10,992 entries for Inspections - State

Murray noted the limitation of the Children Act 1908 in this regard was removed in Britain and Northern Ireland and urged a similar legislative change in Ireland; however, she also noted: this suggestion presupposes a properly organised and staffed social service department at local level capable of making the right decisions regarding the children confined to its care and with no motive other than their best interests. There appears to be no doubt that many of the children now condemned through no fault of their own in institutional life could be placed in a family circle if the law were amended and a serious effort made to provide the with foster parents.

Clandillon offered a similar analysis arguing: the greatest need is for a new and comprehensive Children Act which would include the children boarded-out or in schools under the Health Act, 1953, those covered by Parts I and II of the Children Acts, 1908-1957, and many more who are included under any of these. The new legislation would naturally indicate the need for one Government Department to be responsible for all the services for children in need of help, or a Children’s Department as a subsidiary of one Government Department as is the case in England and Wales. There has been adverse criticism for many years of the present arrangement whereby three Departments are concerned with different facets of the needs of deprived, delinquent or neglected children.

She also found favour with the proposal for a broad-based Commission of Inquiry into Children’s Services, but argued that ‘there is no point in looking into the causes of deprivation – family breakdown, delinquency, illegitimacy and so on. There is little use in trying to improve the lot of a child if the unfavourable circumstances which caused the trouble are allowed to continue. This would be merely putting a thin coat of paint on rotten wood.’154 Murray concluded her memo by stating: Without anticipating the report of the Committee on Industrial Schools it may be assumed that the day of the large Industrial School is over, and that in future, institutions in this category will take the form of much smaller units capable of giving individual attention to the children and of catering for special needs. The Department of Health has a special interest in the pattern which will emerge as children in the care of local authorities who need the discipline of an institution or who are unsuitable or ineligible for fosterage must be catered for in some type of school. The recommendations of the Committee therefore will be awaited not alone with interest but with some degree of apprehension.

The core ideas set out in the correspondence between Clandillon, Murray and O’Rourke were eventually encapsulated in a detailed circular issued in July 1970.155 This circular effectively established the template for childcare services for the next two decades, in particular the shift from residential care to foster care as the primary form of extra-familial care in Ireland and is quoted in full in Appendix 1 to this report to give a sense of the importance of the document.

The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland also contributed to the debate on the future of the Reformatory and Industrial School system in a memo to the Department of Education in April 1969. The memo recommended inter alia that separate institutions were required for children who committed an offence and those who were taken into care. It further advocated the appointment of a psychologist to each school and the development of group homes. The memo also highlighted the absence of any provision for non-Catholic children which they argued was: completely unconstitutional and utterly unjust. If there were only one such child it is an inescapable obligation of the State to make precisely the same provision for that child as they would for a child of any other faith. It is accepted that there may be very few children of the Protestant faith or of the Jewish faith but it is believed that the statistics available are not reliable in as much as no committals are made of such children because there is no place for them to go. If there were a place for them to go undoubtedly many more cases would come to light. In any case the number of cases is quite beside the point. Under the Constitution and in justice equal provision must be made for all and this is a matter of the utmost urgency.156

The memo also argued that while their recommendations would involve greater demands on the Department of Finance, that: Fortunately there is ample room for improvement here because at the present time the fees paid by the State to institutions for the accommodation of children of this kind are completely inadequate and is the prime factor leading to the complete breakdown in the system. Indeed were it not for the self-sacrifice and dedication of the people who run these schools the whole system would have broken down completely long ago.

Thus, in the immediate years preceding the publication of the deliberations of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools Systems, a broad consensus had emerged on the difficulties with the existing system of child welfare, in particular the provision of substitute care. The need for new legislation was acknowledged by all and the dramatic decline in the numbers in residential care and the consequences of this for the capitation system of funding were widely realised.

On 5th January 1967, Mr John Hurley wrote to the Minister for Education, Mr Donagh O’Malley about the consequences of institutional life on a named young person. He also enclosed two documents, both written by Fr Kenneth McCabe, one on juvenile delinquency, which was based on McCabe’s studies of various institutions in the country, the second a descriptive account of St Patrick’s Training School in Belfast. The first report argued that: Our reformatory and industrial school system as it stands, is at best, only punitive. Reformatory and industrial schools are absolutely inadequately endowed. No institution could run on £3-10-0 per boy per week (This may not be an exact sum). The result is as one would expect. The food is bad. Boys are disgracefully dressed. In Daingean when I was there (Summer 1964) boys were not supplied with handkerchiefs. Spitting was a common habit. The boys got one shower per month (this at the height of summer). The school had only seven showers. Too much time, far too much, is spent in the school square; a large yard where the boys just hang around for hours at a time. There is no segregation of new boys from the rest. A relatively good boy is thrown in with the rest and, within a month, he is as bad as all the others.

He went on to claim that: The system in all our reformatory and industrial schools is repressive. Given the facilities at the disposal of the schools it seems unlikely that it could be otherwise. Boys are taken out of the natural (if defective) atmosphere of their homes and placed in an institution. If the institution is to succeed it must be as like a home as is possible. It will have the added job of supplying the defects of the home which were probably the root causes of the delinquency. Perhaps the most obvious problem to begin with here is that of sex. Boys from 12 on are reaching the most difficult period of their emotional growth. Too often, even in reasonably good circumstances, the adolescent will turn to sex for an escape from the hardships of everyday life. Nowadays, even though it is largely neglected in Ireland, psychologists and educators insist on the need for positive sex instruction. The majority, if not all of, the boys in reformatory and industrial schools simply have no positive sex instruction. They are placed in a repressive system, at a time of intense emotional and sexual growth, with no instruction, and are expected to develop naturally. There is no need to go into the detail of how sex can ‘go wrong’ at this stage and how habits can be acquired that will cause endless unhappiness in later life. What can we say of boys in abnormal and repressive environments? We can certainly say that only a miracle could avoid an intensification of the usual sexual problems. I want to stress this point for one very important reason. In any boarding schools one must expect a certain degree of ’homosexual’ activity. We must emphasize, however, that homosexual activity is not the same as homosexuality. Placed in unnatural circumstances (an all boys school) boys will inevitably engage in such activities. They must be checked but they are not serious. In an ’intenser’ atmosphere, such as an industrial school, this will be magnified. Boys will look for an outlet from repression and unhappiness in physical pleasure, either alone or with others. I have evidence that this is, in fact, the case in all industrial schools. I also have definite evidence of serious incidents of homosexual practices in some schools. A circumstance that doesn’t help matters here is the very unsuitable situation of most industrial schools. Daingean is situated in a place where almost all outside contact is impossible. Letterfrack and Upton are even worse. It seems completely wrong to send a Dublin boy to an environment so different from his home environment.

The following day, on 6th January 1967, the Taoiseach, Mr Lynch, wrote to Mr O’Malley noting that: During the course of being interviewed as the ‘Person in Question’ on R.T.E. on Thursday (5th) evening, Very Reverend Brother M.C. Normoyle, Vicar General of the Irish Christian Brothers, mentioned the ‘difficulty in getting Government policy in regard to industrial schools’ and seemed to imply that this was a factor in closing some of them. This may be true but if it is not, much as I admire the Brothers, I would not wish to let the matter go without some comment. On the other hand, if there is something in what Brother Normoyle has said you might look into it.157

The response from Mr O’Malley to Mr Lynch on 19th January reiterated the point made by successive Ministers for Education, that the primary problem with the schools was the inadequacy of the capitation grant. For Mr O’Malley, The only difficulty in regard to Government policy which these school managers have ever brought to the Department’s notice is that of the small size of grants and matters stemming from that. It is a constant cry with them that the grant is only about one-third that given in the six counties. There is of course something in this. It is not so easy for them to provide a building, maintain it, provide staffing, clothe and feed the pupils, take them on annual holiday, provide medical and other care for them, and so at £2.7s.6d per head per week. In fact, while the forty or so industrial schools generally are run very well, there are some marked deficiencies especially in relation to the provision for the psychiatric treatment of children.158

Mr O’Malley went on to dismiss Br Normoyle’s comments, claiming: I don’t know exactly therefore what Br. Normoyle was getting at and I have a shrewd idea that he wouldn’t know either. It was probably his first appearance on television and his instinct was to fob off from the Order any blame that might be going on. On the whole I would be inclined to let the matter go at that. He is not a man who normally opens his mouth much.159

Mr O’Malley went on to express some minor reservations he himself had about the operation of the schools or, more importantly in his view, the public image of the schools, as he believed that: One of the troubles in that regard is that Daingean reformatory, which is really suffering from very poor accommodation, understaffing and under-everything practically, is confused with the forty industrial schools of which the vast majority cater very well indeed for their children.160

He then went on to say that he had a ‘notion of setting up an ad-hoc committee’ to report to him on this matter, as ‘if it were to do nothing else, it might at least have the effect of allaying public unease.’161 Mr O’Malley proposed this to the Association of Resident Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools who responded positively ‘that a representative number of the schools visited by a group of persons, appointed by you, who would furnish you with a report on the position as they would see it.’ The Resident Managers in their reply on 1st April 1967 stated that they would: co-operate with you in whatever steps you may take to improve the system and dissipate the public image which is detrimental to the pupils of these schools and frequently embarrassing to the managers and staffs. They also request that the visiting committee be appointed as soon as possible and that the report should be confidential and confined to yourself, the members of the committee and the managers.

On 10th May 1967, Mr O’Malley received a deputation from the Dublin Junior Chamber of Commerce Mr DL Lennon, Mr J Freeley and Miss M McGivern. At the meeting the delegation outlined their interest in the work of the Artane Industrial School, particularly the extension of vocational educational classes in the school. From a note of the meeting, it appears that Mr O’Malley stated: he was concerned about the public image of Reformatory and Industrial Schools and aware of a lot of vague public criticism of the system. He felt the time had come when a small lay independent committee should be set up to examine and report to him on the whole question in order to allay public disquiet.