asked the Minister for Justice the date on which the initial decision was made to establish a detention centre at Loughan House, County Cavan.
17.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Loughan House (County Cavan).
16.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will reconsider his decision to open a detention centre for boys at Loughan House, County Cavan; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
18.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will place a specific time limit on the operation of the detention centre at Loughan House, County Cavan; and the long-term plans he has formulated to deal with the problems which will arise, if, and when Loughan House is phased out.
19.
asked the Minister for Justice the organisations that were consulted by him or by his advisers prior to the decision to establish a detention centre at Loughan House, County Cavan.
20.
asked the Minister for Justice if he has replied to the 11 organisations which made representations to him regarding the proposed detention centre at Loughan House, County Cavan; and the reason for the long delay in making a reply.
21.
asked the Minister for Justice what institutions exist in other countries similar to the proposed detention centre at Loughan House, County Cavan and the success rate of such institutions in rehabilitating offenders committed there.
22.
asked the Minister for Justice how many of the staff to be appointed to Loughan House, County Cavan, will have had experience of child care work in a residential setting; and if he has laid down any such conditions for staff appointments.
23.
asked the Minister for Justice the qualifications of the person or persons with overall responsibility for the training of staff who will work in Loughan House, County Cavan; and if they have qualifications or experience in relation to juveniles in a secure setting; and, if so, the qualifications and experience.
24.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will give details of the training course provided for staff of the proposed detention centre at Loughan House, County Cavan; and if he considered that a 12-week course provides adequate training for the enormous and sensitive work involved.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to answer questions numbers 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 together.
The decision to provide secure accommodation for the 12 to 16 age group was taken shortly after the Government took office. The decision to provide the accommodation at Loughan House was taken after a review of the options and it was not influenced by any pressure from anybody. I am not prepared to reconsider the decision. Incidentally some critics of the Loughan House project blame me for disregarding, as they put it, recommendations made in their reports by three Government-sponsored Committees, the Kennedy Report of 1970, the Henchy Report of 1974 and the Interim Report of the Task Force of 1975. This criticism, of course, ignores the fact that my decision does not in itself necessarily involve the acceptance or the rejection of any of those recommendations. Implementation or rejection of any of the relevant recommendations in the reports would not be a matter for me. Loughan House is an interim measure. In any case, these reports are not ad idem in regard to the type of accommodation needed for unruly boys so that acceptance of the recommendation in one report would preclude acceptance of that in another.
I do not consider that it would be right for me to disclose the identity of persons or organisations consulted by me in relation to the Loughan House project. Were I to do so, I would be exposing those concerned to pressure and annoyance from the people and the groups who are trying to impede the project. I am satisfied that I had appropriate and adequate advice.
I should like to stress the following points:
(i) Loughan House will be used for the 12 to 16 age group until such time as the new school now being planned by the Department of Education for Lusk, County Dublin, is brought into service and no longer than that. It is estimated that this will take about three years. Loughan House is in excellent condition and a wide range of amenities will be available in it and in the extensive grounds. I might add that there has been some misunderstanding in some people's minds in regard to the cost of converting Loughan House into a secure centre. The cost of those changes will be of the order of £135,000. The figure of £600,000 which has been the subject of criticism is made up of that £135,000 plus the cost of improvements and extensions to buildings and services which would have been needed in any case for the continued use of Loughan House as an open centre for the 16-to 21-year-olds.
(ii) Some critics of the Loughan House project appear to think that they have a compelling argument when they high-light the fact that the main staff body in Loughan will be prison officers. This is calculated to create the impression that Loughan will be a primitive fortress run on excessively severe lines. The reality, of course, is far different. The prison officers selected for Loughan House will have been specially trained in child care before they take up their jobs. The vast majority of child care workers, including most of those in the existing "special schools" at Finglas, Clonmel and Lusk, on work similar to that which the Loughan House staff will be undertaking, had no training whatsoever when they were appointed to their jobs. The Loughan House staff will continue to receive training after they take up their jobs. The staff-to-inmate ratio will be high enough to enable a full programme of constructive activities to be implemented. The discipline of the prison service is likely to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage for men and women who have to deal with difficult boys.
(iii) A full range of specialist services will be provided at Loughan by teachers, welfare officers, nurses, a psychologist and by visiting doctors and psychiatrists.
(iv) Help will be provided where relatives have difficulty in visiting boys in Loughan.
(v) Neither Loughan nor the planned school at Lusk nor any of the three existing "special schools" is intended for boys who have serious psychiatric problems. The Eastern Health Board is planning a home for them.
As regards what is called in one question the "overall responsibility" for the training of staff the position is, of course, that final responsibility for all aspects of the organisation rests on me as Minister for Justice. That apart, it would be a misconception to think of the training required for work in Loughan House as undifferentiated. The prison officers who will serve there will have received training courses devised with the help of various persons and bodies some within and some outside my Department, officers of which have, of course, considerable experience in relation to the custody of young persons from 15 years of age who are committed to custody by the courts. The training of the specialised staff, teachers, welfare officers, nurses, psychologist, chaplain and so on, will be that of their own professions.
The prison officers who will work in Loughan House will have had, in addition to their normal training course, a 12 weeks full-time, intensive course in child care—made up of six weeks of lectures, discussions, films, visits, project work tutorials and so on, and six weeks full-time placement in residential homes and special schools.
The course is designed to give the 95 participants an insight into the environment, the normal psychological development of children and some of the problems associated with deviant behaviour. The course also deals with the management of delinquent boys likely to be placed in residence in Loughan House. I believe that it can provide those who undergo it with a good preparation for the work they will be undertaking. Contributors include experts and practitioners in child care; educationalists in specialist fields; a range of experienced social workers; psychologists; psychiatrists—a total of 26 contributors including three experienced child-care workers who act as tutors.
Many countries have facilities for the secure custodial accommodation of boys under 16. I could not undertake to specify which ones are similar to Loughan House since, for one thing, that would be a matter of opinion depending on the individual features thought by an inquirer to be relevant. In any case I think it would be presumptuous of me to comment on institutions in other countries. For some time after the second World War it was fashionable among criminologists and penologists to explore the possibilities of rehabilitating offenders by means of regimes in custodial institutions which were treatment-orientated. Unfortunately that approach has not yielded any worth-while result and has been almost universally abandoned as, indeed, appears to be recognised now even by some organisations who a few years ago were very critical of what they alleged was the failure of our custodial institutions to rehabilitate offenders.
As to correspondence from organisations, on 14 April I received from the Taoiseach's office a letter dated 7 April 1978 addressed to the Taoiseach and which had as an enclosure a copy of a letter dated 7 March 1978 addressed to me on behalf of eleven organisations. The original of the letter of 7 March 1978 did not reach me or my Department. A reply has been issued. The suggestion that I have been unwilling to discuss the Loughan House project with interested bodies is without foundation. Discussions have taken place between a number of organisations and my Department. Some organisations, however, have chosen to attack my proposals first before seeking to discuss them. I have agreed to discussions even with some of those organisations.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to circulate with the Official Report a statement which was prepared in January and issued to persons who inquired about the Loughan House project. Following is the statement:
Interim residential accommodation for boys under 16 years of age at Loughan House, Blacklion, County Cavan.
In recent years the special schools under the aegis of the Department of Education have not been accepting juveniles who are behaviourally difficult. The continuing delinquency of juveniles in this category has contributed significantly to the rising incidence of crime and vandalism.
For some months past, a project team in the Department of Education has been planning for residential schools to accommodate boys and girls under 16 years of age whom the courts may find to need residential placement and who are not acceptable in the existing schools. The Department of Justice is represented on this project team, as is the Department of Health, and there is close liaison between the Departments in this matter. A site at Lusk, adjacent to the existing special school, has been obtained for a school for boys, details of the accommodation to be provided have been worked out and architects are now designing the buildings. The project team has taken into consideration the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons and of the Task Force on Child Care Services. The project team is also aware of accommodation and facilities being provided under the aegis of the Department of Health for emotionally and psychiatrically disturbed juveniles and of the range of non-residential services for juveniles at risk being provided under the auspices of each of the three Departments.
For the next two or three years and purely as a temporary arrangement until the Department of Education has provided adequate accommodation for boys who need residential placement, the Department of Justice will make Loughan House, Blacklion, Co. Cavan available to accommodate boys between the ages of 12 and 16 years, who because of their behavioural problems or their tendency to abscond are not currently acceptable in the existing special schools. Necessary adaptations are in hand and it is hoped to have Loughan House ready to accept boys of this category early this year.
Loughan House is a particularly fine modern building. Standards of furnishing, equipment, decoration and repair have been maintained at an extremely high level. It is scenically situated on over 40 acres of landscaped grounds. It has 46 furnished and centrally heated and spacious study-bedrooms, with hot and cold water installed in every room. They are designed for single occupancy but the rooms are sufficiently spacious to enable them to be used on a basis of multiple occupancy, if this is considered to be in the best interests of the boys. Apart from a chapel, dining-room, gymnasium and an equipped cinema/theatre, the building has games rooms and a range of classrooms. The grounds provide football pitches, a volley-ball court, a full scale pitch and putt course, and there are facilities for swimming, boating and fishing on the lake.
Because a propensity to abscond is one of the more recurring factors to be expected from the boys concerned and is indeed one of the more important considerations which contributed to their not being acceptable in the existing special schools, provision will need to be made for a closed perimeter. This perimetering will, however, leave extensive grounds readily accessible to the boys in residence and moreover it is being laid out in a way that will not interrupt the open prospect of the surrounding environment. The element of closure envisaged is the minimum necessary to ensure that the residential placement decided by the courts can be effected and availed of to enable the boys to benefit from a programme of personal development and resocialisation. In circumstances where residential placement is found to be the only course which holds out a prospect of control and reorientation, the presence of the boys concerned is a prerequisite to any attempt to achieve a desired improvement. It does not follow that because there is perimetering, a place is "closed" to an oppressive degree.
It is not possible, for a number of reasons, to forecast accurately the number of boys who will be accommodated at Loughan House. It is envisaged that at the appropriate stage of court proceedings, each boy will be assessed at the Finglas Children's Centre. That assessment will help the courts to decide whether any particular boy is to be residentially placed or not. If he is, it will need to be decided whether placement should be to one of the three existing special schools in Finglas, in Clonmel, or in Lusk, or whether placement is to be in Loughan House. The extent to which the existing special schools may exercise their option not to accept boys whom they consider to be problematic in terms of control and absconding could also affect the intake in Loughan House. Intake would also be influenced by the availability or otherwise of specialised, primarily health-orientated places under Department of Health auspices. The arrangements will be such as to enable boys who progress to a sufficient extent, to be transferred from Loughan House to the other special schools.
The majority of the staff for Loughan House will be officers of the prison service. They are recruited through open competitive examination conducted by the Civil Service Commission and the recruitment is by Selection Board procedure. The candidates who qualify receive several weeks full-time induction training on their duties. Among those duties, for several years past, has been the staffing of open and specialised places of custody. The service has had a very rewarding experience in this field and is encouraged by that experience to be confident about its efforts on behalf of the under-16 age group during the next few years.
In addition to the conventional training, the officers selected to staff Loughan House will receive a full-time course of twelve weeks' duration related to the development, problems, needs, care and control of the juveniles for whom they will have responsibility. This training has already commenced. Furthermore, arrangements are under discussion for ongoing training of staff to extend over the next two or three years.
The plan is that the juveniles in Loughan House will receive full-time education. The programme is being designed to meet general, compensatory and remedial needs as well as practical subjects, social skills and leisure-time activities. This Department is liaising with the Department of Education and other educational authorities both in regard to the design of a suitable educational programme and in regard to the educational staff which such a programme will require.
In addition to the staff already mentioned, there will be provision for chaplaincy, medical and nursing care, a social work input by the welfare service of the Department of Justice and a psychological and psychiatric service, which is currently being discussed with the appropriate health authorities. Every endeavour will also be made to ensure that there is an adequate feminine presence on the staff. There will be a very generous ratio of staff to boys. There will also be financially assisted travelling arrangements for visitors.
I should like to challenge the Minister's statement that those who sought to discuss the question of Loughan House with him and those who criticised him did not offer themselves to discuss the matter. What is the purpose of a meeting of which we read in today's papers of selected groups, selected by him, to meet him next Thursday if he has already made up his mind on all aspects of this matter? Would it not be proper for him to cease any further work on the preparation of Loughan House until he has had a discussion with the interested groups, people who have put so much work into this kind of activity?
I have told the House that the decision is not to be reversed. I said that I did meet a number of people prior to this project going ahead. There are a number of others that I propose to meet and there are some that I do not propose to meet. I think the House and the Deputy will know that it has always been the practice that Ministers can determine whom they want to meet and will meet.
In view of the attitude the Minister has now taken I would ask him a few questions about this. In view of the emphasis on the role of the family and close relationship with the family, and in view of the emphasis laid on community involvement by all organisations who have reported on this subject and in view of his own statement that social workers and the welfare service of his Department will work with these children and their families, how does he propose that a satisfactory system can be arranged with 100 miles dividing parents and children? How will he bring about a situation in which to rebuild a relationship between parents and child or even build such a relationship for the first time where none existed, when parent and child are 100 miles apart? How can this be done and what rehabilitative purpose will Loughan House serve?
The position is that I have never at any stage said that Loughan House is being put forward as a complete solution to a particular problem or as anything more than a necessary immediate response to an emergency situation. I believe a situation exists, that something must be done about it and I think I am trying to do the best that can be done about it, even though I know it is not the answer and is not a complete solution to a very serious problem. There is a certain strong streak of Utopianism running through many of the criticisms being made of Loughan House. If we had unlimited resources and had begun 50 years ago I have no doubt the present situation would be better, but unfortunately the harsh reality now is that no country, not even the most wealthy, has been able to solve the problem which we have, as the Deputy knows, by the methods advocated by some of those critics.
While I appreciate that Loughan House is of a temporary nature, could the Minister give a clear indication as to when Lusk will be opened? Further, could he indicate what recommendations of the Henchy Report or the Kennedy Report or the Child Care Task Force have been accepted by the Government? Does he intend to implement these recommendations?
On every occasion offered to me I have said that Loughan House is an interim measure and that as a particular type of school for these young offenders it will cease to be such a school when the new centre at Lusk is available. I have also said that the Department of Education commissioned architects to submit plans and I understand plans have already been submitted. It is thought that the new centre at Lusk will be in operation after three years—that is an estimate from the Office of Public Works. I should like to assure the House and the Deputies that Loughan House will not be used when the new centre is ready.
Will the Minister indicate what arrangements he intends to make for the parents, guardians or families of children in Loughan House in order that they may be in continuous contact with them?
I appreciate that difficulty may be experienced by parents who want to visit their children in Loughan House. Because of the fact that public transport at present may not facilitate parents to get to Loughan House and to return to their homes I am quite prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to see to it that parents can get to and from Loughan House.
What does that mean?
It could mean that I will have to talk with CIE and get them to lay on a service. If that fails I may have to provide other means of transport from some other source.
I presume there will be no charge?
I am open to correction on the following but I understand there is a system of vouchers in operation——
May we have an assurance from the Minister that a generous attitude will be taken in relation to the vouchers, not only in respect of parents but of the family generally?
Not only will a generous attitude be taken in the matter; I would strongly suggest that a very generous attitude will be taken.
Will the Minister state where the 16 to 21 year olds who were formerly sent to the open centre at Loughan House will be located now?
That is a different problem and it is a different question. If the Deputy wants a full answer I can give it to him by way of a written reply next week. I am satisfied that those who were in Loughan House are being catered for properly in Shanganagh and in Shelton Abbey.
Does the Minister not agree that there is almost total agreement among all organisations dealing with child care and with social work among children that the concept of Loughan House is totally detrimental to the best interests of the children? The Minister has said that it will be at least three years before any alternative to Loughan House can be provided and irreparable harm can be done to up to 90 children in that period.
The Deputy is making a speech.
Does the Minister not agree that to go ahead with the project in the circumstances is wholly irresponsible?
I do not accept that there is agreement between the objectors to Loughan House who say that the concept is wrong. I have heard their spokesmen over a period of weeks offering differing views. There is an extremely serious problem in existence with regard to these young people. If that problem did not exist perhaps we could afford the luxury—and it would be a luxury—of waiting for a while. One need only refer to the recent accident involving young Dublin people in County Galway. I do not want to add further injury or pain to the families of the young people but quite a number of young people—all of them under 16 years and some of whom had been to Lusk but who could not be kept there —were involved in the escapade that ended in death.
Does the Minister not accept that all the organisations involved in the protest regarding Loughan House agree that there is a very serious problem among a small number of young people? Does he not accept that they agree that some preventive measures must be taken to protect society against their operations at the moment but that Loughan House is totally against the best interests of the children and ultimately against the best interests of our society? Further, does he not agree that in the interim report of the task force there is an alternative way of dealing with this problem?
I accept the fact that many of the people who object to Loughan House are genuine in their belief, but they do not agree between themselves regarding the need for a secure custodial centre. I should like the Deputy to clarify for me now whether I am to interpret from what he said that people have told him or led him to believe that there is no need for a custodial centre. Is that the position?
I never suggested that. I said that the vast majority of people and organisations who have specialised for many years in child care agree that there is a problem with regard to a small number of young people. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the Minister, instead of being selective about whom he meets with regard to the objections to Loughan House, would meet all the organisations who have banded together to protest against his proceeding with this project.
This is developing into a debate.
The Minister is answering nine questions together.
I have said in my answer that I am going to meet other interested people, people with genuine interest in the matter. I believe that there may be one or two organisations or associations whose interests may not be as genuine as one would think.
In view of the widespread belief among Deputies and interested organisations that the interim solution proposed by the Minister is likely to make a bad situation even worse——
I reject that.
May I ask the Minister——
In view of that belief, does the Minister not agree that an invitation should be extended to us to visit Loughan House—as his predecessor did in relation to Deputies like myself who visited Mountjoy— and enable us to talk to the staff and those proposed to be employed in Loughan House?
I have no objection whatever to giving favourable consideration to the Deputy's suggestion that Members of this House should visit Loughan House when the present reconstruction work is completed.
Even now.
Leaving aside the interim measures regarding Loughan House——
I have been standing up for some time to ask a question.
Will the Minister tell the House what recommendations of the task force the Government accept and what recommendations they intend to implement?
That matter is not referred to in the question being answered. It does not arise.
I want to ask a question——
On a point of order, is it in order for a Government Whip to ask a Minister a question?
Yes, it is. Is the Deputy afraid of the truth?
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I wish to ask the Minister is it not a fact that because of the lack of planning in the Department of Education in the past four years, as direct Government policy, that no plans were prepared for the institution at Lusk now being prepared by the Department? If the previous Government four years ago had accepted the Henchy Report, which the task force reiterated in their recommendations, does the Minister not agree that this situation would not be in existence today?
(Interruptions.)
I asked a relevant question and I want a reply from the Minister.
What the Deputy said is correct.
Is the Minister in a position to indicate to the House why he made a selection from the 11 organisations that made the protest? Will he state the basis on which he made the selection and will he tell the people whom he refused to meet why they are not "genuine"—to quote his earlier reply.
I am quite prepared to tell those whom I refused to meet why I refused to meet them.
(Interruptions.)
I do not think the Minister finished the reply.
I did. I am quite prepared, in reply to Deputy Quinn's question, to tell those whom I will not be meeting why I am not meeting them.
Has the Minister told them? Could he tell the House why?
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.