will give some desirable flexibility in bringing the provisions of the measure into operation.
We are deleting subsection (2) and substituting a new subsection. I see little necessity for it because the original subsection stated:
This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister appoints by order under this section.
The new subsection states:
This Act or any specified provision of this Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may by order appoint.
This goes back to the time when the Bill was first introduced. We did not then have an Agricultural Joint Labour Committee but we have one now. It is not a great point. We do not see it as important to have this commencement date as originally envisaged and we accept that we should more speedily act.
Is the Minister now saying there may be a further deferment in the implementation date?
Not now. Originally, even after passing all Stages, the powers of introduction allowed for a longer deferment than we now allow for.
When is it hoped to have this implemented?
Right now.
Can we take it that it will apply for this year's summer holidays?
Yes.
We hoped it would have applied for the 1975 holidays.
Man proposed Question put and agreed to. Amendments reported and agreed to.