COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON MONDAY, 15TH MAY 2006 - DAY 217A EVIDENCE OF SR. MARGARET CASEY 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. CASEY QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 13 EXAMINED - MR. McGRATH 14 - 75 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 76 - 96 EXAMINED - MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH 97 - 125 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 126 - 136 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON MONDAY, 15TH MAY 2 2006 3 4 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody. 10:29 6 MR. MacMAHON: Good morning, Chairman. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a second, 8 Mr. MacMahon. Yes, 9 Mr. MacMahon, we are starting with? 10 MR. MacMAHON: This morning the Committee 10:30 11 is again hearing the 12 evidence of Sr. Margaret Casey on behalf of the Sisters 13 of Mercy in relation to their school, Our Lady of 14 Succour, Newtownforbes. If I may call Sr. Margaret 15 Casey. 10:30 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: If Sr. Casey just stays 17 where she is and we can get 18 the filming out of the way. Just stay where you are, 19 Sr. Casey. If you want to get your pictures taken. 20 The easy way is to come and have your picture taken and 10:30 21 then we get it over with, Sr. Margaret. Thank you very 22 much. 23 24 SR. MARGARET CASEY WAS QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, BY THE 25 COMMISSION: 10:31 26 27 1 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Chairman, I will just very 28 briefly introduce Sr. 29 Margaret Casey. 4 1 2 (To the witness) I think, Sister, you are the 3 Provincial of the western province for the Sisters of 4 Mercy and you were elected for a six-year term 5 commencing in 2001. I think. 10:31 6 A. That's correct. 7 2 Q. I think you yourself are a native of Newtownforbes, you 8 were educated by the Sisters of Mercy, you attended the 9 primary school there from 1954 to 1962 and the 10 secondary school from 1962 to 1967? 10:31 11 A. That's correct. 12 3 Q. I think you entered religious life with the Sisters of 13 Mercy in 1967 and you were finally professed within the 14 Congregation in 1975 and I think you were based in the 15 convent in Newtownforbes until 1985? 10:32 16 A. Yes, that is true. 17 4 Q. I think at that stage you were transferred to 18 Lanesborrough, Co. Longford? 19 A. Correct. 20 5 Q. The industrial school, of course, closed in 1969? 10:32 21 A. Yes. 22 6 Q. I think you prepared an opening statement on behalf of 23 the Sisters of Mercy and you gave evidence on their 24 behalf in relation to Newtownforbes to the 25 Investigation Committee of the Commission on 11 Jan 10:32 26 2005? 27 A. Yes. 28 7 Q. I think at the beginning of that evidence you set out 29 the source of the information which you had and relied 5 1 on for the purpose of your evidence to the Committee? 2 A. I did, yes. 3 8 Q. I think that in addition to that information you have 4 since that time also attended the private hearings of 5 the Commission relating to Newtownforbes? 10:32 6 A. The Newtownforbes module, that's true. 7 9 Q. I think you understand that you are here today to deal 8 with questions which may arise. Mr. McGrath, I think, 9 has some questions to ask you and perhaps also your own 10 counsel Mr. Gageby may have some questions and at a 10:33 11 later stage I may have some questions for you also? 12 A. Yes, thank you. 13 10 Q. Can I just ask you before I pass over to Mr. McGrath in 14 relation to and on the closure of the industrial school 15 in 1969, what happened to the industrial school and to 10:33 16 the lands around it at that point in time? 17 A. Well, the children that were in the industrial school 18 were transferred to Moate, to the group homes in Moate. 19 11 Q. There were how many children at that stage? 20 A. Five in 1969. The industrial school buildings, quite a 10:33 21 lot of the rooms had been taken over by the secondary 22 school at that time, so any further rooms were subsumed 23 by the secondary school from 1969 on until the 24 secondary school closed. In fact, those buildings, 25 before the secondary school closed in 1989 some of 10:34 26 those buildings actually were knocked, the original 27 industrial school buildings, because they were unsafe. 28 The land around it, when they rebuilt the secondary 29 school it wasn't a permanent structure, it was to last 6 1 us for the ten, twenty years and that's what happened. 2 At the moment it is a disused building, which a 3 developer has -- is trying to acquire at the moment, 4 he's looking for planning permission on it. 5 12 Q. Trying to acquire from, from the Sisters of Mercy? 10:34 6 A. Yes, he offered to buy the site of the school from us, 7 and there was planning objections so it is at that 8 stage at the moment, it is not complete. Some of the 9 laundry buildings, and the cloisters -- the cloisters 10 are still there, but the laundry buildings and the 10:35 11 original convent buildings are now apartments. 12 13 Q. Yes. Having already been disposed of and developed by 13 private developers? 14 A. By private developers, yes. 15 MR. MacMAHON: Thank you very much. I 10:35 16 think Mr. McGrath has some 17 questions that he wishes to have dealt with. 18 19 END OF QUESTIONING OF SR. MARGARET CASEY BY THE 20 COMMISSION 10:35 21 22 23 SR. MARGARET CASEY WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 24 MR. McGRATH 25 10:35 26 14 Q. MR. McGRATH: David McGrath, senior 27 counsel, I am instructed by 28 Michael E Hanahoe solicitors and they represent two of 29 the five complainants who went to the Commission and I 7 1 have a number of questions to ask you, covering a broad 2 range of issues that arise out of the running of 3 Newtownforbes. I just want to just indicate two 4 things. First of all, to start with, the two people 5 who gave evidence before the Commission that I 10:35 6 represent both went in in the 1940's. The first one 7 went in 1944 and it would appear she was about four 8 years of age or around that at the time she went in. 9 The second complainant went in in 1946 and it would 10 appear that she was one at that time and that she 10:36 11 actually left Newtownforbes when she was about nine, 12 she didn't stay for a period, she went back to her 13 mother at that particular stage. There are a number of 14 matters that will arise out of that. 15 10:36 16 It would appear that both of the people who gave 17 evidence that I represent here would both have gone in 18 a period when there were problems, or there had been 19 indicated problems in the 1940's in terms of the 20 running of the school, I think that was significantly 10:36 21 discussed on the last occasion in terms of problems 22 that arose. 23 A. That's right. 24 15 Q. Now, in that regard there was a letter, as I 25 understand, in 1944, which would indicate from medical 10:36 26 inspections that there were problems that needed to be 27 dealt with, those included that the premises was 28 unsatisfactory, the accommodation whilst it was good 29 there were other problems as well in terms of the 8 1 health of the children and the manner in which they 2 were being cared for and those were matters which had 3 to be seen and as the reports go along it would seem to 4 indicate that there were improvements made and then 5 there were some things went backwards and that 10:37 6 certainly there seems to have been a period when 7 schools certainly had difficulties as far as the 8 running is concerned. Would you accept that? 9 A. I accept that, yes. 10 16 Q. One of the matters which arose at the last public 10:37 11 hearing when you were being asked questions by 12 Mr. Murphy, who was the counsel upon behalf of the 13 Order on that particular occasion, he went through 14 quite a number of the reports from the medical advisor 15 and pointed out as how good and regular those reports 10:37 16 were. There is one thing that does arise and I want to 17 ask you in relation to the reports and it is not in 18 fact the medical reports I want to -- it is the actual 19 inspection reports from the Department itself. Just 20 give me a moment, Chairman, and I will give you the 10:38 21 reference in respect of those reports. 22 23 These reports are contained in a booklet that was 24 furnished to me a headed "Documents furnished by the 25 Sisters of Mercy and documents furnished by the Bishop 10:38 26 of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise. The numbers on the 27 documents which seem to be NTFS0M0074-002. The actual 28 documents cover a number of different years but they 29 all seem to have the same number. If I can 9 1 just...(INTERJECTION)? 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you just give me that 3 reference again. 4 MR. McGRATH: NTFSOM0074-002. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 10:39 6 17 Q. MR. McGRATH: These questions may not 7 only relate to you but it 8 may be matter which comes up in the Department of 9 Education when giving evidence as well, but given that 10 they are in relation to your particular institution, I 10:39 11 think they are matters I need to bring up at this 12 particular time. 13 MR. GAGEBY: I wonder would it be 14 helpful if the witness had 15 a copy. 10:39 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Gauge. 17 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: Mr. Chairman, if I could 18 just explain, we were given 19 on Friday a booklet of discovery in relation to 20 Newtownforbes that we were given to understand would be 10:39 21 relied upon today and it doesn't correspond with what 22 my friend is reading from, so we may not actually have 23 brought that document. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 25 MR. GAGEBY: Well if it is being handed 10:39 26 in. (Same Handed). 27 MR. McGRATH: You can share my copy. 28 MR. GAGEBY: Thanks. 29 MR. McGRATH: This can be difficult 10 1 reading, it is handwritten 2 and I will do my best to get through. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: What we want was that 4 people would indicate in 5 advance what documents they were relying on, we didn't 10:40 6 hold them to that absolutely. The difficulty is if you 7 haven't done that it makes it more difficult for the 8 witness to deal with possibly a large bulk. It is not 9 a criticism of anybody. 10 MR. McGRATH: With respect, I did have a 10:40 11 conversation with your 12 solicitor on last Thursday or Friday and I indicated 13 the documents that I was relying on in relation to 14 Newtownforbes. 15 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: I'm not suggesting that 10:40 16 they weren't supplied, 17 Mr. Chairman, I think it is just that they have been 18 given to us in a different form, they are not in folder 19 that my friend is referring to. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not a criticism, it 10:40 21 is just a fact. Thank you 22 very much. Now, Sister, have you got that document in 23 front of you? 24 A. I have. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which bit of it do you want 10:40 26 to refer to, Mr. McGrath? 27 18 Q. MR. McGRATH: First of all, if you go 28 into the booklet you will 29 see from An Roinn Oideachais Agus Eolaíchta. They are 11 1 in relation to the inspection in each year, I want to 2 go to -- say, if you start at page 30, I think it is 3 marked 34 in the booklet. Now, there is a number of 4 34s in my booklet, so to some extent it is not terribly 5 helpful. But the year I'm looking for is 1948, if you 10:41 6 want to start at 1948. 7 A. Yes. 8 19 Q. If you go to the page on which there is what appears to 9 be headed paragraph 6, "conduct of pupils". Okay? 10 A. Yes, I have that. 10:42 11 20 Q. Conduct of pupils is divided into: 12 "A - behaviour generally and B - method used to training character, e.g. marks, 13 rewards, privileges, deprivations, etc. C - nature of punishments for 14 misconduct." 15 10:42 16 Conduct of pupils is headed in 1948 says as follows, it 17 is in handwritten writing, I will read it as best I 18 can: 19 "Very good, a very happy homely spirit prevails between nuns and pupils." 20 10:42 21 Under B it says: 22 "An upright honourable character inculcated truth encouraged. No matter 23 what wrong may be done when it is acknowledged no punishment or 24 reprimands is ever given but" something advice "given in a motherly way always. 25 For correction and advice given 10:42 motherly way and always. Major 26 punishment for misconduct 1 - brought before the Superior and their good name 27 gone. 2 - at a separate table in dining hall junior children receive a 28 light slap or a caution." 29 Okay, that's 1948? 12 1 A. Yes. 2 21 Q. We will move on to 1949, a couple of pages later: 3 "Conduct of pupils, behaviour generally, very good a happy homely 4 spirit prevails in the institution, teachers and pupils. 5 10:43 B - an upright honourable character 6 inculcated truth encouraged no matter what the fault is if acknowledged no 7 punishment is given but correction and advice", something, "always in a kindly 8 manner. 9 Nature of punishment:" 10 It is impossible to read. Juniors something and then 10:43 11 it gets something something for meals, which is 12 suggested that they are put at a -- 13 A. A separate table. 14 22 Q. -- separate table for meals. Can you move on then to 15 the next report just says? 10:44 16 "Conduct of pupils very good." 17 18 And all the various headings are then empty. 1951, 19 absolutely nothing on the pages whatsoever. 1952: 20 "Six pupils, A behaviour general. Very 10:44 good. A happy homely spirit prevails 21 between teachers and pupils always. An open upright honourable character 22 inculpated, truth encouraged no matter what the form. If acknowledged no 23 punishment is given but always correction and advice given in a kindly 24 manner. 25 Juniors receive a slight slap or a 10:44 caution, separate table in dining hall 26 for meals." 27 28 If you move on to 1954, again we have: 29 "Very good, happy homely spirit 13 1 prevails between teachers and pupils always. An open upright honourable 2 character inculpated truth encouraged no matter what the fault is, if 3 acknowledged no punishment is given but always correction and advice in a 4 kindly manner. 5 Junior receives a slight slap or a 10:45 caution, separated at meals in dining 6 hall for meals". 7 8 Now, if we go as far as 1958 we again have: 9 "Behaviour; generally very good. An upright honourable character 10 inculpated. Truth encourage." 10:45 11 12 Then I can't read it. 13 "Juniors, a light slap or caution, separated for meals in dining room." 14 15 10:45 16 In fact, you would almost think that the person who is 17 writing the report didn't turn up at the school he just 18 took out the previous years report and filled it in, 19 wouldn't you? 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, sorry, can I 10:45 21 just clarify one thing. My 22 understanding is that these aren't the Department 23 Inspector's report, these are what were submitted to 24 the court by the Resident Manager. Which in a way even 25 emphasises the point you are making. But just 10:45 26 technically my understanding is that it is not the 27 Department coming down and writing this, this is what 28 is submitted annually to the Department by the Resident 29 Manager. 14 1 23 Q. MR. McGRATH: Well, in terms of that, to 2 all intents and purposes 3 the same thing is written year after year after year. 4 The description there of the method used to train 5 (inaudible) and the nature of punishments for 10:46 6 misconduct, whilst there seems to be some agreement on 7 the separate meals on the table, I have to suggest to 8 you that certainly the evidence that was given would 9 suggest that in fact punishments were somewhat more 10 severe than a minor slap? 10:46 11 A. Well, I can only just accept what is on the record 12 there as having been sent back by the Resident Manager 13 to the Department. 14 24 Q. Okay. Now, in relation to that, I just want to start 15 with one thing. On the last occasion one of the 10:46 16 matters that did arise was the question of bedwetting 17 and I think that you did deal with that to some extent 18 on the previous occasion. Can I just ask you a number 19 of matters arising out of that. Now, it would appear 20 that in keeping with many of the institutions that this 10:47 21 particular Commission is dealing with, bedwetting was 22 an issue whereby there were various methods used to try 23 and stamp it out, one of them seems to have been that 24 children were punished for it and this particular 25 institution seems to be no different in that regard? 10:47 26 A. Yes, there were different things use. One Sister said 27 she would tried reward and punishment by giving them 28 little ribbons or medals just as an encouragement, 29 other Sisters would have spoken of not giving drinks 15 1 after a certain time, of older girls getting up during 2 the night with the smaller children. They also 3 acknowledged that not below age eight, but girls over 4 eight would have been slapped for bedwetting and I 5 acknowledged that in my opening statement. And also 10:48 6 the fact that the Sisters regretted that they punished 7 and used slapping for bedwetting, because there was 8 just a lack of understanding of the whole problem of 9 bedwetting at that time, and that slapping for it 10 certainly, we could say now, wouldn't have helped the 10:48 11 children. In fact, it would have made them more 12 fearful and it would have had add to their stress. 13 25 Q. Can I just deal with that for the moment, because the 14 two people I represent both indicate that they had 15 problems with bedwetting and were punished as a result. 10:48 16 One said in a statement: 17 "I wet the bed frequently, usually out of fear and for this my day started 18 with a beating". 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, I have 20 difficulty with this, these 10:48 21 statement were furnished to us confidentially, the 22 evidence was heard in private, you are not actually, if 23 I may respectfully say so, representing your two 24 clients, you are engaged by us. 25 MR. McGRATH: Yes, I understand that. 10:49 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: May I suggest it is a 27 perfectly legitimate area 28 to enquire into, the treatment of bed -- this is not an 29 attempt to shut you down, it is an attempt to comply 16 1 with the legislation. 2 MR. McGRATH: Sure. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm just concerned, 4 sometimes -- maybe I will 5 just take a second, because it is not just this one. 10:49 6 Sometimes people think that "oh, we are not hearing 7 about this evidence or that evidence or the other", and 8 sometimes even well informed people say this. The fact 9 is, of course, that there is a specific statutory 10 prohibition, as we know. I'm not suggesting that you 10:49 11 are not aware of this, not for a moment, but I'm using 12 the opportunity to say something a little more general. 13 There is a specific statutory prohibition on hearing in 14 public or dealing with evidence relating to specific 15 individual complaints of abuse. So, we have to comply 10:50 16 with the legislation. 17 18 But we are equally keen to make it as useful as 19 possible from our point of view, there is what your 20 clients might wish, but from our point of view we want 10:50 21 to make the thing as useful as possible for us. 22 23 May I suggest, Mr. McGrath, that you can certainly say, 24 "look, the treatment of bedwetting", and debate it, but 25 may I suggest at a more general level rather than 10:50 26 "look, there is specific evidence or witness A gave 27 evidence of this, witness B", you know. I am sure that 28 Sr. Casey will be able to deal with the thing on a 29 level that will not inhibit you, but will still enable 17 1 you to explore the area but without us having to get 2 worried about whether we are trespassing back into 3 Phase II, private evidence. 4 MR. McGRATH: I appreciate where you are 5 coming from, Chairman, but 10:51 6 I think I am being as careful as I can be. I am not 7 identifying people, but equally as well, if I am going 8 to challenge in relation to what I think are important 9 matters it seems to be very difficult to do that just 10 in a general way, without actually specifically 10:51 11 indicating what the Commission knows they were told did 12 happen in the institution. It is a very delicate 13 balance, I think I succeeded in it last week, I am 14 horrified if I am -- 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no. 10:51 16 MR. McGRATH: -- this week. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not a criticism at 18 all, please don't think 19 that for a second. I have to say, Mr. McGrath, if you 20 quote what is expressly stated, what is stated in a 10:52 21 document submitted confidently to us, I think that 22 crosses the line, even if you don't identify the 23 particular person. 24 MR. McGRATH: Fair enough, Chairman, I 25 accept your ruling. 10:52 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: But if you say, "look, 27 people complained about or 28 there was evidence about", I have no difficulty with 29 that, I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing. As 18 1 I say, it may be a thin line, but. Thank you very 2 much. 3 26 Q. MR. McGRATH: In terms of it, I have to 4 suggest to you that there 5 was evidence that people were slapped for bedwetting, 10:52 6 and you accept that that did happen? 7 A. I accept that in my original statement. 8 27 Q. Now, it would appear that that method of dealing with 9 bedwetting was something that went on for a long period 10 of time in institutions, and I know certainly we have 10:52 11 had evidence here last week where it is accepted that 12 it certainly, in a particular institution, it certainly 13 was from the 1940's, 1950's, right through up to 14 1960's. Do you think that anybody dealing with 15 children over a long periods of time, and I mean the 10:53 16 Sisters of Mercy were dealing with a number of 17 different institutions where this was a problem, that 18 anybody who even thought for five minutes about 19 punishing children for wetting a bed would have 20 realised that really this does not work? 10:53 21 A. Well, it obviously happened in different institutions, 22 but in terms of communication between institutions, 23 that's not something that would have been typical in 24 the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, because the institutions 25 were independent units, so in terms of sharing that 10:53 26 kind of knowledge or wisdom around the best way to deal 27 with bedwetting, that just wouldn't have happened at 28 that time. 29 28 Q. Now, if I could deal with it this way: Most 19 1 bedwetters, or people who have come before the 2 Commission to talk about bedwetting, it wasn't just 3 that they did it once and never again, they were 4 regular bedwetters, they done it night after night 5 after night, in fact if they got a dry night they were 10:54 6 lucky, would you accept that that situation prevailed? 7 A. I don't know the extent of bedwetting in Newtownforbes. 8 29 Q. All right. If it falls within the normal pattern it 9 would have been a significant amount of it and a number 10 of them would have wet their bed every night. Now, if 10:54 11 the evidence is correct, that they were punished for 12 that, they had to be punished on a very regular basis. 13 If somebody wet their bed every night, they would have 14 been punished the following day if that was the regime. 15 Do you not think that after, even after one week of 10:55 16 punishing somebody and slapping them and having no 17 improvement, that anybody thinking even for five 18 seconds, never mind five minutes, would have realised 19 this doesn't work? 20 A. I can't say that the children were slapped every 10:55 21 morning for bedwetting because I don't know that, I 22 wasn't there at the time, I did inquire and the Sister 23 who was there is in her 90's and wasn't able to furnish 24 me with any information to help me in an understanding 25 of how often is the punishment or how severe, so I 10:55 26 honestly don't know. All I know is that -- and they 27 would have acknowledged that in the school, that there 28 was punishment for bedwetting but the extent of it, the 29 regularity of it, the severity of it, I don't know. 20 1 30 Q. Now, another complaint arising out of bedwetting that 2 arises is this deprivation of a drink in the evening. 3 Again, it would appear from the evidence, not just from 4 Newtownforbes but from other institution, that this 5 didn't work either. That people were going around 10:56 6 thirsty, there are stories from many institutions of 7 people having to take water out of cisterns and out of 8 toilet bowls and things because they were deprived when 9 they were dying of thirst in the evening time and that 10 not drinking again didn't make any difference and yet 10:56 11 it does not seem to have made any impact on somebody 12 that after a week or two of not letting somebody have a 13 drink and they are still wetting the bed, it just 14 couldn't seem to get through. 15 10:56 16 Surely with the experience there was of someone in 17 Newtownforbes of taking care of children that somebody 18 must have been realising that there was something wrong 19 with the system, that things weren't working? 20 A. Well, it was just one of the methods that they tried to 10:56 21 deal with it. 22 31 Q. Now, in relation to something else that arises out of 23 various complaints and that, can I put it to you that 24 it would appear that none of the members of the Order 25 who were there during the time appears ever to have 10:57 26 seen anyone being excessively punished? 27 A. From a conversation with Sisters that would be true, 28 they would have told me that they didn't see other 29 Sisters excessively slap a child. 21 1 32 Q. And they never did it themselves, none of them ever did 2 it themselves? 3 A. They acknowledged that they would have slapped 4 children. You asked me did they see others slap 5 children. 10:57 6 33 Q. Yes. But none of them suggest that they ever, even 7 once in their lives, lost their temper to the extent 8 that they slapped a child too hard or too many times? 9 A. As I have said to you, in terms of the severity of it I 10 don't know. The Sisters would have acknowledged that 10:57 11 they slapped and in my first statement I acknowledged 12 the Sister's deep regret that they slapped. 13 34 Q. Can I just deal with something there. In terms of 14 punishment, punishment can be for two things, it can be 15 to reprimand somebody for something they have done 10:58 16 wrong or it can be used just for the simple method of 17 control, would you accept that? 18 A. Yes. 19 35 Q. In terms of the numbers of children in the school it 20 would seem to have been a very significant number of 10:58 21 children? 22 A. There were significant numbers, yes. 23 36 Q. Very difficult to control a large number of children 24 from difficult background, poor backgrounds, 25 malnourished, had problems? 10:58 26 A. Yes, but what are you suggesting? 27 37 Q. In those terms I have to suggest to you that whilst 28 these children were sent to you for care and to be 29 taken care of because they were from poor homes, 22 1 because there was little or no food in homes that they 2 were taken from, that in fact the number one priority 3 was control of the large numbers, and I suggest to you 4 the only way that could be done and was done was by 5 severe punishment? 10:59 6 A. I accept that discipline and obedience would have been 7 essential and I accept that corporal punishment was the 8 method used to enforce this, but again, I can only say 9 from my knowledge and from conversations the extent to 10 which it was used, the severity or whatever, I just do 10:59 11 not know. I did not -- and I acknowledged that in the 12 beginning, I did not pick up from the Sisters that it 13 was something, as you are suggesting, that was used all 14 the time as a method of control when they were in a 15 large group. 10:59 16 38 Q. Well, could I suggest to you that there is certainly 17 evidence from the people who came before the Commission 18 would suggest, and it is a matter that the various nuns 19 you spoke to had to deal with, was a question as to 20 whether or not there was significant punishment. The 11:00 21 girls who were in the school certainly have said to the 22 Commission that there was excessive punishment, in 23 fact, one of the things I have to suggest to 24 you...(INTERJECTION)? 25 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, I don't want 11:00 26 to be rude to cut across, 27 Mr. McGrath, but there is a certain line. Is the 28 Sister really being asked to decide what you have to 29 decide, sir? I mean you heard from -- sorry, and the 23 1 Commission, the Commission heard from five complainants 2 and well, I am not trying to shut anybody out, but 3 really there is an exercise in futility partially here. 4 She wasn't here, there was limited materials. I don't 5 want to argue the toss of it either, because that's 11:00 6 your job. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: But isn't it reasonable for 8 any -- of course, there is 9 a line and Mr. McGrath will know and you will know that 10 we are reluctant to be too fussy about the precise -- 11:00 11 we don't want to be preventing people asking questions. 12 But isn't Mr. McGrath entitled to explore, nonetheless, 13 the question of punishment and excessive punishment and 14 violence in a general way. 15 MR. GAGEBY: I think he's already done 11:01 16 that, Mr. Chairman, but he 17 is now, it seems to me, proposing or has commenced to 18 ask this witness whether she agrees with the five 19 people who gave evidence in private. I would just 20 raise this thing. 11:01 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I think there are two 22 objections to that and I 23 think one of them is that it is asking the witness to 24 decide something that we have to decide. In one way 25 witnesses are always asked that, are often asked that, 11:01 26 in courts and in inquiries, even in courts, in 27 substance, if you like. 28 MR. GAGEBY: Mr. Chairman, it begs an 29 unfairness. Supposing the 24 1 witness disagrees and disagrees for a reason, but the 2 reason arises out of the fact that she, like the rest 3 of us, have sat for many days in Earlsfort Terrace, 4 listening to the matter and turning it around. And if 5 the witness says, "well, I want to disagree", but 11:02 6 can't. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: "I didn't believe No. 1, 8 No. 3, No. 5", for 9 instance. 10 MR. GAGEBY: But this couldn't be right 11:02 11 because somebody wasn't 12 there or any of the painstaking methods by which you 13 have proceeded, sir. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is the reality, 15 Mr. McGrath, isn't it? I 11:02 16 mean, of course everybody understands the position that 17 you are in, but on the other hand just suppose a 18 witness, not necessarily Sr. Casey, suppose a witness 19 were to say, "well, now that you ask me, I was 20 impressed by two witnesses but I wasn't impressed by 11:02 21 ten witnesses," suppose there were twelve witnesses and 22 how could we get into the question as to how or why he 23 or she was impressed. Isn't that a real difficulty? 24 MR. McGRATH: Well, except that 25 ultimately it is for you to 11:03 26 decide whether you believe the witnesses or not. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, quite. 28 MR. McGRATH: It is neither a thing here 29 nor there, but that, to 25 1 some extent, that's going to arise. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: May I say, Mr. McGrath, I 3 am less worried about that 4 question than I am about trespassing into the private 5 evidence. That's frankly my own personal thing, I see 11:03 6 a much bigger problem, because I am worried about 7 compliance with the legislation. Whereas the other 8 matter, as I say, in some shape or form often enough 9 witnesses are asked, "did you hear the evidence of the 10 plaintiff?" A defendant might be asked and, "were you 11:03 11 not impressed?" So that in some way they might be 12 asked, rightly or wrongly, to comment on it in a court 13 situation. I am more concerned about the 14 confidentiality. 15 MR. McGRATH: Well, Chairman, let me ask, 11:04 16 I will move away from that 17 for a moment and maybe I will ask it in a different 18 way. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 20 39 Q. MR. McGRATH: On the last occasion you 11:04 21 yourself gave evidence 22 about being in school in Newtownforbes in the primary 23 school? 24 A. Yes. 25 40 Q. You mentioned something that happened with a particular 11:04 26 nun who then left and went away and came back at a 27 later stage. And you knew her at time, I think she was 28 teaching you in the school and then you knew her later? 29 A. Yes. 26 1 41 Q. And you described a change in her personality, et 2 cetera. Can I ask you what was it that happened in the 3 school on that occasion that you remember? 4 A. At the time I saw the Sister slap a child on the back 5 of the hand. 11:04 6 42 Q. What age were you at the time? 7 A. I was in about third or fourth class. 8 43 Q. It was enough of an incident to strike you at that age 9 and to remember it because it didn't strike you as 10 being right? 11:05 11 A. Yes, I found it unacceptable at the time and I find it 12 unacceptable now. 13 44 Q. If we take it then that you have a memory of that, do 14 you think it is likely that that sort of thing happened 15 on other occasions, in other classrooms? 11:05 16 A. Well, could I say that was the primary school and that 17 Sister had no dealings with the children from the 18 industrial school outside of the actual class, she 19 happened to be a person that didn't have dealings with 20 them either for supervision or meals or recreation or 11:05 21 anything like that, it was purely in the classroom 22 situation. And I would accept that some Sisters may 23 have been harsher than others in terms of, you know, 24 using a stick or whatever, but that was the particular 25 incident. 11:05 26 45 Q. Now, could I ask you just in general terms, in terms of 27 finance in relation to institution. Now, the 28 Commission will be well aware that the main source of 29 finance for any of these was the capitation grant? 27 1 A. Yes. 2 46 Q. Now, there would have been some payments being made in 3 respect of teachers who were in the school. But am I 4 correct in understanding that those who would have been 5 in the industrial school and not teaching but taking 11:06 6 care of children there was no payment for them coming 7 in from anywhere outside? 8 A. To my knowledge no, but again it is something I just 9 wouldn't be exactly sure of. 10 47 Q. Okay. Now, the Sisters of Mercy were running a very 11:06 11 large institution, which had very large numbers of 12 children at times? 13 A. Yes. 14 48 Q. Is there anything in the records that would indicate 15 that there was any method whereby there was any 11:06 16 planning for what was going to happen in the future, as 17 far as the upkeep of the premises or the supplying of 18 whatever needs of these particular premises were? 19 A. Well, from my limited knowledge of the accounts, it is 20 quite a while, Chairman, since I looked at them, 11:06 21 because it was back in January 12 months, but the 22 income and expenditure were within 5% of the capitation 23 grant. I know that there was some -- in terms of for 24 the building, back in the 1940's, there were three 25 years where expenditure exceeded income back in the 11:07 26 1940's and the only explanation that could be offered 27 for that was that there was a -- it was funds that were 28 raised for a building at the time and in the annals of 29 the convent there was reference to some of the Sisters 28 1 fundraising and obtaining money from wealthier people 2 in Dublin and from the Duke of Norfolk and things like 3 that. But that was where the funding would have come 4 from. 5 49 Q. So to all intents and purposes, once the school was up 11:07 6 and running, so far as the Sisters of Mercy were 7 concerned to all intents and purposes it was on its 8 own? 9 A. Yes, but could I also just say that as part of the 10 practice as religious Sisters that any money or income 11:08 11 earned by the Sisters is pooled in a common fund and it 12 is out of that fund it would be used then for the 13 ministries of that particular house. So whatever 14 income would have been generated, maybe not necessarily 15 for the Sisters in the industrial school, but by the 11:08 16 other Sisters, that money would have been used for the 17 ministries as well. 18 50 Q. But from the overall point of view, the school had to 19 survive on its own, whether it be by using the 20 capitation grant or using the salaries of the nuns who 11:08 21 were employed in the school, or whatever fundraising it 22 could organise for itself? 23 A. Yes, but they didn't fundraise for the industrial 24 school, it was just for money for that building. 25 51 Q. Yeah, but I mean when a build was going to be built 11:08 26 they had to look for somebody to fund it, they had to 27 fundraise in some shape or form. There was certainly 28 no question of going to the Sisters of Mercy overall 29 and saying "we need money, can you help us out"? 29 1 A. I think I explained to you that the Sisters -- the 2 convents were autonomous, independent units, most of 3 them, up until the 1970's. Then what happened, say, 4 for example, in Newtownforbes in 1979 it would have 5 become part of a diocesan union and later in 1994 and 11:09 6 only then did the 26 dioceses come together and form a 7 congregational union. So, the units would have been 8 independent and would have had to be responsible for 9 whatever ministries obtained in that particular house. 10 52 Q. So from that point of view, there was certainly nowhere 11:10 11 that people running this institution could turn to get 12 help from within the Order itself? 13 A. No. 14 53 Q. Now, I know we are looking back from a long time ago, 15 but does it seem inconceivable now that the Order was 11:10 16 organised in such a way that there was no question of 17 the Order looking to see what was happening and whether 18 the ministries that it was involved in could be done in 19 a better way? 20 A. That's the way the Congregation developed from the time 11:10 21 of our founders. She wanted us to be in local units 22 and it was only with the evolution of time, events in 23 what was happening in the country and even among 24 ourselves, particular then Vatican II would have been a 25 major influence, when we were invited to look again at 11:10 26 ourselves and how we were leading our lives and were 27 they meaningful and relevant to society at this time. 28 It was only out of all of that and reflection for years 29 on that that the Sisters decided that a better way 30 1 forward would have been to form the groupings. But to 2 say from the beginning, I think to me that would be an 3 insult to the way the Congregation has developed. I 4 would see it that we were progressive, that we were 5 engaging as the years went by and exploring ways that 11:11 6 we could be better in ministry and that we could use 7 our talents and resources to a better effect. 8 54 Q. One of the points that has arisen in a number of the 9 institutions so far and I am sure will arise, is the 10 situation with regard to leaving the institution, one 11:11 11 of the major complaints coming from witnesses seems to 12 have been that they suddenly were one day told they 13 were leaving, with no preparation. Have you anyway of 14 helping us in regard to that, why were things so 15 cursory in those terms? 11:12 16 A. I regret I cannot, you know, add much to what I already 17 said in my opening statement about leaving. The 18 practiced seem to have been that the Resident Manager 19 acquired employment through contacts that she would 20 have had or knowledge if a job became available. Then 11:12 21 if the girl was 16 or time for her to go they would 22 have made decisions then. But the actual process, 23 there is nothing written down. Unfortunately, the 24 Resident Manager is deceased and the two Sisters that 25 were there, they are both in their 90's so they 11:12 26 couldn't help me in providing any further information. 27 55 Q. It would appear in many of the institutions that one of 28 the major complaints from -- or the complaints that 29 would arise so far as leaving is concerned, is that, 31 1 first of all, they were only really told the day before 2 or on the day that they were going, "you are 16, you 3 are leaving." That when they left they couldn't read 4 and write, there was no preparation in terms of 5 explaining to them how you survive outside the 11:13 6 institution, no explanation as to how money worked, no 7 explanation how rent a place, how to pay bills or 8 anything of that nature. Do you accept that that was 9 the situation in the institution insofar as the girls 10 in the institution were concerned? 11:13 11 A. I accept that girls leaving they were prepared in terms 12 of housewifery, domestic work and all of that, I do 13 acknowledge that there was certainly a gap in preparing 14 them for handling money, in preparing them 15 psychologically and emotionally from the break from 11:13 16 leaving a major institution to a working situation. As 17 I said, it seemed to have been, from what I have heard, 18 that they did only get the short notice. 19 56 Q. As far as the training is concerned in the industrial 20 school, as it was, from what I can understand from 11:14 21 reading the papers for Newtownforbes, am I correct in 22 understanding that really the training there was 23 limited to domestic service? 24 A. Certainly the training was for domestic service, but if 25 one puts that in the context, that at the time and the 11:14 26 years that we are talking about domestic service would 27 have been what most of the people in the country would 28 have went into. Because if you even look at the 29 Central Statistics Office, figures from there would 32 1 have indicated that, for example, of people gainfully 2 occupied by occupation in 1946 that in personal service 3 there were 102,000 83% were women and of that 79,000 of 4 them were employed as domestic servants, so it wasn't 5 unusual in the wider context. In fact, also in 11:15 6 evidence from the Central Statistics Office, the 7 occupations that women tended to go into, the first was 8 agriculture and then domestic. For example, in 1936 9 7.6% of the women went into domestic and in 1946 7.2. 10 In the context, domestic service was the thing that was 11:15 11 available to them and that's what they were prepared 12 for. 13 14 May I also say that some of them went on to train for 15 nursing and was in shops and things like that. So that 11:15 16 it wasn't just limited, you know, to domestic. 17 18 If again to help put it in context, and I use this 19 example, the time I gave evidence the first time back 20 in January 2005, I did my Inter Cert in 1965, and there 11:15 21 were 30 of us in the class, but when I went to Leaving 22 Cert only 13 of that group actually went as far as 23 Leaving Cert. Again, there was only 13 in the Leaving 24 Cert in 1967, again in the context, there was only 100 25 in the school. But by the time I left that school in 11:16 26 1975 you would have had 400 in the school. That's just 27 a general context that would help. 28 57 Q. Just coming back to what I was asking you a moment ago 29 and I understand why you are putting it into a context, 33 1 but am I correct in understanding that the only 2 training provided was for domestic service, that's it? 3 A. That was the main training. 4 58 Q. So it didn't matter how bright a student was, 5 everybody, whether they are bright or not bright, they 11:16 6 were being trained for domestic service? 7 A. While I acknowledge that they were being trained for 8 domestic service, may I also say that free education 9 did not come in, but the idea of people going to 10 secondary school it wasn't until the late 1960's, so 11:16 11 certainly in the 1940's and 1950's. But again, even in 12 Newtownforbes, some of the pupils did in the 1950's go. 13 Just bear with me and I will get the figures. 14 59 Q. I'm not terribly interested in 15 figures...(INTERJECTION)? 11:17 16 MR. GAGEBY: I think the witness should 17 be allowed to answer. 18 A. I'm just saying, for example, in 1949 or 1950, three 19 pupils got extensions from the Department, so again in 20 1950/51, seven attended secondary school. The records 11:17 21 would also show that between 1952 and 1962 at least 22 eight children were discharged either on licence with 23 the express purpose of attending secondary school or 24 their period of detention was extended so they could 25 attend secondary school. Handwritten evidence from 11:17 26 1953 would show that again a different number of pupils 27 presented for scholarships. I would suggest that that 28 would indicate that there was some consciousness of 29 training or allowing some of the pupils to go ahead and 34 1 have secondary education, that it started as far back 2 back as then. Bearing in mind that the secondary top 3 only started in Newtownforbes in the early 1950's. 4 60 Q. From the point of view of children coming out, in many 5 institutions we have heard evidence, or the Commission 11:18 6 have heard evidence, that people were illiterate or 7 could barely read and write. Do you accept that that 8 was a problem for many of the girls leaving 9 Newtownforbes? 10 A. My understanding is that most of the girls in 11:18 11 Newtownforbes had the opportunity of attending primary 12 school to sixth standard, I acknowledge that not all 13 did the Primary Cert. I am surprised by that standard 14 that people would say that they weren't able to read or 15 write. It is possible that some got through the net 11:19 16 that they could today, who might have a problem with 17 dyslexia, and again there wouldn't have been a great 18 consciousness of it at that stage. But every effort 19 was made to give the children a basic primary 20 education. And they were in class with me while I was 11:19 21 there and they did get it. And again I would have some 22 figures for those that attended primary school but 23 there was an attendance, all of them would have 24 attended and those between 14 and 16 then, if they 25 weren't going out for employment or weren't going on to 11:19 26 secondary school, in later years they had the 27 opportunity of having -- they had the opportunity of 28 having the industrial training. 29 35 1 There was also at that time, if I may say so, that the 2 -- looking just back through some of the documentation 3 from the Department, there was a question of whether 4 they could -- if you just bear with me for one moment. 5 11:20 6 For a child to go ahead, you had to have the sanction 7 of the Inspector and then there was also the Children's 8 Act of 1941 said -- sorry, in 1962/63 it required: 9 "The pupil to be sufficiently advanced 10 in knowledge and intelligence to enable 11:20 him or her to follow with reasonable 11 success a course of secondary education." 12 13 And that's material from the Department of the 14 education, they were set out as requirements. 15 61 Q. In terms of all the institutions, and the Commission 11:20 16 have heard evidence on numerous occasions of many of 17 the children complaining that when they were in the 18 school they were so frightened and so fearful, and they 19 were so anxious all the time that they weren't able 20 believe to learn. Did you, during your time, notice 11:21 21 any children in your class who were having difficulty 22 with learning or were afraid to answer questions or 23 anything of that nature? 24 A. It is subjective, all of us can have fears of different 25 people. The teachers in different classes would have 11:21 26 had a different relationship with pupils. Again, each 27 of the pupils would be bringing their own emotional and 28 psychological baggage, you know. So some might have 29 been more fearful and afraid than others. But in 36 1 general, like, we got -- I mean, I would have received 2 the same education that the children from the 3 industrial school received with me in the primary 4 school. 5 62 Q. There is one difference between you and them, you went 11:21 6 home, they didn't, they stayed in the institution? 7 A. Yes, and I did acknowledge that in my opening 8 statement. I acknowledged that a girl from the 9 industrial school whom I knew said to me that she 10 envied me going home at 3:00 because she was there. 11:22 11 And I do acknowledge that for somebody that was there 12 permanently on a 24 hour basis, all year, that it was 13 different set up for them. I did acknowledge that in 14 my original statement. 15 63 Q. And particularly if they were in fear, as many of them 11:22 16 have pointed out over the time the Commission has been 17 sitting, they were in fear that they were likely to be 18 beaten at any time, for anything, they believed that? 19 A. I acknowledged that they would have felt fear, but the 20 fact that they would be beat, any time, any place is 11:22 21 something that I'm not in a position to comment on 22 because I just don't know that that was the situation. 23 64 Q. Well, if that was the factual situation, and that's 24 what many of them have told the Commission here, if 25 that was the factual situation would you accept that 11:22 26 they were going to have a difficulty learning in 27 school. 28 A. It would be a bit more difficult if somebody is afraid 29 but the Commission will make a judgment on that too. 37 1 65 Q. Just returning to a couple of documents that I just 2 want to refer to. These are in a folder entitled 3 "Documents Discovered by the Department of Education 4 and Science" and then it has a number of numbers on it. 5 The actual documents are NTF001-004. 11:24 6 7 Now, one of them is a handwritten letter which then is 8 followed by a typewritten copy, I think, of the same 9 letter. It would appear to be dated -- the typewritten 10 one is dated 12th February, there is nothing on the 11:24 11 handwritten one, but the handwriting would appear to be 12 the same handwriting as the inspection doctor. It is 13 the letter of 1940, which indicate that she's writing: 14 "To tell you how very disappointed I was at finding such a lack of 15 supervision in your school during the 11:25 recent medical examination. I cannot 16 find any excuse which would exonerate you and your staff from the verminous 17 condition of several of the children's heads. I was not satisfied in finding 18 so many of the girls in the infirmary suffering from bruises on their 19 bodies". 20 11:25 21 Now, would the fact that they were suffering bruises on 22 their bodies and it is put into that letter suggest to 23 you that those girls were being maltreated in some way? 24 A. I can only accept the document as it is presented. 25 66 Q. Would it suggest to you, as it suggests to me, that 11:25 26 those girls had bruises on their body because of some 27 form of maltreatment? 28 A. Well, if it was unacceptable to the Department the 29 likelihood was that it could have been -- it was some 38 1 kind of maltreatment. 2 67 Q. I mean, given the words "so many" would suggest that 3 there was an awful lot of them? 4 A. Well, unfortunately the letter doesn't say the number, 5 so it would be only speculation on my part, I don't 11:26 6 know how many were there. 7 68 Q. It goes on to say: 8 "I wish particularly to draw attention to the latter as under no circumstances 9 can the Department tolerate treatment of this nature in you being responsible 10 for the care of these children will 11:26 have some difficulty in avoiding 11 censure. The lack of supervision and individual attention is, in my opinion, 12 the reason for the dirty condition of the heads and the untreated abscess I 13 discovered in the child in the infirmary". 14 15 Would you accept that at that stage, certainly in 1940, 11:26 16 that it was being pointed out that this school was not 17 being run in any proper manner? 18 A. In my opening statement I accepted the documentation 19 from the Department from 1940 and the reports up to 20 1945, which were very negative. And on behalf of the 11:26 21 Sisters I apologised for those, and as far back as 22 January 12 months. 23 69 Q. There is another document I would like to refer to, 24 Chairman, NTF001-013. It is a handwritten note which 25 says as follows: 11:27 26 "Mr. ----- calls to complain regarding the condition of his children in 27 Newtownforbes. He called to visit them on Saturday 24/448 and says that they 28 are suffering from scabies, for months passed. One of the girl's hands is 29 practical disabled from the sores between her fingers. The children's 39 1 footwear is in a very bad condition and they have no stockings. The caller was 2 asked to (as read) and it would appear that nothing further occurred but he 3 had actual called". 4 5 That would suggest that even eight years later, after 11:28 6 the report and complaints from the doctor, that things 7 were not all well in the school, wouldn't it? 8 A. I'm not sure of the dates, I just don't have those 9 actual documents with me. What year do you say this 10 letter was? 11:28 11 70 Q. It is not a letter, it is a note, it is 1948, and it is 12 a note of a complaint being made by some parent who had 13 called to see his children? 14 A. Yes. I think it referred back to 1944. 15 71 Q. No, the letter says, I will read it to you again: 11:28 16 "Mr. ----- called to complain regarding the condition of his children in 17 Newtownforbes. He called to visit them on Saturday, 24/4/48 and says that they 18 are suffering from scabies, for months passed. One of the girl's hands is 19 practically disabled from the sores between her fingers. The children's is 20 footwear is in very bad condition and 11:28 they have no stockings". 21 22 A. I accept that, but can I also draw attention to fact 23 that even between 1944 and 1948 that the actual 24 Department records in 1945, signed off by the 25 Inspector, show that medically the children were well 11:29 26 and that there was much improvement in the institution, 27 that was in 1945. Again, in 1946 it shows that: 28 "The children were well cared for and there was much improvement and the 29 children had put on weight." 40 1 2 Now, in August of 1946, it did note that: 3 "Ringworm and scabies were treated and eyes had been treated." 4 5 So it was obviously something they were trying to deal 11:29 6 with. 7 72 Q. I just want to suggest to you that that's not the 8 complete record because again document NTF001-0011, 9 15/6/44 says as follows in the general observations: 10 "I regret to state that this school has 11:29 gone back since my last inspection". 11 12 So that would suggest that things, whilst they had 13 improved between 1940 and 1943, by 1944 were going 14 backwards. As I say to you in 1948 there was a 15 complaint by a parent. So things, whilst they did 11:30 16 improve, still left an awful lot to be desired, to put 17 it mildly? 18 A. That was a difficult period in the time of the 19 institution and we deeply regret that, but from then 20 on, I think written into the record again from the 11:30 21 opening appearance at the Commission, the reports from 22 -- most of the reports showed a marked improvement. In 23 fact, from, say, 1947 it said that children looked much 24 cleaner and neater, much better supervision. In 1952, 25 it says: 11:31 26 "It was satisfactory, clean and well kept, the clothing was good. Food well 27 served and was appetizing. Much better. Classroom and dormitories 28 heated." 29 41 1 In 1954 it says it was well run. In 1956 it said it 2 was well run and the children were clean and well cared 3 for. In 1957, the premises bright and cheerful, well 4 run school. So on in 1960, right up to 1964, the 5 Department records did show a marked improvement. 11:31 6 73 Q. Can I just stop you there for a second. These are the 7 Inspection reports from the doctor? 8 A. Yes. 9 74 Q. Are you aware, and I'm sure you are, that the 10 Commission has heard regularly from former pupils of 11:31 11 the various industrial schools throughout the company, 12 that before the inspector arrived there was always a 13 massive clean up in the school, first of all; secondly, 14 that on that particular day they were all ordered to be 15 on their best behaviour; thirdly, they were all dressed 11:32 16 in their Sunday finest, that the various dormitories 17 were always looking their best because all the old 18 bedclothes were all stripped off and very nice duvet 19 covers and colourful things were put on the bed and 20 that somehow or other the place was always pristine 11:32 21 when the inspectors came. Now, it seems to have been a 22 pattern around the country, and I have to suggest to 23 you that quite often these inspectors reports reflect 24 what was seen on the day, which was designed to impress 25 by those in charge? 11:32 26 A. Well, I wasn't there at the time and I did acknowledge 27 again, previously, that efforts were made, if when the 28 inspections were coming. But there was also in the 29 records, I remember reading, that there were 42 1 inspections that were not notified and so inspectors 2 would have been able to -- you know. 3 75 Q. With respect, I have to suggest to you that a lot of 4 people would have had doubts as to whether there was no 5 knowledge that those inspections were coming. If you 11:33 6 look at the various dates, they change from year to 7 year but they are never far away from the previous 8 date. I have to suggest to you that the likelihood is 9 that the word went around to the schools very quickly 10 when the inspectors were on the way? 11:33 11 A. I couldn't stay that for definite. 12 MR. McGRATH: I suggest that it wouldn't 13 necessarily be wise for 14 either the Commission or for yourselves to rely on the 15 inspection reports as being an accurate reflection of 11:33 16 what it was like for the rest of the year other than on 17 the day in question. I have no further questions, 18 Chairman. 19 20 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. MARGARET CASEY BY MR. McGRATH 11:34 21 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 23 MR. MacMAHON: I think perhaps I should go 24 next, I have just one for 25 two very brief question to ask. 11:34 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Very 27 good. 28 29 43 1 SR. MARGARET CASEY WAS FURTHER QUESTION, AS FOLLOWS, BY 2 THE COMMISSION: 3 4 76 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Sister, really the 5 questions that I wanted to 11:34 6 ask you related to the ethos of the Sisters of Mercy as 7 expressed in their constitutions, as I understand it, 8 there was a sequence of constitutions in being, there 9 was a 1926 constitution and then there is a 1954 10 constitution which, insofar as is material to my 11:34 11 question, is really a restatement of the 1926 12 constitution. 13 A. Yes. 14 77 Q. I think in 1969 things were changed, a further document 15 was produced? 11:34 16 A. Yes. 17 78 Q. And then I think that there were more substantial 18 changes later on, which I think probably have no 19 bearing to Newtownforbes? 20 A. No, I think the most recent constitution would have 11:34 21 been 1985. 22 79 Q. I think that was amended in 1994? 23 A. Yes, when we became a Congregation. 24 80 Q. Yes. I wanted to ask you about the vow of obedience. 25 The Rule 28 of the 1926 constitution, and this was 11:35 26 replicated in Chapter 7 of the 1954 constitution, 27 states that: 28 "The Sisters are always to bear in mind 29 that by the vow of obedience they have forever renounced their own will and 44 1 resigned it to the direction of their Superiors. They are to obey the Mother 2 Superior as holding her authority from God rather through love than from 3 servile fear. They shall love and respect her as their mother, without 4 her permission they shall not perform public penances." 5 11:35 6 Then the following rule, Rule 29 says: 7 "They are to execute without hesitation all the directions of the Mother 8 Superior, whether in matters of great or little moment agreeable or 9 disagreeable. They shall never murmur but with humility and spiritual joy 10 carry the sweet yoke of Jesus Christ". 11:36 11 It continues for another short bit, but what I really 12 wanted to ask you was whether the vow of obedience in 13 practice was likely to have an impact in the capacity 14 of a Sister who is perhaps operating some facet of the 15 schools, if that Sister saw that the manner in which 11:36 16 the school was operating was wanting in some way, that 17 if she was carrying out her duties in that school 18 because she had been appointed to that position. Did 19 the vow of obedience perhaps affect such a Sister to 20 question her Superior in how the school was being 11:37 21 conducted? 22 A. I suppose back in those years the Sister would have 23 been assigned to a job under obedience and that 24 obviously would have impacted on the institution and 25 her role in it, because sometimes then it meant, and 11:37 26 this would have been borne out in the industrial 27 school, that they could have ended up in a particular 28 Ministry as, say, some of the Resident Managers, that 29 they were there for quite a long time, 30 years and 45 1 more. But it would have been true, as well, that out 2 of the obedience that it wouldn't have been the 3 accepted or the norm for somebody to complain to the 4 person in authority about how the place was being run, 5 because to do so would have been seen not merely as a 11:37 6 kind of personal failing but it would also have shown 7 that in some way that their inability to cope with the 8 challenges of religious life. 9 10 I suppose that then, you know, that it operated two 11:38 11 facets, because in one sense there was the positive 12 side to them taking on this obedient work, you had the 13 positive side that the Sisters worked there and it 14 highlighted their commitment and dedication for a great 15 number of years. But the negative -- and that was at a 11:38 16 time when, you know, there was poor resources and women 17 weren't the forefront of achievement, even in public 18 life. 19 20 But on the other hand, and the negative impact of it, 11:38 21 and this would have impacted on the industrial school 22 greatly, would have been the fact that, you know, 23 leisure was circumscribed that unstructured, there was 24 all of these kind of things were seen as luxuries 25 rather than as essentials. It meant then that people 11:39 26 weren't conscious of the whole concept of burnout. And 27 because of that, having worked too long in the 28 institution, obviously that would have impacted on the 29 way they operated and on the way they worked with the 46 1 children. So, you know, it would have affected them. 2 3 But could I just say too that even though that the 4 Sisters were expected to take up the Ministry that they 5 were assigned to, there were individuals that managed, 11:39 6 you know, to be able -- whether it was their 7 personality, or the personality of the person in 8 authority, that were able to say that they weren't 9 suited or whatever. 10 11:39 11 Now, after Vatican II, in the 1960's, certainly the 12 obedience would have taken a new dimension because it 13 would have been then in dialogue and in discussion and 14 in consultation that a person would have been assigned 15 and there they would have been better able to talk 11:40 16 about the role or whatever was going on in the school. 17 81 Q. Of course, the Sister's statement as to the vow of 18 obedience didn't, in fact, change to any extent until 19 1969 -- 20 A. I don't have the actual one. 11:40 21 82 Q. -- in the constitution? 22 A. Yes. Our most recent one is that it would still be -- 23 in the dialogue and consultation, but the ultimate 24 decision would be with the Superior. 25 83 Q. But if the Committee were to accept from evidence that 11:40 26 it may have heard, that a Superior tended towards being 27 unsupportive or tended to express little interest in, 28 say, the industrial school or in the education of the 29 children there, the vow of obedience would in a sense 47 1 constrain a Sister who wished to do something about 2 that? 3 A. Yes, it would. Then I suppose it was in a good lot of 4 situations, I'm just thinking of the institution that I 5 am dealing with myself, the Resident Manager happened 11:41 6 to be the Superior for quite some time so it would have 7 been more difficult for the Sisters then in that 8 scenario to actually complain or talk the thing 9 through. But still some managed to do it. 10 84 Q. There was a conference arranged in 1953 by the Sisters 11:41 11 of Mercy, it took place in Carysfort, the Commission 12 has been furnished with documents arising out of that 13 conference. I'm wondering whether there was any 14 evidence to suggest or to show that Sisters from 15 Newtownforbes attended that conference and if so 11:41 16 whether it was purely the Superior or did it extend 17 beyond that, if there was such attendance? 18 A. No, the person that attend in 1953/54 was a person in 19 charge of the industrial school, though not the 20 Resident Manager. That's my understanding. 11:42 21 85 Q. One of the things said by Sr. Mary Bernardine in the 22 course of that conference, and I think this conference 23 came up at the last hearing, but one of the things she 24 said was that: 25 "Experience shows that when the person 11:42 in charge is kind but firm, sympathetic 26 but impartial, efficient without being overbearing, determined but open to 27 suggestion, approachable without being too free, the other members of the 28 staff will take their cue from her and the result will be content and harmony 29 in the entire home". 48 1 2 First of all, is there any evidence that arising out of 3 that conference there was any change or discussion for 4 change amongst the Sisters in Newtownforbes. 5 A. I won't know that, Mr. MacMahon. 11:43 6 86 Q. Is there any written evidence that would suggest that 7 any notice at all was taken of the context of the 8 conference in 1953 in Newtownforbes? 9 A. Certainly I would have come across a copy of that, but 10 I wouldn't have any evidence in the archives to support 11:43 11 what happened in this industrial school as in 12 Newtownforbes as a direct result of attending that 13 conference. 14 87 Q. There is no evidence of any restructuring or changes in 15 terms of administration or in the manner in which the 11:43 16 children were organised or their affairs were ordered? 17 A. I'm not aware of any evidence. 18 88 Q. I suppose that while the document acknowledges that a 19 good leader, the habits of a good leader will pass down 20 through to those working under her, I suppose the 11:44 21 opposite is also the case, if you have a leader who is 22 lacking in leadership qualities or is -- shows little 23 interest in the children or is not open to change, that 24 equally change is less likely to happen? 25 A. Yes, but I am just recalling that the person who 11:44 26 attended that would have been still in charge in the 27 industrial school in Newtownforbes in 1954 and 1956. 28 Though she's quite elderly now, some years ago in 29 conversation with her, she would have said that her -- 49 1 in latter years that she was in the school that her 2 whole manner of operating and relating to the children 3 would have been totally different. Because, for 4 example, she wouldn't have used the corporal punishment 5 and that she tried through fostering, music and all of 11:44 6 that, to give them a better chance. 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: She wouldn't teach me then. 8 She wouldn't teach me. I 9 wasn't one of the grandeur. 10 89 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Can I ask you again in 11:45 11 relation to the ethos of 12 the Sisters as an Order, a Congregation, that was 13 heavily involved in running industrial schools in 14 Ireland, the constitutions, certainly those of 1926 and 15 1954, appeared to give no assistance to the 11:45 16 congregation or to the nuns who formed part of it, as 17 to the manner in which the children whom they are 18 caring for should be cared for or how they should be 19 educated? 20 A. No, that's not specifically set out in the 11:45 21 constitution. 22 90 Q. The constitution expresses the relationship between the 23 nuns and the children in purely religious terms, I 24 think, or in spiritual terms? 25 A. Yes. 11:46 26 91 Q. There is no guidance given as to how the children are 27 to be educated, again apart from in religious terms, 28 Rule 5 says: 29 "The Sisters shall teach the children to offer their hearts to God when they 50 1 wake in the morning, to adore his Sovereign majesty, to return thanks for 2 all his favours, to arm themselves with the sign of the cross. They shall 3 instruct them how to direct their thoughts, words and actions to God's 4 glory, to implore his grace, to know him, love him and fulfil his 5 commandments, how to examine their 11:46 consciences and how to respect their 6 parents and their Superiors" 7 8 The only direct mandate for instruction is that: 9 "The children should be instructed as to the method of assisting for the holy 10 sacrifice of the mass and to prepare 11:46 for the sacraments, confession, 11 confirmation and Holy Communion". 12 A. That's true. 13 92 Q. I think that it wasn't until the 1972 rules, again long 14 after Newtownforbes was closed, that the requirement 15 for bringing in trained lay staff was brought in as 11:47 16 part of a constitutional requirement governing the 17 Sisters, there was no reference whatsoever prior to 18 that? 19 A. Well, that would coincide with the whole Kennedy -- 20 say, in the terms of now the industrial schools, the 11:47 21 Kennedy Report in 1970, which would have been 22 recommending that. Also at that time it was the move 23 from the institutional type industrial school to the 24 group home. So of necessity when they moved from the 25 larger institution to the smaller group homes that is 11:47 26 was really when they started bring in lay staff. 27 93 Q. Well the 1969 rules directed that: 28 The Superiors shall see to it that Sisters who engage in the postulate of 29 education be thoroughly informed and prepared for this work. They shall 51 1 make available such professional training as will equip our Sisters with 2 appropriate qualifications and skills and keeping with the highest standards 3 of contemporary requirements." 4 5 I think that it wasn't until 1972 that that was fleshed 11:48 6 out and a more specific requirement introduced? 7 A. It is a while since I would have read that 1972 8 document, Mr. MacMahon. 9 94 Q. So really until Newtownforbes closed, there was no 10 guidance at a constitutional level for the Sisters as 11:48 11 to how an industrial school should operate? 12 A. There wouldn't be specific instructions, it would just 13 be the general of how they worked in school. There 14 wouldn't have been a specific instruction for 15 industrial school. 11:48 16 95 Q. That general was termed in religious and spiritual 17 terms rather than from an educational point of view? 18 A. That's the 1926 one, yes. 19 96 Q. And that applied, the wording of that applied until 20 1969? 11:48 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. MacMAHON: I have no further 23 questions, Sister. 24 25 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF SR. MARGARET CASEY BY THE 11:49 26 COMMISSION 27 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms. Ni Raifeartaigh. 29 52 1 SR. MARGARET CASEY WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 2 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: 3 4 97 Q. MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: Sr. Margaret, just some 5 brief matters, if I may. 11:49 6 Just what Mr. MacMahon was speaking about there, that 7 the guidance and constitution was of a general 8 spiritual, perhaps even theological nature, that would 9 have been true presumably also for Sisters involved in 10 other Ministries, such as teaching in a primary school? 11:49 11 A. Yes, it was covered all ways. 12 98 Q. Or teaching in a secondary school? 13 A. Yes. 14 99 Q. So the constitution presumably, am I right is saying, 15 would have been to provide the spiritual guidance and 11:49 16 then the Sister went into a specific area, where she 17 would get training, for example, in Carysfort, in 18 teaching. But perhaps the difficulty in the childcare 19 area was that there was a gap in that there was no 20 training in childcare? 11:49 21 A. There was no training until after 1970. 22 100 Q. If I could just talk about the Sisters of Mercy in 23 general terms, Mr. MacMahon again posed a question to 24 you where he mentioned that the Sisters of Mercy were 25 very centrally involved in the position of childcare, 11:49 26 that was not only in the old days but also later in the 27 later half of the 20th century in group homes? 28 A. Yes. 29 101 Q. Just in relation to that, the other main ministries of 53 1 the Sisters of Mercy, what were they? 2 A. The main ones would have been education, nursing and 3 visitation of the sick and poor. 4 102 Q. Would that be true for Newtownforbes? 5 A. It would. Well, not nursing in Newtownforbes. The 11:50 6 ministries in Newtownforbes was a primary school, 7 secondary school, boarding school and visitation of the 8 people in the local area would have been one of their 9 prime ministries. 10 103 Q. Taking into account of course what you said earlier 11:50 11 about Newtownforbes being structured at that time at a 12 local level, nonetheless, as you have mentioned, there 13 were particular ministries that were associated with 14 the Sisters of Mercy, what common to those, what is the 15 Sisters of Mercy or what was it originally particularly 11:50 16 intended to deal with? 17 A. The charism of the Sisters of Mercy would be the 18 education of the poor, sick and the uneducated. Or the 19 care of the poor, sick and uneducated. 20 104 Q. Does that account for the particular ministries? 11:50 21 A. Yes, that would be the basic charism irrespective of 22 which house you belong to. That would be the test of 23 our call as Mercy women. 24 105 Q. Would that explain the predominance or the centrality 25 of the Sisters of Mercy in the industrial school 11:51 26 system? 27 A. Yes, because obviously the charism of Mercy, it would 28 have found an expression in the care of children in 29 industrial school. 54 1 106 Q. Yes. Given, I suppose, that so many of the children 2 came from poverty stricken backgrounds? 3 A. Poverty stricken, yes. 4 107 Q. I think that Mr. McGrath was putting questions to you 5 about the finance aspect of things and he was asking 11:51 6 the question, for example, as to if there was a 7 shortage of money or if there was planning could one go 8 to Sisters of Mercy and ask for money? Isn't it the 9 fact that there simply wasn't such an entity as the 10 Sisters of Mercy which is what he was assuming in his 11:51 11 question at that time? 12 A. At that time there wasn't. We didn't become a unit, as 13 a Congregation, until 1994 when the 26 diocese came 14 together. 15 108 Q. If, for example, a Resident Manager wanted to get money 11:52 16 from somewhere it was to the convent? 17 A. To the convent, yes. 18 109 Q. You couldn't talk about going to the Sisters of Mercy? 19 A. No. 20 110 Q. I think inherent perhaps in his question was an 11:52 21 implication or assumption that the convent had funds, 22 that would depend of course on whether the convent had 23 money to make available? 24 A. That's true. 25 111 Q. May I just ask you about the secondary education. You 11:52 26 mention that there were some people who were head of 27 the (inaudible), I suppose the general run of people of 28 going to post primary in the later years, a few did 29 manage to make some kind of post primary education. 55 1 How was that funded in the years before free secondary 2 education? 3 A. Again, I don't know specifically in Newtownforbes how 4 it was funded, but some of it would have been aided by 5 the convent would have cared for the expense or some of 11:52 6 it would have been possibly paid for out of the funds 7 of the industrial school, you know. 8 112 Q. Am I right in assuming that prior to the advent of free 9 secondary education there was no special provision from 10 the Department for particular bright students, for 11:53 11 example, to go to secondary school if they were in 12 industrial schools? 13 A. No, there wasn't. In fact, you had to get permission 14 from them to go. As I said earlier, in 1941 they had 15 to be of above average, or average intelligence, they 11:53 16 laid out conditions. In fact, in the earlier one in 17 the 1930's, they said that they could go, the sanction, 18 but it had to be at no cost to the Department was in 19 1931. 20 113 Q. So the bar was quite high to get there and no money was 11:53 21 provided? 22 A. No. It was and no money was provided. 23 114 Q. Jus in terms of the Inspection Reports, Mr. McGrath was 24 asking you a few questions about those. I think you 25 made very clear in your opening statement, January, 12 11:53 26 months ago that there was a very, very bad patch in the 27 1940's and thereafter, and particularly from 1950's 28 onwards, the Inspection Reports were positive on the 29 whole? 56 1 A. Yes. 2 115 Q. Mr. McGrath in a sense has asked you to comment on the 3 suggestion that we should accept the negative reports 4 in their entirety and we shouldn't lay any emphasis or 5 accept that there is any truth in the positive reports 11:54 6 because the positive reports, he says, would be based 7 on almost a sham of an inspection? 8 A. Yes. 9 116 Q. Could I ask you to comment on that? In particular, 10 could I ask you, first of all...(INTERJECTION)? 11:54 11 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, I didn't use 12 those words. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that's the implication. 14 117 Q. MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: May I just ask you about 15 that? 11:54 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a legitimate area. I 17 suppose everyone wants to 18 say, "here's a document saying the place was great, you 19 should pay attention to that, or here are ten documents 20 saying the place was great." But somebody was 11:54 21 saying...(INTERJECTION) 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: But it wasn't. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, we can't have a 24 general discussion. 25 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: We were there. 11:54 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I can say something, 27 I see Ms. Buckley there and 28 I hear the interruptions of people, we could possibly 29 have a seminar here, but the system we are having is of 57 1 having evidence and having questions asked and nobody 2 is going to get fussed over somebody saying something, 3 but it is much better if they don't say something, 4 because it gets in the way of the evidence and it 5 really only makes -- especially if it comes from 11:55 6 survivors or victims or their representatives, if it 7 comes from that it looks terrible, it looks as if we 8 couldn't have a meeting without interruptions. And 9 that's looking bad from the point of view of the 10 survivors, that they won't permit a meeting to take 11:55 11 place without barracking or interrupting or letting the 12 witnesses give evidence. 13 14 I mean, from your own point of view that doesn't make 15 sense. It is not our experience. Our experience has 11:55 16 been that for the past two years we have had nothing 17 but cooperation from people. We have had people come 18 in three a day and we couldn't have had more 19 cooperation, so it gives a completely false impression 20 if we have commentary as we are going along, 11:56 21 interruption, chat as if you can ignore the fact that 22 it is a formal session. I mean, it is only reflecting 23 adversely and in a way very inaccurately on the 24 position of victims and their representatives. So, I 25 mean, it is really a matter of practical common sense. 11:56 26 We will get through this much more efficiently, much 27 more effectively. 28 29 Mr. McGrath's point, and I am trying to deal with it 58 1 and acknowledge the force of what he's saying and yet 2 not interrupt Ms. Ni Raifeartaigh and let her get by. 3 That's the reality, that people are really giving a 4 false impression of themselves. Thank you, 5 Ms. Ni Raifeartaigh. 11:57 6 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 7 I'll be very short. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Take as long as you like. 9 118 Q. MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: Just coming back to the 10 reports. I think you would 11:57 11 accept that they are limited insofar, for example, the 12 meal that was put on the table, that might not be the 13 one that they were getting when the inspector wasn't 14 there, or, for example, the clothes or so forth? 15 A. Yes. 11:57 16 119 Q. Isn't it the case that the Inspector would have been in 17 the position to observe the general physical condition 18 of the children? 19 A. Yes, because he or she would have spent time there with 20 them. 11:57 21 120 Q. So if they were very thin, for example? 22 A. They would have observed that. Then they would have 23 had the experience, they were professional in their 24 role and they would have had the experience of doing 25 that task in other institutions and they would be able 11:57 26 to make observations. 27 121 Q. Yes, I think you are aware that there was a small pool 28 of inspectors and they would have been visiting schools 29 throughout the country so they were in good position to 59 1 observe and make comparisons? 2 A. Yes. 3 122 Q. We know that when they did, in fact, see things, 4 particularly in Newtownforbes, they weren't slow about 5 saying what they did? 11:57 6 A. Yes, they wrote -- when they saw the thing in 1940 they 7 wrote the letters and they subsequently commented when 8 there was an improvement in the supervision which they 9 had asked for, that was the pattern that it followed, 10 with letters to check that things had happened and even 11:58 11 if -- from just looking at the discovery documents, if 12 there was recommendations around people's health or 13 whatever, the Resident Manager had to send in a letter 14 to say that those thing were complied with. 15 123 Q. So things like scabies and abscesses, scabs, all of 11:58 16 that they could see that? 17 A. They could see that that. 18 124 Q. And if they saw them they mentioned them? 19 A. They did, yes. 20 125 Q. And similarly with weight? 11:58 21 A. Yes. 22 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: Thank you. 23 24 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. MARGARET CASEY BY 25 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH 11:58 26 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Lowe, have you any 28 questions. 29 60 1 SR. MARGARET CASEY WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, 2 BY THE COMMISSION: 3 4 126 Q. MR. LOWE: I'm still not happy with 5 the condition of the 11:58 6 children in the 1940's and your statement that it was a 7 bad time, it seems to be much worse in Newtownforbes 8 than it was anywhere else. If I quote from the 9 Inspector's Report, 1939, 1943: 10 11:59 11 "Lack of shoes. 12 small babies had no shoes at all and no pretense of having 12 any. They looked forlorn and cold. They were assembled together in the 13 play hall. 20 other bigger children had no shoes on and when I pushed them 14 they told me they had none. From the number of pairs of new shoes put on 15 today I am of the opinion that a number 11:59 of these children are barefooted on 16 other days". 17 18 This is the Inspector saying they are not used to 19 wearing shoes here and if they had shoes on it is 20 because they were given new shoe to be put on? 11:59 21 A. Yes, I accept the Inspector's Report. 22 127 Q. MR. LOWE: But why was it so bad in 23 the 1940's compared to 24 other institutions? 25 A. I'm not in a position because I don't know. To be able 11:59 26 to make a comparison I do not know enough about other 27 institutions. The only fact that I know about that 28 time was that there was a change in terms of the 29 Resident Manager in 1940 -- the person who was Resident 61 1 Manager changed in 1942 and came back in 1947 and there 2 seemed to be an improvement, except for that one 3 reference in 1948. But other than that, and then until 4 the institution closed in 1969, it was that same person 5 was Resident Manager and there seemed to have been a 12:00 6 general improvement and cooperation all around. 7 8 All I can do, those documents are the contemporaneous 9 record and I regret that that's what was there, but I 10 can't account for it. I tried since the last time to 12:00 11 even talk -- but the only Sisters living that were 12 there, they are in their 90's that would have entered 13 even in 1943 or 1945, so they weren't aware of the 14 reports. 15 12:00 16 I explained that the last day, that the fact that, say, 17 for example, the supervision and all of that became a 18 big issue was evident in that all of the Sisters 19 subsequently, one of them who was there for a while in 20 1947 and that, said to me that it was a huge issue, 12:01 21 that you could never, you know, leave the children 22 alone, that there would always have to be somebody 23 there at meals or getting up or whatever. Now, they 24 wouldn't have seen that report but obviously the 25 Resident Manager would have conveyed from what the 12:01 26 Inspector had said to her, she obviously conveyed it to 27 the other Sister. 28 128 Q. MR. LOWE: So, if I understood right, 29 there was a Resident 62 1 Manager there who let standards slip for a period? 2 A. That could be an interpretation. 3 129 Q. MR. LOWE: What was the mechanism to 4 redress that within the 5 Order, if someone was letting things slip like that? 12:01 6 A. My understanding is that there was one person working 7 there and for whatever reason a second person helped 8 out at the time. Now, I can't -- it is a judgment on 9 my part to say that, you know, obviously something 10 wasn't right. All I know is that when the other person 12:02 11 came back to Newtownforbes in 1947 she was back in as 12 Resident Manager. 13 130 Q. MR. LOWE: One of your colleagues gave 14 evidence to us and she 15 said she: 12:02 16 "Wanted the children to be dressed the 17 same as the day pupils and she organised buying them in clothes. It 18 took five years to introduce these changes". 19 20 Now, that must be frustrating for someone. Would there 12:02 21 be any reason why it took so long to buy children 22 clothes? 23 A. I don't know the reason, in truth, Mr. Lowe. I know 24 that Sister was involved in the (inaudible), they made 25 them and the only reference in records is of bales of 12:02 26 material being bought from Cleary's. I suppose against 27 that one would have to say as well that two people 28 working in a linen room and, you know, you are talking 29 about possibly 80 to 100 children, so by the time it 63 1 would take some time to make clothes and that for them. 2 But the records would show though that the clothes were 3 bought -- the names of the retailers are in the records 4 and the clothes were bought as well in the institution. 5 131 Q. MR. LOWE: But it was that particular 12:03 6 colleague who seemed to be 7 the first one to say she didn't want the children to be 8 looking different from the children outside? 9 A. Yes, she was working -- she and another Sister were the 10 two that were -- had full-time responsibility at the 12:03 11 time in the industrial school. Because she was -- she 12 had the -- it was she that ensured or brought in the 13 fact that they then had a set of clothes for school, a 14 set of clothes for after school, and a set for Sunday, 15 and that was why she was responsible for clothes. 12:03 16 132 Q. MR. LOWE: Another of your colleagues 17 commented on the fact that 18 the school seemed to take so little interest with the 19 industrial school children, instead of them getting 20 more attention if they were slower or more backward, 12:04 21 they got no attention and she saw that as a major 22 problem. In fact, she said that she found it 23 impossible to change things, the other nuns in the 24 convent didn't have a say in the running of the 25 community, so she was frustrated by seeing this and not 12:04 26 being able to say anything about it. 27 A. And the other Sisters wouldn't have been able to do 28 because they would have been involved in their own 29 Ministry but they wouldn't even have possibly been 64 1 aware perhaps of what they saw but they wouldn't have 2 been aware of the actual things happening on the 3 ground. 4 133 Q. MR. LOWE: But the "them and us", the 5 normal children and the 12:04 6 industrial school children, really came out in that 7 evidence, would you agree that there was this 8 segregation? 9 A. My experience was there was no different in primary 10 school, there was no segregation between the industrial 12:05 11 school children and the town's children. That was in 12 my own experience. You know, it was the same in the 13 classroom. As I said, the clothes would have improved 14 and that and, you know, there was no -- I wouldn't have 15 seen them as being segregated, that was in the 1950's. 12:05 16 I wouldn't have perceived it that way. 17 134 Q. MR. LOWE: She was talking about the 18 slightly earlier period 19 where she did perceive it? 20 A. Yes, and that would be true. 12:05 21 MR. LOWE: Thank you. 22 135 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Can I just ask you one 23 question, Sister, looking 24 at the discovery over the last number of months, there 25 was a strong impression that Newtownforbes, and indeed 12:05 26 a lot of the Sisters of Mercy schools in general were 27 run much better before the war, that there was a 28 standard. There is a sense of almost pride in the 29 children coming across in the 1920's and 1930's in some 65 1 of the very early material which is completely absent 2 after the war. You get no sense of that at all. One 3 of the examples is that before the children were being 4 sent out at 16 and they were being -- and they were 5 being sent to as domestic servants, the level of 12:06 6 preparation, the equipment they were given, the care 7 that was taken in the placement pre World War II was 8 much, much greater. I am just wondering whether the 9 Sisters, and it isn't just Newtownforbes, this is 10 general, was there a change in attitude to the type of 12:06 11 work or was there a change of attitude to the type of 12 children, it is quite -- it is something I have 13 noticed. 14 A. I really couldn't comment on that because I really am 15 not aware of -- you know, you are talking about the 12:06 16 difference and I wouldn't have researched enough before 17 that. 18 136 Q. MS. SHANLEY: You haven't discussed this 19 in the Order yourself, you 20 haven't yourselves tried to trace...(INTERJECTION). 12:07 21 A. Not to go back to what was there before, you are 22 talking about before the 1930's and 1940's. We have 23 not discussed that. We have been trying to see -- our 24 discussion would be mainly on what can we learn from 25 what's happening now and how can we transfer the 12:07 26 learning into other Ministries that we are engaged in. 27 MS. SHANLEY: Okay. 28 29 66 1 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF MS. MARGARET CASEY BY THE 2 COMMISSION 3 4 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: Sorry to interrupt but the 5 Commission is referring to 12:07 6 documents we have not seen. We only got documents from 7 1940 onwards, so we are not a position to compare. 8 MS. SHANLEY: There was some research 9 done, into the pre World 10 War II period. 12:07 11 MS. NI RAIFEARTAIGH: I don't think Sr. Margaret 12 would have seen that so she 13 wouldn't be in a position to draw comparisons. 14 MS. SHANLEY: I can certainly get it over 15 to you. 12:07 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, 17 Sister. That's that phase. 18 Thank you very much. That's the end of that. Now we 19 will move on to Goldenbridge, please. 20 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, would it be 12:08 21 possible to have five 22 minutes. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: I will tell you what I will 24 do, we will have a cup of 25 coffee and we will come back in 15 minutes. We will go 12:08 26 on a little bit past one o'clock, we will try to make 27 it convenient. Thank you very much. 28 29 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 12:08 P.M. 67