I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 17, before the word "enactment" to insert the word "any".
This is just a drafting amendment.
Supplementary and Additional Estimates, 1948-49. - Children (Amendment) Bill, 1949—Committee and Final Stages.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), line 34, to delete the word "and" and substitute therefor the word "or."
Amendment 3 is the main amendment and I take it the other two are consequential?
Perhaps it is. I suppose I will be allowed a little latitude in trying to explain the purpose of the amendment. Section 4 says:—
"(1) Where—
(a) a court may, under any sub-section of Section 58 of the Principal Act, order a person to be sent to a certified industrial school, and
(b) the court has previously ascertained that the managers of the school are willing to receive that person,
the court may, in lieu of ordering that person to be sent to a certified industrial school, order that person to be sent to the school."
Section 58 of the Principal Act is Section 58 of the 1908 Children Act. As regards this type of legislation, it is perhaps unfortunate that we have two Departments, the Department of Justice as well as the Department of Education, dealing with this matter. For adolescents there is no doubt that the Department of Justice, having control of the juvenile court and probation officers and having to deal with the medical issues that may arise there, must have a great deal to say to this legislation. I appreciate, therefore, the difficulties that the Minister for Education has in dealing with this matter comprehensively.
A particular issue has arisen now and that is the question of legislation to deal with the cases of girls who are described as being sexually contaminated and whom the ordinary industrial school might not be prepared to receive. There is a special institution which has been established with the sanction and initiative of the ecclesiastical authorities to deal with this problem and the point is to make the necessary legislative provisions to see that the object in view, of having girls who are morally contaminated, or who are, I think I might extend it to say, in grave danger of such contamination, placed under proper supervision and control.
As I said yesterday, I have a feeling that if this matter could not be dealt with, as possibly it cannot entirely be, by voluntary means, after the actions of charitable and religious organisations, or cannot be dealt with through the agency of the Department of Health as a medical problem, in all these questions of delinquency the Department of Health must have something to say. Whatever type of moral defect has a bearing upon mental deficiency—and very often these particular offences are connected with intellectual troubles or mental deficiency—it does not seem that the Minister was able to secure a solution in that way. Although I would have preferred that either of these two methods, the purely voluntary method or the method of dealing with the matter as a medical problem, could be utilised, I can see that in the long run some legislation will be necessary, and in order to put my view before the House I have submitted this amendment, which is based on legislation elsewhere and is more up to date than the 1908 Act.
What will happen now is that a person, in order to be sent to the school must be brought before the court and that person must be charged with an offence under Section 58 (1) of the 1908 Act. This is the main section in the Act and there is a large number of clauses, (a) to (g), dealing with begging, wandering, destitution, lack of parental control due to drunken habits on the part of parents, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, offences in the family, bad company and, finally, lodging or residing in immoral surroundings.
I think that clause (g) really emphasises that question of the surroundings in which the young person is living, because it says:
"is lodging or residing in a house or the part of a house used by any person for the purpose of prostitution or is otherwise living in circumstances calculated to cause, encourage or favour the seduction or prostitution of the child."
It seems to me the emphasis there is on the actual environment, the actual living conditions, and that in order to establish a case for the detention of the young person, if charged under clause (g), it would be necessary, of course, to prove to the satisfaction of the justice that the conditions are such as would lead to the seduction or prostitution of that person.
Since 1908, when the first Act was passed, we have gone through two major wars and we do not fully realise the social effects of those wars on young people. There has been a loosening generally of parental control. Even in our country parental control, guidance and discipline have been affected. Added to that, there are all kinds of developments and amusements and ways of spending money. Money is more plentiful. Motor cars are very popular. Young people have more access to money to-day than they had heretofore. All these things tend to break up family life. The young people are tempted into paths upon which they would never have entered 30 years ago. In some places it looks as if family life will suffer a complete break-down.
It is true that we have not suffered very seriously as a result of the war. It is true that the more vicious forms of crime are comparatively rare amongst us. There is, nevertheless, a certain apparent weakness in regard to parental control and discipline. This is particularly serious in the case of girls. If young girls are allowed to frequent bad company or make evil associations the results are going to be very dangerous from every point of view. Young girls particularly need the care and protection of their parents. The problem is a very special one in their case. I think the problem is one which should be viewed from the point of view of the child's need for care and protection rather than from the point of view of environment alone. If a district justice is satisfied in a particular case that there is an absence of care and protection and an absence of parental control or guidance so that the child is in danger of entering into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger, or beyond control, he should have power and discretion to send such a child to this special type of school. The only alternative to that in my opinion is to wait until an offence has been committed against the girl when everybody will be satisfied that the conditions under which she is living are practically those of public prostitution. I think it would be very hard to establish that in this country except in a very small number of cases where there is evidence of deliberate professional immorality. But the possibility is that cases will arise, or probably have arisen, where because of lack of parental control and guidance a young girl has freedom to associate with evil companions. In such cases if a responsible authority is prepared to go before the court—say, a Garda superintendent— and state there that he believes there are sufficient grounds for the district justice to take suitable action, then it should be possible to send the girl to the particular type of school envisaged. If action can only be taken where there is evidence of positive immorality I do not think it will be easy to convince the court that the persons with whom the child associates are a grave source of danger to her. The amendment I have put down makes the issue somewhat wider and gives a greater discretion to deal with border-line cases. It is no way unfair because lack of parental control or suitable guardianship has to be proved to the satisfaction of the justice. I do not think our justices would be likely, except for a very good reason, to send a girl away to this school. I do not think I need put it further than that.
It is true, as the Deputy says, that his amendment is rather wider in its scope than what is suggested here. I thought I made it clear yesterday what this proposal was and the particular problem with which I wished to deal. The 1934 Children's Act was introduced by the Department of Local Government and Public Health. The Minister for Justice could equally well introduce an amendment to the Children's Act; that is, an amendment affecting the basic Act of 1908 which was, I take it, introduced by somebody analogous to the Minister for Justice. The Department of Health, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education have their own responsibilities in relation to children. The fundamental law that gives us power to detain children is contained in Section 57 of the Act of 1908 together with the amendments subsequently made thereto. That is the basic statutory authority under which children may be apprehended and committed to a reformatory. Section 58 of that Act and the subsequent amendments thereto and the School Attendance Act is the statutory authority under which children may be committed to an industrial school. There is no legislation of any kind outside of Sections 57 and 58 of the Act of 1908 and the School Attendance Act under which any statutory authority or power exists for dealing with children in the way suggested by the Deputy. One of the objections I have to this proposed amendment is that it goes outside the four corners of the statutory basis upon which we have been acting up to the present. This amendment would introduce an isolated piece of legislation giving additional powers for additional circumstances, never considered before, for taking young children away from their homes or environments and sending them to either an industrial or a reformatory school. I think that is undesirable.
The Deputy has indicated that we have had a couple of wars. He has pointed out the tremendous social effects of these wars, of one kind or another. He has adverted to the dangers of motor cars and money and the possible increase in prostitution. As Minister for Education. I am not concerned with that. It is quite true that when the problem, with which this Bill proposes to deal, arose—that is where there had been sexual contamination of one kind or another—we found ourselves in the position that there was no place where these girls could be put for guidance, education or spiritual care of any kind.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide the necessary statutory authority to have cases of that particular kind dealt with in suitable surroundings and under a suitable authority. It was inevitable, no doubt, when the discussions were taking place on that problem that the Department of Justice and the Department of Health should be consulted. It is a fact, perhaps, that the Department of Health at that time, with its special outlook and its own responsibilities in connection with the matter, had the idea that a particular problem arose, leading to contamination and to moral dangers of this kind and that these should be regarded as matters with which some kind of legislation should be devised to deal. It was suggested that it was weak-mindedness or unstable mental balance that was responsible for some of the troubles that were revealed before the District Courts. I am advised, however, medically and ecclesiastically, that that is not so, that we are dealing here with normal people who are led into difficulties, dangers, and along wrong paths, through circumstances of environment so that even if I were Minister for Health and had to consider this problem, I would have to advise the Minister for Education to do what he is doing now and that questions of health or weak-mindedness did not arise in connection with the matter. If I were Minister for Health I would also have to say that I should be very glad if, in dealing with cases of this kind that come into educational institutions, special attention were paid to the question of whether it was weak-mindedness or mental instability that was largely responsible for cases of this particular kind. I feel perhaps that some information could be provided from the authorities of the institutions that we now speak of that might be of use to the Minister for Health, but I am fully convinced and advised that these cases are not cases for treatment in a mental institution. I would ask the Deputy, therefore, to accept it from me that on the side of health or weakmindedness, there is nothing that should dictate that we should proceed in a different way or use a different kind of machinery from that which is now proposed.
So far as the Department of Justice is concerned, in the discussions that have gone on with the Department of Justice, in facing up to the solution of the educational problem, there did not arise to the minds of the authorities in the Department of Justice the considerations of which the Deputy speaks. If these matters had arisen, it might have eventuated that the Department would have considered the whole details, if not of Section 57 at least of Section 58 of the 1908 Act, and that they would proceed to amend Section 58 by extending the circumstances and the conditions under which persons could be brought before a District Court and committed. I can only simply state again that the proposal in this Bill is to enable it to provide for an institution so that when either under Section 57, young girls are committed to a reformatory, or under Section 58 they are committed to an industrial school, and when it is found that there has been sexual contamination or contacts of one kind or another and the manager of the new school is prepared to take these children, they may be committed to that school, it being understood that the ordinary reformatory authorities and the ordinary industrial school authorities are unwilling and have in fact refused to take persons committed to their schools when circumstances are such that they are liable to be a source of contamination and disturbance in their schools. That is the simple object of the Bill. I would ask the Deputy not to press me to undertake the functions of the Minister for Justice in trying to ascertain to what extent there are unsatisfactory conditions of this kind in society or to ask me to take on the mantle of the Minister for Health by considering what other kind of institution or what kind of machinery should be evolved for finding out these cases and dealing with them in a statutory way.
If the Minister's idea is that he can only deal with cases of persons who would, in any event, have been committed to an industrial school and that it is merely a question then of amending the law to have provision made for the accommodation of those who would not be accepted in the ordinary school, that certainly is one aspect of the problem which seems to be covered by the Bill. I had thought that opportunity might have been taken to try to deal with the class of person who, while not having committed an offence under Section 58 (1) of the 1908 Act, might nevertheless be in danger of sexual contamination. I realise that it is a very difficult matter if an offence has not actually been committed, to convince a court. The court will naturally lean, and rightly so, on the side of the liberty of the individual. It is for that reason that I regret that this matter could not be dealt with otherwise than through the courts. I do not contend that all these cases are cases in which there might be questions of mental deficiency but they are cases on which up-to-date medical advice—psychotherapy and other branches of science dealing with the treatment of the mind—might afford some guidance. To that extent, at any rate, it could be claimed that the Department of Health should have a say in the matter. In any case, I think there was a question of the Department of Justice definitely having a medical officer attached to the juvenile court for the purpose of giving general advice and I believe that in cases of this kind the medical advice would be very important. If the Minister feels that he is not prepared to accept the amendment I suppose I have no option but to withdraw it. I do not want to press it to a division. I simply put it down for consideration. This section is taken out of the Young Persons and Children Act passed in Great Britain in 1933. It is the law in Britain for the past 15 years and it simply means that over there they have extended the definitions contained in the 1908 Act. I believe it would possibly not make a great deal of difference in the end if the Minister accepted the amendment, but I feel that we would be more up to date regarding the care and protection of the young person. We would have given the court a greater discretion, perhaps, to deal with the ordinary cases.
I doubt that it would help us if the Minister for Education started to do the work of the Minister for Justice, even in a small way.
Get the Minister for Justice to do his own work.
There may be something in that and the representations the Deputy has made can be brought before the Minister.
Major de Valera
There is a point arising from that. I feel that Deputy Derrig is to some extent under a misapprehension here. From what I have seen in the courts and elsewhere many of the cases which I think the Minister designs to cover are perfectly normal ones. There is no question of any medical or psychological abnormality in these cases.
I think Deputy Derrig will accept that.
Major de Valera
I merely mention that the Minister has suggested a recommendation to another Minister in that regard. We are dealing here with perfectly normal girls who, pretty often through lack of parental control, find themselves seduced or in danger of being seduced. That is the plain situation there. If this matter is going to be referred anywhere else I, personally, would be chary of following the English precedent. There has been a constant tendency there for the State to take more and more control of the child. I wonder if suggestions are being passed on to other Ministers whether it could be suggested that the kind of parent be looked into rather than the arrest of the child. Since suggestions are being made I am throwing out just another suggestion. In regard to this section I think it is adequate to provide a separate place for such children who are committed to a State institution. I take it that the Minister visualises the need of special extra provision for committing girls who are in fact children.
I think cases have arisen where they would not, perhaps, have been committed by the court in the ordinary way.
Major de Valera
They come under the discretion of the court there. I do not think there is any change in the law in that regard.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have grave grounds for objection to the amendment suggested by Deputy Derrig. I want to tell the Minister that the suggestions made to him should be conveyed to the Minister for Justice. I thought that the Minister suggested that the principle of this particular Bill was simply to give the Minister authority to overcome a very small difficulty. I thought that was made perfectly clear but the amendment suggested here widens the scope so much and is such a danger to the ordinary liberty of the individual that I wanted to make my own opinions clear. I would find no grounds whatsoever for sympathy with or support of any suggestion contained here.
The Deputy, I suggest, is talking absolute rot in saying that there is danger in an amendment to a law which has been in force for the past 15 years.
Major de Valera
I would object to the law in many respects as it is in the neighbouring country.
Do you object to the protection of young people?
Major de Valera
It is the method by which it is done.
The lawyers will have their say.
Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
The intention of Section 5 may be obscure. No person will be sent to a school that will be repugnant to their religious feelings.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In line 19 to delete the word "seventeen" and insert the word "eighteen".
The intention is to enable the Minister under the section, as it stands, to direct that the period of detention of a person who has been committed to the school should be until he—which presumably means she—attains the age of 17 years. As the age has been raised up to 19 years elsewhere, in the case of the Minister deciding, on the recommendation of the managers of the school, that a further period would be necessary to enable the young person to receive proper training and proper care, I think that 17 is rather low having regard to the particular type of case we have in mind. Seventeen years is the existing limit all right but I suggest that, having regard to the nature of the offence, it is not too much to leave to the Minister the discretion which he would have of extending the period until she becomes 18 years of age if the school manager made a recommendation to that effect and if they were satisfied that it was in her interests. In doing so I have in mind the fact that, although we have a probation system here, I think the practice of putting such young persons out under supervision or under the control of guardians after they leave the school has not been carried to the point where we can be absolutely satisfied if we let them out at 17. I do not know whether the Minister could say that he is satisfied there would be that supervision over a discharged girl who would be released at 17 that she is not likely to be brought back again to the school. From my own experience I know how difficult it is to maintain supervision in the cases of young people who are discharged from these institutions. I think it would be particularly difficult in the case of girls who possibly leave the country altogether. I had such cases myself. I think it was while in this actual institution that a girl received an offer of marriage from a neighbouring country. A young man came along and wanted to marry her and take her away, and perhaps that was the best solution. It possibly worked out all right because I think the ecclesiastical authorities had some interest—I forget the full details —as naturally they would have been called in on this side of the water at any rate in such a matter. But that will not happen normally. Then, in that particular case, the question of possible desertion and so on would arise. There is the question of finding employment for these people and so on, and I have the feeling that, once they are discharged, there is very little one can do. Some of the social organisations do their best to maintain contact with these discharged girls and to do what they can for them, but it is entirely voluntary and it is almost impossible to keep contact with them, unless they are prepared to play their part and unless they wish the contact to be maintained. Having regard to the special circumstances, which are very serious from a public point of view and which can have very serious repercussions, the Minister would be well advised to seek to hold them as long as he reasonably could in circumstances such as I have described, circumstances in which it was felt by all the authorities interested that such a course was necessary.
I have indicated already that, where a child is committed to an industrial school, she can normally be kept there until the age of 16, but that may be extended to 17 years on application by the manager of the school, but even that is subject to the consent of the parent. In the section, we are arranging that, in the case of a person detained in such a school without the consent of the parent, there can be a detention, where the manager applies and the Minister agrees, for an extra period of a year. I think that is a sufficient extension against the consent of the parent for the present. No experience of this matter up to the present has indicated, nor has it been suggested to me by the ecclesiastical authorities, justices or health authorities with whom I have been in touch that there should be an extension beyond the age of 17 years. Where people have been committed to industrial schools, there is a power of supervision when they leave and certain powers to bring them back for a period of three months, if that is thought necessary or desirable. I suggest that the Deputy should agree to the proposed extension for one year as contemplated in the Bill and allow us to have the experience, as well as the pressure and enlightenment of that experience, before encroaching further on the liberty of people of this kind. I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps the Minister would say for what period the supervision is likely to continue?
It may extend up to the age of 21 years.
If satisfactory arrangements are made, although it is very difficult to make them, I suppose it would be better.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.