Amendments No. 3a and 4 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 3a:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 27, after "person" to insert "on any work".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 in the name of the Minister. Amendments No. 6 and 7 are alternatives to amendment No. 5. Amendments No. 8 and 10 are related and 14 is consequential on amendment No. 5. Amendments. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 14 will be taken together by agreement. If members want to speak on any of the amendments, they must speak to them globally because otherwise I will have to take each amendment individually.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, subsection (1) (a), to delete lines 32 to 34 and substitute the following:
"(ii) does not require or permit the young person to work—
(I) between 10 p.m. on any one day and 6 a.m. on the following day, or
(II) between 11 p.m. on any one day (provided the day is not before a school day during a school term where such young person is attending school) and 7 a.m. on the following day, where the Minister is satisfied, following consultation with such representatives of employers and representatives of employees as the Minister considers appropriate, that there are exceptional circumstances affecting a particular branch of activity or a particular area of work as may be prescribed,".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that young people who are working will be allowed to work until 11 p.m. on days when they do not have school the next day. We are talking about 16 and 17 year olds under the existing law, the 1977 Act, who are not allowed to work after 10 p.m.
I am anxious that when we enact this legislation it will be respected and enforced. It has come to my attention that there is widespread breach of the existing legislation by young people who are working after 10 p.m. I am concerned about that in situations where the young people have to go to school the next morning and they are too tired to avail of their schooling. It has been put to me by members here and by people outside, including many young people, that it would be reasonable to let them work later at the weekend. I have availed of the amount of flexibility I have under the directive and under the ILO convention. I can allow them to work to 11 p.m. on the Friday and Saturday night or on a day preceding a bank holiday or during the school holidays. We will allow that flexibility.
Deputies have put down suggestions that we go as late as midnight. I have taken careful legal advice on this and under the terms of the Directive we are not allowed reduce the amount of protection afforded to young workers. Under the provisions of the 1946 ILO Convention we cannot let them work until midnight. This is the amount of flexibility I am in a position to offer. It will be welcomed by young people.
I had discussions yesterday with representatives of the licensed vintners association and I made the point that I was offering this flexibility. I also emphasised to them, and I think they took it on board, that the employers of some young people expect them to work not only until 11 p.m. or closing time but also expect them to work, often without pay, cleaning up until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. The young people then walk home as public transport does not run that late. That is not acceptable in the case of 16 and 17 year olds. I made the point very strongly to one of the major employers of young people that employers should have regard to the welfare of the young people they employ.
This amendment will go a long way to meeting concerns that young people who are currently employed might lose their jobs. If employers adopt a sensible attitude to this, young people can work at weekends and in the school holidays up to 11 p.m.
I thank the Minister for her contribution. We had a very useful debate on Second Stage and we can deal with all these amendments in a short time. My party is concerned to enact this legislation to ensure that exploitation of young workers does not take place, to ensure that young people stay in school and get an adequate education. That is our position on this Bill . My colleague the former Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, was involved at EU level in signing the EU directive on the protection of young people at work so we will not be inconsistent in that regard.
We need to monitor two areas, one of which is the potential effectiveness of the legislation. It is time to face up to this. The 1977 legislation is there and has not been enforced. Workplace modules need to be clearly monitored and supervised. The vast majority of employers share our concern that young people are treated well, but we have sadly had many cases of exploitation. I mentioned some during my Second Stage speech. It is important to realise that this involves young people working part-time in the services sector and does not affect many employers or people in full-time employment.
Young people must be aware of their rights with regard to enforcement and this should be addressed through legislation. There is also the question of exemptions. On Second Stage I stated that the measures being introduced by the Minister of State were too draconian and heavy-handed. I now accept that the Minister of State has gone a considerable way toward addressing the points raised by me, Deputy Quill and others during that debate. Thousands of young people are obliged to work to support themselves financially, particularly 17 year olds involved in third level education who often work after 10 p.m. This is the central issue. Such teenagers contribute to the family or household income and the Minister of State has accepted that this is a necessity. It is not an ideal situation but that is the way life is and politicians should reflect on the realities. That is why I tabled the amendments and the Minister of State has come forward with a proposal for 11 p.m. She is correct to differentiate between the situation which pertains on Sunday and Saturday nights. We all support the Minister of State's differentiation in that regard because it will ensure that young people do not attend school on Monday mornings with an inadequate amount of sleep.
My central point regarding this matter on Second Stage was that we were cutting off young students working in bars, restaurants, etc., from a possible source of revenue . The Minister of State has recognised the reality of the students' position. The student poverty report showed that of 400 students working in 1995, 50 per cent were working part-time and 84 per cent were working in excess of 16 hours per week. I am concerned that we might affect the status quo in this regard.
I have been a great supporter of the committee system. There were times when I was not as centrally involved as I am with the business of this committee and I felt that the system was not working well. To be fair to the Minister of State, the Bill has been improved through the discussion and recommendations on Second Stage. People who decide to make a career out of bar work at 17 or 18 years of age, having finished their academic education, should be accommodated under the legislation if they are involved in a recognised apprenticeship.
We can accept the Minister of State's statements because she has improved the Bill to cater for the current situation. She is clearly restricted and has taken legal advice on the question of midnight as a suitable time. One of the amendments I tabled referred to midnight in this regard and was based on employers and employees working in a bar on Saturday night. Sunday night is a different matter. It would be impractical to require young people to stop working at 11 p.m. This remains a problem and it is also important to stress the need to provide proper transport for young employees travelling home. However, the vast majority of employers are mindful of the security needs of their young employees.
The Minister of State has come a considerable distance in light of EU restrictions and I agree with what she is seeking to achieve.
Like Deputy Kitt, I compliment the Minister of State. On Second Stage I also suggested that 12 p.m. might be considered a suitable time. I accept that the Minister of State faces many problems in relation to EU regulations. I have many problems with such regulations because the country has been destroyed by them, but that is an issue for another occasion. I appreciate that the Minister of State is restricted by EU regulations but she has at least altered the time restriction to 11 p.m.
The public service works from 9 a.m. to 3 or 4 p.m., Monday to Friday. It is sometimes difficult to contact public service offices on Friday. How will the provisions in this section of the Bill be policed? Will public service officials be involved in spot checks on Friday and Saturday nights? I agree with the legislation and I supported its introduction in the Dáil. Young people work in fish and chip shops which remain open until 3 or 4 a.m. Such establishments do not provide essential services and do not need to remain open until that time. I hope the Dáil will investigate the reason these establishments remain open until such a late hour. However, my main question relates to whether public service officials will police the provisions of this section on Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights?
The amendments we tabled are similar to those tabled by the Minister of State except in its final provision. We recognise the restraints placed on her in this regard. It is important that young people are not exploited. In many instances, regulations have been more honoured in the breach than the observance. We are conscious that there are many services which oblige young people to work late at night. This is not appropriate and they must be protected which is the remit of this Bill.
I agree that young people and children should not be exploited. I do not agree that they will be exploited during the extra hour which the Minister of State is providing. Deputy Quill's amendment relates to a day preceding a day when attendance at school is compulsory. In this regard, we have ideas similar to those of the Minister of State in relation to the protection of children. I accept that the she is constrained with regard to the hours that can be admitted under the Bill. I am glad she listened carefully to the arguments made on Second Stage because many young people are dependent on part-time night work for pocket money and subvention towards books, fees, etc. I support the Minister of State's amendment.
I support the spirit of the amendments tabled by the Minister of State and Deputy Quill. No one can condone a situation where a publican detains young people at his premises until 1 or 2 a.m. because it is unfair to their interests. However, there must be a medium because we want an enterprise culture. If we deprive young people of jobs at an early stage, they will not develop an entrepreneurial flair.
In the recent general election in Australia, one of the parties promoted small enterprise and was victorious on that basis. I support Deputy Ring's statement with regard to EU Directives. We should interpret such directives to suit the realities of Irish society. If we do not do so, we will face grave difficulty. Problems arise on a daily basis as a result of these directives. I do not blame the Minister of State in this regard.
Many young people will be deprived of a good education or moneys for other uses if discretion is not exercised. The Irish education system is quite expensive and to reach third level, students must obtain an income to supplement that of their parents, even those who are self-employed. A job in the workplace gives young people a flair for enterprise. Concurrent with this, it is important that they obtain sufficient income to provide themselves with a realistic and proper third level education. This should be the goal of each family and individual in today's society where there is such a rat race.
I accept the spirit of that, but we cannot ignore the fact that there must be an enterprise culture. If it is too restrictive, it will be killed and this will only lead to further unemployment in the future.
Most of the points made were statements of support. Deputy Ring asked the only question. This related to policing and perhaps we could confine the discussion to that matter.
The labour inspectorate of my Department carries out inspections under the current legislation and will do so under the new legislation. They carry out spot checks and respond to queries. Their activities in response to queries in the area of the protection of young people have increased six-fold in the last couple of years. They will work at night to check if the problem relates to working at that time. I want workable legislation which is respected by young people and their employers. I have gone a fair way towards meeting reasonable concerns expressed by the public, which were well articulated by the Deputy during the Second Stage debate.
The point has been expressed by members on many occasions that legislation tends to be enacted but finance is not provided to police it. It is a typical matter these days, particularly given the increased amount of legislation going through.
We should be able to interpret an EU directive in a way which suits the Irish scene, rather than running with the total directive. This is the problem. I am not blaming the Minister because all Ministers have faced the same difficulty, including those from my party. We should work the directives in an Irish context and make our case in Brussels or wherever the directive was issued. This aspect is being ignored and we are losing much business.
We entrust that matter to our good colleague, Commissioner Pádraig Flynn.
It does not just involve Commissioner Flynn. The Minister and her Department should take a strong interest in this subject if this Government is still in situ during the Irish EU Presidency. I strongly encourage them to ensure it becomes a major item on the agenda. In relation to the practicalities of many issues in employment policy which arise, I am a strong supporter of making the system less cumbersome. Most of it is protective but there are many cases where it is too complicated. From both the employee and employer points of view, EU directives need to be streamlined and simplified.
We value the Deputy's advice in that regard as he is a former Minister with responsibility in that area.
I agree with the Minister that 11 p.m. is probably late enough in cities, but in terms of the tourism industry and resorts throughout the country, there may be catering functions at weekends which may not end until 12 midnight. If the proprietors of such hotels have adequate transport laid on for taking people home, is the 11 p.m. restriction not making it very tight? Perhaps there is much wisdom in Deputy Quill's and Deputy Kitt's amendment. Could a compromise be reached? I understand that buses in the cities of Dublin and Cork stop running at 11.30 p.m., but tourism facilities in certain areas make provision for transporting their staff home after 12 midnight.
We are straying a little from our brief and starting to widen the pitch. We are becoming repetitive.
I recognise that the Minister has come a long way and, as Deputy Sheehan said, it has been a co-operative meeting so far. Perhaps the Minister could address Deputy Sheehan's point in relation to seasonal factors or tourism areas. There may be scope in that regard and perhaps she could address it on Report Stage. For example, during the Rose of Tralee festival and other such events, the only type of staff which may be available are young people. The Minister may have some room to manoeuvre. I accepted her word that it was based on legal advice but perhaps there is some scope to increase it to midnight vis-�-vis tourism seasons or special occasions.
The problem is that we have a culture where we do not start business until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. Throughout the world, dinners and dances are held from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. and perhaps we should consider introducing laws to ensure events start at 7 p.m. in Ireland. If functions are due to start at 9 p.m. one is in plenty of time if one arrives at 12.50 a.m. or 1.50 a.m. One still gets served and one still gets food. Perhaps it is time we considered our culture. If one attends a dinner in America, one arrives at 7 p.m. and leaves at 11 p.m.
We do not rise as early as our European counterparts.
I attended my first meeting in the Parliament in Brussels 25 years ago. I went into a pub nearby and asked what time they closed. I was told whenever one stops drinking.
I am enjoying the debate among my rural colleagues about Irish culture. I am not sure which side I come down. Deputy O'Keeffe said that European Union laws are impinging too much on the daily life of the Irish, while Deputy Ring made a comparison with North American culture where one eats at 6 p.m. and is in bed by 10.30 p.m. I do not agree with either statement. It is wrong for Fianna Fáil to argue, in terms of the humane European social policy which deals with young and vulnerable people up to the age of 16, that we should be proud of Irish culture, as enunciated by Deputy O'Keeffe, and support and extend it. He suggests that strapping young boys and girls should be allowed to stay up until 12 midnight or later. However, we are discussing the exploitation of young people. I totally support the Minister and the European Union in introducing this type of legislation, which is, after all, humane. We should speedily work towards modernising many aspects of Irish culture, rather than pining for the past.
Another point made, with which I disagree, is that tourism plays a very important role in country areas. However, any industry which bases its success on the exploitation of young labour is not one which should be supported in legislation.
That is unnecessary.
One wonders why the labour of the 280,000 adults on the live register seems insignificant in the pool of labour available to tourism, farming or other aspects of rural life. We should accept the Bill as it stands and applaud the EU. We should not take the British position of kicking out progressive social legislation emanating from the EU, as Deputy O'Keeffe seems to advocate. I support the Minister all the way.
Statements were not made in that context. The Minister pointed out her limitations under the ILO convention and EU directive. The members were reflecting on the situation in areas where there is much tourism.
The Deputy's colleagues ignored him and left as he made his statement. The message is loud and clear in that regard.
There is a meeting at 3.30 p.m.
Things were too friendly; I knew it could not last.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, not moved.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 10, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
"7.—This Act will not apply to work that is regarded as not being harmful, damaging or dangerous to young people in a family undertaking which shall include employment on a family farm or other agricultural enterprise.".
This amendment asks for the Act not to apply to work regarded as not being harmful, damaging or dangerous to young people in a family undertaking, including employment on a family farm or other agricultural enterprise. Our party discussed this matter — there have been contributions today from my colleagues Deputies Leonard and O'Keeffe — and clear concerns were expressed that the Act would infringe on such family undertakings.
Deputy Leonard referred to work such as mushroom and strawberry picking, which is not dangerous. The Minister referred earlier to the work of the Health and Safety Authority and I am conscious of the fact that there are many dangers on farms, which is supported by recent farm accident statistics. However, I tabled this amendment to enable the Minister to accommodate in this legislation the reality that young people do work on family farms which is not dangerous.
As we already mentioned, there are regulations under the 1977 Act which exempt work in family enterprises, including the family farm. I propose to enact that and meet the thrust of this amendment. However, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.