This is a Bill the object of which is to make the fathers of illegitimate children liable for their support. It enables a District Justice, when proof has been given to him that a man is the father of an illegitimate child, to make an order that so much a week should be paid by the putative father for the support of the child. The amount which can be ordered is limited to £1 a week and the age at which such order must cease is sixteen. Deputies, no doubt, are aware that at present a father is not liable for the maintenance of his illegitimate child unless that child is being supported by the poor rate. In that case the guardians or other public body can take proceedings against the father of the child. That is the only remedy at present. If a woman has an illegitimate child she herself cannot compel the father to make any contribution towards the maintenance of that child. There is, of course, another remedy available in some cases, namely, an action for seduction, but such action cannot be brought by the woman and can only be brought by her father, or her employer if she be in employment. In the case of services lost to an employer the amount of damages is only nominal, but substantial damages can be given where the father of the girl is plaintiff. The Bill does not do away with the action for seduction, but enables proceedings to be brought by the woman in her own name for the support of an illegitimate child. I must draw the attention of the House to one or two very short provisions in the Bill. One is in sub-section (2) of Section 3, to the effect that no Justice of a District Court shall be satisfied that a person is the putative father of an illegitimate child without hearing the evidence of the mother of such child and also corroborative evidence. That is the law as it exists at present when proceedings are taken by a public body who are supporting such a child against the father. The evidence of the mother requires corroboration. I think that that is a wise precaution, because it would leave open a very wide door for blackmail and false proceedings if corroboration were not required. Further, not alone must the putative father pay for the support of the child until the age of sixteen, but in certain cases the District Justice has power to order him to pay an apprenticeship fee to enable the child to be taught a trade. That is under Section 6. I do not think that I need go into the details of the Bill at any further length. That is an outline of what the Bill endeavours to do, and I ask the House to accept it.
Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
We on this side of the House, like the Minister, recognise the necessity for a measure such as this. As the Minister pointed out, the Act of 1863 did not make provision to deal with this matter in a way that our experience in this country shows that it should. As to the other remedy to which the Minister refers, namely, a seduction action, we have often realised from experience that there are so many loopholes and so many defects in that Act it is quite possible that a good deal of hardship might result. The Minister is conversant with the decision in the case of Hamilton v. Long in which the father, subsequent to bringing an action for seduction, died, and the people in loco-parentis had no remedy. I have come across a number of such cases. I think that the Minister might bear in mind that legislation might be enacted for the purpose of providing for that aspect of the question. In other cases, such as Davies v. Williams, and Hedges v. Dagg, the girl was in the service of an employer at the time the seduction took place and the birth took place at her parents' home. In that case there is no action, and neither the father nor the employer could maintain an action. That demonstrates the futility to some extent of trying to secure, through legal means, redress for the unfortunate aggrieved party.
I would suggest, as the Minister has tackled this problem, he might also consider social evils that are not very far removed from this particular evil. I believe the Minister has or will have representations made to him from certain social workers or bodies like that. I have had communications from time to time in regard to that matter, and these social evils are not very far removed from this particular evil. I hope that legislation will be forthcoming to try to deal with them. As I say, we welcome the Bill. I have gone through the sections and I think it is a very simple measure. There may be some minor alterations necessary—one or two occur to me— on the Committee Stage, but the Bill as a whole is simple and it covers fully what is required.
I agree with the Minister in regard to Section 3, that corroborative evidence is necessary. That has been maintained in breach of promise cases and actions of that kind. It has always been necessary, and it should be necessary in such cases as this. Under the Act of 1863 the Minister will note, that although it does say that it is subject to the provisions in the court procedure, it also adds an additional clause that there is a right of appeal. I was wondering whether the Minister would consider whether there might be added to Section 16 a provision that there should obtain the right of appeal. Perhaps the Minister would consider whether there is anything in that point. I would imagine, taking the Act of 1863 as it is, that it would be better to follow on the lines of the provisions in that Act so that there may be no doubt about it and no trouble in court afterwards about it.
I want to say, on behalf of our Party, that we welcome this measure. We strongly approve of the general principle embodied in it, and our only complaint is that it has been too long delayed. It is an urgent social reform that has been asked for on many occasions. We can say, of course, that it is better late than never. I do not wish to discuss it from its legal aspect, but there is just one point I had in mind as an ordinary layman. I do not know much about it, but Deputy Ruttledge's references towards the matter increased the doubt I had in mind. Perhaps the Minister would give me some information on the point. Is there a right of appeal from the decision of the District Justice in cases of this kind? I took it for granted that there would be a right of appeal in this as in all other matters. I think if there is not that it is the kind of a case in which there should be a right of appeal. I think it is just possible that measures of the kind might be used, as the Minister himself admitted is possible, as a means of blackmail or fraudulent action in order to obtain money. The necessity for corroboration is, of course, a very valuable protection, but even with that, I would like to be sure as to whether or not there would be a right of appeal from the decision of the District Court. I think it is necessary for the protection of people who might be brought to court from motives of blackmail or fraudulent prosecution, that that right should be provided in the Bill. This is perhaps a matter that would be best discussed in Committee, but it is a point which occurred to me as a layman on reading the Bill. I assumed when Deputy Ruttledge raised the point that the right of appeal existed as a matter of course.
This Bill is a very comprehensive measure dealing with a difficult and delicate subject. Much complaint has been made on the ground of the inadequacy of the protection afforded to the unmarried mother. Many people will assist in passing the Bill who know little or nothing of the psychology of the mother in such cases. I have had some opportunity of studying these people in the course of my professional work in institutions where these people are treated, and I want to say that it appears to me that the male section of the population will require some protection under the terms of the Bill. The vast majority of these mothers are more sinned against than sinning, we will all agree, but there is little doubt that some of them would use the powers conferred by this Bill for the purposes of blackmail. Broadly speaking, the application for the affiliation order may be made under the Bill as it now stands, before the birth of the illegitimate child or within twelve months after the birth. Paragraph (b) sub-section (2) of Section (2), provides that the application can be made within twelve months after the birth. I am strongly of opinion that the Bill would be improved by the deletion of paragraph (b), sub-section (2) of Section 2. I will go further and say that it should not be possible to seek or obtain an affiliation order unless the application were made, say, three months before the birth of the child. It is an undoubted fact that these mothers have been known to try to blackmail in desperation, and many perfectly innocent men would settle out of court rather than face the ordeal of a trial. After the birth of the child the mother is an outcast to a certain extent, and she is in a desperate plight. Her disgrace has become public and her condition is such that it cannot become worse. People in such circumstances are liable to become the victims of unscrupulous schemers who have been known deliberately to select a victim. I believe that the Bill would be improved by the deletion of that paragraph. There is one other aspect of it that I would like to bring before the notice of the House and of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and that is, in cases where it is possible, marriage is the best solution. Marriage as a solution would be much more likely to be adopted if the order were sought three months before the birth. The influences which are used to unite the parties in matrimony are much more likely to succeed then than they are afterwards. I hope the Minister will take these few points into consideration on the Committee Stage of the Bill.
There are just a few points that I want to raise on this Bill. The first is that the Act of 1863 will be repealed if this Bill becomes an Act. I would like if the Minister would make clear what chance a public board would have, if an affiliation order is obtained, of obtaining expenses incurred if the expectant mother is kept in the institution a month or two before the birth of the child? Another point is whether these cases are heard in camera or not. As regards Section 3 (2), the Minister rightly spoke of the possibilities of blackmail. I think it would be advisable—and I think representations have been made to the Minister to that effect—to have a woman as assessor in court. I have great faith in the intuition of women in such cases as these. I do not believe it would entail any expense, as there are social workers who would be willing, I am sure, to provide a panel, from which panel the assessors could be drawn.
I could not agree with what Deputy Fahy has said at all. I think the duty of a judge is to hear a case and decide upon the evidence before him. To have one woman brought in to act as a species of judge is to me a very novel suggestion, and I do not think it is one that could be carried out at all in practice. As far as this question of blackmail is concerned, the only safeguard you can have against the bringing of a false action is first, that the woman herself must swear to the parentage of the child, and, secondly, she must be corroborated on some material point. She may swear and she may be corroborated in some material point, but it does not follow at all that she will be successful in the case. After all, the judges will have to weigh the evidence. They will hear both sides; they will hear the evidence for the defence. The present law as far as seduction is concerned requires no corroboration at all. I do not think that to any large extent actions of seduction have been used as a weapon for blackmail. I have no fear myself that this Act will be made a weapon of blackmail. I think it is very good to have these provisions in it, which, to my mind, make it almost impossible to be used for blackmail purposes. Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Ruttledge spoke upon the question of appeal. I take it that that means an appeal to the Circuit Judge. My view, as the Bill stands, is that an appeal would lie. If there is any doubt about it I would be willing to make that still more clear.