Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 5

Local Elections (Dublin) Bill, 1929. - Children Bill, 1928 (Seanad)—Second Stage.

I formally move the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not taking responsibility for it, but I am moving it to give the House an opportunity of pronouncing for or against the Second Reading — that is, for or against the general principle of the Bill. This Bill was introduced into the Seanad to bring in some minor modifications into the Children Act of 1908. Our attitude towards the Bill is not one of complete acceptance and it is not one of rejection. We are quite willing to accept the Bill provided that certain amendments could be introduced in the Committee Stage which we think essential from the point of view of principle and from the point of view of the general working of the Bill.

The section of the Children Act of 1908 that is referred to in this Bill enumerates the various grounds on which children can be committed to industrial schools. A number of people, for some time, have thought that these grounds are not sufficiently exhaustive. In fact, it has been pointed out that some offence has to be committed by the child or else that the parent is incapable of exercising control over the child; otherwise, unless there is some fault on the part of the child or parent no power lies with the magistrate to commit the child to an industrial school. Hence you have had what might be called collusion in the case. For instance, a parent anxious to get a child into an industrial school, or a guardian anxious to get a child into an industrial school, must go through a certain formula. The child must have been found guilty of an offence such as begging. Begging is, I think, the usual form that has to be gone through, so that the child, merely on the grounds of the destitution of the parents, could be admitted. That is the real ground, the ground of destitution, but nominally on the ground of begging the child is sent to an industrial school.

The Bill from the Seanad proposes to add a new section to Section 58 of the 1908 Act extending the power of the magistrate in this particular case and, in the case of an infant, of a child found destitute who is not an orphan, he or she may be committed on the grounds of what we call the destitution of the parents. In practice that may sometimes occur. But it is really a kind of subterfuge for the alleged offence of begging. It was, I am sure, in order to get rid of that objectionable practice and in order to recognise that destitution is one of the reasons for the committal of the child, that Senator Brady introduced this particular Bill.

My particular objection to the Bill as it stands is that I do not think the State or the magistrate should have power to take away the child from the parent merely because of destitution without the consent of the parent. If the House thinks it well to give this Bill a Second Reading we shall ask the House on the Committee Stage to accept an amendment to the effect that under this particular sub-section no committal shall take place without the consent of the parent and, furthermore, that the responsible Minister, in this case the Minister for Education, shall, at the end of the school term — there are a couple of terms in the year—release the child if the child is committed under this sub-section. As it stands, that is how the Bill would work, though I know that it is not the intention, so far as I gather from the speeches in the Seanad. I know that such was not the intention of the Senator responsible for the Bill, nor was it the intention of those who supported him. But the Bill as it stands would seem to be an invasion of parental authority, and my view is that if the House gives this Bill a Second Reading it ought to make it clear on the Committee Stage that there is no such invasion of parental authority in the Bill.

There is another aspect of the matter which concerns the committal of children on the grounds of destitution or where destitution may be one of the matters that may be operative in bringing about the committal of the child to an industrial school. That is, however, a matter that concerns the Minister for Local Government and Public Health more than it concerns my Department, and he will be able to explain his attitude in the matter. I want to make it quite clear that we accept no responsibility for this Bill. I am formally moving the Second Reading. I will vote for the Second Reading with the very distinct understanding that if there is a Second Reading I will, on the Committee Stage, advocate a radical alteration of the Bill on the lines I have suggested.

I am glad to hear the view put forward by the Minister with regard to this Bill. There was certainly doubt in the minds of a number of my colleagues on these benches as to the advisability of supporting the Bill as it stands, having in view the fact that there was no reference to any consultation with parents or guardians. The child, without reference to parents or guardians could, without any offence having been proved against it, be taken away and put in some industrial school. As the Minister has stated that amendments on the lines of safeguarding the rights of the parents and also of the child will be introduced, we are prepared under these conditions to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Ex-Senator Brady asked me to support the Bill, and I am glad to do so because it gives me an opportunity to make one or two points quite clear. The simple thing the Bill wishes to do is to get over the necessity that arises for convictions for a nominal offence against the law. Ex-Senator Brady has expressed himself to me, and written to me, that he had no intention of going contrary to the wishes of parents, and he is quite prepared to accept an amendment on the lines the Minister suggests — that such committal shall not be without the consent of the parents. There are other matters, including one about finance, which will come up later. It may be necessary to put forward some other amendment to prevent additional expense.

If it is a case of sheer necessity, where the parents are absolutely destitute, even if it costs the State a little, I would urge the desirability of permitting the committal to an industrial school where the child would get a training, and the complete desirability of getting over the necessity for branding the child as having at one time been committed for even a technical offence against the law. I hope the House will accept the Bill, and amend it in Committee so as to make it satisfactory to all parties.

I desire to support the Second Reading with the greatest pleasure. I have a case in point where a woman who was a cook got married. After six children were born, her husband died and she was unable to support the children. She wished to return to service and an effort was made to place out the children. She was most anxious to get two boys placed in an industrial school and she actually sent them out to break a window in order to get them arrested and so have some excuse to put them into an industrial school. I hope the provisions of the Bill will meet a case of that sort. One could not say that this woman was absolutely destitute; but she wanted to go to service again in order to earn money to send some of her family to school. It is very necessary that we should include something to prevent children being sent out to break the law in order to qualify for entry into an industrial school.

There is one point I would like to refer to, and that is the cost per head of children in these industrial schools. I understand it is 12/6. If you commit two children to the school it will be 25/-. Suppose the parents got that amount instead, would it not be better in the interests of the children? While favouring the principle of the Bill, I contend it is a very poor home indeed that is not better than the best industrial school, if the children can be kept under parental control.

And trained.

I desire to say something on the lines mentioned by Deputy Fahy. I feel very keenly on this point, that where people are destitute, and where the only crime against the parents is that they are destitute, their children should be torn from their side and sent to school. The principle is wrong. It has been repeatedly pointed out to me in the police courts, where parents have been sued for the maintenance of children in industrial schools, that the State has to pay 12/6 for each child in the school. If people are so destitute as to warrant the taking away of their children because they are absolutely starving it might be just as well to make some extra contribution besides ordinary relief, if there is any given, to those people, or otherwise the distribution of food. I do not want to press this matter now, but I would be inclined to favour some amendment on those lines.

There is another point. Are we going to classify industrial schools, or will the position be that you will have children committed to an industrial school where you have other children who have actually committed offences, and who would be bad companions for those children who have committed no offences? I am not impressed by Deputy Thrift's attitude in the matter. I feel that although certain people are poverty stricken the affection and love between the parent and the child are not impaired. I have found on many occasions that people in lowly circumstances have sacrificed themselves for their children, and are more prepared to do so than people in higher ranks of life. I was rather sorry to hear the view expressed by Deputy Thrift. I would welcome some alterations in keeping with the Minister's suggestions.

From the point of view of the Local Government Department, there are some objections to tackling the Bill in this way. I want to mention them at this stage, so that if, in hammering out amendments to the Bill for the Committee Stage, Deputies think the points are not sufficiently made, then they can be dealt with in another way. When we are dealing with the question of a destitute child we are dealing with a person entitled to relief under the Poor Law Acts. The whole tendency of the changes made in Poor Relief legislation, within recent years at any rate, has been to preserve the home, and the steps in relief that have been recommended are, in the first place, home assistance and, in the second place, as regards children boarded out.

It is only when children cannot be relieved either by the granting of home assistance or by, in certain circumstances, boarding them out, that turning to an industrial school, or any other class of institution, to look after them is recommended. This Bill, as it stands, in the first place, does not relieve the child and the people connected with the child from what are almost quasi-criminal proceedings, because under the 1908 Act, any person can bring a child before a Petty Sessions Court for receiving alms. It is proposed in this Bill to bring the child before the court as a destitute child, but the difference between a charge of being destitute and a charge of receiving alms seems to be a very slight one when you bring the child into court at all. So that there is that aspect of it. In the second place, if we assume the Bill is amended to include the consent of the parents, the local authority responsible for poor relief is entirely kept out of it. Not only that, but instead of falling on the authority for poor relief, the charge for the child's maintenance in an institution would fall upon the county council or the borough council rather than the poor relief authority. That seems to raise the point of weakening the sense of responsibility of the authority responsible for poor relief by creating a situation in which any person or court can interfere to look after a destitute child, with the authority responsible for poor relief practically washing its hands of the situation.

If we consider the situation outside the city and county of Dublin, under the county schemes, although it does not seem to be fully appreciated, there is, in fact, power for any board of public assistance to provide for the maintenance in an institution of any person who would be entitled to relief. So that there is nothing to prevent, so far as I am advised, outside the city and county of Dublin, a board of public assistance sending a destitute child to an industrial school without the intervention of any court and without the unsatisfactory proceeding of relieving the body responsible for relief of the charge of the child, and transferring the charge to the county council. So that, in so far as the area outside Dublin city and county is concerned, I am advised that this Bill is practically not wanted.

Inside the city and county of Dublin, a child, who is not an orphan, cannot at present be sent to an industrial school at the public cost, even if the parents agree, unless the parents are inmates of the workhouse, or unless it is made a subject of quasi-criminal proceedings under the 1908 Act. Possibly, when amendments are proposed to the Bill, we will decide that the Bill is not necessary outside Dublin city and county, and that inside Dublin city and county the situation might be met by an amendment of the Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1898, by which the body responsible for poor relief inside the city and county of Dublin could send a destitute child to an institution without its parents being in the workhouse. Exception was taken in the Seanad to dealing with this matter in a piecemeal way, and I have a certain sympathy with that, particularly when the difference between charging a child before a court with being déstitute and charging it with receiving alms hardly warrants this particular measure.

May there not be a penalty for one and no penalty for the other?

As far as the actual effect of being brought into court and charged with receiving alms, or charged with being destitute, is concerned, there is a very thin line. The Minister for Education has spoken of the necessity for seeing that, whatever is done, the parents' consent shall be obtained, and I think it would be entirely away from the spirit of our recent poor law legislation if that were left out. I submit that it would be most undesirable that children, when destitute, should be sent to an industrial school without the consent of the local body responsible for poor relief, or their being brought into the matter in some way.

Does the Minister propose to bring in amendments to this Bill?

Yes, so far as the amendments that I referred to and that the Minister for Local Government referred to are concerned, we intend to bring forward amendments. I might say that I think ex-Senator Brady made it quite clear in the Seanad that he had no intention of interfering with the rights of parents. He was under the impression that the Bill actually provided for that, and I know that is his personal view. I want to make it clear that what he really wanted to get rid of was the kind of thing that Deputy Sir James Craig referred to, namely, the necessity there was for parents to get their children to commit a real or nominal offence, and to get a conviction for a real or nominal offence in order to get the child into an industrial school. I think that was the main purpose he had in introducing the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second Time. Committee Stage to be taken on Wednesday, 13th March.
Barr
Roinn