10,992 entries for Inspections - State

The rationale for this was that: Firstly, if the health boards become Child Care Authorities they will have greatly expanded responsibilities, most of which have not previously been carried out within the public service. Secondly, the assumption of these responsibilities will require a new orientation or strategy of service; the development and recruitment of highly motivated specialist personnel; additional funds and good planning and management. Thirdly, the present administrative structures of the boards, and in particular the Community care programmes, were designed in conditions which were entirely different from those that exist today, not to talk of those which will exist if the Task Force recommendations are accepted; the Community Care Programme’s structure is seen to be ill-adapted for welfare services even in present conditions. When we relate these three sets of considerations we are forced to the conclusion that certain new structures are necessary within the health boards.293

The Report was scrutinised in the Department of Education prior to publication and Mr Ó Maitiú drafted a lengthy response to the report dated 12th November 1980. He commented initially on the lack of agreement between the members and observed: Given the diverse composition of the Task Force, one could hardly expect unanimity of view on all aspects of the subject studied. Nevertheless, the extent of disagreement is somewhat surprising. There is one main report, one minority report (claimed by its authors, Mr. S. O Cinnéide and Miss N.O’Daly, of CARE, as a supplemental Report), and four sets of reservations from (a) Mr. K. O’Grady, Department of Justice, (b) Mr. Tomas O Gilín, Department of Education, (c) Mr. John Hurley, Department of Health and (d) Mr. M. Russell, Office of the Attorney General. It is obvious, therefore, that in reforming the Child Care system in this country, the Government will have to choose between a number of different solutions. Since the Department of Health will have the lead role in this reform, it is very likely to push the alternatives which best suit its own interests, and great vigilance will be needed to ensure that the interests of this Department do not suffer.

On the recommendation that child welfare services should be unified under one Department and this should be the Department of Health, he commented that: This recommendation is unanimous and is in accord with this Department’s thinking. It is in the implementation of the proposal that disagreement occurs. A majority of the Task Force recommends that, in addition to the services for which it is already responsible, the Department of Health should take over (a) school attendance services; (b) advisory and some supervisory services for the Courts; (c) Community Youth Services and (d) residential services, including existing residential homes, special schools and hostels. In his reservations, this Department’s representative opposed (c), partially opposed (d) and reserved his position on (a). He was supported on (d) by the Department of Justice representative.

He went on to state: We have long ago agreed that the residential homes at present administered by us should go to the Department of Health, this Department retaining responsibility for the education of children. On the other hand, we have held the view that the Special Schools at Lusk, Finglas and Clonmel are educational establishments and should remain under the control of this Department. The arguments for and against are given in (i) the Report, and (ii) Mr. O Gilin’s and Mr O’Grady’s reservations. I must say that, if a Child Care Authority is set up, I can see some validity in the administration of the schools going to them, although this Department should retain responsibility for the educational programme, as in the Residential Schools for the handicapped.

One of the reasons for the departure from the view held over the previous decade that the responsibility for the Special Schools be maintained by the Department of Education was that: At the moment, the Health Boards tend to repudiate all responsibility for delinquents and from discussions with them, I gather they would not be at all averse to leaving delinquents with us. I’m not too sure that we should let them off the hook in this way. The operation of the schools for delinquents has given many headaches and there have been problems with children, with staff, with the Religious Orders and with local residents. While a fair degree of success has been achieved with the younger boys in Finglas and Clonmel, the outcome in the case of the older boys at Lusk has been very dubious. Apart from the high rate of absconding, all too often we hear of past-pupils finishing up in Loughan House or St. Patrick’s. The new secure school at Lusk will replace Loughan House and will involve the Department in running what is, in effect, a juvenile prison, without a religious Order to cushion it from day-to-day problems.

For Mr Ó Maitiú, the consequences of the Department of Education retaining the Special Schools would be to ‘saddle itself, of course, with the very worst children – particularly the very violent and difficult 14-16-year-olds who are not amendable to any discipline. They will be a place of last resort for children which the Child Care Authority cannot handle or does not want to handle.’ He argued that: The Health Boards have considerable expertise in running residential institutions. I feel that a solution on Kennedy lines would enable them to exercise this expertise in the case of special schools, while, at the same time, this Department would bring the benefit of its own expertise to the educational programme. It would be a better solution than the system in Britain where both the care and educational programme are under the Department of Health and Social Security, with not too satisfactory results. I would suggest, therefore, that the Department should now consider a compromise on Kennedy lines. If we adamant about retaining the Youth Service) as I think we should be, we might perhaps concede that the Health Boards should have School Attendance and that there should be a compromise as suggested in regard to the special schools.

Mr Ó Maitiú was of the view that: certain members of the Task Force are convinced that ‘there is no such thing as a bad boy’, that very few are really delinquent, and that most of their problems with the law are the fault of their families and society rather than of the children themselves. The effect of the Task Force recommendations would be to cut down drastically on the number of residential placements for delinquents. This is the argument that the CARE people have persisted in since the early 1970’s, in spite of all the evidence of their senses. At the same time, the Courts and the Gardaí have kept up a constant agitation for more places to which children coming before them can be sent. It was because the situation had become so desperate that the Minister for Justice had to open Loughan House. The number of residential places has, in fact, been drastically reduced over the past 10 years – Daingean has been closed, together with Letterfrack and Marlboro’ House – and, in my opinion, the number of places remaining – less than 200 for the entire country – is barely adequate to cater for the needs of the Courts. Youth Encounter and Neighbourhood Youth projects are doing a lot for the less serious offenders. However, for the more serious offenders and for those who live in impossible home conditions, residential care is still necessary. Community residential centres are no answer since they are conducted in a social work milieu, the children need a great deal more than care, and anyway the children will not stay in them.

He concluded that: In the circumstances, I recommend that the Department support the minority view of Mr. O Gilin, i.e. that this Department cannot agree to any reduction in the number of residential places for delinquent children until alternative services on the lines envisaged in the report have been provided and are seen to be at least as effective as the present Special Schools.

On the issue of residential facilities for girls, he noted that: The Task Force recommends that facilities for girls should be provided for within the mainstream of residential provision recommended by them, but that the existing units for teenage girls should continue their work in the interim period. The existing voluntary training units are conducted by two religious Orders and the absence of controversy in regard to facilities for girls shows that they are doing a good job, which I doubt if the Health Boards could better.

In dealing with this issue, he recommended that: reform in this aspect of child-care should consist in giving the existing centres sufficient resources to enable them to carry out their very dedicated work more effectively. The Task Force has changed its mind on a closed school for girls, and now states that the school recommended in its interim report should not be proceeded with. There was a certain problem, a few years ago with a number of very difficult girls who could not be contained in the existing centres. This problem seems to have subsided somewhat. There will be the odd girl who will not stay in an open centre and who needs containment – for her own protection, as much as anything else. While a separate closed school may not be necessary (and would be extremely expensive to run) – some provision for containment may be required – preferably by special arrangement in one of the existing centres, or in association with it.

Mr Ó Maitiú concluded by observing that: The general effect of the implementation of the Task Force Report will be to increase State involvement in all aspects of child-care and to regionalise this involvement in the Health Boards. Up to now, child-care has been seen as the responsibility of the parents themselves, supported by their various Church Authorities who have operated residential establishments of various kinds for children who, for one reason or another, had no parents to look after them. The State’s role has been limited to providing financial support and a certain degree of supervision. In the past, a change such as is now proposed, would have been looked upon with suspicion by the Churches. However, the fall in vocations has meant that for some years now, the work at the coal face is being done by lay people as much as by religious, so that the position of the Churches is not as strong as it used to be.294

On the issue of juvenile justice, the Task Force was fundamentally split.295 Although oversimplifying the debate, the issue of the age of criminal responsibility in part encapsulates the split. The majority of the Task Force recommended that the age of criminal responsibility be left at 7, on the basis that they saw ‘an advantage in retaining a low age of criminal responsibility on the grounds inter alia that the commission of offences will lead in many instances to helpful intervention in the case of young children who might not otherwise receive it’.296 More generally, the majority were of the view that when a child admitted an offence or the offence was proven, the principles that should inform the court should aim to: (a) Secure for the child such care, guidance, education, training and correction as will conduce to the welfare of the child and the public interest, (b) retain or promote relationships between the child and his parents and his family as far as possible, (c) avoid sending the child to a custodial institution unless there is no acceptable alternative that will satisfy his needs or afford society a reasonable protection.297

The supplementary report produced by Mr Ó Cinnéide and Ms O’Daly argued that the recommendations by the majority of the Task Force did not involve any significant change on the existing system of juvenile justice and on the basis that it ‘was laid down over seventy years ago and, given the developments in knowledge and in public attitudes since then, it is retrograde to retain it’.298 They argued that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 15, and that interventions by the State should be based on a number of assumptions. They were: that by and large parents want to look after their children well, to provide them with the care and education and discipline that they need; that if parents are unable to do this they are likely to avail of any helpful services which are provided to facilitate them; that the need for the state to intervene in a coercive way into the ordinary family will, and should, arise only in exceptional cases; that the state’s intervention should in general be a helpful one, concerned only with the welfare of the child and the family; that compulsory or coercive measures in respect of a child which are not solely helpful and concerned with his welfare should be clearly seen as such and should be invoked only in even more exceptional cases.299

In the same year that the Task Force submitted its final report to the Minister for Health, the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Irish Penal System300 was published. In relation to juvenile justice they argued that: Our low minimum age of criminal responsibility i.e., seven, the lowest incidentally in Europe, ensures that the trivial activities of little children come under censorious scrutiny of the criminal justice system. For many offenders, whether male or female, their criminal careers begin with early experience of reformatories or industrial schools precipitated by truancy from school or home, or family breakdown. Here again factors like differential police deployment can seriously affect the likelihood of a particular child becoming identified as deviant. The child in the bleak inner city, lacking private amenities, like gardens or playrooms or simply space, carries his activities onto the streets where he is in full public view. His scope for ‘safe’ deviancy is limited. Parents may not have money to steal or property to deface. His controls are few and he is highly visible particularly if, as there tends to be, there is a high level of police deployment in the area. There was an incredible pathos about the submission which began ‘When I was seven I was sent to Clonmel by Justice Kennedy. I was in it for nine years’.301

Despite these critical observations on the juvenile justice system, some commentators highlighted that significant changes were occurring within the system. Osborough, for example, contrasted ‘the casual approach, displays of judicial independence and a lack of guidelines on important subsidiary issues’ as evidence of a lack of formalism and an absence of a ‘system’ that characterised criminal justice practice in Ireland for a considerable period after independence. By the late 1970s, however, he argued: the characteristic mark of the Irish criminal justice system is the growth of system and the growth of formalism. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the procedures for dealing with juvenile offenders. At every level there has in recent years occurred some critical development which can certainly be regarded as the antithesis of the casual, the haphazard and the informal. More care is taken, more officials are involved, there are more standards, more procedure; there is both more ‘system’ and more ‘law’.302