4,228 entries for Historical Context

There were 11 accounts of witnesses being given inducements or bribes in return for either compliance or silence following incidents of sexual abuse. Money and sweets were the main inducements reported by witnesses. Pennies, sixpences, half-crowns and ten-shilling notes were received from two local priests, two workmen and a doctor. One witness reported being so worried about being asked where she got the money that she threw it away before she returned to the School. Another witness reported being given a gift by the person who sexually abused her which she treasured as it signified some kindness to her and was her only personal possession. Another witness was given items of clothing by a man who abused her over a period of time. She described how good it felt to own nice things that were both new and fashionable. The witness remarked on the fact that none of the staff questioned how she had obtained these items.

One hundred and twenty seven (127) witnesses identified 188 people about whom there were one or more reports of sexual abuse in relation to 35 Schools. One hundred and thirty two (132) of those individuals were identified by name. The other 56 reported abusers were not identified by name but by what witnesses understood to be their position in the institution and they are included in the total number of sexual abusers described below. It is possible that there is some overlap between those identified by name and those who were not named.

Those reported to the Committee as sexual abusers included: religious and lay staff, adult friends and relatives of staff, external clergy and professionals, ex-residents and co-residents. Also reported by witnesses as perpetrators of sexual abuse were adults to whom witnesses were sent for external holiday placements and other adults in work placements or associated with work placement providers.The following table lists by position held those reported as sexual abusers by female witnesses:

Position of reported sexual abusers	Males	Females
Religious
- Authority figure including Resident Manager	0	4
- Care staff	0	10
- Teacher	0	1
- External priest or other clergy	14	0
- Novice and clerical student	1	1
Lay
- Care staff	2	12
- Ancillary worker	15	0
External professional	4	0
Family member	9	0
Weekend or holiday placement carer	23	0
Work placement provider	17	2
Associate of weekend or holiday provider	14	0
General public	10	0
Ex-resident	2	1
Co-resident	8	38
Total	119	69

The above table shows that 144 (77%) of those identified as sexual abusers were non-staff members, 79 of whom were external to, but associated with, the Schools. They included holiday and work placement providers, relatives and friends of people in those placements, external clergy and clerical students, professionals, and ex-residents. Nineteen (19) other individuals were identified as members of the general public and witnesses’ family members who abused them while on leave from the School. Twenty nine (29) named abusers were reported by 37 witnesses from two Schools. Sixty five (65) other named abusers were each reported by between five and nine witnesses from 10 Schools. Thirty eight (38) named abusers were each reported by between one and four witnesses from 19 Schools.

The most frequently reported group of adult sexual abusers were members and relatives of families to whom residents were sent from the Schools for either a holiday, weekend or work placement. These were known as ‘holiday’, ‘weekend’ or ‘foster’ families or ‘godparents’. There were 42 men and two women identified by the female witnesses as sexually abusive in these circumstances. It was consistently stated that the religious Sisters in charge of the Schools arranged the placements, visits or holidays, most often without consultation with the resident being placed. It was stated that these placements were generally arranged for residents who did not have their own families to visit during the school holidays. Witnesses consistently reported that there was little or no supervision or follow-up by staff from the Schools in relation to these placements.

Twenty three (23) witnesses reported being sexually abused by the fathers of families to whom they were sent for weekends or holidays. The Committee heard 13 reports of witnesses being sexually abused, by male relatives in seven instances and by sons of the families with whom they were placed in six other instances. Two (2) witnesses reported being raped by both the adolescent son and a friend in their holiday placement. In both of these instances the witness was less than 12 years old at the time. I remember going back in the car, he ...(father in holiday family)... stopped and said to me “if you tell anyone ...(about sexual abuse)... I will tell the priest it was your fault”. This is the hold they had over you, you were petrified. The nuns wouldn’t believe you. I told Sr ...X... once and she beat me black and blue with a hand brush, she said “you are a terrible liar” and what a good family they were. O God, I can’t even talk about it, I feel sick ...distressed.... I couldn’t sleep at night it was on my mind for a long time. I went to that family every month until I ...(left the School)... even after I had told Sr ...X....

Thirteen (13) witnesses reported being sent by School staff to particular weekend and ‘holiday’ families where they were repeatedly raped or sexually assaulted, despite a number indicating to staff that they did not want to go. Some witnesses complained to the religious Sisters in the School that they did not like going to a particular family where they were being sexually abused and reported that they were not sent again. Other witnesses were told they should be grateful to the family for their kindness and continued to be sent.

Witnesses also reported the practice of residents being sent by staff in the Schools to mind children and do housework for families during school holidays and being sent out to work for local families and clergy in the afternoons and at weekends. Twelve (12) men, including one member of the clergy, were identified as sexually abusive by witnesses in this context. All the witnesses reported being less than 16 years old at the time they were abused. The abuse reported included rape and attempted rape, digital penetration, molestation and genital exposure. One witness reported that she was hospitalised having taken an overdose of tablets in the context of repeated rape by the father of the family in her work placement. The family were professionals and made discreet arrangements for her to be hospitalised, following which the sexual abuse ceased although she continued to be sent to the family. She reported she had told the religious Sisters she did not like going to this family but they insisted she continue. I think they were very, very stupid, the people in the care home. We were very unhappy going out and they should have known that. I feel very, very angry with them.

The Department of Education had overall responsibility for the Reformatory and Industrial School System and for Marlborough House detention centre. The Department provided finance to the schools and oversaw their operation, leaving day-to-day control to the Congregations and Orders that operated them. The Department had a duty to ensure that the rules and regulations were observed, that finances were correctly utilised and that reasonable standards were maintained. The principal method of monitoring the schools was the inspection system, which was carried out by members of the Department’s Reformatory and Industrial Schools Branch.

The timeframe of this investigation falls between the publication of the Cussen Commission’s Report into Reformatories and Industrial Schools in 1936 and the Kennedy Report on the Schools in 1970. The Cussen Report endorsed the system contingent upon the implementation of its 51 principal conclusions and recommendations, but the implementation of these recommendations by the Department of Education was inconsistent and intermittent. Consequently, the system continued largely unchanged until the late 1960s. By the time the Kennedy Report was published in 1970, the system had greatly declined and the report itself was more of an obituary than a death sentence. The events that led to the ending of the system had little to do with policy decisions by the Department of Education, and that also is part of the story. Consideration of the Department’s role is thus largely confined to the 34 years between these two reports.

The Secretary of the Department of Education in evidence to the Investigation Committee in June 2006 admitted that there had been ‘significant failings’ by the Department: As Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science I wish to state publicly here today that there were significant failings in relation to the Department’s responsibility to the children in care in these institutions and that the Department deeply regrets this. Children were sent to industrial and reformatory schools by the State acting through the courts. While the institutions to whose care they were committed were privately owned and operated the State had a clear responsibility to ensure that the care they received was appropriate to their needs. Responsibility for ensuring this lay with the Department of Education, whose role it was to approve, regulate, inspect and fund these institutions. It was clear that the Department was not effective in ensuring a satisfactory level of care. Indeed, the very need to establish a Commission of Inquiry testifies this.

This chapter deals with general topics: particular events and the Department’s role in them are discussed in the chapters on individual schools.

The Minister for Education had legal responsibility in respect of schools. Under the Children Act 1908, children could only be committed to a school that was certified. The Minister held the crucial legal power of certification (1908 Act, sections 45, 58 and 91). Certification was granted for an indefinite period, not on an annual basis. The Minister had the power under section 47 to withdraw certification from schools; certification was intended to be the means by which the Minister could control many significant features of the schools. However once a school had been certified, there were heavy pressures against the use of derecognition and there are no cases of its actually being done.

When certified, schools were furnished with a document that stated the name of the school, geographical location, date of certification, conditions of admission, the number of children for which the school was certified and the name of the agency running the school. The document was signed and dated by the Minister for Education and by the manager of the school.

Certification of a school was contingent upon acceptance by the school’s management of the entire ‘Rules and Regulations for the Certification of an Institution as an Industrial School’, and these rules were listed in the certification document. It was a seven-page document that set out the legal framework for almost every aspect of a resident’s circumstances, including accommodation, clothing, diet, instruction, conditions on which children may attend National Schools, industrial education, inspection, religious exercises and worship, discipline, punishments, recreation, visits from friends and relatives, children placed out on licence or on apprenticeships, treasury grants, discharge, visitors to the school, timetables, journals, the medial officer, inquests and returns to the Department. However, there were no regulations governing the ratio of staff to children.