Children (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

Minister for Education (Mr. J. Lynch)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Children Acts, as the House is no doubt aware, make legislative provision for the protection of children and young persons, for the recognition and assistance by the State of reformatory and industrial schools and for legal proceedings in relation to juvenile offenders. The Principal Act is that of 1908, which consolidated previous legislation since 1858 and which has been in turn, amended by subsequent Acts.

The main purposes of the present Bill are to amend the Children Acts in order:

(a) To provide for children under detention in reformatory and industrial schools living outside these schools in certain circumstances and for the payment of the capitation grants for maintenance to the school managers for the period of absence out of school;

(b) To bring existing legislation relating to the discharge of children from industrial schools into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution in the matter of parental rights;

(c) To make suitable provision for the determination of disputes between the Minister for Education and parents in relation to such discharge;

(d) To amend certain provisions of the Acts relating to the nursing and maintenance of children for reward.

(e) To provide for the protection by the local authorities of children who, while in the custody of persons other than relatives or guardians, are placed in employment in circumstances requiring them to reside away from the home in which they were residing before entering such employment.

The amendments dealing with leave of absence, payment of maintenance capitation grants and the provisions for the discharge of children from industrial schools are sponsored by my Department. Others are sponsored by the Department of Health, while two minor amendments are sponsored by the Department of Justice.

I propose to take, in the first instance, the amendments sponsored by my Department and then take the other amendments, even though, in doing so, I shall not follow the order in which the sections are set out in the Bill.

Since 1924, when the industrial school system came to be administered by my Department it has been the practice to grant "home leave" to children detained in these schools. Children are allowed a period of leave or vacation at home each year wherever possible, that is where the homes are suitable and parents, relatives or friends are willing to take the children for such leave or vacation. The maximum home leave allowed each year was seven days until 1935 when it was extended to 14 days. Following the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System 1934-1936, the period of home leave granted was extended to 21 days, it being further extended to 31 days in 1948. At present, approximately, one-third of the children in industrial schools avail themselves of this provision of home leave, the average number of days' leave granted in 1956 for example being 20 days. In addition to the ordinary home leave, school managers, in their discretion, find it necessary on occasions to grant casual leave to children detained in their schools; in some cases, also, it may be necessary or desirable to permit children to attend at some centre or institution outside the school for instruction of a kind not available in the school.

While, as I have said, the practice of allowing home leave has been followed since 1924, there is strictly speaking no legal authority for it in the Acts, that is, there is no legal authority for allowing children or young persons committed to a certified school to live elsewhere than in that school before their period of detention has been completed, except under a supervision certificate granted under Section 67 of the Act of 1908. Now, the purpose of a supervision certificate is to enable a child to be given over by the school, on certain conditions to the charge of a trustworthy person who undertakes to take care of him, while at the same time the school continues to retain its right to recall the child to the school in case these conditions are not fulfilled. Prior to 1950, it was not the custom to issue supervision certificates to cover home leave. When, however, a parent refused to return a child to a school at the end of the home leave period, it was found, in the absence of a supervision certificate, that there was no legal power under which the child could be apprehended and returned to the school. Since then, accordingly, children are sent on home leave under supervision certificate. What is true of home leave also applies in the case of a child who is permitted to attend a course of instruction in another school or to be absent on casual leave for one purpose or another. Hitherto, unless a supervision certificate were issued to cover the absence, a child who refused to return to school after such absence, could not, legally, be brought back to school. This difficulty is now being met in Section 6 of the Bill before the House. Children who are, in future, allowed home leave, casual leave or leave to attend courses of instruction outside the school will be deemed to be under detention in the school and, accordingly, can be brought back to the school in the event of their exceeding that leave or refusing to return on its exhaustion.

In relation to this matter of home leave, the Bill is designed to meet a further difficulty which arose some time ago. As Deputies are aware, local authorities, along with the State, are required to contribute towards the maintenance of children detained in certified schools. Some time ago, however, a local authority raised a question in regard to its liability for the payment of maintenance grants in respect of such children for periods spent by them on home leave. Sections 7 and 8 of the present Bill are intended to validate the payment by the State and the local authorities of capitation grants for maintenance in respect of youthful offenders or children detained in certified schools, for the period of their absence from school on home leave, casual leave or leave to attend instructions outside the school. These grants have always been paid for the period of such absences and the provisions now being made are merely to place the question beyond doubt and to regularise the payment of maintenance grants made heretofore in these cases.

Another important purpose of this Bill is, as I have already stated, to bring existing legislation relating to the discharge of children from industrial schools into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution in the matter of parental rights. The Supreme Court, in December, 1955, declared part of Section 10 of the Children Act, 1941, which amended Section 58 of the 1908 Act, to be repugnant to the Constitution in so far as it deprived a parent, with whose consent a child had been sent to a certified industrial school, of the right to resume control of the child so as to provide for its education when that parent was willing and able to do so.

Following this judgment, the Minister for Education was advised that Section 58 of the Children Act, 1908, was open to successful challenge under the Constitution unless amending legislation were introduced to provide machinery for the parent, who is anxious, able and prepared to exercise guardianship, recovering a child committed to an industrial school under that section. The legal advisers were of opinion that legislation authorising the State to undertake the care and training of children, if it is to stand against the constitutional rights of the parent, should be justified under Article 42 (5) of the Constitution and that such legislation should make provision by which the State's intervention be limited in time to the duration of the parental need or parental default.

Section 5 of the Bill is intended to meet this position. It seeks to provide ordered machinery to deal with any dispute which may arise between the Minister for Education and the parent in regard to the discharge of a child committed to an industrial school under Section 58 of the principal Act. Thus under Section 5 of the Bill, where a parent or guardian makes application to the Minister for the release of such a child and the Minister is satisfied that the home or other circumstances which led to the child's committal no longer exist and are not likely to recur if the child is released, and also that the parent or guardian is able to support the child, then the Minister must order the discharge of the child. If, however, the Minister is in any doubt in regard to the case, he may refer the application to a District Court for decision. If, on the other hand, the Minister comes to the conclusion, on the evidence and information available to him that the child should not be discharged, he may refuse the parents application but, in that case, the parent may refer the matter to the District Court and, in the case of an adverse decision in that court, the parent may appeal to the Circuit Court. This section of the Bill also makes provision for the award of costs and expenses to a successful applicant before the courts.

In connection with the section, I feel that any Minister for Education operating its provisions will be inclined in favour of a parent's application rather than be opposed to it, if for no reason other than the conviction which influences social considerations in Ireland, namely that the home and the responsible care of parents are the strongest and most efficacious forces for good in a young person's life.

As I mentioned earlier, certain sections of the Bill deal with matters for which the Minister for Health is the appropriate Minister. The first of these, Section 2, deals with the obligations of persons who receive children for nursing and maintenance under arrangements providing for the payment of reward. While it does not introduce any new principles in relation to the control of foster homes and the supervision of the welfare of foster children, it effects certain modifications which experience has shown to be desirable. Thus, for example, it provides for the giving of seven days' notice in lieu of 48 hours' notice as at present, to the health authority by the person receiving such children; it also requires, for the first time, that the person or body making arrangements for the placing of a child in a foster home will give similar notice to the health authority. A 48 hours' notice has been found to be too short to enable the local authority to satisfy itself as to the suitability of the proposed foster home. On the other hand, experience has shown that a prospective foster parent is likely to be unaware of the legal requirements in regard to notification or he may assume, especially where fosterage is arranged by a voluntary organisation, that all legal requirements have been attended to by the organisation.

At present, a foster home and a child placed in it for reward are subject to local authority supervision only until the child reaches the age of nine years. It is the opinion of persons interested in the welfare of such children that supervision should continue to a later age. It is accordingly provided that the age limit will be raised to 16 years, which is the age up to which supervision continues for children boarded out in foster homes by health authorities under the provisions of the Health Act, 1953.

Section 3 of the Bill refers to foster children who take up employment in circumstances which require them to reside in their employer's house or in accommodation provided by him. The Minister for Health is satisfied that the interest of such children requires that the health authority be empowered to supervise their accommodation and conditions of employment. It could be held that a child without a normal home or the protection of his parents who is taken into employment and accommodated in his employer's premises may be exposed to greater risks than a child in the usual type of foster home. The section provides that, where an arrangement of this kind is made by any person who is not a relative of the child, the health authority shall be notified seven days in advance of commencement of the employment. The duty of notification will rest on the person or body making the arrangement, unless they are outside the State, in which case the obligation to notify will rest on the prospective employer.

Minor amendments of the Children Acts are contained in Sections 4, 9 and 10, the first of these removing the anomaly of a person of 16 years being responsible for the custody of a person up to the age of 17 years, the second regulating the maximum amount of parental contribution in respect of children detained in certified schools, and the third bringing the Acts into conformity with the School Attendance Act, 1926, in relation to the minimum age for compulsory school attendance.

I should say that this Bill as it stands was drafted before my coming into office. I think there are no alterations or additions to it and I fully endorse the amending proposals contained in it and I recommend them to the House as being desirable and necessary.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha

Ba mhaith liom a rá go n-aontaím le gach rud atá sa Bhille seo. Is dóigh liom go dtuigeann an t-Aire chomh maith agus tuigim féin, éfach, go bhfuil fadhb mór taobh thiar den Bhille sin. Toisc gur dóigh liom gur ceart go dtuigfadh lucht na Dála é, chun cabhair a thabhairt. don Aire, ba mhaith liom é luadh.

Caithfear rud éigin a dhéanamh chun cabhrú le ceist na páistí seo go coitianta; agus ní déanfar aon ní chun cuid den scéal a leigheas mura dtuigeann lucht na Dála cad iad na deacrachtaí atá ann.

I agree with the proposals in this Bill, but I think that, in fairness to the Minister himself and to the problem which is involved here, we must look a little back behind the scene and see that there is a very great fundamental thing to be faced up to here.

In the first place, there are possibly quite a, large number of children in industrial schools who need not be there but for the Statutes under which the justice dealing with the case has to operate. In the second place, the cost of keeping children in these schools has risen very steeply in the last few years and the difficulties under which the authorities of the schools are labouring are very great.

There are various aspects of the problem. Children are being kept there for a period of two years who could be satisfactorily dealt with in a period of six months; and there is considerable expense on that account. Then, the children who really require to be dealt with in some of these institutions are not — because of the inability to provide the necessary service owing to the cost—getting the best treatment they could get in the period they are there. For that reason, it is desirable that I should point out certain things in connection with this matter.

First and foremost, we should see the background in terms of numbers. We have three reformatories — one for girls. If we take the case of the boys, about 12 months or more ago, the number of committed cases in the reformatories was about 150, and of these there were about eight voluntary cases. I do not know under what circumstances voluntary, cases get into reformatories, but they were there. In the industrial boys' school, senior, out of a total of 1,732, 1,552 were committed cases, but the establishments in which they were had accommodation for 2,200. In the case of the junior boys, there were 552 boys committed out of a total of 614, and the accommodation would have provided for 708. In the case of the girls, there were 2,558 girls out of a total number of girls in the industrial schools of 2,881, and the accommodation available as certified accommodation was 4,493.

The children who go, in a committed way, into these schools appear before a district justice. He is in a very difficult position by reason of the statutes under which he works. If he has sentenced a child to a period in an industrial school, as far as I understand it at present, he cannot send him in a committed way for a shorter period than two years. He can remand him for a month and in doing so he may be sent to a place of detention and he can keep on remanding him from week to week. One aspect of this is that if he is unable to make up his mind in a serious case as to what he ought to do with the boy, in sending him either to an industrial or a reformatory school —particularly to a reformatory school —he keeps letting him out—on the first charge, the second charge and the third charge; and the authorities of the reformatory schools have on many occasions indicated that, by reason of the district justice being unable to make up his mind as to whether he ought to send a boy to a reformatory or not and letting him off this time and the next time, conditions arise in which many boys are treated leniently enough in that way and by the time they reach the reformatory, they are rather incorrigible and difficulties arise in the discipline of the school. However, where there is no charge and where it is due to the conditions of the home, the district justice cannot commit them for a period of less than two years.

Now, two things seem to be very clear as requiring attention. In the first place, when a district justice demands a child for a month and considers it undesirable to allow him to go home, he has to send him to a place of detention for that period. They are very badly equipped from that point of view. If you take the position as regards Dublin, the Counties of Louth, Monaghan, Cavan, Longford, Westmeath, Meath, Laois, Offaly, Carlow, Kilkenny, Wexford and Wicklow, if any district justice in any of those cases considers he wants to remand a boy in custody for a month, until he makes up his mind as to the best thing to be done with him, such boy has to come to Dublin, as far as I understand, to the house of detention here. I think there is a long history of complaint that the house of detention here as a building is unsuitable, that the type of management of the institution, the authority that looks after the institution, is not the proper type of authority which ought to be there.

I have been dealing only with the eastern side of the country, but these things are just as bad in the West. If a district justice in Donegal, Leitrim, or nearby counties wants to hold a boy for a month, while making up his mind, he has great difficulty in sending him to a suitable place of detention. It is bad for the place where it occurs; it is bad for the child; and it is certainly bad for the district justice in acting as an official who has the responsibility of indicating the best thing to do for a person who is in difficult circumstances and whose education and character training at a critical time require looking after.

I feel that if the matter were fully understood, it would be realised that we need legislation which will enable a district justice to commit a child for a period of six months. Nearly every case that arises seems to be one in which, if the child were properly taken under suitable educational and administrative circumstances, whatever is wrong with his attitude, his character or his disposition could be completely and satisfactorily changed inside six months.

I press for consideration at the earliest possible moment of the introduction of legislation and the making of the necessary arrangements. There is no use in our having the legislation if we have not sized up the type of institution which will take children for this purpose. I think it should be possible to arrange that a suitable Order or Orders would agree to take children of this kind.

There is a grave responsibility on and a very important duty discharged by the people in charge of industrial schools. In many cases, they realise from experience that it is undesirable, in a school to which a large number of children are sent because of parental or social conditions, apart altogether from any viciousness in their own character or any action on their part to have the general run of children, of that kind associated with people who have been sentenced for petty crimes of one kind or another, or for a certain viciousness in disposition. Anyone who realises what education means to people of the class for whom industrial schools are intended will understand how important it is to keep the atmosphere of the school as clear of viciousness and indiscipline as it can possibly be kept.

I, therefore, mention this matter in order to ask the Minister whether he appreciates the difficulty there is for district justices in being constrained to commit people for two years and not being able to commit them for a shorter period, and whether he would consider rather urgently—because I think it is urgent; the problem has been there for a number of years— making the necessary approach and seeing what institutions he could get to undertake the care of children sentenced, say, for a period of six months for observation or trial. If you like, it could be a kind of remand, although it is a type of committal. If that were done, a very large part of the problem of education and character that is involved in the case of some of these children would be satisfactorily settled and settled at a much smaller cost than is now involved in dealing unsatisfactorily with these children.

I should like to ask whether the Minister has any hope of seeing that that problem is dealt with by getting suitable institutions to take people of that kind. I am quite sure that the legislation which it will be necessary to pass will be passed with great alacrity by both Houses of the Oireachtas and I feel that, given legislation of that kind and the ability to deal with children for a period of six months, the cost of the whole scheme might very well be less than the cost of the present scheme of dealing unsatisfactorily with the problem.

Mr. Coogan

In our local newspapers the words "hiring out" are used in regard to children. I should like the Minister to see to it that those words are not used in future. We have heard enough of the hiring fairs in the West and do not want this phrase to be misconstrued by the cross-Channel yellow Press.

Mr. J. Lynch

The first point raised by Deputy Mulcahy was with regard to the increased cost of keeping children in industrial schools and such institutions. I agree that the people who run these homes are finding it very difficult on the present capitation grants, which, as I have said, comprise contributions from the State and from local authorities, and are rather low, being based on the costs of five or six years ago. I have recently received a deputation from the managers of these schools and I hope that, as a result of negotiations now proceeding, it will be possible, some time at any rate, to improve the position in that respect.

In relation to the second point made by the Deputy, I am advised that district justices have, in fact, power to commit children for periods as low as three months, but I can appreciate the point the Deputy is making that committal to an industrial school envisages a certain type of treatment and that there are certain juvenile offenders in respect of whom a justice finds some difficulty in making up his mind about short periods of remand. I think the real import of the Deputy's remarks in that respect was the necessity to find a suitable place of detention in which these children could be detained until such time as the justice is properly satisfied as to what type of treatment, if any, is needed.

In regard to Marlboro' House, I agree entirely that the place, in all respects, is unsuitable — in the form of its buildings, in the form of detention and in the form of supervision. There is really no proper means of rehabilitation there and I can assure the Deputy and the House that I am taking active steps — and I mean the word "active" in its fullest sense—to see if some suitable alternative arrangements can be come to, in Dublin at any rate, for the detention of children who are sent at the present time to Marlboro' House. I can appreciate the difficulty that would arise in centres remote from Dublin, unless and until similar suitable places of detention under similar suitable supervision can be found, but, having solved the Dublin problem, I hope then to be in a position to tackle the solution of the problem in other areas, where solution is necessary.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Coogan, I am not responsible for the term applied to the boarding-out of children in the West of Ireland. It appears to be a desirable method of giving home treatment and quasi-parental treatment to children who could not otherwise be provided for. It is a system which I do not propose to interfere with, at the moment, at any rate, and I take it the Deputy would have more influence with the people of the West to alter the term by which that form of maintenance of children is referred to.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 6th November, 1957.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 31 Oct 1957

Children (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Oct 1957