884 entries for Government Department

Arising from the recommendations of this Group, the Oberstown Girls School, on the site of the now disused Scoil Ard Mhuire, was opened in March 1990 as a place of detention by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to accommodate up to eight young persons on remand, replacing Cuan Mhuire. In September 1991 a second unit was opened which was certified as a Reformatory School by the Minister for Education and Science under the Children Act 1908 to accommodate up to seven young persons. However, this was only to be a temporary arrangement as it was intended to construct a new and larger facility for young females on the grounds adjoining the Finglas Children’s Centre. The rationale for this expansion was in response to ‘major public disquiet over the level of delinquency among young females and the apparent inadequacy of custodial facilities to deal with the situation’.360 In this context, the Finglas site was selected as an urgent response was deemed to be required and ‘the ready availability of a State owned site which was deemed suitable on the basis of expert advice, provided the best solution available in the time allowed’. However, it transpired that the demand for places at Oberstown did not materialise and as a consequence, the decision to develop the Finglas site was reviewed and in July 1992, the Department decided to drop the plan. The Oberstown Boys School was established in 1991 as recommended by the Inter-Departmental Group and is certified as a Reformatory School by the Department of Education and Science under the Children Act 1908. Ten of the beds are certified as places of detention by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

In national schools, the assumption that children are being educated in a professional way should not be taken for granted. The Department of Education and Science, the diocese, the board of management and parents need to assess the quality of the school by looking beyond its academic proficiency. The developmental and psychological needs of the child are equally important. Children must be facilitated in making complaints and their complaints must be listened to.

The first source of contemporary records was the General and Medical Inspection Reports of the Department of Education, dating from 1939 until the closure of the School. There were, however, a number of gaps for some years in these records.

The Department of Education Inspections, both General and Medical, were carried out by Dr Anna McCabe, and she was consistently guarded in her assessment of the School. Food, clothing and accommodation were generally categorised as ‘fair’ or ‘satisfactory’ throughout the 1940s. She was particularly critical of the condition of the boys’ patched clothing and the habit of allowing the boys to go barefoot in the summer. This practice was recalled by a complainant to the Committee, who said that this caused cut and injured feet.

Dr McCabe’s first report was in 1939 when she criticised the general condition of parts of the School which she found ‘were none too clean’. ‘The food appeared to me to be rather below standard’. Her comments were forwarded to the Resident Manager, Br Rene, by the Department of Education and evoked a nine-page letter of protest from him. His letter painted a picture of relentless overwork and exhaustion, but failed to acknowledge the impact of such a system on the boys in his care. He sat down to write the letter late at night: ... At this hour all sensible people – including our fair medical inspector – have put several hours restful leisure over them. Not so this unfortunate however, as it is only now that I find time to sit down to write my “observations” on this extract from her report. I roused the boys this morning at 6.30 . I bade them farewell when lights were lowered half an hour ago and all the day between ... has been cram-full of tiring, wearying, slavish work ... And now as a reward for the unfortunate folly of accepting this dreadful responsibility I have to set out to convince you that black is white – that our school is not all as bad as painted.

The depiction of Carriglea in the early 1940s was of a very run-down and dilapidated place. The main issues centred on the deterioration of the l buildings of the Institution itself, the lack of cleanliness and hygiene, both of the School and the boys, and the poor-quality clothing of the children. From the various reports, there was a divergence of views on the issue of clothing. Throughout the 1940s, the Department of Education Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, commented on the fact that the boys were in patched clothing, whereas the Visitation Reports only referred to this on one occasion. Despite its being wartime, the care of the boys was praised by the Visitors throughout the 1940s, although Dr McCabe only rated the food, clothing and accommodation as ‘fair’ or ‘satisfactory’. The only direct criticism with regard to food was in 1946, when Dr McCabe felt that the children were not receiving adequate supplies of milk and butter.

There was a report from a three-day general Inspection of the school by Mr Teegan, the Inspector of Schools of the Department of Education dated March 1941: This is a pleasing school to inspect. The behaviour of the boys leaves nothing to be desired and they have been trained to use their intelligence and to be self-reliant.

Mr Sugrue of the Department of Education visited Glin and wrote a memorandum in Irish recording what happened. A translation is as follows: Glin School I visited this school ... and had a long conversation with the Resident Manager about the complaint made by Mr Dubois in relation to school matters. I read the letters written by Mr Dubois to certain boys in the school, to a maid in the school and to men employed in the school. The Resident Manager had all these letters. According to the letters, it would appear that Mr Dubois took a keen interest in the care of the boys at the school in the matter of food, clothes, etc. The Resident Manager told me that Mr Dubois was wont to come downstairs at night and carry bread from the Brothers’ refectory to the boys in the dormitories. From their appearance it would seem that the school shows great kindness and consideration to the boys.

Despite the fact that Mr Sugrue had previously drawn Dr McCabe’s attention to the specifics of the complaints made in Mr Dubois’s letter to the Department of Education, and that more detail had been furnished in the letter to the Department of Justice that preceded his visit to the School, no detail is provided as to the quality of care given to the boys.

Senior civil servants drafted and approved a letter to be sent by the Minister in reply to his colleague, who had moved in the meantime from the Department of Justice to the Department of Defence. Consideration was given as to whether it was more appropriate for the Minister to write directly to his colleague or for the respective private secretaries to communicate. It is not clear which course was adopted. The draft as prepared said: that the Minister has had searching inquiries made and can find no convincing evidence to support the accusations made by Mr Dubois. The fact that the financial resources of our industrial schools are in general rather limited makes it impossible for the authorities to supply other than plain food and clothing or to install equipment of the most up to date quality. With regard to the charge of harshness, unkindness and ill treatment of the boys, the Minister is assured that it would not be in character for the Brothers to permit such to occur, much less to be guilty of it themselves. It has been arranged, however, to inspect the school more frequently for some time to come.

There was nothing to suggest that the visits of Dr McCabe and Mr Sugrue were unannounced. Neither was it correct to say that the investigation was protracted. In the case of each visit, it followed reasonably promptly on the receipt of the letter from Mr Dubois. What was delayed was the response in the form of any action by the senior officials of the Department of Education, which only came about when a reminder was sent from the Minister.

The Department did not interview Mr Dubois as part of their investigation. They did not investigate further whether Mr Dubois retired due to health reasons, as stated by him, or was dismissed for insubordination, as asserted by the Manager. It does not appear that they conducted any spot checks, as suggested by Mr Dubois. The Department acknowledged internally that Mr Dubois’s criticisms of the clothing, food and sleeping accommodation were ‘true in the main of many industrial schools’. Mr Dubois’s concerns regarding the inexperienced chef and the often absent nurse could quite easily have been addressed and rectified. Neither were enquiries made about Mr Dubois’s predecessor who, it was alleged, regularly wielded a heavy leather strap and terrified the boys.

However, that was not the end of the matter. The Christian Brothers were obliged to notify the Department of Education of the fact that a boy had been hospitalised. A routine enquiry issued, requesting information on the manner in which the injury was sustained. The reply stated ‘facial injury accidentally caused in the administration of punishment’. The Resident Manager feared that the enquiry was the result of a Dáil question, and he asked a member of the Provincial Council to meet with a Department official. Br Moynihan met Mr MacUaid of the Department to discuss ‘the affair in Glin’, and Mr MacUaid made a note that, ‘Brother Moynihan was not sure whether the injury was a result of a blow from the strap or from collision during punishment, as the Consultor, whom he had sent down to investigate the matter, was vague on this point’.22 He declined to divulge the name of the Brother, only revealing that he had been transferred elsewhere. Mr MacUaid noted that: The Resident Manager of Glin is a kindly man and I understand that there is a good atmosphere in the school. Yet, there is the possibility that the coincidence of the official query and the Bundoran inquiry may have flushed a bird which otherwise might have lain concealed.

The Department was somehow informed of the identity of the perpetrator, as the next letter was from Br Marceau to the Department, in which he referred to a recent interview in Tralee with a Department official. He was outraged that such an allegation could have been made and stated: I emphatically deny that I struck this boy on the face for a very insulting remark he made about me. I fail to understand how this false charge has been made against me. Therefore I have nothing to add to our recent conversation in St Joseph’s Tralee ...

These figures are not absolute and are provided without context, and even contradicted on occasion by Department of Education figures; for example, in 1942, 70 not 80 boys went on home leave and, in 1944, 74 boys went on leave out of a total of 207. Some years are also missing, but can be found in records provided by the Department of Education; for instance, in 1948, the Department recorded that just 28 boys returned home that summer.