10,992 entries for Inspections - State

With regard to school attendance services: it is acknowledged that the present operation of the School Attendance Act is in need of radical modification but it could be contended that such a modified service is more appropriate to the Minister for Education who prescribes a minimum period of education for all children and should therefore have the authority and the means to ensure that this prescription is met. It would therefore appear appropriate to enter a reservation on this matter as well.

The functions of the Special Schools were further elaborated on by the Deputy Chief Inspector who argued that: The main thrust of the work in the Special Schools should be to rehabilitate the pupils and provide access to work as recreational outlets which will allow students to accommodate themselves to the current demands of society. While care and a caring attitude are important components in the regime in these schools, the underlying philosophy of the Department of Education is that children’s attitudes can be changed by intervention and that there is little hope for their survival in the community unless they acquire the intellectual, emotional and social skills which a particular society demands. Our view is that such skills are best acquired through a highly structured, carefully sequenced and integrated programme of school and out-of-school experiences. We recognise that this conflicts with the underlying philosophy of many of the members of the Task Force, and we put it to the Government that the thinking of the Task Force in this regard is unsound. It would be the view of the Department of Education that any shortcomings in the Special School system to date were caused not because of the choice of Department which administered it but rather through lack of funding and lack of awareness in the public in relation to the quality and quantity of professional staff required in these establishments.

The Department of Health in a memorandum to Government in relation to ‘Proposals for comprehensive legislation to Extend and Up-date the Law in Relation to the Protection of Children’ in December 1982, stated that the Task Force: supported the earlier government decision of October 1974 that the main central responsibility for child care should rest with the Minister for Health. Dealing with the problem of children in need of care, the report stressed the importance and integrity of the family and insisted that there should be minimal intervention in it by the State. It rejected the notion of placing the child in institutional care and removing it from the family setting unless this was absolutely unavoidable.308

However, it went on to observe that: notwithstanding the Government decision of 1974, the main responsibility for child care services has not yet been translated into legislation and the present legal responsibilities of the Minister for Health and the health boards in this area are quite limited. At present, there is no single statutory body with specific responsibility for meeting children’s needs. To remedy this situation, it is proposed to give health boards new statutory powers and obligations to identify families with children in need and to provide whatever services are required to meet these needs.309

The broad changes proposed by the Children Bill 1982 were: the imposition on the health boards of clear cut responsibility for a wide range of childcare services; the creation of powers to regulate play groups, crèches, nursery schools etc.; the taking over of full responsibility for children’s homes (formerly orphanages, Industrial Schools); the taking over of responsibility for children’s special centres (formerly Reformatories); the taking over of responsibility for the supervision of school attendance; increasing the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 12 years with consequently greater responsibility falling on social work staff; the creation of special children’s courts with greater participation by health boards; strengthening the powers of intervention where children are at risk; and • control of sale of solvents.310

In relation to school attendance, the memo argued that: The Task Force was of the opinion that, since early and intransigent truancy has often been found to be associated with severe family and social problems, it is inappropriate that emphasis on such cases should rest primarily on school attendance. In many instances frequent absence from school might indicate, not just a problem child, but a family with a variety of problems to be solved. The members of the Task Force agreed accordingly that certain functions at present performed by School Attendance Officers in relation to the problem of school-children should be integrated with the child welfare service. This would envisage the abolition of the existing school attendance officers to the health boards. The Minister for Health is in agreement with the proposed transfer of certain functions and of personnel as recommended and seeks the agreement of Government to the necessary legislative provisions which are included in the scheme of the Bill.311

The memo did also note that: The Minister for Education has expressed reservations regarding the proposed transfer of responsibility for School Attendance Services, and considers these services more appropriate to his responsibility as Minister for Education. As it rests with him to prescribe a minimum period of education for all children he feels that he should continue to have authority and have the means to ensure that this prescription is met. As the prescription of a minimum period of education for children is clearly the responsibility of the Minister for Education, the Minister for Health agrees that enforcement of the Acts by means of statutory warnings or prosecution of parents would remain the responsibility of the Minister for Education. The transfer of personnel is proposed as a means of developing the social work functions referred to in paragraph 12 and of ensuring close links between all schools and the health boards so that children experiencing difficulties which become identified at school can immediately receive attention.312

In relation to residential care, the memo outlined that: The Scheme of the Bill provides for a new system of residential care for deprived children, to be administered under the aegis of the Minister for Health and the Health Boards. This system will replace the reformatory and industrial schools system for which the Minister for Education is responsible at present. A government decision of 25th August 1982 gave approval in principle to the transfer from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health of functions in relation to children’s residential homes (formerly known as industrial schools) and the Scheme of the Bill provides for a similar transfer of responsibility for a number of special schools (formerly known as reformatories). 313

The memo acknowledged the reservations of the Department of Education in his regard stating: The Department of Education has been consulted and has expressed serious reservations regarding the proposed transfer of responsibility in respect of special schools. It regards these as establishments the prime purpose of which is educational and suggests that this purpose is reflected in the preponderance of the activity in the institutions arising from their programmes of rehabilitation and reform. It considers that any measures which would have the effect of removing these schools from the mainstream of education would not be in the interests of the children. In the Department’s view, the care elements involved are being and can continue to be adequately catered for through the format of management and services available and through arrangements for consultation and co-ordination with care authorities.314

Having duly acknowledged these reservations, the memo nonetheless argued: the Minister for Health considers that unification of responsibility is particularly desirable in the area of residential care. In accordance with the general tenor of the Task Force Report, the special schools should be seen as being mainly concerned with child care rather than with education at present. There is no doubt that education must be a major element no matter which Minister is responsible for these centres, but the major factor in deciding on responsibility for the schools must be the fact that they cater for those children who are probably the most seriously deprived, both emotionally and socially and should, therefore, be the concern of the Department which will have the main responsibility in relation to the general welfare of deprived children. It is hardly necessary to point out that if one Minister has authority for all centres for deprived children, the organization, operation and effectiveness of the system as a whole will be facilitated. Such a transfer would also be desirable for the purposes of facilitating continuity of services to the child and its family, with particular reference to the input of social work in relation to the child while in the centre and the provision of continuing care which would be required after discharge.315

In relation to St Joseph’s Special School in Clonmel the memo stated: The Department is not seeking a transfer of responsibility for St. Joseph’s Special School, Clonmel but he considers that discussions might be held between his Department, the Department of Education and the authorities of the School before a final decision is taken regarding its future roles. The Minister now seeks government approval to the transfer of special schools to the Department of Health, as is provided for in the Scheme of the Bill.316

On the issue of juvenile justice, the memo outlines the broad principles that informed thinking on the issue, claiming that the proposed new system contained ‘elements of both the main Task Force Report and the Supplementary Report’. The memo went on to state: the proposed system is based on the principle that arrangements made for children must be consistent with their dependent status, the principle that intervention in a child’s life should be limited to what is necessary to ensure that the child’s interests or the interests of others and the principle that children who need special help should also, as far as possible, have the same experience of growing up as is normal in their society (all of which principles were implicit in both the Main Report and the Supplementary Report).317

The broad scheme for a new juvenile justice system was as follows: (a)If the state is to intervene in the life of a child on a compulsory basis, and interfere with the responsibility of his parent or guardian it should usually be with a view to helping the child; this intervention should be by order of a court to be made following care proceedings. (b)Care proceedings should be conducted by a newly constituted juvenile court, consisting of a specially trained district justice and two lay assessors. (c)The age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12; persons under that age should not be subject to the criminal law i.e. they should not be prosecuted. (d)A new type of control proceedings should be instituted, under which children under 12 who are a threat to the public can be made the subject of a control order; control proceedings should be conducted before the juvenile court, in separate hearings. (e)In regard to children under 12 the Garda Síochána should be responsible for initiating Control Proceedings. (f)In the case of a child between 12 and 15, prosecution should continue to be an option, although no child in this age range should be convicted unless the justice is satisfied as to his criminal capacity. (g)Young persons between 15 and 17 years should be dealt with separately under the criminal law, as they are at present, with additional provisions to take account of their youth.318

On the issue of the age of criminal responsibility, the Bill proposed the age be raised from 7 to 12 on the basis that: the Minister considers that this represents a more reasonable level at which to draw the line between children who might be regarded as lacking in understanding of the criminality of their acts and those who might be regarded as having reached a sufficient degree of maturity to understand substantially the nature of their wrong doing. The Minister accepts that in view of the present extent of juvenile delinquency any extension in age may provoke a certain amount of controversy. He feels, however, that public indignation at the extent of crime should not be allowed to prevent a non-retributive approach to troublesome children whose background in many instances will be one of considerable psychological or physical deprivation.319

For those children under the proposed age of criminal responsibility, the legislation included provision for a new form of ‘control proceedings’ which will enable the State to intervene in the lives of such children, with the express purpose of affording necessary protection to others. In such extreme cases it would have to be a serious offence if committed by an adult, or that the child had committed an act or acts which caused (or were likely to cause) serious loss or damage to persons or property. The court would be empowered to make an order to ensure such minimal restraint or control as was necessary for the protection of the community.’320