Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1974

Vol. 276 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Family Law Reform: Motion.

Mr. Andrews

I move:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that provision should now be made to protect the interests of deserted wives, unmarried mothers and deprived children by

(a) the establishment of courts presided over by a judge or justice as appropriate, sitting with qualified lay advisers, to deal with family problems and in which adequate legal aid would be available to the parties;

(b) the guaranteeing by the State of an adequate standard of living for all who have to care for children and;

(c) the updating in more enlightened form of the Children Act, 1908.

This motion has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time but I am grateful to the House for affording me the opportunity of moving it now. The motion is an important one in every respect. Since the Coalition came to office I have called on them by way of parliamentary question, by way of speeches on the Estimates for the Minister's Department and outside this House also, to realise many of their promises which remain unfulfilled in so far as the whole area of social legislation and of family law reform is concerned. In saying that I have no wish to introduce a note of acrimony. It would not be my intention to ask for a division on this motion, a motion which it is hoped will indicate the general feeling in the country that there should be an urgent reform of the law in the context of those areas with which the motion deals.

In effect all we have received from the Minister to-date is an Act in relation to reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. That was a very important piece of legislation. However at the time it was being debated I expressed the opinion that, while it was a statement of intent, it would be very difficult to implement. Perhaps the Minister will indicate how effective the Act has been and how it is working.

There are available a vast number of documents that express the wishes outlined in the terms of this motion. In addition a number of committees are either sitting or are about to sit to discuss the area of family law reform. Among these is the Law Reform Commission and the Committee on Legal Aid and Advice on Civil Matters. There is a continuing Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. Apart from these commissions and committees there is a plethora of statements from various organisations, indicating a desire for change in the areas mentioned in the motion and also in respect of areas which might not be covered specifically in the motion. There are statements from the Free Legal Advice Centres on legal aid in criminal and civil matters. There are statements from AIM in the context of wives and children who are deserted. The CARE organisation have produced an extensive booklet setting out their views on the law relating to children generally. I understand that the Government are doing something in this respect.

The Minister for Health has indicated that he is about to set up a committee which will combine the functions now being undertaken by the Departments of Justice, Health and Social Welfare in the context of child care. It is proper that this change should be made so that there would be a unified approach in dealing with these matters. There are also the statements from CHERISH, an association which the Minister addressed one Saturday morning recently and whose meeting I had the pleasure of chairing in the afternoon of that day. There are also the organisations ADOPT and the National Youth Council. All of these organisations have expressed a general need for change of the nature that we are seeking.

I intend setting out the position generally but dealing specifically with a number of points. There is a tremendous air of public awareness and controversy on many aspects of family law. This awareness has been prompted in recent years by the groups I have mentioned and there may have been other groups which do not come to mind immediately. Most of the recommendations for the reform of the law relate to disabilities suffered by wives and children. A comprehensive family code of law would provide all the desired changes and reforms but, pending the implementation of such an ambitious proposal, urgent attention must be given in the short term to the following matters. First, wives, and under that heading, the question of maintenance. Ideally there should be legislation providing for family maintenance to replace the unsatisfactory procedure presently in operation. In the case of deserted wives, reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between Britain and Ireland is now law. However there is a difficulty in relation to the attaching of the defaulting husbands' salaries. Is there legislation to be introduced to deal with that problem?

Another subhead I have here under the heading "wives" is that of matrimonial courts. Within reason we favour the setting up of a family tribunal composed of one judge, who would be aided by two suitably qualified lay assessors who would deal with all family matters with the exception of juvenile matters which would be dealt with by a new juvenile court. This tribunal would have a reconciliatory function and would be in a position to refer the parties to a family welfare council. Procedures before the court should be simple and the aim should be to provide speedy and inexpensive relief for the parties resorting to that court, that free legal aid for needy litigants should be available, that the court should sit as a separate and new court in the High Court and also in the District Court, each court retaining its present jurisdiction relating to forms of action. I would visualise the Circuit Court sitting as a judge alone to determine appeals from the District Courts and that in this new court traditional courtroom trappings would be abolished, that there would be no barristers' wigs or gowns, but of course that the right to representation would remain.

It is our contention that anomalies in the law unfavourable to women should be abolished. There should be an examination of the possibility of abolition of the Criminal Conversation Act. There should be examination and clarification in regard to divorces obtained in England and we believe that the wife's domicile of dependants should be abolished. Main head B, Children——

Mr. Cooney

The Deputy has the advantage of me. I have not the document that he is reading from and he is referring to headings and subheads.

Mr. Andrews

It is my own preparation for this debate but I shall be delighted to assist the Minister by giving him a copy of the document which may help him to arrive at the conclusions we seek. I know the Minister is as anxious as we are to bring forward the legislation we are seeking. We are seeking law reform under these headings and we on this side of the House will give every assistance and co-operation when the Minister produces that legislation. Again, without being acrimonious, we are waiting a long time for it.

Mr. Cooney

I hope the Deputy will be present when it is introduced.

Mr. Andrews

If the Minister is saying that I shall be beaten at the next election, it sounds as if we shall have to wait for the next election before we get the law reform. That appears to be the situation.

Having dealt very briefly in the time available in a general way with the problems of wives, I now turn to what we consider to be the urgent priorities in regard to children. The first of these — and the Minister has indicated that he knows this — concerns the present juvenile court. We believe an examination should be made of the possibility of abolishing it and replacing it with a new court in which a district justice would sit with two lay assessors. The main function of the court would be to advise on the treatment of the young offenders. Such a court would have continuing interest in and responsibility for those sent for treatment or sentenced and there would be regular conferences to review cases. That is not dissimilar to the Scottish Kilbrandon Committee Report which exists for a number of years. We would ask the Minister to examine that report in the context of what we are saying here. A social report on a child's background should be obligatory in every case where a child is to be sentenced and it should be examined by the court before sentence is imposed. Here, as in the matrimonial court, procedure should be kept as simple as possible without undue emphasis on the rules of evidence. Free legal aid should not only be available but be offered in every case.

In regard to the Children's Act, 1908, and the Kennedy Report and the long-awaited implementation of the proposals and recommendations in that report. I believe it celebrated its fourth birthday on 12th or 13th of this month and still many of its recommendations await implementation.

That report deals extensively with the Children's Act, 1908, which we believe should be examined critically with the intention of updating it, but principally so as to allow compulsory orders to be made to meet the needs of children under the age of 17 for security, guidance, care and protection. Let me pay tribute to the previous Administration. We were responsible for the Scoil Árd Mhuire project opened about one year ago. This represents a great advance in the area of deprived children. But it is not enough: more requires to be done. Many such schools and additional assessment centres are urgently required. There is much to be said for transferring children needing care from the environment of the juvenile court to locally-based panels of suitably qualified persons. The age of criminal responsibility, we believe, should be raised from seven to 12. Some people might say it should be 14 years of age. However, after serious consideration, we consider the age of 12 to be acceptable. We also believe that the minimum age at which young persons may marry should be raised to 18 years. There has been some reform in that respect.

Existing anomalies in the law to the detriment of children should be removed and there is also the matter of the discrimination in the law relating to legitimate and illegitimate children. We believe that a decree of nullity of marriage should not operate retrospectively so as to bastardise children lawfully born of the marriage. These are some general views in the context of the motion before the House. We have already expressed at length our views on the matter of legal aid in criminal and civil matters and the need to implement our proposals in that respect and, indeed, the proposals of many of the committees I have mentioned.

Regarding the question of desertion and harking back once more to the Nineteenth Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure where it dealt with desertion and maintenance, I have a question for the Minister: Is it his intention to request that committee to examine the social problems of battered wives and will he make a statement on the matter? That question yet remains to be answered. I would point out to the Minister that paragraph 24 on page 10 of that report states:

In his oral evidence to the Committee, District Justice Delap, who is the District Justice hearing desertion cases in the Metropolitan District Court Area, submitted an analysis of 179 desertion cases heard by him between 1st March, 1972 (the date on which the 1971 Act came into operation) and 31st October, 1973. Orders were made in 170 of these cases. The analysis shows that the events causing desertion could be classified as; violence by the husband, 54; drunkenness by the husband, 35; adultery by the husband, 29; mental trouble, 19; "shotgun" marriages, 14; financial troubles, 8; gambling by the husband, 5; "in-law" troubles, 3; sexual incompatibility, 2; religion 1; cases dismissed, 9.

It is important to note that of the 179 cases dealt with 54 were in the context of violence by the husband. In other words, the situation which is for some reason becoming more common day by day, the question of battered wives. We will await the Minister's views on that topic. Paragraph 25 of the Nineteenth Interim Report reads:

Justice Delap also furnished the following statistics in respect of maintenance applications made in his Court:

	Number of applications	Number of cases in which Orders were made
1971	108	36
1972	192	98
1973	240	135

It will be seen that not only have the number of applications more than doubled, but also that the number of cases in which orders were made increased from 33 per cent to 56 per cent.

The legal profession and the people who come before him have the highest respect for Justice Delap as a district justice. Paragraph 26 reads:

Other details emerging from Justice Delap's evidence are as follows: most of the parties in these cases were in the weekly wage-earning category. The actual earnings of the husband were rarely volunteered; many wives were quite unaware of their husband's actual earnings and frequently received an inadequate share of those earnings; in cases of violence done to the wife or children, the lack of jurisdiction to exclude the husband from the family home often prevented the effective solution of the case; in many cases a less formal setting than the ordinary District Court might be more satisfactory.

This harks back to my original proposition. The addendum to the report reads:

The present recommendations are made to meet the existing situation and are believed to be capable of rapid implementation. For the long term the Committee is of opinion that it would be more desirable that all orders for maintenance should be met in the first instance by the local authority or the Department of Social Welfare and so relieve the spouse obtaining the order from the worries and uncertainties often associated with the implementation of such orders. The local authority could look to the defaulting spouse for recoupment and by the information obtainable from Social Welfare and PAYE records would be in a better position to follow a defaulting spouse who changes employment or place of business, etc.

think the most important and significant sentence in the addendum to this report is:

The present recommendations are made to meet the existing situation and are believed to be capable of rapid implementation.

We, on this side, of the House appeal to the Minister to give effect to the rapid implementation called for in that report.

On the matter of family courts and the abolition of juvenile courts I have an obligation to go into this problem in some depth. We believe there should be a new division of the High Court which would deal with (a) children's courts and (b) matrimonial courts. We also believe this division should be taken out of the area of the Four Courts and should be given a special place within the city or county of Dublin, more specifically in the city. There should be three district justices appointed to the new complex and two High Court judges, obviously two newly-appointed High Court judges because at the moment the High Court is chock-a-block with litigation. We believe also there should be a Circuit Court judge to deal with appeals from the District Court in the event of such appeals forthcoming. The prime function of any court dealing with children and matrimonial matters should be conciliatory and of course, by definition, judicial. The Attorney General mentioned some time ago in the context of those courts and the possibility of lay assessors sitting with the justices and the judges that there might be some constitutional difficulty involved, if I understood him correctly. We do not see any constitutional barriers here at all. Once there is a judge or justice sitting in the courts there is absolutely no reason why he cannot be assisted by specialists sitting on either side of him or sitting under him in the well of the court in an advisory capacity. That is basically what we are asking. It should be done.

I have already mentioned the seminar which the Minister and I attended dealing with single-parent families and I mentioned the CHERISH seminar. The Minister stated recently that he intended increasing the allowances for the unmarried mother. That was a very welcome statement indeed. There are five possibilities facing the illegitimate child: (1) he can be kept by his mother, though not by his father, or members of her family; (2) he may be placed for adoption; (3) he may, for whatever reason, be placed in a babies or children's home and remain there indefinitely; (4) he may be placed in foster care and (5) some combination of the preceding two categories may come into operation. Some 70 per cent of all illegitimate children are placed for adoption. Thus in 1953 there were 381 orders made and by 1973 this had increased to 1,402. Of these 1,402 adoptions, the vast majority—1,173 or 84 per cent— were placed by registered adoption societies, 127 were adopted by relatives, 81 were placed by health authorities and 21 were third party adoptions. Of the majority of the children adopted, that is 842, the Adoption Board state that they have no official analysis available of the circumstances in which their adoption orders are made but they think that the majority of adoption orders, that is the majority of this 1,402, are cases of illegitimacy. Therefore, the conclusion emerges that the majority of unmarried mothers place their babies for adoption either because that is what they wish to do or because due to lack of available services and support they have no alternative. This percentage is considerably lower than that pertaining in some other European countries.

The question of services for the unmarried mother in Ireland have been the subject of a famous conference known as the Kilkenny Conference, the proceedings of which have been published in book form. The title is "The Unmarried Mother in the Irish Community" published by the Kilkenny Social Services. This sets out quite clearly-that there is an almost complete absence of facilities to enable the unmarried mother to keep her child and leaves her with no alternative but adoption. I am not in any way critical of adoption. Adoption has worked well in this country and it has been worked well. It is continuing to work well. It is an extremely important aspect in the context of our social services. The point I was making was that one of the most unfortunate gaps in our services is the lack of facilities so that a mother has no alternative but to send her child for adoption.

The facilities which are almost completely absent ranged from the lack of crèche or day nurseries for her child so that she could go out to work and obtain the money to enable her to keep him. The almost complete inability of the unmarried mother to obtain housing for herself and her child emerged as the second most vital consideration influencing her to give up her baby. Material provisions in terms of contributions or payments have of course increased and are set out in a booklet produced by the Social Assistance Services for the year 1974-75. Let me say that it is a step in the right direction, but we believe it does not go far enough. The relevant section in the social welfare code is well worth quoting:

Social assistance allowance for the unmarried mother. An unmarried mother who keeps her child may qualify for social assistance allowance provided, (a) she is under 68 years of age, (b) is the mother of at least one child under 18 years whom she is keeping, that is, who is residing with her and has not been adopted, (c) she has lived in the State for a period of at least two years before her claim, and (d) she satisfied a means test. For instance, where the means are £5 or up to £5 she can obtain £9.70 if she has one child, and £12.10 if she has two children and so on up to no allowance when her means are between £13.50 and £14.50.

There is a clear indication that the State has a function and a duty to make proper provision for the unmarried mother. The 1908 Children's Act which I have mentioned was introduced in the era of sweated labour. Social thinking in 1908 is not applicable to 1974. Certainly the people who produced the Act were motivated by good intentions in the context of the social thinking at the time. If we politicians who attended the CHERISH seminar attended that meeting ten years ago there would have been a public outcry. In fact if the CHERISH organisation was in existence ten years ago there would have been a public outcry.

I am sorry I do not have the opportunity to develop these points much further due to the limited time at my disposal. I have 40 minutes, but one could speak on it for a number of hours to place on the record of the House all the points one wanted to make.

On the matter of illegitimacy there are two schools for thought on whether the succession laws should recognise the illegitimate child. There is one school which holds the illegitimate child, where there is a fairly sizeable estate, cannot be responsible for the misdeeds of his father. I do not intend to moralise on that. I do not think it is our function as politicians to engage specifically in dissertations on morality. There is the other school of thought — that if the father of an illegitimate child leaves a sizeable estate, and has legitimate children be it two, three or four, the legitimate children should have the rights. However, the illegitimate child did not ask to come into the world and it is unfair to exclude it from its father's estate. Personally I think it is wrong and will support any reasonable legislation the Minister might introduce abolishing the distinction in the Succession Acts between legitimacy and illegitimacy.

As I say, the illegitimate child is the filius nullius. He is, in theory, the child of no one, not having, I believe, at one time—whether or not it is still in existence I do not know—even the right to take his mother's name. His rights in relation to the natural father are minimal, if not non-existent. The right of support is curtailed by restrictive affiliation legislation, and the rights of succession to the father's property, as I have already said, including those given to a legitimate child under the 1965 Succession Act, do not extend to illegitimate children. The Minister may correct me on that.

In fairness, we must say that that legislation was introduced in 1965, and we are talking almost ten years later. Social thinking changes, and we in this House should reflect in legislation new thinking and greater social awareness. If I may respectfully refer to the 1937 Constitution, that Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, also appears to put the illegitimate beyond the pale by confining the family rights mentioned in Article 41 to the family based on marriage.

Do not think that in any way I am challenging marriage. I believe in the sanctity and the absoluteness of marriage. But those of us who have been privileged to be married or who were fortunate enough not to find themselves in the situation of illegitimacy might remember that we are not legislating in this House for one section of the community to the detriment of another. We have an obligation to legislate for the whole community. We have an even greater obligation to the less well-off sections of the community than we have to the better-off sections. If we base the social legislation for which we are calling on this side of the House on that concept, then I do not think we shall have any difficulty at all. We must give a lead in this House on the social legislation which is required.

I know I have 15 minutes to reply to the debate and I shall certainly use it, but can the Minister state whether there is in existence within the Department of Justice a unit specifically dealing with the area of legislation required by this motion, and if not would he not think it would be a good idea to gather from within the whole Civil Service a number of people concerned and interested enough within his Department and set up a special law reform unit in the area of child care and family law reform generally and, in addition, induct into that unit highly qualified people expert in the matters we are discussing, giving them a contract on a short-term basis until such time as the legislation is produced?

Can the Minister say what the Government's intentions are in relation to the production of the kind of legislation indicated by this motion? What type of legislation has the Minister got within his Department? What is the form of it and when can we expect the legislation to come before the House? Those are just some matters with which I would like the Minister to concern himself when he comes to speak. Can the Minister show his mind on his law reform programme in the context of deserted wives, illegitimate children, child care generally and matrimonial problems?

The Minister for Justice and Deputy Haughey rose.

Mr. Haughey

Is the Minister intervening at this juncture?

Minister for Justice (Mr. Cooney)

The Minister for Health will be speaking later on this motion because some of the matters embodied in the motion come within his jurisdiction—for example, the Children's Act, 1908—so I will say a few words on the motion this evening.

The subject matter of this motion is extremely wide, so wide that the necessarily limited time available in Private Members' Business will not enable any speaker to do justice to the subject or deal with it in other than the most general terms. This was made clear in Deputy Andrews' opening statement. He covered a wide range but, because of the limited time, he could only skim the surface of the whole area of social legislation. That is the danger in a debate of this nature. There are certain very obvious features which lend themselves to easy and facile comment. In a necessarily short debate one has, I suppose, to look for the obvious and comment on it, but the pity is that one is then constrained to a superficial debate. These are matters requiring much analysis in depth——

Mr. Andrews

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooney

——in order to ensure that in the solutions of the problems that exist hurt is not done to other sections of the community. That is the danger in trying to rectify grievances of particular sections without deep study. I am sure Deputy Andrews made a very deep analytical study of the subject, but the constraints of time necessarily forced him merely to touch on the obvious features in this area.

Mr. Andrews

I made that clear at the beginning.

Mr. Cooney

I am merely pointing out that the same constraints will necessarily apply to every speaker in this debate. There are three broad headings covered in the motion—the question of the establishment of courts to deal with family problems, the guaranteeing of a proper standard of living for all who have the care of children and the updating of the Children's Act, 1908. In addition to that, Deputy Andrews ranged over the field of deserted wives, unmarried mothers and children in conflict with the law and with society.

With regard to the question of special courts—I think we can call these family tribunals or courts because that phrase has become familiar and people know broadly what they would like to see when they talk about these—the matter comes down to a detailed analysis as to the level of our judicial system at which the court or tribunal should be inserted, who should preside over it, its jurisdiction and procedures. All these things will have to be carefully analysed. Devising something new like this, something radically different from our present institutions, will require very detailed analysis.

Deputy Andrews suggested there could be a new division of the High Court — section A dealing with children and section B dealing with matrimonial affairs. He then went on to talk about a complex in which there would be three High Court judges, two District Justices and a special judge to hear appeals from the District Courts. I do not know exactly what this means, but presenting the matter in these terms highlights the need to proceed with care and emphasises the need for detailed analysis so that questions of jurisdiction, procedure, position and the qualifications of those participating in these courts can be gone into in the detail necessary to ensure the courts will be effective when they come to be established.

This idea of the family court is not new and it does not come, therefore, as any surprise to me. It has been about for a considerable time. It is usually mentioned in the context of deserted wives, the wife's right to the matrimonial home, the question of ill-treatment and default by spouses responsible for maintaining the family home. All these things are generally talked of in the same context and in the same breath. This was one of the first things that came to my notice when I was appointed. There was a very vocal body of opinion seeking reforms in this area and they were seeking them with a great sense of frustration. They had been seeking them for quite some time without anyone making any move whatever to relieve their frustrations. I have no doubt now that Deputy Andrews, having gone back into ordinary life, so to speak, has become——

Mr. Andrews

A politican is never in ordinary life.

Mr. Cooney

——aware of the frustrations these people have been suffering for so long. He can now see the situation that years of neglect have left in this particular field. When I assumed office — I had, of course, been aware before I assumed office— I became more keenly aware of these various groups and their pressure for reform, indeed of the need for reform. I became aware of the adverse effects of years of neglect by our predecessors in this socially sensitive area.

Mr. Andrews

The corollary is that the Minister now in office is out of touch with the situation on the basis that I was out of touch with it when I was in office.

Mr. Cooney

It does not necessarily follow and I shall proceed now to prove that. Having been aware of the situation, consequent upon years of neglect of this socially sensitive area, I wondered what was the best way to deal with it and I decided the Committee on Court Practices and Procedure already in existence was composed of people of varying disciplines, having been set up by Deputy Haughey, with narrow terms of reference, unfortunately, to deal with court practice and procedure.

Mr. Haughey

At least it was set up.

Mr. Cooney

It is an excellent committee composed of excellent people.

Mr. Haughey

Thank you.

Mr. Cooney

It produced many excellent reports which were left to gather dust for many years under our predecessors, but that is another day's work.

Mr. Andrews

That is politics a la Coalition.

Mr. Cooney

I decided that, because of its expertise and because of its personnel, this committee should have its terms of reference extended to enable it to make reports and recommendations in areas of substantive law as opposed to purely procedural matters to which its then terms of reference confined it.

I found that the committee welcomed this extension. It puzzles me —and Deputy Andrews might inquire from my predecessor—why he failed to avail himself of the willingness of the committee to investigate areas of substantive law as opposed to areas of mere procedure. I was very glad I took that step to extending its terms of reference because very quickly it produced the 19th interim report to which Deputy Andrews referred and which contains many recommendations which will meet many of the grievances in this field when implemented.

Mr. Andrews

When will it be implemented?

Mr. Cooney

I gave an undertaking that, when that report was received by me, it would be dealt with as a matter of urgency and with all possible speed. That undertaking is being honoured. Since the report was received it has been under examination by my Department and also by the other Departments of State which, as Deputy Andrews knows, must necessarily be involved in legislation which can impinge on their activities and on which they would have a view to offer.

I am happy to say that the preparation of the legislation consequent on that examination is at an advanced stage. My timetable was to deal with that legislation during this session and I am still optimistic that timetable can be met. That is something to be pleased about because in the eight months, I think it is, since the committee reported — it cannot be much more than a year since I extended its terms of reference — this country will see far-reaching reforms in the area of the deserted wife, attachment of wages, widening the concept of family default. The recommendations made in this Nineteenth Interim Report, with some exceptions, will be debated in the House.

I contrast that speed with that of another report to which Deputy Andrews referred, the Kennedy report. He said it has now reached its fourth birthday. If it has, it had two or three of those birthdays under our predecessors. I contrast the speed with which we are dealing with this subject with the delay and lack of interest of our predecessors in this field of family law.

Mr. Andrews

I am sorry that the Minister is dealing with the motion in this tenor and in this atmosphere. I tried to keep it non-acrimonious.

An Ceann Comhairle

There must be no interruptions. There is a time limit to this debate and interruptions are particularly disorderly.

Mr. Cooney

I am not being acrimonious. I am sorry if the facts embarrass Deputy Andrews.

Mr. Andrews

Not at all.

Mr. Cooney

I cannot help it, but the facts speak for themselves.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is confined to half an hour and he ought not to be interrupted.

Mr. Haughey

We will have to send Deputy Andrews to remand school.

Mr. Andrews

With the Ceann Comhairle in charge.

Mr. Cooney

As I said, very often this subject lends itself to facile and easy comment because there are obvious grievances and we can all cry about them. Bringing in reforms to remedy these grievances is where the close analysis and the hard study are required. That has been going on in this area since the report was received from the committee.

I might mention, too, that when I extended the terms of reference of the committee, which my predecessor failed to do—why I do not know but, as I suggested, Deputy Andrews might ask him—I also asked it to consider the desirability of establishing special family tribunals. I consider that this committee is peculiarly well placed to advise the Government on the tricky question of special family tribunals. As I indicated earlier, it raises a number of problems: jurisdiction, composition, procedures and qualifications of personnel. I look forward in due course to receiving a report from the committee and having it examined and implemented.

I have no doubt that, because of its inherent difficulties, this subject will require very close analysis. As Deputy Andrews must know, close analysis and close study, involving possibly studies of comparative law and comparative procedures, are tedious and time-consuming. I can sympathise with the frustration of those who are waiting for reforms and are inclined to blame the delay on so much unnecessary red tape. I must deny for myself that any unnecessary red tape will delay any necessary reforms. The proof of that will be before the House shortly.

The House has already had proof of my anxiety to bring in reforms in this field of family law. I instance the Adoption Act, which was passed by this House some months ago and the Maintenance Orders Act, to which Deputy Andrews referred in flattering terms. The Adoption Act satisfied a grievance which had been voiced on a very large scale for a long time before we took office. One could hardly look at a daily newspaper or turn on the radio without reading or hearing some criticism of the adoption code. I am pleased to say that I was able to bring to this House, within a year of taking office, a reforming measure which has cured many of the ills in that field.

Likewise, the Maintenance Orders Act represents a milestone in the protection of the deserted wife in that the miscreant husband will no longer be able to flee with impunity to England. These are two positive proofs of my personal anxiety and willingness to introduce reforms and of the Government's collective anxiety in this field because, unless I had the co-operation and the encouragement of my colleagues, these reforms might not have been achieved with such speed. This is in contrast to the lack of action for many years in this field. I offer that as an indication of our good faith in this area and as something from which the public can take encouragement and confidence that reforms in the social area will be implemented speedily.

Mr. Andrews

May I interrupt the Minister, with your permission, Sir?

Mr. Cooney

Briefly.

Mr. Andrews

Surely the legislation the Minister mentioned was in the pipeline before he came into office and the amendments to the adoption code were also in the pipeline. Would that be a fair comment?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not utilise the Minister's time in that fashion.

Mr. Cooney

That is a fair comment but, from the Deputy's point of view, it is a two-edged weapon. I took it out of the pipeline and turned it into law. It had been in the pipeline for an unnecessarily long time.

Mr. Andrews

We did not have an opportunity——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. The Minister has little over ten minutes left and he must be allowed to utilise it without interruption.

Mr. Cooney

Another area which Deputy Andrews dealt with was that of children in conflict with the law and deprived children. This again is an area in which reform had been called for, for a considerable time. One of the difficulties was the division of responsibility between the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and the Department of Education. In an effort to get over the difficulty of divided responsibility and to have some measure of co-ordination it has been agreed that the Minister for Health of the day, whoever he might be, will co-ordinate activities in this field.

In order to bring about the reforms which we need, a task force has now been set up on the lines of the proposal which Deputy Andrews made towards the end of his speech when he talked about the need for involving outside people with expertise in a particular project. In fact, that is what this task force is doing. We look forward with interest to what it will produce. It involves outside people with expertise in the field of deprived children. It has recently advertised for interested parties to make submissions to it. Deputy Andrews might like to make a submission to this task force, having studied the problem in detail as he told us, and give his views, for example, on the age of criminal responsibility.

Mr. Andrews

I have already done so.

Mr. Cooney

I agree with him about the age of 12 years but there are varying views on this. I have indicated that I could prepare legislation to deal with this ad hoc item of raising the age of criminal responsibility, but in view of the setting up of this task force to deal on a more global basis with the problem of deprived children, I think it would be wrong of me to proceed with just that piece of legislation. The proper thing would be to allow the task force to deal with that aspect of the deprived child in the context of his total scene.

I am glad to say that the setting up of this task force and the novelty of it are indications of the Government's determination to tackle urgently the social problems of the deprived child.

The type of tribunal which should deal with the child in conflict with the law or out of step with society generally will require careful analysis. Deputy Andrews referred to a district justice sitting with two lay assessors. At the same time, he referred to the Kilbrandon report in Scotland which set up their system of lay panels. Again there is mounting criticism in Scotland as to the efficacy of the lay panels and there is the beginning of a swing against them. In England there was a compromise which is more or less on the lines suggested by Deputy Andrews of lay people with the magistrate. There has been some dissatisfaction in England with that, too, not so much with the tribunal itself but more with the after care under the probation service. That service has taken two courses, one attached to the courts and the other with no responsibilities to the courts. There have been very definite social problems in the case of continually delinquent children. This matter will require very careful analysis and study. I am delighted to see a task force of so many experts has been set up to consider the form of tribunal which should deal with children. They will welcome submissions from interested parties.

It is easy to say that there should be something different. The difficult thing is to say what something different should be and what form it will take. Lay assessors are mentioned almost invariably when this question of a children's court arises. We have got into the habit of considering children's courts in the context only of the Dublin Metropolitan Children's Court. In the anonymity of a conurbation like Dublin one could see a role for lay assessors. That might not necessarily be the case in the intimate society of a country town where there might be an objection from the parents of the child in conflict with the law to their neighbour sitting in judgment on their children. These are real problems and are not being mentioned merely as an obstructive tactic for doing nothing. They must be analysed and an answer teased out. That will be the job of the task force.

Deputy Andrews is pushing an open door when he asks the Government to take action. The action is under way by the setting up of this task force which had been charged as a matter of urgency to bring in recommendations and new legislation to deal with the anomalies in our children's courts. These anomalies are the result of more enlightened public opinion. As Deputy Andrews said, the 1908 Act was up to date in its time but is now out of date. I welcome his offer of every assistance in bringing forward legislation and look forward to his presence here for all stages of debates in these areas.

One must be careful how one phrases things. The Deputy said that free legal aid should not only be available in all children's cases but should be offered to them. That would be an extreme view. I sympathise with the generosity behind it but I think what the Deputy means is that it should be available in all cases where the parties would be entitled to it, but it should not necessarily be offered in every case coming before the courts.

Mr. Andrews

The Minister is interpreting me correctly.

Mr. Cooney

I am glad to hear that. The Kilkenny Conference took place four years ago. Nothing was done on foot of the recommendations of the conference to ease the lot of the unmarried mother until there was a change of Government. In our first budget we introduced for the first time in the history of this State a weekly allowance payable to the unmarried mother. This shows the different approach of this Administration to our predecessors in this social area.

The conference called for other reforms such as créches and houses for the unmarried mothers. It is very difficult for a girl to find a home for herself and her child. It is not surprising that the conference called for these measures having regard to the tremendous housing problem we had and which is now on the way to being solved.

Mr. Andrews

This is a non-political motion. The Minister need not bring in housing——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Cooney

I did not put down this motion. The Deputy did.

Mr. Andrews

This is a non-political motion and——

An Ceann Comhairle

Interruptions must cease. The Minister has five minutes left.

Mr. Cooney

The Deputy put down the motion and raised the question of the Kilkenny Conference which took place during our predecessors' term of office and in respect of whose recommendations they did nothing. One of their recommendations was housing for——

Mr. Andrews

The Minister need not bring in the Minister for Local Government——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews made his contribution without interruption. Will he please allow the Minister to do so?

Mr. Cooney

The reason why housing for unmarried mothers was a problem was that there were not enough houses being built for anyone. That situation has been cured and hopefully it will be possible to encourage local authorities to design into their housing schemes houses of a type to meet this need. Again, this is an instance where the Deputy is pushing an open door as far as reform in this area is concerned. We have produced reforms which our predecessors were very capable of producing. Why did they not introduce a weekly allowance for the unmarried mother?

Mr. Haughey

We did it for deserted wives.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Haughey will have his chance later.

Mr. Cooney

Why was it not done for unmarried mothers when the Kilkenny conference——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Andrews

The Minister should give us credit for doing something. This is a non-political motion and was put down for the best motives.

Mr. Cooney

I appreciate that the Deputy's intentions were good. I am delighted he has come here as a convert to the need for reform in this area.

Mr. Andrews

I was a convert before the Minister gave it a thought.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

As far as this Government is concerned, the Deputy is pushing an open door for reform and by our performance we have already shown so. We have helped unmarried mothers, brought relief for the wives of prisoners and the elderly spinsters who stayed at home to look after aged parents and who lost an opportunity to marry or pursue a career. We reformed the Adoption Act and brought in the Maintenance Orders Act. We are now well on the way to bringing in an Act to implement the 19th interim report——

Mr. Andrews

What has the Minister done?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Cooney

I have done these things. We act as a collective government.

Mr. Andrews

The Minister might tell the Taoiseach about that.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Andrews.

Mr. Cooney

We act collectively and in a unified manner. The spirit behind this motion is an excellent one and I welcome it. The implied criticism in much of what Deputy Andrews said that there was foot dragging on my part and on the part of the Government in the field of social and family law reform is unjustified. I have given enough examples to show that in our short period in office we have done far more than was done in decades by our predecessors.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Andrews has done the House a considerable service in putting down this motion for discussion in Private Members' time. The fact that he tabled it gives us an opportunity of reviewing the situation in this area. It helps us as Deputies to focus attention on what is happening. What will emerge clearly from the debate will be a universal and unanimous demand for some positive and concrete action on the part of the Minister.

I accept Deputy Andrews' statement that he put this motion down in an entirely non-political, non-contentious and non-partisan frame of mind. The Minister has done himself quite a disservice by the party political type of reply which he has given by way of intervention. Rather than giving us an outline of his thinking, his proposals and the action he has on hands, the Minister has sought to contrast some alleged activity on his part with inactivity on the part of the previous Government. I do not think the voluntary bodies and those interested in these areas of social progress are interested in that sort of political skirmishing. They want to see positive and concrete action by the Minister, but I do not think they are getting that.

That is a criticism I have of the Minister and it is why I am glad Deputy Andrews has tabled this motion. His motion gives us an opportunity to urge the Minister to take some action in these different fields. I do not think there is any need for any more reports, any more Commissions of inquiry or investigations. In my view the Minister could give effect to up to 40 things if he had the will and parliamentary time. What is lacking on his part is the will and energy to get on with that. From this side of the House we give him a complete undertaking that we will facilitate the passage of any of these measures through the House.

It should be remembered that many of the suggestions put forward could be given legal effect without legislation. There has been plenty of discussion in these areas, numerous seminars have been held and a great deal written and discussed about the problems. There is plenty of goodwill. This discussion and debate has tended to give people the impression that things are under way, that things are happening. As far as the people with whom I have been in touch about these matters are concerned, and as far as I am concerned, things are not happening. In my constituency the hardship, distress, suffering and the agony continue unabated.

I am referring particularly to the situation of the deserted wife, the unmarried mother and those with matrimonial problems. I frequently have to listen to a wife or a mother say: "My life is a living hell and I cannot carry on", or "I cannot continue to protect the children in the situation and the circumstances in which I find myself". That is the reality of the situation. In my view I am not a public representative in an enlightened community if I cannot list, for a deserted wife or a person who is responsible for looking after deprived children, their rights under the law. It is wrong that I cannot tell such people that there is a system of free legal aid to enable them to assert those rights and that I cannot give them the address of an advice centre where they can go to obtain help. Until the day arrives when we can tell constituents who come to us for solace their inalienable rights under the law and the way they can have them dealt with, I do not think we can be content that we have done our job as social or legal reformers.

In my view it is not sufficient for the Minister to adopt the attitude he has adopted by way of reply to Deputy Andrews. One aspect to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister is that, in the situation of matrimonial disputes and problems, the legal profession does not want to enter into this particular area. I have had the experience—I am sure other Deputies have had similar experiences—of deserted wives or wives with problems not being able to get solicitors to take up their case. I am not blaming the solicitors' profession for that fact. I believe the reason is that most of their offices are not geared to take on this sort of work and they do not want to take it on. There are one or two honourable exceptions in this city. These people undertake this type of case, but most solicitors' offices do not want to know about cases of this sort.

Even such rights as a deserted wife might have, or a wife who is looking for a separation, the custody of her children or maintenance, are often denied to them in practice because they cannot get legal practitioners to take up their cases. That is why I press the aspect of Deputy Andrews' motion which deals with the establishment of courts presided over by a judge or a justice, sitting with qualified lay advisers, to deal with family problems. I should like to emphasise to the House, and to the Minister, that there is a real problem in this regard. It is very important, in common justice, that we get courts of this sort. When such courts are established they would attract to them, hopefully, a body of lawyers who would specialise in practices of that sort. Then the type of person I have in mind would have this legal advice available to him. But, unfortunately, the reality of the position at the moment is that a wife—and I speak mainly of wives in this connection because it is more often the wife who is seeking redress than the husband—just cannot get, even if she can pay for it, the sort of legal service she needs if she is to be in a position to assert her rights.

I want to stress to the Minister as strongly as possible that there is widespread disappointment about the lack of action. I was not listening carefully enough to Deputy Andrews to know whether or not he mentioned the Kennedy Report. Certainly the Minister mentioned it. In view of the attitude taken by the Minister in his reply, I am sure he will not mind my mentioning the fact that when I was Minister for Justice, Miss Kennedy— as she was then—was appointed to the District Court, the first woman ever to be appointed to the District Court in this country. Therefore the Minister cannot say that we on this side of the House were completely impervious to any sort of social progress or enlightened development in these areas.

This Kennedy Report is an excellent document. It is full of sound recommendations. Mark you, I am always inclined to judge reports by the number of positive recommendations they put forward. My attitude towards a report of this sort is to go through it and tick the number of recommendations that can be adopted immediately; then adopt them and leave over the others needing to be teased out until such time as they have been teased out and then get on with them. In this excellent report there are a number of things that could be done straightaway. I shall take as an example the recommendation that the Minister's responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health but that the responsibility for the care and education of children should remain with the Department of Education. What is to prevent that being done immediately?

The Minister suggested that the recommendation regarding the age of criminal responsibility being raised to 12 years raised some problems. If there are some problems involved, let them be dealt with; let them be elucidated, elaborated upon, teased out, as he said, and let us wait until we get the right answer. I agree it is better to wait and get the right answer than to do something inappropriate. But in this report there are a number of things so straightforward and clearcut that they could be done straightaway. I think the Minister will not accept this criticism from me, but I can assure him it is true. I have on many occasions said to individuals, bodies, organisations and deputations: "The present Minister has indicated that he is favourably disposed towards reforms in all of these areas. I think you can be assured that something will happen and that these reforms will be enacted." I must say to the Minister now it is time he showed more positive results. Many of the things he mentioned here were very desirable but in fact were nothing more than extensions—normal, natural extensions of the social welfare code; they were not legal reforms. I think it is slightly dishonest on the part of the Minister to trot out extensions of the social welfare code in regard to allowances of one kind or another as being representative of progress in this area. We welcome them but they do not constitute progress in the area with which we are concerned in this motion.

A lot of people fell for and supported the Minister's party on the occasion of the last election because they thought this was going to be a Government of reform. They looked forward with some confidence to individual members of this Government whom, because of their performance in Opposition, the people felt would achieve a great volume of enlightened reform. These people are bitterly disappointed. The Minister should be aware of that. It is no help to him or to anybody else if he is closing his eyes to the reality of the situation. This Government have been in office practically two years now. The behaviour of some members of the present Government when in Opposition—I would refer particularly to the Minister for Foreign Affairs——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the motion now.

Mr. Haughey

I am not getting away from the motion. I am dealing with the motion before the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is pointing out to the Deputy that he is deviating from the motion.

Mr. Haughey

I will argue my case for this-motion in my own way.

Mr. Andrews

The Chair is wrong.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy does not have to tell the Chair he is wrong.

Mr. Andrews

The Opposition seems to be under complete suppression from the Chair whether it is yourself, Sir, or another.

Mr. Haughey

It is a perfectly legitimate argument for me to point out, in pressing the Minister to adopt this motion, that there is widespread disappointment with this Government, the lack of reforming zeal on the part of this Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy was going on to deal with individual Ministers when Deputy Andrews intervened to say that the Chair was not being fair.

Mr. Andrews

I said that, yes.

Mr. Haughey

Any Opposition Deputy is entitled to some latitude in the development of an argument.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy can complain that the Chair has been unfair.

Mr. Haughey

Very well. I shall not pursue the point. In conclusion, I want to press on the Minister the desirability of action.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would inform the Deputy that he will have the nine minutes left on the next occasion.

Mr. Haughey

In that case, in view of the contretemps which unfortunately arose between myself and the Chair, perhaps it would be desirable at this stage that I report progress.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must continue this business until 7.30 p.m.

Mr. Haughey

In that case, I shall endeavour to retain my cool and continue.

I was intending to deal in some detail with the recommendations put forward in the Kennedy Report. Perhaps the preface to that report is something we could all keep clearly before us in consideration of these matters. The preface states:

All children need love, care and security if they are to develop into full and mature persons. For most children, this is provided by a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with their parents, brothers and sisters. Children in institutions have for the most part missed this happy relationship. If they are to overcome this deprivation they must, therefore, be given love, affection and security by those in whose care they are placed.

The recommendations made by the Committee in this report are based on the assumption that all those engaged in the field of Child and Family Care agree that this must be their fundamental approach to the work they are undertaking.

That certainly provides a very full, philosophical, framework within which the reforms needed in these areas can be tackled.

Debate adjourned.