COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON MONDAY, 12TH JUNE 2006 - DAY 225 EVIDENCE OF MS. BRIDGET McMANUS BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SEÁN RYAN CHAIRPERSON OF THE INQUIRY and MS. MARIAN SHANLEY I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes of the evidence in the above-named action. ______________________ MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT: REGISTRAR TO INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE: MR. B. REEDY COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION: MR. N. MacMAHON SC MR. P. WARD BL Instructed by: MS. E. McHUGH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE: MR. B. O'MOORE SC MR. C. DIGNAM BL Instructed by: CSSO FOR SISTERS OF MERCY: MR. P. GAGEBY SC Instructed by: FOR CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: MR. P. HANRATTY SC MS. S. MOORHEAD BL MS. U. NI RAIFEARTAIGH BL Instructed by: MAXWELL WELDON & DARLEY FOR THE OBLATES OF MARY IMMACULATE: MR. C. MAGUIRE Instructed by: MR. M. CONNAUGHTON SC MR. M. DOWLING BL Instructed by: LAVELLE COLEMAN COPYRIGHT: Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to by other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Services. INDEX WITNESS EXAMINATION QUESTION NO. MS. McMANUS QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 6 EXAMINED - MR. HANRATTY 7 - 206 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON MONDAY, 12TH JUNE 2 2006: 3 4 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody. 10:30 6 Good morning, Secretary 7 General. 8 MR. MacMAHON: Good morning, Chairman. 9 This morning the Committee 10 is a hearing the evidence of Bridget McManus, the 10:31 11 Secretary General of the Department of Education and 12 Science. Perhaps she should be sworn in at this stage. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you very much. 14 Mr. Reedy. 15 10:32 16 MS. BRIDGET McMANUS, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED, 17 AS FOLLOWS, BY THE COMMISSION: 18 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now, 20 Mr. MacMahon. 10:32 21 1 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Ms. McManus, I think you 22 are Secretary General of 23 the Department of Education and Science, I think you 24 have held that position since the beginning of 2005? 25 A. That's right. I took up office as Secretary General 10:32 26 for the Department of Education and Science on 31st 27 January 2005. Prior to that I joined the civil service 28 in 1978 as a graduate entry, I worked in the Department 29 of Finance up to 1994, in the Department of Arts, 4 1 Heritage and the Gaeltacht from 1994 to 2000, from 2000 2 to 2005 back in the Department of Finance. 3 2 Q. Yes. I think a statement has been prepared for the 4 Commission setting out the Department of Education's 5 position as regards the issues in question here and I 10:33 6 think in addition to that you have recently furnished a 7 further short statement as an addendum to that, but I 8 think it is your desire to present that short statement 9 before embarking on your evidence in general? 10 A. Yes, that's right, Mr. MacMahon. 10:33 11 3 Q. I think you have not previously given evidence to the 12 Commission. I think that role on behalf of the 13 Department of Education was done by others at previous 14 hearings. How have you been nominated to act or to 15 give evidence on behalf of the Department of Education 10:33 16 and Science in this instance? 17 A. As Secretary General of the Department I am the 18 administrative head of the Department so I considered 19 it appropriate, given the scale of the evidence which 20 is accounting for the Department of Education 10:34 21 stewardship in this area, that it should be the 22 Secretary General that would give evidence on this 23 occasion. 24 4 Q. Yes. At paragraph 1.10 of your main statement you deal 25 with the sources of your information and I think in 10:34 26 summary form you refer there to Inspectors' reports and 27 other documentary sources, communications and 28 correspondence from various bodies, Resident Managers' 29 Association, schools authorities and so on. In 5 1 compiling the statement and in preparing to give 2 evidence on behalf of the Department has there been 3 recourse to those who worked in the part of the 4 Department of Education which was concerned with 5 industrial and reformatory schools? 10:34 6 A. No, the bulk of the work on the statement was done by 7 reviewing documentary evidence in the Department in 8 terms of files, reports. I did discuss the issues, 9 though obviously more of the recent period, with both 10 John Dennehy, former Secretary General, and Tom Boland, 10:35 11 who would have been the head of legal services in the 12 Department at one point. But by and large, as I think 13 we indicate in the statement, the people in the 14 statement are no longer working in the Department and 15 indeed, there is probably very few of them that are 10:35 16 still alive. 17 5 Q. I understand. I think that -- I am not aware as to 18 whether you have attended any of the private hearings 19 in your own part, but I think the position is that the 20 Department has been furnished with transcripts of the 10:35 21 evidence given at the private hearings and indeed also 22 the evidence given at the public hearings and I think 23 you have been furnished with those transcripts and you 24 are aware of the nature and breadth of the evidence 25 which has been given; is that correct? 10:36 26 A. That's correct. The Department would have prepared a 27 statement of response in the case of all of the private 28 hearings and been furnished with the transcripts and, 29 indeed, I would have been briefed on the issues. I 6 1 have also read a selection of the private hearing 2 transcripts. 3 MR. MacMAHON: Yes. I think the order of 4 business, Chairman, which 5 we will be adopting this morning will be, as I 10:36 6 understand it, Mr. Hanratty, who acts for the Christian 7 Brothers, will begin question and he will be followed, 8 I think, by Mr. Gageby, who acts for the Sisters of 9 Mercy, and by Mr. Maguire, who acts for the Oblate 10 Congregation. Mr. Mark Connaughton is instructed by 10:36 11 Lavelle Coleman and will follow after Mr. Maguire. And 12 if there are further issues which I wish to deal with 13 at that stage I will then ask you some questions. Your 14 own counsel may have some questions for you at the end 15 of that. 10:37 16 6 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Well, 17 Ms. McManus, would you like 18 to begin with your opening statement, if you like. 19 A. Okay. Thank you, Chairman. I would like just to make 20 a few brief introductory remarks before I give evidence 10:37 21 and deal with questions. 22 23 As Secretary General of the Department of Education and 24 Science I wish to state publically here today that 25 there were significant failings in relation to the 10:37 26 Department's responsibility to the children in care in 27 these institutions and that the Department deeply 28 regrets this. 29 7 1 Children were sent to industrial and reformatory 2 schools by the State acting through the courts. While 3 the institutions to whose care they were committed were 4 privately owned and operated the State had a clear 5 responsibility to ensure that the care they received 10:37 6 was appropriate to their needs. Responsibility for 7 ensuring this lay with the Department of Education, 8 whose role it was to approve, regulate, inspect and 9 fund these institutions. It was clear that the 10 Department was not effective in ensuring a satisfactory 10:38 11 level of care. Indeed, the very need to establish a 12 Commission of Inquiry testifies this. 13 14 In acknowledging the Department's failings, I should 15 also acknowledge efforts made by individual Department 10:38 16 staff members in the period to achieve improvements in 17 the quality of care in the schools. 18 19 The failings arise in several areas: For a start, the 20 Department's inspection system was inadequate in a 10:38 21 number of respects. The Department did not ensure that 22 all schools were inspected at least once every year as 23 required by legislation. The number of inspections 24 varied from year to year and from school to school. 25 Records indicate that some schools went for some years 10:38 26 without a visit by a Department Inspector. For an 27 inspection system to be effective, a more frequent 28 inspection of the schools would have been required. 29 8 1 The Department files indicate that at various times 2 during the relevant period the work of the Department's 3 Inspectors to engage with follow-up with school 4 managers did help to bring about some improvements in 5 the quality of residential care in schools. The focus 10:38 6 of inspection activity prior to the appointment of a 7 childcare advisor in 1976 was largely concerned with 8 the material and physical aspects of residential care. 9 10 An inspection system, even a well functioning one, will 10:39 11 have limitations. The effective handling of complaints 12 is another protection. Based on the Department files, 13 the arrangements for dealing with complaints by the 14 treatment of children in industrial and reformatory 15 schools were unsatisfactory. The Department did not 10:39 16 record all complaints and it appears that many 17 complaints were treated as insignificant. The practice 18 was to refer complaints to the Resident Manager of the 19 school for consideration and to follow up as 20 appropriate with the Resident Manager, depending on his 10:39 21 or her response and the nature of the complaint. 22 23 There does not appear to have been a defined system of 24 assessing the seriousness of a parental complaint and 25 generally the Department did not interview the parent 10:39 26 or the child concerned. There are cases where the 27 Department accepted the explanations given by the 28 Resident Manager when a complaint was brought to his or 29 her attention without making any other inquiries. 9 1 There is also evidence indicating that the Department 2 may have been inclined to treat complaints about 3 physical punishment with a degree of skepticism. 4 5 For much of the period the Department of Education 10:40 6 accepted that a higher level of funding for the 7 institutions than the amount being paid was justified. 8 It sought Department of Finance agreement at different 9 times for rates of grant that were considerably higher 10 than those approved by that Department and therefore 10:40 11 than the rate actually paid to the institutions. 12 Indeed, in a Department to the Minister in 1967, in the 13 context of setting up the Kennedy Committee, stated 14 that had the Department was: 15 "In no position to defend its 10:40 achievement as far as size of grant 16 goes." 17 18 The Kennedy Report in 1970 accepted that residential 19 managers were faced with the task of running the 20 institutions on an inadequate financial provision. 10:40 21 This level of financial provision had to be a factor in 22 the quality of care provided. 23 24 With regard to education and training, the Department 25 did try and ensure arrangements were made to provide 10:40 26 children in industrial schools with a primary 27 education, either by attending a nearby national school 28 or by recognising and funding a national school within 29 the industrial school. However, as regards the 10 1 provision of training in specific trades or 2 occupations, we have been unable to establish from our 3 files the extent to which proficiency in industrial 4 training was examined and inspected by the Department 5 as recommended in the Cussen Report and provided for in 10:41 6 the rules and regulations for certified schools. The 7 concerns raised in the Cussen Report about the quality 8 and usefulness in industrial and agricultural training 9 persisted into the 1960's and the Department does not 10 appear to have given this issue sufficient attention. 10:41 11 12 While the Department acknowledges fully that there were 13 failures it is very difficult for us to identify why 14 those failures occurred. In preparing this statement, 15 the Department has relied on a review of its own files 10:41 16 and records. As the Commission is aware, there are 17 gaps in our records and not all Department records 18 which existed at one time still exist today. It will 19 also be appreciated that documentation will not give a 20 full picture of what happened at the time. It is 10:42 21 difficult enough, even on certain issues impossible, to 22 establish what happened factually on specific issues. 23 It is not really possible at this remove for me or 24 anyone in the Department to put ourselves in the shoes 25 of our predecessors and assess the context in and the 10:42 26 constraints under which they operated, both at 27 Department level and at a wider public sector level or 28 to make a judgment why certain actions were taken or 29 not taken. 11 1 2 The Department is most anxious to assist the Commission 3 in the conduct of its Inquiry. In preparing the 4 Department's written statement to the Commission, we 5 have attempted to draw together the key information 10:42 6 from the review of our files. I will make every effort 7 in my evidence to deal with the questions raised by the 8 all of the parties represented before the Committee 9 today. 10 10:42 11 END OF QUESTIONING OF MS. McMANUS BY THE COMMISSION 12 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 14 Mr. O'Moore, just before we 15 begin, let me get another thing out of the way. We 10:42 16 received extra information in the form of documentary 17 material in the middle of last week and certainly from 18 our point of view we don't want to interrupt things or 19 get bogged down into a detailed investigation, but we 20 would like, please, to have an affidavit dealing with 10:43 21 the circumstances in which that material came to light, 22 who had custody of it, how it was dealt with and how it 23 came to be sent to us. 24 25 Now, we don't want, again, to be unreasonable about 10:43 26 this, so whenever this session finishes today, 27 tomorrow, whenever it does, we would think that a week 28 from then would be reasonable, if you have any 29 difficulties about that perhaps you would come back to 12 1 us. 2 MR. O'MOORE: Yes, sir. I am aware of 3 the fact that documentation 4 was provided last week, quite a small quantity of 5 documentation. I appreciate the Commission's attitude 10:43 6 in not disrupting the evidence of Ms. McManus today and 7 over the next few days. Mr. MacMahon for the 8 Commission has been kind enough to let me know 9 informally this morning that you were likely to take 10 the approach that you required a further affidavit of 10:43 11 discovery and of course that will be forthcoming in the 12 time scale stipulated by the Commission, sir. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. If there is a 14 difficulty about that come 15 back to us, but we would prefer it to be fuller rather 10:44 16 than rushed. 17 MR. O'MOORE: It is something that 18 Ms. McManus was prepared to 19 address in her evidence today and the time scale you 20 suggest will, I think, give us adequate time to provide 10:44 21 the sort of detail that you require. If we have a 22 problem we will get back to the solicitor for the 23 Commission. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Thank you very 25 much. Now, Mr. Hanratty. 10:44 26 MR. HANRATTY: Thank you, sir. 27 28 29 13 1 2 MS. BRIDGET McMANUS WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 3 MR. HANRATTY: 4 5 7 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Ms. McManus, my name is 10:44 6 Patrick Hanratty senior 7 counsel and I am instructed by the Christian Brothers, 8 but I am acting today in the capacity of amicus curiae, 9 as it were, or by analogy to that function for the 10 purposes of the Commission. 10:44 11 12 I want to ask you just very briefly, first of all, 13 arising from your introduction as to how long in total 14 you have been in the Department of Education? 15 A. I joined the Department of Education as Secretary 10:44 16 General on 31st January 2005, so about 18 months. 17 8 Q. Yes. Therefore, as you have pointed out, you are 18 relying, for whatever assistance you can give to the 19 Commission, on a review of documentation and 20 conversations you have had with others within the 10:45 21 Department? 22 A. That's right, a review of documentation done by staff 23 and some documentary counsel and some discussions 24 largely related to more recent events. 25 9 Q. Just to be clear, you obviously, because of the time 10:45 26 that you started in the Department of Education, have 27 no direct experience yourself of any of the matters the 28 subject matter in this Inquiry in relation to the 29 Department of Education? 14 1 A. That's the case. I was for two years dealing with the 2 Department of Education from a public expenditure point 3 of view in the Department of Finance. 4 10 Q. Would that also have been in the relatively recent 5 past? 10:45 6 A. In November 1978 to January 1980. 7 11 Q. In what capacity? 8 A. I was an administrative officer in the Department of 9 Finance. 10 12 Q. Did you, in that capacity, have anything to do with the 10:45 11 funding of industrial schools. 12 A. Insofar as there would have been any requests for 13 increase in capitation grant in that period I would 14 have had some involvement. My only recollection is a 15 Statutory Instrument which would have been approved at 10:46 16 the end of December, I think, 1978, where it would have 17 been necessary for the three Ministers to sign a 18 statutory instrument that set out the funding, the 19 Minister for Health, the Minister for finance and 20 Minister for Education. 10:46 21 13 Q. Yes. Are there any senior civil servants in the 22 Department of Education at this point in time who do 23 have experience of the management of the particular 24 branch responsible for industrial and reform schools? 25 A. Only insofar as that they would currently have 10:46 26 responsibility, what responsibilities we have in 27 reformatory schools, but not for the period. 28 14 Q. Not for the period in question? 29 A. In question. 15 1 15 Q. I understand. I am going to ask you some questions, if 2 I may, just to explain my structure about oversight and 3 then funding and then a number of matters, very briefly 4 specifically referable to the Christian Brothers. But 5 before I do that and to put it in context, I just want 10:47 6 to ask you about the children and the categories of 7 children that we are speaking about. It is recorded in 8 the Cussen Report and various other reports which are 9 contained in the documentation, including the 10 Department of Education documentation, that by and 10:47 11 large we are talking about children who were 12 disadvantaged in one way or the other. We are dealing 13 with -- first of all, we are dealing with orphans; 14 isn't that right? 15 A. That's right, yes. 10:47 16 16 Q. We are dealing with children who, for reasons of lack 17 of supervision or lack of care from their parents, 18 found themselves being put through the system and being 19 cared for in industrial schools? 20 A. That's right, yes. 10:47 21 17 Q. We are dealing with children who were offenders or 22 engaged in criminal activity and came through the 23 criminal courts? 24 A. Yes. 25 18 Q. Isn't that right? 10:48 26 A. That's right. 27 19 Q. In all cases, did these children find themselves, in 28 the first instance, going through the system, being 29 referred through the court system to industrial 16 1 schools? 2 A. Well, as I understand it, the children for whom we had 3 responsibility in the Department of Education would 4 have been committed by the court system in terms of 5 under either the various provisions of the Children Act 10:48 6 or the School Attendance Act. There would also have 7 been children placed in those institutions through the 8 local authority system and accepted into those 9 institutions under the system, whereby some of those 10 industrial schools would also have been approved 10:48 11 schools for the purpose of those placements. And there 12 was a third category who would be put in a voluntary 13 capacity, as I understand it. 14 20 Q. But they did not also go through the court system for 15 referral to the industrial school or was there a 10:49 16 separate system of referral? 17 A. As I understand it, it was also possible for somebody 18 to go to one of these institutions and place a child in 19 their relative or friends. I am not aware that there 20 was a significant number of those children, but as I 10:49 21 understand it, our papers would suggest they could be 22 placed in that fashion also. 23 21 Q. If you are correct in that, presumably there would be 24 children who for various, presumably financial, 25 circumstances their parents or guardians were unable to 10:49 26 care for them? 27 A. I assume so. 28 22 Q. I mentioned three categories; I mentioned orphans, 29 neglected children and children who were involved in 17 1 offending. There was another category which you 2 yourself just mentioned, namely children who were 3 involved in truancy from school, they also -- that was 4 a reason for the presence of a substantial number of 5 children in industrial schools in Ireland historically; 10:49 6 is that right? 7 A. That's right, there were committals. They would have 8 also been committed under the Act in terms of, I 9 suppose you could put it as, a guardianship type issue, 10 where their guardian wasn't ensuring they were going to 10:50 11 school. 12 23 Q. Yes. In general, under the industrial school system as 13 it existed, and I am taking the period from, say, the 14 foundation of the State 1922 up until 1999, which is 15 the end of the period, the period with which the 10:50 16 Commission is specifically concerned with under its 17 terms of reference is 1933 to 1999, but during the 18 entire period up to 1999, we'll say up to after the 19 Kennedy Report, I think it is true to say that the 20 system as such did not discriminate between these 10:50 21 categories of children or make any distinction between 22 them? 23 A. They were some distinctions, for example, in funding, 24 there was a different rate of funding paid, for 25 example, in the reformatory schools. So there would 10:50 26 have been on the basis that the offending children, 27 certainly of the older age group, would have been 28 committed to reformatory schools. There was a 29 distinction in terms of funding. 18 1 24 Q. Was that for any particular reason or was it just 2 arbitrary historical reasons? 3 A. I am not aware that it was. There were different rates 4 of funding for different categories of children at an 5 earlier point as well, for different age groups for 10:51 6 children whose parents fell into different categories 7 and the reformatory one seems to have been maintained 8 up into, I think, the 1970's when it was -- there was 9 an equal capitation. 10 25 Q. There is, for example, as you are probably aware in the 10:51 11 documentation, reference to the fact that for a period 12 there was no provision for children under six years of 13 age and then at some point in time provision was made 14 for children under six years of age, albeit at a lesser 15 rate than children who were over six years of age? 10:51 16 A. Yes. 17 26 Q. But apart from the question of funding in terms of the 18 capitation grant, we will come back to this in more 19 detail in a moment, would it be true to say that the 20 system didn't really make any distinction between these 10:52 21 various categories of children, in terms of the 22 services that were provided or made available for their 23 care? 24 A. I think on individual -- I think it is probably fair to 25 say that on the general categorisation it doesn't seem 10:52 26 to have. I think it is clear when one looks at some of 27 the individual correspondence, for example in terms of 28 recognising a special school, for example, in Daingean, 29 there would have been a recognition that perhaps some 19 1 of the institutions had different special educational 2 needs. But I think it is fair to say that was done on 3 an institution basis, rather than a category of 4 children basis. 5 27 Q. But that would have been after the Kennedy Report, I 10:52 6 take it? 7 A. No, the discussions on the special school, for example, 8 in Daingean would have been in the 1960's. 9 28 Q. If we can just talk for a moment about the industrial 10 schools. Was there any differentiation made between 10:53 11 these categories of children so far as the care that 12 was provided in the industrial school system? 13 A. Not to my knowledge, from the Department's perspective. 14 29 Q. From the Department's perspective, they were aware, I 15 take it, that when admitted the children were streamed 10:53 16 in terms of accommodation by reference to their age and 17 in terms of education in general by reference to their 18 degree of educational achievement; is that fair? 19 A. Yes. Well, the courts would have effectively -- any 20 Resident Manager, the manager of the school, decided to 10:53 21 accept a child or not accept a child and the court then 22 committed them to that institution. 23 30 Q. Yes. Just to put it in perspective, for example, in 24 1954 the Christian Brothers took an initiative where 25 they decided that they wanted to segregate children who 10:53 26 were offenders from children who were admitted for 27 different reasons, essentially admitted for reasons of 28 deprivation or social disadvantage, and they didn't 29 want these children mixing with children who were 20 1 admitted through the courts specifically for having 2 been involved in criminal activity. You are aware of 3 the correspondence in relation to that? 4 A. Yes. Yes. 5 31 Q. That was, I suppose, the most clear distinction that 10:54 6 needed to be made within the system of the difference 7 between children or the undesirability or otherwise of 8 mixing children who came for those reasons with 9 children who were there for other reasons; isn't that 10 right? 10:54 11 A. Well, I think that's assuming that it would have been 12 accepted at the time that that was a desirable thing to 13 do. I mean, I think, for example, you had senior 14 people in Ferryhouse at the time would have had a view 15 there was a benefit in having children mix. There was 10:54 16 certainly a view, I think, in terms of the public, 17 precisely in the context of that decision on 18 Letterfrack that it would be better to have children 19 able to attend a school near their family and that that 20 benefit, if you like, was better than the benefit of 10:55 21 separating out the children. And I suppose what would 22 have been in the consciousness of people is that 23 perhaps certainly in the earlier period, the difference 24 between the children who were committed because of 25 neglect, if you like, and the children who were 10:55 26 committed sometimes for, I think, probably what we 27 would now regard as reasonably offences for which you 28 might give a Probation Act or whatever nowadays, that 29 perhaps there might not have been, certainly in the 21 1 earlier period, a starker difference between the 2 category of children and that may have influenced a 3 different view. 4 5 So, while I think very much now we would have a view 10:55 6 that the kind of children for whom it is considered 7 desirable or that there is no option but custodial care 8 because they are offenders and the kind of children who 9 need to be cared for because of family circumstances 10 should be treated very separately. 10:56 11 12 I am not sure there was that consensus at the time 13 generally. I mean, the Christian Brothers had one 14 view, others appear to have had a different view. 15 32 Q. Well, taking the period between 1933 and, say, the year 10:56 16 of the Kennedy Report, 1970, you are obviously quite 17 correct that there were varying views expressed, was 18 there any view in the Department of Education on this 19 topic? 20 A. Insofar as we can tell from the papers, no, there 10:56 21 wasn't a view. They seemed to have seen it as being a 22 matter for the individual managers. Insofar as they 23 had a view, I think it is probably fair to say that it 24 was more on the side of trying to make representations 25 in order to keep children near their family home. In 10:57 26 other words, to -- I think they certainly were 27 involved, if I recall, in trying to have either Glynn 28 or Tralee used as -- allowed to continue to take 29 offenders in order that children wouldn't be further 22 1 from home in Letterfrack. But I would not say that any 2 of our papers show that there was any great 3 consideration of the issue from the point of view of 4 was it a good idea or not a good idea to have a mixture 5 of the children in the schools at the time. 10:57 6 33 Q. I think it is true to say that there did come a point 7 in time where the Department took the view that it was 8 undesirable? 9 A. It was, yes. 10 34 Q. Can you identify when that point in time was? 10:57 11 A. Certainly around about the time of the Kennedy Report 12 it is very clear that, and even in the lead up to the 13 Kennedy Report, that there was a view that there should 14 be an a separation of functions into what they saw as 15 preventative care, if you like, for some offenders and 10:58 16 into rehabilitative type care on the industrial school 17 side and a very clear separation after Kennedy into 18 special schools and detention centres. I think that 19 was probably there through the 1960's, in fact, or the 20 origins of it was there through the 1960's. 10:58 21 35 Q. Yes. Looking at the very detailed statement from the 22 Department generally and the opening statement that you 23 have delivered here this morning, both of these 24 statements are, if I may say so, contrite and contain 25 significant recognition of shortfalls in the discharge 10:58 26 by the Department of its statutory functions so far as 27 children were concerned in this period of time. The 28 shortcomings that have been identified, as I understand 29 it, and please correct me if I am wrong, fall under the 23 1 general headings of, on the one hand, oversight and, on 2 the other hand, funding; is that right? 3 A. That's right, yeah. 4 36 Q. In your detailed statement, on page two you say on 5 behalf of the Department: 10:59 6 "The Department is conscious that there were significant failures in relation 7 to its responsibilities to the children involved, which the Department deeply 8 regrets." 9 10 It would appear from the documents that have been 10:59 11 appended to your statement that at various points in 12 time there were recognitions within the Department 13 contemporaneously of the shortcomings in the manner in 14 which their responsibilities were being discharged; is 15 that fair? 10:59 16 A. I think it is certainly fair that, for example, to take 17 the funding, that there was a recognition that the 18 funding was not adequate and that the Department had 19 not been successful in getting greater funding. I 20 think there was also a recognition at times on the 11:00 21 regulatory side that perhaps there were some gaps that 22 needed to be filled in. But I think in fairness on the 23 inspection function it is more a retrospective judgment 24 looking back that there was any contemporaneous 25 recognition that there was a difficulty in the 11:00 26 inspection function, until we get to Kennedy and the 27 Kennedy Report. 28 37 Q. Well, does it follow from that that, for example, in 29 respect of inspection, which was the main methodology 24 1 of the Department exercising its oversight functions, 2 there was no contemporaneous recognition at any time 3 that the discharge of that function was inadequate, or 4 have you identified anything in the documents to 5 suggest that there was a recognition of those 11:01 6 inadequacies? 7 A. I think there were certain periods, for example, after 8 the Cussen Report it was identified that there was a 9 need for a medical inspector, there was then a 10 medicated inspector recruited in 1939. There was also 11:01 11 in the discussions, if I recall, in the 12 Interdepartmental Committee in 1962 a recognition that 13 perhaps there was a need for a second administrative 14 inspector at the time, that additional inspector 15 functions would be useful. But I am not sure that 11:01 16 there was anything else that I am aware of. 17 38 Q. Yes. In the paper, which I think you have probably 18 seen, written by Seamus O Cianeide after the Kennedy 19 Report, he describes the system of childcare in Ireland 20 as "Victorian in philosophy and in practice." Would 11:02 21 you agree with that description of the system up until, 22 say, the time of the Kennedy Report? 23 A. I haven't got that paper, I am afraid. Is it in your 24 documents that you circulated, is it? 25 39 Q. Yes, I think it is. It is called "Deprived Children, 11:02 26 Decrepit Policies", its title is "Ian Harte Lecture by 27 Seamus O Cianeide, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth." He 28 makes those remarks under the heading...(INTERJECTION) 29 MR. O'MOORE: I don't think, in fact, 25 1 that is in the core book of 2 documents circulated by Maxwells, but perhaps a copy 3 could be given to the witness, you could arrange that. 4 40 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Yes, I will arrange that 5 and perhaps come back to it 11:02 6 because there is one or two other quotations that I 7 refer to. 8 9 (To the witness) But, in general, would you agree that 10 the system of childcare, residential childcare, or the 11:02 11 care of children from deprived backgrounds that we had 12 in this State up until some time after the Kennedy 13 Report was, in fact, Victorian? 14 A. Well, even though I have a degree in history in my 15 background, I am not sure exactly what Victorian means. 11:03 16 41 Q. We know that...(INTERJECTION) 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that a good thing or a 18 bad thing, Mr. Hanratty? 19 MR. HANRATTY: Well, I am not going to 20 make any judgment on it one 11:03 21 way or the other, sir. But I will put it to you this 22 way...(INTERJECTION) 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: He's maybe saying it is so 24 out of date, it is old 25 fashioned and it is terrible. 11:03 26 42 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Let's put it this way. 27 First of all, the 28 regulatory framework within which these children were 29 cared for was the Children's Act 1908; is that right? 26 1 A. That's right. 2 43 Q. When that act was passed, in fact, the system of 3 industrial schools was already in place in that there 4 were institutions run by the religious orders in this 5 country, including the Christian Brothers, to which 11:03 6 these children were being sent; is that right? 7 A. Yes, established under the 19th Century legislation. 8 44 Q. Which, in part at least, substantially, I thin, in 9 fact, the Children's Act 1908 replaced? 10 A. That's right. 11:04 11 45 Q. This was a system of institution care of referrals of 12 these children primarily through the court system; is 13 that so? 14 A. I am not sure what the balance of numbers that came 15 through the court system and from the local authorities 11:04 16 but insofar as the Department of Education was 17 concerned, yes, primarily through the court system. 18 46 Q. Essentially the system of oversight that existed prior 19 to Independence, in other words, the civil service 20 system that existed prior to that was continued after 11:04 21 1922; is that right? 22 A. That's right, as with most systems, yes. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: There was actually a very 24 good system of inspection 25 beforehand. 11:04 26 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry? 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Before Independence there 28 was a very -- this is why I 29 quibble, lest I appear to be promoting the Victorian 27 1 standards. In fact, before Independence there was a 2 good system of inspection. 3 47 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Yes. But in its 4 organisation, whatever 5 about its effectiveness, it was essentially unchanged; 11:05 6 is that right? 7 A. It was unchanged in its legal base, or the substance of 8 it was unchanged in its legal base. I think there were 9 changes made, for example, like the medical inspector 10 that followed on the Cussen review. But if you are 11:05 11 asking me is the system by which you say how the 12 Department regulated it is a system of inspection that 13 principle remained unchanged, indeed it probably 14 remains unchanged up to this day. And on the funding 15 side the system of a capitation grant was the system, 11:05 16 even if it changed in terms of some of its structures, 17 a system of funding by capitation means remained 18 unchanged. A system by which, in fact, the State saw 19 itself as putting the children into the care of largely 20 religious institutions and for which it had a 11:06 21 regulatory function and a funding function but regarded 22 the children as in the care of the institutions 23 remained relatively unchanged from the 19th Century as 24 well. 25 48 Q. Would you agree with me that so far as the care of 11:06 26 children is concerned, that the function of the State 27 goes somewhat beyond a mere regulatory function, in 28 that ultimate responsibility for the care of these 29 children rested with the State? 28 1 A. Yes, responsibility for the children, the State, as I 2 think I said in my opening statement, if you like, had 3 chosen to take these children away from their natural 4 guardians and place them in the guardianship of 5 somebody else and therefore they had a responsibility 11:07 6 to ensure that the way the children were cared for in 7 that guardianship was correct, was proper for the 8 children. So, the State's function was to make sure 9 the system worked in the best interests of the 10 children. 11:07 11 12 But if you are asking me should the State have run 13 these themselves, I mean there are many instances where 14 the State takes responsibility and allows that 15 responsibility to be exercised by somebody else and 11:07 16 controls the quality by a regulatory system, that's not 17 an unusual model, even in the current day. 18 49 Q. Well, there are two things I suppose, the first thing 19 is the responsibility and the second thing is the 20 manner in which the responsibility is discharged. In 11:07 21 your opening statement this morning you said that: 22 "The State had a clear responsibility to ensure that that care that these 23 children received was appropriate to their needs." 24 25 11:08 26 A. Yes. 27 50 Q. 28 "Responsibility for ensuring this lay with the Department of Education, whose 29 role it was to approve, regulate, inspect and fund these institutions." 29 1 2 It is of course true to stay that the State could have 3 discharged this responsibilities to these children in 4 many other ways, for example, by having its own 5 directly run institutions; isn't that so? 11:08 6 A. That's the case. 7 51 Q. In this instance, the manner in which the State chose 8 to discharge its responsibilities to these children was 9 to delegate the task of caring for them in institutions 10 owned by essentially private entities, primarily 11:08 11 religious institutions and some private trusts? 12 A. Yes. I think that is the case, but the case is, I 13 think, one has to look at that in a context that some 14 of these institutions were already taking such 15 children, even if you look at prior to 19th Century 11:08 16 legislation, so it was a situation where there were 17 institutions and trusts caring for deprived children in 18 a sense and that system, if you like, was expanded in 19 the context of the court committing children to it. 20 52 Q. Would you accept that that responsibility involved a 11:09 21 responsibility to ensure that all of the needs of these 22 children, whatever they may have been, were cared for? 23 A. Yes. 24 53 Q. The care being provided by these institution, and I am 25 talking generally in the country now, consisted 11:09 26 primarily in looking after their physical well being in 27 terms of providing food and clothing and accommodation; 28 is that right? 29 A. That's right, certainly up to a certain period, yes. 30 1 54 Q. And quite separately from that, education for which 2 there was a separate stream of responsibility, as it 3 were? 4 A. Yes. 5 55 Q. The State, through its inspectorate, through the 11:09 6 Department of Education, was aware of the level of care 7 that was being provided in all these institutions in 8 the State during this entire period; isn't that so? 9 A. Yes. 10 56 Q. The inspectorate was, in the first instance, the 11:10 11 industrial schools inspectorate and, secondly, there 12 was an education inspectorate as part of the normal 13 national school education inspectorate as well? 14 A. That's right. 15 57 Q. The industrial schools inspectorate was the interface 11:10 16 between the Department of Education and these 17 institutions and the channel through which it obtained 18 information and provided instruction or guidance; isn't 19 that right? 20 A. That's the case, yes. 11:10 21 58 Q. These inspections would be done -- under the 1908 Act 22 there was a minimum requirement that they would take 23 place at least once per annum; is that so? 24 A. That was the legal requirement, yes. 25 59 Q. Through those inspections the Department would inform 11:10 26 itself about all aspects of the care of these children, 27 is that right, or at least so the theory would go? 28 A. (WITNESS NODS). 29 60 Q. Including their food, their clothing, their 31 1 supervision, all aspects of their life, their 2 recreation and their accommodation? 3 A. That's right. 4 61 Q. And also, within that particular inspectorate would be 5 responsibility for the Department informing itself with 11:11 6 regard to the industrial training that these boys and 7 girls were supposed to be having; isn't that so? 8 A. Certainly for some consciousness of it. Though it is 9 also clear, I think, from our files that there was some 10 involvement of our technical instruction branch, which 11:11 11 would have been a branch that dealt with some of the 12 vocational training. Now, that would have been more to 13 do with trade training within the second level system, 14 but it is certainly clear in some instances, and 15 obviously we can only go by some of the paperwork 11:11 16 that's there, that there were inspectors from that 17 technical instruction branch involved. But there is 18 actually very little on our files about what the 19 Department did about the industrial training. 20 62 Q. Well, would you accept that, in fact, it did very 11:12 21 little? 22 A. I would, insofar as we can tell from the papers, yes. 23 63 Q. The idea in industrial schools was that children who 24 were referred through the court systems primarily would 25 be cared for, would be educated and would be trained or 11:12 26 receive some form of what they characterise as 27 industrial training, so that when the time came for 28 them to leave they would be eligible to take up 29 employment in some capacity? 32 1 A. Yes. I think it is also clear in the early days from 2 the file, and that's probably truer of the 19th Century 3 origins of it, that there was a concept of 4 self-sufficiency as well so that part of the, if you 5 like, trade training was to do with producing clothing 11:13 6 for the children, as well, for example, in the choice 7 of some of the trades. 8 64 Q. Yes, but leaving that 19th Century industrial school 9 concept aside, there was undoubtedly as part of the 10 normal care of these children and the normal upbringing 11:13 11 of these children, which in effect what these 12 institutions were doing, a clear need for some form of 13 preparation for life after they left these schools? 14 A. Yes. 15 65 Q. So that they could function effectively in the outside 11:13 16 world and in the employment market? 17 A. Yes. 18 66 Q. The evidence appears to suggest in the documentation 19 that, in fact, the Department of Education didn't 20 provide any separate funding for that form of training; 11:13 21 is that right? 22 A. Yes, I think the capitation grant was always intended 23 to cover the totality, if you like. At a certain point 24 the primary education element was separated out, in the 25 1940's. But the balance of the funds, the capitation 11:14 26 grant was intended to cover the industrial training 27 element as well, and, indeed, I think there is 28 reference in some of the circulars that would have 29 issued at different stages on capitation rate increase, 33 1 about improving equipment, for example, on the 2 industrial training side. 3 67 Q. Yes. In fact, on the industrial training side the 4 costs arise, I suppose, under two headings; the first 5 heading would be the payment of the teachers who were 11:14 6 providing this training and the second heading would be 7 the purchase of equipment for the purpose of the 8 training. Just taking each of them in turn, I think it 9 is true to say that there was no provision other than 10 through the medium of the capitation grant for the 11:14 11 payment of teachers involved in employment training or 12 industrial training; isn't that so? 13 A. Yes, unless there was some provision for VEC teachers 14 in certain areas to provide some teaching that would 15 fall, I suppose, somewhere between the education system 11:15 16 and the industrial training system and they were 17 usually paid for by the VEC, but for the bulk of the 18 crafts men, if you like, that would have been training 19 the VEC children no, there was no separate provision 20 for salaries. 11:15 21 68 Q. Yes. The Cussen Report, I think, in the 1930's, 22 recommended the payment for teachers involved in 23 education; isn't that right? 24 A. That's right. 25 69 Q. And it did take a number of years for that particular 11:15 26 recommendation to be implemented; isn't that so? 27 A. Yes, it was implemented initially partially during the 28 1940's, in that the full amount of the salary was not 29 paid and then the full amount was paid. 34 1 70 Q. But even then there was no separate provision for the 2 payment of teachers involved in industrial training or 3 in employment training; isn't that so? 4 A. No, there was no -- if you are talking about the kind 5 of supervising of workshops or the head cook, or 11:15 6 whatever, baker in that, there was no provision for 7 those types of things. 8 71 Q. It is also clear, is it not, that there was no 9 provision for the provision of equipment for the 10 purpose of this type of training, whether it be 11:16 11 carpentry tools or any other form of trades? 12 A. Other than for the brief period in the 1940's, where 13 there was a capital -- a separate capital grant scheme, 14 which was a very short period, where some of that could 15 have come under it, as I understand, there was no 11:16 16 provision. 17 72 Q. In its inspectorate system the Department would have 18 been familiar with the fact that, for example, in the 19 case of the Christian Brother, and I think this applies 20 to a greater or lesser extent to most of the Orders who 11:16 21 were involved in this work, that essential these Orders 22 were trained as teachers and didn't really have any 23 other form of training? 24 A. Yes, certainly even before the separation out of the 25 primary teaching and the school and the recognised 11:17 26 school issue there was certainly a rep, the staff in 27 the institutions were referred to as teachers as such, 28 even though some of them would not have been qualified 29 teachers. 35 1 73 Q. Yes. But it would have been within the knowledge of 2 the inspectorate that these people were being trained 3 as teachers from fairly young ages, as it turns out, 4 but they were being trained as teachers and not being 5 trained in any other capacity; isn't that so? 11:17 6 A. Insofar, I mean, insofar as the staff in the 7 institutions were trained it was generally teacher 8 training they had. 9 74 Q. They were required to provide the services of not just 10 the teachers, but they were required to discharge the 11:17 11 function as well of caring for these children outside 12 school hours, obviously? 13 A. Yes. 14 75 Q. And I take it, and it seems fairly clear from the 15 documentation, the Department would have been aware 11:18 16 implicitly that these people had no separate training 17 in childcare at any time prior to the Kennedy Report, 18 for example? 19 A. I think probably there was evidence of some interaction 20 at the inspection level about childcare training in the 11:18 21 1960's, in terms of some of the inspectors requiring of 22 the institutions what training had some of their staff. 23 But yes, if you take Kennedy as covering a sort of lead 24 in period to Kennedy. 25 76 Q. The Department itself didn't make any funding or other 11:18 26 provision available or even training itself available 27 to teachers in any of these schools to equip them for 28 specifically childcare? 29 A. No, the Department was not involved in childcare 36 1 training up to the 1971 course. 2 77 Q. And didn't provide any funding for the provision of 3 childcare training by the religious orders themselves? 4 A. To the best of my knowledge, no. There was an attempt 5 in the 1940's to run a course which was probably more 11:19 6 nutrition and management than it was childcare as such. 7 The Department looked for funding for that from the 8 Department of Finance and it was turned down. I think 9 that's probably the only example. I think there might 10 have been one other occasion on which there was some 11:19 11 small amount of money for some course but it wouldn't 12 have been a childcare one and I can't quite remember 13 it. 14 78 Q. I suppose really the most important point is that 15 certainly again up until some time after the Kennedy 11:19 16 Report the Department did not make any requirement on 17 any of these institutions that the people involved in 18 childcare should have some form of childcare training? 19 A. No. 20 79 Q. The Department of course were also aware that the 11:20 21 manner in which most of these, most if not all of 22 these, institutions were run was on the basis of a 23 strict institutional regime, where relatively small 24 numbers of staff were caring for varying but relatively 25 large numbers of inmates; is that right? 11:20 26 A. I assume so. 27 80 Q. In which a corporal punishment, to a greater or lesser 28 extent, was an important part in keeping control and 29 keeping discipline? 37 1 A. I think in fairness the Department's guidelines on 2 corporal punishment would have very much seen it as a 3 last resort. But clearly from the inspection reports 4 and the fact that Punishment Books had to be kept they 5 were aware that there was corporal punishment. 11:20 6 81 Q. Yes. Can I just ask you to tell us briefly about the 7 infrastructure within the Department or the Department 8 within the Department that was responsibile for these 9 schools, I think it was called the INR branch? 10 A. Yes. 11:21 11 82 Q. Or the Industrial and Reformatory school branch. Would 12 you just give a brief description of the staffing of 13 that branch, say from the 1930's onwards? 14 A. Is it okay if I find it? 15 83 Q. By all means, yes. 11:21 16 A. If we take the industrial and reformatory branch, at 17 various times there was an administrative official who 18 was designated as the superintendent or inspector, he 19 was generally assistant principal who would have 20 reported to a principal and assistant secretary but 11:21 21 obviously the principal and assistant secretary would 22 have had other functions besides the industrial and 23 reformatory issues. 24 25 If we take from 1933, and Tom's directory is what we 11:22 26 are relying on here, there are three names listed in 27 the branch, there was the administrative head, there 28 was Margaret O'Neill who was an assistant inspector and 29 Martin Whelan who was a junior executive officer. We 38 1 also know from other documentation later on that there 2 would have also been some clerical support. 3 4 In 1943 there was a supervisor, a medical inspector and 5 a couple of staff officers, clerical support 11:22 6 stenographers. I think it is probably fair to say 7 there was no great change up to 1960. 8 9 1966 we have an assistant principal, a higher executive 10 officer, a medical inspector. 11:22 11 12 I think, by and large, in the period you can take it 13 there was somebody broadly at assistant principal 14 level, somebody else on the administrative side, some 15 clerical support and a medical inspector. 11:23 16 84 Q. Yes. I think on page 14 there is a reference to a 1966 17 survey which noted that there was no change in staff 18 between 1943 and 1960; is that right? 19 A. Yes. 20 85 Q. Just in terms of pure numbers, how many staff were in 11:23 21 the INR section? 22 A. Eight staff. 23 86 Q. Yes. That included the inspectors, did it? 24 A. That include the inspectors. Sorry, that included the 25 industrial and reformatory branch inspectors, obviously 11:23 26 the school inspectorate and the primary branch would 27 have dealt with the primary schools in the 28 institutions. But if we take everything except the 29 primary schools in the institutions that was the staff. 39 1 87 Q. You note in your detailed statement that these 2 inspections that were carried out by these inspectors 3 were largely, I think the word you used was, 4 impressionistic? 5 A. Well, yes, in the sense that I think the question was 11:24 6 asked indeed by the Commission -- in terms of one of 7 the questions they asked was there a pass or a fail as 8 such. So, when we say impressionistic is that the 9 characteristics, there wasn't a marking system as such, 10 it was said that something was excellent, good, fair. 11:24 11 So, if you like the classification wasn't done on a 12 sort of formal marking system grid. I think it is 13 probably fair to say on the medical side it was in 14 terms of things like assessing the weight gain of 15 children, and things like that, it was far from 11:24 16 impressionistic, it was fairly well done by measuring 17 weights and recording and medical examinations. But 18 when I say impressionistic, it is that there wasn't a 19 formal marking, scoring system. 20 88 Q. Yes. You freely acknowledge in your documents that the 11:25 21 inspection system was inadequately implemented? 22 A. Yes. 23 89 Q. To the extent that it didn't even meet the minimum 24 requirements of the 1908 Act; is that right? 25 A. Under the 1908 Act every school should have been 11:25 26 inspected every year and it is clear that did not 27 happen. 28 90 Q. In fact, I think the actual requirement was that they 29 be inspected at least once a year? 40 1 A. At least once a year. 2 91 Q. Envisaging perhaps a more frequent inspection might 3 have been appropriate? 4 A. That's right. We are going on the written inspection 5 reports. I mean, it's clear that's what we are, if you 11:25 6 like, regarding as formal inspections where we have a 7 record of an inspection report. It is clear from some 8 of the other documentation that inspectors did call to 9 schools, if you like, other than for inspections, there 10 may have been other contacts. And there may, indeed, 11:25 11 have been some inspection reports of which we are not 12 aware of or not have a record. But based on the 13 written inspection reports that we have, which is what 14 we are dealing with as the formal inspections, it is 15 clear that all schools were not done every year. 11:26 16 92 Q. Yes. You have done a considerable amount of detail on 17 this very point and I will just ask you to briefly 18 outline the extent of the shortfall in the inspections 19 that were, in fact, done. 20 A. Is it okay if I...(INTERJECTION). 11:26 21 93 Q. Yes, by all means. 22 A. In the written statement we have given a detailed table 23 which shows for each, but just in terms of getting the 24 sense of the average; in the 1940's if you took the 25 total number of schools, total number of inspections, 11:27 26 it worked out, I think, at .97 and that varied by 27 province. It was as low as .8 in some. In the 1950's 28 there was an average of 1.36 and in the 1960's that had 29 dropped to 2.78. But I think what has to be said, for 41 1 example, is that there was some years that were 2 actually no -- there was one year where there was no 3 inspection at all. 4 94 Q. Of any school? 5 A. Of any school. Sorry, let me just... 11:27 6 95 Q. I think that was 1975? 7 A. Yes. Within that inspection, for example, if we even 8 take the year in the 1940's where the frequency was 9 .97, I think we cited an example that, for example, 10 Baltimore would have had a number of inspections and 11:27 11 Artane has no inspection. Clearly that was to do with 12 some of the problems in Baltimore at the time but you 13 could have some years within those averages where some 14 schools had more than one inspection, even where the 15 inspections are up at over one per year per school are 11:28 16 the averages. 17 96 Q. If there was a problem in a particular school 18 presumably it might get an additional inspection? 19 A. We are assuming that's why that would happen. 20 97 Q. But when you are speaking of averages like .97 per 11:28 21 annum or .87 something per annum, what that means in 22 realistically is that in some years some schools were 23 not inspected at all, apart from the 1975 year, where 24 no school was inspected? 25 A. That's right, yes. It is clear on pulling out some of 11:28 26 the schools -- in fact, I think there is a table at 27 appendix D of the statement that would show that. 28 98 Q. Yes. In fact, I am instructed, you may or may not be 29 able to confirm it, in the case of Artane, for example, 42 1 there was one five year period during the 1950's when 2 there was no inspection. Would that be consistent with 3 what you have seen in the documents that you have 4 looked at? 5 A. If you would just give me a moment just to check the 11:29 6 table here. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: A five year period in the 8 1950's. 9 MR. HANRATTY: Yes, so I am instructed. 10 A. Yes, there is a period here -- well, on my records here 11:29 11 it is 1950, 1951 and 1952 where there was no 12 inspection. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: A three year period but not 14 a five year period. 15 99 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Yes. When these 11:29 16 inspections did occur, was 17 there a report produced? 18 A. Well, our statistics here are based on the actual 19 reports that we have. So, if you like, we have derived 20 our statistics. 11:29 21 100 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: If you don't have a report 22 you assume that there 23 wasn't an inspection? 24 A. We assume that there wasn't an inspection. 25 101 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: If you do have a report it 11:30 26 means there was an 27 inspection? 28 A. Yes. So we have derived the figure from the written 29 inspection reports that we have. That is not to say 43 1 that there might not have been visits or inspections 2 for which we have no written report, but from the 3 evidence we would have the system would seem to be that 4 the inspector would go out, would do either a general 5 or medical inspection or actually increasingly, I 11:30 6 think, most of them were done as combined general and 7 medical inspections, quite a lot of them were done in 8 that way, and they produce a report in a standard 9 format that the issues that were then raised would be 10 followed up administratively by a letter to the 11:30 11 institutions. We are assuming that for the purpose of 12 the Act that it was only the written reports here 13 represent inspections. 14 102 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Yes. And it is true to say 15 that one sees in these 11:30 16 reports where the inspectors identified shortcomings 17 and made recommendations to the school managers as to 18 improvements that could be made, but ultimately were 19 constrained by the fact that they themselves were not 20 in a position to provide any additional funding for any 11:31 21 of the necessary improvements that they were 22 recommending; is that right? 23 A. Well I think there were some of the recommendations 24 they made where the managers response were they could 25 not make those improvements because of the constraint 11:31 26 of funding. There were quite a number of the 27 recommendations that were made where you know from 28 follow up that the inspector is quite happy the school 29 carried through the recommendations that would have 44 1 been made. So, I think there are a mix of -- you 2 mentioned, I think Artane, yourself earlier, for 3 example, there certainly is one report where there were 4 recommendations made about physical changes to the 5 building and where the manager responded that he had 11:31 6 done a certain amount but couldn't do any more because 7 of constraints in funding. 8 9 It is certainly clear in some of the correspondence 10 with the Department of Finance on the funding side of 11:32 11 things that the Department felt there were some of the 12 improvements they were recommending -- their inspectors 13 were recommending that it was very difficult for them 14 to recommend because of the underfunding. But it is 15 quite clear, for example, that a lot of the 11:32 16 recommendations on food, diet, for example, or clothing 17 that were being made by the inspectors that the 18 inspectors felt could be perfectly well be done within 19 the existing allocations or other suggestions they were 20 making that they felt were suggestions that could be 11:32 21 done without funding constraint and indeed that the 22 managers didn't seem to have a problem doing. They 23 were not coming back and saying they couldn't do it 24 because of funding. 25 103 Q. Yes. But many of the recommendations they were making 11:32 26 related to buildings, kitchen facilities, dormitories 27 and toilets and things like that, which required 28 capital expenditure? 29 A. Some, many implies it is quite a lot of the percentage. 45 1 While we have not done an analysis of the reports, I 2 wouldn't have the impression and I have to say that's 3 completely impressionistic on my part, that one would 4 say the bulk of the recommendations were to do with the 5 capital. There were some recommendation that were to 11:33 6 do with the physical environment that would have 7 required investment. 8 104 Q. The Commission, and you may not be familiar with it, 9 has heard evidence over a long period of time, much of 10 which suggested that in various schools the physical 11:33 11 environment was inadequate or out of date, old 12 fashioned, needed improvement, needed toilets, needed 13 kitchens and improvements in physical accommodation 14 facilities generally and that was not uncommon, I think 15 it is fair to say. This is something of which the 11:33 16 inspectors would have been aware? 17 A. That's right, yes. 18 105 Q. And they would have been aware that in order to put 19 right these deficiencies to the extent that they were 20 regarded as deficiencies would have required in some 11:34 21 cases significant capital expenditure, which of course 22 was not forthcoming from the Department; isn't that 23 right? 24 A. The inspectors, I think it is very clear certainly for 25 the earlier period, would have regarded those capital 11:34 26 improvements as capital improvements they would have 27 expected the Orders to make. It is quite clear there 28 were discussions in some of the files about the local 29 bishop being approached, for example, or issues about 46 1 debts that the Orders had incurred or comments perhaps 2 that an Order wasn't able to get funding from its 3 parent Order. I think it is quite clear in some of the 4 later cases that the Department was aware that it would 5 be difficult to make those changes without funding from 11:34 6 the Department. So, I think it varied. 7 106 Q. Well...(INTERJECTION)? 8 A. But in all cases I agree with you that they were aware 9 that there was capital money required. Whether they 10 felt it should come from the Department or should come 11:35 11 from the Order varied. 12 107 Q. To the extent that it felt that it should come from the 13 Order and in view of a recognition, even 14 contemporaneously, that the per capita funding or the 15 capitation funding was less than what was required, on 11:35 16 what basis would the Department have taken the view, 17 perhaps the Department of Finance I am not sure, that 18 this capital funding should have come from the Orders 19 as opposed from the Department? 20 A. It is one of those issues that's always difficult to 11:35 21 comment on if you are looking back. I mean, it would 22 strike me, and I am being speculative to some extent, 23 that, first of all, it came from a view which, if you 24 like, was ingrained in how the whole history of these 25 schools, which is that the whole legislation 11:36 26 presupposed indeed our legislation was different to the 27 UK legislation, or the English legislation, in that it 28 didn't provide initially for local authorities to 29 provide the capital funding. So I think there was a 47 1 presupposition that there were Orders or trust or 2 people prepared for charity to, if you like, provide 3 these facilities and that the State would help out with 4 some of the costs. 5 11:36 6 I think when you got into a period when there was an 7 attempt in the 1940's to separate out into a sort of 8 some of the funding to be for capital works, I think it 9 is fair to say the Association of Resident Managers 10 wasn't that happy with how that capital system had 11:36 11 worked and that capital shilling was reincorporated 12 into the general capitation grant. Indeed, there was 13 correspondence at the time, I think, about that that 14 was done and requiring that the managers would sign off 15 that that meant they were fully responsible for 11:37 16 evermore for all the capital works and look after all 17 the capital works which I think the managers were not 18 happy to do, they thought it was going too far, if you 19 like. 20 11:37 21 I suspect there was a view, I think, that for a certain 22 part of the period that this was something the Orders 23 were doing and there was probably a view for a certain 24 period that the capitation grant incorporated money 25 towards the capital. 11:37 26 108 Q. I can't speak for the other Orders but I am aware, of 27 course, from the correspondence, some of which is in 28 your documents, that the Christian Brothers were 29 seeking capital grants from the Department for various 48 1 improvements in various schools and in most cases were 2 refused; is that right? 3 A. That's right. 4 109 Q. And that would indicate a view, whether it be in the 5 Department of Education or Finance, that this was a 11:38 6 matter for themselves? 7 A. I think that was the collective State view, yes. 8 110 Q. Yes. Going back to the question of inspections, 9 obviously there was one interpretation of it, a golden 10 era where there was a Dr. Anna McCabe, who was an 11:38 11 inspector, who because of the fact that she was a 12 doctor obviously took a particular interest in the 13 medical care that was being provided to children in 14 these institution; isn't that right? 15 A. There was a particular focus in her inspections on the 11:38 16 medical care and diet. 17 111 Q. In general there was a system of general inspections in 18 the industrial and reformatory school section and 19 general inspections and medical inspections; isn't that 20 right? 11:38 21 A. That's right. But the medical inspector Anna McCabe 22 would have done general inspections as well as medical 23 inspections. 24 112 Q. Indeed. And it seems to be consistently the case when 25 she went down to do her medical inspection she would 11:39 26 have done the general inspection as well? 27 A. That's right. 28 113 Q. It is quite obvious from her reports that she involved 29 herself with every aspect of the welfare of the 49 1 children in greater or lesser extent in various 2 schools, she discovered instances where she felt the 3 children were not being properly fed, she addressed 4 issues of diet, she took issues at various times with 5 various school managers over a whole range of issues; 11:39 6 is that right? 7 A. That's right. 8 114 Q. In particular in relation to the medical care of the 9 children, she was -- appears to have been particular 10 assiduous in assuring that they were medically examined 11:39 11 on a regular basis and that their weights were 12 monitored and their food was monitored and their 13 general medical wellbeing was documented properly? 14 A. Physical wellbeing I think in a kind of wider sense 15 because I think that the nutrition would have gone 11:39 16 wider than just the narrow medical, where they sick or 17 well, it would have been are they growing at the right 18 rate or are they putting on weight at the right rate so 19 she had a particular concern about their general 20 physical development. 11:40 21 115 Q. Yes. She was also appears to have been concern about 22 ensuring that proper medical records were being kept in 23 respect of these children? 24 A. Yes. 25 116 Q. And records in respect of these periodic inspections 11:40 26 and weighings that she wanted carried out; is that 27 right? 28 A. That's right. 29 117 Q. After Dr. McCabe left she wasn't replaced for 50 1 approximately ten years; is that right? 2 A. Well, you could argue there was no medical inspector, 3 if you like, ever replaced because there was a 4 childcare advisor, if you like, brought in, whose 5 qualifications would have been childcare rather than 11:40 6 medical. The inspections continued to be carried out, 7 were carried out by the administrative inspectors who 8 would have always done a certain number of 9 administrative inspections. 10 118 Q. Was there any reason why a medical inspector wasn't 11:41 11 appointed to replace the function which was obviously 12 being discharged by Dr. McCabe during the entire period 13 that she was there, which was from the late 1930's? 14 A. In 1939 to 1965. It is not clear from our records, I 15 assume there must have been some consideration given at 11:41 16 the time but we have no particular records to show why 17 she wasn't replaced. There were medical inspections 18 done on a one off basis, by Mr. Lyssot, who was retired 19 from the Department of Health at the time, in 1966 and 20 indeed, there is a report from him which was done for 11:41 21 the secretary and Minister of the day, where he has 22 clearly been asked is there a need for a full time 23 medical inspector and he voices the opinion that there 24 isn't, there wouldn't be sufficient work for a full 25 time medical inspector. In the period I suppose it is 11:41 26 also true that there were more medical inspections, if 27 you like, more medical services being done in terms of 28 some of the local health service interaction with the 29 institutions but we have not found any papers that 51 1 explicitly discussed or that discussed in anyway when 2 Anna McCabe left should there be another medical 3 inspector or any correspondence that shows that we 4 tried to fill the post or couldn't or that. So, we are 5 just not sure why she wasn't replaced. 11:42 6 119 Q. Always allowing for the possibility that we are missing 7 something and that we are relying heavily on 8 documentation, it does appear that after the departure 9 of Dr. McCabe the same level of attention was not paid 10 to the medical welfare of these children in these 11:42 11 institutions as had been when she was working in the 12 Department? 13 A. Well, I don't know that that's the case, because the 14 Department did receive quarterly medical reports, in 15 fact, which I think are all on our files, from the 11:43 16 institutions, from medical practitioners I think 17 attached to the institutions. 18 120 Q. These were the doctors providing treatment individually 19 in each institution? 20 A. These are quite detailed in the sense that they would 11:43 21 have covered individual pupils so there was quite a 22 degree of medical information coming into the 23 Department on the individual students. 24 121 Q. Did they not receive those while Dr. McCabe was there? 25 A. They would have for some of the end period. I think 11:43 26 the system would have started at some point during her 27 time. 28 122 Q. Does it appear, and not to be in any sense pejorative 29 about it, we are, after all, looking at historical 52 1 patterns, does it appear that anybody in the Department 2 addressed the issue and said, "it is not really 3 necessary to replace Dr. McCabe", or that there some 4 particular reason why she wasn't replaced? 5 A. No, we have no idea why she wasn't replaced. 11:43 6 123 Q. One of the points that you make in your statement is 7 that responsibility for various aspects of the care of 8 children was with different Departments, for example, 9 the Department of Justice dealt with the courts 10 obviously, the Department of Social Welfare dealt with 11:44 11 the question of fostering? 12 A. Health, I think for most. 13 124 Q. Health. One of the points that you make is that there 14 was no systematic or regular system of meetings among 15 these various Departments with responsibility for 11:44 16 children or no coordination of the roles of the various 17 Departments responsible for the care of children; is 18 that fair? 19 A. Yes, I think in response to a question we were asked 20 about what was the general contact between the 11:44 21 Departments, as far as we can tell from the papers it 22 was a periodic contact on particular issues or when 23 they were particular committees, like the Kennedy 24 committee or the interdepartmental committee but there 25 was no systematic contact. There was a contact on the 11:45 26 funding because of the Department of Health, there 27 would have been a contact because of the local 28 authority in paying the capitation grant and the 29 Department of Health would have had responsibility for 53 1 a certain period for that local authority function. 2 There was always a contact as far as we can see with 3 them when we were going to the Department of Finance 4 for increase in funds because of the implications for 5 the local authorities. But that's the only sort of 11:45 6 systematic contact there was. But on the care of the 7 children, no. 8 125 Q. The highest level of contact one sees, in fact, is 9 contacts by the Department of Education to the 10 Department of Finance looking for more money and being 11:45 11 refused. But the point I am really making is that 12 there doesn't appear to have been any coordination or 13 system of coordination of the views or the experiences 14 or of the oversight or management of all the 15 Departments with responsibility for any aspect of the 11:46 16 care of children during, say, the period 1930's until 17 1970's? 18 A. No, I mean, I think it is fair to say that was one of 19 the failures identified by or one of the issues 20 identified by the Kennedy Report that needed to be 11:46 21 address dressed, was a more coherent approach to the 22 whole childcare issue. 23 126 Q. Yes. I think both the Kennedy Report and indeed the 24 Cussen Report were both critical of the inspection 25 system, for example, in varying degrees? Both in terms 11:46 26 of the number of inspections and the quality of 27 inspections? 28 A. The Kennedy Report was. I think the Cussen Report just 29 felt there should be medical inspections which I think 54 1 is why the medical inspector was taken on in 1939. But 2 the Kennedy Report felt there was a need for more 3 inspectors. 4 127 Q. Was the appointment of Dr. McCabe as a result of the 5 recommendation in the Cussen Report? 11:47 6 A. Insofar as we can tell, yes. 7 128 Q. I understand. Is there any evidence in your review of 8 the documentation of any review on any kind of periodic 9 or regular basis of the Department's policy with regard 10 to the manner in which children in care were being 11:47 11 provided for and cared for? 12 A. Other than the reports of which you are aware of, there 13 was the Cussen Report, which obviously looked at the 14 institutions. There was the Youth Employment 15 Commission, which had a different focus but which would 11:47 16 have touched on it or had some recommendations in that 17 area arising from a different context. There was the 18 1960 interdepartmental Committee on the crime -- sorry, 19 I have forgotten the title of it, but I mean the 20 justice one. Then there was the Kennedy Report. But 11:48 21 there is no particular -- while there is indications in 22 different correspondence about an awareness of certain 23 issues that were around, there was no internal 24 systematic policy review that we are aware of. That is 25 probably in its wider sense true of some of the other 11:48 26 areas that the Department dealt with. If you look at 27 the sort of curriculum issues, the wider curriculum 28 issues, it is not until the 1960's, if you like, that 29 the more child centred focus is being developed. 55 1 2 Similarly the remedial education side, the mentally 3 handicapped issues, it is all the sort of early 1960's 4 before you begin to see policy consideration of those 5 issues. 11:48 6 129 Q. Yes. At page 24 of your detailed statement you say 7 that you found no evidence in the records of the 8 Department that: 9 "The Department of Education tried to keep up with the latest international 10 thinking and experience on childcare 11:49 for most of the period." 11 12 I think you were referring to between the 1930's and 13 the Kennedy Report? 14 A. That's right. We have since come across the odd bit of 15 reference. I think Dr. Anna McCabe, for example, was 11:49 16 approved to go on a visit to the Scandinavian countries 17 in the late 1950's, to look at industrial schools 18 there. There was obviously some contact in terms of 19 paperwork on what was happening in the UK in terms of 20 some papers on looking at training and what training 11:49 21 was available, which also, I think, would be 1950's or 22 early 1960's, about home office training. There was 23 obviously in some of the correspondence with the 24 Department of Finance an awareness that a move towards 25 smaller homes would be a good thing. But by and large 11:50 26 there was no great evidence of somebody before Kennedy, 27 of somebody going out and saying this is how ten 28 countries would deal with an issue from like this, can 29 we learn a lesson, in the way we probably would do 56 1 policy review nowadays. 2 130 Q. But apart from those matters that you have instanced, 3 including Dr. McCabe's visit to Scandinavia, is there 4 any evidence of any consciousness in the Department of 5 the need to see how we measured up in the manner in 11:50 6 which we cared for children in these circumstances, 7 compared, for example, to other European countries or 8 even to the United Kingdom? 9 A. No. There would have been some consciousness of the UK 10 in terms of when Dr. McCabe was appointed, for example, 11:50 11 that people suggested that she go look at how medical 12 inspections were done there as part of her kind of 13 briefing in period. But no, there wouldn't have been 14 any sort of benchmarking, if you like, or check against 15 by and large, other than in some of the published -- 11:51 16 some of the published reports that we have mentioned. 17 131 Q. In the 1960's? 18 A. Yes. I think in fairness, I am not sure in terms of 19 context, how outward looking the public administration 20 was in a lot of other areas about how we measured up to 11:51 21 other countries. I think generally perhaps there was a 22 look at how the UK did things. 23 132 Q. But it certainly came later, the consciousness to make 24 these comparisons to see how improvements could be made 25 and so on. But in the context, for example, 11:51 26 specifically that on an ongoing basis demands were 27 being made for increase in the capitation, for capital 28 sums, these were being transmitted by the Department of 29 Education to the Department of Finance, to a large 57 1 extent being refused or not getting as much as was 2 sought, was there any evidence of an accumulation of 3 knowledge to the point where they are saying "we have 4 got a problem here, this system is underfunded", where 5 somebody at the Department arrives at a consciousness 11:52 6 that we have got a serious underfunding problem in the 7 running of these industrial and reformatory schools? 8 A. I think in fairness there was in 1951, for example, 9 there was a decision as part of when a funding increase 10 that the Department was seeking wasn't sufficient, 11:52 11 there was a suggestion of having a review of the 12 institutions. At that point, as you are probably aware 13 from the documentation, the Resident Manager's 14 Association was not happy to have such a review 15 undertaken. It is clear in terms of the papers leading 11:52 16 up to the Kennedy review, that part of the, if you 17 like, thinking of the Department and indeed, I thin, 18 very much the thinking of the Resident Managers in 19 terms of the Kennedy review, was that it gave an 20 opportunity to, if you like, deal with the funding 11:53 21 issue. So, I think, yes, at that point leading up to 22 the Kennedy review it was. 23 133 Q. Just on that point, just in relation to Kennedy and 24 funding, we know that in 1969 there was a doubling of 25 the capitation grant overnight virtually but what we 11:53 26 can't find out, and maybe you can assist us on this, 27 was that as a result of the setting up of the Kennedy 28 Inquiry or was it in anticipation of the setting up of 29 the Kennedy Inquiry or what was the catalyst that 58 1 precipitated that precipitated that particular 2 increase? 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Kennedy was 1967 to 1970. 4 MR. HANRATTY: The report was in 1970? 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: It had been set up in 1967, 6 is that right? 7 MR. HANRATTY: Yes. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: It was working between 1967 9 and 1970. 10 A. With your permission, I have just some papers myself, 11:53 11 just summary papers on funding just to assist me. 12 134 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Are these the ones that 13 were circulated this 14 morning? 15 A. Yes, there is quite a lot of figures and dates and 11:54 16 funds. 17 MR. O'MOORE: Chairman, can I just 18 explain, we have prepared 19 two very small booklets. One of contemporary papers 20 and the other just of notes and figures and dates. I 11:54 21 have given a copy of each of those to Mr. Hanratty 22 before he began his cross-examination. There are 23 copies available to the other counsel. It is not 24 proposed a the moment to give them to Commission 25 because they are not in evidence, so to speak, but they 11:54 26 are available obviously to Mr. MacMahon. 27 A. I think what happen in the 1969 increase, and I think 28 we described it in the written statement, is that there 29 had been a series of correspondence. 59 1 MR. MAGUIRE: Would it be possible for us 2 to have copies? 3 MR. O'MOORE: We are giving them to you 4 now. 5 MR. MAGUIRE: Oh yes. 11:54 6 A. It is just a summary of some of the correspondence to 7 just facilitate remembering the thing. There 8 was...(INTERJECTION). 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. MacMahon, would you 10 give one to Mr. Maguire. 11:55 11 Sorry, there are two bits to that. I am sorry. 12 Mr. Maguire, would you give that back, I was jumping 13 ahead. You need to get your A and B. Maybe we could 14 have it, Mr. O'Moore. Let's not get too technical 15 about what's in evidence or not. I appreciate your 11:55 16 punctiliousness but at the same time it might be useful 17 to ...(INTERJECTION). 18 MR. O'MOORE: We have copies just in case 19 I was being too 20 punctilious. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much. 22 135 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Perhaps you would identify 23 the document? 24 25 A. There are two tables here of financing that we put 11:55 26 together. 27 136 Q. One of the books you have is one to four, is that what 28 you are looking at or is that a different book? 29 A. One to five. 60 1 137 Q. Yes. You are looking at which tab? 2 A. Tab two. Tab one is just a summary table of what the 3 Association of Resident Managers sought, what the 4 Department of Education basically did, what it sought 5 from Finance and what the Department of Finance sought. 11:56 6 The second document, which is at tab two, is just a 7 chronology of funding requests and correspondence. It 8 is basically just an aid memoir drawn from the 9 correspondence of when various requests were made, when 10 the Association of Resident Managers sought something, 11:56 11 what the Department did. What happened in 1969 is that 12 there was correspondence from 1968 where the -- indeed, 13 if we go back to 1967, the Association of Resident 14 Managers were concerned at the time that the Kennedy 15 Report -- that the Kennedy Committee was going to take 11:56 16 a couple of years to come up with its review and it was 17 anxious to have an interim increase in funding, 18 particularly because the Kennedy Committee had 19 indicated at that stage that it would take them two 20 year to report. The Department wrote to the Department 11:57 21 of Finance looking for an increase of 21 shillings at 22 the time. The Department of Finance had a view at the 23 time that the proposed increase was disproportionate 24 while the system was being examined and they agreed to 25 a 15 shilling increase in the grant. 11:57 26 27 What then seems to have happened, so far as we can 28 gather from Department of Finance files, is that there 29 was a meeting between the Minister for Finance and a 61 1 representative representing industrial schools, that 2 would have been Minister Charles Haughy at the time. 3 He then appears to have instructed his Department to 4 double it. So a letter then issued from the Department 5 of Finance to ourselves to say that doubling of the 11:57 6 increase. 7 138 Q. I just notice on the first page of that document there 8 is a reference to the Association of Resident Managers 9 seeking an emergency bonus grant of 5 shillings per 10 week and they also sought the increase of 5 shillings 11:58 11 per week to pay for the maintenance of children 12 recalled after discharge. In response to that on 15th 13 June 1944 an internal Department of Education memo 14 notice that: 15 "That the amount requested falls short 11:58 of the increase the schools would need 16 for full compensation." 17 18 19 Do you have any understanding of what that actually 20 means? 11:58 21 A. There was an internal note that was done, I can't quite 22 recall the member of staff, that would have been done 23 for one member of staff for either the principal 24 officer or the deputy secretary, which talks about what 25 would happen to the cost of food and that during the 11:58 26 war and that it would be a good idea to look for five 27 shillings a week from the Department of Finance and 28 also was dealing with the discharge issue. There is 29 then a note from a more senior official, I can get the 62 1 reference of who it is for you later, which actually 2 doesn't accept that the five shillings per week would 3 be justified and that felt that we needed more detailed 4 accounts. 5 11:59 6 There is a theme running through quite a lot of the 7 correspondence of requiring accounts and material from 8 the Resident Managers that would allow a case to be 9 made to the Department of Finance so that the -- so at 10 the time they didn't appear to justify it. 11:59 11 139 Q. Even though previous entry suggested that even they got 12 what they were seeking it wouldn't be enough? 13 A. Well, that was the opinion of one official which was 14 disagreed with by another official. On various -- I am 15 afraid -- we can dig out the exact documents, but I 11:59 16 think that may be a set of documents where there was a 17 lot of disagreement about what had happened to food 18 prices and inflation, if you like, in the war years. 19 Then later on there is a perception, or a view 20 expressed anyway that with the end of the war prices 12:00 21 will drop again, the food prices and that, and that 22 means the problem should sort of go away and then I 23 think there was further correspondence from the 24 Association of Resident Managers saying that they 25 haven't noticed any sign of food prices going down and 12:00 26 when is this decrease going to happen and give us more 27 money. 28 140 Q. Just to finish up on this issue of oversight, I did ask 29 you about the question of whether there were regular 63 1 policy reviews. I just want to ask you now briefly, 2 apart from specific instances where a complaint about a 3 particular incident was made, is there any evidence in 4 the documents that you have reviewed indicating any 5 ministerial involvement over this period of time, again 12:01 6 I will 1930's to 1970's, any ministerial involvement of 7 any kind with regard to the oversight and management of 8 the industrial school system? 9 A. Yes, it is quite clear that there is instances that the 10 -- by and large, there were quite a lot of meetings of 12:01 11 the Association of Resident Managers with Ministers, 12 for example, about the funding. It is clear that 13 individual complaints or issues would sometimes come 14 through a Minister, there was issues raised in the 15 parliament, in the Dáil, that would have involved 12:01 16 Ministers. There is an interesting reference which I 17 think gives a bit of a summation of some of the 18 ministerial, if you don't mind. 19 141 Q. Yes. 20 A. There are other documents, there is a report, in the 12:01 21 second set of documents there which were just some 22 documents which weren't attached to our original 23 statements. If you look at Dr. Anna McCabe's report, 24 which is at tab two, it is quite clear that when she -- 25 it is a note she seems to have done on industrial and 12:02 26 reformatory schools for the Minister of the day and, I 27 mean, it is interesting, you can actually see she 28 refers to when Minister De Valera was acting Minister 29 for Education on my report in connection with Glencree, 64 1 then he talks about visiting it with Mr. O'Kelly. So, 2 there is a reference to her discussing the situation 3 with the Minister for Education, Mr. Derrick, who would 4 have been there in the 1940's, so it certainly has the 5 impression from the files that there was a degree of 12:02 6 contact over issues. 7 8 Now, how often that was, how that compared with contact 9 that would be over primary schooling or issues within 10 the Department it is not clear to see. There certainly 12:02 11 are some issues to the Minister, notes done to the 12 Minister on particular issues, so there was a degree of 13 involvement. The correspondence, as I say, with the 14 Association of Resident Managers and the Minister 15 tended to be addressed, if you like, to the Minister 12:03 16 for Education and meetings sought with the Minister for 17 Education. 18 142 Q. Turning to the specific question of funding, just to 19 put it in its context. In these industrial and 20 reformatory schools the staff, who were primarily 12:03 21 teaching staff, particularly in the industrial schools, 22 were also required after school hours to care for the 23 children, including when they went to bed and until 24 they got up in the morning, for that work there was no 25 remuneration paid; isn't that right? 12:03 26 A. The remuneration paid was for teaching staff, for the 27 hours they taught in the schools, whether they were 28 religious or lay teachers. The requirement to 29 supervise, I think, basically afterwards was generally 65 1 the members of the religious orders who might be 2 teaching in the schools as well. I think there was 3 some correspondence at an earlier point with the 4 Department at the time the schools were being 5 recognised, that some of the supervision time that 12:04 6 would be done in a normal primary school, I think there 7 is reference to some of the supervision time where in a 8 normal primary school you would be supervising in the 9 yard or bringing children to church or doing things on 10 Sundays with the children and the chore and things, 12:04 11 that some of that kind of time of lay teachers and 12 primary schools should be colonised for some of the 13 supervision in the industrial schools but I assume that 14 would have been very marginal. 15 143 Q. What I am really trying to do is just to put in context 12:04 16 -- or to set the context for the funding that was 17 provided. We know that a specific number of teachers 18 were approved for teacher's pay after the Cussen Report 19 implementation for their teaching work and they were 20 paid from that point on, the same as teachers in other 12:05 21 national schools? 22 A. In a normal primary school, yes. 23 144 Q. The capitation grant was provided for the care of the 24 physical wellbeing of the children in terms of feeding 25 and clothing, in terms of everything else essentially, 12:05 26 but I suggest to you, and I just want to know did you 27 agree with me, did not include any element for the 28 provision of remuneration for the people who were 29 providing the after school care for the children,that 66 1 was being provided essentially on a voluntary basis by 2 these religious orders? 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that's right, 4 Mr. Hanratty. 5 MR. HANRATTY: That's what I just want to 12:05 6 explore with the witness. 7 A. The capitation grant was intended to cover the total 8 cost of the children, of looking after the children 9 other than the primary teaching of them, if we park 10 that to one side. I think it is clear from some of the 12:06 11 internal papers, for example, when accounts were being 12 submitted. For example, there is reference I think to 13 including the cost and I can't quite remember which 14 period, the cost of the staff members at £150 a year, 15 so that in providing accounts, if you like, to the 12:06 16 Department there was an assumption that there was a 17 cost of the services. But in fairness, there is also a 18 clear understanding by the Department that there was an 19 expectation of a lot of voluntary input by the Order, 20 or that the Order itself was putting in an effort. And 12:06 21 indeed, I think there is a reference in some of the 22 later papers where there is discussion of the different 23 position of some of the girls -- sorry, the female 24 religious run houses as compared with the senior boys 25 school. There was a reference to what's clearly cross 12:07 26 subsidisation from some of their income from the -- 27 their salary income on the schooling side being used to 28 cross subsidise, if you like, the care side of things. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hanratty, where you 67 1 had lay 2 staff...(INTERJECTION). 3 MR. HANRATTY: Well, obviously 4 ...(INTERJECTION). 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you had lay staff it 12:07 6 doesn't. 7 MR. HANRATTY: No, I understand. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: In fact, was there not lay 9 staff in almost all the 10 institutions. 12:07 11 MR. HANRATTY: Well, there were farming 12 staff, for example, in 13 Letterfrack and Artane, that's true, and obviously they 14 were engaged in the business of the institution and. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: And had to be paid. 12:07 16 MR. HANRATTY: Yes. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, it might not be 18 enough, people might 19 complain that it was not enough. 20 145 Q. MR. HANRATTY: What I was really coming at 12:07 21 was the input from the 22 members of the religious congregations themselves. 23 What I was really trying to suggest, you may or may not 24 agree, you may not be in a position to agree or 25 disagree with it, that really looking at the amounts 12:08 26 that were paid, you couldn't realistically say that 27 there was a remunerative element for the voluntary 28 effort of the religious -- the members of the religious 29 congregations, not the lay staff obviously, in terms of 68 1 the work that they did outside school hours. I mean, 2 it may be a question of interpretation of accounts, I 3 don't want to get into too much of it. 4 A. I think there was certainly no questioning by the 5 Department in the context there was a lot of 12:08 6 questioning of the accounts and the figures in the 7 material. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hanratty, wouldn't you 9 need detailed accounts for 10 this? That's the very thing that helpfully has been 12:08 11 provided for us and we have asked an accountant to look 12 at them. The Department never got that. They wanted 13 it. They asked for it in 1951. The Minister said 14 "look, here is five shillings, I will try to get you 15 the rest, help me." And the Resident Managers said, 12:09 16 "no way." 17 MR. HANRATTY: I don't think it is quite 18 clear to 19 say...(INTERJECTION). 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, they never actually 12:09 21 said here is the full -- we 22 now have accounts and very, as I say, very -- I am far 23 from being critical, in fact, it is appreciative that 24 the Christian Brothers were very good and produced 25 everything, the full accounts to enable us to look at 12:09 26 the question of financing. But there is all this talk 27 about we didn't have enough money, but nobody ever 28 actually produces all their documents, isn't that the 29 reality? 69 1 MR. HANRATTY: I don't think it is quite 2 the reality. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 4 MR. HANRATTY: I don't want to disagree 5 with something I am not too 12:09 6 familiar with. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, sorry. Disagree 8 away. 9 MR. HANRATTY: Perhaps if I might explore 10 it with the witness, with 12:09 11 your permission. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. 13 146 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Just on the question of 14 accounting by religious 15 institutions in general, then I will ask you about the 12:09 16 Christian Brothers in a moment. Was there a 17 requirement that any form of accounts be submitted on 18 an annual or periodic basis by these institution to the 19 Department? 20 A. As I understand it, there was a requirement in one of 12:10 21 the earlier rules that then got dropped at a certain 22 point, I think in the 33 rules. There was, however, 23 quite a degree in the context of not so much in terms 24 of a legal requirement on them to produce accounts but 25 in the context of the toing and froing on the 12:10 26 capitation grant of requests that they would supply 27 accounts. I think in fairness they did supply some 28 accounts material but the difficulty seems to have been 29 the format in which they supplied the accounts. 70 1 147 Q. Were these accounts materials that were provided -- 2 essentially provided in support of applications for 3 increases or were they provided in some other context? 4 A. It was in support of application for increases. What 5 has happened in some years was that there were periods 12:10 6 where the Minister -- where they were accounts sought, 7 accounts were provided, there was an internal analysis 8 by the accountant in the Department of Education of the 9 accounts. The accounts, however, were not done in a 10 format that allowed the Department to make a full 12:11 11 assessment because -- well, in some cases they hadn't 12 included in the commercial operations, say the farming 13 operations. Some schools had included in the cost of 14 the teacher in the primary school but not the receipts 15 from the primary school. There is a whole series of 12:11 16 stuff where they do it. 17 18 There were then accounts where, I think, at another 19 period where -- sorry, there was then a letter out 20 looking -- a circular from the Department that required 12:11 21 accounts to be produced in a certain format. The 22 institutions were then concerned that the material 23 couldn't without huge cost, in terms of auditors, 24 couldn't be provided in that format. They seemed to 25 have had a meeting with the then Minister before he 12:11 26 left office because there was a certain confusion on 27 the Department's file that they were claiming that the 28 Minister had agreed that they needn't produce it in 29 that format, they could provide it in a different 71 1 format and the Department thought the circular still 2 stood. 3 4 Then at a later stage in the accounts, in the debate on 5 capitation they provided sample accounts, the 12:12 6 Department looked for sample accounts to be provided by 7 a different size of institution and some material was 8 supplied on that. And there is material which would 9 have shown quite variable -- some material was provided 10 by them which was calculated for them which was 12:12 11 calculated on the basis of an average cost per student 12 which the Department of Finance then used, I think when 13 it got it, to argue at a certain point that it showed 14 that some of them could perfectly well -- why was such 15 an institution managing to only spend X amount on food 12:12 16 and another on Y. 17 18 There was resistance sometimes to providing material in 19 a way that the Department would find it useful. But 20 there was material supplied at other times. 12:13 21 148 Q. Was the basis of the resistance the cost of getting 22 auditors or was there some other basis for it? 23 A. I think it is fair to say, for example, that in the 24 sort of 1951 time where there was a whole review issue 25 there was a resistance, I think, to the idea of the 12:13 26 State trying to control how the managers ran the 27 institutions. I think there is references in the 28 manager's minutes. At that period, when the 29 Minister -- they had written in in February to say they 72 1 couldn't accept the interdepartmental review. The 2 Minister then met them and said, "look, there is 3 nothing threatening about this, I am here trying to get 4 you more money. I have made personal pleas and written 5 directly to the Minister for Finance and there is 12:13 6 nothing threatening in this. We are not trying to take 7 over the thing." The two representatives he met 8 undertook to go back. The group met in May and still 9 felt -- and there is references, I think, in the 10 minutes of the Association of Resident Managers at that 12:14 11 point to a concern about State control, about what do 12 they mean about whether we run it efficiently. Nobody 13 should be looking into how we run these institutions. 14 15 I think at that point there was a resistance to doing 12:14 16 it. I think at other points, to me it looks from the 17 papers, and one can only judge from the papers, that it 18 was just we have a whole lot of other things to be 19 doing, why are they trying to make us write our 20 accounts into this kind of format, or that kind of 12:14 21 format. It is an awful lot of work and it would cost 22 us a lot of money, and doesn't everybody know the way 23 the consumer price index went -- or the cost of money 24 went, that we are so underfunded, we should be getting 25 more money anyway. So I think there is a 12:14 26 ...(INTERJECTION) 27 149 Q. So I think it is fair to say that even at the time, I 28 am talking about the 1951 period, there was a 29 recognition or appears to have been a recognition by 73 1 the Department itself that the amount of the grant, as 2 it is referred to, was inadequate? 3 A. That's right. The Department and indeed the Minister. 4 I think there is some records that show that the 5 Minister personally made a kind of plea for more money 12:15 6 and there is even correspondence in a context where the 7 Minister is showing his appreciation that there is a 8 general financial problem in the general financial 9 sense in the country but that these were so far behind 10 they needed special consideration. So I think clearly 12:15 11 the Department and the Minister felt that. I think the 12 point is that when he came up -- as the Chairman, I 13 think, said earlier, when he came up with a strategy 14 for trying to -- having delivered some and trying to 15 show the rest of the, if you like, Government or part 12:15 16 of the Government, arms of the Government, that there 17 was a real issue here, there was a resistance on the 18 part of the Resident Managers. 19 20 But, as I say, I think some of the other occasions on 12:15 21 which they didn't want to supply material was not a 22 lack of willingness to supply it but just a difficulty 23 to produce that format. 24 150 Q. Leaving aside that sort of incident in 1951, I am 25 talking about the generality of the period again from 12:16 26 the 1930's to the 1970's, I mean one doesn't have 27 instances in each year but there seems to be a kind of 28 recognition and there is certainly now recognition by 29 the Department, as I see from your statement, that the 74 1 funding in general during this period was inadequate. 2 For example, on page 103 of your report you make 3 reference to: 4 "A recognition in the Department that funding increases secured from the 5 Department of Finance did not go far 12:16 enough." 6 7 8 A. Well, I think given the tenure and tone of the letters 9 that the Department of Education was writing to the 10 Department of Finance for some of that period and 12:16 11 saying how much the money was needed, it is quite clear 12 that the Department itself accepted at various periods 13 that more money was needed. 14 15 I would have to say that one would probably find that 12:17 16 there were quite a lot of services either then or 17 indeed now that Departments -- in fairness to my 18 colleagues in the Department of Finance, are probably 19 writing letters saying they are underfunded and we need 20 more money. So it is not an unusual feature. 12:17 21 Certainly at certain times in the correspondence the 22 tenure would seem to be stronger than even that normal 23 correspondence. 24 151 Q. Yes. For instance, on the same page -- sorry, on page 25 104, a memorandum, a Department memorandum to the 12:17 26 Minister in 1967, you probably remember it? 27 A. Yes. 28 152 Q. It says: 29 "The Department was in no position to defend its achievement as far as the 75 1 size of the grant goes." 2 3 4 A. That's right, it was in the context of in 1966 and 1967 5 it was clear in this sort of interaction with the 12:17 6 Minister about establishing the Kennedy Report that one 7 of the factors that the Department, if you like, saw a 8 kind of review given was an opportunity to get better 9 funding for the institutions. 10 153 Q. You refer on that page to one of the findings of the 12:18 11 Kennedy Report where it says that: 12 "The religious orders or the people running these institutions were faced 13 with the task of running the institutions on an inadequate provision 14 and were forced to supplement their incomes by whatever means possible." 15 12:18 16 17 18 I think that is, in effect, a recognition that they 19 subsidised their income in various ways in various 20 different institutions? 12:18 21 A. Yes. And there is certainly later references that 22 would show that some of the female religious -- that 23 there was consciousness in the 1960's, that some of the 24 religious orders, the female religious orders who ran 25 primary and secondary schools alongside their 12:18 26 industrial schools were cross subsidising the 27 industrial schools from their other education 28 (inaudible). 29 154 Q. The Commission has had evidence, for example, and it 76 1 does appear to have been a feature of life in a number 2 of these institution, certainly as far as Christian 3 Brothers institutions are concerned, that the farm was 4 used to -- the farms were used to produce food to feed 5 the people in the school, the footwear shop was used to 12:19 6 actually repair shoes for the pupils in the school, the 7 clothing shop was used to patch clothes or make clothes 8 for pupils in the school. In fact, the Brothers 9 themselves maintain, I am talking about the Christian 10 Brothers themselves, took the position that really this 12:19 11 is not the provision of training, this is actually the 12 provision of necessities within the school for resource 13 functions; is that fair? 14 A. Certainly as I mentioned earlier, I think probably 15 there is a fair degree of evidence that when the 12:19 16 schools started, if you like, back in the 19th Century 17 both in England and Ireland that self-sufficiency idea 18 was there and I think it is quite clear certainly on 19 the farming one and indeed the footwear one that you 20 mentioned that in -- the Department was fully aware 12:20 21 that what was being done in some of these activities 22 was providing goods in kind for the school. And I 23 think in terms of some of the work that was done in 24 analysing the accounts that was one of the difficulties 25 they had in identifying some of the transfers. Indeed, 12:20 26 when the Department of Finance questioned different 27 rates of spending on food, it was one of the defences, 28 if you like, that the Department of Education put up 29 that they weren't taking full account of the fact that 77 1 in some cases some schools were in a position to have 2 food off their farms and other schools were actually 3 having to pay for it, so that accounted for the 4 variability. So, yes, I think the Department was 5 conscious that that was being provided within the 12:20 6 institution. 7 155 Q. Yes. Was that a widespread phenomenon, and apart 8 altogether from the Christian Brothers, was that a 9 widespread phenomenon in all of these institutions in 10 this period, again between the 1930's and the 1970's, 12:21 11 where there was a degree of subsidisation by the 12 schools from their own resources, including the labour 13 of the people who were in the schools? 14 A. Well, I am not sure, for the farms or some of the 15 activities that were fully within the industrial 12:21 16 schools that the Department saw that as a subsidisation 17 or saw just that there was a total activity which 18 included the farm, if you like. I think where the 19 Department talked about cross subsidisation was where 20 there was clearly money coming in from outside, if you 12:21 21 like, this kind of circle that was the industrial 22 school. In other words, from a completely different 23 activity. So, that's where you explicitly get 24 references to cross subsidisation. 25 12:21 26 But I think the Department was -- I have to say in 27 terms of looking at it, I had more thought in general 28 terms rather than necessarily particular Orders, if you 29 like. But there is certainly references in the 78 1 documentation that the Christian Brothers actually have 2 less opportunity or that some of the Order have less 3 opportunity for cross subsidising from educational 4 activities because the Orders aren't involved in the 5 same house of religious, if you like, aren't involved 12:22 6 in religious activities in the context, say, of the 7 senior boys schools, where there was a particular 8 concern about their financial position in the late 9 1950's and 1960's, because of dropping numbers. There 10 are references to them not having the same 12:22 11 opportunities for cross subsidisation as some of the 12 other Orders. 13 156 Q. There is one of the documents that is footnoted in your 14 book, is a letter from the Dublin Junior Chamber of 15 Commerce, do you recall this letter, it was December 12:23 16 1966 it was written? 17 A. Yes. 18 157 Q. They make reference to...(INTERJECTION)? 19 A. Could you remind me which footnote? 20 158 Q. 352. For convenience I might just give you a copy. 12:23 21 A. If you wouldn't mind, mine doesn't seem to be numbered 22 (same handed). 23 159 Q. As you can see, it is a letter of 20th December 1966, 24 it is from Mr. DL Lennon, President of the Dublin 25 Junior Chamber of Commerce to Dr. O'Raifeartaigh, the 12:24 26 Secretary of the Department of Education, in which he 27 makes various observations about the position in 28 Artane. I just want to refer you particularly to 29 paragraph five of the third page, I think it is, 79 1 dealing with finance, he says: 2 "Under the general heading of finance there is a vast problem, from their own 3 resources Artane subsidises the State contribution to the extent of £115,000 4 annually. From the attached schedule that would be seen how the State 5 contributes as compared to the 12:25 Government of Northern Ireland." 6 7 8 9 In fact, that particular scheduled referred to isn't 10 with that document. But that's simply an illustration 12:25 11 of what essentially the Department itself, as I 12 understand your evidence, already recognised that there 13 was a significant underfunding problem in these 14 institutions around this time, and that problem appears 15 to have continued to exist, as it were, in the 12:25 16 mid-1960's? 17 A. Yes. Well, I mean there would have been a full 18 acceptance that we felt a higher level of funding was 19 justified. In terms of trying to analyse that level of 20 funding or the gap or the subsidisation, I am not sure 12:25 21 the Department found, in spite of its efforts, that it 22 was able to get a handle on that and I am certainly not 23 aware that there was any analysis done in the context 24 of that letter as to whether the 115,000 was a valid 25 quantum of the amount. But certainly the Department 12:26 26 fully accepted, indeed, the very fact it was saying 27 higher amounts were justified to the Department of 28 Finance I don't see how, I couldn't accept that we 29 justified...(INTERJECTION). 80 1 160 Q. He was talking about a substantial figure, that's the 2 figure he took. Just while you are on that book, 3 perhaps it might be for convenience of reference, could 4 I ask you to turn to tab 4, this is a document that 5 came into existence in the context of discussions 12:26 6 between the Department and the Christian Brothers oft 7 he decision that the Brothers had reached to close 8 Artane. It is called "Artane Notice of Closure". 9 A. Yes. 10 161 Q. If I could just refer you...(INTERJECTION) 12:26 11 MR. O'MOORE: I wonder if Mr. Hanratty 12 could give a reference to 13 us so that we could follow it. 14 MR. HANRATTY: Yes. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: These are the documents 12:26 16 circulated by Maxwells; is 17 that right? 18 MR. HANRATTY: It is 352, it is the tab 19 references annotated at the 20 bottom of the witness' long statement. This one is 12:27 21 still on 352. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Still footnote 352. 23 162 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Yes. One of the entries 24 is: 25 "A lot of the discussion is to do with 12:27 an assessment by the Department of the 26 decision that they see this...READING TO THE WORDS...to close Artane." 27 28 But there is reference in this particular paragraph to 29 which I just want to refer. It is Roman numeral III 81 1 towards the bottom of the first page. It says: "As an 2 illustration of the --", this is a 1968 document 3 obviously. 4 "As an illustration of the financial 5 losses, the Brothers spent £183,000 on 12:27 the place between 1957 and 1967 and 6 received only 21,000 of that from the State. At present, there are debts 7 amounting to"...(INTERJECTION) 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just slow down a bit, 9 Mr. Hanratty. Ms. McCarthy 10 has to take a note of all this. There is a temptation 12:27 11 when one is reading something to somebody who has it in 12 front of them, there is a temptation to speed up. 13 163 Q. MR. HANRATTY: I fully understand that and 14 I apologise. I will start 15 again. 12:28 16 "As an illustration of the financial 17 losses, the Brothers spent £183,000 on the place", this is a reference to 18 Artane, "between 1957 and 1967 and received only £21,000 of that from the 19 State. At present, there are debts amounting to £83,000 on the place, 20 excluding the interest on borrowings 12:28 which is being paid out of the 21 Brothers' central funds, so £8,000 was lost on the place last year." 22 23 24 25 That's the Department's own memo obviously, isn't it? 12:28 26 A. Well, it is the Department's memo of what he said 27 because it says "he made the following points", the 28 "he" is either Br. O'Reilly or Br. Creed, I am not sure 29 which. Br. Creed. Then it says "he made the following 82 1 points", so it is listing the points made by Br. Creed. 2 164 Q. In general, is it your understanding from the documents 3 that you have read that at the time that Artane and 4 other institutions run by the Christian Brothers were 5 running at a loss at the time that they closed? 12:29 6 A. I'm not aware that the Department did any analysis one 7 way or another as to whether they were running at a 8 loss or not. 9 165 Q. I don't infer from any of the documents I have read, 10 including this document, that the Department did not 12:29 11 accept the proposition generally that the Christian 12 Brothers in the case of Artane, if we could just stick 13 with Artane, were pouring in very substantial sums of 14 money in capital spending to upgrade this institution? 15 A. Well, there is certainly a reference in our files on 12:29 16 funding to the fact that one official expresses a view, 17 I think somewhere on the file, which would be around 18 that period of feeling a guilty conscience, I think is 19 the phrase used towards Artane, which would certainly 20 suggest that there was a feeling that Artane had 12:30 21 particular problems in terms of funding. But I am not 22 aware, but I would have say from the volume of 23 documents that we have discovered or that we are 24 surveying perhaps there is there somewhere. But I am 25 not aware that there is anything where we say the 12:30 26 Department has analysed, the Department knows they are 27 running at a loss, the loss is X, but certainly the 28 sort of suggestions that seem to be there in the very 29 earlier years in some of the correspondence from 83 1 Finance and suggestions from Finance that in some ways 2 there was lots of profits being made for farms and that 3 there was really money out there that could be used in 4 some way. 5 12:30 6 I think certainly whatever about the quantum of the 7 loss, I think it is certainly clear by the period you 8 are talking about there was an acceptance that there 9 wasn't enough funds going into the institutions to meet 10 the overhead costs with the falling numbers and 12:31 11 something needed to be done. And therefore, if they 12 were still surviving, presumably there was an 13 acceptance. I speculate that some money must have been 14 coming into it from activities or somewhere. But I 15 don't think there is anything on our files that shows 12:31 16 that there was significant cross subsidisation. 17 18 In fact, on our files the suggestion seems to be that 19 the reason the senior boys schools, and that's the kind 20 of context that they talk about it in, that they had 12:31 21 more difficulties than some of the others because they 22 had the bigger premises, the falling numbers, the 23 static overheads and less opportunity to cross 24 subsidise or to raise funds from other sources. 25 166 Q. I think it is true to say, is it not, that the falling 12:31 26 numbers became an issue in the closing years of these 27 institutions because of the capitation payment system, 28 in that with each year that went by and each reduction 29 in the amount of pupils the capitation rate went down 84 1 but the costs of maintaining the institutions, apart 2 from the actual feeding and clothing of the pupils in 3 them, remained the same or indeed increased and this 4 was one of the features that is recorded in that 5 memorandum among others that were of concern to the 12:32 6 religious institution in the closing years of these 7 institutions? 8 A. That's right, some of the religious institutions would 9 have looked for capitation to be paid on the basis of 10 the authorised numbers rather than the actual numbers 12:32 11 and there was also some suggestions at various stages, 12 I think, in some of the files that there would be sort 13 of some notional additional capitation or some kind of 14 notional numbers paid to some of the organisations that 15 were in bigger institutions that couldn't downsize 12:32 16 easily. I think it is fair to say there was an 17 acceptance within the Department that by the falling 18 numbers in themselves might be a good idea because they 19 reflected fewer children in the institutions. There is 20 references to that reflecting better economic 12:32 21 situations, for example, but I think there was an 22 acceptance in the Department that that gave rise to 23 particular problems for the bigger institutions, where 24 they would have had fixed overhead costs. 25 167 Q. In fact, the Kennedy Report I think said that the 12:33 26 capitation system was not a good idea for funding of 27 this work and they recommended a budgeting system; 28 isn't that right? 29 A. They recommended a budgeting system, yes. 85 1 168 Q. A budgeting system was, in fact, implemented, albeit I 2 think about 14 or so years later? 3 A. Yes, there is a considerable amount of internal debate 4 as to whether a budget system is actually a good or a 5 bad idea following the Kennedy Report, there were 12:33 6 various studies done which show -- I mean, various 7 alternative models were looked at where you pay 8 salaries plus capitation, which actually is the systems 9 we still have to this day for our normal schools or for 10 our first and second level schools. Whether you should 12:33 11 have some kind of deficit financing, there was various 12 models looked at and various discussions for the budget 13 system was eventually introduced in the 1980's when it 14 transferred to the Department of Health in 1984. 15 12:34 16 There would have been a budget system there for the new 17 institutions opened at Finglas, Oberstown, the 18 reformatory type schools would have had a budget system 19 early, the class one schools. 20 169 Q. Yes. I think in the end the realisation gained 12:34 21 widespread acceptance that in fact the industrial 22 school system and the detention system and the 23 residential system of childcare was not appropriate and 24 that it should be replaced with an altogether different 25 system, this started to take legs in the 1960's and 12:34 26 certainly into the 1970's; isn't that right? The view 27 appears to have a consensus that appears to have 28 developed was that smaller accommodation units with 29 separation of children with special needs and training 86 1 of teachers for children with special needs was the way 2 to go? 3 A. Yes, I think there were various different developments 4 but there would have been a view of smaller groups 5 within institutions I think developing first and then 12:35 6 that they should be smaller units and then that those 7 units should actually be out among the community rather 8 than just smaller units, you know, little houses within 9 a big grounds, that that was the appropriate way of 10 caring for children who had to be in institutions. I 12:35 11 think at the same time there was very much a view which 12 would have developed I think earlier, but that would 13 have been there, that you should be trying to get 14 family supports so that children didn't come into care, 15 so that only your more difficult children came into 12:35 16 care, and that at the same time the only children who 17 should be committed for offences was at, if you like, 18 the extreme end and that there was a more secure form 19 of accommodation needed for those higher secure units, 20 if you like, for those. 12:36 21 22 So I think you had a number of separations and then at 23 the same time the idea that children with specific 24 mentally handicapped or special needs should be in 25 different type of institutions as well. 12:36 26 170 Q. Yes. In fact, in the, particularly going into the 27 1960's, when these numbers were starting to get a 28 noticeable decline in the number of admissions to these 29 institutions, there was also a realisation that the 87 1 kind of children coming in, the reduced numbers were 2 different in character and had different problems than 3 was previously the case. If I could just refer you 4 again to a document in that booklet, since you have it 5 open in front of you, to tab 5, it is footnote 351. 12:36 6 This is an internal Christian Brothers document and it 7 is an analysis of the author's views as to the reasons 8 why the numbers in Artane are declining. After listing 9 a number of reasons, he says: 10 "The majority of pupils coming to 12:37 Artane now intellectually retarded or 11 emotionally disturbed, these children could best with cared for in special 12 schools for subnormal children where the teachers can handle some of the 13 behavioural problems occurring in retarded children and where 14 psychological and psychiatric services are available or accessible." 15 12:37 16 17 A. Could I ask you, Mr. Hanratty, what date that is? 18 171 Q. I don't have a date, I infer it is around -- it is 19 1967, yes. It says: 20 "Small schools are needed for the 12:37 proper treatment and care of problem 21 children nowadays and Artane is too large to provide the necessary 22 treatment for such children. Having been constructed on institutional lines 23 almost 100 years ago, it would be impossible to reconstruct the school 24 into small units of family groups and these family units seem to be 25 successful in other countries in 12:37 treating deprived or underprivileged 26 children. 27 The vast majority of normally deprived children and orphans are either legally 28 adopted or boarded out so that the pupils admitted to Artane now are not 29 capable of following the programme prescribed for national schools and 88 1 should not be here at all. They should be in special schools according to the 2 Children Act 1908, Section 62.2." 3 4 In fact, I think as time progressed after that that is, 5 in fact, the way the system developed, to provide these 12:38 6 special schools for these special needs pupils? 7 A. Yes. 8 172 Q. Just going back briefly to the question of funding, can 9 I refer you to tab 2, there is a document there, I see 10 can I get a reference. I think it is referenced in 12:38 11 your own document. Just bear with me for a moment. I 12 don't have a reference at the moment, I will just refer 13 you to the document in the tab and you might yourself 14 be able to identify it. Again, it is a reference to 15 the children with these particular kind of problems. 12:39 16 17 But further down the page in the middle of the last 18 paragraph, it says: 19 "Also, that grants payable for pupils recalled to be the same pay whilst in 20 detention in the school. Six shillings 12:39 per week is paid in the present time, 21 managers also request that the medical officers and all medicines for the 22 pupils be borne by the Department of Health". 23 24 I think it is true to say, just to pick up that 25 reference, is it not, that the capitation grant for 12:39 26 pupils in industrial and reformatory schools was 27 supposed to cover, among other things, the medical 28 treatment that was provided to the children in the 29 schools; isn't that right? 89 1 A. Yes, though I think there were some arrangements about 2 the kind of -- at an earlier period where some of the 3 school medical services that would be available to any 4 child at school weren't available to the children in 5 the industrial school. I think that was resolved at a 12:40 6 certain point but there would have been other medical 7 expenses obviously that weren't. I think in this one 8 was a note that was sent to the Minister, if I 9 remember, in the context of funding and that the letter 10 went back said that it was an issue that he would look 12:40 11 at separately. But the papers, if I recall, at the 12 time felt that the Department of Health would not be 13 willing to -- I may have it in my funding table. 14 173 Q. Yes, I have a reference for you, if it is of any 15 assistance, it is footnote 350, the document is 18th 12:40 16 November 1964 and it is referred to at page 233 of your 17 statement. 18 A. Is it a question as to whether what happened on that 19 after they looked for that, is that your question? 20 174 Q. No, I was trying to tie it in with my previous question 12:40 21 in relation to these special needs students. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: What date is that? 23 MR. HANRATTY: This is November 1964, 18th 24 November 1964, it is 25 referenced footnote 350 on page 233 of the statement. 12:41 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 27 175 Q. MR. HANRATTY: But this funding pitch, as 28 it were, is now being made 29 in the context of these additional services that were 90 1 thought to have been required. If I could continue on 2 the last paragraph of the page, if you are still with 3 me. We are still at tab two, the sentence begins: 4 "We, in the industrial schools, are being criticised because we have not 5 psychologists and psychiatrists on the 12:41 staff of our schools but we would be 6 very glad to appoint such people and physical instructors also if the 7 Government will pay them. 8 The schools are all understaffed and members are on duty from an early hour 9 each day to a later hour every day of the year. Nobody is willing to take up 10 this work on account of the criticism 12:42 which is uncalled for and unjust and 11 young people are not prepared to work under the strain of present day 12 conditions because it is too acute to be continued." 13 14 15 It continues on the next page: 12:42 16 "At the present time, the industrial 17 schools receive a maintenance grant of three pounds seven shillings and six 18 pence per week per pupils on the number children in residence. The reformatory 19 schools receive three pounds 11 shillings and six pence per week per 20 pupil. 12:42 21 The financial position is such as to cause grave anxiety and serious worry 22 to those responsible for their maintenance and management. If the 23 managers are to carry out the obligations imposed upon them, namely 24 to teach, train, lodge, clothe and feed the pupils in their schools during 25 their period of detention, there should 12:42 be ample funds for this work. For 26 assurity a sufficient income is of first importance if a school is to be 27 managed on well defined and up to date lines." 28 29 91 1 2 Then it goes on to make a case that the maintenance 3 grant is wholly inadequate and he gives various reasons 4 for it. But then he sets out in the schedule at the 5 bottom, which you probably have seen before, where he 12:43 6 makes a comparison between the funding available for 7 industrial schools in the Republic of Ireland, 8 vis-a-vis the funding available for industrial schools 9 in northern Ireland. As you can see there, first of 10 all, there are a number of staff payments, annual 12:43 11 salaries for a manager, a deputy manager, a principal 12 and a band master, work instructor, and domestic staff 13 and farm workers for which there is no equivalent 14 salary at all provided in the Republic of Ireland; 15 isn't that right? 12:43 16 17 In relation to teaching staff, it simply shows on the 18 schedule that that is deemed to be covered by the 19 capitation grant. But then in relation to the actual 20 maintenance of the school, this is described as 12:44 21 maintenance, repairs etc., it says: 22 "Heat, lighting repairs, cleaning, etc. 23 are paid in full by the ministry in England." 24 25 Whereas in Ireland none of that is paid, there is no 12:44 26 separate provision for that in Ireland; is that right? 27 A. No, no. 28 176 Q. Then the author deals with the maintenance grant per 29 pupil. It says that: 92 1 "In addition to those specific salaries 2 for those various categories of staff that are provided in Northern Ireland 3 and England there is a capitation grant of 11 pounds 18 shillings and 14 pence 4 per week per pupil, plus £20 paid for clothing for each new pupil on 5 admission." 12:44 6 7 I think there is no provision for clothing of a pupil 8 on admission in the Republic of Ireland and the 9 capitation grant in the Republic of Ireland is there 10 recorded as three pounds seven shillings and six pence 12:45 11 per week, which is obviously less than a third of the 12 capitation grant that was available in England; is that 13 right? 14 A. Yes. 15 177 Q. I think in fairness, certainly the figures so far as 12:45 16 the Republic of Ireland, which is the only one I will 17 ask you to answer for, appear to be correct? 18 A. Certainly I think if it helps, I can't comment on 19 whether we ever looked on were they the exact figures 20 in Northern Ireland, but I don't think the Department 12:45 21 internally disputed that if they were running the 22 schools directly as State, certainly at that period 23 there is reference in our letters to the Department of 24 Finance where we point out to the Department and I 25 think in correspondence following this particular 12:45 26 memorandum, that if they were to be -- if we had to 27 take over the running of the schools directly that it 28 would cost us more than it was costing us by way of 29 capitation grant. 93 1 2 So I am not sure whether those Northern Ireland figures 3 are accurate, but there would certainly have been a 4 contemporaneous acceptance of the fact that we were 5 spending less per head than they were in the North of 12:46 6 Ireland or England. 7 178 Q. I think in one of your documents, I think the phrase 8 used to describe the situation if the State had to take 9 it over was that it would be a national disaster if the 10 State had to take over the running of the industrial 12:46 11 schools; isn't that right? 12 A. I don't recall that particular reference because that 13 implies that it was a bad thing, but there was 14 certainly a reference in one of the letters to it 15 costing us two or three times as much if we were to 12:46 16 have to take it over in one of the letters to the 17 Department of Finance. 18 179 Q. Would you agree that that's a fairly substantial 19 underestimate of what the difference in funding would 20 cost, particular if they still had to provide the 12:46 21 capital resources to acquire institutions in which to 22 do this work? 23 A. Well, I don't think we did any -- I think that was a 24 remark made just to indicate that you would be better 25 off giving an increase in the capitation grant. I 12:46 26 don't think it would have been based on any financial 27 analysis at the time of the direct comparisons. 28 180 Q. Just to finish with this document, turning over the 29 page, he says: 94 1 "It is true to state that all the industrial schools are heavily in debt 2 and I doubt without immediate and substantial aid they will not be able 3 to continue to do their work for they were established." 4 5 12:47 6 7 Obviously the author is making a pitch for an increase 8 in the capitation grant, but he does appear to be 9 trying to convey a degree of urgency and he is making 10 statements that all the industrial schools are in debt. 12:47 11 In general from your review of all the documentation 12 that you have seen, could you comment on whether you 13 would regard that as a fair statement of the situation 14 as it then was? 15 A. I certainly think at that period, if I am right at 12:47 16 1964, is it, that note was? 17 181 Q. November 1964, yes. 18 A. Certainly at that point I think it is clear from the 19 internal papers that the Department would have 20 certainly regarded -- they would have perhaps had a 12:47 21 different view within the institutions but that the 22 larger more industrial type schools were in financial 23 difficulty. And indeed, I think it is kind of quite 24 clear that there is actually after -- at the end of 25 that, I think in my chronology there is a mistype, but 12:48 26 on 11th December 1964 the Minister for Education 27 personally petitioned the Minister for Finance for 28 additional minimal funding. There is a letter from the 29 Minister of the day saying that "I know the financial 95 1 position is very bad, but these schools are really in 2 trouble." So I think it is clear to me from the 3 internal papers that the Department would have regard 4 the sort of pitch and the situation at that stage as 5 more than just the normal "we need a bit more", that 12:48 6 they did accept that there was a serious financial 7 problem in some of these schools. 8 182 Q. Yes. I mean, sorry, just in case you think I am making 9 it up, the reference to it being a national disaster is 10 on page 22 of your own statement. 12:49 11 A. I apologise, I find it hard to remember everything 12 sometimes. 13 183 Q. Of course. Obviously, as you have already pointed out, 14 then and without doubt up to the present time, there 15 were all kinds of demands on the Department of Finance 12:49 16 for money for all kinds of projects, but in terms of 17 the care of children in these institutions, and really 18 all children in the care of the State were in these 19 institutions, when you have a situation that develops 20 to the point where they are in financial difficulty, 12:49 21 the institutions that is are in financial difficulty 22 and financial deficit, would you agree that in 23 retrospect there was an element of neglect by the State 24 in general and I am not saying any particular 25 Department and I suppose to an extent in the wider 12:49 26 society, there was an element of neglect to deal and 27 care for these children in an appropriate way? 28 A. Could I just go back on one point. I think what we 29 actually said was the closing of the schools would be a 96 1 national disaster, which may be somewhat different than 2 the State having to take over the schools. 3 184 Q. Yes. 4 A. I think if you are to talk about neglect and I mean 5 maybe it is useful to say something in the current 12:50 6 context. I mean if we take our annual estimates, the 7 voluntary school sector, for example, will write us in 8 a submission, they will calculate how if you took the 9 inflation since the time we introduced free education 10 in the 1960's, really they should have tripled or 12:50 11 quadrupled the capitation grant that was there at the 12 moment. So I would think if you were to take -- I 13 mean, I think by its nature the State is always dealing 14 with competing priorities and always has situations in 15 which that if you -- it is not unusual to get an 12:51 16 objective report that will look at things and say this 17 is underfunded. I mean, third level education at the 18 moment you will find plenty of reports saying we are 19 underfunding universities, we are underfunding second 20 level education. That's quite common, I would imagine 12:51 21 the Department of Health, for example, or any area. 22 23 I think, however, it is clear and I would accept that 24 the particular situation, and if you look at the tenure 25 of the correspondence at the time that the Minister had 12:51 26 and the tenure of the analysis, that the Department had 27 at the time that it accepted that it was more than that 28 normal "we could do more if we had more money." 29 97 1 In fairness, I think a lot of the correspondence with 2 the Department of Finance is done in terms that you 3 need to do more developmental stuff, that if you want 4 to have pocket money for the children or smaller units 5 or brighter clothes or more trade work. So, yes, I 12:52 6 would accept that if you were to look at the children 7 that were taken into care they were things that weren't 8 being done that should have been done with them because 9 there wasn't money available and to that extent there 10 was a neglect for which the State side, if you like, in 12:52 11 its totality in terms of how it did its priorities 12 within its funding and insofar as that reflected 13 society, it is society's priorities, that was a 14 problem. 15 12:52 16 I suppose there is always a situation if you are an 17 administrator that if things have kept going there is 18 an incrementalism about how you deal with the funding 19 matters, that's usually the way the State kind of deals 20 with these kind of things. 12:52 21 185 Q. Yes. You allude on page 59 and 60 of your detailed 22 statement to the interface between what the inspectors 23 wanted done and the relationship between the 24 accommodation provided in these institutions and the 25 quality of care for the children. If I could just 12:53 26 refer you to that, please, starting maybe at page 59. 27 The paragraph at the bottom of the page, you say: 28 "Department Inspectors also made clear 29 the association between the quality of accommodation and the quality of care 98 1 provided to children. 2 In May 1955, the Department Inspector Micheal O Síochfhrada wrote to the 3 Resident Manager of Artane pointing out a number of areas where he believed 4 there was a need to approve the general welfare of the boys. In addition to 5 the improvement of the boys weekday 12:53 clothes, Mr. O Síochfhrada stressed 6 modernising the kitchen and the installation of up-to-date equipment, 7 the erection of an adequately heated recreation hall with facility for 8 indoor games and improvements in the dining hall, for example, the provision 9 of chairs instead of the existing forms." 10 12:53 11 I presumes he means benches. 12 "Most of these were areas the Resident 13 Manager had already expressed an interest in improving and O 14 Síochfhrada's recommendations were fully accepted. The Resident Manager 15 accepted that improvements were 12:54 urgently required and underlined their 16 implications for the quality of resident care provided to children. 17 He pointed out the school building had 18 been condemned 40 years before so the case for improvement to the antiquated 19 kitchen and dining hall, like that for the erection of a large and fully 20 equipped recreation hall was 12:54 indisputable. 21 Indeed, given the dangerous condition 22 of the old school building, the Resident Manager considered it 23 imperative to erect 20 new classrooms as well. Such measures were deemed 24 necessary for the welfare and happiness of the boys and for the efficient 25 working of the school." 12:54 26 27 If you can bear with me, I will read to the bottom of 28 the page because I think it is a particular informative 29 page in relation to this relationship. It says: 99 1 "However, finance was indicated as a difficulty. According to Br. Hourican 2 the Resident Manager, the "only obstacle that stands in the way and 3 hinders progress being made in the scheme outlined by the Department is 4 the lack of funds". 5 12:55 Artane was in a weak position 6 financially and for obvious reasons we are unable to meet fully our ordinary 7 commitments at present. As a matter of fact, I cannot see how the work being 8 done in this school can be continued for long under the present conditions. 9 If the improvements recommended are to be accomplished it would be necessary 10 to get very substantial aid from pubic 12:55 funds, as in our present circumstances 11 we cannot be expected to undertake responsibility for the huge expense 12 involved. 13 A cost of 30,000 is put on the cost of just modernising the boy's kitchen and 14 overhauling the roofs of all the buildings. For the school authorities 15 to meet even part of these costs, some 12:55 assurances were sought that the school 16 was required by the State. The Provincial of the Christian Brothers, 17 JA Mulholland, who support in the matter Br. Hourican had requested 18 sought assurances from the Department that any investment on their part would 19 be worthwhile. 20 Before making a decision as to 12:55 incurring of even a portion of the 21 liability in having the above work done, Mulholland said that he needed 22 some insight into the Department thinking about the future of the 23 industrial school system. Is there a possibility that they, the schools, may 24 become redundant in the near future, he asked. The future in Artane was 25 inextricably linked to that of 12:56 industrial schools in general and 26 Mulholland noted that numbers in Artane had steadily decreased over the 27 previous two years, falling from 850 to 500. It would thus appear that Artane 28 would not be required as an industrial school after another few years. If 29 that is likely we could use this school immediately for our own purposes. On 100 1 the 24th November 1957 the school wrote to the Department again detailing the 2 required work to the school." 3 4 5 12:56 6 And again there is reference that goes on for another 7 page about the concern that whether any such 8 expenditure which is absolutely necessary should be 9 incurred until such time that there is clarity as to 10 what the future holds and there was a lacuna period, I 12:56 11 think, it does appear from some of the documents where 12 this was a real difficulty, that on the one hand there 13 was a fairly urgent need for improvement of facilities 14 and monies to do it, also a question mark as to whether 15 even if the money was spent the school would be still 12:57 16 in existence in a few years time. 17 18 Ms. Moorhead draws my attention to the fact that there 19 is a memorandum where the Inspector comments on this, 20 it is your footnote of 122. I will just read it to you 12:57 21 perhaps, if I may. This is dated 25th, it looks like, 22 July -- November 1957. If you would like to -- would 23 you like me to start reading it while you are trying to 24 locate it? 25 A. Yes. 12:57 26 186 Q. I think this is Mr. O Síochfhrada writing to the 27 secretary on this question? 28 A. Yes, that is his initials on it. 29 187 Q. Yes. It says: 101 1 "To see attached letter from the Provincial of the Irish Christian 2 Brothers in regard to the Artane school. 3 There is no doubt of the need for the 4 improvements mentioned in the Provincial's letter. Both Dr. McCabe 5 and I are aware of this fact for some 12:58 years back and we know that the 6 Resident Manager and his authorities have been considering plans for these 7 improvements but are hesitating to go ahead with them mainly for the reason 8 of the inadequate rate of maintenance grants paid for detainees there. 9 Artane is the only senior boys 10 industrial school in or in the vicinity 12:58 of Dublin. The nearest senior boys 11 school is Clonmel, something over 100 miles, a school which is not affected 12 by falling numbers to any great extent such as Artane is. 13 Artane has accomodation for 830 boys. 14 The number in residence there at the end of September last was 526, in all 15 481 committed and 43 public assistance 12:58 and two voluntary. If Artane school 16 were to close down the question of the provision of alternative accommodation 17 for the area now served by it would have to be considered as an urgent 18 problem. 19 It is doubtful if any religious order would be very willing to undertake the 20 provision of new senior boys industrial 12:59 schools in the Dublin area without a 21 substantial grant in aid from the State towards the cost of the new buildings 22 and an assurance that the State and local authorities would give a 23 substantial increase in existing rate of capitation maintenance grants. 24 An application for an increase of two 25 pounds ten shillings per week in the 12:59 rates of capitation grants was 26 submitted to the Department of Finance some time ago and we are awaiting their 27 decision on the matter. It is suggested that before applying to the 28 Provincial's letter we ask the Department of Finance for a reply to 29 our application sending him a copy of the attached letter from the 102 1 Provincial. The draft acknowledgment of the Provincial's letter herewith for 2 signature if approved." 3 4 5 I think you record at page 61 of your statement that 13:00 6 there was no record that the specific funding that was 7 being sought was provided in that case? 8 A. Yes, I think in that instance I suspect that the 9 reminder is actually a reminder about the application 10 for the capitation grant. In fact, I think the 13:00 11 reference -- I will read the reference in 12 Mr. O Síochfhrada's note as being: 13 "Before applying we asked them for a reply to our application." 14 15 But certainly in the context of that Artane request 13:00 16 appears to have been sent as well to the Department of 17 Finance and we have no record that anything came of it. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hanratty, will we 19 continue on or will we take 20 a break here? 13:00 21 MR. HANRATTY: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware 22 of the time. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: If there is a couple more 24 questions, carry on, but 25 don't be under any pressure, it is not a question of 13:00 26 saying you must do it. My sense is that you are 27 probably have a few more issues that you want to 28 debate, in which case we will take a break. 29 MR. HANRATTY: I anticipate about 15, 103 1 twenty minutes max. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take a break now. 3 Thanks very much. 4 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, before you do 5 so. 13:01 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. Gageby. 7 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, could I just 8 suggest as a courtesy to my 9 colleagues, it is my application that our 10 cross-examination should be deferred to tomorrow. I 13:01 11 have to say the operative reason for that is the 12 circulation about 40 minutes ago of a number of 13 documents that I don't know if you, Mr. Chairman, or 14 your colleague have had an opportunity of seeing but 15 the lateness of their arrival and the relevance of them 13:01 16 will become apparent if you take a lunch break. I 17 would be anxious to incorporate what is to be found in 18 those into the late arrival, I think, on Thursday or so 19 of a large volume of material. I mean, there are only 20 so many hours in the day and I am simply asking for a 13:01 21 deferment. I don't know if Mr. Connaughton or somebody 22 else could feel more happily that they would be going 23 on. I would point out that while it is true we have 24 represented the Sisters of Mercy, we also in fact are 25 wearing a different hat here today. 13:02 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate that. 27 Mr. Gageby, if it comes to 28 that, we -- are you next in the line? 29 MR. GAGEBY: I am, yes. 104 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. We will see 2 what happens. We will have 3 a look at those documents. We don't want to take 4 anybody short and we will try to review where we are 5 going and bear everybody's interests in mind, including 13:02 6 Ms. McManus' because obviously we have consider that. 7 So let's have a look at it, have a think about it. So 8 what you want us to do is to have a look at the new 9 documents particularly. The two folders that were 10 handed around. Those are the documents you are talking 13:02 11 about. 12 MR. GAGEBY: I also wish to incorporate 13 those into the material 14 which arrived before the weekend. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are aware of the 13:02 16 documents that we 17 circulated and that's because we got them last week and 18 that's what I was talking to Mr. O'Moore about, but we 19 will bear that in mind. So you are saying look -- very 20 good. 13:03 21 22 MR. GAGEBY: Thank you. 23 24 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT 25 13:03 26 27 28 29 105 1 THE HEARING RESUMED, AS FOLLOWS, AFTER THE LUNCHEON 2 ADJOURNMENT: 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 5 Yes Mr. Hanratty. 14:06 6 188 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Thank you, sir. Just one 7 final question, if I may, 8 in relation to funding and it is in reference to page 9 97 of your statement. It is really in terms of trying 10 to find a comparator, as it were, of what these figures 14:06 11 really mean. We know that in 1968 from the schedule of 12 figures I mentioned to you this morning that the 13 capitation grant was three pounds seven shillings and 14 six pence but on this page, on the bottom paragraph you 15 make reference to the Kidney Report where you say: 14:07 16 "The Kidney Report was a report 17 prepared at the request of the Association of Workers for Children in 18 Care and analysed the cost of maintaining a child in a home on the 19 basis of raising the staff ratios to desirable levels and providing 20 increased levels of remuneration for 14:07 employees. The Kidney Report was 21 concerned with determining the level of capitation grants which would be 22 necessary to adequately finance the industrial schools. The report 23 estimated that a capitation rate of £40.90 a week for 1977 would be 24 necessary. The document stated that this figure was of course based on 25 certain staffing levels and salary 14:07 rates which would be regarded by the 26 Department as unduly high. 27 The document then sets out reasons as to why the capitation system should 28 remain in place. The actual capitation rate was increased from £18 to £22 on 29 1st January, 1977 and increased again..." 106 1 It says 1st February, 1977 but I presume that was, 2 presumably, 1978 to £30, or some subsequent year. 3 A. It may be a mistake. 4 189 Q. It looks as if it was because it couldn't be the same. 5 A. There were two very close together in one year because 14:08 6 of national wage agreements. 7 190 Q. Then it might be possible. Although if the fist one 8 came on 1st January is it likely that the second one 9 came on 1st February? 10 A. It says "increased to €30 sanction, February 1977". 14:08 11 191 Q. Oh I see. So it is right? 12 A. It may have been that the other one was decided the 13 previous year and only paid with effect from 1st 14 January. 15 192 Q. I understand? 14:08 16 A. We can come back and clarify that point for you later. 17 But it may have been just that the sanction was 1st 18 February and it didn't get paid until later. I'm not 19 sure. 20 193 Q. And, obviously, there would have been cost of living 14:08 21 inflation in the meantime. We don't know what that is, 22 but at least there is a comparative there that you 23 could apply the statistics to. I just want to ask you 24 very briefly about one other matter, that's in relation 25 to the complaint of Fr. Moore, which you have dealt 14:09 26 with in your statement. As a result of the complaints 27 of this witness the Department I think it was a 28 Mr. O'Rafferty instructed that a detailed inspection of 29 Artane be conducted. I think it is referred to 107 1 probably at page 46 of your statement. Fr. Moore made 2 certain complaints that came to the attention of the 3 Department; isn't that so? 4 A. That's right. 5 194 Q. As a result of this a special inspection was carried 14:09 6 out which appears to have been, certainly in terms of 7 the report that was produced as a result of it, 8 exceptionally comprehensive? 9 A. Well certainly it was unusual in that three people, if 10 I recall -- I think we deal with it in more detail 14:09 11 on -- 12 195 Q. Page 64 maybe? 13 A. My recollection is, and I don't see that we say it in 14 the statement, but they were actually the medical 15 inspector and two of the administrative staff, they 14:10 16 went out and did an inspection, a three person 17 inspection at the time. So it was quite a detailed 18 report. 19 MR. O'MOORE: It is actually page 66 of 20 the statement. 14:10 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: It starts at 64, there is a 22 fairly detailed analysis at 23 paragraph 2.5.1 about Fr. Moore's report. 24 MR. HANRATTY: Yes. 25 A. That's right. Then we have our response, it is pages 14:10 26 66 and 67. There is a reference I think at the earlier 27 page as well. 28 196 Q. MR. HANRATTY: Just to put it in context, 29 the Commission has heard 108 1 evidence in private, which we don't need to go into, in 2 relation to the basis for any complaints that may have 3 been made and that's a matter that the Commission will 4 in due course deal with. But the Department became 5 aware of complaints by this particular individual as a 14:11 6 result of which this inspection was ordered to be 7 carried out. 8 A. Yes, there was a Department representative on the 9 Interdepartmental Committee, the evidence was given to 10 the Interdepartmental Committee and following that 14:11 11 this inspection was carried out by three people. 12 197 Q. You record on page 66 that: 13 "The inspection was carried out in 14 December 1962 by a three-person team: T. MacDáibhid, Assistant Principal 15 Officer and Inspector in Charge of 14:11 Industrial Schools, Dr. Anna McCabe, 16 Medical Inspector, and Dr. S. Mac Uaid, Higher Executive Officer in the 17 Department of Education." 18 19 You record also that: 20 14:11 "Their brief was to state the facts 21 reasonably and with discretion, good and bad to be included." 22 23 A. That's right. 24 198 Q. It appears from the report itself -- I will just get 25 the reference for the report, it is footnote 73. First 14:12 26 of all, it is quite clear from a perusal of the report 27 that it is a fairly comprehensive one. It appears that 28 the inspectors in question looked at virtually ever 29 aspect of life in Artane in the course of their 109 1 inspection. That included the food that the children 2 were eating and the clothes that they were wearing, did 3 it not? 4 A. It did, yes. 5 199 Q. It also included the relationship between the boys and 14:12 6 the teachers, which were observed by the inspectors and 7 commented upon in the report in favourable terms it 8 appears. But not to labour the point, it appears that 9 essentially the inspectors disagreed with the 10 complaints made by Fr. Moore? 14:12 11 A. Yes. 12 200 Q. And their findings were not consistent with the 13 complaints that he made? 14 A. That's right. 15 201 Q. Under virtually every heading that he made them? 14:12 16 A. There was some criticism I think subsequently in the 17 Interdepartmental Committee minutes and discussions 18 that perhaps they hadn't dealt with all headings but 19 the Department's report was very satisfied that there 20 was no substance to the allegations of Fr. Moore. 14:13 21 202 Q. Yes. I think finally, just to finish on this point, 22 Dr. McCabe subsequently commented on this in a separate 23 report in 1964, I will just give you the reference for 24 it. It is Tab 2 of one of the booklets we got this 25 morning. This is the one with the four tabs in it, if 14:13 26 I can just briefly refer you to that. The report is 27 dated 29th February, 1964, it is described itself at 28 the top as "General Report on Industrial and 29 Reformatory Schools", written, obviously, by 110 1 Dr. McCabe. Can I refer you to the second last page 2 and the last paragraph on that. There is reference to 3 Fr. Noone? 4 A. I think it is a mistype, it is typed up from the 5 manuscript I think, the manuscript is behind it, it is 14:14 6 a mistype. 7 203 Q. She says: 8 "In conclusion I refer to Fr. Moore's 9 report, most of which I am in substantial agreement with, but I 10 refute completely the allegations that 14:14 the boys are undernourished, lack ample 11 wearing apparel and bed clothing, and that the footwear was inadequate and in 12 many cases ill fitting." 13 14 So that is really a reflection of what is contained in 15 the earlier report produced by her and the other 14:14 16 inspectors in relation to Artane? 17 A. That's right. 18 204 Q. In respect of those particular matters? 19 A. Yeah. I think the bits in substantial agreement may 20 have been the bits about funding and some of those 14:14 21 other issues. 22 205 Q. Yes, that's correct. Sorry, there is just one error 23 before I finish completely, and I assure you I will 24 finish this time. At page 53, footnote 92, there is 25 this reference to Patsy Flanagan. This is this boy who 14:15 26 received an injury while he was doing a circus trick on 27 the banisters. Do you recall this? 28 A. Yes. 29 206 Q. I think it is recorded that he died as a result of 111 1 this, but in fact the information we have is that he 2 died as a result of an anaesthetic he received in the 3 course of treatment for this injury. I don't know if 4 you are aware of that or whether you can confirm that 5 or not. 14:15 6 A. I am afraid I can't without checking the papers. But 7 perhaps if I could come back and just confirm it in the 8 morning, what our records show. 9 MR. HANRATTY: I very much appreciate 10 that. Thank you very much 14:15 11 indeed. 12 13 END OF EXAMINATION OF MS. McMANUS BY MR. HANRATTY 14 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, in the normal way we 14:15 16 would now go on to 17 Mr. Gageby for the Sisters of Mercy. Does anybody have 18 any objection, Mr. Gageby wanted to postpone his 19 examination until tomorrow, does anybody have any 20 objection to that? 14:16 21 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Sir, I would prefer to go 22 after Mr. Gageby. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that. That's 24 the scheme as planned. 25 Well, I wouldn't propose to change it unless there 14:16 26 seemed like a good reason to change it, Mr. 27 Connaughton. The first thing is does anybody object to 28 postponing Mr. Gageby's examination? That's the first 29 question. Everybody else I rather imagine is depending 112 1 on this issue. Mr. O'Moore, you have no objection to 2 that, have you? 3 MR. O'MOORE: Absolutely not. I was 4 trying to signal to you, 5 Chairman, that we've no difficulty with that. 14:16 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are conscious of the 7 fact that there has been a 8 good deal of extra material circulated and people have 9 had to assimilate a good deal of extra information on 10 top of a great deal of documentary material which has 14:17 11 been produced, and the material that the Department has 12 produced is certainly extremely thorough and we know 13 that there is a lot of material to be assimilated in 14 it. So our view is to be sympathetic to a request. We 15 didn't know exactly how long Mr. Hanratty was going to 14:17 16 take but, again, we didn't want to be pushing or asking 17 him to finish early. Mr. Gageby, can I ask you this: 18 How long do you anticipate being? 19 MR. GAGEBY: Shorter than Mr. Hanratty. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. And following 14:17 21 Mr. Hanratty then there is 22 Mr. Maguire, isn't that right? 23 MR. MAGUIRE: That's right. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Maguire, give me some 25 idea? I mean Mr. Gageby is 14:17 26 going to finish -- take less than the morning. 27 MR. GAGEBY: Under two hours 28 Mr. Chairman. 29 MR. MAGUIRE: The more he covers the 113 1 shorter I will be. I don't in any event anticipate 2 being very long in any event. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. All right. 4 Mr. Connaughton, you will 5 be some time. 14:18 6 MR. CONNAUGHTON: I would have thought, Sir, 7 about two hours. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. That's a useful 9 indication. Well we don't 10 propose to put people in difficulties if they would 14:18 11 prefer to cross-examine. It is perfectly clear that we 12 wouldn't have finished today in any case so that there 13 is nothing particularly lost. So in the circumstances 14 we propose to -- if that's all we can do today that's 15 all we can do today. It is not our normal day, but we 14:18 16 have to sometimes get used to achieving less than we 17 expect. So thank you very much Ms. McManus. 18 MR. MacMAHON: 10:30 tomorrow morning? 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. Very good, 20 thank you very much. 14:18 21 22 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 2:20 P.M. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 114