COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON TUESDAY, 20TH JUNE 2006 - DAY 228 EVIDENCE OF MR. PAUL GILLIGAN 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: MR. N. MacMAHON SC MS. L. RATTIGAN BL Instructed by: MS. E. McHUGH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE: MR. C. DIGNAM BL Instructed by: CSSO MR. P. GAGEBY SC Instructed by: MR. D. McGRATH SC Instructed by: 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. MR. GILLIGAN QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 10 EXAMINED - MR. GAGEBY 11 - 133 EXAMINED - MR. McGRATH 134 - 195 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 196 - 218 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY, 20TH JUNE 2 2006: 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. 5 MR. COONEY: Mr. Justice Ryan. 10:30 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hold on for a minute, we 7 will get this over with, 8 first of all. 9 MR. COONEY: First of all, would you 10 please hear me. I have a 10:30 11 specific formal request to make of you. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Yes, all right, 13 Mr. Cooney. 14 MR. COONEY: I would ask you to grant me 15 legal representation. 10:30 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, there is no 17 need for you to be granted 18 legal representation, Mr. Cooney, at least at this 19 point. If the question arises when you need to be 20 granted legal representation, then you need to be 10:31 21 granted legal representation. 22 MR. COONEY: I think the situation has 23 already arisen, namely 24 yesterday, when the remarks were made and you did not 25 protect or vindicate my legal rights yesterday. 10:31 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have heard that, 27 Mr. Cooney, and you have 28 made that position clear. 29 MR. COONEY: It is a legal position. 4 1 But I am seeking 2 representation now. I think it is a valid request. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Let's leave 4 that request for the 5 moment, Mr. Cooney. I have indicated that, certainly 10:31 6 in my view, there is no need for that at this moment 7 but I just want to wait for a moment because I know 8 that Mr. O'Sullivan wants to say something, so we are 9 going to hear what Mr. O'Sullivan has to say and we 10 will see what happens. 10:31 11 MR. COONEY: And his statement is 12 without prejudice to my 13 position. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: What statement is without 15 prejudice to your position? 10:32 16 MR. COONEY: Whatever statement 17 Mr. O'Sullivan makes on 18 behalf of Mr. Lankford, I consider it is without 19 prejudice to my own position in seeking legal 20 representation. If need be initiating measure -- you 10:32 21 know, legal remedy to defend myself against the moral 22 and material damage that has been done to me inside of 23 this Commission. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to get yourself 25 a chair or to sit down 10:32 26 there for the moment, Mr. Cooney, and we will see what 27 happens and then we will proceed. Please pull up so 28 that you can sit at the table. 29 MR. COONEY: Thank you. 5 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Now, 2 Mr. O'Sullivan. 3 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 4 appear instructed by 5 Maxwell solicitors and with your permission I would 10:32 6 like to address the Commission briefly on comments that 7 were made by Mr. Padraig Lankford in relation to 8 Mr. Cooney. Mr. Lankford has instructed me to read out 9 an apology to Mr. Cooney and to the Committee. With 10 your permission I will now do that. 10:33 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do that. 12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yesterday morning during 13 the course of a hearing 14 before the Committee Mr. Padraig Lankford, solicitor, 15 interrupted the examination of a witness by Mr. David 10:33 16 McGrath, senior counsel, and made comments which were 17 critical of Mr. John Cooney, author and journalist. 18 Mr. Lankford now wishes to withdraw absolutely these 19 comments, and any other comment which he made during 20 the course of his intervention which might be 10:33 21 interpreted as being critical of Mr. Cooney. He also 22 apologises unreservedly and without qualification to 23 Mr. Cooney for any offence which these comments may 24 have caused. 25 10:33 26 During the Mr. McGrath's examination, Mr. Lankford 27 suddenly became concerned that an incident referred to 28 in a book written by Mr. Cooney would be mentioned 29 before the Committee, notwithstanding that the Chairman 6 1 of the Committee had stated at the public hearing on 2 Tuesday, 13th June 2006 that the Committee would not 3 have any regard to the matter unless the Committee was 4 referred to it in writing. It was in this context that 5 Mr. Lankford spontaneously made his personal 10:34 6 intervention in the heat of the moment, so to speak. 7 8 He accepts that the comments were inappropriate and for 9 that reason he is now happy to issue his unreserved and 10 unqualified withdrawal and apology and for it to be 10:34 11 read into the record of the Committee's hearings. 12 13 Further, Mr. Lankford apologise to the Committee for 14 any inconvenience which his comments may have caused to 15 it and he hopes that this statement will put the matter 10:34 16 right. That's the conclusion of the statement and 17 apology, Mr. Chairman. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes, 19 Mr. MacMahon. I am sorry, 20 Mr. Cooney, yes. 10:34 21 MR. COONEY: I would request that you 22 adjourn in order to give me 23 time to have legal advice as to regard my position in 24 the light of the statement and combining that with my 25 request for legal assistance. 10:34 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Well, we have a 27 request for legal 28 representation by Mr. Cooney arising out of events 29 which happened yesterday. Since then we have had an 7 1 apology by Mr. O'Sullivan on behalf of Mr. Lankford in 2 request of the comments made. Nothing that happens 3 here, or nothing that we say or determine here, affects 4 in any way any rights that Mr. Cooney has and he is 5 free, of course, to seek legal advice as to how he 10:36 6 should proceed. That's entirely a matter for him and 7 we say nothing about that and nothing I say is going to 8 impair any rights that he has. 9 10 As to the question of legal representation. There is 10:36 11 nothing that is within the remit of the Committee or 12 the Commission which could be investigated that would 13 be a relevant matter and there is no question in the 14 circumstances of any legal representation being granted 15 that would create an issue that would not be a proper 10:37 16 issue for this Inquiry, this Tribunal. But, as I say, 17 nothing of this in any way affects anything, any 18 entitlement of Mr. Cooney to seek such redress as he 19 may be advised or as he may think proper. 20 10:37 21 But in the circumstances, we note what has been said by 22 Mr. Cooney and by Mr. O'Sullivan on behalf of 23 Mr. Lankford. So we now proceed with the matter. Yes, 24 Mr. Cooney. 25 MR. COONEY: I take your point and I 10:37 26 will pursue this and take 27 legal advice. Given, however, that the remarks which I 28 regard as grossly defamatory were said in this 29 Commission and were unchallenged until several hours 8 1 later I had to seek vindication of my position. I 2 think and I am convinced that you were in dereliction 3 of your duties as Chairman of this Commission and I 4 would ask you to consider your position as Chairman of 5 this Commission pending the resolution of my legal 10:38 6 complaint, of which I am not being granted legal 7 representation by the State. 8 9 I consequently ask you to adjourn to give me time as a 10 private citizen who has had to go off the story today 10:38 11 from my newspaper the Irish Independent, who has 12 suffered trauma last night and yesterday because of the 13 inaction of this Committee in defence of my rights, I 14 do not think in conscience that you can continue this 15 hearing until my particular case is underway in terms 10:38 16 of legal advice. 17 18 I stand here unprotected in law and I think it is 19 disgraceful that you have not granted me legal rights. 20 Mr. Lankford here is sitting with his legal 10:39 21 representatives, a whole quarry of lawyers, and I am 22 here looking for representation and I am denied it. I 23 think this is an appalling miscarriage of justice and I 24 think you should be ashamed of yourself, sir, in this 25 Commission. Once again I think you should consider 10:39 26 your position. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Thank you, 28 Mr. Cooney. Now we propose 29 to succeed, there is a lot of other -- there is a lot 9 1 of work to be done today. Yes, Mr. MacMahon. 2 MR. MacMAHON: Yes, Chairman. The next 3 witness who it is proposed 4 to call is Mr. Paul Gilligan, who is the Chief 5 Executive Officer of the Irish Society For Prevention 10:39 6 of Cruelty to Children. Perhaps Mr. Gilligan could be 7 sworn in. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Good morning, 9 Mr. Gilligan. 10 10:39 11 MR. PAUL GILLIGAN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED, 12 AS FOLLOWS, BY THE COMMISSION: 13 14 1 Q. MR. MacMAHON: I think, Mr. Gilligan, as I 15 said, you are the Chief 10:40 16 Executive Officer of the ISPCC and I think that's an 17 organisation was is in existence since 18th January 18 1956? 19 A. That's correct. 20 2 Q. I think prior to that, the functions of the ISPCC were 10:40 21 performed by the National Society for the Prevention of 22 Cruelty to Children which is a London based 23 organisation which had branches in Ireland from 1889 up 24 until 1956? 25 A. That's correct. 10:40 26 3 Q. I think the ISPCC was created on 18th January 1956 and 27 it took over those functions on 1st March of that year? 28 A. That's correct. 29 4 Q. I think it assumed responsibility for all the work 10 1 previously done by the NSPCC? 2 A. That's correct. 3 5 Q. I think for the purpose of preparing a statement for 4 the Commission and also for the purpose of preparing to 5 give evidence to the Commission, the Society has relied 10:40 6 on various sources of information. I think, first and 7 foremost, a review of documentation in the possession 8 of the Society was performed? 9 A. That's correct. 10 6 Q. I think that the information available, which has been 10:41 11 referred to in the statement provided, comprise of some 12 original sources, Inspector's handbooks, that kind of 13 thing, and also a number of reviews which were prepared 14 over the years and presented on behalf of the Society? 15 A. A number of annual reports, that's correct. 10:41 16 7 Q. I think there is some limitation of the documentation 17 which is available, I think that's partially explained 18 by a fire which occurred in the Molesworth Street 19 office of the Society, I think it was in 1961? 20 A. That's correct, there are significant limitations in 10:41 21 the amount of material available to us. Unfortunately, 22 we don't have an explanation as to where the other 23 material has gone, there was a fire in our head office 24 in 1961, perhaps material was destroyed in that. With 25 the change, with the formation of the ISPCC in 1956 10:42 26 perhaps some material was brought over to London to the 27 headquarters of NSPCC. Certainly some annual reports 28 were brought over there and some administration files, 29 but unfortunately we cannot account for where the files 11 1 are gone or material is gone. 2 8 Q. Have inquiries been made in London as to whether papers 3 were sent there and what papers reside there? 4 A. Yes, the inquiries we made to London have indicated 5 that they are not in position of any case material, 10:42 6 that we have annual reports, copies of which we have 7 now obtained and have in our head office in Molesworth 8 Street. So it would appear that they are not in 9 possession of any case files at this moment in time. 10 9 Q. I think in preparing for the statement and for your 10:42 11 evidence there has been some liaison with former staff 12 of the Society? 13 A. That's correct. 14 10 Q. I think those staff members who survive were contacted 15 in writing, I think? 10:43 16 A. That's correct. In preparation for our statement to 17 the Commission we wrote to 46 former staff based on 18 having addresses for those staff and based on our 19 judgment as to whether they would have any information 20 to give us. Now, previously we had written to a small 10:43 21 number of staff in attempts to find where the files may 22 have gone. Out of those staff, very few numbers, 23 actually, we were in a position to contact. Very few 24 came back to us. We have overall in the last five 25 years talked to five social workers, one inspector, a 10:43 26 CEO, a previous CEO, a financial fundraising person, an 27 administrator, a chairman and a board member. So 12 28 members of staff in total over the last three to four 29 years. 12 1 MR. MacMAHON: I think you are here 2 representing the Society to 3 answer any questions that may arise and I think that 4 questions initially are going to be raised by 5 Mr. Gageby and I think Mr. McGrath then may have some 10:44 6 questions for you and I may have some follow on 7 questions after that. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you. 9 MR. MacMAHON: Thank you. 10 10:44 11 END OF QUESTIONING OF MR. GILLIGAN BY THE COMMISSION 12 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Gageby. 14 15 10:44 16 MR. PAUL GILLIGAN WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 17 MR. GAGEBY: 18 19 MR. GAGEBY: Good morning, Mr. Gilligan. 20 A. Good morning. 10:44 21 11 Q. I appear as amicus curiae to the Commission. I think 22 you have very helpfully put together a large amount of 23 materials to assist in looking at the background to the 24 committal of children to the industrial school system? 25 A. Yes. Well, we have attempted to cooperate fully with 10:44 26 the work of the Commission. We welcome the opportunity 27 to be able to contribute to the work and hope that we 28 can clarify some of the roles of the ISPCC. So we have 29 engaged consultants in the last few month to review the 13 1 documentation. We had archived the files a number of 2 years ago and we have responded to discovery orders and 3 attempted to locate as much information as we can. 4 12 Q. I think, looking at the documents, firstly we have the 5 more formal documents which would deal with the 10:45 6 establishment of the Society, the Inspector's rule 7 books and the like. We then also have some case files, 8 not countrywide unfortunately; isn't that correct? 9 A. That's correct. We have annual reports, in fact dating 10 back to 1900. Pre-1956 those annual reports consisted 10:45 11 of branch reports, which makes reviewing of them quite 12 difficult because it would be 13 or 14 reports for each 13 year. But from 1956 onwards we have annual reports for 14 each year pertaining just to Ireland, the ISPCC. The 15 situation with the case files is we have 8,000 old case 10:46 16 files. They relate to specific areas, Mayo, Wexford 17 and Cork, I think are the three areas. So there is no 18 case files existing relating to other areas 19 unfortunately. 20 13 Q. Just so we get an overview, because I think the main 10:46 21 interest of the Committee is probably really from the 22 mid-1930's through to the 1970's. Firstly, roughly -- 23 we know the Society was organised in local divisions, 24 roughly how many inspectors would have been operating, 25 and it is a very rough estimate, let's say in the 10:46 26 1930's and were these people full time? 27 A. Yes, we estimate that we have 14 branches within 28 Ireland and that there was an Inspector connected to 29 each branch. At some stage, and we suspect it may have 14 1 been later, perhaps in the 1940's or 1950's, Dublin was 2 divided into five areas and an Inspector was employed 3 for each of those areas. I think, basically the review 4 of the material, it would appear that we have 14 5 Inspectors which later raised to 18 Inspectors, five of 10:47 6 which were based in Dublin. 7 14 Q. Were these people full time? 8 A. Yes, they were full-time employees. 9 15 Q. What was the essential remit of the Society both 10 theoretically, in other words under the rule book, and, 10:47 11 in fact, in the 1930's what was the function of the 12 NSPCC in Irish Society? 13 A. The functions of the Society remarkably have remained 14 consistent pretty much to the 1970's and were 15 identified when the NSPCC was first established. 10:48 16 16 Q. In a nutshell that would be? 17 A. To prevent the public and private wrongs of children 18 and the corruption of their morals, to prevent the 19 corruption of their morals. To take action for the 20 enforcement of laws for the protection of children. To 10:48 21 provide and maintain an organisation for the above 22 objects and to do all such things that are lawful to 23 ensure that these objectives are obtained. Those 24 key -- that mission statement is identified in the 25 Royal Charter -- but it is consistently restated in the 10:48 26 annual reports right the way up to the 1970's. 27 17 Q. So would it be true to say this was -- to use the 28 modern phrase, child centre, that had the welfare of 29 the child was first and paramount consideration? 15 1 A. Yes, it is very difficult to judge -- review the 2 material, other than to say that clearly from the 3 annual reports and from the Inspector's directory, of 4 which we have two copies, a 1947 copy and a 1960 copy 5 which has some slight amendments, yes, it is a clear 10:49 6 statement that the protection of children from cruelty 7 -- the prevention of cruelty, the protection of 8 children was the core mission statement and was the 9 driving principle of the organisation. 10 18 Q. Reviewing the materials, how typically might an 10:49 11 Inspector, either in a rural or an urban area, come to 12 visit a family or to investigate a child and its 13 welfare? 14 A. Well, the annual reports, I suppose, provide us with a 15 rich source of information, vis-a-vis that. Just two 10:49 16 point to make on that: In most of the annual reports 17 there is an identification of the referral source to an 18 Inspector and there is also a clear indication of the 19 nature of the complaint or what the category of the 20 complaint would be viewed as. I suppose there is two 10:50 21 key points to make on that: The category of complaint 22 is clearly related to the 1908 Children Act which was 23 the legislation that appeared to drive the work of the 24 ISPCC, NSPCC Inspectors. So the categorisation of the 25 types of referrals related directly to the Children 10:50 26 Act. 27 28 The sources of referral, the bulk of the referrals, the 29 categories were general public, the Gardaí, school 16 1 officials, other officials and discovered by Inspector, 2 they would be the five categories of referral that are 3 identified in the annual reports. By far the bulk of 4 the referrals came from the general public. 5 19 Q. So that might be somebody dropping a line to an 10:50 6 Inspector and saying, "this family seems to be in a bit 7 of problem or the children appear verminous", or 8 something like that? 9 A. That's correct. It would be a neighbour or a concerned 10 person writing or talking to an Inspector directly. It 10:51 11 would also include -- and the case material on any of 12 the reports support, would also include self-referrals, 13 parents approaching the Inspectors themselves. We 14 don't have -- unfortunately, the annual reports don't 15 identify that as a specific category. But there is 10:51 16 some research commissioned as part of a PhD that would 17 have indicated as high as 60% of the cases that were 18 reviewed by that researcher were self-referrals, people 19 who approach the Inspector themselves. Of those cases 20 that resulted in a committal. 10:51 21 20 Q. Does that appear to indicate that the Society and its 22 Inspectors were viewed well by people as being 23 trustworthy and not partisan? 24 A. Well I suppose I can only answer that question by 25 looking to the modern day Society and saying to you 10:52 26 that any charity or organisation in a position of ours 27 will judge their credibility, so to speak, with the 28 public on two issues, the number of referrals you will 29 receive directly from the public and your fundraised 17 1 income and whether they support you or not. I think in 2 both of those measures, the annual reports clearly 3 indicate that -- I mean, you are talking averages 70% 4 referrals came from the general public. All of our 5 income, up to 1963, was fundraised income, enough money 10:52 6 to fund right the way through a world war effectively, 7 to fund 14 Inspectors. I think, but I can't answer 8 this specifically, that there was public confidence in 9 the work of the NSPCC/ISPCC. 10 21 Q. I think one of the other attributes, we know that 10:53 11 between the 1930's and the 1960's the publically 12 maintained institutions were all run by the religious. 13 Had the Society any relationship with the religious -- 14 any religious form? 15 A. Well the patrons of the Society, if you review the 10:53 16 annual reports, the patrons of the Society were -- 17 there was representation from both the Catholic and 18 Church of Ireland religious, the Archbishop, the 19 primary of all Ireland in both cases, the President 20 in -- well, with the founding of the State, became a 10:53 21 patron. But the relationship that appears to emerge 22 from a review of the material with the industrial 23 schools and the religious who ran the industrial 24 schools was primarily to do with the availability of 25 places for children. There is some evidence of 10:54 26 communication but it is centred around whether there 27 was places available. There is some communication from 28 industrial schools indicating that they had places 29 available. There is also some small amount of 18 1 communication regarding parents seeking the return of 2 their children or the Department of Education seeking 3 the return of children to their parents. 4 22 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. Could I come back and 5 let's try and take a snapshot of the mid to late 1930's 10:54 6 of the type of cases that the Society was dealing with, 7 the way in which problems were sought to be solved and 8 the relationship between that and committal. Now, I 9 think you have been able to abstract a number of 10 surviving cases which I am not actually going to invite 10:54 11 you to tell us much about, but what in the 1930's 12 appeared to be the primary difficulties which caused 13 the NSPCC Inspector to call, as it were? 14 A. Well I think the source of information, as you quite 15 rightly point out, some available case material on the 10:55 16 annual reports. But I think -- and it is very 17 difficult to make an exact judgment about the dynamics 18 within a case, but I think that neglect -- what was 19 categorised as neglect appeared to be the single 20 biggest factor resulting in referrals and subsequently, 10:55 21 it would appear, committals. I think that it is clear 22 that the circumstances in which the families lived in 23 that time were extremely difficult. 24 23 Q. Would you like to say something about what housing 25 appears to be? 10:55 26 A. Housing, in some of the cases the housing was described 27 as filthy, squalid. There is reference in the case 28 files to no proper sanitary conditions. Many children 29 and parents living in very small accommodation. Some 19 1 of the descriptions also -- well, employment was a huge 2 issue. The number of children and trying to feed them. 3 I mean, there is number of references through the 4 annual reports and cases regarding sort of -- in one 5 case -- in one annual report it talks about the poverty 10:56 6 line and the NSPCC are arguing that there is no formal 7 poverty line but arguing that the amount of money that 8 people are living on is simply too low to feed. 9 24 Q. For instance, if we are to go back and you are talking 10 about neglect, I think what the reports indicate, which 10:56 11 is obviously what the Inspector thought, it could be as 12 simple as just dirt and verminous hair, insufficient 13 bedding, large number of people living in very small 14 amounts of accommodation, perhaps six to ten people in 15 one room, children of all sexes and adults in the same 10:57 16 bed and the like? 17 A. That's correct. 18 25 Q. That's not untypical. That's also in rural and also in 19 some of the towns? 20 A. That's correct and in Dublin city itself and in Cork. 10:57 21 26 Q. One of the ways that the Inspectors were asked to 22 intervene was there to try and make application to the 23 local authorities for rehousing, the provision from the 24 public assistance officer of clean bedding or the 25 sterilisation of bedding that was there, procuring 10:57 26 additional clothing, that sort of stuff? 27 A. Yes, that's correct. It would appear from the annual 28 reports and case files that the Inspector conducted 29 their business very much as the Inspectors directly 20 1 would have determined. It is very clear from that and 2 from the annual reports that they were obliged to make 3 every attempt to support the family, to persuade either 4 through information support or warnings, the parents to 5 take their responsibilities to care for their children 10:58 6 seriously. It is mentioned in the directory that any 7 Inspector who simply seeks a prosecution of a family is 8 liable for dismissal, for example. 9 10 So, I think it is best to say that the Inspectors 10:58 11 appeared to focus on practical support. It wasn't 12 about providing counselling or social work, as we 13 understand it today. It would be very much about 14 trying to organise clothes, perhaps in some cases 15 organise a job, certainly medical care for children, in 10:58 16 some cases housing. But it is clearly practical 17 support and also providing the parents with clear 18 indication of what would be expected. 19 27 Q. In many of these cases it may be parents who were, in a 20 sense, a bit adrift and the Inspector could be an 10:59 21 interface with applying to the local clinic for some 22 medical assistance or local GP or to the public 23 assistance officer or to the housing authority, if any. 24 Those sort of things were things that classically 25 seemed to have been done by the Cruelty Man, as he was 10:59 26 known; isn't that right? 27 A. That's correct. I understand that the Inspectors were 28 known in some areas in the country as the Cruelty Man. 29 But, yes, I mean, I think one of the things that comes 21 1 clearly from the -- sorry, I should probably point out 2 that the annual reports contain case examples, so 3 although we might not have the actual case material 4 they have case examples. The combination of factors is 5 striking. I think very often -- if I can find the 11:00 6 reference. I mean, for example, the directory would 7 talk about looking at evidence, things like is the man 8 and woman earning any money? What would they earn if 9 they were working? Does the man -- what does the man 10 allow the woman for housekeeping? What rent are they 11:00 11 paying? So I think there was an assessment of their 12 means. But alongside that a lot of the cases talk 13 about dirty children, dirty conditions, alcoholism, 14 abandonment by fathers and then there would be a 15 separate range of cases that deal with unmarried 11:00 16 mothers and what they term as illegitimate children. 17 28 Q. Yes. Before we come to that, just looking at the issue 18 of, to use the modern phrase, what services were 19 available to people who were being visited by the 20 Cruelty Man, this is obviously before even an incipient 11:01 21 social welfare State is there, who else apart from the 22 Cruelty Man might be liable to call on a family in 23 terrible difficulties, I'm talking about the 1930's and 24 1940's? 25 A. I wouldn't certainly be as knowledgeable as others 11:01 26 would be in that area. I mean, from the case files, I 27 think, there certainly would be other people that would 28 have been involved with families, either through the 29 Inspector getting them involved or they would have 22 1 already been involved. 2 29 Q. Well you could have had the Vincent dePaul or the 3 Legion of Mary perhaps on the voluntary side? 4 A. The Vincent dePaul would arise in some of the annual 5 reports that we reviewed. The Legion of Mary didn't. 11:01 6 Medical services would be important, housing 7 authorities or housing officers. The corporations and 8 Councils appeared to have had the responsibility for 9 caring for children before the establishment of the 10 health boards, they would appear to have been the 11:02 11 authority that would have decided on whatever relief, 12 whether that be poor relief or social services relief, 13 that the families might have been eligible for. The 14 ISPCC/NSPCC had a clothing branch which was also 15 involved. I think they would be primarily the others 11:02 16 that come up from the case files. 17 30 Q. Just looking at the economic circumstance from the late 18 1930's let's say, if your reports would indicate 19 roughly what appeared to be the income of the family, 20 what the father, because that was usually the case, was 11:02 21 earning, what the rent was, any other outgoings, in the 22 case of unemployment, I think, it would indicate what 23 he would be getting on unemployment assistance if he 24 was eligible, if not eligible what he might be getting 25 on public assistance, if he got it; isn't that right? 11:03 26 A. That's right. The assessments of the families were 27 very practical assessments. 28 31 Q. Of course one of the difficulties was that the public 29 assistance was discretionary and it seems that in a 23 1 number of the cases looked at by the Inspectors there 2 may have been a refusal to actually grant public 3 assistance and there may have been intervention to try 4 and secure that as a very small amount of money towards 5 the family income? 11:03 6 A. That's correct. A number of the annual reports raise 7 the issue of the lack of -- the low rate of public 8 assistance, whether it be the poor, I am not sure the 9 actual term, the poor relief and social services 10 relief. One of the annual reports identifies -- gives 11:03 11 a very strong argument for the fact that it costs more 12 to place a child in an industrial school than it would 13 if they increased the social services relief. I think 14 that relates to the 1940's. 15 32 Q. Then I think the children's allowance came in during 11:04 16 the war and that was, I think, the first, as it were, 17 flat rate payment to a family, isn't that right, of a 18 modest amount, but it was the first? 19 A. I am afraid I can't answer that question, I'm not sure. 20 33 Q. But the Society, I think, ever year in its report did a 11:04 21 number of things. Firstly, it gave a case example so 22 that people outside of the system, as it were, could 23 appreciate the levels of poverty and difficulty for 24 people in the country; secondly, it indicated what 25 actions it had taken; isn't that right? 11:04 26 A. That's correct. If you look through the annual reports 27 there was a section that effectively, as you quite 28 rightly say, identified specific concerns that had 29 arisen that year, mainly with policy issues. 1935/36 24 1 they talk about mentally defective children, epileptic 2 children and children in overcrowded housing, for 3 example. It would seem from the annual reports that 4 they were lobbying and campaigning on these issues 5 because there are some examples where they identify 11:05 6 that a change has occurred and that the Society had, in 7 some level, instigated or certainly had influenced that 8 change. In 1937/38 they talk about the home assistance 9 being inadequate, they talk about juvenile delinquency. 10 In 1938/39 they talk about bad housing and slums and 11:05 11 inadequate poor relief and begging. There is lots of 12 examples through the annual reports of, I think, what 13 would be deemed in this day and age to be considered 14 campaigning and lobbying for social change. 15 34 Q. If we were to try and do a breakdown of the cases where 11:06 16 the Cruelty Man called and what might happen, I mean, 17 firstly, what was the main aim of the Society when the 18 Cruelty Man called, what was the ideal situation to 19 happen after he called? 20 A. Again the directory and the annual reports appear to be 11:06 21 at pains to emphasise the fact that the role of the 22 Inspector is to ensure that change occurs for the 23 child, that the parents are either supported or warned 24 to make change for the child so that the child is 25 adequately cared for and protected. That's 11:06 26 re-emphasised right the way through the reports. I 27 think that the next step was to try and obtain 28 practical support for the family. 29 35 Q. Okay. 25 1 A. Again to emphasise that that tended to be very 2 practical, whether that be housing, or a job, or 3 clothing or medical assistance. Again, there is 4 examples of how that has happened through the case 5 examples of getting the child to the doctor, insisting 11:07 6 that the child be taken to the hospital. There is one 7 case example that we gave in our statement of a family 8 with a child with cleft palate and the work that was 9 done by the Inspector to ensure that the child was 10 cared for medically. 11:07 11 12 They also engaged in what they called supervision 13 visits and the directory clearly identified how those 14 supervision visits should be conducted. It says they 15 must be conducted, they were obliged to keep reports of 11:07 16 the work they did. If there wasn't change and they 17 felt there was no other option then they would move to 18 look at alternative care for the child, it would 19 appear, and that's when the issue of committal would 20 have arisen. 11:07 21 36 Q. Just before you come to that, I also think there was a 22 number of other functions because it was originally the 23 National Society, there were clearly branches in the 24 United Kingdom and I think the records indicate, and in 25 fact the Commission has also seen in private session, 11:08 26 aspects where occasionally one or other parent has gone 27 to England, particularly in the case of the father, if 28 working and their attempts were to find him if there 29 had been some slow down or abandonment of sending money 26 1 back? 2 A. That's correct. There are a number of case examples, 3 in fact in one case it is to America, and the network 4 that the Society had was that they would contact the 5 Inspector in Leicester or Liverpool or London who would 11:08 6 look up the father and remind -- the wording I think 7 they used, is remind him of his responsibilities. 8 There is one particular case where the -- I think the 9 individual is in the army and the army agreed to hold 10 back his pay. So, yes, there was networking where 11:08 11 other NSPCC Inspectors to attempt to ensure that 12 fathers who had absconded, their responsibilities would 13 have been held to account, so to speak. 14 37 Q. Is it possible to say what sort of proportion of cases 15 might attract prosecution of either or both parent, in 11:09 16 the very crudest sense? I think at page 10 of 17 your...(INTERJECTION)? 18 A. Yes, sorry for the delay. In 1956/57 annual report it 19 identifies that 1.3% of the cases referred were the 20 subject of proceedings. 11:09 21 38 Q. Now those proceedings could be of either variety, is 22 that right, of either committal or prosecution? 23 A. Yes, I suppose what we can't be sure of is that all 24 children who were committed to industrial schools were 25 committed through the courts, but it would appear 11:09 26 strongly through the annual reports that -- certainly 27 the directory clearly identifies that they have to have 28 been committed through the courts. So, yes, 29 proceedings could have been prosecution of the parents 27 1 or committal to an industrial school. But the 2 statistics for -- we looked as seven regions between 3 pre-1956, dating back to the 1930's. For example, in 4 Cork only 2.56% of the referrals were subject to 5 proceedings; in Dublin 1.95%; in Clonmel 1.85%; the 11:10 6 highest was Kerry, 4.6%. So that those are the sort of 7 percentages that are being presented all the time. The 8 Maynooth research specifically was looking at 9 committals and only came up with 20%, but that isn't 10 supported by the rest of the annual reports that are 11:10 11 all indicating very low levels of prosecution. 12 39 Q. So prosecution would be essentially of the parents and 13 inviting some criminal finding against them? 14 A. Or proceedings, I suppose -- yes, and also committal of 15 children to the industrial schools. 11:11 16 40 Q. On the question of committal, in the 1940's the Society 17 seems to have been at pains to indicate whether this 18 was the first resort or the last resort, could you tell 19 us a bit about that, please? 20 A. Yes, there is some very strong quotations, I think, we 11:11 21 mention them in our statement and...(INTERJECTION). 22 41 Q. If you want to just refer to that. 23 A. Okay. 24 42 Q. It seems to have been a very live issue in the 1940's, 25 is there any historical indication as to why it should 11:11 26 be so specifically mentioned in the 1940's? 27 A. Again, it is very difficult to know, but I think one of 28 the things that emerge from the annual reports, and I 29 have to say I am simply giving my opinion on this, 28 1 there is evidence in one of the annual reports in the 2 1940's that there was concern about the levels of 3 neglect and I think in the context it was happening in 4 the world and in Ireland there was many economic 5 factors perhaps influencing how children were cared 11:12 6 for. But there would also seem to have been a need to 7 state clearly by the Society that they were not just 8 about committing children to industrial schools. I am 9 speculating but that would appear to be the case. 10 43 Q. In 1947, in one of the statements anyway? 11:12 11 A. There is one in the 1948/49. If I could take a minute, 12 I could find it here. 13 44 Q. Yes, that's fine. 14 A. Thank you. It is saying: 15 "During the year we have had to arrange 11:13 for the placing of a large number of 16 children in industrial schools chiefly because their parents were unable to 17 maintain them, but in some cases because their home conditions were so 18 undesirable as to make it necessary to remove them, there is no doubt that in 19 these schools they received care and attention and a sound education and are 20 brought up to be useful members of the 11:13 community. 21 Nevertheless, however, grateful we may 22 be for the devoted work of the Orders which conduct these schools, it must be 23 recognised that the children are to a large extent deprived of home 24 influences and it would be much better if we could avoid sending them to such 25 institutions. 11:13 26 If their own homes are impossible, good foster homes would give them a 27 healthier and happier introduction to life. It is, however, seldom possible 28 to find such homes in the case presented to the Society. 29 There is another aspect of the careers 29 1 of such children which calls for consideration, besides those committed 2 through no fault of their own or even of their parent, there are others who 3 find their way to industrial schools through the causes of grounds of some 4 form of juvenile delinquency, even if it is only such unruliness as failure 5 to attend the ordinary primary 11:14 schools." 6 7 8 9 I don't know if you want me to continue with that? 10 45 Q. No, just pause there. It is clear that there is some 11:14 11 social feeling that there was a taint on children who 12 had to be committed because of difficulties at home and 13 that, in some sense, they were been tarred with 14 juvenile delinquency or delinquency of some sort? 15 A. That's correct. The paragraph goes on to talk about 11:14 16 that and effectively, in my own words, it would 17 indicate that they are worried about the label that 18 people would carry and how that would impact on their 19 later lives and that is clearly coming out of the rest 20 of that paragraph. I think the other interesting thing 11:15 21 about this, if you could bear with me. 22 46 Q. Yes, please do? 23 A. They say here, this is in 1948/49: 24 "The whole question of the treatment of deprived children in this country calls 25 for investigation, such as it has 11:15 received recently in England". 26 27 47 Q. That's probably the Curtis Report or something? 28 A. I am afraid I don't know. I think in 1948 they were 29 clearly saying that there was a need to review it and 30 1 they have identified. I think they also have there: 2 "Other aspects also the industrial school child which wouldn't pay 3 attention." 4 5 Then they talk about the labelling component of that. 11:15 6 48 Q. That's right, aftercare? 7 A. Yes. 8 49 Q. Also one of the other difficulties that the Society 9 points out is that one of the difficulties, I suppose 10 essentially for the boys, is that the trade unions 11:15 11 appeared to have a hold on entry to trades, that's in 12 fact, what's mentioned in the report? 13 A. Yes, that's correct, and I think the difficulty for any 14 of the children who were committed to industrial 15 schools to even enter a trade, I think that's clear 11:16 16 coming from that. 17 50 Q. As I say, there is also criticism of aftercare and the 18 affording of secondary education, is that correct, to 19 children? 20 A. That's correct. 11:16 21 51 Q. Can I just pause there and just bring you on. You 22 noted also that, I think, in 1953 and 1954, against the 23 background of a criticism that maybe the Society were 24 too keen on committing children, the Society again 25 addressed its vision. I wonder if you would just 11:16 26 indicate to us what it was that the Society said in 27 this, refers to what is called: 28 "A mistaken impression in the minds of many people who regard the committal of 29 children to industrial schools as a sovereign remedy for unhappiness or 31 1 unsuitable conditions in the home." 2 3 4 A. That's correct. The 1953/54 report actually refers 5 also to the constitution, if my memory serves me right. 11:17 6 52 Q. It does, that the family is the natural and primary 7 educator of the children? 8 A. That's correct. I think it says: "Home or no home", 9 is the heading on the paragraph. It goes on to read: 10 "Perhaps the greatest of the rights of 11:17 the child which we are continually 11 fighting to maintain is the right to a secure and happy home with its family. 12 In this we follow the provision of the constitution of the country which may 13 be quoted here." 14 15 And it quotes the constitution. It goes on to say: 11:17 16 It is a clear working rule in all our cases where the question of committal 17 arises that every effort must be made to find some other solution. A 18 committal is only sought or advised where there is no other way out." 19 20 11:17 21 53 Q. Can I just pause to ask you this: Could an Inspector 22 off his own bat, or her own bat, cause the committal of 23 a child? 24 A. No, the directory identifies the process which the 25 Inspector had to follow. Their central office needed 11:18 26 to be informed of any intention to seek a committal of 27 a child. Evidence would have to have been, obviously, 28 presented to the courts and the courts would make the 29 final decision. I think the -- alongside that, the 32 1 Inspector could not contact central office unless he 2 had talked to the honorary secretary of the branch, so 3 the process, he or she would have reported to the 4 honorary secretary of their branch and would have 5 informed the central office. So there is provision for 11:18 6 an emergency but I think where you had the majority of 7 committals, unless there was an exceptional situation, 8 would have had to have been processed through central 9 office. 10 54 Q. Can I ask you does that mean that the central office 11:18 11 had to consent or did they just have to be informed of 12 the attention to inspect? 13 A. I think it is consent. I would have to just check the 14 wording exactly but my memory is it is consent. 15 55 Q. What do you think that says about the work of the 11:19 16 Society and its view as to where committal fell in the 17 range of child care options, to use a modern phase? 18 A. My impression read the annual report, even from the 19 very founding of the organisation, where you have back 20 to 1908 statements like "we are not there to punish 11:19 21 parents, we are there to help take the responsibility. 22 Our primary focus is the protection and the prevention 23 of cruelty". I mean those statements are clearly made 24 right the way through the annual reports. I feel that 25 based on that information it would be that committal 11:19 26 was a last resort for Inspector. Sorry, not a last 27 resort, it would be one of the last resorts. I think 28 one of the annual reports identifies that there were 29 worse, in parent's eyes certainly and in the eyes' of 33 1 the Inspectors, there was worse options. 2 56 Q. Like? 3 A. Well the work houses are talked about in the 30's and 4 some indication that parents were asking the Inspector 5 to get their children into industrial schools because 11:20 6 otherwise they would end up in work houses. There is 7 also the issue of infant mortality. 8 57 Q. I will come back to that in a second. 9 A. Okay. 10 58 Q. While we are on the subject of committal -- sorry, can 11:20 11 I just say I think that phrase in the 1953/54 report 12 was, "a poor home they say is better than no home". 13 "It is a clear working rule in all 14 cases where a question of committal arises that every effort must be made 15 to find some other solution and 11:20 committal is only sought or advised 16 where there is no other way out." 17 18 I think that is it? 19 A. That's right, yes. 20 59 Q. I think, as part of the historical aspect, 250 case 11:21 21 files were examined by some research people, this is 22 the Maynooth NUI research. I think they were able to 23 elicit, although this may not be representative, 20% 24 resulted in the committal of children? 25 A. That is correct. From a sample of 250 cases I think. 11:21 26 60 Q. Firstly, we indicate that that could not be a 27 representative sample because we know from the rest of 28 the figures that it is somewhere between one and three 29 or four percent result in proceedings? 34 1 A. That's correct. Just to put this piece of research in 2 context, it was conducted as part of a Ph.D project and 3 the researcher was seeking out cases where it was 4 likely that there would have been committals. I think 5 she has identified that in her research, that there was 11:22 6 a selective sample, because she was interested in 7 looking at the reasons behind committal. 8 61 Q. So it is unlikely they are going to be looking at what 9 I am going to call minor cases or the cases that only 10 had a passing reference? 11:22 11 A. That's correct. I think she points that out in her -- 12 it is actually the introduction to her Ph.D as opposed 13 to the Ph.D. So it would certainly be a skewed sample 14 I think. 15 62 Q. What it does do is it appears to look at 50 committal 11:22 16 cases in which there was some material from the 17 Society. That's the way I would look at it. 18 A. (WITNESS NODS) 19 63 Q. Okay. It would appear that in 39 of those 50 cases the 20 parents initiated contact with the ISPCC? 11:22 21 A. That's correct. 22 64 Q. That was with a view to having their children 23 committed? 24 A. That's correct. 25 65 Q. Now that may not be representative and these therefore 11:22 26 may be the worst cases. Is it possible to try and work 27 out how many parents, surviving parents, consented to 28 the Orders or didn't consent? Have we any insight into 29 that? 35 1 A. Unfortunately not from the records we have we don't. I 2 mean I suppose one indication is that Maynooth report 3 and there are some case examples through the research 4 we did indicating mothers of illegitimate children -- 5 they were termed illegitimate children -- seeking a 11:23 6 committal. But we don't have anyway of really identify 7 the percentages per se. 8 66 Q. I may be wrong and I may just have extracted some other 9 figure, but I have somehow in my mind that possibly 10 two-thirds of parents, and that may include mothers of 11:23 11 illegitimate children, may have consented, does that 12 ring a bell with you? 13 A. Well I think that may be the Maynooth report, unless I 14 have forgotten something in the material. I know that 15 in our statement that we did identify that a 11:24 16 significant percentage of the general referrals, the 17 referrals from the public were from parents. But I 18 don't think we actually identified a specific 19 percentage. I can look at the material later on and 20 just review that. 11:24 21 67 Q. That's all right. Just coming back to the issue of 22 committal and before a child was committed to an 23 industrial school. Could we first look at did the 24 Inspector have any contact with the industrial school 25 to find out was there a place available, suitability 11:24 26 and all that sort of stuff? 27 68 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Could I just clarify 28 something, Mr. Gageby. 29 Mr. Gilligan, when you say that a significant 36 1 percentage does that mean that some parent -- that the 2 initial contact might be "we're in trouble, we are in 3 difficulty", or whatever it is to the Inspector and the 4 Inspector comes along? Is that what you mean by saying 5 that? When you said a significant percentage of 11:25 6 referrals, that's the initial contact, "we would like 7 some help from the Society"? 8 A. That's correct, Judge. The initial contact would be -- 9 the annual reports define referrals or the initial 10 contact in that category and the biggest single 11:25 11 category was the general public and within that were 12 the parents themselves. So, yes, that would be the 13 initial contact. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 15 69 Q. MR. GAGEBY: I think just to assist, in 11:25 16 the research -- which 17 obviously is more skewed towards committal as a fair 18 average -- I think it was noted at page 7 of that 19 research that in 39 of these cases, and this is the 20 80%: 11:25 21 "Parents initiated contact with the 22 ISPCC for the express purpose of having their children committed." 23 24 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: 39 of the 50 cases? 11:26 26 MR. GAGEBY: 39 of the 50 cases. 80%, 27 yes. 28 70 Q. MR. LOWE: In using the term "parents" 29 that obscures that it might 37 1 often be a parent, the other parent having died or gone 2 somewhere else. 3 A. That report also identifies that 18 of those cases 4 involved what were termed illegitimate children, where 5 you had one parent. The issue of the one parent with 11:26 6 an illegitimate child was a big issue because a parent 7 couldn't work if they had a child and the families 8 often didn't want to or had issues around that parent 9 returning home with a baby. That is, again, identified 10 right the way through the annual reports as a big 11:26 11 issue. 12 71 Q. MR. GAGEBY: We will come back to that. 13 Just looking around the 14 process of committal, I think it does appear that 15 Inspector, if he had received the sanction to proceed 11:27 16 with committal, would make the application himself to 17 the courts for committal; isn't that right? 18 A. That's correct. The material would also suggest that 19 they would assess, identify a location. 20 72 Q. A school? 11:27 21 A. A school, yes. There are some indications that they 22 sought to identify schools near the homes of the 23 families. But I think availability was probably the 24 key factor in their decision to place a child. 25 73 Q. I mean looking at that, because this is something that 11:27 26 has come up with the Commission, for instance some 27 children from Dublin might wonder why they ended up in 28 West Connaught. 29 A. Uh-huh. 38 1 74 Q. I mean one assumption, and it is probably a reasonable 2 one, is that there simply wasn't accommodation in 3 Dublin if Dublin was the more desirable place? 4 A. Yes, that would appear to be from the cases that we 5 have. From the case examples that we have it would 11:28 6 appear that there were attempts to keep the children 7 close. But I think availability of placements would 8 appear to be the main driving force behind the 9 decision. 10 75 Q. However, there may have been one circumstance in which 11:28 11 that wouldn't have been perhaps be so much the fore. 12 In the case of an illegitimate child, where the mother 13 was effectively surrendering all relationship with the 14 child, and perhaps the mother's family also, perhaps 15 similar considerations didn't apply. I am just 11:28 16 throwing it out to see if that would appear to be one 17 factor that might have operated. Is there any indicate 18 of that? 19 A. I am afraid I don't. There is nothing from the case 20 files or the annual reports that would indicate that. 11:29 21 76 Q. It is just that the Commission has gone through a 22 number of private hearings and it is sometimes 23 difficult to divine why children, particularly from 24 Dublin, would have gone somewhere else. I can just 25 think of examples where neither or both might apply. 11:29 26 Anyway. What sort of knowledge did the Inspectors have 27 of the industrial schools is it possible to glean from 28 the papers, or of particular industrial schools? 29 A. It would appear from -- we have not come across any 39 1 information that would indicate that Inspectors were 2 visiting industrial schools or had any role in that 3 regard. There is communication regarding individual 4 children, there is evidence of communication from 5 industrial schools where there is brief reports given 11:29 6 of the progress of children. So certainly based on 7 what we have done for this statement it would appear 8 that the relationship would be, one, to find out if 9 there was a place. 10 77 Q. Yes. That would be with a view to an Inspector saying 11:30 11 I am hoping to move an application next week, can you 12 accommodate a child of two or a boy of two or a girl of 13 three, or whatever? 14 A. That's correct. Secondly, where a residential facility 15 may contact the Inspector and say we have a place, so 11:30 16 that you are aware of that. Thirdly, where there would 17 be some communication, and I am not sure why, 18 indicating the progress of a particular child. 19 Fourthly, where there may have been a move to have a 20 child returned to their parents. 11:30 21 78 Q. That's a situation where the parents might apply to the 22 Minister for the release of their child? 23 A. That's correct. 24 79 Q. That seems to have occasionally generated 25 correspondence, is that right? 11:30 26 A. Yes. I mean there is certainly -- well, there is a 27 couple of files where, I think one or two files, where 28 there is Inspectors being asked to review the family 29 with a view to a child being returned. There is 40 1 certainly a comment in one of the annual reports in the 2 1950's which would suggest that the Department of 3 Education would have asked the Inspectors of their view 4 in regards to children returning to families. But that 5 same comment in the annual report says that their views 11:31 6 were being ignored. It appears that there was an issue 7 regarding the Department wanting to return children to 8 a family and the Inspector was reluctant. 9 10 There is also another case file where the child does 11:31 11 not want to return home and the parents are seeking 12 their return and the residential institution is writing 13 to the Inspector saying -- you know, looking for the 14 Inspector's support to try and protect the child from 15 having to return home. But that would be the nature of 11:31 16 the communication it would appear from the material we 17 have reviewed. 18 80 Q. We have heard some evidence that in one of the western 19 industrial schools the Inspector Mr. Egan occasionally 20 did call to see his charges. There is nothing to 11:32 21 indicate that in the extant papers? 22 A. No, I am afraid there isn't. 23 81 Q. Just going back to the court process. These were all, 24 of course, conducted in front of justices of the 25 District Court, isn't that right? I think the process 11:32 26 involved usually of put the County Council on notice of 27 the application since they would have some financial 28 responsibility. I think usually County Council either 29 wrote in a letter saying they have no objection, or 41 1 they sent somebody along to say they have no objection, 2 or something like that? 3 A. I think that would appear to be the case, yes. 4 82 Q. Is it possible to divine what sort of information was 5 laid before the Justice to cause them to make an Order 11:33 6 sending a child away? 7 A. In reviewing the material we didn't come across much in 8 terms of what might have been presented as evidence. 9 But the directory seems to identify very clearly what 10 sort of evidence is needed. They talk about the need 11:33 11 for -- one of the paragraphs in the directory talks 12 about hints on evidence, generally things like avoiding 13 general statements, completeness of evidence. It talks 14 about having to have medical reports and the directory 15 identifies the type of medical report that a doctor 11:33 16 should fill out vis-a-vis neglect, assault, disease, 17 medical aid. It talks about, you know, the forms of 18 reports that the Inspector is expected to develop. The 19 categories like; what was done? Who did it to whom? 20 Those sort of categorisations of gathering material. 11:34 21 It would appear that they are driven by adherence to 22 the 1908 Children's Act and also adherence -- and I 23 think it mentions in the directory that Inspectors 24 should remember that they may have to present that to 25 the courts. But we don't have any specific files that 11:34 26 talk about that actual process. 27 83 Q. There is no stenographic note or anything like that? 28 A. No. 29 84 Q. Presumably this was done orally, on whatever day was 42 1 set aside? 2 A. Certainly there is clear statements in the directory 3 and in some of the case files that the Inspector did 4 give oral evidence. But there would appear also to 5 have been reports presented the courts. We don't have 11:35 6 any of those. 7 85 Q. Obviously, there were other cases which didn't 8 necessarily come that route, where there might have 9 been Garda evidence in some of the more extreme cases? 10 A. Yeah, there is some distinction in the annual reports, 11:35 11 not in all of them, where the Inspector is asked to 12 give evidence because the prosecution is being taken by 13 somebody else. So they are a witness to a Garda 14 perhaps taking a court case. 15 86 Q. Presumably, part of the decision of the District 11:35 16 Justice might have been influenced by the extent to 17 which the parent or parents were heard, or were heard 18 to object? 19 A. Yes, it would appear that the parents were obliged to 20 attend court in almost all cases, the parent or 11:35 21 parents. Certainly some of the case files would 22 indicate that the Justice asked the parents to explain 23 their behaviour. It is very hard to tell what weight 24 was give to be what evidence from our case files. 25 87 Q. Presumably, looking at it from this remove, the good 11:36 26 name of the Society was probably part of the reasons 27 which would cause a District Justice to commit, in the 28 sense that if he took the view that the Society was at 29 least scrupulous and wasn't likely to try and remove 43 1 children unwontedly or against their own interests? 2 A. I think -- well I can't answer that question directly 3 but I think that the NSPCC/ISPCC were seen to have 4 expertise in the area of child protection. They were 5 the only child protective organisation -- and that's 11:37 6 their own words -- in the country, up until the Health 7 Boards were founded. I think that alongside that it is 8 reasonable to suggest that they would have gathered 9 pretty clear evidence. I think the assistance within 10 the directory of gathering clear evidence -- I mean it 11:37 11 is very clearly stated that -- let me just go back a 12 bit, if you could bear with me for a second. There is 13 a section saying facts and their meaning, nothing is to 14 be assumed by an Inspector but that the persons are 15 innocent. Complaints are not charges. How you conduct 11:38 16 inquiries. The nature of a complaint. What the 17 Inspector found. The reason for concern. The age or 18 probable age of the person. Their means, as I 19 discussed earlier. What they would be earning if they 20 were working. So there is clear categories. It is 11:38 21 clear in the directory that they need to be specific in 22 the information. I would assume that that's because it 23 was important that they would have had that specific 24 evidence if, and I think it is stated, if this got as 25 far as the courts. 11:38 26 27 I suppose I'm at pains to point out that I don't 28 believe this was the Inspector simply saying I think 29 these children need to be committed. I think there was 44 1 a process, there was evidence presented. But, yes, I 2 would agree that the NSPCC/ISPCC would have been viewed 3 as having an authority in this area. 4 88 Q. And presumably if the parents were consenting that 5 would also be quite an important factor? 11:39 6 A. Yes. 7 89 Q. In fact I notice on page 30 of the research which you 8 conducted, which says: 9 "On the grounds of committal on the 10 cases examined by the researchers..." 11:39 11 12 And that is of course the small amount and it is not 13 representative. 14 "forty-one..." 15 11:39 16 That's of the 80 or so. 17 "41, or 66% of children committed to 18 industrial schools were committed at the request of their parents." 19 20 A. Yes, that is correct. 11:39 21 90 Q. Now that's only of a very small amount, it may not be 22 representative? 23 A. I think there is also some information in the annual 24 reports of at one stage the NSPCC are identifying in 25 the 30's the difficulty of getting consent from a 11:39 26 parent who has absconded or is in prison. They were 27 arguing that the legislation should be reviewed in that 28 context. For me that would be indicating that consent 29 was a route that was taken. 45 1 91 Q. That may partially have been solved, partially, under 2 the 1941 Act which gave an amendment which I think made 3 it easier to commit children found destitute but at 4 home and with a parent or parents? 5 A. Well, obviously I am not...(INTERJECTION) 11:40 6 92 Q. I am not trying to draw you into anything. 7 A. The annual reports also indicate at some later stage 8 that parts of the 1941 Act were found to be 9 unconstitutional and that seemed to present a 10 difficulty for the NSPCC. 11:40 11 93 Q. As a proportion, therefore, of children who were 12 committed to industrial schools under the Children's 13 Act, is it right to say that it would appear that the 14 ISPCC was probably one of the main, as a percentage 15 wise, was probably one of the main movers in that? 11:41 16 A. I don't know the answers to that question. We don't 17 have any statistics available to us with the numbers 18 committed to industrial schools. 19 94 Q. I appreciate that. 20 A. But I think if we were the only child protection -- 11:41 21 child protective organisation then I think it is 22 reasonable to suspect that we certainly would have 23 committed a significant number to the industrial 24 schools. But I really have no idea about the overall 25 percentage. 11:41 26 95 Q. Because it is a bit unlikely that the Gardaí would take 27 that step per se, I mean they might have been the 28 vehicle by which a case came to the attention of the 29 courts, but. 46 1 A. Well the juvenile delinquency side -- I am sorry, I am 2 using that term because that's the term they used in 3 the directory. But I think there was the other way, 4 which was if a child was viewed to have committed a 5 crime. In fact I think the directory indicates that 11:41 6 the Inspector has no role to play in the court 7 proceedings with regard to juvenile delinquency. There 8 is another reference to juvenile delinquency in one of 9 the annual reports that identifies that the causes are 10 being ignored, and it identifies lack of parental 11:42 11 involvement and poverty or social problems. But I 12 think it would appear that the Society didn't have a 13 role to play in -- I think those children were most 14 likely prosecuted through the Criminal Justice system. 15 96 Q. So effectively if delinquency is put outside and more 11:42 16 overt cruelty, I mean the Society is more likely to 17 have been moving for a committal where there wasn't 18 another solution and it is really sort of destitution 19 and difficulties at home? 20 A. Yes, and I think that is supported by the percentages. 11:42 21 The percentages are extremely low of the overall 22 referral to the Society. 23 97 Q. Would it be helpful to maybe look at any particular 24 year in which you have an annual report because it 25 usually tabulates how many places there are, 11:43 26 prosecutions. Just take any year that you think is 27 helpful, maybe between the 30's and the 60's just to 28 give us a flavour of the class of action that was 29 taken? 47 1 A. I think I probably have given these already, but I have 2 the percentages, the overall percentages from 1930 to 3 1956. Sorry, after 1956/57 they dropped in the annual 4 reports reporting on proceedings and I suspect, because 5 in that year it was 1.3% of all contacts, of the 11:43 6 referrals contacts only 1.3% were subject to 7 proceedings. 8 98 Q. I am looking at something like -- if you could look at 9 page 24 is that of assistance, of your statement? Page 10 24 of your statement, which is a very helpful table and 11:44 11 it is looking at '56, '62 and '66 and reasons for 12 referral. "Case law" is, presumably, just the generic, 13 there is 1425. Ill treatment or assault, 145. 14 Abandoned, five. Exposure causing to beg, one. Beyond 15 control, 29. Moral danger, 12. Paid or advice sought 11:44 16 735. Which is 2300 referrals involving about 7500 17 children, isn't that right? 18 A. That's correct. That's 1956, from the 1956 annual 19 report. 20 99 Q. I think what you are saying is that you believe that 11:45 21 about 1.3% of referrals would result in court 22 proceedings? 23 A. That statistic relates to a year just before, I think 24 1954 perhaps. But, yes, on average, if you take the 25 averages even they are very low. Yes, 1.6 at that 11:45 26 stage. 27 100 Q. All right. Right or wrong, there are some extant 28 statistics, between 1.3 and about 4%, depending. But 29 that would include both the prosecution of parents for 48 1 neglect, or a parent or whatever, and also a committal; 2 isn't that right? 3 A. That is correct. 4 101 Q. Okay. One way of looking at that might, and suppose we 5 shouldn't argue about statistics, but that in 1956 11:46 6 there was a very substantial number of children in 7 industrial schools, and I am going to get guess at 8 around 5,000, 6,000 or something like that and it could 9 well be out. Can I just ask you, committals up to the 10 age of 16 seem to have been normative for quite a 11:46 11 period of time, does the Society have any knowledge of 12 this? 13 A. Sorry, could you just repeat that? 14 102 Q. Yes. Committals...(INTERJECTION) 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Appear to be what? 11:46 16 MR. GAGEBY: Normative, normal. 17 A. Up to the age of 16? 18 103 Q. Yes. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Normal or normative? I am 20 not sure how normative fits 11:46 21 into this. 22 MR. GAGEBY: I will say normal then. 23 A. So it was normal to commit someone up to 16 as it was 24 for...(INTERJECTION). 25 104 Q. Yes. 11:46 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the usual thing. 27 When somebody was committed 28 it would seem to be that the usual period of detention 29 was up to age 16. 49 1 A. Yes. 2 105 Q. MR. GAGEBY: Except, however, I think 3 there are two things noted. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that's the question 5 that you are asking about? 11:47 6 MR. GAGEBY: Yes, and I think the answer 7 is given. 8 A. That's correct. It would appear -- there are examples 9 of case, as I said earlier, where there was movement or 10 consideration of releasing children back into the care 11:47 11 of their parents. There is also some case examples of 12 Inspectors believing that it shouldn't be until the age 13 of 16. But I think the majority of children were 14 placed until the age of 16. 15 106 Q. MR. GAGEBY: There also seems to have 11:47 16 been a distinction in 1954, 17 because there seems to have been some short term 18 admissions to industrial schools at the behest of the 19 Archbishop of Dublin where the mothers were receiving 20 medical treatment for tuberculosis, in which case there 11:47 21 was need for short-term things. Is that reflected in 22 any of the material which you are au fait with? 23 A. Yes, one of the issues that, to return to the 24 campaigning or the raising of policy, one of the issues 25 that the Society raised was their concern about 11:48 26 children whose parents were sick being placed in 27 industrial schools. 28 107 Q. Just by reason of the fact that there was sickness in 29 the family? 50 1 A. That's correct. They raised it, I think, in two annual 2 reports. I am not sure what years, if you would just 3 bear with me for one second. 4 108 Q. I think it may be '54 and possibly afterwards. 5 A. Well in 1954 the reference to that is in the annual 11:48 6 report, it refers to the Archbishop of Dublin has 7 established a facility for mothers and for the children 8 of mothers who are sick. 9 109 Q. Yes. 10 A. But I think it is actually referenced by -- sorry, I 11:48 11 have a memory that it was referenced earlier in an 12 NSPCC report as an issue. But certainly in the 50's 13 there was an acknowledgment that, and I think the 14 Archbishop refers to establishing a home in Merrion 15 Road or Merrion Square for that. 11:49 16 110 Q. I want to move on, if I may, to a different area, which 17 is this: What were the alternatives if the Society 18 were looking at a problem and a problem in a family 19 what was the alternative if the problem couldn't be 20 solved within the family by one means or the another 11:49 21 what was the alternative to committal to an industrial 22 school that was available within the Society that 23 existed from the 30's to the 60's? 24 A. Again, I think the case reports and the annual reports 25 seem to indicate that there was very few alternatives. 11:50 26 I think unless the Inspector along with the other 27 community supports could organise some practical 28 support for the family, or unless the parents were able 29 to, you know, make change in the way that they were 51 1 living there was very little. I think the foster 2 placement appeared to be primarily, and I am not as au 3 fait on this as I perhaps should be, but it appeared to 4 be primarily for very young infants, babies, as opposed 5 to fostering for older children. Relatives was the 11:50 6 other obvious option. There is some discussion of the 7 options of having a relative take the care of children. 8 But there didn't appear be huge other alternatives. 9 111 Q. I mean one of the things noted actually earlier is 10 that -- I mean, obviously, one alternative, that's to 11:51 11 say if you have a family with difficulties, is if there 12 is an extended family who could help? 13 A. Yes. 14 112 Q. But that then raised the economic spectre of how that 15 other person in loco parentis was to be assisted at a 11:51 16 time when there was no money around. I presume there 17 is some evidence of attempts to try and solve problems 18 that way? 19 A. Yes, using extended family, that's correct. I think 20 though you have identified quite correctly the issues 11:51 21 of the economic climate and the poverty. Many of the 22 families were living in very poor conditions, as were 23 their extended families so I think the chances of being 24 able to resolve the problems by using extended family 25 were limited. There are some examples in the case 11:51 26 files of somebody in the extended family taking the 27 care of the children. 28 113 Q. Fosterage therefore in a more formal sense, fosterage 29 existed essentially coming from the Poor Law system, 52 1 and we actually heard a bit about that yesterday, I 2 think it was mainly in terms of children who were 3 illegitimate, where maybe that in a sense the mother 4 gave up the child and the infant could be sent to a 5 nurse to be nursed as an infant and subsequently 11:52 6 fostered out to various families at differing rates of 7 pay. But was there actually such a system for children 8 who were coming in who were legitimate, to use the 9 expression, where the parents were still around? Did 10 that system exist then? 11:52 11 A. It would appear not from the material that I have read. 12 I think, again, there is a reference to the need for a 13 fostering option. The NSPCC/ISPCC identify the need to 14 develop fostering. But there doesn't appear to be any 15 evidence on the material that there was a formal 11:53 16 system. 17 114 Q. Adoption didn't come in until 1952 and that could only 18 have a limited application, isn't that right, to 19 illegitimate children or orphaned children? 20 A. Yes. 11:53 21 115 Q. So there was a difficulty, legitimate children with 22 surviving parents, albeit parents who weren't 23 exercising their rights, were less likely to be placed 24 in a natural home as opposed to an industrial 25 institution? 11:53 26 A. That is correct. Just on the alternatives, there is 27 some evidence from the 1930's material of parents 28 requesting their children to be placed in residential 29 institutions because of fear that they will end up in 53 1 work houses. I am not sure when the work houses 2 discontinued, but certainly there is some evidence in 3 the early 30's of that. I think that may have been an 4 alternative, if you could consider that. But certainly 5 that was an issue for some parents. 11:54 6 116 Q. MR. LOWE: Can I ask you to consider 7 another factor. I was just 8 looking at the table on page 24 again, number of cases 9 was 1425 and the number of children 4669, which, if you 10 allow for the fact that a large number of those would 11:54 11 have been illegitimate and, therefore, not be 12 (inaudible) family, we are talking about three or four 13 children from a family being taken into care at once. 14 That would mean fostering would be a difficult option 15 to say the least. 11:54 16 A. Yes, I think that is a reality, that many of the cases 17 talk about number of children. I don't recall many 18 cases, if any, just being one child. I think that was 19 an issue. I think in some cases you will find that one 20 or two children are taken into -- are found places in 11:55 21 school, because it wasn't easy to find places for all 22 the children in schools. 23 117 Q. MR. LOWE: Besides the family it 24 self-limited the options 25 available? 11:55 26 A. Yes. Yes. And resulted often in the breakup of the 27 family for that reason. 28 118 Q. MR. GAGEBY: Because there was, I 29 suspect particularly when 54 1 children were older than ten, it was quite difficult to 2 find an institution per se that would accommodate both 3 sexes. 4 A. Yes. 5 119 Q. Could I just ask you to deal with a couple of other 11:55 6 things. There was a system of fosterage, and coming 7 back to, therefore, the opportunities for care outside 8 of the industrial school system. There was a system of 9 fosterage which existed and which historically came 10 from the Poor Law, this is boarding out and all that 11:56 11 sort of stuff, I think some of the research indicates 12 that particularly -- can I ask you to turn your mind to 13 the 1920's and 30's with some astonishing statistics 14 about the mortality rate of illegitimate children, 15 which I think is noted to an extent that would horrify 11:56 16 everybody. I think the mortality rate for illegitimate 17 children was note in the 1920's to be approximately 18 about 80 times that of legitimate children? 19 A. Well I suppose the most striking reference for me was 20 in the 31/32 annual report, which identifies the 11:57 21 mortality rate one in four, compared to one in sixteen 22 for non-illegitimate children in their categorisation. 23 If we are to break it down to if you look at the 24 mortality rate for children not from diseases, which 25 would suggest that they categorised them as diseases 11:57 26 and other causes, but they are saying that the 27 mortality rate was 24 per thousand of illegitimate 28 children compared to 1.3 per thousand of legitimate 29 children. And that's in the first 14 days. Sorry, 55 1 that's not from diseases, they have also identified 2 that the first 14 days appear to have been the key 3 factor in determining if a child died or not and they 4 identified separation from the mother as an issue. But 5 the narrative in that annual report, I am afraid I 11:58 6 don't fully understand what they are trying to say. 7 But there appears to be some suggestion of people who 8 were a danger to babies or who are trading in babies, 9 but certainly that we were afraid that the Society was 10 failing to care for the mothers and illegitimate 11:58 11 babies. That comes up again in later reports. I think 12 the society are arguing that they need better supports 13 for mothers and illegitimate babies. But certainly the 14 mortality rate seems to be a huge factor in that year. 15 120 Q. As I understand what the Society was picking up was 11:58 16 that firstly there appears on any objective basis to be 17 an astonishingly different mortally rate for 18 illegitimate children on any basis? 19 A. That's correct. I think it goes on to talk about the 20 fact that some people identify the cause of that as 11:58 21 being the guilt and shame that the mothers feel. But 22 it then compares the mortality rate with the mortality 23 rate in Wales, Scotland and England and identifies that 24 even in comparison to those that Ireland is very high. 25 I think it says it identified it as a serious issue. 11:59 26 121 Q. It also notes that, for instance, 66 infants were found 27 dead in 1930. 28 A. That's right. Abandoned I think. Some of which were 29 abandoned. 56 1 122 Q. 66 dead and I think a small number abandoned. That's 2 against the backdrop, obviously, of the difficulty that 3 there was great social difficulties for women with 4 illegitimate children and simply with making an 5 economic provision for their children? 12:00 6 A. Again, the material in regards to this I think is very 7 stark. I think the first issue that appears to arise 8 is the issue of the sort of shame that appeared to be 9 connected with illegitimacy. The difficulty for those 10 mothers to in some cases return to their own families, 12:00 11 with the baby in particular. There are some case 12 examples of families saying we need to deal with the 13 baby, the baby needs to be taken somewhere, the baby 14 cannot return. I am not sure if that was for economic 15 factor or for social factors. 12:00 16 17 The additional difficulty, obviously, was that with a 18 child the mother was not in a position to work and 19 that's identified. In the 1939/40 annual report the 20 NSPCC are identifying the need for nurseries and 12:00 21 special schools, but nurseries in particular for -- it 22 doesn't say for mothers of illegitimate children but I 23 think its identified as a support for them. So I think 24 illegitimacy presented all sorts of difficulties in 25 terms of both the economic and social problems that are 12:01 26 created. 27 123 Q. Yes. A child perhaps is more likely as an illegitimate 28 child to be fostered out. You mentioned the issue of 29 baby farming or baby selling, which is noted in, I 57 1 think, the 1930 report. I think the suggestion there 2 is that there was a woman in Dublin who was in the 3 business of basically buying babies and selling them 4 on. 5 A. I mean I just didn't understand the full reference to 12:01 6 what that was about. But I mean there are clear 7 references, yes, referred to in terms of dragons and 8 threats. But there are references. 9 124 Q. All right, perhaps that's just a bit outside the remit. 10 A. Yes. 12:02 11 125 Q. In relation to committals, in the sample that was 12 looked at by the researchers, which is the subject of 13 the NUI Maynooth material, there were 62 children 14 committed to industrial schools and six of those, 15 roughly 10%, had been in the care of foster parents who 12:02 16 either proved unsuitable or who no longer wanted to 17 care for the children. So it seemed that some of the 18 children who were coming into the industrial school 19 system had been the subject of fosterage and it hadn't 20 worked for one reason or another; isn't that right? 12:02 21 A. That's right. And there are some case examples given 22 in the annual reports of situations where difficulties 23 would have arisen in the foster placements, often due 24 to the death of a parent and the surviving parent 25 believed they couldn't cope anymore and therefore they 12:02 26 requested that the child be fostered. In other cases 27 there is some reference to payments being made. It 28 appears that individuals had agreed to pay money to 29 foster parents to take children. 58 1 126 Q. As a private arrangement? 2 A. Yeah. And that they had stopped paying and, therefore, 3 the families had no choice it appears but to have 4 requested that the foster child be taken off them. 5 127 Q. Obviously, part of the foster system was also to ensure 12:03 6 that the foster child wasn't treated as an economic 7 animal, if you understand me, that he was treated 8 properly. 9 A. There doesn't appear to be a lot of information around 10 that in our material, but I understand from other 12:03 11 material that that's the case. 12 MR. GAGEBY: Sorry, I used a phrase 13 "economic animal", it means 14 no disrespect to anyone. 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well we feel 12:04 16 disrespected. 17 MR. GAGEBY: I am accustomed to being 18 interrupted so I will just 19 continue. 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And we are accustomed to 12:04 21 being abused by you again. 22 You have no business as describing anybody as an 23 economic animal. 24 128 Q. MR. GAGEBY: I think, Mr. Gilligan, you 25 understand what I was saying? 12:04 26 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well we understand but we 27 don't like it. 28 129 Q. MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Gilligan, can we go 29 back to one thing. One of 59 1 the worries with boarding out and fosterage was the 2 danger that some of the children might be used a cheap 3 labour inside or outside the house? 4 A. Again, I don't have any expertise or particular 5 knowledge in this area but I do know that in some cases 12:04 6 that I read there were examples of Inspectors being 7 involved in situations where a foster child was being 8 neglected or not being cared for appropriately by the 9 foster parents. 10 130 Q. And at the same time receiving an amount of money from 12:04 11 the State? 12 A. That appears to be the case, yes, that's correct 13 131 Q. Just generally then. The ISPCC were effectively the 14 forerunners of social workers, would that be a fair 15 comment in retrospect? 12:05 16 A. Yes, the Society began to employ social workers I think 17 in 1968. I hope I have the date correct. That would 18 have been two, three years before the 1970's, when the 19 Health Boards were established. Then they began to 20 employ social workers in the 70's but also gave 12:05 21 Inspectors opportunities to develop their skills and 22 become social workers. Just one of the points I make 23 in that regard which is perhaps important, given its 24 connection to the UK body, and I think I referenced 25 this earlier, in the 40's there was a statement saying 12:05 26 there should be a review of the way we deal with 27 children, deprived children as there has been in the 28 UK. I think that it would be reasonable to speculate 29 that the practice of the Inspectors in Ireland was 60 1 influenced by the developments in the UK. The UK 2 developed quicker in terms of its understanding and 3 ability to deal with child protection than we would 4 have in Ireland. I think perhaps explains why in 1968 5 we employed social workers when -- because I think we 12:06 6 were probably looking to the UK, even though we were 7 not the same organisation I think they would have drawn 8 off the expertise and knowledge within the UK. 9 132 Q. I think it would also explain why in the 40's you were 10 saying even a poor home was better than an institution? 12:06 11 A. Yes. I think we can't dismiss the fact that -- and I 12 think one of the issues obviously is I think there was 13 the influence of professional practice and awareness 14 developing across the water and that would have been 15 influencing on some level the understanding and the 12:07 16 practice of the Inspectors in Ireland. 17 133 Q. Ms. NíRafertaigh reminds me to ask you one thing. You 18 are speaking there of perhaps having a HQ in Britain 19 and the advances in childcare there might have helped 20 thinking over here. Does one get any sense from 12:07 21 looking back at the archives and the work of the ISPCC 22 that there was any great role for the Department of 23 Education or the people who were sitting around tables 24 saying how will we advance particular matters? Is 25 there any feeling like that, and I am talking about 12:07 26 30's to 60's and obviously things changed with Kennedy? 27 A. We didn't come across any formal materials that would 28 have indication working groups or communication policy. 29 But just to go back to the issue; I think annual 61 1 reports in the way that they have outlined the sort of 2 issues that were of concern to ISPCC/NSPCC it would 3 appear that they were communicating with somebody about 4 those issues. Because in two cases, for example, there 5 is a reference made in the 40's to female escorts for 12:08 6 children being brought to industrial schools. And it 7 would appear from the reference the NSPCC are saying in 8 an annual report that they had sought this and that it 9 had now been agreed. The second reference they talk 10 about that they are very happy to see that the courts 12:08 11 are going to treat children differently and deal with 12 them in private so that there wouldn't be an atmosphere 13 of -- a criminal atmosphere is what they describe it 14 as. It would appear that they may have had some 15 involvement in seeking that change in the courts. So I 12:09 16 would suspect that it may be that the annual reports 17 were their way of doing that. But there would appear 18 to have been some discussion around the issues but we 19 don't have any information. Unfortunately, we weren't 20 able to archive the administrative material that we 12:09 21 have, we just simply hadn't the resources at the time. 22 We did archive the case materials. So perhaps there is 23 some material regarding that but we didn't come across 24 any, even though the researchers did look for some 25 information in that regard. 12:09 26 MR. GAGEBY: Thank you very much. 27 28 END OF EXAMINATION OF MR. GILLIGAN BY MR. GAGEBY 29 62 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. McGrath. 2 3 MR. GILLIGAN WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY MR. 4 McGRATH: 5 12:09 6 134 Q. MR. McGRATH: Mr. Gilligan, my name is 7 David McGrath, Senior 8 Counsel. I appear, again, as amicus curiae to the 9 Commission but my background would be that I appeared 10 for many of the complainants that have gone before to 12:10 11 tell their stories, the people who were in the 12 institutions. I would have represented many of them 13 also elsewhere. 14 15 I just want to start really if I can at page 6 of the 12:10 16 report, the findings from the ISPCC records. It is 17 really just a preliminary point just to understand 18 where many of the people that I would have dealt with, 19 where they had come from. On page 6 of the report is 20 the mention of the word the "Cruelty Men", or "Cruelty 12:10 21 Inspectors". The word "Cruelty Men", this morning the 22 mention of it did provoke a reaction from many of the 23 people here. I think you can take it that whilst the 24 Inspectors have from your records on many occasions 25 been involved in situations where we have solved 12:10 26 problems without sending children to schools and that, 27 that certainly the perception of most of the people I 28 would deal with the word "Cruelty Man" is the person 29 who is responsible for what happened to them 63 1 thereafter. From their point of view the Inspectors 2 are looked at with a rather jaundiced eye from that 3 point of view. 4 5 It would appear from reading through the various 12:11 6 reports and records and things that the Society itself 7 was, in fact, aware of the fact that there was a 8 perception out there that the Cruelty Man put children 9 away or locked them up and it does appear, certainly in 10 some of the annual reports, that this is a view and it 12:11 11 is a view that you would like to try and do away with. 12 Am I right in that? 13 A. Yes. I think that is fair to say. I think I have 14 referenced it in a number of reports. In the 30's not 15 so much perhaps. Certainly from the initiation of the 12:11 16 Society there was clear indication of the need to not 17 punish and support. I think the directory says that. 18 But, yes, the annual reports appear to have been 19 identifying what would have been a perception and 20 trying to ensure that people change that perception. 12:12 21 But that's right back to the 40's and 50's so I think 22 they were working hard to ensure that that wasn't the 23 case. 24 135 Q. With regard to the way that children came to the 25 attention of the Society you have set out the various 12:12 26 ways that this might happen. It would certainly appear 27 that where a family approached itself it may approach 28 because it just needed assistance or help in sorting 29 out a problem, not with a view to having the children 64 1 being taken into care. Or a family might approach on 2 the basis that they did for some particular reason at 3 that time want their children taken into care at that 4 particular time. In those circumstances, as I 5 understand it, looking at the various records that you 12:12 6 have produced and the various instances and the various 7 case histories, it would appear from those that there 8 were successes where parents were persuaded out of it. 9 There were also successes in terms of where the ISPCC 10 was able to help families and ensure that whatever 12:13 11 problem that was there was solved. But it would also 12 appear that there were occasions when they did put 13 people into care? 14 A. That's correct. 15 136 Q. In those terms, as I understand the situation, there 12:13 16 seems to be a suggestion that the Inspectors would put 17 children, if possible, into a local school or some 18 school that they were familiar with, that that seems to 19 be the evidence that's coming across from yourself and 20 from -- 12:13 21 A. Yes, I think that's based on the statements in the 22 annual reports that families should be kept together. 23 I think there is also evidence in some of the case 24 files, statements like "the father will be able to 25 visit regularly". I think that's where we are taking 12:13 26 that from. But there is no clear policy on that 27 anywhere, there is no statement of that policy. 28 137 Q. Can you help the Commission in this regard: When it is 29 described that an Inspector is familiar with a school 65 1 how does that come about if he never visits that 2 particular school, because that seems to be the 3 situation? 4 A. Can I just clarify that I don't think I said that they 5 never visited the school. I am saying that we have not 12:14 6 come across any material that indicated that they 7 visited the school. But I don't know the answer to 8 that question. But I think familiar -- I don't know 9 what the term familiar might refer to but I think in 10 many cases it is simply saying they are aware of the 12:14 11 fact that it is there and they have had communication, 12 perhaps, with the residential manager. I don't know. 13 138 Q. When I was reading the papers last night there is some 14 mention somewhere in the papers of an Inspector in 15 Clonmel. Now, the obvious school for him to put any 12:14 16 boy in would have been Ferryhouse. We know, and it has 17 been accepted by the Rosminian's, that the regime in 18 Ferryhouse was a brutal regime. That's their own words 19 to describe it, never mind how I or how the people who 20 were students there or pupils there would describe it. 12:15 21 If that is so and an Inspector was familiar with the 22 school, how or why wouldn't he know what was happening 23 within the school? 24 A. Again, you can appreciate that I can only answer that 25 question based on the available information to me. I 12:15 26 think this comes back to perhaps one of the core issues 27 and that is, you know, what would an Inspector have 28 known or not known about a particular school and what 29 was going on in the school? The research we conducted 66 1 for the preparation of this statement was conducted by 2 two independent consultants. We did not come across 3 any material that would have indicated that Inspectors 4 knew about brutal regimes in any school. Based on the 5 sort of annual reports and then issues being raised in 12:16 6 annual reports it would be somewhat surprising if 7 the...(INTERJECTION) 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just to be accurate, 9 Fr. O'Reilly did not accept 10 that the regime in Ferryhouse was brutal. He accepted 12:16 11 that there was brutality there but he wouldn't agree 12 that it was a brutal regime. I mean insofar as it is 13 of any importance, it is a matter of accuracy, you are 14 quoting the Rosminian's and you are not getting it 15 right Mr. McGrath. 12:16 16 MR. McGRATH: If I may differ there, 17 Chairman. It was put to 18 him that the regime was brutal, he didn't accept it. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Correct. 20 MR. McGRATH: Then a quote was given to 12:16 21 him from a former 22 Provincial of the Rosminian's who said that the regime 23 was brutal and he then said, yes, it was brutal. My 24 memory is that he accepted it, but. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. He accepted 12:17 26 that the punishment was 27 brutal. Anyway, Fr. O'Reilly was asked a specific 28 question, all I am telling you is that it is a matter 29 of accuracy, I mean if you are going to quote him my 67 1 recollection is that that's not correct, because he 2 specifically said no, I accept -- he may be right or he 3 may be wrong about it, I mean I'm not getting into 4 that, Mr. McGrath. But just in fairness to what people 5 said, and you may well be right that on some other 12:17 6 occasion if we put the bits together the jigsaw points 7 in another way. You may well be right, I am not even 8 saying that. 9 MR. McGRATH: It all took place at the 10 very end of his evidence. 12:17 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's true. Why don't you 12 say, look, he agreed that 13 the regime was...(INTERJECTION) 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Broken. 15 MR. McGRATH: Sorry Chairman, I was 12:18 16 distracted for a moment. 17 My recollection is that it was accepted by Fr. O'Reilly 18 at the very end. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Sure carry on 20 then. 12:18 21 MR. McGRATH: We may using semantics as 22 to what the difference is. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm just telling you that 24 there was a specific 25 question in which the specific word was used and he 12:18 26 didn't accept it. 27 MR. McGRATH: No he didn't, at that 28 point. But I am suggesting 29 he suggested it afterwards. 68 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Listen, what can I do 2 Mr. McGrath? 3 139 Q. MR. McGRATH: Sorry, Chairman, I am just 4 lost for a moment. Dealing 5 with the question of the Inspectors being familiar with 12:18 6 the schools; certainly it wasn't policy of the ISPCC to 7 follow up on children once they had been put into care; 8 is that the situation? 9 A. That's correct. 10 140 Q. So as far as things are concerned as soon as the court 12:19 11 made its Order the child goes into the hand's of the 12 State and that was the end of the matter as far as the 13 Society was concerned? 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And they were well paid for 15 it. 12:19 16 A. I think it is fair to say that the sense coming out 17 from the annual reports is that that was often seen as 18 a good solution, that the Inspector -- and I think I 19 read out the quote from the 1940's annual report, that 20 they believed that they were treated -- you know, that 12:19 21 a child would receive a good education and that they 22 would be well cared for, even though that same snippet 23 also indicated that they would have preferred to keep 24 the child in the family. So I can only go on those 25 sort of quotations. 12:19 26 141 Q. But that comment would seem to be made in an overall 27 bland sort of way. It certainly isn't from the 28 experience of the Inspectors because they didn't have 29 any follow up. 69 1 A. Well, I mean the -- that's correct. There is no 2 evidence within the material we saw that they would 3 have had any contact with the children in the schools 4 or any follow up, except in the situations that I 5 described earlier on, where there would be discussion 12:20 6 around the children being returned to their families. 7 142 Q. There was something, however, from quite a long time 8 back and you have referred to it already earlier today, 9 and that is that it certainly was something well known 10 to the Society when it was putting children into the 12:20 11 schools, that they were going to cause problems for the 12 children later because of the stigma that it attached? 13 A. That's correct. I am not absolutely certain of what 14 year that reference was, but that's correct. 15 143 Q. I think it is about 1942 or thereabouts. 12:20 16 A. Yes, it is the same reference I think I referred to 17 myself. The 1947/48 maybe. 18 144 Q. That was a cause of concern for the Society at that 19 particular time? 20 A. That's correct. 12:21 21 145 Q. Can I take it then that that was something that came 22 from their knowledge of people, the general public, 23 that this was a perception out there amongst the 24 general public that there was this stigma against 25 children who were in care, or in the industrial 12:21 26 schools? 27 A. Well I think that what that annual report does identify 28 is that children on leaving industrial schools and 29 attempting to gain employment there would have been a 70 1 stigma attached, that's correct. 2 146 Q. Dealing with a particular area that seemed to be of 3 concern to the ISPCC, and it is something I have to 4 admit has occurred to me on a number of occasions just 5 in a kind of a general view matter, and that is the 12:21 6 question as to whether or not there was an alternative 7 method for dealing with the poverty situation other 8 than putting children into care. If I can refer you 9 first of all to page 13 and 14 of, again, the findings 10 from the ISPCC records. It is under paragraph 3.1 on 12:22 11 poverty. At the end of page 13 it says: 12 "The 1937/38 report pointed out that 13 while the rate of home assistance for Dublin was adequate at 25 shillings 14 rates prevailing elsewhere, specifically in Wicklow and Kildare at 15 a maximum payment of 10 shillings per 12:22 week were insufficient to ensure proper 16 nutritional standards much less the provision of other basic needs." 17 18 19 A. Sorry to interrupt you, I am just not sure where you 20 are reading from. 12:22 21 147 Q. Sorry. It is the Maynooth study, page 13 and 14, 22 sorry. 23 A. Sorry. 24 148 Q. Page 13 is where I was starting. 25 A. Yes. 12:23 26 149 Q. I have just quoted a passage at the end of that page, 27 going over to the next page it says: 28 "The 1947/48 report again pointed to the adequacy of social welfare 29 payments." 71 1 2 It says: 3 "In previous reports we have drawn attention to the large number of cases 4 where we have had to intervene to rescue children from the squalor and 5 undernourishment directly due to 12:23 poverty. Now authority seems to have 6 worked out for Dublin what should be considered as the poverty line, though 7 there have been a number of private sample inquiries conducted in past 8 years. 9 In our report for 1945/46 we indicated that a collation of such figures were 10 available show that for the ordinary 12:24 family to provide proper nutrition and 11 a sum of 8 shillings a head should be made available for food alone. Even 12 with the increases recently made in some of the allowances the amount 13 available leaves many families way below the poverty line at any 14 calculation. 15 A peculiar feature of the unemployment 12:24 assistance scale which has brought a 16 number of families to us is the application of the maximum rate 17 allowance, 38 shillings a week, even where there are more than five 18 children. Even giving a man and wife and five children the allowance, plus 19 seven and six children's allowance, this is clearly. Allowing for a 20 moderate rent of, say, five shillings 12:24 per week the amount available per head 21 is five shillings nine and a half pence is well below the minimum necessary to 22 provide food alone. 23 In the case of the a widow's pension, the gap is still wider. It is true 24 that in the worse cases the home assistance authority sometimes 25 intervene with an allowance for rent 12:25 but the total is still insufficient to 26 provide proper nourishment for the children, to say nothing of clothing or 27 bedding, much less or any less necessity necessary amenities. It is 28 small wonder that some parents give up the unequal contest and apply for the 29 committal of their children to industrial schools on the grounds of 72 1 inability to support them. 2 When, as we have so often pointed out, they cost the public funds 15 shillings 3 a head. If the parents were, say, given ten shillings a head they could 4 keep their children who would not be deprived of home influences and the 5 taxpayer would save five shillings a 12:25 head." 6 7 8 Now it seems to be quite clear there that as far as the 9 Society is concerned that shifting some of what was the 10 capitation fee -- instead of paying a capitation fee, 12:25 11 that if there had been an increase in the money being 12 paid into families the problem with regard to having to 13 put children into schools could have been solved and we 14 are talking about going back as far as 1945, as far as 15 that view is concerned? 12:26 16 A. Yes, I think there is a number of occasions in annual 17 reports, including this one, where the Society have 18 identified that low social services payment, poor 19 housing and in this case the basic funding given to 20 families was inadequate. That's correct, I think you 12:26 21 are correct. 22 150 Q. And really the problem and the way to solve it was 23 being pointed out by the Society at a very early stage, 24 I mean this inquiry starts in 1940, in 1945 the Society 25 was providing a solution? 12:26 26 A. Well in their opinion this was a key factor, yes. 27 151 Q. It was a key factor and there was a solution at hand if 28 anybody within Government was prepared to grasp it? 29 A. Well, I mean I can only comment, yes, I can agree with 73 1 your interpretation of what the annual report says. 2 152 Q. In fact, I think in the annual report for the Dublin 3 and district branch 1948/49? 4 A. Yes. 5 153 Q. Under the heading -- I think it is page 4 of the 12:27 6 report, under the heading of "Inadequacy of Social 7 Services Allowances", again the Society is pointing 8 out: 9 "In the last year's report attention was drawn to the undernourishment of 10 large numbers of children owing to the 12:27 fact that the allowances provided under 11 the various social services unemployment assistance, home 12 assistance, widow's pensions and the like were insufficient to allow the 13 parent to keep their children properly fed. 14 The cases dealt with during the year 15 disclosed quite a number of instances 12:28 in which there has been definite 16 undernourishment owing to the fact that the parents or guardians of the 17 children have been dependant on such allowances and have been simply unable 18 to support their children. 19 There is a wide difference between the methods of administering home 20 assistance in various areas and a 12:28 number of particularly glaring cases of 21 inadequacy will be found below. 22 Last year we drew attention to two aspects of the system, the first was 23 that the family must often be broken up if the children are to be properly fed 24 and clothed so that they may grow up useful citizens, the second was that 25 the resultant cost of providing for 12:28 children removed from their parents on 26 the grounds of inability to maintain them is much greater than the amount 27 which, if given in home assistance or some other form of allowance, would 28 enable the family to be kept together. We went on to point out the danger of 29 that persistent undernourishment of families dependent on various forms of 74 1 public relief must result in the creation of whole families of 2 unemployables." 3 4 Now, from the point of view of the Society, again it is 5 the same matter that has arisen earlier in the 1940's, 12:29 6 is still here and the problem is still not being 7 addressed and not getting any better and it means that 8 if that situation continues that children are still 9 going to be continued to be put into care in the 1950's 10 and 1960's, which is in fact what happened? 12:29 11 A. That's correct. I mean that quote continues to talk 12 about the position of the family in the constitution. 13 I think again that emphasises the fact that the Society 14 were reluctant to place children into residential 15 institutions. 12:29 16 154 Q. The Society seems to have taken its role as a Society 17 which should make recommendations serious and continue 18 to do that throughout the various years, through the 19 1950's and 1960's and right up to the 1970's, and, as I 20 understand it, by that stage you were still looking for 12:30 21 ways to improve the lot of children and it would appear 22 that in one of your papers from 1973, it is called "The 23 Position of the ISPCC and Childcare Work in Ireland", 24 it is contained in one of the additional ISPCC 25 discovery booklets. There doesn't seem to be a 12:30 26 reference on the one that I have. 27 A. I have a copy of that, it is a one-paged document, I 28 think. 29 155 Q. Yes. In that the -- sorry, Chairman, it is in 75 1 additional ISPCC discovery Phase III. I don't have a 2 number on the particular document. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just tell us what it is? 4 It is a one-paged document, 5 but a one-paged what, a letter or a memo? 12:31 6 156 Q. MR. McGRATH: It seems to be a 7 memo. It says: 8 "Position of the ISPCC and Childcare Work in Ireland 1973". 9 10 12:31 11 In fact, there should be another page to the document 12 but it doesn't seem to be there. It says: 13 "Foster care has much been neglected in Ireland, despite the traditions of the 14 past even when the sons of kings were fostered out, the concept of modern day 15 foster homes has not got off the 12:32 ground. Very little, if any, attempt 16 has been made by statutory authorities to distinguish between long term and 17 short term foster care or to build up a panel of foster homes. Residential 18 care for children is virtually in the hands of the religious orders. 19 Some institutions are now breaker into 20 smaller units and caring for both 12:32 sexes, but the general picture is still 21 large buildings run by nuns for girls and priests and Brothers for boys. 22 Orders nominating children to the care of the Health Board are seldom used and 23 the children are either committed through a court order under the 1908 24 Children's Act or placed voluntarily in care. 25 12:32 In cases where removal from the family 26 home is necessary foster care is therefore not a viable alternative to a 27 residential one. A residential care is not satisfactory because of the size 28 and one's...READING TO THE WORDS... we operate under an Act is which is 29 outdated an acrognostic. With a new government there will probably be 76 1 changes in the next year but we will still have a long way to go to catch up 2 on the 1969 English Children's Act." 3 4 5 This is an area that you have touched on already with 12:33 6 regard to foster care, in fact, it would appear from 7 the papers that you have furnished and certainly at an 8 early stage the ISPCC was interested in the idea of 9 alternative care and were certainly of the view that 10 the foster care that was in existence in Ireland was 12:33 11 totally inadequate and you have outlined those 12 circumstances. 13 14 There seemed to be two other problems that the Society 15 saw at that time and that was (1) if children were 12:33 16 taken down the committal route that they had to go in 17 until they were 16, there are provisions in the 1908 18 Act in relation to the licensing out and that, but it 19 seems in the vast majority of the cases, once the child 20 was committed that was it, they were in and there was 12:33 21 difficulty getting them back out until they were 16? 22 A. Yes. 23 157 Q. The mention is made of a temporary placement, were the 24 ISPCC involved in temporary placements at all or would 25 that have arisen in their work? 12:34 26 A. Is the question relating to the 1970's or relating 27 to...(INTERJECTION). 28 158 Q. I am really going back through your records. Do you 29 have any cases whereby temporary accommodation was 77 1 sought or there were temporary arrangements made? 2 A. The material that we reviewed wouldn't have given us 3 any indication of that. I mean, there are, I think, 4 examples of situations where children may have been 5 placed with extended family for short periods, there 12:34 6 are some notes in the case files of children being 7 placed in hospital for medical treatment on a short 8 term. 9 159 Q. That would have arisen where they were taken into care 10 at that stage because a doctor had certified that they 12:34 11 had scabies or they had -- 12 A. That's correct. 13 160 Q. -- serious problems and they needed medical treatment 14 or they might have had a squint or something of that 15 nature? 12:35 16 A. That's correct. But there is no evidence that I have 17 come across indicating a system of temporary care, per 18 se. 19 161 Q. Because there had to be situations where children had 20 to be taken away from parents at a particular time, but 12:35 21 surely the Inspector must have had the view that this 22 only needed to be temporary but there is the situation 23 that there was nowhere for those children to go for 24 that temporary period? 25 A. Yes. I think there is examples, I am not absolutely 12:35 26 certain of this, but I think that there are examples in 27 case files of Inspectors making their point. 28 162 Q. Does that seem to be a glaring omission in the overall 29 system for care? 78 1 A. Yes. 2 163 Q. Is there anything in the documents that you have seen 3 that would suggest that the ISPCC was making 4 recommendations to the Government in that regard? 5 A. Well not in the annual reports but I think you quite 12:35 6 rightly pointed out there is a number of annual report 7 would have identified various different issues and they 8 did raise the issue of foster care. But they also 9 raised the issue of -- which is not quite the question 10 you are asking me, but I mean the issue of sick parents 12:36 11 and their children being committed to industrial 12 schools. I think they appeared to have been very 13 active in that regard and I think that does touch on 14 this issue for the need for temporary care, because 15 often temporary care would be needed for situations 12:36 16 where parents are sick or ill and the children needed 17 to be looked after. So I think in that regard that 18 touches on that but I don't have any evidence that 19 there was any campaigning done on the broader issue. 20 164 Q. Coming back to a matter that I mentioned a moment ago, 12:36 21 the question of money and maybe transferring money from 22 the system into families. Am I correct in 23 understanding that from the various cases that have 24 been studied, both by the people who were doing the 25 Maynooth report and also from your own study of case 12:37 26 files, that there were certainly occasions that it 27 would appear that families were in very serious straits 28 and the conditions they were living in were absolutely 29 appalling, but that through a certain amount of 79 1 charitable donation from the Society itself and a bit 2 of arm twisting by the Society that the conditions for 3 those families were improved dramatically? 4 A. Yes, there are examples. 5 165 Q. I am thinking of situations where an Inspector has gone 12:37 6 to a home and he has described it as maybe there being 7 only one bed, children sleeping on floors, there being 8 no -- the place being essentially squalor and by the 9 simple expedient of being able to get extra beds for 10 children, being able to get clothes for children, 12:37 11 having the children treated by a doctor, that instead 12 of those children going into care that they were 13 actually able to continue staying at home? 14 A. Yes, I think the statement identifies a number of cases 15 and there have been a number of case examples presented 12:38 16 in the annual report. I think yes is the answer to 17 that. 18 166 Q. Doesn't it raise in your mind or shouldn't it raise in 19 anyone's mind that surely if it could be done on a case 20 by case basis like that by a charitable organisation 12:38 21 that any effort on the part of the State to address the 22 problem would have resulted in an awful lot less 23 children being taken into full time care? 24 A. Yes. 25 167 Q. I was asking you there a moment ago in relation to the 12:38 26 view taken by the Society in relation to changes being 27 necessary within the system. I would like to bring you 28 to the Irish Golden Jubilee Commemoration document 29 which is contain in folder No. 2 of the Phase III and 80 1 ISPCC documents. 2 A. What date is that document? 3 168 Q. It is about 1939 I think, it is 50 years. It is 4 headed, "National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 5 to Children Irish Golden Jubilee Commemoration"? 12:40 6 A. I don't appear to have that reference. Is it not 7 1940/41 maybe? 8 169 Q. The front of the document shows 1889 to 1931 is what is 9 on the figure on the front of it. It is in the same 10 document as the address by His Majesty the King or a 12:40 11 paper by His Majesty the King on the Society? 12 A. I just have a copy coming to me, thanks. (Same Handed 13 to the Witness.) 14 170 Q. Go to, I think, it is page 5 in the document, it is 15 headed "50 years"? 12:41 16 A. Yes. 17 171 Q. At the bottom of that page there is a paragraph that 18 says: 19 "Although doubtless we have made much progress in the last 50 years as 20 regards to welfare of children, we have 12:41 far to go and there is still much scope 21 for reform. Our descendants 50 years hence will no doubt wonder at our 22 complacency over existing wrongs to children, just as we do to our 23 predecessors when we consider the 2,261 children under 15 in prisons in the 24 Dublin metropolitan district in 1888, a fact mentioned in our first Dublin 25 branch report." 12:42 26 27 Isn't there some irony that we are sitting here in 2006 28 discussing the welfare of children between the time of 29 that document, 1939 and 1980? 81 1 A. Yes. 2 172 Q. Doesn't it suggest that our Society has very 3 significantly failed? 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Therefore you should 5 apologise. 12:42 6 173 Q. MR. McGRATH: Doesn't it establish that 7 our Society really failed 8 those children between the making of that statement and 9 the setting up of this Commission? 10 A. Yes. 12:42 11 174 Q. Now, further along in that particular booklet there is 12 the Honorary Secretary's annual report for the year 13 ending 31st December 1971. 14 A. Sorry. Yes. Sorry for the delay. 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Could Mr. McGrath make that 12:43 16 available to Mr. Gilligan? 17 MR. McGRATH: Sorry, Chairman, if this 18 caused a problem. This was in one of the folders that 19 was supplied to me yesterday, so I don't know where it 20 came from. 12:44 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: It was the 1971 annual 22 report. 23 MR. McGRATH: The honorary Secretary 24 General's report. 25 A. Sorry, I have a copy of that. 12:44 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't be apologising, it 27 doesn't matter, these 28 things happen. All right, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Gilligan 29 has it. 82 1 175 Q. MR. McGRATH: Okay. In the second 2 paragraph, about halfway 3 down the sentence starts -- the heading on the page -- 4 sorry. It is the Cork branch actually report for 1971, 5 sorry. 12:44 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait now, it is the Cork 7 branch. 8 MR. McGRATH: The Cork branch. 9 176 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Does the Cork branch issue 10 an annual report? 12:44 11 A. No. My understanding is that from 1956 there were 12 annual reports. I think the confusion may be that the 13 front cover of this is badly photocopied. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Tell us what you are 15 looking at, Mr. McGrath. 12:45 16 177 Q. MR. McGRATH: What I am looking at 17 ...(INTERJECTION)? 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: What does it say. 19 178 Q. MR. McGRATH: At the start it says: 20 "Honorary Secretary's annual report for 12:45 the year ending December 31st, 1971." 21 22 I don't have a cover for that. But the page before it 23 appears to be a photocopy of a cover: 24 "Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Cork branch for 25 the year 1971." 12:45 26 27 So that's the way it came for me. 28 SOLICITOR: Maybe if Mr. Gilligan can 29 just be give an copy of it 83 1 he can read it. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: But he doesn't have a copy 3 of it. Do we have a copy 4 of it, Mr. MacMahon? 5 MR. MacMAHON: Yes. 12:45 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you lend Mr. Gilligan 7 your copy of it and we can 8 see what progress we can make. (Same Handed). Now, 9 Mr. McGrath, you have it. 10 179 Q. MR. McGRATH: Moving on from the page 12:45 11 that says: 12 "Cork branch, Honorary Secretary's general report for the year ending 13 December 31st, 1971." 14 15 Have you got that? 12:46 16 A. Yes. 17 180 Q. About halfway down the second paragraph: 18 "Reference must again be made". 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you looking at the same 20 thing, Mr. Gilligan? 12:46 21 A. Yes, yes. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now ask your question. 23 181 Q. MR. McGRATH: It says as follows: 24 "Reference must again be made to the dismal failure of our legislators to 25 apply themselves to the scrapping of 12:46 this Children's Act enacted in 1908 26 when conditions were quite different to 1972. One must assume that it is 27 regarded in legislative circles that no political advantage can be gained from 28 the enactment of a more suitable and up to date act and as a personal 29 observation I have to say that bills have been presented to the Oireachtas 84 1 of far less consequence and I would ask those charged with responsibility to 2 have a long look at what the priorities are or should be. 3 In this connection, it would be remiss 4 to omit from this report reference to the Kennedy Report, the findings of 5 which were published in 1970 and no 12:47 apparent effort is or has been made to 6 implement this Commission's recommendations." 7 8 In this summary under the heading "Recommendations on 9 Prevention", it says: 10 "The whole aim of the childcare system 12:47 should be directed towards family 11 breakdown and of problems consequent upon it." 12 13 14 So, in 1971, very much the same as 1939, something 15 needs to be done and needs to be done quickly, isn't 12:47 16 that the tenet that the Society is saying? 17 A. Well I think they are identifying the difficulty of the 18 fact that the legislation -- the primary legislation 19 with regards to child protection, the 1908 Act, hadn't 20 been changed. 12:47 21 182 Q. And again if you can move further on in that booklet to 22 the Honorary Secretary annual report for the year 23 ending 31st December 1973, in similar format, it is in 24 somewhat further along in the book. But this is not 25 paginated. It is shortly ahead of a blue tab in my 12:48 26 book. 27 A. Is this the Dublin branch? 28 183 Q. No, the Cork branch again. It is a 1973 report. It is 29 just a little bit further on past the report that we 85 1 just discussed. 2 A. The next report in the book that I have here is Dublin 3 branch 1973. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you ask the 5 question, Mr. McGrath, and 12:48 6 then we will see whether Mr. Gilligan needs the 7 document. 8 184 Q. MR. McGRATH: It again indicates in the 9 third paragraph, starting 10 on the first page: 12:48 11 "The Society at national and local levels continues to press for the 12 updating of the 1908 Children's Act in accordance with the recommendations of 13 the Kennedy Report and it is a source of satisfaction to us that the 14 comparatively recent recognition of the State's responsibility to deserted 15 wives and families and other changes 12:49 contemplated to assist families in need 16 are being brought about by the submissions and representations made by 17 the ISPCC with the support of kindred bodies". 18 19 20 Now, that would seem to suggest that the types of ways 12:49 21 in which the Society wanted the problem solved back in 22 the 1930's or 1940's are now finally in the 1970's 23 being implemented by giving more assistance to the 24 actual families themselves rather than to the 25 institutions? 12:49 26 A. I mean, I can only agree with what's in the annual 27 reports. Yes, there would appear to have been some 28 movement in terms of payments, but I think the other 29 point is that the 1908 Act still hadn't been addressed. 86 1 185 Q. But the point I am simply making is this: That in 2 1973, what is contained in the annual report there, 3 would seem to be in line with the suggestions being 4 made by the Society back in the late 1930's, 1938/39 5 and then the early 1940's, as to how the problem could 12:50 6 be solved by giving money to families, whether it be 7 families where a parent had gone away or families where 8 the child was an illegitimate child, as it was at that 9 time, that the solution to the problem that's arrived 10 at in 1973 is precisely what the Society was saying 12:50 11 should be done back in the 1930's and 1940's; isn't 12 that the situation? 13 A. I think the role -- since its establishment, the role 14 of the Society has been to attempt to identify what 15 social policy would help protect the children. 12:51 16 186 Q. The point I am simply making is this: The policy that 17 you suggested in the 1930's and 1940's should be 18 implemented, is finally taken on board by a Government 19 here in the State in the 1970's? 20 A. Yes, I would agree with that. 12:51 21 187 Q. It took them a long time to learn; didn't it? 22 A. Yes. 23 188 Q. In relation to the matter that I was dealing with 24 earlier, one of your reports, and I think Mr. Gageby 25 mentioned it in passing and did quote from it and it 12:51 26 did provoke a reaction from some of the people who were 27 in the institutions when it was read out, it is 28 something that I do want to bring up with you before I 29 finish. And that is in the 1948/49 annual report, 87 1 Dublin and district branch, which I think has been 2 opened by me and by Mr. Gageby previously? 3 A. Yes. 4 189 Q. Under the heading "industrial schools" on page five of 5 that? 12:52 6 A. Yes. 7 190 Q. It says as follows: 8 "During the year we have had to arrange for the placing of a large number of 9 children in industrial schools chiefly because their parents were unable to 10 maintain them but in some case because 12:52 their home conditions were so 11 undesirable as to make it necessary to remove them. 12 There is no doubt that in these schools 13 they receive care and attention and a sound education and are brought up to 14 be useful members of the community. 15 Nevertheless, however grateful we may 12:53 be for the devoted work of the Orders 16 which conduct these schools it must be recognised that the children are to a 17 large extent deprived of home influences and that it would be much 18 better if we could avoid sending them to such institutions. If their own 19 homes are impossible good foster homes would give them a healthier and happier 20 introduction to life. It is however 12:53 seldom possible find such homes in the 21 cases presented to the Society. 22 There is another aspect of the careers of such children which calls for 23 consideration. Those committed through no fault of their own and even of their 24 parents there are others who find their way into industrial schools through the 25 courts on the grounds of some form of 12:53 juvenile delinquency, even if it is 26 only such unruliness as failure to attend the ordinary primary schools. 27 These children form a small percentage only of the inmates of these 28 institutions but in the publically eye many of the children leaving such 29 schools are branded with the taint introduced by these few. 88 1 It is very much to be regretted that 2 children who have done nothing to deserve such a character should suffer 3 from the shortcomings of a small minority and it is emphatically not the 4 fault of the schools concerned. But the fact remains and provides a problem 5 which will have to be faced in the 12:54 future. One remedy would appear to lie 6 in some sort of reclassification of industrial schools which would allow of 7 the segregation of delinquents. 8 Perhaps the worst instance of the injustice to children from the 9 prevailing reputations of these schools occurs where parents have to apply for 10 committal when they cannot find anyone 12:54 to care for their children when they 11 have to leave them to undergo hospital treatment. 12 The whole question of the treatment of 13 deprived children in this country calls for investigation such as it has 14 received recently in England. 15 There are other aspects also of the 12:54 industrial school child which would we 16 would pay attention. What's is his future when he's thrown out on his own 17 resources on this charge? The more lucrative trades are not open to him 18 under the system of closed unions, even if he were trained to one of them at 19 school. Again there is seldom any provision for the extension to the boy 20 or girl who shows promise of education 12:55 beyond the primary stage. It is not 21 surprising that many of our more experienced officers try to avoid the 22 easy course of committal even where the task of bringing about suitable home 23 conditions seems almost insuperable." 24 25 12:55 26 Again, back in the 1940's there was very serious cause 27 for concern in the Society for putting children into 28 schools even though they felt they were going to get a 29 good education and being well treated there? 89 1 A. Yes. 2 191 Q. At this stage the Commission has heard significant 3 amounts of evidence in terms of how children were 4 treated in the schools and it would certainly seem, in 5 my submission, that a statement that: 12:55 6 "There is no doubt in these schools that they receive care and attention 7 and a sound education are brought up to be useful members of the community." 8 9 10 12:56 11 Would certainly be challenged by many of the people who 12 were there and it seems to be a kind of very blase 13 remark made given that the Society didn't have any role 14 in inspecting the schools or in anyway doing follow up 15 on the children, because there seems to have been no 12:56 16 connection whatsoever, other than as you say in an odd 17 letter back for one reason or another or an Inquiry as 18 to whether or not a family are now fit to take a child 19 back? 20 A. Yes, I don't know the basis on which they are making 12:56 21 that statement. 22 192 Q. Because certainly from the records there would 23 certainly seem to be nothing in the records that would 24 lead to a conclusion that anyone from the Society has 25 spent any time in the schools to see how they are run 12:56 26 and would have that particular piece of knowledge? 27 A. That's correct. I also think, I think I have 28 identified in the statement, I think it is reasonable 29 to suspect that the Inspectors and the ISPCC/NSPCC 90 1 would have had the expectation that the Department of 2 Education, the certification process, would have been 3 testifying to the quality or lack of quality in the 4 schools. I think -- and I don't know what the basis of 5 that statement is, but I think it is clear the 12:57 6 ISPCC/NSPCC didn't have a role in terms of assessing 7 the quality in the schools. 8 193 Q. Can I ask you a little bit about the situation with 9 regard to when the children were leaving schools and 10 the fact that at that stage there was a concern, did 12:57 11 the Society itself ever consider, having had a role in 12 putting children into care, that it would or should see 13 what they could do for children aftercare or be 14 involved in any way in helping children in aftercare or 15 did the fact that they came out at 16 mean they were no 12:57 16 longer considered to be children by the Society or 17 worthy of its attention? 18 A. I think there is no evidence from the material that the 19 Society engaged in any aftercare, engaged in thinking 20 about it or providing aftercare. I think the 1908 Act 12:58 21 defined the child at 16 and I think they would have 22 assumed that after 16 they were adults. I think it 23 would be fair to say, based on my knowledge, that 24 society in general would have considered 16 to have 25 been the cut off for children. It wasn't until the 12:58 26 1970's, I think that the Society began to look at 27 attempting to provide some support to children who had 28 been placed in care by the Society and had attempted to 29 support them to reintegrate and to build up 91 1 relationships with their families. I think there is 2 evidence in the material that some projects were 3 established to attempt to do that. 4 194 Q. Now there is one last thing that I want to deal with 5 and it is just in terms of you mentioned the particular 12:59 6 problems that arose for the Society in dealing with 7 illegitimate children, I mean we had much evidence 8 yesterday in terms of the poor house or what were more 9 recently known as the county homes and children being 10 taken from there and sent into care or into fostering 12:59 11 or whatever for periods which do not seem to have been 12 successful, I think under the poor laws it was boarding 13 out and it does not seem to have been terribly 14 successful. Was it the experience of the Society that 15 the illegitimate children were more likely to end up in 12:59 16 care than the children in the families? 17 A. There is no statistics in that regard, unfortunately. 18 It wasn't a categorisation that was used so I don't 19 know. But I think there is clear evidence from the 20 annual reports where the NSPCC/ISPCC have identified 13:00 21 the difficulty of placing -- taking illegitimate 22 children away from the parents and the placing of those 23 children in the institutions. I think they have tried 24 to identify that that wasn't an ideal mechanism. 25 195 Q. Because certainly many of the children who were in 13:00 26 institutions who were illegitimate have very 27 significant stories to tell in terms of the effect of 28 their illegitimacy and the way they were treated in 29 there and that, it seems to have had an added 92 1 difficulty, whatever about what you have described as 2 the problems in society outside, inside in the 3 institutions it certainly seems to have been a reason 4 for them being treated in specific manners which 5 legitimate children may not have been treated, owing to 13:00 6 the fact that they were illegitimate or, as the term at 7 that time was, bastard, and that seems to have been 8 taken out on them, was the Society in any way aware of 9 that particular aspect of them being taken into care? 10 A. No, I think from the evidence that I have read, I think 13:01 11 certainly there is a sense of the difficulties that the 12 mothers faced in terms of -- I think the word shame is 13 used. I think there is evidence through the case files 14 of mothers of illegitimate children not being able to 15 return home until the children were dealt with, so to 13:01 16 speak. That somewhere was found for them. So I think 17 you are getting a sense of the sort of issues of social 18 stigma that illegitimacy apparently carried at that 19 time. I would feel that that would transfer. But 20 certainly nothing from the material that I have read 13:01 21 indicates any issue in regards to the residential 22 facilities with regards to them being treated any 23 differently from others. 24 MR. McGRATH: I have no further 25 questions, Chairman. 13:02 26 27 END OF EXAMINATION OF MR. GILLIGAN BY MR. McGRATH 28 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now, 93 1 Mr. MacMahon, have you any 2 questions? 3 MR. MacMAHON: I have a few questions 4 just. 5 6 MR. PAUL GILLIGAN WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, 7 BY THE COMMISSION: 8 9 10 196 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Firstly, in relation to the 13:02 11 collection of subscriptions 12 by the Society, I think the Inspector's directory on 13 page 39 refers to a rule in relation to this heading, 14 "Subscriptions and Contribution to the Society", and on 15 page 39 it says: 13:02 16 "Only under special circumstances and 17 under instructions is an Inspector allowed to collect money, except 18 collections under maintenance orders. 19 In the event of a contribution being made to an Inspector for the relief of 20 a case he must remit the amount at once 13:02 to the central office and await 21 instructions as to its application. A receipt will be furnished to the 22 contributor whose names and address should be sent with the remittance." 23 24 25 What was the policy of the Society in relation to the 13:02 26 collection of monies from industrial schools? 27 A. I'm aware that this issue has arisen within the 28 Commission and we looked for information with regards 29 to that and didn't come up with anything other than one 94 1 reference in a case file to communication where an 2 Inspector was advised not to take a donation, I think 3 it is from a residential institution, and it refers to 4 the fact that there had been some suggestion in the 5 past that there had been some pecuniary advantage, I 13:03 6 think is the reference, paid to Inspectors. 7 8 But I mean, I think the best way I can answer this is 9 that each of the annual reports identifies sources of 10 income and it seems to be pretty thorough in the 13:03 11 context of the categories and there is no evidence in 12 those annual reports of any payments being made from 13 residential institutions. So, if you take any of the 14 annual reports that have annual accounts they divide up 15 the sources of income which were all voluntary 13:04 16 pre-1963, from collections, events like sale of works, 17 legacies, subscriptions which appear to be membership, 18 like a membership fee. And I would think that if there 19 was any arrangement for the Society to be paid money 20 from residential institutions that it would be 13:04 21 identified within the annual accounts. 22 23 I think the second possibility raised was that the 24 Inspector themselves were taking funding. But I think 25 if that is the case then they would be breaching 13:04 26 clearly the guidelines, the directory, because I think 27 it is clear from the directory, in two or three places 28 and you have quoted one, that they were not entitled to 29 take payments or any subscriptions without notifying 95 1 their honorary secretary, the head office and that they 2 would be receipted. So I couldn't see that the those 3 payments would not show up in annual reports. And 4 there would be no rational in 1942 or 1938 not to show. 5 There would be no reason why they wouldn't show those 13:05 6 payments if they were being received, in my view. 7 197 Q. The reference where this issue came up was in relation 8 to a Visitation Report, it was from 1952, and concern 9 was raised and appeared to be raised in relation to two 10 separate Inspectors of the ISPCC, or NSPCC as it then 13:05 11 was, and the requirement that a payment be made of £9 12 in one case was queried by the visitor, the 13 congregational visitor to this institution. Reference 14 is made to the bursar considering it to being more like 15 a bribe to induce the Inspector to bring boys to the 13:06 16 school but the Superior stated that it was a 17 subscription to the Society's funds and that was the 18 explanation that was given to the congregational 19 visitor at that time? 20 A. Yes, I mean, I suppose I can only really repeat that we 13:06 21 -- in addressing ourselves to providing a statement to 22 the Commission and giving this evidence, we took the 23 view as a Society that alongside our own trawling of 24 information that we would engage two independent 25 consultants and they were given -- they were asked to 13:06 26 review all the documentation and specifically while 27 they were doing that this issue arose within the work 28 of the Commission and we said to them we want to know 29 if there is any evidence supporting this claim. We did 96 1 not come across any. 2 3 We did come across, and I will find the reference now, 4 the communication within a case file of a letter 5 identifying that there had been such an allegation but 13:07 6 saying that the Inspector was not to accept a donation. 7 That would suggest that there was some allegations made 8 in regards to this previous to that, perhaps in the 9 1940's, and that they were trying to deal with it. 10 13:07 11 But again I would restate -- I mean, one of the 12 situations that would appear to be clear, certainly up 13 to 1956 and after 1956, the reporting mechanisms on 14 finance appeared to be very structured and I would be 15 surprised if there was a source of financial income 13:07 16 that wasn't being demonstrated in the financial reports 17 and I would not see why it wouldn't be, because I 18 presume if there was a structure to receive payments 19 that that was a formal structure that would be a clear 20 form of income. 13:08 21 198 Q. Yes. That particular visitor points out to the fact 22 that the Superior had brought the matter up to 23 Provincial level within the Congregation and it had 24 been approved, the payment had been approved at 25 Provincial level and was made. Then in passing the 13:08 26 visitor referred to the fact that another Inspector 27 whom the visitor names, expects to get expenses also. 28 He's referred to in the report as being a well known 29 sponger. There was one other thing that I wanted to 97 1 ask you about in relation to the Inspector's directory, 2 this is the document which you referred to in your 3 report as being a 1947 document but it is perhaps 4 somewhat older than that, I think? 5 A. Yes. 13:08 6 199 Q. It is hand dated 1947 by the owner, or by a previous 7 owner of the document, his name is on the front and it 8 is dated 10th January 1947? 9 A. That's correct. It could relate back to the 1930's. 10 We put that date on it because there was no publication 13:09 11 date on the document and that was the nearest we could 12 get. 13 200 Q. I want to ask you about one thing in it. Just before 14 the contents page there appears to have been a note, it 15 is a note that appears -- from the photocopy that I 13:09 16 have got, it appears to have been glued in position, 17 just ahead of the contents page, if you might open the 18 directory and take a look at it? 19 A. I wonder would it be possible for me to get the 20 original document. 13:09 21 201 Q. That would be helpful. Yes. 22 A. If you have that here. (Same Handed) Thank you. 23 There is a couple of amendments. One of which is 24 amendment to the superannuation scheme. 25 202 Q. I'm not concern with that. If you just go to the 13:10 26 contents page. 27 A. This is the: 28 "Note to be affixed to Inspector's directory." 29 98 1 Sexual offences. 2 203 Q. Is that a note that has been glued in position? It is 3 an additional note that appears to have been glued into 4 the page facing the contents book. It says: 5 "Note to be fixed to Inspector's 13:10 director." 6 7 And then it refers to sexual offences? 8 A. That's correct. 9 204 Q. I will just read it: 10 "For the purpose of this directory, if 13:10 the Inspector receives information from 11 any quarter alleging a sexual offence, incest, carnal knowledge or indecent 12 assault, he should make no inquiries into the allegation or take any 13 statements but should refer the information to the local police without 14 delay". 15 What's known about the provenance of that insert? 13:10 16 A. Very little, I am afraid. I don't know when that was 17 inserted, where it came from, from where it arrived. 18 What I can say slightly off the point, and I apologise 19 for this, but there is a second directory dated 1960, 20 which had written in some of -- certainly the 13:11 21 superannuation amendment had been written into the 22 1960's document and in that document that's removed and 23 there is sections on investigating sexual offences and 24 there is also inclusion in the medical reports expected 25 from the doctors around sexual assault and outrage and 13:11 26 suspected outrage. So I think -- I don't know the 27 dates of that particular memo but I would suspect that 28 it coincided with the -- remember this was a UK booklet 29 and it coincided with the awareness within the UK of 99 1 this whole area of sexual offences and I think the 2 1960's amendment perhaps reflects the growing awareness 3 of the need to investigate that. But I can only 4 speculate. 5 205 Q. And it would perhaps reflect an awareness of the 13:12 6 criminality of such behaviour? 7 A. Yes, a growing awareness, I think, of that. Well 8 effectively yes, that the Inspector had -- I mean, one 9 of the distinctions that is made in, both in the 10 directory and in the annual report, is the fact that 13:12 11 the Inspector is not a policeman, not a guard, I think 12 it is the distinction to ensure that this sexual 13 offence will be investigated as a criminal offence as 14 opposed to within the context of maybe cruelty or the 15 role of the director. But I am speculating on that, I 13:12 16 don't know. 17 206 Q. There was a reference to -- and as you are aware there 18 are very few papers extant in relation to the workings 19 of the Kennedy Committee? 20 A. Yes. 13:12 21 207 Q. But one document that we have received from the 22 Department of Education is a query that the Kennedy 23 Committee made or District Justice Kennedy made to the 24 Department of Education arising out of concerns 25 expressed to her by an Inspector -- by the secretary, I 13:13 26 think, of the ISPCC relating to punishment in one of 27 the industrial schools and District Justice Kennedy was 28 asking that this matter be investigated by the 29 Department of Education. That document is accompanied 100 1 by a document which is described as the ISPCC 2 complaint, which describes precisely what the complaint 3 is all about. What's the knowledge of the ISPCC of 4 that complaint at this stage, and indeed what knowledge 5 does the ISPCC have of other complaints that may have 13:13 6 been made in relation to how the industrial schools 7 were conducted? 8 A. Again, the trawl of information didn't provide -- we 9 came across no evidence that Inspectors were informed 10 about complaints relating to industrial schools. I 13:14 11 think there is one piece of evidence -- there is one 12 reference in a case file, I think to -- and we mention 13 in the statement, of an allegation against a teacher 14 and the Inspectors dealing with that. But we didn't 15 come across any information in our trawl with regards 13:14 16 to industrial schools. I am not aware of the 17 information you are referring. 18 208 Q. The Kennedy Committee was conducting its inquiries in 19 1969 and the inquiry which District Justice Kennedy 20 made of it is dated -- well, a reminder is dated 5th 13:14 21 May 1969, so that postdates the fire in Molesworth 22 Street by a considerable margin? 23 A. Yes. 24 209 Q. Is there any explanation where the documentation 25 relating to that type of complaint or category of 13:14 26 correspondence might have gone to? 27 A. Well, unless -- I am just looking to my colleagues. I 28 am nearly sure that we have archived all of these 29 specific cases, material up to -- in existence up to 101 1 maybe the 1990's, so if it was a case it would have 2 emerged. I think the administration files are not 3 archived and I mean quite frankly they are in boxes in 4 our head office. We have never archived them and it is 5 perhaps...(INTERJECTION). 13:15 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: You were supposed to do it. 7 A. There was perhaps some information in regards to -- if 8 this was dealt as an administrative matter as opposed 9 to a specific case then it could be within those files. 10 But if it was a specific case we would have it in our 13:15 11 archives. But finding a specific case would not 12 necessarily arise in terms of the research we have done 13 for either this purpose or previously. We are talking 14 about 8,000 plus cases, we would need somebody to 15 identify the case and then we would go and find it. I 13:15 16 think the focus of the researches was on the 1930's, to 17 the present day, but we wouldn't have focussed 18 necessarily on the 1969/70's time. 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Tell us what you got to 20 find these things? 13:16 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Please stop, for goodness 22 sake. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Ask the question. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gilligan, just try to 25 answer the question, it is 13:16 26 very hard not to be distracted, but try to answer it. 27 A. Our Chairman at the time was on the Kennedy Commission 28 so we were involved in the Kennedy Report. That's all 29 I can really say. 102 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Have you many more 2 questions, Mr. MacMahon? 3 MR. MacMAHON: No, I don't in fact, I have 4 one more question I wanted 5 to deal with. 13:16 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 7 210 Q. MR. MacMAHON: I don't know if you were 8 conscious of the evidence 9 which was given on behalf of the Department of Health 10 and the part I want to ask you about is in relation to 13:16 11 the current arrangements in place in relation to 12 fostering. I think the evidence was that there are 13 about 5,000 children currently in fostering in Ireland 14 and that -- sorry, about 5,000 children in care, just 15 over 4,200 are in foster care. The evidence, I think, 13:17 16 was that no inspections have been conducted since 1999 17 when social service inspectorate was set up, apart from 18 a very small number, I think something in excess of 50 19 inspections as part of a pilot scheme. 20 13:17 21 Does the ISPCC have a view in relation to the need for 22 inspections in the present day and age? 23 A. I think we are on the record -- I mean, there are a 24 number of concerns we would have with the current child 25 protection and childcare system, I think that it is 13:17 26 clear from the knowledge we have of the current 27 residential care system that there is a lot of 28 difficulties. I think there has been a lot of 29 advancement in that area, even with the establishment 103 1 of the inspectorate has been a significant development. 2 But I think it is really important if we are going to 3 provide quality care for children in care that there 4 are regular inspections and that the recommendations 5 that they make are adhered to, not just by the 13:18 6 individual residential institutions but at Government 7 and Department level, so it really is important to 8 ensure that inspections do occur. 9 MR. MacMAHON: Thank you very much. 10 A. Thank you. 13:18 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want another go? 12 MR. GAGEBY: No, I don't actually, 13 Mr. Chairman. I just want 14 to come back to something I was just aware earlier on 15 when I was almost finishing with Mr. Gilligan that 13:18 16 there is a bit of unhappiness with a phrase I used 17 earlier. I hope the Committee doesn't think I did use 18 such a phrase to refer to any child, I was referring to 19 the danger of such a matter. It is just because I am 20 amicus curiae, I would not like the Committee to think 13:18 21 that you would understand that I had referred so 22 disparaging to a person, because I certainly didn't. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Thank you for 24 clarifying that, 25 Mr. Gageby. Mr. O'Donoghue, have you anything? Or 13:18 26 Ms. O'Clerigh? 27 MS. O'CLERIGH: I think Mr. Gilligan might 28 just like 29 to...(INTERJECTION). 104 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: What's going to happen 2 next, I am going to ask 3 Ms. Shanley and Mr. Lowe. You have no questions that 4 you want to ask, Ms. O'Clerigh? 5 MR. O'DONOGHUE: No. I am just indicating 13:19 6 sure that Mr. Gilligan 7 wants to add something himself. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: What I was going to do was 9 to finish up the question 10 by inviting Ms. Shanley and Mr. Lowe to ask any 13:19 11 questions they want and if Mr. Gilligan wants to say 12 something at the end of that, well and good. 13 211 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Just one question, if I 14 may. Mr. Gilligan, did any 15 Inspectors between 1930 and 1970, were any of them ever 13:19 16 removed from office or disciplined or monitored in any 17 way? 18 A. Unfortunately I don't know that. 19 212 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Was there a monitoring 20 procedure on how they did 13:19 21 their work? 22 A. It would appear that they operated effectively 23 independently. There is no evidence that there was -- 24 the directory clearly indicates that they must report 25 to the Honorary Secretary of each branch, but there was 13:20 26 no evidence that there was any structured supervision 27 or monitoring of their role. 28 213 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Would these people have 29 simply applied for this 105 1 job? 2 A. That's correct. 3 214 Q. MS. SHANLEY: And once they got the job 4 they were sent out and 5 there was no subsequent monitoring of them? 13:20 6 A. That would appear to be -- well, other than would have 7 been direct management from the Honorary Secretary and 8 I think the Inspector's directory identifies how 9 important it was for the Inspector to furnish all -- 10 for example, they weren't entitled to take any 13:20 11 proceedings against families. 12 215 Q. MS. SHANLEY: But the onus was on the 13 Inspector to communicate 14 with head office, there wasn't an onus the other way 15 around? 13:20 16 A. The structure was there was Honorary Secretary in each 17 branch. Say there was 14 branches, Limerick, Mayo, 18 Clonmel, the Honorary Secretary in that branch would be 19 effectively line managing the Inspector. But there 20 wasn't -- we didn't come across any evidence of a sort 13:21 21 of structured sit down and supervise situation. It 22 would appear that it was through recordkeeping and 23 through very clear distinct reporting responsibility 24 seeking permission to warn a family, to seek 25 procedures, to instigate procedures for committal or 13:21 26 for prosecution. So there was a management structure. 27 They weren't on their own, per se, but how structured 28 that was in terms of sitting down and managing as we 29 would know today is...(INTERJECTION). 106 1 216 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Just very briefly I would 2 ask you, you discussed 3 donations. In fact the phrase used in the course of 4 Phase II was expenses. I just want to clarify with 5 you, was there any circumstances under which Inspectors 13:21 6 received expenses from industrial schools for the costs 7 incurred in bringing children to that industrial 8 school, because they sometimes accompanied the 9 children? Were they paid their expenses were doing 10 that? 13:22 11 A. I don't have any evidence and we have come across none 12 that there were. That's all I can say. And it would 13 appear from the directory, I would have to check the 14 reference, that there is a section on expenses, I 15 think, if you just bear with me for a second. 13:22 16 217 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Yes. 17 A. There is some mention of expenses of warrants here, but 18 there isn't -- I would be surprised if they were 19 receiving expenses, that it wouldn't be covered in the 20 directory or wouldn't be accounted for in the annual 13:23 21 reports. The reference here is to expenses of 22 warrants. It says: 23 "The expenses incurred in executing warrants are not recoverable from 24 either party but are repayable out of the police fund." 25 13:23 26 Then it talks about: 27 "If any accounts received by an inspector, he must forward it to the 28 central office where correspondence with the police or authorities would be 29 undertaken. The expense of the conveyance of prisoners is not payable 107 1 to the Society." 2 3 I mean, I can't answer you definitively but I have come 4 across no evidence of expenses or payments from 5 residential institutions, certainly not documented 13:23 6 MS. SHANLEY: Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Lowe. 8 218 Q. MR. LOWE: Just one question. The 9 original Council of Windsor 10 Rules, if you like, for the Society stated: 13:24 11 "Its objective to prevent the public and private wrongs of children and the 12 corruption of their morals." 13 14 I just want to know what the corruption of their morals 15 had as an implication for how the Society functioned? 13:24 16 A. I'm not sure what that referred to in general terms, 17 but I think the way the Society appeared to interpret 18 that in Ireland was how it was defined in the 1908 19 Children Act and there is a number of categories 20 including a parent engaging in prostitution. I think 13:24 21 there is also reference to drunken and disorderly 22 father, who had been found guilty of an offence against 23 a minor. I would also like to point out that that 24 category of moral risk was identified as a category -- 25 sorry, a way of categorising complaints, or 13:25 26 categorising contacts, and it represented a very low 27 number, an extremely low percentage of the work of the 28 Society. I think one of the charts we have moral 29 danger and immoral offences you are talking about .17% 108 1 of referrals; .86% of -- so, less than 1% of the 2 referrals. 3 4 so I don't know exactly and it wasn't defined, the 5 directory didn't define it clearly. I suppose one of 13:25 6 the key points arising for me in looking at this 7 research was that because of the nature -- most 8 Inspectors came from the police, were retired policemen 9 or army officers, and I think they adhered very 10 strongly to the 1908 Act and all their categorisation 13:26 11 is directly related back to that and I think the issues 12 of moral threat relates back to how that's defined in 13 the 1908 Act. 14 MR. LOWE: Thank you. 15 A. Thank you. 13:26 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Gilligan, did you 17 want to finish up by saying 18 something? 19 A. I just wanted to take the opportunity to make two 20 points. The first is to say that the ISPCC welcome the 13:26 21 opportunity to contribute to the work of the Commission 22 and to hopefully be able to give some insight into the 23 functioning of the Society over the years. 24 25 Secondly, as I have said in my statement, but for the 13:26 26 benefit of people who have not seen the statement, I 27 suppose I want to clearly say and express our profound 28 regret to those people who following committal to an 29 industrial school on application by a member of the 109 1 ISPCC were subsequently subjected to any form of abuse. 2 I want to genuinely express that regret, both from the 3 Society and from myself. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, 5 Mr. Gilligan. 13:27 6 A. Thank you. 7 8 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF MR. GILLIGAN BY THE 9 COMMISSION. 10 11 MR. McGRATH: Sorry, Chairman, before the 12 Board rises, I have a 13 couple of matters that I want to address you on. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, thank you very 15 much to Mr. Gilligan. If 13:27 16 you want to, you can sit if you to, or if you want to 17 leave and gather your stuff in a minute. But whatever 18 you want like, Mr. Gilligan. 19 MR. McGRATH: The first matter I want to 20 raise is something arises 13:27 21 out of some questioning I was doing yesterday and I was 22 asking about the difference between children who were 23 placed in care under the boarding out system, vis-a-vis 24 those who were sent in under the order of a court and 25 stuck there until they were 16. I was contrasting how 13:27 26 much easier it was for one to get out than the other 27 and Mr. Gageby, in passing, mentioned licence, that I 28 wasn't dealing with that particular problem. 29 110 1 The context of the question that I was asking was in 2 terms of where children were going out to what are 3 called godparents or families and certainly there has 4 been some evidence and certainly people have mentioned 5 to me about the fact that at times those godparents or 13:28 6 those families would liked to have adopted those 7 children and it didn't happen. 8 9 In that context, if Mr. Gageby is raising the question 10 of licence being available, I was going to suggest to 13:28 11 the Commission that his clients, the Sisters of Mercy, 12 just even just in respect of maybe Goldenbridge, could 13 do a trawl through their records and see and give to 14 the Commission an indication of how many children were 15 allowed out on licence to live with their godparents or 13:28 16 with families who expressed such an interest and that 17 might deal with that particular aspect of the matter 18 which I brought up yesterday. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you very much. 20 MR. McGRATH: There are a couple of other 13:29 21 things I have been asked 22 about. One of them is in relation last week, part of 23 the week was set aside for the hearing in public 24 section of experts, that the Commission has brought 25 forward. That I don't know whether it was adjourned or 13:29 26 what happened to it last week but I do know it didn't 27 take place. I know from looking at the website that it 28 would appear to have been cancelled. I suppose from 29 the point of view of the people that I represent they 111 1 are somewhat anxious to know as to whether it is the 2 intention of the Committee to hear that evidence in 3 public or whether there will be any hearings at all or 4 whether it is cancelled or adjourned or what the status 5 of that is. 13:29 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: The position is, 7 Mr. McGrath, that with most 8 of the reports we are waiting to get them. In fairness 9 to the experts in some instances we have extended or 10 changed the instructions that we gave them. And as to 13:30 11 the nature of the hearing, that will depend on what we 12 think is necessary when we have the reports. We will 13 consider the reports and we will decide how best to 14 deal with them. One way or another they will be taken 15 into account in our report. 13:30 16 17 But obviously depending on whether there is unanimity 18 or it is likely to be there is anything controversial 19 or to be disputed those are matters that we will have 20 to take into account, bearing in mind fair procedures 13:30 21 obligations. 22 23 The short answer is -- so, when we have the reports we 24 will have to consider how best to deal with them. That 25 may involve -- it may involve public consideration of 13:30 26 them, it was slotted in to our schedule to enable us to 27 do that and that would have been when we did it but it 28 also may not. So I don't want to people to be thinking 29 that we are changing our minds or whatever. 112 1 2 Not that we avoid changing our minds if we think it is 3 correct to do so. So that's the position, Mr. McGrath. 4 I'm not really in a position to tell you. 5 MR. McGRATH: I mean just clarification 13:31 6 in terms of whether it had 7 been cancelled -- 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, there is no 9 problem. 10 MR. McGRATH: -- or adjourned because 13:31 11 there is some concern, as 12 you can understand. 13 14 The last matter that I have been instructed to say to 15 you is that I understand that various committees of the 13:31 16 Right of Place Organisation have met this week in 17 relation to the Commission and I am asked to tell you, 18 Chairman, that they have voted no confidence in you at 19 this stage. That's a matter that I have been asked to 20 say. 13:31 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: So be it, Mr. McGrath. So 22 be it. Very good. Thank 23 you very much and thank you for your assistance and we 24 are now adjourned. Thank you again, Mr. Gilligan. 25 13:32 26 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 1:32 P.M. 27 28 29 113