Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 1941

Vol. 25 No. 5

Children Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

The purpose of this short Bill is to make certain amendments in the legislation relating to reformatory and industrial schools. I might explain that a commission was appointed some years ago to inquire into our present reformatory and industrial school system under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Cussen, Senior District Justice in Dublin, who had charge of the Children's Court for many years and who took a keen interest in the problems submitted to the commission for inquiry and report. I think I cannot do better than read for the Seanad a paragraph from the commission's report which, I think, gives a fair summary of their views regarding the present position:—

"As a result of our investigations we are satisfied that, subject to the introduction of various changes which we have indicated in the course of this report as desirable, the present system of reformatory and industrial schools affords the most suitable method of dealing with children suffering from the disabilities to which we have referred, and we recommend its continuance. We specially recommend that the management of the schools by religious orders who have undertaken that work should continue."

Some of the reforms and improvements recommended by the commission did not require legislation, and they have already been dealt with by administrative action. Certain changes in existing legislation were also recommended, and most of these, together with a few other amendments that experience had shown to be desirable, are included in the present Bill.

Before explaining the provisions of the Bill, there are a few matters of a general nature to which I think it well to make brief reference. The first of these is that it is recognised and accepted as a fundamental principle that the proper place for the rearing and training of children is the family. I think we are all agreed that no other system, no matter how perfect it might be, can provide for the child that care and attention which a good home can and does provide. But, owing to a variety of causes, including the weakness and imperfections of human nature and, perhaps, also, the imperfections which we have not yet been able to remedy in our social system, there are children for whom the advantages of family life are unfortunately not available. There is also a small number of children who require greater discipline and control than is normally afforded by family life. It is with these classes of children that the present Bill is concerned.

Existing legislation on the subject of reformatory and industrial schools is contained in Part IV of the Children Act of 1908. Under that Act, the obligation to provide such schools is placed on the local authorities, who the empowered to discharge their obligations either by establishing and maintaining schools under their own control, or by making arrangements with schools under private management to receive children from their areas who are committed to these schools. All our reformatory and industrial schools are under private management and, with one exception, they have been founded and erected by religious orders from their own resources and public charity. The one exception is the industrial school at Baltimore, County Cork, which was erected by public subscription, in the raising of which a former Bishop of Ross took a prominent part. This school is under the management of a local board of which the Bishop of Ross is chairman. Reformatory and industrial schools are inspected by Department inspectors and are maintained by means of capitation grants contributed partly by the State and partly by the local authorities from whose areas the children come.

I think it may be well to explain briefly the chief differences between reformatory and industrial schools, since it is often wrongly assumed that there is little or no difference between them. The fact that they are closely associated both in legislation and administration lends support to this assumption. There are, however, important differences between these two types of schools and these differences have become more marked here owing to the manner in which our industrial schools have developed. Take reformatories—these are intended for young persons between 12 and 16 years of age who have been found guilty of offences which would be punishable by imprisonment in the case of adults. The most common offence is theft. Of the 128 persons committed to the reformatory in 1938-1939, 76 were committed for petty theft and 32 for house-breaking and larceny, a total of 108 out of 128.

Industrial schools were originally intended for children who were neglected by their parents, and children under 14 years of age who were guilty of minor offences such as failure to attend school, petty theft, and so on. Parental neglect was sometimes due to or accompanied by poverty in the case of a great number of the children committed to industrial schools, and, in 1929, a short amending Act which, by the way, originated in An Seanad, was passed, which provided that a child might be committed to an industrial school on the grounds of poverty or destitution alone, provided its parents consented to this course, and also that they were given the right to obtain the release of their child if their circumstances improved, and the Minister was satisfied that they were in a position to support him. This Act, I may say in passing, as amended, is incorporated in Section 9 of the Bill before An Seanad. The passing of this Act, however, did not cause any serious increase in the number of children committed to industrial schools. Its only effect, in fact, was that children who had been committed before that on such grounds as begging—receiving alms is the technical term—were now committed because of poverty.

Of the 1,040 children committed to industrial schools in 1938-39, 414 were committed for that reason. The total number of children in the industrial schools in recent years is about 6,200, and the number committed annually about 1,000, of which it may be taken that fully 90 per cent. represents committals due to poverty, with parental neglect in some cases; 5 per cent. arises from offences such as theft, and the remaining 5 per cent. through failure to attend school.

The chief provisions of the present Bill may be explained under two or three general headings. First, with regard to Sections 3, 4 and 5, these are intended to give the Minister a greater amount of control over reformatories and industrial schools. As I have already mentioned, these are private institutions and, under present law, if one is not as well managed as it should be, the only remedy for me must be to withdraw recognition. Section 6 is considered necessary, therefore, to provide safeguards against difficulties which will arise if recognition were to be withdrawn from a school in such case under Section 49 of the Principal Act—owing to the fact that we have only one reformatory for boys and one for girls. We would, in such circumstances, have to make special arrangements, and, therefore, the order closing the school should not be made, we think, without further consideration, if such a difficulty arose. When I say closing the school, I mean in effect withdrawing State recognition from the school.

Provision is made in Section 8 to raise the upper age for committal to a reformatory from 16 to 17 years and, in Section 22, to raise similarly the upper age for committal to industrial schools from 14 years to 15 years. These changes were recommended by the recent commission and they are in accordance with similar reforms elsewhere. I should explain that the raising of the ages now proposed does not, of course, necessarily mean that persons up to the higher ages mentioned who are convicted of offences need necessarily be dealt with by committal to a reformatory, or industrial school, as the case may be. It may happen, of course, that the justice feels that the case can be dealt with by putting the youthful offender on probation and, in other countries, there seems to have been a feeling in recent years that the probation system should be tried out further. There are, no doubt, opinions of the same kind here, but in the event of the justice deciding that probation is not suitable and that the only remedy is the committal of the young person, I would like to point out to the Seanad that in such a case we do not get over our difficulties. The managers of these industrial schools, or even of the reformatories, have the right to refuse to accept any person committed whom it is proposed to send to them, and I think it may be assumed that in a case where the youthful offender who had been committed to a reformatory was approaching the upper age limit of 17 years, there might be reluctance on the part of the manager to accept him.

Similarly, in the case of the industrial school, although I have been pressed to raise the age and have done so—my own feeling had been that it should be raised from 14 to 15— managers may be reluctant, in the case of children committed to industrial schools, if the offence is of a serious character and if the child is approaching the age of 15, to accept responsibility for him. We are leaving the existing provision that such persons over 16 may be sent for Borstal treatment. In the case of very, very serious offences, such as manslaughter or something of that kind, Borstal treatment will be necessary. I, however, am not responsible for the Borstal; I am responsible for the administration of all the reformatory and industrial schools.

The provisions of the Bill which, I think, call for most care and consideration are those contained in Section 9, that is to say, those relating to the grounds on which a child may be committed to an industrial school. These grounds are set out in the original 1908 Act which seems to have fulfilled its purpose very well and which is still quite sound in my view in its main provisions. They are summed up in Section 58 and, if Senators wish, they can refer to that section in order to get a clear view of what the provisions are. I should like first to mention that, as regards the 1929 Act to which I have already referred and in which it was provided that subject to certain safeguards, a child might be committed to an industrial school on the grounds of destitution, it may be contended that poverty is not and should not be a sufficient reason for committing a child. I think, however, that those who advance that contention do not always bear in mind that the question of poverty is not the only circumstance which the court has in mind in coming to a decision. The court will consider the whole circumstances of the family environment at home and the conditions under which the child is living. Regard will be had to his or her past career and the type of associates with which he or she had been keeping company. The district justice will also, no doubt, take counsel with the officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or his own probation officers, and my experience of the reports of these officers is that they are very valuable. The ordinary report which we ask for from the police, when applications are made to me, for example for the release of boys or girls from custody, gives a certain amount of information as to the family circumstances—whether the parents are employed, the amount of income, the nature of the accommodation and other matters of that kind. Something more, however, is necessary and the probation officers—of course, it is their sole business; the police have many other duties to attend to—make a close study of the circumstances, visit the family frequently, try to get to know what the difficulties are, if there is any lack of harmony in the home conditions for example or any other circumstances, which might be remedied by advice from either the probation officer himself or from the justice, so that it would be possible for the child to live at home.

As the House will realise, the circumstances sometimes are such that the justice, while not anxious to interfere in any way with the family, may feel, if the best arrangement is to be made for the child's future, that the only decision he can come to is to take the child away from an unsuitable home environment. In these cases of destitution it may, for example, happen that the mother of the family may have died and left the father in poor circumstances with a large number of young children, and perhaps no female relative is prepared to undertake the responsibility of looking after them. Similarly it may be that the father is dead or ill and that the mother is left with a large family to support.

In cases of this kind the court, I think is really acting on a purely humanitarian basis, purely in an endeavour to provide temporary relief and assistance for parents who find themselves in these circumstances, by having the children, or some of them, committed to an industrial school. I should like to repeat that in such cases, that is to say where committal is made on the grounds of poverty or destitution, the 1929 Act provided that the consent of the parents, or the surviving parent if one is dead, should be obtained and that the child should be released again to these parents if the circumstances improve and they satisfy the Minister that they are able to support their children. My reason for repeating that is that there seems to be a doubt in the minds of persons who criticise the provisions of the Bill as to what the actual position is. The actual position is that in every case in which it has appeared to me that the circumstances of the family had improved sufficiently to enable those who are my advisers to say that the child could be released and that provision could be made for looking after it at home, the child was discharged. I take it that the law binds me in that way and that I have no option.

The principle underlying these provisions and the safeguards of parental rights which they afford are being retained in the present Bill, but some amendments are being made to overcome certain defects that have arisen in the application of these provisions. For example, cases have occurred where families have been deserted and left destitute by the father, or perhaps one of the parents has become mentally deranged, and therefore legally incapable of acting as guardian. Furthermore, the father may be in prison and may refuse to give his consent to committal of any of his children to an industrial school. It is proposed in Section 9 (e), clauses (ii) and (iii), to dispense with the need for the consent of the parent concerned in such cases. That is to say, if the father is in prison and if the mother outside thinks that she ought to give her consent, we feel that the withholding of the consent by the father should not prevent the court from having a discretion to commit the child. The same applies to cases of mental incapacity. This amendment of the law, I want to repeat, does not affect in any way the need for obtaining the consent of the other parent. There is always the safeguard even in these limited cases where we are amending the law, that the consent of the parent whom the court recognises as being the real guardian of the child for the time being, must be obtained. There is also the right of such parents to have the children released at any time as soon as they can satisfy the Minister that they are in a position to maintain the child. That is laid down in the proviso to Section 9 (e).

The other amendments made in the provisions relating to the committal of children to industrial schools are of a minor nature. As I have already mentioned, the upper age limit is being raised to 15 years. Clause (c) of Section 9 refers to a provision in the Principal Act under which a child may be committed on the grounds that it is under the care of a parent or guardian who, by reason of criminal or drunken habits is unfit to have care of the child.

This provision has not been found effective under present circumstances. It is felt that in order to secure the consent of the court to committal in such cases it would be necessary to prove reputed conviction against the parents such as drunkenness. We inserted the word "reputed". I am informed that the word has a well-established meaning in law and following the canons of legal interpretation the insertion of this word will render the provision more effective and cannot lead to abuse.

There is the further paragraph (i) in Section 9 intended to deal with the case where the father is convicted of a serious offence in relation to any of his children. In such a case the proposal is that the court should have power to take any of the remaining children away from him if they consider that the matter is sufficiently grave and commit them to an industrial school. The purpose of Section 10 is to reduce the period for which a young person may be committed to a reformatory. At present this period must be not less than three years or more than five years and it is proposed to reduce these periods to two years and four years respectively. The purpose of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 is fairly plain, and any detailed explanation of them that may be necessary can best be given on the Committee Stage. In connection with clause (a) of Section 12 it might be mentioned that at present the manager of a school may release a child on licence after it has been 18 months in the school. It is proposed to reduce this period to six months in order to encourage managers to exercise their power of licensing to a greater extent. Objection was taken to the word "licensing" but the word in regard to young persons is conditioned by the words "licensing by the manager of the school." It will be noticed further that licences in future, according to Section 14, will be known as "supervision certificates." If there is anything further to be done in the way of removing any stigma which seems to be held to attach to those who through no fault of their own have to go to industrial schools I would be only too anxious to do it.

I think that the next section of which an explanation may be considered desirable is Section 19. Here an attempt is made to place the responsibility for maintaining young persons in a reformatory or in industrial schools on the local authorities. The present position is that unless the local authority of the place where the committal occurs pays, the cost has to be borne otherwise. That has the effect of placing an unfair obligation upon cities like Dublin where committals of children for other districts are made. I have already mentioned that reformatories and industrial schools are maintained by means of capitation grants paid partly by the local authorities. The rates of grant paid by the different local authorities vary very considerably—in the case of industrial schools from 3/- to 5/- or 6/- per week, and in the case of reformatories from 3/6 to 8/- per week. The managers of industrial schools have, on occasions, refused to accept children from certain counties as they considered the rates of grants paid by these counties insufficient. Under Section 20, it is proposed to take authority to regularise this position and to fix, by regulation, appropriate rates of grant which must be paid by all local authorities.

Section 21 proposes to make certain amendments in the law regarding the disposal of what are called parental contributions. When a young person is committed to a reformatory or industrial school the district justice may order his parents to pay a weekly contribution towards his maintenance if, in the opinion of the justice, they can afford to do so. Under existing law these contributions must be paid into the Exchequer, and it is proposed to take power to apportion them between the State and the responsible local authorities. The total amount of the contributions in question is about £3,000 per annum.

Before I conclude I wish to refer to a criticism which may reasonably be made against an amending Bill of this kind, viz., that its interpretation presents some difficulty as it has to be read in conjunction with the original Act which it amends. I agree that there is some force in such a criticism and I can only say, in answer to it, that this Bill is considered necessary to make early changes in the law but that it need not be regarded as a permanent provision for dealing with the important social problems to which it refers, and the present is not a suitable time for making such a provision.

I am only dealing with this one problem of juvenile delinquents. I am only responsible for the administration of industrial and reformatory schools. The question as a whole is one for the Minister for Justice. On the other hand, the question of general medical services for children would appear to be a matter for the Minister for Local Government. I have no desire to prevent anyone making what legitimate criticisms they wish against the proposals, and I regret that the Bill so far should only represent my own particular part of the problem. Unfortunately I was not able to come to the Oireachtas with a Bill in which all sections of the problem could have been dealt with.

Mr. T. O'Connell

I was glad to hear the Minister admit that this was—he said a good example, but I say a bad example—of legislation by reference. It will be almost impossible to study the full implications of this Bill as it is printed. I pity people who will have the administration of it. It will not have a great deal of interest for the ordinary man in the street unless he is deeply interested in social questions, but I imagine that members of the Gárda and district justices will have considerable difficulty in grasping the meaning of the various sections. For example, take Section 9, Section 13 or Section 21. If I wish to know exactly the full meaning of these sections, I have first to get the original Act and rewrite them, putting in these amendments in the text. It is only then that I can understand it. Even that is not sufficient. This 1908 Act was one passed 30 years ago by another Parliament, and I dare say it is full of references to petty sessions, lords lieutenant, chief secretaries and lords of the Treasury. There are quite a number of our Guards and young lawyers who have never heard of such things. They have to look up the Interpretation Act to see what is understood by a chief secretary or what was the lord lieutenant mentioned. I cannot understand what objection there was, or what difficulty there would have been in rewriting the whole of the 1908 Act with these amendments and bringing it before the House. Then we would see at once what was implied, and those who would have to administer it afterwards would understand it. That is the first criticism I have to make.

The general principle of the method by which these particular schools are supported seems to be unsound. The support given either by the State or by local authorities is in the form of a capitation grant. The Minister himself, in the course of his speeches in the other House, and certainly other people in other places, more than once referred to the fact that, unless there were a certain number of these young people in these schools, the schools would have to close down. That was looked upon almost as if it were something very much to be deplored, something almost in the nature of a catastrophe. The ideal position, which I suppose we can scarcely hope to reach, would be that there would be none of these delinquent or destitute children— that there would be no children who would have to go to one of these schools and no reason for the existence of these particular schools. As I say, I do not suppose we will reach that, but the nearer we get to it, the harder we work to reach that position, the more difficult it will be for these schools to maintain themselves under the present system of capitation grants.

I say that, irrespective of the amount paid by way of capitation grant. If the capitation grant were four or six times as large, the same principle would apply, because one might come to the stage when only 10 or 20 children would be maintained in a particular school, while the overhead expenses would be just as great as if there were 20 or 40 times that number. The cost of rent, rates, and general upkeep and maintenance of the institution would have to be borne just the same. I think it was admitted by the Minister himself that we are dependent for the care of these children to a considerable extent on public charity, that it is only on those grounds that they could be maintained at all, that is on the grounds of a very considerable contribution from public charitable institutions under whose control these children are. I do not think that is right. Public authorities—either State or local, or both—should be entirely responsible for the care, education and maintenance of these particular children.

In previous speeches the Minister referred to the fine manner in which these institutions are run. I am quite prepared to agree with him in that. He referred to the fact that they were just as good as any ordinary boarding school to which private people send their children. I would not go so far, but if that were to be the case, I wonder what boarding school would accept children at an all-inclusive rate of 15/- per week, which is apparently the total grant paid by the State and the local authorities per head for these children. I should say that that is the maximum grant. The figures which the Minister gave a few minutes ago would show that it is far from reaching that amount in quite a number of schools. The grants themselves are totally inadequate, and the principle on which they are paid is, in my opinion, unsound.

The Minister referred to the fact that he was dealing only with one aspect of the case in this particular Bill, that is, the aspect with which he himself is particularly concerned. I submit that he is not dealing in this Bill at all with the aspect of this particular question with which he ought to be most concerned, that is, the education of the children in these particular institutions. The report on which this Bill is based made many and very important recommendations with regard to the education of the children in these schools. Some of the children from these institutions go to ordinary schools, and I take it that they are dealt with as the children are who usually attend these national schools, but in some—even in a good number—of the schools, they are taught in the school itself. Here are the recommendations of the commission and the references with regard to this matter.

The commission find much fault or complaint with the position of the teaching of literary subjects in these schools. They say that the teachers who are employed there should have the same qualifications and the same general training as the teachers in ordinary national schools. That seems to be the obvious thing, and to be common sense. They have not got those qualifications in the vast majority of cases. Occasionally, a trained or qualified teacher is appointed, but he gets out as quickly as he can, at the first opportunity that arises.

The commission recommended that the cost of the education of the children should be defrayed from the Education Vote on the same basis as if they were attending ordinary national schools, but, as the Minister himself stated, not only does this capitation grant cover the cost of clothing, feeding, housing and all that, but also the education and training, and the expenses of the institution, including books and so on. They also recommend that future appointments of these teachers should be made on exactly the same conditions as obtain in the case of ordinary national schools, and that these teachers should have no duties other than teaching, that their work should be identical with that in the ordinary national school. Surely it ought to be one of the first concerns of the Minister, not alone to get these children committed to the schools, but to see that they are properly educated when they have been committed. That cannot be done unless they are taught by people who are trained and properly qualified for that purpose.

There is this further point. These children who go to these institutions, are in the main, what we call "problem" children, and the actual teaching and training of such children is a more difficult job than it is in the case of the ordinary children who come from good homes. They require more care and more individual attention, and, therefore, those who have charge of these children and who are teaching them should have even higher qualifications, more experience, and a better training than would be required in the case of the teachers in the ordinary national schools. Yet, we find that these teachers are paid miserable salaries. I am speaking now of the lay teachers. The members of the religious communities, of course, have their own arrangements, and I cannot say, or do not wish to say, how they are treated. I am thinking mainly of the lay teachers who are engaged in these schools, and reference was made specially by the commission to these lay teachers; they recommended that all who were engaged, whether lay or religious people, in the teaching of these children in literary subjects, ought to have special or definite qualifications.

That is not the position now, however, and people may engage in teaching in these institutions who have no special qualifications whatsoever, so far as the Minister's Department is concerned, and the rates of remuneration paid, as a result of the grants given to these schools, are very low. The grants being what they are, these people cannot be paid a proper remuneration. According to the commission the rates of pay for these people vary from about £36, indoor, to £192, outdoor, and I think that requires no further comment. Apart from that, these people have no pension rights. They may be discharged at short notice without any pension rights whatsoever. I do not blame the institutions concerned for that state of affairs, although I think they may be sometimes to blame. Apparently, they cannot afford to do any better. I am thinking, however, of the interests of the children concerned, and surely that is a matter that ought to be the concern of the Minister for Education.

Now, when this matter was raised before, I understand that it was pointed out that the cost would be entirely too great. I have been trying to look into that, and it seems that a sum of £29,000 was mentioned. I do not know how that figure was arrived at. According to the commission, there were altogether about 77 lay teachers at the time, and about 15 or 16 of these were trained. I am quite certain that there is not that number of trained teachers in these institutions now; some of these teachers, who were trained, have got employment elsewhere in the meantime. This matter was discussed with the Department of Education about a year ago, by myself and others, and we learned at that time that if the recommendations of this commission were carried out, and if these teachers were taken over, there would be only about 20, I think, or even less, and certainly not more, of these lay teachers, who would have any qualifications that would entitle them to be taken over by the Department and treated, under the Department, in the same way as the ordinary national school teachers are treated, and that some of these would be trained and some of them would not be trained. On that basis, we suggested at the time to the Minister's Department that he should at least take over these lay teachers and pay them whatever salary their service would entitle them to. If that were done, I have no doubt that it would not cost more than £3,000 or £4,000 at most, in the year. Even though it would cost that much, or a little more, at any rate it would be that much relief to the institutions concerned. They would not have to pay that much and, as a result, they would be in a position to get better teachers with better qualifications. I have no doubt that, once it could be shown that a teacher in these institutions had the same salary rights and pension rights as teachers in other positions, a teacher would take that employment, but he will not take it now, because he has no proper salary or no pension rights.

I suggest to the Minister that that is a solution of the problem. I know that the Minister himself, personally, is sympathetic—I have reason to believe that—and therefore I do not know what there is to prevent this being done. If there is only £4,000 or £5,000 involved, I think it should not be sufficient to prevent the Minister from making this arrangement. I do not know whether legislation would be necessary for that, or whether the Minister can do it administratively. He says here that some of the recommendations can be carried out without legislation and by administration, and that some of them would require legislation. I do not know under which heading this particular reform, that I am suggesting, could or should be carried out, but I am raising the matter now because this seems to be a suitable opportunity to raise it. I am not so much interested in the position of particular individuals as in the fact that quite a very large number of children pass through these schools who are not getting the attention which, in my view, they are entitled to get, and which they cannot get under the present arrangements. I should like to stress that, and I hope that the Minister, when he is replying, will let us know what are his intentions in that particular direction.

Mr. M. Hayes

This Bill has been described as legislation by reference, but the position at the present moment with regard to industrial schools and reformatories—they are two rather ugly words—and with regard to defective or delinquent children, can only be found by going through and discussing a British Act, an Act of 1929, and this Bill when it becomes an Act. The position with regard to this matter is patchy, and, as the Minister said, the position in administration is also patchy and confused. There is the Department of Justice concerned in the matter, and there is also the Department of Education, and if one were to suggest such a thing as a clinic the Minister would hold up his hands and say that that was a matter for the Department of Local Government and Public Health. It is important, however, that there should be a unified control in regard to this matter. There are 6,000 children in these schools, and a very substantial number—about 1,000—are committed every year, and of these, if I understand the Minister, 90 per cent. are due to poverty or lack of parental control. I think that that is an indictment of our present system and of our lack of unified control. Having had a considerable time to think the matter over, particularly in view of a very reasonable and by no means exaggerated report in connection with it, I think that more thought should have been given to the matter, and that some effort should have been made to give us a more comprehensive Act than the present one—taking some account of the immense difference in outlook between 1941 and 1908. I do not want to be harsh in a matter of this kind, but I do not think the Minister could give us any greater indictment of his own lack of enlightenment on this subject than to say that the Act of 1908 was a good Act and, in effect, that you cannot do very much more. As Senator O'Connell has pointed out, that Act was passed about 30 years ago. It ante-dates practically all of our present social legislation, and the point of view with regard to delinquent children that was held even by decent people and educationists about the year 1908 has become very substantially altered by 1940 or 1941.

One would expect that in our legislation and in our arrangements made for this kind of children that change in attitude which is universal all over the world, I might say, would be reflected. I have no doubt that the administration of the Act has altered considerably and steadily for the better. From what I can discover about it I think the Minister was quite right in saying that the attitude of the courts, of district justices, of police, of probation officers, and the general attitude has improved substantially but it is not fair, I think, to the children or to ourselves that we should allow the whole matter to be dealt with simply by tinkering—that is what this amounts to—with an old British Act of Parliament and by allowing necessary reforms to fall between two stools, or rather three stools—between three separate Government departments. I think the matter is one more for the Minister for Education than for anybody else. Knowing that knots can very often be united or cut open, I do not know why it would not be possible to give the Minister for Education the main say in all this matter because I think the thought of to-day on this whole question, as Senator O'Connell has just indicated, is that this is a matter of education much more than a matter of punishment.

I rose particularly to put the point which Senator O'Connell, from his great knowledge of the matter, has put so very well already, namely, the position of the lay teachers in these schools. It should be remembered that at one time no training of any kind was necessary to become any kind of teacher. Since I was a teacher myself, I can say it without any offence to any one—a man went into a school to teach when he could not find any other place to go to. Then a system of training was made out for national teachers and just at the beginning of the last war, owing to a Chief Secretary named Birrell, considerable improvements were made in the conditions of secondary teachers and very substantial advances have been made since. Both in our primary and secondary schools we now have trained teachers enjoying certain rights, as far as the lay teachers are concerned; in the case of secondary schools, not all the rights they would like but still a substantial improvement on the old position. Similarly it is impossible to get a post at present under a vocational authority without having certain qualifications recognised by the Minister for Education. But a small body of teachers in these industrial and reformatory schools have been left entirely uncatered for. Their position has not been improved at all and the schools still run on an antiquated, unscientific and, one might almost say, idiotic system of capitation grants. Therefore, as has been pointed out, the more children you have delinquent the more prosperous the school is likely to be, whereas our whole object should be to reduce these numbers.

There is every case, as Senator O'Connell has said, for improving the position of these teachers, and it is a position which should be improved by legislation and by Government action and which, in all the circumstances, cannot be improved—although I think some efforts have been made—by those who manage and run the schools. As anybody who runs a house at present can easily find out for himself, the capitation grant is entirely insufficient. Certainly the educational end of the matter should be undertaken by the State. One would imagine that the matter is so simple that it would be done because one advocates no new principle. We do give primary education at State expense; secondary education very largely at State expense; university education very largely at State expense, and vocational education almost entirely at State expense, using the word "State" to cover both local and Central Fund grants. Why we should refrain from taking upon ourselves the responsibility for the education of defective children, who need education and who need skill in teaching more than any other class, is a mystery to me. I do not understand at all why we should not have undertaken that particular burden. The amount involved is small. Even if it were £29,000—I have been told by people who have taken the trouble to calculate it that it is considerably less than £29,000 a year—it surely would repay us. First and foremost, we have 1,000 children every year. You might say of every single one of them that either from the point of view of poverty or from the point of view of some kink or other, there is a grave defect in their home environment. I think the Minister would agree that in every case, practically speaking, there is something wrong with their home environment and very often there may be something wrong from the point of view of heredity. They offer in a school a very serious problem. They are more difficult to handle and to teach and they require, instead of less skill, more skill from the teacher. Yet it is these very children we leave without any insistence upon training. Certainly I think the reform in that particular matter of these lay teachers in industrial and reformatory schools is overdue.

What Senator O'Connell has said— that is, that for future appointments the same standard as for national teachers should be insisted upon—is too obvious to labour it. If the Minister were endeavouring to do justice to the present staffs who are, in the sense of diplomas, unqualified—some of them are very well qualified indeed in practice—if he were seeking a precedent for dealing with them, I think he is well aware of the precedent adopted when registration for secondary teachers became the law. The same precedent was adopted, for example, when dentists were compelled to register. There is no difficulty in allowing the people who have a certain amount of experience to continue and to get certain salaries.

The analogy with the secondary schools is complete and there is no difficulty about it. If the number is only 77 persons all told it should not be very difficult to deal with. It should be understood that they are people who are doing very difficult work under difficult circumstances, who are very badly paid and whose grievance is against the State, against the community, which, I think, should take steps to remedy that grievance. It is not so much the grievance of 77 persons; it is the welfare and the future of 6,000 children; and it seems to me that money spent on the education of those 6,000 children might very well come back to the State in less expenses for courts, less expenses for prisons and less expenses for policemen later on. I do not know of any educational field where one would be more certain to get a return than in this particular field, for a comparatively small sum of £20,000.

The other thing that strikes one, as I said at the beginning, is that neither the Minister's speech nor the Bill itself gives any indication that experiments such as clinics and so on that have taken place with regard to defective children elsewhere are going to get any show here. The names—industrial schools and reformatories—are indicative of the period from which the original Act comes. It has been suggested to me that we have renamed in Irish a great many things. These are two institutions we might easily rename in Irish and it would certainly be an improvement. I know the Minister will tell me it is not his particular business, but I think if the Minister interests himself in the matter—and, of course, I know he is interested in it— he would have the support of a very great number of people in both Houses if he were to press very strongly for a remedy for the situation which leaves 6,000 defective children in the hands, very largely, of untrained persons, and he would find that any money spent on improving the position of the teachers and improving the quality of the teaching as time goes on would come back to the State and would be well repaid.

Professor Magennis

The Minister's plea for mercy, I was glad to notice, did not fall upon deaf ears. It is necessary that those of us, like the previous speakers and myself, who are keenly interested in the main problem, should lament that the Bill is only what it professes to be—an Act to amend and extend the Children Act of 1908. The Minister suggests that in the midst of war's alarms, with all the anxiety with regard to the future, it is not possible to make a consolidating Act.

Those who have already spoken, and I, believe that the situation calls and calls urgently for a consolidating Act, and I grasped with delight at one of the closing remarks of the Minister for Education which held out a hope that we would soon return to legislation on the question of the child and the young person. Perhaps that is a promise to codify the whole law relating to the child and young person, and that we may soon have a measure for that purpose. In addition to regretting that it is not a consolidating Act, and admitting all the difficulties at the present moment that prevail against introducing it, without the risk of its being an imperfect consolidation and, therefore, a premature thing, I regret the absence of a preamble. This is the second time I have made this complaint, so I am afraid my colleagues will think it is the idea of a crank.

There is no preamble to state what exactly has evoked this new piece of legislation or to what reformative purpose it is directed, and I have been at considerable pains to read over, not only the Act of 1908, but all the amending Acts introduced since that time. I have read our own 1929 Act which has been absorbed into this as a portion of Section 9, and I have read the Scottish Act and I gather from my study, which was the best I could make—it was at any rate a careful and conscientious study—that the idea in this present measure is to deal with two classes of children and young persons, first, the child who stands in need, or has indeed been adjudged to stand in need, of more adequate care and proper protection, and to provide the means of that necessary care and protection so far as legislation can secure that desirable end.

The second class covers what are known by that unfortunate description, juvenile delinquents, and the aim is that they may be taken out of that evil environment which is responsible for their being delinquents and put under moralising influence and to secure, again as far as legislation may be hoped to secure, that what was a potential criminal may be converted ultimately into a good citizen. I am taking the liberty on my own account of preparing a preamble like this:—

Whereas new legislation is necessary to provide proper care and control for children adjudged to stand in need of it and that certain juvenile delinquents require different treatment from what they have hitherto received.

And so on. Thus, I am making this unfortunate Section 9, as it stands, concentrate in itself the whole measure in its spirit and in its object. But, as this is a Second Reading, we are bound, as I see it, by the rules of procedure to confine ourselves to the principle of the Bill, although there are many other things that call for criticism—friendly criticism I mean, not hostile. Section 9, I submit, contains, in itself, the essential thing, the main thing, in this particular piece of legislation. Now, one has to go to Section 58 of the Principal Act to see what that is and those who have studied the Principal Act will have noticed that our Government has made one admirable approach to the condification of the law dealing with children, because what is only Part I in the Act of 1908 devoted to infant life protection, was made in 1934 the subject of a separate Act, an admirably drafted Act it is true.

Accordingly, the first stage towards codification has been achieved and now we are dealing with the second part, that is to say, with offenders and powers as to industrial and reformatory schools. After that comment, with your permission, Sir, I will read Section 58 of the Principal Act which this is intended to qualify, and I think that, as I read it, you will see it is an unfortunate thing to leave so much of it as it stands. The very opening words of it are completely out of date, but they are not amended here. It says:

"Any person may bring before a petty sessional court any person apparently under the age of 14 years——"

We are making that 15 years, or, at least, the Dáil has agreed to that enlargement of the Bill——

"——who:

is found begging or receiving alms ...or, is found wandering and not having a home or settled place of abode... or,

is found destitute, not being an orphan... or,

is under the care of a parent or guardian who, by reason of criminal or drunken habits, is unfitted to have the care of the child ...or,

is the daughter, legitimate or illegitimate, of a father who has been convicted of an offence under Section 4 or Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885... or, frequents the company of any reputed thief or of any common or reputed prostitute or is lodging or residing in a house or the part of a house used by any prostitutes for the purpose of prostitution or is otherwise living in circumstances calculated to cause, encourage, or favour the seduction or prostitution of the child."

Now, that is the old-fashioned method of avoiding what the British mind is so anxious to avoid, a definition. They prefer, in what we might describe as a rigmarole, to attempt an exhaustive list of cases or instances rather than to approach it scientifically or philosophically and give a definition. We are adopting that because all that goes before our Section 9. The alteration is secured by the cancellation of the Act of 1929 and the absorption of it into Section 9 as an enlargement. I venture to submit to the Minister that with a model before him and his draftsmen and his Department, where the thing is done scientifically and is made so easy of understanding, that it might have been worth while to take the trouble to borrow these superior passages from the Scottish Consolidation Act of 1937. With your permission, Sir, I will read the way in which the Scottish metaphysical mind dealt with the difficulty. This is Section 65 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Scotland), 1937:—

For the purposes of this Act a child or young person in need of care or protection—

You will observe there is not one iota of that illuminating description in Section 58 of the Act of 1908. Here, at the very outset, there is indicated what type of child is to be dealt with by protection in an industrial or a reformatory school:

For the purposes of this Act a child or young person in need of care or protection—

Because that is the category to which the child to be detained must belong unless he is being dealt with as a juvenile delinquent

—means a person who comes within any of the descriptions hereinafter mentioned, that is to say—a child or young person who, having no parent or guardian, or a parent or guardian unfit to exercise care of guardianship or not exercising proper care and guardianship, is falling into bad associations or exposed to moral danger or beyond control.

There you have set out clearly and unmistakably the three situations of the child in question. He has no parent or guardian and consequently is in need of protection. Senator O'Connell in his speech said that the onus and the duty were on society at large, and not upon people of a charitable disposition, to make contributions for the purpose. I think that is a doctrine with regard to social responsibility that it is very important to have reiterated. Senator Hayes made very much the same comment. The child or young person has no parent or guardian, or has a parent but that parent is unfit to exercise proper care or guardianship or if not unfit, is not exercising proper guardianship, in point of fact. There are three intelligible categories which provide the reason for the law and the community to interfere. The consequence of the absence of parental control is that the child "is falling into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger, or is beyond control." That is a matter of fact and the Scottish mind, with its characteristic clarity of vision, sees how these facts are to be established and how they are to be established is just as clearly set out in 2 sub-section (2):

"For the purposes of this section the fact that a child or young person is found destitute, or is found wandering without any settled place of abode or without visible means of subsistence or is found begging or receiving alms, or is found loitering for the purpose of so begging or receiving alms shall be evidence that he is exposed to moral danger."

First of all, you have the classes that are dealt with and then what would justify you in so dealing with them.

Here is something of enormous value, totally absent from the Act of 1908 or the proposed amending Act. This is Section 66:—

"Any education authority, constable or authorised person having reasonable grounds for believing that a child or young person is in need of care or protection may bring him before a Juvenile Court."

The antecedent condition is that there is good reason to believe the child is in need of care and protection as evidenced by the fact that it is, as set out in the other section, without proper guardianship:—

"It shall be the duty of an education authority to bring before a Juvenile Court any child or young person residing or found in their area who appears to them to be in need of care or protection, unless they are satisfied that the taking of proceedings is undesirable in his interests or that proceedings are about to be taken by some other person."

What I have emphasised as the central motive in what I have read out should be the central motive in all legislation in regard to children—that it should be inspired with a desire to promote the child's interests, called here the child's welfare. I take the liberty to suggest that these two sections together are infinitely superior to Section 58, which is allowed to stand and which is merely given a certain amount of additional matter in our Section 9.

On the subject of welfare, I hope the Minister will forgive me for one unfriendly remark. So far I recognise the difficulties attendant upon the making of a code in present circumstances. I also recognise, as Senator Hayes has done, the fact that the Minister for Education has his heart in these reforms just as much as any of us, but there was this addition made on the Report Stage. It is on page 4 of the Bill, the last proviso:—

Provided also that if 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 able to support such child, orders such discharge of such child.

I restrain myself from saying about that provision what I think about it in my heart. The mother of an illegitimate child, about whose mode of life we have no information, is enabled to exercise a veto, an absolute veto, over a district justice in the exercise of his discretion in sending a child for detention in an industrial school. It is imperative on him if he is satisfied just of this, that the parent is able to support the child. Support it where or support it how? In view of our Constitution about which we boast every hour of every week——

Mr. M. Hayes

Some of us do not.

Professor Magennis

Well, I am speaking from these benches, the Senator should remember. Now, the England which Senator Hayes holds in such high contempt—the worst thing he could say about the Act of 1908 is that it was an English Act——

Mr. M. Hayes

I simply said that it was passed in 1908, which is quite a long time ago.

Professor Magennis

The Senator's enthusiasm led him into the other remark as well.

Mr. M. Hayes

It is an English Act, of course.

Professor Magennis

There is a decision in a leading case—a decision by Mr. Justice Lindley—where the word "welfare" is used in regard to a child. It is not his well-being in the ordinary physical sense of the word that is in contemplation; it includes his spiritual health, his spiritual welfare, as well. Some of us are old enough to remember the extraordinary decision of a judge in our own Four Courts which, in a case of what I shall call the disputed possession of a child, awarded the child to the Protestant parent's family as against what seemed to everyone the prior and better claim of the Catholic parent's family. And the ground was that he held that the child would be better provided for in that family. That is contrary to the English decision which is good sense and good Christianity.

Of course, we always blame the draftsman, but I think the draftsman really nodded here for a moment when he put into the Bill the words, "to support such child," because under Section 30 it is provided that "if the Minister for Education after consultation with the manager directs that it is necessary for the protection and welfare of the youthful offender." There the word "welfare" is used in its precise signification as opposed to the legal position. You often find words used such as "dwellinghouse" in an Act of Parliament, and "part of a dwelling-house," but these words are defined so that they can be used in their strict legal construction. And I am sure the word "welfare," when used in its proper sense, means both the physical and spiritual welfare of the child.

I dislike Section 9 for a variety of reasons, but one of my great objections has been disarmed by the statement of the Minister when he admitted that the Bill is vitiated to some extent as legislation by reference. That is unfortunate. Legislation by reference in Section 9 includes a great deal more than merely references to certain subsections of the Principal Act. It also contains tortuous, complicated instructions beyond the powers almost of anyone to understand their meaning. It seems to me to be dictated by a desire to placate people who talk a great deal in the abstract about protecting the rights of parents with children they find it impossible to support. It seems to be nothing short of an outrage in the minds of such people to send children of such poor people to an industrial school. It was in order to placate critics of that kind that some of this Section 9 has been introduced. For instance, it is provided that:

"The court shall not make an order that a child should be sent to a certified industrial school on the grounds stated in paragraph (h)."

The grounds stated in paragraph (h) are that the child "is found destitute and is not an orphan, and his parents or surviving parent, or in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother, are, or is, unable to support him." In this case the justice shall not make an order committing the child to a certified industrial school, because the child has a parent. I do not think these things would appear in such crude form if there had been a preamble showing what it was that was being done in regard to this legislation; and that we were dealing with children that needed better care and protection. Why should the mere fact that the parent has an attachment to its child put it beyond the power of the local authority to come to the relief of the child and to put the child into better circumstances? We all rejoice in the fact that even amongst the lower animals, not to talk of human beings, there is that love that refuses to recognise the right of anyone to take away their offspring. The parent will cling to his child and refuse to part with it even though in calmer moments it would be seen that it was a crime against the child. We are dealing here with reformative efforts.

It is admitted on all sides that there are numbers of people who cannot maintain their children at anything like a human level. They have difficulty in maintaining themselves even at a subsistence level. If these people are not in a position to provide for themselves and their children, every Christian will hold that it is the duty of civilised society to come to their rescue. We must save these people from themselves, and the children from temptation to which they would possibly be exposed. But all these things are viewed by the abstract mind as unjust interference with the rights of parents.

That is a very desirable interference with the liberty of the person because it is in the best interests of the person to interfere in this case. It is not sufficient to leave matters just as they are here, with the veto arising out of it, if it is to be effective to preclude the juvenile court from sending a child to an industrial school. This must have weighed with the Minister. The unfortunate thing is that in the Twenty-Six Counties all that is considered in legislation is the alternative of industrial school or reformatory school. The Scottish Act from which, with your permission, I have quoted, gives the additional alternative of schools provided by religious orders or similar organisations. In circumstances which would excite the mother or parent to veto the sending of the child, there is no reason why recourse should not be had to what we know to exist in this country—the religious orders which exist for the purpose of aiding those who stand in need of aid.

There are many other things to which I should like to refer, but I feel that I must not speak too long. As the Minister has suggested, he can deal with them, perhaps, on the Committee Stage.

The Act may be cited as the Children Act, 1941, and this Act and the Children, Act, 1908, the Children Act (1908) (Amendment) Act, 1910, the Children (Employment Abroad) Act, 1913, and the Children Act, 1934, may be cited together as the Children Acts, 1908 to 1941. That is part of the last section— Section 24—which remains on the reader's mind very properly, as it was placed to remain. Instead of the necessity of enumerating these individual Acts, we should have the Consolidated Act at the earliest moment to replace them all. When the commission was sitting to examine and report on the advisability of a Second Chamber, the late Chief Justice, who was chairman of it, stressed in particular this value of a Second Chamber, that it could devote itself to the codification of Acts, that, as in the case here of children and young persons, it could sit as a committee of friendly people undivided by political allegiance and not inflamed with a Party spirit in the slightest degree. They could come together and give their minds and hearts to the formation of a code which would embody all the best of the preceding legislation. I remember well that the Chief Justice supported the setting up of the Second Chamber largely because he believed that that would be one of the tasks to which it would set itself or which it would be set.

To-day I am quite sure that there will be no trace of the influence of Party allegiance. It has been shown to-day, in the speeches already made, that on a task of this kind, which is a discharge of a duty to those who stand in need of aid and help, to obtain for them the best that can be obtained in the way of charitable aid and charitable sympathy, this House can do the work. Therefore I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to set about a consolidating Act in the present period with the disturbance of the public mind, but a beginning might be made, and there is no reason why this House should not still further justify its existence by applying its energies to that.

Mrs. Concannon

This Bill, like the Act which it purports to amend and extend, is called the Children Bill, but there is a tendency and temptation to refer to it as the "Children's Bill." Even purists like Senator Magennis felt that that slight misnomer is quite justifiable, because it is a "Children's Bill"—a Bill really meant for the care and protection of the children. That object was in the minds of those who prepared the Bill and it was for the same purpose that the institutions to which it refers were called into being. I am glad to say that this aspect of the Bill has not been overlooked in this House. I read very carefully the debates on it in the other House, and it seemed to have been overlooked there to a certain extent. We heard a great deal about the rights of parents, but we heard very little about the rights of children. The institutions were presented to us as a sort of penal institutions to which an interfering government were fond of committing children, after seizing them from the bosoms of their families and bringing them before some district justice who, for the sake of keeping up the institutions, disregarded the rights of the parents. That seems to be a very mistaken point of view.

The preamble, therefore, that Senator Magennis has called for is really provided in the very title of the Bill— the Children Bill. It is not inadvisable, I think, to look back over the circumstances, "the bitter cry of the children," which called into existence the institutions to which the Bill refers. They spring from the purest impulses of Christian charity, they were called into existence for the sake of the children, orphaned or deprived —by the misfortunes, whether culpable or otherwise, of their parents—of the care and nurture which helpless infancy demands, and that training which would enable the little ones to fend for themselves in after life and which is requisite so that every human being may be ensured a decent life here, and equipped to fulfil his human destiny in this world and the next. It was under this inspiration many charitable institutions made the care of helpless children their special preoccupation, as Senator Magennis has reminded us.

Some of the greatest saints have been associated with this good work— St. Vincent de Paul, St. John Bosco and St. John Baptist de la Salle. In regard to the latter, Senators will be interested to hear that he undertook, among the most beneficent works that he carried out, an institution on the lines of our present industrial schools —though I wish we could have a more attractive name for them. He instituted such a school for the children of the poor "Wild Geese," our unfortunate Irish soldiers who were driven from their native land to become cannon-fodder in the armies of foreign princes. It is very romantic and glamorous to read about the charge at Fontenoy and the "far foreign fields" but behind them there was a tale of sordid want and suffering among the families of the "Wild Geese" which one does not dare to think of. It was to relieve to some extent this misery that St. John Baptist de la Salle founded the institution to which I have referred.

In our own country we have a long record of such charitable care for children. Silhouetted against the very dawn of our history stands the appealing figure of St. Ultan of Ardbraccan. He was the first, I think, we hear of. For the children left orphaned and abandoned, when their parents were swept away in the yellow plague, he had a school and a place of nurture at Ardbraccan. In the old books where the characteristics of the saints of Erin are referred to, we read of St. Ultan: "Ultan loved her children." The care and protection of helpless children runs like a golden thread all through our history, and even in the worst days of the penal times that care and protection was not neglected. When, with the relaxation of the penal laws, the religious orders such as those founded by Mary Aikenhead, Catherine McAulay, Margaret Aylward and Edmund Rice came into existence, they discovered that a remarkable number of such institutions had been provided by poor working men. In the Annals of the Poor Clares of Harold's Cross I found that a poor working-man, called Patrick Quatermann, founded such an orphanage with the help of his fellow working-men, and they carried it on until it was taken over by the nuns early in the last century.

The same is true of the orphanage that was taken over by Mother Mary Aikenhead from a group of poor men who called themselves the Trinitarian Orphan Society. That shows the spirit that prevailed in connection with these institutions, and it spread all through the different classes of society until people began to have a social conscience. Some one has spoken of the difference between 1908 and 1941. Now those two dates are separated only by a matter of 30 or so years, but, by the development of a social conscience, the care and protection of these children was first taken on by poor working-men such as Patrick Quatermann and others, and afterwards, when the penal laws were relaxed, by the religious orders, and finally became the care of the State. In other words, the people themselves, acting through their Legislative Assemblies and through their Executive, assumed as a social duty the care and protection of children who are in need of such protection and care, either through being orphaned and deprived of their natural supporters, or through other misfortunes.

Now that the responsibility for the care and protection of these children has been taken over by the State—I speak of "the State" in the widest sense, as including local authorities— the functions of a parent in respect of these children have also been taken over. I think it is well, therefore, to realise that there are some matters affecting the care of these children where parental control could be exercised more effectively. I join with those who made a plea for the proper payment of teachers in industrial schools. Very often the children who go into these schools, as Senator O'Connell has said, and as Senator Hayes reiterated, are "problem children".

Their history has been such as to make it sometimes difficult to train them, and therefore you want to have very good teachers for them—teachers who are extremely well trained and well paid. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether or not it is possible that, in connection with the training colleges, there might be a Department for the training of teachers who might afterwards be in charge of "problem" children, and that at the same time there should be some kind of clinic for dealing with such children. Perhaps that might meet the suggestion made by Deputy Dillon in the other House and by Senator Hayes here, for these children are very often maladjusted either physically or psychologically, and if it were possible to have them examined, and if there were a special department in the training colleges to prepare teachers to deal with these children, I think it would do good. This is a matter that has only just occurred to me, but I think it would serve a useful purpose if such specially trained teachers were available for these institutions.

There is another suggestion that I should like to make. I am familiar with an excellent industrial school in Galway which is run by a Sister of great experience. She tells me that girls who leave at 16 years of age are handicapped in getting employment in domestic work. Now, the running of a house requires greater judgment and training than is usually found in a girl of 16 years old, and the Sister's suggestion is that there might be an institution, or a few institutions, where girls who show talent in that direction might have further training from 16 to 18 years of age. I should like to join with those who have protested about the use of terms like committal and detention orders in connection with these children, because I think that attached to them is a sort of stigma that could easily be avoided.

Mr. Crosbie

I should like to be permitted to join in the plea that was so ably and eloquently put forward by Senator Magennis for a codification or consolidation of the legislation relating to children in this country. One sympathises with the Minister's position regarding this need, but in the course of his introduction of the Bill he made two statements which do not appear to coincide. He referred to the Act of 1908 as being on the whole, and with certain amendments which the present Bill proposes to give it, satisfactory. The facts, I am afraid, do not justify that optimism. The Minister, of course, will plead that two other Ministers and two other Departments, are, of necessity, involved in any codification of the law relating to children, and that, of course, is so. He will also possibly plead that the present time is not the most propitious period for indulging in new legislation which would, of necessity, involve a considerable amount of research and re-drafting. As against that, I can only put forward the plea that such legislation as was proposed by Senator Magennis is of such urgency that it should be drafted or prepared at any time.

To point to one instance which, to my mind, clearly indicates the failure of the past Acts and the need for a more enlightened codification of child legislation, the crime figures for Cork City in the year 1940 tell a very sorry tale. Of the total percentage of crime committed in the city, children under the age of 18 were responsible for 40 per cent. I am not in a position to give the figures for any other part of Ireland, but I take it that the children of Cork City are probably no better or worse than the children in any other part of the country. I would then strongly urge the Minister that he should use every endeavour and any persuasive influence he possesses—and I am sure he possesses a great deal —to persuade his colleagues, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Local Government, to consent to a codification of the children legislation. I sincerely hope, before the present legislative year is out, in this House we will be having a further debate on the subject and that we will see the Minister introducing, not an amending Act but an Act entitled the Children Act, 1941.

Mr. Douglas

I do not propose to follow the general lines of the debate. I agree with a great deal that has been said and I believe that most of these points can further be dealt with in Committee Stage, that is in so far as the shape and form of the Bill will make it practicable to do so. I sympathise with Senators Magennis and Crosbie in asking for a codification but I would like to make the Minister a somewhat simpler request which I think should not be impracticable. This Act and the Children Act, 1908, the Amendment Act, 1910, the Employment Abroad Act, 1913, and the Act of our own Parliament, 1934, are cited together. In order to understand the law on that particular matter each person will have to get those Acts. I suggest that somebody will have to do it and I suggest it might be done before the Bill leaves this House instead of leaving it to a very large number of persons who will have to do it in order to understand the law on the matter and who will probably make mistakes. I recognise that there has to be a certain amount of legislation by reference and that when particularly short Acts of an amending nature come in it would be unnecessary to reprint the previous Act. I think I have spoken on this on quite a number of occasions, both when the previous Government was in power and since this Government came into power. I want to protest strongly against introducing Bills of this kind which are amendments, of Acts passed before this State came into being without going to the trouble of consolidating, at any rate in so far as they carry on the previous legislation. It means in effect that Parliament—the Dáil and this House—cannot and does not give the same care and attention to amendment.

It is quite a common practice to send out, as was done in this case, an explanatory leaflet. The explanatory leaflet only tells us what the Minister hopes he is doing in the Act. It has no legal value and it is extremely difficult for us to go through the law, as we ought to in this House—even if we accept, as most of us do, the main objects of the Minister — and see whether we can help him to discover whether he is actually doing it. That cannot be done with a measure of this kind. I did not do it in this case. I found it was almost impracticable. When I took it up for an evening at home, I found I had not got the British Act and could not get it immediately. On a previous occasion I sent to Easons and got the British Act. It referred to three other British Acts and I could not go on until I had time to send for them. It is true, if you are prepared to do all your work in the Library here, you can get all these Acts, but the best work done by members of both Houses is done at home. We are entitled to, and can get all our own legislation and I do not object at all to the same extent to legislation of this kind referring to Acts which were passed by our own Parliament and which in a set of volumes of our own legislation can reasonably well be understood, but when we go back to British Acts before then I think the principle is definitely bad. My object in speaking now is, first of all, to protest against it and, secondly, to ask the Minister seriously to consider whether it would be extremely difficult for someone to make the necessary amendment and to reprint it. I think it would save a great deal of time afterwards at comparatively small expense. That is not going as far as asking for a codification of the law relating to children, but simply making clear all the Acts which are included here and which are to be cited together.

Mr. Cummins

I sympathise with the Minister in trying to gather together the shreds and patches of various Acts and co-ordinating them into one treatise of a legislative character. It is almost impossible to make anything of this Bill as it stands without having an immense amount of material available. I quite agree with Senator Douglas that it should not be so difficult to retain all the material of the Bill that it is intended to pass and to have legislation by reference as small as possible.

The findings of the commission set up in 1934, I think, were generally acknowledged to be very sound, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that the majority of those findings were embodied in this Bill. I cannot see how that is correct. There is one glaring recommendation that is not embodied. These institutions are educational institutions, the word "education" in this case covering a very wide field of social instruction. I do not say that the present system of education in some of the institutions is not carried on very successfully.

Education is carried on with marked success in some we all know of but in others that is not the case and for two reasons: First, the buildings are not suitable. Much has been said about the bad condition of national schools in the country. Much could be said about some of the institutions in which this work is carried on. We have had a recent example of it. One of the institutions was visited by the Taoiseach himself, and I understand the conditions under which the work is being carried on are appalling. Children from that institution were sent back to a building that already had been abandoned by reason of its inferior quality and unsuitability as a place for receiving instruction. Education cannot be carried on successfully in such environment. Neither can education be carried on without qualified men in every sphere of education. There are exceedingly able men in some of these institutions, but on the other hand there are men who have more or less drifted into those positions and whose qualifications are not of a high standard, to put it very, very mildly.

The recommendations of the commission had to do with buildings. They also had to do with the education of the pupils and naturally, in that connection, they had to do with the qualifications of those engaged in that occupation. It laid down the standard. The standard of those schools up to a certain stage was to be the standard adopted in the national schools and the teachers were to have qualifications enabling them to teach such standards. You will not get qualified men to take up this work if they are not paid for the work. It is a well-known fact that the salary is not regulated by the State Department but by the manager of the particular school and, possibly owing to the smallness of his resources, he is not in a position to pay such salary as would induce a competent, fully qualified man to take up this work if he can get work of a similar nature outside the institution.

I do not blame the institution for this, but I think the Department should regard itself as equally responsible for the education of those unfortunate, destitute children as it is for the education of the people of the country who are much better circumstanced. It seems an extraordinary thing that they should be looked upon as a class apart, and that any kind of teacher may take up the work if he is able to go through the elements of teaching without any knowledge of child psychology, without any training, perhaps, for that purpose. I think that one of the greatest blots on this Bill is that the work of teaching is not paid for by the Department. No matter whether those teachers are lay teachers, secular teachers, or, whether they belong to an Order, at least grants or subsidies might be given so that they could be paid by the Department directly out of Departmental funds.

There are lay teachers of seven or eight or ten years' standing working for meagre salaries and without any pension rights. Some of those are not only trained teachers working five days a week, but working on Saturdays and Sundays as well on work assigned to them outside their ordinary duties of teaching. I do not say that they object to this, but it seems a very undesirable state of affairs that the Government of the country and the State will not pay for the education of those children. They say: "We give a capitation grant of so much a head." That is a poor way of doing it. It may be said that this grant system applies to other institutions, but if it does, it is on a more generous scale.

I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to consider the position of the lay teachers in those schools. I am informed that the amount required to pay them by the State would not be more than £5,000 or £6,000. They should be given, too, the same pension rights as the national teachers of the country. They are doing the same work, following the same syllabus, they are inspected in the same way and they get much more work to do—work extraneous to the work of teachers. It would help the institutions to relieve them of payment of the sum of £5,000— £3,000 has been mentioned in one case—or at the very outside £6,000.

In regard to medical inspection, I cannot say what provision has been made in the Bill. Is it included?

Mr. Derrig

Provision has been made for it.

Mr. Cummins

I would like to say something regarding the supervision of the after-life of those children. Notwithstanding the great work done by those institutions, somehow or other the mentality of our people associates the products of these schools with something very nearly approaching a taint, and very few of the people make any distinction between boys sent to reformatory schools and those sent to industrial schools. The unfortunate child who is destitute and who has no one to look after him or give him protection is sent to an industrial school and I think that type of child forms the majority of the groups sent to industrial schools. I do not think the taint of mere poverty should ever be associated with children who are sent to such schools, because they are in need of care and protection and belong to a better grade in life.

There are institutions throughout the land, such as the O'Brien Institute, where destitute children are kept by charity and the taint of pauperism and of the reformatory and industrial school never pursues them in after life. The child feels that there is a taint attached to him when he is in an industrial school. We should, if we can, get away from the word "reformatory"—"industrial" seems all right—but "reformatory" implies that you are reclaiming from the criminal state. To apply the word "reformatory" is bad. If the word "institution,""national institution" or some other name like "Bosco Institution" were applied to it, it would take away the whole traditional flavour of reformatory that haunts a boy, I might say, to his grave.

I would make the suggestion that if the Minister had cut all the shackles that bound him to the 1908 Act and built a system of his own, called by his own name, getting away from all the old titles and old ways and creating a clean system of education, whether it be industrial or reformatory education, people would have a different outlook towards it. Boys educated in such institutions as I have mentioned can go out in the world and can fill the place in society that their training in life entitles them to. You have many destitute children who once belonged to a good class of people, who are fit to occupy any place in society, but the taint of pauperism pursues them from the cradle to the grave. I was glad to hear the Minister say that it was not the final word, although the Bill before us is only a thing of shreds and patches. I admit that it is an improvement, and that it contains very desirable advances, but much is still wanted. When the Minister tackles this question again, I suggest that he starts from bed rock to build up a new system appropriate to the conditions of our people. In after-life, those boys and girls go out into the country and this taint or flavour that I referred to is a very serious matter for them.

It was suggested here, at some portion of the discussion, that boys should be followed up to 21 and kept in such an institution. I think that would be a disastrous development. I think that boys reared in such an institution without a taint of pauperism would find homes with good families as members of the family. Many old bachelors, old maids, or widows, would possibly adopt some of those boys and admit them to their households. That, I think, would be a more desirable thing than retaining them in institutions until they were 21 years of age. The suggestion was absurd and I do not think anything like it has been embodied in the Bill. After-care of those people is very important and I believe it would pay the Government to allot a reasonable amount of money for the upkeep of these people in private families until the age of 21, rather than keep them in an institution. Many people would be glad to take them and keep them as members of their households and give them a different outlook on life. At present, when they leave the institution, they are often treated as pariahs —they have no relatives or friends and no one to take them in or welcome them home. There is a danger that in these circumstances they will become mere flotsam and jetsam in spite of all the valuable work done in the institution.

The time, I know, is not opportune for making big constructive proposals for child or social welfare. Present social conditions are a great deal responsible for the misery we have to-day. The social and economic conditions of the present world system will have to be changed or those problems will trouble us for ever. To some extent, of course, they will always be with us, but, I believe the present condition of world welfare is responsible for keeping the people down in ways of poverty. I hope that the Minister, when he tackles the problem again, will come down to bedrock and build up a national system that will not have the taint of poverty, or, perhaps, of crime, that it has at present.

Mr. Campbell

If there is one subject, Sir, more than any other which calls for sympathy and understanding in its treatment it is that dealt with in the Bill now before the House, and, while I have some criticisms to offer in respect of it, I have no doubt that the Minister, when preparing this amending legislation, approached the problem with every feeling of consideration and sympathy for that weak and helpless section of the community with which it deals. Unfortunately, however, his efforts fall far short of what many of us would like to see accomplished in this Bill, but, while deploring its shortcomings in general, and regretting that many of the most important recommendations of the Cussen Commission have failed to be implemented, I think it is only fair at the same time to admit that, in so far as the actual proposals of the Minister in the Bill are concerned, they do mark some improvement on the present position.

Although this problem involves a relatively small percentage of the community it bristles with innumerable difficulties, and presents many obstacles to those engaged in dealing with it. From the time the child comes under the observation of the authorities for their decision as to whether it is in his or her best interest to be sent to an industrial school right up to the time when the child leaves the institution the problem remains one of extreme delicacy and difficulty. Those charged with their custody and entrusted with the task of educating them, shaping their minds, and moulding their character so that they may be fitted to take the place they ought to take in the community when their periods of detention in these institutions come to an end, have a heavy responsibility imposed on them, a responsibility that calls for constant vigilance and attention.

I do not want to appear captious in my criticism, but the failure of the Minister to avail of the opportunity provided by this Bill to give effect to many of the recommendations of the commission appointed in 1934 to inquire into the reformatory and industrial school system, and which presented its report in 1936, has been a source of profound disappointment to many of those who take an interest in this particular aspect of the social problem. That commission's report included proposals for the amendment of existing legislation on the whole subject; and, in the explanatory memorandum issued by the Department in connection with this Bill, the statement is made that that recommendation to amend the law as it stands at present, was fortified and justified by the fact that the Department's own experience of the administration of the system had also shown that the amendment of legislation dealing with reformatories and industrial schools was vitally necessary.

Now, while it is only fair to say that the Bill purports, and, in fact, does implement certain recommendations of the commission, it must be a matter of extreme regret, to say the least of it, that some of its more valuable recommendations have been completely ignored. There might be some excuse for not adopting some of these recommendations on the ground of the cost that might be involved in putting them into force at the present time, when such heavy financial demands are being made on the State—though personally I do not think an excuse of that kind should be permitted to influence us unduly when dealing with such a vital matter as the welfare and safety of the orphaned and destitute.

It does, however, seem difficult to understand why some, at least, of the recommendations of the commission in which no great expenditure of money was involved, were not embodied in the legislation now before the House. Why, for example, was not the commission's recommendation adopted that the term "Committal Order" should be abolished and "Admission Order" substituted for it; or, why was not the very proper proposal given effect to that the titles "Reformatory School" and "Industrial School" should be abolished and alternative suggestions adopted in respect of these schools; or, again, why was not the practical suggestion that primary teachers in these schools should have the same general training and qualifications in Irish as the teachers in the National schools embodied in the amended legislation now before the House? Surely, the State would be involved in no great cost in giving legislative effect to these simple, but highly desirable, recommendations.

I may be wrong in my presumption, but I mention these few examples because they do not appear to me to offer much difficulty in that respect, and I cannot understand why the Minister did not embody them in the Bill when he decided to amend the legislation dealing with reformatories and industrial schools. Indeed, there have been so many omissions to implement the recommendations of the Cussen Commission that the Bill might be said to be remarkable not so much for the little good it purposes to effect by its passage into law, as for the amount of good that will be left undone by the failure to embody the many valuable suggestions and recommendations of the commission in it.

One of the most important recommendations, involving the health of the children in these schools, suggesting that each school should have a medical and dental attendant paid by the school on a capitation basis at a rate prescribed by the Minister, apparently received no consideration whatever in the Bill. Similarly, in the sphere of education, a proposal that where agricultural training is given, in addition to tillage operations, such adjuncts as poultry-keeping, horticulture and beekeeping should be included in the school curriculum seems to have met with a like fate. Neither is any notice whatever taken of the highly valued observation of the commission that the conditions of service for lay teachers in the schools call for substantial improvement, and in connection with which the commission recommended that future appointments should be on the same basis as the national schools, and that duties, other than teaching, should not be assigned to recognised teachers. I could cite other examples in which valuable suggestions or recommendations have been completely ignored, but I submit I have quoted enough to demonstrate the futility of commissions when their labours receive such scant recognition at the hands of the State. Governments invariably are twitted for their failure to give effect to the recommendations of commissions set up by themselves, and I do not think it would be unfair to say that this is one occasion on which one would have to admit that such twitting was justified.

The fact that the Minister was only dealing with one portion of the Children Act of 1908, that is Part IV of it, which deals with the industrial and reformatory schools, and that he had perforce to confine his efforts and only seek to amend or extend those provisions which seemed to deal specifically with these institutions, and that other recommendations of the commission consequently had to be ignored, because they came within the purview of other Departments, may fairly be advanced as an excuse for the Bill's limitations. But, while admitting this fact, it does seem a pity that the Minister, when he decided to embark on the task of amending legislation, did not seek the co-operation and collaboration of the other Departments concerned, for the purpose of submitting a more comprehensive Bill, one covering every aspect of this grave problem, and one approximating more to what the gravity of this aspect of the social question requires.

It is to be regretted, too, that the Bill contains no proposals to remedy what are some of the most objectionable aspects of the industrial school system. Two of the most undesirable features of that system are, firstly, the provision whereby children who are orphaned or destitute but who are not charged with any offence whatever, are committed to schools which are certified places of detention for young delinquents; and, secondly, the lack of provision of suitable employment for children when they leave the industrial schools. It seems to me a pity that the Minister did not make provision to discontinue an injustice which weighs so heavily on many of the past pupils of industrial schools, an injustice whereby orphans and destitute children are treated by the State as if they were young criminals.

I do not for a moment pretend to make the case that the offences with which some children are charged, and for which they are sentenced to detention in industrial schools, are crimes in the real meaning of the word, but if in the eyes of the law they are offences incurring deprivation of liberty, separation from home and parents, and detention for reform or correction in certified schools, why must the poor and the orphan be compelled by law to share a common fate with these young offenders?

Why must their whole lives be embittered by the conviction that even their best friends regard them as products of "criminal schools", "correction schools" or "reform schools"? The implication is, of course, that they, too, were sent to industrial schools for one form of delinquency or another.

I have been told by one associated with past pupils of these schools over a long period of years, and who is in a position to know, that this injustice is bitterly resented. It is, in almost all cases, an ever-present nightmare, a stigma that no amount of success in life can erase, and a life-long handicap in social intercourse. It may be advanced in favour of the existing practice that the number of children committed for indictable offences is small, and does not adversely influence other children in these schools. Admittedly the number of such committals is comparatively small—the Minister himself speaking on the Second Reading debate in the Dáil said it was only about 10 per cent.—but even that small percentage is sufficient to compromise the reputation of every child in the schools, as is only too well known to those in intimate and daily contact with the position.

It is recognised that an uplifting influence is desirable in the treatment of young delinquents. The remedy should, however, be provided otherwise—not at the expense of thousands of poor and orphans. Besides the present practice is decidedly wrong in principle.

Would any supporter of the Bill in the House, in its present form, be resigned to have his own children sent to an industrial school if obliged to do so, due to some unforeseen misfortune? Would he allow them to enter an institution where their companions might include children sent there for some grave delinquency? Would he argue, indeed, that these companions had really committed no offences at all? That they would not adversely influence his children in any degree? That, instead, his children's example would exercise a beneficial effect on such wayward companions? That this association and companionship would leave no stain or taint on his children's character or reputation?

On the contrary, he would have reason to expect that in the course of a very few years, when the reality of their position would dawn upon them, his children would bitterly blame him for thus permitting them to be condemned to the condition of social outcasts.

This is a matter that calls for remedy and the solution I submit is one that would not entail any additional expenditure. Let one of the industrial schools be assigned for the reception of all children for whom school correction is considered necessary, due to delinquency or criminal tendencies.

Let this school, and the existing reformatory for more grown boys, be designated "approved schools." The senior approved school would meet the purpose of the present reformatory, while the junior approved school would be available for delinquents such as are now under sentence of detention in the industrial schools.

The remaining industrial schools could then cater exclusively for the orphans, the destitute, and similar cases as at present, but let them be renamed: "national boarding schools" as suggested by the Cussen Commission.

Thus one grave injustice could be terminated, while the titles "approved schools" and "national boarding schools" would be a wholesome departure from what the public has grown accustomed to regard with disfavour and suspicion. There is decideldly a bad flavour attached to the titles "reformatory" and "industrial school." They are relics of an alien rule, and ought to find no place in our administrative terminology. The Minister has told us he would be prepared to do anything to remove the stigma from those attending these schools.

Now, in regard to the lack of suitable employment for children when they leave the industrial schools, I submit it ought to be the responsibility of the State to take steps to place orphans and destitute children in a position to earn a decent livelihood; or, alternatively to provide them with continued financial aid to enable them to live decently and in reasonable comfort while completing the knowledge of their occupation, or serving a period of apprenticeship.

The money spent on these schools is, to a great extent, wasted, because of this inability to provide suitable work for these orphans and destitute children at the most critical period of their lives. This whole problem of after-care, which mainly is concerned with the provision of employment, is so great that the management of the schools can touch only the fringe of it.

Under prevailing conditions they have no option but to accept the best position that offers, though they are all too conscious that very often these positions leave much to be desired. How often these poor children are callously exploited by unscrupulous employers, aye, and on occasion, even maltreated by them, or their agents, is only too well known to those who take an interest in this sphere of social effort.

And, even the Cussen Commission, with ample evidence before it on all aspects of industrial school work and its attendant difficulties, did not offer a single practical suggestion on this, the most important aspect of the whole system. And neither is this very grave aspect of the matter so much as alluded to in the Bill.

Before concluding, I would like briefly to refer to the matter of Press reports. Such is the publicity given by the Press to some court cases where children are committed for indictable offences that the public has come to regard every child admitted to the schools as a young criminal of some sort. This attitude is obviously unjust to the thousands admitted to the schools on grounds of destitution, loss of parents, or similar causes.

The practice, too, of using the threat of committal to industrial schools, in proceedings against children appearing in the courts, serves also to confirm public opinion in an unjust estimate of children who through destitution or orphanhood are sent to these institutions. Many of these cases are regarded as such good copy that they are prominently featured in the news columns.

Some time ago a boy of 13 years was charged with murder. The case got appropriate notoriety in the newspapers. It was decided to have the body committed to an industrial school. Accordingly, I am told the schools were canvassed for a vacancy, intimating that the charge of murder would be withdrawn.

Some days later the newspapers recorded, for the enlightenment of their readers, that the justice "refused informations on the murder charge and ordered that the boy be sent to a certified industrial until he had reached the age of 16." Nor was any other explanation given as to why the boy was considered suitable for detention in an industrial school. Readers were left to draw their own obvious conclusions, and we may presume that they were even further confirmed in their estimate of the pupils of such schools.

When speaking on the Second Reading in the Dáil, the Minister compared these schools with ordinary schools, and said that particular industrial schools were carried on very well and in close proximity to secondary schools of the same order, and that, if Deputies were to visit these two schools under the same management they would agree that there was very little difference between the treatment the children got in the industrial school and that which they got in the secondary school. I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's statement in that regard. I believe, and will admit quite frankly, that the treatment meted out to the occupants of those schools would be the same, having regard to the Christian charity of the people operating those schools. They are operated mainly by religious Orders, and I am sure that they will not make any distinction so far as the general treatment of pupils in either school is concerned. If this particular boy happened to be in the secondary school, I would like to know what the Minister's reactions would be; that is, if he had been sent, not to the industrial school, but to the secondary school. I wonder if the Minister would feel quite happy about his children being associated with that boy.

The public misconception in this matter causes untold difficulty, when the quest for employment for children leaving school has to be made. In the vast majority of cases it is absolutely fatal to success to own any connection with an industrial school, while to produce a reference from one with a view to obtaining any position of trust, is sufficient to prejudice all hope of success. To remedy this to some extent a provision should be included in the Bill prohibiting any reference by the Press to cases appearing before the courts where juveniles are concerned or where there is question of committal to a school. The present provisions dealing with Press reports on such cases are useless and altogether inadequate.

It is all nonsense to say that no stigma attaches to those children who have been inmates of an industrial school. Let us not try to deceive ourselves into the belief that a child on leaving an institution of that kind does not do so carrying a very heavy handicap. The Minister, speaking on the Second Reading debate in the Dáil on this matter, went on to say:—

"With regard to the feeling that some Deputies have about a stigma on children who have been in industrial schools, I cannot quite understand that. I think it should be fairly well known that the vast majority of the children in industrial schools, as was mentioned here, have not been charged with any offence; and any persons who take it upon themselves to insinuate that there is a brand or stigma on industrial school children are entirely ignorant, as well as being very malicious and very unChristian."

Of course, every right-thinking and decent-minded person will admit that it is most malicious and unChristian to refer so to these unfortunate and helpless victims of a system that has little regard itself for true Christian ideals. We would be foolish to delude ourselves into believing that a boy coming from an industrial school to seek employment in any industry stands in the same relation to a boy who comes from an ordinary school.

I know that the Minister was limited in his action in this Bill by the fact that other Departments were concerned. I hope he has given us some indication that this is only the first step in legislation to remedy the effects of this whole industrial and reformatory school system. I join with Senator Magennis and others in hoping that the Minister will take steps in the near future to make a really serious effort to codify and crystallise the whole law relating to this matter. Such legislation is long overdue and, after the Minister has completed the steps he has taken now, I hope he will proceed to give us a more comprehensive measure in the near future.

Mr. Derrig

We have had a number of very interesting speeches on this Bill, and I am glad to see that the House has taken such a keen interest in it. There has been a good deal of reference here to the matter to which I called attention myself—the example of legislation by reference, which we have in this Bill. I think that, possibly, the difficulty of interpretation, if and when the Bill becomes law, could be overcome by publishing a reprint of the operative sections of the Principal Act, together with the amendments made in it under the present measure. Of course, it is only Part IV of the Children Act with which I am concerned, and while I quite agree with a good deal of what Senator Magennis and other speakers have been saying about the necessity to consolidate all this legislation, there are great difficulties in the way. Even in Great Britain, a very considerable time elapsed—I think at least a quarter of a century—before the Consolidation Act was brought in in Scotland.

Then there is the difficulty that a great many other Departments besides the Departments of Justice and Local Government are concerned. I am reminded that the Department of Industry and Commerce, for example, is concerned in the matter. It would need a great deal of time. Take that one Department alone: the codification of legislation dealing with juvenile employment and the implementation of new legislation, if it were considered necessary, would, I imagine, demand the attention of the greater part, if not the whole, of the resources of the Department for a period of time. Then, with regard to the Department of Local Government, as Senator Magennis has pointed out, they are responsible for the law relating to infants, as also the questions of boarded-out children and medical treatment. Even in that one Department, if one considers the extraordinary scope and number of the Public Health Acts, it is obviously a task of great difficulty to consolidate all the legislation. In any case I think that, even if we had the opportunity at present to undertake this work, it would be rather premature. The work itself would be imperfect until we have a further examination of the whole question. For example, after the war we do not know what changes in social policy or social legislation may be brought about, and I think we must necessarily bide our time until we see how the situation develops.

Certainly, I should like very much if similar legislation as that to which Senator Magennis referred—the admirable Act that was passed in Scotland— were to be passed here, but it is really a matter in which, I think, the Department of Justice would have to take the initiative, as I suppose three-fourths of the Act deal with court questions. Then, as I mentioned, there are a great many different subjects in connection with local government which, obviously, would have to be dealt with, and perhaps, on account of the huge amount of social legislation that is now going through Parliament, it might be better if the matter were dealt with by subject rather than by an attempt to consolidate legislation which, no sooner would it have been consolidated, might require to have important amendments. However, it is a matter for experts and I think that even those who have pressed the case feel that the time is not opportune.

Senator O'Connell referred to the rates of grant being insufficient. Well, if the position is, as I understand it to be, that the original intention was that the local authorities should be responsible for the maintenance of these schools and that it was a local service in the first instance, I do not see how we could possibly defend transferring the entire burden of the cost to the Exchequer. If Senator O'Connell had had contact with Exchequer matters, from time to time, I think he would realise that it would be quite fruitless to approach the Department of Finance on that matter. We must first find out whether we can at least get the same amount of assistance from the local authority as the State is prepared to give, and that is not a great deal. If we advance to that position first, we may be able to advance further later on.

I do not think it would be feasible to bring over lay teachers and put them on our Vote for Primary Education, giving them the same recognition, status and emoluments as the ordinary national teachers. I am afraid that we could not possibly justify the differentiation between the lay teachers of literary subjects in these schools and the Brothers or Nuns, for example, who probably are doing the greater part of the work, if not the most important work.

Mr. M. Hayes

But you do not do that in any school.

Mr. Derrig

Well, we are paying them in the secondary schools.

Mr. M. Hayes

Yes, but what is the distinction between the other schools and the secondary schools.

Mr. Derrig

I understood Senator O'Connell's suggestion to be that we should take over the lay teachers and that it could be done at a less cost, or only a fraction of the cost of putting all the literary teachers on the basis of national teachers, leaving the members of the religious Orders to be dealt with later.

Mr. O'Connell

As a compromise only. They are in a different position from the members of the religious communities.

Mr. Derrig

In what way?

Mr. M. Hayes

They have not three meals a day guaranteed to them, nor have they sickness benefits or old age pensions, and that is a very important distinction.

Mr. Derrig

I think it might be questioned whether they have three meals a day guaranteed to them any more than to anybody else. Senator Magennis raised an important point. In reference to the general question of the consent of the parents he did not seem to be quite satisfied as to the position I am taking up. This is a matter to which I gave a great deal of consideration. Certain advice that I received seemed to indicate that in order to cover very exceptional cases one should definitely amend, and, so to speak, set aside—even though it would be only in a limited number of cases, which would be set out—this question of the consent of the parents having to be given. On going through the matter, however, I found that the thing was impracticable. The number of such exceptional cases is very limited, and I felt that a lot of the contention in regard to the vitiation of that principle of parental consent in the question of destitute children would fail. In fact, I think that the general attitude in both Houses would be that, whatever necessity there might be for amending the law, the principle laid down in the 1929 Act would have to be observed fundamentally.

In the case of the mother of an illegitimate child it may happen, for example, that the grandparents take over the child, and if the grandparents or a sister of the mother are prepared to look after the child, the question would arise whether we will give power to the court to take the child away in that case. I think, however, that the answer to the Senator's point is to be found in the cases set out in Section 58 of the Principal Act, to which the Senator referred. That section sets out various reasons on account of which, if the court is satisfied, the child can be taken away. For example, under Clause (f) of that section, the child can be committed if he

"frequents the company of any reputed thief, or any common or reputed prostitute; or (g) is lodging or residing in a house or part of a house used by any prostitute for the purpose of prostitution, or is otherwise living in circumstances calculated to cause, encourage, or favour the seduction or prostitution of the child."

There is also a provision (d) where the child

"is under the care of a parent or guardian who, by reason of criminal or drunken habits, is unfit to have care of the child."

If the general character of the mother is such that the police feel that it is worth while taking the case to court under one of these three headings, if not under some other heading of Section 58, I think that provision would meet the type of case that Senator Magennis has in mind.

Professor Magennis

But the proviso would appear expressly not to do what the Minister has just contemplated.

Mr. Derrig

It is only intended that the proviso should apply to cases of destitution. If, in fact, the proviso applies to the other cases and if, as the Senator contends, the mother of an illegitimate child, where the conditions were not suitable, was to have a veto in other cases except in the case of destitution, I do not think that would do. It is a matter, however, that I should like to look into.

Professor Magennis

I submit, with respect, that the intention of the amendment was to open a door in the case of a destitute child, who might have, as the Minister said, a grandmother or other relative, or even a charitable organisation, willing to take care of it. I contend that that is not the proper interpretation of the words as they now stand. Perhaps the Minister will bear it in mind between this and the Committee Stage.

Mr. Derrig

The main problem, of course, referred to in the present measure is that of destitute children. As Senator Magennis has pointed out, we have first the case of children who are in need of protection and care, and secondly we have the children of the delinquent class.

Reference has been made by Senator Hayes and other speakers to the names of these schools. We have not been able to reach agreement as to the names. In regard to the suggestion that the name should be "national boarding school," I do not feel that would secure general acceptance. However, it is a matter that is worth looking into further and it may be possible to get titles other than those at present in use before the Bill is finally passed.

Senator Hayes also seemed to feel that these children are all defective. I do not quite understand what he means by defective. As far as mental power is concerned, I think they are not defective. I have a report here from one of my inspectors dealing with one of the largest of these schools. The institution is highly efficient, and it is quite obvious that the children in that school, which may be taken as very representative, are practically the same as, possibly somewhat better than the average school, say, in Dublin City. I do not quite understand what the case is when it is suggested that we have to deal with defective children or problem children when it is quite clear, as I have said, that 90 per cent. of the cases, at any rate, clearly arise from poverty, while another 5 per cent. are cases where the children fail to attend school. If the remaining 5 per cent. were examined I think it would be found that the offences perhaps were not very serious, but that either the question of neglect or of environment or bad associates, possibly all three combined, compelled the justice to feel that he had to commit the child. The problem of defective children, if it is going to be approached from the point of view of mental backwardness, is not really one that comes up appropriately under the Department of Education, unless we are going to have duplication of the services. We have a schools' medical service, and in fact at the present time an investigation is being carried on, and has been carried on for some time past, into the question of defective children, under the auspices of the Local Government Department.

Mr. M. Hayes

Would the Minister allow me for a moment? Perhaps the word "defective" was unfortunate because it is applied, I know, to children who are mentally backward. I know there is a schools' medical service which deals with this. Surely, on the Minister's own showing, if 90 per cent. of these children have been reared in circumstances of poverty so extreme that they have been taken from their parents and if 5 per cent. of them have been very bad at their school attendance, then the school in which all these children are together offers a problem of a different character from the ordinary national school. A class of these children could not be compared with an ordinary class in a national school, for example. Perhaps the word "defective" is not quite satisfactory.

Mr. Derrig

I quite understand they are on a somewhat different basis. If the suggestion were made that they require medical care, the first question that arises is the difficulty of having medical examination of children before they are actually committed. It seems to create a difficulty. If they are to be medically examined immediately after committal or while under the custody of the court, that would be a matter for the Department of Justice. The present position, we think, is not unsatisfactory, that they are examined when they arrive at the industrial school and, in accordance with the recommendations of the commission, we have a full-time medical officer, a lady, who visits the schools pretty frequently and takes an interest in serious cases. Moreover, she may get the records from the school medical service which has records. The Department of Local Government undertook some time ago to let our medical officer know the medical record of children or young people who were being committed so that our medical inspector takes up the work where the school medical service leaves off, and I think that that position is fairly satisfactory. Each school has its own medical officer who is available in case of illness and so on and who looks after the children generally. We have this medical inspector visiting the school from time to time, and if more serious cases come under her notice she can take steps either to have them released or to get proper medical treatment for them in any case where there is any difficulty about getting it. That is so far as the purely medical side is concerned.

If we come to the other side of the problem child, whether it is a psychological problem or whatever one might call it, the Brothers and Nuns in charge of these schools have a very long experience of handling these children. Some of them have spent a lifetime at the work, and with the religious background and the amount of attention that is given to their spiritual welfare in these schools and the knowledge that those in charge of the schools have of the children's circumstances, the opportunities they have for meeting the parents of the children during the course of visits to the schools and so on, I cannot feel there is really a need for an expert psychologist or that the problem is at all comparable to what it may be in other countries.

I feel—I may be quite wrong—that the want of religion in other countries is very often responsible for the terrible form this problem takes among them. The absence of religion makes them feel that some kind of scientific substitute, such as psychological treatment, is going to make up for it. I have no wish to decry scientific treatment. I think we ought to make all the possible use we can of it and certainly that we ought to investigate the problem, but I do not think we should lightly assume we have quite the same problem here in that regard as they have in other countries.

Senator Mrs. Concannon made a valuable contribution to the debate. I think it was very appropriate and will merit the gratitude of those interested in the problem that she was able to show that the growth and development of the industrial schools here have an entirely different background from the somewhat soulless institutions elsewhere, that they were started as charitable institutions in the first instance to meet a public need and they have preserved that character all through. If they are lacking in other respects, or if we are not giving them sufficient aid, at any rate we have that tremendous advantage in regard to them, that we know that those responsible for them and who are looking after the young people committed to them are full of anxiety, not alone to prepare them to spend a useful life but, as Senator Mrs. Concannon said, to work out their destiny in the best way, not alone in this world but in the next. May I point out to her that if it is felt that children would benefit by special instruction in domestic subjects, for example, in carpentry, metal work or building construction, arrangements could sometimes be made, at any rate in the large towns, to send them to classes at the vocational or technical schools.

I have no doubt that Senator Campbell is quite sincere but either we approach the problem from entirely opposite points of view—and if we had a heart to heart chat we might not feel that we had such widely different opinions—or else I think that one or other of us must be under serious misapprehensions. The Senator has repeated with great eloquence and emphasis that the recommendations of the commission have not been carried out. May I point out that only a small number of the recommendations, in any case, certainly less than half, would fall to be dealt with by legislation. A great number of them would fall to be dealt with, as, for example, the question of medical inspection outside this Bill. A great deal of the matter under educational recommendations would fall to be dealt with by administrative means and perhaps I am somehow responsible by not emphasising, though I certainly mentioned it in my opening speech, that a great many of the recommendations had been implemented administratively. There were about 47 recommendations and, of these, 13 are in the Bill now before the House. A further 16 have been carried out administratively by the Department.

There are two, both referring to this important question of the recognition of teachers of literary subjects, which have been accepted, and the intention is to implement them as soon as emergency conditions terminate. With regard to ten others, they are still under consideration; five recommendations seem to be a matter for the Department of Justice; one for the Department of Local Government and five raise new questions, as, for example, the matter of mental defectives. A number, only five, have been rejected. As regards the committal order, I do not know whether there is a great deal in it. If the position is as Senator Campbell says, that this matter of a stigma is very important, I am not quite sure that either the changing of the name of the schools or the changing of the term "committal order" to "admission order" is going to alter the situation very much. It is a matter we can look into further.

With regard to teachers, the position is as I have stated. The Government accepted the recommendation but, owing to the war situation, the matter has been held up and I do not feel that the situation has improved—I feel it has rather disimproved and is likely to disimprove from that point of view— so that, much as I would like to be able to say the matter is receiving attention or that there is hope the promise will be carried out in the near future, I have to say that I do not see very much prospect of it.

Referring to that matter of the stigma, the Senator used the expression that the State were treating these young people as criminals—as young criminals. I do not know whether he really meant that or not. I think that possibly some of the people, such as those who approached the Senator and have approached myself on this matter—ex-industrial schoolboys— have an inferiority complex in the matter and that they are terribly afraid. The Senator mentioned the question of social intercourse. They are unduly afraid, I think, that if it should come out that they have been in industrial schools, it will injure them. I cannot say that that is not the position in certain cases, but, as a person of commonsense, I feel it is a matter that could be greatly exaggerated.

I would be greatly surprised in the City of Dublin, for example, where these institutions are so well known, that it could be alleged, firstly, that because a boy was in an industrial school he was a young criminal, or secondly, that after he left the school, the fact that he had been there could be used against him in such a way as to interfere with his prospects in life. I know that the opinion is strongly held, and the Senator has referred to the injustice of this thing, and the terrible results on the boys concerned—he referred to them as social outcasts.

I think Senator Campbell himself would be the first to disagree violently with me if I were to suggest that this 5 per cent., or a proportion of this 5 per cent., who have been charged with petty theft or something else, should be taken apart and branded, if there is a brand all ready, with a stigma ten times more indelible and put into a separate institution. Surely, if we are going to reform these boys—they are young in any case—the best course is to treat them as normal human beings, make them feel that things are normal, that they are not being taken out and given what I might call special penitential treatment. I think the Senator would disagree very strongly. It is a matter to which we have given a great deal of consideration. There are administrative difficulties, but these should not stand in the way, and I do not feel that if the matter is gone into closely and carefully, that would be regarded as a solution of the problem, that because boys who have been in industrial schools feel that some stigma is attaching to them, that that can be got rid of. It will probably still be there, but that it can be got rid of by penalising the other people and making matters more difficult for them, is a solution that would not commend itself to me, at any rate.

The Senator spoke of an alien rule. Well, the names, of course, are probably relics of an alien rule, but even under institutions that were set up under alien rule there was a good Irish and Christian spirit in accordance with the general feelings of our people. I think that that is so in connection with the industrial and reformatory school system.

As regards parents being happy about having their children in the schools, a great many parents, as the figures show, have no objection. In about 40 per cent. of the cases at least, the parents have given their consent showing that, in their regard at any rate, they have not that feeling about stigma. I must say that I think dwelling on this subject rather tends to exaggerate the idea that there is some stigma attached. There may be something in what the Senator said about the publication of these cases, particularly if the names are published. I think it is not good, but I am told that in the city newspapers the names are not published as a rule. If that is so, then the situation is fairly good in Dublin. I do not know what it may be in the country. Complaints have been made to me about the unnecessary publication that is given to these cases. Of course in some of the provincial papers great publicity is given to court cases generally. However, it is a matter in which, if I had my way, I should certainly like to have as little publicity as possible. Certainly these cases should not be made the subject of scare headlines and, as far as possible, the names of young people concerned should be kept out of the Press.

The Senator referred to the question of providing employment for these young people when they leave industrial schools. Everything possible is done by the Orders in charge of the schools to try to provide employment. I have returns here showing what has been achieved in the case of some of the more important boys' schools. I see that in the last two years employment has been found for numbers of boys as bakers, blacksmiths, carpenters, dairy workers, farm labourers, factory hands, gardeners, hairdressers, mechanics, porters, messengers, painters, plasterers, pages, shoemakers, tailors, weavers, etc. In other schools we have had in addition to these classes, employment provided for boys as post-office learners, clerical officers (Civil Service), shop assistants, electrical workers, printing workers, cabinet making and poultry workers. This varied list shows that a huge amount of work is being done to try to prepare boys for employment. It is not easy to secure employment for them at the present time. In some trades, machinery is constantly being introduced and unless schools are equipped with the very latest machinery, there is the possibility that when the boy leaves the school he will find that his trade no longer exists. The Senator knows a great deal about that subject. It has happened even in the case of boys who had better opportunities because they had their parents, because their fathers were in constant employment and were well able to push them ahead as apprentices to their trade. Nevertheless, we know that they were left high and dry because of changes in the trade or industry. We had a number of trades that, before machinery began to make its appearance to the extent it has in recent years, broke the backbone of the problem of finding employment for these young people but some of these trades are now dying out. That is a matter that received the attention of the commission of inquiry.

We may be able to do something more in the way of improving vocational training—that is one of the matters that is receiving constant attention—and possibly do more to help to provide employment. Employment is only provided, however, through the personal intervention, the personal representation and contact of the managers of these schools. It is an extraordinary tribute to them that they have been able to place such a large number.

I think that one of the difficulties that arises in Dublin is that of getting over trades union regulations in providing employment for a large number of these boys. The Senator, and those associated with him, could certainly contribute very substantially towards the solution of this problem, and towards enabling the managers of the schools to get employment for a large number of their boys in suitable occupations, not in those wretched occupations where they are sometimes treated as slaves. Perhaps one of the reasons why they have to take up these less desirable occupations is because employment, where the remuneration is more substantial, is closed to them because of trades union regulations.

Mr. Campbell

There is not sufficient employment even for those who are in the trades union organisations at present.

Mr. Derrig

At the present moment there is not, but when times improve, I think the trades unions, seeing that most of these boys must come from households where the fathers were themselves trade unionists, might realise that the old spirit to which Senator Mrs. Concannon referred, should be still alive amongst us. Here is a very practical way in which we could see that it is alive.

Mr. Campbell

We have many ex-industrial schoolboys members of our union now.

Mr. Derrig

In any case, more could certainly be done if we could get more co-operation for the managers of the schools upon whom this whole responsibility is thrown, first of trying to find employment and then of trying to keep in touch with the boy or girl for some years after leaving school to find out how he or she is going on. If we could get the same assistance from the unions as we are getting from the religious and social organisations at present, who are taking a very keen interest in this matter and who, I understand, are going to have a nationwide organisation to help to look after these young people, considerable progress could be made in this matter. When these young boys and girls take up employment they frequently go to places where they have no friends and they may meet with difficulties. Societies here in Dublin have kindly undertaken to help to look after them and to assist the managers of the schools upon whom, of course, a special responsibility rests to do what they can with regard to these children. Nevertheless, these organisations being organised throughout the country and having a very admirable personnel, can do very much to assist. They look after the social side, and no doubt they try also to help to find employment, but the unions—I submit again, while not emphasising the matter unduly— can certainly do a great deal also. If an important man in the movement like the Senator would meet the heads or the managers of these schools from time to time, I am sure he would be able to do a great deal to assist.

I think these are the chief points raised in the debate. Senator Cummins referred to the unsuitable buildings, presumably at the boys' reformatory. This was housed until recently at Glencree. The buildings were not suitable for a large number and they were difficult to maintain. The reformatory has been transferred to Daingean, County Offaly, to more suitable buildings. It was formerly an ecclesiastical college. These buildings are never likely to be condemned as unsuitable for a reformatory. There was a portion unsuitable but that was demolished some time ago.

As regards contributions, the State capitation is 10/- and the local authorities capitation varies from 5/- to 8/-. A number of county councils pay 8/- that is to say the total capitation grants received through managers of the reformatories are from 15/- to 18/-. In the case of industrial schools the State pay 7/6 for children over six and 5/- for the children under that, and for children not over it varies from 4/- to 6/-, making an average of 4/10, so that the total capitation received for the industrial schools would be from 11/6 to 13/- a week.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19th March, 1941.

Mr. M. Hayes

I suggest that the House adjourn now for tea.

Mr. MacDermot

On the last occasion that we adjourned for tea the reason was that it was not fair to keep one Minister engaged the whole time without a break as would have happened on that occasion had there not been an adjournment. I think it is a bad principle to establish that we should always adjourn for tea.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is for the House to decide. I think it is agreed to adjourn.

Mr. MacDermot

I wish to put it on record that it is not unanimously agreed.

Sitting suspended at 6.35 p.m.— Senator MacDermot dissenting. Sitting resumed at 7.15 p.m.