The matter I propose to raise concerns the decision to close the open reformatory known as Scoil Ard Mhuire at Lusk, County Dublin. The closure of this school raises a number of very simple but important principles. First of all, to make matters simple, there exists at Lusk an open school which I referred to in my request to the Leas-Chathaoirleach to raise on the Adjournment as Scoil Ard Mhuire. It is proposed to close this school. Adjacent to this school there is also a closed school, Trinity School.
The four principles I want to begin with are as follows. The two schools, it was suggested when this matter was discussed previously, are amalgamated in what is now referred to as the Oberstown youth centre. It would appear to me, from the information that has been brought to my attention, that the staffing arrangements are such as to give the impression that both the philosophy and the form of administration of the closed school, Trinity School, is being extended to the entire joint entity, that is Ard Mhuire and Trinity School. The proposal as I understand it, was to close Ard Mhuire on 31 August 1985. It would appear to me that at that particular stage the social order of the closed school will then stand intact and prevail in the new entity. Ard Mhuire, the open school, with a regime that was appropriate and separate and quite different, which had been run by the Oblate Order, will at that stage cease to exist.
The issues that arise are the questions of the regime. People who are involved in correctional schools of any kind know what is meant by that, it is that the regime of the closed school will extend and prevail exclusively at the centre. That is the first issue. There is an issue of corrective policy involved. It is very regrettable that this should happen. The Minister for Education and I were both members of the MacBride Committee of Inquiry into the Prison System and we both concluded, in our report, that we were in favour of regimes that were broadly in line with what I know to have prevailed in Ard Mhuire. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Deputy Creed, who usually answers these questions and does so very thoroughly. I worry about a number of points and the manner in which they were put forward when this matter was raised previously. First, it has been suggested that Scoil Ard Mhuire has never been full. This is something at which I would look with considerable scepticism.
The scenario I have been describing is one in which in a new circumstance of amalgamation the entity that had the structure of being a closed school would prevail and the entity that had the structure of an open school would cease to exist. The issue that arises is a major issue of correctional policy. That gives me ground for concern. One of the arguments put forward is that the Oblates who ran the school are no longer available to run it. To this I would say that if the order of the school was valuable — and I would argue that when the Minister and I both served on the MacBride Commission we came down very strongly in favour of regimes such as that which prevailed in Ard Mhuire — it would seem to me that it should be part of an enlightened state's policy to make sure that it continued to exist. I would call very seriously into question any suggestion that it did not have sufficient numbers referred to it. That would raise the question of the basis on which referrals are made in the first place. I would question whether if you give an indication to, for example, those who make the referrals, the justices, that perhaps this institution is not likely to exist in the future, you are making a selffulfilling prophecy in so far as you are saying: "Why refer people to it if it is the intention to close it?"
The third point refers to a statement made by the Minister for Education in reply to a written Dáil Question from Dr. O'Hanlon on 27 March 1985, at column 806, Volume 357, of the Official Report which stated:
The cost of operating Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, in the year ended 30 June 1984 was £545,451, giving an annual unit cost of £18,184 per boy.
At column 807 she stated:
The cost of operating Trinity House School, Lusk, in the year ended 30 June 1984 was £756,395 giving an annual unit cost of £30,255 per boy.
The arguments put forward in relation to relative economies and relative costs are not very impressive but they would not be the most important ones with me. I am convinced that this decision is coming at a time of considerable danger in relation to the philosophy of correction. I hope the reaction that has set in has been exaggerated. It has been suggested that there might be a move back from available educational facilities within schools. The Seanad debated this last week on the Adjournment. Here we are talking about the implication of moving from an open regime to a closed one. That is a matter of fundamental importance.
I asked questions, as someone involved for nearly 20 years in the area of crime, deviance and punishment in my professional capacity as a sociologist, if it is that there has been some change in the populations being referred. One has to think immediately that there are 27 young people who now will be affected by the closure of Ard Mhuire. Has there been some change in their circumstances, some new facts discovered about them that make it necessary for them to be retained within a closed school and within the regime of a closed school? There is, of course, the very important issue — it is one upon which I support very much the people who have given their lives towards working in any kind of correctional institution or any kind of school dealing with essentially under-privileged people that it could be assumed automatically that they would move from one regime to another. I would argue that it is a qualitative change in one's professional orientation, capacity and commitment. I understand that the history of this whole issue surrounding the closure of Ard Mhuire is that initially guarantees were given to the staff that their desire and wishes to work in the conditions which they had directed themselves would be respected and that later these commitments were not honoured. It was presented somewhat as a fait accompli that they could continue to work provided they worked in the new regime, that is the regime of the closed institution.
People must be moved by the arguments about correctional philosophy and the whole business of an appropriate method of dealing with young people involved. I have disposed of the question of relative economies. The fact that the Oblates left leaves a question mark. In what circumstances did the Oblates withdraw? It would be very interesting to know. It has been pointed out to me — I would be glad to hear that it is not so — that a considerable amount of money has been spent on Ard Mhuire in refurbishing the building, in relation to windows and basic structural aspects of the building and the making available of dental equipment and so on. One gets the impression from looking at it with great concern that it was a place that was an open institution, that had been refurbished, upon which money had been spent, which had a staff trained and oriented towards an open institution, that was composed of a population who would benefit from an open institution but was disappearing over a period of time. Another closed institution nearby has extended its reigme, will subsume the population and, it is suggested, would unproblematically subsume the staff, leaving us with an extended closed concept. This is very serious. It raises questions about young people, about the disposal of staff and, for example, the rights of the people who are involved.
I sought information on the number of people in Ard Mhuire at present. There is a certain amount of variation in their backgrounds but some are there for circumstances that are purely ones of fortune. There are very young children there. I question what is happening to their rights when they are being moved towards a closed regime. From the information supplied to me in relation to the circumstances of Trinity House, and the arrangements made for staffing and the disturbances taking place within it, it may well be that the basis of such difficulty may be the character of the regime which prevailed combined with under-staffing at particular periods. I have listened to that argument and the response is that we will have effective closed institutions as a type of detention and community projects which will do everything that Ard Mhuire was doing. I have watched it in my own city and I have looked at youth projects in different parts of the country and I have come to the conclusion that the kind of person that is involved in the best structured and best intentioned youth projects are not the kind who either are in Ard Mhuire at present or who were in Ard Mhuire in the past.
It surely behoves those responsible to do an analysis of the backgrounds of the population of Ard Mhuire and the other closed institution, to see if they were similar and see if one could be matched to the other. Equally, if we are going to say that the youth encounter projects, the small community type interventions, disadvantaged areas schemes, youth encounter agencies and so forth are the answer we should take the people who are in these and say, "Are they the kind of people for whom Ard Mhuire catered?" I believe they are not. The staff in Ard Mhuire cannot be regarded as equivalent simply to the people who are involved in these community based schemes. They have a special kind of expertise which could be delivered in an open institution. The boys would benefit from an open institution. It is quite wrong, somewhat arbitrary and, certainly in policy terms, very retrograde indeed that the school should be closed at the same time as coterminous with it we have an extension of the closed concept.
There is a lot of paper policy in this. It is rather as if one was drawing things on paper. I welcome everything that is done in the community for young people, everything of a preventative kind, but those of us who are involved in this business know, and the Minister agrees with me, as it says in the MacBride report, "Let us have everything that is preventative", where we come to the point where we need a special kind of school and we have to make a choice between a closed school and an open school there are, equally, differences in the boys that have to be respected and differences in policy appropriate. It is not an answer to say that because we are doing a little more on the preventative side that we are automatically disposing of the case for an open institution. That is the reason why I raised this matter. I do so in a feeling of being positive.
There has been a suggested closure date for this school and I ask the Minister of State simply to go back to the basis of facts. I have suggested a line of action. It is not an answer simply to say that all of these facts have been carefully considered and so on. I have not seen evidence of this. The people who put me here, the social workers and so on, have approached me and expressed their concern. We see it as a backward step. I am urging the Minister to reconsider this decision in the interests of the children, of the staff, of the proper utilisation of an institution and in the interests of the best disposal of such scarce moneys that are available to the State. It is in everybody's interest. The whole bureaucratic half sideways movements involved with staff create a massive industrial relations complexity which is avoidable.
