Chapter 15 — Daingean

Neglect

He added, ‘The school laundry is far from being sufficient to meet the needs of the school’. The remodelling of this laundry was first proposed in April 1940, over 13 years previously.

The condition of the building is further considered in connection with the factors leading to the closure of the School. It is clear from these accounts that the state of the building, from its opening in 1940 to the middle of the 1950s, was far from adequate. The boys were crowded together in the dormitories, and it became impossible to supervise them effectively. The implications of this, on the behaviour of the boys in Daingean, was quite apparent from the documentary evidence and the evidence heard at the hearings.

When the Kennedy Report was published in 1970, one of its major recommendations as regards Daingean was the following: We find the present Reformatory system completely inadequate. St. Conleth’s Reformatory, Daingean, should be closed at the earliest possible opportunity and replaced by modern Special Schools conducted by trained staff.

Chapter 6, paragraph 6.29 of the Report outlined the factors that had led to this recommendation. It is quoted here in full: St Conleth’s, Daingean 6.29 This Reformatory is housed in a 200 year old former military barracks. An additional wing was built in the post-war period but the building is basically old and completely unsuitable for the purpose for which it is being used. The kitchen and refectory are situated in what were formally the stables and are depressing and decayed. On inspection, the toilets were dirty and insanitary. The showers were corroded through lack of use and the hot water system was so inadequate that the boys seldom if ever washed in hot water. When it was first inspected the boys were ill-dressed and dirty and there was a general air of neglect about the place. To be fair, the Committee would point out again that the capitation rate paid was completely inadequate. The Committee members were so perturbed about conditions at St. Conleth’s that they sent a request to the Minister for Education asking that immediate specific steps be taken to ameliorate conditions there. It is understood that certain of these recommendations are in hand. These, however, are only short-term measures. We feel strongly that no alterations can bring St. Conleth’s into line with modern thought on Reformatories. In the first place it is much too institutional in lay-out, secondly it is badly situated, being 40 miles from Dublin in a spot which is poorly served by transport. Most of the children in St. Conleth’s come from Dublin and, as suggested elsewhere in this chapter, a reformatory would be much more effective if sited close to a large centre of population where the ancillary services required would be available. The Oblate Fathers, who are in charge of St. Conleth’s, have themselves recommended such a move. It is recommended that St. Conleth’s be closed at the earliest possible moment.

It is of interest to note that Kennedy’s opinion, that ‘a reformatory would be much more effective if sited close to a large centre of population where the ancillary services required would be available’, actually repeated a recommendation made in the Cussen Report, published in 1936. That Report had recommended, ‘Whenever practicable, and at the discretion of the Justice, children should be sent to Industrial Schools as near as possible to their homes’.

When Daingean was being considered as an alternative to Glencree, in 1939, this recommendation was ignored. It was then argued that: the distance would have the advantage of preventing undesirable visits (from boys’ former companions) which were taking place at present at Glencree; parents would not mind travelling by bus to Daingean occasionally; and that a system of permits might be arranged, which would possibly entitle them to reduced bus fares.

Neither Kennedy nor Cussen would have shared this opinion.

A few of the documents written by some of the members of the Kennedy Committee have survived, and they remain the best objective account of the conditions at Daingean at the time. The most important document is the letter sent by the Committee to the Department of Education, which is mentioned within the report itself. It contained some of the most trenchant criticisms ever made about a school. There were five main problems that needed to be addressed immediately: 1. The building was grubby, with open drains and dirty yards disturbingly near the kitchen. 2. The building was cold with an inadequate heating system. 3. The boys were unwashed with ingrained dirt on their bodies, and were seemingly verminous. 4. Their clothing was extremely ill-fitting, oddly matched, old, dirty and rather tattered. 5. The beds had discoloured bed linen and threadbare blankets.

In view of the extremely serious nature of the criticisms made, the text of this letter is given in full: Dear Secretary, Following the Committee’s visit to St. Conleth’s Reformatory School in Daingean on 28th February, Mr. Tomás Ó Floinn, Assistant Secretary, attended the meeting of the Committee on 19th April so that the members might outline certain features of the present situation in Daingean, which they considered to require immediate amelioration. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Ó Floinn suggested that the matters discussed should be conveyed in writing to the Department, so that they might be sympathetically considered and I am now doing as he suggested. The Committee has not yet formulated final views on St. Conleth’s and consequently feel precluded at present from advocating any sweeping steps involving heavy expenditure which in time could prove nugatory. They do feel, however, that some immediate interim action is very necessary to improve conditions there. The premises gave a general appearance of grubbiness and, while allowances must be made for the older sector of the buildings, even the newer portion was not very presentable. In particular the kitchen/refectory area, with its open drains and dirty yards adjacent, was very disturbing and the ware used for the boys meals was in particularly poor condition. In regard to the buildings, we are not advocating any expensive redecoration, but a thorough cleaning of the premises and its maintenance in that condition would seem to be in order. The buildings were noticeably cold. The visitors wore overcoats throughout and were still conscious of the prevailing low temperature. The Resident Manager freely admitted that the heating system was inadequate. This is a feature which should not be allowed to continue and some effective interim auxiliary heating should be provided. The boys presented a dirty, unwashed appearance – even to the extent of ingrained dirt and seemingly verminous hair. It was admitted that they were disinclined to wash and the lack of hot water was mentioned as a contributory factor. It was obvious to the visitors that the showers were hardly used. The vocational teachers drew attention to the lack of facilities for the boys to wash up after work in the shops and to the absence of proper protective clothing. The formative value of high standards of personal cleanliness is obvious and immediate action should be undertaken to correct the prevailing neglect in this respect and to provide the facilities which would encourage an improvement. The boys were attired in extremely ill-fitting, oddly matched, old, dirty and rather tattered clothes. We do not overlook the difficulties there in providing clothing, nor the extent to which clothing provided is subject to abuse, but in the interests of fostering the boys’ personal dignity, the present situation should be radically improved. It is suggested that the boys be outfitted in a more modern idiom and a “jeans and pullover” outfit, such as we have seen widely used in Britain, might well merit consideration. Underclothing and the substitution of pyjamas for night shirts might also be considered. Discoloured bed linen and the thread-bare condition of the blankets gives cause for concern. On the basis of one visit, we hesitate to comment on diet, beyond stating that on Ash Wednesday – the day of our visit – the boys main meal consisted of chipped potatoes, bread and tea and they were universally vocal that the quantity of food served to them on the occasion of our visit was far in excess of what would normally be in the case. Committee members commented on the absence of eggs from the menu, although they had been shown an extensive “egg-battery” adjacent. Early consideration to recognising the school as a special school for the handicapped would cater more realistically for the needs of the boys receiving instruction. It would also afford the higher teacher-pupil ratio, which the educational condition of the boys so urgently needs. The vocational teachers complained that their equipment was not alone inadequate but dangerous and there would appear to be considerable scope for immediate improvement in this field. In the course of discussion with the Committee as a whole, the Resident Manager disclosed that punishment was administered with a leather on the buttocks, when the boys were attired in their night shirts and that at times a boy might be undressed for punishment. At this juncture, the Committee does not wish to elaborate on corporal punishment as such but would urge that the practice of undressing boys for punishment be discontinued. In this regard, attention is invited to the amendment in recent times following the Court Lees incident of the British Home Office regulations regarding corporal punishment in Approved Schools which specifies that punishment, if administered on the buttocks, should be applied through the boys’ normal clothing. It will be greatly appreciated if you will look into the question of providing these improvements listed at the earliest possible moment. It is felt that they are the minimum necessary to render the school reasonably acceptable as a Reformatory. Yours sincerely, EILEEN KENNEDY Chairman.

There is another document dated 10th March 1968, written by one of the Committee members, Mr H. B. Early, from the Department of Justice. His notes add detail and further criticisms to those voiced in the letter. Under the sub-heading, ‘Some thoughts on Daingean’ he wrote: 1. STAFF: Appears to have lost interest in their work – on duty 24 hours per day 7 days a week – living in isolation – little or no contact with the local community or with modern thinking in the field of child care. Religious staff sent to school for 5 years and there they remain except for a short annual holiday (?). Not sufficient to maintain proper supervision. Religious staff: did not appear to be suitable. Lay staff – teaching – tend to change annually except for woodworking teacher – teachers tend to come directly from training college – takes months to adjust themselves to dealing with difficult children and bad equipment. Lay staff – non-teaching – elderly – unsuitable. 2. BUILDINGS: Property of the Board of Works: - they appear to have no interest in the place. Old – difficult if not impossible to adapt. Little or nothing can be done with them. 3. EQUIPMENT: Poor and insufficient. 4. RECORDS: Inadequate – not kept up to date – staff too busy. Good filing system but little in the files. 5. BOYS: Very forward – proud and boastful of their past activities. Surprised that over 50% never get into any more trouble considering the environment of the school. 6. FOOD: Not sufficient – wrong kind. 7. CLOTHING: Poor but it is expensive to keep growing boys adequately dressed. 8. CLEANNESS: Boys dirty due to lack of supervision and hot water. School leaves much to be desired. It needs to be properly cleaned/ scrubbed from top to bottom particularly the toilets and kitchen area. The present condition is not due to lack of finance but to an attitude of mind – they are used to dirt – they cannot see dirt. A woman’s influence is necessary. Immediate action is necessary to deal with waste disposal from the kitchen. The present method is most unhealthy. A new (hot) water system is essential. 9. GENERAL: The school appears to offer little to the boys who appear to have little respect for the staff. The boys arrive – little is known about them when they do arrive – they are kept for an average stay of 18 months – they leave – little or nothing is done for them to face the outside world. They seem to leave, as they have entered, with the same complaint against society. What society had done is to get them out of sight and mind for 18 months. Society has not solved the boys’ problems but has put them on the long finger. The only difference is that after 18 months we have a greater problem on our hands.

What he adds to the Kennedy Report is his opinion that the dirt and squalor were not due to lack of finance, but to ‘lack of supervision’ and ‘an attitude of mind’. He also identified the poor quality of the staff and the inadequate aftercare provided.

In the Emergence hearing, Fr Murphy said, ‘The Kennedy Report in 1970 mentioned St. Conleth’s. They highlighted two things in that report: The state of the buildings and the clothing of the children’. His colleague, Fr Hughes, when questioned about the Kennedy Committee’s criticism that the showers were rusty through lack of use, rejected the Committee’s criticism, saying: There is no evidence that the Kennedy Committee did a very thorough examination of the premises, they descended on it as a group, there is no evidence that they made a very careful examination of everything ...

Fr Luca, who was Resident Manager at the time, gave a different version. He said in evidence that he got two day’s notice of the visit and that they did not ‘land on the doorstep unannounced’. Fr Hughes urged the Investigation Committee to read instead the ‘much more careful report’ of Dr Lysaght who ‘made a report there in 1966 after a very careful investigation, it is a very nuanced report and I think one would accept his observations as being fair and just’. He went on to explain that Dr Lysaght: went there specifically to do an investigation. He did a very careful and very honest and objective report which is far from being totally favourable but at the same time it has its nuances. I think one would have to accept it. Dr Lysaght’s report on St Conleth’s, Daingean, 1966

Given that Dr Lysaght’s report has the imprimatur of the Oblates, it is worth looking at it in some detail. It is a comprehensive document, involving 16 pages of tightly written manuscript. Dr Lysaght replaced Dr McCabe as the Medical Inspector in the Department of Education. He visited Daingean on 3rd June 1966. In his conclusion, Dr Lysaght summarised his views as follows: I have indicated in this report by my comments where I regard the faults in this institution are to be found. Broadly they are in connection with food and clothing. In this latter connection I am seeking to avoid, but with difficulty, comparison with senior boys industrial schools. It is probably the case that the same care for clothes cannot be expected from the type of boy here. In any event they are untidy, poorly dressed, unkempt by comparison with the four senior boys industrial schools I have so far seen. The kitchen, food storage, wash up and dining room are unsuitable in regard to structure, decoration & equipment.

He reported that the School was authorised for 250 boys. There were 122 present on the date of inspection.