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.