| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.5 am
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): I listened carefully to the debate. It is possible warmly to applaud the principal objectives of the Bill while questioning the practical results of its passing into law. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) reminded us that he used to work for the Low Pay Unit. He used to campaign for the principle of a minimum wage. Although we may applaud the aim of eliminating exploitation at work, we should question the practical results of the minimum wage legislation currently before the House, and of this Bill if it is not subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
We must ask ourselves why the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been in force for such a long time. It was W. C. Fields who said:
Not only parents, but teachers, social workers and responsible employers are involved in looking after the interests of children in work. The hon. Gentleman said that much of that work is wholly beneficial. He did not say why, so perhaps I can help him. Work induces self-esteem in children. Teenagers in particular need to develop self-esteem. Earning money by their own efforts, which they can spend on their family, on their friends and on themselves, is undoubtedly one of the most powerful ways in which to earn that self-respect outside the academic field. Work experience may play an important part in helping children who are not academically gifted or inclined to mature.
Given that background, it is right that we should question the benefits of the Bill in terms of cost. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that there is no point proposing the Bill without a clear idea of the costs involved. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment which has been examining the costs of further education colleges' franchising training programmes. Even in the most franchised programmes, the cost to the educational establishment is at least £20 per place. It would be naive to assume that the cost of administering permits for LEAs would be less than £20 per child.
We have been told that nearly 2 million children are currently in work in this country. One must assume that the permits would have to be renewed annually, so we are talking about a minimum cost for the LEAs of £40 million a year to introduce the Bill. To put that in context, that is the same amount as the Government tell us they will have to spend to reduce primary school class sizes for early years to a maximum of 30 per class. Clearly, that is a significant cost and we have to ask what benefits will be achieved.
The hon. Member for Gravesham mentioned the distressing fact that one third of children who work are involved in accidents, and that one third of those require medical attention. More than one in 10, therefore, are involved in an accident of concern. It would be helpful to put that into context. How many of those children participate in games and sports? How often do children participating in such activities risk serious accidents and, unfortunately, sometimes suffer serious accidents? It is a fact of growing up that children are exposed to risk, and it is part of the maturing process that they have to learn to cope with that risk. In dealing with truly threatening situations--which all of us want to see eradicated--is it really right to adopt the ideas of the Bill in terms of regulation and the excessive use of officialdom?
Many people are involved in the welfare of a child. If the 1933 Act had been so neglectful of the needs of children, we would by now have seen a campaign in the press--built around evidence of sweatshops, abuse and children at risk--which would surely have had an impact on the House at some point over the past 60 years. The fact that that has not happened suggests that the isolated cases that the hon. Member for Gravesham cited--distressing as they are--are just that: isolated. If he has more convincing evidence, he should present it. It would help to convince those of us coming to the debate in a spirit of constructive criticism and it would also help him
to convince the Minister that those tens of millions of pounds are needed to implement the Bill to achieve the objectives which, in the long run, we all share.
We are told that those at work in this age group comprise one third of those at work across the whole of Europe. I know how diligently our European partners compile their statistics, but one has to question whether, in this case, greater regulation in Europe has not merely resulted in there being more hidden employment of children in that age group in those countries. Is it desirable to move to a situation where the problem is driven more underground, rather than to have a clear idea in this country of what is going on?
If a child is coming to school looking tired, inattentive and unable to take part in lessons, it is to be expected that the teachers involved will raise this with the parents and, in some circumstances, the social services. If more resources are needed in that area, surely that would be a more direct and effective way in which to bring pressure to bear.
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley):
I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be suggesting that there should be no rules and prohibitions at all as they would be far too expensive to enforce. He thinks that we should let the matter lie, as clearly there is not a problem if it is not reported. We would argue that there is a problem because we do not have enforcement, and that there is such a confusion of byelaws that it is hard to see which rules are necessary. Can he enlighten me on whether he thinks there should be rules and enforcement?
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I hope that the hon. Lady knows me well enough by now to believe that I favour regulating the matter. The question is how much further we should regulate to improve the situation, and whether the costs are justifiable and obtainable from the Minister and his Department. If we end up creating a new burden on local authorities without providing them with the money to pay for it, the Bill will be neglected or other vital duties of councils will suffer.
It is entirely consistent to applaud the principles behind the Bill while questioning its practical results. We must ask ourselves why the Bill proposes that there should be no work between 7 pm and 7 am when the European standard is between 8 pm and 6 am. Over one third of those children identified in surveys two years ago were working before 7 am, and half were working after 7 pm. Clearly, we want to ensure that children are safe, but, as I have explained, we have to recognise that children will take risks in their lives. It is for the hon. Member for Gravesham and his supporters to justify this tighter limit, which will clearly have an impact on more than three quarters of those currently employed in that age group.
Why has there been a change in the wording in the Bill compared to the 1933 Act, which was carefully drafted to ensure that those involved in activities such as babysitting would not be affected by the legislation? The Act refers to work in terms of a person
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North):
I very much welcome this debate; we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) for using the opportunity that he won in the ballot to bring this issue to the Floor of the House. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise), with whom I very much agree.
All hon. Members will deplore the exploitation of children at work. We know that, in some countries, children work hard and long in appalling conditions, sometimes bonded for repayment of debt, invariably receiving pitiful wages and suffering ill-health and poor life expectancy as a result.
If we are effectively to challenge such dreadful exploitation, we must first put our own house in order by ridding Britain of illegal child labour and by setting the highest minimum standards for our young people. Indeed, I would go further and say that we should constrain and restrict the extent of child labour in general.
Children must be protected from the dangers and disadvantages of illegal, unsafe and unhealthy employment and, if they work, they should be properly paid. The Bill raises many of the issues that need to be addressed, but I do not believe that it provides the protection and standards that we should expect and demand. Other hon. Members have dealt with specifics, and I add my concern to theirs. I believe that we need much stronger legislation than the Bill.
Like the Government, I am especially concerned about education. We have become aware that our schoolchildren have not been achieving as well as they should; their achievements compare unfavourably with those of schoolchildren in other developed nations. Moreover, there is a wide diversity of achievement in schools, which reflects the fact that the advantages of affluence and the disadvantages of poverty are key factors in education.
Poverty is a root cause of many of our problems, including educational under-performance. The gulf between rich and poor is greater in Britain than in most other developed countries, and much greater than in some. The proportion of those living in poverty is much higher, in relative and absolute terms, in Britain than in continental Europe, for example. Educational weaknesses mirror those disparities in wealth.
It is not surprising, therefore, that so many youngsters seek employment to bring in more money. If their parents have little money to give them, children want to gain more through work, which is often illegal, usually excessive and poorly paid, and sometimes dangerous and unhealthy. Significantly, that work is always tiring; children go to school weary and unable to take full advantage of what educational opportunities they have.
The fact that 30 per cent. of all working children in Europe are British is a scandal. These children, usually from the less-well-off families, perform less well in education and go into poorly paid work--if they can get it--when they leave school. The cycle repeats itself with their own children.
In my schooldays, my parents did not let me do a paper round on weekdays in school terms, but my family were comfortable, and extra money was not a problem. I do not know whether my education benefited, but I would certainly have done less well in school and been less able to concentrate and learn if I had trudged into class after a long paper round. The option of not working as a child is less attractive to the less well-off, especially, I would guess, to the children of single parents.
In dealing with children's employment, we must address two issues. First, there must be laws to restrict and regulate child labour, with minimum standards defined and enforced. When I read the Bill, I had a strong impression that it was too weak and that the proposed standards were too low. I ask Ministers to consider seriously what standards would be appropriate--mention has been made of the International Labour Organisation convention 138, which could be a starting point.
Secondly, we must address the more difficult question of poverty, low incomes and inequality which underlies so much child employment. Poverty in Britain is a national scandal which the Government must tackle. A sufficient minimum wage, decent benefits and, above all, a return to full employment are essential. We must consider measures to ensure income redistribution during the Government's term of office and beyond. Tight regulation, high minimum standards and the elimination of poverty would put an end to the exploitation of children. We owe it to them to succeed in those objectives.
"Anybody who hates children and dogs can't be all bad."
It is not because we hate children that we have neglected this area of the law. In fact, I would say that we love children almost as much as we love dogs. As the father of five, I do not want to neglect the needs of children.
"who assists in a trade or occupation"
undertaken for profit. The Bill proposes a new definition--no doubt taken from good legislation, but not in this context--and refers to tasks and duties
"in connection with a trade or occupation carried on for profit".
13 Feb 1998 : Column 695
Is there not a risk that someone will argue in the not-too-distant future that someone going out to work in their own business who engages a babysitter to look after their children will be engaging that person "in connection with" their business? I am not a lawyer, but there is a risk in changing the definition.
The Bill goes further, in terms of limiting the hours. If a child who undertakes a full newspaper round has a stable at home with a pony in it, and the child spends five hours looking after that pony, that extra work is not covered by the Act. If, however, the child is fond of ponies and goes to the commercial stable up the road and asks to help--for free and in the child's spare time--to look after the ponies, the child will have to be turned down under the Bill as it is drafted. The people running the stables will have to say, "I am sorry. Even if I let you do this for love, I will be breaking the law and will be risking a fine."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |