Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996

Vol. 462 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Protection of Children in Residential Care.

As the matters raised by Deputies Fitzgerald and O'Donnell are very similar perhaps each Deputy would first make her statement to be followed by the Minister for Health who could then reply to both Deputies. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity of raising this important issue and the Minister for being here to respond.

We live in a society where, on the one hand, there are those who insist on harking back to a mythical golden age and would want to return there, where the family was sacrosanct, the church the only custodian of moral standards, where children were happy and well cared for and men and women wholly content. On the other hand we have what is becoming a reality roll call — the Fr. Brendan Smyth affair, the Madonna House inquiry, the Kelly Fitzgerald case, the west of Ireland farmer case, Trudder House, the Kilkenny incest investigation and now Goldenbridge and, perhaps, Rathdrum — a litany of abuse and scandalous cruelty visited upon children within their homes and in residential care centres in the Ireland of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and right up to recent times. When we discuss the future of the family, let us never forget the past. The past, whatever it has to contribute to our thinking in a positive way, is littered with warnings of how values then were often rigid, excluding and frequently cruel.

The public are outraged, upset and concerned about recent revelations and these scandals raise profound questions about the role of the church in institutional abuse of children, the legacy of child care services in this State and the general approach to the most disadvantaged children in our society.

It is not just a question of individual failure, however, although there has been individual failure and, undoubtedly, individual sadism. It is also the failure of Irish society, and let us make no mistake about that. There are questions for all of us, for the church authorities, the public and politicians. We have to ask who were these children who required residential care. They were the most vulnerable in Irish society. In many cases they were there because of the shame and stigma associated with an unexpected or crisis pregnancy. In many cases the children were in residential care not because of the failure of individual parents but because of poverty. This was especially a feature of the 1950s. It is also about the way women, pregnant women in particular, were treated by society.

The public are entitled to ask how could a political and social system, based on a Constitution which articulates a special concern, expressed in the most human terms to cherish all of its children equally, end up with such an insensitive and incomplete response to the welfare of children. That is changing and the Government is taking action in a whole range of areas.

We are now aware, however, because the awareness has been forced upon us, that the welfare of children in Ireland has been a hit and miss affair and that there is gross abuse of children within the sacrosanct shrine of the family and within the residential homes where children are placed for safety.

The immediate questions that arise are whether the Minister can find a way of initiating inquiries which can be published, and whether we can learn as much as possible from those inquiries and reports already completed. Do we need legislation at this stage to ensure that these reports can be published and do not get caught up in the adversarial system? Perhaps the Law Reform Commission should urgently examine the cul-de-sac we appear to be in regarding publication of these reports but, of course, as the Director of Public Prosecutions said last year the adversarial criminal system is singularly unsuitable for dealing with child sexual abuse, and it would now appear that the failure to publish these reports stems from this.

The announcement of an independent inspectorate is a significant move forward and I would like to congratulate the Minister on announcing it yesterday. It is a step which I have advocated in this House and outside for the past three years. It is essential that it is independent from both the health boards and the Department of Health. The health boards cannot inspect themselves. Only when there is an independent inspectorate will the public feel there are proper systems in place which will be sensitive to what is happening to children in residential care.

I would also ask the Minister to look at the recommendations from the Disability Federation of Ireland that institutions which look after physically and mentally handicapped children should come within the remit of the independent inspectorate. The same safeguards should also be put in place for those who are involved in foster care, otherwise in ten years time we will be talking about scandals in this area.

A range of other actions needs to be taken. We must monitor the reference system put in place for workers in residential care and in all services that deal with children. The qualifications, training, support and supervision of workers in residential homes must receive the highest priority. We must not lose sight of how very difficult this work is and the severity of the problems of children currently in care.

I ask the Minister to outline the information available to date on the Goldenbridge case and the Wicklow residential centres and the action he intends to take, and to consider a public inquiry at this stage.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the more open response we have seen from the Sisters of Mercy and the way they are trying to help the victims. This is in contrast to the way many cases have been dealt with recently. There must be no cover-up. Every mechanism must be put in place to ensure that these abuses never again happen in residential care. Abuse will occur, but we must take every possible step to minimise this.

It is with pathetic regularity that abuse of children is raised in the House usually, quite sadly, on the Adjournment when there occurs a fruitless dialogue between Opposition or Government Deputies and the Minister of the day in an effort to bring about changes in the system which are patently needed.

The recent revelations about the Goldenbridge orphanage yet again challenge us to assess the adequacy of procedures which currently apply in such residential care centres to protect children from abuse. The word "abuse" as a term now trips off the political tongue, and it is very important never to lose sight of the depravity and horror which form the facts in individual cases.

Such a litany of abuse which has been disclosed and exposed to public scrutiny by programmes such as the RTÉ production on the Goldenbridge orphanage is yet another reminder that we cannot yet claim to have minimal standards and procedures to protect children in care.

Over the past few years the Kilkenny incest case, the Kelly Fitzgerald case. Trudder House, Madonna House and a spate of clerical abuse cases have brought home to the public the degree of maladministration on the part of statutory and voluntary agencies delegated with powers and responsibilities to care for vulnerable children. What a double tragedy it is that children who have been removed from dysfunctional families, who have been orphaned or who for some other reason are placed in theoretically safe care should find that that supposed refuge is not safe at all.

We have seen in the Kelly Fitzgerald and Madonna House cases a flight from accountability on the grounds of legal advice relating to concern as to the rights of third parties in such matters as the publication of those reports. In reply to a question I tabled the Minister of State at the Department of Health stated in October that he was seeking "urgent advice" from the Attorney General on how much, if any, of the Madonna House report could be published. Despite the claimed urgency, it emerged at Question Time on 8 February that the status quo was maintained.

As regards the Kelly Fitzgerald case, it would appear the chief executive officer of the health board in question is also taking legal advice on publication of the report. Incredibly the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, said neither he nor the Minister for Health had seen the report in question. Is a blind eye being turned? Why is the report cloaked in secrecy? The persons convicted of neglecting their daughter have completed their sentences yet we do not have the report on the health board's handling of the case. Why does the Minister not demand to see the report? Who is protecting whom? I welcome the announcement yesterday that an independent inspectorate will deal with health boards and others who have responsibilities in this area.

Many residential care institutions are run by voluntary and religious organisations. The church has a dismal record in reporting child abuse, not to mention the involvement of clerics in child abuse. I hope in highlighting such matters the church has learned lessons but have the church and civil authorities engaged in providing joint formal mechanisms to ensure future cases do not go unreported? In the case of victims of past unprosecuted abuse with whom settlements were made, has the State attempted to follow up the whereabouts of the priests involved? We do not have an abuse register despite it being a key recommendation of the Kilkenny incest report and the overwhelming evidence for such a register.

Another matter of concern is the adequacy of places in which to accommodate children who are the subject of emergency care orders. On 23 January I tabled a question to the Minister for Health on this issue and in reply he stated that the information sought was not readily available but would be forwarded to me in due course. However, one month later I have not received that information. My motivation in tabling the question was prompted by a report that, on an evening in January, three children under the age of nine were driven in a squad car with a social worker in a vain search for a bed for the night. They had been removed from their parents under an emergency care order and were held overnight in a hospital ward, having been refused access to another hospital. There is also concern that children in care until the age of 16 years are left homeless. A health board survey found that one-third of those who presented as homeless in the Dublin area had formerly been in residential care.

I trust every measure will be taken by the State to inquire further into the Goldenbridge and Rathdrum orphanages. Apologies, while worthwhile, worthy and welcome, are not a substitute for a formal immediate response by the church authorities and the Government to ensure such depravity will never again be visited on vulnerable Irish children.

Limerick East): I thank both Deputies for their contributions and welcome the opportunity to express my concern and deep regret at the very disturbing revelations concerning Goldenbridge orphange about 40 years ago. The events described in the documentary “Dear Daughter” shocked everybody. They raised many uncomfortable questions about attitudes and practices towards children 30 years ago and how such things could have gone on without any action been taken to stop them.

The Mercy Order has accepted that the broad pattern of complaints are accurate. The Order brought in an independent expert to investigate the allegations of abuse. He concluded, based on the information available at the time, that the thrust of the complaints was valid and that the regime in the orphanage at that time was harsh and punitive. The Order accepts that staff members were caught up in this system, that a strong ethos of fear dominated all relationships and roles and that monitoring does not appear to have been adequate.

In my opinion, the Mercy Order has been very open in its response to this difficult situation. It has expressed its deep regret and sorrow that children in its care experienced such hardship and has accepted that mistakes were made. An independent and confidential helpline has been put in place. The Order has contracted the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre to run the helpline which will be kept open as long as necessary and has offered counselling to those who require it. Finally the Order has made arrangements to direct people making specific complaints to the Garda.

There have been calls for an inquiry into the allegations. Given the time that has elapsed and the death and fading faculties of many of the staff involved in the running of Goldenbridge at the time, an inquiry would have great difficulty establishing the truth or otherwise of some of the specific allegations made. However, I intend to monitor the situation to see if an inquiry would be justified on the basis of new information emerging. There have also been calls for the Minister for Health to accept responsibility for the conditions and practices in Goldenbridge at the time. In fact, Goldenbridge was the responsibility of the Minister for Education at the time. Responsibility for funding the home was transferred to the Department of Health in the early 1980s.

The sister who was in charge of Goldenbridge during the period in which the allegations were made was subsequently transferred to another orphanage run by the Order. The Eastern Health Board is organising a review of care practices in the home. It proposes to interview five residents from each year over a ten year period during which she was in charge of the home. I welcome this initiative by the Eastern Health Board. We will have to wait to see what emerges from this process.

There have been many developments in residential care for children since the fifties and sixties. There has been a major shift from residential to fostering as the preferred mode of care. Only 28 per cent of children in care were in foster care in 1970 whereas the current figure is over 75 per cent. Many of the larger residential centres have been closed. The trend has been towards smaller, more specialised units with services being provided by trained workers. There has been a gradual shift in residential provision from voluntary to statutory management.

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the Goldenbridge case is the need to ensure that services for children in need of care from statutory bodies conform to the highest standards. We are tackling this problem in a number of ways. This Government has given child care a high priority in the Programme for Government and, in particular, has appointed a Minister of State to co-ordinate policy on child care in the Departments of Health, Education and Justice. The Child Care Act is being implemented. In 1995 new regulations providing for improved standards of care in residential homes and foster care were commenced. These regulations require health boards to visit, supervise and review children placed in residential care on a more systematic basis than before. The view of the child must also be taken into account at every stage of this process. Later this year the sections providing for the registration of voluntary homes every three years will be introduced. Later this week the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, will launch a discussion document on mandatory reporting and initiate a consultative process to ensure that the reporting arrangements for child abuse reflect the best interests of the child.

I compliment both Deputies who have continually raised this issue by way of question and debate. Deputy Fitzgerald has called for an independent inspectorate to monitor residential homes for children on an ongoing basis. I have been concerned for some time about the problems in regard to publishing the findings of inquiries into alleged incidents of child abuse. I know that this has given rise to concerns about lack of transparency. Accordingly, I have decided to establish, on a statutory basis, an inspectorate of social services in the Department of Health. The inspectorate will be responsible for quality assurance and audit of child care practice and will undertake inquiries on behalf of the Minister. I am confident that, together with the important new provisions concerning residential care under the Child Care Act, this will greatly improve the safeguards and procedures to protect children in residential care.

This is a difficult issue. Those of us in politics even six years ago could not have envisaged the frequency of debates on child abuse, even those of us in tune with the electorate did not know the high level of child abuse. As a parliament we are playing "catch up" but we do not differ from other societies in North America and Western Europe. I welcome the support of Deputies and compliment my colleague, Deputy Howlin, who, as Minister for Health, prioritised the issue of child care and child abuse. He took the initial steps on which we are building.

I am aware that people are concerned about accountability of this House. particularly in respect of the three cases to which Deputy O'Donnell referred. In the case of Madonna House criminal charges were taken against a person and a conviction was made. In the Kelly Fitzgerald case criminal charges were taken against the parents and a conviction was made. In the western farmer case criminal charges were taken against the father and a conviction was made. In all cases people have served jail sentences. The ultimate accountability for persons who perpetrate crimes is that they are investigated, charged, brought to court and convicted. It is not true that accountability has not worked.

However, there are other issues such as whether persons charged with responsibility for the care of children fulfil their statutory role. That is a different issue from accountability for what happened. In those circumstances, even though investigations are properly conducted, it is difficult to publish findings. There are three issues involved. First, if a person against whom a criminal charge may be carried by the Director of Public Prosecutions is identified if is not possible to publish the information without prejudicing the case. I do not want to be accused that because I published information a criminal walked free. The second issue relates to defamation. Quite often the investigating process brings about a position where the facts may be presented but, where a very small number of care workers are involved, they are easily identified and identifiable by their colleagues and by the general public. That gives rise to a legal problem in that if the case cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt the investigating authority, the Department of Health or the health board may be sued for libel. The third issue is that if a person believes they may be named or identified in a report and inferences adverse to their professional representation may be drawn, they will take an injunction in court to prevent publication.

That, as well as the general issue of an inspectorate, is what leads me to provide an inspection system which is statutorily based and organised centrally and which would have to be passed through this House. That would meet the demands of many Deputies, and I think everybody here can recite reasons for such a system. I will not go into the detail, but it is important to remember that what we are talking about is a statutorily based inspectorate which will take time to put in place. I would ask Deputies, therefore, not to come back in six weeks asking where is the inspectorate. This is an all-party issue about which people on all sides of the House are equally concerned and I would welcome advice on it. The Government has provided the necessary resources and we are proceeding with the matter.

I ask Deputies to read the discussion document on mandatory reporting which will be published at the end of this week by the Minister of State, Deputy Currie. There is a series of difficult issues to be dealt with and people, particularly in the professions, need to be informed before they make the final policy call on how best to proceed. I thank the Deputies for raising this issue. I hope that another bad landmark in the treatment of young people, even though it was in the 1950s, will be an impetus for us to provide a better framework for the protection of children in this generation.

Top
Share