Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1949

Vol. 36 No. 9

Children (Amendment) Bill, 1949—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is a very short and very simple Bill entirely for the purpose of dealing with one particular matter. Children under certain circumstances can be committed to a reformatory and in certain circumstances can be committed to an industrial school. It did happen in the case of children committed to a reformatory and subsequently in connection with children committed to an industrial school that there were cases of girls where there had been sexual contamination of one kind or another or a danger of that and in some cases the authorities of the schools refused to receive them and in other cases declined to retain them in the schools when the general circumstances became known. In these circumstances a special school was set up which is mentioned in this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is that, particularly in respect of children who are committed to an industrial school, it will be possible for these children to be sent to the special school referred to in this Bill. The ages at which children can be sent to a reformatory run from 12 to 17. There is a certain provision for supervision after the age of 17. Under the original Act of 1908, they are under the supervision of the managers of the school to which they have been committed until they are 19 years of age. Supervision consists of this, that they are released at 17 into some kind of employment; they are under supervision in that employment and, if circumstances arise that, in the opinion of the management, they still require to be directly looked after they can be brought back to the reformatory for a period not greater than three months. Then they are put out under supervision again and, under the 1908 Act, they could be kept under that type of supervision and that liability to be brought back to the reformatory until the age of 19. An amendment to the 1908 Act is respect of that age was made in the 1941 Act and now it is possible to retain supervision and, therefore, to retain power of returning them to the reformatory for a period of three months up to the age of 21.

The maximum age for retention in an industrial school is 16. This Bill provides that that age will be raised to 17 and, again under the 1908 Act, it was possible to maintain supervision over an industrial school child until the age of 18. That was raised to 21 under the 1941 Act. So, the main provision of this Bill is that, completely retaining untouched and unextended, the main basis on which children can be sent either to a reformatory or industrial school—the basis being, for reformatory schools, Section 57 of the 1908 Act and, for industrial schools, Section 58 of the School Attendance Act—a special school is provided here and, with the approval of the managers of that school, certain children that have certain contamination may be sent to this particular school rather than to one of the old reformatories or industrial schools where they might be refused or rejected.

The provision is maintained that there will be the same control by a local authority. A child is not committed to an industrial school at the present time unless the local authority has been given an opportunity of appearing at a court or wherever the decision is taken that the child will go to an industrial school and under sub-section 18 of Section 133 of the Act of 1908, there is complete safeguarding of religious rights. The whole of that fabric is maintained and the only change that is taking place is that 16 years of age, which is the maximum age for keeping a child in an industrial school at the present time, is, in respect of conditions of this kind, raised to 17. In case it is argued, as, no doubt it can easily be, that 17 is not an age at which children of that particular kind can be regarded as completely free from danger, the supervisory and controlling powers of that Act of 1908 and 1941 remain there until such time as the child is 21 years of age.

As the Minister has stated, the Bill is rather a simple Bill but deals with a very urgent and delicate problem. It is one, of course, which must be approached with tact and dealt with in a particular manner. We accept the desirability of the segregation of the various types of young people who are sent to various institutions. Apart from provision for the committal of young persons in the ordinary way, I should like to see the making of provision whereby parents who consider that it would be in the interests of their children to be committed to such care as is provided in institutions of this kind would be allowed to send them there voluntarily rather than have them committed by the courts.

Although it is not within the terms of this Bill, I should like to impress upon the Minister the desirability at some time in the near future of changing the whole system. I consider it is not good and has not borne good results in the past up to the present to have young people who for one reason or another are committed to industrial schools or reformatories brought before the court and to have them associated with police officers. That leaves in their young minds—and in after-life —something of a disregard for law and order and for the courts in general. It impairs the respect which one would like to see instilled into young people for our police force and for all the circumstances surrounding their committal to such an institution. We have reached the stage where we should be able to devise some better system regarding this connection between force and the committal of young people to institutions. If we did that we would be taking the first step towards creating in their after-lives a greater respect for law and society in general and we would have better citizens.

I should like to see more contact between the outside world and people committed to those institutions. I feel quite confident that they are under the best care in the institutions in which they live, that the best medical services are provided for them and educational facilities of every kind, but I feel that during their term in them they feel that they are completely cut away from the outside world, and when the time comes for them to take their place in it they feel that they have not been a part of it.

I should like to have a representative visiting committee. There are people in every town and district who have a leaning in that direction and who would take a keen interest in the young people. When the time would come for them to go out into life these people would also take an interest in them. They would instil into their young minds that they are part and parcel of out people, that they are sent to the institution for no great crime but only to do what other boys and girls are doing in other schools, preparing themselves for life afterwards and becoming good citizens.

I should like to ask the Minister a question. As far as I am aware, only one school, St. Anne's, is mentioned to cater for these young people. Is there provision for boys and girls?

Please God, one school will do for the girls and we will not want any for the boys.

The Minister says that the leaving age from industrial schools may be raised to 17 years from 16. What is the position with regard to education? Is there any provision for those who stay for the extra year to have better than a primary education? Some boys at the age of 13 are quite capable of passing the Primary Certificate Examination. What is going to happen for the three or four years they remain in an industrial school until they are 17?

I am sure that Senators, whatever side of the House they sit, will be of one mind in thanking the Minister for having sought and found a solution for a very difficult and delicate problem. He has found that solution with the co-operation of a devoted religious congregation who are highly specialised in the training and treatment of girls such as these poor girls with whom this Bill concerns itself, these tragic victims whose plight has worried not only this Minister for Education but his predecessors, and for whom careful, wise and very sympathetic consideration is required to provide a remedy. I know that this is a simple Bill, dealing only with one particular class and designed to find a remedy for only a particular problem however pressing, but there is always a tendency in the case of an amending Bill to talk a little about the Acts of which it is an amendment. Already Senator Hawkins has made a very useful contribution to that side of the question. This House has a good record with regard to Children's Bills. Important amendments were introduced in the 1941 Bill by Senator Hayes which got the support of the other side and which has been very useful. We look on these children as the wards of the nation and we would like to do what we can for them. When the Minister has more time he might be able to visit—though I am sure he has done it already—certain nuns who have great experience in dealing with the problem involving children in industrial schools and who have some very practical propositions which I am sure he would be glad to receive and consider. I do not propose to deal with them, but if the Minister is kind enough to let me see him, I would like to make certain suggestions for his consideration.

St. Anne's Reformatory School, which is mentioned in the Bill, provides only for Catholic children, but the problem also arises in respect of children of other faiths and I would like to know if any provision is made for them.

That is all I have to say except to thank the Minister and wish Godspeed to him and to the devoted Sisters who are taking on this truly Christ-like task.

Following Senator Mrs. Concannon, I should like to have from the Minister some statement on the religious safeguards he mentioned. The case, as Senator Concannon remarked, might arise of a Protestant child who wished on religious grounds not to go to a school run by those of another faith. The Minister has said that there are religious safeguards, but if he will save me the trouble of looking up the Act, I should like to have a statement on that point. Is there an alternative school of any kind if that problem should arise of people who on religious grounds should prefer to go to a school of their own faith, and, if so, what is that alternative?

I regard this measure as being very useful social legislation, but I feel inclined to ask one or two questions on the matter. The Minister speaks about reformatories and industrial schools and this new school for the purpose mentioned in the Bill of admitting young girls under certain conditions. Does the Minister contemplate the corollary which should follow? We have frequently seen in the papers cases which came before the courts and where there is a question of sex and would the Minister not consider making the punishment fit the crime by bringing before the court the beasts who committed those crimes against those children?

If I may go backwords, I say in reply to Senator Anthony that I come here only as Minister for Education and the question which he raises arises before the case comes to the Minister for Education and is a matter for the Department of Justice. Three Ministries, apparently, have something to do with Children's Bills, the Departments of Justice, Health and Education.

With regard to Senator Stanford's question, I would refer him to Section 133 of the Children's Act of 1908.

Would the Minister read it for us?

He will not find the complete answer to his question there and he may perhaps look for the insertion in our legislation of a section like Section 66 of the 1908 Act, but in actual practice there never has been and never is any difficulty regarding religion in any cases that have arisen in our courts.

Suppose there were in the future, what would happen?

If there is the slightest indication of a lack of the same protection for other religious denominations as there is in the British Act of 1908 for Catholics, I undertake that all the necessary legislative provisions will be made to give by law that protection which in fact exists. I believe that the implication of Section 133 of the 1908 Act is as fully operated as if it were law and I do not think it would have been left in that state if it were not so.

Senator Mrs. Concannon asks if there is any other school other than a Catholic school. When it is realised that there are only six girls in this institution at the present time and that in order to make adequate financial provision for the school it has to be maintained at a national figure which I doubt could be reached, I would not care to have to go to the particular decimal point of provision we would have to go to if we had to provide an additional school for children of other denominations.

While this question is a small one it is most important, and as far as we can see we feel fully satisfied that the provision made here will not have to be added to. Senator Colgan raised the question of education. As Senator Mrs. Concannon has pointed out, these girls are in the hands of a most experienced Order whose contacts with problems of this particular kind on the one hand, and with the general education of girls, on the other hand, stretches back for more than 100 years and possibly for a few hundred years. Senators may rest assured that the finest possible approach is being made towards keeping these girls occupied and towards giving them the fullest possible training so that, by the full exercise of their faculties and of their talents, they may so develop as to be above all danger and temptations when they leave the school.

Senator Hawkins mentioned the question of contact with the outside world. Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that it would be well worth while visiting some of these schools and meeting some of the magnificent women in charge of them. I often wish I could take a couple of the Reverend Mothers whom I know and have them as occasional inspectors, because their very practical and vigorous approach would be very useful if they could travel outside their own respective spheres. There is a great desire among those in charge of industrial schools to leave nothing undone—to increase that contact with the world on the one hand and, on the other hand, to make the children feel, even in what might from the outset be regarded as the very restricted and confined atmosphere of the schools, that they are a part of the general world.

The Superior of one boys' school discussed very seriously with me the question of vacations for the boys. Up to last year, I think, 21 days' vacation was allowed, during which period the children returned to their homes or to the homes of friends for holidays. The Superior discussed with me the desirability of extending the holidays in such a way as to make the children feel that they belonged to an ordinary residential school when they could go home at Christmas, Easter and in the summer, where at all possible. The home conditions in many cases are not such that it would, perhaps, be advisable to do that, but the minds and the thoughts of those in charge of the schools are travelling very much in that direction. A superioress of one of the schools was responsible last year for making me think it was desirable to extend the period of leave from 21 days to 31 days. That was done last year with, I understand, very beneficial effects.

The minds and thoughts of those in charge of the schools are very open. They realise their responsibilities in regard to the mental outlook of the children under their care and anything that either they or we can do to assist in that connection will be done. It is very desirable that the ordinary citizens who live in the locality of these schools would, through the many societies that exist and in various other ways, keep in touch with communities and children of this particular kind, but particularly, I think, with the communities. Many of these communities are not very well off. They are, perhaps, carrying on without any great financial assistance either from the State or from the local bodies. They live lives of great anxiety and care and they need the stimulating interest of the people outside. These people could help the community either as individuals or as small societies and, without any great inconvenience to themselves, they could show communities of this kind that they are taking a real interest in their work. I have in mind, in particular, the boys' side of things. There is a marked difference noticeable when you go into an institution run by men for boys and when you go into an institution run by nuns for girls. You wish you could see more of the woman's hand in the institutions run by the male religious communities for boys. To some extent, it has been effected beneficially by the introduction of women nurses in some places to look after the boys. All the developments I see there are developments in a satisfactory direction.

Senator Hawkins suggested that the whole system must be changed. I do not think it is beneficial to revolutionise everything. I think it would be very hard to provide a better system than what can be developed organically from the very sound roots which we have in this respect.

I was referring to the systems of committal.

In that respect, as far as Dublin is concerned, there is the Children's Court. There is no display of armed force or even of helmets of a menacing kind in relation to the carrying on of the cases there. Then, throughout the country, there is the system of district justices. I do not think the Guards in the country are regarded as a force with a capital F, in the way Senator Hawkins rather suggests. To get a different system would mean that you would have to take the young children away from their own parish areas to a central court, or something like that. I think it would be better to reform the outlook on what the Guards and the district justices are, rather than to set up committal machinery for dealing with the very small number of cases of children that there are.

It has also been mentioned, particularly in cases of this kind, that it would be desirable that a child should be admitted to this institution without going before a court. This matter was very fully considered but it did not appear that there was any way in which you could so break in on the fabric of the foundational law in relation to industrial schools and reformatories that you could get children into these institutions without first going before some kind of an official court that would issue the necessary Order. If, in the working out of things, we are able to find that a system of voluntary approach can be evolved in regard to entry into these particular schools, then we shall see if, in the case of a voluntary desire to enter, it can be done without a court. One of the difficulties is that part of the cost of this scheme is borne by the local authority and part by the State. There must be some kind of machinery of agitation on a particular case before you can feel it is properly decided that the State and the local authority should shoulder themselves with the cost of maintaining a child.

Did we not have a similar problem when dealing with the Mental Hospitals Bill a few years ago relating to committal of patients?

My recollection in regard to that Bill is that it was a forest of ideas and a forest of sections; I was not particularly involved in the discussion, and I do not know.

It would be worth while adverting to the particular section relating to the committal of patients. It might be helpful in relation to the point raised by Senator Hawkins.

A large number of the children committed to industrial schools are committed because they are orphans or because their parents cannot maintain them. Why should these children have to go before a court of justice in order to be committed? They have not done anything against the community. It is indicating poverty as a crime, while we pretend it is not. Certainly, it is a different matter if the children break the law. I know that at one time they had to go through the farce of begging outside the court. Sometimes the policeman handed them a bag of apples. They were then brought into the court—and that was their crime. That has been changed but, again, why should children, simply because they are orphans or because they are poor, be brought before a court as if they were criminals?

I think the Senator is rather misrepresenting the nature of the court. I take it that the reason they are brought before the court is so that justice may be done by them—to safeguard them in regard to the conditions under which they live, neglect and suffering, and the dangers with which they are surrounded.

It does not take away the impression that they are brought before the court and put into an industrial school. They feel it is a crime. If they have to be committed why can it not be done by some other method?

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

I should like to say, in relation to a remark made by Senator Mrs. Concannon, that I understand there are some aspects of either this or the general question which she would like to discuss with me. I shall be glad at any time to meet Senator Mrs. Concannon or any Senator to discuss the childrens' situation.

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

I should like to correct any misunderstanding that may have arisen in the mind of the Minister or of any Senator in relation to my suggestion of a change in the system. I have nothing but the highest regard and esteem for those people engaged in this work. I have known them in various towns—particularly in my own City of Galway, where they are doing very useful and tremendously good work. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the suggestion put forward by Senator Colgan. I hold that it is not impossible to get away from the atmosphere of the courthouse, from the atmosphere of the law having those young people in its claws and of putting them, even if it should be for their betterment into one of these schools. We should devise some more humane system—something that will imprint on the minds of those children in their later life that they are more a part and parcel of the people than they have been up to the present.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the suggestion of Senator Hawkins. To my mind, however, it is not one of the things that the State can do from the top. I have a very strong suspicion that the Department and the Minister would be very sympathetically inclined towards suggestions in that direction which might come from those responsible in the schools. They possibly better than anyone else know the facts. The whole object of modern reform is to try to help the child who is not getting a fair chance in life and to make him into a decent citizen. That is what we want to do and it is all a question of what is the best way to do it. Personally, I would be better pleased if the police, so far as possible, were out of it. At the same time, I recognise that you cannot open this to everyone, that there must be proper evidence and proper consideration before a child is sent to one of these schools by a justice. I was wondering if it might be possible for the justice to hear cases of this kind in his own room without any publicity, but I do not think that is something which requires legislation.

He very often does.

I know that in certain cases that is the way in which it is done and possibly something on those lines might be devised. I personally would not move it as an amendment, but I should like to see the word "reformatory" taken out of the name of the school, not because the word is not an excellent word but because it has got a sort of stigma attached to it. I should like old boys or girls of these schools to be able to speak of their old school with a certain amount of pride and not to regard it as something they had to suppress. I should like to see this word which unfortunately gets a meaning which is not intended, removed but again I do not think that can be forced by the State. It is useful that these points should be made in debate, but it is mainly those who are doing extremely fine work in charge of these schools who will know the best way in which changes might be made. As a rule, these changes come gradually as the result of experience and that is probably the best way.

I am very sorry for any effect which my misinterpretation of Senator Hawkins's remarks may have made. I fully appreciate his approach to the matter.

Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share