Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Apr 1941

Vol. 25 No. 9

Children Bill, 1940—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

(1) The Minister may make regulations for the conduct of certified schools and, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such regulations may make provision in relation to the education and training to be given to persons detained in such schools and the safeguarding of the health of such persons.

(2) Regulations under this section may be so framed as to apply in respect of all or one or more certified schools or of any class or classes of certified schools.

Mr. E. Lynch

I move the amendment standing in my name and that of Senator Campbell:

In sub-section (1), line 21, before the word "may" to insert the words "after consultation with the managers thereof.

Section 3 deals with regulations for the conduct of certified schools. This amendment is to the effect that the Minister, when making such regulations, should consult the managers of the certified schools concerned. It seems to me that, where extensive regulations are to be made in regard to the various matters set out in this section, the Minister could hardly be expected to be conversant with all the details involved in the case, and therefore it would seem to be wise and advisable that the Minister, when making regulations for a particular certified school, should consult the manager of that school. It seems to me that the Minister would be considerably aided by such consultation with the manager of the school concerned. I think that that would in no way detract from the powers of the Minister to make whatever regulations may be necessary, ultimately, to deal with the matters referred to in the section. This amendment is put down, merdy, so that the Minister should be afforded special information when making such regulations.

Mr. Campbell

I beg, formally, to second the amendment.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

The purpose of the section is to confer on the Minister authority to make regulations regarding the manner in which reformatory and industrial schools are to be conducted. As the law stands at present, under Section 54 of the 1908 Act, the managers of each school have power to make rules for the management of the schools. These rules are subject to the approval of the Minister, but the Minister actually has no power to make the managers change their rules if he should consider them unwise. The Commission of Inquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools made recommendations regarding instruction, diet, etc., in these schools, and while the managers of these schools—I should like to say— have shown a readiness to accept the views of the Department, and a readiness to co-operate with the Minister to carry out, as far as possible, within their resources, the wishes of the Minister, I have deemed it advisable to see that the Minister should have power to make regulations such as are contemplated in this section.

Senator Lynch would like to make it mandatory on the Minister, according to the terms of the amendment, to consult the individual schools. I do not think that is really necessary. In actual fact, we do consult the schools in any important matters that may arise. There is constant communication between the officers of the Industrial Schools branch and the managers of the schools, as well as the representatives of the association of certified schools. In addition, on important occasions, such as the making of regulations of this kind, the Minister would naturally consult the representatives of the schools. That has always been the practice, and there is no intention of departing from it. I do not think that, in the circumstances, it is necessary to do what the Senator wishes, and that is to bind the Minister formally to have consultation with the individual schools, which is the idea of the amendment, so far as I can understand it. I think that it might give rise to some difficulties. We have been dealing with the schools, as a body, through the medium of their association. This association has no legal or statutory status, and so it would be difficult to make provision for such consultation; but on general grounds I think the House will be satisfied if I say that it is the intention to have consultation on these matters now, as has been the case in the past, and that in connection with any regulations we are making we shall of course consult the schools.

Mr. M. Hayes

The Minister appears to be going in for collective bargaining; and Senator Lynch appears to be going in for individual bargaining, which would seem to be against the principle of trade unionism.

Mr. Foran

We all know that there is a great variation from school to school, and I think that it would be very desirable, if there is a difference in a school, to have consultation with the manager of that particular school, instead of meeting the representatives of all the schools. If things were happening in one school that were not common to all, we think that it would make for better control if you could consult with the manager so that the problem could be tackled in this way rather than by sacking teachers.

Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Lynch

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M. Hayes

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The Minister shall, in particular, make regulations prescribing that no person shall be appointed to teach in a certified school save under the same conditions of service and remuneration and with the same qualifications as are required in the case of teachers in primary schools.

This amendment, as it appears on the Paper, is not satisfactory, and if it were inserted in the Bill would not wholly meet the situation. It does not express the whole idea I have in mind, but it is put forward for the purpose of enabling us to get some clarity on this question of the position of teachers in industrial and reformatory schools. The amendment does not suggest, for example, that the expense of improving the conditions of teachers in the schools should fall upon the Exchequer, but, in the nature of the case, if any improvement is to be made in their conditions, I think it must be at the expense of the Exchequer generally. The income of the schools at the moment is clearly insufficient to maintain the children, the buildings, and a sufficient staff of teachers as they ought to be maintained. I may give two examples. The schools are financed by a capitation grant which, I think, is inadequate in itself, and there are all kinds of other extraordinary things about the position. In an ordinary national school the children have certain medical benefits and the advantage of medical inspection.

On the other hand, the children in industrial schools have to be paid for, and the argument I would like to put forward is this: that these industrial schools, with about 6,000 children and a very small number of teachers—I think the total number would not be more than 150—are a blind spot in our whole educational system. They are, however, the part of the system which would best repay attention and expenditure now. Our primary school population is about 470,000, and we have 6,000 children going to these industrial schools. More than 1,000 of them attend primary schools. The rest are caught and attended to by persons, lay and clerical, who have ho training and, with regard to lay teachers, are extremely badly paid, have bad conditions of service, have no pension rights and are the only class of teachers left who have, in practice, complete insecurity. The position is so bad that when a trained national teacher, for want of a better position, takes a job in an industrial school he is always on the watch to leave it because his service in that school is not counted towards his pension rights as a primary teacher. He is anxious to get out as soon as he can.

The principle of the State paying for the teaching of children has been accepted and we are, at the present moment, in the most recently published Book of Estimates, providing Government funds for primary, secondary and vocational schools and universities to the extent of about £5,000,000, in round figures. The salaries and pensions of primary teachers account for about £3,700,000, while the salaries and pensions of secondary school teachers amount to £250,000, so that we are paying about £4,000,000 in salaries to teachers. Yet in these industrial schools, for some reason that is difficult to fathom, the situation is left in the inadequate and unsatisfactory position in which it was before 1922. When we pay for teachers in primary schools, and in secondary and vocational schools, why do we leave this particular group of teachers untrained, not qualified with regard to diplomas of any kind, and very miserably treated? The lay teachers in these schools have no fixed hours and have very poor salaries.

Some examples of this were given in the report of the Commission on Industrial Schools. Thirty-seven lay teachers in industrial schools and reformatories had salaries varying from £36 per annum indoor—a wage enjoyed by quite a considerable number of domestic servants—to £260 per annum outdoor. Teachers of trades and sciences had salaries ranging from £70 to £78 per annum, and one teacher of literary subjects had £52 per annum outdoor. It has been argued that owing to the duties of these particular teachers, persons trained in primary teaching would not be suitable and that the managers of these schools require teachers who can not only teach literary subjects, but can also do supervisory work. That means simply that the type of person required is one who will do the work of a national teacher and other work besides. If that is so, he should be paid more, rather than less, than a primary teacher. If teachers trained in primary school work are not suitable, then surely equality should be meted out. If it were meted out, I think there would be no difficulty whatever in transferring existing staffs with a certain amount of experience, to the new scale.

At the present moment, there is a tendency for lay staffs to disappear entirely. In my opinion that is a bad tendency from every point of view. I understand that a lay teacher who gets married does so under pain of dismissal. That would appear to me to be contrary altogether to the policy of the Church and the State. I do not think there would be any great difficulty in making arrangements for the treatment of the existing staffs if new qualifications were insisted upon and new conditions given. When a scheme of salaries was settled for secondary teachers and registration was insisted upon, the existing teachers were taken on to the new register. Similarly, in 1927, when the primary division of the Christian Brothers' Schools came under the Department of Education, existing teachers were taken in under certain conditions.

I put down this amendment to see if the Minister has any intention of removing this glaring defect from a small portion of our educational system. It may be argued that during the war nothing can be done. I think the very reverse is the case because in time of war you can do anything. I suggest that now is the time to act. It is incomprehensible that we should spend £4,000,000 out of £5,000,000 on teachers' salaries and leave teachers in these schools in their present conditions. Children in these schools come either from extraordinarily poor parents where home conditions are bad, or they are themselves delinquent. In any of these circumstances they need more attention than the ordinary child, but the position is that they do not enjoy the benefits of the teaching which we give to ordinary children. By saving an inconsiderable amount we are probably—taking the long view—incurring very large expenditure later on. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has a scheme to meet the position and that he will put it into operation without delay.

Mr. Cummins

I second the amendment. It touches one of the blacker spots among many that can be discovered in this system. Here we have the poorest section of the community, an unprotected section, the children in the industrial schools, provided with teachers who must have extraordinary qualifications, seeing the duties they have to perform. These teachers have to carry out the duties of primary education, technical education and, in some cases, a programme almost approaching that of secondary education. Still those unfortunate poor men for some incomprehensible reason are deprived even of Christian rights. Senator Hayes has referred to the penalty, the undoubted penalty imposed upon them, if they obey the behests of the Church and of nature. If they take unto themselves wives they are liable to be dismissed. I think that is an extraordinary condition of affairs. How it could have continued for so long in a civilised land is, to me, incomprehensible.

It would seem that there is a tendency to supplant lay teachers generally by clerical teachers. I think that is an unfortunate tendency in this country. I have known of schools in which there were sometimes four or five members of the one family. These families gave sterling members to Church and State. I think there were very few bodies in this country outside the wealthy classes, who contributed so much to the upbuilding of Church and State as the lay teachers of our national schools. I think it unfortunate for Church and State that the tendency to which I have referred should be encouraged, and that these teachers should be crushed out from these appointments every time the opportunity occurs. I think the nation will be all the poorer for it, that it will feel the damage that is being done by it and, in the end, will resent it.

The teachers employed in these schools must have extraordinary qualifications, as I have said. They are dealing with a class who are generally not the most perfect products of mankind, and yet we have seen the excellent results achieved by the teaching of these men. Above all, they must understand the psychology of those whom they have to teach, and yet they are kept in a condition of continual unrest and uncertainty. At any moment they are liable to be dismissed without any reason being assigned. From year to year their position may be at any time abolished, and at the end of one session they do not know what is going to happen in the coming session. They have absolutely no security. Neither have they any security as regards salaries. Their salaries may be reduced at any time. I do not know that this occurs in actual practice, but I believe there are cases on record in which it has happened. Instead of being progressive, the salary of the teacher in these schools may be at a standstill or may even be a retrograde one. Then these men have no pension rights, although many of them have been trained partly at the expense of the State in our training colleges. They are looked upon as the Pariahs of education. I do not think that that is fair to the State itself, to the Church or to the bodies who have to deal with these classes of children. It is extremely unjust to these neglected children, those who have nobody of their own to look after them, that it should be said that they were brought up in a paupers' school where the teachers never received but a pauper's wage. I hope the Minister will consider this question seriously and wipe away this blot, because I believe that he is convinced that it is a blot, on the education of the State.

Mrs. Concannon

With the principle behind Senator Hayes' amendment, which he has explained so clearly, I am in perfect agreement. In fact, I think it is incumbent upon the Minister, under Section 3 of the Bill, to give effect to that principle. Section 3 of the Bill gives him power to make regulations in relation to the education and the training to be given to persons detained in such schools. I think that that section imposes upon him the duty of seeing that the education and the training of these children shall be in the hands of persons who are as well qualified as teachers employed in outside schools, and, further, to ensure that the teachers engaged in this work shall have been trained, and be paid, and have conditions of service comparable to those enjoyed by teachers outside.

If we look at it in another way, we take these children under our care; they are the wards of the Irish people. We accept responsibility for them, and if we take them away from a region where, if they were left alone, they would attend ordinary schools in which they would be taught by teachers who had the training and the remuneration that are general in the primary schools, we do them an injustice if we do not see that teachers similarly equipped and similarly remunerated are employed in the schools which they will have to attend in the future. It is not fair that we should deprive children of the education open to them in ordinary primary schools, and confine their education to schools manned by teachers who have not the same training, and certainly have not the same remuneration and conditions of service as national teachers. I think nothing could give a greater return to the State than if these children, who are our wards, got the best education possible. They will become good Irishmen and women, and they will repay every penny that is spent upon their education.

There is also the point of view of the teachers themselves. As other speakers have stressed, theirs is very difficult work. The children, from the nature of their circumstances, very often present difficult problems, and that is a fact that should be taken into consideration in fixing the remuneration of the teachers who have to deal with them. I therefore agree with the speakers who preceded me that the Minister should give favourable consideration to this amendment.

Professor Magennis

I have much pleasure in supporting the proposition of Senator Hayes. The object is so obvious that it reminds me of the famous story of the purloined letter by Edgar Allan Poe. The Spanish secret police were searching for a State document of which one of the political leaders had got possession. He was known to have secreted it in his house. Knowing that they were looking for it, he made it into a spill and placed it ostentatiously on the mantel-piece of his study. For weeks and weeks, all sorts of elaborate searches were made to find it, but it was not found, because it was so obvious that no one saw it.

I think that is the case particularly with regard to this proposition. All through these Children Acts the object in view has been the reformation of the youthful offender and his restoration to the ranks of civilised society. The object has been to regenerate him and to give him an opportunity to be a good citizen, and in the case of the industrial schools, to supply the place that the parent has not filled, either through his own failure to discharge his duty or through his being unable to discharge it on account of his having had a particularly raw deal in life.

Surely, then, as Senator Mrs. Concannon so aptly put it, these wards of the State should not be treated worse in point of education than the ordinary child who has had the good fortune to have parents or guardians to see to his education. I approach it from another point of view, as one interested through a long life-time of educational experience in the work of the training colleges. We know that in recent years there has been what one may call a rationing of students for the training colleges.

Mr. McEllin

Why not?

Professor Magennis

Senator McEllin appears to think that I am objecting to that. I am pointing it out as a regrettable fact. It is a necessity, no doubt, and necessity is the tyrant's plea. Here is the situation: not only is the output of trained teachers necessarily limited but, what is far worse, I should say there is on the unemployed market, so to speak, a large number of trained teachers. For years we were in the unpleasant plight that we spent the money of the State on the training of teachers—especially of women teachers—who immediately found ready employment at higher salaries in England, and who were sought after, in fact, by educational authorities there. That outlet is closed for some time and the number has been reduced. If this requirement were enacted, as Senator Hayes desires, trained teachers, and they only, would be eligible for these appointments. That would open the door—not a very wide door, indeed— to some extent to the employment of those who have already cost the State a considerable amount of money and who, themselves or through their parents, have been at considerable expense to obtain diplomas as trained teachers.

In justice to the child and to secure that the State may do its duty well by those with whose plan of life under the Constitution it interferes, it is imperative to adopt this scheme of dealing with teachers in certified schools.

Mr. Derrig

This amendment proposes that the Minister should make regulations prescribing that no person shall be appointed to teach in a certified school save under the same conditions of service and remuneration and with the same qualifications as are required in the case of teachers in primary schools. Of course, we have teachers of another class besides those teaching literary subjects. In fact, we have more than one class. We have teachers of hand-work as well as teachers of literary subjects in industrial schools.

The Commission of Inquiry recommended that the teachers of literary subjects should be put on the same basis as national school teachers, and the Government accepted that recommendation. It would have been implemented but for the occurrence of the war. A decision was reached that the promise which I had given to implement this recommendation could not be carried out until the war conditions had terminated, and that is still the position. Although we actually had the scheme drawn up, we are not in a position to carry it into operation at present. I regret to say that I see very little hope of an alteration in the position. Since it was explained by the Taoiseach, as Minister for Education, when he regretted he could not, owing to the financial stringency created by the emergency, carry this recommendation into effect, I feel that conditions have worsened a good deal rather than improved. As Senators know, very great demands are being made upon the Exchequer for entirely new services—emergency services, and so on— which we had not contemplated. Therefore, I see no possibility of having this matter re-opened while the emergency continues, and I do not feel that it will strengthen the position even if the Seanad were to put on record their view that it should be done. I am sure that every member of the Government is just as anxious as Senators here that every justice should be given to these teachers.

Mrs. Concannon

And these children.

Mr. Derrig

And these children. I do not think that the children are likely to suffer as much as some of the speakers would seem to suggest. In fact, many of the teachers of literary subjects in the schools are qualified already. There may be some who are not, but there are many who are. I fully appreciate that they should receive the same remuneration and be under the same conditions of service as teachers in ordinary private schools, and I regret that we cannot do anything about it at present.

Mr. MacDermot

How much money will the Minister save?

Mr. Derrig

£29,000 per annum.

Mr. M. Hayes

Surely the Minister does not think the scheme would cost £29,000 in the first year?

Mr. Derrig

In a full year it would cost that sum.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is it suggested that, if the Minister made a regulation prescribing better conditions for the existing teachers, and that new appointees would get a particular scale, it would cost £29,000 in the first year? I know a little about it myself, and I must say that I do not believe a word of it— not one word.

Mr. Douglas

Would the Minister consider accepting an amendment in very similar terms to this, but providing that it should not operate during the present emergency? I am not able to suggest the exact wording just now. I believe that a state of emergency has been proclaimed under a certain Act, and that an end will be put to it by a further proclamation on a certain date. If that were put in, it would get over the whole argument and at the same time enable this House to register its opinion. I do not say that that is an ideal solution, but it might meet the case.

Mr. Derrig

I do not believe it is an ideal solution, either. If the Head of the Government and the responsible Minister have stated that it is their intention to implement these recommendations as soon as circumstances permit, I question the value of putting into the Bill a definite mandatory condition that the Minister should be compelled to make arrangements accordingly. In fact, although not specifically referred to in Section 3, where the Minister is taking power to make regulations for the conduct of the schools, obviously if there is any possibility that conditions may be eased, or if the emergency is likely to end, when these regulations are being drawn up the whole matter will be considered.

Mr. M. Hayes

The Minister referred to teachers of literary subjects, but he said there are several classes of teachers. I take it he means teachers of handicraft, and so on?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. M. Hayes

Was any promise made with regard to their position? Do they come into the scheme?

Mr. Derrig

I do not think so.

Mr. O'Connell

I do not think the Minister's speech has convinced anybody in this House that it is impossible to deal with this matter in a fair and just way. He says that the Head of the Government and himself have accepted the recommendations of the Commission that examined this question, and that it is their intention to implement them at some future time but, of course, we know a certain place in which the paying department uses good intentions as its raw material. With Senator Hayes, I cannot agree that it is necessary to find £29,000 to give effect to what we all appear to desire but, even if it were, I do not think there is anybody in the Seanad who will say that it is not possible to find that amount. The war and the emergency have been put forward as the reason why this cannot be done. The war and the emergency are responsible for a lot of things. It seems to me that Governments manage to find money much more easily during a war period than at any other time. It is easier to find money during war time than in times of peace. Certainly much more money seems to be found when there is a war on than when there is peace.

I think Senator Mrs. Concannon put her finger on the heart of the problem when she pointed out, quite rightly, that these 6,000 children should be our special care. We have taken them from the care of their parents, and rightly so, because we felt they were not getting the care they were entitled to. Therefore, the State is in the position of being father and mother to these children, and it has a greater duty to these children than it has to the children who are attending the ordinary schools throughout the country. Yet, it is these children, who are our own special wards, as Senator Magennis has pointed out, whom we neglect in this particular way.

On a previous occasion when this matter was under discussion I suggested that, if we could not find the total amount which would be necessary —and, as I say, I do not believe that a way could not be found to get it— there is a case, a very strong case indeed, for finding the much smaller sum which would put the lay teachers in a better position than they happen to be in at the present time. The Minister's answer was that he did not think it would be fair or right that the case of lay teachers should be attended to unless the members of the religious community who were teaching in the schools also got consideration. I pointed out that if this small amount—I estimate it to be about £4,000 or possibly less—were found, it would relieve the members of the religious communities to that extent, in any case, so that to that extent it would be an advantage to them as well as being an advantage to the lay teachers and it would enable them to get the services of better qualified teachers. Even if there was no change in the staff it would certainly make for better work being done by those who were qualified.

I strongly press that aspect of the case on the Minister. If he tells us it is impossible to find the amount of money which is necessary to put all the teachers concerned on a proper basis then I would make a strong plea that the lay teachers—the numbers are comparatively small—should be considered. I cannot agree that they are on exactly a par with the members of a religious community. After all, as Senator Hayes pointed out on a previous occasion, from the economic point of view the members of a religious community have not the same anxiety—we will put it that way—as the lay teacher who may find himself on the road on a week's notice, without employment, without a pension, without right of any kind. I think this case is a particularly deserving one. I urge the Minister as strongly as I can that at least the case of the lay teachers should be attended to and that they should be taken over, as the lay teachers under the Christian Brothers were taken over in 1926 or 1927, and put on a proper scale of salaries which would enable them to live and to do the work they are asked to do.

Mr. M. Hayes

It should be made clear, I think, that extremely good work is being done in these industrial and reformatory schools; that inspectors have praised that work and when you consider the conditions under which the work is done and the salaries paid, as instanced in this Report on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, one wonders how they find time to teach, not only ordinary subjects, and get praise from inspectors, but to teach Irish and music and dancing as well and to do it to a very good standard. I would not like this debate to be misinterpreted as an indication that unqualified people were doing very bad work in these schools. Both lay and clerical teachers in these schools must be doing work of a very high standard and must be doing it in both cases at very considerable sacrifice to themselves. But the position, as was stated by everybody who spoke here this evening, is entirely anomalous. It is impossible to understand a situation in which we spend £4,000,000 on the salaries of teachers—£4,000,000; we employ 13,000 national teachers and for the moment I forget how many secondary teachers and how many vocational teachers but the figure must be well over 15,000. And here you have 150 teachers, I suppose, and it is not possible even to make a beginning now to improve their situation.

The position is more anomalous even than I am making it now, because you find on page 7 of the last report of the Department of Education, for 1938-39, that the number of industrial school children attending national schools on 30th June, 1939, was 1,432—200 boys and 1,232 girls—and the average daily attendance of these pupils was 1,319. In other words, out of the 6,000 children in these schools more than 1,400 are actually attending national schools. While so attending national schools, there is no doubt about it, they are enjoying certain privileges and their teaching is being paid for by the State at a particular rate. The remaining pupils, 4,500, are taught upon a different basis, and I think it would be no harm to put on record what some of the salaries are. On page 37 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System, 1934-1936, we find the following:—

"LITERARY TEACHERS.—In the boys' reformatory, four untrained teachers (none of whom was a lay teacher) were employed.

"In the girls' reformatory, two untrained teachers (members of a religious community) taught literary subjects.

"TRADES AND DOMESTIC SCIENCE TEACHERS.—Of the seven teachers employed in the boys' reformatory, five were lay teachers. The amounts paid to them varied from £70 to £78 per annum."

That is, some of them actually had 30/- a week, as a maximum.

"In the girls' reformatory three teachers were employed, one of them being a lay teacher in receipt of £50 per annum with board and lodging."

The Minister says that a promise has been made by the Taoiseach, as Minister for Education, and he himself subscribes to it—I have no doubt it was made in the best of good faith and with the intention to carry it out—that the position of teachers of literary subjects would be improved, but the essence of the teaching in these reformatory and industrial schools is that the boys and girls should get a good grounding, in something else besides literary subjects, and the teachers of these other subjects, handcraft, domestic science and so on, should surely be placed in as good a position as those who teach in ordinary vocational schools.

Now we come to the question of expense. The amendment suggests that new appointees only should have these qualifications and get these conditions. There would be very few new appointees. I do not know how many new teachers are appointed yearly, but the number would be very small. Why could not regulations be made for new entrants and something be done to improve the present position of the lay staff whose circumstances, as Senator O'Oonnell pointed out, are deplorable? I am familiar with this matter because when I took up the work of a secondary teacher a few years ago nobody went to it who could get anywhere else. The conditions were extremely bad and there was no security of tenure.

The only people who seemed to survive in that peculiar position in law and in fact are those teachers in the industrial schools. In the 11 senior boys' schools there are 40 lay teachers, of whom 16 were trained, and 33 members of religious orders, of whom 29 were trained. The amounts paid varied from £36 per annum with board and lodging and other emoluments—which means medical attendance, laundry, etc.—to £192 outdoor, while in one school the headmaster was in receipt of £208 with a free house.

There are a substantial number of domestic servants in the city of Dublin getting £36 a year indoor with better emoluments than those of the literary teachers, and I know it well. Hardly anybody in this city who has a real dependable girl over a period of years is not giving £30 a year, and giving more freedom than those unfortunate people seem to be able to get. The war cannot be made a blanket under which to cover everything. It seems to me that if the Department of Education and the Department of Finance went to work at a scheme—not really dealing with something or other that they intend to do at some time or other, but going at it as something they wanted to do now—they could easily provide for a substantial improvement in these people's condition. That would give them some hope of improving the teaching and improving the pupils, and would not cost anything at all like £29,000 in the first year, and would not cost £29,000 for many a long year. I suggest, and I want to put it seriously to the Minister, that instead of calculating the cost of doing everything all in a jump, he should endeavour to find out what it would cost to do the minimum that requires to be done for the present staff and for the new appointees, and he will find, I think, that the sum will be less than £29,000.

As Senator Mrs. Concannon has pointed out, and as was pointed out here on the Second Stage, the matter is not one which concerns entirely the teachers. It is a matter for getting value for money. Why is it not possible to find a few thousand pounds to improve these conditions? It is a matter of justice for the pupils as well as the teachers, and it is a matter of expediency for the State. It is surely, for hard-headed people, a question of investing money profitably. I do not know where you are going to get a better investment in all the circumstances, and particularly in war circumstances, than in giving proper teaching, by people who have satisfied minds and some hope in their lives, to the children of the destitute and to delinquent children such as are sent to these schools. The total number is only 4,500, and I suggest that the Minister should do something about this thing at once and meet the desire of the House and what I think is the Minister's own desire. I do not profess to have any more interest in it than the Minister has, or to understand it better than the Minister does. Anybody who has examined this question can have only the same feeling about it. I suggest that he could at much less than half £29,000 make a very good improvement in the situation, and that the money he would spend in that way would bring back interest, better perhaps than any other money the State has expended.

Mr. O'Connell

May I ask for information? If a responsible person down the country approaches the Minister and the Department of Education, and says that there are 300, or 400, or 500 children in his particular district for whom he thinks a school should be built and for whom teachers should be appointed by the State, it is the Minister's duty to make the necessary provision. I want to know is it open to the manager of one of these schools, to make a formal application to the Minister saying that the school will be attended by 400 of the children which now are in this institution, and that he is providing the site and building the premises, and will. the Minister pay the teachers? Is it not open to the manager to do this, and how can the Department of Education refuse if such an application is made?

Mr. Douglas

There is just one point I want to make. I think there seems to be agreement so far as the principle is concerned—and the Minister agrees—but the practical side is, is there any way in which this principle can be enshrined in this Bill? I just want to say that I believe there is no greater fallacy than the belief that, as soon as the war emergency is over, it will be easy to obtain money by way of taxation. I believe that there is no time in which the urge for reduced taxation will be greater, and the Government will be obliged to yield to that pressure, than at that time. I think there is nothing more foolish than to postpone it for two or three years, and still maintain—if the present Government is still in office—that they are bound by politics to do it then. I believe it will be far easier to establish the principle now. If they really cannot make the amendment now, let it come into force in two years' time, but let us get the principle established in the Bill.

Mr. Derrig

I have really nothing further to say. If it were possible to do anything, even in a limited manner, I would be very glad to give an assurance that we would go into this question, but I see very little hope. I do not know whether the Senators really are aware of the position. When the war started, the Government set up an economic committee which made inquiry into the expenditure in all the Departments, and made certain recommendations for a reduction of services, and so on, but there is one very obvious way at the beginning of a war or a period of emergency which suggests itself as one way to economise, that is not to undertake fresh expenditure. There is a certain difficulty when you have certain policies in operation, social services, for example, in coming in and cutting down those services. But in connection with new expenditure, I think it must be obvious to every Senator that there is a very deer line there that can be adopted, and that is the line which the Government adopted. They may have departed from it in particular circumstances, but generally speaking, the policy was that unless in very special unavoidable cases new undertakings for expenditure should not be introduced.

It was because that decision was reached in a particular examination of all Government expenditure that I am precluded from raising this matter. The sum is not very great, but no doubt there are dozens of ways in which, owing to the present distress and unemployment which has resulted from the war, even partial amelioration might be sought with even a stronger case than has been made here to-day in this particular matter, and, of course, it you were going to admit that in one particular case where a definite decision has been come to that the matter be postponed, and it should now be re-opened, where there is no proof that actual conditions have got worse or that the general conditions so far as the country is concerned have got better, then I do not think we are going to get very far, and so I regret very much that I cannot hold out any hope. Even were it possible to do something with a very limited amount of money, if you start nibbing at this thing, instead of going at it in the right way, it would only mean creating differences as between one teacher and another. Very often, you are up against such a position, and if you give way at all in one case you have to give way all round; there are very generous-hearted people in both Houses of the Oireachtas—people with a, good sense of social justice—and they always will want you to go further. However, the matter is not one that I can deal with.

Mr. M. Hayes

I think we should strengthen the Minister's hand by going on record in favour of this proposal. We shall have another stage of this Bill later on, and between now and then the matter can be considered. I certainly am not one of the people in this House, or in either House of the Oireachtas, with such a good sense of social justice or so generous-hearted as not to be able to say "No." I have had plenty of experience of having to say "No", and that has to be done by everybody who holds public office. The amendment, I admit, is defective as it stands, but I think the Minister has really agreed with the principle. He has merely put forward the war as an excuse, and said that it is really a matter for the Department of Finance instead of the Department of Education; but when the war is over the matter probably will be worse, and I think we should go on record as supporting this amendment so that the matter can be considered between now and the next stage of the Bill.

Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. M. Hayes

Yes, Sir.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Counihan, John J.
• Cummins, William.
• Douglas, James G.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Lynch, Eamonn.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McGee, James T.
• Madden, David J.
• Magennis, William.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Rowlette, Robert J.
• Tierney, Michael.

Níl

• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Farnan, Robert P.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Johnston, James.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• MacCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, Seán.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
• (Cú Uladh).
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• O'Neill, Laurence.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Mathew.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Cummins and Doyle; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.

Amendment declared carried.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 3, in the name of Senator Michael Hayes, is consequential on amendment No. 2. It reads:—

In sub-section (2), line 27, after the word "section" to insert the words "other than the regulations made by the Minister under the foregoing sub-section."

Amendment agreed to.

Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill".

Mrs. Concannon

I have been talking to some managers of schools and there was a point arising on this section that it was desired to bring before the notice of the Minister. I think it would be better if I read the memorandum for the House:—

"Section 4. Here there appears to be a serious imposition on the managers of the schools, for, as this section reads, it is in the power of any officer or class of officers to apply to a Minister for Education for an increase of remuneration from the managers of these schools. A difficult situation at once arises. The manager is likely to be unable to grant the increase and to comply with the Order a Minister for Education may make in this particular. Will the manager concerned have to increase his indebtedness to the bank and possibly jeopardise his position and credit? It appears he is not likely to do this. It is open to him to comply temporarily and, later, to dismiss the officer or officers, or he may comply and commence cutting down expenses to meet this new position, with hurtful consequences to his children. The manager, seeing his financial position, may refuse to comply. Then the Minister must compel him to carry out the Order or the manager must resign. It may be that it is intended to use this power very carefully and wisely and, to give the present Minister for Education his due, that would be his line of action, but the difficulty is that the section if left as it stands, is liable to be harshly applied by a future Government which might not have the sympathy we see displayed by the present one, and so it is requested that this section be withdrawn from the Bill or modified on the Report Stage to meet the circumstances. The managers have stated that if they were paid the capitation grant requested by them repeatedly and recommended by the Commission of Inquiry, they would be able to pay a reasonable wage to all their officers."

Mr. Derrig

I do not know whether it is necessary to explain to the House, as I have already stated, that we have had consultations from time to time with the managers. It is intended, where it would seem necessary or advisable, or even equitable, to discuss the making of these regulations with the association, and we shall do so. I do not know why it is assumed that in the future, any more than in the past, it is likely that the Department will have any other view in the matter. We hear, from time to time, of attempts being made to provide safeguards which, it is suggested, can be inserted in legislation to prevent some future Government—apparently a type of Government having entirely different principles and ideas from those represented by the Parties in this country in one way or another at present—from carrying out some policy it might desire by reason of the insertion of a clause of this kind.

If any such Government attained to power in this country, I do not think this kind of amendment is likely to prevent it from doing unfair or unjust things. I think everybody will feel with me that the likelihood of such a Government attaining to power here, so far as one can humanly see, is very remote.

Mr. Douglas

A lot of unlikely things have happened in Europe in the last twelve months.

Mr. M. Hayes

Apart from the advent of a Government worse than the present Government, which is difficult to imagine, it does look strange on the face of it that the schools—I was speaking about the teachers a few moments ago, now I am referring to the managers and the owners of the schools—should be conducted under this inadequate and antiquated system which takes no account of the increased cost of living, no account of the increased maintenance of buildings, and no account of simple justice both to teachers and others. On the face of that section, the Minister can make regulations prescribing the remuneration of officers. In so far as legislation can do so, he can compel a manager to pay, but he is not compelled in any way to provide more money for the manager. As a matter of fact, one of the things that is wrong —I do not intend to say any more about it at the moment—with the whole system is that we are here dealing with the Minister for Education on his ground of education, but the schools are financed very largely under the aegis of the Minister for Local Government.

One could not propose something here about a capitation grant because the Minister for Education would say immediately: "That is not my business." We would have to agree that it is not his business; but a system under which he makes a regulation which may impose new expenditure on the managers, and under which he cannot, at the same time, help them to get more money, seems anomalous to me.

While I do not wish for new types of government, I think the old type of government we have will have to find some scheme for administering this kind of school by some better manner than under three separate and distinct Ministers, each one of whom can retreat into a particular comer and say: "Do not follow me in here; that is not my business. You should look in a different direction." It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise an intelligent plan for doing the whole thing under one system, and to provide money out of public or local funds to do it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Quirke

I move amendment No. 4:

Before section 6 insert a new section as follows:—

"6.—Section 44 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the dele tion of the word ‘fourteen' where that word occurs in the definition of the expression ‘child' and the substitution in lieu of the word so deleted of the word ‘fifteen'."

Mr. Derrig

Most of the amendments standing in the name of Senator Quirke are consequential upon the changes made in the ages for committal to reformatory and industrial schools. They follow alterations in the Bill as amended. In a later amendment Senators will observe that the definitions of "young person" and of "child" have been altered. Whereas up to the present a young person meant a person between the age of 12 and 16, the upper age has now been increased to 17. The definition of "child" covers a person up to 15 instead of up to 14, as formerly. The position is that whereas the age of committal to industrial schools was 14, we have increased it now to 15 and in the case of committals to reformatory schools from 16 to 17. All these amendments are consequential on those changes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7 ordered to stand past of the Bill.

SECTION 8.

Sub-section (1) of section 57 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "sixteen" and the substitution of the word "seventeen" in lieu of the word so deleted, and the said sub-section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

Mr. Quirke

I move amendment No. 5:

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Sub-section (2) of section 57 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "fourteen" and the substitution of the word "fifteen" in lieu of the word so deleted, and the said sub-section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Quirke

I move amendment No. 6:

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Sub-section (3) of section 58 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion before the word "years" of the words "or fourteen", and the said sub-section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Professor Magennis

I move amendment No. 7:

"To delete the section."

In moving this amendment I feel, like St. Paul, on a certain occasion, that I am beating the air. To begin with I sought to make clear on Second Reading a point to which Senator Hayes has just now referred, namely, that the Minister for Justice is the Minister who should be in charge of Section 9. Therefore, I am beating the air in addressing my arguments to the Minister for Education. The Act of 1908, which was a very complicated and elaborate enactment, was itself a consolidation of Acts. The Government, in 1934, very wisely took out the first part of the 1908 Act and made it into Act No. 15 of 1934—"An Act to amend the law relating to the protection of infant life, and for that purpose to amend Part 1 of the Children Act, 1908." Then, last September, in the last day of last September, the Most Reverend Doctor Collier, Bishop of Ossory, at a public meeting where he subscribed to a fund in aid of an industrial school, drew attention to the clamant need for legislation in regard to industrial schools.

In 1934, the Act which was passed, had taken one section. The Bill now before us takes up another section, another slice or slab, so to speak of the Principal Act of 1908—so much of it, that is to say, as may be piloted through the Oircachtas by the Minister for Education. But before the Minister for Education can be asked to discharge his special function we have to assume a number of things. One of these is the existence of Juvenile Courts and the law with regard to who should be brought before a Juvenile Court, how he shall be brought, what shall be the evidence and so on. So much of the Act of 1908 as deals with that is before us and, therefore, I do not blame the Minister for Education. On the contrary I sympathise with him that he has here public responsibility for this particular section whereas it is the Department of Justice from whom it emanates and who are really, in the background, responsible for it.

Let me take the Act of 1908 and the particular section that I am assailing. As I pointed out on Second Reading the section which is to be amended by Section 9 of this Bill has to be read along with the whole range of descriptions in sub-section (1) of Section 58.

We have here: "If a child is found wandering and not having any home or settled place of abode, or visible means of subsistence, or is found wandering and having no parent or guardian, or a parent or guardian who does not exercise proper guardianship." Then the Bill, as it left the Dáil after amendment on Report Stage, omitted the technical words, "found wandering...with no parent or guardian." If we pass the amendment, as I have no doubt will be the case, this (b) would read as, "is found not having any home or settled place of abode or visible means of subsistence, or is found having a parent or guardian who does not exercise proper guardianship," that is, a destitute child who has a parent who does not exercise proper guardianship. Paragraph (c) reads, "is found destitute, not being an orphan but whose parents are undergoing penal servitude or imprisonment." This is really the incorporation of the Act of 1929, to add to it, "or is found destitute, and is not an orphan, and whose parents or surviving parent, or in the case of an illegitimate child his mother, are or is unable to support it." The child is destitute because the parents are destitute. I am asking the House to consider the effect of introducing into the Act of 1908, to be read with it and operative as part of it, this insertion in the Act of 1929. Further down there is a proviso "that the courts shall not make an order that the child be sent to an industrial school on the grounds stated in paragraph (h) unless the child's parents consent to such order being made."

Unfortunately, it is very complex. The Minister himself admitted, in introducing the Bill to this House, that it was a notable example of "legislation hy reference." Lord Justice Hewart, in his sensational book, "The New Despotism"—I think that is the right title—points out that one of the things that belong to this craze of modern bureaucracy for legislation by reference is a determined resolve to make the legislation unintelligible to the ordinary man. I ask the House to read this Act as already passed. We shall have this, that the court before which a person is brought as coming within one of these descriptions—say, within the description (h): "if satisfied, on inquiry, of that fact, and that it is expedient so to deal with him, may order him to be sent to a certified industrial school." The juvenile court or district justice may not order him to be sent to an industrial school unless the parent consents. "Unless the child's parents consent, or his surviving parent, or, in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother, consents to such order being made." One familiar with the Act of 1908 would immediately turn to sub-section (7) of Section 58—"where, under this section, a court is empowered to order a child to be sent to a certified school, the court, in lieu of ordering him to be so sent may, in accordance with the provisions of Part II of this Act, make an order for the committal of the child to the care of a relative or other fit person named by the court, and the provisions of that Part shall, so far as applicable, apply as if the urder were an order under that Part."

Speaking for myself, I was under the impression, reading this tortuous piece of legislation that, if the parent refused consent, the effect of it would be that, whereas, under sub-section (1) of Section 58, the Juvenile Court before which a person is brought as coming within this description, if satisfied on inquiry, of that fact, and that it is expedient so to deal with him, may order him to be sent to a certified industrial school; that may not be done if the parents refuse consent and the court is obliged to adopt an alternative —set out in sub-section (7). On further study and closer thought, I see that that is not so. It would provide ample facilities for the earning of guineas on briefs, if we took no notice of this. The effect is that, if the parent refuses consent, as is contemplated, in the Act of 1929 now to be fused in this, then the description of the court is not that it is empowered to order a person to be sent to a certified industrial school, because the situation is created by incorporating (h) as one of the descriptions, and putting in this proviso, and the court, insofar as it is concerned either with a (h) description child or a young person, is not empowered. It is conditional upon the consent of the parent, and the failure of the parent to give consent is an absolute bar.

Consequently, the interpretation which seems to be the rational one for this, because it is not any longer as in the Act of 1908, as amended, is that the district justice—or the Circuit Court— has two alternative courses in his discretion. As a matter of fact, the situation, if that portion of Section 9 is passed into law, will be one of absolute deadlock. What is the court to do where a parent refuses consent? Under the proviso, the justice would issue an order sending the child to an industrial school. Can he issue any order? There is one way, out of it, of course, namely, the one that will be abhorrent to everyone, but which will be legal, to treat the person who refuses to give consent as coming under Part II of the Act, Section 12. Remember that the reason for the child being before the court at all is that the child is destitute through the destitution of the parent, that the parent is unable to support the child. Here is Part II of the Act. Prevention of cruelty to children and young persons, Section 12, sub-section (1). I will read only such of it as is pertinent, as it is very long and complicated:

"And for the purposes of this section a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he fails to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for the child or young person; or if, being unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, he fails to take steps to procure the same to be provided under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor."

The situation, I submit, is that if we pass into law this fusion of the Act of 1929 with Section 9, the result will be that the protection of the child can be secured only by putting the stain upon the parent of having been indicted for cruelty to the child and found guilty. That is not, I suggest, a way out that will recommend itself to any reasonable citizen. That, I submit, is the situation that will arise. To bear me out in that, I have here a case that was before the Children's Court in the city on 8th November, 1940: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, plaintiff, against—I will not mention the name—"Rose X", who was charged with the wilful neglect of her child, Rose, aged three years and ten months. The child was illegitimate, born in 1936, and placed out to nurse, St. Patrick's Guild paying 30/- per month until the mother should succeed in getting work. The mother is now employed as a house-and pariour-maid at—I substitute for the actual name—"Abracadabra”, at £30 per year, all-found. Since April the mother, now engaged to be married, has failed and neglected to contribute to the support of her child.

As a matter of fact it transpired at a later hearing that the girl had become engaged to be married and that she was saving up to furnish the new home and consequently claimed to be unable to make the contribution to St. Patrick's Guild. That being so, she was, of course, culpably in arrears and was called upon to make her payments. She neglected to foiitributu to the support of the child. The charge at first brought was under Section 58 (h) of the Children Act, 1929; that is, the charge first brought by the complainant on behalf of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was brought under what we are now discussing, hut it was then the Act of 1929. A witness on behalf of St. Patrick's Gaild gave this evidence:

"Since the 11th May, 1940, we have got no payment from the mother for maintenance of her child. There is now due by the mother to the Guild £12 for eight months at 30/- a month. The mother will not consent to have her child sent to an industrial school. She refuses her consent."

The order made was to adjourn the application for conviction for neglect to enable the mother to reconsider her position and to give her consent under (h) of Section 58 and at a later date that was the sequel to the proceedings. The mother, rather than have the exposure that would have been consequent, gave her consent. So this magnificent proviso of parents being allowed to refuse consent and so on is not quite so fine as it looks.

It will be noticed that what is left in the amendment is that although the juvenile court or district justice acting as a juvenile court is satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the child before him, that is to say, to make an order sending the child to an industrial school, the veto of the parent is sufficient to hold up that. The veto of the parent, or the parent's supposed rights, come in with regard to the next point:

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

Now, here is an enactment proposed that shall imperatively command the Minister to hand over the child Irom the industrial school to which, in his exercise of his judgment, the circuit court judge has ordered the child to be brought. He must give thf child up to the custody of the applicant on no other ground than that he is now able to support the child. Of course, a lawyer could easily make a case in favour of this, a plausible case. "A child found destitute and with the parents unable to support it"—that is only one thing, not two, because it is not "the child destitute and the parents so-and-so"; it is "the child destitute through the destitution—because of or consequent on, the destitution of the parent." Following out the thing, with close regard purely to technicalities of the legal system, as the ground for the committal to the industrial school disappears, once the parent or someone on behalf of the parent, satisfies the Minister that that ground has disappeared the committal is to be discharged. That, I admit, is a strictly legal view of the matter, but this is an Act to amend and extend the Children Act, 1908, and the Children Act, 1908, declares itself to be—this is the Long Title of the Act:

An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the protection of children and young persons, reformatory and industrial schools, juvenile offenders, and otherwise to amend the law with respect to children and young persons.

In virtue of that, is there legislative interference with the relation of parent and child? I appeal for the answer to that to the Constitution, our fundamental law. In Article 42 of the Constitution Section 3 (2) it is set out:

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education—moral, intellectual and social.

The important section for this purpose, Section 5, deals with exceptional cases where the parents for physical or moral reasons—maybe both—cannot. support a child, "fail in their duty towards the child, the State as guardian of the common good by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents with, always, due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child." It is because the child has rights, the exercise of which is denied to it by the failure of the parent that the State as guardian of the common good must interfere, and it is the duty of the State—as they say in this case—through the Minister in charge, to see to it that the child gets a proper bringing up. But here in this case it is sufficient to make the Minister hand over from the custody of the industrial school the child committed to it, if the application is one that the child can be supported. I quoted from the Scottish Act on the Second Reading which is quite in harmony with the Constitution. Section 49 there declares that the principles regulating all dealings of the Juvenile Court with the child or young person are to be inspired with the one idea— namely, that it is for the welfare of the child, for the care and protection of the child, and for the reformation and welfare of the youthful offender.

It is for the welfare of the child that the Juvenile Court is brought into being and that the case is heard, and provision is made for dealing with it through the instrumentality of the Juvenile Court. There is no such provision in our amending Act, and certainly there is no such provision in the Principal Act. I wanted to quote the exact words—I am afraid I have not got them at hand—of Lord Justice Lindley in the case of McGrath, in 1893, under the Guardianship Children Act, England, where he declares that the welfare due to the child means not merely support in physical wellbeing or comfort but spiritual welfare as well. Here there is a proviso that the Minister is to be satisfied that the persons or person making such application are, or is, able to support such child. There we have substituted, notwithstanding our Constitution, a lower idea of what is good for the child and the young person, although in a later section, Section 13, there is an amendment of a Principal Act directing what is necessary for the protection and welfare of the youthful offender. That is to say, that in this very Bill, the term of law, the exact significance of which is in accordance with the terms of Lord Justice Lindley, is employed and placed on this printed document. Here we have set out on the right hand page that it is good enough that they are able to support the child, and opposite to that is a consideration for the welfare of the child, although the welfare includes immeasurably more than support and is in harmony with the requirements of the Constitution.

Now it may be said that all that is destructive criticism, but I had intended, if I had an opportunity, to put in an amendment that would be constructive in meeting all the requirements of the situation, as I submit it. It would have allowed the words to remain, that the court shall not make an order that a child be sent to a certified industrial school on the grounds stated in paragraph eight if the child's parents, or the surviving parent or, in the case of an illegitimats child, its mother, or the councils—because by Section 6, let me say in passing, local authorities have a voice in these things —if the child's parents or the surviving parent or in case of an illegitimate child its mother or the county council, objects to such an order being made, upon the grounds that the custody, maintenance, care and welfare of the child is at the time of such application sufficiently provided for, and the court is so satisfied, and by order so certifies, it discharges the application upon these grounds. There is a way out there.

There is another way also through a study of the Scottish Act. In one of the Schedules to that Act—I think it is Schedule 2, of 1937—the Department of Education—in our way of speaking it would be described as the Minister for Education—is entitled to have reports as to the progress being made by the child or young person detained in one of these certified schools, and when satisfied by the report of progress, may allow on licence the going out of the child to live with its parents if that environment be sound, morally. That also is an opening. Instead of defying the Constitution, and taking the lower idea of support as it is requisite to satisfy the Minister, the opening is given there. The whole of this Section 9 requires recasting, so what I am proposing is what is frequently dane in those cases when an Act is out of date: to repeal, recast and re-enact.

I suggest that that is what should be done now—take back this, make it out in close relation to the Constitution and to the developments that we have been made aware of through the legislation of 1933 in England and Wales and 1937 in Scotland, namely, take this in close relation to the Constitution and to the development that we may be making whereof there were examples through the legislation in England in 1908, in Wales and England in 1933, and in Scotland in 1937. What is really at the basis of all this is that between the Act of 1908 and the English Act of 1933, and the Scottish Act of 1937, there is the difference between the Christian philosophy and the certain ideology that some people have held and which belonored to the ancient Roman paganism—the idea which said "Give the mother back her child."

In that connection, you had the "pater potestas” of the Roman law in pagan times, whereby the father of the family owned the children as chattels, and you had the case of children being sold into slavery three times and thereby being freed from parental control. All these things have to be considered, and I think that the idea that it is the parent's right to do what he likes with the child is a wrong conception of the parent's right and duty here. Parental right is based on parental duty. As the Constitution says, in sub-section 5 of Article 42, in exceptional cases, “Where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents”—in other words, the right of the child, as an individual person, is still surviving, and the State must, come to the rescue of that child. The child, in other words, as Senator Mrs. Concannon has pointed out, becomes a ward of the State. We are all familiar with wards in Chancery. The State, in this case, must become the custodian and must intervene on behalf of the rights of the child, notwithstanding what may be put forward on behalf of the rights of the parent.

Here, in Section 58 of the Principal Act there seems to be a conflict between the sacred right of the child to grow up as a good citizen and what is known as ordinary human affection. I am strongly in favour of the Constitution which asserts the rights of the family and which appreciates the enormous benefits to a child in growing up in the bosom of the family, but what we are dealing with here now is a case in which the family environment has been broken, and in Section 58 we are dealing with cases where it is assumed that the matter is merely due to causes beyond the control of the parents—in other words. That the parents, through one cause or another, are unable to control or protect the child.

Now, it seems to me that that is a case for special treatment, and I think that it is a matter for reconsideration of the whole case. I know that it is useless to make that plea to the Minister for Education, because the decision really does not rest with him. We are in this unfortunate position: that the first part of the Act of 1908 was organised from the point of view of infant life direction, and came under the Department of Local Government and Public Health, as well as the Department of Justice, and the remainder of this work will have to be taken over, at some later date, by the Minister for Justice. This part, as I have said already, of the work of the Minister for Education belongs, also to the Minister for Justice, and because we have these two separate Ministries dealing with this matter, we are in this unfortunate position; but it seems to me that, under the Constitution, and owing to the fact of the various Ministers, who are members of the Cabinet, having responsibilities shared, there should be a conference between the two Departments, so that any measure that would be passed would make clear to parents, and to members of our Parliament, what was being done in connection with the educational side of the care and protection of children and young persona, and would be put into some coherent fashion.

I pleaded for that on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that there is a view prevalent that ignorance of the law can be pleaded. As a matter of fact, that is not so. Apart from the legal formulae, it is quite irrational, we are told, to hold such a view, as that ignorance of the law is no excuse; but how are we to be regulated in our conduct if the lawyers themselves seem to be ignorant of the law or what it means?

Mrs. Concannon

As a footnote to what Senator Magennis has said about the possible consequences of sub-section (3) of Section 9, I shall quote the sub-section, which says:—

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

There is the question here of the child being in the school as a result of the economic or financial conditions of the parents, and on the improvement of such financial or economic conditions the parents might want the child to be released. The experience of the schools is against that. It would appear from the views of the manager whom I know best that it would be well if this section were modified.

"Very often," he says, "we find a parent able to support a child and yet he may not be a suitable guardian for the child. There is a particular case which happened only a short while ago, where the father of a boy, accompanied by his brother, came to visit the son and nephew. A quarrel developed between them. They attacked each other with knives on the playground while the other boys looked on in horror, and the boy sat unconcernedly eating whatever nice things were brought, showing clearly that he was quite accustomed to such ebullitions of temper on the part of his father. It was recommended that this boy be sent to his father because he was able to support him." There are other cases, too, where ability to support might not be taken as sufficient grounds for allowing a child back to the custody of his parents, where there is drunken ness, immoral living, mental deficiency, etc. This section would need a little alteration on the Report Stage to provide for such cases.

Mr. Derrig

In the year 1929, a Bill amending the Children Act of 1908 was passed through the Oireachtas. It originated in An Seanad and was discussed in the Dáil and finally became law. I think the Government of the day took responsibility for it, but the Bill originated in the position, as is well-known, that whereas the vast majority of children are committed to industrial schools because of poverty, in fact up to that time, the child had to commit a technical offence which brought him under the provisions of Section 58 of the principal Act in order to enable the court to commit him. It was considered, and very rightly, that it was unjust that any stigma should be placed upon the child, that he should be brought up in court as an offender, when in fact, not only did he not commit any offence, but, by some device, he had to bear the odium of committing an offence in order to be committed.

The object of the sponsors of that measure was to do away with that state of affairs and to put the treatment of destitute children on a new basis. It was, accordingly, provided in that Act that where the consent of the parents was forthcoming—that was the principle—the child could be committed on the grounds of destitution. The House will notice that the principle of consent of the parent or parents was enshrined in the measure and that is very important. During the course of the discussion in the Oireachtas, I think, there was also inserted an important proviso which is on page 4, line 33, of the present Bill in which the 1929 Act is incorporated with some amendments. But the main principle as to the consent of the parents being necessary is retained and also the proviso that the Minister for Education shall order the discharge of the child, as soon as it is made clear to him, and he is satisfied, that the parent or parents making application for the release of the child is or arc able to support him.

When this Bill was being considered, I went into this matter and my general feeling was that, as far as possible, we ought to strengthen the law in regard to difficult cases which did not seem to be satisfactorily covered by existing legislation. I gave a great deal of consideration to the matter and I got an opinion—at least, one—to the effect that this question of the consent of the parent should be breached. I considered the matter very carefully by reason of the fact that there were a number of cases such as have been referred to in the course of this discussion. The case mentioned by Senator Magennis was one of the bad ones. The number of bad cases was small, but they were brought to my notice because it seemed clear enough that if we did adhere to the principle—the Senator has very properly stressed it and I am glad it will be on record—of giving due weight to the imprescriptible rights of the child these children would probably have been committed to industrial schools.

But we have to have regard to the fact that principles are very difficult to translate into legal terms in such a way that our district justices will feel that the Legislature has given them that guidance which they are entitled to expect in dealing with these difficult cases. We have had examples of difficulties of that kind in carrying out certain principles on which, no doubt, there was general agreement. For example, under the dance halls legislation, different justices seem to have taken different interpretations, whether the blame is with the justices or with the Legislature. In any case, we know it has been argued that, in fact, the courts have not got that guidance from the Legislature to which they are entitled. It is not at all easy to translate those principles which I thoroughly agree with the Senator ought to be stressed, and enshrined, wherever possible, in legislation in this country. Particularly, when our new Constitution has stressed certain social principles, we certainly ought, if possible, to carry them into effect, but I am not quite clear how it can be done in this case, and I am afraid I have not really got sufficient assistance to enable me to say there is a definite amendment, at all events, an amendment which would carry into effect what Senator Magennis has in mind. We are up against this difficulty about the consent. We have to have regard to the fact that 90 per cent. of the children committed to industrial schools have committed no offence, though there may be some cases of parental disability or lack of parental control. I have not the figures by me, but, probably, 80 per cent. of the 90 per cent. are cases of destitution.

Now, if we are to alter the law, it is going to be a very serious matter. We are taking these children and saying to the parents: "You agree to place this child in an industrial school", and the parents say: "Very well." It must be clear to the parents, because it is the law at the present time, that as soon as their circumstances improve and they are in a position to support the child—the only ground for its detention being that of destitution—the Minister is bound to release the child. It would not seem to be equitable for us to commit the child on the grounds of destitution and then, as would happen, it seems to me, if such an amendment was accented by the Oireachtas, for the Minister to say: "Although this child was committed on the grounds of destitution, I do not feel that the home conditions sire entirely suitable; I do not feel that the parents are fit persons to enable me to release the child to them."

Having given the matter a great deal of consideration, even before the Senator was good enough to call my attention to it—and I was very glad to have the benefit of his advice—I am afraid if we do as he proposes we are going to have a great deal of difficulty. Under Section 58, we have large numbers of cases laid down in which children can be committed. Senator Mrs. Concannon has referred to some of the cases: immorality and drunken habits. Children can be committed if these things can be proved against the parents.

In the explanatory memorandum circulated to members of the Oireachtas, an outline of the provisions of Section 58 was given. Senator Magennis has called attention to the fact that under Part II of the Act, which deals specifically with cruelty to children, there are a number of provisions under which children can be committed. I am dealing only with Part IV of the Act in fact, but if there is a case against parents and if the case is being made to me: "Surely you should not release the child under these conditions," is not the natural answer that I should make this: "Well, if the position is as you say, if the parents are drunken, if there is immorality, if the parents are failing to fulfil their duty to the children, there are other provisions under the 1908 Act under which the child can be committed." I am afraid, if we interfere with this question, we are going to have difficulty in getting, the consent, which we get already in very large measure, from the parents of destitute children. Moreover, I do not think that the feeling of the great majority of those who are in intimate touch with this problem—the societies, the justices or the court officers—is that it would be desirable, so long as it is fairly clear that, generally speaking, we can get the consent of the parents to the committal, to make a breach in that principle.

If there are special cases they should undoubtedly be considered, but I am afraid the particular case which the Senator mentioned, and of which I also had some knowledge, is not quite sufficient. In that particular case probably the best thing would be for the girl to tell her nance what the position was. She was not prepared, at any rate, to have the child committed. Even in these circumstances I doubt whether I would feel justified in taking the child from her. If it is not possible for her when married, to settle down and arrange for bringing up the child—the ideal thing would be for her to bring up the child in her own home—it seems to me doubtful whether I should interfere, even if I had some discretion in the matter. In fact, the Minister is bound, when he gets a report that the circumstances of the parents are no longer what they were, and that they are now in a position to maintain the child, to release the child. That is my interpretation of the law.

I have mentioned that even if we agree to try to carry these principles into effect in the present Bill, there is no definite provision before the House at the moment. And if there were, I feel, having examined the matter and pondered over it, that it would be almost impossible to devise means for dealing with these exceptional cases without making a breach in the principle of consent or introducing a new principle to commit the child for one reason and to continue to hold it for another.

I may say while I am on this point that, in actual fact, I have a certain discretion though I take the law to be that I ought to release the child where I am satisfied that the economic circumstances are such that the parents can look after it properly. But I shall not interfere and I will not terminate the detention of the child unless I am so satisfied. The child will continue to be detained unless the parents come specially to me, or get somebody to make a case on their behalf to me, to satisfy me, so that to that extent perhaps what Senator Magennis has in mind is already there. He can take it that, in all these cases, where the children are committed on the ground of destitution, they will remain in the industrial school until the completion of the period of detention unless the representations made to me are of such a character that when I have them investigated by persons, who have no other interests except to find the truth, and who will have regard to the material welfare of the child, I feel there is no doubt in the matter, and that I can release the child. I feel that I would have to have what would amount practically to a certainty in my own mind that the law did not compel me to take a contrary course, before I could hold the child against the parent's wishes.

Moreover, although I do make these inquiries when representations come to me from members of the Oireachtas or otherwise, if I were now to amend the law and to introduce an amendment, say, on these lines, that "the Minister shall only release a child where it has been committed on grounds of destitution, where he is satisfied, not only that the parents are able to support the child, but also that they are fit persons to have custody of the child", I feel that it would not pass through the Oireachtas. My own feeling as well as the feeling of the great majority of those whom I have consulted is against it.

Even if it were to become the law, it would impose a great liability upon the Minister in this way, that he would have to constitute himself a court to determine whether in particular cases the parents were fit or otherwise. It seems to me, if we are going to determine the question of whether parents are fit guardians for their children or not, that the ordinary courts are the proper tribunals to determine that question. If we are not satisfied that the provisions of Section 58, and of Part II of the original Act dealing with cruelty, are adequate, then we ought to set out to strengthen these, but, having given the matter consideration, I feel that we cannot go very much farther unless there is some definite or specific thing which can be alleged upon which a charge can be brought. Remember that any person can come to the courts and make a charge under Section 58. You have the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children giving constant attention to this work, and they have very devoted workers. The question of consent is valuable inasmuch as if parents feel that once their economic circumstances improve, the child is going to be restored, it is much easier to get them to agree to have the children committed in the first instance.

I think I have dealt with most of the points. I regret that I cannot say to Senator Magennis, with whose point of view I have a great deal of sympathy, that it would be possible for me to frame an amendment that would cover his point of view without creating more serious difficulties in other ways. I should like very much, indeed, if it were possible to do so, and if these borderline cases could be covered, but I cannot see how we could deal with them without creating other difficulties which would be much more serious, and which I am afraid would raise opposition to the measure which we have not had up to the present.

Mr. M. Hayes

I agree with the Minister in most of what he has said, but, as a practical matter, is it not the case that a child who is put into a school on grounds of destitution would not be released under this proviso of Section 9, at the very end, to persons of known immoral habits? I mean, the Minister would not consider himself obliged to release the child in that case? He need not make an investigation into their habits, but he need not release him if they are of known immoral habits.

Mr. Derrig

I am afraid I would have to release the child in that case. No such case has come before me so far. The only way to cover it would be by proceedings instituted under the appropriate Section 58 to recommit the child on that ground.

Professor Magennis

The Minister seems to have forgotten that a Commission of Inquiry was set up to inquire into the reformatory and industrial school system. It sat from 1934 to 1936, and reported. In the course of the passage of the present Bill through the Dáil, various experimental efforts were made on the Minister's part to comply with the recommendations of that commission, but there is one recommendation to which he has been both blind and deaf. Might I draw his attention to page 16 of the Report, paragraphs 47 and 48? Paragraph 47 simply recites what the Act of 1929 does. Paragraph 48 says: "The purpose of the Act was, apparently, to deal with cases of actual destitution." I omit a few lines here. "It is also, in our view, a weakness that the only consideration to which the Minister is required to have regard, in connection with the question of discharge, is the ability of the parent or parents to support the child." The Report is with me absolutely and against him. "The Act does not provide for any safeguard in the matter of the fitness of the parent or parents on moral and other grounds to resume the control of the child."

The Minister has led us to believe that he would be acting illegally if he were guided by his better judgment and considered only the fitness of the parent or parents seeking the restoration of the child. No Minister has any authority in this democratic State— as the Constitution describes it—to override the law or substitute his own amendments for it, no matter how applicable the motive or how commendable the zeal. If we wish this thing done as the Minister says he would do it, let us put it into the law of the land and let it be done legally. The Minister says that the ideals I have quoted are fine and noble, he swings the thurible of incense before them, but he knows no way of giving them legislative effect. Surely it is the duty and the task of the statesmen, that, when the Constitution has laid down fundamental law and has set out the ideals of the national culture, the law makers shall see to it that the laws embody the spirit that is in the Constitution. If it defies the wit of the Legislature to carry out the Constitution, if we are to believe that is so, then it is so much worse for the Constitution. The Minister has, in so many words—I declare with all respect—described the Constitution as a fraud, inasmuch as it sets out the duty of the State in relation to this matter, where there is moral or physical inability on the part of the parents to discharge their duty towards the child as is their imprescriptible right.

I drew attention before to the Scottish Act, which embodies the philosophy of the Constitution. The Constitution was enacted in July, 1937, and became operative at ths end of December, 1937, while the Scottish Act is an Act of 1937. One would imagine that the Scottish Act was a glove made to fit the hand of the Constitution, as it fits so closely. Here is the idea in the other enactment. The child is a young person brought before a juvenile court, either as a juvenile offender or as ons needing care and protection because the parent—who has the legal right to give it—is unable to give it, and the State comes to the rescue. The child is brought before the Juvenile Court in Scotland and is destitute, as laid down in Section 65 and implemented in Section 66 of the Act. He is a destitute child who is kept in an environment that is morally bad and it is upon that charge that he is to be taken out of a poisonous environment away from circumstances in which he would become depraved. It is upon that ground that he is sent to the industrial school and his release cannot be got merely by saying that the support is now forthcoming. There must be—for the purposes of the Scottish Act, which is really good, sound sense as well as good sound morality—an assurance that those to whom the Minister will hand over the child are fit and proper persons and that they are not merely persons who are able to support the child.

As I pointed out on the Second Reading, we know there are cases of criminals who, having robbed a bank and put away in safety the proceeds of the robbery, now after a proper interval may come forward and plead that they have sufficient means. Of course they have. But all the earnings by which they would satisfy the Minister that they can support the child, that is, with physical comfort, may be forthcoming from sources that are not at all such as would commend themselves to the Minister in his better moments. The whole thing proceeds, let me say, with all respect to the Minister, from a wrong conception of the relation between child, parent and the State. The State has no right to interfere with the imprescriptible rights of the family. The family, us the initial cell or constituent of civil authority as an organisation, has rights anterior to the setting up of a State which are not dependent upon the State.

Agreed that through something going wrong, say, in an imperfectly organised State, it is difficult or even impossible for the parent to support the child and give it the modicum of education that sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Article 42 of the Constitution contemplates, then it is the duty of the State to come to the rescue, and when the child has been rescued and put in circumstances that secure to him his valid rights, why should it be necessary, in virtue of an idolatry of legal systems now practically obsolete or obsolescent, to look upon the child as the chattel of the parent? The child is not the chattel of the parent any more than the child is the chattel of the State. If it were the case in our legislation that the child or young person were committed to an industrial school because it was found destitute, and the parents are destitute, and, in consequence, he is in moral peril, if that were the basis of the committal, it would not suffice for the relatives of the child to come to the Minister and ask for his release, as it has been called, on the ground of ability to support. There should be the assurance convincing the Minister that, in addition to support, there was also provision for the moral and religious welfare of the child. I will read for the Minister what I was unable to read to him when I was speaking last—the decision of Lord Justice Lindley:

"The dominant matter for the consideration of the court is the welfare of the child; but the welfare of the child is not to be measured by money only, nor by physical comfort only. The word ‘welfare' must be taken in its widest sense, The moral and religious welfare of the child must be considered as well as its physical well-being."

Does the Minister suggest that that legal decision is to count for naught; that we, in the guise of making an amendment, by virtue of our Constitution and our freedom, to the old fashioned Act of 1908, are precluded from making it what it ought to be made because some lawyer says this technical thing, that the basis of the committal was so and so, and, that basis being removed, the committal must he removed? Surely we have the opportunity to put this thing on a better basis. We approach it now as free men. We approach it as men able to make our own laws, even if we have to cast the 1908 Act into oblivion altogether, and begin from the ground. up to build our enactment schemes with regard to the child and the young person in need of care and protection. I am surprised that a Minister so sympathetic with the whole position should ask us now to adopt the defeatist attitude of declaring that this cannot be done. There is nothing to prevent us from doing it except the fact that the Bill would have to go back, possibly, to the Dáil. The Dáil is brought back for much lesser things.

Let us remember, after all, that the Constitution sets out—I cannot reiterate that too often—that it is the Constitution of the people of the State now designated Éire or Ireland. It is fundamental law. It is no excuse for the legislature that they will not carry it out because lawyers tell them that they should do something that they have had to do under the English Act of 1908. The people of England and Wales discarded all that in 1933, and the Scottish Act followed, and improved upon it in some respects, in 1937. But, in 1941, the 1908 Act is good enough for us, and we are to he assured it is good enough for us by a Minister who, in fact, if I do not misinterpret him, insinuates that these provisions of the Constitution are only lofty ideals, what are called in philosophy regulative ideals.

I appeal to the Minister's better judgment to realise that there is a possible amendment to that. I have given him one. I think if he has time to consider it he will see it meets the case. The alternative amendment also meets the case, but not so well, namely the provision in the Scottish Act by which the educational authority, in this case the Minister for Education, can allow a child out on licence, restore him to his own home, if satisfied that the environment of the home is wholesome. The onus is put upon the Minister to see to it that the environment is what it ought to be. He cannot shirk that duty under the Constitution.

Mr. M. Hayes

May I defend the Minister? I think the Minister made a very good case for himself, and the Minister certainly did not say that he would strain the law. In fact, in reply to a question by me, the Minister said that he felt he would be bound to release a child who had been committed to an industrial school on the sound of destitution if it were proved to him that the parent could now support the child. The Minister did not say he would go outside the law.

Professor Magennis

Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? At the time Senator Hayes rose the Minister had said these things. His answer to Senator Hayes is undoubtedly as the Senator quotes it.

Mr. Hayes

I listened to the Minister with great care, and I was hoping he would say something like what Senator Magennis has attributed to him, and I did not hear him saying it. Perhaps he did. At any rate, we ought to be discussing this on an amendment on a form of words, not upon an amendment to delete the section, and surely, as a practical matter, if no such case has arisen in the experience of the Department, then there is a great deal of ado about very little. As a matter of principle, a child should be reared in its own home with its own parents or with the one surviving parent, and the Minister's attitude is correct, I think, that if he can get a child out of an institution and back to its own parent he is doing the right thing. A child is committed, as the Minister said, not on the grounds of delinquency, but on the grounds of destitution. I remember well, before the 1929 Act. when you wanted to get a child into a certain school in Dublin, with whose operations we are all familiar, and which has a very good name, it was necessary to send the child out to commit a technical offence by begging. I have actually seen it done. That particular blot upon our legislation was removed by the Act of 1929, and the child is now committed on the grounds of destitution alone.

Surely, when that is so, and when that destitution is removed, it is right that the child should be restored to its parents except in the case of, let us say, known immorality. Now, I do not want the Minister to rise in his wrath, but I am quite sure that a Minister for Education, in spite of the provisions of this Act, would not restore a child to parents of known immorality. I am sure the Civil Service, which is able to delay things sometimes when they ought to be hastening them, would surely delay in a case where clearly there ought to be delay. I have a feeling that would not happen and, if that does not happen, the restoration of a child to a good home is preferable to its retention in an institution.

A good home, mind you, may be a home in a single room in a Dublin tenement. It may be a home in very poor circumstances and in a very small house, but even such a home may be, and would be, I think, preferable to a rearing in a comparatively comfortable institution. It seems to me that as a practical matter the situation is as it has been described quite correct: That is to say, you commit a child on the grounds of destitution and you get the parent's consent. If a parent can prove that he is no longer destitute but is able to provide for the child, the child ought to be restored to him.

I am not sure that we ought to set up an inquiry into the morals of these parents simply because at a particular moment they were destitute. I doubt it very much. I think the Minister's attitude in the matter was quite right, and that the situation, which would be a very extraordinary situation, and in exceptional circumstances, where enquiries made to ascertain if the child could again be supported led to the discovery that the parents were obviously unfit for its custody, would probably be met. But, in the meantime, I feel that the section, is it stands, is a desirable one, and if we are going to have an amendment it should not be by way of deleting the section and drafting a new one but by putting in a suitable form of words. Certainly the principle that the child ought to be reared in its own house, and ought to be restored to its own parents if they can support it, is a sound principle, and in spite of what is in the Constitution, it is not the business of the Minister to inquire into the morals of the parents. Why should you confine your enquiry to one particular set of parents and not to parents in general? As a practical matter the Bill as it is will work, and for my part, in the very rare case where a child is committed because the parents are destitute, and is going to be restored to them, although their characters are extremely bad, in that rare case, I would be prepared to leave the doing of the right thing to the Minister.

Mr. Derrig

I have nothing further to say. If I gave Senator Magennis the impression, as he was insinuating. That the principles of the Constitution cannot be translated into law I am afraid that I am to blame. What I meant to indicate was, if I have not already made myself clear, that in this general matter of the question of the imprescriptible rights of the child, it is not at all easy to translate into words the idea Senator Magennis has in mind. We have not had the advantage of having it in words or we might be able to discuss it with more advantage. But that is the position, that there is not a definite amendment before the House, whereas on the other hand we have the experience of a number of years since the 1929 Act was passed. I am not aware that there is any general feeling that the provisions of that Act have been unsatisfactory. I think, as I indicated, that everybody who has to deal with or is concerned with the administration of the Children Acts, so far as reformatory and industrial schools are concerned, believes that the 1929 Act was very useful and that the provisions of it are satisfactory. For that reason I think, apart from the difficulty, which is a minor matter perhaps of meeting the point in clear terms, there is the much more serious difficulty that I would not be prepared to move an amendment in the House or accept responsibility for an amendment which would appear to challenge the principle laid down in the 1929 Act. And I don't think it would commend itself to the Oireachtas.

Professor Magennis

As I moved the elimination of Section 9 merely to ventilate the subject and have it discussed, and as there is no further purpose to be served I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Quirke

I move amendment No. 8:

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where immediately before the commencement of this section a youthful offender is being detained in a reformatory school in pursuance of a detention order, this section shall not operate to shorten the time for which, in accordance with such order, he is to be detained.

Mr. Derrig

This is an amendment which follows on a provision in Section 8. In Section 8 of the Bill we have reduced the term over which young persons may be committed to a reformatory school from three to two years and from five to four years. That is to say, where up to the present a young offender might be committed for any period from three to five years, in future, if this Bill becomes law, he may only be committed for a period of from two to four years. The amendment simply ensures that this alteration by way of reduction in the periods of detention which may be imposed will not, of course, apply to young offenders who are already in a reformatory. It will only apply to new cases coming up when the Bill becomes law.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 11.

(3) The Minister shall not give a direction under this section having the effect of extending the detention of the child to whom such direction relates beyond the time when such child will, in the opinion of the Minister, attain the age of seventeen years.

Mr. E. Lynch

I move amendment No. 9:

In sub-section (3), page 5, line 3, to delete the word "seventeen" and substitute therefor the word "eighteen".

The purpose of the amendment is to extend the period from 17 years as in the Bill to 18 years. The section empowers the Minister to extend the period from the normal period of 16 years to 17 years. The Minister, therefore, has power to detain in the schools young persons from 16 to 17 years. We think that the power at present exercised by the Minister should be further extended and that instead of the power being exercised in regard to one year it should be exercised in regard to two years. The period of one year is not sufficient. We presume that the power would only be exercised in the case of exceptionally able and brilliant young persons, both male and female, and also that the ordinary secondary period of education ends at 18 years. That would seem to be an additional reason as to why the period should be extended from 17 years to 18 years. I imagine that tliere would not be a great number of youths to whom this would apply out of the 6,000 children catered for in the industrial schools, and that, therefore, the additional financial charges would not be very great or exceptional. The great reason why the period should be extended to 18 years is that the exceptional tuition given in the 12 months will not be completely adequate except it were extended by another 12 months, and, therefore, the 12 months period, due to this inadequacy, would seem to be futile. In other words, if the powers are to be given at all they should be given in regard to two years, as, in our opinion, 12 months is not sufficient.

Boys receiving this education, during this two-year period, would have a great advantage in going out into the commercial world; they would be able to compete, on better terms, with other children who had had the advantage of home associations and a home training, in going to look for work in positions such as clerks, and so on. Girls who had received this extra training would be able to secure better positions in domestic service and in other positions. Therefore, it would seem to me that it would be a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of energy, to confine the period to what is mentioned here. I think it would be a great advantage to secure for those who would receive this education the extension of the period from 17 to 18 years of age. I hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of this amendment and that he will agree to insert "18" instead of "17".

Mr. Campbell

I second the motion.

Mr. Derrig

It seems to me that this amendment is unnecessary. Under Section 11 the Minister is already taking power, following on the recommendation of the commission of inquiry, to arrange for a child to be detained in an industrial school up to the age of 17—the age up to the present being 16—the idea being to provide for the child a further period of training or education for which he or she has shown special aptitude. It is an endeavour to provide training for children who show some special talent. Already there is quite a number of children who attend the vocational or, perhaps, the local secondary schools, where such a provision is made. In these cases, the Minister shall not give a direction, under this section, save with the consent of the parents, and so on. The position is that, except in special circumstances, we may assume that the consent of the parent will not be readily obtainable in such a case, because the parents, naturally, will be anxious that the boys and girls will be available for employment. I do not think it can be contended that the raising of the age limit from 17 to 18 would be reasonable, if one has regard to the ordinary age of leaving school outside, or to the ordinary age of employment. I think that 17 would be a reasonable age, and that there would be no use in bringing the age up to 18, because it would be almost impossible to get the consent of the parents to keep the children in the school up to that age.

Mr. E. Lynch

With regard to the consent of the parent, I do not think it would arise so much. From my experience of the attitude of parents towards the education of their children, it would seem to me that they are very desirous of securing for their children the nest possible educational advantages. In the case of the primary schools, it has often been pointed out that parents desire to have their children leave school at the age of 14, so that the earning capacity of the children could be brought into force immediately, but I think it will be admitted that, in every case where a child shows special ability, or some exceptional capacity, the parent would be anxious that the child should be given every opportunity to continue in school and pursue whatever line for which the child showed special aptitude. From that point of view, I doubt very much if the Minister's case in that regard is very sound.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. E. Lynch

In view of the Minister's attitude, the amendment is not being pressed, and I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Mrs. Concannon

Section 13 deals with the question of the supervision of a youth after a certain period. Now, this supervision, if carried out, may often be a rather costly procedure. I know of one manager of a school who, in the last few years has spent his vacations in going around at his own expense looking after these cases, and getting employers to see what is being done about the young people concerned. In the case I have in mind, it extends from Roscommon to Mayo. This is a very important part of managerial work, but it seems to me to be rather a hardship that schools that are already so inadequately financed should also have to bear the cost of such supervision. It should be possible to arrange for some fund from which such expenses would be borne.

Mr. Derrig

That is a matter that I should be glad to look into. I do not think it is necessary to make provision for it, however. In a great many of these cases, it is not a question of making provision for them, but rather a question of softening the heart of the Minister for Finance.

Mr. M. Hayes

I think the Minister will recognise that this is like the case of hospitals, where the treatment given in the hospital very often goes to waste because, when the patient leaves the hospital there is no provision for after-care. I think that that has been generally, recognised in the case of hospitals, and the same would apply here in regard to the children in these schools; in other words, that some provision should be made to look after them during the period after they leave school. The idea of raising the age by two or three years is an excellent one. But the managers of these schools certainly cannot make a profit out of the capitation grants they get at the moment. A great deal of the work that has been done in the schools goes to waste if the after-care provided for in this Bill cannot be done properly. The Minister should make every effort he possibly can to see that money is provided to do it right.

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive put and agreed to.

SECTION 20.

(3) Where any regulations under this section are for the time being in force, it shall he the duty of every local authority to comply with such regulations and such duty shall lie on such local authority notwithstanding anything contained in any contract made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by them under paragraph (a) of sub-section (8) of Section 74 of the Principal Act and every such contract shall accordingly be deemed to be void to the extent. (if any) to which it is inconsistent with such regulations.

Mr. Goulding

On behalf of Senator Quirke, I move amendment No 10:—

In sub-section (3), page 7, line 12, to delete the words "passing of this Act" and substitute the words "commencement of this section."

Mr. Derrig

This is a drafting amendment, Leas-Chathaoirleach, which I am told is necessary in order to bring the section into line with the title of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

(2) Section 131 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "sixteen" where that word occurs in the definition of the expression "young person" and the substitution in lieu of the word so deleted of the word "seventeen".

Mr. Goulding

On behalf of Senator Quirke, I move amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14:

11. Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—

22.—Section 84 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "sixteen" and the substitution of the word "seventeen" in lieu of the word so deleted, and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly

12. Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—

22.—Section 94 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "sixteen" and the substitution of the word "seventeen" in lieu of the word so deleted, and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

13. Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—

22.—Section 95 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "sixteen" and the substitution of the word "seventeen" in lieu of the word so deleted, and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

14. Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—

22.—Section 111 of the Principal Act is hereby amended in the following respects and shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—

(a) by the deletion in sub-section (2) of the word "sixteen" in both places where that word occurs and the substitution in lieu thereof in each case of the word "seventeen", and

(b) by the deletion in sub-section (3) of the word "sixteen" in both places where that word occurs and the substitution in lieu thereof in each case of the word "seventeen".

Mr. Derrig

As I have already explained they are all following on the raising of the age of committal. These amendments are all consequential.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Goulding

On behalf of Senator Quirke I move amendments Nos. 15 and 16:—

15. Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—

22.—Sub-section (1) of Section 123 of the Principal Act is lisreby amended by the deletion of the word "sixteen" and the substitution of the word "seventeen" in lieu of the word so deleted, and the said sub-section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

16. Before Section 22 of the Principal Act to insert a new section as follows:—

22.—Sub-section (1) of Section 128 of the Principal Act is hereby repealed and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that—

(a) in the definition of "child" contained in Section 9 of the Summary Jurisdiction Over Children (Ireland) Act, 1884, "fifteen years" shall be substituted for "twelve years", and

(b) in the definition of "young person" contained in the said Section 9, "fifteen years" shall be substituted for "twelve years" and "seventeen years" shall be substituted for "sixteen years".

Mr. Derrig

These are also consequential amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Goulding

On behalf of Senator Quirke I move amendment No. 17:—

17. In sub-section (2), page 8, to delete in line 22 the words "word ‘sixteen' where that word occurs" and substitute the words "words ‘fourteen' and ‘sixteen' where those words occur" and to delete in line 24 the words "word so deleted of the word ‘seventeen'" and substitute the words "words so deleted of the words ‘fifteen' and ‘seventeen' respectively".

Mr. M. Hayes

Did Senator Goulding read this amendment? Could anybody read it? I have been trying for some time and I am completely beaten.

Mr. Derrig

I am told that it should read as follows:—

SECTION 22.

17. Section 131 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of...

and then we make a change

...the words "fourteen" and "sixteen" where those words occur in the definition of the expression "young person" and the substitution in lieu of the words so deleted of the words "fifteen" and "seventeen" respectively.

Mr. M. Hayes

Congratulations!

Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title of the Bill".

Professor Magennis

I suggest that the description is not quite accurate. It is to amend and extend the provisions of the Act of 1908 as amended by the Act of 1934. It is necessary to state those things because counsel looking up cases might not be aware, unless he had the fact convenient to him, that what he was dealing with was the amendment of an amended Act.

Mr. Derrig

We intend, if possible, to get over this difficulty by having a booklet printed, putting the matter into shape.

Question put and agreed to.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

When will the next stage be taken?

Mr. Derrig

I do not think that any matter has been raised on the Bill which would necessitate further consideration. It is undoubtedly, as Senator Magennis and other Senators have pointed out, only partial, as I am responsible for only one portion of the Children Act, but, such as it is, I do not think it can be improved very much more and no point has been raised to-day upon which the House or myself felt that we should need to give greater consideration. For that reason, if there is no objection, I would ask the House to take the other Stages to-day.

Professor Magennis

May I ask the Minister if he would permit the introduction of an interpretation clause on the Report Stage? It would make the Bill ever so much easier to follow than as it stands if we had an interpretation section with all these definitions set out. For example, it could be stated that the expression "child" means so and so, "young person" so and so, right through the whole thing in that section. There is a series of definitions, but it is not complete, because definitions occur in the early parts of the Bill referring to infant life and cruelty to children. It would help to make this measure something more intelligible and complete as an enactment, if we had a definition clause in the form of an interpretation section.

Mr. Derrig

I am largely in thr hands of the draftsman in this matter. I do not know whether the lawyers will agree with the Senator that it is necessary. However, I have no objection to postponing the Report Stage.

Professor Magennis

I would not dream of postponing the Minister's pleasure for so small a thing as that.

Mr. Derrig

The difficulty would be that if the Bill were taken to-day we could not look into the matter any further. I do not feel very much is going to come of it, but, at the same time, if any Senator has a point he would like me to look into, I will do so.

Professor Magennis

The Minister told "the flattering tale that joy would soon return." He promised us that the Ministry of Justice have an Act in preparation——

Mr. Derrig

I do not like to commit the Department of Justice. I am not responsible for them.

Professor Magennis

Are we not permitted to hope?

Mr. Derrig

I know that the matter has been under consideration but I would not like to say so specifically, without consulting the Minister for Justice. I would not like to make a public statement that he has legislation in the course of preparation. I know that matter has been under consideration, but I think that what has been under consideration is really the question of the Children's Court and it may be that the Department of Justice feel that legislation is not necessary in that matter but what they are seeking to achieve may be done administratively. For that reason, I could not definitely say that they have in mind the introduction of further legislation in the near future.

Mr. M. Hayes

I want to raise another matter. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were inserted to-day. Does he intend to recommend them to the Dáil or to redraft them and bring them back in a more satisfactory form?

Mr. Derrig

At the moment, my feeling is that I will not be able to recommend them to the Dáil because it seems to raise the financial question. To accept the amendment and to recommend it to the Dáil, without attempting to do something to carry it into effect, is not what the Senator wants.

Mr. M. Hayes

Could the Minister not draft an amendment which would not go quite so far, but which would be feasible and which he could recommend? I will be glad to hear that he would make some constructive attempt at it.

Mr. Derrig

But, is it really necessary? If the Minister has power to make general regulations, has he not power also to make regulations concerning the employment and remuneration of people? Surely that is included? That is what I thought.

Mr. M. Hayes

The trouble is that the House has expressed a view on this matter and I was wondering whether the Minister would give us an undertaking that he will make a regulation, at any time, so as to improve the present position. I do not want to delay the Bill at all, except for that particular amendment. The others are mainly drafting amendments and I am prepared to allow all stages of the Bill to go through now, but, if I thought that another stage would enable us to get anywhere on this question, I would prefer it to remain over.

Mr. Derrig

I am afraid I do not see how we could agree on this particular question. It is a financial question, as far as I am concerned. I indicated —I do not know whether the Senator heard me—that when the regulations are being drawn up by the Minister, presumably he will advert to this whole question. One of the most important matters he will have to bear in mind when drawing up regulations is the whole question of the position of the teachers. Without making it mandatory on the Minister, I was anxious that the Minister should have general powers but that we should not set apart this particular matter and seem to make it specially obligatory on the Minister. If it were the position that I felt that within a very short time we could fix up the matter of the literary teachers. I would not have any very great objection to it because, after all, the form of words does not matter very much. However, I can assure the Senator and others who have spoken on the matter that I shall look into the question in view of the strong opinions expressed here. I shall certainly look into the whole matter, but I want to explain again that I cannot give any undertaking that the decision that has been come to to defer this matter is going to be reversed. I shall certainly raise the matter again.

Mr. M. Hayes

I appreciate better than most people the difficulties of a Minister for Education in dealing with the Minister for Finance. I think we can leave this particular decision of the House to the Minister, to press it as hard as he can on the Minister for Finance. That being so, I think we should take all the stages of the Bill now.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.

Ordered: "That the Bill, as amended, be returned to the Dáil."