COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON MONDAY, 22ND MAY 2006 - DAY 219A EVIDENCE OF BR. DAVID GIBSON BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SEÁN RYAN CHAIRPERSON OF THE INQUIRY and MS. MARIAN SHANLEY MR. FRED LOWE I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes of the evidence in the above-named action. ______________________ MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT: REGISTRAR TO INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE: MR. B. REEDY COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION: MS. K. FERGUS SC SC MS. C. McGOLDRICK BL Instructed by: MS. E. McHUGH FOR THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: MR. P. HANRATTY SC MS. S. MOORHEAD BL Instructed by: MR. P. LANKFORD MAXWELL WELDON & DARLEY MR. D. McGRATH SC Instructed by: MICHAEL E. HANAHOE FOR THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION: MR. B. O'MOORE SC MR. C. DIGNAM BL COPYRIGHT: Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to by other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Services. INDEX WITNESS EXAMINATION QUESTION NO. BR. GIBSON QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 3 EXAMINED - MR. McGRATH 4 - 154 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 155 - 167 EXAMINED - MR. HANRATTY 168 - 216 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 217 - 255 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON MONDAY, 22ND MAY 2 2006 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. 5 MS. FERGUS: Good morning, Chairman. 10:29 6 This morning we are going 7 to hear the evidence of Br. David Gibson. He's the 8 first witness on behalf of the Congregation of 9 Christian Brothers. Letterfrack Industrial School in 10 Co. Galway is the first of a series of institutions 10:29 11 run by the Christian Brothers that we will be 12 investigating in Phase III. It will be followed by 13 Artane Industrial School, St. Joseph's Tralee and 14 Carriglea Park Industrial School. The procedure will 15 be the same as that adopted for the other institutions 10:30 16 we have already heard in this phase of the Inquiry, 17 where we have considered general, and some specific 18 issues, disclosed by the previous hearings and an 19 analysis of the documentary material. 20 10:30 21 Br. Gibson is the Provincial Leader of St. Mary's 22 province, one of the two provinces of Christian 23 Brothers in Ireland and this province has 24 responsibility for the northern half of the country, 25 which included Letterfrack. Perhaps you would like to 10:30 26 swear Br. Gibson in. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 28 MR. HANRATTY: Just before that, could I 29 just draw the Commission's 4 1 attention to one matter that arose this morning. You 2 will recall that in the correspondence we were told 3 that we would be given a list of documents or copies of 4 the documents in advance to which reference would be 5 made in the evidence. Unfortunately we didn't get that 10:30 6 and Br. Gibson has only seen the list of documents this 7 morning. They came in in the close of business. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 9 MR. HANRATTY: So lest it be suggested or 10 lest it appear that he is 10:30 11 unprepared because he hasn't had a chance to consider 12 the documents in advance but he will do his best 13 because he knows about some of them. He has been going 14 through them this morning for the last half hour. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. That, 10:31 16 Mr. Hanratty, is the 17 consequence. We certainly took the view that where 18 there is a large body of documents and you are going to 19 examine a witness on that body of documents, it is 20 better for the person who is examining to give the 10:31 21 materials in advance. Because the witness cannot then 22 say, "I wish I had known this was going to come up, in 23 which case I would have been able to tell you about 24 it." So, if it is produced, we took the view that we 25 are not going to stop somebody producing documents or 10:31 26 referring to one, "by the way, here's one, what do you 27 say to this?" But the problem is the witness could 28 always say, "well, I wish I had thought of that, I may 29 have to come back on that." 5 1 2 So I mean I sympathise with the position, but it is 3 nobody's fault, it is just a factus, as a former judge 4 used to say. Now Mr. Reedy. 5 10:32 6 BR. DAVID GIBSON, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY 7 THE COMMISSION, AS FOLLOWS: 8 9 1 Q. MS. FERGUS: Br. Gibson, your evidence, 10 as I understand it, will be 10:32 11 based on a statement given to the Inquiry in Phase I 12 and I understand that you have studied the discovery 13 material and spoken to members of the Congregation. I 14 think you have attended all the private hearings in 15 Phase II? 10:32 16 A. Yes. 17 2 Q. Where the Committee heard evidence from 26 complainants 18 and 14 respondents? 19 A. That's right. 20 3 Q. I am going to hand you now over to Mr. McGrath. 10:32 21 22 END OF QUESTIONING OF BR. GIBSON BY THE COMMISSION. 23 24 25 BR. DAVID GIBSON WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 10:32 26 MR. McGRATH: 27 28 4 Q. MR. McGRATH: I am David McGrath, senior 29 counsel. I am instructed 6 1 on behalf of Michael B Hanahoe solicitors. I have a 2 number of questions to ask you in relation to 3 Letterfrack. 4 5 Now, in general the areas that I do intend to try and 10:33 6 cover will be the issues of the buildings, the 7 clothing, food, education, training, and the question 8 of abuse, both physical and sexual. But before I go 9 into that, I am trying to be as careful as I can in 10 relation to it, I just want to discuss with you matters 10:33 11 that arose in your original evidence before the 12 Commission, with a view to talking about generally the 13 types of stories that the Commission has heard in 14 relation to people's experiences in Letterfrack. 15 10:33 16 Now, one of the matters that you brought up early on on 17 the last occasion was, first of all, the number of 18 complaints that were made before the Taoiseach's 19 apology and before the announcement that the Commission 20 -- that the Statute of Limitations had been varied. 10:34 21 You indicated that the number of complaints had gone 22 from 12 to something like 449 and that caused serious 23 concerns for the Congregation and you wondered about 24 the nature of the complaints. 25 10:34 26 Now, since that time I am quite sure that you have seen 27 the statements that were submitted to the Board, you 28 have heard the evidence from those particular witnesses 29 at that phase of the hearings. And you also, I would 7 1 surmise, also have seen many statements that were 2 furnished by people who didn't attend at hearings here, 3 but who have gone to the Redress Board because in the 4 process there you are given an opportunity to reply to 5 those statements. So you have seen a very large and 10:34 6 significant number of those complaints at this stage, I 7 take it? 8 A. That's correct. 9 5 Q. Now, can I take it that if, I paraphrase the type of 10 complaints that are made, is that people have described 10:35 11 in various ways Letterfrack as a living hell, that the 12 farm there was a force labour camp. That there was 13 constant fear. That they had painful memories. There 14 were complaints about physical abuse. There were 15 complaints about sexual abuse. And there were 10:35 16 complaints about the very hard work that these young 17 boys were asked to do on the farm. And that there were 18 occasions when they received severe beatings from 19 various members of the staff, whether they be lay or 20 Brothers, and then there were also complaints in 10:35 21 relation to the food, the clothes, the showers, and the 22 manner in which they were dealt with at the time of the 23 showers. And that also there were complaints in 24 relation to their education, complaints of being 25 constantly beaten in school and being subjected to 10:35 26 humiliation, cruelty, neglect and abuse of all 27 different kinds. 28 29 Now, is that a very brief synopsis of the general types 8 1 of complaints that people who have had complaints to 2 make made to the Commission, and you have read in 3 various statements, you have read over a number of 4 years at this stage? 5 A. So, what are you asking me? 10:36 6 6 Q. I am asking you is that what I have just given to you, 7 a fair summary of the complaints that were made before 8 this Commission, maybe in other statements you have 9 read that didn't go before the Commission, that that's 10 a fair summary of the types of complaints that former 10:36 11 pupils have made about Letterfrack? 12 A. Well, I would make a number of points. I think there 13 was a private hearing and it is really the private 14 hearings that bring the complaints where evidence is 15 brought and where a finding can be made. So, it is 10:37 16 really those complaints that were brought and were 17 tested that, I think, you know, I presume the 18 Commission would be judging on. There were many, many 19 complaints in -- that were brought before the Redress 20 and there were other complaints brought but weren't 10:37 21 followed up. In other words, there was no evidence 22 given. 23 24 So, I have heard all those, many of which I would 25 reject, many of which would be countered to the 10:37 26 Department of Education's view of the Residential 27 Institution of Letterfrack, which is very contrary to 28 what those allegations are saying. So, yes, there are 29 many complaints, but many of which I wouldn't accept. 9 1 7 Q. Can I take it now, I am going to ask you the question 2 again because that didn't deal with the question I 3 asked, is what I outlined to you the nature of the 4 complaints that have been made by the pupils? I didn't 5 ask you to accept that they were true, I didn't ask you 10:38 6 to reject them, all I wanted to know are they a 7 reasonable summary of the types of complaints were 8 made? 9 A. They are. 10 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry, if I may object 10:38 11 here. When a matter of 12 that kind in relation to a broad sweep of complaints is 13 being put to a witness, given that the detail of the 14 evidence was not heard in public and that therefore 15 members of the public observing these proceedings are 10:38 16 not familiar with it, might I respectfully suggest that 17 it is more appropriate to put it to the witness that 18 evidence was given in relation to these matters and 19 rebuttal evidence was also given in relation to these 20 matters, rather than just saying, "a broad sweep of 10:38 21 complaints were made, what do you think about that?" 22 23 Because obviously, there are people in the room who are 24 familiar with some of the evidence, but there are 25 certainly people in the room who don't know anything 10:39 26 about the evidence that was given. They are listening 27 to a question being put to a witness about complaints 28 given about this, that and the other without being 29 given the other side of the coin, namely that there was 10 1 evidence in relation to these complaints, the evidence 2 was tested in cross-examination of the witnesses and in 3 many cases there was evidence in rebuttal. 4 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, I clearly can't 5 get this right because when 10:39 6 I tried to introduce statements on a previous occasion 7 on the basis of all the evidence given the Commission 8 made a ruling that, in fact, in those instances I 9 couldn't do it because they were private, they were 10 controlled by the legislation and I tried this morning 10:39 11 not to do that and do it in a general way as possible 12 so as not to breach any of those questions of privacy. 13 Now, if I am again doing it the wrong way, I would 14 apologise but I don't see anything wrong with the 15 manner in which I asked that particular question. 10:39 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just let's take this in 17 simple stages Mr. McGrath. 18 First of all, are you submitting that the ruling I made 19 was wrong? 20 MR. McGRATH: No. No. 10:40 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not being the 22 slightest bit offended 23 about this but there is some -- let's face it, some 24 people think that it would be possible to debate the 25 private hearings here in public. Now, that's 10:40 26 manifestly wrong, but I don't want to start replying to 27 things and using this position to get into a public 28 controversy. 29 MR. McGRATH: Last week you made that 11 1 ruling and I accepted it. 2 That's why I asked the question in the way I did this 3 morning. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. I want to 5 clear that out of the way, 10:40 6 first of all, and I appreciate your position, you may 7 take it that nobody here would be the slightest bit 8 offended if anybody were to say, "look here, you are 9 wrong about that and here are the reasons why you are 10 wrong." We can reconsider it. We can get that out of 10:41 11 the way, that you are not suggesting that in any way 12 that we have misrepresented the legal situation arising 13 out of the act. 14 MR. McGRATH: No, Chairman. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's fine. 10:41 16 MR. McGRATH: Let me say this: If 17 Mr. Hanratty is right, then 18 I would have to challenge the ruling; otherwise there 19 is no point in me being here to cross-examine at all, 20 because I can't put what was said and I can't put it in 10:41 21 an another way. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will come to 23 Mr. Hanratty in a second, 24 Mr. McGrath. But let's keep it simple, whether 25 Mr. Hanratty is right or wrong does not affect the 10:41 26 interpretation of the Act. 27 MR. McGRATH: No. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. If you are 29 satisfied that you don't 12 1 want to make any submission about the interpretation of 2 the Act then we can clear that out of the way for a 3 start. Is that all right? 4 MR. McGRATH: Yes. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now, 10:41 6 Mr. Hanratty's point is 7 really that, rightly or wrongly, and I am not saying we 8 agree with it or don't agree with it but what I am 9 saying is simply to say weren't there a lot of 10 complaints and didn't they include sexual abuse, 10:42 11 physical abuse, lack of food, coldness, inconcern -- 12 lack of concern and simply to list off a dozen 13 complaints is not really a question, that's really what 14 he's getting at. Now, I would have to confess, there 15 would seem to be something in that. Do you know what I 10:42 16 mean? If you get to the next bit, which is the 17 question bit, fair enough. But it doesn't seem to me 18 to be a big legal issue as much as what he's really 19 saying is, "look, what's the point in saying weren't 20 there complaints about everything in sight?" And 10:42 21 asking the witness to say, "well yes, there were 22 complaints about that." That's really what he is 23 getting at. 24 MR. McGRATH: Because then at least the 25 Commission and anybody here 10:43 26 at the public hearings can at least have some idea what 27 I am debating with the witness and why I am debating 28 it. I mean, if there aren't some indication of the 29 types of complaints that were made, well then I'm 13 1 asking questions not based on any sort of -- any basis 2 whatsoever. But this cross-examination has to be on 3 the basis of the evidence given at Phase I and to some 4 extent in as limited a form as I can make it on the 5 evidence that was given at Phase II. 10:43 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 7 MR. McGRATH: On the previous occasion 8 you made your ruling and I 9 have accepted that and I have now tried to find a way 10 around that ruling. 10:43 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it is not so difficult, 12 Mr. McGrath, this isn't 13 a...(INTERJECTION). 14 MR. McGRATH: But I 15 don't...(INTERJECTION). 10:43 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just let me say 17 something. 18 MR. McGRATH: But I don't see anything 19 wrong with the particular 20 question I am asking. 10:43 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: This isn't a mystery, 22 anybody who looks at the 23 website will find transcripts of our previous 24 proceedings and in those transcripts there are, to my 25 recollection, four instances of cross-examinations 10:44 26 probing and revealing and of interest, serious interest 27 to anybody. And one of those cross-examinations was 28 done by you Mr. McGrath. 29 14 1 I mean, the nature of our proceedings here -- you see, 2 we are being put in the position of looking as if we 3 are stifling debate, and that's wrong. In fact, we 4 have had more hearings in public than ever took place, 5 other than on procedural issues. 10:44 6 7 Sorry, let's focus on the specific issue. The specific 8 issue here is, if we move on to what you really want to 9 ask the witness the preliminary matter is probably 10 unnecessary. That's really what Mr. Hanratty is 10:44 11 saying. So asking Br. Gibson to acknowledge that the 12 complaints included A to Z, he thinks is somewhat, I 13 suppose, tendonous, is really what he's say, that it is 14 not illuminating and it really tends to be prejudicial. 15 That's really his point. 10:45 16 17 But why don't we leave that, Mr. McGrath. Why don't 18 you move on to your area and if necessary, if 19 necessary, we will make a ruling on it. I am not sure 20 it is the sort of thing that needs it, it is a comment, 10:45 21 essentially, made by Mr. Hanratty for your information, 22 I suppose, that's his general position is what he's 23 really saying. 24 8 Q. MR. McGRATH: Very good, Chairman, I will 25 move on. 10:45 26 27 (To the witness) Now, the first thing I want to ask 28 you something about is the situation with regard to 29 education and I want to know whether I am correct or 15 1 not in my understanding, that as far as you are 2 concerned, and on the basis of your evidence on the 3 last occasion, as far as you are concerned the children 4 in Letterfrack were very well educated at a primary 5 level and had very good results in the Primary 10:46 6 Certificate, is that correct? 7 A. Yes, that's correct. 8 9 Q. Have you had any cause to have questions in your own 9 mind or doubts about the actual results that were 10 achieved as far as the Primary Certificate was 10:46 11 concerned in Letterfrack? 12 A. No. 13 10 Q. Well, given -- and there is quite a number of documents 14 which you yourself have dealt with on the previous 15 occasion which would suggest that the children who went 10:46 16 into the institution were, in fact, very low in their 17 standard of education and yet, on the basis of your 18 analysis of the documentation you got in relation to 19 the number of students who sat the Primary Certificate 20 and passed it and on the basis of comparison with other 10:47 21 primary schools, never mind industrial schools, 22 Letterfrack seems to be above the average; is that 23 right? 24 A. Yes. 25 11 Q. And that doesn't strike you as being in any way 10:47 26 peculiar or strange given the lack of education on the 27 part of those children when they went in there? 28 A. Basically it shows the quality of the teaching that 29 took place. I think it was the Tuairim Report in 1966 16 1 that talked about boys coming in of ten years of age 2 and who had maybe only spent a couple of days at school 3 and yet when they left the primary school they had an 4 extremely good education. So I think it is basically 5 underlining the care and the professionalism of the 10:47 6 Brothers' teaching that they were able to bring 7 children who had very little education because of 8 truancy, absconding from the day schools and who in a 9 matter of a number of years arrived at the primary 10 school certificate and succeeded with a very high rate 10:48 11 of success. 12 12 Q. Now, in that regard you are aware that there have been 13 people who have given evidence or suggested surprised 14 that they actually had passed their Primary Certificate 15 because as far as they were concerned they actually 10:48 16 never sat it. Does that give you cause or concern? 17 A. Well, the results of the Primary Cert are tabulated, 18 recorded and so people's memories may be short, but the 19 actual results are tabulated and it is fact, it is one 20 of the facts that can't be disputed. 10:49 21 13 Q. We have had people who are surprised to discover that 22 they had done very well in Irish in the Primary 23 Certificate when they couldn't speak a word of Irish as 24 far as they are concerned ever. Does that not give you 25 cause for concern that there may be something wrong in 10:49 26 relation to results? 27 A. No, I mean, the results are results, you get results, 28 they are published, they can be checked so that's it. 29 14 Q. I am not sure if it was in Letterfrack but certainly 17 1 there have been people who have suggested that when 2 they did the Primary Certificate in other schools, that 3 in fact it was done with a Brother standing beside 4 them, telling them what to put down in the answers. 5 Now, if that was the situation would that cause you to 10:49 6 pause for concern over the results? 7 A. That wasn't the case in Letterfrack, it didn't come up 8 in the Phase II so it is not relevant. 9 15 Q. Well, if we have a scenario where people are surprised 10 they got their Primary Certificate, they don't believe 10:50 11 they ever sat it, that that they passed Irish, which 12 they don't believe they did, and we had evidence in 13 other institutions that they were helped with regard to 14 doing the exams, would it not give you cause for 15 concern, given the educational situation with regard to 10:50 16 most of these children when they came into this 17 institution, that there must be a question mark over 18 the fact that this school, of all the schools in the 19 country, performed much better than ordinary primary 20 schools? It doesn't give you any cause for concern or 10:50 21 cause for thought at all? 22 A. First of all, I'm looking at the content of the Phase 23 II and I can't actually see that there were many cases 24 of that being said. So I am not going to refer in 25 detail to Phase II. But basically, the results are 10:50 26 there, people did exams, they got their results, and I 27 can't say anything more. Except that it seems that 28 they got a very good education. 29 16 Q. Is it at all possible somebody could do an exam in 18 1 somebody else's name? 2 A. Everything's possible. 3 17 Q. It would be an explanation as to why people did so well 4 in the exam; wouldn't it? 5 A. I am wondering why. I mean, some schools have been 10:51 6 accused on not giving education and then when people 7 give education it is doubted that the actual results 8 are true results, so I don't think you can win. 9 Basically, I would say there was a very good education, 10 very good results and we could put all sorts of 10:51 11 hypothesis as to why the results were good. But I 12 would say the best one is that they were taught well. 13 18 Q. Now, there is a letter I want to refer to you, it is in 14 the discovery, it is folder two of the documents 15 discovered by the Christian Brothers. The reference is 10:52 16 CBLFR 0113/1. 17 A. Could you repeat that? 18 19 Q. I think it may be on -- it is 0113/1. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: From whom to whom, 20 Mr. McGrath? 10:52 21 MR. McGRATH: This is a letter to the 22 Brother Provincial, it is 23 dated 23/10/1956 and it seems to be signed -- do you 24 want me to mention the name signed at the bottom, 25 Chairman? 10:52 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't have it in 27 front of me, let me have a 28 look at it. 29 MR. McGRATH: The number at the bottom of 19 1 the page is 0113/1. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Anyway it is a 3 letter to the Brother 4 Provincial. 5 MS. SHANLEY: Sorry, what is the date 10:53 6 again, Mr. McGrath? 7 MR. McGRATH: 23/10/56. It says the 8 Christian Brothers, Co. 9 Galway on the left hand. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 10:53 11 20 Q. MR. McGRATH: In that letter, it says: 12 13 "My very dear Brother Provincial, I have your letter of 23". 14 ...(INTERJECTION) 15 10:53 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have that? 17 A. I do, yes. 18 21 Q. MR. McGRATH: 19 20 "With all due respect and deference, I 10:53 must say it would not only be 21 impractical but impossible to manage our school as you have outlined. 22 Speaking of industrial schools in general, the very smallest bit of 23 experience or even without any experience one can understand that 24 education in these boys are far from average. In fact, they would not be in 25 these schools at all in the majority of 10:53 cases if they had been in attendance at 26 school. It is evident, therefore, that there is great need of solid 27 instruction with a small number as possible in each class. 28 To speak of the ideal class of such 29 boys under the present conditions would be nothing short of fantasy. The 20 1 conditions obtaining in our other industrial schools apply equally to the 2 boys we have who were here before the change two years ago. They were far 3 below the average in intelligence and it required the very best efforts of 4 the Brothers to advance them in any degree. 5 10:54 A change in condition in that school 6 brought about two years ago has altered all that radically. The old hands, if 7 I may call them so, have become the intelgenesia (sic) and the new pupils 8 are in a state of ignorance that has to be experienced to be realised. Of the 9 41 boys still here who have been admitted in the two years 35 are still 10 in the school. This is more than half 10:54 the number of boys on roads. These 11 boys in the main do not even know the letters of the alphabet" 12 13 And yet this is the school that was able to produce 14 those fantastic results in the Primary Certificate. 15 Now, do you believe that there is any reality in those 10:55 16 figures and statistics? That's your own school 17 writing, saying about these pupils that have done so 18 brilliantly in the Primary Certificate, does it not 19 cause you to question as to whether or not those 20 results are valid? 10:55 21 A. Well, the results can be checked with the Department of 22 Education, the results are there. The Tuairim Report, 23 I repeat, in 1966 says: 24 25 10:55 26 "The standard is deplorable in first room, as is usual in industrial 27 schools, but it improves quickly from class to class and 6th standard is 28 excellent". 29 21 1 22 Q. Now, in relation to education, there have been a number 2 of complaints about boys being taken out of class and I 3 just want to deal with that for a moment. The letter I 4 am referring to is reference No. 0067/10. 5 A. What are the letters? 10:56 6 23 Q. CBLFR? 7 A. So 00? 8 24 Q. 0067/10 is the page of the letter, it is a rather long 9 handwritten letter, it is dealing with some problem 10 that had arisen in the school between various Brothers? 10:56 11 A. Uh-huh. 12 25 Q. Now, one of the complaints has been that boys were 13 taken out of school on a regular basis, and I just want 14 to deal with that. This letter would seem to suggest 15 that that was the case. Now, the letter seems to 10:57 16 relate to around 1940, so 19/11/40 is the actual 17 letter. At that page it says: 18 19 20 "When Br. Blank worked on the farm here 10:57 he had only one boy out of school in 21 the morning. Br. Blank had two boys. Br. Blank, in order to avoid a row with 22 Blank, gave him four boys. Then when I came here he wanted more and to satisfy 23 him I gave him two more boys, then he had six boys out of school in the 24 morning. Of late, however, he has got it into his head that he should get 25 more, but I refused him. Now he's 10:57 looking for his revenge". 26 27 Now, in those terms would you accept that that's a 28 confirmation of complaints from boys that they were 29 taken out of school and sent to the farm? 22 1 A. Well, in the Phase II I don't remember that being 2 raised. 3 26 Q. Would you accept that that letter suggests that they 4 were? 5 A. That letter is saying that there were some boys taken 10:58 6 out of school at different times. 7 27 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Brother, is there not 8 material in the Visitation 9 Reports where the visitor is complaining -- correct me 10 if I am was a because I am speaking from memory, where 10:58 11 the visitor is complaining that the farming methods are 12 very old fashioned, that it is all done by hand. That 13 a huge number of boys are required for it. Leaving 14 aside now the specific question that Mr. McGrath is 15 asking. 10:59 16 17 So there is a huge number of boys engaging in fairy 18 primitive farming, if I can put it that way, and the 19 visitor, in fairness to him, is raising the question, 20 is this a good idea, especially where the -- I mean, it 10:59 21 is a sort of two way street in one way. In fairness to 22 you, you can say, "look, the visitor was complaining 23 about it." But in fairness to Mr. McGrath's point or 24 the people there who should have been getting farming 25 training, if the Cussen Report of 1936 was being 10:59 26 implemented were, in fact, sort of engaging in fairly 27 primitive farming. Is that not a reasonable -- is that 28 not in the area that Mr. McGrath is? 29 A. Well, I am not sure -- the fact that -- well, first of 23 1 all, with regard to farming, the boys went out on the 2 farm at different times, for instance collecting the 3 turf and doing the hay at different times they would 4 have gone out. The land in Letterfrack was such that 5 it couldn't actually take machinery so it was mostly 11:00 6 done by hand. So, there were two things, I suppose. 7 There were boys who after school, in the afternoon, 8 went out and helped out on the farm, so that was one 9 group. There was another group of boys after they had 10 finished the Primary Cert and were on the farm as a 11:00 11 preparation for their work experience later on. 12 28 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes? 13 A. And there were criticisms over the years that they were 14 working on the farm but there was no teaching about 15 agricultural science and so on and that was true. One 11:01 16 of the difficulties of that was that it was, first of 17 all, lack of funding to get teachers to do that and No. 18 2, because of the remoteness of Letterfrack they 19 couldn't get teachers to actually go over there. So 20 there was a real difficulty. But having said that, 11:01 21 people who were on the farm were the ones actually who 22 got the jobs afterwards. And in fact in a lot of 23 apprenticeships, apprenticeship starts with just 24 literally doing and it is the learning that takes place 25 later. 11:01 26 27 But I would accept the fact that the visitor looking at 28 the situation is saying they are not learning a lot in 29 going out on the farm and it is difficult work. And I 24 1 would say at times it was difficult work. Yes, so I 2 will leave it at that. 3 4 But what I think, Mr. McGrath, if I am correct, is 5 using the idea that boys were brought out of the 11:02 6 classroom and it could be one boy one day, another boy 7 another day, as a sort of justification for the fact 8 that the results mightn't be as good as they are shown 9 to be in the reports from the Department of Education. 10 And I wouldn't accept that. 11:02 11 29 Q. MR. McGRATH: Now, if I can just refer to 12 the Interdepartmental 13 Report Committee, which is at DELF 203? 14 A. Would you repeat that? 15 30 Q. DELF 203. If your book is paginated, I think it is No. 11:02 16 5 in the book, folder one. 17 A. Yes, got it here. This is 1962, I think, is it? 18 31 Q. Yes. This is a report which starts talking about the 19 number of former inmates of various establishments who 20 end up in St. Patrick's and that they are industrial 11:03 21 schoolboys in St. Patrick's were of a low standard 22 educationally. It goes on to talk about a visit, I 23 think, in Letterfrack. Again, in that particular 24 document, at 003/2 it says: 25 11:03 26 27 "The typical Letterfrack boy is a delinquent. His home background is 28 unsatisfactory, his schooling has been neglected. Though he is of normal 29 intelligence, his standard of education attainment is below the normal level 25 1 for his age. He therefore requires more individual attention than the 2 ordinary national school child. 3 In this regard, it would be desirable to have the curriculum revised. At 4 present the teachers are obliged to follow the full national school 5 programme, English, Irish, arithmetic, 11:03 history and geography, with algebra as 6 an additional subject in the higher class. 7 It would seem that while some of the 8 boys can plot and pursue the full Primary Certificate course, the 9 majority of them would probably derive more benefit from intensive instruction 10 confined in the main to English and 11:04 arithmetic." 11 12 Again, would that not suggest to you that there is a 13 question mark over the exam results? 14 A. No, it wouldn't. I mean, the results are the results. 15 I cannot say anything other than these were the results 11:04 16 that they got. The Primary Cert was in Irish, English 17 and arithmetic. So it wasn't in algebra, it wasn't in 18 geography or history. I presume that, even though I 19 wouldn't be aware of it, that probably in the education 20 they focussed on those three subjects. As I say, it is 11:04 21 before my time so I wouldn't be sure. All we can go on 22 is the results that are there and I don't think it is 23 that useful to say that they are not the results or 24 that there is a reason why they shouldn't be the 25 results that they are other than those good teaching. 11:05 26 32 Q. Okay, I'll leave that subject then. Now, can I ask you 27 something that arises and, first of all, it is just the 28 whole question of training. As far as that is 29 concerned there seems to be two different types of 26 1 people who worked in the industrial schools, those who 2 were actually teaching in the school in Letterfrack and 3 that would have consisted of a number of primary 4 teachers? 5 A. Yes. 11:05 6 33 Q. It would appear, and you can correct me if I am wrong, 7 both from your evidence and from the statement that you 8 made and from various bits of documentary evidence over 9 the years that there seems to have been a mixture of 10 people who were fully qualified, people who had done a 11:06 11 year and were out doing some experience before going 12 back again and there was over a significant period of 13 time quite an amount of change of people because there 14 had to be movement when they had done their period of 15 training to go back to college and that sort of thing. 11:06 16 Am I right in understanding that teachers changed on a 17 fairly regular basis in Letterfrack over the years? 18 A. Well, the average stay in Letterfrack over its 19 existence was four years. That would be the average. 20 But I wouldn't have exactly before me now the numbers, 11:06 21 but there were Brothers who were there, who arrived 22 there, and they would have had their first year 23 training in teacher education and the practice at the 24 time was that Brothers would go to Letterfrack or to 25 any other primary school after the first year and they 11:07 26 would get practical experience. Then after a number of 27 years, two or three years, they would go back and in 28 the light of the experience they gained in the 29 classroom then, they were better able to benefit from 27 1 the second year training. So that was the practice at 2 the time. 3 34 Q. So, in this school, where these pupils were way below 4 the national average, they on a very regular basis 5 would have had a teacher who had no experience 11:07 6 whatsoever and wasn't fully trained? 7 A. Well, they would have had a teacher who was trained in 8 the first year of training. He would have gone out and 9 as a result of his teaching they got excellent results. 10 35 Q. In your evidence on the last occasion you were quoting 11:08 11 from a document and what you said in the -- you were 12 asked a question by Mr. McGovern and he said as 13 follows: 14 "I would like you to look a document 15 which I am going to put up on the 11:08 screen by the same author which is 16 dated September 1972. At the top of the page there..." 17 18 And this is at page 83 of the evidence given on 16th 19 June, it says: 20 11:08 21 "At the top of the page there deals with the lack of trained Brothers. 22 Brothers come here fresh and green from normal schools quite unprepared for 23 what they meet here, when faced with awkward situations they do not know how 24 to react, such changes have been disastrous. Brothers coming here need 25 training in delinquent care". 11:08 26 27 Now, as far as that is concerned, now I know and it has 28 been said here time after time after time that there 29 were no courses for training at that particular time, 28 1 but given you were running Artane, you were running 2 Glynn, you were running Letterfrack and most of these 3 were running from the 1800's, did you not have an awful 4 lot of in-house knowledge about industrial schools and 5 how did the situation arise that they came fresh and 11:09 6 green and knew nothing and were given no sort of 7 guidance before they went from people with experience? 8 A. Can I just check, who was saying that, in that 9 statement? 10 36 Q. I can check and see if I can find a reference for it. 11:09 11 I think it arises from a 1972 letter. I think you will 12 find it at CBLFR 0129/2, it is on the second page of 13 the letter. 14 A. CB? 15 37 Q. CBLFR 0129/1, it is just before tab 2 in folder No. 2. 11:10 16 A. Okay. 17 38 Q. It is to the Provincial and his counsellors dated 18 14/98/72 and it is signed -- I don't know whether 19 you...(INTERJECTION) 20 A. I have the signature, yes. 11:10 21 39 Q. At the top of page 2 it says: 22 "B - lack of trained brothers. 23 Brothers come here fresh and green from normal schools quite unprepared for 24 what they meet here. When faced with awkward situations, they do not 25 know......(INTERJECTION). 11:10 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just slow down a little 27 bit. Could you speak at a 28 normal pace even when you are reading because 29 Ms. McCarthy has to take a note. You are inclined to 29 1 rush when you get to the thing, for understandable 2 reasons because Br. Gibson has it in front of him. 3 40 Q. MR. McGRATH: Page 2, top of page 2: 4 "B - lack of trained Brothers. 5 Brothers come here fresh and green from 11:11 normal schools quite unprepared for 6 what they meet here. When faced with awkward situations they do not know how 7 to react. Such changes have often been disastrous. Brothers coming here need 8 training in delinquent care." 9 10 11:11 11 Now, is there any explanation why by 1972, with all the 12 experience you had since the 1800's, I think, in 13 Letterfrack and in Artane and elsewhere in the country, 14 that no training could have been provided, even just 15 from people who had experience in the system? At that 11:11 16 stage there must have been hundreds and hundreds and 17 hundreds of Brothers who had worked in the system? 18 A. Well, I would have a number of comments about the 19 letter. First of all, the author of the letter, I 20 would have to say that there has been a lot of debate 11:11 21 about that particular person, so I won't go into that. 22 Now, about his comment, it is his own personal view. 23 "Brothers here come fresh and green from normal schools". 24 25 well, I don't know what that means. People who came 11:12 26 from schools were qualified. They were trained, they 27 were professional. They came to Letterfrack and 28 certainly there were awkward situations. It is not 29 true in 1972 that there was no training. There had 30 1 been courses in childcare in the late 1960's and early 2 1970's and one of the Brothers actually in Letterfrack 3 at the same time was trained, fully trained, in 4 childcare. 5 11:12 6 There had been Brothers which came up in Phase II, 7 without going into detail, who actually during their 8 holidays went and did courses in childcare to better be 9 able to respond to very difficult children in the early 10 1970's. Because in the 1970's they were particularly 11:13 11 difficult with many of them accused of arson, larceny 12 and physical and sexual assault. So it was a 13 particularly difficult situation in the early 1970's. 14 15 11:13 16 What this Brother is writing basically is an apologia 17 to get more people. I would suggest that he's gilding 18 the lily to ensure that he gets the help. 19 41 Q. Okay. So, for particular reasons of your distrust of 20 this particular person you are not prepared to accept 11:13 21 the point that he makes, that there is a problem that 22 Brothers are sent without training? You don't accept 23 that happened? 24 A. Well, I put it this way, there was no training in 25 childcare and in how to deal with very difficult 11:14 26 psychologically disadvantaged, socially disadvantaged 27 children. There were no courses available and there 28 was very little resources available. So, certainly it 29 wasn't an easy station. But I would say that the 31 1 Brothers who went there did amazing work in the type of 2 care that they gave to the young people. And that's 3 attested to by the Department of Education, who praises 4 them highly each year in the reports. 5 42 Q. We will get to the Department in a minute, Brother, you 11:14 6 needn't worry. If we forget about the time and the 7 year that letter was written, 1972, and the fact that 8 you have said that there are problems with that 9 particular letter, there are problems in relation as to 10 whether or not people had training at that particular 11:15 11 time, would that be a fair comment about Brother who 12 were sent there in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, that 13 they were given no training and no idea of what was 14 going to meet them when they arrived into these places 15 straight out of teacher training college or after one 11:15 16 year in teacher training college? Would that be a fair 17 comment on that time? 18 A. Well, it is never simple, I would say in the schools 19 you may not have had all the teachers, in fact I would 20 say hardly ever would you have had all the teachers 11:15 21 there who had only one year training. So you could 22 have quite experienced teachers there at the time. 23 There may have been one Brother there who came straight 24 into the situation. That would be true of every 25 school, a person coming out of training going into a 11:16 26 school, he is not aware of what was facing him. 27 Letterfrack would be no exception and it was much more 28 difficult. 29 32 1 Fundamentally there were not courses available. They 2 would have had training now and again. We are talking 3 about a time before I was born, I am not sure what was 4 on the programme, but I am sure they were trained 5 adequately. I am sure they were given all the help 11:16 6 that they needed. But I would say it was a difficult 7 station. 8 43 Q. Now, you indicated early on in your evidence on the 9 previous occasions that...(INTERJECTION)? 10 44 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Br. Gibson, in the late 11:16 11 1960's three Brothers went 12 as teachers to Letterfrack, they had one year's 13 experience between them. 14 A. Yes. 15 45 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you think that was 11:17 16 satisfactory? 17 A. No. 18 46 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And they were to take on 19 the heavy burden, I mean in 20 fairness to them? 11:17 21 A. Yes. 22 47 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And the boys? 23 A. This is the late 1960's? 24 48 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The late 1960's. 25 A. I just have to check the names of the Brothers. I 11:17 26 think the people sending them may have thought that 27 these were excellent teachers, I am not sure. But I 28 would say generally that it is not a good idea that 29 three people with one year`s experience would come. I 33 1 would agree with that. 2 49 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That's the evidence, as I 3 recall. I mean, I can 4 remember the three Brothers, the average age was very 5 young as well? 11:17 6 A. Yes. 7 50 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But you agree, I mean you 8 may take it that that was 9 the situation? 10 A. Yeah, I think I can remember. 11:17 11 51 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: There is no particular -- 12 but since we are respecting 13 the confidentiality, we may as well. But I can write 14 it down for you, if you like. But that is the 15 situation, that between three of them, I mean to be 11:18 16 fair, I think the evidence was that the Superior looked 17 a bit disappointed when he saw at least one of them, 18 and he seemed to be short of stature and he thought he 19 wasn't impressing the Superior terribly much. But that 20 was the reality that the three of them arrived within a 11:18 21 couple of days with one year's experience between them. 22 A. Yes. 23 52 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, in the context of 24 what we are talking about, 25 of children with particular needs, it doesn't sound 11:18 26 great, does it? 27 A. It doesn't sound great, no, it doesn't. The only thing 28 I would say is that these people in the late 1960's 29 would be coming from training college. They would have 34 1 had the latest in educational theory, they would be 2 energetic, enthusiastic, but they hadn't the 3 experience. And at the time unfortunately we can't 4 judge what were the results because the Primary Cert 5 wasn't there, in existence. So, what way -- what was 11:19 6 the education like that the young people got we really 7 don't know. And how effective were they, again I am 8 not too sure. 9 53 Q. MR. McGRATH: Now, one of the matters 10 that arose on the previous 11:19 11 occasion you gave evidence was the fact that you had 12 doubts about many of the complaints that were coming 13 forward and you indicated, as most of the various 14 Brothers and Sisters organisations have put forward, is 15 that it is so long ago that it was difficult to check 11:20 16 the veracity of those complaints and that you were all 17 having to prove a negative, that you didn't do it 18 rather than it did happen, and that the situation was 19 reversed from your point of view. But am I correct in 20 understanding, I think it is borne out by your 11:20 21 evidence, you can disagree with me if I am wrong. That 22 there was quite an amount of information in documents 23 that did suggest from time to time knowledge on the 24 part of the school or on the part of somebody in the 25 Christian Brother organisation that there were 11:20 26 problems, either of a physical abuse nature or a sexual 27 abuse nature? 28 A. Yes, I think what I'd say is that from the 1940's, and 29 maybe a little bit before that, individual instances of 35 1 physical abuse and sexual abuse emerged and came to the 2 attention of the authorities. And I think in my 3 original submission I outlined those individual 4 instances which came before the authorities, and which 5 were dealt with sometimes well and sometimes less well. 11:21 6 54 Q. Okay. Now, I don't necessarily want to go through 7 those, those have been dealt with already by 8 Mr. McGovern and we have covered significant ground in 9 relation to it. But I just want to be absolutely clear 10 on this, the impressions I have got listening to quite 11:21 11 a number of the different Congregations that have come 12 here and reading your own evidence in relation to it, 13 is that you all have given this expression of surprise 14 and shock that people have complained about physical 15 abuse and sexual abuse in Letterfrack or whatever 11:22 16 institution it happens to be, but am I not correct in 17 understanding that the reality is that perusing through 18 the documents it is quite clear that on your own 19 studying of documents you knew or somebody knew at 20 various times that it was happening? 11:22 21 A. Well, as I say, I have outlined in my presentation that 22 at different times from the 1940`s on individual cases 23 of physical abuse and sexual abuse came to the 24 attention of the Brothers in these institutions. And 25 we have stated very clearly our apology, in 1998, for 11:23 26 any boy who was physically or sexually abused in our 27 institutions. So we have no doubt that there were, 28 over a 40-year period, a number of complaints of 29 physical and sexual abuse. 36 1 55 Q. Okay. Now, do I understand what you are saying there, 2 is that you accept the documented physical and sexual 3 abuse? 4 A. Yeah. 5 56 Q. All right. So, what you are saying is that you are 11:23 6 still surprised that there might have been physical or 7 sexual abuse occurring that wasn't documented; are you? 8 A. No, I didn't say I was surprised. 9 57 Q. Well that's the general tenor I got from your evidence 10 on the previous occasion, that you had suspicions about 11:23 11 any allegations of sexual abuse or physical abuse that 12 wasn't documented? 13 A. No, I -- well, I didn't certainly say that. I think 14 you may be referring to the initial part of my 15 document, which is on page 3, Submission of the 11:24 16 Christian Brothers. On the top paragraph there I said 17 that in 1998 we made an apology and at that stage there 18 were three complaints. And we sent this message and in 19 the following year there were nine further complaints. 20 Then when the Taoiseach made the apology on the part of 11:24 21 the State and offered compensation that increased to 22 449. Now, that's what I said. 23 24 I think what I would be saying is that the evidence 25 that has come to our attention is that some of the 11:25 26 complaints that are there, and we would be inclined to 27 think quite a number of them, may be motivated by the 28 Redress. Now, this is probably not a politically 29 correct thing to be saying, but the evidence would show 37 1 there have been a lot of meetings around the country 2 organised by solicitors, where people in pubs in 3 England and in Ireland came together and where people 4 stood up and gave their complaints. We would have a 5 strong impression that there has been very big 11:25 6 contamination of evidence. It is obviously the 7 Commission will have to judge in that, where a 8 complaint in one institution is applied to another 9 institution. 10 11:26 11 So, what I would say is that we have to be very careful 12 that simply because there are 25 complaints against one 13 person, they can't be found guilty by accumulation of 14 complaints. And it is difficult when one is talking 15 about the 1940's to prove one way or another whether 11:26 16 abuse took place. So, in a sense we have to just stand 17 back and say -- and sometimes we don't know or in other 18 cases the Commission itself will have to make a 19 judgment on the balance of probability, did it happen? 20 11:26 21 So, really more than that I couldn't say. But we were 22 aware that despite having put in all the national 23 papers and on the media for an entire year, nine 24 complaints against Letterfrack emerged. And following 25 then an offer of compensation 449 came. So, I think we 11:27 26 are just wondering about that. 27 58 Q. Were there two Brothers who worked in Letterfrack who 28 were accused of sexual abuse and convicted? 29 A. There were, yeah. 38 1 59 Q. Do you have details of any of those sexual abuse in the 2 documentation that you perused before you prepared your 3 statement for this Commission? 4 A. No. During the time that they were in Letterfrack 5 there was no evidence, contemporary evidence that those 11:27 6 two Brothers were abusing. 7 60 Q. But it happened? 8 A. It did. 9 61 Q. So you have no reason to doubt that there are lots of 10 incidents of physical and sexual abuse which are not 11:28 11 contained in the records which did happen? 12 A. Well all we can do is take each complaint and look at 13 it and the Commission will make a judgment. 14 62 Q. You are a grown man, you have given evidence here 15 before, you have had plenty of time to peruse the 11:28 16 documents. Are you suggesting that at this stage you 17 do not accept that there were instances of sexual abuse 18 and physical abuse that happened in Letterfrack that 19 you didn't know about before now, but which did happen? 20 A. Well, that's a supposition. I can't answer that. What 11:28 21 I can say is that the two people you mentioned, it 22 emerged that they had seriously sexually abused 23 residents in Letterfrack, which was abhorrent. That 24 has been discovered. Now, I'm not going to go down and 25 say I would imagine there were others. If they emerge 11:29 26 they emerge and we look at them. But I am not going to 27 say it probably was more, it was probably less. The 28 Commission will have to decide that. 29 63 Q. All right. Well, let's put it this way: When this 39 1 started and you heard those complaints against those 2 Brothers for the first time, I take it you were 3 horrified at those allegations? 4 A. I was, yeah. 5 64 Q. You found it difficult to accept they were true? 11:29 6 A. Well, having been in this situation and having had an 7 advisory panel in place very early, in the early 1990's 8 when this began to emerge, we put in place a panel of 9 advisors and the one thing that I was determined to do 10 was not to make any decision one way or the other. So, 11:30 11 if there was a complaint I brought it to the advisory 12 panel and we looked at the situation and we brought the 13 complaint to the Brother in question and the strong 14 recommendation to me, as Province Leader, was not to 15 make a decision one way or the other as to what 11:30 16 happened. But we had to put procedures in place to 17 withdraw the person from ministry. So I am not going 18 to say whether one incident of abuse happened or 19 another. All I can do is take each one as it is. 20 11:31 21 But there is evidence in Letterfrack that abuse did 22 take place, serious abuse, for which we regret and 23 would be deeply sorry. But I cannot go down and say 24 well, do you think there were more. Maybe there were. 25 65 Q. Can I take it that I am correct in this supposition. 11:31 26 When you first heard those complaints about the 27 Brothers that there is no documentation about at all in 28 there, can I take it that your first reaction was 29 similar to that about all these 449 complaints that 40 1 have come in since the apology, since the Redress 2 Board, since the Commission was set up, that your first 3 reaction when you heard those complaints was one of "we 4 don't have any documentation, nobody has ever 5 complained about this before" and you had doubted about 11:31 6 the veracity of those complaints? 7 A. No, I didn't say that. I would say that any person who 8 came to me personally, or indeed to the Christian 9 Brothers, we would have listened very sympathetically, 10 we would have offered counselling to the person, we 11:32 11 would have outlined and collected the information that 12 they had. We would have encouraged them to go to the 13 police authorities. So, we would have taken them very 14 seriously. But we would not have immediately said this 15 happened, because we would have to bring it to the 11:32 16 Brother and ultimately the only people that can make a 17 judgment on this would be a court. Consequently, I 18 would say we listened to ever complaint very 19 sympathetically, took the details, but had to remain 20 neutral. 11:32 21 66 Q. When you said in evidence on the last occasion here: 22 "From the twelve complaints we had in that following year, 449 complaints 23 were now. That caused serious concern in the Congregation and we wondered 24 about the nature of those complaints". 25 11:33 26 Now, that suggest to me that you didn't believe the 27 complaints. Now, am I right or am I wrong in my 28 interpretation of that? If that's not the meaning of 29 it, what was the meaning of it? 41 1 A. Well the meaning of it was this, that around the time 2 when the Redress Board was set up we were receiving 3 reports anecdotally of groups of solicitors, for 4 instance copying a thousand copies of some RTÉ 5 programmes and distributing them to former residents. 11:33 6 We also had information that at meetings of former 7 residents lists of Brothers were handed around. We 8 also had information that the Gardaí themselves had 9 handed out a list of named people. So, we could see 10 that there was serious danger that complaints were 11:34 11 being made against people simply because they were 12 teaching in the institutions. And we were alarmed that 13 people who may have spent one year in an institution 14 like Letterfrack and then went on to spend maybe 35 15 years teaching in schools and taking up important 11:34 16 positions in the Congregation were now being accused of 17 child abuse and we had serious concerns about the truth 18 of them, in some cases. 19 67 Q. And in a number of cases they proved to be true; is 20 that right? 11:35 21 A. Well, the ones that I am talking about, that we doubted 22 very much, I don't think they have been proved to be 23 true. 24 68 Q. But certainly some of them have proved to be true? 25 A. There have been two Brothers in Letterfrack who have 11:35 26 got a jail sentence or a suspended jail sentence and 27 they have been proved to be true. 28 69 Q. Now, you stressed here a number of times this morning 29 about the various very good reports you were getting 42 1 from the Department over a number of years, I would 2 like to go through some of those with you and see what 3 the view of the Department was in that regard. If I 4 can start, and it is in folder No. 1, and it is a 5 report from Dr. McCabe from 1942, it is DELF 172-008/1. 11:35 6 A. Eight? 7 70 Q. Slash one. 8 A. Yeah. 9 71 Q. 10 "Date of inspection 31/8/43, previous 11:36 inspection...READING TO THE WORDS..." 11 12 In that particular one, Food and Diet, it seems to say: 13 "Ample, well balanced varied diet. Clothing; fair, rather patched with 14 suits and stockings". 15 Okay. So, clothing is only described as fair in that 11:36 16 document. She goes on to say: "This school is well 17 conducted." However, on the second page there is a 18 problem that arises with a boy who had a black eye and 19 she interviewed him and was informed by him that he 20 received a blow from one of the Brothers for talking in 11:37 21 class. Then she goes on to say: 22 "I need hardly say I thought that I must condemn this type of correction as 23 being", something, "extremely dangerous and most unkind". 24 25 Then there are a number of letters then from the 11:37 26 Department to the Resident Manager. Then there is a 27 request for a reply. Then the reply is on a copy of 28 the letter and it is written at the bottom. 29 "The Reverend Manager regrets the concerns indicated and he has no doubt 43 1 that there shall not be recurrence of a like nature. The Brother while 2 remonstrated with his class happened accidentally to strike the boy who 3 stood behind him, with his elbow in the face. Sorry the original communication 4 was over looked". 5 11:38 6 Does that sound plausible to you? 7 A. Well, it doesn't, but I'm not going to judge. I mean 8 you are talking about 60 years ago, so I just don't 9 know. It doesn't sound plausible, no, it doesn't. 10 72 Q. Have you been a teacher? 11:38 11 A. I have. 12 73 Q. How long have you been teaching for? 13 A. About 15 years. 14 74 Q. Yeah. You know a plausible excuse when you hear one, 15 don't you? 11:38 16 A. Well, what I repeat again is -- what I'm saying is it 17 doesn't sound plausible, but I wasn't there, it may 18 have happened. But it doesn't sound plausible. 19 75 Q. Now, moving on to the inspection of 1944. Again, 20 clothing "fairly good"? 11:38 21 A. Could you give me the reference? 22 76 Q. If you just go on about three or four pages. 23 172-010/1. 24 A. Sorry, 010/1 yeah. 1943. 25 77 Q. 1944. 11:39 26 "Clothing fairly good. Clothing very patched. Wooden clogs", something, "to 27 be taken. Difficulty of providing," something. 28 29 Then she goes on down in the general observation and 44 1 suggestions to say. 2 "The clothing is very patched. I pointed this out to the manager and he 3 said that it was about", something. 4 A. "Almost impossible". 5 78 Q. 11:39 6 "To provide, clothing material and also commented re the price". 7 8 9 Now, she also brought to the attention in that report 10 the worn toothbrushes and the fact that they needed to 11:40 11 be replaced. Again, when you turn over to the 12 following page, we are talking about 1945. Again the 13 clothing is described as: 14 "Fairly good, again patched clothing.", something, "difficult to obtain. 15 "Wooden clogs attached to rather". 11:40 16 A. "Leather uppers." 17 79 Q. "Leather uppers". Again, nothing seems to have 18 happened much between the three years in relation to 19 clothing, they are still in a bad way, isn't that the 20 situation? 11:40 21 A. Well, we are talking about the war years, we are 22 talking about very inadequate funding of these schools. 23 We are also saying that in those reports it is saying 24 that the school is: 25 "Well conducted. The children are well 11:40 cared for. The Resident Manager is a 26 kindly humane man." 27 28 And they are saying that the clothing was patched. So, 29 obviously it wasn't easy to get material during those 45 1 war years, to buy it, and it is saying that that hasn't 2 changed. But I don't think it is saying anything 3 strange. I would say most families around the time of 4 the 1940's, again before I was born, probably had 5 patches in their clothes. I think if you keep going up 11:41 6 over the years, with regard to clothing I would say 7 generally they are saying the clothing, you know, could 8 have been better, until you come to the Turim Report 9 again, which says that, particularly in Letterfrack, 10 there was excellent clothing. So I think you will find 11:41 11 that sometimes there was good. 12 80 Q. Again as we go through 1946, 1947 whilst there is some 13 talk of the clothing improving, every year the clothing 14 is only ever described, all the way even up to 1951, 15 as -- 11:42 16 A. As fairly good. 17 81 Q. -- fairly, a lot of the clothing is patched. 18 "I asked the manager to provide new material for clothes." 19 20 That is being said over and over again. By the second 11:42 21 examination of 1951 it is still "fairly good, has 22 improved a whole lot", but there are still problems 23 with regard to it? 24 A. Well I think he could have said fairly bad. I mean 25 fairly good is fairly good. 11:42 26 82 Q. In 1959, and this is at DELF 172-056/1, the situation 27 with the cooking facilities is discussed in some note 28 from Dr. McCabe, it is dated 8 September 1959. She 29 says: 46 1 "I have found the manager most cooperative about the food and he has 2 made improvements in the facilities available for cooking and", something, 3 "quite improvement has occurred". 4 I think it is. She says: 5 "Improvement has also been made about 11:44 the clothing". 6 7 So, it has taken really until 1959 for improvements to 8 still need to be made to the clothing and it is only 9 happening at that particular time. In a report of 10 1961, this DELF 172/062-1. She says in relation to 11:44 11 food and diet "improved" and clothing improved, "much 12 needs to be done". So there is still in 1961 problem, 13 or whatever the Turim Report might say. So really all 14 the time from the 1940's to the 1960's, There is 15 problems with clothes; is that right? 11:45 16 MR. HANRATTY: My friend keeps using this 17 phrase "problems", the 18 inspector said it was fairly good consistently. So if 19 he's going to say there was a problem and given that 20 this is all relative to present day standards that we 11:45 21 would expect, relative to the standards of the war, if 22 my friend is putting to the witness there is a problem 23 he should identify the problem in that context. 24 MR. McGRATH: The problem that arises is 25 she keeps saying from 1941 11:45 26 on that things need to be improved as far as the 27 clothes are concerned. She can say they are fairly 28 good but we don't know what standards she's judging by. 29 But if she's say saying that they need improving there 47 1 is a problem. 2 A. Well I think just in my submission it said: 3 "New material was obtained by the 1950's. The inspector could say that 4 the clothes had improved on the whole". 5 11:45 6 That's 172022/1. 7 83 Q. Sorry, say that again? 8 A. If I'm correct, 172022/1. 9 84 Q. That's 1951? 10 A. Uh-huh. 11:46 11 85 Q. 12 "Fairly good", something, "improved on whole." 13 14 That's the clothing, yes. 15 A. Yeah. 11:46 16 86 Q. If we move on to 1951, she says -- sorry, going past 17 that, I think, it is 1962? 18 A. What's the reference there? 19 87 Q. 1962, 172064/1? 20 A. I haven't got that document. 11:47 21 88 Q. It is in the same sequence of documents that we were 22 looking at a moment ago. It is in folder 1, it is the 23 inspection for August 1962? 24 A. Is it page 64? 25 89 Q. 63. 11:47 26 A. No, it is missing. 27 90 Q. It says "clothing much improved." In the following 28 year, 1964, we have "much improved". So we are in a 29 situation where she's noting that things are getting 48 1 better but it has taken, I suggest to you, from 1940 to 2 the 1960's and she's still using improved? 3 A. Yeah, but I would have to say though, at the base of 4 each of those documents you will see that the children 5 are well cared for. It is saying that the clothes need 11:48 6 to be improved. I would say that's fair enough. But I 7 think consistently from 1942 onwards it talks about the 8 school as: 9 "Being well conducted, children well cared for and fed. 10 11:48 1948 all children dressed and clean 11 clothes changed weekly". 12 13 So, I mean consistently it is talking about the care 14 and the boys are well cared for. 15 91 Q. Now, if you go back to folder No. 2. And I'm looking 11:48 16 for document 0115/1? 17 A. Yes. 18 92 Q. That appears to be a letter, I think, to Br. Jerome 19 from Br. McKinney on 22nd March 1959; is that right? 20 A. Yeah, it is to Br. Jerome Kinney (sic), they have a 11:49 21 funny way of doing it. McKinney, yes. 22 93 Q. I am not quite sure who it is from because there is 23 ...(INTERJECTION)? 24 A. I think it is from the Provincial at the time, I may be 25 wrong there, but I think it is. 11:49 26 94 Q. The second paragraph of that letter says, and this is 27 March 1959: 28 "I have been in with Br. De Salles a few times and wisely or unwisely for 29 his sake. I spoke to him about the food of the boys. I mentioned about 49 1 the small quantity of porridge and the three meatless days in the week. He 2 could not understand the latter point at all. He knew about two, but 3 Br. Blank mentioned three to me. 4 I would like you to check up on the last point quietly and let me know if 5 it was correct to say that boys had 11:50 three dinners of bread and tea during 6 the week over a long period". 7 Now, there is one matter you have permission to remedy immediately and 8 that's the meat, the Superior asked you to see to that before he left for 9 hospital. You ought to get that righted". 10 11:50 11 Okay. So somebody in the upper echelons is complaining 12 at that stage, in 1959, about the food, whatever 13 Dr. McCabe might be saying, somebody internally seems 14 to think there might be a problem; is that right? 15 A. Yes, and the letter following that saying: 11:50 16 "That this statement is without foundation". 17 18 95 Q. 19 "As I was speaking to Br. Blank last night about another matter and drew up 20 the question of meat, he told me the 11:51 boys are getting meat on Monday, 21 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. Only during an 'ember week 22 when there is absence on Wednesday," it says, "would the boys be without meat 23 for three days in that particular week. I hope to have the meat question 24 settled by Saturday next and then the Superior may change the arrangements 25 when he returns if he's not satisfied". 11:51 26 27 So, despite the fact that the Brother told him that 28 they were getting meat Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 29 Thursday and Saturday he seems to put a question mark 50 1 over it on the basis that he still has to settle the 2 meat question by Saturday. So why that's what he may 3 have been told, he seems to have some doubts about it; 4 is that right? 5 A. As you are say, if you are talking about 60 years 11:51 6 ago -- 40 years ago, sorry, I am not sure, I just don't 7 know. 8 96 Q. Why do you think somebody in a letter would say: 9 "I hope to have the meat question settled by Saturday next." 10 11:52 11 If he wasn't still having some doubts as to whether or 12 not they were getting meat as often as was being 13 suggested? 14 A. Well he may be finding out was it the case. 15 97 Q. So, we can take it that that letter suggests some 11:52 16 Brother denied the allegation made, right? But 17 Br. McKinney isn't quite satisfied with the explanation 18 he got; isn't that the situation? 19 A. Yeah well he's obviously hoping that he will have 20 further information by Saturday. I don't know why, or 11:52 21 how he would get it, or what the situation about these 22 'ember days are. I think it was mentioned somewhere 23 about 'ember days. I am not sure if they had fish when 24 they hadn't got meat. I just don't know. 25 98 Q. It certainly would appear that somebody inside the 11:53 26 organisation was questioning the quality of the food? 27 A. Yes, it does. I think that probably comes from a 28 concern that was actually raised by a former resident 29 in Letterfrack, or a resident in Letterfrack who was in 51 1 Cabra and said, in fact, the food wasn't good. 2 99 Q. But that was a letter in 1940, this is a long, long 3 time after that? 4 A. Yes. 5 100 Q. That was a letter in 1940 when he was getting a meal in 11:53 6 Cabra and he was asked how it compared and he gave 7 certain information which certainly led 8 to...(INTERJECTION). 9 101 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The boy in Cabra that gave 10 information, the Brother 11:53 11 reported it and it came back, it made its way? 12 A. That's right, yes. 13 102 Q. MR. McGRATH: I think the complaint was 14 that he liked Cabra better 15 because he got enough to eat? 11:53 16 A. That's it. But I think what you'll see in the 17 Department of Education reports is that they are 18 reporting that the food was good every year almost. So 19 I mean, there may have been times when it was less than 20 good, but generally speaking, if you are looking at the 11:54 21 reports they are saying over the 60 or 70 years that we 22 are talking about the food was adequate. Sometimes it 23 was bad, needed to be improved, depended on the cook. 24 Other times it was noted in the Visitation Reports, 25 because Visitation Reports can be quite critical at 11:54 26 times. I think you will find, even though I just 27 haven't got it in front of me now, that it would say 28 the following year, food has improved. 29 52 1 So in other words, the manager was very clear to 2 examine very carefully the dietary needs of the young 3 people and took steps to improve them if any complaint 4 was made. So, I would say overall I would say the food 5 was very adequate, in fact, I think there is a report 11:55 6 of Mr. Sugrue saying that he gave ample opportunity to 7 the children to complain but they appeared happy and 8 content and well fed. 9 103 Q. Sorry Chairman, if you just give me a moment. Can I 10 also refer you to -- it is again folder 2, document 11:56 11 CBLFR 0124/1. 12 A. Yeah. 13 104 Q. It is from Br. O'Shea, it is dated 24/8/1960. 14 "My dear Br. Consultor." 15 11:56 16 In the second paragraph he deals with the question of 17 the infirmary and he says: 18 "A few boys suffering from pneumonia were sent to the Clifden hospital 19 during the past few years due to the fact that our infirmary here is totally 20 unsuitable for the reception of 11:57 patients. 21 I may add that there is no means of 22 heating the building, neither is there any proper sanitary accommodation or 23 drinking water available." 24 25 Now, does that seem to you to be an absolutely 11:57 26 appalling situation in an institution the size of 27 Letterfrack? 28 A. Well, I think what it is showing is that because of 29 gross underfunding the situation in some of the 53 1 buildings was inadequate. But you will note that in 2 1961, the following year, there was a raffle in the 3 school hall to repair the work and alterations in the 4 infirmary, where there was a new bathroom put in, 5 showers installed, central heating. So, when it was 11:57 6 noted that things were bad I think action was taken and 7 I think Br. O'Shea is writing to the authorities. 8 Again, we have to look at the context, he's looking for 9 funding so he's going to say this is totally 10 unsuitable, because he wanted funding. 11:58 11 105 Q. But it has been like that for some considerable time? 12 A. Well that's what he's saying. 13 106 Q. Do you have doubts that he was ...(INTERJECTION)? 14 A. Well I am just conscious of the fact that if I were 15 manager of an institution and I wanted to get funding 11:58 16 quickly I would certainly say, "look, this is 17 abominable, we need this change." I don't know and 18 Br. O'Shea isn't around. But all I'm saying is that 19 subsequent to that letter, immediately on receipt of 20 that letter, action was taken and funds were found. 11:58 21 But it shows the abysmal type of funding that was given 22 by the Department of Education to these places. And 23 that in fact they had to resort to things like raffles 24 to try and get money to facilitate an important 25 facility like an infirmary. I think it is interesting 11:59 26 that they sent them to the hospital knowing that it 27 wasn't suitable, in other words they didn't keep them 28 there. And that at expense to the institution. 29 Because unlike primary schools residential schools had 54 1 to actually pay for the medical care of the children. 2 So that was eating into the resources of the school as 3 well. 4 107 Q. Now, am I correct in understanding, from reading the 5 various documents here, that the buildings, in fact, 11:59 6 were in a pretty bad condition for a very long long 7 time throughout the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's? 8 A. No, I wouldn't say you are correct. I think what you 9 would have to do is go through each of the reports, 10 Visitation Reports. Also, I think a you would have to 12:00 11 do is go through the improvements that were made. I 12 think particularly during Br. O'Shea's period, where he 13 did an enormous amount of work. I refer you to my 14 statement, on page 98. So, there you have: 15 "1959. Work and painting of the 12:00 refectory begun, a new stove was 16 introduced". 17 18 The toilets. New chairs introduced into the refectory. 19 It says in 1960: 20 "Br. O'Shea always on the watch for 12:01 improvements, never gave himself rest 21 as long as he saw work to be done". 22 23 So in other words, I would say that constantly 24 throughout the period, despite the fact that there was 25 no funding the Brothers themselves actually did the 12:01 26 work, painted the buildings, laid the concrete in the 27 yard. This was in addition to teaching. 28 108 Q. Was that with help from the boys? 29 A. With help from the boys, yes. And all these things, 55 1 why? Because there was no funding. It was either let 2 the place go to wrack and ruin or actually work 3 themselves to improve the place, which they did, right 4 up from 1935 onwards. 5 109 Q. Yes. And if we look at your summary on page 99, 12:02 6 23/12/1960: 7 "Work started at 6:30 a.m. on new concrete floor for St. Michael's wash 8 hall. Boys and Brothers worked in relays all day supply in...READING TO 9 THE WORDS...with cement which successfully concluded that evening. 10 Drinking water piped to the monastery 12:02 for the first time." 11 12 That wasn't the purpose the boys were sent to 13 Letterfrack for; was it? 14 A. The boys were -- I mean, I don't understand your 15 question. Here we have on 23 December, I don't know 12:02 16 what day it was, it could have been a weekend, I don't 17 know. "The boys worked in relays all day supplying". 18 The boys were sent to Letterfrack as an industrial 19 school, part of the work of the industrial school was 20 to give them experience of work. They were educated 12:03 21 but they were also trained and in the improvements in 22 the school they would have learned things like 23 plastering, building, woodwork. So, I would say 24 that... 25 110 Q. Was plastering or building one of the trades that they 12:03 26 were supposed to learn in Letterfrack? 27 A. What I'm saying is that in doing all these things they 28 would have learned these things. 29 111 Q. Do you think it was suitable that the boys should have 56 1 been working in relays from 6:30 a.m. on 23 December 2 1960 rebuilding the school? 3 A. I don't see why not. It depends the way it was done. 4 I mean the impression could be got that they weren't 5 resting or they weren't -- we have no idea. But there 12:04 6 was certainly no complaints about that incident in the 7 private hearings, or indeed about the work generally. 8 112 Q. Does that make it acceptable? 9 A. There is nothing wrong with it. I can't see anything 10 here that's saying it is not acceptable. 12:04 11 113 Q. Wasn't the last Trocaire campaign trying to outlaw the 12 use of children in the Third World for heavy manual 13 work? 14 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry, sir, at this stage I 15 can't really restrain 12:04 16 myself from intervening because I have been trying to 17 refrain from intervening as far as possible. I might 18 just ask you a brief indulgence to allow me to address 19 you on this. As I understand the nature of this phase 20 of the Commission's work, is that certain matters in 12:04 21 respect of which evidence has been given privately in 22 Phase II of a general nature can be canvassed in 23 evidence in the light of the evidence but without 24 reference to the specifics of the evidence in 25 particular in relation to abuse and that various 12:05 26 articles are designation the act in the capacity of 27 amicus curiae or analogous to amicus curiae to canvass 28 these issues for the benefit of the Commission and the 29 inquiry in general. 57 1 2 Since we started this morning, we have had a succession 3 of selectively extracted negative things, which 4 undoubtedly (inaudible) the evidence. But there were a 5 lot of positive things in the evidence. And when you 12:05 6 take the evidence to include the Inspector's reports 7 from the Department of Education and the Visitation 8 Report from the schools themselves all of these issues, 9 food, clothing, the infirmary and the children engaging 10 in repair work and in maintenance work in the school 12:05 11 itself were canvassed extensively. They were also 12 canvassed extensively in the evidence of Br. Gibson in 13 Phase I where he gave a very detailed report which put 14 into evidence and which explains the context in which, 15 for example, in most recent piece of evidence, the boys 12:06 16 were engaged in this work effectively because of 17 resources, there was no other alternative. 18 19 I just query the validity of an exercise of a person 20 acting in the purported capacity of an amicus curiae 12:06 21 concentrating on all the negatives stuff and not 22 mentioning any of the positive stuff, because if that 23 is allowed to continue, with respect, it is going to 24 give a skewed, distorted view of the evidence which is 25 not in accordance with the actual evidence that is 12:06 26 before the Commission. 27 28 Undoubtedly there are negative things and undoubtedly 29 Br. Gibson has, to the best of his ability, 58 1 particularly not having seen the documents, trying to 2 give the other side but in a somewhat defensive way, 3 which perhaps he shouldn't have to do if a balanced 4 view of the evidence in its totality was being 5 presented, which I regret to say I don't think it is. 12:07 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think it seems to 7 us, Mr. Hanratty, that 8 there is no perfect way of doing this. We would be 9 very slow to say to Mr. McGrath, "please ask the 10 following questions and don't ask any other ones." I 12:07 11 suppose like any inquiry or tribunal or court there 12 will be some questions that are asked that are less 13 interesting than some others, but we can't very well 14 get into a marking of this. It may be that what 15 appears at first to be an unfruitful line of 12:07 16 questioning, as we all know sometimes it turns out to 17 be of much more interest. Indeed, speaking for myself, 18 I have to say that sometimes when I read the transcript 19 I am reminded of something or get a different take on 20 something than I had at the time when I was actually 12:08 21 listening to it. 22 23 So I have to say that while I wouldn't feel it 24 appropriate that we should, so to speak, rule on a 25 submission, I mean you are quite free to come back and 12:08 26 elucidate, elicit any information that you think 27 relevant. But in principle it would seem very -- first 28 of all, we would be very reluctant to interfere, having 29 engaged lawyers to do a particular job, we are not 59 1 going to say, "please do it a different way", unless we 2 were satisfied that it was in some way illegitimate 3 that it was being done. And that's not to say that we 4 agree or disagree with the comment that you make. But 5 they are matters for us to take, I am sorry to speak in 12:09 6 riddles. 7 8 The short point is we would be reluctant to interfere 9 unless we thought that counsel was engaging in some 10 quite wrong approach, point 1. Point 2, the fact that 12:09 11 counsel is acting as amicus curiae, albeit from a 12 particular point of view, I have to say would seem to 13 be perfectly legitimate for Mr. McGrath to make every 14 negative point that he felt like and ignore every 15 positive point and say, "I don't care about those. I 12:09 16 am just going to pick, here are the black spots, here 17 are the things that look bad for Letterfrack, I'm going 18 to put these to Br. Gibson and let's see what he says 19 about them." 20 12:09 21 I mean, after all Br. Gibson is there with the 22 information able to comment on those and reflect on 23 those. It is equally, legitimate for you to come back 24 and say, "well, after all the " -- I mean, we already 25 had an exchange of that, for instance, with the 12:10 26 Inspection Reports, Mr. McGrath sought to make one 27 thing out of it, Br. Gibson said, "well, fairly good 28 isn't fairly bad." And there is an exchange about 29 that. 60 1 2 So there is no perfect way of doing this so that at 3 every moment or even every day or even every month the 4 scale is calibrated so that equilibrium is to be seen. 5 There is no way of doing it. We get just as much 12:10 6 criticism from the other side of the fence, so to 7 speak, that we don't have half enough interrogation of 8 a proper kind that we should have. 9 MR. HANRATTY: Can I say sir, I accept all 10 of that, and I understand 12:11 11 the validity of that, but it is just that -- and what 12 really prompted me to intervene, as you recall, was the 13 reference to the Trocaire reference to child labour. 14 Not the kind of language -- and previous to that in 15 reference to the infirmary, a comment by my Friend of 12:11 16 the appalling conditions. That's not the kind of 17 language, with respect, even if he's only presenting 18 the negatives, that one would expect from a neutral 19 presenting the negatives, if I might just leave it at 20 that. 12:11 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. I don't feel 22 that we are entitled to 23 stop Mr. McGrath or say, "please don't do this" or 24 "please use different language." Some people will, 25 some people won't, whatever. Our preferences might be 12:11 26 -- would be -- well, I hope we are not going to 27 disclose what our preference would be. 28 MR. McGRATH: Can I just say in relation 29 to that, Chairman, I was 61 1 invited to come and do a cross-examination. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: An examination. 3 MR. McGRATH: Sorry, an examination. I 4 can only do that on the 5 basis of what I have seen in the papers that I have 12:12 6 read of relevance. I have taken no direction, I want 7 to be quite clear on that, I have taken no direction 8 from any particular client, former client of mine, or 9 any direction from the Commission, other than when you 10 have stopped me making a question, made a ruling and I 12:12 11 have accepted it and moved on. In those circumstances, 12 I am doing the job as I see should be done. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's my very point. 14 MR. McGRATH: If I get it right I get it 15 right, if I get it wrong I 12:12 16 get it wrong. That's the best I can do, I can do no 17 more than that. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me just say, we would 19 feel free to say, "please 20 investigate this area or please ask questions about 12:12 21 that area or not." We would feel free to say that, 22 although we haven't, in fact, done so. Anyway yes, 23 that's our situation, Mr. McGrath. 24 114 Q. MR. McGRATH: Sorry, Chairman, can you 25 just give me a moment until 12:13 26 I see where I was. I covered the matter on page 99 so 27 just give me a moment until I find a page number. 28 29 (LONG PAUSE) 62 1 2 (To the witness) Could I just deal for a moment with 3 some matters that arise in relation to the situation 4 with regard to children leaving the institution and the 5 trades that they were trained for. There is a 12:16 6 letter -- it is quite late on in the history. In 7 relation to equipment, it is on page DELF 172-075/2. 8 That's folder No. 1. 9 A. 172, is it? 10 115 Q. 172-075/2. 12:17 11 A. Yeah. 12 116 Q. It is a letter dated 13 March 1963, it is from the 13 Toghermor Reablement and Training Centre? 14 A. Sorry, I have got the wrong one. Say that again, 172? 15 117 Q. No, it is 172-075. 12:18 16 A. 075. Yeah, forward slash. 17 118 Q. Forward slash 2. It is a letter from the Toghermor 18 Reablement and Training Centre, Toghermor, Tuam. 13th 19 March 1963, Mr. John Geoghegan, TD, Carnagh, co. 20 Galway. 12:18 21 "Dear Mr. Geoghegan, I have been directed to contact you in connection 22 with equipment in Letterfrack CB school. As you are probably aware, 23 this centre deals with the training of disabled boys in joinery, upholstery 24 and boot making, etc. 25 Recently one of our trainees was 12:19 appointed as boot making instructor at 26 Letterfrack and he's informed us that the tools and equipment available are 27 obsolete and scarce. In the course of a recent discussion on this case it was 28 agreed that you would be written to and requested to help in having the 29 required equipment provided." 63 1 2 Again, it suggests that certainly in 1963 there were 3 problems as far as teaching of trades were concerned? 4 A. Yeah, it is saying that the equipment was obsolete. 5 119 Q. Not only obsolete, but a lot of it seemed to be missing 12:19 6 as well? 7 A. It says it was obsolete and scarce. 8 120 Q. Scarce would suggest that it was missing, or there 9 wasn't enough of it? 10 A. Yeah, scarce. 12:19 11 121 Q. One or the other? 12 A. Well, missing would mean that it was stolen. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't need a debate 14 about missing being 15 obsolete -- being scarce, sorry. 12:20 16 A. Yeah. 17 122 Q. MR. McGRATH: So, as far as somebody who 18 was brought in to teach one 19 of the trades that was to be taught in Letterfrack, it 20 would appear certainly in 1963 that he hadn't got the 12:20 21 equipment that was necessary and it would suggest that 22 whoever was there before him hadn't got the necessary 23 equipment to properly teach that particular trade; is 24 that right? 25 A. Yeah. I think it is important to say that, you know, at 12:20 26 that time the trades were coming to an end. You will 27 probably remember that, I think it was the Tuairim 28 Report again that recommend that had from now on trades 29 would be discontinued. So, I think you are talking in 64 1 those -- in the 1960's, at a time when the use of 2 trades was being downplayed and there was greater 3 emphasis being put on the more formal education. 4 123 Q. There is another letter at 172-071/1. 5 A. 071/1. 12:21 6 124 Q. It is one where somebody in Letterfrack, I think the 7 name is scratched out so I can't tell you who it is 8 from, I don't even know who it is to, it doesn't give 9 any indication. It says: 10 12:21 "We are faced with a rather huge 11 overdraft here, which is mainly due to a big decrease in pupils in September 12 1954 when 95 boy were transferred to other industrial schools or discharged 13 by the Minister. This was done to make room for juvenile delinquents and if we 14 were to get half the boys for whom the Gardaí made application for vacancies 15 here the school would be full long ago. 12:22 16 We have boys here who were six or ten and even 20 times in court before they 17 were committed. Naturally, the vast majority of the boys sent here are 18 illiterate and I feel the parents and the justice are responsible for it". 19 20 Now, at that stage in 1963, there seems to be a problem 12:22 21 arising for Letterfrack, in that the people who are 22 being sent there have more than one problem. They have 23 more than a problem of just stealing or robbing or 24 whatever their problems might be, but they are 25 illiterate as well. Now, this is at a time when the 12:22 26 Primary Certificate is still there, but is phasing out. 27 What was done for those boys when they came to 28 Letterfrack, I mean the trades are being wound down, 29 the Primary Certificate is about to disappear in about 65 1 three years time, what's the situation? 2 A. Well, the situation, I presume, is that they were 3 educated. They came in illiterate and again, to quote 4 the Tuairim Report: 5 "When they arrived at 6th class they 12:23 are very well educated". 6 7 You will see the results in 1964, 1965, 1966, up to 8 1967 are still in the very high percentile. 9 125 Q. Can I move on to DELF 172-090/1, page 89, I think in 10 the book? 12:24 11 A. 09? 12 126 Q. 172-090/1. I think it is page 89 in your book. 13 A. 09/1, is it? 14 127 Q. It is a report of 1970, it appears to be a report of an 15 inspection. 12:24 16 A. 09/1, is that it? 17 128 Q. 090/1. 18 A. I don't have it here. 19 129 Q. Are you sure that's not it there. The heading is 20 St. Joseph's Letterfrack, manager...(INTERJECTION) 12:25 21 A. Yeah, I have it there. 22 130 Q. It appears to be a report on an inspection that was 23 carried out on 23rd May 1970. In the second paragraph 24 it discusses: 25 "Br. McKinney as being an energetic 12:25 manager. Considering that Letterfrack 26 is almost an all male institution,...READING TO THE 27 WORDS...the standards of the kitchen and dormitories are high and the five 28 Brothers and the staff are attentive to the welfare of the young delinquents." 29 66 1 So, high praise in the first paragraph. It goes on 2 then to say: 3 "The increase in grant has enabled him to get out of cows and he now buys the 4 milk required for the school. He installed central heating last year and 5 the...READING TO THE WORDS...is no 12:25 longer a feature of training. The 6 issues of departure from tradition he feels has removed a cause of trouble 7 among the city boys in residence. 8 He was encouraged to dispense with the boot repair shop too and he promised to 9 give this consideration. Dress was also discussed. He stated that had the 10 day been fine the boys would have been 12:26 playing in togs in the Gaelic field but 11 not in their third best outfits in the yard. Third best outfits are mostly 12 unmatched coat and pants." 13 14 Now in that particular paragraph it would certainly 15 seem that great strides had been made in terms of 12:26 16 improving conditions in Letterfrack; isn't that right? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 131 Q. They are now buying in milk, they are not having to 19 milk the cows every morning. The boys no longer have 20 to go to bog to take turf because there is now central 12:26 21 heating, which means there is proper heating in it, but 22 it does seem that the boot repair shop is still in 23 existence at that stage because he is only giving 24 consideration to get rid of it. So whatever problems 25 there were in 1963 in terms of items being needed for 12:26 26 the repair shop and the winding down of trades it does 27 still seem to be in existence in 1970 according to that 28 report? 29 A. Yes. 67 1 132 Q. Now it goes on to say: 2 "In view of the number of boys in residence many of them mitchers, slow 3 learners and needing special attention, I think a Department Inspector should 4 assess afresh the staff requirements here on the academic side as a first 5 step towards developing Letterfrack on 12:27 modern, special schools reformatory 6 lines, with say a population of 60 to 70 boys. This school will have a place 7 in the system for some time to come unless closed by the Order but will 8 need development by the Department if a proper return to society is to be 9 achieved". 10 12:27 11 I am not trying to denigrate when I ask this question 12 but it does seem at that stage the Department was 13 considering that there were still deficiencies in 14 Letterfrack as an educational establishment because of 15 the type of boys that were going there and there was 12:27 16 going to have to be a radical rethink of how they were 17 trained. Am I right in understanding that that is what 18 is being discussed? 19 A. I think what's being discussed is, this looks as if it 20 was 1970. 12:28 21 133 Q. 23rd May 1970 is what it says. 22 A. So, at that stage I think the quality of the boys 23 coming to Letterfrack would indicate that many of 24 them -- and I just don't have the reference, that many 25 of them have serious learning difficulties. 12:28 26 134 Q. I think you will find that reference that you are 27 looking for about two pages further on, a 1970's 28 report. Have you got that two pages further on? It is 29 a typed up document, it is 094/4? 68 1 A. Yeah. 2 135 Q. If you go down to the third paragraph it says: 3 "The majority of the pupils are slow learners and it appears that they are 4 very much behind, except in the subject of art, music and physical education." 5 6 7 A. Yes. 8 136 Q. 9 "The pupils are five years on average behind their chronological ages. 10 12:29 11 12 So if somebody is 15 they can only read to ten, if they 13 were ten they can only read to five years of age? 14 A. Yes, I think Brothers at that stage were very aware of 15 the need for a different type of education. And in 12:29 16 fact, I think I have just forgotten the date, the 17 status of the school was changed to a special school 18 and additional resources were promised. I don't think 19 they were ever given. So I mean obvious there was 20 obviously boys who up to that would have benefited from 12:29 21 the normal type of education, it was fairly obvious now 22 that they were not going to benefit from that. I think 23 also one of the Brothers who had just finished or in 24 around that time had finished a special course in 25 special care was encouraging the Department, who 12:29 26 responded at that stage to provide a different type of 27 education, so I think yeah that's true. 28 137 Q. Can I just go into the page that I drew your attention 29 to before, the page I am reading at: 69 1 "The pupils in the other class are not that far behind but the majority are 2 probably three years behind. The situation is just as bad in mathematics 3 and there is very little knowledge gained there. In my opinion, the 4 reading material is less than suitable for such pupils". 5 12:30 6 On the following page it goes on to say: 7 "There is no doubt that the pupils have many problems. The majority are slow 8 learners for one reason or another, it is very obvious that some are disturbed 9 and consequently it is very difficult to engender enthusiasm for learning. 10 12:30 I recommend, therefore, that a teacher 11 for every 20 pupils on rows be recognised for the school. There are 12 only four classrooms in the school and at present there are two teachers 13 working in one room." 14 15 Now, this is as consequence, I take it, of the change 12:30 16 that happened in 1954, that only delinquents were being 17 sent to the school? 18 A. Yes. 19 138 Q. But would this suggest -- I don't mean this as a major 20 criticism, but would it suggest that changes weren't 12:31 21 made early enough and quickly enough in the education 22 system there, given the type of pupil who was now being 23 sent to the school? 24 A. No. As I say, I think the results up to 1967, 1968 25 would show they were able to manage and I think -- but 12:31 26 obviously we are talking now about the 1970's, August 27 1970, and I think something you omitted there was, it 28 says here: 29 "Even though the Brothers are doing their best they have little enough of 70 1 modern equipment. In my opinion, the reading material is less than 2 suitable." 3 4 So, I think the Brothers themselves were recognising 5 that there was need for change and they were 12:31 6 implementing that change. There is no indication in 7 1969, maybe it was a particular group coming in or a 8 sudden dawning on the Brother that there was need for 9 change, I'm not sure. But certainly they were aware 10 there and change emerged fairly soon after that. 12:32 11 139 Q. Now, I want to ask you also about the situation with 12 regard to leaving the institution. I just want to ask 13 you a little bit in terms of whether or not you are 14 aware was there any procedure put in place for giving 15 the boys any sort of training or any sort of 12:32 16 preparation for going into the outside world? 17 A. Well, as I say in my presentation on page 71, I have it 18 under "preparation for leaving". Now, I quote a 19 document that was actually used in Artane. Sorry, I, 20 first of all, quote the document which was from the 12:33 21 Resident Managers, which outlines the way they were to 22 be taken care of. And I quote a document on page 72, 23 where obviously Br. Flannery in Artane highlights sort 24 of advice to boys who are leaving. Now, all I have 25 said is that given that Resident Managers met, shared 12:33 26 best practice and so on, it is not unlikely that that 27 sort of advice was also given in Letterfrack. But I 28 have nothing to say yea or nay to that. 29 140 Q. But certainly there is a letter somewhere in the 71 1 discovery which suggests certainly there was no follow 2 up procedure in Letterfrack after the boys were gone? 3 A. Well the Cussen Report of 1936 criticises the Brothers 4 for lack of aftercare. But if you look at the Resident 5 Managers' reports, constantly there was this concern 12:33 6 about aftercare. The problem in Letterfrack was, first 7 of all, it was the role of the manager to do that, 8 there is a pro forma in the discovery somewhere which 9 gives the type of letter that used to be written to the 10 boy, so a boy would leave, he would be sent -- if he 12:34 11 wasn't sent home he would be sent to employment. That 12 employment, the cost and the pay would be settled, the 13 boy was encouraged to have that in a post office 14 savings account. If he was changing jobs he was 15 encouraged to contact the Brothers. There was a 12:34 16 difficulty in Letterfrack because of the fact that 17 people were there from Dublin, so it would have 18 involved a lot of travel to follow up on these, even 19 though there was a duty until they were 18 to do so. 20 12:35 21 I think because of the difficulty they employed the 22 Legion of Mary and the Gardaí to keep in contact with 23 the boys. So there seems to have been -- well in fact 24 there was a real concern on the part of the Resident 25 Managers about aftercare. I would say it was very well 12:35 26 done in Artane, they had two full time Brothers there, 27 in Letterfrack it was less than well done. 28 141 Q. Certainly if you look at 1972-066/10, that's in folder 29 No. 1 again. I think there is some criticism in an 72 1 interdepartmental committee on the "Prevention of Crime 2 and Treatment of Offenders, second report of working 3 party." 066/10. I think it is page 65? 4 A. "Machinery for aftercare", is it? 5 142 Q. 12:35 6 "No positive steps are taken at present to meet the Institution's obligations 7 in this respect. A partial solution would be the appointment of a visiting 8 Committee". 9 A. You see, what they are looking for is to put the onus 10 of the aftercare on the Department and not to put it on 12:36 11 the Resident Manager, who had an amazing amount to do. 12 Basically I think -- and it is about the financial 13 arrangements. 14 143 Q. Yes, but it does confirm that the institution, at that 15 particular time, whenever this form was written, was 12:36 16 not following up on that? 17 A. No, it says it wasn't adequate. 18 144 Q. In that regard, and at this stage I can't remember 19 whether anyone in Letterfrack actually complained of 20 this, but certainly a lot of the institutions there 12:36 21 have been complaints of people being sent to jobs and 22 never being paid and there were problems? 23 A. I don't think that was brought up. 24 145 Q. Am I correct in understanding that despite the fact 25 that there were a number of different trades being 12:37 26 taught in Letterfrack that the vast majority of boys, 27 if they weren't sent home, went to work on farms? 28 A. Well, the answer is yes, because Ireland at that time, 29 in the 1950's, was an agricultural country. It was in 73 1 the report on the occupational training provided in the 2 industrial schools, in the Glencree reformatory, it is 3 DELF 198-006. It says here: 4 "Farming is the most natural and suitable employment for the boys. The 5 work was healthy and hold a great 12:37 variety and interest. Both essential 6 qualities in the education of the adolescent." 7 8 And it says: 9 "It was the greatest chance of employment for those who were trained 10 in farm work." 12:38 11 12 It says that: 13 "Many boys who had been raised in other trades, often found themselves working 14 on farms". 15 12:38 16 One of the difficulties of that because of the trade 17 unions, they would not recognise the training of boys 18 in other trades and consequently a lot of boys who were 19 trained in the various trades in Letterfrack could not 20 find employment so they went farming. 12:38 21 146 Q. In that regard, I think the Chairman has already drawn 22 attention to the fact that there were some criticisms 23 in relation to how farming was dealt with and that most 24 of the people who left the industrial schools were 25 only...(INTERJECTION)? 12:38 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: And the Cussen Report said 27 that the institutions 28 should negotiate with the trade union and do some deal 29 with them, that was in 1946. 74 1 A. Yes. 2 MR. McGRATH: And nothing happened. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Nothing seems to have 4 happened, well certainly 5 nothing worked. 12:38 6 147 Q. MR. McGRATH: Also in relation to the 7 farm situation, wasn't 8 there complaints that the farming...(INTERJECTION)? 9 148 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a bit unreal, 10 Brother, to be taking kids 12:39 11 from the most deprived areas of urban Ireland and 12 saying let's make them farmers? 13 A. It is. 14 MR. McGRATH: Now, Chairman, the area in 15 relation to abuse was very 12:39 16 much covered by Mr. McGovern in the original hearing 17 and I don't really intend to go through those, unless 18 the Commission would like me to do so? 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think so. 20 149 Q. MR. McGRATH: You have heard the evidence 12:39 21 in relation to that, there 22 is a conflict as to what did or didn't happen, that's a 23 matter for you. Given that Br. Gibson was not in the 24 institution, certainly I don't see any point in me 25 going into that particular area. I think I have 12:39 26 covered most of the areas, unless there is anything 27 else. Sorry, Chairman, there is one other thing that 28 did occur to me. 29 75 1 (To the witness) Now, this is going to be a slight 2 problem for you, Br. Gibson, because this isn't in the 3 discovery from Letterfrack. What I really want to find 4 out is as to whether or not you know anything about 5 this or whether Letterfrack knew anything about this 12:40 6 particular problem. It actually arises in the abuse 7 context. In the discovery, as I was reading it for the 8 next module, which is Artane, there was a document in 9 -- somebody from the Christian Brothers might be able 10 to help us. 12:40 11 12 In the Christian Brother discovery Artane Industrial 13 School folder No. 4, there is a document at CBART 14 285/114. Now, this particular discovery, as I 15 understand it, seems to be the annals of the Christian 12:41 16 Brothers house and school in Artane 1935 to 1969. In 17 the middle of a case note, one of the pages is a 18 letter, and I think it is dated 4th March 1953 and it 19 is from St. Mary's, Marino, Whitehall, Dublin and it is 20 headed "Direction For All Our Residential Schools". 12:41 21 A. Yes, okay. 22 150 Q. Sorry, it seems that there isn't a copy for you at the 23 moment. The letter is: 24 "Direction For All Our Residential Schools. 25 12:42 My very dear Brother Superior, should 26 it be a custom that Brother, teachers or night watchmen take boys out of bed 27 at nighttime and beat them, that custom is to cease, I am now forbidding it. 28 The Brother Superior is to call the attention of the Brother 29 disciplinarian, Brothers, teachers or watchmen who may have to supervise boys 76 1 in the dormitory to this prohibition. Such a custom, if it ever existed, cold 2 only bring serious trouble and shame on our management. The regulation 3 regarding corporal punishment in our rule and acts of chapter are to be 4 adhered to. 5 Wishing our Brothers all success in 12:42 their great work. I am, my very dear 6 Brother Superior,...READING TO THE WORDS...Brother. It is signed JA 7 Mulholland. 8 A copy of this direction is to be entered in the annals." 9 10 And I presume that's why it appears there. I may have 12:42 11 missed it, it may be somewhere in the discovery that 12 you have from Letterfrack...(INTERJECTION). 13 A. It is, yes. 14 151 Q. But did Letterfrack, to your knowledge, get a copy of 15 that letter? 12:43 16 A. Well, I have in my statement, on page 88. I say: 17 "In a direction for all our residential schools, 4th March 1963, the Provincial 18 directed..." 19 20 And so on. So it would appear that incidents like that 12:43 21 did take place, whether it was -- it would appear that 22 that's the case, hence the letter, and it says -- I 23 just said: "The Congregation was swift to forbid it. 24 Now, whether it happened in Artane, whether it happened 25 in Letterfrack, it was not clear, but I would imagine 12:43 26 that letter was read out at the Resident Managers' 27 meeting and consequently it probably was sent to all 28 schools. 29 152 Q. Given that it was a direction to all the residential 77 1 schools and at the bottom it says L? 2 "A copy of this direction is to be entered in the annals." 3 4 It would certainly suggest that? 5 A. Yeah. And I have it in my documentation here so. 12:44 6 153 Q. And it would suggest that this was a problem that arose 7 somewhere? 8 A. Yes, it would. 9 154 Q. And it would be in keeping with some of the stories 10 that had been heard in terms of what happened at that 12:44 11 time? 12 A. Yeah. 13 MR. McGRATH: I have no further 14 questions. 15 12:44 16 END OF EXAMINATION OF BR. GIBSON BY MR. McGRATH 17 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you very 19 much. Now, Ms. Fergus, 20 have you anything to ask? 12:44 21 MS. FERGUS: I have just one question 22 for Br. Gibson. 23 24 BR. DAVID GIBSON, WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, 25 BY THE COMMISSION: 12:44 26 27 28 155 Q. MS. FERGUS: Br. Gibson, in your 29 statement at page 92 you 78 1 say that you made a detailed study of the incidents of 2 physical and sexual abuse in Letterfrack and the study 3 shows that you drew a number of conclusions as a result 4 of that study? 5 A. Yes. 12:44 6 156 Q. Just one or two areas I want to explore with you. The 7 first one is that you say: 8 "The structure in the industrial schools made it possible for boys to 9 report incidents of abuse and when this happened the reports were acted upon." 10 12:45 11 12 A. Yes. 13 157 Q. I was just wondering could we explore that with you, 14 the structures you are talking about, could you 15 describe what structures you are talking about there? 12:45 16 A. My understanding of the structure in Letterfrack was 17 the Resident Manager was the person who was present in 18 the institutions and was available to boys if they 19 wanted to express their concerns or fears or problems. 20 I am aware that one particular Resident Manager in the 12:45 21 late 1950's was noted for having the boys coming to 22 him. And I am aware that with regard to the first 23 incident, which I have mentioned, about sexual abuse, 24 in fact the two boys, I think it is two boys, were 25 interviewed. So, in other words, there was a structure 12:45 26 where the Resident Manager was a person that people 27 could go to, to express an incident of abuse. Now, I 28 know it was a very difficult thing to do and I am not 29 saying everyone did it. But it did happen there. 79 1 2 And also I have referred to other instances in other 3 institutions where it similarly happened. So that's 4 what I am talking about, that structure. The Resident 5 Manager as the person. The disciplinarian may also 12:46 6 have been a person whom people go to, because the word 7 disciplinarian was somebody not only who disciplined 8 but also gave out needy things and letters and all that 9 sort of stuff. So that's what I am talking about. I 10 am not saying it was very great, but it was there. 12:46 11 158 Q. Do you think it was conceivable that in a school with, 12 at one stage, up to 190 boys in it that the children 13 would have had serious access to somebody like the 14 Resident Manager, genuine accessibility? 15 A. Well, one person for 190 isn't a lot. I do know -- 12:47 16 again I couldn't put my fingers on it, but I do know 17 that the particular Resident Manager I am thinking 18 about used to actually call into a class and ask for a 19 boy to come out and have a chat. So there could have 20 been a system of boys going out on a regular basis to 12:47 21 meet the Resident Manager. I am not sure of that but I 22 am aware that that did happen with regard to him. 23 159 Q. Did it depend very much on the personality of the 24 Resident Manager? 25 A. I would say so, yes. 12:47 26 160 Q. Would you say it worked over the years, this system or 27 this structure? 28 A. Well sexual abuse, if it is happening, very few people 29 feel free and, in fact, some of the boys asked did they 80 1 not feel they could reveal it, basically said no. I 2 think the Savey Report, which is in the late 1990's, 3 points out that something like .6% of people who are 4 abused, and I am talking about adults here, don't 5 report it to the guards -- that only 6% do report it to 12:48 6 the guards. In fact, reporting sexual abuse of 7 physical abuse, I would say people would be very 8 reluctant to do it to anyone. In fact, I think in the 9 private hearings, when people were asked could they not 10 talk to somebody about it, basically they said no, and 12:48 11 people who were seriously abused, one of the things 12 that emerged very clearly in the private hearings was 13 that this was done secretly, that the boy was scared 14 and was most reluctant to reveal it to anyone. But it 15 did happen on occasions. 12:48 16 17 But I would say I am not sure with sexual abuse, 18 whatever structure you have in place, would people 19 actually go. I would say even today the reporting of 20 sexual abuse it is improving, but there is still a lot 12:48 21 not reported. 22 161 Q. Another conclusion that I would like to refer to, it is 23 No. 6, where you say: 24 "Sexual abuse was seen as a serious moral weakness rather than a criminal 25 offence." 12:49 26 27 Are you talking in general terms there? 28 A. Yeah. 29 162 Q. Across the Congregation? 81 1 A. Well, I am thinking of more than that. I am thinking 2 of the time when I think it was the baker, in 1936 in 3 Letterfrack, there was an incident where he was -- it 4 doesn't clarify exactly what he did, and the Superior 5 was reluctant to expel him. There was something about 12:49 6 that he's gone to mass and all that sort of thing. So 7 obviously they could see this more as a moral failure 8 than, in fact, a crime. Now we know now it is a crime. 9 But I would say it seems that it was seen more as a 10 moral weakness than actually a criminal offence. In 12:49 11 fact, I am still not sure the level of reporting to the 12 Gardaí from the 1940's to the 1960's of sexual abuse. 13 I would say it was minimum. 14 163 Q. Well, I accept that there wasn't reporting to the 15 Gardaí, but what I am more interested in is your 12:50 16 statement that: 17 "Sexual abuse was seen as a serious moral weakness rather than a criminal 18 offence." 19 20 I just want to refer to a number of documents that have 12:50 21 come from the Rome files, which I am going to suggest 22 would indicate that there was a different view amongst 23 the authorities. I just take a few examples. I think 24 the reference, first of all, ACB 020005/1. This is 25 dated August 19th, 1932. 12:51 26 MR. HANRATTY: Could I just inquire which 27 book is this? 28 MS. FERGUS: Which book this is? It is 29 in the Rome file. 82 1 A. Folder 2. AC? 2 164 Q. MS. FERGUS: ACB 02 005/1. Actually if 3 you don't mind I will go to 4 ACB 020093/1, which is an earlier document. Have you 5 found that? 12:51 6 A. Can you just repeat it again? 7 165 Q. ACB 020093/1? 8 A. No, I don't seem to have it. Anyway, read away. 9 166 Q. It is a letter dated April 14th, 1930 from St. Mary's, 10 Marino, Dublin. It is addressed to your Excellency, we 12:52 11 are not quite sure, Denuncio, I think it is. It is a 12 letter in which a member of the Congregation had been 13 found to have indecently interfered with boys and at 14 the end of the letter, towards the end of it, it says: 15 "While in the cases that occurred in 12:52 1929 the members of the council held 16 that the young men who were assaulted by him would be entitled to summoning 17 before the civil authorities and thus public scandal would arise. Should 18 this have occurred the Christian Brothers would be in a position to 19 state that this man as no longer a member of the Congregation. Moreover 20 it is certain that his offences are 12:52 known members of the large religious 21 community with whom he lives. This case has required a certain degree of 22 notoriety." 23 24 25 Moving on to August 1932, again a letter to "my very 12:53 26 dear Provincial", it is from, I think, maybe St. 27 Helen's in Booterstown. Again, it is describing an 28 incident in which a member of the Congregation was 29 applying for dispensation rather than stand trial. And 83 1 it says towards the end of the letter: 2 "He is a great danger to us. Two Brothers were hanged in Canada within 3 the last two years for murder of their victims after such an offence. A 4 Brother of a community in charge of an industrial school in Rome awaits his 5 trial for the murder of boy in the 12:53 school who told it was offence to his 6 Superior." 7 8 9 Again it would seem that the authorities are well aware 10 of the criminality. 12:54 11 12 Again, in a letter from St. Helen's in Booterstown 13 Dublin, dated 13th October 1942, again to the Brother 14 in St. Mary's, Marino I think, again it was from 15 persons in authority in the Order. 12:54 16 "A member of the Order was found to 17 have been interfering with boys." 18 19 And the letter describes: 20 "I showed his statement to the Bishop 12:54 and expressed to him how ashamed and 21 how humiliated we all felt because of the criminal and disgraceful conduct of 22 this Brother. Were it not that he had to have so many expulsions and 23 inspections within the last few months I would inclined to recommend that this 24 Brother should be dismissed on the grounds that he has given grave 25 external scandal and that there is 12:54 danger that the Congregation may suffer 26 grave injury because of the shameful conduct." 27 28 Then finally one more document which I will refer to 29 dated October 15th, 1942 in which the Provincial is 84 1 from St. Helen's in Booterstown to the Brother 2 Provincial and it says: 3 "Instruction - how can the danger be kept sufficiently before the minds of 4 the Brothers, at least once a month the Superiors in the houses of formation 5 should speak in the plainest terms of 12:55 the offence. Tell them that it is 6 punishable by civil law and unfits a man for the profession of his 7 teaching." 8 9 10 So they are a number of documents that would clearly 12:55 11 indicate that the authorities in the Congregation were 12 well aware of the criminality? 13 A. Yes, it does. 14 167 Q. And it wasn't just moral? 15 A. Yes, it does. I am not sure at what stage I had -- I 12:55 16 am not sure if I had those documents when I was writing 17 this, but certainly it does show very clearly that they 18 could see it both as a crime and as a moral failure, 19 yes. As a crime really. 20 MS. FERGUS: Thank you. 12:56 21 22 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF BR. GIBSON BY THE 23 COMMISSION. 24 25 MR. HANRATTY: Do you wish to continue, 12:56 26 sir? 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: What's the most convenient? 28 MR. HANRATTY: I am entirely in your 29 hand. 85 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: In general, I think we 2 would prefer to finish. 3 But that's subject very much to Br. Gibson because he 4 is the principal person, he has been here since 10:30. 5 If anybody wanted to do otherwise, Br. Gibson or 12:56 6 yourself, then obviously...(INTERJECTION). 7 MR. HANRATTY: If it seemed a conclusion 8 of his evidence would be a 9 natural breaking in any event. Br. Gibson, just a few 10 questions and I will try and be as net as I can. 12:56 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Take your time, because we 12 may have some questions as 13 well. 14 15 16 BR. DAVID GIBSON WAS EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 17 MR. HANRATTY: 18 19 20 168 Q. MR. HANRATTY: This Commission was 12:56 21 established, I think and 22 subject to correction in 2000, after a process where 23 information emerged into the public consciousness about 24 complaints being made about people being sexually 25 abused as children in residential institutions. We 12:57 26 have now reached Phase III of this Inquiry, very much 27 towards the latter end of it. Up until today did you 28 ever hear a complaint from anybody, in any context, 29 about there being something wrong with the records of 86 1 the Department of Education with regard to the 2 examination achievements and the Primary Certificate of 3 the pupils in Letterfrack? 4 A. No. 5 169 Q. Just to be clear about this, the Primary Certificate 12:57 6 examination, am I right in thinking, was a public 7 examination? 8 A. Yes. 9 170 Q. What does that mean in practice? 10 A. Well, it basically means that the boys sit the exam, 12:57 11 there probably is -- it is so long ago since I did it 12 myself, but I presume there were external invigilators 13 and that the boys would have done the exam and the 14 results of it would have been processed by the 15 Department. 12:58 16 171 Q. And the examination of the papers would have been done 17 by whom? 18 A. I would imagine by the Department. 19 172 Q. Up until today have you ever heard anybody making a 20 complaint to the effect that, for example, a Brother 12:58 21 standing beside a boy and telling him how to answer the 22 question? 23 A. No. 24 173 Q. Up until today did you ever hear of complaints by 25 anybody of boys -- or allegations that boys did the 12:58 26 Primary Certificate examination in Letterfrack in a 27 name other than in their own name? 28 A. No. 29 174 Q. You mentioned the Turim Report when you were being 87 1 asked about this, could I ask you to explain for the 2 record, I am sure the Commission are fully familiar 3 with it, what the Turim Report is and what it does? 4 A. The Turim Report was by a committee that examined 5 childcare in Ireland and went into great detail about 12:58 6 the structure of childcare, about the funding, about 7 the quality of education. In other words, all aspects 8 of childcare and published this document. I am not 9 exactly sure the providence of the group, it may have 10 been an English group, in fact. 12:59 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: A London group, as far as I 12 know. 13 A. Yes. 14 175 Q. MR. HANRATTY: On the basis of your 15 knowledge of Letterfrack 12:59 16 and in particular the educational arrangements in 17 Letterfrack and on the basis of the extensive research 18 you have done for the purpose of assisting this 19 Commission and in giving your evidence, do you have any 20 reason to believe that there is anything inaccurate in 12:59 21 any way in the records of the Department of Education 22 with regards to the exam results achieved by the pupils 23 in Letterfrack? 24 A. No. 25 176 Q. Reference has been made to the Visitation Reports and 12:59 26 in particular to comments and observations made in the 27 Visitation Reports specifically with regard to the 28 education of the boys. Is it correct to say that in 29 each case of a visitation the report dealt extensively 88 1 with the educational arrangements in Letterfrack? 2 A. Yes, it would have commented on the education of the 3 boys, yes. 4 177 Q. Can I ask you just briefly to summarise the process of 5 a visitation and the production of a Visitation Report 13:00 6 and the purpose of this exercise? 7 A. Well every year a member of the Provincial team would 8 visit all our communities and institutions. They would 9 come and they would spend four, five or six days there, 10 during which they would examine all aspects of the 13:00 11 community and the institution. They would have access 12 to all the boys and all the Brothers, every brother 13 would have been interviewed individually and would have 14 been free, if he wanted to, to make any statement that 15 he wanted to make. The boys similarly. And the 13:01 16 visitor then having examined the books, the finances, 17 the educational standards, visited the schools and the 18 classes, talked to the Resident Manager, who was also 19 Superior, would then have gone away and would have 20 written a report. That report was written for the 13:01 21 leadership team in the particular province and a copy 22 of that was sent to the General Council, where they 23 then dealt with it. 24 25 A letter then was sent back to the school summarising 13:01 26 the positive and negative points of what they found in 27 the school. And if there were areas of concern would 28 have indicated that they would have like to see work 29 done in that area. 89 1 2 So, it was a very extensive and very accurate and 3 carefully compiled report. 4 178 Q. You are, I think, thoroughly familiar with the contents 5 of all of these Visitation Reports, so far as 13:02 6 Letterfrack is concerned. In general when 7 recommendations for improvements were made were they 8 acted upon? 9 A. In the main I would say, yes. I am aware of occasions 10 the visitor would say that the Brother hasn't done 13:02 11 enough yet. But on the whole, I would say from year to 12 year -- there are some exceptions, the toilet 13 facilities was always a problem in the 1950's and even 14 into the 1960's and the main problem was funding. Each 15 Visitation Report as saying this needs to be done. But 13:02 16 also they would be saying there were negotiations going 17 on with the Department of Education that maybe a 18 capitation grant would be given for these. 19 20 So I think in short what we are saying is the visitor 13:03 21 would have examined the previous year's report and 22 would have follow up on subsequent report, whoever that 23 visitor was, to see that things were put in place. 24 179 Q. In general is it true to say that the Visitation 25 Reports dealt with every aspect of life in the school? 13:03 26 A. Yes, every aspect of life in the school and they 27 wouldn't have been slow to criticise if they saw cause 28 for criticism. 29 180 Q. We know from exchanges this morning that they dealt 90 1 with things like buildings, facilities, the infirmary, 2 I think? 3 A. Yes. 4 181 Q. Food, clothing? 5 A. Yes. 13:03 6 182 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: What was the principle 7 function of the Visitation 8 Report? Was it religious or was it educational? 9 A. It was both. It was to look at the quality of 10 community living. And it was the look at the ministry 13:04 11 that was being carried on. Usually the Visitation 12 Report would start off with the community and would 13 deal with...(INTERJECTION). 14 183 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The religious affairs? 15 A. Yes. 13:04 16 184 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The devotion to the rule of 17 the Brothers and the regime 18 of the religious...(INTERJECTION). 19 A. Exactly. It would also have looked at the workload 20 that Brothers had in the schools and commented on 13:04 21 occasions that Brothers were overworked. And then it 22 would go to the school and it often did things like put 23 out the results and it did a detailed financial look at 24 it, at the time of the visit, they weren't the final 25 reports at the end of the financial year, but at that 13:04 26 particular time always the financial statement of the 27 institution at the time. So if there were concerns 28 there they would have brought those up. 29 185 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It is hard, I suppose, to 91 1 summarise all the reports 2 of a particular institution and we have them and they 3 are very informative. But I have to say my own 4 impression would be that that they were first a 5 religious reporting to the Provincial and in relation 13:05 6 to the practical matters that Mr. Hanratty is asking 7 you, and I would like your comment on this, my 8 impression is it depends on who the visitor is. 9 Sometimes you can recognise indeed from even the style 10 of the thing that this visitor was here some time ago 13:05 11 and he's also interested in the boys, the toilets, the 12 buildings, the whatever, or he might say, "look, how 13 are the Brothers getting on among themselves?" Whereas 14 another isn't. 15 A. Yes. 13:05 16 186 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not suggesting 17 criticism, but simply -- or 18 one finds in a report that somebody will say, "there 19 has been a problem here for a few years with relations 20 between Br. X and Br. Y"? 13:06 21 A. That's right. 22 187 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, if you flick back you 23 won't find that in the 24 visitor the previous year, who may not have noticed it 25 or whatever. Sorry, this would be a very longwinded 13:06 26 way and I would be critical if somebody was asking this 27 question and was down there, sorry, I apologise. What 28 it comes down to is (A) my impression, am I right in 29 thinking it was the priority, I am not saying the only 92 1 function, was religious? 2 A. I would think so, yes. 3 188 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And that the second thing, 4 the practical thing rather 5 depends on who the visitor is? 13:06 6 A. Yes. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, Mr. Hanratty, 8 for making a speech while 9 you were asking questions. 10 189 Q. MR. HANRATTY: A number of issues were 13:06 11 raised in relation to 12 clothing, food, the quality of the infirmary, children 13 with pneumonia having to be sent out to hospital and so 14 on. In general, did the visitors who were writing 15 these reports seek to address problems that they 13:07 16 perceived in the school with a view to having them 17 rectified? 18 A. Yes, I think if they saw, particularly things like the 19 food, if they saw the state of the buildings and so on. 20 If they saw that they were in any way less than 13:07 21 adequate, they put that down and in the letter that 22 went back to the community they would have been noted 23 and the community or the manager would have been asked 24 to see to it that something was done about that. Or 25 indeed, the cook, who might have been not up to 13:07 26 standard was replaced. So, basically, they did try and 27 address the situation, if it wasn't perfect. 28 190 Q. It is true to say that you do find occasionally 29 deficiencies which were identified and addressed? 93 1 A. Yes. 2 191 Q. But in general, taking for example the period in the 3 1940's? 4 A. Yes. 5 192 Q. The war years in particular. In general is there 13:08 6 anything in the Visitation Reports to suggest that the 7 standard of food in terms of nutrition was any worse 8 than the population at large? 9 A. No. 10 193 Q. Reference was made to the standard of clothing of the 13:08 11 boys and the fact that there were a lot of patches, 12 These patches would have been repairs done on the 13 premises, I take it? 14 A. Yes. 15 194 Q. Again, in general, do you think that there was any 13:08 16 deficiency here relative to the population at large of 17 any significant kind? 18 A. No, I wouldn't, no. 19 195 Q. You were asked about the question of training in 20 childcare. First of all, in relation to the 1940's, 13:08 21 1950's and 1960's and subsequently in relation to the 22 1970's. If I might just start with the 1940's, 1950's 23 and 1960's. First of all, were any resources provided 24 to the school by the Department of Education or any 25 other departments specifically for the purpose of 13:09 26 providing this specialised form of childcare? 27 A. No, I think -- the answer is no, and I think basically 28 it was seen that industrial schools were more concerned 29 with the physical needs of the children, physical and 94 1 maybe material needs of the children. The whole 2 emotional development of the child wasn't certainly 3 highlighted in the early years of the 1940's and 4 1950's. 5 13:09 6 Now, if Cussen Report says that the particular type of 7 education in institutions was the best form in the 8 1930's, 1936 onwards. When the Turim comes it 9 highlights and the Kennedy Report highlights this is 10 totally inadequate and there is need for smaller 13:10 11 groupings and family structures and all that. So it 12 was a gradual dawning on people. 13 14 But certainly initially the Government were grossly 15 underfunding these institutions, I mean grossly, right 13:10 16 from the very beginning. So any resources was 17 literally for the material needs of the children. But 18 any extras it just wasn't possible. 19 196 Q. I will come to the question of resourcing in a moment, 20 but I just want to stay for the moment, if I may, with 13:10 21 the question of the concept of special needs of 22 children or special requirements to educate children, 23 particularly children of the categories that were 24 coming into Letterfrack, some of which were for truancy 25 and some of which increasing as the years progressed, 13:10 26 particularly into the 1970's, were for criminal 27 activity. 28 29 But in terms of the special needs of children and the 95 1 perception of the special needs of children in the 2 1940's and in the 1950's and 1960's, have you seen any 3 evidence that the Congregation of Christian Brothers 4 was in any way deficient in its knowledge of these 5 matters as opposed to society in general? 13:11 6 A. No, I wouldn't. Because I think right from the 7 Visitation Reports they all talk about the atmosphere 8 in the place, the care that was given. That's mirrored 9 in the Department of Education. The Department of 10 Education at no stage was saying that the schools were 13:11 11 in any way deficient, right up through the 1940's, 12 1950's and 1960's. They are always say well conducted, 13 children well cared for, friendly atmosphere is 14 prevailing and so on. So all the written 15 contemporaneous documentation is pointing to the fact 13:11 16 that it was a very positive place. That doesn't take 17 away from those singular individual incidences of abuse 18 that take place. 19 197 Q. Yes. I think in general the evidence has been that the 20 interface between these residential institutions and 13:12 21 specifically Letterfrack and the State was primarily 22 through the department, the Department of Justice on 23 one hand and the Department of Education. And the 24 Letterfrack school, so far as education was concerned, 25 was subject to the school inspectorate regime as all of 13:12 26 the schools in the country? 27 A. Yes. 28 198 Q. And the Department of Education Inspectors would visit 29 the school in Letterfrack to look at the education? 96 1 A. Yes. 2 199 Q. What was the position of inspection from the point of 3 view of the Department of Justice? 4 A. Well, I mean, the Department of Justice was mainly 5 involved in the allocation of the people initially to 13:12 6 the institution. So that was their main role, probably 7 done very badly in that usually what happened was the 8 manager was phoned prior to the trial, in adverted 9 commas, of the person and the school was asked would 10 they accept another child. Now, there was no 13:13 11 information given about the needs of the child, about 12 what he was in for. I think subsequently it was said 13 at one stage as long as they weren't in danger of 14 setting the place on fire anyone was sent in there. 15 But all the concerns or needs or individual situations 13:13 16 wasn't really explained. 17 200 Q. In general, again drawing on your research and the 18 knowledge of this institution in particular and the 19 wider community of institutions conducted by the 20 Christian Brothers, are you satisfied that the State, 13:13 21 through its organ the Department of Justice and the 22 Department of Education, were fully aware of the nature 23 of the regime that was in place in Letterfrack? 24 A. I would say yes. I would say they visited the place on 25 a regular basis. Dr. McCabe was very assiduous in 13:13 26 looking at the whole medical structure of the place and 27 the physical concerns of the children. The reports 28 from the Department of Education, although skimpy, do 29 point to areas of positive areas and negative areas. 97 1 So they were aware. That seemed -- I have just a list 2 of quotations by the State about the spirit of the boys 3 in visitation and from 1939 to 1973 almost 4 uninterrupted there are positive things said about 5 these institutions by the State, as a result of 13:14 6 visitations by the Department of Education, by the 7 Department of Justice. 8 201 Q. You mentioned in your evidence that in the early 1970's 9 a number of Brothers during their own holidays started 10 to go to seminars or lectures or courses in relation to 13:14 11 special needs of children or addressing the 12 non-physical needs of children? 13 A. Yes. 14 202 Q. Was that from their own initiative or from the 15 initiative of the Congregation or from the initiative 13:15 16 of the Department? 17 A. My understanding, that came out in Phase II, and my 18 understanding was, listen from the evidence, that it 19 was the person themselves who wanted to do this, 20 contacted one of the Brothers who was a professor of 13:15 21 education and asked him to put on courses especially 22 for people in this kind of set up and he would have 23 done that. 24 203 Q. At any time up until the early 1970's, did the 25 Department, did any Government department, make any 13:15 26 requirements of the Congregation or the managers of 27 residential institutions with regard to provision of 28 special care teaching or special care of any kind for 29 children in those institutions? 98 1 A. Well, the 1962 report, the interdepartmental report 2 highlighted the difficulty of education. There was 3 subsequent visit which pointed to the need to improve 4 the quality of the education, the curriculum, to change 5 the curriculum, to adapt it more to the needs of the 13:16 6 people. But always it was a case the Department and 7 the hope was the Department would actually fund this 8 and at no stage was the funding available for that. 9 But by the time the Letterfrack was considered a 10 special school and where it was beginning now to 13:16 11 approach the real needs of children, it was near the 12 end and, in fact, it probably would have closed a year 13 or two later after that. 14 204 Q. Just on this question of funding, you said there was no 15 funding made available specifically for this, such 13:16 16 funding as was made available you have described in 17 your evidence as not just deficient but grossly 18 deficient? 19 A. Yes. 20 205 Q. Could you just elaborate on what you mean by that? 13:17 21 A. Maybe I should refer to official documents which made 22 comments on the underfunding of residential schools. 23 The Cussen Report I quoted says: 24 "Local authorities are unwilling to contribute, even towards the 25 maintenance of the children. As the 13:17 treasury grant was insufficient for the 26 building and equipment in such schools their establishment was a matter of 27 some difficulty." 28 29 That's in 1936. The memorandum from the Association of 99 1 Resident Managers in 1950 says: 2 "They are emphatic in stating that the grants paid are far short of what would 3 be required to run these schools efficiently and to keep the standards 4 in food, clothing and general upkeep to a reasonably high standard." 5 13:17 6 7 8 Subsequently the residential homes and special schools 9 had a special visit in 1964 and it says: 10 "Reformatory industrial schools are 13:17 absolutely inadequately endowed. No 11 institution could run on £3.10 per boy per week." 12 13 14 15 That's Residential Homes and Special Schools Visiting 13:18 16 Committee 17 206 Q. MS. SHANLEY: What year was that? 18 A. 1964. In 1966 it says, the Tuairim: 19 "There appears to be little change in the situation since 1963. In one 20 instance quoted to us. Eight Local 13:18 Authorities had not honoured a claim 21 for a six monthly period two months after the end of that period. The 22 school has been maintaining the children for eight months without Local 23 Authority grants." 24 25 13:18 26 27 Then in the Kennedy Report in 1970, it says: 28 "Managers in charge of the schools were faced with the task of running the 29 institutions on a totally inadequate financial provision and were forced to 100 1 supplement their incomes by whatever means possible to enable their work to 2 continue". 3 4 That report in 1970 was after the Department of 5 Education doubling the allocation the year previous to 13:18 6 the report. So, I mean it is fairly obvious that the 7 funding -- and of course we can compare funding that 8 was available to schools in Ireland with that in 9 England and Northern Ireland and Scotland and so on 10 which shows that it was totally inadequate. 13:19 11 207 Q. I think the evidence you gave previously was that in 12 all of those cases the funding was provided to 13 institutions in those jurisdiction were a multiple in 14 some cases, a substantial multiple per capita? 15 A. That's right. 13:19 16 208 Q. Just going back to that reference in the Kennedy 17 Report, where it was said that they were forced to 18 supplement the funding by whatever means possible. Did 19 those means include the school having to become, to a 20 degree, self-sufficient both in terms of the provision 13:19 21 of food, in terms of the provision of clothing and the 22 repair of clothing and indeed in the provision of 23 repair and improvements to buildings? 24 A. Yes. 25 209 Q. Using the resources of the Brothers themselves who were 13:19 26 working a full day and the resources of the boys that 27 were there? 28 A. Yes. 29 210 Q. At any stage throughout the period under Inquiry by 101 1 this Commission was the State unaware of the perilous 2 financial situation in each of these institutions, 3 specifically Letterfrack? 4 A. No, right from the earliest years there is 5 correspondence between the residential managers and the 13:20 6 Department of Education. Now, it was correspondence 7 where the Resident Managers were basically saying that 8 there wasn't adequate funding and the Department of 9 Education was writing back and saying that they felt 10 the grants were sufficient. But this debate was going 13:20 11 on continuously right up through the history of the 12 institution. And I think it is only when external 13 bodies like Cussen's, Tuairim, Kennedy and indeed the 14 Residential Homes and Special Schools Visiting 15 Committee when an external body comes and judges it, 13:21 16 they see that, in fact, it was totally inadequate. 17 211 Q. Just while we are on the question of resourcing, is it 18 the position that the Congregations were required to 19 provide all of the services that they were inquired to 20 provide out of this capitation grant that they 13:21 21 were...(INTERJECTION). 22 A. Yes. 23 212 Q. Did that include whatever provision could be made for 24 the training of boys in trades and for the purchase of 25 tools and for the purpose of agricultural equipment to 13:21 26 provide food? 27 A. Yes. 28 213 Q. And the follow up that was mentioned this morning? 29 A. Yes. When boys were leaving Letterfrack or an 102 1 institution they were provided with a range of clothes, 2 a small sum of money, their ticket home and this was 3 all at the expense of the school. 4 214 Q. At any time during the period under Inquiry by this 5 Commission was the funding that was provided by the 13:21 6 Department, specifically in the case of Letterfrack, 7 sufficient for the job that was required to be done in 8 this residential institution without further subvention 9 in the means that you have indicated? 10 A. No, at no stage. 13:22 11 215 Q. There is just one final matter I want to ask you about 12 and that is Ms. Fergus asked you about the Rome 13 documents, in which views are expressed as to the 14 implications of child abuse. I think you have already 15 dealt with this to some extent in your evidence in 13:22 16 Phase I. Just to remind people and in summary form, in 17 those instances which you find in the documents were 18 complaints were, in fact, made, can I just ask you to 19 state in what manner were they dealt with by the 20 Congregation when such complaints were made? 13:22 21 A. Well, when complaints were brought to the attention of 22 the Christian Brothers and the authorities, the Brother 23 was confronted with the allegation and he was either 24 sent away from the Congregation, as has happened in 25 some cases, he was withdrawn from the institution and 13:23 26 sometimes instead of being in a residential home was 27 sent to a day school, in the belief that if a person is 28 taken away from the residential setting he may not 29 offend in the day setting. However, we know now that 103 1 that is not the case, with child abuse. We also know 2 that in some of the cases that I outlined that there 3 were cases where a Brother was moved from, say, 4 Letterfrack, but also into another residential 5 institution, unfortunately there are some ways to 13:23 6 explain it, it certainly can't be excused. 7 8 One of the ways of explaining it was that the 9 leadership team at the time that dealt with it were 10 followed by another leadership team, who may not have 13:23 11 explored or examined the file of those individual 12 Brothers. Certainly up to the early 1960's the files 13 in the archives wouldn't have been kept in the way that 14 they are kept now. But I mean it was remiss of the 15 authorities at the time not to have ensured that these 13:24 16 people would never enter an institution again. 17 216 Q. Indeed. But as we are aware there has in recent years 18 developed a greater understanding of the recidivistic 19 nature of pedophilia, have you seen any evidence in any 20 of the documents that you have read or evidence that 13:24 21 you have heard that the Christian Brothers as a 22 Congregation were any slower to come to understanding 23 of this form of recidivism then society in general? 24 A. No, I wouldn't, no. 25 MR. HANRATTY: Thank you Br. Gibson. 13:24 26 27 END OF EXAMINATION OF BR. GIBSON BY MR. HANRATTY 28 29 MR. McGRATH: Sorry, Chairman, before we 104 1 leave this table here. 2 There is one matter that arises, in the opening of the 3 questions by Mr. Hanratty he raised a question as to 4 whether or not this witness had ever heard of 5 allegations in relation to doing the Primary 13:25 6 Certificate and the witness has indicated he didn't. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 8 MR. McGRATH: Now, there are two things 9 that arise there. First of 10 all, on the last occasion he gave evidence, one of the 13:25 11 last questions that was asked by Mr. McGovern dealt 12 with Mr. McGovern's belief or lack of belief in 13 relation to the results in Letterfrack. So, it can't 14 be a matter which comes totally out of the blue and a 15 shock. It is question 311, it is on page 133. The 13:25 16 question is: 17 "I know you would like to finish then, I don't want to ruin your ending, so to 18 speak, I am sorry and I am not being flippant, I don't intend to be, but 19 just to get back to that chart. It does show Letterfrack as something of a 20 centre of excellence. I am just 13:25 wondering about this. I think it is 21 accepted, and you have already said as much, that Letterfrack was comprising 22 of mostly boys from socially disadvantaged areas and deprived 23 backgrounds, it looks strange to me, I have to say, to find that the 24 Letterfrack results appear to be better than the national average and that's 25 why I am wondering whether all the 13:26 boys, in fact, went through to do their 26 Primary Certs." 27 28 So the question was raised at that particular time. 29 Now, you have heard evidence from this institution, you 105 1 have heard evidence from Artane at the private 2 hearings, I don't want to go into that evidence, but it 3 seems to me to be incredible that somebody would be 4 coming here today and saying that there was no 5 suggestion from any witness that you have heard that 13:26 6 they had some doubts about their Primary Certificate. 7 MR. HANRATTY: I said there was no 8 complaint, no complaint. 9 MR. McGRATH: Certainly, I am absolutely 10 certain that some people 13:26 11 expressed surprise at having been told they got their 12 Primary Certificates and expressed surprise at the 13 level of the marks. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: So be it. That's for us 15 to...(INTERJECTION). 13:27 16 MR. McGRATH: But it is not something 17 that has not arisen before. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I mean what do you want 19 us to do about that, 20 Mr. McGrath. That's something we note, we will review 13:27 21 the evidence, we will put it together. 22 MR. McGRATH: My Friend was objecting to 23 the manner in which I was 24 putting forward and I just want to get on the record 25 that I don't accept Mr. Hanratty's postulation in 13:27 26 relation to the question of Primary Certificates. 27 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry, can I just say, 28 sir, I don't want to make 29 too much of a big deal about this, but I do draw 106 1 attention to fact that I listened to the first time 2 today that an allegation that Brothers stood beside 3 boys giving them the answer to a question to put down 4 on their Primary Certificate, that's an extraordinary 5 allegation to be making in Phase III. Another one to 13:27 6 the effect that a boy -- or a suggestion that a boy had 7 done an examination in anything other than his own 8 name. I haven't heard anything like that. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't want to get into a 10 situation where we comment 13:28 11 on particular evidence as it goes on from one witness 12 or another witness. Anybody can make a submission to 13 us about evidence or what they think are points to be 14 taken into account, but we are not inclined to comment 15 or say, "oh, hold on, you have to be wrong about that." 13:28 16 If it obviously occurs to us and if we think it is 17 important we will draw attention to it, but in general 18 we are not inclined to do that. But people will simply 19 have to rely on us to notice and hope that we don't 20 miss too many of the important points. 13:28 21 22 Now, what I am going to do, first of all, is ask 23 Mr. O'Moore has any questions on behalf of the 24 Department of Education? 25 MR. O'MOORE: No, sir, any commentary in 13:28 26 relation to Br. Gibson's 27 evidence will be provided in writing obviously to the 28 Commission at a later time. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have no questions. 107 1 MR. O'MOORE: I have no questions 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now I will ask Mr. Lowe. 3 Would you like to ask any 4 questions, Mr. Lowe? 5 13:29 6 BR. DAVID GIBSON WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 7 THE COMMISSION: 8 9 217 Q. MR. LOWE: Just one question. 10 Letterfrack was different, 13:29 11 in that it took in boys who had criminal convictions. 12 What was different about the school itself which made 13 it suitable to take in such boys? 14 A. I don't think it was any different from other schools. 15 I think it was that there was a growing concern among 13:29 16 the residential managers that in these institutions 17 there was a mixture of boys who were there because they 18 were orphans, they were there because of lack of proper 19 guardianship and there was a mixture between those and 20 people who had been involved in serious crime. And 13:29 21 that was emerging in the 1950's at the meetings of the 22 residential managers and it was felt that it might be 23 better that a school would just take in people who were 24 there because of crimes of different sorts. 25 Letterfrack was chosen. 13:30 26 27 I think Professor O'Driscoll's doctorate on life in 28 Letterfrack, one of the things he said was the boys 29 commented that when they went there one of the things 108 1 they were grateful for was they weren't asked by the 2 Brothers why they were there. I think Letterfrack, 3 even though it was taking boys who were there because 4 of criminal offences, didn't actually treat them that 5 way. They treated them as boys in another institution. 13:30 6 7 But obviously, it was difficult and we heard in Phase 8 II where, you know, towards the end of the time the 9 aggression on the part of the boys coming from maybe 10 more serious crimes was such that it was very difficult 13:31 11 on the Brothers to handle them and found at times they 12 couldn't handle them. I would say that's a longwinded 13 answer to say that the school itself was basically an 14 ordinary primary school following an ordinary primary 15 syllabus. 13:31 16 218 Q. MR. LOWE: We heard evidence from some 17 Brothers who found it very 18 stressful? 19 A. Very, yes. 20 219 Q. MR. LOWE: Was there a high dropout 13:31 21 rate? Do you have figures 22 about how many people dropped out of the Congregation? 23 A. I haven't. No, I wouldn't -- I mean I could get them. 24 But I just don't know of the Brothers who were working 25 in Letterfrack how many of them left the Congregation. 13:31 26 I certainly know in the 1970's there were, and quite 27 high, in fact, I think. Certainly the people who were 28 before Phase II a lot of them would have left -- well, 29 some of them would have left the Congregation. But I 109 1 think a lot of them continued on. A lot of the people 2 subsequent to Letterfrack went on and taught in 3 secondary schools and primary schools and had other -- 4 I am not sure that it would be any greater than other 5 schools actually. 13:32 6 220 Q. MR. LOWE: You could get figures like 7 that? 8 A. Yeah, it would be a matter of examining the list of -- 9 I think there were 93 Brothers in Letterfrack and to 10 see how many of those have left. 13:32 11 MR. LOWE: Okay. Thank you. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Ms. Shanley. 13 221 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Can I just ask you two 14 small questions. One of 15 the problems that dogged Letterfrack from its inception 13:32 16 was its geographical location. Why was it kept open 17 when other more suitable premises were closed down? I 18 am think in particular about premises like Carriglea, 19 which was beside Dublin, reasonably well equipped, why 20 was a place like Letterfrack kept open? 13:32 21 A. Well, I don't know. For instance, Carriglea, I know 22 Carriglea when it closed as a residential school was 23 used as a formation house for the Brothers. Why 24 Letterfrack was kept open as opposed to that I just 25 don't know. I know the Bishop of Tuam, I think, talked 13:33 26 about the idea of -- when it was talked about closure, 27 the idea of taking people away from there -- if you 28 like, the place where they were mixing and getting into 29 all sorts of trouble, that it was good to bring them 110 1 away from that, well it had a downside that a lot of 2 parents found it very difficult to visit them. And in 3 fact I think some of them objected when they were being 4 condemned that this was the reason. So I don't really 5 know. 13:33 6 222 Q. MS. SHANLEY: The other question briefly. 7 You say that there were 449 8 complaints? 9 A. Yes. 10 223 Q. MS. SHANLEY: And we know from your own 13:34 11 submission that 1300 boys 12 went through Letterfrack during the relevant period. 13 Is that the highest portion of complaints for the 14 institution schools that the Christian Brothers ran? 15 A. To hand, I wouldn't have what the level in Artane is, 13:34 16 just off the top of my head now. But it is certainly 17 very high. It is very high. 18 MS. SHANLEY: Very high. Yes. Okay. 19 Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Brother, are you still able 13:34 21 for a few questions? 22 A. Yes. 23 224 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: You touched with your 24 answers to Ms. Shanley on 25 some of the features of remoteness of the place. That 13:34 26 would have applied both to the boys going there and to 27 the Brothers? 28 A. Exactly, yes. 29 225 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So it was a very small 111 1 community from the 2 Brothers' point of view; isn't that right? 3 A. That's right. 4 226 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: We heard some evidence to 5 say that it was regarded as 13:35 6 a hardship post, "what did you do to deserve that?", 7 was among the things? 8 A. Yes. 9 227 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That would explain, because 10 that would arise because of 13:35 11 its remote location, the small number? 12 A. Yeah. 13 228 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: From the child's point of 14 view going there, there was 15 no natural catchment area, so to speak, all children 13:35 16 went there? 17 A. Yeah. 18 229 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The odd thing is that these 19 reasons and these 20 disadvantages were debated in 1874, when the first 13:35 21 proposal was there to put it up, and the problems 22 dogged the institution for all of the 90 years of its 23 life; isn't that right? 24 A. Yeah. 25 230 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So if a child -- they all 13:35 26 came from somewhere else, 27 so it was hard to get parents -- it was hard for 28 parents to get there? 29 A. Yes. 112 1 231 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So the sense of remoteness 2 and isolation and 3 abandonment in a child must have been very high? 4 A. Yeah. 5 232 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: With the large numbers 13:36 6 certified for 150, 165, up 7 to 190, and those large numbers, say, continuing 8 throughout the 1940's and 1950's, we can assume that a 9 lot of the children would have felt that isolation and 10 remoteness? 13:36 11 A. Yes. 12 233 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see. And they were 13 being looked after by a 14 small number of Brothers; isn't that so? 15 A. Yes. 13:36 16 234 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: We have complaints about -- 17 even in the Visitation 18 Reports, about the Brothers being overworked, some of 19 the Brothers being overworked, the teachers tended to 20 be the supervisors, the dormitory people, the 13:37 21 everything people; isn't that right? 22 A. Yeah. 23 235 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: What would you say was the 24 main function of the -- 25 what was the purpose of Letterfrack? What was it 13:37 26 doing? What was it for? 27 A. I think the role of institutional care was to provide 28 children with physical care and also to teach them a 29 trade. That was basically why they were originally set 113 1 up. I think I mentioned in my submission the idea of 2 institutionalisation and its impact on children until 3 Gothman came along I don't think was really fully 4 understood. But common sense would show that a child 5 removed from its family -- now some of the families 13:38 6 unfortunately were very, very difficult homes and the 7 child had to be taken away from them. 8 236 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 9 A. But I would have to say that certainly the remoteness 10 of Letterfrack had an impact, it had an impact on 13:38 11 Brothers, it had an impact on boys. But looking at the 12 Visitation Reports and the Department of Education 13 reports they are high in their praise about the spirit 14 that was there in the place. Now, we are hearing of 15 the complaints. It says: 13:38 16 The boys are cheerful and bright sowed careful teaching. A nice, friendly 17 atmosphere was maintained. They received very sympathetic treatment 18 from the boys". 19 20 These are from the Visitation Reports, and similar ones 13:39 21 from the State: 22 "I gave the boys ample opportunity to complain but they seemed a cheery lot". 23 24 237 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: In fairness, Br. Gibson, it 25 would have seemed to me 13:39 26 that a point that you could raise is that look here, 27 where the Visitation Reports are condemnatory, "it is 28 one of ours who is doing it"? 29 A. Yes. 114 1 238 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: You might say, and it seems 2 to me that the Visitation 3 Reports have areas of frankness, but it is a very 4 serious criticism. I suppose to take up Mr. Hanratty's 5 debate with Mr. McGrath, you can pick one good bit out 13:39 6 of the Visitation Reports and I can pick a bad bit out 7 of them and obviously we have to try to make the best 8 of it. But let me ask you this, a lot of people said, 9 not alone in this institutions but in others, "look 10 here", this is teachers, "look here, we found ourselves 13:40 11 that we were trying to contain these children, we were 12 trying to keep them in, we were more like jailers than 13 we were teachers." That's, in effect, what we have 14 been told, not alone by Christian Brothers, not alone 15 in Letterfrack, but in other places. Do you agree with 13:40 16 that? 17 A. I think there were some. I think there were some there 18 who thought that. I'm conscious of having talked to 19 adults now who were in the institutions and who have 20 said "look, if I had been at home I wouldn't have been 13:40 21 fed." If I had been at home I wouldn't have got an 22 education. If I had been at home I wouldn't have been 23 safe." So people have said that. But an institution 24 is an institution and nothing can replace a good home. 25 239 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: You see all of that might 13:41 26 be true, all of it might, 27 for all anybody knows in a particular instance. But it 28 is hard to get away from the overall picture, that 29 there is nearly 200 boys and that one of the functions 115 1 is to keep them in. 2 A. Yes. Well, you see, the interesting thing is like the 3 childcare now, the ratio between staff and boys, I 4 think, is something like four staff to a boy. 5 240 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Vastly different, it is a 13:41 6 different world. 7 A. It is a different world. There it was 20 boys, 30 boys 8 or 40 boys to one person. So to have an institution 9 where you are trying to manage a vast number of boys 10 and keep them safe and educate them requires a type of 13:42 11 discipline that you wouldn't want in a home. But you 12 have to have a level of discipline to ensure safety. 13 Because one of the aspects that has been talked about 14 somewhat is the area of bullying and peer abuse. 15 241 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Inevitably. 13:42 16 A. But, as I say, looking at it now back and saying how 17 could we have, say, 500 or 600 or 700 boys all in the 18 one place and a very small group of people in charge of 19 them, unfortunately the State were not prepared to 20 provide the sort of resources that were there, and I 13:42 21 would say the teachers there weren't aware of the 22 impact that that was having on them. I would say they 23 were doing their best, thinking that this is the best, 24 and in fact it says often there, they did the best they 25 could under the circumstances but didn't realise all 13:43 26 the emotional needs that were there at the time and 27 that they couldn't fulfil them given the structure. 28 242 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: May I ask you, Br. Minihan 29 gave evidence here on 116 1 behalf of the Presentation Brothers for Greenmount and 2 Fr. O'Reilly who dealt with the Rosminians, Ferryhouse 3 and Upton, basically said the whole task, looking back 4 on it now, was an impossible thing to do, I sense a 5 different point of view from you. They would say -- 13:43 6 somebody said, "wasn't the whole thing terrible, how 7 could anybody have been" -- while people may have been 8 making the best of it, doing the best they could. They 9 frankly say in print and in evidence it was a system 10 that could never work and it is a positive thing. 13:44 11 A. I wouldn't be so negative in that I think an amazing 12 amount was achieved. I think of the 1,356 boys who 13 went through there, we are talking about in terms of 14 the Commission now, investigation to a very small 15 number of people. Now, the problem is that, you know, 13:44 16 a lot of people went through these institutions, went 17 on and did well. Some didn't. The structures, it is 18 very easy today to judge them with childcare today and 19 say, "look that was impossible." It was all that was 20 there, it provided safety, education, care, shelter and 13:44 21 it is very easy to say it was inadequate now, but it 22 was the best that was available. 23 24 I think rather than blame the structure, that maybe 25 people I'm not saying here now is doing it, but rather 13:45 26 than blame it to see was that the best that could be 27 done at the time. I am inclined to think that given 28 the limited resources from government, given the 29 inadequacies of the social structure in Ireland at the 117 1 time that this, albeit inadequate, was the best that 2 could be done. I would have to salute a lot of the 3 Brothers who spent their life, and many of them many 4 years of their life, in a very hard situation, 5 providing a good education to boys and to starting them 13:45 6 off on their life in a way that was as good as they 7 could provide. 8 243 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The Kennedy Report has in 9 its preface a little few 10 lines which says every child needs care, support, love, 13:46 11 affection, words to that effect. The clear implication 12 from the Kennedy Report is that they weren't getting 13 that in the industrial schools, would you agree with 14 that? 15 A. I would agree that all the needs of children, 13:46 16 particularly their emotional and psychological needs, 17 were not met in the type of residential hopes that were 18 there, and couldn't be, couldn't be because of the 19 nature of the institutions. I would say that is why, 20 at the Kennedy Report, they were saying "look, this 13:46 21 type of residential care now has to change and we have 22 to put in place something that's greater now." But I 23 would have to say that childcare today, I'm not sure 24 how perfect it is. And I think people will judge in 25 the future. 13:46 26 244 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you be satisfied -- 27 suppose somebody said, "it 28 is clear that children were not getting those essential 29 requirements in the industrial schools", or would you 118 1 say, "well, it is a bit more complicated than that"? 2 A. I think it is more complicated. Yeah, I think it is 3 more complicated. Because, as I say, we would have 4 past pupils who are saying, "look, we got what helped 5 us live our lives and we are now grateful for what we 13:47 6 received." There are a lot of those...(INTERJECTION) 7 245 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The sense I am getting from 8 you is to say, "look, you 9 have to bear" -- I am paraphrasing this, correct me if 10 I am wrong. You are sort of saying, "look, you have to 13:47 11 bear in mind that a lot of these unfortunate children 12 might have ended up a lot worse?" 13 A. Yes. 14 246 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And I am wondering about -- 15 that's a point of view, you 13:47 16 say, "look here, you have to live in the real world"? 17 A. Yeah. 18 247 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, so you say it is 19 more complicated but 20 nonetheless there is an element of truth or a lot of 13:47 21 truth in what -- in the preface to the Kennedy Report 22 in saying that children did not get that? 23 A. Yeah. 24 248 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. The Cussen 25 Report in 1936 said that 13:48 26 every children -- trust me on this, I try to remember 27 it, it says that every child needs the feeling of being 28 individual -- of individual attention and the feeling 29 that the manager of the school knows and appreciates 119 1 the individual need. The fact that the child is an 2 individual personality. I confess I was surprised to 3 read that in 1936. I don't have the sense that that 4 was true in the institution that we have investigated. 5 A. Yes, I think the only structure that would sort of give 13:48 6 a nodding recognition of that was the fact that the 7 Resident Manager was available for people to 8 individually go to him. How often it happened but 9 certainly he was there. I know of one Resident Manager 10 who would systematically ensure that he talk to each 13:49 11 individual. But, I mean, I think unfortunately unless 12 the State...(INTERJECTION). 13 249 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I wouldn't hold to the 14 Resident Manager, to be 15 frank, I would be inclined to say, "Judge Cussen, that 13:49 16 was setting the bar a bit high." If there was anybody. 17 But I would still say I think they fall down on the 18 basis, the 800 -- or in this case the nearly 200 in 19 Letterfrack? 20 A. You see, I think it was very difficult to do that and I 13:49 21 would say to the extent -- because you had to ensure a 22 structure where boys were together. You couldn't let 23 people off on their own. In fact, unfortunately the 24 abuse happened when people were on a one-to-one basis. 25 So it was a thin line between trying to keep a safe 13:50 26 environment where there weren't in fact adults and 27 children on a one-to-one basis and 28 yet...(INTERJECTION). 29 250 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And yet there were children 120 1 among themselves? 2 A. Correct. 3 251 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Brother, that's why I am 4 surprised to find you 5 saying it was positive. I can understand the point 13:50 6 about you saying, "comparatively speaking and live in 7 the real world, please, Commission." That I can 8 understand. But leaving that comparison aside, if we 9 are looking at it objectively, I am wondering how there 10 could be an opportunity for children to be individuals 13:50 11 when they have to be shunted from there to there in a 12 pack, supervised by somebody with an eagle eye to watch 13 out? 14 A. Well, you see, yeah. It is an unrealistic expectation, 15 it is an admirable expectation for Cussen to have a 13:50 16 structure where children actually could get individual 17 attention when there wasn't the sort of funding that 18 needed to be put in place to ensure that that happened. 19 The thing is you couldn't, in fact, let children be on 20 their own either because they had to be in the same 13:51 21 place, supervised by people. So it was, in a sense, an 22 impossible set up really, that couldn't provide for the 23 emotional need of children as we understand them. And 24 in indeed in Cussen's -- in his foresight had 25 understood and in fact previous to that people in the 13:51 26 English system had recognised that, in fact, that type 27 of residential care was not in fact, or in the 1800's 28 even, it was criticised. 29 252 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It wasn't indeed. 121 1 Had Judge Cussen really 2 thought about it he should have realised the thing was 3 impossible? 4 A. It was. In fact, I am amazed that the Kennedy Report 5 was saying 1970, "look, funding hadn't significantly 13:51 6 increased since 1963." Now it had increased but just 7 to keep pace with the cost of living and so on, but not 8 to provide the sort of care that is subsequently now 9 available. 10 253 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: One last thing, I am sorry 13:52 11 for detaining you so long. 12 It is hard to resist the sense of -- not the conclusion 13 but the impression that the institutions such as 14 Letterfrack came to have a life of its own. That means 15 nothing, I am sorry. Letterfrack had a need to get 13:52 16 more boys? 17 A. Yeah. 18 254 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It couldn't exist if it 19 dropped below a certain 20 level. It was perhaps inevitable, I am not making a 13:52 21 huge moral point, but the interests of the institution 22 in getting boys in had priority over the interest of 23 the boys. For instance, there is gratitude to the 24 district justice in Dublin who is kind enough to 25 realise the needs of Letterfrack and to send boys down 13:53 26 there, which is all very well for Letterfrack, good 27 luck to it, but the needs of the boys who were foddered 28 down there doesn't get much of a mention? 29 A. No. No. I mean, I think the capitation system was 122 1 flawed whereas initially it may have been good when the 2 numbers were up, when the numbers were going down it 3 should have been changed and I am aware that in some -- 4 I think in one Sister's residential home, in the 1950's 5 maybe, it was, in fact, a grant system rather than a 13:53 6 capitation system. But certainly at that stage, the 7 impact of ten boys leaving and no one coming literally 8 impacted on the quality of provision for those -- 9 255 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: For everybody? 10 A. -- who were there. And it was obviously a shortsighted 13:54 11 concern, "look, we have got to keep numbers up", when 12 in fact the ideal thing was they were closed, there 13 wasn't need for them. But unfortunately that wasn't 14 the case. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much indeed, 13:54 16 Br. Gibson. 17 18 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF BR. GIBSON BY THE 19 COMMISSION 20 13:54 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. We will say 22 2.45 p.m. 23 24 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 1:54 P.M. 25 26 27 28 29 123