2,143 entries for Witness Testimony

The buckets, he insisted, were not washed out: ‘Where would you get water?’.

Some boys were put into trades that had become obsolete, such as weaving and tailoring. One complainant explained: ‘Mass production was coming in and it was nearly all machinists ... Where once a tailor cut one suit, now they could cut 100 suits’.

Even when the trade was a needed one, there were problems. Br David Gibson explained at the public hearing on 16th June 2005 into Letterfrack: [The children] weren’t going through the normal apprenticeship and therefore when it came to them continuing their training, the training that they had already received was not accepted by the unions ... There was an inherent difficulty in the training that the young people were getting.

According to Fr Moore: The time used, the money spent, the number of engagements annually met are, I fear, out of all proportion to the results obtained. The maintenance of the band, although approximating £2,000 annually, is a continual strain on financial resources.

Although Dr Lysaght was informed that the Manager placed the boys in suitable jobs upon discharge, ensured that they were properly treated, and if they left a job, found them another, he still expressed concern. He commented: this while outside the province of the School and Dept. of Education would seem an essential part of the support of young boys to make their way in the world. It can well be the case that all the time and care given them in the schools can be of no avail unless they are safeguarded during the first year or two after leaving.

Another common thread running through the testimony was that the boys were placed in low-income or, indeed, no-income jobs that offered no stability: they tended to move from job to job. Some complainants did fare well in later life, but they felt that this was despite, rather than because of, their experience in Artane, or indeed any assistance they received from the Brothers on leaving Artane.

Another witness, who left Artane in the late 1950s, was placed with a butcher in Co Leitrim after being trained as a weaver: ‘Even today I can’t understand they trained me as a weaver and they gave me a job as a butcher’. He received no monetary payment, and instead was given clothing from a market every month. He continued, ‘I asked to go back, I was there for about a year and I asked if I could go back to Artane, of all places to go back to, but it was the only place I knew’. He stated that he never received any direct communications from the Brothers whilst in Leitrim, and was surprised to learn that they had been in contact with his employer. The Brothers found him another job as a chef in Dublin.

A witness, who was discharged from Artane at the age of 16 in the mid-1960s, was sent to work on a poultry farm, having received training in this area. He stayed there for two years and was very badly treated: ‘I was given less than 2 a week, I was hardly being fed, and kicked like a football’. However, he said, it was better than life in Artane.

Another witness said: We were not trained in how to live amongst society, we were brought up in a society where we all had to fight to keep our corner and stand up to bigger boys who bullied you or tried to get you to do things that you didn’t want to do, take your food off the table or whatever. So it was a constant battle to stand up and be counted or be put down, one or the other. Unfortunately that’s the way my life went in the early part of my years from Artane. It was always the same, I always thought people were talking about me, people were ganging up on me and I would lose my head. I would just lash out and hit people.

Mr Dunleavy commented on aftercare: The provision of after care was one of the statutory requirements of the industrial school system, and the School was supposed to have some regard to the welfare of its former pupils until they attained 18 years of age. In practice both archival records and interviews with Christian Brothers who worked at Artane indicate that aftercare, such as it was, was a very hit-or-miss affair. The Brother in charge of aftercare was responsible for trying to secure full or licensed employment for the boys and then monitoring their progress, usually for two years. In practice employers made representations to the Brother responsible for aftercare and if they were considered suitable, boys were assigned to work for them. Boys were often left unmonitored in their new positions and the only information the school had in relation to them was that provided by the boys themselves should they choose to write to the School during the early course of their employment. The low priority with which aftercare was regarded is indicated by the fact that of the two Brothers who were in charge for many years, Br. Colbert was quite an elderly man while Br. Leon was known to be an extreme eccentric, and neither man was even provided with the services of a motor car to attempt to visit the boys who were to be found in employment throughout the country.

At the public Phase I hearing, Br Reynolds commented on Br Danton’s appointment to the infirmary. He rejected the Visitor’s description of the Brother’s mental condition, and he did not appear to regard it as a major example of incompetence or failure of care. He said: I would say a number of things about it. First of all, obviously I know who the Brother was, I knew the Brother and I would not agree with the description of the Visitor, but so be it. Secondly, I would say that he wasn’t a teaching Brother and I don’t think the criticism was in relation to the mental soundness of the person. I think the main criticism was here was somebody that was sent in and he does not seem to be able to fulfil any role, so essentially I think the Visitation Report said that he was a negative quantity in the place. I would take that certainly I presume not in the community and from religious observance, but from the point of view that his work rate wasn’t very good and his contribution wasn’t adequate in the eyes of the Visitor. As you wisely say, why not take him out. The simple fact of the matter was he was left there, they tried him in a number of situations, they didn’t work and eventually he was moved on. During part of that time incidentally, the Brother in question was studying in university, he wasn’t a full-time member of the staff.

A complainant who was committed to Artane for six years in 1945 recalled being told to go to the infirmary a number of times for various ailments. He never went, and nobody ever checked whether he had in fact attended. He gave his reason for not attending: ‘All screaming in there. The things I have heard about that place. I can’t remember it now. I was never actually in it’.

Fr Moore criticised the rigid and severe discipline in Artane, where every activity was marshalled and which he thought often approached pure regimentation: Constant recourse to physical punishment breeds undue fear and anxiety. The personality of the boy is inevitably repressed, maladjusted, and in some cases, abnormal. Their liberty is so restricted that all initiative and self esteem suffers.

In comments on the boys’ clothes, for example, Fr Moore thought that this aspect of care was ‘grossly neglected’ and had adverse consequences: A boy’s personal clothing is as much the property of his neighbour. Shirts, underwear (vests are not worn), stockings, footwear, nightshirts (no pyjamas) are all common property and are handed down from generations. When these articles are duly laundered they are distributed at random, sometimes without regard to size.

Fr Moore learned about an Inter-Departmental Committee that was considering submissions in relation to Industrial and Reformatory Schools and he contacted the Chairman, Mr Peter Berry, who was the Secretary of the Department of Justice. A meeting took place on 26th November 1962 attended by Fr Moore, Mr Berry and the Secretary to the Committee, Mr Toal. Fr Moore’s criticisms, as summarised in the minutes, included the following: the absence of aftercare; a big percentage of boys needed psychiatric treatment which was not available; a psychologist was also required; many of the boys were institutionalised from babyhood until 16 years; the educational standard was very low; trade training was poor and did not lead to jobs in those callings and boys ended up in dead end jobs; neglect in regard to clothing, bed clothes, food and medical care; the Manager was unsuitable and ‘an unwilling captain’; and the Institution was short of money. At Mr Berry’s request, Fr Moore agreed to attend a meeting with Dr Ó Raifeartaigh, Secretary of the Department of Education.