Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1978

Vol. 88 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - County Cavan Detention Centre.

Mrs. Robinson

I am glad of this opportunity to raise what I believe is a bad, retrograde and ill-considered decision in the area of child care. I refer to the recent decision by the Minister for Justice to convert Loughan House, County Cavan, into a temporary closed unit detention centre for 12- to 16-years-old boys who are in trouble, and who have been refused admission to existing special schools and residential homes which are under the general jurisdiction of the Department of Education. The decision, in my view, is not just a step backwards—it is a giant leap back to an attitude which prevailed over 100 years ago when it was acceptable that children could be kept in prison and could be held under the general care and custody of prison officers.

It is interesting to try to trace the origin and motivation behind the Minister's decision and to note the widespread confusion, alarm and general despondency it has caused among those involved in the whole field of child care. Whatever else the Minister did, he did not consult those who have professional and practical experience in working with children who have problems, children in need of care. He did not consult with those with academic and research knowledge. He did not consult with those who are dedicated and committed to the care of children, either institutional care in the existing residential homes or care generally in the community.

Let us look at the background. First of all, it is only fair to look at what might have been considered to be a brief but encouraging reference in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, where it was conceded that there was a need for new concepts in the area of family law and the law relating to children. At page 37 of the manifesto it stated:

New informal and less institutionalised procedures and tribunals will be established in relation to family law and child offenders which will have expert remedial and social back-up services at their disposal.

However, out of the blue, on 1 October last, the Minister for Justice announced that he proposed to set up a temporary detention centre in St. Patrick's to cater for boys between 12 and 16. I quote a report in the Irish Independent on 1 October 1977 as follows:

The Minister for Justice, Mr. Collins, will use part of St. Patrick's Young Offenders' Centre in Dublin to house difficult boys—under 16 years old—who would not be accepted in other institutions. This is a short term measure pending the building of a special new security centre for convicted children in north County Dublin.

Indeed, the report includes a quote from the Minister as follows:

We want to see the St. Patrick's unit opened as soon as possible. If the courts decide that young children who appear before them should be taken away, we will provide the centres but while they are in those centres every effort will be made to rehabilitate them and to try to give them a proper place in society when they are finished their term.

I would say that quote epitomises a frightening ignorance of the necessary basic approach to child care in our society. I hope it was more an "off the cuff" remark by the Minister than an indication of his real approach and intentions in the matter.

The decision itself roused widespread concern. CARE, at a meeting on Sunday, 23 October, considered the Press reports of the Minister's decision and could find no evidence of prior consultation leading up to it, or even a Press release of 1 October from the Government Information Services. Nevertheless, CARE responded in a statement on the situation, and asked various questions in a Press release which summarised what is wrong with the Minister's whole approach as follows:

The argument that the detention centre is a last resort since everything else has been tried does not stand up. When we look at the young people whom it is proposed to lock up, it is quite clear in most, if not in all cases, that there are many positive things which need to be done for them but which we are not doing. The conditions in which they live, the facilities for leisure which they enjoy, and their lack of prospects for the future are an indictment of our society and a challenge to us to do something constructive.

We cannot just blame the parents; all parents need help at times of crises, in their own and in their children's lives, and some parents need special help on a sustained basis. There are many ways to help such families which have not been tried. Since we have not tried all the positive things we are not justified in choosing the most negative—the proposed children's prison.

CARE goes on to admit that there are cases where security, as opposed to detention, is a necessary first step to helping resolve particularly difficult cases, involving some incorrigible and difficult children. It goes on:

There is no evidence that locking up large numbers of young people helps them to become better citizens or reduces the juvenile crime rate. On the contrary, available evidence indicates that drastic and primative intervention in a young person's life limits his chances of keeping out of trouble and of establishing himself in the community. If we are going to lock up young people let us see this measure for what it is—an interference in young lives which is primitive and vengeful—and let us not fool ourselves with the unfounded consolation that we are rehabilitating them. If we had found a way of rehabilitating young offenders in large numbers we would be the most successful social engineers in the world.

CARE, therefore, came out in a very critical way against the proposal to use St. Patrick's. Probably in response to reaction of this kind the decision was subsequently modified.

Before I go on to analyse this change of mind by the Minister for Justice I would like to refer to an apparent lack of overall co-ordination in relation to the care of children. Nine days after the Minister had had this rush of blood to the head, and had announced that he was going to use part of Saint Patrick's for 12- to 16-years-old, the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Jim Tunney—who has special responsibility for special schools and residential homes—announced that he was establishing a special project team. I quote from the Irish Independent of 10 October 1977 as follows:

The Government has decided to provide two secure units for tough delinquents who cannot be catered for in the existing child care institutions, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr. Jim Tunney, confirmed yesterday.

He told the inaugural meeting of a specialist Project Team set up to plan these centres that it was the Government's concern that the new facilities be made available with the least possible delay.

The problem about this special project team established by Deputy Tunney is that its approach seems to run counter to the recommendations of the task force on child care services. These recommendations accept the need at times for secure residential care. I refer the Minister to paragraphs 6.5.6. to 6.5.9., and in particular to 6.5.8. where it is provided:

Accordingly, we recommend that a special school should be established in the Dublin area to cater for boys in the 12 to 16 age group who cannot be coped with in the existing residential institutions or the centres already recommended in this Report. This school should accommodate 25 to 30 boys and should be organised on the basis of three units—secure, intermediate and open, respectively.

This recommendation runs quite contrary both to the Minister's modified proposal to adapt Loughan House and even to the apparent thinking of the Minister of State at the Department of Education who seems to be ignoring the collective wisdom of the Government task force on child care in the approach that appears to be about to be adopted by his Department. Meanwhile the Minister for Justice appears to have changed his plans in the light of the criticisms which they encountered. By 24 November it was reported in The Irish Press that:

The Department of Justice— stated in the Dáil on Tuesday to have dropped its plan to house 12- to 16-years-old offenders in Saint Patrick's institution in Dublin—now intends to place them in Loughan House, Co. Cavan, but faces a new storm of protest, this time from prison officers.

There was a sharp reaction from the prison officers because they were going to have to assume responsibility for these boys. It is interesting to note that the prison officers who are going to look after these children if this project goes ahead are recruited under the general recruitment advertisement for prison officers. I have an example of that advertisement here, dated the 26 October 1977. It advertises for prison officers (male) and it includes that they could be appointed to various places such as Portlaoise, Arbour Hill, or Loughan House, et cetera. Included in this advertisement are requirements about special physical attributes:

At the time of the medical examination referred to in regulation 3, candidates must be of good physique, with satisfactory chest development, and be not less than 5' 7" in height (barefooted).

It also requires that they must not have any eyesight defects. What is wanted are big burly prison officers with good eyes.

Professor Conroy

From what is the Senator quoting?

Mrs. Robinson

I am quoting from the general advertisement in the newspaper of 26 October 1977 for prison officers. I gather that apparently these prison officers are getting three months instruction in child care. The Minister thinks that that is somehow going to transform them into people who have an understanding of the deep problems of the most difficult children who need care, whereas those who are professionally trained with a great practical experience are finding difficulty and in particular those involved in the residential homes and the special schools. These people need to be encouraged to take on more of these difficult boys. They are people with long practical experience and also with specialist knowledge and dedication. You cannot convert a prison officer in a period of three months into an expert in child care and a proper person to have care of children in this way.

The most important factor is not so much the training but the selection of personnel in the first place. These people are not selected at all. They are just responding to a general advertisement for prison officers. I think their use in Loughan House is a deplorable situation. However, as I say, the Minister managed to reconcile the difficulties and the objections of prison officers and he has established this instant training process in the Mountjoy Training Centre.

In case it might be thought that I exaggerate my concern and alarm at the decision, let us have a look at some of the responses by various interested and specialists groups to the Minister's approach. I have referred already to the Press release by CARE. I would like also to refer to a subsequent statement by the Chairman of CARE, reported in The Irish Times on 25 November 1977 as follows:

The Chairman of CARE, Mr. Andrew Logue, said yesterday that his organisation was confused and disturbed by announcements from Government Ministers on a child detention centre. They seem to be made without reference to each other and not within the context of an overall plan for children.

The proposal was severely criticised by the Irish Association for Social Workers in a long letter on their behalf by Mary Harding which objected to the use of Saint Patrick's Institution. Subsequently, on 10 February last, as reported in The Irish Times, the association was critical of the proposal for Loughan House:

Calling for a review of the situation, the body says that the proposal is not in keeping with the Interim Report of the Task Force Committee which recommended the establishment of secure accommodation as part of or attached to open residential facilities, under the authority of the Department of Education.

The Committee at the time also stressed that the matter of "secure accommodation" should be approached with caution "lest the provision of a facility of this type might encourage people to attempt to solve the problem of the difficult boy simply by putting him away". The Association of Social Workers says that these discussions point to a lack of the planning and co-operation necessary in any caring programme for deprived children.

Similarly, using almost identical language and expressing the same concern, the Association of Workers for Children in Care, AWCC, are reported in The Irish Times of 15 February last as having criticised this policy, criticised it in very strong terms. That association stated that: “What is needed is a nationally based programme of research which would be a base for a realistic and professional approach to this problem on which could be based a dynamic scheme of quality care for such difficult children”. One of the most outspoken individual critics of the proposal is Mr. Tom Clancy, lecturer in residential child care in the School of Social Education in Sion Road, who has written a number of letters.

In one of these letters he asked questions which I would be grateful if the Minister would deal with in his reply on this motion. I will paraphrase his questions:

1. Can the Minister assure us that the secure unit planned for Lusk will in fact be built and opened?

2. Can the Minister guarantee that this unit will be staffed by trained and experienced child care workers?

3. Can the Minister give details about how he proposes to assess the needs of those deprived and disturbed boys, and how he will set about providing for those needs?

4. What sort of outside consultants will be available to Loughan House to help with the clarification, implementation and monitoring of the task there?

5. Will there be anybody responsible for helping the staff to analyse and make sense of their day-to-day experience with these boys?

These questions relate to the interim nature of Loughan House as a method of coping with these boys. I should like to add to that list. I would ask the Minister in his reply to give details of the cost of conversion of Loughan House at present? What is the cost of that elaborate perimeter fence to make it a closed unit? How many thousands of pounds are being spent at the moment on converting it into a closed unit to hold boys? What is the maximum number of boys that are going to be sent there? Originally, when he was talking about Saint Patrick's, the Minister mentioned 100 boys. On what basis is that number reached? What research was gone into this? How are these boys going to be identified and what is the maximum number that can be sent there? Does the Minister, know what the maximum number is likely to be? Is he prepared—on the record—to fix an absolute ceiling at least, and then to see what may happen? What kind of research will there be? What kind of co-ordination?

In being critical, as I have been, both of the original proposal for the use of Saint Patrick's and then of the modified proposal for Loughan House, it is necessary to suggest what the alternative approach should be. The alternative is very much summarised as an alternative approach, because this is not a simple problem. The basic difficulty about the Loughan House proposal is that it is a simplistic political response to a complex human problem of need, of deprivation, and possibly involving severe health and social problems. It is the sort of simplistic political response which may probably gain the Minister support at the grassroots at the moment. People may feel that something is at least being done. But I think the Minister has a responsibility neither to delude himself not to delude people who are feeling threatened and under pressure—who are perhaps panicing or deeply concerned about increasing crime and vandalism among young people—that this is the proper approach.

The only valid response is to adopt a co-ordinated approach to child care under the overall jurisdiction of one Minister. As I understood it, certainly under the Coalition, the Minister for Health has overall co-ordination and jurisdiction in child care, and the Minister for Education clearly has a role to play. Indeed, I would remind the Minister that his responsibility in the matter largely stems from the fact that the age of criminal responsibility in Ireland is still seven years old. That is why the Minister has jurisdiction. If the age of criminal responsibility was to be 14 I do not think the Minister would even presume to intervene in this way.

I would plead with him to change his mind even at this stage and not to go ahead with his proposal because it would have such a devastating effect on the existing approach to child care. It will not be good for the morale of those involved in the existing special schools and residential centres. It will be a disincentive to these special schools to take on the more difficult children. The people working in them need better resources and help, and they need recognition of their dedication. Above all, they need to be encouraged to deal with the more difficult boys and not to refuse to cope with them. What is needed is the implementation of the task force recommendations on this problem. I would therefore plead with the Minister not to go ahead with this decision. If he chooses to go ahead with it, I think I must issue a warning, and the warning is that if an order is made transferring a child under 16 to Loughan House, then, in my view it is quite possible that that order would be challenged on constitutional grounds because—no matter what the Minister may say in his reply about Loughan House—it is intended to be a place for the custody and control of these children. It is intended to be a prison.

I hope that the Minister will not in his reply—which I am now going to allow him to make—start to give a tourist brochure discription of Loughan House. I do not want to know how many acres there are, or about the lakeside there. I know what it is to be. It is to be a prison staffed by prison officers having the control of children who are in need of special care and special support, who will be far away from their own community and their own families, with no possibility of leading a normal integrated life. It is more likely to be a breeding ground for hardened criminals than a deterrent and it will not solve the problems either for the youngsters or society itself.

Minister for Justice (Mr. G. Collins)

I was going to thank the Senator for giving me ten minutes to reply. First, I think it is only fair to say in regard to the very serious problem we have, Senator Robinson has done a great disservice to the efforts being made by many dedicated people to deal with this very serious problem, which was neglected for a number of years by those with whom she is now aligned politically.

Mrs. Robinson

I admit it was never dealt with adequately.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. G. Collins

I did not interrupt the Senator. It is a pity that the Senator did not preserve her political independence if she wants to adopt that holier-than-thou attitude she would like to have us believe she can afford to adopt here tonight. It is just not good enough. With regard to the first allegation she made about the lack of consultation, because of the fact that I have only eight or nine minutes at my disposal to deal with what she said, I can describe that allegation in one word and that is "rubbish". If the Senator went to the trouble of asking, before she seemingly made up her mind, as to what the situation is, perhaps then, if she had a case to make, she might have made it in a far less emotive and harmful way. It is very easy for people to stand up and say that what has happened, that the step taken was a step back and, not alone a step back, she said, but a giant retrograde step. It reminds me of the Pontius Pilate attitude. She forgets that for a long time she and her new party were in a position to do something to deal with this very serious problem and they did nothing about it.

It is also very interesting to note from what the Senator said that she has no worry, anxiety or concern at all for the old people, the people who have suffered the muggings, the people who have had their rooms broken into and the people who have been kicked all over the place.

Mrs. Robinson

Yes I do. Time is short and the Minister is not responding to any of the questions.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister to continue.

Mrs. Robinson

Please answer the questions.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator to allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. G. Collins

It was the Senator who raised the hares. I will state the facts, not chase the hares. For a considerable time the activities of young boys and young girls in certain parts of the country, including Dublin, have been attracting the headlines. Accounts of muggings and assaults, acts of serious vandalism carried out by boys and girls in the age group up to 16, have become commonplace and it is a known fact that the Garda are powerless to deal with this problem, since the courts have nowhere to send boys at that age, who either will not be accepted in the special schools for delinquents maintained on behalf of the Department of Education or, indeed, if accepted, can and do easily abscond and commit further offences. The Government, on assuming office, decided that the problem was an extremely serious one and one that should be tackled without delay. The Department of Education had traditionally been charged with the responsibility for the provision of accommodation for the residential care of delinquents in the under 16 age group. That Department intended to provide secure schools for the unruly boys referred to but they had not made any progress with their plans, none whatever, at the time of the change of Government. Might I say to the Senator that, if she wants to give a lesson to anybody, she should give it to those who are sitting near her, because when they had the opportunity in Government of doing something, they did nothing.

Part of the problem which I am trying to tackle here is due to delay. It is in part due to a decision of the former Government to entrust in 1974 to a task force the problem of devising a new charter for children involving, among other things, the drafting of legislation to replace the Children's Act 1908. That decision involved a clamp-down on the plans of the Department of Education at that time. The public were led to believe that the work entrusted to the task force could be done in three months, though anyone who really knew the problems involved would have known that the time scale was ludicrous. When the task force did make its short interim report in September 1975, money was not made available for a variety of services recommended. The Government of the day, part of which were the Labour Party, to which Senator Robinson now belongs, refused to make money available to deal with the problem. Yet she takes it upon herself to lecture us here this evening. One of the recommendations of the task force was a reiteration of the Henchy Committee recommendation for the provision of a new special school for troublesome boys under 16 years. On the change of Government, the Department of Education had no premises that could be adapted for use even as an interim measure as a secure custodial facility, and they failed to find such premises. It was against this background that I, as Minister for Justice, was asked by my colleagues to find a place and to provide staff for it in order to deal with the problem on an ad interim basis.

Concomitantly the Department of Education have established a project team, on which my Department and I are represented, despite what the Senator would like to think, and this project team is planning a new permanent facility for the boys in question. The planning of the new institution is well under way—so far under way that we have recently, I believe, appointed a firm of architects to get the necessary architectural work done. The projected time scale for this new project is three to four years. Might I say to the Senator that the suggestion being made that I and my Department are taking over from the Department of Education in the matter of residential care of young offenders is without any foundation whatsoever? The fact is that the Government are faced with an urgent problem which she and her party failed to face up to for a long period of time and refused to give the money to implement recommendations that were put to them. The stark reality of the situation now is that only the Department of Justice can provide an immediate temporary solution.

Having considered the options, Loughan House was chosen as the interim residential care facility. The premises there are excellent. The whole property compares very favourably with many first-class boarding schools. Anything less like the conventional idea of a prison would be hard to imagine. But it has to be adapted to cater for disruptive youngsters. The total cost of the adaptations and other improvements which, for various reasons, including long-term economic reasons, are being carried out simultaneously with the adaptations, is estimated to be somewhere in the region of £600,000.

The strongest criticisms of the Loughan House project that have been voiced, not alone here tonight but in recent weeks, relate to the staff who will be running it. The term "jailers" has been used and we have had a description of "big brawny-chested warders" by Senator Robinson. The facts need to be considered here. Nobody will take up duty in Loughan who has not had a full training course as a prison officer, plus a special, carefully planned course of 12 weeks duration which has been tailormade for the job they will be doing.

Mrs. Robinson

Wonderful.

Mr. G. Collins

I refrained during the course of the Senator's 20-minute diatribe from interrupting her in any way, because I believed it was mannerly to do so. I have one minute left. Please let me try to deal with some of the rubbish voiced by the Senator in her 20 minutes. The training period involves a period in residence in one or other of the special schools and a variety of lectures, tutorials and project exercises. If time permitted, more comprehensive training for the officers concerned would have been provided and it is hoped that it will be possible to arrange for on-going training after they take up duty. Comparisons are invidious and one ought not be critical of services provided by other agencies, but those who have recently been suggesting that nobody should be involved in the custodial care of young persons, who has not got the Department of Education Certificate in Child Care, or the certificate from the British Central Council for Education and Training in Social Sciences, or the equivalent, should remember that, out of a total of 54 child care workers in the three special schools being managed on behalf of the Department of Education, only 15 have such a qualification.

The allegations made by Senator Robinson are extremely dangerous. They are headline-seeking allegations. She is willing to knock the whole scheme, irrespective of the consequences, to get the headlines. If Senator Keating, who is sitting beside her, feels that I am hitting the nail on the head, then let Senator Keating at some stage or other tell his colleagues in the Seanad why he, as a member of the Government up to July 5——

Mr. Keating

The Minister has wasted ten minutes not answering.

Mr. G. Collins

——refused completely to do anything worth while to deal with this problem.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 February 1978.