COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC SESSION HELD AT THE HILTON HOTEL, CHARLEMONT PLACE, DUBLIN 2 ON TUESDAY, 15TH MARCH - DAY 65 BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SEÁN RYAN CHAIRPERSON OF THE INQUIRY ORDINARY MEMBERS: MS. MARIAN SHANLEY I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes in the above hearing. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT REGISTRAR TO INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE: MR. BRENDAN REEDY COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION: MR. NOEL McMAHON SC MS. BRENDAN McGOVERN SC Instructed by: MS. FEENA ROBINSON FOR THE SISTERS OF MERCY: MR. P. GAGEBY SC FOR MS. BERNADETTE FAHY: MR. JOHN ROGERS SC MS. MAIRE BATES HUSSEY & BATES FOR SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE: MR. ATHUR O'HAGAN 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 PAGE NO. QUESTION NO. SR. O'DONOGHUE EXAMINED - MR. McMAHON 1 - 63 8 - 45 SHORT ADJOURNMENT 46 SUBMISSION - MR. ROGERS 47 - 56 - MR. McMAHON 57 RULING - MR. JUSTICE RYAN 57 - 62 SR. O'DONOGHUE (CONTD.) EXAMINED - MR. McMAHON 64 62 - 67 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT 67 SR. O'DONOGHUE (CONTD.) EXAMINED - MR. McMAHON 65 - 148 69 - 119 SHORT ADJOURNMENT 120 SUBMISSION - MR. GAGEBY 121 - 122 - MR. ROGERS 122 - 127 - MR. GAGEBY 127 - 128 - MR. McMAHON 128 - 129 - MR. ROGERS 129 - 130 RULING - MR. JUSTICE RYAN 130 - 133 SR. O'DONOGHUE (CONTD.) EXAMINED - MR. McMAHON 149 - 168 133 - 146 . 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2 2005. 3 4 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. 6 We are here this morning to 7 have our introductory public session into the 8 hearings in respect of St. Vincent's Institution in 9 Goldenbridge. Ms. Marian Shanley is my colleague 10 here of the Investigation Committee. 11 12 Just to remind people, first of all, everybody is 13 welcome, just to remind them of what we are about 14 here. This is an opportunity which we give in public 15 to the institution and the congregation to set out 16 their position in general terms in response to the 17 complaints and in response to the issue of abuse 18 generally. It is not a time, as we have explained 19 previously in the other four institutions that we 20 have had hearings into, it is not an occasion for 21 cross-examination. There will be a time for that at 22 a later stage as we have made clear on our previous 23 occasions. 24 25 Just to explain what is happening. Today and, if 26 necessary, tomorrow are scheduled for hearing the 27 evidence of Sr. Helena O'Donoghue. We will then go 28 to private hearings on Friday. Our private hearings 29 begin then and proceed until the end of April 4 1 effectively, 27 April. During that period we will 2 have heard every witness who has a complaint to make 3 and who wishes to give evidence in respect of 4 Goldenbridge. There is no question of selection or 5 sampling or anything like that, every single witness 6 who wishes to give evidence will be heard and they 7 are all scheduled. 8 9 Can I just, again as I try to do on these occasions, 10 remind people that complainants will of course 11 through their legal advisers have got documents 12 circulated by the Commission. May I just remind 13 everybody that of course they are entirely 14 confidential and must not be disclosed and of course 15 naturally I note that the media understand perfectly 16 well that they cannot be published. 17 18 Very good. I begin with Mr. McMahon, if you would 19 like to open proceedings please. 20 MR. McMAHON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 21 As I have on previous 22 occasions I am initially going to outline the format 23 of the evidence which it is intended to hear over the 24 next period of time. This is a public hearing in 25 relation to St. Vincent's Industrial School, 26 Goldenbridge, Dublin. This was an industrial school 27 under the management of the Sisters of Mercy. It 28 operated in that capacity from its first 29 certification in 1880 up until 1985 after which time 5 1 two new group homes were opened on the site. For 2 most of its existence the industrial school was 3 certified for girls up to the age of 16 years and 4 from 1954 its certification included permission to 5 accept boys up to the age of 10 years. 6 7 The hearing will follow the same format as that which 8 has been used for the past year or so when 9 investigating other institutions. In broad terms the 10 evidence in respect of Goldenbridge will be heard in 11 three phases: Phase 1, commencing this morning, will 12 consist of the evidence of Sr. Helena O'Donoghue, the 13 Provincial Leader of the South Central Province of 14 the Sisters of Mercy who will give general 15 information about St. Vincent's, Goldenbridge. This 16 will include the Congregation's view as to how the 17 institution operated and how life was like there. It 18 is intended to serve as an general background to the 19 institution. 20 21 It is appreciated that some or perhaps all of the 22 evidence which she gives will not be accepted by some 23 people who were present in the institution at the 24 relevant time and we understand that. Insofar as 25 there may be serious issues raised which require 26 resolution, they will be returned to in phase 3 at a 27 later stage. 28 29 When this brief public hearing comprising of phase 1 6 1 has been completed, phase 2 will then begin. This 2 will involve hearing the evidence of those persons 3 who have filed statements with the Commission 4 outlining abuse suffered by them in Goldenbridge. 5 The Commission has also scheduled the hearing of 6 relevant witnesses who may have evidence to give in 7 respect of the specific matters complained of by 8 those witnesses. The hearing of such evidence is due 9 to commence on Friday next, 18 March, and it will 10 continue until the end of April. These hearings, of 11 course, will take place in private. 12 13 After the Committee has had an opportunity to 14 consider the evidence given in both phase 1 and in 15 phase 2 it is proposed to return to public hearings 16 which will deal with any contentious matters 17 remaining, or any other relevant issues concerning 18 the management and operation of the Institution. At 19 that stage the Investigation Committee will permit 20 such cross-examination as fair procedures require in 21 light of the issues that have been identified in 22 phases 1 and 2 and the parties who appear to have 23 legitimate interests in them. 24 25 It is more appropriate that these contentious issues 26 are dealt with at that stage when the Committee will 27 have had an opportunity of hearing evidence from 28 persons who were in the institution at the relevant 29 time rather than now when the Committee can only have 7 1 a limited picture as to what contentious issues are 2 likely to arise. Without further a do I propose 3 calling to give evidence Sr. Helena O'Donoghue. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Good morning, 5 Sister. Where is 6 Mr. Reedy? 7 REGISTRAR: Here. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to swear in 9 Sr. Helena. 10 11 12 SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS 13 EXAMINED BY MR. McMAHON, AS FOLLOWS 14 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Sister, sit 16 down please. 17 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 18 1 Q. MR. McMAHON: Sr. Helena, I hope you are 19 comfortable there? 20 A. Yes, thank you. 21 2 Q. Perhaps you would like to begin your evidence by 22 giving a broad outline of your own position in the 23 Sisters of Mercy and how you come to be the person 24 who is giving evidence in relation to the issues 25 under review? 26 A. Thank you. I am Sr. Helena O'Donoghue, a member of 27 the Sisters of Mercy. I currently hold the position 28 of Provincial Leader of the South Central Province of 29 the Sisters of Mercy. I was elected to that position 8 1 in 1995 for a 6-year term and re-elected in 2001 for 2 a further 6-year term. The South Central Province of 3 the Sisters of Mercy is one of seven provinces of the 4 Congregation, four of which are in Ireland, which is 5 governed by the provincial and central leadership 6 teams according to the constitutions of the Sisters 7 of Mercy. 8 9 Goldenbridge Convent, and formerly the industrial 10 school, fall within the geographical area that now 11 corresponds to the South Central Province. At the 12 time the industrial school was in operation the 13 structure of the congregation was very different and 14 that will be described below. 15 16 I have no direct personal knowledge of Goldenbridge, 17 as I was a member of the former Killaloo Mercy 18 Congregation in the Clare/Tipperary area. The 19 Goldenbridge Convent and the industrial school 20 belonged to the original autonomous unit of the 21 Dublin diocese, which was a branch of Carysfort where 22 the headquarters were. In 1994, just over 10 years 23 ago, all 26 Irish Congregations were amalgamated to 24 create a new congregation with seven provinces 25 worldwide. 26 27 The Killaloo Congregation and the Dublin Congregation 28 were both absorbed into what is now the South Central 29 Province by this process. So because of this new 9 1 configuration for the past 10 years it has been my 2 responsibility to deal with all issues relating to 3 Goldenbridge, and in particular with the abuse 4 allegations. I have informed myself as far as 5 possible and from a wide variety of sources about 6 these matters, and I will talk to them as I proceed. 7 8 Before doing that, I would like to give an outline, 9 if that is acceptable, of just how my evidence might 10 be structured. I would like to refer to the 11 emergence of the complaints and the media approach 12 with regard to Goldenbridge Industrial School. Then 13 to touch on how we as the Sisters of Mercy dealt with 14 these allegations and, thirdly, to look at some of 15 the difficulties that we have in relation to the more 16 serious abuse allegations, and then to look at the 17 very obvious and accepted negative dimensions of 18 Goldenbridge Industrial School. That I would hope to 19 do briefly as an introductory portion. 20 21 I would then look at the establishment of 22 Goldenbridge itself and finally look at the operation 23 of Goldenbridge, which covers many dimensions and 24 will be probably the more lengthy part of my 25 evidence. 26 3 Q. Yes. Would you like to begin with the first of those 27 topics, which I think you said was the emergence of 28 the abuse allegations and media approach of 29 Goldenbridge Industrial School? 10 1 A. Yes. I should say that I am acutely conscious, 2 particularly this morning, of the pain and suffering 3 that many former residents of Goldenbridge have 4 expressed to us over the years. I will be trying to 5 maintain in some way a balance, perhaps a delicate 6 balance, of being attentive to that, while at the 7 same time trying to be just and compassionate to all 8 concerned. 9 10 In the past decade there has been much public 11 discussion of the issue of abuse with regard to 12 Goldenbridge. It became the focus of particular 13 intense attention and criticism at the time of the 14 broadcast in February 1996 of the programme "Dear 15 Daughter", which was a dramatised presentation of 16 some accounts of life in the school. One of the 17 sisters in charge of the school, Sr. Xaveria, was 18 subsequently publically identified as the person 19 against whom the serious allegations of abuse had 20 been made. The programme was followed by widespread 21 hostile publicity in the print media over several 22 months and Sr. Xaveria was demonised and vilified. 23 24 The serious content of these allegations appeared 25 from an early stage to have been accepted in the 26 public domain as fact. Sr. Xaveria herself 27 acknowledged on Prime Time that the regime was strict 28 and that corporal punishment was common, but she 29 denied that children were abused in the horrific way 11 1 which had been described in many of the headlines. 2 This denial would appear to have been almost 3 completely ignored in the public domain and it would 4 appear that judgment had been given. 5 6 We would note that at that particular time a number 7 of complaints were made to An Garda Síochána 8 following the broadcast of "Dear Daughter". No 9 criminal charges ensued and no criminal convictions 10 obviously. We welcome these hearings held by the 11 Commission into Goldenbridge as providing a long 12 awaited opportunity to examine in a detailed and even 13 handed way, and insofar as it is possible to do so, 14 the complaints which have been made. On this, the 15 first day of the hearings, I am grateful for the 16 opportunity to set out our understanding in relation 17 to the life and the complaints that have been made 18 with regard to Goldenbridge. 19 4 Q. Yes. Would you like to set out in some detail the 20 approach to the allegations? 21 A. Yes. The allegations that children were abused in 22 Goldenbridge Industrial School was a source of deep 23 shock and dismay to us. The realisation that people 24 were carrying such anguish from their childhoods led 25 us to apologising in February of 1996 for the pain 26 and hurt suffered by many former residents and to set 27 up a help line and counselling service for those who 28 felt they might benefit from it. Detailed written 29 statements of complaint reached us within a short 12 1 time through litigation and then the proceedings of 2 this Commission. All of these contributed to further 3 both dismay and distress our sisters and the 4 congregation. 5 6 One of the first things we did was to commission a 7 professional childcare expert to give us an initial 8 assessment of these allegations and this was in 9 advance of the screening of "Dear Daughter". The 10 report which issued in 1996 was compiled quickly and 11 was preliminary in nature, but it reached a 12 preliminary view that the allegations were broadly 13 credible. It suggested that a fuller enquiry would 14 be necessary which would involve, and I quote: 15 "A lengthy process, conducted most 16 likely by a multidisciplinary group." 17 18 In the event such fuller enquiry could not take place 19 as legal proceedings were instigated at an early 20 stage. 21 22 We then set about finding out what we could about 23 Goldenbridge and about the specific allegations of 24 abuse. 25 5 Q. Before you go into those, the efforts you made to 26 find those things out, Sister, could you outline to 27 us what the Order's approach to the expert report, 28 which you have just referred to, what the Order's 29 approach to that report was and is? 13 1 A. The approach gave us, if you like, some understanding 2 initially of how we might view our situation at the 3 time and we out of that made our apology. We took 4 the main conclusions from it that the regime was 5 harsh and insensitive to the needs of children, that 6 it was inadequate and did not meet their basic needs. 7 We informed the Department of Education, we informed 8 the Department of Health and we informed the Gardaí 9 about that conclusion of the report. 10 11 I think we were very aware that the report had been 12 made prior to "Dear Daughter" screening so the 13 knowledge of the specific allegations was not 14 available to the report when it was being made. It 15 involved the interviewing of the two sisters, 16 Sr. Fabian and Sr. Xaveria, the interviewing of Louis 17 Lenton who was the programme maker, and a sitting in 18 on an interview of one of the complainants who was 19 speaking to one of our sisters about her own time in 20 the industrial school. I think we realised very 21 quickly that something fuller was needed to 22 understand the reality. 23 24 I should say that our presence here and our 25 opportunity before the Commission to provide perhaps 26 fuller information now that time has moved on gives 27 us something which we welcome very much. 28 6 Q. Yes. 29 A. We take very seriously the obligations that we have 14 1 to both former residents and to former members of our 2 Congregation and in the process we have wanted to be 3 just and fair and compassionate to everybody. We 4 have turned to many sources to gather information and 5 it is from these that I now make a picture of the 6 past in order to present evidence here today. 7 8 The first exercise that we did was to talk to people 9 who had witnessed conditions and events in the 10 industrial school itself during the period 1940 to 11 1980. We have spoken to many who have been former 12 residents of Goldenbridge, some of whom describe 13 their experiences in different terms to those which 14 have been more generally publicised. A number of 15 these former residents and others spontaneously made 16 contact with us by letter or person after the 17 allegations were published in the media in order to 18 express their disagreement with the picture that had 19 been portrayed and others went directly to the media. 20 A number of these former residents are most willing 21 and would like an opportunity to speak to members of 22 the Commission. It is probably fair to say that 23 there is a diversity of views among former residents 24 of Goldenbridge about how children were treated there 25 and these differences can sometimes be found even 26 within families. 27 7 Q. Can you assist the Commission in relation to what you 28 mean by that, that there is a diversity of views 29 among former residents, I take it that this is the 15 1 impression which has been gained from speaking to 2 former residents? 3 A. Yes, and from the fact that in the allegations the 4 portrayal presented varying degrees from which 5 complaints have been made than from other residents. 6 They described it in different terms as part of their 7 life which they were happy to remember, while 8 recognising that it never replaced family or home. 9 8 Q. Yes. 10 A. We have also spoken to a number of other people who 11 had contact with the school, adults in the main, 12 including medical and professional people, volunteers 13 and neighbours who also spoke of the school in 14 positive terms. 15 9 Q. Well, when you speak of these others to whom you have 16 spoken, and you refer to them speaking of the school 17 in positive terms, did you experience a diversity of 18 views from amongst those too? 19 A. Well, I am not conscious just now of any medical or 20 professional or indeed volunteer or neighbour who 21 described the school in negative terms. 22 10 Q. Yes. Was there another category of people to whom 23 you also spoke in relation to conditions in 24 Goldenbridge? 25 A. Yes, we obviously spoke to a number of people who 26 were our sisters who had worked in the school, but 27 among those and among others a number of key people 28 were of course by this stage old or even had deceased 29 or had moved away from Ireland. Three of the key 16 1 sisters who were in charge of the school over the 2 period of time, one person in particular, Sr. Fabian 3 McHugh, who would have been the most recent sister in 4 charge and had been there for up to 40 years, she 5 died in 2002 and would have wished to have given 6 evidence to the Commission. Sr. Bernardine who was 7 the first of the Resident Managers during the period 8 died in 1990. 9 10 We have found it difficult and we believe it is 11 difficult for anybody to have sufficient information 12 to fully explore what the situation was in relation 13 to Goldenbridge. This was recognised by the High 14 Court in an application brought before it in 2001 in 15 respect of Goldenbridge. 16 11 Q. Yes. 17 A. Besides going to the memories of a range of people, 18 we have also ...(INTERJECTION) 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, that was the 20 reference? 21 MR. McMAHON: Yes. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Justice Kelly's 23 decision, was it? 24 MR. McMAHON: Yes. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much. I was 26 just trying to make sure 27 I know which one it was. 28 A. Yes, Kelly J, O'Leary. 29 12 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Sister, you were 17 1 saying ... 2 A. Having spoken to a number of people we then went to 3 look at documentary evidence or whatever documents 4 might have been available to us. Our own archive 5 contains records from the industrial school, but 6 unfortunately these records are minimal, containing 7 books such as admission registers, school roll books 8 and medical registers. In an examination of them no 9 records of any complaints were found. We recovered a 10 limited number of photographs of children in the 11 school and all of these photographs have been made 12 available to the Commission. They cover a range of 13 activities, but particularly activities that were 14 either outdoor or for recreation. 15 13 Q. Are you able to assist us in relation to why the 16 records are minimal? 17 A. I think my understanding would be in common with the 18 times. Records, specific records, such as registers 19 were retained, but many others were not deemed to be 20 necessary to maintain over the years. Other than 21 that, I am not in a position to say why the general 22 attitude towards records at the time would not have 23 been of a different kind. 24 14 Q. Are there particular records which you feel may have 25 at one time existed, but no longer exist and which 26 might have been of assistance if they were still in 27 existence? 28 A. I have no knowledge of that and no indications that 29 such records at one time might have existed but do 18 1 not now. 2 15 Q. Yes. I suppose one example that I might raise is 3 whether there were punishment books maintained by 4 Goldenbridge and, if so, whether they remain in 5 existence? I think there was a statutory obligation 6 on industrial schools to maintain such books? 7 A. In living memory there doesn't appear to be any 8 knowledge of a punishment book for Goldenbridge. No 9 sister in charge or sister who worked ever remembers 10 such having been in Goldenbridge. 11 16 Q. You have referred to medical registers, what kind of 12 books are you speaking about there? 13 A. Generally speaking there was a reference to a sick 14 book, I think it may have been called. I think in 15 relation to Goldenbridge we don't have anything else 16 other than a sick book, but the sick book, when we 17 did look at it, seemed to have gaps in it over 18 periods of time and certainly not very much in it in 19 the later years. The sick book was the place where 20 the visits of the doctor were recorded. 21 17 Q. Again you may not be in a position, you may not know 22 the answer to this question, but if you do it would 23 be of assistance, in addition to recording the visit 24 by the doctor, did it record the purpose for which 25 the doctor was visiting? 26 A. Yes, I understand it did. 27 18 Q. Are we talking here about a number of books or are we 28 talking about only a single book? 29 A. My knowledge is only of one book. 19 1 19 Q. I think that has been made available in the course of 2 discovery? 3 A. Yes, it has been made available. 4 20 Q. You referred to a number of photographs. I think you 5 have also made photographs available? 6 A. Yes. As I say these photographs do refer largely 7 speaking to the recreational side of life or 8 occasions and events. I might refer to one which 9 simply had to do with the holiday house in 10 Rathdrum -- 11 21 Q. Yes. 12 A. -- which was bought for Goldenbridge and in that 13 there was a swimming pool for a number of years and 14 we have a photograph, among those that have been 15 discovered to the Commission, where there is a 16 wonderful picture of children enjoying themselves in 17 the swimming pool. 18 22 Q. Yes. 19 A. Some further documentation that we have: We have 20 recovered lecture notes from a course on child care 21 which was held in Carysfort in August of 1953 and 22 copies of these notes have been made available to the 23 Commission. Sr. Bernardine O'Brien, who was the 24 Resident Manager in Goldenbridge school from 1942 to 25 '54, she delivered a lecture at this course which 26 tells us much of the thinking and practice at 27 Goldenbridge at the time and that has been furnished 28 to the Commission. 29 23 Q. Have you read those lecture notes? 20 1 A. Yes. 2 24 Q. Are you parts of it to which you would like to refer 3 the Committee at this point in time? 4 A. It's interesting that she talks about various things 5 such as what was the general term for these 6 institutions at the time, they were known at 7 orphanages and she rejects that term. She also talks 8 about the inappropriateness or the difficulty of 9 having children in very large groups and she 10 recommends that children would be divided into 11 smaller groups or as small groups as was possible. 12 For instance an example of that would have been 13 taking the large dining room, which had very long 14 tables and firms, and replacing those with small 15 tables for six and chairs. She also talks about the 16 importance of occupation of the children. I think 17 the concern there was, and might have been very much 18 of its time, that if you were occupied you were less 19 likely to be, I suppose, up to mischief or things of 20 that kind, but she also talked in terms of training 21 and options for children into the future. She held, 22 for instance, family life and family management and 23 care of home as something very high in her estimation 24 and so the training for that, which was part of the 25 industrial school, she saw as valuable and as equal 26 to any other career path in life. They would be a 27 flavour, if you like, of some of the things that she 28 mentions in her lecture. 29 25 Q. The lecture has been made available, I do not propose 21 1 going through all of it, but there is perhaps one or 2 two other bits that you might comment on. First of 3 all, is it taken by the community that this lecture 4 reflects current thinking and practice in 5 Goldenbridge in 1953 or was it aspirational? 6 A. It's not possible to be absolute about that at this 7 point in time, it's 50 years ago. What we can say 8 that during Sr. Bernardine's time she did bring about 9 a number of improvements, which I will refer to 10 later, in the working of the industrial school at the 11 time. I would imagine as well that the constraints 12 of working within the financial reality in which she 13 was in may have meant that some of the things she was 14 suggesting did remain aspirational. Other things 15 such as children having pets, children having 16 teachers, being kind and firm, sympathetic but 17 impartial would I think have been reflected in her 18 way of working in the recollections of the sisters 19 who worked with her. 20 26 Q. I think you have mentioned that this was a lecture 21 which was prepared to be given or delivered in a 22 conference in Institutional Management in 1953? 23 A. 1953. 24 27 Q. So I suppose at least it reflects an awareness for 25 that time of -- 26 A. Yes. 27 28 Q. -- good practice? 28 A. It would seem from some of the records, which I will 29 refer to later in the Department, that there was some 22 1 conversation with the Department of Education about a 2 child care course. 3 29 Q. It was discussed. 4 A. Whether one was to have been put on by the Department 5 or not we are not clear on, but this particular 6 course was funded by the archbishop and it was run in 7 Carysfort and from all around the country the 8 managers of industrial schools were invited. 9 30 Q. I think that amongst the matters raised was in 10 relation to, you mentioned reference to the schools 11 as industrial schools and I think the preferred 12 appellation according to Sr. Bernardine was that they 13 would be called children's homes? 14 A. Yes. She further recommended at that time that the 15 process of committal would be decriminalised. That 16 is back as far as 1953. 17 31 Q. She felt that consideration should be given to the 18 background of the children before they come into the 19 school at all? 20 A. Yes. 21 32 Q. I think that she expressed the view that we must now 22 meet them with tender, considerate sympathy and 23 gently but firmly lead them to respect law and order? 24 A. This is the evidence of her thinking at the time. As 25 I say we cannot be absolute about how much of it she 26 was able to do and how much of it would have 27 remained. 28 33 Q. I think in relation to the question of organisation, 29 she recognised the importance of expertise. She said 23 1 that only experts should be appointed to govern and 2 teach? 3 A. Yes. 4 34 Q. She recognised the need for teachers having a keen 5 and natural knowledge in their work as well as 6 requisite experience and knowledge of psychiatry in 7 dealing with them? 8 A. Yes. I think we can say those dimensions would have 9 remained aspirational as there was no child care 10 training during that period and not for well into the 11 late 60's, the realisation of the special needs of 12 children which would have required those various 13 elements of expertise. Her lectures do indicate that 14 the consciousness was there that something particular 15 and special was needed for children in the industrial 16 school. 17 35 Q. I think that she referred to the children in her care 18 as "the men and women of tomorrow"? 19 A. Yes. 20 36 Q. Amongst her objectives was making them: 21 "Into decent citizens, good Catholics, 22 the founders of decent homes of tomorrow." 23 24 That was the kernel, she said, of the problem and 25 that was a name which must constantly be kept before 26 them. 27 "Any deviation from this into the mass 28 production strain of handling our task will do the complete opposite to that 29 expected from us." 24 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McMahon, I do not know 2 that we need to go into it 3 in that much detail. It seems to me that if this is 4 what was being set out as what should have happened, 5 it's a contemporary document with which we can use to 6 judge the evidence of people in our private hearings; 7 is that right? 8 MR. McMAHON: I think it is an 9 interesting document 10 certainly from that point of view. There were only 11 two other quotes which I wished to highlight at this 12 point in time. Under the heading Organisation of 13 Staff, it speaks about: 14 "Good organisation bringing peace and 15 happiness and order to all establishments and is particularly 16 necessary in our homes where so many individuals have to work out the daily 17 round together." 18 19 Then later on in the next paragraph, towards the end 20 of the next paragraph, it speaks about the central 21 authority and describes, I suppose, what her ideal 22 would be that the person in charge is: 23 "Kind but firm, sympathetic but 24 impartial, efficient without being overbearing, determined but open to 25 suggestion, approachable without being too free. The other members of the 26 staff will take their cue from her and the result will be content and harmony 27 in the entire home." 28 29 Would that reflect Sr. Bernardine's views on the 25 1 requisites for a good Resident Manager? 2 A. She is not here to answer, but what I think it does 3 do is indicate the very serious way in which 4 Sr. Bernardine viewed her position. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's a contemporary 6 document, I suppose. We 7 can all read it Mr. McMahon. What Sr. O'Donoghue 8 thinks of it is of little, with all respect, is of 9 little enough relevance. If we have a document we 10 can read it ourselves and say what application, isn't 11 that a fair way of approaching that? 12 MR. McMAHON: Yes. 13 37 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other 14 documents from that 15 conference available besides that one? 16 A. They are available. 17 38 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: You may not have them with 18 you. That's all right. 19 A. No. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't recall having come 21 across any other specific 22 documents ...(INTERJECTION) 23 A. We have no difficulty in providing those too. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. It's 25 not important at this 26 stage, but that would be something that we would like 27 to follow up on. 28 39 Q. MR. McMAHON: I think in some ways the 29 fact that there was a 26 1 course in 1953 is interesting. I think that 2 heretofore the impression created has been that the 3 first child care course as such in Ireland was not 4 until 1970? 5 A. Yes, and perhaps this was a conference rather than a 6 course, in a sense that a course might have a 7 training element to it. This was a conference which 8 dealt with various dimensions and presented various 9 ...(INTERJECTION) 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: There was some discussion 11 before, but the question 12 was who had paid for it, Mr. McMahon. It did not 13 happen, that's the fact? 14 40 Q. MR. McMAHON: Do we have any knowledge at 15 this remove as to the 16 attendance at the Carysfort lecture? 17 A. I think we may well do, but I don't have that 18 information here. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's something we would 20 like to follow up 21 obviously. 22 A. I would be happy to do that. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 24 41 Q. MR. McMAHON: I think you were dealing 25 with the documentation. 26 I interrupted you there for that little diversion? 27 A. A critical source of documentation for us consisted 28 in the Department's inspection reports which were 29 compiled regularly over the period of time. The 27 1 inspector's job was to visit and report on 2 Goldenbridge Industrial School over this relevant 3 period. These documents are consistently positive 4 about the running of Goldenbridge Industrial School 5 from 1945 onwards, and I will speak a little bit more 6 about those, but I just refer to them here. 7 42 Q. Yes. 8 A. We also spoke with a number of experts, both social 9 and medical historians, in order to try to understand 10 the historical context of the complaints in relation 11 to this period and because it is 50 years and more 12 from our time today. Memories of the poverty and 13 harshness of Irish society in the 40's and 50's have 14 been dimmed by the passage of time and the affluence 15 of the modern era. I would like to refer to a report 16 of Professor Séamus O'Cinnéide and Dr. Máire Maguire 17 entitled "Family Poverty and Child Poverty from the 18 1920's to the 1960's", which we have also furnished 19 to the Commission. 20 43 Q. Yes. 21 A. It is something that I would like to note that many 22 of the complaints about Goldenbridge relate to 23 matters such as the standard of food, clothing, 24 education, issues such as industrial training, 25 corporal punishment, and the treatment of particular 26 medical conditions. Contrary to perhaps public 27 perception very few of the Goldenbridge allegations 28 are about sexual abuse. 29 44 Q. Yes. 28 1 A. Central to Goldenbridge complaints are the ordinary 2 everyday conditions of living in the school and 3 looking at what the reality was in life is pertinent 4 to that. We also consulted experts on child care, 5 child psychology and psychiatry and these have helped 6 us to understand the concepts that informed child 7 care policy today and shows us why the industrial 8 school system failed so very many children. It also 9 helped us to understand the terrible trauma the 10 children endured by being separated from their 11 families and put into institutions until the age of 12 16. 13 45 Q. Can I take it that reports have been obtained from 14 the experts whom you are referring to, child care 15 experts, psychologists, psychiatrists? 16 A. Some reports would be more relative, if you like, to 17 specific issues and specific allegations and they 18 will be available insofar as we have them to the 19 Commission. 20 46 Q. Yes, and insofar as they may relate to more general 21 topics? 22 A. I am not aware, I am not sure at this point if we 23 have something specifically on child psychology or 24 psychiatry other than what's published material in 25 the general domain. 26 47 Q. I see. Such reports as have been commissioned are 27 more likely to be in the context of specific 28 allegations or complaints and they are available? 29 A. Yes. The general ones are more in the social and 29 1 historical context of the times. 2 48 Q. That is the Professor O'Cinnéide Report? 3 A. Yes. 4 49 Q. Are there others? 5 A. And Maura Maguire. 6 50 Q. That's a joint report? 7 A. Yes. In a sense that covers the various 8 conversations and documents that we have had with 9 various people. 10 51 Q. Yes. 11 A. I would like to move at this point to refer briefly 12 to our concerns with regard to the serious and 13 particularly the very serious allegations with regard 14 to Goldenbridge. 15 16 From the beginning since '96 and right through to 17 today, through a long process of listening and 18 reflecting and trying to find out, we have accepted 19 and recognised that many people who were children in 20 our industrial school suffered great pain and hurt 21 which they have carried right through their lives to 22 today. We know that this is true and we accept that 23 many features of Goldenbridge contributed to that 24 pain and hurt and we have made apologies in '96 and 25 more recently in May of 2004. 26 27 Here today I sincerely reiterate those apologies 28 because there are many aspects of the Goldenbridge 29 Industrial School that we deeply regret and I will 30 1 explain that in detail a little further on. 2 3 I also need to refer to some of the more serious 4 allegations that have been made. In making our 5 apology and accepting responsibility, we have to take 6 account of some serious and extraordinary allegations 7 about Goldenbridge and about Sr. Xaveria which we 8 cannot and do not accept as factually correct, such 9 as extreme physical punishment to children or babies, 10 starvation or malnourishment or that any child would 11 have died while in our care due to deliberate 12 mistreatment. We hope that we would be given an 13 opportunity in this Commission hearings for a 14 meticulous investigation of those allegations. 15 16 We are concerned and disconcerted that claims of this 17 nature have been accepted in the court of public 18 opinion without any appropriate examination. I also 19 refer to a difficulty with regard to the many aspects 20 of the industrial school system by which many former 21 residents were hurt and damaged, but which reflected 22 the thinking of the day, particularly in relation to 23 issues like education levels, industrial training, 24 corporal punishment even within the limits of the 25 time and particularly the emotional needs of the 26 children. 27 28 We take the view that the individual sisters who 29 worked in Goldenbridge Industrial School worked under 31 1 conditions of extreme difficulty, but they made huge 2 efforts to improve the living conditions of the 3 children and for those who lived long enough to hear 4 the complaints that have been made to date it has 5 been a source of great sadness that their life's work 6 appears to have achieved so little for the children 7 that they cared for. 8 9 In looking at the industrial school as a whole, 10 I would like to point out what we would see as the 11 negative and harmful aspects particularly with 12 relation to Goldenbridge. We fully acknowledge that 13 there were faults and failures in the schools and 14 particularly in Goldenbridge and we know that the 15 pain and hurt that has caused to many children who 16 were in our care. The complaints that are before the 17 Commission basically concern the 1950's and the 18 1960's, but we do need to look at briefly why it was 19 that children were placed in such institutions in the 20 first place. 21 22 We know that severe poverty and deprivation was the 23 backdrop to the story of most children placed in the 24 school and the committal process itself was an 25 insensitive and stigmatising way of putting children 26 in need into care and caused hurt and pain remembered 27 to today. The most basic features of the industrial 28 school illustrate how children almost inevitably 29 suffered in this system. The large size of the 32 1 institution and the number of children contained in 2 it compared with small group units that we have 3 today. Goldenbridge housed up to 185 children at any 4 one time during the period under review. The size 5 gave little prospect that the replication of love and 6 nurture of family could occur within its walls. 7 Nowadays, children taken into residential care live 8 in homes of groups of six to eight at the maximum. 9 10 A second basic feature was really the ratio of staff 11 to children within the institution and as far as we 12 can ascertain there appears to have been 13 approximately one member of staff, and I include that 14 to be either a teacher or a carer, one member of 15 staff to about 30 or more children around the clock. 16 17 Thirdly, the absence of training for sisters and lay 18 staff in the sense of what now would be called child 19 care training. Some sisters, particularly those in 20 charge, were trained as teachers; however, no formal 21 child care training had existed in Ireland until the 22 late 60's and early 70's. Then the capitation system 23 of funding, together with the level of funding, led 24 to difficult financial constraints and choices. 25 26 The institutional nature of the setting in turn led 27 to other undesirable conditions of daily life. The 28 regimental nature of the institution where there was 29 restriction on freedom of movement well beyond school 33 1 hours, where the lack of privacy inherent in 2 institutional life was something, particularly in the 3 early years, which would have been unhappy. The 4 emphasis on conformity rather than on creativity and 5 choice, and the very limited opportunities of forming 6 personal one to one adult/child relationships, and 7 I suppose in particular the reliance on corporal 8 punishment as a feature in the maintenance of 9 discipline and good order. 10 11 Children then as now who were placed in care are a 12 particularly vulnerable group of children. Even the 13 modern child care system struggles to provide 14 adequately. Society was less informed about these 15 issues than today and the specific needs of children 16 coming from difficult circumstances was not 17 recognised. The sisters were not alone in their 18 limited understanding of these matters because the 19 Courts, the NSPCC and the Department itself were 20 equally unaware. 21 22 Further, and perhaps very painfully so, no system 23 existed of relaying information about the children's 24 personal circumstances to people who were to look 25 after them. No system existed for professional, 26 psychological or psychiatric advice in relation to 27 children's needs and no training existed for the 28 staff. All of these circumstances led to a series of 29 failures which cumulatively affected the children 34 1 causing deem pain, loss, emotional scars and poor 2 self-image and these failures I mention: 3 4 A failure to properly understand the level of trauma 5 being suffered by each children as a result of being 6 placed in the school and separated from family, 7 sometimes in circumstances where this placement 8 followed a death of a parent. 9 10 A failure to properly respond to the individual 11 emotional needs of the children in a school, 12 including how lonely and frightened they must have 13 been in being taken from family and placed in a large 14 institution with children of all ages. 15 16 A failure to recognise the special emotional and 17 educational needs of children who had come from 18 troubled backgrounds. 19 20 A failure to keep children informed about their 21 families and family events, such as births, 22 marriages, and deaths. 23 24 A failure to assess the individual needs of each 25 child, either on admission or on an ongoing basis. 26 27 A failure to meet the comprehensive educational needs 28 of children and the very inadequacy of the 29 educational process itself relative to their needs. 35 1 52 Q. You referred a few moments ago to the absence of a 2 system for relaying information about the children's 3 personal circumstances to the people who were to look 4 after them, I think you are aware of how the child 5 came to be placed in the school, I think there was 6 some peripheral contact at a practical level? 7 A. Yes. I do deal with it later in the document, but 8 I can say that the school was contacted by the Courts 9 in advance, a few days in advance of the Court Order 10 as to whether there was a vacancy. 11 53 Q. I see. 12 A. When the Court Order was made, on the Court Order 13 there was basic information but so basic as not to be 14 of any great help in either understanding the child, 15 knowing something about their family or being able to 16 support that knowledge by maintaining contacts after. 17 It was an extremely minimal system. 18 54 Q. I think in the sequence of events the child then 19 arrived and the person accompanying them probably had 20 the Court Order which was given -- 21 A. -- to the institution, yes, the sister in charge. 22 55 Q. There was also then what was known as form A, part 1 23 of which was for the Resident Manager to complete and 24 to forward then to the Reformatory and Industrial 25 Schools branch of the Department of Education, so it 26 perhaps didn't remain on the file, but again the 27 information to be completed on part 1, which was 28 somewhat scant, it was names, addresses, number and 29 Registrar, Court where committed. There is reference 36 1 to previous character, religion, whether the child 2 was legitimate or illegitimate, the parent's names, 3 whether they were alive or not and their addresses, 4 accommodation limit in the school, the number of 5 committed cases including the child now being sent, 6 number of voluntary cases, number of poor [inaudible] 7 cases and then the signature of the Resident Manager 8 with the date. I think the date you will find 9 usually was in or about the day when the child 10 arrived in the institution? 11 A. Yes. 12 56 Q. I think there are other details then which are filled 13 in by the superintendent or An Garda Síochána, but 14 that appears to have been filled in at the instance 15 of Department of Education and the certainly the date 16 of completion of part 2 typically post-dates by a 17 number of weeks the entries which were made by 18 Goldenbridge in this instance. It would appear that 19 that was a document that resided in the Department's 20 file, the first part having been filled in by the 21 Resident Manager, and subsequently the second part 22 filled in by the Garda Superintendent? 23 A. I think the particular point that I wanted to 24 emphasise was just the lack of the personal dimension 25 and the personal information that would have enabled 26 continuity to be maintained with family and a 27 reasonable relationship to be built up with the now 28 new adults taking the place of parents in relation to 29 the child. 37 1 57 Q. I suppose it was open to the Resident Manager 2 receiving the child to make enquiries if further 3 information was felt desirable? 4 A. I am not in a position to say whether that was the 5 case or whether it ever was the case exercised. 6 58 Q. Yes, I understand. 7 A. Before leaving the description of the failures, I do 8 want to refer a little bit to education and corporal 9 punishment in relation to this. 10 59 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before you leave that, 11 Sister? 12 A. Yes, Judge. 13 60 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Am I right in thinking the 14 points you make there would 15 apply to more or less any industrial school? I am 16 not diminishing that, I am asking you is that a fair 17 comment? 18 A. Yes. They do in my understanding refer to the system 19 which was pretty well common throughout all of the 20 industrial schools. It does raise, if you like, a 21 deep question for us as a congregation and Sisters of 22 Mercy just that we as agents of the State worked 23 through this system and perhaps were not alert to the 24 ways in which the failures contributed to the very 25 real pain that has been experienced by children who 26 were in industrial schools. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 28 A. In relation to the education in the industrial 29 school, it reflected, if you like, the primary school 38 1 reality which was in place in Ireland at the time. 2 Few children until the late 1960's went to secondary 3 school. Free education did not come until 1967. 4 Goldenbridge had an internal primary school, which 5 was a national school with the same curriculum and 6 system of inspection as the regular national schools. 7 The children attended every day for normal school 8 hours and they sat their Primary Cert. Until 1960, 9 or around 1960, children were not sent to the 10 secondary school and the fact that children had only 11 then the very basic level of education is 12 understandably a source of great grievance for a 13 number of complainants and it had profound and 14 long-term effects on their lives. 15 16 Also, given the disadvantage backgrounds there were 17 some particular challenges that the lack of 18 appropriate programmes really contributed to further 19 pain. The school was not equipped to deal with 20 special challenges in view of the numbers of children 21 and the lack of appropriate training for staff and 22 with regard to the funding. The concepts of children 23 with special educational needs and as might be termed 24 later remedial teaching lay well into the future, but 25 to refer to Sr. Bernardine's lecture again she says 26 that the scheme of education in the industrial 27 schools as it had been known and practised during the 28 preceding 50 years should be abolished. I do not 29 think it was within her power to do so. 39 1 2 On the question of industrial training, this involved 3 a prescribed programme, prescribed by the Department 4 of Education, in cookery, laundry and housekeeping, 5 which took place in the afternoon school hours from 6 1:30 to 3:30. Many former residents have complained 7 of the narrow employment opportunities envisaged for 8 them in the education training of this nature which 9 they received. We understand that the full potential 10 of many of the children in the school was not 11 realised and that this has caused them a great sense 12 of loss and a sense of suffering. 13 14 I will return to more specifically the educational 15 school practice later. 16 17 On corporal punishment, it was undoubtedly used in 18 the school as one method of maintaining discipline 19 and has given rise to the experience and memory of 20 harsh treatment. With hindsight, that is a practice 21 that we deeply regret as do the sisters who used it, 22 including Sr. Xaveria. We realise that corporal 23 punishment must have had even a greater impact upon 24 the child living in an institution given his or her 25 special vulnerability. 26 27 We further particularly regret its use in respect of 28 children who suffered from bedwetting. At the time 29 it was thought that punishment would provide a 40 1 deterrent in the erroneous belief that the child was 2 able to control his or her bedwetting. In retrospect 3 we recognise that punishment for bedwetting must have 4 been particularly traumatic and that children who 5 suffered from bedwetting and punishment for 6 bedwetting had a particularly difficult time. 7 8 In the primary school, we recognise that corporal 9 punishment was extremely unhelpful in a situation 10 where many situation were already educationally 11 disadvantaged and where the process and the 12 curriculum was inherently unsuited to their needs. 13 61 Q. On the question of corporal punishment, I think that 14 you will be aware that many of the complaints that 15 have been made relate to corporal punishment, but 16 corporal punishment used in conjunction with words or 17 actions which were perceived by the complainants as 18 being demeaning and that accentuated the impact of 19 the actual physical punishment that was applied? 20 A. It will be a matter for the Commission to really in 21 some way examine elements of that nature which at 22 this distance we are not in a position to be able to 23 say definitively that they happened or didn't happen. 24 What we will be saying is that corporal punishment 25 which was of the very severe and very cruel nature is 26 denied by the sisters who are accused of it. 27 62 Q. If I may ask you, Sister, who would that statement 28 reconcile with the quite broad ambit or quite 29 significant number of complaints that appear to have 41 1 been made referring to punishment as beatings and 2 certainly in terms more severe than might be 3 considered appropriate or reasonable? 4 A. Yes. It is a matter for us. Severe beatings are a 5 matter that we would be having a different view on 6 than is shared by many of the complainants and we 7 would be looking to the Commission to determine on 8 something which is very, very difficult to determine, 9 but those who are alive and who are present at the 10 time vehemently deny that they ever used punishment 11 to the degree that was cruel and excessively abusive. 12 63 Q. Does the community have a view in relation to the 13 more humiliating aspects which are alleged to have 14 occurred in respect of punishments for bedwetting? 15 A. We would acknowledge that bedwetting itself, which 16 I will deal with later in the document, of its nature 17 would have been a humiliating experience for 18 children, particularly both in relation to their 19 companions around them and in relation to their 20 adults and in relation to the fact that they had to 21 have their sheets changed, bring them down to the 22 laundry basket. The issue of whether anything 23 further was definitively, if you like, a behaviour of 24 further humiliation than that, we are not in a 25 position to say. The sisters who are alive from that 26 time would say they never say anybody humiliated in 27 the manner described by some of the more 28 extraordinary allegations in relation to humiliation. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am slow to intervene, 42 1 Mr. McMahon, everybody 2 knows perfectly well what has happened. I know 3 people have waited. I know they are all worked up 4 about this. I think it is intimidating for a witness 5 to have somebody commenting on it. I know it is 6 Ms. Buckley, I can hear her. I do not want to be 7 harsh about it, I understand that people have strong 8 feelings about this, it has lasted a long time, but 9 it doesn't make life any easier for us. It doesn't 10 impress me, and it doesn't make it easier for the 11 witness, it's very difficult. If Sr. O'Donoghue is 12 simply reporting on what other people -- 13 MS. BUCKLEY: Selectively. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- have said to her, what 15 she is saying cannot 16 possibly be lies. It's not helpful, but what can 17 I do? I mean these hearings are held in public so 18 that people have the opportunity, which they have 19 never had for 6 years of hearing anybody in the 20 position of Sr. O'Donoghue describing the position of 21 the Sisters of Mercy on oath in a formal Commission, 22 they have never had this opportunity. I hope they 23 appreciate it. We are having our hearings here and 24 we are preparing to do this as efficiently and as 25 effectively and as well as we can. I ask people to 26 just try and understand that. Of course, as 27 Mr. McMahon said at the beginning, people are going 28 to say things in public that you do not agree with. 29 We understand that, we are not stupid enough to think 43 1 that whatever anybody says must be accepted. We are 2 here to make judgments, to make determinations, but 3 we are also here to treat everybody with respect and 4 that includes Sr. Helena O'Donoghue or anybody else 5 who happens to be giving evidence in public or in 6 private. 7 8 I do not think anybody in our hearings has had any 9 occasion to complain of being treated with anything 10 other than respect. I am sorry for giving a sermon 11 on this for a relatively small matter and I do not 12 want to come the heavy on it so let's get on with our 13 work and let's hear the evidence in silence please. 14 Sorry, Sister, as I say I am sorry for giving a 15 sermon on the subject, but it is important that 16 everybody be treated with respect. Thank you very 17 much. 18 A. Thank you, Chairman. Just to finish on that piece we 19 would also as a failure of Goldenbridge recognise 20 that the daily practice of bead making or bead 21 assembly and the manner in which, for instance, the 22 meeting of quotas became an important aspect of the 23 practice of this occupation and we recognise that 24 this would have put maybe unfair pressure on children 25 and that their memories from that period of time are 26 unhappy. 27 28 Given the overview of those failures that I have 29 outlined, I want to re-emphasise that we accept that 44 1 the system in its various workings could not have met 2 the needs of children and in many ways must have been 3 harmful to them. I wish to refer to the apologies 4 that we previously made and in particular to that of 5 May 2004 issued by our central leadership team, which 6 I now repeat: 7 8 "On behalf of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy, the central 9 leadership team wish to say to all those who as children lived in our 10 industrial schools: We accept unreservedly that many of you who spent 11 your childhoods in orphanages and industrial schools run by our 12 Congregation were hurt and damaged while in our care. We believe that you 13 suffered physical and emotional trauma. We have in the past publically 14 apologised to you. We know that you heard our apology then as conditional 15 and less than complete. 16 Now, without reservation, we apologise unconditionally to each one of you for 17 the suffering we have caused. We express our heartfelt sorrow and ask 18 for forgiveness. We ask forgiveness for our failure to care for you and 19 protect you in the past and for our failure to hear you in the present. We 20 are distressed by our failures. We have been earnestly searching to find a 21 way to bring about healing and we need your help to do this. We recognise 22 that this statement may be considered too little too late, but we make it in 23 the hope that it will be a further step in the long process of healing the pain 24 that we as a Congregation have caused. 25 Finally, we failed those sisters in our Congregation whom we put in a situation 26 of caring for you without adequate supports or resources and for that too 27 we apologise and take responsibility." 28 29 MR. McMAHON: Mr. Gageby is suggesting 45 1 that perhaps Sr. Helena 2 would like a short break. 3 MR. GAGEBY: For a glass of water. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: I was going to consult you 5 about that. Perhaps if we 6 took a break for 15 minutes now, went along to 7 lunchtime, to say 1:00 or thereabouts, and broke for 8 about an hour, is that convenient? 9 MR. McMAHON: Yes, I think it would be an 10 appropriate point to take 11 to break. 12 MR. GAGEBY: Thank you. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. We will take a 14 break for about 15 minutes. 15 16 17 18 (SHORT ADJOURNMENT) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 46 1 THE HEARING RESUMED AFTER A SHORT ADJOURNMENT AS 2 FOLLOWS. 3 4 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 6 MR. ROGERS: Members of the Commission. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. Rogers. 8 MR. ROGERS: I am John Rogers. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are well known, 10 Mr. Rogers. You do not 11 need to introduce yourself, 12 MR. ROGERS: I appear instructed by 13 Ms. Bates of Hussey & Bates 14 on behalf of Ms. Buckley. Earlier this morning 15 I spoke to your counsel about the procedures today. 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 17 MR. ROGERS: I am raising an issue which 18 was of some concern to 19 Ms. Buckley. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rogers, just let me 21 interrupt you for one 22 second. Shall we let Sr. Helena sit down for a 23 moment rather than have to ...(INTERJECTION) 24 MR. ROGERS: I did not intend to keep 25 you very long, Sir. There 26 is just one or two points. I hesitate actually to 27 interrupt at all given that there is a definite flow 28 to the evidence that is occurring. Listening to the 29 opening of Mr. McMahon -- 47 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 2 MR. ROGERS: -- what I think I can say 3 with concern of Ms. Buckley 4 at this time is whether or not the Commission can 5 give an assurance that the third phase will actually 6 be realised in the way Mr. McMahon indicated it 7 might. It seems that it is not actually certain that 8 the third phase, which would involve a public hearing 9 with cross-examination, is a definite prospect. This 10 is of some concern because what we have witnessed 11 this morning, and I do not say this in any way 12 negatively about the witness, but about the 13 procedures, what we have witnessed this morning is 14 that the witness has certainly sought to put into 15 issue say for instance the matter of the severity of 16 abuse. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 18 MR. ROGERS: I think that is a fair 19 designation of the way her 20 evidence is run. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it's probably the 22 only thing she is put into 23 dispute. 24 MR. ROGERS: Sharp focus, I think, is 25 that issue. If that is the 26 case, Sir, the difficulty I have in trying to assist 27 Ms. Buckley in how she will deal with this is that it 28 seems her legal advisers cannot at this point in time 29 assure her as a matter of certainty that that issue 48 1 is going to be back here in a third phase. Now, it 2 is also the case, and I would say this by way of 3 illustration, it is also the case that say 4 Ms. Buckley, who would appear under the Act in 5 Section 12 would be entitled to recount the abuse, 6 quite apart from that, quite apart from anything 7 else, is not going to, it would appear at the moment, 8 have an opportunity, such as the Mercy Sisters and 9 Sr. Helena O'Donoghue are exercising, the right to 10 present in a public way their position or her 11 position, her description of what occurred because as 12 Mr. McMahon indicated earlier after today the 13 Commission will go into private hearing with the 14 second phase. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have no choice about 16 that, Mr. Rogers, that is 17 what the Act requires. 18 MR. ROGERS: I see that. This has 19 commenced by a public 20 hearing in which, in effect, allegations of abuse of 21 a very severe nature are denied and there does not 22 appear to be any definite assurance to my client that 23 that is a matter she will be able to deal with and 24 contend in terms of cross-examination in public in 25 the future, she does not have an assurance. 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 27 MR. ROGERS: That's my difficulty this 28 morning. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see your point. 49 1 MR. ROGERS: My difficulty this morning 2 is not any more than this: 3 I do not know where this is going to end up because 4 Mr. McMahon in his opening did not say for certain 5 there will be a third phase in which there will be 6 evidence given by identifiable individuals who can 7 give direct evidence of the events -- 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see your difficulty. 9 MR. ROGERS: -- which my client will be 10 able to challenge in 11 public. It would appear that really what has 12 happened this morning is, and I say this with the 13 greatest of respect for the witness who obviously is 14 seeking to do the best she can given the position she 15 is in, we have had a bringing together of strands of 16 evidence including apparently, it's purely hearsay 17 evidence at the moment, of a denial of the severity 18 of punishment or abuse. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 20 MR. ROGERS: We do not know what the 21 source of that is. At this 22 point in time this morning these matters have been 23 denied and we do not know what the source of that is. 24 We are to assume, I suppose, that the source is the 25 members of the Order who were in Goldenbridge. 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that is a safe 27 assumption, I think. 28 MR. ROGERS: I think, Judge Ryan, what 29 my difficulty is I think 50 1 I would have to be able to say to my client that this 2 process is going to be ameliorated, the process that 3 has ensued this morning is going to be ameliorated in 4 some way by an opportunity for her to deal with the 5 matters that have been put in contention in the 6 public at some future occasion. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 8 MR. ROGERS: The other thing that I just 9 want to raise now is the 10 question of Sr. Bernardine's lecture of 1953. 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 12 MR. ROGERS: I do not think that has 13 been discovered. We do not 14 seem to have that, whether that's just an omission. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Unless somebody tells me 16 differently I see no 17 problems why you should not have it. 18 MR. ROGERS: We have not seen it. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: We think you have it, but 20 this does not matter. 21 Unless somebody tell me differently, personally I do 22 not see a difficulty in you having it. 23 MR. McMAHON: I am instructed by my 24 solicitors in fact it was 25 sent. Perhaps if Mr. Rogers has not received it he 26 can get another copy, that can be arranged. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: These things happen, 28 Mr. Rogers. Either you are 29 making a mistake or we made a mistake in sending it 51 1 to you. There is no problem in giving you that. It 2 seems to be a relevant document and there is no real 3 difficulty by giving you that. 4 MR. ROGERS: In short, Sir, my client 5 would like to have the same 6 opportunity as Sr. Helena has had and would most 7 certainly have grave difficulty in dealing with the 8 matter at all unless she was assured that she is 9 going to have an opportunity in public of meeting 10 those who deny and upon which Sr. Helena and upon 11 whose say so Sr. Helena has been able to make the 12 hearsay evidence of today. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just help me one thing, 14 Mr. Rogers. Assuming, and 15 I have not heard Mr. McMahon who I am going to turn 16 to in a moment, but just help me about one thing: 17 Suppose we were to say, certainly, there will 18 certainly be a phase 3 hearing at which, for the sake 19 of argument, just supposing we said Sr. O'Donoghue 20 will indeed be available for cross-examination, 21 surely it would not be possible to cross-examine her 22 about individual allegations of abuse. I mean what 23 she is saying is on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy we 24 are conceding these points, we are accepting those 25 points, we are doubtful about those ones, we do not 26 accept those ones. That's the position she is 27 formally taking up on oath before we go into our 28 private hearings. Let's say we go into our private 29 hearings, which is for us to decide, we will hear 52 1 X number of complainants, 30 or whatever number of 2 complaints, and the available Respondent evidence, it 3 is for us to make up our minds at that stage. How 4 would that sort of issue be presented? I can 5 understand you saying that you would want an 6 opportunity to cross-examine, for example, on the 7 1953 document, that I can understand. What I cannot 8 understand, what I am not clear about is how you 9 would be able to be presenting evidence. In what way 10 would Ms. Buckley being giving evidence, in what 11 capacity would she be giving evidence to say 'I am 12 going to contradict the Sisters of Mercy', in what 13 way, that would be the incremental evidence of all 14 the people in the hearing. 15 MR. ROGERS: This is the difficulty 16 about this process. It 17 would appear this morning that Sr. O'Donoghue has 18 purported to give evidence which she has derived from 19 other sources, it is pure hearsay. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: To that extent, yes. 21 MR. ROGERS: It is pure hearsay. By its 22 effect it damages the 23 credibility of my client who has expressed and 24 continues to express strong views in relation to the 25 level of abuse. Now, it would appear that absent 26 some witness who can deal with those events, I will 27 not mention the name. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no. 29 MR. ROGERS: Absent any witness, some 53 1 witness who can deal with 2 those events coming in on the third phase, my client 3 cannot deal with what Sr. O'Donoghue has said today, 4 that's the difficulty. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 6 MR. ROGERS: At this point I want to 7 indicate very plainly to 8 you, Sir, that seems to me to be an objectionable 9 process, that the witness should be able to give 10 hearsay evidence of matters that she has brought to 11 her knowledge through interview with her sister 12 colleagues in a way which my client cannot 13 effectively challenge at all in public. That is the 14 difficulty. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: What is happening here, 16 Mr. Rogers, is, and what 17 has happened at each of our previous phases because 18 this is the fifth institution we are investigating in 19 this manner, at each of these the witness or 20 witnesses have set out the position taken up by the 21 institution and I think it is fair to say that 22 anybody listening to it, and I am sure I don't need 23 to persuade you of this, you can appreciate the value 24 from our point of view of finding out what is 25 actually in issue here, what's not in issue, in a 26 formal setting and certainly we have from my personal 27 point of view, I can't speak for Ms. Shanley, 28 certainly I have found the evidence valuable and 29 extremely helpful. Of course, I am perfectly well 54 1 aware that there are matters as I said at the 2 beginning, and as Mr. McMahon said, there are matters 3 that are in dispute. 4 5 Can I put it this way: This is an Inquiry that we 6 are mandated to carry out. It's not a Court case 7 between the Sisters of Mercy and Ms. Buckley, it's an 8 Inquiry. Some things I have no choice about, we 9 absolutely have to have a hearing. If somebody says 10 I am giving evidence about individual wrongs that 11 were done to me or done to somebody else I am obliged 12 by the Act to hear those in private. There is no way 13 I can do anything else. You know that perfectly well 14 and I am not suggesting that you are saying anything 15 different. 16 MR. ROGERS: The difficulty I have 17 today, Sir, is in fact 18 evidence has been given in public about matters of 19 abuse and it has been given in a broad scope way 20 which in effect characterises the allegations of 21 abuse as being overstated and that's my difficulty. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: This is the position they 23 take up, yes. 24 MR. ROGERS: With respect, Sir, it is my 25 respectful submission that 26 in fact the manner in which this has been led this 27 morning, I did not intervene earlier because 28 ...(INTERJECTION) 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I am not 55 1 resenting your 2 intervention, Mr. Rogers. I know you are a 3 responsible counsel and you are raising a point on 4 your instructions. Obviously I want to get on with 5 the Inquiry, but I mean I am not resenting your 6 ...(INTERJECTION) 7 MR. ROGERS: I will not delay you, Sir. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, please it is not a 9 trivial matter. I am 10 trying to reassure you of your standing and the 11 respect you are held in. 12 MR. ROGERS: That is appreciated. My 13 concern is that Mr. McMahon 14 plainly has a range of matters that he wishes to deal 15 with, but the most important matter from the point of 16 view of Ms. Buckley that has emerged this morning in 17 the course of the first session was that there was a 18 denial of the quality of the abuse. That being so 19 that is a denial in public which effectively my 20 client will not be able to deal with in public unless 21 there is an opportunity in the third phase. That's 22 why I thought I would suggest rather than standing up 23 and kicking up a row and saying that this should not 24 continue the way it is, I thought I would ask that we 25 be assured that these matters are matters that we 26 will be able to deal with in the third phase. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now, 28 Mr. McMahon, what do you 29 say to that? 56 1 MR. McMAHON: I would say firstly that we 2 are obviously constrained 3 by the provision of 11(3)(a) which specifies that: 4 "A meeting of the Investigation 5 Committee or a part of such meeting at which evidence relating to particular 6 instances of alleged abuse of children is being given shall be held otherwise 7 than in public." 8 9 That's one point I would make. 10 11 The second point is that the intention, I think, was 12 spelt out fairly clearly at the beginning in my 13 opening when I said that it was proposed to return to 14 public hearings which will deal with any contentious 15 matters remaining or any other relevant issues 16 concerning the management and operation of the 17 institution. I went on to say that at that stage the 18 Investigation Committee will permit such 19 cross-examination as fair procedures require in light 20 of the issues which have been identified in phases 1 21 and 2 and the parties who appear to have a legitimate 22 interest in them. I would hope that from those 23 statements Mr. Rogers will take comfort and be in a 24 position to assure his client. The intention of the 25 Commission, as expressed in its public sessions, has 26 been to investigate institutions and institutional 27 abuse and that I think is the mandate in which it 28 has. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, first of all, 57 1 I suppose I will make a 2 couple of general propositions. There is no perfect 3 form of Inquiry, that has been accepted and 4 acknowledged by anybody who has studied this, 5 including the reports on inquiries here and in the UK 6 and elsewhere. 7 8 The second point is that there is no procedure that 9 is apt for every Inquiry. Thirdly, one size does not 10 fit all. Fourthly, each Inquiry gives rise to 11 particular issues and difficulties. I mean obviously 12 I sympathise with the proposition that Mr. Rogers 13 puts forward in one way because his client sees it in 14 a sense as the religious congregation having, so to 15 speak, a free run at the start of the Inquiry in 16 public and then we go into private session which the 17 public is excluded from and the press are excluded 18 from and nobody knows about it and so does any one 19 person, in his case Ms. Buckley who is his client, 20 have an opportunity of coming back and giving her 21 side of the story? 22 23 Well, that is the way it appears to Ms. Buckley. 24 I think the problem with that is, first of all, that 25 this Inquiry is not a battle between Sr. Helena 26 O'Donoghue and Ms. Buckley. Of course, each of them 27 has an important function in the Inquiry, but it is 28 not a battle, this is an Inquiry. This is a hearing 29 in public essentially to inform us as to what is in 58 1 issue as we have explained. I am aware of the 2 potential criticism. On another occasion it was 3 described that the evidence was anodyne I suppose 4 because there was not vigorous cross-examination of 5 the witness. There is simply no way of doing this 6 that is going to meet every single objection. 7 8 We know that the Act has a bias, if that is the right 9 way of putting it, in favour of public hearings and 10 we have tried to respect that. That is the reason 11 why we are here today in this form of the Inquiry. 12 It is important for us to find out where the Sisters 13 of Mercy stand on the issues that we are about to 14 engage in. I would have thought, but it is subject 15 to anything else we hear during the course of the 16 Inquiry either in phase 2 or in phase 3, I would have 17 thought that anybody listening to today's evidence 18 carefully and fairly would have been conscious of a 19 significant number of concessions being made. How 20 far the Inquiry will go beyond that depends on what 21 view we take of the evidence that we hear in private. 22 The ultimate outcome of all this is that we produce a 23 report and we say here is our report as to what 24 happened and part of that report says here is what 25 was said at the beginning, here is what was said to 26 be in dispute, here is what the Sisters of Mercy 27 through Sr. Helena O'Donoghue said at the start, here 28 is what we found, here is what we think, it will be 29 perfectly clear whether we think that the Sisters of 59 1 Mercy, represented by Sr. Helena O'Donoghue, were 2 right or wrong or to what extent they were right or 3 they were wrong. 4 5 We as the Committee cannot get into a situation where 6 we promise unequivocally that something will happen 7 that will meet Ms. Buckley's requirements. 8 I sympathise with her requirements, I understand that 9 she wishes to see herself and with some legitimacy 10 sees herself as a representative and wants to say 11 I have just as much right as the Congregation has to 12 get in and put my spoke in to be seen to contradict 13 that. I can understand where she is coming from with 14 that, but I am afraid it is based on a 15 misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of this 16 Inquiry. It is a misunderstanding of the nature and 17 purpose of what we are at today. 18 19 While as I say I am sympathetic to a degree to the 20 way things may appear, I am perfectly satisfied that 21 this is the right way to conduct this Inquiry. This 22 is, as I say, our fifth institution. It is extremely 23 helpful from our point of view, which is the main 24 point. It is also, I am satisfied, revealing and 25 instructive and informative for the public who are 26 present here and for the wider public who get the 27 media reports of what is happening. I am satisfied 28 it's a valuable way of doing it. I know it's not 29 perfect, but it's the way we have chosen to do it, 60 1 bearing in mind as many of the interests, bearing in 2 mind all of the interests and trying the satisfy the 3 reasonable needs of everybody, I am satisfied that it 4 is a fair procedure within the legal understanding of 5 that term. 6 7 The answer to Mr. Rogers' and my decision on behalf 8 of the Committee in regard to Mr. Rogers' submission 9 is that we do as Mr. McMahon said envisage a phase 3 10 hearing. I am not in a position nor could we ever 11 nor could any Inquiry be in a position to guarantee 12 the form of that phase 3. We have indicated, as 13 Mr. McMahon said, in general terms. It necessarily 14 has to be in general terms, it cannot be more 15 specifically outlined until we know what issues 16 remain for debate and when and how the exact form of 17 that have to remain undetermined. 18 19 Whatever the phase of the Inquiry, what is perfectly 20 clear is that the legislation simply does not permit 21 a debate as to individual allegations of specific 22 abuse, it does not permit it. Now, what has been 23 happening up to date is that Sr. O'Donoghue has in 24 fact on my understanding set out the position of the 25 Sisters of Mercy in relation to those allegations in 26 general. What their attitude to the specific case 27 made by any particular witness will be dealt with of 28 course in private. 29 61 1 In the circumstances I am not in a position to give a 2 guarantee to Ms. Buckley. If I could do so I would 3 be happy to do so. I am not in a position to do that 4 or as to the form that it will take, but I can 5 certainly say that in no circumstances would it be 6 permissible for me even to allow any form at such a 7 phase 3 of cross-examination dealing with specific 8 allegations. 9 10 I think having so ruled we will now proceed, 11 Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 12 MR. ROGERS: Thank you. 13 14 CONTINUATION OF THE EXAMINATION OF SR. O'DONOGHUE BY 15 MR. McMAHON 16 17 64 Q. MR. McMAHON: Sr. Helena, I think before 18 the break you were about to 19 embark on a new section of what you wish to say. 20 I think you wish to deal for a few moments with the 21 establishment of Goldenbridge Industrial School? 22 A. Yes. This will provide a little bit of the 23 historical background to Goldenbridge itself. Our 24 congregation was founded in 1831 by Catherine McAuley 25 in Dublin in Baggot Street. Our particular charism, 26 and by that I mean the motivation and commitment of 27 each sister, was to be engaged in the service of the 28 poor, the sick and the uneducated. That charism 29 found a faithful expression in the direct involvement 62 1 with the provision of care for children who were at 2 risk and who were placed in the industrial schools. 3 4 The sisters first came to Goldenbridge in 1855 and 5 their founding ministry was the rehabilitation and 6 teaching of female prisoners before they were 7 discharged from Mountjoy. In 1856, the following 8 year, the sisters opened a convict refuge, as it was 9 called then, to which the prisoners were transferred 10 and this service lasted until 1883. In 1883 funds 11 were spent in converting the convict refuge into an 12 industrial school. The following year, in 1885, 13 suitable dormitories, a dining hall, work rooms and 14 extra accommodation for the increased number of 15 children, which was then certified at 150, were added 16 at a cost of £2,000. 17 18 St. Vincent's Industrial School was certified as an 19 industrial school in 1880 for 50 girls. It opened 20 with 30 and the numbers kept increasing. The 21 children committed to Goldenbridge were, with few 22 exceptions, from the city were committed by the 23 Courts for reasons such as destitution, parents 24 failing to exercise proper guardianship, not having 25 any home, being found wandering, parents being unable 26 to provide and other similar reasons. 27 28 Poverty was always a dominant reason for the children 29 being committed to Goldenbridge and being in the City 63 1 of Dublin the institution was under continuous 2 pressure to accept children from the city and it 3 became one of the largest industrial schools in the 4 State. Because of its size and its proximity to 5 Dublin, it also attracted considerable departmental 6 attention, that was the Department of Education. 7 Being originally established for girls this remained 8 the case until 1954. In that year, in order to 9 address a need for an institution in Dublin to cater 10 for the care of young boys and to keep siblings 11 together, a request was made and granted by the 12 Resident Manager that the school might accept up to 13 15 boys under the age of 10 years. 14 15 From its original beginnings of 30 children in 1880, 16 the numbers of children in the school grew to a high 17 point of 185 in 1965. If we take the 50's as an 18 example the regular number of children was in the 19 region of 150 to 165. After 1965 the numbers started 20 to decline, particularly under the new system of 21 child care following the Kennedy Report in 1970 and 22 by 1980 there were 90 children in the home. 23 24 The new system brought in by the Kennedy Report or 25 recommended necessitated changes to the structure of 26 the buildings. From the early 60's dormitories were 27 converted into smaller units and eventually in 1985 28 the two new group homes catering for 12 children each 29 were opened on the same site. In that year the 64 1 Sisters of Mercy and relinquished responsibility for 2 the service and transferred the facility directly and 3 fully to the Health Board. In 1983 a house was 4 purchased as an aftercare facility for girls whose 5 future was somewhat uncertain and who could not 6 return home. 7 8 In looking at our involvement in the provision of 9 industrial schools service over the years, we have 10 asked ourselves the question from the vantage point 11 of today as to what the industrial school system was 12 designed to do or expected to achieve. It seems that 13 it was not envisaged that the industrial school would 14 meet all the emotional, developmental and 15 psychological needs of the children. One historian 16 has described the system as having two objectives: 17 Namely, one, to provide skills and training so that 18 the children could become self-sufficient in later 19 life and, two, to form their characters. This is 20 taken from the historian, Jane Barnes, on Irish 21 Industrial Schools, which was 1868 to 1908 and 22 published in 1989. It seems that the industrial 23 schools were seen primarily as a form of alternative 24 accommodation in response to the problems of 25 homelessness or chronic poverty in which children 26 would be fed, clothed and housed while providing them 27 with a basic form of training to assist them in later 28 life. 29 65 1 The headings contained in the State's quarterly 2 inspection reports of industrial schools all over the 3 period are a clear indication of what the State 4 expected from the school. They cover nine areas: 5 Condition of premises; accommodation; equipment; 6 sanitation; health; food and diet; clothing; 7 recreation, and fire safety. 8 9 These headings remained the same from the early 40's 10 right through to the mid-70's and what are 11 conspicuous, looking back from now, by their absence 12 are matters such as the training of staff, concern 13 for the individual's emotional, educational and 14 psychological needs, or the provision of special 15 services for children with special problems and so 16 on. For the 30-year period between 1940 and 1970 the 17 Departments of Education and later Health were 18 looking to the institution to provide for the most 19 immediate and perhaps basic aspects of the physical 20 and general well-being of the children. The limited 21 nature of the resources provided to the school 22 managers by the State reflects these limited 23 expectations. 24 25 The obvious pain which we have heard in the voices of 26 the complainants today is testament to the fact that 27 what was done was not enough. Many aspects of the 28 failure of the system are now clear, but whether they 29 were clear at that time and whether they constitute 66 1 abuse in the strict sense of the term is a matter for 2 the Commission to determine. In considering this 3 issue, we ask the Commission to take as its starting 4 point that Goldenbridge Industrial School was one of 5 a network of similar institutions supported and 6 approved by the State, whose purpose and parameters 7 had been established in an earlier period, the 8 Victorian era, and continued with any or little 9 change in policy right into the period under review. 10 11 In fact, the allegations relating to Goldenbridge 12 relate to 1949 onwards, this being the first year of 13 residence of the earliest complainant and it should 14 be said that within that period many changes and 15 improvements were effected in the school and it would 16 not be the right impression to say that the school 17 was static. On the contrary, the sisters in charge 18 of the school made continuous efforts to improve the 19 living conditions of the children and the institution 20 at the end of the period was considerably different 21 from the same institution in 1940. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's probably a 23 convenient time to break, 24 Mr. McMahon? 25 MR. McMAHON: Yes, perhaps. 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. All right if we 27 say 2:00. 28 29 (LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT) 67 1 THE HEARING RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AFTER THE LUNCHEON 2 ADJOURNMENT. 3 4 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. Yes, 6 Mr. McMahon. 7 MR. McMAHON: Perhaps Sr. Helena would 8 like to resume her seat. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Sorry, Mr. Rogers. 10 MR. ROGERS: I do not intend to 11 interrupt, except for one 12 tiny moment. I should have said that I actually 13 appear for Bernadette Fahy this morning and 14 I apologise for that. The other thing I have been 15 asked by Ms. Buckley just to in a sense correct 16 something which I suspect might have been a slip of 17 the tongue in a mode of articulation by yourself, 18 Judge Ryan, when you used the word "battle" as 19 between Christine Buckley and Sr. Helena. Christine 20 Buckley wishes it to be noted and for me to correct 21 any impression that there is such a battle. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are right in the 23 understanding that it was 24 not intended in that ... 25 MR. ROGERS: It did not think it was, 26 but it might be read 27 ...(INTERJECTION) 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Your understanding is 29 completely correct, 68 1 Mr. Rogers. I am delighted to change that, withdraw 2 it, whatever it is, I have no problem with that at 3 all. Thank you for making that correction. 4 Mr. McMahon, can I just ask will we be able to finish 5 this afternoon, do you think? 6 MR. McMAHON: Perhaps if we were to sit a 7 little bit later than we 8 normally would it may be possible to do so. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, if nobody has 10 any objection, obviously 11 without being unreasonable to Sr. O'Donoghue, but if 12 that's possible I think it would be convenient. 13 Certainly we would appreciate it as the Investigation 14 Committee, if it's possible. 15 MR. McMAHON: Perhaps we could take a 16 rain check later on in the 17 course of the afternoon. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: We might take a break maybe 19 about 3:30 or thereabouts 20 and then have another go and see if we can finish 21 this afternoon. Thank you very much. 22 23 CONTINUATION OF THE EXAMINATION OF SR. HELENA BY 24 MR. MCMAHON 25 26 65 Q. MR. McMAHON: Sr. Helena, I think the 27 point where we stopped 28 before lunch, I think you were about to move on to a 29 different section of what it is you wish to say. 69 1 I think you were coming to what you wish to say in 2 relation to the industrial schools in the years 1940 3 to 1980? 4 A. Yes. In this section I will be mainly talking about 5 the operation of the school having looked at the 6 historical and the background and so on, but from 7 here on it will be about how the industrial school 8 operated during the years 1940 to 1980. 9 10 I suppose I take this opportunity in resuming 11 evidence that this whole issue, if you like, is very 12 difficult for all of us involved. I am conscious it 13 is very difficult for the former residents who have 14 complaints in returning to this aspect of their 15 childhood and it's also very difficult for us as a 16 congregation and for our individual members and also 17 former staff members and indeed others in one way or 18 another who were closely associated. I am just 19 conscious of that area of difficulty and wanting to 20 walk it with delicacy, if you like, for all 21 concerned. 22 66 Q. Yes. 23 A. The first thing I would mention is that the 24 relationship between the industrial school and the 25 Sisters of Mercy as a whole. I have in some way 26 referred to this already, but during the relevant 27 period of Goldenbridge functioning the Sisters of 28 Mercy were not a single congregation at the time. In 29 fact, there were a number of mother houses, as it 70 1 were, throughout Ireland and each of these was 2 independent and autonomous and sometimes had branch 3 houses. Goldenbridge was associated with the 4 Goldenbridge Convent and the convent was a branch 5 house of one such mother house, Carysfort. The 6 Superior in Carysfort would have appointed the Local 7 Superior in Goldenbridge and also assigned each 8 sister to her dominant ministry and, therefore, the 9 convent in Goldenbridge was subject to Carysfort in 10 all matters of life and ministry and resources. 11 12 From what we can glean the finances of Goldenbridge 13 Convent were controlled by Carysfort. At one period 14 they paid an annual levy from their resources and at 15 another period all income went to Carysfort and a 16 certain agreed budget was returned. From that 17 convent, the convent in Goldenbridge, two or three 18 sisters were specifically assigned to the industrial 19 school. The other sisters in the community had 20 little or nothing to do with the industrial school, 21 except to just join the children maybe at films or at 22 concerts at the weekend. Sometimes in the late 50's 23 and 60's, into the 60's, when some of the industrial 24 school children went to the external school and to 25 the secondary top they would have met other sisters 26 there as their teachers. 27 67 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Sister, could I interrupt 28 you just for a moment on a 29 point. You talk about some of the sisters being 71 1 specifically assigned to the industrial school. Was 2 that how the ratio of pupils and sisters was 3 determined? Was it, in fact, determined by the Order 4 or was there some determination by the State? You do 5 refer earlier on to the fact that there is a high 6 ratio of pupils to sisters, how was that determined? 7 A. I can't be very absolute about it, but to say that 8 the capitation grant to the school had to cover wages 9 and, therefore, the employment of anybody. The 10 community in those years also had an outside convent 11 primary school and some sisters were assigned to 12 that. The issue really about how many could be 13 assigned for whom there was not any remuneration 14 would have been an issue that would have been 15 considered at the time, but I have no idea as to 16 whether the actual ratio of sisters to the industrial 17 school was based on that or any other issue. 18 MS. SHANLEY: We might come back to that. 19 68 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sister, could the sisters 20 in the industrial school 21 feel that they were being let down a little by their 22 colleagues in the convent school; in other words, 23 that they had too much of a burden on them as 24 compared with? 25 A. You mean in terms of financially or something? 26 69 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that they had too much 27 work to do, that they had 28 too many children to look after as compared with 29 their colleagues in the school? 72 1 A. Again, I would be speculating if I tried to do that. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. 3 70 Q. MR. McMAHON: May I just in relation to 4 the next point, I think you 5 referred to the sisters, two or perhaps sometimes 6 three sisters, being assigned to the industrial 7 school. There were presumably other sisters who were 8 in the convert? 9 A. Yes. 10 71 Q. They were devoted to the convert and except in the 11 peripheral areas such as films or concerts at the 12 weekends or feast days you say they had little to do 13 with the industrial school. Can I take it from that, 14 or would it be reasonable to take from that, that 15 it's your understanding that those convent sisters 16 would not necessarily know what was happening in the 17 industrial school or indeed how it was operating? 18 A. Yes. It is the understanding that the operation of 19 the industrial school was something that was, if you 20 like, carefully protected from comment or gossip or 21 other kind of infringements in a way that might be 22 negative to the care of the children. There was a 23 strong consciousness and all of the sisters today 24 would still remark on that, that they did not enter 25 into discussions or make comments or know what wasn't 26 their business to know in relation to the industrial 27 school. 28 29 The two sisters assigned seemed to fit the positions 73 1 of sister in charge and assistant and then whatever 2 other support they needed they looked for it in terms 3 of lay staff. 4 72 Q. I think you come back to that. 5 A. That's the relationship with the convent. Now, to 6 look at the relationship with the State. 7 8 As has been already said the industrial school was a 9 certified industrial school, that is to say done so 10 by the Department of Education. In common with many 11 others it was controlled by the State, although the 12 actual day to day running of the school was carried 13 out by the Sisters of Mercy assisted by lay staff. 14 So we acted as agents for the State, which itself had 15 the statutory and regulatory responsibility for the 16 children placed there. For the period under review 17 the particular part of the State was the Department 18 of Education which had ultimate responsibility. 19 20 Under certification only a certain number of children 21 could be accommodated in any institution and that was 22 a certified number, the State having first examined 23 the facilities and through regular inspections 24 ensured that the standards of the facilities and the 25 care were upheld. In terms of funding, the 26 Department of Education and the local authority 27 provided the capitation grant, usually about half and 28 half. It was a fixed sum per week in respect of 29 every child who was committed to the school. The 74 1 State grant was paid quarterly in arrears and the 2 local authority grant was paid half yearly in 3 arrears. Some children were admitted on a voluntary 4 basis and there was no system of funding for them. 5 73 Q. Were there sisters admitted on a voluntary basis for 6 whom payment was made? 7 A. I am not certain about that, but we do understand 8 that in some situations children's families or 9 parents paid something and in those cases it went 10 directly to the Department of Education, it didn't 11 come to the school. 12 74 Q. Typically that would be in cases of committed 13 children? 14 A. Certainly, if payment was required there. In 15 relation to inspections, a number of different kinds 16 of inspections were carried out. The first one was 17 general inspections. This one was done pretty well 18 twice yearly, but sometimes three and four times and 19 more. Then there was the medical inspections, which 20 were usually maybe twice yearly. They are the key 21 inspections that we have been able both to have sight 22 of and also to glean a good deal of information from. 23 The list of these dates on which the general and 24 medical inspections took place are attached. In 25 actual fact between August of '39 and March of '78 26 there were 53 inspections in all, comprising both of 27 those categories. I think on your screen you will 28 see just the list of them. (Indicating) It isn't 29 possible for people to read them. 75 1 75 Q. I think these are dates which have been transposed 2 from the -- 3 A. Various inspection reports. 4 76 Q. -- various inspection reports which of course have 5 been discovered to the Commission by the Department 6 of Education? 7 A. Yes. There were two other inspections as well. One 8 was the general inspection at primary school level, 9 which followed the normal pattern of primary school 10 inspection, and then the industrial training part of 11 the school was also subject to Departmental 12 inspection. A certain small grant was provided for 13 the cookery module, if you like, of the industrial 14 training, but it could not be given until the 15 inspection was first carried out. That was carried 16 out on an annual basis. 17 18 The thing to say about these inspection reports was 19 that they were internal Departmental documents, they 20 were not given to the Resident Managers. It does 21 appear that when matters of concern arose these were 22 communicated by correspondence to the Resident 23 Manager. When specific matters raised had to be 24 addressed these were referred to and if they were not 25 addressed there was follow-up correspondence from the 26 Department until the matter was resolved to their 27 satisfaction. 28 29 We have over the past number of years been looking to 76 1 see these inspection reports in order to find out 2 what the official view of Goldenbridge Industrial 3 School was as recorded by the inspectors during the 4 period, and we will make some detailed references to 5 these documents further on. During the period from 6 1945 onwards these reports are uniformly good. 7 77 Q. I think you will be referring back to them in some 8 greater detail, but just in relation to what reposed 9 in the files of Goldenbridge, you know, I think, that 10 points of concern were the certain matter of letters 11 which came from the Department of Education to the 12 school, what happened to those letters? 13 A. I am not in a position to say. We can only deal with 14 whatever we have been able to find and that refers to 15 my earlier comment that our own archive in relation 16 to the school would be minimal. 17 78 Q. Can I take it from that that the originals of the 18 letters received from the Department are no longer 19 available? 20 A. I am not absolute that all of them were not there, 21 but I know that having seen them in discovery was 22 information we hadn't previously to that. 23 79 Q. Yes. 24 A. These documents are very important, the inspection 25 reports, because they are contemporaneous records of 26 conditions in the school. They were written by 27 people who had knowledge of the conditions of many 28 other industrial schools in the State and in that 29 sense they constitute a formal objective and 77 1 evaluation of conditions within Goldenbridge in 2 particular during the relevant time. 3 4 The inspection reports represented, if you like, the 5 criteria which had been set by the State for 6 standards of care and a formal system of inspection 7 was in place. The number of children which could be 8 accommodated had to be certified by the State, having 9 first examined the facilities, and then inspections 10 to ensure that the standards of the facilities and 11 the care was maintained. The Resident Manager was 12 the appointed person responsible to the Department 13 for ensuring that the school was efficiently operated 14 and there does appear to have been constant 15 communication between the Department official and the 16 manager. 17 18 The responsibility of the Resident Manager was to 19 ensure that all aspects of the service provided met 20 the standards set out and any recommendations for 21 change or improvement to be effected. Until we got 22 discovery of the Department records, it had always 23 been difficult for us to investigate the complaints 24 from former residents without contemporaneous 25 evidence of any consequence and the records that have 26 been discovered to us have been examined and they do 27 give an ongoing and almost unbroken indication as to 28 how Goldenbridge institution met these standards 29 during the time the Commission is involved with. 78 1 These accounts are important to us because the other 2 accounts that we rely on are generally from today's 3 memories of events and conditions relating up to a 4 period of up to 60 years ago and it's hard to be 5 objective or contextual sufficiently in relation to 6 life and conditions during that period. It is clear 7 that the State carried out regular and comprehensive 8 inspections and the records are complimentary in most 9 cases and are critical in some cases making 10 recommendations for improvements, which were followed 11 up. 12 13 We have discovered or attached for the Commission's 14 use the inspections in appendix 5. 15 16 I would now like to refer in a little more detail to 17 some of these inspections. The general inspections 18 really covered items such as the condition of the 19 premises, accommodation, equipment, health, medical 20 attention, clothing, recreation and fire precautions. 21 Then the medical inspections, and I know that this is 22 difficult to differentiate them, but these were more 23 particular to each individual child who was examined 24 in relation to dental and medical care, eye 25 examination, diet and development. These all appear 26 to have been comprehensive and involving checking 27 medical records for follow-up and making 28 recommendations for different medical treatments 29 where necessary. 79 1 While we recognise and attach an importance to 2 these reports, we also recognise that the kind of 3 assessment that they did was not maybe the in-depth 4 assessment that we might look for today and perhaps 5 it might have been looked for to some degree in the 6 period. 7 80 Q. I think you have already made reference to the fact 8 that the general inspections were limited to nine 9 particular categories? 10 A. Yes. 11 81 Q. I think you have already highlighted the various 12 areas of concern which are not specifically or which 13 are absent from the reports? 14 A. That's right. 15 82 Q. I think from a perusal of those records it would 16 perhaps also be fair to say that in some cases the 17 comments of the medical examiner does go beyond those 18 nine categories? 19 A. Yes. 20 83 Q. There is general remarks and sometimes they extend 21 into a second page? 22 A. That's right. In terms of the first category they 23 generally confine themselves to those headings. In 24 terms of the medical inspections, there are 25 extensions or expansions where something happened 26 such as not adequate weight in one particular year 27 and the influenza issue and I will refer to these, if 28 I may, in going through them and I think it would be 29 clearer. 80 1 84 Q. Would it be fair to say from an overall assessment of 2 the inspection reports that the remarks in relation 3 to the nine categories typically are very cursory in 4 their nature, it is a single word or perhaps 5 two words -- 6 A. That is true. 7 85 Q. -- characterising the quality of whatever it is is 8 being observed? 9 A. Yes, I would like to, if we may, show a few of these 10 so that people can see how they were laid out. The 11 earliest one relating to the period is March of 1941. 12 That is going back now over 60 years. It indicates 13 "satisfactory" under most headings, except for 14 clothing which is stated as "good" and the overall 15 comment, which usually same at the end of the 16 document, said that the school was "well kept and 17 satisfactory". That pattern that you see on that 18 particular indication is the pattern that is followed 19 right through, as I said earlier, until the middle 20 70's when the categories changed somewhat and some 21 further detail was given. 22 23 If we take the next one, July '43, and this begins 24 the period when Sr. Bernardine was the Resident 25 Manager and Sr. Xaveria was her assistant. In that 26 year, July '43, the report for food and diet 27 says "fairly good"; clothing, "fairly good"; other 28 categories then are "good or satisfactory". There is 29 a general comment at the end of the document that 81 1 says: "Diet could be more varied and ample." 2 3 In 1944 there is critical comment, by that I mean a 4 negative comment, particularly in relation to the 5 food and diet where it indicates that there is 6 "inadequate milk and butter in the children's diet". 7 There is also "untidiness in clothing". However, in 8 that same year, 1944, the next report which I do not 9 put up here, indicates improvement under both of 10 those headings. 11 86 Q. I think the January 1944 report does continue into a 12 second page and there is a full page effectively of 13 commentary expressing where the medical examiner 14 amplifies her dissatisfaction with the clothes which 15 she says are not "clean, untidy and are torn". She 16 amplifies her remarks in relation to diet where she 17 says she is "not satisfied with milk and butter, 18 insufficient for 150 children". I think she makes a 19 number of points, six points, which she feels require 20 attention and they are the subject matter of a letter 21 which is subsequently written on 29 February 1944? 22 A. Yes, that is correct. The document you refer to is 23 on the screen. 24 87 Q. That's the report? 25 A. Giving the details, yes. 26 88 Q. The points which are raised in the letter basically 27 deal with cleanliness and tidiness. Dental visits, 28 it's questioned whether they were taking place every 29 quarter. It questions the non-supply of toothbrushes 82 1 and the absence of training as to its use. It speaks 2 about the rations of butter and milk needs to be 3 improved and it also is critical about the 4 supervision of the small children: 5 "It would be well if greater care were 6 taken in the supervision of the small children." 7 8 It also says: 9 "The blankets at present in use are 10 rather thin and worn and they should be reserved or supplemented by new 11 blankets". 12 13 That's the letter. That would have been the letter 14 which was sent to the school after that inspection 15 which you have referred to? 16 A. Yes. 1944 in that sense represents the critical and 17 negative comment in relation to standards in the 18 school at that time and the sisters who go back to 19 that time would acknowledge that conditions were poor 20 in those early years of the 40's. 21 89 Q. I think in fact the difficulties are reflected in the 22 correspondence which took place between the date of 23 the last letter, which I referred to, and subsequent 24 letters from April '44, May, June 1944, and 25 ultimately there is a further inspection on 28 June 26 1944? 27 A. Yes. Everything that you have said there is the fact 28 in that communication difficulties were indicated in 29 terms of being able to adequately raise the milk and 83 1 butter allotment. Other than drawing attention to 2 it, we acknowledge that correspondence is there and 3 it is evidence that there were difficulties during 4 that year. 5 90 Q. I think there was an interesting letter of 15 June 6 1944 where Sr. Bernardine points out that: 7 "Having used all possible means to 8 economise in food and clothing, we find ourselves totally unable to meet the 9 demands of our creditors. We owe large sums of money for clothing and the 10 present maintenance also suffices to feed the children leaving no margins 11 for clothing so that we have no hope of being able to pay our debts on the 12 present grant." 13 14 This is one of the letters which I refer to in a 15 sequence of letters between inspections. I think it 16 was followed by an assurance dated 16 June from the 17 Department addressed to Sr. Bernardine where it's 18 indicated that the question of the award of an 19 emergency bonus of five schillings per head per week 20 to reformatory and industrial schools is presently 21 under consideration? 22 A. Yes. That does relate to the consciousness and long 23 memory of the difficulty of being able to meet all of 24 what was expected from the capitation grant. I have 25 simply taken a sample of some of these reports. 26 27 The next one that I took was 1 March of 1946, which 28 shows under health, "satisfactory"; and under food 29 and diet, "improved"; and under clothing, "fair". 84 1 The general comment at the end of the page was: 2 "That the premises was well run, the 3 children were clean and tidy and apparently quite happy and that 4 supervision was good." 5 6 I think between those two years there is some 7 indication of effort to meet the requirements that 8 the inspectors had been pointing out. 9 91 Q. I think that there was a second issue emerging on the 10 horizon at that stage which is reflected in that 11 particular report? 12 A. That's true. In that year, 1946, as well there were 13 six extra children above the certified limit who had 14 been taken in because of a family crisis. The 15 inspector questioned the adequacy of the 16 accommodation, and I would understand that to be 17 around sleeping accommodation. It eventually 18 appeared that doubling up was involved particularly 19 for some of the younger children, but the Resident 20 Manager requested that the children not be scattered 21 elsewhere or taken from the school because it would 22 divide them up and the Department did agree that they 23 could stay until July, they were a short-term 24 admission, that they could stay until July of '46, 25 that was three months later. 26 92 Q. I think it would be fair to say that the Departmental 27 letter reflects a reprimand for exceeding the 28 certified limit? 29 A. Yes, it does. 85 1 93 Q. It expresses in no uncertain terms that in future the 2 limit should not be exceeded? 3 A. It certainly does that and I think it touches in some 4 way the clash between the need to respond to in a 5 compassionate way to the needs of the family and at 6 the same time trying to stay within the restrictions 7 on whatever were the obligations at the time in 8 relation to the school. 9 10 If we can move to 1948. This report shows "good" for 11 most headings with "satisfactory" for conditions of 12 the premises, and "very satisfactory" for health. 13 The general comment is: 14 "Generally well run school. 15 Sr. Bernardine has the interest of the children at heart. She has made 16 improvements in many ways and has a more sympathetic outlook." 17 18 The 1949 report, it is similar with a general 19 comment, saying: 20 "Generally well run school. Resident 21 Manager very capable and efficient." 22 23 The '51 report ...(INTERJECTION) 24 94 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure we need to 25 go though -- 26 A. -- all of these. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Unless there is a 28 particular point, 29 Mr. McMahon. 86 1 MR. McMAHON: I think it is fair for 2 Sr. Helena to say, as she 3 has said, that in general, apart from the times which 4 she is highlighted from the mid-40's, that generally 5 the reports are either very good or excellent in 6 almost all respects going up until a much later stage 7 when they become far more detailed and in fact they 8 continue to be in general positive even at that 9 stage. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. What 11 I am merely indicating is 12 obviously they are there and we can read them, if 13 there is some particular thing we need to get into. 14 To the extent that they are informative about the 15 issues so be it, it's all there written in front of 16 us. If there is some particular thing you want to 17 refer to, Sister, feel entirely free. 18 A. Yes, I am happy to ...(INTERJECTION) 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: If it's a question of you 20 telling us what's written 21 in it when we can read it ourselves, we are all in 22 the same boat in that respect. You were not there 23 nor ... 24 A. I do think that the reports present or point up the 25 difficulty in looking at the whole issue of how life 26 was in the industrial school because of the differing 27 views that have been expressed in relation to it. 28 95 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: In what way, would you mind 29 amplifying that, sister, 87 1 please? 2 A. If I just mention the 1951 report. 3 96 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. This is 12 September; 4 is that right? 5 A. 1951 report. 6 97 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: 12 September '51; is that 7 right? 8 A. Yes, September. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have it. 10 A. Yes. The general comment was "satisfactory", but the 11 Resident Manager "very capable and kind". I do 12 believe that the comments in relation to the managers 13 is pertinent to trying to establish as we go on what 14 the life and what the care as understood 15 ...(INTERJECTION) 16 [Interruption From Public] 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are interested in this. 18 I understand, I know that 19 people are worked up about things. It's not an 20 argument, it's not helpful if people intervene. 21 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: It's very difficult to 22 listen to this whitewash. 23 [Interruption From Public] 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could we just all calm down 25 for a minute. The only 26 alternative to this form of procedure is to have 27 hearings in private with nobody hearing what is going 28 on. That's the only alternative. Now, how can 29 I indicate that we are interested in what this 88 1 witness has to say about the position of the Sisters 2 of Mercy, that's why we are exploring. Whether what 3 is stated here is objectively true or is not 4 objectively true ...(INTERJECTION) 5 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: It's not true. 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, hold on a second. 7 Whether it is true or not, 8 whether we can work out anything about whether 9 children were abused or not from the comments of an 10 inspector visiting on 12th of September 1951 is 11 another day's work. The inspector's opinion on 12 12 September 1951 that somebody was extremely kind is 13 the inspector's opinion. If that's what is written 14 down that is what is written down and it is for us to 15 work out what conclusions do we draw from that. 16 I know that people who were there, people who were 17 involved have strong feelings, but you do have to 18 understand we want the evidence and we are going to 19 listen to the evidence and we are going to do the 20 best we can in making a decision about it. 21 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: It's one sided evidence. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, it has to be 23 one sided evidence. 24 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: We don't have an 25 opportunity to go up there 26 and tell what is was really like. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait now. We have had this 28 debate. Mr. Rogers made 29 his point. I expressed a good deal of sympathy for 89 1 it. As I say the only alternative is simply, and 2 I want to be as sympathetic as possible, I don't want 3 to be here bossy-booting around, I want to give 4 people every opportunity. At this stage it happens 5 to be the Sisters of Mercy who are in the chair. 6 They are going to get heard the only question is if 7 you make it impossible to hear it in public then it 8 will be heard in private. 9 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: We would you not hear what 10 we are saying. 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I am not getting 12 into an argument, I am 13 trying to be as sympathetic as I can. I don't want 14 to argue with you. As I said you are just going to 15 have to trust the job that we are doing. You can 16 complain when you see the result. You may be 17 perfectly right, you may be perfectly wrong, you will 18 be perfectly free to comment. We are doing the best 19 we can and this is the way we are doing it. 20 21 Now, that's the way it has to be and that's the way 22 it's going to be. I would ask people please 23 sympathise with us, understand what we are trying to 24 do and we are trying to hear what Sr. Helena 25 O'Donoghue has to say. In light of that I am now 26 feeling less inclined to ask questions because I am 27 fearing that people are now going to start 28 interrupting. That's a bad thing because we are 29 going to find out more information if we are able to 90 1 ask questions, and if there is no interruptions we 2 will feel free to come back to it. I do ask people 3 to understand. I am not unsympathetic to the fact 4 that people have strong feelings. All right, let's 5 proceed, Mr. McMahon. 6 98 Q. MR. McMAHON: Sr. Helena, you were going 7 to deal with what the 8 inspector's report of 12 September 1951 says? 9 MR. GAGEBY: 1953 is next. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think she has made that 11 point, Mr. McMahon, and we 12 will move from that one. 13 A. I think I have dealt with that one. In '53, perhaps 14 the thing to note is that there were five separate 15 inspections that year. In all of them again the same 16 pattern of "good", "very good" and "excellent" 17 follows through. That is the year that there is 18 reference in the inspector's report to the question 19 of discussing a child care course. The inspector 20 indicates that she visited the school to discuss with 21 the Resident Manager the child care course, so that 22 area would seem to have been on the minds of people. 23 24 The '54 report, I will just mention different things, 25 not everything that I had already intended to do, but 26 just specifics. In the 1954 report there is 27 reference in the inspection to the fact that the 28 Resident Manager has bought a home in Rathdrum as a 29 holiday home for the children and that it is proposed 91 1 that they would go there for holiday every summer. 2 3 In '55, the same pattern continues, but I would just 4 draw attention to that year. Sr. Bernardine was no 5 longer the Resident Manager and now Sr. Xaveria is 6 acting Resident Manager and her assistant is 7 Sr. Fabian so from '55 on the reports relate to their 8 period. 9 10 In the '55 report, I think there is reference to two 11 things of consequence: One is that: 12 "The premises were attractive and that 13 the food was attractive, well cooked and attractively served. Clothing was 14 brightly coloured and attractive hand-made jumpers and skirts made the 15 children very well groomed." 16 17 It also refers to recreation possibilities, net ball, 18 hockey, dancing and a percussion band. The 1956 19 report simply refers to new floorings throughout the 20 house. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we need to go 22 through these in detail, 23 Mr. McMahon. They are there to be read. These are 24 what the Department inspectors wrote down. Very 25 good. 26 99 Q. MR. McMAHON: Sister, in relation to 27 those inspections or to 28 inspections generally are you in a position to assist 29 in relation to whether advance notice was given of 92 1 the impending arrival of the inspector and whether 2 special arrangements were made in anticipation of the 3 arrival of the inspector. 4 A. As far as I can glean from the sisters they 5 understand that these inspections relating to these 6 reports were not announced in advance, but that the 7 medical inspections for this particular looking after 8 of each individual child and also some of the primary 9 school inspections were announced in advance because 10 they were required to do so, they involved different 11 aspects that were under inspection. It is the 12 recollection of the sisters involved that these 13 inspections were not announced in advance. 14 MR. McMAHON: I think you were going to 15 go on and deal with the 16 medical inspections, perhaps there are some which 17 you may wish to highlight, but I think there is a 18 similar series of medical inspections? 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it's fair to say, 20 Mr. McMahon, if there is 21 some specific matter illustrated in some general 22 principle well and good, otherwise I think we can be 23 trusted to read them because they are there as 24 documents unless somebody has some other point of 25 view about them. Personally I think that this is 26 what people wrote. 27 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder 28 could I just briefly 29 indicate. I think we would be a little bit happier 93 1 if perhaps Sr. Helena come back to the some of the 2 very positive reports from the late 50's. It's 3 probably unnecessary to put it up on the scope. The 4 reason being this is the public affirmation of our 5 side of this difficult problem so I would be anxious 6 simply from that point of view, not to dally on the 7 matter. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: The problem, I suppose, 9 Mr. Gageby, is this from an 10 evidence point of view is -- 11 MR. GAGEBY: Yes. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- what do they show? They 13 show that on the day that 14 Mr. X from the Department visited this was his 15 impression. He may be right or he may be wrong. If 16 the question is was somebody mistreated on another 17 day during that year before that or after that. 18 Ultimately I would be prepared to invite a submission 19 to say what significance does that have and to see 20 what somebody else says. You would say there is a 21 series of reports here which redound to the credit of 22 the institution. For instance, in the year when 23 there was five or six inspections they cannot all 24 have been -- you might say something like that, 25 somebody else might say well they don't prove 26 anything. 27 MR. GAGEBY: Surely, Mr. Chairman, and 28 I wouldn't intend to argue 29 the weight, but simply to indicate that if there is 94 1 complaints about nutrition, accommodation and other 2 matters, now I agree those don't actually speak to 3 any issue of any physical abuse, but this particular 4 area does. I wonder, and without going any much 5 further than is in fact in our prepared issue, if we 6 could perhaps just touch on them. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. If we touch on 8 them for a while and see 9 how we go, all right. 10 MR. GAGEBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 100 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you know which ones you 12 want to touch on, Sister. 13 If you do that is convenient. 14 A. It's nearly finished, I think. The 1958 one, just to 15 mention that there was a small nursery dining room 16 prepared for small children. The 1959 to '60 comment 17 makes specific reference to Sr. Xaveria, that she 18 knows about running a good school. I think that the 19 19 ...(INTERJECTION) 20 101 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Please don't be rushed by 21 my comments. Obviously 22 I have a certain interest and I can read the thing so 23 take your time. I don't want to be rushing you? 24 A. The '60 and '61 refers to starting a new wing which 25 was necessary to in many ways improve the buildings 26 that at this point were very old. In the '62 27 reports, they indicate how a new wing of six bedrooms 28 with accommodation for eight to ten with staff 29 quarters and a whole lot of other additional support, 95 1 that the only remaining large dormitory in the old 2 building had been subdivided. I think these points 3 go to improving the conditions that the children were 4 in. 5 6 That is the last year that Sr. Xaveria is there. The 7 following year, July '63, Sr. Fabian becomes the 8 Resident Manager with Sr. Clement, her assistant. In 9 that year Sr. Fabian is described as "doing well and 10 being a disciple of Sr. Xaveria". I had intended to 11 quote the '66 report in full, but if I were to simply 12 say that it obviously was a different inspector so 13 the pattern is somewhat different and there is 14 greater detail, all of the detail being of a positive 15 nature. One other thing referred to there is a well 16 stocked library with radio sets and a television 17 being provided. 18 19 Following the Kennedy Report in 1970 where there was 20 a great deal of new thinking on what was appropriate 21 for children in care, then the other reports 22 following that refer to efforts made to make 23 adjustments and one adjustment that proved difficult 24 was that the building was so old and so institutional 25 and so much of the time and the correspondence deals 26 with trying to get permission for group-home style 27 accommodation. 28 29 96 1 The medical inspections, which were specific to the 2 children, follow something of the same pattern of the 3 general inspections. I don't know if I need to refer 4 to each of these in particular. 5 102 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you refer to a 6 few of them, Sister. 7 A. The early ones in 1944, the point of relevance is 8 that there is reference to good and medical reports 9 being kept. Obviously being kept and being retained 10 down through the years are two different things. The 11 medical report for March 1946 talks about the 12 children being well cared for and health good, but it 13 refers to 100 children who had not put on weight in 14 that quarter and the reason given was that 15 practically all of them had influenza. There are 16 also some lists given of children who needed dental 17 and other treatments and the following May, 1946, 18 which is two months later, a letter from the Resident 19 Manager confirms that all of these requirements had 20 been effected. 21 22 From the 50's on, if I might make a general comment 23 in relation to them. It is regularly that the "diet 24 is well balanced, that they are varied and meals are 25 attractively served". In 1955 there is a reference 26 to 11 cases of scabies in the school. In 1956 and 27 right through to the reports over the coming years 28 reference to babies and small children being 29 particularly well cared for. 97 1 If I might take a quote then from 1966. It is 2 actually a letter from an inspector to the Resident 3 Manager. It says: 4 "Allow me to congratulate you on the 5 happy appearance of the children and, secondly, on the school's excellent 6 standard of cleanliness, neatness and comfort. 7 It is evident that no effort is spared 8 by you and your staff in caring and providing for the children." 9 10 I think this goes to the general atmosphere and the 11 general environment of the school. We are very 12 conscious that these reports, which are not ours, do 13 describe conditions in Goldenbridge which are at 14 variance with the recollections of many of the former 15 residents and we are very conscious of that and aware 16 of it. Nevertheless, they are documents which are 17 there. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Thank you very 19 much. 20 103 Q. MR. McMAHON: Would you wish to move on? 21 A. The next section is to look a little bit at the 22 premises and the accommodation as we understand them 23 today. Unfortunately the buildings, or maybe it 24 isn't unfortunate, but the buildings no longer exist 25 that was the industrial school. They were demolished 26 in the 80's, but we do have a site plan and a sketch 27 plan, an outline sketch plan of how it was from 1941 28 until '64. I think we are able to put up on the 29 screen a plan done on that. It was a two-storey 98 1 building and it stood on its own. There was a 2 convent and a laundry on the same grounds, but some 3 distance away. There were no common areas except the 4 church or chapel, the convent chapel and the laundry. 5 We understand that in the early 40's there was 6 something of a farm, not with acres or anything, but 7 there was some animals. There was a horse and 8 I think there was a few cows, we believe, some hens 9 and turkeys and perhaps some pigs. There was a 10 vegetable garden and milk, eggs and vegetables were 11 supplied to the industrial school from the convent. 12 The convent's laundry took the heavier items such as 13 sheets from the industrial school. The convent 14 laundry was not a public laundry or was not a public 15 laundry certainly in the period under review. 16 17 The first part ...(INTERJECTION) 18 104 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Where was the laundry, 19 Sister, I am not seeing it 20 on this? 21 A. No. That's the ground floor. There was a small 22 laundry ...(INTERJECTION) 23 105 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It's not designated on the 24 plan, that's all right? 25 A. There was a small laundry within the industrial 26 school which dealt with the material for the 27 industrial school itself only but not for sheets. 28 MR. McMAHON: I think that may appear on 29 the ground floor, which is 99 1 the other half of the sheet. 2 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Excuse me, could I just say 3 one thing? 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are going to tell us 5 about where it was. 6 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: No, no. I worked in the 7 laundry. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, tell us about it. 9 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Sorry, I worked in the 10 laundry. 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Where was it? 12 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: It was away from the school 13 down behind the church. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 15 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: I worked in it. 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. All 17 right. 18 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: It wasn't in the school. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. It was 20 behind the church. 21 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Yes. 22 106 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That's where it was. Thank 23 you very much. 24 A. In the upstairs of the industrial school there were 25 three dormitories, the Sacred Heart, St. Joseph's and 26 Our Lady's, generally speaking children were 27 separated in dormitories by age, but sometimes 28 younger siblings were kept with their older sisters. 29 St. Joseph's dormitory had the younger children and 100 1 the children who had a bedwetting problem. 2 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: No. 3 A. In the 50's there was a sewing room upstairs which 4 eventually was converted where one of the staff slept 5 with small babies. 6 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: No. 7 107 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: This is what you 8 understand? 9 A. This is my understanding. 10 108 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Obviously other people 11 understand it differently 12 and they may well be right about that. 13 A. Yes. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't need to iron out 15 those little problems just 16 at the moment. 17 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: We actually do. I slept in 18 the Sacred Heart, it was a 19 wet bed dormitory, until the day I was 17 years of 20 age, the Sacred Heart dormitory. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can we move from the 22 subject of who did what and 23 precisely where, Mr. McMahon. There is a good reason 24 for this. We actually have in mind, although we 25 haven't designated somebody to go and look at the 26 plans for Goldenbridge just at the moment, we have 27 engaged somebody to look at plans in general and we 28 have started with two industrial schools, and seeing 29 how that goes we will extend it to a number, not 101 1 everyone, but certainly it will include Goldenbridge. 2 We would be very grateful for plans and accommodation 3 and so. We want, in other words, to get to an area 4 that is not at all in controversy. What happened 5 where shouldn't be a matter of debate or 6 disagreement. Obviously, and this has happened once 7 or twice before at public hearings, it's 8 understandable when somebody remembers something as 9 happening in a specific place and they are hearing 10 evidence given about it happening in some other place 11 from somebody who wasn't there and there tends to be 12 controversy. People can be reassured and you can be 13 we reassured ...(INTERJECTION) 14 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Sorry, it's very hard to 15 sit here and listen to 16 someone who was not there. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not getting into a 18 debate. 19 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: I am not debating with you, 20 but to listen to someone 21 who was not there telling us where such and such a 22 place was, that's very hard. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you listen to me you 24 will understand. I am just 25 explaining that I understand that and it's not the 26 first time it has happened and we have taken steps 27 already here in the Investigation Committee to make 28 sure we can avoid all debate about that by having our 29 own other person go and look at all the plans to the 102 1 extent that we need it. We will leave that area. 2 3 Sister, it's not an area that you can speak about 4 from any knowledge of yourself. One can understand 5 people being annoyed, upset, in disagreement about 6 specific things because they may have spent a long 7 period there and may have very clear recollections. 8 One understands that. I don't want to be 9 unsympathetic to that, but can we leave the premises, 10 it's not something we are forgetting about, not for a 11 moment, we have plans in that regard. 12 13 Be it said if the next area is how the children came 14 and where they come from, that that is another area 15 that we have engaged expert assistance on. 16 MR. GAGEBY: Could I just suggest 17 we might go to improvements 18 in physical surroundings, which doesn't seem to be 19 ... 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate, Mr. Gageby, 21 that the case that you on 22 behalf of the Sisters of Mercy will make is that the 23 accommodation was improved over the years by 24 extensions in buildings and so on, I assume that is 25 the case that you would be making? 26 MR. GAGEBY: Yes. This is perhaps the 27 only comprehensive public 28 statement we will have of that. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 103 1 MR. GAGEBY: I am just anxious that it 2 isn't foreshortened for any 3 reason. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I want to 5 controversy particularly, 6 let me emphasise, particularly completely unnecessary 7 controversy. I do sympathise with people who 8 remember things differently. Mr. McMahon, perhaps if 9 you would lead Sr. O'Donoghue through the -- 10 MR. GAGEBY: Improvements. 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- structural improvements 12 in the buildings that were 13 made over the years according to the information that 14 she has at secondhand. 15 109 Q. MR. McMAHON: I will certainly try and do 16 that. I think the point 17 that you were hoping to get across was that the 18 buildings weren't always static. There were 19 developments over the years from the 1940's and a 20 summary of those developments that took place are 21 that a recreation hall was added 1941. In 1944 five 22 new baths, seven new WC's were added in addition to 23 the existing four bathrooms and twelve WC's already 24 in place. A new dormitory annex was created and 25 dormitories repainted in 1945. In 1951 new tables 26 and chairs for groups of six were put into the dining 27 room, replacing the long tables and forms and also a 28 new electric steamer and cooker were required for the 29 kitchens at that stage. 104 1 You referred to the acquisition of the holiday home 2 in Rathdrum, which was brought in 1954. New curtains 3 which were put in the dormitories and corridors in 4 1955. Changeover from coal to gas for the heating in 5 1954 and '55. I think you referred to the 6 installation of new flooring in the dining room and 7 corridors which took place in 1956. The house was 8 rewired, new cooker, hot press were installed in 9 1958. New kitchen appliances, a fridge and 10 industrial size potato peeler, food mixer, all 11 acquired sometime around that time. Then you refer 12 to in a 1960 a small villa for residents/visitors at 13 the entrance gate was provided further. 14 15 Further, in 1963 four new dining rooms, a boy's 16 recreation hall and a playground were added. Then 17 you refer in 1964 to the building of a new primary 18 school, a building which is still standing. In 1963 19 a new dormitory I think it was called the Carmel 20 dormitory was erected for senior girls. This was 21 divided into sections of five or six girls with their 22 own toilets and showers? 23 A. Yes. All of those improvements are specifically 24 evidenced in the Department inspection reports in 25 particular. The matters prior to that I recognise 26 are the matter of recollections since the buildings 27 are not there. I would have to say that my 28 information is from sisters who were in the premises, 29 but it's very difficult from decade to decade at this 105 1 distance to actually be, if you like, any way 2 absolute in relation to the specific activities that 3 went on in different places. I recognise and I am 4 very conscious that people may well have different 5 recollections of the same things. It has happened on 6 our side as well. 7 MR. McMAHON: Yes. I think you were 8 going to touch in some way 9 on where the children came from? 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think in fairness 11 Sr. Helena has given us 12 some of that earlier. 13 110 Q. MR. McMAHON: You dealt with, and it may 14 not be necessary to go 15 through all of what you have said, you have already 16 spoken about the limited documentation that came with 17 the children and indeed how contact was first made by 18 the District Court office to enquire whether there 19 was a vacancy in place. You also have spoken about 20 the shortage of information which was passed on to 21 the institution? 22 A. Yes. In terms of adding to that it might be that 23 there may have been a perception that many children 24 who were in the industrial schools were orphans and 25 that is not a fact. Most, in fact, had at least one 26 parent. It may have been understood that many had 27 come from unmarried parents, but the figures from 28 1942 to 1957 during which time of the admissions 29 380 had married parents and 84 had single parents. 106 1 It just shows in a sense the different situations. 2 3 I think I already gave you an indication of how the 4 process happened when you were asking questions this 5 morning? 6 111 Q. Yes. 7 A. And on how the children came. 8 112 Q. And the documentation that came with them? 9 A. Yes. 10 113 Q. I think you are in a position to assist in relation 11 to the number of children who were in the school at a 12 given time and their breakdown? 13 A. Most of the children who came in were aged 3 years 14 and upwards and then a few children under 3 and 15 occasionally a few babies were accepted after 1954, 16 particularly where efforts were being made to keep 17 siblings together. Permission had been given to take 18 up to 15 boys in that same year for the same reason. 19 20 In 1943 the school was certified for 140 girls with 21 an accommodation limit of 150. This arrangement 22 provided for voluntary or crisis admissions. 23 Dr. McCabe, the Department Medical Inspector, 24 reported at that time and she complained that the 25 school was crammed to capacity. One of the reasons 26 for this was the location of the school. The NSPCC 27 had put pressure on the Resident Manager to accept 28 children so that they would not have to be sent down 29 the country at considerable distance from their 107 1 families. At one stage a private house adjacent to 2 the school was acquired where extra beds and other 3 equipment was also purchased and attempts made to 4 have a higher accommodation limit was then 5 sanctioned. In 1951 the limit was then 160 girls. 6 7 8 In 1954 several requests came from clinics, social 9 welfare workers and the Archbishop of Dublin to 10 facilitate mothers who because of illness were 11 temporarily unable to care for young children, boys, 12 between two months and two years of age. These 13 mothers could not avail of the treatment as there was 14 no institution to look after the young boys and in 15 response to this problem, and having a highly 16 furnished nursery and a trained nurse with helpers, 17 the Resident Manager applied for sanction to increase 18 the limit to 165 to take care of these infants and 19 sanction was granted to include 15 boys of two years 20 old and less. This was made public in various ways 21 at the time. 22 114 Q. I think the Departments of Health, Justice and the 23 Gardaí were informed of this development? 24 A. Yes. 25 115 Q. That would have been the normal procedure when 26 certification was increased? 27 A. Yes. In 1963 the accommodation was raised again to 28 185 and that was the highest during the relevant 29 period and maybe since establishment in 1880. It was 108 1 the period when a number of other industrial schools 2 around the school were closing and placements were 3 needed for the few remaining children. Following 4 that year a downward trend in numbers accelerated. 5 After the Kennedy Report they continued to go down so 6 that in 1980 -- I think I have it somewhere else -- 7 there were 90 children in care. 8 116 Q. I think you have provided for the assistance of the 9 Commission a table setting out the certified numbers 10 in the school for each year from 1937 up until 1983? 11 A. Yes. 12 117 Q. I think it also gave a breakdown of how many of those 13 in the school comprised of girls and how many 14 comprised of boys? 15 A. Yes. The total number of children over the period 16 under review who would have been cared for in 17 Goldenbridge is 1750. I say in the region of that, 18 it may not be absolutely accurate. 19 118 Q. Can you assist the Commission in relation to the 20 make-up of the sisters and staff who ran the 21 industrial school? 22 A. As I think it would be possible to glean already two 23 sisters from the convent during the period 1940 to 24 1980 were assigned to the industrial school as their 25 principal ministry. One of these held the position 26 of sister in charge or Resident Manager and the other 27 was her assistant. Over the period there were six 28 different Resident Managers in Goldenbridge and 29 during some of those years there was occasionally a 109 1 third sister who worked. Usually that was a younger 2 sister who was perhaps at novice stage or early 3 profession stage and who would have had an assigned 4 task within the industrial school. Sometimes areas 5 like the sewing room or teaching music were assigned 6 to them. 7 8 The Mother Superior in the convert had little if any 9 involvement in the industrial school, though for some 10 of the period the records appear to indicate that she 11 was the formal Resident Manager and in such capacity 12 she conducted the official business with the 13 Department of Education and she authorised decisions 14 on expenditure. 15 16 However, that position was a three-year position and 17 it was the sister in charge of the industrial school 18 who usually had the lounger and more direct 19 involvement in the industrial school. It is our 20 conviction that the sisters chosen for responsibility 21 in Goldenbridge were women of ability, sound common 22 sense and normal home background. They were 23 committed religious women, motivated by the mercy 24 charism of responding to the needs of children at 25 risk. As their principal ministry was in the 26 industrial school, they lived and worked in the 27 institution and they were available in the school all 28 hours of the day, seven days a week and I have given 29 a table 110 1 119 Q. You have given a table identifying who the Resident 2 Manager and who the sister in charge was for each of 3 the periods from 1942 up until 1972? 4 A. Yes, from the given period. I think it's on the 5 screen there. 6 120 Q. I think what appears from that table is that indeed 7 the Resident Manager, whom you have described as 8 being the Sister Superior, wasn't necessarily the 9 sister in charge? 10 A. Yes. 11 121 Q. Or rather the sister in charge wasn't necessarily the 12 Resident Manager who technically was the Sister 13 Superior? 14 A. Yes. 15 122 Q. What training was available, what professional 16 training did those sisters have? 17 A. Each of the five sisters who acted as sisters in 18 charge and involved in the industrial school were 19 professionally trained teachers at Carysfort Training 20 College, which was a significant feature in the 21 Dublin Mercy Community. Sr. Bernardine also had 22 qualifications and certifications in domestic 23 economy, cookery, needlework and household 24 management. These sisters also were supported by 25 other sisters as I have said, but who might not 26 necessarily have any had particular training. Those 27 who worked in the kitchen were qualified cooks and 28 others would have taken short courses in household 29 management. 111 1 123 Q. Is it known what the backgrounds of those sisters 2 were? I know you have said in a general sense they 3 were from normal home background, were the sisters 4 women who had come through the industrial school 5 system or had they been brought up in home situations 6 and gone through the normal primary and secondary 7 education systems prior to entering Carysfort? 8 A. Yes. Some of them were professionally trained before 9 they entered the convert; in other words, they were 10 already trained teachers before entering the convert. 11 124 Q. You refer to a number of teachers who taught 12 ...(INTERJECTION) 13 A. Well, one of the situations is really to grapple with 14 the fact that the primary school was an internal 15 primary school so that the sisters who were in charge 16 of the industrial school were also the teachers for 17 class during the day and were also the people who 18 were around after school hours. After school hours 19 they were involved in the caring of the children as 20 well as all of the other responsibilities that went 21 with running a fairly large establishment of 150/160 22 children and keeping account of all the various 23 dimensions that had to be dealt with as well as 24 relating to the Department of Education and its 25 officials. 26 125 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sister, am I understanding 27 that there were two 28 separate schools? 29 A. Yes. 112 1 126 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: In the industrial school 2 the teaching was done by 3 the principal and her assistant? 4 A. Yes. 5 127 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Possibly with the 6 assistance of a third, a 7 very junior person? 8 A. Not the teaching part, no. The teaching part was a 9 four-teacher school so you had the two sisters. 10 128 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Plus two lay? 11 A. They had two lay teachers who were the teaching and 12 they did not take part, certainly after 1942, they 13 did not take part in the care responsibilities after 14 school hours. 15 129 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: We had two sort of separate 16 establishments, more or 17 less run quite discretely and distinctly one from the 18 other. I think you said earlier there was little 19 enough contact. The nuns in the convent school 20 tended to keep themselves to themselves? 21 A. Yes. 22 130 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And mind their own business 23 so to speak. The two were 24 relatively separate, even though run by the same 25 institution? 26 A. Community. 27 131 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Community, I am sorry. 28 What I want to ask you is 29 how many children were there in the convent school? 113 1 A. I have no idea of that. It served a large area of 2 Inchicore. 3 132 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That is something, I take 4 it, is available? 5 A. Is available, yes. It was a much larger school. The 6 internal primary school was simply a four-teacher 7 school and that was set by the number of pupils. 8 133 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The two lay teachers went 9 home at 4:00 or 3:00, 10 whatever it was? 11 A. They did. 12 134 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The two resident sisters -- 13 A. Sisters. 14 135 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: -- had the job, first of 15 all, of teaching during the 16 day and then of supervising more or less? 17 A. Yes. They were supported by a care staff which 18 I will come to then. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 20 A. Two of those Resident Managers or sisters in charge 21 are now dead, that's Sr. Bernardine and Sr. Fabian. 22 The lay teachers in the temporary school, for most of 23 the period 1940 to 1970 they remained the same 24 actually. Initially there were two, what was maybe 25 described as, untrained; in other words, they didn't 26 go through the Carysfort training programme. 27 However, they were what was called Junior Assistant 28 Mistresses which was a form of training provided by 29 the Department of Education and sanctioned for 114 1 teachers who in the earlier years hadn't gone through 2 the training colleges. One of the difficulties was 3 attracting lay teachers to an internal school for an 4 industrial school because they did not have the same 5 privileges as their colleagues who worked in the 6 external national schools as regards matters of 7 salary and pension. It was a matter that the 8 Residents Managers Association took up and was 9 rectified somewhere in the 40's. 10 11 In the later period, in fact one of the two lay 12 teachers over most of the period is still alive, but 13 in the 1960's the ratio of pupil to teacher was 14 improved and there were a number of lay teachers in 15 the internal primary school during the 60's and 70's. 16 The carers who were lay staff in the industrial 17 school, these were selected by the sister in charge. 18 As far as we can see they were usually about the 19 number of four and they are sometimes referred to by 20 former residents as teachers because they didn't 21 distinguish between them, but their role would 22 correspond to what we would call today care staff. 23 Their main responsibility was the supervision before 24 and after school hours and the attending to the needs 25 of the children. They would work in shifts of two on 26 and two off. Another member of staff was usually 27 employed in the kitchen who was a qualified cook and 28 another would be employed in the sewing room looking 29 after children's clothes. It was also the practice 115 1 to retain some former residents who on the expiry of 2 their detention at the age of 16 remained on in a 3 form of internal accommodation and employment. At 4 that time this was something that was thought to be 5 in their best interests. 6 136 Q. MR. McMAHON: If I may stop you there, 7 Sister, in whose best 8 interest was that felt to be, are you speaking about 9 the children or about the employees? 10 A. As I understand it the difficulty of being able to 11 manage on your own outside of the school would have 12 meant that it would be a way of providing an 13 alternative to somebody rather than having to leave 14 at 16 which most of them did. I think that was a 15 judgment made by the Resident Manager at the time. 16 I have not heard that it would have been presented as 17 a way of fulfilling needed employment places. 18 137 Q. Am I understanding the position to be that perhaps 19 some of these employees were past pupils who may have 20 had difficulty securing normal employment outside of 21 the school environment? 22 A. Yes, that's my understanding. 23 138 Q. They were appointed by the Resident Manager? 24 A. The Resident Manager -- 25 139 Q. As needs arose? 26 A. -- would keep them on for a number of years sometimes 27 it happened. 28 140 Q. Perhaps you were going to deal with this, but from 29 amongst that group were some of those involved in 116 1 supervising the dormitories at night time? 2 A. Probably. Again that will be a matter for 3 examination, but with the distance of time it's hard 4 to set out the patterns of who specifically was there 5 at specific times and who was with them and for the 6 length of period. Then to relate that to the taking 7 up of the accommodation in the dormitories because 8 each dormitory had a place for two carers to sleep, 9 but we are not in a position to say with any 10 exactitude who was on and who was off. One of the 11 things not retained would appear to be records in 12 relation to care staff and who was employed and for 13 how long. 14 141 Q. Is it the case that those who slept in the dormitory 15 came from amongst the ranks of care workers, some of 16 whom may have been those former residents. 17 A. Yes. 18 142 Q. That those who were involved in supervising the 19 dormitories, they certainly were not the sisters who 20 seemed to have had their own rooms separate and 21 distinct from the dormitories? 22 A. Yes, the sisters slept upstairs on the premises. The 23 degree to which they were involved in supervising 24 going to bed and getting up, well certainly the going 25 to bed part, I am not in a position to say with any 26 exactitude what the patterns were. 27 143 Q. Given that we know about the absence of child care 28 course or the unavailability of child care courses 29 would it be reasonable to take it that the only 117 1 training good, bad or indifferent that the past pupil 2 employees had was their experience of being pupils in 3 Goldenbridge? 4 A. That's correct. 5 144 Q. Thank you very much. 6 A. What I should say by way of assistance, and this 7 would be in the pre '65 time, there would have been a 8 strong pattern of the sisters having to return to the 9 convent for particular services and exercises. That 10 happened in the mornings obviously with prayer and 11 mass so that the sisters weren't present at the 12 getting-up time, as I understand it. In the evening 13 time from 5:00 to about 7:00 that covered the 14 requirements for the sisters to return to the 15 convent. They returned then back to the industrial 16 school by tea time or after tea time. They were 17 present at going to bedtime, but to what degree I am 18 not in a position to say. 19 145 Q. Is it known at this remove, insofar as you are aware, 20 the extent to which instructions were given to care 21 workers and what the instructions given to care 22 workers were in relation to the supervision and the 23 care which they exercised over the children? 24 A. I have to knowledge of that and there is nothing that 25 we have come across that would indicate what might 26 have been done in that regard. 27 146 Q. No formal protocols or written instructions that you 28 are aware of? 29 A. Not that we are aware of. 118 1 147 Q. Would it be reasonable, if there are no such 2 protocols or instructions, would it be a reasonable 3 conclusion to draw that perhaps they followed by 4 example? 5 A. I am sure that was largely the pattern. I have 6 mentioned the issue that there was little child care 7 training at the time. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 9 A. Subsequently I do think that it is to be noted that 10 Goldenbridge did feature fairly at the forefront of 11 the development of child care programmes in the years 12 that they got underway. There were other occasional 13 staff that attended the school such as people who 14 came to teach dancing, elocution or show films or 15 provide other activities that wouldn't have involved 16 regular staff, but our accounts show that there were 17 payments made for fairly regular lessons on some of 18 these issues. 19 148 Q. MR. McMAHON: I think those accounts have 20 been made available? 21 A. The accounts have been made available to the 22 Commission, yes. 23 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Sorry, could tell us where 24 the money for Rathdrum 25 ...(INTERJECTION) 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, no. 27 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Would you stop the 28 heckling, I am trying to 29 hear Sr. Helena. 119 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: This is not a public 2 meeting. 3 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Stop heckling and let her 4 speak. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: This isn't a public 6 meeting. If people don't 7 stop I am going to stop now, we will reconvene 8 tomorrow in private. It's as simple as that. I want 9 to finish this, I want to finish it if possible this 10 evening, subject to Sr. Helena O'Donoghue feeling up 11 to it. She has been here all day and she is going to 12 be accorded that much courtesy. I am grateful to 13 people here, I appreciate how well behaved everybody 14 has been. I know there are strong feelings, but 15 everybody here knows the rules. Let's all take a few 16 minutes out, come back, if we are going to take a 17 break now and go on and then we will finish. 18 19 Look, let's have no more heckling or abuse. I want 20 to run this as sympathetically as I can, but 21 I cannot. There are limits of what I can tolerate. 22 Everybody knows that and the lady down there who just 23 interrupted last knows that perfectly well what 24 I mean. 25 26 Mr. McMahon, we are going to take a 20-minute break 27 and then we are going to go on. I anticipate that we 28 will finish at 5:00. 29 MR. McMAHON: Yes. 120 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you want me to do so at 2 5:00 you can say that we 3 have a very comprehensive statement, we have heard a 4 great deal of evidence, you can say we can take 5 something as read. I think that will meet all 6 reasonable needs. We will come back here. Let's say 7 15 minutes, but we will be back in 20 for sure. 8 9 10 (SHORT ADJOURNMENT) 11 12 13 THE HEARING RESUMED AFTER A SHORT ADJOURNMENT AS 14 FOLLOWS. 15 16 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 18 MR. GAGEBY: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I can 19 just indicate that I have 20 had an opportunity of speaking with your counsel and 21 we are very happy to indicate that we can probably 22 proceed relatively rapidly now. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 24 MR. GAGEBY: To that event we have 25 agreed to foreshorten some 26 of our presentation and we are hoping that it be 27 taken as read and can be reachable by the general 28 public in the appropriate way so that it in fact 29 forms part of some public record. 121 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are entitled to 2 receive evidence in 3 writing. Of course any issue which we have to decide 4 will not be decided simply on a piece of paper being 5 handed in. 6 MR. GAGEBY: No, no. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take that as being 8 your presentation or 9 submission as if it had been given in evidence. 10 I have no difficult with that. 11 MR. GAGEBY: I think Sr. Helena is going 12 to deal with some 13 outstanding matters then. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 15 MR. ROGERS: Chairman, I wonder if 16 I might be heard very 17 briefly for one moment. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 19 MR. ROGERS: It occurs to me, Chairman, 20 that Sr. Helena's 21 presentation has proceeded in a very definite manner, 22 if I may say so and I don't think anybody could doubt 23 that she is presenting something in a broad way. She 24 did mention to you this morning when she commenced 25 her evidence that the Order had commissioned an 26 expert in 1996. Now, that man's report is available 27 to you. His initials are GC and it is dated 1996. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 29 MR. ROGERS: I think it might be of 122 1 assistance to anybody, and 2 certainly to the people I represent, if without going 3 into the specifics of naming any individual say on 4 page 5 of that report, the second part of it, and 5 Mr. McMahon might ...(INTERJECTION) 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: I know what you are 7 referring to. 8 MR. ROGERS: If you looked at the second 9 part of page 5, and if he 10 were to consider then moving on to page 7, the third 11 last and second last paragraph on page 7 and the 12 entirety of page 8. I think if questions that might 13 draw on those pages were raised with Sr. Helena, 14 I think it would be very beneficial. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it this way, 16 Mr. Rogers. I am slow to 17 force people into a particular posture because there 18 is really two positions that I am seeing here. One 19 is to see what concessions the witness is making on 20 behalf of the institution, that's the first purpose 21 of today. The second purpose of today is to see what 22 their posture is to the other issues, what are they 23 conceding. We have made a lot of progress it seems 24 to me on that if one actually concentrates on that. 25 Mr. McMahon, as I understand asked Sr. Helena what 26 was their response to the Inquiry that they had 27 commissioned. She answered that by essentially 28 saying, if I recall, I am not sure now without seeing 29 the transcript, but I think she said that they 123 1 regarded it as a preliminary view or report and that 2 she said subject to further investigation which would 3 have had to be carried out. 4 5 Now, let me just ask you, if I may, I am trying to 6 understand your submission about this, let me just 7 ask you what status do you say any such report would 8 have in evidence, what is its status before us? 9 MR. ROGERS: Really I think the way 10 I would put this is: 11 Sr. Helena has made her presentation today, all of 12 which is derivative. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I suppose their 14 response to the question 15 ...(INTERJECTION) 16 MR. ROGERS: To the entirety. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, their response. The 18 one exception is what is 19 the Sisters of Mercy response to the allegations, 20 that she is something she has direct knowledge of 21 herself but subject to that, yes, of course I agree. 22 MR. ROGERS: Now, it would appear that 23 in 1996 they sought an 24 expert evaluation of the allegations and the expert's 25 view at the time is well set out, very clear. 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What do you say is 27 the status of that, 28 Mr. Rogers, and I appreciate the care with which you 29 are approaching this in not revealing, I know it's 124 1 confidentially written down, but what do you say is 2 the status of that report including any opinion or 3 findings? 4 MR. ROGERS: I think this is the 5 question really: If 6 Mr. McMahon were to ask the witness what does she say 7 about those particular passages, without referring to 8 individuals, what does she say about those particular 9 passages which constitute conclusions, does she 10 reject them? 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you what do you 12 say is the status of those 13 conclusions from our point of view, from the 14 Inquiry's point of view? 15 MR. ROGERS: The way I am putting it is 16 this: The witness is here 17 making a presentation on behalf of the Order. She 18 purports to do so on the basis of information from a 19 variety of sources. This is one of the resources. 20 I think this Commission is entitled to know whether 21 she rejects the report of Mr. C. I think you are 22 entitled to know that. ...(INTERJECTION) 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Forgive me. 24 MR. ROGERS: This is a public 25 examination of the position 26 of the Order. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I hear what you are 28 saying. 29 MR. ROGERS: It seems to me that you 125 1 having been provided with 2 material which the Order itself commissioned, you are 3 entitled to know whether or not they accept that. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rogers, suppose, for 5 the sake of argument, 6 suppose the question were to be put in this way, 7 without referring to the conclusions or a particular 8 passage, suppose the question were to be put to 9 Sr. Helena do you accept or reject the report that 10 you commissioned, what would you say to that? I am 11 not saying that I made any ...(INTERJECTION) 12 MR. ROGERS: I know, Chairman. It does 13 seem to me that some 14 specific questions that are dealt with in that report 15 ought to be raised. On page 8 there are a number of 16 matters. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 18 MR. ROGERS: I do not want to read out 19 things. I thought at first 20 I might read out things, but I don't think I want to 21 read out things. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate the care with 23 which you are approaching 24 this, Mr. Rogers. 25 MR. ROGERS: It occurs to me that if 26 some consideration was 27 given to raising with Sr. Helena specific questions 28 related to, I will call them, four or five indents. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see the point. 126 1 MR. ROGERS: If she were to be asked, 2 quoting the indent, if she 3 were to be asked do you accept that. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 5 MR. ROGERS: That would make the 6 position of the Order much 7 clearer to everybody. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gageby, I will come to 9 you first and then I will 10 come to Mr. McMahon, what do you say to that? 11 MR. GAGEBY: Firstly, I think this is 12 a way of circumnavigating 13 the evidential difficulties. Secondly, this is a 14 report, the investigative quality of which is not 15 entirely apparent. It also seems to deal with the 16 actual issues which are to be decided by this 17 investigation so it's really neither here nor there 18 whether on a limited excursion in 1996 somebody was 19 of some opinion because it would seem then if that is 20 a basis for admissibility, just leaving aside weight, 21 we could all produce reports to say supports this or 22 this supports that. The issues of what are in issue 23 as between, in issue in the sense of an Inquiry, is 24 in fact, and has been addressed already by 25 Sr. Helena, it seems to me this is in truth an 26 attempt to produce this document by the back door, 27 I suppose it can be said, and the issue in truth is 28 nothing to do with the opinion that Sr. Helena has on 29 a report which if you, Mr. Chairman, and as I know 127 1 your other Commissioner have read it, is of extremely 2 limited origin. It seems to me if this is admissible 3 ...(INTERJECTION) 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: I asked Mr. Rogers what the 5 status of the document was, 6 leaving aside a question, which I don't know anything 7 about, as to the quality of the investigation, what 8 do you say the status. 9 MR. GAGEBY: Nil. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's somebody's opinion. 11 MR. GAGEBY: It is, yes, but you would 12 also have to ask on what, 13 if you were to go down the road of the admissibility 14 of an opinion. Really we could bandy every opinion 15 around because it had arrived at by somebody with 16 some class of a qualification. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McMahon, what do you 18 say to that? 19 MR. McMAHON: The report which Mr. Rogers 20 refers to was referred to 21 by Sr. Helena as one of a number of sources which she 22 consulted. The position I would say in relation to 23 that report is that it sets out a point of view, the 24 point of view being the point of view of the person 25 who commissioned it. The value of that point of 26 view -- 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: The person who wrote it. 28 MR. McMAHON: -- may be measured by the 29 stature or otherwise of the 128 1 individual who formed that point of view and the 2 facilities that were available to him at the time he 3 was preparing the report. All of that information is 4 available and may be considered by the Committee, 5 I would submit, together with the other sources of 6 information which Sr. Helena has referred to. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rogers, do you want to 8 respond to that? 9 MR. ROGERS: I do. I think it is very 10 important that we don't 11 fall into a cloud, Chairman. Sr. Helena was very 12 clear that this report was commissioned in 1996 13 arising out of the allegations and she said that it 14 reported that the allegations were broadly critical 15 and it was on foot of this expert report that they 16 made their apology. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: In February 1996. 18 MR. ROGERS: This is a key document in 19 terms of the response of 20 the Order. Now, the detail in that document I have 21 hesitated to open, but there are a number of short 22 statements in it, in the last three or four pages. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: They are the opinion 24 section or the conclusion 25 section, I should say. 26 MR. ROGERS: In this regard what is 27 opinion and fact in this 28 report are very intermeshed because the report is 29 based on the evidence gathered by the author from two 129 1 or three Mercy Order sources who had close contact 2 with Goldenbridge. That being so it's more than a 3 mere opinion. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I agree. 5 MR. ROGERS: It is undoubtedly more than 6 a mere opinion as is 7 asserted by Mr. Gageby. There can't be any question 8 of that. That being so it is my respectful 9 submission, Judge Ryan and member of the Commission, 10 that this is a document which it would be wrong, with 11 the greatest of respect, it would be wrong in the 12 course of this public hearing to ignore. Secondly, 13 it would wrong not to ask Sr. Helena O'Donoghue about 14 the Order's position in relation to it now and in 15 particular to those statements and conclusions in the 16 pages I have referred to. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you very 18 much. The position is 19 this: Let me say I am grateful for the care that 20 counsel have taken in presenting their position on 21 this difficult question. The Sisters of Mercy 22 commissioned a report, that much is clear from their 23 evidence, and the question is should that report be 24 outlined in some shape or form at this stage of the 25 proceedings and Mr. Rogers contends that it should 26 be. He says that it is relevant. Mr. Gageby said 27 look it's only a piece of paper, it might be 28 somebody's opinion, whether soundly based or not 29 soundly based nobody is to know so how are we to deal 130 1 with this? 2 3 The report consists, in broad terms, of statements of 4 fact as to who said what or who acknowledged what 5 attributed to specific people. It ends with a series 6 of conclusions reached by the author. Now, as to the 7 report generally, I can see no objection whatsoever 8 to Mr. McMahon asking Sr. Helena whether the Sisters 9 of Mercy accept or reject the report. I do not think 10 he should list out the conclusions reached by the 11 author because I do not think at this stage that is a 12 helpful enquiry to make; however, neither do I accept 13 that this is nothing more than a piece of paper. 14 15 I agree, indeed, that the issues that the conclusions 16 in the report constitute part of what we have to 17 investigate and make a decision on so we cannot 18 simply say because somebody else thought this way 19 that's good enough for us. That would be abrogating 20 our responsibility. As to the specific factual 21 matters that are stated in the report, it will be 22 proper for us to investigate those factual matters in 23 the course of the private hearings and we will 24 propose to do so. As to the status of the 25 conclusions, our tentative view is that that is 26 somebody's opinion which at this stage ought not to 27 be elevated into anything more and ought not to be 28 ventilated specifically or directly, but we propose 29 to retain an open mind on that question at the moment 131 1 and to debate the matter insofar as it needs to be 2 debated or arises for debate in the course of the 3 private hearings. 4 5 I am sorry to be speaking somewhat in code and I hope 6 that people will understand. I have to deal with an 7 issue as to whether something should be brought into 8 the public domain or should not. As I say, I am 9 grateful to people for treating it in that way with 10 great care. 11 12 What I am saying as to the simple question: I think 13 Mr. McMahon is perfectly entitled to ask Sr. Helena 14 do the Sisters of Mercy accept or reject the report, 15 but I do not think he should go any further than 16 that. We will certainly investigate the factual 17 matters that are described in the report. We will 18 certainly and without anybody asking us to do so 19 intended to do that anyway during the course of the 20 private hearings and as to the conclusions we will 21 remain open to debate as to the status that we should 22 or should not afford that. That is something that 23 may well fall to be revisited on another occasion in 24 private or as I would anticipate more likely in 25 public. That is the kind of thing I would have 26 thought may well arise. I don't want to take up, for 27 reasons explained earlier, a position on that beyond 28 that. I want to try to be fair to anybody and leave 29 the position open. As I understand from the ruling 132 1 at the moment Mr. McMahon should ask and is free to 2 ask, if he thinks fit, do the Sisters of Mercy accept 3 or reject the report. What answer he gets I would 4 prefer that it was left at that for the moment, but 5 it's certainly something that has to be investigated. 6 All right. Can we have Sr. Helena back. 7 8 SR. O'DONOGHUE CONTINUED TO BE EXAMINED BY 9 MR. McMAHON AS FOLLOWS 10 11 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. McMahon. 13 149 Q. MR. McMAHON: Sr. Helena, perhaps if we 14 do it this way, if you 15 continue with the evidence which you have given and 16 I can come back to the matter which has just been 17 dealt with by Mr. Justice Ryan in a short while? 18 A. Thank you. 19 150 Q. I think there are a number of issues which you raise 20 and which you would like to speak about in this 21 public session, specific topics which have come up 22 type and again in the course of the various 23 statements of complaint which have been made? 24 A. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Judge. We were talking 25 about the daily reality of life -- 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 27 A. -- in Goldenbridge and in that context to pick out 28 some but not all of the areas which we had some work 29 prepared on. The first one that I just would briefly 133 1 touch on is the area of medical care and dental care. 2 We believe that this care was provided to the 3 children in Goldenbridge and that at all times it was 4 of a high standard. The school was close to various 5 hospitals, including Dr. Stephen's and the children's 6 hospital, St. Ultan's time. In fact there were 7 almost daily attendances at these hospitals for all 8 manners of ailments from the very minor to the more 9 serious. 10 11 The school had its own general practitioners who 12 attended regularly and when called, Dr. Dillon in the 13 earlier years and Dr. Tyrell in the later years up to 14 the 1980's. The school infirmary was rarely needed 15 and eventually was doubled as a play room. There 16 were a number of difficulties throughout the years 17 particularly with various kinds of infections and the 18 treatments for these may often have been difficult 19 and painful, but we believe that children were well 20 cared for throughout. I referred earlier in my 21 evidence this morning to some photographs that we 22 have. These photographs, I think, do give an 23 indication that children were healthy, were well 24 cared for, were certainly in those settings at play 25 and were happy. On this basis we would be saying 26 that we believe that medical care in particular was 27 something that was provided to the children. 28 151 Q. I think earlier in your evidence you made some 29 reference to the issue of bedwetting, and this is a 134 1 matter which has come up from time to time? 2 A. Yes, bedwetting we know was a common problem in the 3 industrial school over the years. It of course seems 4 likely to us and in our consciousness today that 5 there was a lot of emotional trauma involved in the 6 separation of children from their families and being 7 placed in an industrial school and that this would 8 have contributed in various ways to the particular 9 problem of bedwetting. It was not realised at the 10 time that it could cause such, if you like, 11 difficulties for children and bedwetting in a large 12 institution did create practical problems of hygiene 13 and laundry. 14 15 Unfortunately one of the methods of trying to deal 16 with the problem in the earlier period in particular 17 was to try to jolt the child out of the habit, out of 18 the problem by punishment. It is undoubtedly 19 believed that older girls were physically punished 20 for bedwetting. Other methods were also used 21 particularly with younger children who continued to 22 wet the bed, including depriving them of fluids in 23 the later evening or waking them during the night and 24 bringing to the toilet. Some staff may also have 25 tried to use a reward system as an incentive to try 26 to stop bedwetting. Children suffered as I said this 27 morning humiliation by the reason of having this 28 problem and having to bring soiled sheets to the 29 laundry basket. In later years sheets were sent out 135 1 to the outside laundry, but medical care also would 2 have suggested as time went on that those methods 3 were unhelpful and they were discontinued and medical 4 help sought through the child guidance clinic and 5 other areas. We recognise and totally accept that 6 punishment and humiliation associated with the 7 problem of bedwetting has left extremely painful and 8 damaging memories in the minds of some of our former 9 residents and we deeply regret the additional 10 suffering that was caused to them through this whole 11 reality. 12 152 Q. Is there any evidence, Sister, available at this 13 stage that any research or great thought was put into 14 the issue, or the resolution of the issue from the 15 children's perspective prior to the 1960's? 16 A. The sisters alive themselves would have recollections 17 of having discussed this issue with the medical 18 inspector, but also later with experts in the child 19 guidance clinic in the Mater hospital. 20 153 Q. That would have been in the 1970's? 21 A. It would be in the late 60's at that stage. 22 154 Q. Something that comes up from time to time in the 23 course of the complaints is the question of bead 24 making and knitting, how was that viewed, what was 25 seen as the purpose behind that work? 26 A. I think that this morning we made reference to the 27 general understanding that it was important that 28 children should be occupied and have something to do 29 during the hours after school. The sisters would 136 1 indicate that in the early years, the early 40's 2 there was little by way of occupation for the 3 children and that they tended to run wild, if you 4 like. At that stage knitting, and later bead making 5 was introduced as a way of providing some occupation. 6 In terms of the bead making, it was assembling 7 decades, which were taken then by the rosary bead 8 makers, J.C. Walsh & Company at intervals. The 9 children in an after school activity which took place 10 between 4:00 and 6:00 in the evening made these beads 11 in a kind of class room which was used for that at 12 these hours. The children of 10 years and older 13 usually made these beads and they would be helped 14 often by younger children collecting the beads or 15 holding them for them during it. 16 17 The sisters who talk about this and remember it 18 describe the beads class, as it was called, as a 19 relaxed and pleasant situation. That the radio would 20 be on, that the younger children would be playing, 21 that there would be chat and that kind of activity. 22 The purpose of this work was twofold, as I said 23 already, to provide useful occupation for the 24 children at free times and to produce some extra 25 funds for pocket money, recreational activities and 26 equipment. 27 28 Learning the skill of stringing the beads could have 29 caused fingers to be tender and skin to be broken 137 1 initially, and trying to finish a quota must also at 2 time have put unfair pressure on some children. We 3 recognise that this activity is remembered with 4 particular bitterness by some former residents and we 5 deeply regret that something intended to be helpful 6 was experienced as harmful and unhappy. 7 155 Q. I think the question of beads is a matter of 8 considerable complaint, would it be fair to say? 9 A. Yes. 10 156 Q. There are a number of elements to the complaint that 11 is made. The fact that there is a quota? 12 A. Yes. 13 157 Q. The size of the quota, and the suggestion is made 14 that reaching the quota was very difficult to do and 15 painful in some instances, and failure to reach the 16 quota resulted in punishment. What is the position 17 in relation to the Community in relation to those 18 types of allegations? 19 A. Again, there are differing views on this matter and 20 it would be something is, again, that we would hope 21 the Commission would be able to make some 22 determination on. But they did have to reach a quota 23 of 60 decades. It was understood that it was a 24 skill, rather like knitting, that once you required 25 it, it wasn't an onerous skill. But maybe the 26 working of that wasn't the same for everybody. There 27 is also an acceptance that if the 60 decades weren't 28 completed by supper time that children returned to do 29 it after supper, to complete the 60 decades. That 138 1 there was punishment for not completing it, we are 2 not able to say with any definitiveness that that was 3 so. But we would recognise that it is certainly 4 complained of. 5 158 Q. I suppose that brings us to the question of 6 discipline. 7 A. It is true that the managers and the staff, and 8 teachers alike, and the carers whom we have talked to 9 all acknowledge that corporal punishment was used for 10 misdemeanours, disobedience, unruliness or bullying, 11 as well as for the bedwetting. But all of those that 12 we have talked to deny that it was ever deliberately 13 excessive. A ruler, slapper, a cane, or occasionally 14 a small hand brush seem to have been the regular 15 instruments. For serious offences only the manager 16 could administer corporal punishment and so children 17 were sent to designated places, such as outside the 18 office or on the landing to await punishment. We 19 know that many complainants have mentioned this as a 20 particularly difficult and very painful memory for 21 them. 22 23 Absconding, which was reasonably easy for the city 24 school, because many of the children knew how to get 25 to their homes, was considered a very serious offence 26 which would put the safety of the child at risk. 27 Punishment for this offence was undoubtedly more 28 serious, and at least on one occasion we know that it 29 did involve hair being cut or hocked. 139 1 2 While it is denied that excessive punishment was 3 used, given the number of years we are talking about, 4 and together with the number of children it is 5 unlikely that corporal punishment was not at times 6 administered unfairly or harshly. We have heard that 7 many former residents remember their time in 8 Goldenbridge filled with punishment and fear of 9 punishment and we do not hesitate to further 10 apologise for that pain and hurt, particularly 11 associated with this dimension, which we caused or 12 neglected to notice. 13 159 Q. At this remove, is there a view in relation to 14 whether there were standards or rules or protocols 15 governing the offences which warranted punishment, 16 and the extent of punishment which a given offence 17 was likely to attract? 18 A. I haven't been able to find anything specific in 19 writing in relation to that. But what would have 20 been said to me was that slapping on the hands or on 21 the back of the legs was part of the practice. 22 160 Q. Is punishment a matter for which guidance or advice 23 was sought at any stage by members of the Community, 24 from, for example, Carysfort or elsewhere in relation 25 to when it should be administered and how much should 26 be administered? 27 A. I am not aware of anything of that nature, but 28 I would envisage that the training in the training 29 college for primary school teacher training involved 140 1 sessions that in some way dealt with the issue of 2 discipline in schools. 3 161 Q. Is there any sense or any feeling at this remove that 4 punishment was regulated in anyway particular way, or 5 was it an oral tradition that was passed on from, 6 perhaps, Resident Manager to Resident Manager? 7 A. I think that would be the case. 8 162 Q. Of course, you have already indicated that there are 9 no punishment books available, that we are aware of? 10 A. No, in living memory in relation to Goldenbridge 11 there has been no punishment book. 12 163 Q. Is it known why that might be so, I think it's a 13 requirement under the provisions of the Children's 14 Acts? 15 A. Yes. When I sought any reference to that in looking 16 for documents it was always a matter of surprise, 17 people were not aware of a punishment book. 18 164 Q. In a number of instances I think you are aware there 19 have been complaints of sexual abuse made in respect 20 of Goldenbridge, you referred to it earlier in your 21 dissertation today when you said that it was a small 22 number of cases? 23 A. Yes. A small number of complaints have been made of 24 sexual abuse associated with Goldenbridge. However, 25 the only definite knowledge that we have about sexual 26 abuse in the school relates to 1962. At that time a 27 pupil accused a male caretaker or groundsman of 28 assaulting her and she reported the matter to the 29 Resident Manager, Sr. Xaveria, who went to the Gardaí 141 1 immediately. The offender was prosecuted and 2 dismissed from employment in the school. 3 165 Q. Were there other specific areas which you wished to 4 touch on? 5 A. I would like briefly to make some reference to the 6 recreational dimension of the school. It would be 7 heading H. There was from the earliest years 8 facilities and the recreation hall had a stage, a 9 trampoline, a record player and radio from 1940 and, 10 as I have mentioned already, films and dancing were 11 regular features. The children had tin whistles and 12 there is a percussion band. They did produce 13 concerts from time to time and competed in outside 14 competitions. Outside there was a school yard, where 15 there were swings, slides and a merry-go-round and 16 those kind of things. There was some games, such as 17 camogie in particular, which for a time was of 18 interest because a local Inchicore girl who made the 19 national headlines in relation to that. 20 21 I have already referred to the Department inspector's 22 reports in relation to that and to the photographs of 23 children at various places, like the zoo, and on 24 holidays. I should say that the holiday home in 25 Rathdrum was not the Rathdrum Industrial School, it 26 was totally to the service of the Goldenbridge 27 children. For 2 months every summer the children, 28 and the industrial school you could say, on block 29 moved to Rathdrum and they went to seaside places and 142 1 so on from there. 2 3 In the earlier years children did not avail much of 4 the recommendation that they go to their families or 5 relatives for two or three weeks of the summer. In 6 later years that was taken up more and to a greater 7 degree. In many cases the children did go to 8 families who befriended them at weekends or in 9 summertime. These families were known to the Manager 10 and had often come into the industrial school in 11 various ways. But there was no formal screening 12 process which would be applied nowadays to the 13 selection of families in such cases. 14 15 We also have memories of children actually being 16 taken, the senior girls with a teacher, being taken 17 from flights from Dublin to Shannon and Dublin to 18 Cork when those services actually began. Christmas 19 was a time that was celebrated and, in fact, there is 20 a tradition in all our convents, or in many of our 21 convents that from 8th December there is a special 22 Christmas dinner for Ministries associated with the 23 convent. The children went to the pantomime and 24 other concerts at Christmas time. We have pictures 25 and photographs of Maureen Potter from the Gaiety the 26 visiting the school at the time and bringing the 27 Cinderella's carriage to Goldenbridge for the 28 children. Some children who went out of the school 29 at Christmas time to families may, for that reason, 143 1 not have very many recollections about Christmas 2 time. 3 4 Birthdays were not celebrated, certainly until the 5 very later period. That had to do mostly with the 6 numbers. Maybe it is something that we regret was 7 not celebrated because of the personal dimension that 8 it would have been provided to each child. We regret 9 that deeply. 10 166 Q. I know that you have certain remarks to make in 11 conclusion at this stage. Perhaps before doing so it 12 would be an appropriate time to pose the question 13 which Mr. Justice Ryan was suggesting I might do. 14 This is in relation to the expert report which was 15 commissioned by the Sisters of Mercy in light of 16 certain allegations that were made and, as 17 I understand, it was provided to the sisters in 18 February 1996. The question which I wanted to put to 19 you, Sr. Helena, was whether the Sisters of Mercy 20 accept or reject the findings, whether they accept or 21 reject that report? 22 A. We accept it in the sense of the limitations that it 23 has. It actually was commissioned and the work done 24 on it prior to "Dear Daughter" being screened so the 25 allegations that came through that programme and 26 afterwards were not known at that time. We would 27 accept it in the sense that it's not a definitive and 28 a lot of further work would have followed, as I have 29 tried to explain in this evidence today, following 144 1 that report. 2 167 Q. I see. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 4 168 Q. MR. McMAHON: Were there some remarks 5 which you wished to make in 6 conclusion. 7 A. In conclusion, our ministry of caring for children 8 who were committed to Goldenbridge by the Courts, at 9 all times we did try to do the best that our ability 10 and the available resources allowed. The discovery 11 of the Department of Education records made available 12 to us for the most part bear this out. However, with 13 the benefit of hindsight we do recognise that our 14 attempts were limited and limited by many factors, 15 and perhaps were also short in ways that they may not 16 have been. 17 18 The factors were the large number of children in any 19 one time within the school, the few staff relative to 20 the numbers of those children, the insufficiency of 21 the funding and the facilities, and reality of the 22 lack of understanding of the needs of the children at 23 the time, together with, to some degree, incapacity 24 to meet their particular needs on coming into the 25 school following severe difficulties, whether they 26 have been of poverty or of family break-up, or 27 whatever. 28 29 Without doubt we recognise that the system of 145 1 institutional life in Goldenbridge was not 2 appropriate and it would not meet the emotional and 3 psychological needs of vulnerable children. The 4 Kennedy Report highlighted this dimension in 1970 and 5 Goldenbridge sought by every means available to it at 6 that time to leave the old system behind and to 7 provide more homelike conditions for the children. 8 However, for those who were resident before 1970 we 9 freely acknowledge that life would have been painful, 10 disturbing and unhappy for many of them, though that 11 was never the intention of the congregation, nor of 12 those who cared for them. 13 14 We recognise that the potential of each child may not 15 have been drawn out and that many may not have been 16 adequately prepared to manage independent life. We 17 hear that pain and hurt today as every other day, and 18 it had been expressed as it has been expressed to us 19 over recent years. I personally and on behalf of the 20 Sisters of Mercy in Goldenbridge wholeheartedly 21 apologise for the harm and damage caused to any child 22 while in our care in St. Vincent's Industrial School 23 MR. McMAHON: Thank you very much. 24 25 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. O'DONOGHUE BY MR. McMAHON 26 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, 28 Sr. Helena. Thank you very 29 much for your assistance. Thank you to everybody 146 1 here for their patient and courtesy, and for 2 observing the requirements of our system. Thank you 3 very much indeed. We will adjourn now. We will 4 resume in private on Friday. 5 MR. McMAHON: Friday. 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: This coming Friday. So 7 everybody who has been 8 assigned, scheduled for Friday will know that. Thank 9 you very much indeed. 10 11 12 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY, 18TH MARCH 2005 13 AT 9:30 A.M. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 147