Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 May 1980

Vol. 321 No. 6

Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977: Motion.

Minister for Labour (Mr. G. Fitzgerald)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—

Protection of Young Persons (Employment) (Section 4) Order, 1980,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21 May, 1980.

The purpose of this motion is to seek the approval of the House for a draft order to continue in force for a further period of 12 months from 4 July 1980, subsection (3) of section 4 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977.

The Act provides that this section was to remain in force for two years only from the date of commencement of the Act unless continued in force by an affirmative order. The two-year time limit expired on 4 July 1979 and last year, with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad, I made an order extending the section for 12 months from that date. Since then, a full-scale review of the Act, with a view to its amendment, has been taking place in my Department. It would not be possible, however, to complete the review before expiry of the existing order in July 1980. I am satisfied that the status quo should be maintained until the Houses of the Oireachtas have an opportunity to consider possible amendments of the Act. Accordingly, I am seeking approval of the draft order which would continue section 4 (3) in force until July 1981.

The position under the 1977 Act is that there is a general prohibition on the employment of children under the school leaving age which is at present 15 years. However, the effect of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 4 is to permit children under 15, but over 14 years of age to be employed in light nonindustrial work for limited periods outside school hours, provided that the work is not harmful to their health or normal development or that it does not affect their capacity to benefit from school.

Other provisions of the Act imposes obligations on employers in regard to the employment of young people, including those between 14 and 15 years of age. Before employing a young person, an employer must require the production of a birth certificate or other satisfactory evidence of age. The written permission of a parent or guardian must also be obtained. An employer must maintain a register or other satisfactory record showing, in regard to young persons, the name, date of birth, times of starting and finishing work each day, the rate and the total amount of wages paid. The employer is also required to display an approved Abstract of the Act at the principal entrances to the place of employment in such a way that it may easily be read by the employees.

There is no disagreement about the obligation we all have to ensure that young people are given every opportunity to benefit fully from their attendance at school and that their education is not disrupted in any way. I can well understand the viewpoint of those who maintain that there should be a total ban on the employment of children under 15 years of age during school term and I accept that their concern is for the health, education and moral welfare of young people. However, the experience of my Department in the enforcement of the Act since it came into operation almost three years ago, has not revealed evidence of any significant degree of exploitation of children in employment during school term or at any other time. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the withdrawal of the right to engage in employment without the strict limits laid down in subsection (3) of section 4 of the Act could be contrary to the wishes of many parents who consider that a limited period of work outside school hours can be useful experience for young people in the process of deciding on careers.

While the intention, when the Act was being enacted, was that section 4 (3) would lapse after two years unless kept in force by affirmative order, the legal position, as now ascertained, appears to be that in the absence of section 4 (3), children under 15 years of age would be allowed to work during the school term but without the protection which section 4 (3) provides by way of limitation of their hours of work. For this reason, it is necessary to keep section 4 (3) in force.

As I have said already, the members of the Dáil and Seanad will have an opportunity to consider fully the future long-term position when the proposed amendment of the Act comes before the Oireachtas following the completion of the current review of the Act by my Department. Meanwhile, I would ask the Dáil to approve the making of an order to continue in force for a further 12 months from 4 July 1980, subsection (3) of section 4 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977.

Mr. Mitchell

The placing of this order before the House affords me an opportunity to express my concern at the lack of enforcement in this area of employment of young people. The Act was designed to protect young people and forbid the employment of those under 15 years with the exception that those between 14 and 15 years may be employed for restricted hours in any given week as laid down by the section which this order seeks to extend. However, as will be seen in a report in today's Irish Times in relation to this question, the Act is almost completely unenforced. There is no enforcement worth talking about. Could the Minister tell the House if there are any steps he can take to see that this Act is enforced?

The Minister referred to the notice which should appear at the entrances to places of employment. We all know that in pubs in this city and throughout the country many young people are employed. I cannot recall seeing at the entrance to any pub the notice which the Act requires. I have also seen children under the age of 14 years employed in those pubs. Every day in the week we see young children, whom some people refer to as young urchins, much younger than 14 years, even younger than 10 years in some cases, selling newspapers. I have no doubt that in some cases those children are selling newspapers in order to help their poverty-stricken families but very often they are working for newspaper sellers. I understand that newspaper selling is a very profitable business. Newspaper sellers have their job to do and it is very important that they sell newspapers at places where people want to buy them.

We have not entered into the spirit of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act. We have not enforced it. In the review of the Act which the Minister indicated is taking place does he propose to give attention to enforcement? It is scandalous that we allow children to be employed for very long hours. How can we expect to control the drinking of alcohol among young people if we allow a situation to continue where children are employed in pubs?

I am gravely concerned about this matter. There may be problems but my wish is that we can prohibit people under the age of 18 years working in pubs. I understand that 18 years is the minimum age for drinking in pubs. If we do not stop children under 18 years working in pubs what chance have we got of discouraging them from drinking? This has become a major problem.

The criticism I have in relation to newspaper selling is that it is usually very young children well under 14 years who are selling newspapers in all kinds of weather and in dangerous traffic con-ditions. I hope that in the review which is taking place the Minister will give attention to the enforcement of the Act and also to raising the age for those who work in pubs to 18 years. When does the Minister expect to bring before the House the review of legislation which he has promised? I hope it will be some time this year. I accept the point the Minister made that if we did not pass this order today we would remove all protection from young people. This party support the Minister's motion.

Mr. J. Ryan

Like the previous speaker on behalf of my party I reluctantly accept the extension for 12 months of section 4 (3) of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. We expected this to be a genuine piece of legislation but unfortunately this Act is only a facade and might be described as a window-dressing operation because the protection in the Act and the conditions in it are not being genuinely enforced. The newspaper report to which I have referred is frightening because we must realise that the youth of today will be the men of tomorrow. We may complain about vandalism or about terror gangs roaming the streets but in some instances such behaviour may be attributable to those young people having worked as 14 or 15 year olds in environments, and not necessarily public houses, in which the seeds of their conduct were sown because, perhaps, of what they saw in those places. I have known of the employment of young people that could only be described as Fagin-like where they were overworked, underpaid and working generally in conditions that were more like conditions that would have prevailed in the last century. There are times when parents are of the impression that a short term in employment is a good experience for a young boy or girl but this genuine interest can be abused by employers.

We are told that it would not be possible to complete the review before expiry of the existing order in July 1980. We are not prepared to accept the situation of a motion being brought forward again next year for the purpose of seeking a further extension because in the three years that have passed since the legislation was passed, whatever small amount of that legislation that has been invoked has not been used to offset the inroads being made on our young people by employers who do not deserve to be called employers. Reluctantly we are prepared to agree to the extension on this occasion but we would oppose vehemently any effort to seek a further extension in 1981.

Mr. B. Desmond

As the Minister has pointed out, section 4, subsection (3) of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, provides for the employment of persons under 15 for a maximum of two hours per day during school term. The Minister and the Department will be aware that the ICTU opposed this section strongly when that Act was before the House. As a compromise an amendment was agreed at the time by the ICTU and by the Minister for Labour and this was supported by the Labour Party. That amendment provided that paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 4 would remain in force only until the expiration of a period of two years beginning with the coming into force of the Act unless it should be continued in force by an order under subsection (5) of section 4. It provided that the Minister might by order at any time under section 3 provide that the subsection should continue in force for a period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the commencement of the order.

The Minister will recall also that the ICTU wrote to the Minister for Labour in May 1979 regarding subsection (3) of section 4 of the Act requesting that it should not continue in operation. This morning the Minister has given the House a reaction that is almost identical to his reaction to that request from congress, that is, that inspections carried out by the Department's inspectors in enforcing the Act and in investigating complaints have not revealed any widespread exploitation of children in employment during school terms and that there is evidence that the withdrawal of the right to engage in such limited employment would be contrary to the wishes of many parents who consider that strictly limited periods of work outside school hours is a good experience for young persons. As a result of these findings the Minister has decided to make an order for an extension for a further period of 12 months.

I have some reservations about the views of the inspectorate. I know that they are a very conscientious body of men and that they have increased in number down through the years but even on a superficial examination of the situation I am sure that many Deputies would point to the fact that these examinations are not usually carried out between, say, 7 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. As a public representative I find that in the south-Dublin area where I am obliged to attend meetings that are held in licensed premises, many children between 14 and 15 and a large number of young adults between the ages of 15 and 17 work in those premises from 7 p.m. at weekends and work through until 12.15 a.m. or later. Invariably, these young people live close to the premises in which they work so that there is no problem in regard to their transport home.

I am not singling out licensed premises particularly but a fact of life to which we as public representatives must advert in very strong terms is that there are a number of factors involved in young people working in such premises. First, it is socially undesirable in the worst possible sense that a young person of 14 or 15 should be employed in the culture and in the social climate of what we refer to as the lounge bar society. Naturally, I have no objection to people older than 18 drinking in such places. That is their social privilege but where young people work in licensed premises it happens frequently that after the customers have gone and the cleaning up has been completed, a young person is given his first pint of shandy and this can be the beginning of the development of very serious drinking habits. I do not wish to sound alarmist on this but it is an experience to go into such places and to meet some of these people and to be met with a blank refusal and with some embarrassment on their part when they are asked their age.

The second point in that regard is that the rates of pay of such young persons is usually about £1.25 per hour plus whatever tips the customers might feel like giving them as the evening becomes more boozy. Unfortunately, there are parents in Ireland, as there are in all countries, who do not care very much where their children work. Nowadays one often finds 15 year olds in licensed premises who look mature enough to be 17 or 18. There should be a fairly savage crackdown by the Department of Labour and the inspectorate on that situation. The rate of profit on alcoholic drink is generally assumed to be 100 per cent, at the minimum. Where young people are employed in these circumstances, where employers do not have to pay income tax for such persons, burying it in the petty cash, where they do not have to pay pay-related social insurance for such young persons and where employment records are not kept, then there should be a crackdown.

There are other areas at which the Minister should take a sharp look. The inspectorate cannot go chasing around here, there, and everywhere but some garages employ young people from 8 o'clock on Saturday morning, right through to midnight on Saturday night and on Sunday. There children working on petrol pumps are only 14 or 15 years of age. These are very big consumer trading outlets.

The hotel trade is fairly rigorously policed, generally by inspectors; the restaurant trade has a sharp eye kept on it. If a young person of 14 or 15 does a couple of hours' work in a supermarket packing bags, that is a lot better than dishing out trays of drink to people on Saturday afternoons in the smokey atmosphere of a lounge bar. The criticism which the continuation of this order has evoked here this morning is to serve notice on the Minister, who is quite genuine in his response to a continuation here this morning, that a review of the Act has to go through.

We do not oppose the order. Straight opposition of it might lead to a less desirable situation than exists at present. The section of the Act does require a fairly reasonable technical amendment. That should be possible and the Minister in that regard will, I am sure, meet the ICTU and will check the situation.

To conclude, there are enormous pressures on families who want the extra few bob for household expenditure. There are enormous pressures on 14 and 15 year olds who genuinely want the sense of independence, to earn their own pocket money and to be in an earning situation even at a young age, because this is the culture of society around them. We must strongly ensure that they are protected and that society is kept under control, and healthy in its climate. The Minister must say, not just to his inspectorate but to the parents—who, after all, have the primary responsibility for allowing their 14 and 15 year olds out into that kind of employment situation where they could be exploited—that they should desist, and resist temptations in those areas. As a result, the need for public expenditure on enforcement would be reduced, a better society would develop for these young people and a better climate would ensue in that regard.

Miss M. Barry

While I accept the extension order of section 4, I have some reservations about it. Half a loaf, I suppose, is better than no bread. When this section is not being enforced, there is no point in being more ambitious and looking for increased legislation for another year. I would ask the Minister to make every possible effort to enforce this section for the sake of our young people.

There is no doubt that young people of 14 and 15 can be innocent victims at the hands of exploiters. We live in a materialistic society, with many heartless capitalists and opportunists who are willing at any time to take advantage of these children who, naturally enough, cannot see through this type of person. One cannot put an old head on young shoulders. If the Act were enforced, many of these young people would not be exploited in 1980 and this is what I would ask the Minister to do.

There are many children who find work more rewarding than going to school. This is something which needs to be looked at. Naturally enough, the gratification brought about by work is more immediate than that brought about by study. To a child, £1.50 an hour is very rewarding; he or she can buy a lot straight away. There is no such immediate reward in schooling.

I suggest that this time next year an amendment should be made which would ensure that school will come first and work second, because in some cases work is coming first and school second. The working out of an appropriate amendment in this area will be difficult.

There is also the danger that where young people are in receipt of a lot of money, they are exposed to many more temptations than would the ordinary school-going child. They are able to afford more entertainment and will not be as interested in their school work.

Fine Gael accept the extension of this order, but it should be enforced in the coming year. It needs to be enforced very strongly.

Minister for Labour (Mr. G. Fitzgerald)

I thank the Deputies who have contributed for their support of this motion as moved by me this morning. I wish to make a few points on some of the matters raised. Firstly, regarding enforcement, we have had some successful prosecutions. Some more are pending, the papers being with the Chief State Solicitor and there are other cases of possible, or indeed probable, prosecutions pending.

Deputy Mitchell said that he accepted that the enforcement of this Act is more difficult than with some other acts, which is true. There are difficulties regarding enforcement. My commitment is no less than the commitment of those who ask for greater enforcement, but the Deputies will appreciate that this Act presents certain problems for the factory inspectors or any inspectors involved.

Despite some of the points made by the Deputies, not once since this order was placed last year—or, indeed, even before that—has any Deputy of this House brought to my attention, or to the attention of the Department or the inspectorate, a suspected breach. I did say then that if such alleged breaches were brought to my attention I would have them pursued. I make that offer to Deputies today. One has to question the sincerity of people who stand up here and make such statements and yet did not respond to my offer of a year ago.

Miss Barry

Surely the Minister——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I was not referring to Deputy Barry at all. I was referring to people who refer to their visits to different places. To Deputy Barry's credit, she was not here when I made that offer so she cannot be blamed.

Miss Barry

Surely it is the responsibility of all TDs to bring this to the attention——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I say to Deputy Barry that if a Member of the Oireachtas suspects an alleged breach of any Act, particularly of an Act where young peo-ple are being exploited in any premises, it is the duty of that Member to bring such a suspected breach at least to the notice of the Minister responsible. That would be his or her duty as an elected representative of the people and a Member of the Legislature of this country.

As I said earlier, there have been prosecutions and there are some difficulties. Deputy Mitchell asked a question and it is our hope that we will have the review of the Act during the next session of the Dáil when any of the comments made by the Deputies opposite will be taken into consideration, as of course consultations will have to be held. The review will not be confined just to this section and there are other aspects also. For example, Deputy Ryan referred to the abstract of the Act. Another possible amendment there is that we will insist on the abstract of the Act being shown in all employments by all employers irrespective of whether young people are employed by them, because sometimes that can create difficulties for us. However, these are areas upon which obviously consultation and discussions would be held.

The question of newspapers was raised. Under the Act close relatives are not covered and this may well be a question of a close relative. Public houses, lounge bars and so on were mentioned and there are problems here. On the other side of the coin, we hear that we have complaints from the publicans themselves saying that the problem arises for them because apprentices under 18 years of age cannot work in public houses after 10 p.m. This will be looked at in the review.

The only other point I want to make was raised by Deputy Desmond regarding how this amendment came into being. The legal advice now is that if that amendment were implemented, in other words, if this subsection was allowed to lapse after the two-year period, it would worsen the situation and would weaken our control and the enforcement of the regulations in respect of the 14-15 year age group.

I thank the Deputies for supporting the motion. We will be having the review of the Act and I hope the report on that will be before the House in the next session. Any points made here this morning will be taken into consideration when this review is being carried out. I am aware of the parental attitude to which Deputy Desmond referred. There are problems from a parental point of view which are not always justified but the co-operation perhaps is not forthcoming, as it has to be in certain aspects particularly regarding the birth certificate.

I did not mention publicity. We had very useful brief details of the Act supplied to all the schools, to the credit of particularly of one school to whom two copies were sent and they wrote back asking for 200 copies. We could renew the publicity to some extent. We have also the abstract which is displayed by some employers but not by all, and we will have to examine this when the Act is being reviewed. Regarding enforcement, it is my intention and the intention of the inspectors to carry out enforcement as far as is possible. Some cases have been brought successfully already and some are in the process of being brought forward—again successfully, I hope— but it presents certain difficulties and problems. Again I say to Deputies that I would expect that, if they know or realise or suspect there are breaches of this Act, any complaints about such brought to my notice will be investigated immediately.

Question put and agreed to.