884 entries for Government Department

The first riot occurred in Daingean on 13th April 1956. The next day, Fr Salvador,19 the Resident Manager, wrote to Mr Sugrue20 of the Department of Education: We had some trouble yesterday which could have had very serious results if the organised disturbance or mutiny as the boys called it, had not been nipped in the bud. The display of dangerous weapons they concealed on their persons was formidable, including slashers, an axe and all kinds of iron bars. They smashed a number of windows and intended doing more widespread damage. I have sent on the names of the ringleaders. These I had to have taken over by the Guards. They include [a boy] who came here last month, just a few days before his 17th birthday. He and the other four are as far as I can see and judge beyond the reach of the best efforts of a reform school.

The Department of Justice wrote to the Secretary General of the Department of Education on 23rd April 1956, enclosing a Garda Síochana Preliminary Crime Report on the incidents in Daingean, that outlined the disturbance that had taken place involving about 40 inmates who had endeavoured to start a riot. The Gardaí prepared a more extensive report some two weeks later.

Two years later, the issue of the school rules arose again. Two weeks before the trial of the ringleaders in the 1958 conspiracy to riot in Daingean, Br Jaime forwarded a copy of the school rules to the Department of Education. The local Gardaí were interested in the Department’s views on the rules, and anticipated the matter arising in the imminent court case. Br Jaime asserted that he had drawn up the rules in July 1958, displayed them on the notice board in the School and, for the benefit of those who could not read, he arranged lectures for them. He had intended forwarding them to the Department for approval at that time.

The Department responded on 23rd September 1958, and made the following observations: (1)that there was little likelihood of his (the Manager) being questioned as to the breach of the rules as this would not appear to be among the charges which would be preferred, (2)If the question did arise he should say that the Department is aware of the rules and have offered no objection to them, (3)in view of the nearness of the trial 25th September, 1958 the Department did not consider it desirable to have a letter issued bearing the date 24th September, 1958 offering no objection to the rules.

In a letter dated 3rd October 1958, Br Jaime wrote to Mr Sugrue of the Department of Education, informing him how the case had progressed. He wrote: I stated in court that they (the rules) were always in practice here, and that the Dept. of Education knew about them, and had no objection to them. I also stated that I had, with the Superior’s sanction, decided to put them in writing, and post them up for the boys to read. This was on June 20th. of this year. I also stated in the court that I had explained some of the rules in question to all the boys, and that I had cautioned two of the boys concerned in the case about certain rules, and that it would be impossible for any boy not to know them.

In response to the article, a memorandum was sent to the Minister for Education, where it was noted that the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department was satisfied that the discipline in the Reformatory was maintained in ‘a kindly manner’, and that the Resident Manager was devoted to the task with ‘a genuine interest in the welfare of the boys’. A similar comment was made by T. O’Raifeartaigh, Secretary of the Department of Education, in a report in 1969: Fr. [Luca] in particular is not only a man dedicated, but a man of vast common sense and goodness. A remark of his which struck me particularly was that indiscipline (e.g. running away) should not call for additional restrictions, as it is to be expected of these or any boys in such circumstances that they will occasionally kick over the traces.

On 20th June 1967, a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of a former pupil of Daingean wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Justice about a matter that had caused them deep concern. A 15-year-old boy had recently been discharged from Daingean after being in the Institution for over two years. They were writing, they explained, ‘as Officers of the Court and indeed as responsible citizens to bring immediately to the notice of the Department’ a serious allegation of sexual misconduct. They wrote: We are instructed and we have no reason to doubt our instructions that this boy, who was mentally retarded when sent to Daingean, was sexually assaulted and perverted while an in-mate of the Reformatory and his unfortunate lapse into criminality immediately on his release is due solely to what occurred while he was there. We feel that the best course for us to adopt in this case is to have the boy medically examined by a competent psychiatrist who can elicit from him the full circumstances of his perversion and we feel that the Department might like to have him examined by their own medical advisor in view of the circumstances.

The alleged abuser was not named in the letter, although it is now known that it was Br Ramon. It seems that this letter was forwarded to the Department of Education, because the next letter on file is a letter of 14th December 1967, written by the solicitors acting for the Resident Manager of Daingean, Fr Luca. It was addressed to the Secretary of the Department of Education. It stated: We understand that a firm of Solicitors, acting on behalf of ... a former detainee at Daingean, wrote to you making serious allegations concerning occurrences in the School involving a member of the staff ... We are writing to advise you that following the allegations our client, The Reverend Superior, investigated the allegation and it was also investigated, with the full co-operation of our client, by the Garda Authorities. Following their enquiries the Garda Authorities were satisfied that there was no evidence of any improper conduct by any member of the Staff ... In view of the serious allegation made in the letter to your Department based on the story of this unfortunate boy our client wishes this unequivocable denial of the allegations placed on your file.

A file entitled ‘Alleged Acts of Gross Indecency Committed Against [sic] Inmate of St Conleth’s Reformatory School, Daingean,’ was included in the discovered documents of the Department of Education, and it dealt with the Garda investigation that led to the prosecution. No documents about the matter were contained in the Congregation’s documentation.

When the trial was over, the matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Education, who requested in a memorandum of May 1960 that the Resident Manager be asked to comment on the circumstances under which the boys were allowed to gather in Mr O’Reilly’s house, ‘supervision was undoubtedly lax here’ and to establish whether there was any suspicion as to the teacher’s misconduct with the boys.

On receipt of this letter, a flurry of correspondence ensued between the Department of Education and the Department of Finance and, in June 1949, the Department of Finance sanctioned the building of the East Wing on the condition that the Department of Education were willing ‘to defer some other building project involving approximately the like amount’ of money (£26,500) which they would have been seeking in the 1950/1951 Estimates.

The building of the East Wing created a new problem, as explained in a Department of Education memorandum of 10th April 1953. It stated: As regards the new Recreation ground; this has become necessary because the new wings have taken up a big part of the space formerly available to the boys and has left the present recreation ground inadequate and unsuitable from the point of view of supervision. The old bootshop cuts right across the ground now available and makes it impossible to supervise these boys. One portion of this remaining ground is several feet below the other portion ...

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.

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.

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.