Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1928

Vol. 10 No. 17

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CHILDREN BILL, 1928.—SECOND STAGE.

Mr. BRADY

I move:—

"That the Children Bill, 1928, be read a second time."

Happily this Bill requires very few words from me, I hope, to recommend it to the adoption of the House. An Act of Parliament that is well known to you, sir, is the Children Act, 1908 There was an amending Act of 1910 but the Bill before the House is not concerned with that.

The Act of 1908 specifies a number of classes of those who may be sent to industrial schools. It is not necessary to enumerate or to dwell on these classes. But there is one clause dealt with in the Act of 1908, the provisions of which do not cover the case of a child whose parents are honestly unable to support it. In such a case as that the child can only be committed to an industrial school if he is found begging on the streets, and the sole and only object of the Bill of which I am asking the Seanad to pass the Second Reading to-day is to remove that degrading provision, which makes a criminal of the child before he is sent to the industrial school. Of course, I need hardly remind the House that the very fact that the child is begging is in itself a criminal offence, and I submit that possibly the child could be convicted according to law for it, but Mr. Cussen, the experienced Senior District Justice, recently stated in a case of this kind that he was not going to discuss whether or not the act of inducing a child to solicit alms with the object of having it sent to an industrial school is in itself an offence against the law. But he went on to say —and really this is what inspired me to introduce the Bill—"It would be a red-letter day for the poor, destitute, hungry children of our city and country if our legislators could be induced to pass a short Act allowing a Justice, in his discretion, to send a destitute child not an orphan to an industrial school without any formal charge being brought against the poor little urchin." This Bill, a one-clause Bill, does nothing more than remove that degrading provision of compelling a child to ask alms.

I was so sanguine as to the ease with which it could be passed into law that I could not foresee any objection to it at all, but as the House will remember, Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, on the occasion when I got leave to introduce the Bill, raised the point that it was piecemeal legislation, and that it would be much better to proceed to deal with the Poor Law Commission's Report as a whole, of which Commission she and Senator Sir John Keane were distinguished and very helpful members, rather than to deal with it in this piecemeal fashion. I agree. But I daresay Senators have seen this Report, if they have not read it in its entirety. It is a very voluminous document, and it makes a large number of recommendations. Of course, I am not in the confidence of the Government as to its intentions regarding the Report, but I think he would be a very sanguine man indeed who looked forward to the embodiment in legislation of all the recommendations in this Report in the near future. I say that as this degrading provision in the case of these poor children has existed for so many years the sooner it is removed the better, and that it should be removed now rather than to wait until all the legislation suggested in this Report is passed.

Another objection urged against the Bill, I understand, is that possibly it will involve additional expenditure of public money. I do not think that is so. The industrial schools are certified, and they cannot admit into their institutions any greater number than the Government certifies for. Accordingly, even if this Bill becomes law, the Government will still have all these powers preserved regarding certificates, and possibly this Bill would not mean that the admissions would be increased by a single case to any of the industrial schools. I do not think there is any more to be said in support of the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. BENNETT

I beg cordially to support the Second Reading. I had a good deal of acquaintance in the old days with the committal of these children, and I always felt that it was a great disgrace and a great anomaly that a conviction for begging, or some such paltry offence, should be imposed on children who were honestly entitled to relief. As regards the industrial schools, they were fairly well filled up, and the difficulty in most cases was to find schools to accommodate such children. One had to canvass the schools to take a child, and having got the accommodation, one had to go to the County Council, and then the child had to be made a criminal before it could be committed. That should be prevented, and every child that is deserving should be accommodated. I know a case at present of poor parents who are zealous, but who are unable to support their children. These children would have to be made criminals before they could be sent to industrial schools.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I welcome this Bill, and I think Senator Brady is to be congratulated in introducing it. It deals with a question that was a very serious one in the old days when we were administering the law. At the Petty Sessions the magistrate had constantly to deal with the cases of children who would be much better off in industrial schools, but they were met with the difficulty that it would be illegal to recommend their committal to such schools. Consequently we had to inspire the police sergeant on various pretexts to arrest the children for begging or something of that kind. There is no argument in suggesting that we should not deal piecemeal with the reform of our poor laws. This is a very useful reform, and now that we have the opportunity we ought to take it. I agree that there are many other directions in which we could reform our administration, but in introducing this Bill the Senator stated that that was a very large question, and that none of us is in the confidence of the Government, who must select their own time. Any legislation that is introduced will be of a rather complicated type on which there will be a great deal of discussion. We are all agreed on this point, and the only objection to this reform is the question of expense.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

No.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

That is the only practical objection. We are spending millions improving roads and reconstructing our country; we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on drainage; but surely there is one question on which we should not spare any expense, and that is the future of the rising generation. The most important section concerned in that question can be reached by the passing of this Bill.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I am sure that every one in this House agrees with a great deal of what has been said by the Senator, but for the information of those who have not been here as long as myself I want to call attention to the fact that in 1923 when the Local Government Act was passing I appealed to the Minister for Local Government to have something done in order to do away with the system of commitment in connection with the admission of children, whereby they were first made criminals. The Minister gave that promise, but like so many other promises I am sure he found it difficult to carry it out. Time pressed, other matters intervened, and another Minister took his place. I am very anxious this practice should be done away with, because it is not fair that the children should be made criminals because their parents are not able to support them. At the same time I do not think it fair, because the parents are unable to support a child properly for a period, that that child should be put into an industrial school and the home broken up. I have the feeling of everyone who has thought out this question that, when the child is destitute, when the bread-winner is without work, with an accumulation of arrears of debt, and when his children are hungry and unclothed, the State should come to the aid of such a man and help by giving something towards the upkeep of the home where the child was born. In an industrial school a child costs from 12/6 or 15/- a week. I am not sure of the exact figure, because when the cost of living became very acute the amount was raised to about 15/-. The State gives the larger portion of that. Last year the Estimate for industrial schools and reformatories was £117,233. The maintenance in these industrial schools alone, out of the main Estimate, came roughly to £115,000. The question of the breaking up of the home is, I think, of far more importance to most people than the sending of children to industrial schools. That is why I plead that piecemeal legislation should not be undertaken, and that other avenues of entrance to industrial schools should be arranged. Up to this there were six or seven avenues of entrance before a sessional court. I think the one proposed by the Senator to-day must go before a magistrate. Is there anyone here in favour of bringing a child before a magistrate because the parents are unable to support it temporarily?

Mr. DOUGLAS

I think the wording of the Bill is "continues to be unable to support."

CATHAOIRLEACH

No. Both "unable and likely to be unable to continue."

Mrs. WYSE POWER

The present proposal means that any parent who wishes to make his child destitute can stray that child on the street and it becomes destitute. It goes into an industrial school merely through going before a sessional magistrate. A destitute child is brought before a sessional magistrate and if he complies with this Bill, while the magistrate will use his discretion, seeing that it has been abandoned n the street, the child automatically goes into an industrial school. The Poor Law Commission gave a good deal of attention to this matter, and had evidence before it from those interested in industrial schools. It is a remarkable thing that none of the heads of the schools suggested what is here suggested, although the industrial schools are naturally very anxious to maintain the population of their schools and keep them open. No such proposal as this came before the Poor Law Commission. This is their recommendation, on page 71, paragraph 252, of the Report:

We propose that these children who cannot be provided for in any of the ways we have mentioned be sent to the industrial schools, and that the law be amended so as to permit of an arrangement between a board of health and the managers of the schools by which children could be transferred without the formality of committal by judicial procedure.

The Senator asks us to take quite a different outlook on the whole situation. I agree with him that it is hard lines that this matter should wait until the Government considers and brings in legislation to deal with the Poor Law Commission's Report. I do not think it can be done this year, although some of the newspapers reported me as saying that I was sure the Government would bring in legislation this year. I am quite sure they will not do so this year. At the same time I think the Executive Council should consider this matter in all its bearings, without having it considered by those who have the Report in their hands. Probably they would consider other methods of helping destitute children whose parents are unable to provide for them. The Report of the Poor Law Commission is very definite in that respect. We propose that children who cannot be provided for in any of the ways we have mentioned should be sent to industrial schools. I do not think it is fair to cut across the findings of the Report without considering it in all its bearings. The Commission dealt with this matter for over two years with the greatest care, and we had a most careful chairman, Mr. O'Conor, a man who has given years of his life to dealing with the poor law and with the question of destitute children. Every member of that Commission was interested one way or another in the question. They agreed that these children should become State children when the parents could not support them.

I would like to congratulate the Senator on introducing this Bill, as it may mean that the Government will hasten the day when they will do something about it. There are many questions involved in the Report that could be taken separately, such as raising the age of consent, and different things of that kind. These things have nothing to do with the Report proper. They may be taken separately, but this particular matter involving the whole question of the State child, I think, ought to be left to the Executive Council. I say that with all respect, not only to the mover of the motion, but to all those who have put their name on the Bill, that I think they thought it was just to take away the conviction portion. Instead of that, for the parents who for the time being are unable to support a child, something should be done to help them while the father is out of work, or while the mother is in such a condition that she is not able to keep the child. I would like to move as an amendment that further consideration of the question should be adjourned until the Report of the Poor Law Commission has been examined by the Executive Council with a view to legislation. I think that is the wisest course, and one that should commend itself to the House.

Mrs. COSTELLO

I second the amendment.

COUNTESS of DESART

Why should an unfortunate child be convicted while we are waiting for the legislation that is required? That is the only thing the Senator wants to remedy. His Bill would not interfere with the Report.

Mr. BROWN

I think we are all agreed that this Bill is not a permanent solution of the trouble we are trying to get rid of. Why should we not pass this Bill and let it go to the Dáil? When it goes to the Dáil if there is an assurance given in that House that action is going to be taken within some reasonable time, then the Bill can be thrown out. I would ask the Seanad to pass this Bill and let it go to the Dáil.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Does the clause take sufficient cognisance of the parental responsibility? Is it sufficiently safeguarded?

Mr. BRADY

Yes. That matter has been very carefully considered, and I might mention to the House that the Bill was not drafted by me, but by a very experienced draftsman. Under Section 58 of the Act the magistrate has full jurisdiction to make inquiries into the circumstances of the case.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I had in mind something different, whether you should not have put in some such words as "is proved to be.""Where the mother is unable or likely to continue unable." You are assuming it as a fact. Should not the Bill provide that proof be given?

Mr. BRADY

I accept your suggestion.

Mr. BROWN

I think that is settled by the previous part of the section.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Otherwise I am afraid it might be taken advantage of.

Mr. BRADY

If I am allowed I would like to reply to Senator Mrs. Wyse Power. She began by telling us that since 1923 she has been urging some reform of this kind, and that she has made representations to the Minister. We are now well advanced in 1928, and nothing has been done. Surely that is a powerful reason for the passage of this little Bill. The Senator seems to be under the impression that it was mandatory on the District Justice to commit the child to an industrial school. It is nothing of the kind. It may well be, when the Justice has heard the case that he will adjourn it, as he has power to do, and have full inquiries made into the circumstances. That is what happened in the case I referred to, where Mr. Cussen gave a very elaborate judgment. He came to the conclusion that that was not a fit case in which to send the child to an industrial school. There was a very full investigation, after the adjournment, directed by the magistrate, and, as a result, he absolutely refused to send the child to the industrial school, saying that its welfare would be best served if it remained with the foster mother. That is very apt proof, and I think the Seanad will agree that there is no obligation on the District Justice to commit a child to an industrial school. If, after inquiry, he finds it is a case where the best interests of the child would be served by sending it to an industrial school he may do so without it being necessary to prove in court that the child was a beggar. Frankly, when at the last meeting of the Seanad Senator Mrs. Wyse Power indicated her intention of opposing the Bill I was alarmed, as I know, and the House knows, the very valuable services she gave on the Poor Law Commission. The Senator served on that Commission for two years, and the result of its work is the most valuable Report that has been published. That Report will involve legislation which would take both Houses the best part of a Session to deal with, and to suggest that it would be better to wait unless and until all the Acts of Parliament suggested in the Report were on the Statute Book rather than pass one little Bill like this seems to me—I would not like to use the word absurd—not to be in the best interests of the class proposed to be served by this Bill, the poor little waifs who have no one to look after them. The House would be well advised to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Might I say by way of explanation that since 1923 I have been pleading for this. The result of that pleading and other influences was the setting up of the Poor Law Commission. Surely while that Commission was sitting it could not be expected that anyone could introduce any Bill.

Mr. BRADY

It is open to do so now.

CATHAOIRLEACH

This clause covers all the provisions under which children might be admitted. There is provision that the magistrate is to be satisfied on the facts, but if you look at the other avenues, as Senator Mrs. Wyse Power has properly described them, they depend on a specific fact capable of proof in this Bill—that is a conviction for a crime and actually at the time in jail, associating with or living in immoral houses. You are tackling a case in which the proof is to be inability either now or in the future to support the child, and I think you should say "upon proof," or something like that.

Mr. BRADY

I accept that suggestion.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I will have to put the amendment.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Could it not be done on the Committee Stage?

CATHAOIRLEACH

If your object is to postpone consideration of the Bill until something else happens, now is the time to move.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I was going to suggest to Senator Mrs. Wyse Power that she should not move an amendment until the Fifth Stage, when it would be in order. I am rather hopeful that this could be considered in Committee. I think a request should come from Senator Brady to the Government, and if possible before the Bill comes on for the Fifth Stage we could get some idea from the Government as to the probability of legislation with regard to the Poor Law Commission's Report. I am very much impressed by what Senator Mrs. Wyse Power has said, and I feel sure that if there was any reasonable prospect of other legislation being carried out in a short time in a more satisfactory form we would all agree to the passing of this Bill. If, on the other hand, the Report is going to be a matter in which political considerations and other matters arise, with the postponement of legislation for two or three years, then I think we would favour the passing of this Bill in the meantime. I suggest that the amendment would be in order on the Fifth Stage.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

That is the reason I asked to have the matter postponed, so that the Minister or someone representing the Government would be here.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The amendment is withdrawn.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

For the present.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. GUINNESS

Although I am sure the House is sympathetic to the Bill, still if it is passed as it now stands is there not a fear and a possibility of the industrial schools being swamped with children?

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is what I am anxious to guard against.

Mr. GUINNESS

That being so, is it not necessary that the phraseology should be very carefully studied so that all cases should be proved before a magistrate? It seems that industrial schools are costing the State £115,000 yearly, so that the sum might be doubled or trebled if children that parents did not wish to keep were committed.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That point can be considered on Committee. You are not objecting to the principle of the Bill?

Mr. GUINNESS

Not at all.

Mr. BRADY

I anticipated the Senator's point by stating that industrial schools cannot receive a greater number of children than the certificate provides for.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That may be, but they may not be full. This may give an opportunity of filling them.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until June 20th, 1928.