Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Feb 1940

Vol. 78 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Reformatory and Industrial Schools.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £520 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun costaisí mar gheall ar Scoileanna Ceartúcháin agus Saothair, maraon le hAiteanna Coinneála (8 Edw. VII, c. 67; Uimh. 17 de 1926; agus Uimh. 24 de 1929).

That a Supplementary Sum not exceeding £520 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1940, for Expenses in connection with Reformatory and Industrial Schools, including Places of Detention (8 Edw. VII, c. 67; No. 17 of 1926; and No. 24 of 1929).

Is that all you are going to say about it?

Oh, no. In the first place it would not be at all right if we did not give the Deputy an opportunity of speaking on the matter. I know he is interested in this matter, and I am very glad that he is. In regard to the first item shown in the details of the Estimate, £100 for reformatory schools, I might explain that the original Estimate in respect of these schools was £4,960. It is now estimated that we require £5,060, the difference being due to additional committals beyond those anticipated when the original Estimate was framed. In the case of the industrial schools, an extra sum of £1,300 is required. This is also due to a greater number of committals than was anticipated. There are savings shown in the Appropriations-in-Aid which lessen the total by £850, leaving a net sum of £520 which I ask the Dáil to grant. I could give figures in regard to the numbers in detention in these schools but I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to say more than that these sums of £100 and £1,300 are due to the fact that a greater number of boys are in detention than was anticipated when the original Estimate was framed.

This is a very important matter. In regard to matters of education I have high hopes of the Minister. Whether they are going to be dashed or not I do not know. I have said on more than one occasion that one of the principal functions of a public man is to regard himself as a trustee of the poor. The children who are going to these schools are the children of the poor. I suggest to the Minister, more especially when he is bringing in a Supplementary Estimate to provide for additional committals to these schools, that he should regard it as part of his duty constantly to review committals to these schools and reformatories, with a view to seeing whether they are being done in the best interests of the children.

We are not here dealing with criminals. There is no element of retribution about the committal of these children. The committal is done exclusively for the purpose of providing the children with the best prospects of normal, healthy development, and that function much more properly belongs to the Minister for Education. That is why I am concerned more with the welfare of children than with any police magistrate in this city.

I am not asking the Minister by his action to imply any rebuke or reproof or repudiation of the magistrate concerned in the administration of juvenile criminal justice, but I am asking him to watch each of these children as though he were himself a trustee for them. They have nobody else to protect them. Their parents are simple people, most of them not knowing that they have a right of appeal in these cases, to a superior court, if they are dissatisfied with the verdict of the court of summary jurisdiction. Many children are carried off to these institutions and the parents do not know that they have a right of appeal. They do not know how to go about it, so that the Minister as their trustee has a heavy responsibility on him, not only to satisfy himself that the children are properly treated in these institutions, but that each individual child committed is having its own best interests served by continued detention there. If he is not satisfied that that is so, then it is his clear duty, in my submission, to exercise his power and to release these children to their parents at once. I can say with reverence that he is not entitled to abrogate to himself the right to improve on Divine dispensations, and if there is a doubt as to whether the children would be better off with their parents or in the schools, then they should be given back to the parents. The doubt should be interpreted in every case in favour of returning the children to the parents. If the Minister does that there will be failures and disappointments, but I want to give this undertaking from this side, that if there are disappointments, and if children sent back to their parents fall into delinquency again, he can rest assured that his action will be endorsed and defended in any gathering where it is called into question.

With regard to reformatory schools, the Minister stated on a previous occasion, in answer to a Parliamentary Question put down by me, that he intended to abolish Glencree and secure more suitable premises. I appreciate the difficulties in getting the right kind of premises, and I would be glad to hear how the negotiations are progressing, and what his hopes are. I do not want to create the impression in this House or elsewhere, that industrial schools, or indeed reformatories, are dreadful places in which children suffer unmentionable wrongs. That would be quite false. These institutions are run largely by Christian Brothers and orders of priests, who do their very best, very often with deplorably inadequate equipment. That is no fault of theirs, but these institutions are not adequate substitutes for good family surroundings, and inasmuch as none of us would suffer our children to be removed to industrial schools, we should be scrupulous to see that no poor person's child should be removed without the same consideration and care being taken in arriving at that decision as would be taken with regard to our own children. I do not want to go over ground that I went over before in regard to reformatories. I do not think it is necessary, because I think the Minister agrees with me. Is it in order to suggest that the Minister should take under his jurisdiction, in addition to the reformatory and industrial schools referred to in the Estimate, the Borstal institution, or would that require legislation?

I think it would.

If so, I leave that. I leave the industrial schools and the reformatory schools and pass on to the abomination at Summerhill. Has the Minister visited the premises and what does he think of them?

I will tell the Deputy later.

The Minister knows what I think of them.

I have heard it.

I put it to the Minister that that institution ought to be wound up. There might be a great deal to be said for using it for remands, if you had there a good matron, a doctor competent in psychological therapy, and a good chaplain for children brought and detained there for a week or a fortnight, who would be able to advise the magistrate as to the state of the child's health mentally and physically, as a place where a child would be under care, where parents would feel that instead of being punished the child was being built up and its morale restored, where people would be freely invited to go to see their children during the period of detention. But a little creature may be transported from the slums into a place which, it must be admitted, is clean and decently kept, but which is, in fact, an old Georgian house every window of which is barred as if Bill Sykes were about. I live in one of these Georgian houses, and God knows, with all the amenities I can provide, it is gloomy enough. As the Minister for Education has reason to know, if a child from 8 to 12 years were incarcerated in such a house behind bars, such an experience would make an impression on its mind from which it would never recover. I do not think that such an institution would be tolerated to-day in the United States of America or in England. Surely the standards considered requisite for the children of these people are not too high for ours.

The Deputy asked me whether any progress had been made in regard to providing an alternative to Glencree, and I am happy to state that considerable progress has been made in that respect. I hope in a few months time to be able to announce that a new location will be available. As the Deputy knows, if we had to build a place for a reformatory it would take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, we had to try to find a place, already built, that would be reasonably suitable. It is in that direction I am working, and I hope that we can have a place which will be more suitable than Glencree. I do not think I can say anything more at the moment.

Is it proposed to provide agricultural training there?

Yes. There will be a suitable farm associated with the institution. This whole question of juvenile offenders and their treatment is extremely difficult. The Deputy is aware of that. I must say that I sympathise with a great deal—I cannot say with everything—of what he said. I think it is a very serious matter to take children away from their parents, unless it is essential in the children's own interest to do so. It is only in such cases that that might be done, or where it is essential to do so—which is tantamount to the same thing—in order to prevent them becoming criminals or a danger to society. I am afraid it would be a burden that a Minister for Education could not reasonably undertake to go completely into every case. He could examine a case incidentally to satisfy himself about it. The Minister always does that whenever any appeal comes along. As to examining cases and deciding whether an appeal could be heard and children liberated, the Deputy made a point stating that it was all very well for those who knew that they had a right of appeal, and then asked what about those who did not know they had a right of appeal, even to the Minister, apart from any question of the courts. In that case, any Minister will have to depend very largely on the information available to the officers of his Department who have to represent him in work of that kind. I think every one of the officers with whom I have come in contact appreciates the seriousness of the whole matter and approaches his work in that connection in the same spirit as the Deputy would approach it, if he himself were one of these officers.

With regard to boys on remand, I am afraid that one would have to consider that with regard to the whole system. Everything depends on what part it has to play in the system. Sometimes the view is taken that first offenders are to be cured of the tendency to commit certain offences by a certain amount of threat, and that if the building is made too attractive, instead of having it as a deterrent, there may be rather an inducement. I visited the remand house. I had no idea at all what it was like before I went there, but I found, as the Deputy has said, that it was scrupulously clean. There is a very small number on remand at the one time, as a rule. On this occasion there were three boys, and they were under the control of the officer who has charge of the house and of an assistant. I saw the boys, and I think they were being taught how to read, or something of the sort, at the time. I appreciate that if you had a large number, and if you were dealing with boys who were going to be detained of a certainty, you might approach it more in the spirit in which the Deputy has spoken, but there is something to be said for the other side.

If it is certain that boys have committed a certain offence, it may be better for the boys to let them appreciate the difference between being in their own homes and conducting themselves there, and being taken away. That may act as a deterrent and cure them of their desire to do certain things. That is the point of view which, I think, was taken by those who have in the past used that remand house as a place of remand between one hearing and another. I am not satisfied at all with the whole system, but, having heard about this place—it had been spoken of by the Deputy and by others as a dreadful place—I went prepared to find something very much worse than anything I did find. I do not know anything about the locality.

As the Taoiseach knows, I live in it, so that I know all about it.

Further than that the street and the surroundings seemed to me to be all right.

It has just been condemned as a demolition area.

I did not see anything like that, in the part of it I visited, anyhow.

You are an innocent poor man.

All I could see was a new street being made there.

This is Summerhill?

Yes. There was a new cement road being laid there.

When you did not break your neck there sliding on the head of a herring, you were very lucky.

I am afraid it would have been very difficult to slide the morning I was there. I must say that I saw nothing that would at all justify anybody in speaking of it in the way in which the Deputy has spoken.

Did you see the bars on the windows?

I did, and I know perfectly well that bars are necessary if you do not want boys trying to get out of the windows and breaking their necks.

Did you see the recreation place at the back?

Yes, but if you are to have a house at all for two or three boys for only a week, it seemed to me to be quite tolerable.

There were 14 boys there when I visited it.

I obviously saw it under better conditions.

And their ages ranged from two years to 14 years.

I think that 14 would probably be the maximum number. I am sorry; that statement is incorrect. I believe there was a larger number there one time, because I asked the question, but the present average number is about three, and the total number not more than five.

The place became such a scandal that they did not care to send large numbers there, happily.

I have no information which leads me to think that, from the point of view of numbers, the need was not met. I would prefer to see a larger space for recreation and so on, but if you accept the point of view which I have indicated as being the point of view which apparently has been taken by people very sympathetic to the treatment and handling of children, and who know something about it, namely, that it is very useful, for these few days they are there, to help them to feel that there is a very big difference between being free in their own homes and being in a place of detention, then you will understand why there was evidently no desire on the part of those who thought of this to make the place attractive. There were bars on the windows. In fact, I looked for the bars, because I was wondering what would happen if some of the children tried to break through and to get out the windows. Barring is absolutely necessary above the first storey, and I think I cannot find any fault with the barring. The bars were only as heavy as would be consistent with their being effective for their purpose. There was also the question of what would happen in the case of fire, and they had a contrivance by which these bars could be quickly removed. I do not say that it could be completely effective in that case. There would be a danger, and it would be one of the things that one would have to look out for, but there was this contrivance by which these bars could be removed very rapidly.

All I can say to the Deputy is that I am interested in the question. I think it is one of the most important duties of the Minister for Education so long as this particular Department is under his control, and I will consider whether any better arrangement could be made. The Deputy—I do not say that he is wilfully exaggerating— has an exaggerated view of the effect on the children of being housed in this place for a week or so. After all, the intention is to try to deter these children from committing these offences, but there is a limit, and I would say the same of the schools in which they are detained for a considerable period. I think you have to have things simple there. It is a mistake to try to accustom them to conditions which they will not be able to reproduce when they come out afterwards to earn their living. They must be conditions which will not lead them to feel, when they come out, that there is a very big and violent change.

I think that is substantially true.

I promise the Deputy that I will give the matter all the attention it is possible to give it. I appreciate his anxiety in the matter, and I think that everybody who has anything to do with this particular branch of our Department approaches it from the point of view indicated by the Deputy.

Might I ask the Taoiseach to apply to Summerhill a test which he is in a position to apply, but which I, unfortunately, am not: In the case of his own son, if he committed a petty offence for which small children are committed to Summerhill and such was reported to him, would he consider that the most appropriate method of correcting him would be to send him to Summerhill for a week?

I think that is a very fair test and a proper way to look at it. In my opinion, if taking him to Summerhill was going to cure him—

That is the point—if I believed it was going to cure him. Mind you, I can see the point of view of a person, district justices or others, who say: "There has been an objective offence committed against the community, and if this thing were to continue, if, at a later stage, this habit were to develop, this young person would ultimately become a criminal." If such persons thought that threaten-him as to the results of his conduct would cure him, I believe myself that they could uphold their view. I can understand it. If he had committed an offence and taking him there for two or three days was going to cure him, I feel I would have no cause of complaint against the public authority. I would be sorry for him—I am sure all parents would be—but in the long run I could not say that I had any complaint. There must be, of course, an assumption of guilt. I do not think any magistrate would remand a boy to Summerhill if he were not, in the first instance, practically certain that he had committed the offence and, therefore, that it was really a short temporary detention the purpose of which was to deter him from future offences of the kind. I would be sorry for the boy, but I would have to put up with it. I feel I can understand the view of the authorities.

I do not think that I trespass too far if I put another view. It is legitimate, I think, to take the view that that is a somewhat archaic outlook on juvenile delinquency. Certainly one could not commit oneself to that deterrent course until one was quite satisfied that the psychological make-up of the child is normal and that there is nothing in its surroundings which is inducing it to the course of conduct which brings it in conflict with the law. It would be obviously wrong to apply sanctions to the child to deter it from wrong-doing, if the wrong-doing were in fact none of its fault. It is for that reason I suggest that a preliminary course of investigation is requisite both into the child's make-up and surroundings before the deterrent action is determined upon.

Is not that usually done? Surely when a case like that comes up before the courts the investigation officers satisfy themselves and evidence to that effect is produced in court.

On the surroundings?

On the surroundings and conditions of the child, so far as they can be judged by visiting.

But on the child's psychological and physical health no evidence is tendered.

That would take a very long time.

I can assure the Taoiseach that in every juvenile delinquency case in Great Britain and in the United States of America such a report is always presented to the magistrate before he is allowed to detain the child at all. I urge the Taoiseach most strongly to require a résumé of the current legislation for dealing with juvenile delinquency in Great Britain to be laid before him. The facts are there. The Juvenile Delinquency Act passed in 1926 in Great Britain is a comprehensive measure, and the Juvenile Delinquency Acts, particularly in the State of New Jersey, not to speak of those passed in Illinois and, I think, in Colorado, would not permit juvenile delinquents to be dealt with without reports of that aspect of the case being laid before the magistrate.

I must admit that I have not read the recent legislation in regard to that matter in other countries. I am not so sure that I would take what was done in other countries straight off and accept it by any means. There is such a thing as going too far in this matter just as well as in others. I have some knowledge of prison systems. I have seen them elsewhere, and I do not agree with some of the courses adopted in other countries.

You thought the British were the best boys to deal with.

I must say that I do not agree with some of the modern advances in that direction. I think some of them are wrong. It is just possible in the case of children that the same mistake might be made. However, perhaps it is better to err a little on that side rather than on the other. All I can say at present is that the matter will have my close attention, and any time I can devote to examining it I will devote to it.

Vote put and agreed to.
Vote reported and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn