Children Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend existing legislation dealing with reformatories and industrial schools. In 1936 a commission of inquiry, which was set up to deal with the reformatory and industrial school system, reported and made certain recommendations which included proposals for the amendment of the law regarding the care and protection of children. Experience of the administration of the industrial and reformatory school system has also shown amendment of the Children Act in certain respects to be desirable and this Bill provides for such amendment. The provisions are explained fairly fully in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated.

The most important amendments, I think, are those relating to the grounds for committal to industrial schools. These are laid down in Section 58 of the original Act and it is proposed to make certain amendments to that section. For example, in clause (b) of the Children Act, 1908, where the ground for committal is laid down as "is found wandering and not having any home or settled place of abode, or visible means of subsistence, or is found wandering and having no parent or guardian, or a parent or guardian who does not exercise proper guardianship," it is proposed to delete the two words "wandering and" in both places where these words occur. The position is that there is no legal definition of the word "wandering" in the Principal Act, and I am advised that in actual practice the provisions of clause (b) of Section 58 are interpreted as if the word had no material effect in the context. It is therefore proposed that the other circumstances mentioned in the clause, apart from wandering, should be regarded as sufficient for the court to commit a child to an industrial school.

With regard to clause (c) in the section, which is mentioned on page 1 of the memorandum, where the child "is found destitute, not being an orphan and having both parents or his surviving parent, or in the case of an illegitimate child his mother, undergoing penal servitude or imprisonment," a case has actually arisen where a parent, in prison for a rather serious offence, refused his consent that the child might be committed under the Children Act, 1929, which governs the committal of children against whom no offence has been charged but who are found in a state of destitution.

Under that Act the consent of the parents is necessary, but we have had this case where the father, although in prison, refused to give his consent. In any event, quite apart from such cases, I feel that the court ought to have discretion where not both but one of the parents is either in penal servitude or in prison. The court in such a case should have discretion to consider whether in the child's best interests he or she should not be committed to an industrial school.

The next provision in the Principal Act reads: (d) "is under the care of a parent or guardian who, by reason of criminal or drunken habits, is unfit to have the care of the child." Cases have arisen where it has not been possible to deal with children satisfactorily under the provisions of Section 58 of the Principal Act and neither has the coúrt had that discretion under the Act of 1929 to commit the children by reason of the fact that, although it felt that in the child's best interests committal was necessary, the consent of one or other of the parents was not forthcoming. It has been represented to me that an endeavour should be made to give the court more discretion to deal with such cases. While I do not think it advisable to recommend an amendment of the 1929 Act which might appear drastic, an amendment involving the question of the consent of the parents, I feel, even if there is a relatively small number of cases, and these cases may be very exceptional or they may be border-line cases, that so long as there is even that small number of cases where it would be in the child's best interests that the court should have discretion to consider whether he or she might or might not be committed, the best course is to endeavour to increase as far as possible the reasonable discretion of the court. I am proposing to delete the words "by reason of criminal or drunken habits", though I admit frankly that I feel some further amendment of the clause will be necessary and that as it is at present set out in the Bill it may not command the assent of the House.

With regard to the amendments affecting committals to reformatory and industrial schools, there are a number dealing with the age of committal. The House will have seen in the explanatory memorandum that the proposals in the Bill involve increasing the age where a young offender may be committed to a reformatory school from 16 to 17 years. The definition of a young person formerly was from 12 to 16 years. We are now proposing to alter it to read from 12 to 17 years. This is following on the lines of legislation elsewhere. In the case of committal to industrial schools, we are making no change in the age for committal. A good many people feel that there should be discretion given to the courts to commit children to industrial schools even above the age of 14 years. I have not found, however, after an examination of this matter, that those who are in the best position from practical experience to speak on these questions feel that that is the best solution.

It is felt that after the age of 14 years boys in particular undergo certain changes in character and development, and that they present a somewhat different problem to that of boys under 14 years of age.

I should have explained to the House that we are changing the period of detention which ends at the age of 16 years in the case of industrial school committals. A boy at present may be put into an industrial school up to 14. After 14 he is sent to a reformatory or dealt with in some other way. I am informed, as I have said, by those who are best in a position to judge, and who have most experience of the actual handling of young people of that age who have been committed, that after the age of 14 years conditions, sociological or otherwise, make the treatment of young people over 14, different from the treatment of those under that age. We are, therefore, taking special powers to continue the detention of such children until they are 17, but only with the consent of the parent or guardian, where it would appear that the child would benefit substantially by giving him a special educational training, by sending him, for example, to a secondary or a vocational school.

With regard to the period of detention, we are reducing this in the case of the reformatory schools, from three to five years to two to four years. It is felt that at present justices who might feel that it was in the child's best interest to be placed under the care of one of the religious orders who have the management of these schools, might have a certain reluctance in committing a young offender for such a lengthy period. Experience seems to indicate that the shorter period of from two to four years may be more satisfactory and may work out to greater advantage.

There is then the important question of after-care supervision. At present, a child or young person may be released on licence by the manager or conditionally released by the Minister. In certain cases the manager has power to bring him back again to the school if the conditions on which he was granted release or the terms of the licence are not fulfilled but, in order to do this, he has to be brought formally before a court. I feel that this procedure is unnecessary, and that it should be sufficient, when the licence is revoked, and when it is clear to the manager or the Minister that the conditions attaching to it are not fulfilled, that the Gárda should be empowered to bring the child or young person back to the school from which he was licensed or conditionally released.

Professor O'Sullivan

Does the Minister mean that that can happen on the initiative of the Gárdaí?

Mr. Derrig

No, on a communication from the Office of Education, or the manager. It is proposed, in order to make this position water-tight from the legal point of view, that in all cases where young persons are released before the completion of the period of detention, the manager should be compelled to issue a licence. When the manager issues a licence formally, which he does not always do at present, he will have full legal rights to see that if the terms of the licence are not fulfilled, the young person can be brought back. The legal authority of the manager to remove any such person from a place of employment or from unsuitable conditions ceases at the age of 18 at present. It is proposed to extend the period of after-care supervision. In the case of industrial schools, in special cases at the Minister's discretion, where he considers it advisable having considered the circumstances of the particular case, the after-care supervision of the young person released may be increased from the age of 18 up to the age of 21 years. In the case of young offenders committed to reformatory schools, the after-care supervision period at present extends only to 19 years. It is considered that this period should be extended. If the Minister considers, after consultation with the manager, that it is necessary for the protection and welfare of the young offender that the period of his supervision should be extended, it may be so extended for a period not exceeding two years, that is to say, two years after the time he has reached the age of 19.

Mr. Everett

If he has married in the meantime, what happens?

Mr. Derrig

That is a position to which we have not adverted in the Bill. At any rate, where the Minister, in consultation with the manager, as in the case of the industrial school people, considers that the reformatory school boy requires further supervision, the period may be extended from the present age of 19 to the age of 21.

The 1929 Act, which dealt with cases of destitution, and which provided that, subject to the consent of the parents to the committal order, children might be committed on the ground of destitution, is being embodied in the present Bill. There are certain small amendments. As in the 1929 Act, the consent of the parent or parents must be obtained, but in case their consent cannot be obtained, or even if their whereabouts are not known, provision is being made that they may object within 14 days; and, if objection is not being made, the court will have discretion to consider committing the children. Cases may arise where possibly the parent or parents cannot be found.

I understand that the actual position at present is that, in order to give consent, it is not absolutely necessary that the parents should present themselves in court. For example, if the parent is out of the country, an affidavit of the parent may be accepted by the court. But, we feel that to cover these exceptional and border-line cases as far as possible, some amendment of the 1929 Act may be necessary, and we have put in this provision for the consideration of the House providing that, when the whereabouts of the parents are not known, they should be given an opportunity of making their objection felt within a certain period, before which time the court could not take action.

Professor O'Sullivan

If the whereabouts of the parents are not known, how can they within 14 days, or whatever the time is, know that they are to make an objection?

Mr. Derrig

It is a matter that we shall have to go into more fully on the Committee Stage. As the provision stands at present at any rate, we have put it in to cover certain cases in accordance with the recommendations made by the commission:

"(ii) notice of the proposal to make such order having been given to the child's parents, surviving parent or, in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother, such parents, parent, or mother fail or fails to object to the making of such order within 14 days from the giving of such notice, or,

(iii) the Court is satisfied that the child's parents, surviving parent, or, in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother, cannot be found...."

Our object is, in cases of difficulty in connection with destitution, to give the court somewhat more discretion without appearing to interfere with the fundamental principle that in those cases of destitution the consent of the parents must be obtained. We are continuing, of course, the proviso that, where a child is being committed on grounds of destitution solely, the court being satisfied that the parents are not in a position to maintain or support the child, as soon as that condition no longer obtains, and the Minister is satisfied that the parents are in a position to maintain the child, he forthwith arranges for the discharge of that child.

There are certain provisions dealing with the payments made by local authorities. Under Section 19, the Minister may make regulations prescribing the payments to be made by local authorities to managers of industrial schools. Provision is also made that the local authority must comply with the regulations; that, if money is due, it can be recovered in the usual way as a contract debt, and that regulations made by the Minister, which must have the approval of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government, must be laid on the table of each House.

The reason for these provisions is that it seems to have been intended by law that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of young persons in industrial schools should be placed upon local authorities. I think the 1908 Act makes it clear that the duty of maintenance is imposed on them and that the onus is placed upon them in the first instance. Although for a very long period prior to that the State had been paying grants and contributions towards the maintenance of those institutions, or capitation grants, nevertheless it was clearly the intention that the onus for the maintenance of the children should be placed primarily on the local authorities.

When, after the last great war, the Treasury increased the basic State allowance from 5/- to 7/6 per head, it was on the understanding that the local authorities should make a similar contribution. The position, however, is that the average contribution from local authorities is only 4/10. There is no uniformity. I notice in one case that the local authority is paying such a small amount as 2/6 per week per child, while in other cases local authorities are much more generous. There is a wide discrepancy and there is the fact that in no case is the original intention of the law, that the local authority should contribute at least as much as the State, being fulfilled. We have found it necessary to insert this provision in the interests of the schools, who, at the present time particularly, are passing through a rather difficult period, as they have very heavy expenses and their costs and charges are increasing with the war situation. Quite apart from that, even if there had been no war situation, it was our intention, and was recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into the industrial school system, that steps should be taken to clarify this matter. Accordingly, we have inserted this provision, that the Minister, with the consent of the other two Ministers, may make regulations. He has a certain amount of discretion, but, when the regulations are made, the House will have the opportunity, if it so wishes, of discussing them.

In that connection, there is a question which is dealt with in Section 18 of determining the place of residence of the youthful offender or child committed to an industrial school. As the law stands, it appears that county boroughs feel that they are suffering a certain disability in this matter. At present the responsibility for contributing to the support of a child or young person in a certain school is placed on the local authority of the place where the committal takes place, unless it is proved that the child resided elsewhere.

The Commission expressed the view that the present arrangement was unfair to the county boroughs, and the purpose of the section is to remedy this as far as possible and to impose the responsibility on the local authority of the place where the child or the child's parents resided, if this can be ascertained. If no definite place can be assigned by the court as the place of residence of the child's parents or the child itself during the 12 months prior to the commission of the offence, the position will be that the court will have discretion to consider that the place where the offence is committed is the place of residence of the child, and for the purposes of the contribution from local authorities in that case the local authority of that place will be responsible. The Minister, under Section 3, may also make regulations for the conduct of certified schools, and the section provides that it shall be the manager's duty to comply with these regulations.

Finally, under Section 5, the prior consent of the Minister is required in future for the appointment of managers of certified schools. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the commission. I think that these are the chief points, Sir. I regret that the Bill has had to appear in its present form. Only one portion— Part IV—of the Children Act of 1908 concerns me. That is the portion dealing with the industrial and reformatory schools, and if this Bill is not considered complete I hope the House will take into consideration the fact that other Departments as well as the Department of Education are concerned in this question of juvenile offenders. The whole question, for example, of children's courts is outside my province, and in this Bill, therefore, I have had to follow closely and only seek to amend or extend those provisions which seemed to deal specifically with reformatory or industrial schools. I am not attempting to carry out any fundamental alteration in the law. The amendments are technical and I am hopeful that, in the discussions which may take place in the House, probably amendments will be made which will improve the Bill.

Professor O'Sullivan

I do not intend to say much on this Bill at this stage. I think the Minister himself more or less indicated that it was a matter for discussion on Committee. There is one point, particularly, that interests me and to which I should like to direct the attention of the House and of the Minister. I do not think I am incorrect in saying that this Bill is an attempt to tighten up the law, and, so far, we might approve of it without any hesitation, but it seems to me an attempt to tighten up the law, almost in every case, against the rights of parents, and that is what I do not like about certain provisions in this Bill. The Minister himself spoke of exceptional cases. He spoke of border line cases. I think that more than once he used those expressions.

Now, I put it to him that it is not wise further to restrict the fundamental rights of the parent, which I was under the impression was one of the things that still remained guaranteed by the Constitution. I doubt if it is wise further to restrict the rights of the parents and give a court, or anybody, further power to interfere with these rights. Consequently, I leave aside how far our legislation now conflicts with our present Constitution and the principles solemnly laid down there so far as the rights of the parents in educational matters are concerned; but when it is a question of taking a child out of the control of the parents, its natural guardians, I think the onus is altogether on the shoulders of those who try to do that, and I think no such vague and general words should appear in a Bill of this kind as appear in Section 9 (c) "for any reason". In other words, what you are doing is taking discretion away from the parents and putting it in the power of a district justice—I do not care whether he is a district justice or the Chief Justice—for a reason that he thinks fit—not that this House thinks fit, but that he thinks fit—to deprive the natural guardians of the child of their rights and their duties.

Now, I question very much the wisdom of the adoption of a policy of that kind in order to meet a few exceptional cases. I think that, in a matter of this kind, the first consideration ought to be—and I thought that we had, if not guaranteed it, at least expressed a pious opinion to that effect in the Constitution—apart from any provision of the Constitution, that there is no undue interference with the rights of the family, and that if it is found necessary to interfere with them, then it will be done on stated grounds, and not have the carte blanche that is given here to a judge to determine it according as suits his fancy. There is nothing to guide him here as to taking the child away from its parents and sending it to somebody else, however excellent these other people may be. All this is not to deal with the great mass of cases of this kind that the courts have to deal with, or that the Department has to deal with, but in order to make the law water-tight and cover the few exceptional cases that now escape. I doubt the wisdom of that policy, and I would ask the Minister, between this and the Committee Stage, to think, not of how he will further tighten up the Bill, but rather to think of the rights of the parents with which this Bill may unduly interfere.

Now the Minister spoke as if there was one case that could be produced. Well, that is the spirit of the Bill. I do not think that a fundamental principle—it is more even than a fundamental principle of State policy— should be lightly set aside or, if not set aside, at least endangered, merely because there are a few exceptional cases. Furthermore, there is a case here to which it might be well to draw attention. Let us take the case of a widowed father. It very often happens in the case of a father who is a widower that he appeals to the court and asks the court to commit his child to an industrial school, owing to his being a widower and no longer in a position to look after the child. I think it should be definitely laid down in such a case that it is the right of that parent—at least for one occasion —to get that child out of the school if he asks for the child to be let out, and that the Minister should be compelled to release the child if the father demands it. I admit that a case could be made that, by making frivolous demands, a person might almost adopt a kind of cat-and-mouse system, but at least for the first occasion the parent should be entitled to get the child sent back. He put that child in the school in circumstances that he thought—not that the Minister or the court thought, but in circumstances that he, as the natural guardian of the child, its parent, thought—were proper and he demanded or asked the court to come to his assistance and see that the child was taken care of in an industrial school. He was acting in the best interests of the child, as he thought. Perhaps circumstances change, and anyhow he makes up his mind to get that child back, and I hold that he is entitled to get it back. It may be difficult. If he again applied for the child's committal then I submit he has shown his personal mind in the matter and that that position can be covered. It should not lie with a judge, with a Minister or with a head of a Department to say whether or not a parent could exercise the right to get back a particular child.

I notice that the provision still remains that the Minister may release a child. I hold in that case that he ought to release the child. That is a matter really in the right of a parent. In the existing Act, as far as I remember, it is not insisted upon that the Minister must not do it, but it is sound policy that the Minister should do it. If we are passing legislation I would rather see that principle acknowledged in it than a provision which is turned against the right of the parent in the present Bill. There are certain things in the Bill that I confess I am not clear about, and that the Minister, perhaps, would be good enough to clarify when concluding.

There is the period of supervision after a child leaves an industrial school. That can be continued. What is the sanction for that? Remember that 21 years is rather an advanced age at which to treat a person as a child. It seems a long time to keep a young man in leading strings. If necessary, you can increase the age to 21. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten the House as to what supervision consists of. What is the sanction if a child, or those into whose employment he goes, do not fulfil the conditions? Can the child be brought back? Can anything be done? What is there to make the supervision effective? The Minister should clarify the position when replying.

If I may put it to the Minister, and I speak merely my personal opinion, there is too much of a tendency to bring the court in where the parent ought to be sufficient. Even where there is an instance of conditions not being fulfilled, there was at least some kind of safeguard—not the kind of safeguard I would like—that the courts had to be consulted. Now, the Minister, presumably on the advice of the Guards, can bring a person back into custody. I confess I do not like to have people sitting in judgment there. I admit that their knowledge and evidence may be more profound than mine, but my personal opinion is that there is too much of a tendency to encroach upon what ought to be practically the inviolable rights of parents, and that good reasons should be given for that encroachment. I feel more than ever at present that all the tendency in legislation goes in that direction. My views may be somewhat out-of-date on this particular matter, but I wish the Minister would give some consideration to the points raised. That was my purpose in intervening in this debate.

Mr. Hurley

It will be recalled that in 1934 a commission was set up to inquire into the industrial and reformatory schools system, being known as the Cussen Commission. It issued its report almost five years ago, and in this Bill we have legislation to give effect to some of the recommendations made. While the Bill purports to do that, it completely ignores some of the more valuable recommendations. Some of these recommendations proposed that the arrangement which obtains in Dublin for the housing of children's courts separately from ordinary courts should be adopted where possible throughout the country, but the out-of-date system of bringing children into the District Courts remains in the Bill, except for Dublin. The important suggestion that the term committal orders should be abolished remains. That term savours of the criminal courts. The very important proposal, that the titles "reformatory school" and "industrial school" should be abolished remains a recommendation. There is no reason for such an archaic and obsolete term. Some alternative names should be provided in the Bill.

Another recommendation was that each school should have a medical attendant paid on a school capitation basis at a rate prescribed by the Minister. There is an attempt to implement that recommendation by legislation. The practical proposal, that primary teachers in the schools should have the same general training and qualifications in Irish as teachers in national schools, is not included in the Bill. It does not move along the lines laid down for ordinary national school teachers, whose academic and Irish qualifications are examined. The old happy-go-lucky system is still to obtain in industrial schools. I am sorry the Minister does not see his way to implement another important matter, and that is to put the teachers in these schools who have qualifications—and there are teachers in the industrial schools with very high qualifications—on a proper basis. The conditions of service of lay teachers in these schools call for substantial improvement. That was recommended five years ago by the Cussen Commission, and to-day we were told in a reply to a Parliamentary Question that the Minister cannot now see his way to implement that very important recommendation. The teachers in these schools, many of whom are very highly qualified, are wretchedly underpaid. That condition is still to remain, although I understand that the Minister has in his department all the necessary information in regard to implementing it, but it is a question of finance. It is rather paradoxical to talk like that when we have been talking in millions, for the last couple of weeks, for other things. This is a matter, the Minister informed me to-day, of £20,000. That cannot be found in order to see that these teachers have proper remuneration and, incidentally, that the children will be provided with the very best teachers—a thing to which they are entitled.

There were other very important recommendations made by the Cussen Commission, and all these have been ignored and left entirely untouched in this Bill. From a casual glance, it might be said that it does go some distance to improve the present conditions in these schools, but in some respects the improvements effected by the Bill are far from satisfactory. Take for instance the payments made. These payments have been unsatisfactory, in as much as they are inadequate in most cases. It is recognised that, in certain instances, managers of schools refuse to accept juveniles committed, because the allowance paid is inadequate.

The Bill enables the Minister to remedy this defect by fixing a minimum that the local authority has to provide, but there is no provision, either by the local authority or by the State, for the upkeep of the buildings and, in many cases, the result is that the conditions of the buildings are wretched. No provision is made for upkeep, heating, sanitation or cleaning, so that the position is very unsatisfactory.

Another point, which is of considerable importance and which is not dealt with in the Bill, is that the first payment for the child, I understand, is not made until the boy or girl is six months in the school. That means that payments are from three to six months behind time. The school, of course, has to bear the burden in the meantime. The amount, as anybody with a knowledge of these things understands, is very inadequate. Besides that, this system of deferred payments causes great hardships to the managers of the schools.

There are other very important omissions in the Bill, and there are things put into it which are objectionable. I cannot understand this idea of licensing. The child will be licensed by the manager and allowed out on a kind of ticket-of-leave system. I strongly object to that kind of legislation for children. Many of these children are in these schools because their parents were destitute or dead. Professor O'Sullivan has cited one case. Many of these children have characters which are above reproach. This system of licensing or ticket-of-leave will, I am afraid, have a very bad psychological and moral effect on our children.

Reference was made to supervision. I should like to ask the Minister if there is any way in which this supervision could be carried out. The net result will be that nobody will bother with the child once it comes out, as there will be no further payment or grant from any source, unless there is somebody definitely charged with the responsibility of supervising these children when they leave. There is very great need for supervision. Very often these children are exploited by unscrupulous employers. Though there is need for supervision, no provision is made for it beyond a pious wish in the Bill. I should like the Minister to elaborate on that point in his reply and to let us know exactly what he means and what his intentions are.

The Minister made a point that the reason he did not touch the suggestion about children's courts, and so on, was that it concerned some other Department and that he was dealing only with his own Department. At the same time, he brings in this idea of licensing and empowers the courts to bring children back to the schools and have them detained there again. If that is the reason for ignoring the point about children's courts and other recommendations, I cannot see how it is that he can bring this into it, as that is also part and parcel of the very machinery for dealing with these children.

Then there is the point that the manager of the school has to issue a licence. He is compelled now to issue a licence to the child, in order to safeguard the legal position, I take it, as far as bringing the child back to the school is concerned. I wish to say emphatically that I strongly object to that system. I do not know what would be the proportion of children in industrial schools through the rotten social system under which we are living, but I am sure a very big proportion of those children would come under that category, being there because their parents are destitute or dead. It is no reproach to their character but, under this Bill, those children will be licensed and a ticket of leave be given to each child on leaving. I mention these points so that the Minsiter may look into them and may answer with amendments. I may take the opportunity myself to put in amendments on the Committee Stage, in an effort to improve what I consider is a very bad mess of things in this country.

Mr. Benson

It appears to me that some form of tribute is due to the framers of the 1908 Act. After 32 years in operation, the Minister only finds it necessary to amend that Act in these few particulars. I take it we consider that, in the 32 years, we have advanced somewhat in social science, and I think it must be a tribute to the framers of that Act that they were some years ahead of their time, whoever they may be.

This is an extremely difficult Bill to understand because of all the amending and references. At the same time, there are one or two points to be considered. There is, of course, the question as to whether in actual fact this Bill is improving the 1908 Act or not. Professor O'Sullivan mentioned one point, and Deputy Hurley referred to another. In regard to Deputy Hurley's point it appears to me that this may be a retrograde step. This Section 13 (c) makes the licensing compulsory, instead of permissive, as it was before. That objection by Deputy Hurley probably would be met by leaving it in its original form. The manager would then confine his licences to those most requiring after-supervision and probably he would be interested in those particular children and would see that that supervision was carried out effectively, whereas under a compulsory licensing scheme, it is possible that the demands in supervision would be so great that they could not be carried out effectively.

Section 10 of the Bill sets out to amend Section 65 of the Principal Act by reducing the terms three and five years to two and four. There is another section of the Act of 1908— Section 84—which also determines the periods but, in that case, it deals with children who have been conditionally pardoned. I take it, therefore, that in that case the Minister does not consider that there is any necessity to alter the periods.

There appears to be a slight discrepancy between the explanatory memorandum and the Bill. About half way down page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, in referring to Section 9 of the Bill, it says:

"It is proposed to amend paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Principal Act in the manner shown in Section 9, paragraphs (b) and (c)..."

which it says "do not necessitate parental consent". Yet, if one looks at paragraph (b) of Section 9 one finds that the purpose of that paragraph is this: to delete the words "his surviving parent, or in the case of an illegitimate child his mother" and substitute the words "one of his parents". According to the memorandum, this is one of the sections that does not need parental consent. It may be that I have got the thing entirely wrong, and perhaps between now and Committee Stage the Minister would look into it and see whether there is a conflict between what he intends to do and what is in the Bill or in the memorandum. I welcome Section 18 from the point of view of the City of Dublin. As far as Section 19 is concerned, I think the Minister might consider whether he should not have some restriction placed on his generosity when dealing with other people's money. I suppose no Minister ever did anything wrong, and perhaps I ought to have said that he should consider restricting his successor's generosity. Under sub-section (1) of Section 19, the Minister may make regulations, but there seems to be no necessary relation between the amount which he may mention in those regulations and the amount which, in fact, it may cost to keep a child in a certified school, with the result that the local authority may be paying considerably more than it really ought to. These are the only points I wish to raise, and perhaps the Minister will look into them between now and the next stage.

Mr. Everett

On Section 19, I desire to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, he is proposing to take certain powers which they have at present out of the hands of public bodies appointed under the Local Government Act. He is reserving to himself the sole right to say what contribution a public body should make for the maintenance of a child in one of these schools. The present allowance payable by a public body for a boy sent to a certified school is 5/-, plus 7/6 from the Minister's Department, making a total of 12/6 a week. That is much more than the Government allow for the maintenance of a widow and orphans, or of the unemployed father of a family in the rural areas. This 12/6 a week is payable in respect of a child in the charge of a community. These communities make their purchases in bulk. This 12/6 is 2/- a week higher than the sum allowed for the maintenance of patients in up-to-date hospitals. The Minister is now seeking power to increase the 12/6 by another half-crown, thereby making the weekly payment 15/-. While the Minister is doing that, he voted to prevent widows receiving more than 10/- a week to maintain themselves and perhaps five or six children in a rural area, and all the Government allow to an unemployed man is 8/- a week to maintain himself and five or six children in a rural area.

If the Minister wants to be consistent, then I suggest to him he should do something to improve the allowances payable to the unemployed father of a family and to widows and orphans in rural areas. In this Bill he is not showing much consideration for public bodies. He is taking power to compel them, regardless of the state of their finances and the difficulty they experience in getting in their rates, to increase the allowances for children in these certified schools. Some more consideration should, I suggest, be shown towards the poor people in the rural areas who will have to contribute their share in the rates towards the payment of this 15/- a week for each child in one of these schools. I will oppose the Bill as long as that section is in it. We have too much dictation, I think, in a number of the Bills that are being introduced by the Government at the present time. I, for one, will oppose the Minister getting further dictatorial power over our public bodies.

Mr. A. Byrne

I see nothing to enthuse about in this Bill. If the measure is to be taken as representing the Minister's efforts, I must say that I am thoroughly disappointed with it. With the report of the Cussen Commission in his hands, one would have thought that he would have brought forward a measure containing some of its good points. To my mind this Bill is all against the juvenile offender. There is not a word in it about the parents' rights. Children may be taken from their parents because they have committed what the parents may think were trifling offences. Yet, the Bill gives no right to parents to appeal to the Minister over the heads of those who have ordered the children to be removed from their control. In my opinion there should be the right of appeal from the decision of a justice. There are many parents in this city of the opinion that their children have been unjustly sent to industrial schools. If the Minister were to investigate some of the cases decided during the last 12 months or two years he would, I think, take steps to have the sentences passed reviewed.

What disappoints me about the industrial school system is this, that there seems to be no intermediate stage between the sending of a child for five or six years to an industrial school and of allowing the child to remain at home. In Glasgow, and in all parts of America, there is a home to which a child offender may be taken for a month or two. Again, in Glasgow children are not taken to a police station. They are brought before a lay committee, the members of which do their best to discover the faults of the child, and apply a remedy. There a very distinguished order of nuns have a home for such children, who attend it voluntarily. Medical experts and others with a good knowledge of children do their best to find out what has led the child to commit some offence, and then seek to apply a remedy without sending the child to an industrial school for such a long period of seven years. Would it not be possible to have something on these lines here: that for a month or two a close watch would be kept on a child and a remedy sought for whatever fault it has committed, the child all the while being left under the parents' control?

What I think we really want here is the provision of more probation officers. In other countries the probation officer visits the child's home, and, in some, cases, doctors make recommendations. The probation officer keeps an eye on the juvenile offender, and reports on his conduct over a period of 12 months or so. It very frequently happens that the doctor reports that a juvenile offender, as a result of the care exercised over him has turned out to be one of the best children in the district.

If it were not for that system in Glasgow and America, that child might spend five years in an industrial school. I hold that if a child goes wrong, the first or second offence should not be a reason for taking him from his parents and putting him into an industrial school, no matter how good that school may be. I want to say that most of them are exceptionally good and have done splendid work, and I do not wish anyone to think that I am unduly or unfairly criticising the industrial schools. What I want here in this city is a medium—something different from the system of the industrial school, to which a child must go for a first offence.

I do not think that, especially in school attendance cases, it ought to be the right of any justice in this city to take a child from the parents, especially when members of the House have experience of parents coming to them and appealing to them to get their cases re-heard and stating that the mother is breaking her heart, the father is discontented, and the home is broken up. We have all heard these statements made and, in some cases, with justification. I think the best remedy would be more probation officers and a voluntary committee to look after children. I do not think that it was ever right to bring children of tender years into a police court and there to threaten them and to play on their fears of police-court surroundings. We ought to copy the system in operation in those places, which I have visited, in Glasgow and New York and not the old system of industrial schools, reformatories and borstal institutions.

Mr. Murphy

I consider the problem with which this Bill is supposed to deal a very important problem, and I should have thought that a measure of this kind could best be dealt with by a select committee of the House, with power to call in whatever authorities it wished—and there are many authorities in the country—to assist in dealing with it. Like Deputies who have already spoken, I dislike the practice of committing children to industrial schools, but in saying that, I want to make it clear that I am making no reflection whatever on the management or on the persons connected with the control of industrial schools. I say they do their best in the circumstances, but, from the very beginning, the children in many instances are under a tremendous disadvantage, and that disadvantage is very manifest in a number of cases when they leave these schools.

I am speaking now of children who may be in an industrial school because one of the parents is dead, because they have been deserted in one way or another, or because of some minor offence, but I refer particularly to the first class, children who are sent there because one of the parents is dead and the other is unable to support them, or because both parents are dead. Children in that position leave the industrial schools with a very definite disadvantage, with, as it were, some particular brand or stigma which has been the source of the failure of a good many boys who have turned out badly —not, I think, through any particular fault of theirs, or any inherent defect in their characters, but because, from the very start, they labour under that very serious disadvantage.

I want to speak particularly of the section of the Bill which purports to provide some after-care and supervision for children leaving industrial schools. I do not see any provision of that kind in the Bill because there is no attempt to provide the money necessary for that work. It is most important, and if the system can be altered or improved in any way, I think that some definite steps in that direction must be taken. I have seen a number of boys who left industrial schools appearing before courts of referees seeking unemployment assistance. To anyone who wanted to realise facts, their condition was in many cases pitiable. They were wretched-looking, ill-clad and, in many cases, hungry-looking, and it would be a very hard heart that would not be moved by their condition. I have questioned some of them and have heard a number of them questioned by others, and I ascertained that they were getting no wages whatever, that they were being employed to do certain work by their employers, that they were badly fed, badly treated, badly housed and bore in their countenances clear and unmistakable evidence of the fact that they were neglected and were nobody's children.

I grant that in many cases—and I have brought cases of the kind to the notice of the authorities in industrial schools—every attempt was made to do something for them. Every attempt was made, in the first instance, to place them properly, but in many parts of the country that is very difficult. There are quite a number of people who are always willing to take boys, particularly, from industrial schools, to exploit them for whatever they can get out of them and to turn them adrift afterwards, that afterwards often leading to their ultimate failure as citizens. It is a particularly sad story, and I think that any measure which purports to deal with this problem and which omits that essential of after-care and supervision in the years when children have left the industrial schools, is simply avoiding the most important part of the problem.

There are certain other objectionable terms employed in the Bill. There is the term "licence" and the provision which asks a district justice to have regard to a child's antecedents and to the possibility of a child having an inherent tendency to crime or developing such a tendency at a later stage because of some hereditary defect. I think that is all wrong, and I agree with other speakers who said that if there have been failures of children from industrial schools, if such children have turned to crime in some cases and have found themselves in the grip of the law at a later stage of their lives, to a very large extent they are more sinned against than sinning because, from the very beginning, everything has been against them. Their services have been obtained for very little; they are known in every district as boys who have come out of an industrial school; and, in that way, the stigma which, in another generation, attached to the poorhouse and the union and which left in our vocabulary that ugly word "pauper", is associated with them.

This whole matter should be dealt with along lines of humane and considered treatment, and I think that there are sufficient people in the country, in the Church and in other walks of life, who could usefully contribute suggestions and an ultimate solution of what is a very serious, a very important and a very human problem indeed. I should like to see the number of children sent to industrial schools limited as much as possible, and I should also like to see some kind of wide extension of the system of boarding-out children whereby they could be taken into certain homes, the conditions in which would be ascertained, and in which they could be given some kind of home-life. That is the great disadvantage and difficulty with which children of industrial schools commence.

This Bill is a miserable contribution to the solution of a very big problem. It does not give effect to a number of recommendations made by a Commission which sat five years ago. This Commission has had the same fate as most Commissions, and we have had a large number of them in the last 20 years. The Bill deals only with the fringe of the problem here and there. Some of its provisions may effect improvement but the improvements will be small. Running right through it is the stigma that marks out the industrial-school child as a member of a class apart in the community. You find that in the definition of "licence". That is a particularly sad business and, like Deputy Byrne, I see little in the Bill about which I can become enthusiastic. The contribution of the Bill to the solution of the problem with which it purports to deal is small and insignificant.

Dr. Hannigan

This Bill is a step in the right direction because there can be no doubting the value of the industrial school as a unit in our social and educational scheme. At the same time, there has been a certain feeling about this matter in the City of Dublin —I think it was this feeling which Deputy Byrne had in the forefront of his mind when he was addressing himself to the Bill. The feeling I refer to was general in this city—that, in the past, children had been committed too readily and on too slender pretexts to industrial schools and similar institutions. I have heard it said by responsible people at meetings of public bodies in this city that children were very often committed to these institutions not so much because it was felt that it was in their own interest to commit them, but because it was very good for the institutions in question.

There are serious defects in this Bill —notably those referred to by Deputy Hurley and Deputy O'Sullivan. One aspect of the matter strikes me as very serious, that is, that in some of these schools the teachers have not got the recognised technical qualifications and experience to deal with children of school-going age. It must be perfectly clear that children of the type committed to reformatory or industrial schools will be somewhat more difficult to deal with than the average school-going child. Consequently, there is all the more reason why teachers engaged in such work should be more expert, better trained, and if possible, better qualified, than the average teacher.

I gathered from the remarks made here this evening that these schools are somewhat deficient in medical and dental services. I should like to know from the Minister, when replying, whether or not these schools enjoy the benefits of the School Medical Acts and whether or not the school medical services extend to them. This is a matter which I am sure the Minister will have no hesitation in setting right—the provision of proper medical and dental facilities. I am sure that nobody recognises more readily than the Minister the truth of the old adage mens sana in corpore sano.

With regard to the financial arrangements for the maintenance of children in industrial schools, I am sure the provisions of this Bill will not be enthusiastically accepted by the members of local authorities. It must be borne in mind that in the old days—before the introduction of the managerial system—members of local authorities were much more in touch with the activities of the local authority of which they were members than they are under the present system. Payment in respect of maintenance of schools, such as those referred to in the Bill, will, in all probability, never come under the notice of members under the present system. The city or county manager will not deem them of sufficient importance to include in his monthly report. While the defects of the Bill have been referred to by Deputies who have already spoken, I must say that, in the main, I am in favour of the Bill. I gathered from the Minister's opening remarks that he himself will introduce amendments on the next stage which will improve the measure and render it more acceptable to the members of the House.

Mr. Allen

I think that Deputy Murphy hit the nail on the head when he said that it should be the aim of the Government and of the House to have a smaller number of children in these reformatory and industrial schools. I thoroughly agree with that. Members of local authorities who come up against this problem from time to time will agree with me when I say that, of the children committed to these schools from rural Ireland, two-thirds or three-fourths have committed no offence whatsoever. This is a much deeper and more far-reaching problem than is envisaged by this Bill. According to the local taxation accounts, local authorities contributed, in the year 1938-9, £39,000 for boarded-out children and children at nurse. In the same year, they contributed £54,000 odd for children in reformatory and industrial schools. The vast majority of children comprised in these categories are similar in type. My objection to committing to industrial schools is that, when the time comes for these children to leave the schools, they are very often waifs and strays and do not fit into the community. Many of them will never fit into rural life. If those children who have committed no offence were taken in hand and boarded out amongst the rural community—in the cities and urban centres I admit there would be difficulty in boarding out—they would cost no more than they do under the present system and they would fit into the life of the community later on and be good citizens. That is an aspect of the question that the Minister should keep in mind. This Bill is no solution of this problem. Reformatories and industrial schools will not solve a large part of the problem. There is a tendency for the police authorities and others to bring these children to the courts if there is difficulty in a particular district and get them committed.

That is a tendency which I have seen very much in operation. When the mother of a family dies, and the children are left on the hands of the father, the father is approached by some interested person and is encouraged to have his children committed to an industrial school. I have known very many cases where that has happened, and I think it is all wrong that the father should be encouraged to send those children to an industrial school for three, five or seven years. It would be much better if that man were given some other means of maintaining his children. If he were given an allowance by the local authority or otherwise to maintain those children, and have them nursed in their own homes or boarded-out in the rural community, it would be far better. I believe the system is wrong in that respect. I have no views on the matter of children who may have committed an offence, or in regard to whom, for certain other reasons, it is believed important that they should be detained in such places as industrial schools, but I believe the Minister will find, if he investigates the matter, that two-thirds of the children at present in industrial schools have committed no offence whatever. That is my own belief; I do not know how correct it may be.

It is proposed now to keep certain children in those schools up to 21 years of age. What is going to happen to them afterwards? Has the Department thought of that? How are they going to fit into the life of the community? If they are not able to fit in before they are 21 they will never fit in. Is it intended that the children to whom this proposal is to apply will be weak-minded children who are unable to look after themselves? If that is so, there is some justification for it, but if they are ordinary children they should not be detained in any of those schools until they are 21 years old. If they are so detained, a much greater problem will be created. There is a proposal in this Bill to make the local authorities pay more than they have been paying. I think that will be resented by all local authorities. They cannot be represented by their solicitor. The local authority is notified that it is proposed to commit those children. There is very little use in the local authority going before the district justice at all, because if he has evidence from the local Gárda that those children are destitute or would be a nuisance in the district they will be committed. There is little or no use in the local authority being represented in those courts. I think it is unfair to place any further burden on the local authorities for those children in industrial schools. As I pointed out, they are paying a very large sum of money at the present time. I think the State should carry the full cost of those children; I cannot see why it should not.

On the question of the release of the children, if the circumstances of a parent whose children are committed because he is destitute should change, I think it should be within the right of that parent to claim those children out at any period, and that the court, the Minister or the head of the school should not have the right to decide that the parent should not get those children out. I think if the parent claims those children at any time he should have the right to get them, and it should not be the right of the Minister or of the courts to prevent him from having those children released from the school. It is all wrong to keep them there. I hope the Minister and the Government will have this whole matter further considered, especially with regard to children in rural areas. I know there is a different problem there altogether, and that those industrial schools were probably meant originally to a large extent for children from large centers of population. While I see that there is need for some such system in large centres of population, there is really no need whatever for any children from purely rural areas to be committed to industrial schools.

Mr. Linehan

When the Deputies speaking on this Bill mentioned the question of the provision of juvenile courts in buildings separate from the ordinary district courts in the City of Dublin, they brought to my mind a point that, strictly speaking, may not be within the Minister's powers under the present Bill, but it often struck me, from my experience of court work, that something should be done about it. Every Deputy concerned with this has objected time and again to the fact that children have to come before the ordinary district courts in circumstances which cannot leave any good impression on their minds. Incidentally, the Minister's function as the Minister for Education is to look after the upbringing of the children of the country, and I have often wondered whether it had ever struck the Minister that some provision should be made to prevent young children from being brought into court at all, apart from their being brought in on an application to commit them to an industrial school. Very often children of eight or ten years of age are brought into court as witnesses. They are asked do they know the meaning of an oath, or do they know whether it is wrong to tell a lie, and they are allowed to give evidence. To my mind, that is as objectionable as having children appearing in court on an application to commit them. Mind you, it is not a very uncommon thing at all, and I mention it to the Minister now because it is not a question which there is an opportunity of raising very often. I think most people in the habit of practising in the courts would agree that they would never wish to bring in children of tender years to give evidence. As far as I am concerned, if a child is brought in as a witness in a case in which I am engaged I have made it a habit to refuse to examine or cross-examine that child. I think it is an entirely wrong practice, and that regulations should be made to the effect that no child under the age of 14 years should be allowed to give evidence in any court whatever. It is entirely unfair to the child, and it must be remembered that what happens is that the child may intend to be truthful, and the people who bring the child in may intend him to be truthful, but actually the child's mind is influenced by what happens.

In order to show the effect on the child's mentality I will refer to one occasion when the solicitor asked the child: "Do you know what will happen if you tell a lie", and the district justice said: "It would be much better to ask him ‘do you know what will happen when you go home if you tell the truth'". That is just as objectionable as having children appearing in court on an application to commit them. Strictly, perhaps, the matter is not relevant, but I feel that something should have been done long ago to prevent such a system.

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Benson that the real trouble about this Bill is that it does not show much advance after 32 long years. To my mind, the approach is still the old approach, and we are dealing with those unfortunate destitute children as if they were children who had committed some manner of offence or other. We cannot get away from the fact that in the eyes of the public there is no difference whatever between an industrial school and a reformatory. Actually, that is proved by the explanatory memorandum here, because it sets out that children of the age of 12 or 13 who are convicted of an offence which, in the case of an adult, would be punishable by penal servitude, should be sent to those schools. It is hard to disabuse the public mind of the idea that they are reformatories, if children who are taken away from their parents simply because the parents are in poor circumstance, and are not able to provide for them, are to be put in the same category as children who have been convicted of an offence which in the case of an adult would be punishable by penal servitude. I quite see that as much care should be taken of the unfortunate child who is committed for an offence, but at the same time to my mind the approach is wrong. The whole approach is the mid-Victorian idea that those children are something that is thrown at the State, and which the State is compelled, much against its will, to look after, instead of looking at those destitute children who are in unhappy homes throughout the country in the light that the State should create another home for them, and not something like industrial schools and reformatories.

Deputy Allen mentioned that sometimes when these children go through these schools they become the waifs and strays. I would not say that that is altogether the general experience, but the reason they may become waifs and strays is that when they leave these schools they are not regarded as normally reared children. They are regarded as children who have been in an industrial or reformatory school and that stigma is going to remain with them forever. Personally, I should prefer to see the whole present system of reformatory and industrial schools scrapped; that homes should be provided for these children in the country and that they should be regarded as children of the primary and secondary schools who were guests at the expense of the State because their own people were not able to provide for them. They should never be classed as children who were only lucky to escape being in the position of the unfortunate child who steals something and has to be brought before a court.

I think Deputies are terribly afraid of district justices. In the main most of the district justices I have any experience of are more than reasonable in dealing with these cases and, to my mind, very often are somewhat too lenient in listening to parents' pleas, because there is a certain type of parent in this country who can go into the district court against an application for committal and tell the finest tale that could be told in that court, and the moment the child is released that child will be treated as badly as ever. I do not think district justices err on the side of harshness. I do not at all agree with Deputy Allen that it is entirely useless for the county council to be represented by their solicitor when a committal order comes before the court. It is not the function of the local authority to oppose the committal order. In my opinion it should be the duty of the local authority, if there were even the slightest rumour or the slightest suspicion that children were not being properly looked after, or not being properly treated, or that their parents were in any way destitute, to have the matter investigated at once, rather than oppose an application by the Guards in the district court. Nobody is looking after these children, and unless some good person sends for the "cruelty man" in the country areas they think nothing is ever done about them. The local Guards cannot interfere unless some one comes along and makes a definite complaint. Even in this Bill the question of the consent of the parent is wiped out in every case except one, the one case in which it should have been wiped out. It is retained, according to this explanatory memorandum, in the case referred to as (h)—where a child is found destitute and is not an orphan, and his parents are or his surviving parent or, in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother is unable to support him. That is the one case, which is a pure case of destitution alone.

In this country at the moment there is an extraordinary problem in rural areas that is entirely apart from our ordinary mode of life. There is a certain class in the country who are not even tinkers, as they were known years ago, but who are purely and simply tramps. They never attempt to do any work. They do not even attempt to earn a living in the way of dealing, as many hard-working people do who travel the roads, but there is a particular class developing who are to my mind destitute, as far as the children they have are concerned at any rate, because whatever they have, or whatever they get, is generally spent on drink. They are hawking unfortunate children and babies all over the country and apparently no attempt is ever made to deal with these unfortunate children. They walk the roads from town to town until the father and mother are caught so gloriously drunk that the Guards have to arrest them. There is quite a number of these people through the country. They make no attempt to earn a living; they will not hold a horse for five minutes for anybody. They travel from town to town with little children in their arms, who are possibly an excuse for singing a song occasionally in the streets. Nothing is done until they come to the stage that they are so incapacitated that the Guards have to arrest them.

We have still got the mid-Victorian idea that the unfortunate children of the poor are a burden on the State. They are not. We are treating them as a burden, and wishing to God they were not there, but as they are there we have to do something about them. We still carry on the idea of industrial schools and reformatories without any attempt to look at the situation from a really Christian outlook, and to realise that these children are as much entitled to every benefit the State can give as the children of well-off parents. They should be treated as the guests of the State in schools provided by the State, and given at least a fifty-fifty chance with the children of parents who can afford to support them. These unfortunate children are taken away from their parents and are reared with the stigma of the industrial school attached to them. When a boy leaves such a school, he is pointed to as a lad from an industrial school. We will have to get away from that idea, and we will not get away from it by tinkering with the Children Act, 1908. I do not see that in this Bill there is any advance from that Act except, to use the expression of the Minister, what one may call drafting amendments.

On the question of licensing, the Minister's amendment is intended to empower the Gárdaí to bring back persons to the schools from which they were conditionally released where the conditions of the licence are not carried out. He gives the Gárdaí power to bring them back, but who has the power of saying whether they ought to be brought back or not? They are out on licence; who is going to decide that the conditions of the licence are not carried out? Is it the local Gárda authorities? If it is, that is creating, to my mind, a sort of court of appeal over the heads of the people who allow the child out. I can understand the Gárdaí bringing back a child without any authority in the circumstances where a child was sent out to a certain place to learn a trade, and where the Gárdaí found the child was not being treated properly. They would be entitled to take the child back. If it is a question of a breach of a licence by the child, I could imagine a child being sent out and apprenticed to a trade when he was treated badly—the Gárdaí did not know he was being badly treated, but the child himself knew—and he decided to leave that master and to say he would not work with him any longer. Would that be a breach of the licence that would empower the Gárdaí to bring him back? The child might say: "I have been sent out; I do not wish to break my licence; the person I have been sent to has broken it; I merely want my case looked into and my position improved. You have not improved my circumstances. Will you come along and do something better for me?" I can understand the Gárdaí having power to bring the child back if he was being badly treated or if he was not being taught his trade, but I wish the Minister would clarify the case as regards breach of licence by the child himself.

I am sure the Minister does not suggest that this Bill is to be the final word in the matter of Children Acts in this House for a long time. I wonder would the Minister say that some day or other—without appointing a commission; the commission was appointed long ago and the result is not very obvious—we will face up to the position in this country that destitute children will have to be treated as ordinary children and not, as it practically amounts to, semi-potential criminals.

Mr. Hickey

I am rather disappointed that this Children Bill is not wider in its scope. I should like to know if the Minister has consulted any of those who are concerned with the inspection of boarded-out children or any of the gentlemen dealing with the prevention of cruelty to children. Those people do a great deal of genuine social work in connection with children. I agree with most of what Deputy Allen mentioned in relation to public boards. Boards of assistance have quite a lot to do with certain types of children. Then there is another class, the illegitimate children who are sent out to foster parents and who may not come directly under the local boards of assistance. These children are given over to foster parents, and in respect of them a sum of £50 or £60 is paid. This amount is spread over four years, in instalments, and when the four years are up the children are thrown over on the public authority. We have found that some of those children are not even baptised. We have also discovered that the births of some of them have not been registered. A sad case was brought to my notice some time ago. A boy was adopted by foster parents and brought to Cork. When he tried to register at the local labour exchange he could not produce a birth certificate. His birth was not registered. Recently three cases came under the notice of the Cork Board of Assistance and it was discovered that the children's births had not been registered.

We must also consider the cases of deaf and mentally defective children. There should be some home established where they can be taught useful knowledge. Many deaf children are sent to Dublin, and possibly other cities, and they become a burden on the local rates, because they are the children of poor parents. I am in agreement with Deputy Linehan when he talks about the industrial school boy. Last Friday a child came to me. He had been working for a farmer not far from Cork City. Not being able to get unemployment assistance, he was hopeful of obtaining home assistance. He was quite conscious of his disability, because he said to me: "I am out of the industrial school, sir." He told me he was about four years out of the school. He worked for a farmer and was in hospital for four months. He believed that he got a cold when he was sleeping in an outhouse, and that cold developed to the extent that he had to go to hospital. Apparently anything was good enough for that little fellow, because he happened to come from an industrial school.

A case in Cork recently came to my notice where a mother died, leaving eight children. There was some anxiety on the part of certain people to have the children put into industrial schools. Five of them were taken away and put into male and female industrial schools. Some of the industrial schools are anxious to get children. The reason is very obvious, because they get 12/- or 12/6 a week for keeping the children. Where children are sent out by local authorities, all the foster parents get is 5/- a week, and possibly a suit of clothes every year. If that amount were increased to 12/6, which is the sum you are paying to certain institutions in respect of the children they maintain, and if those children were sent to different places through the country where they would have decent persons looking after them, it would be much more desirable and I think it would be far better than sending them to industrial schools, where they would be mixing with different types of children. I am not at all enamoured of the future of a good many of these children. Last Saturday I was approached by the father and mother of a boy who was sent to an industrial school simply because he was not attending school regularly. I find that it is a rather difficult job to get a boy out of an industrial school. The parents are anxious to get this boy. They have now changed into a corporation house and they want the child to live with them.

I think that this Bill simply leaves us in the same position as we have occupied for years. I do not think that under its provisions we are going to change the outlook of the children in the industrial schools. I am afraid there are still people in this country who have the mentality that anything is good enough for the little boy from the industrial school. The Minister should get in touch with home assistance officers and those people who inspect boarded-out children. A short time ago I met a lady from the Department who is engaged on the work of superintending children who are boarded out. I thought she was an ideal person to have engaged on that work. Her views as to how the children should be treated and the type of provision that should be made for them impressed me very much. The men who are interesting themselves in the prevention of cruelty to children are doing valuable work, particularly in Cork City and County.

Like Deputy Linehan, I think it is most unfair that children or their parents should be obliged to go through the District Court for the purpose of industrial school committals. There should be some means other than the District Court. I observed in Dublin papers the other day that out of 1,500 children in industrial schools, over 900 never committed an offence. That is a clear indication that the District Court is not the place to bring those children. Very often the slum conditions under which many of the children are compelled to live are responsible for making them what they are. I visited several industrial schools in the south of Ireland and I must say that these places are really ideal. Everything possible is done for the children. At the same time, I do not like to see so many children herded together. I would much rather that they were distributed through the country. There are large numbers of people living in cottages and there are numbers of widows who, if they were given 10/- a week, would be very glad to keep a boy and would educate that boy the same as they would their own children.

Some weeks ago I mentioned in the House that orphans are often adopted by people for sentimental reasons. These people get nothing at all towards the maintenance of the children. I find that in cases where a man joins the Army, his wife, who may be a foster-mother, gets nothing at all for the child. That bears out the view that we are inclined to look on certain classes of children as a burden on the State whereas we should be endeavouring to make them decent citizens. These things are not dealt with in this Bill and they constitute some of the drawbacks I have in mind when I say that this measure should be made much wider.

I should like to mention one very sad case. A man with a wife and eight children was in receipt of 23/- a week by way of assistance. Out of that he had to pay 3/9 a week rent. His wife died and 4/- was taken off the weekly assistance. I should like to contrast that case with any industrial school where those in charge purchase food and other things in large quantities, and where very often the boys are competent enough to do various jobs. Yet, you give 12/6 a week in respect of each boy. When one makes a comparison between the lot of that unfortunate man with his eight children and the position in an industrial school, one is inclined to think that such a state of affairs is not worthy of our Government.

On various occasions, and again to-day, I have urged that allowances for the dependents of unemployed persons should be increased. Just contrast the position of the child of the unemployed man and the child in an industrial school. It is time we changed our conception of what the child means to the nation. I hope the Minister will make some effort to cover a wider field before this Bill becomes law.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junr.)

The Minister, in opening the debate, led us to believe that the question of hearing children's cases in court was a matter for the Department of Justice. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. If that be so, I think the least the House might expect from the Minister is a statement that he has been bringing pressure to bear on the Department of Justice for the setting-up of separate children's courts throughout the country because that was one of the major recommendations of the Cussen Commission which, I am sure every member will agree, produced a very excellent report. The report stated "that the practice of hearing children's cases within the pre-cints of the ordinary courts is objectionable". That appears in their report in black and white, and they strongly recommended that corresponding arrangements to those in Dublin should be made throughout the country. I think the Minister ought to give the House an assurance that these arrangements will be made forthwith because already four years have elapsed since the report of the commission was presented.

I think the Minister should also let the House know what has happened to very many of the recommendations of the commission which he has not implemented in this Bill. In paragraph 51 they recommended that the term "committal order" should be abolished, and suggested instead the words "admission order". Paragraph 52 of the report stated:—

"We recommend also that the justice, when hearing children's cases, should not wear his robes of office, and that Gárdaí, whether acting as escorts or drivers, should not wear uniform when bringing children to the school."

These are matters, I think, which come within the scope of the Minister's Department, and I think that this is the appropriate stage to let the House know what the Minister's proposals are in regard to them. The commission also stated that they considered the system of boarding out capable of extension in suitable cases. As far as I know, the system of boarding out has not been extended in the intervening years, and, on this Bill, I think we should hear from the Minister what his views on that matter are. In paragraph 62 the commission recommended that the existing title of "industrial schools" be abolished, and they suggested as an alternative that they should be called "national boarding schools". In the next paragraph they recommended that the term "reformatory schools" be abolished in favour of the term "approved schools". Reference has been made on numerous occasions to the stigma that attaches to reformatory or industrial schools, but to a great extent that would diminish or disappear if these recommendations were adopted. The commission further recommended that each school should be named individually, and that the terms "national boarding schools" and "approved schools" should be used for administrative purposes only.

The report of the commission dealt at great length with the question of training. They stated that the training in the schools was for the most part unsatisfactory, the boys apparently being regarded as juvenile labourers. That is a most unsatisfactory position. I should like to know from the Minister whether the position has improved in the meantime, and if not, what he proposes to do about it. In paragraph 130, dealing with the question of supervision and after-care, the commission recommend the discontinuance of the present "licence form" and its replacement by a "school certificate" showing the standard of education reached and particulars of any specialised training received, and a "certificate of discharge" on which should be indicated the right to return to the school as well as the liability to recall. I recognise that, in order to implement these recommendations, it may not be necessary to legislate specifically for them in this Bill; at the same time, I think this is the appropriate stage for the Minister to say what he proposes to do in regard to these matters, which are very important, as is indicated by the fact that the commission dwelt at such great length on them. Another very important recommendation of the Cussen Commission was that the minimum period of detention in a reformatory school should be two years, instead of three years, and that it should not extend in any case beyond the age of 19 years. The Minister has adopted that recommendation. Personally, I do not see the necessity for any minimum.

I believe that there should be no minimum, and that the justice should be in a position where the offence is very slight—it may be a little more than "mitching from school"—to commit the offender to a reformatory school for six months, nine months or a year. It is proposed in this Bill to reduce the minimum to two years, but I would seriously suggest to the Minister that the minimum should be altogether abolished, or at least that it should be reduced to six months.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy O'Sullivan raised the question of the rights of parents in connection with this Bill. I explained in my opening address that there was no interference with the principle laid down in the 1929 Act, that where children were committed on the grounds of destitution the Minister had no option but to release the children, or to order their discharge, once he was satisfied that the parent or parents were in a position to support the child or children. I cannot understand, therefore, the misapprehension that Deputies seemed to have in mind. If they look at the top of page 4 of the Bill they will find the following provision at the end of Section 9:—

Provided also that if an application is made to the Minister for Education by the parent or surviving parent or, in the case of an illegitimate child, the mother of a child, committed on the grounds stated in paragraph (h) to a certified industrial school for the discharge from such school of such child, the said Minister shall, if satisfied that the persons or person making such application are or is able to support such child, order such discharge of such child.

I hope that is quite clear. In every case that comes before me, or in every case that will come before any other Minister for Education, so long as this provision remains the law of the land, the Minister has no option whatever except to order the discharge of the child, once he is satisfied that the parent or parents are in a position to maintain it.

I do not think that anything in the Bill is in conflict with the Constitution. We heard a good deal, however, of the rights of parents. I have not heard any reference, unfortunately, in the course of the debate to the duties of parents. I cannot believe but that members of the Dáil know that juveniles are being brought constantly, and in fairly large numbers, before the courts in this country. We are living also in a rather disturbed period. We do not know what the future may hold even for our own country, and, in bringing in this legislation, I must say that personally I have been disposed to regard the position so far as juveniles are concerned as rather serious.

I am not going to make any alarmist statement as I deprecate alarmist statements; but if Deputies are not acquainted with the position from personal experience they have only to go to the probation officers, the officers of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, or representatives of other well-known organisations, such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, who have opportunities of going amongst the people and who make a special study of this subject and therefore have first-hand information.

What the Constitution actually says in Article 42, paragraph 5, is this:

"In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."

My only interest in this matter is to see that the interests of the child are safeguarded, and, while I am Minister for Education, feeling that I have a special responsibility towards those children, to recommend to the Dáil whatever steps I consider necessary to amend the law so as to make better provision in their regard. The courts, as Deputy Linehan pointed out, are manned by our countrymen, justices and judges, who pride themselves on being the servants of the Irish people and who, like ourselves, are anxious to do the very best they can for the people. I have not the slightest fear but that our justices are animated by the deepest motives of humanity and that when they do commit children to industrial schools it is only because there is no other solution. It may be that the parents are unable to support the children. It may be that the family circumstances are such that it would be impossible to expect the parents to bring up the children properly. It may be that for reasons for which the members of the family cannot be blamed, it is not fitting that the children should be left in their present environment. It may happen that parental control is insufficient or that the child is going with bad associates. The court has to take all these things into consideration. The court has the advantage of having, as I have said, first-hand information from the representatives of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and from its own officers, the probation officers. I have read some of the reports of these officers in these cases and I have been impressed by the sympathy they have shown, the understanding of the difficulties and, above all, the acquaintance with and first-hand knowledge they have of the actual circumstances. I am quite convinced that it is a most important matter and a most useful instrument in the administration of the law that the court should be able to call upon those probation officers for their opinion.

It has been pointed out that this is the first Bill dealing with this matter, except the short Bill in 1929, which has been introduced since 1908. In Great britain legislation has been introduced since, but I think, generally speaking, that the 1908 Act, as Deputy Benson pointed out, has stood the test very well. In its main provisions it seems to be still quite sound. Reference has been made to matters for which I am not responsible. As I explained, this measure is based on the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into reformatory and industrial schools. As regards the general question of the courts, that would be a matter for the Minister for Justice, just as the question of boarded-out children would seem to be a matter for the Minister for Local Government.

With regard to the feeling that some Deputies have about a stigma on children who have been in industrial schools, I cannot quite understand that. I think it should be fairly well known that the vast majority of the children in industrial schools, as was mentioned here, have not been charged with any offence and any persons who take it upon themselves to insinuate that there is a brand or stigma on industrial school children are entirely ignorant, as well as being very malicious and very unchristian. In the year 1939-40, 37½ per cent. of the committals were on the ground of "destitution, not being an orphan and the parent or parents consenting to committal". Approximately 23 per cent. were on the ground of wandering, having no home, or having no parent or guardian, or parent and guardian exercising proper guardianship, 15 per cent. on grounds of begging or receiving alms, etc., 13 per cent. under the School Attendance Act, and less than 10 per cent. were charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment in the case of an adult—more than 50 per cent. of the latter being under 12 years.

These figures will give the Dáil an idea of the serious nature and extent of this problem of destitute children. It is saddening to reflect that there are so many hundreds of children towards whose proper upbringing their parents can make no provision. Failing any other solution, it is the duty of the State to see that as far as possible these children shall not suffer in consequence, but that they shall receive the care and protection which is their due. Now, that is the position. The great majority of the cases are either cases of destitution or of offences which certainly are frequently not of a very serious character, but rather technical cases. Ninety per cent. of the children are children against whom no offence, properly speaking, has been charged— no offence which would be punishable by imprisonment in the case of an adult.

I have no desire, Sir, to get into a discussion as to the merits of court decisions in these cases. I simply wish to say that parents have the right of advocacy in the court. They have the right of appeal from the lower court if they are not satisfied with the justices' decision, and, as has been emphasised, and I should like to say it again, I think our justices are very reasonable, common-sense, humane gentlemen. I am not sure that it has been the case to have children committed for a first offence—in any case, it is outside my province—but it sometimes happens that you have gangs, and, unfortunately, the children, who may not be the worst offenders, get caught in connection with these gangs, and the justice may have to have regard to the general position if there are serious cases of gang operations in the area or if the previous history of the child denotes that he has come under observation, though he has not actually been charged; or again, from the information which the justice has through the probation officer or through the officers of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, he may commit the child. I do not think it is usual to do so, but I think it need not be assumed that it is by way of punishing the child that the justice commits him. I think we ought rather to assume that it is in order to protect the child, to see that it is properly cared for, that its education, its upbringing, its health, are placed in the charge of some responsible person where the parents, for one reason or another, are unable to fulfil their duty. I think that is the attitude we ought to take up, and in any case we ought to remember that it is only in very exceptional cases, and where there are good and adequate reasons, that children are brought before the court. It is claimed that the tendency of this Bill is against the parent. I think it would be more correct—although I do not subscribe to the view—if those who urged that particular argument would say that the tendency of the Bill is against a parent who is not fulfilling his duty or her duty where his or her child is concerned.

With regard to the question of supervision, the raising of the age during which the child or the young person is to be supervised is only in special cases such as, for example, orphans. Instances occur occasionally of young persons, between the ages of 18 or 19 and 21, who have no guardians or parents, and who are unfairly treated by employers. Power is taken by the school manager to bring such young persons back to the school and find employment for them. Often, these young people come back to the school quite regularly when their employment terminates for some reason or another. Each school has its own arrangements. The manager maintains touch with the person under supervision directly, and possibly also through the local parish priest or through local religious or social organisations.

It is a very delicate matter to arrange how supervision can properly be carried out. I wonder does anybody in the House seriously suggest that the State could step in and carry out this work of supervision, even with an elaborate and costly organisation, in a better way than the religious Orders can? These Orders have a certain approach towards this matter. They are animated by a spirit of Christian charity. Their sole desire is to improve the lot of the child, to help the boy or girl to get employment, and to do what they can for them; and while it is difficult for the managers of the schools to keep in touch with the children in all cases, I know that in the vast majority of cases they exert the greatest earnestness and energy in trying to maintain touch with the children.

Licensing or conditional release is a safeguard for the child, and merely enables the school to recall the child. Sometimes the child is released before the normal period of detention, and the issue of a licence is intended to enable the child to be recalled without bringing him before the court again. Children or young persons would be only recalled from supervision where the manager or the Minister, according as the child was under licence or under conditional release, found it necessary to recall it. Either the manager or the Minister, having considered the question, would issue instructions, which would be carried out by the Gárdai, for the bringing back of the child.

It is true that children who go to industrial schools are separated from their parents, but children who go to boarding schools—the secondary schools throughout the country—are separated from their parents also, and if we could get away from the idea of looking on these schools as penal institutions, and looking on them instead, as the commission recommended, as boarding schools, we would be able to view the matter in a more sensible light. In fact, these children are only away from their parents for a comparatively short period in the life of a child, a shorter period than that of a great many children, who spend years at secondary boarding schools, have to spend away from their parents; and while I thoroughly agree, as every Irish person will, that we ought not to interfere with family relationships or to intrude except where it is absolutely necessary, I deprecate the sentimentality which often attaches to this question. Let us recognise that the children who are being brought away are very often getting substantially the same treatment as children in boarding schools where their parents are paying for them.

Mr. Hickey

I do not think we can agree on that, at any rate.

Mr. Derrig

I know of a particular industrial school, carried on in very close contiguity to a secondary school, by the same Order, and if Deputies were to visit these two schools in the morning they would agree with me that there is very little difference indeed between the treatment the children get in the industrial school and the treatment the others get in the secondary school. I do not think, either, that Deputy Hickey was fair to himself in suggesting that it was for the sake of the money allowance, and only for the sake of the money allowance, that managers of industrial schools are interested in having the children. Surely, they are interested in it, and have always been and always will be, because they are interested in the welfare of the children, because they feel that the children are not getting a fair crack of the whip, so to speak, at present, and that they can really do something for them to improve and help them and put them in the way to earn their own living later on.

I should like to assure Deputy Hannigan that the inspection of these schools is being constantly carried on. I am quite satisfied that improvement is being made. Managers have shown themselves willing on all occasions to accept suggestions from our inspectors, both the inspectors who visit for the purpose of seeing the technical training and those who inspect the elementary education; and our medical inspector informs me that she is very well satisfied with the conditions of the schools from the point of view of the health of the children and the way in which they are cared for and looked after. Each school has its own medical officer and its own arrangements for the treatment of illness, and in almost every case there is also provision for dental treatment. I do not think there is any other matter to which it is necessary to refer.

Mr. Hickey

There is one point I should like to make. Will the Minister agree that the Bill as it stands should be a comprehensive Bill which would include also the activities of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health since he is very much affected by it through the public assistance boards and the boards of health?

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for the 15th January, 1941.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 11 Dec 1940

Children Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

Mr. A. Byrne

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1940