Under 16 Work experience and the Law

[paulears]

Moderation: The following posts were split from another topic, here, and have been put here as there is some useful information on various aspects of licensing under 16s.

 

If you are not an accredited educational establishment, then unless you took out a Children's License from your local authority, and put in place DBS checked chaperones, then very sadly, what you did was against the law. The Children's Act has a number of excluded premises where children cannot work, and work experience even in amateur theatre puts the kids in one of these excluded places. Many Councils don't have a clue, but the law is very specific. Abattoirs, nightclubs/discos and catering kitchens being the usual ones. My own council when asked a year or two ago said there was no problem with a 15 year old working as an usherette - we gave her the job, then a frantic Council lady phoned back to say she was wrong, and the girl could not work unless we took out a license and used approved chaperones.

 

So, if you are a real theatre, not a school theatre, even a tiny one - you cannot even give somebody keen work experience. Worse still, with today's public feeling, the person illegally allowing it to happen could well be in quite serious trouble. Imagine the bad press before common sense let you off? Not knowing about this can drop you right in it. I've turned two keen kids down this week on exactly this subject. They can do work experience for me, but not in the theatre!

[danburns]

I've been assured by our child protection officer that that side of things has been covered, but I will double check now!

[paulears]

Just ask yourself if there were ladies watching every move you made, making sure they did not share the same toilets, and were not left in one to one contact with any un-checked adult. Common sense says you probably just did the responsible thing and worked with them, keeping them away from danger - but that shouldn't have been your responsibility. Especially if you didn't know!

 

Lots of people assume that as they're not being paid, and it's work experience organised by a school, they're obviously in the clear. It's bad when the teachers don't know the law! Doing it without the school really does put your staff in a very difficult position.

[theatretechie]

Unfortunately these issues are a reflection of the sick society we have come to live in.

 

However I started in Amdram theatre because my parents were so involved. I firmly believe that a good local amdram group gives you a great foundation.

I have been then and still look back on it.

 

I can't stress enough how much it inspired me and gave me a thirst for what I now do.

[gibbothegreat]

If you are not an accredited educational establishment, then unless you took out a Children's License from your local authority, and put in place DBS checked chaperones, then very sadly, what you did was against the law. The Children's Act has a number of excluded premises where children cannot work, and work experience even in amateur theatre puts the kids in one of these excluded places. Many Councils don't have a clue, but the law is very specific. Abattoirs, nightclubs/discos and catering kitchens being the usual ones. My own council when asked a year or two ago said there was no problem with a 15 year old working as an usherette - we gave her the job, then a frantic Council lady phoned back to say she was wrong, and the girl could not work unless we took out a license and used approved chaperones.

 

So, if you are a real theatre, not a school theatre, even a tiny one - you cannot even give somebody keen work experience. Worse still, with today's public feeling, the person illegally allowing it to happen could well be in quite serious trouble. Imagine the bad press before common sense let you off? Not knowing about this can drop you right in it. I've turned two keen kids down this week on exactly this subject. They can do work experience for me, but not in the theatre!

Paul, are you able to quote a source for that? Have been looking on the gov.uk website, and the only reference I was able to find is that a permit will be required " if this is required by local bylaws" It then goes on to say specifically "Children don’t need a work permit for work experience arranged by their school."

 

 

[paulears]

They don't need work permits for work experience arranged by their schools. They need the permit because theatre are 'prohibited places'.

 

If you Google children's act theatre abattoir you find many local councils all with the same information. The actual wording in the act has a caveat

 

No child of any age may be employed:-

a) in a cinema, theatre, discotheque, dance hall or night club, except in connection with a performance given entirely by children

 

Theatres therefore are prohibited places for anyone covered by the act - the 'performance given by children' being the exception, but needing child protection measures to be put in place. It's even doubtful if without a show with kids in, the technical side could happen on it's own. Most councils/local authorities do allow of course adults to be in these productions - think Sound of Music and panto, for example. The additional thing to remember is that Sound of Music and the like can have kids doing technical things as amateurs with the license - because it's then not considered 'work'. Work experience by definition, is work. There's some slack in the LA's interpretation of the wording, but they all nowadays take this very seriously. It takes a brave senior person to OK having kids around without the protection. Keep in mind that part of the deal is private toilets - so you would need to set aside a loo for the work experience persons use, and have a licensed and DBS cleared person to look after them. Any staff who have one-to-one access need a full DBS, and even those who have occasional contact might need doing (or not, depending on your LA).

 

In practice, it's not worth doing - because to do it legally and properly are endless hoops that need jumping through.

 

A popular view is that under 16 backstage work experience can't even be considered because trying to tie it to a totally children's show is impossible - the only one I can think about is Bugsy Malone' - many venue's interpretation of 'entirely by children' excluding any show with adults in it.

 

Have a read of the Act content and see if you can find a way to justify 'bending'.

 

The real trouble is that teachers and management in the venues are often totally unaware of the prohibited places clause.

[gibbothegreat]

They don't need work permits for work experience arranged by their schools. They need the permit because theatre are 'prohibited places'.

 

If you Google children's act theatre abattoir you find many local councils all with the same information. The actual wording in the act has a caveat

 

No child of any age may be employed:-

a) in a cinema, theatre, discotheque, dance hall or night club, except in connection with a performance given entirely by children

 

Theatres therefore are prohibited places for anyone covered by the act - the 'performance given by children' being the exception, but needing child protection measures to be put in place. It's even doubtful if without a show with kids in, the technical side could happen on it's own. Most councils/local authorities do allow of course adults to be in these productions - think Sound of Music and panto, for example. The additional thing to remember is that Sound of Music and the like can have kids doing technical things as amateurs with the license - because it's then not considered 'work'. Work experience by definition, is work. There's some slack in the LA's interpretation of the wording, but they all nowadays take this very seriously. It takes a brave senior person to OK having kids around without the protection. Keep in mind that part of the deal is private toilets - so you would need to set aside a loo for the work experience persons use, and have a licensed and DBS cleared person to look after them. Any staff who have one-to-one access need a full DBS, and even those who have occasional contact might need doing (or not, depending on your LA).

 

In practice, it's not worth doing - because to do it legally and properly are endless hoops that need jumping through.

 

A popular view is that under 16 backstage work experience can't even be considered because trying to tie it to a totally children's show is impossible - the only one I can think about is Bugsy Malone' - many venue's interpretation of 'entirely by children' excluding any show with adults in it.

 

Have a read of the Act content and see if you can find a way to justify 'bending'.

 

The real trouble is that teachers and management in the venues are often totally unaware of the prohibited places clause.

Hi Paul,

 

Appreciate you taking the time to share this, but have to say I'm having real trouble finding anything relevant to this discussion. The only place I can find anything relevant is the gov.uk website and it singlularly fails to mention theatre, other than to say that in fact it's one of the only places where children under 13 can work (as performers, which does need a license and a chaperone.) But there's no mention of theatre being any kind of prohibiteded place.

 

My concern here is personal in that we regularly take school children in on work experience, so I certainly want to know if that is a problem. Are you able to point to the specific bit of the Children's Act (and indeed clarifiy which Children's act - having ploughed through both the 2004 and 2006 versions (the 2 most recent), I didn't find any info re work or work experience in either of these, is it an earlier one?) which stipulates all this?

 

Cheers,

 

**EDIT** Have made some headway. In fact, technically it's not national legislation which prohibits it, but local byelaws: however, these follow (almost unanimously, as far as a fairly quick Google search shows) the 'model bylaws' suggested by the appropriate regulations, the Children (Protection at Work) Regulations 2006. However, the Department for Children, Schools & Families (DCSF) issue guidance which states that for work experience "The following will not apply: The restrictions in the model byelaws, which means that permits are not required where the employment is work experience."

[paulears]

I just noticed Gibbot is in Edinburgh, so I had to scrap what I wrote - Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 seems to be the Scottish source. The Act has been amended many times and I got lost tracking the changes. However - nationally child protection is a service where the Act devolves power down to the individual authorities to action using bylaws, and it's these that you need to research in your own LA. Almost every one seems to use the same framework, and indeed wording - the Scots versions I have found are identical. In fact, the phrase "in a cinema, theatre, discotheque, dance hall or night club, except in connection with a performance given entirely by children" comes up in over 2000 Google documents all over the country - In Scotland I found Aberdeen and the Highlands - so I'd be very surprised if Edinburgh have produced something different in their bylaws.

 

I'm sure if you ask the Council they will advise, although I didn't find the wording on their website.

 

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but the fact that so many councils have the same worded ban makes me think that they're all following a rule that exists. I can't point you any further than that, I'm afraid.

 

EDIT

Here it is from the Scottish Executive.

Education Department, Children, Young People and Social Care Group,

Children and Families Division

Victoria Quay

Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

It contains the phrase exactly as the English versions, and confirms it is a bylaw in Edinburgh too.

Paul

[djw1981]

 

 

EDIT

Here it is from the Scottish Executive.

Education Department, Children, Young People and Social Care Group,

Children and Families Division

Victoria Quay

Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

It contains the phrase exactly as the English versions, and confirms it is a bylaw in Edinburgh too.

Paul

The scottish Exec document also reinforces my own suspicion that it was EU legislation and thus may affect other members in teh EU. The idea being that child protection should be an EU wide policy to prevent people skipping over borders to escape justice etc.

[chelgrian]

The scottish Exec document also reinforces my own suspicion that it was EU legislation and thus may affect other members in teh EU. The idea being that child protection should be an EU wide policy to prevent people skipping over borders to escape justice etc.

 

My best guess is that it is a side effect of Council Directive 94/33/EC

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1994L0033:20070628:EN:HTML

 

For example section 5.1 states

 

"The employment of children for the purposes of performance in cultural, artistic, sports or advertising activities shall be subject to prior authorization to be given by the competent authority in individual cases."

 

which could quite easily just get translated into prohibition of work in theatre because the relevant people are lacking in clue about what happens inside a theatre that isn't performance.

 

It could also be due to 9.1 a or b which states

 

"Member States which make use of the option in Article 4 (2) (b) or © shall adopt the measures necessary to prohibit work by children between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m."

 

"Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to prohibit work by adolescents either between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. or between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m."

 

All of this wording that paulears quotes smells like secondary legislation and bylaws being concocted by busybodies who are not in possession of a clue when the primary legislation says nothing about it.

 

To be honest in the amateur productions I work on the question has never arose because we can't obtain third party liability insurance for under 16s anyway so it falls at that hurdle before any child protection questions arise.

[vinntec]

I have checked with Hampshire County Council. where I am, and it too uses the exact same words in its byelaws and expressly says that theatres are prohibited places. However, HCC themselves have been placing children in work experience places at professional theatres (and amateur companies) for years! What I can't find anywhere is whether work experience counts as "work" or not when they are unpaid, as is the norm for school children.

 

This certainly seems to be a minefield of legislation which could prevent youngsters interested in technical theatre, for example, from getting any experience - even if common sense says that this should be possible. Is theatre singled out as a hangover from Victorian morals as a placement at the Windmill Theatre is not the same as at the local provincial one, with sensible safeguards!

[paulears]

The prohibition is also ignored when it comes to mention of kitchens - effectively no kids can work in a burger van or fish and chip shop, or even washing dishes. Mind you, I don't think this wording is modern at all, so I suspect the EU may well have followed our way this time! Historically, theatres were considered 'dodgy' long before modern times, and the fact that the English and Scottish Acts are first enacted in the 30s is interesting - I wonder what happened then?

 

The panic when our local council suddenly realised they'd given approval for something illegal really made them move fast. I could imagine the lady we spoke to just mentioning it in casual conversation in their office and somebody older and wiser jumping in!

 

I think the difficulty in separating work from entertainment is the problem. They have a child licensing system but it's wrapped up with the word 'performing', and working backstage isn't really performing, just being around performers?

 

Id did think Gibbo was going to be OK in Scotland, but they've adopted the same system - which is remarkably similar to our yellow book - the ABTT model terms and conditions which local authorities use for all things technical, but built around child protection - which of course, this daft rule has nothing whatsoever to do with.

 

I don't want to be a scaremonger, but when I was in a school a few weeks ago, I was warned about a student who persistently makes complaints about staff, and her parents are at the school at the drop of a hat. A family with a huge chip on the shoulder. Imagine getting one of these as a work experience person. Some poor lighting or sound person gets them to work with and accidentally offends them and a complaint comes in. If this person hasn't been vetted, then even if they are totally innocent, you can imagine how it could go - one person's words against a poor defenceless 'child'. I spent some time with this particular girl, wary of being left alone with her, so if she reacted, I'd have at least one witness. It's a crazy world, but handing out a work experience person to work illegally could be very tricky!

 

We did do the 'what is work?" thing a year or two ago, and I think that we decided that what the kids were doing was indeed considered 'work' - even though some simply observe. I think somebody made the point that even if you get them to make the tea, during work time, it's not education - it's low level work. If the worker is working illegally, even by ignorance, it doesn't matter in law.

[gibbothegreat]

Thanks again Paul, it is indeed a tricky area. Although my home location is indeed Edinburgh, my place of work is West Lothian, and they too have exactly followed the wording of the model byelaw. I am indeed a council employee, and their schools work placements are centrally managed by the council - and as stated above, regularly include us in these.

 

What seems to be missing is any evidence of a legal basis for the DCFS statement in their guidance document that these prohibitions don't apply where work experience is concerned (although that may well be a simple case of the impenetrable nature of this country's legislation defeating unskilled use of search engines, however.) I've passed this on to my management, who I suspect may well get specialist advice. We'll see what comes of it...

 

Another question that occurs to me is what is the scope of 'work experience'? We get regular requests for this outside of the school system, frequently from the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, which are direct approaches by the young person themselves.

[paulears]

I came across similar issues when non-education places started to take in students on formal courses. The exam boards have a similar problem determining status, because every proper place of education has a centre number, which is the same for all the boards, and (I think) given by the DfE. Some places didn't seem to qualify, so the exam boards used a suffix to kind of unofficially validate a site outside of the system, as in where the school/college was centre 12345, the church at the end of the road where some courses were delivered would be 12345A. This suggests that the site would not be an approved one, or it would have a unique number. So would work experience at this church be OK? I really don't know, but if there were no teachers, and no formal ID, then I'd bet that it would still be a church, and therefore OK for work experience, but the local theatre, rather than the church would not?

 

What we're trying to do is say that the theatre (the specifically prohibited place) is NOT a theatre when work experience kids are in, and that sounds like the sort of fudge local authorities don't like.

[ImagineerTom]

This is a very similar problem to the one the circus world has. Quite simply over the years various lawmakers have issued laws that contain references to children and performance without ever actually consulting what was in place before or the people it affected, year after year more legislation piled up (often contradictory) and because it only effects an incredibly tiny number of people there's no resources or desire to spend any time pulling it apart. When you remember that in most councils one or two (very junior) staff are technically "in charge" of multiple departments and thus have no time to build up any specialist knowledge in any field they tend to default to whatever they can google first, copy from a neighbouring council or whatever they remember being told on the last course they went on. A perfect example is theatre/premises licenses are (in most areas) administered and operated by the same person who also issues TAXI licenses, ice-cream van licenses, looks after betting shops, sex shops, fast-food outlets, pubs, nightclubs, restaurants, cinema's, bingo halls and public squares. Every one of those sectors has completely different rules, regulations and requirements yet its easy to see how in the real world they've become one homogenised mess of regulations to the one or two junior staff on (civil service) minimum wages who actually issue them.

 

If your current authority are happily letting you have kids working in the venue then don't rattle their cage (civil servants if rushed for an answer will always say "stop") and carry on as you are. If they're currently stopping you then get an "authority" (solicitor, trade body, industry expert) to write you a proper explanation as to why what you want to do is legal and the framework it can/should exist in and then submit that to your local authority - civil servants generally bow down to a "superior" authority. In the case of child licensing / works / performance it's worth speaking with Westminster (borough of) licensing department as they are unique in having a full time team of theatre licensing specialists and a full time team dealing with child performers in shows. They will have found an acceptable framework to do these things and will be considered an acceptable authority if you need to over-ride a policy implemented by your own local authority.