COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON MONDAY, 15TH MAY 2006 - DAY 217B EVIDENCE OF SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE 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 SISTERS OF MERCY: MR. P. GAGEBY SC MS. U. NI RAIFEARTAIGH BL Instructed by: FOR THE COMPLAINANTS: MR. D. McGRATH SC Instructed by: MR. D. HANAHOE MICHAEL E. HANAHOE FOR THE COMPLAINANTS: MR. D. McGUINNESS SC Instructed by: MS. G. KEEHAN HUSSEY & BATES 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. SR. O'DONOGHUE QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 4 EXAMINED - MR. McGUINESS 5 - 184 EXAMINED - MR. McGRATH 185 - 288 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 289 - 299 EXAMINED - MR. GAGEBY 300 - 380 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 381 - 392 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED, AS FOLLOWS, ON MONDAY 15TH MAY 2 2006: 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now, 5 Mr. MacMahon. 12:32 6 MR. MacMAHON: The Committee is now 7 resuming evidence in 8 relation to St. Vincent's Industrial School in 9 Goldenbridge. Sr. Helena O'Donoghue previously gave 10 evidence in relation to that institution and I will 12:32 11 call her to the witness stand. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and this time we will 13 remember to swear the 14 witness. Now, Mr. Reedy. 15 12:33 16 SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED 17 BY THE COMMISSION, AS FOLLOWS: 18 19 1 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Sr. Helena, I think you are 20 Provincial leader of the 12:33 21 south central province of the Sisters of Mercy, a 22 position you have held since 1995, you are in your 23 second term, second six-year term in that capacity? 24 A. Yes. 25 2 Q. I think you already gave evidence to the Investigation 12:33 26 Committee on Tuesday, 15th March 2005? 27 A. That's correct. 28 3 Q. I think at that time you spoke about the sources upon 29 which you were relying and I think you have since that 4 1 time attended and there have been a number of hearings 2 in private? 3 A. That's correct. 4 4 Q. When evidence was give to the Investigation Committee 5 and you attended all of those? 12:34 6 A. I did. 7 MR. MacMAHON: I think you understand the 8 basis on which you are 9 returning now to give evidence, and apart from handing 10 over -- I think Mr. McGuinness is going to question you 12:34 11 initially and then Mr. McGrath and Mr. Gageby will have 12 some further questions, perhaps, as may I. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Now, 14 Mr. McGuinness. 15 12:34 16 SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 17 MR. McGUINNESS: 18 19 MR. McGUINNESS: Good morning, Sister. 20 A. Good morning, Mr. McGuinness. 12:34 21 5 Q. As you know, I have represented a small number of 22 complainants in the Phase II private Inquiries, their 23 time in Goldenbridge spanned from the late 1940's to 24 1970. I think you probably heard their evidence? 25 A. I did. 12:34 26 6 Q. As you probably heard all of the other evidence 27 relating to Goldenbridge? 28 A. I did. 29 7 Q. Obviously I'm not going to ask you about any 5 1 individuals or any individual complaints or ask you in 2 anyway directly about their evidence. But can I ask 3 you this: How long have you been involved in dealing 4 with the survivors of Goldenbridge? 5 A. Since late 1995, in my capacity as a Provincial with 12:35 6 responsibility. 7 8 Q. That's a sobering thought, I would think that that's, 8 in fact, although it looks like a long period and no 9 doubt a very difficult period for you. It is, in fact, 10 a shorter period than many of the people who were 12:35 11 consigned to Goldenbridge and I think you would 12 appreciate that. Can I ask you about your experience 13 in relation to those survivors, have you seen chronic 14 illness in many of them yourself? 15 A. Well, in relation to all of the complainants that I 12:35 16 have come to know in varying ways over the years, I 17 would say the dominant experience I have is a deep 18 awareness of the pain and hurt that they have carried 19 from their childhoods and that that had impact on their 20 lives in one way or another, as indeed any experience 12:36 21 in our lives does. I would say that for myself and I 22 know for us Sisters at this time, that reality has been 23 a cause of great distress, I would say even to the 24 degree that we could in some small measure feel that 25 pain and deeply want to be committed to and engaged in 12:36 26 doing whatever can be done to bring healing, to bring 27 reconciliation, to bring recovery. That would be the 28 general experience that I would have had over the last 29 ten years. 6 1 2 I would believe that the Sisters who were present in 3 the years during which many of the former residents 4 have made complaints would also have been deeply 5 distressed by that pain and would want also to find 12:37 6 ways to bring healing. 7 9 Q. Thank you for that answer. You have also mixed into 8 that answer your aspirations for your own work and the 9 work of the Commission, but could I just go back to the 10 question. Has it been your personal experience in 12:37 11 dealing with the survivors over the last 11 years or so 12 that you have seen that they have suffered, many of 13 them suffered, chronic illness? 14 A. I am aware a great deal of how that has affected them 15 and have heard their stories and have really tried to 12:37 16 listen and engage. We have provided, I suppose, in a 17 number of ways supports that we would hope might 18 address those concerns seriously, such as counselling 19 and individual personal interrelationships and where 20 former residents wanted them, and working towards 12:38 21 enabling many of them as want to receive some redress 22 through the Redress scheme. 23 10 Q. Yes. I'm sure you would appreciate the difficulties 24 that some might have in engaging with the 25 representatives at the Order, at whose hands they have 12:38 26 suffered in their own way? 27 A. We represent the view of each person. 28 11 Q. Now, apart from illness, Ms. Buckley told me this 29 morning that six former residents of Goldenbridge have 7 1 died in the last year at what appears to be a 2 prematurely young age, unlike nuns in their 90's that 3 we have heard about this morning from Newtownforbes. 4 Would you be concerned at a premature mortality, if 5 such exists, in relation to Goldenbridge survivors? 12:38 6 A. Of course we would regret any untoward early death. It 7 happen to us just as much as to society in general. I 8 wouldn't be in a position to comment in relation to 9 individuals realities. 10 12 Q. Have you yourself become aware of a number of deaths of 12:39 11 former survivors? 12 A. Occasionally yes, we do become aware. 13 13 Q. Do you keep in touch with that sort of issues? 14 A. Some members of our communities who would have had any 15 contact would obviously both attend a funeral and be in 12:39 16 touch in whatever way they are able to be, as 17 appropriate. 18 14 Q. And you are not in a position yourself to say whether 19 or how many have died in the recent past, or the past 20 since the allegations have come to light? 12:39 21 A. I wouldn't have that knowledge, no. 22 15 Q. Can I ask you about the management of Goldenbridge in a 23 general way. Apart from departmental inspections, as I 24 understand the position of the Congregation, it was 25 under the control of the Reverend Mother in the convent 12:40 26 in a technical sense; is that right? 27 A. That's correct. 28 16 Q. And its relationship to other Congregations, were they 29 completely nonexistent? 8 1 A. Goldenbridge was a branch house of the Dublin Sisters 2 of Mercy, so there would have been connections with the 3 other branch houses of the Dublin Mercy Sisters. But 4 with the Sisters, the Congregation in the various 5 convents throughout the country, there would have been 12:40 6 no contact except perhaps a meeting at meetings, one 7 meeting in particular might have been the Resident 8 Managers Association, where they would have met. But 9 otherwise it would have been just... 10 17 Q. Yes. So contact with perhaps Dublin branches. Was the 12:40 11 mothership, as it were, in Carysfort? 12 A. That's correct. 13 18 Q. In the context of some other evidence we have heard 14 this morning, was there any attempt to get additional 15 funding for Goldenbridge from Carysfort? 12:41 16 A. Again, our records in relation to finance are quite 17 slim and thin. We know that a number of changes were 18 experienced by the Dublin Congregation over the years 19 and so it is not easy to establish specifically the 20 patterns. In 1954, mentioned this morning as a time of 12:41 21 another constitution, that really referred to the 22 Dublin Sisters, where the Dublin Sisters rearranged 23 themselves within the diocese in 1954. That might have 24 brought about a change in the patterns of how funds 25 were managed between all of the houses of the 12:41 26 Congregation, but I'm not in a position to be specific. 27 28 However, what we do know about, and we do know that 29 from back in Sr. Bernardine's time, which was the early 9 1 1940's, that the funds for Goldenbridge which came from 2 the capitation grant were retained in Goldenbridge in a 3 separate account in the local bank of Ireland. The 4 Sisters did provide extra funding, particularly for 5 buildings and renovations and refurbishment, because 12:42 6 none of that was provided by the Government at the 7 time. They did provide funding to enable the earliest 8 of the children go to secondary school, in fact a fund 9 was set up called the Bishop Dunne fund in which there 10 was a small amount of money and that was used to enable 12:42 11 children go to secondary school before Government gave 12 any funding for that. 13 14 The Goldenbridge Industrial School would have borrowed 15 a number of occasions from Carysfort, but would have 12:42 16 had to, obviously, work to repay it. 17 19 Q. Can you tell me now the occasions and the purposes for 18 which it borrowed money? 19 A. Well I can't be absolute, because of the sparsity 20 really of documents, but we suspect, for instance, that 12:43 21 the acquisition of the holiday house in Rathdrum had to 22 have been supported by the convent to some degree, 23 because we don't believe that they would have been able 24 to purchase it. They did arrange a longer credit time 25 with creditors for all of the various provisions and 12:43 26 that enabled them to gather together the funds and pay 27 their creditors at a later date. 28 20 Q. Well you have mentioned...(INTERJECTION)? 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGuinness, would you 10 1 permit me to interrupt you 2 for one minute. Please feel free to ask whatever 3 questions you like about finance but I think I should 4 let you know that we commissioned a firm of accountants 5 to assist us on this aspect, and they first looked at 12:44 6 two Congregations, the Rosminians for Ferryhouse and 7 Upton and the Christian Brothers in respect of Artane. 8 We have received information from them. 9 10 Just let me say before I go further that the 12:44 11 cooperation we received from the Rosminians and the 12 Christian Brothers could not have been bettered, 13 everything was given to us. All relevant material was 14 given and that was extremely useful exercise, because 15 this is an important issue that people are saying there 12:44 16 is a big debate as to the role and structure of funding 17 in its entirety. So we regarded it as sufficiently 18 important that we should go a little further than that. 19 20 So, I don't know whether we have actually got around to 12:45 21 approaching the Sisters of Mercy or their advisors to 22 say that we want to look at Goldenbridge and we also 23 want to look at Daingean, I don't know if we have 24 actually got around to doing that, but encouraged by 25 the work that was done in relation to Ferryhouse/Upton 12:45 26 and Artane, we are pursuing that, I don't expect them 27 to come back to us straightaway and tell us they are 28 going to agree or not. 29 MR. GAGEBY: Chairman, you can take that 11 1 as agreed. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly we have had 3 fantastic cooperation from 4 the other institutions. I just want to let you know 5 that, that's not something we are forgetting but please 12:45 6 ask whatever questions you want to ask. I don't want 7 to inhibit you, but I think I should actually let you 8 know that that we are doing that. 9 MR. McGUINNESS: Chairman, I am very 10 grateful to hear that. I 12:45 11 don't have many questions about that. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to stop you 13 but equally it is not 14 really appropriate not to say something about it at 15 this point and let you know that it is not something 12:46 16 that we are forgetting about. 17 21 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: Can you say, Sister, that 18 none of the capitation 19 monies went to the mothership in Carysfort? 20 A. We are reasonably confident, as much as we can be, that 12:46 21 from certainly 1941 on that all of the monies received 22 in Goldenbridge from the Department were used in 23 Goldenbridge and for the care of the children. 24 22 Q. In relation to the house in Rathdrum that you 25 mentioned, are you telling the Commission that you are 12:46 26 unable to establish at the moment where that money came 27 from? 28 A. We are unable to be certain as to the various portions 29 of it. There is a belief that some of the beads money 12 1 might have been used to purchase it and that may well 2 be so, we just don't have evidence. But since the 3 beads process and activity had only begun about two 4 years, perhaps two and a half years before that, it is 5 unlikely that any substantial funds could have accrued 12:47 6 from it at that time. 7 23 Q. As I understand from your earlier statement, the bead 8 money isn't shown in the industrial school accounts; is 9 that correct? 10 A. That's correct. 12:47 11 24 Q. Can you say why that is? 12 A. I can't say it, I understand it may have been, and this 13 again would be from doing my inquiries, that it would 14 have been in a post office account and used 15 particularly to make for additions that the capitation 12:47 16 grant just wouldn't stretch to and that was for what 17 might have been termed then as small luxuries but we 18 take them today as just part of it. 19 25 Q. Is that speculation on your part? 20 A. No, it is not speculation in terms of the activities 12:47 21 that the bead money provided. It did provide for 22 radio, it did provide for pocket money in particular, 23 and it does seem to have been the ethos, if you like, 24 of Goldenbridge that the children were encouraged to 25 earn their pocket money and that was what the beads was 12:48 26 looked on. Certainly they were provided with pocket 27 money and some of them actually did place it in post 28 office accounts and it was looked after for them. It 29 also provided for trips to the seaside, it provided for 13 1 trips to the zoo, it provided to buy the kit, if I 2 might call it that, for a very substantial involvement 3 in feiseanna and dancing competitions. 4 26 Q. Are there records substantiating what you say to the 5 Commission? 12:48 6 A. There are some records. 7 27 Q. What have you produced? 8 A. We have provided everything we have to the Commission. 9 28 Q. What are the nature of those records? 10 A. Well, insofar as the accounts show payments to various 12:48 11 people, such as elocution teachers, such as -- but not 12 on the beads money, there is no accounts in relation to 13 the beads money. 14 29 Q. You do, however, and you have said in your statement, 15 that some of the beads money contributed towards the 12:49 16 cost of Rathdrum? 17 A. That's the belief and we have not got grounds. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought that was the 19 evidence. My impression 20 was that was the evidence. I was just checking with 12:49 21 Ms. Shanley. 22 A. Sorry, I didn't hear you. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: My impression was that with 24 was the evidence we have 25 heard, as well as the formal documents. I think I am 12:49 26 right in that, Ms. Ni Raifeartaigh. I think the 27 evidence was that beads money went in whole or in part 28 to fund Rathdrum. 29 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: I think that's the 14 1 evidence of one witness, 2 yes. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 4 30 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: Just to go back to my 5 original area of 12:49 6 questioning about the relationship between the 7 Congregations and branches and control. Was there 8 ever, to your knowledge, any sort of inspections done 9 or supervision exercised by Carysfort or any of the 10 other Dublin branches in relation to Goldenbridge? 12:50 11 A. Well, Carysfort would have been the only place where it 12 would have been authorised to do it. And I have no 13 knowledge in relation to that. 14 31 Q. Now, in terms of the Reverend Mother in the convent in 15 Goldenbridge, are there any records of any inspections 12:50 16 by her or supervision of whatever went on in 17 Goldenbridge Industrial School? 18 A. I don't think that there are records per se, but for 19 some of the period of time the Reverend Mother was 20 actually the Resident Manager or the manager, though 12:50 21 there was also a Resident Manager, so we are not in a 22 position, other than by surmising, that there was 23 interrelationship. 24 25 When the Reverend Mother was the manager, it was she 12:51 26 who would have dealt with the official business with 27 the Department of Education or signed any official 28 documents. 29 32 Q. All in the school, as it were? 15 1 A. Perhaps. I don't know. 2 33 Q. Now the accounts of the industrial school that you 3 provided to the Commission, have you any objection to 4 those being supplied to the complainant's solicitors or 5 the complainants themselves? 12:51 6 A. I don't know how... 7 MR. GAGEBY: I don't really think, with 8 the greatest respect, 9 that's a question to be sprung entirely out. 10 MR. McGUINNESS: I don't see an objection to 12:51 11 it, if they have been given 12 to the Commission could they not at some stage... 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Surely she's entitled to 14 take legal advice on that. 15 I don't know what Mr. Gageby and Mr. McDonnell think. 12:51 16 MR. McGUINNESS: I will pass on that. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGuinness, I don't 18 regard it in anyway an 19 illegitimate question, but I think probably what you 20 should do is say you are going to ask O'Hagan's for 12:52 21 that and they can respond to you and say yes, no, and 22 up to a point. 23 MR. GAGEBY: In fact, Mr. Chairman, if 24 it had been asked for at 25 any time up to now I am sure an answer would have been 12:52 26 given. I suppose my objection is why at today at 27 12:55. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: The witness shouldn't have 29 to answer the question, 16 1 without having the opportunity of having -- it is a 2 perfectly legitimate matter to raise, Mr. McGuinness. 3 So pass from it and Mr. Gageby will get back to you, I 4 think is the sensible thing to do. You can write into 5 us and say we agree or we think it is unreasonable of 12:52 6 them or whatever it is. 7 MR. McGUINNESS: Certainly in the light of 8 the intention of the 9 Commission to have separate mini modules looking at it, 10 I wanted to see whether the witness had a position on 12:52 11 it and I'll pass on from it. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's no problem. 13 34 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: There is mention of 14 Sr. Bernardine's lecture, 15 as I understand that's one of a series of lectures that 12:53 16 were given in 1954; is that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 35 Q. I think on the last occasion you indicated your 19 willingness to provide those to the Commission, have 20 you done that? 12:53 21 A. I believe they have been and were already with the 22 Commission at that time. 23 36 Q. All right. Again, do you have any objection if they 24 are to be provided to complainants or complainants' 25 solicitors? 12:53 26 A. I think they were public lectures at time and I suppose 27 our attitude would generally have been what we provided 28 to the Commission the Commission is free to decide what 29 it might wish to do with them. 17 1 37 Q. All right. In terms of the lecture, it doesn't mention 2 Goldenbridge, I think, by name at all? 3 A. No, I think you are correct. 4 38 Q. Yes. Can you help us as to the intent or purpose of 5 the document, was it intended as a lecture by 12:53 6 Sr. Bernardine as to how she was returning Goldenbridge 7 at that time? 8 A. I think anything that I could say that would be of a 9 definite nature would be mere speculation. I believe 10 that the audience were people like herself, who were 12:54 11 Resident Managers and, therefore, were working in the 12 field of institutional management. 13 39 Q. Yes. All right. You have mentioned the Resident 14 Manager's Association, can you say how frequently that 15 met? 12:54 16 A. I'm not in a position to, I am aware of it and aware 17 that it met regularly, but it is one of the areas that 18 I have not taken into intent research on. 19 40 Q. Are there minutes available of meetings that you are 20 aware of? 12:54 21 A. I believe there are some minutes available but that 22 would be for the Resident Manager's Association. 23 41 Q. The lecture by Sr. Bernardine, you are aware, I take 24 it, that Sr. Bernardine was characterised by Sr. Fabian 25 as: 12:55 26 "A paranoid schizophrenic who she 27 considered was grossly insulting to adults and children and who, in effect, 28 established a regime of terror". 29 A. I spoke with Sr. Fabian and I, in the course of 18 1 conversation, I believe that she did mention 2 Sr. Bernardine as being very strict and perhaps some of 3 those terms that you have mentioned. 4 42 Q. Yes. 5 A. However, I am not certain that we can be sure that we 12:55 6 were talking about the same person. Sr. Fabian isn't 7 with us to clarify that. 8 43 Q. I understand that. But the significance of 9 Sr. Fabian's account, and indeed her own admissions as 10 to the nature of the regime, are, I would submit, 12:56 11 worthy and well worthy for consideration by the 12 Commission. 13 A. On what account are you referring to? 14 44 Q. Isn't it the case that Sr. Fabian had been a Sister in 15 charge and herself became Resident Manager? 12:56 16 A. That's correct. 17 45 Q. And she worked in Goldenbridge from 1954 to 1986? 18 A. That's correct. 19 46 Q. And she was there after Sr. Bernardine had ceased to be 20 Resident Manager and while Sr. Xaveria was there? 12:56 21 A. Yes, Sr. Bernardine was left and gone to another 22 convent, she did not coincide with Sr. Fabian in the 23 building. 24 47 Q. Yes. Your concern, was it not, when these allegations 25 emerged, was to commission an inquiry into them by 12:56 26 someone of repute; isn't that right? 27 A. That's correct. 28 48 Q. And you commissioned Mr. Crowley to do that? 29 A. That's correct. 19 1 49 Q. Leaving aside Mr. Crowley's opinions and conclusions, 2 which are his own, you have no reason to think that 3 Sr. Fabian wasn't telling him the truth, as she saw it? 4 A. Well I don't think I'm in a position to make comment in 5 relation to what Sr. Fabian said or didn't say or how 12:57 6 she felt on it. We have grave difficulties with the 7 particular limitations of this report. When it was 8 received by us in 1996, prior to the screening of "Dear 9 Daughter", we were in the position where we had no 10 examination done from which to make an appropriate 12:57 11 response. Since then, in the intervening years we have 12 had opportunity to -- and have taken the responsibility 13 very seriously, to examine, as much as we can, all 14 aspects of the Goldenbridge school, particularly during 15 the relevant period, and we would be of the opinion now 12:57 16 that the limitations of that report are such that we 17 cannot rely on it. 18 50 Q. Well I'm not asking you to rely on it, and I understand 19 from your previous evidence that you had intended a 20 more intensive investigation in the context of High 12:58 21 Court litigation and that ceased at that point, for 22 that reason; isn't that right? 23 A. Well, litigation came very soon after that, so it 24 wasn't appropriate for us to provide, if you like, 25 something that was going to be the responsibility of 12:58 26 other bodies. 27 51 Q. Yes. As I say, leaving aside Mr. Crowley's opinions 28 and conclusions, they are his own and perhaps of some 29 worth to the Commission if it thinks fit to consider 20 1 them, I am more concerned with the statements of 2 Sr. Fabian, as it were, against interest both on her 3 part and the interest of the Sisters of Mercy, that the 4 general atmosphere was excessively and consistently 5 cruel, even relative to the standards at the time? 12:59 6 A. Well, we have acknowledged that we believe that 7 industrial school life and system was not an 8 appropriate system for children who had come into care 9 through various difficulties. We do recognise that it 10 would have augmented the regime itself being so 12:59 11 stylised in many ways, would have augmented their pain, 12 but we do not accept that it was excessively harsh. 13 52 Q. Even for someone who was there for 32 years is telling 14 Mr. Crowley this? 15 A. I would have to say that Sr. Fabian is not here and 12:59 16 what she said she herself did not get opportunity to 17 see nor to be questioned on. 18 53 Q. No doubt the Commission will consider all the 19 possibilities whether Mr. Crowley had correctly 20 recorded what she said or not, but in his report he 13:00 21 records her confirming that: 22 "Fear of and actual beatings and verbal 23 abuse was a matter of routine. And that the general account of 24 children, for example, waiting on landings was accurate." 25 13:00 26 A. Well, Mr. Crowley's basis for that was secondhand, at 27 best, if not third-hand, because he only sat in on an 28 interview with one former resident. His two other 29 interviews were with the two Sisters and with Louis 21 1 Langton, so he didn't have any other source. 2 54 Q. Sister, may I say that for this purpose, I don't care 3 if he never spoke to a single resident. I don't care 4 if he never spoke to a programme maker. I don't care 5 if he never spoke to Sr. Xaveria. I am only concerned 13:00 6 that he spoke to one person, Sr. Fabian, who he records 7 as giving this account, which a lawyer will 8 characterise as an admission as to the nature of the 9 regime. What I want to ask you about, he goes on to 10 record her saying: 13:01 11 "Wetting was defined as a crime and, 12 therefore, punishable through humiliation and physical beatings. Sr. 13 Fabian confirmed the allegations in relation to the tumble drier and 14 drinking from the toilet cistern. She also confirmed the bead making and that 15 failure to obey rules was normally 13:01 punished by physical beatings". 16 17 If Sr. Fabian said that, do you accept that 18 Goldenbridge failed, and failed miserably, as a place 19 where young people would be cared for and nurtured? 20 A. What I would say is that what is recorded as Sr. Fabian 13:01 21 having said, it was not read back to her and she did 22 not have opportunity to record her responses to it. 23 She is now deceased, and I believe that I cannot make 24 any comment on that. 25 55 Q. All right? 13:01 26 A. I do acknowledge, as I have already done, that the 27 system in Goldenbridge was not a system that was 28 appropriate for attending to the emotional and physical 29 and educational needs of children. 22 1 56 Q. Can I just turn to the issue of staff. Were there any 2 procedures laid down for the recruitment or vetting of 3 staff, as to suitability or otherwise? 4 A. My understanding was that the Resident Manager employed 5 staff. That is staff that were lay staff. In terms of 13:02 6 vetting processes, or interviews, perhaps there had to 7 have been an interview, but as we would understood them 8 nowadays, certainly there wasn't processes. 9 57 Q. As for the girls who were kept on and became part of 10 the staff, were there any criteria or basis upon which 13:02 11 such decisions were made? 12 A. We cannot be absolute about it, but I think it was a 13 feature of Goldenbridge that when a number of children 14 came to 16, and were for one reason or another, people, 15 children, young women who might have been at risk or 13:03 16 unable to manage outside of the school, and there was 17 no further funding for them, a way of, if you like, 18 meeting their need in particular was to become helpers, 19 as they were called. It was not, I suppose, looked at 20 in the way that we might look at it today, which was, 13:03 21 well, were they appropriate for the care of children? 22 They were young people who had actually lived through 23 their years in the institution to that point and were 24 familiar, obviously, to everybody there. 25 58 Q. Yes. I think you have fairly acknowledged in your 13:03 26 written statement of evidence that poor educational 27 achievement and inability to find employment, other 28 than domestic service, was a consequence for many 29 children; cleaning and scrubbing and household work 23 1 elsewhere. These staff then retained were clearly not 2 up to that standard of being let out into the world and 3 were put in the care of children? 4 A. That is the reality and we regret that that was an 5 aspect, that there wasn't an awareness or a sensitivity 13:04 6 to at the time. 7 59 Q. Have you any reason to think that they received any 8 training at all other than their experience of having 9 gone through Goldenbridge themselves? 10 A. I would be confident in saying there was no training. 13:04 11 There was no training for the adults or the teachers 12 who were employed at that time in childcare. 13 60 Q. Is there any evidence of which you are aware, that they 14 were made familiar with any rules relating to 15 discipline and punishment? 13:05 16 A. I couldn't make any comment on that at this distance 17 back. 18 61 Q. Since the last public hearing, presumably there has 19 been no trace of a Punishment Book found or any mention 20 of it anywhere that you are aware of? 13:05 21 A. No. 22 62 Q. Can you help the Commission in this regard: It is 23 something required by the rules. How did the school 24 survive so many inspections over the years where this 25 was never picked up or commented on, or looked for, or 13:05 26 apparently never found? 27 A. Well, there is no memory of a Punishment Book having 28 been in Goldenbridge. There is no memory among those 29 who are alive today. Whether there was a Punishment 24 1 Book previous to that or no, we cannot say. There may 2 well have been, but while there was a regulation to 3 have a Punishment Book, there was no regulation to 4 maintain or keep it on into years afterwards. I think 5 that would have been a pattern throughout many 13:06 6 documents that might have been assumed to have been of 7 no further use may well have been discarded. We are 8 not in a position to say. The fact that it is not 9 referred to in the various inspection reports, perhaps, 10 is a question for the Department of Education, but I do 13:06 11 believe that the rules and regulations which did go 12 back to the 1920's, it is probable and possible that 13 some rules just fell obsolete. Whether this one was 14 one or not, I don't know. 15 63 Q. You see, the Commission has heard evidence in other 13:06 16 public sessions about a Punishment Book and extracts of 17 it have been considered and so forth. So if the 18 inspectors going to those schools can see it and find 19 it and look for details of it, and look at what was 20 recorded in it, how is it that Goldenbridge and the 13:07 21 management in Goldenbridge survived without it? 22 A. I am not able to comment on that, I have no knowledge. 23 64 Q. One further question in relation to that. Do any of 24 the lectures in 1953 deal with the rules for certified 25 industrial schools or what procedures and documentation 13:07 26 ought to be in place? 27 A. I think Sr. Bernardine's, which is the one I am 28 familiar with, I am not familiar with the others; 29 doesn't refer to the rules and regulations and I do 25 1 think, to be fair to the lecture, it was looking 2 forward in many ways around how organisation might be 3 changed on into the future. 4 65 Q. All right. You are not saying, therefore, and you 5 cannot say that this lecture reflects the way 13:07 6 Goldenbridge was being run? 7 A. I think that it would be reasonable to say that the 8 lecture reflected Sr. Bernardine's thinking, and 9 perhaps like everything, it has an aspirational 10 dimension, maybe much of an aspirational dimension 13:08 11 about it. I believe that it shows attitudes that 12 people would have tried to reach for, whether that was 13 realised in the reality or not is a different matter. 14 66 Q. Yes. Can I suggest that it might be adopted by the 15 Commission as a measure of the failure of the Sisters, 13:08 16 in view of what happened at Goldenbridge, that it bears 17 no relationship to --? 18 A. I think I couldn't agree with you there. I do think, 19 for instance, Sr. Bernardine's letter, talk, talks 20 about group homes before group homes were ever 13:08 21 envisaged by the State, or in fact required by the 22 events in the Kennedy Report, which is nearly 22 years 23 later. 24 67 Q. So certainly from that point of view, you are 25 illustrating that it does not reflect the reality? 13:09 26 A. I would have to say that, and I think genuinely and 27 sincerely believe that what Sr. Bernardine was talking 28 about was something she had been thinking and I would 29 believe speaking about, but in the realisation, 26 1 particularly for the group home, but what she had done 2 certainly was to try to make the institutional regime 3 at the time there less so. They had up to that time 4 long tables, like perhaps what you are sitting at, for 5 a dining room. These in the early 1950's were divided 13:09 6 and separated out into small groups of six in order to 7 allow that little group form a little group. I think 8 in many ways the efforts are trying to understand the 9 children's needs was reflected and commented on there 10 as well. 13:10 11 68 Q. Yes, it may have been reflected upon. For example, 12 teaching, she postulated that only experts should be 13 appointed to govern and teach, and they should have 14 requisite experience and a knowledge of psychology. 15 Now that never was achieved at Goldenbridge? 13:10 16 A. I think you have to understand that she herself was a 17 trained teacher, so was anybody who was trained were a 18 trained teacher, and a module of psychology was part 19 and parcel of the training of teachers. Now the 20 psychology might have been much more a child psychology 13:10 21 element of the training programme in Carysfort and 22 other training colleges, would have focused on the 23 development of children in the general population and 24 may have been, if you like, short on the particular 25 aspects of psychology that might have been very 13:10 26 relevant for children in care. 27 69 Q. So the trained teachers had that, is that what you are 28 saying? 29 A. The trained teachers would have had the level of 27 1 psychology that was available to teachers at the time. 2 70 Q. And that is what she meant by "experts". She doesn't 3 talk about training teachers, is she talking about 4 something different, do you think, or is she talking 5 about the trained teachers? 13:11 6 A. The caring courses, though they had already been 7 mentioned, had not come into being. Again, I do think 8 that would have been an aspirational dimension. 9 71 Q. Can I just ask you one more thing about lay staff. 10 You have obviously heard all of the various complaints 13:11 11 made against lay staff who were there over the years. 12 Did the Order take steps to try and trace them all? 13 A. I would believe that we did what was possible in the 14 last ten years in trying to trace people, but it would 15 have been through word of mouth by and large. In some 13:11 16 ways we were successful, in some ways we weren't. 17 72 Q. So can I infer that you failed to trace the whereabouts 18 or existence of former lay members of staff? 19 A. That would be true probably of some anyhow, yes. 20 73 Q. Do you know how many and do you know the identities of 13:12 21 those who you failed to trace, as it were? 22 A. I don't have it with me and I haven't it now, but we do 23 have whatever information that we did have in relation 24 to staff. 25 74 Q. If required by the Commission could you produce that? 13:12 26 A. Yes, and I don't know wherever it has been required, we 27 would be happy to provide it. 28 75 Q. Turning on to the issue of abuse generally. In your 29 opening statement you refer to a documented case, 28 1 contemporaneous at the time of sexual abuse? 2 A. Yes. 3 76 Q. Can the Commission take it that the Order, and the 4 Resident Managers were aware of the potential for, 5 mostly males, obviously, to sexually abuse young women 13:13 6 or young girls? 7 A. I can't speak for the people at the time, but the 8 particular instance that you referred to happened in 9 1962. 10 77 Q. Yes? 13:13 11 A. And it was as a result of a complaint by a pupil in the 12 industrial school and it was reported to the Gardaí. 13 The particular man in question was dismissed and he was 14 prosecuted. I believe that if other such complaints 15 had been made at the material time, that particularly 13:13 16 in Goldenbridge, that pattern of response would have 17 followed. 18 78 Q. But obviously as Sisters of the Order, you would have 19 been concerned about any indecent touching of children 20 or improper approaches. Can I ask you, what steps were 13:14 21 taken at any stage to try and protect children against 22 that? 23 A. What are you referring to? 24 79 Q. Were there steps taken by the Sisters to try and 25 protect children against the risk of sexual abuse? 13:14 26 A. By way of a kind of a stay safe programme or something 27 of that nature? 28 80 Q. Anything. Can you point to anything that may have been 29 done in that regard? 29 1 A. I think one of the ways -- I don't know that one could 2 say in any place that there was overt steps taken, but 3 one of the, I suppose, concerns for safety would have 4 been the ensuring of occupation of people, so that 5 people were safe at all times, in the sense that they 13:14 6 were in the regime of a kind of very disciplined place, 7 mostly altogether. In that sense, perhaps protection 8 was covered, but I couldn't say that there was anything 9 overt or expressed by way of -- 10 81 Q. So builders or carpenters, electricians could come and 13:15 11 go and would there be any supervision of where they 12 might end up or where they are meant to be? 13 A. I am not in a position to comment. I, myself, was not 14 ever there, but I would believe that would be something 15 that is in the mists of time, that we are not in a 13:15 16 position to be clear on. 17 82 Q. Can I ask you about another aspect of it: Children who 18 were taken out, what procedures were in place to ensure 19 that the people who were taking them out for visits or 20 for trips or to their families? 13:15 21 A. There certainly wasn't a vetting process that you might 22 expect today, but mostly the families who took children 23 from Goldenbridge were families known to the Sisters, 24 either through having come maybe for entertainment 25 times or for various activities, mostly. Because at 13:16 26 one stage I think they did advertise for some people to 27 take them. 28 83 Q. I was going to ask you about that? 29 A. But we would have had mostly local families, a lot of 30 1 them in the Goldenbridge area. Many of them quite 2 significant families in public life, and these would 3 have been the families to whom children would have 4 gone. 5 84 Q. Was there a record kept of any? 13:16 6 A. We have no record. 7 85 Q. Of any such --? 8 A. No, we have no record book in any consistent way. 9 Occasionally there might be a finding of names and we 10 would just ask the question, did this refer to perhaps 13:16 11 families. 12 86 Q. And tell me about the ads in the papers. How many ads 13 were put in papers? Were they daily papers or the 14 Dublin papers? 15 A. I think it was just once, and perhaps local. 13:17 16 87 Q. Do you know when that was? 17 A. I don't really, but I would expect it was somewhere 18 about the middle of the period that we are talking 19 about. 20 88 Q. People could then come in response to the ad, who 13:17 21 weren't known to the Resident Manager or the Mother 22 Superior, and say, I would like to help in this way? 23 A. Well, I am not in a position to say how deeply any 24 examination or any questioning might have followed 25 that. 13:17 26 89 Q. Just touching briefly on the bedwetting regime. Is 27 there anything further that you would like to say to 28 the Commission about that? 29 A. I think what I said at my position at phase 1 would be 31 1 our position. That is that we do recognise that 2 bedwetting was a feature of Goldenbridge, as in many 3 other places. That it was an issue, as it were, to be 4 dealt with in the practical sense. That we do 5 recognise that there was punishment for bedwetting, but 13:18 6 there were also other processes, such as restricting 7 drinks after tea and getting children up at night. 8 These were followed in an effort to cure, if you like, 9 the situation, but somewhere in the late 1950's or 10 early 1960's, we are not in a position to say, but 13:18 11 advice was taken from pediatricians in relation to this 12 issue and the patterns obviously certainly of 13 punishment, was changed. 14 90 Q. Was it not obvious, and would you agree that it was not 15 obvious, that the regime of harsh regular punishment 13:19 16 for bedwetting; was that carried on over a decade? 17 A. We would certainly recognise that it was part and 18 parcel of the system in the 1940's and in the 1950 's, 19 a good part of that. 20 91 Q. Why did it take perhaps from the 1940's through the 13:19 21 1950's and into the 1960's for beatings for bedwetting 22 to stop, before people realised that beatings wouldn't 23 stop the bedwetting? 24 A. I am not able to answer that. I do recognise the 25 problem that you point to. I think people in society 13:19 26 at large would have struggled with it as well. 27 92 Q. Turning on to the issue of education. As I understand 28 it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the 29 Sisters of Mercy had schools outside the gates of 32 1 Goldenbridge? 2 A. There was a parish primary school, which the Sisters 3 were the managers of. 4 93 Q. And a secondary school? 5 A. Initially a secondary top, because there was no 13:20 6 secondary school. The Sisters of Mercy in the Dublin 7 diocese did not run secondary schools until late in the 8 1960's, and that was a pattern perhaps because our 9 focus was more on primary school education. A 10 secondary top did develop. I am not sure of the years 13:20 11 in which it began, which would have continued the 12 primary system but on secondary subjects. 13 94 Q. I am interested in this issue: Why were children in 14 Goldenbridge not allowed out to attend the local 15 national school? Why did there have to be one secured 13:20 16 up in Goldenbridge? 17 A. I am not in a position to answer that. 18 95 Q. Was there any reason? 19 A. But reading the rules and regulations, which we 20 referred to earlier, it does either require or 13:20 21 recommend that there be an internal primary school. I 22 would say numbers might well have indicated whether 23 that should be or so. 24 96 Q. Are you aware of any documentation relating to that 25 last consideration? 13:21 26 A. In the Department's rules and regulations or --? 27 97 Q. No, in the Sisters of Mercy documentation? 28 A. I am not, no, no. 29 98 Q. One of the things that the Commission will have to 33 1 consider is obviously the nature of the education 2 facilities and the teaching staff, but also its 3 interrelationship with the work regime in Goldenbridge. 4 There seems to have been a considerable lack of 5 opportunity for a number of children, perhaps 13:21 6 unquantifiable, who were pulled out of classrooms to do 7 work, when perhaps they should have been staying in the 8 classroom to become educated, and being required to do 9 the laundry two days a week and prepare vegetables and 10 minding of babies, cleaning of windows, tilling the 13:22 11 land, tending the vegetable garden. All taken away 12 from their schooling for this work. Would you like to 13 say whether that occurred or not, or are you satisfied 14 that it did occur? 15 A. Our position in relation to that is that, as far as was 13:22 16 feasible, the regulations for industrial school 17 training were operative in Goldenbridge, which required 18 the children, the girls from 13 to 16 in the afternoons 19 to have industrial school training. That was organised 20 for two hours each afternoon into the three main areas. 13:22 21 One was cookery, the other was laundry and the other 22 was housekeeping. Involved in that too was some degree 23 of childcare, which would be looking after. The 24 working in the kitchen or the working in the laundry 25 was on a rota basis. So it might be a week in the 13:23 26 kitchen or a week in the -- but it was the afternoons, 27 and the mornings were the regular primary school 28 curriculum as was. That is our understanding from all 29 of the work we have done. 34 1 99 Q. I am instructed that you may be wrong in your answer 2 about the secondary school not being there until the 3 late 1960's, are you sure? 4 A. I was talking about Sisters of Mercy in general. I am 5 not sure of the date that the secondary top became a 13:23 6 secondary school. 7 100 Q. All right, okay? 8 A. But I do know it was there, yes. 9 101 Q. In relation to the atmosphere in the classroom, in a 10 general way have you heard complaint of there being an 13:23 11 atmosphere of fear in the classrooms? 12 A. I believe that most of those complaints were heard 13 during the private hearings and I am not in a position 14 to make anything more particular. 15 102 Q. Would you agree that if there was an atmosphere of fear 13:24 16 caused by any of the teachers or staff, that it would 17 be less than conducive towards getting even a 18 rudimentary education? 19 A. I think it is reasonable to suppose that a degree of 20 fear is associated with school, and perhaps with 13:24 21 children who were more vulnerable than other children, 22 that fear may well have been experienced to a greater 23 degree. We would not believe that there was an 24 excessive fear in Goldenbridge. 25 103 Q. And that is your belief in any event? 13:24 26 A. Yes. 27 104 Q. The regime of discipline and punishment, is there any 28 reason to think that it was different in the classroom 29 than it was in the industrial school? 35 1 A. In the classroom it was usually the teachers and as 2 long as it was a four class, or a four teacher school, 3 two of the teachers were lay teachers who went home 4 after school. The two Sisters who taught there were 5 obviously in the school later. 13:25 6 105 Q. In the school, of course? 7 A. So in the sense that they were different, but we would 8 believe that and we do know, and it is acknowledged 9 that corporal punishment was used for various 10 misdemeanours, but we do not accept that it was 13:25 11 excessive or caused physical harm or injury to anybody. 12 106 Q. Those teachers weren't qualified in some instances, 13 isn't that right? 14 A. Only in the very early years, and there was a 15 qualification for the "jam teacher", the teacher who 13:25 16 hadn't gone through training school, very early, was 17 given a qualification, as has happened all over the 18 country. So they were -- and some teachers were there 19 for a good, well into the 1960's from the 1940's. 20 107 Q. I have referred already to the passage in your 13:26 21 statement of evidence about the lack of opportunity 22 that the education provided for getting employment, 23 other than sort of domestic work as scrubbers and 24 cleaners, many of them feel they were educated to be. 25 Would you be concerned, and have you heard complaints 13:26 26 over your years of contact with the survivors, about a 27 high level of functional illiteracy on the part of 28 those who are said to have been educated by the Sisters 29 of Mercy? 36 1 A. I have heard some degree of it. 2 108 Q. Have you seen examples of it yourself in contacts? 3 A. I haven't, genuinely. Most of the children sat their 4 Primary Cert, it is agreed, and we do know from 5 Department documents that all didn't pass it. 13:27 6 Obviously there may have been, I personally don't know, 7 in detail -- 8 109 Q. Have you looked at the failure rate or do you know what 9 the failure rate was? 10 A. It is available in the Department of Education. I am 13:27 11 not in a position to say what the proportion was. 12 110 Q. It is my understanding from Ms. Fahey that those who 13 went beyond the Primary Cert were very few, and before 14 1963, there was only one person in Goldenbridge who was 15 educated to Leaving Cert standard? 13:27 16 A. The records will show, I think, that in 1957, four 17 children -- 1957/1958, I would have to be corrected on 18 that; went to the secondary school. How far on they 19 stayed I am not in a position to say. 20 111 Q. You see in your original statement of evidence, you 13:27 21 said there were a few who were prepared up to Leaving 22 Cert standard, and I didn't know whether you were being 23 deliberately vague. Do you know how many passed it or 24 not? 25 A. I don't. 13:28 26 112 Q. In terms of the difficulties of funding a school and 27 getting qualified teachers, or getting training for 28 them, is there any record of requests being made to the 29 Department of Education for additional funding for 37 1 those purposes? 2 A. I am not sure what area you are -- are you talking 3 about the actual school? 4 113 Q. Yes? 5 A. The teachers in the school were fully trained and paid 13:28 6 by the Department of Education. 7 114 Q. Do you understand the question I am asking? Leaving 8 aside the issue of whether teachers are trained, was 9 there ever any application made for additional funding 10 to the Department from the school? 13:28 11 A. For extra teachers? 12 115 Q. In respect of extra teachers or additional facilities? 13 A. Yes, that does happen in the 1960's, but at that time 14 there was greater recognition of maybe pupil/teacher 15 ratio. In actual fact the ratio, certainly in the 13:29 16 1950's, in the regular primary school, was a teacher 17 who might have a class of 40 to 50 children. In the 18 internal school in Goldenbridge, the maximum that any 19 teacher had was about 30 children, and it would have 20 included obviously one or two classes, class levels, 13:29 21 like 1st and 2nd might be together. 22 116 Q. Are you in a position to point to any particular record 23 or application? 24 A. From my own personal experience as a teacher at the 25 time and from others at the time -- 13:29 26 117 Q. In Goldenbridge? 27 A. No, not in Goldenbridge but in a primary school, but I 28 do know it from the Goldenbridge parish school; of a 29 Sister teaching in the 1950's, she would have had 40 to 38 1 50 in her class. 2 118 Q. One of the other complaints made about the relationship 3 between study and work is that there was little time 4 allowed for any sort of study or reading in the 5 evenings. In your own statement, you say: 13:30 6 "A few pupils persevered and sat the 7 Leaving Certificate. Such students did not do much of the domestic chores 8 carried out by the other children, but instead had extended study time". 9 10 Do I understand from that, that it was only the few who 13:30 11 were chosen would get out of the work and therefore 12 have the extended study time? 13 A. I understand from the Sisters who were there at the 14 time, that that was the practice. That those who went 15 out to the secondary school did not have to take the 13:30 16 same share in the chores as those who were inside. 17 119 Q. Okay. So the heavier burden then would fall on others, 18 who were then deprived of their study time, to allow 19 some of the few to be released? 20 A. I would have to say about Goldenbridge it is 13:30 21 acknowledged that homework at primary school level did 22 not feature really in the after school time of the 23 children. Now I am not in a position to say why was 24 that. 25 120 Q. Can I suggest to you it was because they were required 13:31 26 to do other work? 27 A. In actual fact they weren't doing other work at that 28 time. They had a half an hour after school for play in 29 the yard. They then went to the bead making, perhaps 39 1 that is what you are referring to, but it wasn't the 2 ordinary chores of managing the house. 3 121 Q. Just touching on that point. Do you accept on behalf 4 of the Sisters of Mercy that the burden of work placed 5 on the children there was excessive? 13:31 6 A. No, we don't accept that. We would recognise that 7 children had chores to do, and the children who were 8 doing the industrial school training, particularly in 9 the afternoon, there would have been 70 to 80 children 10 in that group at any one time. So the sharing out of 13:31 11 the tasks would have eased the amount of work to be 12 done. 13 122 Q. That is not what -- the issue of...(INTERJECTION) 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: The trouble is, 15 Mr. McGuinness, this is an 13:32 16 important area, really important what you are asking 17 and there is comment from the back. It is getting in 18 the way. It is certainly putting me off. I don't know 19 about my colleagues. It is probably putting you off, 20 but certainly, and the problem is it is important. If 13:32 21 we were prepared to say, it doesn't matter what 22 Mr. McGuinness is asking or what Sr. Helena is saying, 23 it would be grand, it wouldn't matter who said 24 anything. The ladies in the back know that, they know 25 that it is important. 13:32 26 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: We do, but we have to 27 listen to lies. We have to 28 listen to lies. Suddenly she knows everything about 29 something she wasn't there for. 40 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know it is important. 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And when she is asked 3 a specific question, she 4 doesn't know the answer to that. It is all vague. Now 5 she knows everything. 13:33 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know it is important. 7 You know what we are doing 8 here. 9 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: We do, but it is important 10 the truth be said. 13:33 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, you are not letting us 12 do that. It is not fair to 13 you, it is not fair to us. 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That is for sure, it is 15 definitely not fair to us. 13:33 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not fair to you to 17 put yourself in the 18 position of not allowing the evidence to be heard, 19 because I think that is a terrible shame. You know, as 20 well as I do, that we have procedures and you have been 13:33 21 through this before. You have given evidence before 22 us. We have had our procedures. We have met you and 23 so on, you know that. We are doing this as seriously 24 as we can, and we deserve to be left to it. There is 25 our interest to do it right and do the best job we can. 13:33 26 The only way we can do that is if we concentrate on the 27 evidence. There is a lesser but important thing, which 28 I mentioned earlier, which is the impression that you 29 give from your own point of view as serious people with 41 1 a serious complaint and a serious issue to investigate, 2 and if you simply comment -- and it is not disastrous. 3 It is not as if you are making it impossible, but it is 4 making it more difficult, and if you do that, may I 5 suggest respectfully, you let yourselves down. It 13:34 6 looks as if you are...(INTERJECTION) 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: But we feel like we are 8 being let down by 9 everybody. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: It looks as if you can't 13:34 11 let a meeting go ahead, you 12 can't. We have a decision, we have things to consider, 13 but we have to hear every side. Now we are going to do 14 that, we have to do that. You know that, and I know 15 that. The last thing I want to see is a situation 13:34 16 where, for instance, it becomes impossible or we are 17 missing out on stuff, or we are not paying attention to 18 evidence. 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I'll do my best. I'll do 20 my best. 13:34 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Anybody listening, anybody 22 in a courtroom has to hear 23 evidence that they do not like to hear and that they do 24 not agree with. Everyone understands that. When the 25 other side is giving evidence or whatever, there is 13:35 26 going to be things said. Anyway, listen, I do not want 27 to make too much of an issue about it. As I have said 28 before, everybody has cooperated with us, so I have no 29 general complaint to make, but I do think it is a fair 42 1 point and I think it is as much in your interest as it 2 is in ours. All right. Sorry about all that. Now 3 Mr. McGuinness. 4 123 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: I think my question, 5 Sister, was in relation to 13:35 6 the...(INTERJECTION) 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: You first of all asked the 8 question, was the burden of 9 work excessive and Sr. Helena said, no, she didn't 10 think the burden of work was excessive. That is her 13:35 11 evidence. 12 124 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: Yes. If the general tenor 13 of the complaints is that 14 people did not have time for study, that there was no 15 homework after primary school, and all of the other 13:35 16 complaints about what they were required to do. Just 17 looking at the numbers of staff employed in the school, 18 were there any staff employed in the school apart from 19 the girls who were kept on after 16? 20 A. Yes, there were carers who were, if I can use the term, 13:36 21 there were teachers, there were carers, there were 22 helpers and the carers were people who were employed 23 roughly about 8 at a time, if I am remembering 24 correctly. They would have been two on and two off in 25 shifts, and they would have had responsibility for the 13:36 26 children in the mornings getting up before school and 27 in the after schools until bedtime in the evening. 28 125 Q. So you have the Resident Manager and the Sister in 29 charge? 43 1 A. Yes. 2 126 Q. Who are teaching and going back to the convent? 3 A. Yes. 4 127 Q. We have got the two -- the lay teachers who go home at 5 4:00 o'clock? 13:36 6 A. Yes. 7 128 Q. We have got two staff on notice to look after an 8 industrial school with 160 children or thereabouts. 9 Do you not consider that a grossly inadequate level of 10 staffing? Whether they are qualified to do anything or 13:37 11 not is another issue? 12 A. Certainly the system as it was in existence everywhere 13 at time, operated on the same process, and it was 14 related to the degree that the funds allowed them to 15 cater for all that was needed. 13:37 16 129 Q. You see, this brings me back to the funding issue. How 17 much money was spent on the holiday home in Rathdrum? 18 A. We believe it cost -- well, to buy it is that what you 19 mean? 20 130 Q. To buy it first and then all the improvements? 13:37 21 A. Well, I can only say that we have an insertion in 22 accounts which would indicate it cost something like 23 2,500 to buy, pounds at that time. 24 131 Q. Do you know what the improvements cost over the years? 25 A. I am not in a position to say anything in relation to 13:37 26 that. 27 132 Q. Okay. What I would like to ask on behalf of some of 28 the former residents is, why was the money being spent 29 there instead of on the children in Goldenbridge, for 44 1 staff, better food and other facilities? 2 A. I am not in a position to be other than speculative, 3 because holiday it was obviously something that was as 4 valuable to children as anything else. 5 133 Q. You see if they are two weeks in Rathdrum, and that is 13:38 6 all very fine, but they are 50 weeks of the year back 7 in Goldenbridge, or perhaps a little less if they are 8 going back to a family. You see there is a plaint of 9 hunger amongst some of the former residents has been 10 made, and they cannot understand how their hunger is 13:38 11 not satisfied, to some degree, while you are spending 12 money on holiday houses? 13 A. In relation to the hunger issue, we would be very 14 strongly of the opinion, given all that we have looked 15 at, that the children were not malnourished. There was 13:39 16 no hunger. The children were provided with adequate 17 food in the Goldenbridge location as much as in the 18 holiday location. 19 134 Q. Was other property bought by the Goldenbridge 20 Congregation? 13:39 21 A. I am not aware of anything. Do you mean locally or 22 anywhere? I am not aware -- 23 135 Q. That is what I am asking you? 24 A. No, I am not aware, but I know that a little villa was 25 built at the gate, which was to provide an opportunity 13:39 26 for parents when they came visiting to have some 27 privacy with their children, but that was simply a 28 two-roomed small building. 29 136 Q. You see you have heard the complaints over the years 45 1 and in the private hearings, of concerns about the diet 2 and the hunger and the thirst and the stale bread being 3 given to the children, while there was fresh bread 4 there in the cupboard to be seen and smelt. The other 5 thing that is complained of is the disparity between 13:40 6 the frugality and inedibility of a lot of the food, 7 compared with the staff food and perhaps the food in 8 the convent too? 9 A. Well, I reiterate our position, that we believe the 10 food was adequate and the food was nourishing, and as 13:40 11 the years progressed the food improved both in its 12 preparation and in its variety. I think that is 13 frequently endorsed by the Department inspections. Our 14 Sisters, who would have worked there, would recognise 15 and would acknowledge that in the early years, 13:40 16 particularly in the 1940's, food was rationed and food 17 was difficult to come by, and it was perhaps more 18 frugal and less appetizing than it was able to be 19 certainly from the late 1940's on. 20 137 Q. Did your enquiries confirm that scraps would be thrown 13:41 21 out of the teachers' room into the yard at lunchtime? 22 A. No, we do not accept that scraps were thrown out to 23 children in any way. That is not to say that somebody 24 did not play a prank once or twice, but we do not 25 accept that scraps were thrown to children. 13:41 26 138 Q. The disparity which the Chairman has noted in a 27 different public session, between the inspection 28 reports and what people say they experienced, it is an 29 unbreachable gulf in many ways, would you agree? 46 1 A. I think that it is not for me, it is for the Commission 2 to make the judgment on the reality, insofar as it is 3 possible to bring it back. We believe that the 4 inspection reports are consistently from 1948 right 5 through to the 1970's, positive, in quite a very strong 13:42 6 way. I believe that these inspection reports came 7 sometimes three and four times a year and on one year, 8 1953, actually five times. 9 139 Q. Why did they come in that year? Was there a death of a 10 child in that year? 13:42 11 A. There was a death of a child in 1955 but not in -- in 12 1953 -- I have not got the date of that -- all of the 13 death in my mind just now. 14 140 Q. Let us look at the reality of the inspection reports. 15 They are formulaic. There is very short descriptions, 13:42 16 something is fair, good or very good. They reflect a 17 fleeting moment in the inspector's day, compared 18 perhaps to the reality of a year's existence of the 19 life of any child in Goldenbridge. So that is the 20 comparison that the Commission have to make between 13:43 21 whether the reports mean anything. I understand, of 22 course, why you would rely on them, but can I ask you 23 this: Do you know how long the inspections took on the 24 day that they are said to have occurred? 25 A. I am not in a position to say, but I would like to say 13:43 26 that we accept all of the reports, good and bad, as 27 being equally standing in terms of professional 28 statements by the people who made them. In relation to 29 many of the Goldenbridge reports, there are 47 1 accompanying comments and these accompanying comments 2 do not, if you like, repeat each other at each time, 3 but what they do is fill out, in some way, the 4 assessment of the inspector in relation to how 5 Goldenbridge was run. 13:44 6 141 Q. You have picked out comments in your statement of 7 evidence, mostly favourable comments. Are there any 8 bad comments in the reports for the years that you have 9 highlighted at all? 10 A. Well, as you are probably aware, there are negative 13:44 11 comments in the year 1944, in which there is reference 12 there to both the adequacy or inadequacy of milk and 13 butter, and the level of tidiness of the children's 14 clothes. 15 142 Q. Leaving aside 1944, is there any report which says a 13:44 16 bad word or a very bad word about Goldenbridge that you 17 would like to reject, other than Mr. Crowley's report? 18 A. I am not aware of it in the sequence that I have just 19 mentioned. If you have one in mind, I would be glad if 20 you would bring it to my attention. 13:45 21 143 Q. You see, that is the problem for the Commission, 22 looking at the huge disparity, did you make any enquiry 23 from the staff as to how long an inspection took? 24 A. I understood, and again I am speaking simply out of my 25 recollection from talking with those who worked there, 13:45 26 that it would take pretty well much of the day, and 27 that all of the aspects of the house, including 28 dormitories, toilets, other areas would be examined. 29 144 Q. There seems to be no mention of the lay staff in most 48 1 of the reports or in all? 2 A. Well, that is a comment that we ourselves would have 3 drawn attention to when we examined. There is no 4 reference in the Department's reports on staffing. 5 There is no reference to training. There is no 13:45 6 reference, as we said, to the Punishment Book, and we 7 can only surmise that the headings that were there were 8 the headings that the Department needed to have some 9 comment on, to make a judgment on the well being of the 10 school. 13:46 11 145 Q. What is your information about the nature of the 12 inspections based upon, can I ask you that? 13 A. Sorry, I don't understand that. 14 146 Q. Where do you get your information about the nature of 15 the inspections? 13:46 16 A. I would have spoken to Sisters who worked in the place. 17 147 Q. Is it not like any institution, when you know that 18 there is going to be a parade of inspection that you 19 will prepare for it and put on the best show that you 20 can? Is that not really what is likely to have 13:46 21 occurred? 22 A. Well, there were three kinds of inspections. There was 23 the general inspections, which I have referred to now. 24 It is the conviction of the Sisters who worked there 25 that these were not notified. There were the medical 13:46 26 inspections, in which every child would be examined 27 medically. The school was given notice by the medical 28 inspector of that inspection. There were the third 29 inspections, which had to do with the level of 49 1 attainment in the industrial school training, in which 2 cookery and baking and laundry and so on was examined 3 by the inspector, but the general inspections, that is 4 I can only relay what is the conviction; that these 5 were not notified. 13:47 6 148 Q. Right, okay. If they happened in the same week or the 7 same month every year, it would be indicative of a 8 pattern that an institution could expect they are going 9 to come back next January. They have come the last ten 10 Januarys, or whatever. You could reasonably expect it, 13:47 11 even if you had no notice that they were actually 12 coming, isn't that right? 13 A. I am sure if that is the case, I didn't take note 14 particularly of how the dates coincide. 15 149 Q. Can I just turn to a different topic, I don't have much 13:47 16 more? 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGuinness, what would 18 you like us to do? Would 19 you like to carry on until the end? 20 MR. McGUINNESS: I think I have only ten 13:48 21 minutes more questioning. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we are happy to 23 then -- whatever you want 24 the do. If it is ten minutes, go ahead, and then we 25 will have lunch. 13:48 26 150 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: Thank you. Just on the 27 issue of family, 28 relationships of children being maintained or 29 encouraged, or particularly where there are siblings, 50 1 there seems to have been very little consideration 2 given to that. Would that be a fair statement? 3 A. I did not catch the beginning of your question. 4 151 Q. To maintaining family relationships? 5 A. Yes. 13:48 6 152 Q. A lack of emphasis on it? 7 A. We recognise that that is a very sad part of the 8 institutional system. That whether it was the thinking 9 of the time or whatever, but when the children came, 10 perhaps the manager was given some minimal information 13:48 11 on the family circumstances by the court official who 12 brought the children, but this information was not 13 shared out with others. In that sense, those who were 14 looking after the children had little awareness of what 15 their family reality was behind them or what 13:49 16 difficulties they had already experienced. We can only 17 speculate as to the reasons for that. 18 19 In terms of maintaining siblings, it was always 20 experienced by the Sisters that where families had to 13:49 21 be split up, in other words, girls and boys separated, 22 that that would cause great pain and it was something 23 that both Sr. Bernardine mentions in her letter, in her 24 talk, but it was achieved in 1952, I think, in 25 Goldenbridge, when permission was given, after a series 13:49 26 of requests; permission was given to Goldenbridge to 27 take boys up to 10 years of age. In that sense, to 28 maintain at least in the earlier years the family 29 connections. 51 1 153 Q. It was not advocated for that reason? 2 A. I would believe it was for that reason, and not for any 3 other. 4 154 Q. As far as my instructions go, it was unsuccessful, in 5 that some people were not even aware when their 13:50 6 brothers were transferred out of the institution to 7 another institution? 8 A. Well, I am not able to be specific in relation to that. 9 155 Q. There seems to have been little emphasis on celebrating 10 or encouraging the individual personality of children. 13:50 11 There is no celebration of birthdays, for example. Was 12 that a deliberate policy? 13 A. We acknowledge it, but if you have 200 children I think 14 that it was probably difficult to carry that degree of 15 celebration. We would regret that deeply because 13:50 16 everybody's birthday is something very special, but it 17 wasn't a fact and that is true. 18 156 Q. Was there a policy against seeking out foster parents, 19 send children out to foster homes for even temporary 20 periods? 13:51 21 A. I haven't come across anything that would meet the term 22 "policy", I do believe that...(INTERJECTION) 23 157 Q. Or practice? 24 A. I do believe that families sometimes requested or 25 sometimes at concerts or whatever might have made some 13:51 26 connection with a child, and then asked to take that 27 child perhaps for Christmas or for a weekend, or 28 whatever, and that might have grown eventually into 29 more solid relationships. 52 1 158 Q. Yes. Just coming back to a couple of final questions 2 on the issue of funding. There were quite a number of 3 other activities engaged in that that generated money, 4 isn't that right? Irish costumes for sale, filling 5 fizzy bags for commercial purposes, brown paper bags, 13:51 6 holy cards, scapulars and St. Patrick's Day badges, 7 that sort of thing. They all generated money. Is that 8 accounted for in the industrial school accounts? 9 A. I am not aware of any of those things generating money 10 in Goldenbridge. 13:52 11 159 Q. There was apparently a fund, an aftercare fund, which 12 was started at some stage, and to which people were 13 sent out to collect money in the streets with wooden 14 rattle boxes and there was a collection box in the hall 15 in Goldenbridge. Do you know what money was collected 13:52 16 for that aftercare fund? 17 A. I am not aware of any of that. It is not to say that 18 from time to time there may have been some fundraising 19 aspects, but I have not come across it, nor has it been 20 mentioned to me as any feature of the school. 13:52 21 160 Q. The money generated by the bead making, over how many 22 years did that continue? 23 A. The bead making seems to have begun somewhere in the 24 early 1950's. We don't have an absolute date for it. 25 We have tried to find it out. We have made contact 13:53 26 with the company, Walsh's, that engaged in it, but we 27 have not been able to determine the beginning. We 28 understand that it petered out somewhere in perhaps the 29 middle 1960's, 1964/1965, it seems to have petered out. 53 1 161 Q. So certainly around 15 years or perhaps more? 2 A. Perhaps, yes. 3 162 Q. Do you have any idea of the total amount earned by 4 that? 5 A. I have no idea. 13:53 6 163 Q. All right. Family contributions, families who came and 7 contributed money directly for the upkeep of their 8 children, people who came and put ten shillings in a 9 week. Was that money accounted for in relation to the 10 particular child or did it just go into a general fund? 13:53 11 A. I believe that that would have to be looked at through 12 any examination of the accounts. I am not in a 13 position to make any comment on it. What I do know is 14 that there were two, if you like, groups of children, 15 those who were assigned to the school through the 13:54 16 courts, and for which the capitation grant was given 17 per child. It was deducted if a child was a day at 18 home or elsewhere. The second group of children were 19 voluntary children, who were often in a crisis 20 situation where it was requested to take them. In some 13:54 21 of those situations, some funds may have been required 22 by the Department. I understand that whatever was 23 given in went to the Department. 24 164 Q. You see, as I understand it, for those committed 25 voluntarily, if possible, a family was asked to make a 13:54 26 contribution and those that could did, and they would 27 do it by turning up at the gate and handing in the 28 requisite money. In the case of somebody, a ten 29 shilling note every week? 54 1 A. I am not in a position to -- 2 165 Q. Others were required by court order to contribute 3 perhaps towards the upkeep. Are you saying that all 4 those monies went to the Department? 5 A. That is the recollection of the Sisters who worked 13:55 6 there, but they didn't retain it. 7 166 Q. Is there any documentation relating to the receipt 8 and/or transfer of those monies that you are aware of? 9 A. I am not aware of, but if we have anything, it will be 10 with the Department. 13:55 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you think it is 12 different Mr. McGuinness? 13 Logic would say that it should have gone to the 14 Department -- if the Department pays the money for each 15 child going through the courts, and the court makes an 13:55 16 order, certainly up to now I was thinking that it went 17 to the court. I may be wrong about that. 18 MR. McGUINNESS: There are different 19 situations. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see your point entirely 13:55 21 about the person who did 22 not go -- committed -- I see that entirely, but I am 23 specifically talking about the one where the Judge, the 24 District Justice made an order and accompanying that 25 was an order for a payment of money. Now the question 13:55 26 was, who got that money? My understanding up to now 27 was that that went to the court, because sometimes you 28 find correspondence where people have been followed up 29 afterwards for not making, and references to arrears or 55 1 whether they are keeping up their payment. 2 MR. McGUINNESS: But was it transferred to 3 the Department from the 4 court or to the Order? 5 MR. GAGEBY: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I 13:56 6 think the situation was 7 that it was actually sent directly to the Department, 8 because there is an enormous amount of literature in 9 which the Department is seeking arrears from persons. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: And the Department 13:56 11 acknowledges that X, for 12 instance, is paid up to date or that somebody refers to 13 this -- but McGuinness from your point of view, I think 14 you can take it that -- if you discover something 15 subsequently, there is no reason why you can't write 13:56 16 into us, but our assumption is that it went to the 17 State. Let us put it that way. 18 MR. McGUINNESS: What I want to enquire 19 about, I will limit my 20 enquiry just on the basis...(INTERJECTION) 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is all right. I am not 22 stopping you. 23 167 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: In relation to those 24 children who were 25 voluntarily committed and paid ten shillings a week or 13:56 26 whatever, did that money go to the Department? Did it 27 go to the Sisters of Mercy, and if so, was it spent on 28 the child for whom it was --? 29 A. I can't provide information on that, and I believe that 56 1 -- 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: That should go to the 3 institution. There may be 4 accounts or maybe there should have been, but logically 5 the Department should have nothing to do with that. 13:57 6 168 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: Exactly. I am instructed 7 that the bead making 8 continued from the 1940's until 1970. Does that accord 9 with what you know? 10 A. All I draw on is we don't have absolute ending time and 13:57 11 I think there might have been different presentations 12 of that made during the private hearings. 13 169 Q. I see. You mentioned on one occasion there through the 14 course of the questions, reference to a death in 1955 15 and you said there were other deaths. I think in your 13:57 16 statement of evidence, you say there were three other 17 deaths in the 1950's, is that right? 18 A. Yes, I think to be accurate I think there might have 19 been 4 deaths in the 1950's. 20 170 Q. Have you been in a position to identify to the 13:58 21 Commission the identities of those children? 22 A. We have. 23 171 Q. Can I ask you were medical reports relating to their 24 cause of death or illnesses furnished to the 25 Commission? 13:58 26 A. Yes, they were. 27 172 Q. Can you were Coroners' inquests held in relation to all 28 or any of them? 29 A. Yes, I understand that it was a legal requirement to 57 1 have an inquest. I think for one of the deaths, we 2 have not been able to get the death cert and that goes 3 back to, I think, 1951. We are satisfied, given the 4 documentation around that death and all of the other 5 deaths, we are satisfied that nothing untoward or 13:58 6 anything that would have meant harm or deliberate 7 injury of any kind caused those deaths. 8 173 Q. One of them noted burns on the legs of the child, I 9 think, is that right? 10 A. Yes. In that particular case the death cert, which we 13:59 11 have, and which records the cause of death, which was 12 vomiting and gastroenteritis, I think, if I have the 13 right term. In our own sick book there was reference 14 to a burn. At the time that this was brought to our 15 attention, we had no knowledge as to how that burn 13:59 16 might have occurred. The particular child was with us 17 for just two days at the time, but we have reached an 18 agreement which in 1997, with the family concerned, in 19 which we really regret that any child would have died 20 while in our care and also the loss that that was to 14:00 21 the family. We at this point know from other sources 22 that the cause of the burn may have been something 23 accidental. 24 174 Q. Somebody has told you that in the recent past, is that 25 right? 14:00 26 A. Yes. 27 175 Q. The other causes of death, are you in a position to say 28 what they were? 29 A. I don't have the actual death -- but they are available 58 1 and they are with the Commission. 2 176 Q. All right? 3 A. One was meningitis. I have not got them all here. I 4 have not got them all here, no. 5 177 Q. Were they returned to their families for burial or were 14:00 6 they buried in the Sister's property? 7 A. No, as I understand it, they were buried in Glasnevin 8 but they were returned to their families. 9 178 Q. Just in relation to the care of children generally, 10 were parents or relatives ever notified when somebody 14:01 11 became ill in Goldenbridge? 12 A. I am not in a position to say they did or didn't. 13 179 Q. There is no evidence that they were, isn't that right? 14 A. Or that they weren't. 15 180 Q. Or that they weren't, yes. Was there a medical journal 14:01 16 kept which would show whether they were ill and/or what 17 was done or who was notified? 18 A. We did have a sick book which survived, but the entries 19 in it certainly after the late 1950's or 1960's, seemed 20 to be patchy. 14:01 21 181 Q. Is that the journal that is required by the regulations 22 or is that a different book? 23 A. I couldn't say. 24 182 Q. You are not sure? 25 A. I couldn't say, yes. The sick book was the book on 14:01 26 which the doctor made his comments on the health or 27 illness of a child. 28 183 Q. Just one further question about the premise and the 29 maintenance of facilities. There has been some 59 1 reference in some of the complaints, I think, to 2 children being made do work associated with flooding 3 and plumbing. Was there ever a plumber employed on the 4 premises to maintain anything? 5 A. There was a handyman definitely around, and there would 14:02 6 have been someone similar in relation to the convent. 7 We would believe that other than just ordinary things 8 that might happen in any household were part and parcel 9 of what children engaged in. 10 MR. McGUINNESS: They are all the questions 14:03 11 I have Chairman. I would 12 be anxious to, at some stage, seek to see some of the 13 documentation that we have referred to that have been 14 provided to the Commission. Perhaps we would write in 15 that regard. 14:03 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 17 MR. McGUINNESS: I do not want to make it an 18 issue of contention now 19 today. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I can understand perfectly 14:03 21 well, Mr. McGuinness. We 22 will consider any application. 23 MR. McGUINNESS: It is not a matter for 24 today. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no I don't want to give 14:03 26 you any encouragement or 27 discouragement, but you will appreciate that our point 28 is where we need it, we look for it, but it is not a 29 case between a) versus b). That will give you a 60 1 general idea of our basic approach. It is not a 2 circular matter like a plaintiff and a defendant. 3 However, that may be a general policy, that may be a 4 general view, circumstances alter cases. If there is a 5 specific matter that you are referring to, let us know 14:04 6 and let us know why you think you want to have it and 7 we will deal with that. Thank you very much. 8 MR. McGUINNESS: If I might just one more 9 question. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 14:04 11 184 Q. MR. McGUINNESS: Do you accept that some of 12 the children were made to 13 do this plumbing work, or that they had to do it? 14 A. We find no reason to believe that that would have 15 happened. Other than, as I was saying, small things 14:04 16 that might happen in any ordinary family. The bigger 17 plumbing work would have been done by somebody else. 18 MR. McGUINNESS: Thank you. 19 20 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE BY 14:04 21 MR. McGUINNESS 22 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We 24 will take a break and we 25 will resume at three o'clock. 14:04 26 27 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT 28 29 61 1 THE HEARING RESUMED, AS FOLLOWS, AFTER THE LUNCHEON 2 ADJOURNMENT 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Where is Sr. Helena? 5 Thank you very much, 15:03 6 Sister. Now Mr. McGrath. 7 8 SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 9 MR. McGRATH: 10 15:03 11 185 Q. MR. McGRATH: My name is David McGrath, 12 senior counsel, instructed 13 by Hanahoe's solicitors. I represent Hanahoe's, who 14 have had quite a number of people who gave evidence to 15 the Committee, which you are well aware of because you 15:03 16 attended most of them if not all of them. 17 A. All of them. 18 186 Q. Am I correct in understanding that you would have a lot 19 of information in relation to what may or may not have 20 occurred at Goldenbridge from, first of all, attending 15:04 21 those hearings and hearing what those witnesses had to 22 say? 23 A. My information in relation to Goldenbridge would have 24 been gathered, as I said in my original statement, over 25 the years preceding and I attended the private hearings 15:04 26 and heard the evidence presented there. 27 187 Q. Okay. You have heard that evidence, you have seen the 28 statements that were handed in and I take it that you 29 also read a substantial number of statements from other 62 1 pupils in the school who are going to the Redress Board 2 as well? 3 A. I have, yes. 4 188 Q. And you have given answers to the Redress Board in 5 respect of those statements too? 15:04 6 A. I have, but I...(INTERJECTION) 7 189 Q. All right. So in terms of your information, not only 8 have you had information from the people you have 9 spoken to within your own organisation but you are very 10 well aware of what pupils and people, former pupils, 15:05 11 have had to say about their experiences in the school? 12 A. I am, yes. 13 190 Q. On the previous occasion that you were here you 14 expressed the following, and it is at page 11 of the 15 stenographer's report from the last occasion, you said 15:05 16 in answer to a question which was: 17 "Q. Would you like to begin with the 18 first of those topics, which I think you said was the emergence of the abuse 19 allegation and media approach at the Goldenbridge industrial school?" 20 15:05 21 You said: 22 "A. Yes. I should say that I am 23 acutely conscious, particularly this morning, of the pain and suffering that 24 many former residents of Goldenbridge have expressed to us over the years. I 25 will be trying to maintain in some way 15:05 a balance, perhaps a delicate balance, 26 of being attentive to that while at the same time trying to be just and 27 compassionate to all concerned." 28 29 You later went on to bring up the apology that was 63 1 issued by the Sisters of Mercy, the Congregation, and 2 you quoted that in full. It is at page 45 of the 3 matter, and I don't really wish to quote her apology, 4 again, it is quoted there. What I really wanted to ask 5 you about arising from that is the evidence that you 15:06 6 gave here this morning. You have seen, as I say, the 7 statement from the pupils, both to the board here, to 8 the Redress Board, you have heard the evidence of those 9 pupils, you have given this apology, which is an 10 unconditional apology, and yet you come here today and 15:06 11 you say you don't believe the system was excessively 12 harsh, you don't accept that the burden of work that 13 the children had to do was excessive, you do not accept 14 that scraps were thrown out to the children. What were 15 you apologising for? 15:07 16 A. Well I think that all of us here would acknowledge or 17 be aware that it is a very, very complex area that we 18 are trying to respond to. In relation to eventually 19 sorting, if you like, and concluding all of it, it 20 isn't for me to do that and that's why we are here at 15:07 21 the Commission and the Commission will be making its 22 judgments. We acknowledge that the system that was 23 childcare in the industrial schools was one that was 24 not attentive to, particularly, the painful situations 25 of children and how they would have continued on in the 15:08 26 years, and we deeply regret that we were not sensitive 27 and aware to that. The specific instances, some of 28 which you have just mentioned, they are a matter to be 29 established with whatever degree of factual material is 64 1 available. 2 191 Q. Can I take it then that what you are telling the 3 Commission here, and what you are telling all the 4 people who were pupils in this institution is that you 5 are still not prepared to accept that they were beaten 15:08 6 and beaten regularly and excessively? 7 A. We accept that children were beaten in terms of 8 corporal punishment. We do not accept that it was 9 excessive or excessively harsh. 10 192 Q. Well then why would you apologise? 15:08 11 A. We would certainly be apologising for the fact that we 12 were in some way inattentive to the needs of the 13 children and that the system, including corporal 14 punishment, would not have addressed the children's 15 needs and we regret that deeply now. 15:09 16 193 Q. So then I can take it at this, right now, you are 17 telling all these people sitting at the back of this 18 room that you do not accept that any of those children 19 were beaten excessively, it didn't happen? 20 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, surely this 15:09 21 is the very matter for the 22 Commission. I mean this is turning into an argument, 23 with the greatest respect, about her opinions. I mean 24 so what in fact and truth about her opinions. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: The thing that occurs to 15:09 26 us, Mr. Gageby, is 27 Mr. McGrath is exploring whether the Sisters of Mercy 28 have changed their position. That's an area, I have to 29 say, that interests us. 65 1 MR. GAGEBY: That's fair enough. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because the questions that 3 he is asking, I'm a little 4 uncomfortable with the very last question but 5 everything up to that strikes me as being highly 15:10 6 relevant and very much material; if that's the posture, 7 the position taken by the Sisters of Mercy, why 8 apologise? Certainly, one of the things I am happy to 9 have explored is whether there has been a change in 10 position. 15:10 11 MR. GAGEBY: Fair enough. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I think that's where 13 Mr. McGrath is going. I 14 think Mr. McGrath is sensitive to the fact that he 15 can't get into asking do you believe a specific person, 15:10 16 or even not naming the person, who gave evidence of 17 this, do you accept that or not? Okay, that's not 18 appropriate because we are into a public phase and we 19 are prohibited by the Act. But the other material as 20 to thing, that's strikes us as being very relevant. 15:11 21 MR. GAGEBY: On the basis that it 22 would be relevant to your 23 determination of the truth or otherwise of what 24 happened in the private hearing? Sorry, I didn't mean 25 to phrase that as a question. 15:11 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I have no problem 27 with this. The Sisters of 28 Mercy have given evidence. I think Sr. Helena has 29 given evidence at the emergence hearings back in late 66 1 2004, Sr. Helena gave evidence in the Hilton Hotel at 2 Phase I of this. There was an apology, followed by a 3 second apology and it is the second apology that 4 Mr. McGrath is dealing with. So where the Sisters 5 stand on those issues certainly seems to me to be a 15:12 6 relevant matter and legitimate for exploration. 7 MR. GAGEBY: So be it, Chairman. 8 194 Q. MR. McGRATH: If I can go a bit further 9 and explain to you where I 10 am coming from. We got discovery, and this is document 15:12 11 SOMGB-08951/1. It is in a folder that to us is 12 "Sisters of Mercy discovery", and it arises in the 13 context of something my Friend opened this morning, in 14 terms of the inquiry that the Sisters carried out 15 themselves. I propose to hand in a copy of the 15:13 16 document to the witness so that she can be looking at 17 it at the time that I am reading from it. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 19 A. I have that here, yes. 20 195 Q. MR. McGRATH: If you go about half way 15:13 21 down that particular 22 document. Go to the end first of all. It seems to 23 have your name at the end of it and it seems to be 24 written in underneath your name, address etc., I think 25 it is February 1996. 15:13 26 A. That's correct. 27 196 Q. Is that your assessment of the situation on the basis 28 of the information that you had at that time in 1996? 29 A. It is a summary really of the report provided by 67 1 Mr. Crowley and a summary of the key elements there. 2 197 Q. Was Mr. Crowley on his own in that or did you have a 3 Sister involved in some of the inquiries as well? 4 A. A Sister who was delegated by the Congregation to meet 5 any of the complainants who were associated with the 15:14 6 "Dear Daughter" and who wished to speak to us and tell 7 us. So that Sister heard a number of complainants 8 there and her report, or her experience was shared with 9 Mr. Crowley. 10 198 Q. Okay. Can I take it then that you yourself did speak 15:14 11 to some of the nuns who were in Goldenbridge? 12 A. Yes. 13 199 Q. Mr. Crowley spoke to some of those nuns? 14 A. Yes. 15 200 Q. And Sr. Joe Kennedy, is it, spoke to some of the 15:15 16 residents? 17 A. Former residents, yes. 18 201 Q. You had your own sources of information, you had the 19 information provided by Mr. Crowley and you had Sr. 20 Kennedy's information when you compiled this document 15:15 21 here? 22 A. That's correct. 23 202 Q. This document, I have to suggest to you, at paragraph 4 24 says: 25 "A system which was excessively harsh 15:15 and insensitive was well established by 26 the 1950's..." 27 28 And this was in relation to Goldenbridge. Two 29 paragraphs down then it says: 68 1 "A strong ethos of fear dominated all 2 relationships and roles, and monitoring does not appear to have been adequate". 3 4 Then if you jump to another paragraph it says: 5 15:15 "It is evident that children 6 experienced physical and emotional abuse and were not prepared for life 7 after care." 8 9 Now, are you telling the Commission today that none of 10 those statements are true? 15:16 11 A. This document, as I say, was drawn up as a summary of 12 presenting to our own communities what the outcome of 13 the Crowley report was. We had not had opportunity at 14 that stage to explore in any depth and I think those 15 statements today do underpin what our position is in 15:16 16 relation to the Crowley report, that it had a 17 perspective that time that we believe would have needed 18 to be examined further. 19 203 Q. And having examined it further, because you have heard 20 the evidence that is before the Commission and you have 15:16 21 read all the documentation I have set out to you, are 22 you tell me now that you wouldn't accept any of those 23 statements that are written there on that particular 24 page under your name? 25 A. At the Phase I hearing I said very clearly that we were 15:17 26 not in a position to accept as factually correct the 27 allegations of serious physical abuse or injury to any 28 child. And that would cover those points. 29 204 Q. As far as things are concerned, you are still taking 69 1 that view? 2 A. Yes, we would, following the hearings we would be of 3 the same view. 4 205 Q. Okay. So all the people who are sitting at the back of 5 this room can leave here today with no doubt in their 15:17 6 mind's that the Sisters of Mercy are not prepared to 7 say they accept their stories? 8 MR. GAGEBY: Sorry, that is a ridiculous 9 question, with the greatest 10 respect, Mr. Chairman. Honestly, it is ridiculous. 15:17 11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It is a great question. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to get into 13 ridiculous or rebuking, but 14 Mr. McGrath I don't think a person -- look, this is an 15 Inquiry the last thing we want -- I mean, it is an 15:18 16 important area that you are investigating, why 17 personalise it? 18 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, I sat here this 19 morning...(INTERJECTION) 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait now. The question I 15:18 21 would like you to ask, 22 certainly, is where does that fit in with apology No. 1 23 and apology No. 2? That's what I would like you to 24 ask. 25 MR. McGRATH: I am sorry, I was coming to 15:18 26 that. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are not getting into a 28 situation where specific 29 complaints, specification evidence is going to be 70 1 commented on, or whether this is acceptable or that's 2 acceptable. Specific complaints. I mean, the general 3 position, or the position that the Sisters of Mercy are 4 taking up is certainly, in our view, relevant to this 5 phase of our Inquiry. (A) I think you are trespassing 15:18 6 into matters that were dealt with privately, in private 7 hearings, and which we are prohibited to doing. 8 Secondly, I think that you are personalising the issue 9 in a way that, certainly, I don't find helpful. In 10 fact, I have to say I find it up helpful. Look, 15:19 11 Mr. McGrath, this isn't a criticism, it is a view as to 12 the way that particular question is asked. The type of 13 the questioning, the area you are in I think that's of 14 interest and we are happy to have you pursue that. Can 15 you see where I am coming form? 15:19 16 MR. McGRATH: I know exactly where you 17 are coming from, but you 18 can understand the difficulty I have in trying to 19 elicit precisely what it is the Sisters are now saying 20 about Goldenbridge and what happened there. I have 15:19 21 asked that question in that specific way because it 22 will give a very definitive answer to the Commission 23 and to anyone who is hearing the evidence of precisely 24 what their position is. Because, certainly, on the 25 basis of the apology I believed that the stories were 15:20 26 being accepted. Now, two years later, I am confused as 27 to what the apology was for. That's the problem. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are happy to have you 29 explore the general 71 1 question, Mr. McGrath, but we don't want to be put in 2 the position either of suppressing a legitimate 3 question, and it is not fair to us to have me saying oh 4 no, Mr. McGrath, you can't ask that, and 5 representatives of very many survivors, who have given 15:20 6 evidence, sitting at the back of the court, thus giving 7 the impression that we are trying to close off debate. 8 I know that you are not deliberately doing that, I 9 would not suggest that for one second. But I am simply 10 saying to you, look, we both know the reality of the 15:21 11 situation here. I appreciate what you are endevouring 12 to do. We would like you to do that, or endevour to do 13 that, but please do it in a manner that we both know is 14 permissible and avoid a manner that we both know is 15 impermissible, and don't have me jumping on you as if 15:21 16 to give the impression that I m criticising you or 17 seeking to close off what's a legitimate area of 18 debate. So, from our point of view we don't want to be 19 seen to be doing that, but we have to do what we have 20 to do. Thank you. 15:21 21 206 Q. MR. McGRATH: Well then I will ask the 22 simple question that I was 23 going to ask you earlier. What was the apology for? 24 What were you apologising for? What did you do wrong? 25 And I don't want to be told the system, the system, the 15:21 26 system. What were you apologising for? If there was a 27 system, what system were you apologising for? 28 A. I think that, perhaps, an examination of the apology, 29 both apologies, may be revealing in some way. I think 72 1 that we have always acknowledged that we recognise that 2 children suffered pain and hurt while in our 3 institutions. We know that those institutions, as any 4 other institutions, were systems. We regret deeply 5 that suffering continued for the children through the 15:22 6 years that they were there. We deeply do feel that and 7 want in some way to both acknowledge and to work, as I 8 have already said, for some kind of recovery. 9 10 Where specific allegations of a serious nature have 15:23 11 been made, the apology couldn't, until these matters 12 would be completed, specify what the outcome of 13 specific allegations were. In relation to 14 Goldenbridge, our conviction is that, like anywhere 15 else, children would have suffered in Goldenbridge pain 15:23 16 and hurt one way or another that was not adverted to. 17 At the same time we have seen and believe that there is 18 ample evidence to say that the institution was a 19 reasonably effective and caring institution, according 20 to the standards of the time. 15:23 21 22 The first apology was made in the wake of "Dear 23 Daughter" and our only reliance on any understanding of 24 the situation was that preliminary report. Our apology 25 two years ago was with a very deep awareness that so 15:24 26 very many had not heard that first apology and we 27 wished to ensure all the former residents who have been 28 hurt that we really did hear them and were concerned. 29 207 Q. Can I first of all ask you when in the original apology 73 1 you said: 2 "Many of you who spent your childhoods 3 in orphanages and industrial schools run by our Congregation were hurt and 4 damaged whilst in our care." 5 15:24 6 What caused them hurt and damage? 7 A. I believe that I couldn't summarise that in a sentence, 8 it is a very complex situation. But there were large 9 numbers, there was lack of understanding, there was a 10 regimental way of life, there was corporal punishment, 15:25 11 and factors like that which would have been unfriendly, 12 to put it at its mildest, to the needs of children who 13 were hurt already and who had experienced loss. 14 208 Q. Can you tell me what has happened between the time that 15 you wrote this note, or report, or page in February 15:25 16 1996 and today that has changed your mind about their 17 being an excessively harsh and insensitive system in 18 place, that there was a strong ethos of fear dominating 19 all relationships, and that the children experienced 20 physical and emotional abuse? What has changed or what 15:25 21 have you learnt in meantime that makes you walk away 22 from all those statements there? 23 A. We would have indicated that in the first hearing, the 24 conversations with the Sisters who had worked there, 25 conversations with others who had contact or activity 15:26 26 in the institution. We would have had the various 27 documentary materials from the Department of Education, 28 plus a number of other people, one way or another, that 29 would have given us the perception that we had which I 74 1 presented at the first hearing. 2 209 Q. Well, what is it about Mr. Crowley that you have 3 suddenly distanced yourself from the conclusions he 4 came to? I mean he was appointed by you to carry out 5 this task, what is it about him that you suddenly 15:26 6 doubt? First of all you told us that it wasn't read 7 back to Sr. Fabian this morning, what she said, and 8 therefore she couldn't confirm it. What is it about 9 Mr. Crowley that makes you doubt that the notes that he 10 took down, that they were accurate? 15:27 11 A. Well I think I am reiterating to some degree what I 12 have already said, and that was that it was 13 commissioned and conducted prior to "Dear Daughter" so 14 we weren't aware, except through in Mr. Lenton, of what 15 allegations there might be. Most of the allegations 15:27 16 that we have received in the intervening time came 17 after that, so we were in a different, shall we say, 18 territory really at the time that that report was 19 compiled. 20 210 Q. But then Sr. Fabian gave her story at a time when she 15:27 21 wasn't under any pressure because there was no 22 allegations out in the public domain at that stage. 23 She was free to talk about whatever she remembered. 24 There was nothing, no pressure on her at that time. 25 Why do you think that if she had been asked the 15:28 26 questions after "Dear Daughter" she might have given a 27 different version? 28 A. I think I'm not in a position really to indicate what 29 that might have been, had it been later. I think what 75 1 Mr. Crowley pointed to was the need for an 2 interdisciplinary multi-expert involvement in a proper 3 inquiry, and it wasn't possible to have done that at 4 that time. 5 211 Q. If he's correct that Sr. Fabian did confirm to him that 15:28 6 the general atmosphere was excessively and consistently 7 cruel, even relevant to the standards at the time, what 8 is that has happened since Mr. Crowley got that 9 information from Sr. Fabian that makes you doubt that 10 that was the factual situation? 15:28 11 A. Well again to reiterate, from all of the material that 12 we have examined and all of the people that we have 13 talked to over the next ten years we are of the 14 conviction that Goldenbridge was, as I say, a 15 reasonably efficient and caring school, that the 15:29 16 managers and Sisters there were committed and worked 17 long and hard in the interest of children, and that it 18 was both committed and dedicated and progressive in 19 very many ways. We believe that having examined some 20 of the, certainly, serious allegations we have not been 15:29 21 able to find grounds that would convince us that they 22 were part of the reality. 23 212 Q. So, as far as things are concerned, so far as you are 24 concerned, what Sr. Fabian has said about the 25 conditions in Goldenbridge during the time she was 15:29 26 there, she was second to Sr. Xaveria when she was in 27 charge and then she was then in charge after Sr. 28 Xaveria left, that what she says was a situation that 29 you don't accept? 76 1 A. It would need to have been tested, and it wasn't tested 2 so I'm not in a position to be absolute about it. 3 213 Q. Now, as far as Sr. Xaveria is concerned, you 4 interviewed -- or Mr. Crowley interviewed her as well; 5 isn't that right? 15:30 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sister, I'm not following. 7 Why would what Sr. Fabian 8 said have to be tested? Mr. Crowley is engaged, he 9 goes along, he speaks to her, she was there, why would 10 that have to be tested before it is believed? 15:30 11 A. I simply mean it in the sense that she didn't see it 12 until a long time later. 13 214 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course, he says "what 14 was it like?"? 15 A. Yes. 15:30 16 215 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And she says "it was very 17 bad". She may be right, 18 she may be wrong, but this is what she said. Why 19 shouldn't he say, very good, Sr. Fabian said, it was 20 very -- why shouldn't he just write that down? That's 15:31 21 what he did? 22 A. Yes. And I didn't, myself, in my position at that 23 stage didn't know her well enough or anything around 24 the institution at the time to be able to simply 25 reflect on it and question it. 15:31 26 216 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Did anybody go back to Sr. 27 Fabian afterwards and say 28 that stuff you told Mr. Crowley, that's all wrong, you 29 better correct it? 77 1 A. No, I wouldn't think anybody would do that. 2 217 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: When did Sr. Fabian die? 3 A. She died -- is it in 2002? 4 218 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: 2002 you think, is that 5 right? 15:31 6 A. Yes, 2002. 7 219 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But before that the 8 Commission was set up, this 9 document was being produced. In fairness, this 10 document wasn't being suppressed, it was produced to 15:31 11 the Commission, there it is, that's why we are debating 12 it. But did nobody go back to her and say, "look, we 13 have sent this off to the Commission but it is all 14 wrong, and we are going to be in trouble over this, 15 sooner or later somebody is going to be, why don't you 15:32 16 write off to Mr. Crowley?" Surely somebody could. In 17 fairness, if you are going to challenge what Sr. Fabian 18 said surely it is up to you to go back and say you got 19 that wrong. 20 A. Yes, and I think the opportunity to do that didn't come 15:32 21 early enough before she died. I do think that 22 initially how the whole of this process was going to be 23 examined wasn't clear, and Sr. Fabian wasn't very well 24 so, from my point of view, in choosing a time to work 25 through something I would obviously want to not do it 15:32 26 at a time when she wasn't very well, or to do it when 27 there was a necessity to actually do it. We didn't 28 arrive at that point before she had died. 29 78 1 She did read it, but didn't have an opportunity other 2 than to indicate she was not happy with it. But there 3 was no opportunity to follow that through before she 4 died. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good, thank you very 15:33 6 much. 7 220 Q. MR. McGRATH: Can I just ask you another 8 thing that Sr. Fabian said, 9 first of all, and then I will deal with what Sr. 10 Xaveria told Mr. Crowley. 15:33 11 "Sr. Fabian described the care system in an organisation and culture as 12 having been established by Sr. Bernardine, who died in 1994. She 13 initially describes Sr. Bernardine as a hard and rigid woman, but over the 14 course of the interview it emerged she viewed Sr. Bernardine as a paranoid 15 schizophrenic, who she considered was 15:33 grossly insulting to adults and 16 children, and who in fact established a reign of terror." 17 18 Before I leave you to make a comment on that. Sr. 19 Xaveria was also interviewed by Mr. Crowley and she 20 said: 15:34 21 "She was trained by Sr. Bernardine, 22 whom she described as a very large, powerful woman, with a harsh, 23 aggressive and unpredictable personality." 24 25 There is two people talking about Sr. Bernardine and 15:34 26 both giving fairly close accounts, both of whom knew 27 her. Is there any reason not to accept that there are 28 alarm bells that would be ringing in your mind that 29 maybe these statements were in fact true and correct? 79 1 A. And it would be true that when initially Sr. Bernardine 2 was described to me that, as you say, alarm bells would 3 have arisen. But as we have moved on through the 4 process of trying to search through the reality of 5 Goldenbridge the picture is a lot less black and white, 15:34 6 shall we say, and there seems to have been quite an 7 amount of positive work that Sr. Bernardine did. 8 221 Q. You have Sr. Xaveria, who was Sr. Bernardine's second 9 in command, her first job was here, under Bernardine 10 and: 15:35 11 "She described her initiation to 12 Goldenbridge as being told not to talk or to take the attitude of the Sr. Mary 13 Agnes, who had been working with the children in a care and had been 14 critical of the service. She recalls her early years in religious life as 15 being dominated by fear." 15:35 16 17 Now, that can only have been fear of authority and 18 particularly of Bernardine. Would that not again 19 confirm for you the view expressed by Sr. Xaveria and 20 by Sr. Fabian that Sr. Bernardine was a woman to be 15:35 21 feared? 22 A. I believe life is a lot more complicated than what one 23 can say in one or two phrases and I would certainly 24 reiterate that Sr. Xaveria has severe difficulties with 25 the Crowley report and her interview. 15:36 26 222 Q. Again, I have to suggest to you that there isn't only 27 just this documentation from both Sr. Fabian and Sr. 28 Xaveria but there has been evidence before the 29 Commission in relation to Bernardine from certain, one 80 1 if not more, of the pupils who were there that would 2 paint a very similar picture? 3 A. I'm not in a position to give an opinion, I didn't ever 4 know the Sister. 5 223 Q. But you don't think there is...(INTERJECTION) 15:36 6 224 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sister, I can understand 7 you saying listen here, I 8 can't really say, I don't know, that I can understand. 9 What I am not understanding is why we have to reject 10 the two, Sr. Fabian and Sr. Xaveria. I mean why should 15:37 11 we reject that? I can understand if you say "look, I 12 don't know, you'll have to make your mind up, you 13 people are on the Investigation Committee, make the 14 best of it you can". That I can understand. And I am 15 taking a backseat you may say on that. Okay, I hear 15:37 16 what you are saying about Sr. Fabian in what she said 17 to Mr. Crowley. Okay. But Mr. McGrath's point is here 18 we have the two of them in agreement, we have Sr. 19 Xaveria and Sr. Fabian in agreement. Are you neutral 20 on that or are you saying we should reject that? 15:37 21 A. Well, if I might say...(INTERJECTION) 22 225 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please, I am not going 23 to be offended, whatever 24 you say. I just want to be sure I understand it. 25 A. I am here to be of as much assistance as I possibly 15:37 26 can, and I am conscious that I am under oath as well. 27 I know that Sr. Xaveria and Sr. Fabian could not 28 believe the Crowley report when they saw it. I know 29 that. So it is out of that, that I say it would have 81 1 needed to have been tested to establish in some way. I 2 never knew Sr. Bernardine, but I do know that in the 3 private hearings in particular we did hear some 4 positive. So how do we recreate that person? And that 5 is a difficulty, and that's what I mean. I'm not in a 15:38 6 position to say that what was said here by Mr. Crowley 7 is fact. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right. 9 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, could I just 10 point out that you also 15:38 11 heard from Sr. Xaveria in private sessions. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, exactly. 13 MR. GAGEBY: And I believe that Sr. 14 Fabian may have died in 15 2000. We will get the exact date. 15:39 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Sr. Fabian didn't die 17 in 2000. 18 MR. GAGEBY: We will get the exact date. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think you are better to 20 get the exact date. 15:39 21 226 Q. MR. McGRATH: Many of the pupils in 22 Goldenbridge have 23 described, if I may just paraphrase it in a number of 24 words, people have spoken about horror, fear, fear was 25 everywhere, life, living hell, spoke about mental 15:39 26 cruelty. They spoke about living in total fear every 27 day. They spoke about constant humiliation. They 28 spoke about a regime which was harsh, strict and 29 unsuitable for children. They spoke, particularly many 82 1 of them I have to suggest to you, of standing in the 2 dark on the landing, full of fear. Now, particularly 3 that one, standing in the dark on the landing, full of 4 fear, and I think the circumstances of that, if I 5 remember correctly, is where people were sent for 15:40 6 punishment and they would be sent for punishment and 7 they would go from the dormitory and wait for whoever 8 the head mistress was to turn up. For most of them 9 during the period they were there, for most of them it 10 was the three different names that have been mentioned 15:40 11 in the last few minutes. I have to suggest to you that 12 that's a very real thing for all the people who gave 13 evidence, and I suggest to you it is something that did 14 happen. 15 A. Certainly the practice of waiting on the landing for 15:40 16 punishment was a practice that was present and the 17 Sisters involved did acknowledge that. The practice 18 was at night-time, that's where you refer to the dark, 19 because the carers who were responsible for the 20 children in the after supper time were not permitted to 15:41 21 mete out punishment so they were sent to the landing to 22 wait for punishment. We do know that that did happen. 23 I can certainly understand that it would have 24 engendered anxiety and fear in the children who were 25 there. So, from that point of view, we are aware of 15:41 26 that. 27 227 Q. I just want to deal with a comment you just made there 28 a moment ago and I just want to bring something up. 29 Chairman, this may be appropriate to put on the board. 83 1 It is the rules and regulations for the certified 2 industrial schools in relation to discipline and 3 punishment and I just want to deal with something that 4 has arisen there. I'm quite sure you are very familiar 5 with these. 15:42 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Reasonably. 7 228 Q. MR. McGRATH: "Discipline and 8 punishments". According to 9 the "Rules and Regulations", and I am looking at 10 sections 12 and 13: 15:42 11 "Discipline: The manager or his deputy 12 shall be authorised to punish the children detained in the school in case 13 of misconduct. All serious misconduct and the punishments inflicted for it 14 shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid 15 before the inspector when he visits. 15:42 The manager must, however, remember 16 that the more closely the school is modelled on a principle of a judicious 17 family government the more salutary will be its discipline and fewer 18 occasions will arise for resort to punishment." 19 20 15:43 21 Section 13 on punishment says: 22 "Punishments shall consist of: 23 (A) forfeiture of rewards and 24 privileges or degradation from rank previously obtained by good 25 conduct. 15:43 26 (B) moderate, childish punishment with the hand 27 (C) chastisement with the cane, strap 28 or birch." 29 Referring to (C): 84 1 Personal chastisement may be inflicted by the manager, or in his presence by 2 an officer specially authorised by him. And in no case may it be inflicted on 3 girls over 15 years of age. In the case of girls under 15 it shall not be 4 inflicted except in case of urgent necessity, each of which must be at 5 once fully reported to the inspector. 15:43 Caning on the hand is forbidden. No 6 punishment not mentioned above shall be inflicted." 7 8 First of all, I want to suggest to you that if -- and 9 this is only -- you can take it as if -- if the stories 10 that have been told by pupils in relation to the manner 15:44 11 in which they were punished, which included maybe 20 12 slaps on the hand, which may have included beatings all 13 over the body, slaps and beatings by various lay 14 members of staff, when they would hit them around the 15 head, or whatever, or be punished when they were doing 15:44 16 cleaning, that if those happened and if the Commission 17 come to a conclusion that those happened they were, I 18 have to suggest to you, outside the permitted rules 19 under the Rules and Regulations? 20 A. We certainly accept that corporal punishment was part 15:44 21 and parcel of the life and was routine. We don't know 22 and can't be definite about it, but that it may not 23 have been reserved to the manager only. But we do not 24 accept that there was punishment that would have led to 25 any kind of serious, or that was serious and caused 15:45 26 injury. 27 229 Q. Now, again, I am going to bring you back to 28 Mr. Crowley's report in relation the Sr. Xaveria and I 29 am just going to read. 85 1 "Sr. Xaveria identified (blank) as 2 being one former resident whom she understood was physically abusive." 3 4 Now, would that suggest to you that certainly one 5 layperson, to the knowledge of Sr. Xaveria when she 15:45 6 spoke to Mr. Crowley, was breaking the Rules and 7 Regulations? 8 A. Yes, and we are aware that where Sr. Xaveria judged 9 that a carer was too strict she was dismissed. In 10 fact, two people were dismissed from Goldenbridge for 15:46 11 being -- "too strict" was the term used. 12 230 Q. We have also, and the Committee have heard of instances 13 where people have insisted that there were threats or 14 they were actually put into a tumble drier. I think 15 you have heard those stories. I think, again, Sr. 15:46 16 Xaveria told Mr. Crowley: 17 "she certainly acknowledged being 18 confronted by a parent for threatening to place her daughter in a tumble 19 drier." 20 Do you think that that was then likely to have been a 15:46 21 form of punishment, a rather bizarre one, but a form of 22 punishment, given that she confirmed certainly that 23 somebody challenged her about it? 24 A. I am not in a position really to say very much. I do 25 know that both Sr. Xaveria and Sr. Fabian knew of the 15:46 26 tumble trier there. But it was their judgment that if 27 anyone was put into the tumble drier that they couldn't 28 have come out unharmed, maybe not even alive. Because 29 it just was -- 86 1 231 Q. I think we are talking about being put into it without 2 it being turned on as a punishment now? 3 A. I have...(INTERJECTION) 4 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, this is an 5 area that was gone into in 15:47 6 the private sessions. I am not really 7 anxious...(INTERJECTION) 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: I also think it is a bit 9 unfair, Mr. McGrath, even 10 objectively, leaving anything else. 15:47 11 MR. GAGEBY: We did actually hear about 12 a days evidence and look at 13 a lot of documents. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Apart from that, it strikes 15 me that it is a little 15:47 16 unfair to say, based on a document that acknowledges 17 that there was a complaint about it, to demand an 18 answer as to whether it is accepted or not, 19 Mr. McGrath. Because, to be frank, if Sr. Helena said 20 I accept it, without any basis for accepting it, I am 15:47 21 not sure that would be, frankly, of any evidential 22 value. I mean just as a matter of logic. 23 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, If I can explain 24 to you, sir. I am in this 25 problem, that we are constantly, from my side of the 15:48 26 fence -- if you want to put a better way of describing 27 it -- in trouble because people are always being asked, 28 the question is always asked "why didn't you tell 29 somebody about it?" Here we are in a situation where 87 1 Sr. Xaveria is confirming that she was approached. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, she's acknowledging 3 the complaint. 4 MR. McGRATH: So, therefore, somebody did 5 tell. 15:48 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Correct. 7 MR. McGRATH: So I am actually for once 8 in a situation where I did 9 tell somebody. And it seems to me that given that my 10 Friend and all the people who are working on the 15:48 11 religious side take the view that all my clients, the 12 people who will be giving evidence, pupils, are fair 13 game for being asked that question, "why didn't you?", 14 I think it is fair game for me to ask the Sisters, when 15 I do have a situation where a complaint was made, to 15:49 16 say "look, here you are, you are wanting to know why 17 complaints weren't made, here is one, can you deal with 18 it?" I think that's a legitimate stance for me to 19 take. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Look, what I am saying, 15:49 21 Mr. McGrath, is that point 22 is made. That's for us to decide. In a sense it 23 doesn't matter what the witness says about it, I accept 24 it, I don't accept it. It doesn't matter. It is 25 there, it is a fact, it is down on the paper and we 15:49 26 have to make the best of it, or make whatever 27 inferences are legitimate. 28 232 Q. MR. McGRATH: You indicated this morning 29 that you didn't accept that 88 1 scraps were thrown to children, and then you added that 2 if it did it must have been a prank. Can I just 3 express to you, on behalf of the people who are sitting 4 at the back of the room, that they found that word 5 particularly offensive and I would like you to take an 15:50 6 opportunity to withdraw the comment that it was a 7 prank? 8 A. I mean I wouldn't want to offend anybody, but play is 9 part of our lives and it was just in that sense that I 10 made the comment. 15:51 11 233 Q. Can you take it that if they are correct, and this was 12 done on a regular basis, and they were scrabbling 13 around, as they have described on many occasions, 14 trying to get the food that was thrown out, that it 15 wasn't a very pleasant prank, if that's what it was? 15:51 16 A. Well I really don't have any comment on that. 17 234 Q. Now, going back to the rules for a moment. 18 MR. GAGEBY: I think Mr. McGrath wants 19 to go back to the rules, 20 Chairman. 15:52 21 MR. McGRATH: Yes, i want to go back to 22 the rules, which are here 23 and hopefully it will come up. It is No. 14 that I 24 want to move on to. No. 14 deals with recreation, and 25 I want to go to a couple of things there. It says in 15:52 26 the rules: 27 "Seniors shall be allowed at least two 28 hours daily and juniors at least three hours daily for recreation and shall be 29 taken out occasionally for exercise beyond the boundaries of the school. 89 1 It shall be forbidden to pass the limites assigned to them without 2 permission. Games, both indoor and outdoor, shall be encouraged. The 3 required equipment shall be provided and supervision shall be exercised to 4 secure that all children shall take part in the games." 5 15:53 6 Then it goes on to deal with fire drills. Can I ask 7 you a little bit about that as far as Goldenbridge is 8 concerned. Do you consider and did the Sisters running 9 Goldenbridge consider that the period during which bead 10 making was done, that that was part of the recreation? 15:53 11 A. I don't know if they would have used the term 12 recreation, but I do know that they would have used the 13 term occupation. If we refer back to Sr. Bernardine's 14 lecture it was one of the points she made very, very 15 strongly, that it was important, particularly when 15:53 16 there were large numbers of children, that there was 17 good occupation at all times. I understand from 18 earlier, talking about the period in the early days of 19 the early 40's, that in many ways the children without 20 adequate occupation tended to be running wild and that 15:54 21 made for some further difficulties in relation to life 22 and discipline and so on. They began actually, the 23 activities of occupation began with knitting and that 24 had taken and was established before somebody 25 approached them around the bead making. That was seen 15:54 26 then as an appropriate or an acceptable occupation for 27 the children. It was in the main meant to be in a 28 relaxed atmosphere, with chat and music and the younger 29 children playing around. So in that sense that was -- 90 1 obviously, we are in a different world today and you 2 wouldn't imagine that. But I would say that all of the 3 inspectors reports, right from 1948, do specifically 4 deal with recreation and name all of the different 5 pieces of equipment which were available, indoor and 15:55 6 outdoor. So there was opportunity for recreation 7 besides the occupational activities. 8 235 Q. Well, on your understanding of the typical daily 9 routine that has been outlined by lots of different 10 witnesses, both pupils and Sisters and your own 15:55 11 inquiries, do you understand that the juniors did get 12 three hours daily of recreation and the seniors got two 13 hours, or do you think it was a lot less? 14 A. Well I don't think that the occupation in the minds of 15 the managers at time would have come under the heading 15:55 16 of recreation. They did have on every second evening, 17 or two evenings a week rather than the beads they had 18 dancing and other activities. On Sundays they had 19 films and they went for walks. So there was some 20 variation. But I would take and accept that the beads 15:56 21 would have come under the heading of recreation. 22 236 Q. Well, from that point of view, the description of it as 23 given by pupils who were there and the quotas they had 24 to meet, and they being brought back after tea in the 25 evening time to finish their quotas and things like 15:56 26 that wouldn't exactly be pointed out as being exactly a 27 fun occupation? 28 A. We do accept that the practice, which was making of 29 decades, and there was a quota for each child each 91 1 evening to bring to a particular quota by the end of 2 the week, or whatever was the collection time. And we 3 do acknowledge that, perhaps, for some children that 4 pressure of reaching your quota was stressful and, 5 perhaps, caused some and anxiety. But for most of them 15:56 6 it was a skill that was learned quite easily. I do 7 think we have had a lot of evidence in relation to that 8 in the private hearings. 9 237 Q. Having said what you have said, would you accept that 10 you could hardly call it recreation if they were under 15:57 11 pressure and felt that it was difficult to reach 12 quotas? It wasn't exactly fun, was it? 13 A. We believe that not all of the children experienced 14 pressure, but some did and we recognise that could have 15 happened. 15:57 16 238 Q. Do you think there is some irony that we are sitting 17 here discussing this as something that happened in a 18 religious school in Ireland in the 40's, 50's and up to 19 1970 and that the Lenten campaign this year by Trócaire 20 was to try and stamp out children being made to work in 15:57 21 third world countries? 22 A. Well I would be very sad to think that that 23 understanding would apply here. I believe that the 24 occupations that were provided for the children were 25 with their interests in mind and were in an atmosphere 15:58 26 that couldn't have any relationship to what you 27 describe. 28 239 Q. There is something that got me a little bit puzzled 29 this morning, and that was in relation to Sr. 92 1 Bernardine. You laid great stress on Sr. Bernardine's 2 talk in Carysfort in the 1950's and the various ideas 3 she had in relation to childcare, and how they mirrored 4 very much what the Kennedy Report came out with in the 5 1970's. Can you give any explanation as to why the 15:58 6 system in Goldenbridge remained exactly the same until 7 after the Kennedy Report, given that Sr. Bernardine had 8 so many ideas back in the 50's? 9 A. Well, I would say that it didn't stay exactly the same. 10 In fact, from the early 50's there was evidence, and I 15:59 11 think we have gathered that evidence and presented it, 12 of progressive change, beginning with the adaptation 13 wherever they could in relation to the internal 14 structures, the dining room and eventually the 15 dormitories, the bringing in of children, the getting 15:59 16 of the holiday house, the moving on into secondary 17 school at the end of the 50's and into the 60's 18 gradually improving. I think, in fact, the evidence is 19 there of a lot of change and a lot of change for the 20 better over the years. 15:59 21 22 What I would say is, to some degree, a timetable, if 23 you like, or an organisational pattern might have been 24 persistent throughout the time and that, I think, would 25 have been a value that was widespread in every other 16:00 26 life situation. 27 240 Q. Well maybe I wasn't precise enough in the question I 28 asked you and I will ask it to you this way instead. 29 Have you any explanation, if Sr. Bernardine was so 93 1 enlightened in the 50's, why the system that Sr. Fabian 2 described as the setting place by Sr. Bernardine, the 3 reign of terror, continued on during the whole time Sr. 4 Bernardine was there and during the time that Sr. 5 Xaveria was there, and up to the time that Sr. Fabian 16:00 6 took over, if she was so enlightened? Why did that 7 happen? 8 A. Sr. Fabian came in 1954, she was not present at any 9 time for Sr. Bernardine. Sr. Bernardine left 10 Goldenbridge at that time. 16:00 11 241 Q. We can spend all afternoon dancing around in circles 12 and going nowhere. 13 MR. GAGEBY: I object to the rudeness of 14 that question. 15 242 Q. MR. McGRATH: Or we can have a simple 16:01 16 answer to the question. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is helpful 18 to me, finger wagging and 19 rebuking, Mr. McGrath. Ask your question, Mr. McGrath. 20 MR. McGRATH: There are times when it is 16:01 21 very frustrating to be 22 here. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sure that is right. 24 You would want to be 25 sitting here sometimes. 16:01 26 MR. McGRATH: I feel like I am going 27 around in a circle. It is 28 a very simple question. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ask your question 94 1 Mr. McGrath, I understand. 2 243 Q. MR. McGRATH: We know and you know, the 3 Commission know that a 4 regime that was set in place by Sr. Bernardine was 5 continued by Sr. Xaveria. We know that. Sr. Fabian 16:01 6 indicates that it continued during the period that Sr. 7 Xaveria was in place and it seems to have continued 8 certainly for some time while Sr. Fabian was the head 9 teacher. Now, you outlined how progressive things were 10 and how things were happening, can you give any 16:02 11 explanation as to why there was no progress in terms of 12 the regime of terror as described by Sr. Fabian that 13 was set into place by Sr. Bernardine? 14 MR. GAGEBY: Is there any point in my 15 objecting to the 16:02 16 phraseology of that? 17 MR. McGRATH: I'm only quoting from the 18 report. 19 MR. GAGEBY: Yes, but I think the 20 difficulty is that 16:02 21 Mr. McGrath is predicating it entirely on the basis 22 that it is accepted. 23 244 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you a question 24 for a second, Mr. McGrath, 25 bearing in mind this. Sister, as I'm understanding it, 16:02 26 Sr. Bernardine gave a lecture in 1954, which had ideas 27 that were progressive and radical for the time. 28 Mr. McGrath's question, essentially, as I understand 29 it, is why weren't radical and progressive changes made 95 1 in Goldenbridge when she was there? 2 A. And I do think that a degree, but radical might be too 3 strong a term, but a degree of change happened. She 4 left Goldenbridge actually in 1954 so it couldn't be 5 there that she could effect the change. But a degree 16:03 6 of change did happen incrementally through the coming 7 years. I think we would have to accept and believe 8 that the degree of change was within the capacity of 9 the available resources. If you have large, old 10 institutional buildings you are going to be curtailed 16:03 11 as to what you can do within that. Eventually, those 12 do get discarded and the new arrangements come. But 13 they were able to do new buildings in the 1960's, 1961, 14 totally new buildings were added. The old buildings 15 had still to be used in order to expand the space 16:04 16 available. 17 245 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But do you think there was 18 something -- obviously, we 19 are assuming that Sr. Bernardine didn't suddenly get 20 these ideas in 1954 and, obviously, if she was giving a 16:04 21 lecture at a conference at the time she was a person of 22 some reputation in the thinking, because that's why 23 there would have been a conference in Carysfort on 24 these lines? 25 A. And how she would have been invited to speak. 16:04 26 246 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Exactly. She had come from 27 a background that she had 28 something interesting, presumably, and new to say. 29 Let's say, yes, she comes along and says that. Do you 96 1 think there were forces that would have prevented 2 radical change? I mean, I understand what you mean 3 about gradual change, but do you think there was -- 4 what would have been there to prevent her? Let's say 5 suppose she had these ideas in 1950, whatever it was, 16:05 6 were there forces there stopping her doing that do you 7 think? 8 A. I don't think there were. At least I can't think of 9 any forces that were. I do think that change came 10 incrementally. I do think that she was probably 16:05 11 reading widely outside, and I do know that she a Sr. 12 Fabian went to England during the 50's to see -- I am 13 not able to say where just now -- to see what the 14 thinking was happening in industrial schools or 15 childcare places elsewhere. 16:05 16 17 I do genuinely believe, and the documentation supports 18 it, that considerable change was made for the better 19 during the those years, on all of the fronts that we 20 would be talking about. I have difficulty, I suppose, 16:05 21 with the issue of was there a change in the terror, 22 because I do believe that we don't have grounds, we 23 don't believe that there are issues around that. 24 247 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand, you are 25 rejecting part of that hypothesis? 16:06 26 A. Yes. 27 248 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That's why I thought I 28 would ask it as neutrally 29 as possible, based on what I understood Mr. McGrath was 97 1 really getting at. 2 249 Q. MR. McGRATH: Why was there no change in 3 the bedwetting procedure? 4 A. Well I believe...(INTERJECTION) 5 250 Q. The same system was used during the 50's, into the 16:06 6 60's. 7 A. I just believe that the new thinking came in relation 8 to trying to treat bedwetting somewhat later. When the 9 child guidance clinic began in the Mater it was one of 10 the areas and sources where Sisters went for advice on 16:06 11 childcare issues, and one of them was the bedwetting 12 issue. But that was in the later time. I do believe 13 that the practices that were used were not particular 14 to Goldenbridge, or even to industrial schools at the 15 time. 16:07 16 251 Q. Now we are into the area of everyone else was doing it 17 so we were doing it too, it was all right. How many 18 times as a teacher did you ask a pupil why did he do 19 that and he or she said everyone else was doing it? 20 And you didn't accept that as an excuse, did you? 16:07 21 A. And I am not giving it as an excuse. I simply believe 22 that people tried to use whatever methods they might 23 have thought would be conducive to changing the child's 24 habit. 25 252 Q. Am I correct in understanding that the question of 16:07 26 children being sent to the landing and left there for 27 hours waiting for the Resident Manager to come back, 28 and getting beaten after maybe waiting there for a 29 couple of hours, that that didn't change throughout the 98 1 50's and 60's? 2 A. I think that's an area that the Commission will have to 3 decide on, because it is disputed. It is an area I 4 can't make an opinion on. 5 253 Q. Sorry, who is disputing that now? 16:08 6 A. The evidence that has been heard would be different 7 from different people. 8 254 Q. Sorry, are you suggesting that there wasn't evidence 9 from -- that there wasn't evidence confirming that that 10 was happening? 16:08 11 A. We acknowledge that it did happen. How often it 12 happened, how frequently it happened is a matter for 13 the Commission to decide. 14 255 Q. But the fact that it happened isn't in dispute, and the 15 fact that it didn't change isn't in dispute? 16:08 16 A. I'm not in a position to say what years are relevant to 17 that. 18 256 Q. The situation in regard to beads, and the quotas, that 19 didn't change after 1954's great speech, did it? 20 A. If the issue of...(INTERJECTION) 16:09 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it was in 22 position at that time. 23 257 Q. MR. McGRATH: I thought the beads were 24 1940 to 1970. 25 A. No, no, in the early 50's. We are not sure of the 16:09 26 year. 27 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Rathdrum was bought in '54, 28 so that's where the money 29 came from. (Inaudible) took place in 1953. 99 1 258 Q. MR. McGRATH: So as far as that's 2 concerned it didn't change, 3 the bead quotas were kept in place? The question of 4 the food improving, it didn't improve either, did it? 5 A. Well I think there is evidence outside of us that the 16:09 6 food continued to improve all of the years from '48 7 onwards. 8 259 Q. Can I ask something; am I correct in understanding, 9 looking at the historical scenario, that the system 10 that was in being in Goldenbridge during the period we 16:10 11 are talking about, 1940 through to 1970 or thereabout, 12 or slightly later than that, that that was a model 13 based on the original English industrial system? 14 A. Well, I'm not an expert on it. I know that the 15 institutions were there since the 1880's and, 16:10 16 therefore, governed by...(INTERJECTION) 17 260 Q. So you are not in a position to deal with whether or 18 not they continued on in Ireland, as we have seen, but 19 were being done away with by the British by the 1900's? 20 A. I'm not expert enough to comment on that. 16:11 21 261 Q. In relation to the admission scenario, I know that, 22 certainly, when children arrived they often just 23 arrived by being delivered from the court with very 24 little information. Did you have any system in place 25 to try and find out any information about children? 16:11 26 A. As I understand it from those who would have been there 27 when children arrived, the information that they were 28 given was the information provided on the form from the 29 court, the committal form. 100 1 262 Q. Anyone ever think it might be helpful to sit down with 2 a child and talk to them and ask them could they tell 3 them anything about their background? 4 A. I am sure people would have loved to have done that 5 from time to time, but I do think that there was an 16:11 6 understanding of helping, maybe, the child to get over 7 the pain of loss and not to dwell too much on what were 8 the circumstances. I know we would look at it 9 differently psychologically today, but that would have 10 been the thinking. 16:12 11 263 Q. Is that a reason why when, maybe, sisters came in 12 together that they were split up on the basis that this 13 might help them to get on, if they were separated? 14 A. I am not in a position to say, and it would be denied 15 by the Sisters, they were living in the same building, 16:12 16 as to how much split up could have happened. I don't 17 know. 18 264 Q. There has been constant evidence to the effect that 19 they were discouraged from staying close or friendly 20 with their sisters. 16:12 21 A. And if there was pain that accrued from that then that 22 is something that really would distress us. But I am 23 not in a position to say that that did happen or could 24 have happened. 25 265 Q. Now, with regard to the discharge and people leaving 16:13 26 the institution, I just wanted to ask you something 27 there. It seems to have been somewhat haphazard, in 28 that people were told "you are leaving", and they were 29 gone very quickly, and particularly in that area of 101 1 sisters suddenly disappearing, there is constant 2 reference to the sister is there one day and then 3 suddenly gone, without any chance to say goodbye or 4 anything of that nature. 5 A. And we have heard people make that statement. I am not 16:13 6 in a position to say to what degree that happened. But 7 I do know that the girl herself, when she reached 16, 8 she herself would have been prepared for it at least a 9 couple of weeks in advance and employment found for 10 her, or some live-in situation found for her. 16:13 11 266 Q. We have heard many of them say, and you have indicated 12 here this morning that you accept that they didn't 13 celebrate birthdays, many of them hadn't a clue what 14 age they were, they were quite surprised when they were 15 leaving, they didn't know they were sixteen. Isn't 16:14 16 that the case? 17 A. Well I am not too sure really. I would have difficulty 18 in accepting that reality for everybody. 19 267 Q. Well for a very large number isn't that the situation? 20 A. I don't think I can establish that. 16:14 21 268 Q. As far as discharges are concerned, we have heard girls 22 on a regular basis tell us about not knowing anything 23 about what was going to happen when they reached 24 puberty, and terrible disasters that occurred not 25 knowing that this was going to happen to them. Another 16:14 26 thing we heard a lot about is not having been given any 27 sort of sexual information before they left and going 28 out into the outside world knowing nothing. Do you 29 think that was an acceptable way to send people out 102 1 into the world? 2 A. If that happened it certainly wouldn't be acceptable. 3 I do think that in relation to some of the girls who 4 stayed on, part of it would have been an assessment 5 that living outside of the institution would have been 16:15 6 extremely difficult. I would understand from some of 7 the Sisters who did work there that efforts, such as 8 they were at that particular time, were made to prepare 9 children leaving. I do think that we have to 10 acknowledge that perhaps having lived in an institution 16:15 11 made one particularly vulnerable in leaving. But 12 connection was kept with the former pupils when they 13 left for a period of time to ascertain were they 14 getting on okay or not. 15 269 Q. Can I just deal with leaving for a minute. Are you 16:15 16 suggesting to the Committee that there was a system 17 whereby these girls were trained, in knowing that they 18 were going to have to live in a flat, that they were 19 going have to pay rent, that they were going to be 20 earning a living, that they were going to have to 16:16 21 budget, are you suggesting to the Commission that all 22 those things were done for them before they left? 23 A. Certainly not to that degree and maybe some of that did 24 happen, but in the later years. But initially efforts 25 were made to find suitable adults who would be good 16:16 26 contacts in their area of employment, when they went, 27 for instance, to train for nursing, stayed with 28 somebody that people knew, or went to employment where 29 there was live-in and that would be maybe in the 103 1 domestic area, and that there would be a care for them 2 in that situation too. 3 270 Q. I just want to ask you about something again you 4 mentioned this morning and my solicitor was a little 5 bit taken aback. You spoke about a baby with burns 16:16 6 this morning and new information that you have in 7 relation to that. Can I understand that this is 8 information that the solicitors on behalf of that 9 family don't have, that is news that you haven't passed 10 on to them? 16:17 11 A. It is information that I am precluded from using. 12 271 Q. I have no difficulty going there. 13 A. I simply refer to the fact that I am under oath here 14 and I have information. I cannot deny that I have. 15 272 Q. Am I correct in understanding that you have not 16:17 16 disclosed that information to the solicitor for the 17 family? 18 A. Yes, because I'm not allowed to. 19 273 Q. Now, something that may well come up at another stage 20 of the hearings that I just want to ask here, to some 16:17 21 extent to set the groundwork for -- one of the matters 22 which occurred to me when I was going through the 23 voluminous discovery in this particular matter was when 24 I was looking at the Department files, there are 25 copious letters contained in the discovery, and I am 16:18 26 sure you have seen them, regarding who was to be the 27 manager of the school and constant harping on by the 28 Department of filling in forms. There seems to have 29 been, from the papers that I have seen, nothing else 104 1 almost in the minds of the Department other than that 2 the right forms are filled in. Would you have the same 3 view yourself on the basis of what you have seen? 4 A. Well, I understand that that might have touched on the 5 role of the Superior in the house and being Resident 16:18 6 Manager and manager during those years. But just the 7 distance of time and without any records from our side 8 I am not in a position to enlighten the Commission in 9 relation to it. 10 274 Q. All right. If I can move on to some questions 16:19 11 regarding the medical scenario and again, Chairman, I 12 am looking at a folder No. 2 is what it says, 13 "Department of Education and Science general 14 discovery". The first document that I want to refer to 15 in regard to this is DEGV0099-008/1. It is a note 16:19 16 which appears to be in Dr. McCabe's handwriting, which 17 like all doctors is almost illegible. It is dated 18 14/1/42. It seems to deal with a number of different 19 problems arising in relation to -- and some of them it 20 appears to say: "Four conjunctivitis." 16:20 21 22 And after that I can't read what it says. It looks 23 like "1" something, "2 enlarged T and As", then there 24 is a load of list of people who have caries, tooth. 25 A. Cavities. 16:20 26 275 Q. It doesn't say cavity because there is no "TY" in it 27 but it would appear that around 1942 that certainly a 28 question arose as to whether or not there was proper 29 dental care in respect of the children. At that 105 1 particular time when she came there was an awful lot of 2 children whose teeth needed attention. Am I correct in 3 understanding that it was only after we received that 4 letter that it would appear that a system was put in 5 place where there would be regular checks by a dentist? 16:20 6 A. That is correct, and I don't think I have the 7 particular medical report you are mentioning there 8 here, but I do know that in the years, the early years, 9 the early 1940's, there is frequent reference to -- on 10 the medical reports, to designating children, 16:21 11 particular children for dental treatment. And the 12 following letter would indicate that it was ensured 13 that the children went for their dental treatment, and 14 eventually they, Sr. Bernardine, secured the regular 15 attendance of the dentist every quarter. 16:21 16 276 Q. Could I ask you then something in relation to a 17 document a little bit further along. It is the same 18 0099-011/1. It is a letter, 10 March 1944, and again 19 it is a medical inspection letter, it is for treatment 20 but obviously it is a redacted copy I have so all the 16:22 21 names are knocked out. Then the next heading intrigues 22 me a little bit, it says, I think if I can read it 23 properly "to have glasses mended" why did it take a 24 doctor coming along to the school to get somebody's 25 glasses mended? 16:22 26 A. Well, I don't think I can say anything helpful, of 27 course if glasses were broken they needed to be mended. 28 I don't think I can say anything helpful. 29 277 Q. Is it something you would have expected would have been 106 1 done as a routine if somebody broke their glasses they 2 needed glasses, it wouldn't take a doctor to tell you 3 to do it? 4 A. Of course. I don't know what the reality or 5 accessibility of someone to look after your glasses in 16:22 6 1944 was in the locality but it might have been that 7 things were delayed or whatever. 8 278 Q. And still in 1944 the report indicates that: 9 "There are 20 cases for dental treatment." 10 16:23 11 So it would appear that things had not got much better 12 by that stage and it is only by letter of September 13 1944 that the Resident Manager, Sr. Bernardine, is 14 indicating that a dentist will visit the institution in 15 future at the end of each quarter, up to that time 16:23 16 children were just left? 17 A. Certainly we accept the criticisms of those reports in 18 the main part of 1944. I think we would not be in a 19 position to know whether dental difficulties in 20 children to that degree was a commonplace or not. But 16:23 21 certainly they made efforts to mend the situation and 22 that appears in the letter of, as you say, September 23 1944. 24 279 Q. Is it any wonder then that so many past pupils have 25 complained about their teeth or many of them 16:24 26 complaining about their teeth falling out or having to 27 have them removed fairly soon after leaving? 28 MR. GAGEBY: I don't think that's 29 actually correct, Chairman. 107 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, Sr. O'Donoghue 2 has agreed with you that 3 the dental situation was unsatisfactory, as evidenced 4 by those documents. She says, "I accept that." 5 280 Q. MR. McGRATH: I want to ask you something 16:25 6 just in relation to 7 education, I think my friend covered education this 8 morning, but there is something that came up. There is 9 a letter here from the Gregg Secretarial College, it is 10 in Sisters of Mercy pupil files, it is document 16:25 11 SOMGB/10838/1. It is a letter from the Gregg 12 Secretarial College of 42 Grafton Street, Dublin 2, it 13 is dated 22 March 1957. It is in relation to a 14 particular student. It is a letter from the principals 15 of the school and it says: 16:25 16 "----- has made excellent progress, especially in typewriting, since 17 September. The fact that she did not succeed in her shorthand examination 18 was entirely due to her English, which is very weak". 19 20 16:26 21 Now, does it seem incredible that somebody would be 22 sent out to do a shorthand typing course when it would 23 appear that they were having difficulty reading and 24 writing English? 25 A. The question, I suppose, really is to what degree it 16:26 26 was known that her difficulty with English. I accept 27 obviously, what the document says in relation to her 28 standard of English, that that translates to a general 29 reality I am not in a position to say. 108 1 281 Q. Well you would have hoped, I would have thought, that 2 if somebody was being sent on for further education, 3 going beyond the scenario that many of the people in 4 earlier days would have had which would have been into 5 very low paid employment, that somebody was considered 16:27 6 a candidate, it seems incredible, does it not, that she 7 was sent out to secretarial college without it being 8 checked that she was able for it? 9 A. Well, we are not in a position to know whether it was 10 checked or not, but I do think that the fact that there 16:27 11 was opportunity to follow further skilling, such as 12 going to the Gregg College and acquiring some skills 13 for her office work or that was part and parcel of 14 assessments made on children where that might have been 15 a likelihood. Perhaps it wasn't correct in one case. 16:27 16 282 Q. But if somebody is going to be offered an opportunity, 17 wouldn't it have been preferable to have checked that 18 they were going be able to avail of that opportunity, 19 rather than have them go and then fail? 20 A. Well, I don't accept the, perhaps, insinuation there 16:27 21 that she was sent out to fail. But I do believe that 22 people would have had hopes that she might have been 23 able to succeed. 24 283 Q. The letter goes on to say: 25 "She's a good accurate little typist 16:28 and should do well on straightforward 26 matter, but here again the manuscript could fail her in an examination." 27 28 Isn't that a terrible situation, to have somebody that 29 is being sent by Goldenbridge to get further education 109 1 cannot avail of it because of the education that she 2 got inside? 3 A. I am sorry if that was somebody's experience. But it 4 would not have been, I am quite sure, intentional. 5 284 Q. Now, a question that arose this morning in regard to 16:28 6 education, I just want to deal with something there, 7 just give me a moment. A question was asked this 8 morning with regard the schooling and you had various 9 explanations in relation to why there would have to be 10 a primary school inside the industrial school rather 16:29 11 than outside. I want to suggest to you that in the 12 rules and regulations for a certified industrial 13 school, at Rule 8 provides as follows in respect of 14 schools: 15 16:29 "The manager may arrange for children 16 to attend conveniently situated schools where the primary continuation, 17 secondary or technical, but always subject to A. the sanction of the 18 inspector in each case and B. the condition that no increased cost is 19 incurred by the State." 20 16:30 21 And there may be questions to ask the Department 22 arising out of that particular rule, but in relation to 23 Goldenbridge, it would certainly appear from that rule 24 there would have been no difficulty with you sending 25 anybody at the time, whether it was free education or 16:30 26 otherwise, to a Sisters of Mercy run primary school 27 outside the grounds or a Sisters of Mercy run secondary 28 school outside the grounds or any secondary school 29 outside the grounds; isn't that right? 110 1 A. I am sorry, I am not in a position to say what was the 2 perspective at the time, I know that there was an 3 internal primary school and I know that some children 4 did go to the external primary school from 5th and 6th 5 class, where it was envisaged that they would move on 16:30 6 to the secondary level. That is the facts of the 7 matter. I don't know anything about the why and 8 wherefore. 9 285 Q. But there didn't have to be, you have two schools right 10 beside each other, you had a primary school inside in 16:31 11 Goldenbridge itself and you had an external school at 12 the end of the driveway, am I correct in understanding 13 that? 14 A. Yes. 15 286 Q. And the children inside Goldenbridge could have gone to 16:31 16 the school at the end of the driveway all the time? 17 A. I can't answer in relation to that question, 18 Mr. McGrath. 19 287 Q. All the time, I think these rules are signed off 4th 20 February 1933, so all the time from 1933 on there could 16:31 21 have been a primary school outside the grounds, 22 continuation school outside the grounds, secondary or 23 technical school outside the grounds for all the 24 children in your care? 25 A. I am sorry I can't be helpful in relation to that. 16:31 26 288 Q. There are one or two matters that I suppose I am still 27 not 100% happy with that we have got to the final 28 answers that should have been given. And part of me 29 wants to suggest to you that it might be no harm if 111 1 this witness were to go and read some of the evidence 2 which was given on behalf of the Sisters at the closed 3 sessions and possibly talk to some of the witnesses 4 face to face and come back and...(INTERJECTION). 5 MR. GAGEBY: The Sister was present 16:32 6 actually. 7 MR. McGRATH: I know she was present, I 8 was there as well. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: There is no need to get 10 into an argument. 16:32 11 Mr. McGrath, our preference would be for you to finish 12 asking whatever questions and then we will ask anybody 13 else and then we will say bye-bye to Sr. Helena. Any 14 implications that arise from her evidence, whether 15 she's right, wrong, contradicted by anybody else, we 16:33 16 will take into account. I think that's the way to do 17 it. 18 MR. McGRATH: I won't go any further, I 19 do think there is a dispute 20 between my view on certain evidence and my friend's 16:33 21 view of it and possibly Sr. Helena's view of it. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a legitimate area to 23 say we have to have regard 24 to what everybody says and if somebody says, "here is 25 the position", that is something that has to be taken 16:33 26 into account, in relation to all the other -- I agree 27 with that. That's not a problem. 28 MR. McGRATH: Just give me a moment. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. 112 1 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, I am finished I 2 won't ask the question that 3 was suggested. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 5 16:33 6 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. O'DONOGHUE BY MR. McGRATH 7 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. MacMahon. 9 MR. MacMAHON: There is a very brief area 10 that I thought I 16:34 11 would...(INTERJECTION). 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: That sound very welcome, 13 Mr. MacMahon. 14 15 SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS 16:34 16 FOLLOWS, BY THE COMMISSION: 17 18 289 Q. MR. MacMAHON: It was really in relation 19 to the overall structure of 20 Goldenbridge. As I understood the position to be, 16:34 21 Goldenbridge was part of the original unit, which was 22 Carysfort, Carysfort was the head office and 23 Goldenbridge was a branch of it, is that the correct 24 position? 25 A. That's correct. 16:34 26 290 Q. Was the Superior a Superior which was particular to 27 Goldenbridge or was the Goldenbridge community 28 answerable to Carysfort? 29 A. The Superior was the Superior of Goldenbridge and 113 1 Goldenbridge would always have had a Superior. 2 However, in 1954 the Dublin Sisters reconstituted 3 themselves so that they became what would be known in 4 canonical terms a Congregation. And the Superior in 5 Carysfort became the overall Superior in a way that 16:34 6 hadn't been there before 1954. The Superior in 7 Goldenbridge then, again it is a matter that I believe 8 we don't know enough about, the impact of these 9 changes. Simply ly because perhaps they haven't been 10 gone into or there haven't been sufficient examination 16:35 11 of what records we do have. But the Superior in 12 Goldenbridge after 1954 would have had slightly 13 different relationship with the Superior in Carysfort 14 than prior to that. 15 291 Q. We have heard evidence that there were two Sisters 16:35 16 effectively running Goldenbridge, they had assistance 17 from two adult non-religious people, working on a rota, 18 there was more than two of them operating but there was 19 two on at any given time. I think we are aware of the 20 sort of range of duties which those two Sisters had to 16:36 21 do, effectively on their own, and I think if I 22 understand the range of the evidence that has been 23 heard so far, it was almost a 24 hour rota, tour of 24 duty, for each of those two Sisters? 25 A. Yes, they had full responsibility for all of the 16:36 26 children and the running of the industrial school. 27 Which they would have referred to from time to time as 28 a home, so there was an effort to not be quite 29 institutional. However, the Sisters, it was a time 114 1 when there was a strong expectation that Sisters 2 attended and took part in the religious duties in the 3 convent in Goldenbridge and they would basically be the 4 early morning and they would be at the late evening, 5 say, five o'clock to 7:00. So, normally the Sisters 16:37 6 would have left the industrial school and gone up to 7 the convent for those periods of time. They came back 8 then and slept in the building. 9 10 Certainly it was a 24 hour task in that sense. And we 16:37 11 would be recognising very much that that would have put 12 a certain demand that would have prevented adequate 13 reflection, maybe, as to what was best to do, or 14 capacity to be attentive with ease and with happiness, 15 if you like, to all of the children. 16:37 16 292 Q. It is easy, I suppose, in retrospect to look back and 17 see that these two nuns were perhaps overworked, was 18 there any understanding of that at that time, and I am 19 talking about the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's? 20 A. Looking at it neutrally we would have to say that it 16:38 21 would equate with overwork. They would have been in 22 their younger years and they also would have lived in 23 the community atmosphere where there was a very strong 24 value that you didn't count the cost, that you gave 25 whatever you could give and, I suppose, in one sense 16:38 26 this is where we as a Congregation would be looking at 27 how the Superiors in those days didn't seem to have 28 been alert enough to be able to provide sufficient 29 relief and sufficient ease in order to avoid. 115 1 2 However, my own working with the Sisters involved would 3 be very strong that they didn't allow themselves to get 4 into situations where they were so overworked that they 5 were unkind or uncaring, or even harsh or whatever it 16:39 6 be with the children. 7 293 Q. Well, if a Sister made representations to be, say, 8 taken out of some aspect of their work, for example, 9 removed from teaching to allow her more time to do the 10 administrative side of her work in the industrial 16:39 11 school, in retrospect, and where that application was 12 declined, in retrospect what would the Sisters of 13 Mercy's view be of that decision? 14 A. We would look on that as belonging to a period -- first 15 of all, to a period of time, where people were expected 16:39 16 to continue in the particular task that they were 17 given. But I think we also have to recognise that it 18 was period of time where perhaps Superiors didn't know 19 sufficiently what was the weight of responsibility on 20 the Sisters there, and where people whose personalities 16:40 21 or perspectives certainly didn't always operate out of 22 good judgment. It was the case in relation to 23 Goldenbridge that Sr. Xaveria was both manager and in 24 charge and also full time teaching a senior class and 25 dealing with the administration side of the school and 16:40 26 of the industrial school. And she looked for freedom 27 from her teaching in order to give more time to her and 28 this was in 1962. We don't know was it that it was 29 declined or that it wasn't received very positively but 116 1 we do know that she was asked to go to another place 2 almost immediately. 3 294 Q. She was transferred? 4 A. She was. 5 295 Q. However, the Sister who took her place does seem to 16:41 6 have been given more space and more time to be with the 7 children. Would this, perhaps, failure to know if 8 there was a failure to know on the part of the 9 Superior, would that be part of the ethos of not 10 questioning the duties that have been given to a nun to 16:41 11 undertake and to do, even though that nun might have 12 been doing them for many, many years and it might have 13 been a task which she was only able to do with great 14 difficulty? 15 A. We do recognise that that would have been a prevailing 16:41 16 ethos that only a few people or maybe unusually would 17 people question what were the decisions of the 18 Superior. 19 296 Q. The constitution of the Sisters of Mercy at Rule 113 20 suggests that: 16:41 21 "The Congregation should always be 22 suggest to the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop of the 23 diocese and shall respect and obey him as their principle Superior after the 24 Holy C." 25 16:42 26 And there are various subrules which come under that 27 which include visitation rights, an annual visitation 28 by the bishop or perhaps by a nominated priest on his 29 behalf and the discussion of significant decisions and 117 1 disclosure of the books and of the accounts. Is there 2 any evidence that significant issues were, in fact, 3 considered and discussed with the Bishop's nominee and 4 that the financial affairs were disclosed pursuant to 5 those rules? 16:42 6 A. We have no knowledge, there may be some documentation 7 perhaps in the archives of the Archdiocese, but until 8 1954 it would have been the practice that the Bishop 9 would have made annual visits and inspections, but in 10 1954, when the Dublin Sisters became a Congregation, 16:43 11 that was not any longer the responsibility of the 12 Bishop because they were recognised to being a 13 pontifical Congregation which has a different 14 relationship with the Bishop. 15 297 Q. Am I not right in thinking that no longer termed a 16:43 16 visitor, the Bishop still had this power of appointment 17 of a person of a person who visited even after 1954 and 18 that applied until 1969? 19 A. Well the Bishop could always visit because the Bishop 20 had the responsibility for the particular works or 16:43 21 Ministries that we engaged in and that would still be 22 true to today. But the Bishop no longer took any 23 interest in the internal workings of the Congregation. 24 298 Q. Those rules in terms of visitation refer to the 25 monastery, can we take it that the industrial school 16:43 26 would be considered as part of the monastery for the 27 purpose of application of those rules? 28 A. It may well have been, yes. 29 299 Q. Again that is perhaps another area where figures in 118 1 relation to the income from the bead making and so on 2 ought to have been available for inspection? 3 A. I'm not conscious that the Bishop would have moved out 4 because if he did it in that situation then it would 5 follow it ought to be done in school and hospitals 16:44 6 elsewhere, and I am not aware of that. I am aware of 7 the internal accounts being examined by the Bishop or 8 his nominee. 9 MR. MacMAHON: I see, thank you. 10 16:44 11 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF SR. O'DONOGHUE BY THE 12 COMMISSION. 13 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Gageby. 15 16:44 16 SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 17 MR. GAGEBY: 18 19 300 Q. MR. GAGEBY: Sr. Helena, just to try and 20 clarify a couple of 16:44 21 matters. We spent a lot of time considering the 22 apologies, what was accepted, etc., I think the first 23 situation is that it is a matter for the Commission to 24 decide what happened in the past in Goldenbridge? 25 A. That's our position and we have tried to be as helpful 16:44 26 and we are grateful for the opportunities that we have 27 had to be helpful. 28 301 Q. Just so we are quite clear, it has never been your 29 position that you accept everything bad that is said 119 1 about Goldenbridge? 2 A. Well, our position is that there is a very real story 3 of pain and hurt there, there is also a very real 4 necessary to be just to everybody. We have tried to 5 progress along those lines. 16:45 6 302 Q. Obviously, you have sat with the Commission through its 7 work in Goldenbridge and heard the evidence and we have 8 all heard that? 9 A. Yes. 10 303 Q. Just in case Mr. McGrath might have unintentionally 16:45 11 misled the public, the evidence wasn't always 12 (inaudible), there were thing to be considered? 13 A. I think the evidence presented at the private hearings 14 would have endorsed the position that we had taken on 15 the first phase. 16:45 16 304 Q. I think just so we mark it with some clarity, there is 17 a sort of Rubicon on certain matters, which you don't 18 accept, you may be wrong, but you don't accept it? 19 A. That's the case. 20 305 Q. Firstly, you are talking about physical injury of any 16:46 21 harm, I am not going to call lasting or even trivial, 22 but actual harm to any child? 23 A. That's the case, we don't accept any deliberate or 24 severe injury to anybody. 25 306 Q. Secondly the issue of either malnutrition or want of 16:46 26 food? 27 A. And we believe that the food was always adequate and 28 that it would have progressed from being adequate to 29 being good and to being varied and appetizing. 120 1 307 Q. Without getting into the minutiae on that, I think you 2 rely not only the reports which emanate from the 3 Department which are reasonably positive about food 4 after the 1950's? 5 A. That's correct. 16:47 6 308 Q. And also the fact that during the course of the 7 Commission you found a number of photographs which have 8 the appearance of children showing not suffering from 9 lack of food? 10 A. That's correct. 16:47 11 309 Q. Mr. McGrath put a lot of things to you, particularly, 12 for instance, in relation to the Crowley report and 13 what you accept or what you don't accept, are you 14 putting into the mix as well what you heard during the 15 entirety of the Commission hearings in private which 16:47 16 obviously we cannot discuss? 17 A. Yes. Our position in relation to what is referred to 18 in the Crowley report has been during the private 19 hearings reinforced for us, the difficulty of relying 20 on it, as a statement of how things were. 16:47 21 310 Q. All right. In fact, I think Sr. Fabian and Mr. Crowley 22 are the only persons who didn't, in fact, give 23 evidence? 24 A. That's correct. 25 311 Q. All right. So the people involved in that all had 16:48 26 their speak; isn't that correct? 27 A. Everybody has spoken, yes, other than those two. 28 312 Q. Sr. Fabian appears to have died on 22nd October 2001, 29 does that accord with you memory? 121 1 A. 2001, yes. 2 313 Q. That appears to be before she was invited to make any 3 statement to this Commission as part of this Inquiry? 4 A. That's correct. 5 314 Q. There are a number of things just for the avoidance of 16:48 6 doubt that I also think that you don't accept, you may 7 be wrong I hastened to add, firstly any suggestion, now 8 it wasn't flouted today, that children were referred to 9 as numbers, by numbers and didn't know their names, was 10 that something the Sisters accept or reject? 16:48 11 A. We believe that we were on very strong ground that 12 every child was called by her own name and that numbers 13 were used for laundry purposes only. 14 315 Q. Without dwelling on the scraps issue, can you point to 15 the origin of how that, and obviously you weren't 16:49 16 there, but is there any media aspect in which to draw 17 your attention to it in relation to the scraps story? 18 A. I have to confess that I have a mental block about that 19 at that particular moment and can't recall. Something 20 to do with a basket of goodies or of things like that. 16:49 21 316 Q. Did you actually see the drama entitled "Dear 22 Daughter"? 23 A. Yes. 24 317 Q. Does a visual image of scraps coming to children appear 25 in that? 16:49 26 A. That's true, that's true, yes. 27 318 Q. Do we also see in that persons reciting their numbers? 28 A. That's correct. 29 319 Q. As to the issue as to whether any water was provided to 122 1 any child in the institution, what do you say to that? 2 A. Well I believe that there was always water available 3 and that there was, in fact, water in the dining room 4 and kitchen, but also out in the fountain in the 5 grounds. We do accept that for children who had 16:50 6 bedwetting problems there would have been a 7 recommendation or a curtailment of water after tea. 8 320 Q. All right. On the issue of medical and dental and 9 optical and all that sort of care, isn't the situation 10 that children were seen regularly by a doctor who 16:50 11 attended from the Department? 12 A. Yes, and I believe Dr. -- I have forgotten the name of 13 the medical doctor. But the medical reports, do 14 give -- apart from the 1944 year, do give a very 15 positive picture in terms of the medical care of 16:50 16 children. 17 321 Q. It has been floated and left in a rather unsatisfactory 18 situation, a suggestion that there was something 19 unseemly or improper or suspicious about the death of 20 children. I think approximately five children died 16:51 21 during the period which we looked at and it would 22 appear that there was obviously postmortems in respect 23 of all of those and an inquest in one, which one way or 24 another, has been discovered to the Commission; isn't 25 that correct? 16:51 26 A. That's correct. We are satisfied that all of the 27 deaths that happened can be explained. 28 322 Q. They include a cerebral haemorrhage, meningitis, acute 29 dysentery gastroenteritis and some congenital 123 1 malformation in relation to a number of children and 2 those documents have gone to the Commission? 3 A. They have, yes. 4 323 Q. In fact, one of the years of relevance there is 1953, 5 and if you can just look briefly at it because 16:51 6 Mr. McGuinness floated the idea of it, that there might 7 be something unusual about the visits in 1953. And if 8 we could have some light on the subject, please. We 9 are looking at -- these are the Departmental records, 10 top left-hand side, I think, indicates this is 1953, 16:52 11 this is a reasonable sample of the type of report that 12 came once, twice or more every year from the 13 Department; is that correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 324 Q. I think that indicates, I think, either five or six, 16:52 16 now my eyesight isn't great? 17 A. Five. 18 325 Q. Five inspections in that year, that's 1953; isn't it? 19 A. That's correct. 20 326 Q. And two the previous year, isn't that right? 16:52 21 A. That's correct. 22 327 Q. Essentially that's saying the accommodation is good. 23 Sorry, I'm reading under accommodation, which is the 24 bit beginning with: 25 "A. Equipment, etc., and health is 16:53 excellent, food and diet etc." 26 27 We won't spend long on this but could we go down to the 28 bottom, because this provides a context for persons 29 visiting the school. And general observations and 124 1 suggestions: 2 "Extremely well run school, having improved." 3 4 A. "Many improvements have been carried out." 5 328 Q. Yes, read on. 16:53 6 A. 7 "And great preparations have been made for the childcare course. I frequently 8 visited this school to discuss with the Resident Manager the childcare course". 9 10 329 Q. Now, aside from formal visits of that type, I mean was 16:53 11 this industrial school a closed institution with large 12 walls from which children did not escape? 13 A. Well the children -- Goldenbridge was on the side of 14 the street and very close to the village of 15 Goldenbridge in Inchicore and the children regularly 16:54 16 went out on doing little chores or going to the shops 17 or to the post office. It was also a place where a lot 18 of people came to and came in. It would seem that it 19 certainly wasn't what might have been the situation had 20 it been in maybe a place where it was by itself and 16:54 21 without a town around it. 22 330 Q. I think there would have been, although these are 23 substantially undocumented, there would have been 24 obviously visits from people who were delivering 25 children from the courts? 16:54 26 A. That's correct. 27 331 Q. I think the difficulty is that really this was an area 28 in which there wasn't paper work. Children didn't 29 arrive with a large probation report and a social work 125 1 and welfare report? 2 A. No, there was just the bare forms filled in. 3 332 Q. Which is name, date of birth, status, reason for 4 committal, which would be very uninformed? 5 A. It was very minimal, yes. 16:55 6 333 Q. The ISPCC had a function in having children sent to 7 industrial schools? 8 A. It would appear from our archival knowledge that 9 something like 80% of those who were committed were 10 referred to the courts by the ISPCC. 16:55 11 334 Q. I think there was inspectors of the kind we see in 12 writing there and also there would have been inspectors 13 in the school? 14 A. The regular primary school had separate inspections 15 from the inspectors that would have frequented or 16:55 16 visited every primary school. 17 335 Q. On the medical side I think there were regular checks, 18 weight and height on the chart hopefully for each 19 child? 20 A. Yes, and these are available. 16:55 21 336 Q. That would indicate children going out to the eye and 22 ear and dental or whatever? 23 A. Yes. Dr. Stephen's Hospital, which was fairly close, 24 was the place that children went to for small little 25 things wrong. It happened usually in the mornings, 16:56 26 about nine o'clock, and were back for school at 9:30. 27 337 Q. I think it was a couple of stops down the road? 28 A. Yes. 29 338 Q. I think that was very frequent recourse to 126 1 Dr. Stephen's; is that right? 2 A. Very frequent, it was often several morning a week. 3 339 Q. That would be the normal place to send children to, the 4 hospital? 5 A. Yes. 16:56 6 340 Q. In fact, I think the Commission actually heard from one 7 of the older members of Dr. Stevens? 8 A. That's right, who remembers the children from 9 Goldenbridge. 10 341 Q. I think also children would have gone to other 16:56 11 hospitals like the Children's Hospital, which I think 12 was in Harcourt Street at that stage? 13 A. St. Ultan's, I think was it. 14 342 Q. I beg your pardon. Also for a period of time there 15 were some babies that were cared for, hopefully some of 16:56 16 those went on for adoption where possible and there was 17 quite close links with the relevant adoption society? 18 A. Societies. And it is recorded again in those documents 19 a number of times that babies were very well cared for 20 at the -- maybe four for five babies might have been 16:57 21 there at a particular time. 22 343 Q. And I think Commission knows -- that was in the 23 Commission report? 24 A. Yes. 25 344 Q. I think that would also be an indication of the level 16:57 26 of care of the staff but also of the girls who minded 27 children? 28 A. That's correct. 29 345 Q. Girls who were in the institution weren't, in fact, 127 1 solely sent out to domestic service or to scrub, as it 2 was put earlier today? 3 A. There seemed to have been a range of arrangements made 4 for girls going. Some went to colleges, some went to 5 England to do nursing and often it was if they had 16:57 6 managed to get Inter Cert, which was a satisfactory 7 requirement for training in England. Some went to 8 St. Ultan's and learned, perhaps it was, assistant 9 childcare nursing, as well as other possibilities. 10 346 Q. I think we heard of other girls who went on to things 16:58 11 like hairdressing and things like that? 12 A. That's correct, yes. 13 347 Q. And mentioned today of secretarial? 14 A. Yes. 15 348 Q. So that would certainly indicate that the Resident 16:58 16 Manager was trying to push girls a little bit beyond 17 domestic service? 18 A. I think the recollection of those was that it was a 19 serious effort in trying to find what would suit the 20 particular girls in question. 16:58 21 349 Q. But, in fact, the regimen which the Department required 22 was actually relatively narrow because it was directed 23 towards effectively domestic service, wasn't it, in 24 laundry, child management and that sort of stuff? 25 A. And as mentioned in the earlier hearing this morning, 16:59 26 the opportunities in the Ireland of then were fairly 27 narrow for women. And the Department decided, or the 28 regulations decided, that at 16 you would be no longer 29 supported and were required to find an alternative at 128 1 no cost to the Government. 2 350 Q. I suppose one of the benefits for some of the jobs we 3 have spoken of, either nursing or childcare, is that 4 that might afford actually accommodation to a young 5 girl going out? 16:59 6 A. That was one of the concerns because going to live on 7 your own, there was a good consciousness of going live 8 on your own could well be problematic so there were 9 efforts to find live-in opportunities and to refer to 10 Sr. Bernardine again, she had a yen for the setting up 17:00 11 of hostels, which would have provided more sheltered 12 accommodation for children leaving institutional life. 13 351 Q. Could I just look at the issue of Rathdrum. Firstly, 14 on the issue of accounts, so far as you know, you have 15 given all the relevant accounts to the Commission? 17:00 16 A. Yes. 17 352 Q. And accountants can look at that. In relation to 18 Rathdrum, it has been suggested that it was firstly 19 entirely purchased out of bead money, and secondly it 20 was a bad deal because the children only got two weeks 17:00 21 out of the institution. Firstly, Rathdrum was up in 22 Co. Wicklow? 23 A. Rathdrum was in Co. Wicklow, yes. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: And still is as far as I 25 know, Mr. Gageby. 17:00 26 353 Q. MR. GAGEBY: And it was, I think, a 27 rather derelict rectory? 28 A. It was, that's correct. 29 354 Q. How long did the children get to spend there? 129 1 A. The children stayed actually three months there, in 2 fact, Goldenbridge you could say transferred out of its 3 position in Inchicore right out to Rathdrum for the 4 summer month. The children who didn't have families to 5 go back to, they went for two weeks and then went to 17:01 6 wherever their families were, it often wasn't their own 7 family, it might have been friend families or 8 semi-foster families. But they transferred the whole 9 operation, if you like, right out for three months. 10 355 Q. Firstly, because Rathdrum was there, if a child didn't 17:01 11 have a family to go to outside, firstly there were 12 families to go to outside, it might be their natural 13 family, biological family? 14 A. Yes, in some cases. 15 356 Q. It might be a foster family? 17:01 16 A. Yes. 17 357 Q. Or possibly some other relative or some other family? 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Or an abuser. 19 358 Q. MR. GAGEBY: Not every child had that 20 facility; isn't that right? 17:02 21 A. That's correct, there were some children from whom 22 their own situation or their own realities just didn't 23 provide an opening of those opportunities. 24 359 Q. If those children didn't have a home outside to go to, 25 Rathdrum was the place that they could go to to get out 17:02 26 of Goldenbridge? 27 A. Yes, that's correct. 28 360 Q. Did the entire institution used to go? 29 A. It did, yes. 130 1 361 Q. The institution itself, did it have swings and 2 roundabouts? 3 A. It had a number of various equipment and it had a 4 swimming pool. 5 362 Q. Outside Goldenbridge, sorry? 17:02 6 A. Sorry, Goldenbridge had a number of internal and 7 external equipment for playing, which have been 8 recorded by the Department -- 9 363 Q. Okay. 10 A. -- reports. And there were a variety of kinds. 17:02 11 364 Q. And even a pets corner and things like that? 12 A. They had a pets corner which had been recommended by 13 Sr. Bernardine as one of the ways of... 14 365 Q. In fact, I think the Commission had a photograph of the 15 children going to Rathdrum, in the bus? 17:03 16 A. Carrying all their pets, that's correct. 17 366 Q. And that would seem to indicate that there was an 18 attempt to bring some normality into the institution? 19 A. Well, things that were precious to them perhaps, or 20 that they played with transferred with them. 17:03 21 367 Q. You have spoken of the changes that happened from 1953 22 or 1954 onwards, was that a progression from a rather 23 institutional place in all senses? 24 A. I think great efforts were made to try to reduce the 25 institutional nature of Goldenbridge and apart from the 17:03 26 things that I had mentioned, by 1960, which was five or 27 six years later, they had succeeded in building new 28 dormitories and I think a new dining room. And these 29 were done without any great support from the State at 131 1 the time. So I think the efforts were made and, as I 2 have said already, in a gradual way, but they did work 3 to gradually take that, I suppose, very difficult 4 flavour of institutionalism out of the institution. 5 368 Q. There has been some suggestions that family were 17:04 6 discouraged from visiting. Does that agree with the 7 building of a thing called a villa? 8 A. The villa was built in order to provide a place of just 9 basic privacy and dignity for parents and their 10 children. It was also the case that at times it may 17:04 11 not have been wise perhaps for if children were too 12 short a time in and meeting a family again might have 13 been very difficult, or maybe not very helpful. 14 369 Q. And I think in that event, I mean obviously can I just 15 pause and look at one thing, the Commission has looked 17:05 16 at and heard a vast amount of evidence and I think you 17 are also aware that from 1995 there has been quite an 18 amount of media coverage; isn't that right? 19 A. That's correct. 20 370 Q. That has tended to concentrate on one side of the story 17:05 21 rather than the other? 22 A. Yes. 23 371 Q. And I think one of the things you are anxious to do 24 from an early stage was to allow these matters to be 25 decided by an independent body such as the Commission? 17:05 26 A. It was of very great concern to us that the examination 27 would be done by a competent body outside of ourselves. 28 I think we had very, very great difficulty with the 29 degree to which Goldenbridge featured in the media and 132 1 to which it was vilified and, in fact, some of the 2 Sisters vilified very, very seriously. We believe that 3 in that situation there has to be some process by which 4 all that has been said is examined and that a judgment 5 made at the end. From our own point of view, we do 17:06 6 believe that Goldenbridge was a reasonably well run 7 school, in fact, well run is mentioned some 25 times in 8 those documents. But we do believe that it was 9 reasonably well run, within the limitations that we 10 have accepted and we recognise that that would not have 17:06 11 been enough for the children. But from that point of 12 view, it is important to us that it be examined. 13 372 Q. What, by the way, happened to Rathdrum? 14 A. Rathdrum recently -- of course Rathdrum has been closed 15 for a number of years but recently we donated Rathdrum 17:07 16 to the Redress Scheme, which is the scheme there for 17 the provision of some monetary awards to former pupils. 18 373 Q. Okay. Just talking about the monetary aspects without 19 going over the beads aspect, I think the situation is 20 that the firm that bought them, you have identified and 17:07 21 asked the Commission to see if that firm can help them 22 in coming to any conclusion, if relevant about the 23 accounts? 24 A. That's correct. 25 MR. GAGEBY: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 17:07 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is all right, take your 27 time. 28 374 Q. MR. GAGEBY: Can I just come to one 29 thing. You were 133 1 criticised, as I understand it, for not sharing with 2 the (BLANK) family your recently found information. Am 3 I correct in saying...(INTERJECTION). 4 MR. McGRATH: Sorry Chairman, I didn't 5 criticise. I only asked 17:08 6 the question, I didn't criticise. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well you could have fooled 8 me, Mr. McGrath. It seemed 9 like a serious point, look here, let me be entirely 10 clear. My understanding is you said, "look here, you 17:08 11 recently came into information, you didn't name the 12 particular people involved, although I think a lot of 13 people in that room would have known to whom you were 14 referring, but to be fair to you, you didn't name 15 anybody. And you drew attention to the fact that 17:08 16 although the Sister was in possession of certain 17 information and recently in possession of certain 18 information you drew attention to the fact that it had 19 not been made known to the family directly concerned. 20 17:09 21 I certainly took that as a criticism, but what she 22 responded with was with some care and some obscurity, 23 she said, "I am constrained", my impression, I don't 24 know whether the Sister actually said that, "but legal 25 matters prevent me from making that available", is what 17:09 26 she said. Whereas in the first instance I took what 27 you were saying to be a criticism. I listened to the 28 other -- sorry, I am just speaking for myself. 29 134 1 I listened to the response as saying "yes, there seems 2 to be a legal bar", is what was said. But it was an 3 implied criticism, I would have said if established 4 would be a genuine criticism. 5 MR. McGRATH: I didn't take it any 17:09 6 further. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: I agree. 8 MR. McGRATH: And it is a matter that my 9 solicitor can deal with 10 many in a different way. 17:09 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: There is no criticism, I 12 would have thought it was 13 legitimate comment. 14 MR. McGRATH: I may have criticised the 15 witness on other occasions 17:10 16 but I certainly didn't feel I criticised her, I only 17 ask asked the question. 18 MR. GAGEBY: I have only one sentence on 19 it. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's all right, if you 17:10 21 can elucidate. Certainly I 22 have to say I regard the question as legitimate and the 23 implication I took from it was a legitimate 24 implication. If there is a reason for that then it 25 removes the implication. Yes, certainly. 17:10 26 375 Q. MR. GAGEBY: Sr. Helena, this is 27 obviously something in 28 relation to death of this child that you wanted to 29 explore. I think the situation is that there are 135 1 certain categories of information that you might have 2 by reason of what's called the Redress Scheme; is that 3 correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 376 Q. I think as a result of that you had certain 17:10 6 information, which you thought was relevant and 7 helpful? 8 A. Yes. 9 377 Q. But that couldn't be in any way revealed by you because 10 you were bound by the law, as we all are? 17:10 11 A. That's correct. 12 378 Q. I think your solicitor wrote to us, spoke to the 13 solicitor for a person who had that information? 14 A. That's correct. 15 379 Q. That was with a view to trying to get it into the -- to 17:11 16 get that information into the arena properly? 17 A. Well, we would be very concerned to be able to share 18 that information with the family concerned. We have 19 not been able to get their permission. 20 380 Q. You have not been able to get the permission from the 17:11 21 person who has the knowledge? 22 A. That's correct. 23 MR. GAGEBY: All right. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 25 MR. GAGEBY: I think, Sister, that you 17:11 26 wanted to also say a brief 27 thanks to... 28 A. I do. I want to thank the Commission for all of the 29 sessions that we have been engaged in and particularly 136 1 for the difficulty task that you have taken on, I 2 recognise my small bit, the complexity of it and I just 3 want to say thank you and that is -- and to wish 4 everybody well and, particularly, I suppose I would 5 like that this whole process would contribute to the 17:12 6 healing and the recovery of the memories for this time. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 8 9 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. O'DONOGHUE BY MR. GAGEBY. 10 17:12 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just before we 12 finish, can I ask, Mr. 13 Lowe, would you like to ask Sr. Helena any questions, 14 Mr. Lowe. 15 16 SR. HELENA O'DONOGHUE WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS 17 FOLLOWS, BY THE COMMISSION: 18 19 381 Q. MR. LOWE: Just one area of questions. 20 You said that some girls at 17:12 21 16 were kept on as helpers because they were deemed not 22 able to cope? 23 A. Yes. 24 382 Q. MR. LOWE: How was that assessment 25 made and how many such 17:12 26 girls would there be? 27 A. I would say the assessment was very informal and really 28 made on the experience of the particular girls having 29 been residents themselves from perhaps many years in 137 1 the institution. How many, I am not in a position to 2 say but, you know, we would see from the references to 3 people who were on the staff or helping at the time 4 that there could have been two or three people falling 5 into that category at any time. 17:13 6 383 Q. MR. LOWE: While they were kept on, 7 they were paid a salary? 8 A. Yes, they got some small contribution and that would 9 have been deemed as some response. They also had their 10 board and lodgings obviously, but it would have been 17:13 11 deemed appropriate given that they are now passed the 12 age of 16 and their friends and companions would have 13 been earning elsewhere. 14 384 Q. MR. LOWE: So their legal status would 15 have been employees? 17:13 16 A. I suppose you could describe it as that. 17 385 Q. MR. LOWE: I am just wondering how the 18 Congregation described 19 them? 20 A. I haven't heard that term used in any way. But when 17:13 21 you look at it in those ways, I suppose it is not 22 unreal to say that. 23 386 Q. MR. LOWE: You made the implication a 24 little bit later that one 25 of the things that you feared, that they might be 17:14 26 sexually exploited or be vulnerable sexually? 27 A. Yes. Well, vulnerable generally. Because I think it 28 would have been across a range of vulnerabilities, 29 capacity to cope with being away from their friends, 138 1 being away from what they knew, capacity to manage 2 maybe an employment outside of what they were familiar 3 with, as well as the fact that they may not have been 4 as alert or able to be as alert to dangers of one kind 5 or another that they were likely to meet. 17:14 6 387 Q. MR. LOWE: What range of duties would 7 they have as a helper? 8 A. They assisted in one way or another with the carer who 9 would have been on duty or the carers who would have 10 been on duty, so they seemed to supervise or help both 17:15 11 in the kitchen and dining room and in the play areas. 12 388 Q. MR. LOWE: Did they get training to 13 ensure that they would be 14 able to cope? 15 A. I have no knowledge of any training or any awareness, 17:15 16 no. 17 389 Q. MR. LOWE: Because that would seem to 18 be a good objective? 19 A. Well it might have been possible in the later years 20 when there was some training available. But it 17:15 21 certainly wouldn't have applied in the earlier years. 22 390 Q. MR. LOWE: How long would they have 23 been kept on for? 24 A. It seemed that most of them, and I can't be certain 25 about this, would have moved on by the time they were 17:15 26 20, 21. There may have been exceptions to that, I 27 can't be sure. But that seems to have come up in some 28 cases. 29 391 Q. MR. LOWE: During that period it was 139 1 all voluntary, was it? 2 A. Voluntary in what sense? 3 392 Q. MR. LOWE: In the sense that their 4 consent was attained to be 5 kept on as a helper? 17:16 6 A. I can't project back into the time as to what the 7 nature was. I couldn't imagine an enforced staying. 8 But I don't know what the arrangement with the 9 particular individual might have been. 10 MR. LOWE: Okay, thank you. 17:16 11 MS. SHANLEY: I have no questions thank 12 you, Sister. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 14 15 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF SR. O'DONOGHUE BY THE 17:16 16 COMMISSION 17 18 MR. McGRATH: Sorry, just one matters 19 arises just before 20 Sr. Helena arises. In the question of clarification 17:16 21 that my friend arose, he brought up the prospect that 22 neither Sr. Fabian nor Mr. Crowley gave evidence to the 23 Committee. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 25 MR. McGRATH: There seemed to be an 17:16 26 implication in that that 27 somehow or other that meant that the Committee 28 shouldn't, in any way, consider what is in 29 Mr. Crowley's report or consider what he says he was 140 1 told by Sr. Fabian. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that a matter for us? 3 MR. McGRATH: It is. If that is the 4 situation, and he has 5 raised that, part of that problem can be solved by the 17:17 6 Committee calling Mr. Crowley and I am going to invite 7 the Committee to call Mr. Crowley and I wanted to do 8 that while Sr. Helena is in the box on the basis that 9 you may wish to ask her as to whether or not she's 10 prepared to allow Mr. Crowley to divulge to the 17:17 11 Committee what he has done his report on. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: I suggest it is not a 13 matter for Sr. Helena to 14 decide, it is a question of whether we decide it is 15 necessary. If we decide it is necessary we will do it 17:17 16 and if we don't we won't. 17 MR. McGRATH: I don't want this issue 18 coming up on the basis that 19 it wasn't indicated. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gageby is perfectly 17:17 21 free to make a suggestion, 22 either directly, indirectly, or whatever it is. He is 23 perfectly possible to float a thought out there and if 24 we agree with it well and good and if we don't agree 25 with it well and good. 17:18 26 MR. McGRATH: You can take it I am making 27 a submission to you that he 28 should be called at this stage. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: You don't agree with that. 141 1 Thank you very much. Thank 2 you very much. Thank you. 3 A. Thank you, Chairman. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Thank you. 5 17:18 6 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 5:18 P.M. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 142