Chapter 1 — Department of Education

Part 8 The Department’s handling of complaints

It added: There is also evidence to suggest that in many cases the Department accepted the explanations given by the Resident Manager when complaints were brought to his/her attention and that the Department may have viewed some complaints with a degree of scepticism.

The Department’s submission also stated: Where complaints were aired in the public media, the Department appears to have been concerned to protect the reputation of the school while privately addressing concerns with the religious order.

At the conclusion of the Department’s investigation of a complaint or episode, some kind of judgement had to be reached. The Department generally gave the benefit of the doubt to the school. Where an adverse conclusion was reached, the question of sanction, if any, depended on the nature of the complaint. One possibility where a member of staff was personally culpable was the removal of the staff member, which did happen but only on a very few occasions. As each side knew, there was also the ultimate sanction of derecognition, but, as each side also knew, this was the nuclear option, to which there were big disadvantages from the Department’s point of view.

• The Department did not have a system for examining and investigating complaints. It had a system that managed complaints in a way that minimised adverse publicity and scandal. Its trust in the religious Congregations led to a sceptical approach that rejected complaints in the majority of cases. The Department relied on the Resident Managers to respond to complaints and tackle the issues raised. This approach was a serious failure of the Department’s supervisory role.

Part 9 Missing files

The principal sources of documentary evidence in relation to Industrial and Reformatory Schools are: the Department of Education and Science; other Departments of State including the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; the archives of the Congregations that managed the schools and reformatories.

Records on Industrial Schools comprise a wide range of internal Departmental files, covering areas such as: certification, general inspection and medical inspection. Registers on all children who were admitted to the schools through the courts also exist and in some of these cases there are files with varying degrees of detail on individual children. The completion of a comprehensive archivist exercise on these records by the Department has resulted in the creation of a database of approximately 36,000 entries.

In 1996 the archives of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools were catalogued by an archives and records management company, at the behest of the Department of Education and the National Archives. The records relating to the schools were mostly kept in the basement of Talbot House, a building on the grounds of the Department of Education headquarters, Marlborough Street, Dublin. In April 1998 the company submitted its final report to the Department. It noted the poor storage conditions in which these sensitive documents were kept, so much so that documents had to be cleaned before cataloguing could begin. Its findings were: (1)Case files and registers: a total of 41,714 entries made in registers and case files there were no registers or case files for three schools. (2)Certification files: 72 entries in the certification files. (3)Administrative files: 792 entries in the administration files. (4) Miscellaneous registers 31 entries in the miscellaneous registers.

In 1999 Dr Gerard Cronin undertook to complete a report on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Archives in Athlone. In his ‘Initial Report on the Reformatory & Industrial Schools’ Archives Athlone’ Dr Cronin stated: ...every so often I have come across items (sometimes misfiled) which directly or indirectly throw unfavourable or critical light on the conditions which the young offenders had to endure at the Daingean School.

In 2004 Mr Noel Dempsey TD, the Minister for Education and Science, appointed Mr Matthias Kelly QC to conduct an independent review and report on the provision of discovery by the Department of Education and Science to the Commission. There was a particular background to this decision, which is explained at para 6 of Mr Kelly’s report: There has been criticism of the way in which the Department of Education and Science has handled the process of discovery of documents to the Commission. In the Third Interim Report, Ms Justice Laffoy recorded that the Commission were not satisfied that the department had complied fully with an order for discovery. There were concerns that the process of discovery was experiencing problems. It was against this background that I was asked to undertake this review.

His main objectives were: (1)to review the processes and procedures operated by the Department of Education and Science in main discovery to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse; and (2)to make such recommendations as are appropriate in relation to discovery by the Department of Education and Science.

Although the Department had disclosed its historic archive to the Commission voluntarily, this archive did not contain the total number of files relevant to the work of the Commission. Files not included and identified by Mr Kelly QC were: 27,000 pupil files; incomplete and early discharge papers; the working papers of the Kennedy working party; material separately held in safe storage within the Department; incident books; precedent books; miscellaneous files one would expect to find. (1) 27,000 missing pupil files

The 3rd Interim Report by CICA describes how the Department of Education sent to the Commission a ‘Database of Former Residents of Reformatory and Industrial School’, containing approximately 42,000 entries of pupils who were committed by the courts to Reformatories and Industrial Schools during the allotted timeframe relevant to the Commission; however the database does not contain records of pupils placed in Industrial Schools by local authorities under the Public Assistance Acts or the Health Acts or voluntary placements. The Department should be in possession of 41,000 pupil files. However files exist relating to only 14,000 pupils, therefore 27,000 pupil files are missing. Of these 27,000 files, 18,000 relate to children who were admitted to institutions from 1936 onwards. From 1960 onwards the Department is in possession of virtually 100 percent of pupil records. Matthias Kelly concluded that these files were thrown out in the Department’s ‘general clear out’.

Early discharge papers relate to applications made by parents to the Department to have their children released from institutional care. Some of the discharge papers are missing and in other cases the record in relation to the individual is incomplete and some of these applications may have been placed on the individual child’s pupil file. The Department has a register of applications for early discharge dated 1951-60 only. Matthias Kelly stated within his report the importance of these records for former Industrial School pupils, emphasising the need for these people to know that their parents tried to ensure their release from the schools. Mr Kelly concluded that the papers were lost as a result of the ‘general clear out’.

The report of Matthias Kelly concluded that the 10 working papers of the Kennedy Commission were missing. Subsequently, in May 2004, seven of the working papers were given to CICA, and an eighth was handed over in 2007. Mr Kelly in his report stated ‘In my view those working papers are or may be relevant to the work of the Commission.’ However his report concluded that the Department had done all within its capabilities to locate the two papers. (

In his evidence before the Commission Mr Liam Kilroy, when asked about the process of storing files, suggested it was a practice within the Department to store documents in a separate filing cabinet if the official was personally involved or the file was deemed unsuitable for general filing. He explained: ‘If it was an issue with which I was personally involved ..., then I would retain the papers in my room, in my office.’