Day 118 - 01 May 95 - Page 72
1
2 MR. MORRIS: So 15 year olds is what effectively you would be
3 employing?
4 A. That is what we were thinking of doing.
5
6 Q. Is that continuing now?
7 A. I do not know. I cannot say.
8
9 Q. That continued until you finished your ----
10 A. If was a pilot scheme at that time. We had to get used
11 to the kinds of restrictions that local governments placed
12 on the kids to see whether it was worth employing them.
13
14 Q. But in that period between March 1989 when your department
15 wrote to the ILEA about it and between the time you have
16 finished as Head of Personnel ----
17 A. It was used in a very limited way.
18
19 Q. --- which was 1991.
20 A. Yes.
21
22 Q. Did you visit to check up on the children?
23 A. No, I did not, well, not particularly.
24
25 Q. You did not make a visit?
26 A. Not particularly. To see how -----
27
28 Q. Did you personally go to see the situation in which those
29 young children were working?
30 A. No.
31
32 Q. You said something about licensees before. I cannot
33 remember exactly what you said; licensees would
34 particularly take advantage of that scheme or that new
35 provision?
36 A. No. It was just simply brought to my attention that a
37 licensee was employing children under school leaving age
38 and that has inherent dangers, so I sent that memo out to
39 all licensees.
40
41 Q. To let them know what the law was?
42 A. That is right.
43
44 Q. That became something that became open to all managers
45 after you wrote this letter to the ILEA, after your
46 department wrote to the ILEA; is that is correct?
47 A. No. There would only be certain restaurants that would
48 be allowed to go under the school leaving age.
49
50 Q. So, do you know how many restaurants took advantage of it?
51 A. No.
52
53 Q. Was it 50?
54 A. No, I do not know. That was an operational decision.
55
56 Q. But you were in change of Personnel?
57 A. Yes.
58
59 Q. And for the welfare of the children?
60 A. Yes.
