asked the Minister for Justice whether he is aware that Patrick Hagan, Tamlet, Monaghan, was sentenced in July, 1927, to three years' detention in Clonmel Borstal Institution; that after fourteen months' detention he was allowed out on licence to work for Mrs. McEnery, Mortlestown, Cahir, County Tipperary, at the rate of 5s. per week; whether he has been compelled to continue in this lady's employment at the reduced rate of 4s. per week; whether he will state the legal authority for Hagan's further detention after the expiration of this three years' sentence; and whether the Minister is aware that this boy could be employed at the rate of 36/- per week in his own native district.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Supervision of Borstal Boy.
Patrick Hagan, a native of Corby Rock, Tamlet, Co. Monaghan, was convicted at the Circuit Court sittings in Monaghan on the 27th July, 1928, of the larceny of the lock of a tabernacle and malicious destruction of a work of art in St. Macartan's Cathedral and sentenced to three years' detention in the Borstal Institution.
In accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, and on the recommendation of the Borstal Association, Hagan was discharged on licence under the supervision of the Borstal Association on the 10th May, 1930, and placed in the employment of Mr. F. McEnery, Mortlestown, Cahir, Co. Tipperary, on the latter undertaking to give him constant employment and keep him under friendly supervision. Mr. McEnery had informed the association that he would pay Hagan 5s. per week at the commencement of his employment in addition to providing him with board and lodging and this they considered satisfactory.
On the 14th September last, Hagan left Mr. McEnery's employment and took up employment with another local farmer on the same conditions. Some time later, he left this second employer without the knowledge of the Governor, the Borstal Association or my Department, and it is learned that he returned to his former employer who, while not requiring his services, agreed in the circumstances to take him back on a reduced scale of wages which Hagan was glad to accept.
Hagan's sentence of three years' detention expired on the 26th July, 1931. He has not been in detention since his release on licence on the 10th May, 1930.
There is no information to show that an offer of employment at 36s. per week was made by any person on Hagan's behalf at any time.
Would the Minister state if it would be in accordance with the licence to transfer this boy to his own parents or if, under the terms of the licence, the person in whose employment he is at present has power to license him out to anybody else in any part of the Saorstát?
The boy is under the supervision of the Borstal Association. The Borstal Association do not consider that it would be advisable for him to go back to Monaghan, nor does he himself want to go. He committed a certain crime there and he does not want to go back and face his neighbours. His parents evidently did not exercise much supervision over him. The Borstal Association is watching over his welfare.
Will the Minister state what is the objection, if any, to allowing this boy to return to his own parents and will he further state if representations have been made to his Department by the administrator of the parish that this boy may be returned to the supervision of his parents?
That is a question of which the Deputy has given me no notice. So far as I know, no such representations reached my Department. It is quite possible that they have, but so far as I know they have not.
If representations are made to the Minister's Department by the local clergy that it is desirable that this boy should be returned to assist in earning some money to support his disabled father—he is a one-armed man—will he favourably consider them?
That is a matter for the Borstal Association, who have to consider the future welfare of the boy. The boy's parents obviously did not look after him, and it is probably better for him to be where he is now under the supervision of the Association. What we have to look at is the future of the boy and the making of the boy a good citizen rather than the question of support of his parents.
Is the Minister aware that Mr. F. McEnery, to whom this boy is licensed, is the same age as the boy himself, that Mr. McEnery, senr., is long since deceased and that his widow is in charge of this boy? Does he consider that the retaining of this boy of 20 years of age at the rate of 4s. per week now that his sentence is expired is fair to his parents?
He is not retained. He is simply under supervision.
Is he free to return to his parents?
He is under the supervision of the Borstal Association for a year after the expiration of his term.
Can he not be returned to his parents?
Not if he is under supervision. He must do what he is told.
Could not the Borstal Association exercise supervision over this boy as well in Monaghan as in Tipperary? Could he not be supervised by the local clergy and the Guards?
The Association consider that it is not advisable that he should go to Monaghan, and the boy does not wish to go.