I should like to advise Deputy Haughey that he has nine minutes left.
Private Member's Business. - Family Law Reform: Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
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.
—(Deputy Andrews.)
Thank you. Before I reported progress on the last occasion I was making the point that there is fairly widespread disappointment and disillusionment with this Government in the matter of desirable law reforms. Individual Members of this Coalition Government in Opposition had presented themselves, and very successfully presented themselves, as dedicated reformers. No platform, no seminar, no conference was neglected by them as an opportunity for protestation of their zeal. Every cause was espoused when they were in Opposition. I pointed out that many people had accepted the protestations at their face value and had looked forward genuinely and honestly to a great reforming programme by this Government.
We are not getting that programme of reform and there is widespread impatience on the part of many groups and many individuals who had been let to believe that this Government would embark on a comprehensive programme of necessary reform. I said on the last occasion that it is not sufficient for the Minister for Justice in this context to fob us off by pointing to improvements in the social welfare code. We welcome those improvements. We made them ourselves as resources became available. We accept that the Government have gone along the same road in a number of directions. That is not what we are concerned with in this motion.
What we are calling for in Deputy Andrew's motion is legal reform, the provision of legal rights and legal remedies for those people in our community who need them, the defenceless people who are described in this motion. Deputy Andrews and I and those of us on this side of the House who are interested in this area recognise that this is a major legislative undertaking and we do not expect the Minister to do everything overnight. We want some payment on account. We want some positive action. It is our belief that it is the duty of every Minister to do what he can in his time. We believe that the law must be continuously updated to provide solid protection for those citizens, those members of our community, who are weak and defenceless and incapable out of their own capabilities and resources of looking after themselves. That is what reform is all about.
I also want to make the point that these remedies and these protections which we are seeking must be readily available. We want a workable system. We want something which will be available to the ordinary citizen who has no particular resources at his or her disposal. This motion is inextricably bound up with the question of free legal aid which we discussed on another motion of mine a short time ago. Every Deputy knows that involved in this question of deserted wives, deprived children and unmarried mothers are many elementary needs which are not available to them. This motion is concerned with those needs.
Our case is that our courts at present are not suitably constituted to deal with the type of problem which comes up in this area. The legal profession at the moment is not geared to deal with this sort of case. I mentioned that from my own personal knowledge in the city of Dublin there are only one or two solicitors who are prepared to undertake this type of work. The ordinary solicitor's office is not geared to undertake these types of family remedial actions. We want to see progress made in this area.
Mainly what we are concerned with in this motion is to try to push the Minister into positive action. We believe that the problem has been sufficiently exposed. There are many excellent groups and organisations working in this area. There has been plenty of publicity as to what the reality of the situation is, what the problems are, where the hardship is and what remedies are needed. These have been fairly well exposed and publicised and what we need now is positive action. In this motion we are asking the Minister to come forward with legislation in some area to assist these groups. The Minister has expressed his sympathy and his goodwill. He has told us we are pushing an open door. He said something along the same lines when he intervened on the last day when this motion was being discussed. He said:
The spirit behind this motion is an excellent one and I welcome it.
We appreciate the expression of that sentiment by the Minister but we want to see concrete action. Many aspects of this could be dealt with immediately. They do not require any further investigation or any further inquiries. It is simply a matter of the Minister bringing the legislation into this House. I assure him that in terms of relief from human suffering and human hardship and human agony any one single measure enacted in this area will be of enormous benefit and well worthwhile.
I intervene to advise Deputy Haughey that his time is just up.
I wish to support this motion. As yet I do not know the precise Government attitude to this motion but I gather it is not being opposed. In my view it should not be opposed. Deputy Andrews has done a service to Dáil Éireann in tabling it.
In recent years we introduced amending legislation in relation to adoption. We have also introduced the Maintenance Orders Act. We have reformed certain areas of social welfare, such as monetary allowances for unmarried mothers, special allowances for wives of prisoners and so forth. In this political establishment—and this is my personal opinion—there is a trough of complacency. This is very dangerous. I share with Deputy Andrews and many members of the Government, notably the Attorney General, a deep sense of anger and personal frustration that for many years we have been waiting painfully, slowly, for successive Cabinets to introduce reforming legislation. It came at a snail's pace when Fianna Fáil were in power. It has come at a slightly faster pace since the Coalition came into power. I say this because the pace and content of the reform have not been fast enough.
I do not want to face a general election in two or three years' time with a record of a new Adoption Bill, a Maintenance Orders Bill and we are still considering the interim report. I want to be able to stand as a politician deeply interested in this area of legal reform. I want to be able to say that we have positively discriminated in favour of the 7,000 or 8,000 children who come to the attention of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children every year. There are many thousands of children of widows and widowers who still do not have adequate social positive discrimination in their favour.
There are grave deficiencies in the law regarding the children of deserted wives, deserted wives themselves, juveniles, families who appear before the courts, husbands who abuse their wives or wives who abuse their husbands, husbands who desert their wives or wives who desert their husbands.
Deputy Andrews referred to the plight of children. Do we know the deprivation being suffered this winter by the 3,000 or 4,000 itinerant children here? What have we in Dáil Éireann done? I am a member of Dublin County Council. The record of that council in terms of providing elementary living accommodation for children is a public disgrace. In my own constituency there is a family of 11 children living under a tent in Cabinteely—that magnificent, affluent suburb. Their father is in hospital. They are suffering. The public representatives of the area are doing very little for them. Apart from passing nominal resolutions that perhaps they would provide one or two houses—something small enough to ignore the problem and yet large enough to say they are doing something about it—they have done nothing. These people to whom I refer are my fellow councillors of Dublin County Council. I claim no exemption in that regard. Those 11 children are included among the deprived children of our community.
We must also consider this motion in another context. I know we are concerned about the legislative reporting aspect. We must consider the 7,000 or 8,000 children who will not go beyond primary school and many of whom will leave school illiterate despite the lauded benefits of our educational system. We must consider the several thousand children who will finish up in different forms of public care. I suggest that, in a community which can comfortably spend £4 million a week on drink while not worrying unduly about deprived children we can do two things: first, ensure that taxpayers' money is spent on deprived families, deserted wives, deprived children. Or else we can implement the classic elementary socialist principle: we can introduce the necessary transfer payments in the community. This can be done if we have the political will to do it. I am sure the Irish people would not be unresponsive. The opportunities are there. The need is there. We must go to the electorate and convince them that these areas of reform still remain to be dealt with.
I echo Deputy Haughey's comment that underlying this is the need for an effective system of legal aid for deprived families. Despite the alleged generosity of the legal profession— many solicitors and barristers are extremely generous in providing what they regard as a personal system of legal aid—there is nowhere in my constituency where I can send for legal aid a deserted wife, a battered wife, a wife with four or five children having suffered at the hands of her husband, or a husband who has been deserted by his wife and who is wondering who will mind his children when he goes to work on Monday morning. Although he may be living in Dublin his relatives may not live here. He wants legal aid. I can, perhaps refer him to a lawyer friend of mine, hoping that that friend will help. Some members of the legal profession patronise the poor by providing charitable legal aid. I want to see a system here where such persons can have elementary public protection.
Last weekend in Dún Laoghaire a young unmarried mother who had had a nervous breakdown informed me that her landlord had told her that she would have to pay an extra £1 per week in rent. She is now paying £15 per week rent for two rooms in Dún Laoghaire. The extra £1 per week is because the landlord said the price of gas has increased. The flat has a gas central heating system but the £15 does not include the usual 10p she puts into the meter for electricity. There is no way by which I can provide legal aid to such an unmarried mother who is rather desperately trying to care for her child at home. How can I refer this unmarried mother who lives in a furnished flat to a rent tribunal or court? There are no courts in existence. This person is on a casual week to week tenancy of an exploited nature.
There is no legislation to provide protection for such persons and such persons are being exploited. Those living in private rented accommodation, deserted wives, unmarried mothers and deprived children, are very frequently eternally grateful to any landlord who takes them in because they have, in this so-called Christian country, the stigma of being unmarried and having children. For this reason very few landlords or landladies want to see them. Very few landlords want to see a deserted wife either. We are unduly complacent about this. If I speak strongly on these topics it is because I feel that Dáil Éireann, a male dominated platform of a political nature consisting mostly of people from the middle income group, tends to treat these major issues in a rather remote fashion.
In the course of the debate on this motion last week Deputy Haughey told us that he frequently has to listen to a wife or a mother telling him that her life is a living hell and that she cannot carry on or that she cannot continue to protect her children in the situation and in the circumstances in which she finds herself. If I cannot listen to such a person and tell her her rights under the law then there are deficiencies. I share that sense of frustration with Deputy Haughey. I suggest to the Minister for Justice that there are areas where staff of his Department could produce a system of family courts without having to suffer sleepless nights in the Christmas Recess. I do not want to be critical of public servants because, in my opinion, a public servant is as good as his Minister. I do not suggest that public servants should be caught by the scruff of the neck and dangled around until they produce a Bill. If a Minister has not sufficient political determination he should be prepared to stay up until 5 o'clock in the morning to get the knowledge or the background. I am convinced a system of family courts can be produced by officials in the Department of Justice and I do not think it is a subject of such complexity, with due respect to the Minister for Justice, or to any member of the Government or the Attorney General—there is no more sensitive and perceptive person in the Dáil on the Government side than the Attorney General who has a grasp of the problems involved. I do not think the close analysis or study required are as tedious or as time consuming as the Minister told us.
I suggest that studies of comparative law and the comparative procedures which we had over the past five years, are not necessary again. What we need are a few straightforward simple decisions, for instance, to establish family courts, and set up a system of lay assessors within these courts. It is possible that we will not make a success of this in the first year but we should try the system out in an urban area where it can be done without any major legal anomalies developing. I am not one for experimenting with the law but there must be some sense of imagination and innovation, particularly in an area where there is an abundance of evidence and reports available. I am worried that it has been suggested that we may have to wait until we receive the report on Court Practices and Procedure before we proceed to set up family courts.
If we have to wait for that kind of eventuality I believe we will not see family courts established in the life-time of this Dáil. The committee on Court Practices and Procedure is an excellent one but I am worried, knowing the nature of what happens when a report gets into the hands of the Departments after production, that the delay could be considerable. I urge the Minister to have a look at this situation.
I welcome the decision to set up a task force. I know a number of the members of this task force, particularly Mr. O'Mahony, Mr. Ó Cinnéide and Mr. Shanley, and I have not the slighest doubt but that their report will be produced quickly and that it will be possible to implement it speedily. I urge one warning on the Minister and it is that the setting up of this task force may give rise to the old temptation, as happens in many Government Departments, that once it is there under the auspices of the Minister for Health, officials will sit back and wait. It is possible that the report during 1975 will be sent from Department to Department until, perhaps in 1976, a Member decides to have a further look at the situation. I issue these warnings in a harsh sense because while I have no doubt that the task force will report in time there is a danger that its recommendations may not necessarily be implemented.
Deputy Andrews suggested that there should be a court system for children in conflict with the law. He suggested a system whereby a justice will sit with two lay assessors. On balance, I tend to favour it if only on the grounds of simplicity. I know the Minister for Justice has suggested that there is a danger in remote rural towns that one's next door neighbour might well be sitting as an assessor. I think that danger could be overstated. I would suggest to the Minister that initially one could set up a court system for children in conflict with the law; in, say, Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Galway, in the major areas; have the lay assessors appointed, who presumably, would have an elementary training in child care and, in social administration. Indeed, I would hope that if there were two assessors one of them would be a woman. I think it should be ensured that women social workers are involved directly in such a new courts system. Rather than suggest that a neighbour might be worried about the fact that another neighbour might be sitting in judgment on his children in court, I would suggest to the Minister that one should think in a positive, innovative sense and take a chance, set up a system, let it operate for a couple of years, have a report from the district justices concerned—and there may be only five or six of them spread throughout the country initially in the major urban areas—and have a report from the lay assessors. Then, in the light of experience, one could introduce a more comprehensive system. Perhaps this represents an air of impatience on my part but I would prefer to see something like that done rather than wait and see nothing done during one's membership of Dáil Éireann.
Indeed, I would hope that one of the early recommendations within the task force and emanating from any district justice would be that reports on children who come in conflict with the law at juvenile liasion officer level—where they are, as is the custom, warned, where the parents are informed and where no charges are brought—would not be recorded. I would hope and pray that the arduous practice of recording such warnings in public records would cease so that when such children subsequently apply for State employment—and this happened in one instance of which I am aware in the past three weeks they are not told: "Sorry, you are not entitled to be posted; sorry, you cannot apply to be a BIM fisherman under a State scheme; you are not eligible because we have a report that you came in conflict with the law." I have been assured by those responsible for the operation of the juvenile liaision officer system that there was never any such intention, that any slur of a non-statutory, non-judicial nature would be cast on the character of such children who have obtained what one might call "off the record" warnings. I would sincerely hope that this practice would cease. Indeed, I raised this matter in the House four years ago. All I got at the time was a very gruff response from the then Minister for Justice and nothing was done about it, although he did admit that this practice should cease. God knows, with the dangers inherent in the use of computers at present, the keeping of records of that nature could mean that some unfortunate child of 15 or 16 years of age who had had a severe warning for some petty offence which is recorded and who applies for a job subsequently at 18 or 19 years of age could be told he was not suitable on those grounds. I would hope that that situation would be rectified as soon as possible.
Within the system of family courts I should like to see established the requirement that there should be a full, written, social background report, a social inquiry prepared in respect of every child and every young person who appears before the courts. I would suggest that such a report should be specially and directly prepared by qualified social workers. This is an essential element in the care of deprived children. I would suggest that there be more effective and positive use of a system of supervision orders to assist children and their families in their problems. Where children might require a compulsory period of residential care, I think that should be for a limited period only; initially, say, for three or four months, subject to review, rather than having a blanket period of custodian care. Those are elementary provisions which the task force should introduce. Indeed, I would urge that there be the facility of providing for an interim care order of up to 28 days, if necessary, during which time the young offender can be properly observed and assessed. Subsequently the district justice might make an order rather than, as at present—with due respect to our district justices and social workers—having it done on a somewhat hit and miss basis.
Finally, I come to part (b). Deputy Andrews suggested the guarantee by the State of an adequate standard of living for all who have the care of children. Since this is an aspect which relates particularly to health and education, I would suggest to the Minister for Health that the time has come for a radical, comprehensive review of the system of children's allowances. As a Deputy I earn £4,200 per annum. I have no other source of income. I have three children and I get £9.40 or £9.65 a month for my three children. Do I need that money more than a family with an income of, say, £1,500 or £1,250 per annum? I would strongly suggest to the Government that the across the board children's allowance to every child in the community, irrespective of the means of that child or of its family —now costing millions of pounds per annum—is not the most socially desirable, the most socially egalitarian or, indeed, the most balanced way of giving assistance to children in need. There are very large farmers in this country; and there are numbers of industrial workers who are not that badly off.
I intervene to advise the Deputy that his time is almost up; he has less than a minute left.
Therefore, I would suggest that we should give a weighted children's allowance to, say, the fourth or fifth child; perhaps the first child might not get any. I know this is a very contentious area. Perhaps there should be some ceiling in relation to income for the payment of children's allowances. Again, perhaps, the principle of selectivity should be applied. But were we to take the millions of pounds we spend on children's allowances and distribute them more fairly throughout the country to the children, mothers and families in greatest need, that money would have far greater impact in terms of family income maintenance.
I am now obliged to call on another speaker.
I therefore strongly support the motion before the House and commend my colleague, Deputy Andrews, for introducing it.
I should like to intervene briefly on this motion in the knowledge that my colleague, the Minister for Justice, covered a great deal of ground when he spoke here last week. I should like to deal briefly with the section of the motion which is concerned with the question of deprived children and the updating of the 1908 Act, which in the year 1974 could certainly be described as being ludicrous when one has regard to the needs of children, particularly deprived children.
I do not think any of us should claim credit in this respect and I do not think anybody in the House who has spoken has deliberately made a political issue of this motion. The blame must be shared by all of us who have been in Government in Dáil Éireann for any length of time. Even now at this late stage we can claim credit from both sides of the House that we are concerning ourselves with the matters which are contained in the motion which was moved by Deputy Andrews. As far as the 1908 Act is concerned, with all due respect to those who administer the law in the courts, in many cases rather than reforming the child the sentences which are meted out are, in my view, making criminals rather than reforming them.
There are many organisations who have campaigned for the updating of the 1908 Act and an improvement in the lot of deprived children, who have concerned themselves about the problem. We have those who were responsible for the compilation of the Kennedy Report about four years ago. We have the CONCERN organisation, the CARE organisation and the Council for Social Welfare. We have also the further recommendations published recently by the CARE organisation.
This Government were elected on a policy of social reform. That social reform does not mean that reform should be merely in the matter of cash allowances, whether they be for orphans, deserted wives or any other such people as are described here in this motion. It was inevitable of course that, because we were elected on a policy of social reform, we should turn our attention to reform in the area of children's law and children's services as soon as the opportunity presented itself. It was emphasised in the Kennedy Report that responsibility must be centred in one Minister. Inevitably, no matter what might happen in the near future, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Justice must be involved —the Minister for Justice in court matters and the Minister for Education in the general education of those who may be sent to institutions.
The House will welcome the fact that the Government decided the main responsibility should be vested in the Minister for Health. My task therefore, as Minister for Health, is threefold: (1) the preparation of a new Children's Bill; (2) the preparation of proposals for the improvement of the service for deprived children and children at risk; and (3) the preparation of proposals on any administrative changes which will be required to put these proposals into effect.
The Minister for Justice might have been under a disadvantage today in that there was a question posed to him by Deputy Andrews which possibly should have been directed to me because I was the person who was given the responsibility of appointing the full-time task force of experts in the field of children's services. I should like to assure Deputy Andrews and any other Deputies who asked supplementary questions that it is a full-time task force. I believe the Minister for Justice may not have had the information that is available to me because, as I said, mine was the responsibility for the establishment of this task force.
In fairness, the Minister was referring to another question and I do not think he was altogether incorrect in what he said. It was in relation to another question that he was replying.
It was the task force and this is the matter to which I am referring now.
It is an understandable error.
Possibly the question should have been directed to me, but that is not the fault of the Deputy. There were questions asked about whether or not there would be an interim report and how long the working party would take to make their recommendation. I know politicians are prone to making promises but I should like to assure the Deputy that it is a full-time task force and I am informed by them they will complete their task in a matter of months. I do not want to tie them or myself to two months or three months but it certainly will not be one of these commissions or working parties that will go on and on because I am very anxious to do what is contained particularly in part three of the Deputy's motion.
During my consideration of reform of the law in relation to children some of the major issues I will have to consider will include the following. The new age of criminal responsibility which at present is at the ridiculous age of seven. It has been recognised for a long time that this age is far too low. There are various views, as has been said in the House, as to what the age should be for criminal responsibility. Various ages have been mentioned during the debate. The ages of 12 and 14 were mentioned. I could not give a view as to what it should be. I will be guided in the main by the task force that has been established but I think there is no doubt but that it should be upped considerably. I will consider these and other possible options as far as the age is concerned. The House can take it that it is my intention to raise the present age to a more realistic level.
It is obviously scandalous that a young child of eight years of age should be held to be criminally responsible. I know there are difficulties and children of that particular age get into trouble but at seven or eight years of age I think it can create a very bad impression on them and certainly may do harm to their future lives by having them arraigned before a court, no matter how kindly the justice might be, and to have them tried as if they were criminals.
I also intend, and again I will be guided by the task force, to look at the judicial institutions which should be available to deal with children and with juveniles. There has been a great deal of criticism of our present court system for the hearing of children's cases. Without intending any disrespect to the courts, a lot of the criticism, both direct and implicit, is pretty well justified. The main theme of the criticism has been that the courts as they function are not adequately equipped to explore the needs of children as opposed to the matter of their punishment. This is a particularly difficult area. Even within this debate various suggestions have been made as to how children should be dealt with if they appear to break the law.
I would like to assure the House and Deputy Andrews in particular that the task force will visit Scotland for the purpose of exploring the panel system to which the Deputy referred. This is a system that could be introduced in Ireland. While I have not available to me the exact details of the system I understand that it is a court composed of lay people. Again, without any disrespect to the judges or the district justices, there is the possibility that such a system whereby lay people would assess a young child before determining what should be done in regard to him, would be better than the system in operation here at present. On the other hand, there is the possibility that we could have a family tribunal institution and this, I think, would be a more appropriate setting for children's hearings. This tribunal would consist of a judge and lay advisers. The judge would assess the needs of the children rather than the punishment and I would visualise that the advisers would include social workers, particularly those in the areas from which the boys or girls would come, and that they would give relevant information as to backgrounds and so on. I do not say that in the children's courts there are slot machine decisions but far more care and attention should be given not so much to the alleged crime but of what should happen to the unfortunate boy or girl coming before them.
I will explore all the options available in this regard but the House can look forward to some modifications in the judicial institutions for children's hearings. It is my belief, also, that I should take a look at the range of disposition options available to the courts when dealing with children. There have been some interesting innovations in this regard that are in operation in other countries and I propose to have these examined. They would include such items as community service orders for convicted offenders, to mention but one possibility. This type of therapy or rehabilitation would be to the advantage of the child and would probably give him a greater sense of responsibility if he were inclined to be a vagrant or if he were the child of a family over which there was not the utmost parental control. The emphasis in disposition options must be tilted in favour of rehabilitation. The emphasis must be on rehabilitation where these young offenders are concerned. I will look into the matter from that point of view.
So far as the courts are concerned —I have referred to this before— greater use should be made of social inquiries when decisions are being taken in regard to the disposition of children. In the event of the non-availability of social inquiry reports it is difficult for the courts to decide on the needs of the child and to dispose of his or her case accordingly. Therefore, the question of making social inquiry reports mandatory will be looked at in this connection. However, reform in the courts and in the law is not the absolute answer and will not lead inevitably to major improvements in the services available to children. The services need to be developed. I am very conscious of this but I am conscious, too, that improving services is always costly and it is impossible at this stage to say how fast desirable improvements can be brought about but this should not prevent us from looking at the improvements that are desirable.
Even if we cannot implement them all at once, it seems to me that the single most important area where services should be improved is in the community area. This is where prevention can take place and it is highly desirable also that services be available in our community to maintain as many as possible of deprived children and offenders in their own community. The health board will have to play a very important part in this. It may be possible to create a situation in which reform of judicial institutions and our own health board staffs have a much closer formal relationship in dealing with the problems of deprived children and young offenders.
Deputy Desmond referred to the question of children's allowances. The Deputy was embarking on slightly dangerous ground here because it is very difficult to evolve a system in relation to payment of children's allowances or to decide on the type of person or what should be a person's income in determining eligibility for these allowances. The Deputy suggested that salaries should be taken into account in the payment of these allowances. Most of us from time to time have experienced a little guilt in this connection. There were times when it occurred to me that the allowance I received for my children, for which they are no longer eligible, could be put to better use by diverting them to children such as we are talking of now. However, we had a rather odd experience when we introduced the clawback clause some time ago. That move was not welcomed universally. As Minister for Social Welfare my intention at the time was to try to give more to those who would be regarded as needing it rather than to give to those whose need of the money was less.
I accept the motion before us. I do not say that we could or should implement every provision in it but both the Government and the Opposition have a fairly clear idea of the direction in which we are going in relation to these matters. As Minister for Health and as the one responsible for the establishment of this working party I will take into consideration the recommendations that are made by this eminent and expert body. I am sure everybody will agree that they are eminent and expert in this field. I hope that as a result we will have a different Children's Act and that we will be much more conscious of the need for the involvement of health boards and social welfare workers in looking after these people. I am not sure what clause (b) in the motion is suggesting. I was not here when Deputy Andrews spoke. He talks of the guaranteeing by the State of an adequate standard of living for all who have to care for children. I presume he means the children we are talking of here and not children in general. So far as the first part of the motion is concerned, the record of this Government can be applauded in respect of the people the Deputy mentions. We have made a considerable improvement in this area. During some general debate here recently I quoted figures showing where children's allowances were increased from, say, 360 per cent in respect of one child to 90 per cent for a family with ten children while at the same time in the period, mid-February, 1973, to mid-May, 1974, the CPI went up by 20 per cent.
This was deliberate policy on our part. Much more deliberate was the decision we took to give an increased amount to the child of the one-parent family. We did this in two budgets. In respect of one of the categories mentioned by the Deputy, deserted wives, we reduced the qualifying period from six to three months and in July, 1973 we introduced a scheme whereby a social assistance allowance would be paid to unmarried mothers. Another innovation which the House welcomed was the payment of benefit to deserted wives based on the insurance record of the deserting husband. That was also introduced in 1973 and in effect gave the deserted wife the same amount of money as she and her children would otherwise get plus the increase for the children.
We also made an improvement regarding the wives and families of prisoners by introducing a new allowance for them. I do not say that the financial adjustments or improvements we made are the answer to the proposals in this motion but I can assure the House and Deputy Andrews that I and my colleagues, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Education, are sympathetic as far as the general theme of this motion is concerned, particularly regarding the updating of the Children's Act, 1908 and these improvements will be carried out as quickly as possible.
I have only a few minutes to speak on this motion but at least it will give me sufficient time to pay tribute to Deputy Andrews for initiating this discussion. The welcome it got and the number who wished to speak on it in the limited time available shows how appropriate it is to the thinking of these times. I join with other speakers in complimenting the Deputy on giving us the opportunity to speak tonight. The whole theme of the motion is family law reform with the emphasis on family and while we look at the many social ills we suffer and the many problems of our society, I am sure we can point an accusing finger at ourselves for falling down on the job of protecting the family as a basic unit of our society and not ensuring by legislation and otherwise that we would enshrine the family in its proper place in the community. I trust that we who revere and wish to protect the family will give all the time, money and thought possible to the best way of doing it.
I should like to pay tribute to the many organisations, some recently founded and some very old, whose aim is to help the less fortunate among us and which are doing such wonderful work in child and general family welfare. If I single out the religious orders in this respect it is because they have been doing it longer than anybody else. We know the wonderful work they do as in the case of unmarried mothers. We had a man like Frank Duff in the Legion of Mary who, when it was not a popular thing to do, took this burden in hand and set up a home for them. He looked after them and gave them help and assistance when it was neither popular nor fashionable. The thinking in our society now is more advanced than it was some years ago and this may be explained by the fact that we are more affluent now and can afford to be more generous. However, I think there is a greater awareness of the problems and Deputy Andrews' motion epitomises present-day thinking and I hope some good will flow from it.
Deputy Haughey emphasised the need for legal aid for families of people in trouble. Here, organisations like FLAC have been doing great work on a voluntary basis. Young professional men or women cannot be expected always to continue to give their time voluntarily and therefore the State must come in with a proper system of free legal advice for those who need it.
The children's court has been criticised over the years and while there has been some improvement I agree that it should be taken away from a place generally associated with courts, such as the Four Courts, and transferred where there are modern buildings and where modern techniques could be provided so as to give young offenders a better chance to recover from their misdemeanours. We cannot dissociate the social atmosphere from the young boy or girl in trouble because if the Establishment has been remiss in allowing social problems to develop in certain sections of the people and if young people get into trouble, when they stand in court, I think we also stand indicated for our negligence, apathy and perhaps, laziness in not tackling social problems with much greater vigour and foresight.
In a city like Dublin where we have many social problems we have, of course, battered wives. This is a horrible description, perhaps so horrible that it compels us to do something. One society for which I do a little work has established a home for homeless men who have not much hope but, by voluntary work this has been made a self-supporting unit. They now plan to provide a home for battered wives or, as I would prefer to say, maltreated wives. However we describe them we know that these women who have been ill-treated by their husbands need help. The husband needs something different and I would deal very severely with him. If he has psychiatric trouble he should be treated for it; if he is just a bully he should be severely dealt with, but while this is being done we must ensure that the wife who has been ill-treated, and the children, get the best treatment society can give them.
In Dublin where we have so many unfortunate women on the streets I am told by social workers who work among these women that there is a very high level of psychiatric disturbance among them. This is something we do not normally think about in connection with these women but some religious bodies which are doing great work in that field tell me that many of these women have grave psychological problems. In any programme for the care of women we must examine every possible aspect of the position and see what can be done to better the lot of these people.
In conclusion I should like to pay tribute to the gardaí who in the city deal with various vice problems affecting women. This section of the gardaí should be strengthened because there are gangsters in this city who are using these women as a means of making money.
I know the trouble the gardaí have, I know how dedicated the gardaí who are trying to curb this practice are, but in any Government policy on the care of women we must emphasise the prevention of the ill-treatment of women. There are some names well known to gardaí and they prosecute occasionally but if we are to prevent a development of vice we should give the gardaí all the powers necessary to deal with such people. At the same time, we should show those women that the State is aware of their problem and is very willing to help any woman or child in trouble. The resources at our disposal may not be great but they are sufficient to ensure that no woman need be maltreated or deprived.
I should like to thank Deputy Moore for allowing me a few minutes to speak on this motion. It is a highly important motion. I am very pleased that the present Government have delegated to the Minister for Health the responsibility of investigating, improving and up-dating the Children's Act, 1908. It is seriously out of date in 1974 and it has created anomalies. The sooner they are removed the better. The vast majority of cases that come before the courts are dealt with as fairly as possible by our district justices. They make every effort to be fair and reasonable. Nevertheless their hands are tied by the Act and it is necessary that the law should be changed to prevent serious difficulties arising.
Pre-marriage courses are important but there is a responsibility on the Government to try to improve on the advice bureaux available to married couples and to families. No matter what efforts are made to improve the legal framework, the important thing is to provide help and guidance for married couples and young boys and girls during difficult periods. If this were provided it might prevent some marriages from breaking down.
I have, as a solicitor, represented people in cases such as were mentioned here today. In cases of assault between husbands and wives and other such cases there is a difficulty for solicitors and barristers if they are heard in public.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I am obliged to call on the mover of the motion, Deputy Andrews.
He can have another minute or two, with your permission.
Such cases should, if at all possible, be heard in camera so that family difficulties and background are not made public. Having them heard in public is not the way in which justice should be done.
If the legal owner of a house is the person who is deserting steps should be taken to prevent him from selling the family house. In the case of children who are over 16 but require further education or help in their jobs the dependency should continue beyond 16 years. At present there is a limit on the payment that can be allowed by the court. It is £15 in the case of a wife and £5 for each deserted child. This limit should be removed.
This matter is complicated, difficult and tedious. The State should look into the matter of guaranteeing an improved legal aid system to see that solicitors and barristers who are engaged in this work are compensated. This is important.
I should like to thank all the Deputies who contributed to this debate. Let me thank the various Government Ministers who saw fit to make their views known. One of the most refreshing and, indeed, helpful contributions from the point of view of information and the generous fashion in which it was placed on the record was the contribution of the Minister for Health. He came in this evening and spoke on the motion in a decent fashion. He did not wish, as we on this side do not wish, to have it made a political football. Not only did the Minister for Health meet the motion in a generous fashion, he also gave his plans for the future in the context of what concerns his Department. He mentioned that he intends setting up a task force for child care and I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating him for setting up this very important task force. The people who will be working on it will be working full time and that is as it should be. If these matters are to be taken seriously I believe, with no disrespect to the people who give their time volunarily, that the people engaged in this area should be engaged on a full time basis even if it is only for a year or two. In those circumstances people will work a full day and a full week and, consequently, things will be dealt with much more speedily. I agree with Deputy Desmond that the people appointed to the task force are undoubtedly people of merit and while we on this side of the House might quibble about their obvious political affiliations, they are people who are well versed in the subject to which they are about to set their minds, the area of deprived children.
In contrast with the Minister for Health, the Minister for Justice came into the House too sensitively, looking for a fight, which we in Fianna Fáil did not intend to engage in, and took up the motion in the wrong spirit. It appears that the Minister for Health accepts the social thinking of the Fianna Fáil Party, but the Minister for Justice rejected it and, therefore, the Minister for Justice rejects the social thinking of the Minister for Health.
That is the most convoluted logic I have heard for a long time.
It is logic all right, and it is not convoluted. If the Minister for Health agrees with me and the Minister disagrees with me—it is the triangle system of logic. It is a very reasonable point.
There is neither premise nor deduction to it.
I just deduced it and have given the premise for it. The Labour Party are in agreement with us on what is required. The Minister for Justice told us what he had done during his term of almost two years. He could argue that he was not long enough in office at the time, but the Minister draws attention to two Bills that he brought on to the table of the House and which are now on the Statute Book, namely the Adoption Act, 1974, and the Maintenance Orders Act, 1974. If the Minister is to hold these up as an indication of his will to engage in law reform, then God save us from the Minister's law reform programme. The Adoption Bill, as we pointed out was in the pipeline in the Department of Justice when the Minister arrived there, as, indeed, was the Maintenance Orders Bill. There is nothing particularly reformist about taking another party's prospective legislation, when they are in Government, putting it on the table of the House and pretending it is your own. It is anything but the Minister's own. This Minister who is a man of integrity and dignity and well capable of being Minister for Justice, nevertheless, has not discharged a number of promises made by his Government in the programme presented to the people at the last general election. As the Minister for Health said, the Government were elected on a policy of social reform. The Minister for Health might believe that, but the Minister for Justice does not. I would urge him to study the generous fashion in which his colleague met the motion proposed by me in the House. The Minister for Health outlined what his intentions were. On the other hand, the Minister for Justice, who quite clearly disagrees with the Minister for Health, does not appear to have any programme at all.
To sum up the situation very briefly, when I spoke on this motion last Wednesday I referred to the nineteenth report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. There are so many reports available, including the Kennedy Report now that surely out of all these reports we should be able to produce legislation. However, there is one sentence in that report which sums up what I have been saying for the last few years:
The present recommendations are made to meet the existing situation and are believed to be capable of rapid implementation.
To be fair to the Minister, he did initiate something when he asked the committee to report on maintenance and desertion, and, of course, when he was speaking the previous evening he had to have a sideswipe at the Opposition again and say what a great man he was for thinking this up and presenting it to the committee. We give the Minister full credit for that, but if the committee consider that the recommendations made by them in that nineteenth interim report are capable of immediate implementation why, almost a year later, are we still waiting for those reforms?
This Government have distinguished themselves by their abject failure in the whole area of law reform, not least in regard to social law reform. The Minister mentioned that they had increased family allowances, that they increased certain provisions for deserted wives, that they introduced a new concept giving money to the wives of prisoners during the incarceration of their unfortunate husbands, and that a mother would receive payment in respect of illegitimate children. I do not think the latter proposition is correct. It has been proposed but it has not been enacted—the provision of money for social assistance for the mothers of illegitimate children or single parent families, to use the current jargon.
Did the Deputy say that allowances are not being paid to unmarried mothers?
I said a promise has been made to do it, but whether it has been done——
Of course, it was done. It was done in the budget in 1973.
I am talking about the specific care of children. The Minister is mixing up the two things. The Minister will recollect he made a promise to the CHERISH meeting in the Royal Marine Hotel three or four weeks ago, and that is the promise the discharge of which I want to inquire about. I do not believe it has been discharged.
The Deputy quite clearly said no payments were made to the mothers of illegitimate children. That is nonsense. It has been law since 1973.
I think it is also fair to say that the concept of desertion and deserted wives, however belatedly, was introduced into the law by the Fianna Fáil Party and that any Government worth its salt should be extending what was provided by the originating Government. The Minister for Justice on the last occasion apparently boasted about the increases in social welfare payments under the various headings. How well the Minister might boast. Would we not think very little of any Government that would not increase annually payments to social welfare recipients? What is there to boast about?
We introduced new payments as well as increasing the existing ones.
They introduced one new payment and the Minister has mentioned it. The Minister should concentrate on his own Department and stop concentrating on Social Welfare and Health. What we would ask him to do is to come in here and give us some piece of original law reform produced by himself. I believe the Minister wants such reform but there is such a backlog he cannot cope with the situation.
For the fourth, and last time, may I assure the Minister that the Opposition will give him every assistance and every support in relation to any original piece of law reform he may introduce here.
Question put and agreed to.