I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 13, to delete "8 a.m." and substitute "6 a.m.".
The aim of the amendment is to permit work before 8 a.m. to allow for paper rounds, as 15 year olds often do such work. Under the EU directive this is the earliest time at which a child can begin work. It will allow more flexibility for children doing this work to save money for holidays, etc. I would like to hear the Minister's reaction.
The 1977 Act provides that children may not be employed for a period of 14 consecutive hours at night, including the interval between 8 p.m. on one day and 8 a.m. the following day. While this provision is more restrictive than the directive it is felt the present restriction should be retained as 8 a.m. is considered a sufficiently early starting time for children, meaning those under 16. It also reflects the term of article 16 of the directive, as reproduced in the Bill, which provides that the implementation of the directive shall not constitute valid grounds for reducing the level of protection already in place in national legislation. ILO convention No. 79 of 1946, concerning night work by young people in non-industrial occupations, was ratified by Ireland in the Protection of Young Persons Act, 1977; it also specifies the prohibition on the employment of children between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Having signed the convention, and given that under the directive we cannot lessen the protection offered to young people, it is not open to us to go earlier than 8 a.m. in this case.
Why then does the EU directive provide that 6 a.m. is the earliest time?
Article 16 of the directive states that we cannot reduce the level of protection in existing law and our law specifies 8 a.m. as the starting time. If we changed the time to 6 a.m. most people would regard that as reducing the protection offered to young people. We would also be in breach of the ILO convention and I do not think we contemplate ignoring it.
Is the Minister making any distinction between school term time and holiday periods? Deputy Keogh may have a point about young people who wish to earn money in holiday periods by working on a paper or milk round, because this law might hinder them. There is also the broader issue of enforcement but we can come back to that later. As the Minister says, the legislation already exists and in many cases we have turned a blind eye to it. We should honestly discuss this, perhaps later today if we have an opportunity, or at another time. There is a case to be made about the holiday period.
Later we will be debating a series of amendments, put down by myself, Deputy Kitt and Deputy Keogh, dealing with regulations which will allow us a measure of flexibility for young persons, although not for children. This amendment concerns those under 16 but we must take into account the terms of the ILO convention we have signed and the non-reducing provisions of the directive. I have sympathy with the point about the paper round. We could go to 7.30 a.m. but we should not go as early as 6 a.m. because that would not be right — young people should not go to school exhausted. Although I have no problem changing the time to 7.30 a.m., the flexibility the Deputy wants is not open to me, given the directive and the convention.
Will the Minister deal with the subject again later?
We will be dealing with other aspects of it.
Deputy Keogh spoke about milk and paper rounds; in my area many young people depend on mushroom picking for pocket money. They start much earlier than 8 a.m. because when the crop is ready there is a rush. In some areas the picking would be done by mothers and children — the mother would begin at 6 a.m., break at 8 a.m. to go home to get her husband and children up, and then return. Many young people do that type of work and start very early.
Brave women are gathering mushrooms in County Monaghan.
They are hard grafters. From visiting their dwellings one would know they are spending their money well.
Send two of them to me.
With regard to section 3, in the first instance we can issue individual licences in individual cases. Second, under the existing legislation there are regulations which allow an exemption for agricultural activity because there is provision for this under the directive. The organisation of work requires a level of flexibility. This was exercised under the 1977 Act with regard to agriculture. I intend to deal with this.
People living in urban areas get our newspapers so early in the morning that they receive the country edition rather than the city edition. From this, we are aware of the large families involved in the distribution of both newspapers and milk. Can the Minister explain the definition of "employer" in the sense where extended large traditional families are involved, with children up very early to participate in the family business.
I am worried about the exploitation of those engaged in labour under the age of 16 years. What is the divide between an employer and an employer who is a parent referring to a child as constituting family and not being exploited but being rewarded with pocket money or additional goodies? If we see children working early in the morning, before 8 a.m. do we automatically assume the law is being broken, or is there a special relationship between families acting as employers and their children?
Statutory instrument No. 303 of 1977, sets out regulations on the exclusion of close relatives regarding the employment protection for young people and were made under the terms of the 1977 Act. Many have been repeated in this Bill, as we are taking this opportunity to consolidate. Section 2 of the regulations provides that the Act does not apply where somebody is employed by his close relative, that is a spouse, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, half brother or half sister, in a private dwelling house of a farm in which or on which both the employer or employee reside.
The regulations go on to make clear that none of the provisions in sections 4 to 11, inclusive, of the 1977 Act shall apply to the employment of close relatives. There is an exemption for people employed by their parents in a family enterprise. We propose to make similar regulations under this Bill when it is passed.
While I appreciate this is the law, and would be deemed to be the law within the interpretation of the Act as outlined by the Minister, there is a civil libertarian argument to the effect that children should not be up so early in the morning, even if they are family members. At what stage do we as legislators protect the rights of the innocent young against exploitation? One can be exploited in many ways. Parents can exploit their offspring. For example, the use by travellers of their children to beg on Grafton Street has caused us great soul searching. These children are being ruthlessly exploited within their families. A similar comparison could be made with traditional large families engaging in exploitative activities such as newspaper rounds. How do we protect the innocence and the rights of young people in these situations?
I welcome the Minister's comments on the provisions regarding exemption of work for agricultural purposes in the 1977 Act. Mushroom picking has been mentioned. There are other seasonal activities such as picking strawberries and early potatoes and calf rearing all of which are very important in rural Ireland. Many of them require early morning starts and are agricultural enterprises on family farms. The Minister's exemption of this area is welcome. I was under the impression this area would be tightened up, which would have been unacceptable as it would have caused difficulties. I welcome the fact that the spirit of the 1977 Act will be continued.
The purpose of the legislation is to protect young people from third parties who may be their employers and who may abuse their youth or not give them proper rest breaks and so on. It is geared to the health and safety of young people, putting their education first. It is in this context that we expect that normal parents will also put the welfare of their children first. If youngsters are employed in a flexible way in a family business it is to be expected that most parents will put the welfare of their children first.
Where there is abuse or exploitation by parents it is the health boards that have a statutory responsibility under the Child Care Act, 1991. If there are any cases where people feel young people's or children's health or welfare is being abused or exploited by their parents they should report to the health boards.
An amendment in my name to section 7 provides that the Bill will not apply to work regarded as not being harmful, damaging or dangerous to young people in a family undertaking which shall include employment on a family farm — this covers the concerns of Deputy Leonard and Deputy Ned O'Keeffe — or other agricultural enterprise. This attempts to provide inclusive protection to young people.
Your amendment will have to be grouped because it is an alternative to the Minister's proposal. I do not wish to confuse the issues at this time.
The reasonable concerns raised by Deputies are adequately covered through the regulations already in place with regard to the 1977 Act. As soon as the Bill is signed into law I intend to repeat these statutory instruments and make regulations in similar manner under the new Act. If parents are abusing the trust placed in them with regard to their children, the health boards can step in in loco parentis.
The Minister is making health and safety legislation intrinsic in the protection of young people. I understand why she is excluding agricultural work, including work on the family farm. In many instances people who work on family farms are more exposed to hazardous situations with regard to health and safety. They drive machines at a young age, exposing themselves to danger. While I support the proposed legislation, in many cases the health and safety regulations will not cover people working on the family farms.
Under the 1989 Act, farmers and other self employed people are required, in law, to have a safety statement which identifies the hazards on their farms and the steps they will take to ensure that those hazards are made safe and to have regard to the health and safety of people on the farm or working on it, including their family members. This is a legal requirement which is not perhaps widely understood.
I have worked closely with the health and safety authority and with the positive and active support of the farming organisations, including the ICA, which has a high membership of farming women. We have worked especially on the issue of safety on the farm, safety for children on farms and tractor safety. Last year there were a number of deaths involving children on tractors and slurry pits. Not all of them involved children working on the farm, some involved children playing. There is an active programme, involving the IFA, which teaches youngsters how to drive tractors and how to treat the tractor safely. The health and safety authority are involved. Family organisations have prepared videos on farm safety and I have been in touch with the Department of Education in relation to showing these videos in schools. There is a very active programme on promoting farm safety which involves the whole farm family. We are pulling out all the stops and anything anyone can do to encourage that is worthwhile.
We should encourage young people to work and bring them up to understand that they must work for a living; there is nothing wrong with that. The Minister should not get too hung up on this. Young people are not being abused to a great extent. If they are up early in the morning and working on a farm it is good healthy exercise for them. Sometimes a child will travel with his or her father on his milk round. I see nothing wrong with that. The farm machinery problem is in a different category altogether and must be addressed, although probably not by this committee. Some children holiday on farms and some terrible accidents have occurred with modern machinery.
Deputy Byrne mentioned the abuse of young people who are forced to engage in begging. I see it regularly. It happens only a short distance from Leinster House. On cold wet days small children can be seen begging, and they are obviously being used by their parents. I do not know where these children come from but I often feel sad for them. You do not know whether to give them something or not. I recall on one occasion putting a small donation into the box. No sooner had it landed in the box than a bigger child came out, grabbed the box and made off, perhaps as part of the set plan. I do not know if that is covered in this legislation, but it is a terrible abuse. Working is not an abuse.
The Minister already indicated that regulations under this Bill address this issue.
