122 entries for Finance

According to the Visitor, the Committee was loath to increase the funding to the School and stressed that ‘the school is a charitable institution’. This Visitor was the same Brother who also commented in the 1954 report on how the surplus funds in the House accounts could best be used.

The most novel aspect of these proposals was the fact that the Department was now responsible for new buildings and for repairs, with day-to-day maintenance the responsibility of the Congregation. Because they no longer owned the premises the Oblates did not have to find the money themselves for capital expenses but could submit estimates for the work needed, and the State would pay provided it was done within budget. The rent agreed, at point three above, took this fact into account, ‘since the present grants to Reformatories are intended to defray the full cost of maintenance,’ this rent was to return to Government coffers some of the additional maintenance costs agreed. It also had ‘regard to the fact that it [the farm] will represent a substantial contribution towards the maintenance of the inmates and staff of the institution’.

When the terms of this agreement were put to the Department of Finance, strong objections were raised. The letter sent by Mr J. E. Hanna, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Finance, is worth quoting in full: Dear O’Dubhthaigh, I have read your letter of the 25th ultimo regarding the question of new accommodation for the Boys’ Reformatory School. The information contained therein raises a number of points which, I think, it would be well to have clarified before even tentative approval is given to the proposals outlined in your letter. 1.As you are aware, the Daingean premises are State property but the Oblate Order were given a 99-year lease of them, with the option to determine the lease at 7-year intervals. If the Daingean premises are to be used for the purposes of a reformatory, will it be necessary to determine the existing lease? That lease provides that any improvements effected during the term of the lease will enure to the State on the surrender of the lease. In the circumstances, there would seem to be a case for not making any grant to the Order in respect of improvements effected since 1932. Apart from this question, the responsibility of the Order in regard to maintenance, improvement, etc., of the premises in the future would have to be clearly defined. When the Reformatory was situated previously at Daingean the Oblate Order were responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc. I assume that a similar responsibility will devolve upon them in the future, if Daingean is again used as a boys’ reformatory. If not, it may be necessary to consider a reduction of the State grants. 2.I cannot say that I can see any convincing reason for the proposal that the State should purchase the Oblates’ farm. It may be that you contemplate that, in the event of the lease of the buildings being surrendered so as to allow their reversion to the State, the State should assume ownership of the farm as well, the Oblate Order standing in the position of agents of the Minister for Education in regard to the conduct of the Reformatory. If that should be the position and the State should purchase the farm, it would seem reasonable that any profit arising on the farm should accrue to the State. In this connection I note that, in 1927, £567 was realised from the sale of farm produce, after the needs of the Institution had been met. Unless the annual surplus on the farm were to accrue to the State it would seem that the State would be paying twice over for the farm. As the grants should enable the Reformatory to be conducted in a satisfactory manner, the profits on the farm should not be diverted to the Order. 3.As regards the debts on Glencree, it is possibly the case that they have mainly arisen in consequence of the inadequacy of the State and local grants in the past. To the extent, however, that they may be due to improvements at Glencree, the benefit of which will accrue to the Order, I think it only fair that the State should be relieved of that portion of the debt. 4.Have you considered what the position of the State in relation to the Reformatory premises, etc., will be in the event of the Order deciding at any time in the future to discontinue the work? I assume that, if such a contingency should arise, the buildings, with the furniture, equipment, etc., which have been bought from State Funds would revert to the State, free of all claim by the Order. 5.It seems to me that the Oblate Order see considerable advantage to themselves in the transfer of their Novitiate to Kilkenny. I assume that the proposal that Daingean should be used as a reformatory in the future came from the Order. 6.In furnishing these observations, I am at the disadvantage that I do not know what you intend should be the position of the State vis a vis the Order in regard to the Reformatory premises, and the farm. The position does not seem to be quite clear, and my observations are directed mainly with the object of anticipating difficulties in the matter, which may arise at a later stage. I shall be glad to hear further from you at your convenience. Yours sincerely, J.E. Hanna

Br Ramon had worked in a hostel for homeless emigrants in London. He was employed as an assistant. According to Fr Benicio, the Director of the hostel, Declan Rafferty,23 reported that he had had concerns about Br Ramon: He said he wasn’t happy about the way [Ramon] related to the residents – he either liked them or he didn’t like them, there was no in-between. Twice it was brought to his attention that [Ramon] was in the rooms of residents after 1.00 am when they should have been asleep. He tackled him about this. He became particularly friendly with younger boys when they came. [Declan] had no concrete evidence of inappropriate behaviour but felt he was unsuitable to be working with young people. He said he told [Pierre]24 at the time that he should not be sent to a place where there were young people.

Four years later, he moved to a hostel for homeless emigrants in London, for a period of 10 years, before going to a college in Wales where he remained for six years. He was appointed as a Housemaster there.

Following Br Ramon’s conviction on charges of sexually abusing boys, the obvious question arose in the Congregation as to whether he had engaged in such activities in his previous postings, including Daingean. Before he was assigned to a boys’ college in Wales, he had served for 10 years in an emigrants’ hostel in London, where he came under suspicion. In response to a query as to whether any investigation into Br Ramon’s activities in Daingean had taken place in 1997, the Oblates stated in a letter dated 8th May 2008 to the Committee: Fr [Benicio] himself followed up the inquiry referred to in the note of 6 March 1997. He did so by speaking with Fr [Luca]. Fr [Luca] indicated to him that there were no accusations against Br [Ramon], apart for an accusation that had been discounted at the time it occurred as being unfounded Fr [Arador]28 has no recollection of the matter being raised with him. Fr [Javier]29 has no specific recollection of being asked to enquire into the matter, however he is now aware that in [the mid-1960s] an allegation was made against Br [Ramon] which was fully investigated by both An Garda Siochana and the Oblates at the time and was dismissed as unfounded. With that exception, Br [Ramon] had a clean record at St Conleth’s. At the time of our letter dated the 21st of December 2006 we understood that Fr [Javier], as Provincial, did not know of the incident the basis of the accusation in [the mid-1960s], but it appears that he learnt of it around the time of the trial in [the late 1990s].

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.

What he adds to the Kennedy Report is his opinion that the dirt and squalor were not due to lack of finance, but to ‘lack of supervision’ and ‘an attitude of mind’. He also identified the poor quality of the staff and the inadequate aftercare provided.

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.

Integral to the whole issue of neglect is the question of finance. Financial Consultants, Mazars, were asked to analyse the financial position of Daingean, and their report and the Oblates’ submission on this issue, in addition to other relevant documents and a commentary, appear in Part IV. What can be stated is that the numbers in Daingean, right up until the late 1960s, were adequate to ensure that the capitation grant could provide a basic standard of care for the boys there. Taking into account the income from the large and productive farm and the work of the boys, especially on the bog, it is clear that lack of funding was not an excuse for the very poor standard of care provided.

The Department of Education recommended suspension of the search for alternative premises. The decrease in numbers prompted the Department of Finance, in March 1938, to ask the Department of Education whether there was a real need for a special place of detention, to which the Department of Education replied that there was ‘no immediate urgency’ to look for alternative accommodation. In this letter of 19th March 1938 to the Department of Finance, the Department of Education made clear the Department’s position on having to run a remand centre: This institution has been the source of much bother to our Department which is all the more annoying when it is remembered that the provision of Places of Detention is the business of the Police Authorities and not a proper function of our Department. However, since we have accepted the responsibility, we can hardly rid ourselves of it now: we tried unsuccessfully to do so a few years ago and Summerhill is one of the many troublesome “babies” that we must continue to hold.

Further delays ensued in the acquisition of Marlborough House, as sanction was required by the Department of Finance, and a complication arose when the Department of Defence also sought possession of the house for use as a food and rest centre during the war. Matters were further complicated, as legal objections were raised by the lessor of Marlborough House who objected to its use as a detention centre.

In June 1943, the Chief of the Dublin Fire Brigade inspected Summerhill and ‘condemned’ it and wanted its immediate closure, but he was unwilling to take such action ‘against a Government department’. The Department of Education informed the Department of Finance of this development, but sanction was still not forthcoming. The Department of Education resorted to making a submission to Government on 19th July 1943 on the issue. Finally, on 12th August 1943, the Department of Finance sanctioned the proposed alterations and finally made possible the use of Marlborough House as a place of detention for young boys.

An Inter-Departmental memorandum of 15th March 1944 from the Department of Education to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance, written two weeks before Marlborough House opened, indicated a high level of awareness as to the problems in Marlborough House: This circumstance has again set me thinking of the unsatisfactory nature of the present management of the Place of Detention. It is staffed by the lowest paid labour known to the Civil Service ... To speak with brutal candour, I view with alarm the impression they will make on visitors to the New Place of Detention.

In a subsequent letter to the Department of Finance dated 30th March 1944, the Department of Education referred again to the poor quality of staff: I am directed by the Minister for Education to inform you that the method of running the Place of Detention, formerly located at Summerhill and recently transferred to Marlborough House, Glasnevin, has never been regarded as satisfactory. The management is in the hands of a Superintendent (£50 per annum plus quarters) a Matron, the Superintendent’s wife, (£30 per annum) and three Attendants who receive, approximately, the same pay as messengers in Government Offices. With a staff of this calibre the maximum that can be expected is that the fundamental human needs of the youths detained there should be attended to and that they should be prevented from escaping. No personal reflection is intended on the present staff who are the best we have been able to get for the wages and conditions of service offered ... The Minister for Education is satisfied that this standard is inexcusably low for an Institution of its type which is managed directly by this Department. Public interest in juvenile delinquency and its associated problems has shown a marked increase in recent years. In England and elsewhere young offenders are subjected to observation and treatment by Psychiatrists in special clinics. There is in this country an ever-growing interest in this method of dealing with the problem. The growth of enlightened public interest has thrown into stark relief the already well known shortcomings of the Place of Detention and the Minister is satisfied that the present system cannot be allowed to continue any longer.