884 entries for Government Department

Apart from the issue of corporal punishment, they appear to have found the same things but reached a different conclusion about whether the School was fit to remain open. The Department of Education had enough information from their Inspector to reach a decision on the matter in 1966. What we do learn from comparing the two reports is that between 1966 and 1968 no improvements were made, and possibly matters had deteriorated.

The lack of teaching staff and teaching Brothers affected the level of education offered to the boys. Daingean, for the majority of its existence, never had an adequate teaching regime to cater for the requirements and needs of its pupils. The issue of education given to the boys in Daingean had always been a contentious and problematic one. The Department of Education wrote in 1967: the educational aspects of this reformatory school for boys in Daingean, Co. Offaly, has been shamefully neglected over many years. The boys were illiterate on entering the school and were given very little education during their two years of normal time in the institute. As a result of financial restrictions, the directors had to make use of them as labourers. It is proposed now to put an end this neglect.

Change in the school subjects developed on a modest level, and extra classes were provided. The Oblates said that this was done at the request of the boys to stop the boredom of the playground. A prolonged debate between the Department of Education and the Oblate authorities led to the recognition of a special national school in Daingean. However, it would close three years later. With the advent of the national school, the teaching numbers were increased, and it was proposed to recognise the School under the national school grouping and to pay the teachers. This was implemented on 5th January 1970, and Daingean was recognised as a special national school, with four teachers under the management of Fr Luca.

The boys sent to Daingean were older than the upper age-limit for national school education and, therefore, it did not receive a national school grant from the Department of Education until 1967. Many priests and Brothers lived in the community in Daingean, and were supported by the capitation grant, who did not contribute to the care of the boys, and it would not have added greatly to the costs of the School for them to have helped with the basic schooling of these deprived boys.

In his Statement, Fr Luca stated that, some time before his term as Manager in Daingean was completed, plans were being made to move from the School in Daingean to a new school in Lusk (Oberstown). Unlike Daingean, the new school was to have a board of management with representatives from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and the Department of Education.

The School was run on a day-to-day basis by the Oblate Order on behalf of the Department of Education. A Director was appointed to manage the School, and he officially acted as School Manager. The School had a maximum of 45 boys.

The site at Lusk was sold to the Department of Education by the Oblates. The new school was named Scoil Ard Mhuire. The vast majority of the Oblate staff, according to Fr Luca, did not want to work at Oberstown. Furthermore, it was felt by the Oblate Provincial Council that ‘if many of these brothers went to Oberstown it would be just more of the same old pattern’, as they would not take well to the new system the School was developing in childcare.

In the discovery from the Department of Education, an interesting document emerged in correspondence written after a deputation from Daingean had gone to see the Minister for Education. During the war, large numbers of boys had been sent to Daingean, filling the School to its capacity of 250 boys. When the war ended, numbers began to fall dramatically and, on 2nd March 1950, Fr Ricardo, Superior General of the Oblate Congregation, and Fr Pedro, Resident Manager of Daingean, met with the Minister for Education and his team to discuss the problem of reduced numbers in Daingean. The Oblates made the following points: 1.The chances of a boy’s reform are in inverse proportion to the number of chances given to the boy by the District Justice. Every new offence contributes to habit, and boys are now under the impression they have a right to be let off three times under the First Offenders Act. They wanted the Department of Justice to be brought into discussions to make the District Justice aware of an agreed plan, and make him “inclined to commit the boys for a period that would suit the course”. 2.The falling numbers meant falling income under the capitation system. They wanted a grant on a sliding scale once the numbers fell below 200. 3.Father Ricardo stated he would like to be able to appoint a special priest to deal with the children during their recreation period. 4.Father Pedro stated that the two-year period of detention is scarcely long enough to train boys properly in preparation for trades.

These criticisms were made in 1950, yet the industrial and reformatory schools continued to function as they had always done, until the Kennedy Report in 1970 forced them to change or close down. A key question is why the Department of Education was unable to adopt this approach as its policy.

The State left the management of the School to the Oblates but, under the special agreement made when the Oblates moved the Reformatory from Glencree to Daingean, the Department of Education owned the building, and had to pay for large-scale maintenance and any new buildings erected on the site. Thus, the Oblates could claim, in their General Statement, ‘It would be unreal therefore to see the State as distanced from direct responsibility for the school’.

The Department of Education in their Statement referred to the procedure in Marlborough House for dealing with complaints of physical abuse, which was outlined in a letter dated 17th May 1971: ... all complaints from parents, guardians or other sources about the treatment of children in Marlborough House are investigated by the Department. The Attendant-in-charge is furnished with a copy of the complaint and his observations are requested. Should the seriousness of the complaint warrant it, an Officer of the Department will also interview the child and the attendant-in-charge and/or the attendant against whom the allegations are made and the Department takes appropriate action where necessary. No complete record of all complaints received is available since many of the complaints received are of a trivial nature.

Towards the end of 1968, a Probation Welfare Officer reported two incidents of physical abuse of boys in Marlborough House to the Department of Education. The first incident, which he witnessed in September 1968, was ‘a brutal beating of one of the inmates’ by an attendant, Mr Lombard. He stated: This beating consisted of numerous punches with his clenched fist, which reduced the boy to a whimpering mass. The concluding portion of this incident was witnessed by Mrs Grange,7 the matron and the complete incident took place in the presence of all the inmates at the time. May I say that I considered this a savage, uncontrolled beating, accompanied by expressions from the attendant, of which I could plainly hear “dirtbird” being mentioned on quite a few occasions.

The second incident was reported to him by a former detainee in November 1968, who alleged that he was ‘hit by a lamp on the lips, arms and other parts of the body’ by the same attendant, Mr Lombard. The boy did not make a complaint to the authorities at the time as ‘he was afraid of Mr Lombard and because he was convinced that he would not succeed in any complaint he would make’. The following day, the Probation Officer informed Ms Justice Eileen Kennedy, who instructed him to get the Probation Administration Officer of the Department of Justice to contact the Department of Education to have the matter investigated. He spoke to the Probation Administration Officer on 11th November, and was requested to submit a report on the two incidents, which he did on 13th February 1969. Mr MacConchradha, the Probation Administration Officer, referred the matter to the Secretary of the Department of Education on 28th February 1969.

An official from the Department of Education investigated both of these complaints, and filed a report on 6th March 1969.

The Department considered the matter and, in a letter to the Kennedy Committee of 22nd May 1969, which had sought information relating to complaints generally in institutions, it referred to these two incidents and stated that: The attendant undoubtedly contravened the regulations governing the treatment of the detainees in Marlboro House and the fact that both these boys proved violent and provocative under detention cannot be accepted as a defence of his conduct in these cases. The reports furnished in regard to the incidents in question are still under consideration ...