| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. The issue of local government and the control that
it could impose is important. However, the record of local government in this matter is appalling. No local authority that I know of takes its responsibilities seriously; very few investigate malpractices in the employment of children; and hardly any have ever registered any children in work. Does my hon. Friend have any indication that matters will improve in future?
Mr. Pond: I am aware of the great amount of work that my hon. Friend has done over the years on the issue. I accept that there is a very real problem with the way in which local authorities currently enforce the law. Many of them are very good and take their responsibilities seriously. They do everything that they can, within limited resources, to enforce the law. The Bill would improve on that position by ensuring that there was a uniform set of regulations, rather than the current confusion, which makes the problem of enforcement both more expensive and more difficult for local authorities.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): The record of councils across the country in licensing anything is woeful. In Hammersmith and Fulham, for example, the time required to get a building permit is lengthening. The idea that councils will be able to process a permit application in four weeks is laughable. Later in the Bill's passage--if it is not held up by the antics of hon. Members on other Bills--I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will examine that four-week provision.
Mr. Pond: I thank hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. The four-week period was one of the issues raised in the consultation process while the Bill was drafted. Employers especially said that, currently, it is difficult to obtain a permit--even for the few employers who decide to apply for one--because of delays at local education authorities. That is why we built into the Bill the four-week grace period. We realise that responsibility runs both ways. If employers are to undertake the process of applying for a permit, local education authorities will have to take their responsibilities seriously and ensure that they meet that deadline.
Mr. Rowe: Further to that point, this seems to be a matter in which some delegation to parish councils or, in cities, local councils might work perfectly well. Those councils have quite an interest in increasing their responsibilities, and they are much closer to the people applying for the permit and to the children who are likely to be involved. That might work much better.
Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which, again, was helpful. We shall have to examine the provision in the context of what is happening in local authorities generally and within the structure of local government, to determine the most appropriate level at which such a provision should be applied. We shall have to think seriously about the issue.
While working on the Bill, I often thought about that young man in my constituency who was injured while doing a harmless newspaper delivery round. One could not really blame the lorry driver involved in that incident--after all, international freight lorries and children on bicycles are not a good mix in the early hours of the morning. One could not blame the parents. None of us as parents would allow our children to be hurt and
injured if we could possibly avoid it or knew that it might happen. One could not blame the employer. The law is complex and outdated, and I am sure that that employer would never wilfully put young lives at risk. No one is to blame. Yet a schoolboy is seriously injured, and his prospects are damaged.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) both on introducing the Bill and on the manner in which he has done so. Undoubtedly, there is a need to change some aspects of child legislation, and I congratulate him on dealing with the issue. However, I should like to mention a few possible consequences of the Bill, some of which he may have intended, and some of which may have been unintended.
The hon. Member ended his speech by mentioning the sad accident in his constituency of a newspaper boy and a lorry. Hon. Members have to accept--we sometimes find it difficult--that legislation cannot solve everything. We cannot say that the Bill will stop another newspaper boy being hit by a lorry. We have to be a little careful in our choice of language so that we do not lead people to believe that we can achieve the unachievable.
Most cases of what could be called the abusive employment of children that one hears about--the hon. Member mentioned some, and I have a copy of research by the Evening Standard on such practices in London--are already illegal. The problem is that the enforcement measures are not sufficiently tight or rigorously applied. Therefore, I am more concerned about some of the Bill's provisions on hours of work, for example, than about those on enforcement. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be attempting significantly to tighten up enforcement. I am not convinced that it is necessary to do very much about hours, other than to bring them in line with the European directive, as we are obliged to do.
The hon. Member will probably take it from what I have said--I hope that it is understood--that I shall certainly not oppose the Bill. I hope that it will receive its Second Reading today and proceed to Committee, so that some of those issues can be explored properly.
My principal concerns are about both the unintended and the intended consequences of the Bill. Among the intended consequences, clause 2 clearly stipulates--it could not be bolder--that only two hours can be worked on a Sunday. I respect those who, for religious reasons, maintain the view that Sunday is a special day and that two hours work should be the maximum. However, that view is no longer widely held and does not recognise what is happening in the real world, particularly in employment.
The hon. Member rightly said--I congratulate him on emphasising it--that children's work is not only about the retail delivery of newspapers but covers a vast number of activities. Some of those activities, such as jobs in supermarkets, can be done by children only at weekends. He has undoubtedly already thought seriously about the matter--otherwise it would not be dealt with in the Bill--but I ask him to think again about that two-hour Sunday limit.
Perhaps we could simply say that no more than five hours can be worked on Saturday or Sunday, or that a total of seven hours may be worked over the weekend. It is too inflexible to stipulate a maximum of two hours on Sunday and five hours on Saturday, given the vast range of activities that are available to young people.
Audrey Wise (Preston):
Given the vast range of people available for work and unable to get it, starting with school leavers, why should retailers seek to have 13-year-olds doing that type of work?
Mr. Paice:
I certainly will not get into an argument about retailers' recruitment policies. We know that many retailers employ children below school-leaving age part time in filling shelves and other activities. If they are providing those opportunities, it would be unwise for the Bill to provide that children under school-leaving age--they may be 15 years or 15 years and nine months; they are all covered by the Bill--should not work more than two hours on Sundays.
I very much hope that the hon. Member for Gravesham will think more flexibly on that limit in view of the vast range of activities available not only in traditional retail businesses but as a result of the widespread advent of Sunday markets--which, although I realise that they are the bane of many people's lives, are providing many work opportunities. Agricultural employment, which I shall deal with shortly, must also be considered.
The Bill applies the same rules--adopting a blanket approach--to all children from 13 years to 15 years and 10 months. As all parents and teachers know, such an age range covers a vast range in children's development and abilities. I should much prefer the Bill to allow some variation in the maximum hours that can be worked, according to the age of a child. Clearly, it would be wise to apply the proposed 12-hour rule to children of 13, and perhaps it would be wise to apply it to children of all ages who are at school. However, I think that a 25-hour maximum during schools holidays would be too low for 15-year-olds. I should like the Bill to reflect the changes that children undergo between those ages.
The Bill would repeal section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, thus removing from local authorities the power to make byelaws covering the ages to which I have just referred. I am happy about that--I see that the hon. Member for Gravesham is grinning. I have nothing against local authorities, but the hon. Gentleman was right to say that we have ended up with a hotch-potch of byelaws across the country, whereas there should be standard rules. If we prevent local authorities from making those byelaws, we need to find another way to vary the age structure.
Clause 7 would allow the Secretary of State to vary the maximum weight that children can carry and
"the types of physical, chemical and biological agents"
with which they can work, and so on. It also states that the Secretary of State
"may make different provisions for children of different ages and different types of work."
If it is possible to allow for variations in types of work, I see no reason why it should not be possible to vary the number of hours that children can work at different ages.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |