I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to take Questions Nos. 343, 344, 345, 346 and 348 together.
Taken, together, these questions suggest that the Deputy is not correctly informed about the nature of the institution to which they relate. Loughan House is not an institution on a par with a mental hospital. It is a school to which behaviourally difficult boys are sent by the courts on conviction. Some of these boys have been recommended for psychiatric treatment and, where this is so, arrangements are made to see that they get it. One boy was transferred to the Central Mental Hospital for treatment but was returned 36 hours later with the advice that Loughan House was the most suitable institution in the State for his treatment. Some of the boys exhibit psychopathological symptoms which medical advice indicates are not susceptible to treatment in the present state of medical knowledge. No school in the State to which boys are sent on conviction has a resident psychiatrist and I believe that informed opinion is that, where possible, psychiatric services to people in any such institution are best provided by persons who are not employed full-time but who also have a more general type practice.
At present there is one psychologist on the staff of my Department. He has been spending about two days a week on average in Loughan House since his appointment and he has seen every boy who has been sent there. The majority of boys are assessed at St. Michael's assessment centre prior to their arrival—where that is not the case, it is because they will not afford even the bare minimum co-operation that is a prerequisite for assessment. My Department's psychologist's role at Loughan House is primarily in the area of counselling boys and advising staff on relevant psychological aspects of the management of the school and of individual boys. It is envisaged that this level of commitment can be maintained since the psychological service is being developed and three new posts have been advertised and will be filled as soon as possible.
Originally two welfare officers were assigned to Loughan House. Experience indicated that one officer would be sufficient, given that she has the assistance of her colleagues who maintain contact with the boys' homes.
There may also be a misunderstanding on the Deputy's part in regard to child-care workers. The general practice in other special schools has been to recruit people on the basis that they would be given training on the job and that they would be released to attend courses. Staff in London however, not only had already benefited from the training given to prison officers but were given a special course in child care before they commenced work with the boys in Loughan. In addition a number of staff successfully competed for places on a child care course at Sligo Regional Technical College and are at present attending the course on two days each week. All the care staff in Loughan have, accordingly, child care training. Their number and details of rostering arrangements were given on 15 November 1979 in my reply to a question by the Deputy.
The position in regard to overtime is that the level of staffing is determined having regard to need and overtime is paid where necessary to maintain the level of services required. Last week the child care staff in Loughan worked an average of 12 hours' overtime each. As regards the selection of staff, the position is that prison officers who wish to become members of the care staff at Loughan House are selected by interview. If they are successful at interview they are placed on a three months' course in child care directed by my Department's psychologist. If at the end of the course they are still found to be suitable they are transferred to Loughan as vacancies arise.
347.