1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 6 HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE INQUIRY 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 Being heard before: 11 12 SIR ANTHONY HART (Chairman) 13 MR DAVID LANE 14 MS GERALDINE DOHERTY 15 16 held at 17 Banbridge Court House 18 Banbridge 19 20 on Tuesday, 14th January 2014 21 commencing at 10.30 am 22 (Day 2) 23 24 MS CHRISTINE SMITH, QC and MR JOSEPH AIKEN appeared as 25 Counsel to the Inquiry. 1 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 For Barnardo's: Claire Bates, solicitor 4 5 For De La Salle Order: Kevin Rooney, QC 6 7 For Department of Health: Francis O'Reilly, BL 8 9 For Health and Social Care Board: Moira Smyth, BL 10 11 For Department of Justice: Martin Wolfe, BL 12 13 For Sisters of Nazareth: Turbugh Montague, QC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 Tuesday, 14th January 2014 2 (10.30 am) 3 Opening remarks by COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY (cont.) 4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 5 Ms Smith. 6 MS SMITH: Morning, Chairman, Panel Members, ladies and 7 gentlemen. 8 At this point in time I'd like to go over a little 9 of the historical and social context to the matters the 10 Inquiry has to consider. 11 In order to understand the reasons how children came 12 to be abused in residential care it is important to look 13 not only to the legislative history of residential care 14 but also at the entire social context. It is necessary 15 to have regard to the range of economic, political and 16 social issues which influenced policies and practices in 17 any era covered by the scope of the Inquiry. I should 18 say at the outset that this can only be and is therefore 19 but a brief overview of this issue and an attempt to 20 indicate its relevance to the development of child care 21 through institutions. 22 The role of the child in society and the value 23 placed by society on children has changed over the 24 years. An example is seen by the fact that the age at 25 which one ceases to be a child has changed through 3 1 legislation as society came to value the experiences of 2 childhood and come to an understanding of what it means 3 to be an adolescent. 4 As well as the value placed on a child generally 5 society's attitude to the value to be placed on children 6 from impoverished or perceived immoral backgrounds needs 7 to be looked at. Such values informed the way children 8 were treated in institutions. For example, illegitimacy 9 was viewed by some as a moral failing not only on the 10 part of the mother but of the child itself. 11 The concept of what constitutes child abuse has also 12 changed over the years. It has evolved over centuries 13 and cultural differences have played a part in the issue 14 of the protection of children. Interestingly while the 15 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 16 was established in 1824, it was not until 1894 that the 17 National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 18 Children was founded, a small indicator perhaps of how 19 children may have been valued in the 19th century. 20 A consideration of the circumstances of child care 21 in Northern Ireland during the years covered by the 22 Inquiry's terms of reference necessitates looking not 23 only at those factors common throughout the United 24 Kingdom at any given time during that period but also 25 a recognition of the circumstances peculiar to Northern 4 1 Ireland. 2 Before examining institutional care for children it 3 is necessary to have some regard to how institutions 4 were set up historically, the nature of institutions 5 generally and more specifically their nature with regard 6 to the care of children. 7 Essentially the provision of institutional care for 8 children during the time span of the terms of reference 9 comes from one of two sources: homes set up and operated 10 by the state itself and homes that were set up by 11 voluntary organisations, whether secular or religious. 12 I am going to look initially at the development of 13 the voluntary sector, as it comes first in time. 14 I am greatly indebted to the report of the Royal 15 Irish Academy's Third Sector Research Programme by 16 Nicholas Acheson, Brian Harvey, Jimmy Kearney and Arthur 17 Williamson, which was published in 2004, entitled "Two 18 Paths: One Purpose -- Voluntary Action in Ireland, North 19 and South" for much of the following information. 20 Prior to its establishment in 1922 Northern Ireland 21 experienced the same developments in voluntary action as 22 the rest of the island of Ireland. From Medieval days 23 institutions caring for the sick, poor and destitute 24 were provided in Ireland by monks in or beside 25 monasteries. Voluntary organisations as we know them 5 1 today date back to the late 18th century. Both 2 voluntary and charitable organisations developed 3 separately along religious divides. This could be seen 4 primarily in the provision of medical and education 5 services. 6 Early work in these fields was mainly the result of 7 Protestant philanthropy. In the second half of the 18th 8 century economic hardship drove people from rural 9 communities into towns in search of work and this gave 10 rise to charitable provision for the poor and destitute. 11 A major example of this is recorded in RWM Strain's 12 1961 work entitled "Belfast and its Charitable Society" 13 where he describes how in 1752 the Belfast Charitable 14 Society was formed to set up a fund to build a poor 15 house and hospital and a new church in or near the town 16 of Belfast. 17 Although the Catholic community in Ireland was 18 involved in charitable action, it was only after 19 Catholic emancipation in 1829 that this developed 20 substantially. Such involvement appears to have really 21 taken off from when Archbishop Daniel Murray, who was 22 the bishop coadjutor of Dublin, asked Mary Aikenhead to 23 form the Sisters of Charity in the early 1800s. This 24 began a wave of institution building that was to last 25 for a century and a half. 6 1 At the beginning of the 19th century there were very 2 few religious congregations in Ireland. Indigenous 3 congregations developed and grew at a rapid rate, but 4 where suitable people were unavailable in Ireland, 5 religious orders abroad were invited to come in and 6 establish congregations and institutions. Many of these 7 religious orders came from France, and so French models 8 of religious and social care were imported into Ireland. 9 Examples of such religious orders included St. Vincent 10 de Paul, the Poor Sisters of Nazareth, the Sisters of 11 the Good Shepherd and the De La Salle brothers. 12 During the 19th century most of the charitable 13 services provided, that is schools, orphanages and 14 hospitals, were institutional in nature. Raftery and 15 O'Sullivan in their book "Suffer the Little Children" 16 published in 1999 argue that the reason for the use of 17 large institutions were that they were seen generally as 18 efficient, controlling, scientific and offered economies 19 of scale. 20 The ethos of Catholic institutions in Ireland was 21 strongly influenced by the French orders, which had 22 a salvationist outlook. Institutions were seen as 23 providing sanctuary from an unsupportive, hostile world. 24 By placing people in institutions as they saw it souls 25 were being saved from further corruption. Coupled with 7 1 this was the influence of the Victorian ideal of reform, 2 namely that in an appropriate environment an individual 3 who had fallen short of acceptable standards of society 4 could be rehabilitated into a productive, if not 5 exemplary, member of society. 6 Reformatory schools were established under an 1850 7 Poor Law Amendment Act. These were intended to house 8 those children found guilty of criminal offences. 9 Industrial schools created by the Industrial Schools 10 (Ireland) Act 1868 were established to care for 11 neglected, orphaned and abandoned children and those 12 considered in danger of contact with criminality. From 13 1859 until 1969 105,000 were committed to industrial 14 schools on the island of Ireland. 15 Orphans actually only accounted for a small number 16 of the children who lived in institutions. A great many 17 of the inhabitants were initially homeless or abandoned 18 children, or children who committed very minor criminal 19 offences, but often the majority were children from 20 large families, who were unable to cope with the number 21 of children they had produced. Later the institutions 22 took in large numbers of children of single mothers. 23 This was the case throughout Ireland. 24 In relation to Northern Ireland we see from the 25 report of the Child Welfare Council into the operation 8 1 of Social Services in relation to child welfare that in 2 1959 two out of three of the children in care of the six 3 largest voluntary homes in Northern Ireland were there 4 because they were illegitimate. In the case of welfare 5 authority homes this figure rose to over one in two. 6 As I said earlier, the development of voluntary 7 organisations was heavily influenced by religion. This 8 is in part due to the provisions of the Custody of 9 Children Act 1891, an Act passed following a House of 10 Lords' decision relating to the dispute between 11 Dr Barnardo and Cardinal Manning, the then Catholic 12 Archbishop of Westminster. 13 As Barnardo's Homes took in destitute children of 14 all religions, Cardinal Manning accused Dr Barnardo of 15 abducting Catholic children to turn them into 16 Protestants. Thereafter legislative protection was 17 given both in Great Britain and Ireland to the religious 18 persuasion of the child being taken into care. 19 In 1906 the Belfast Charity Organisation Society was 20 formed for the uplifting of the community by the 21 furtherance of social reform and civil purity. It was 22 the embodiment of Protestant social action, in which the 23 clergy played a leading role, together with socially 24 aware members of the business class. 25 Victorian society held assumptions about the role of 9 1 charity in society. People were seen as either 2 redeemable and could therefore be helped by charities or 3 irredeemable and were therefore the responsibility of 4 the state. These assumptions informed the actions of 5 the Belfast Charity Organisation, which was designed to 6 assist those on the verge of destitution so that they 7 did not become a burden on the state. 8 The organisation was subsequently amalgamated into 9 the Belfast Council for Social Welfare in 1919, a body 10 which was set up mirroring developments in England, 11 where Councils of Social Welfare had been forming from 12 the end of the 19th century. Such bodies tended to be 13 less hostile to the state's role in the provision of 14 welfare. 15 The First World War effectively put paid to the 16 Victorian idea that there were different kinds of people 17 who required help: the irredeemable, who were the 18 responsibility of the state, and the redeemable, those 19 who could be helped by charities. 20 A new conception of the relationship between 21 voluntary action and the state as one of partnership 22 developed, but really only took hold in Protestant or 23 secular charitable organisations. Catholics saw too 24 much state intervention as an interference with the 25 right of the individual and believed that the provision 10 1 of social services was an activity for the church and 2 not the state. Catholic teaching still held true to the 3 Victorian ideas about the redemption of individuals, and 4 accordingly the role of the state was residual to the 5 work of the church. 6 What the above demonstrates is that long before the 7 formation of Northern Ireland in 1921 there was 8 a philosophical tension in Great Britain and Ireland as 9 to how welfare, including care of children, should be 10 provided. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 11 partitioned Ireland. It set up the Parliament of 12 Northern Ireland. The political fall-out from this 13 piece of our history has been well documented, debated 14 and discussed, and it is not a matter for me to explore 15 further in this forum, save to acknowledge that the two 16 communities in Northern Ireland were divided. 17 The Inquiry may have to consider in the course of 18 its work whether the community division here had 19 an additional impact on the provision of residential 20 care for children in Northern Ireland. 21 From its creation in 1922 until the Second World War 22 Northern Ireland's new government believed that its 23 citizens should be no worse off than those in the rest 24 of the United Kingdom. In practice, however, all 25 decisions were predicated on a need to balance the 11 1 budget. As a result the legislation relating to 2 children in England and Wales passed in 1933 was not 3 enacted here. A reason often suggested for this was the 4 fact that it could not be afforded. Accordingly 5 throughout this period there was a heavy reliance on the 6 charitable organisations in the field of social welfare. 7 The Belfast Council for Social Welfare undertook 8 a survey in the late 1920s that estimated that over 2000 9 families in Belfast were utterly destitute. In 1929 it 10 established a Distress Committee chaired by Sir James 11 Andrews, who later became Lord Chief Justice, to take 12 pressure off charities and organisations inundated by 13 requests for help and unable to cope. 14 Support for the Council grew during the 1930s, with 15 some factory workers donating money from their wages. 16 It wasn't until the mass evacuation of people from 17 Belfast after the 1941 blitz that the true extent of its 18 citizens' poverty and malnutrition were revealed. This 19 was the spur to the Northern Irish government to adopt 20 welfare reforms mirroring those which had already been 21 introduced in Britain. 22 I pause at this point to say it is important when 23 assessing the complaints made to the Inquiry about, for 24 example, hunger or lack of clothing which arise in 25 greater numbers in relation to earlier decades to 12 1 understand that very many children who were living with 2 their families in the community were suffering equal, if 3 not greater, deprivation than those in institutional 4 residences. Indeed, many children were placed with 5 voluntary homes precisely because their families were 6 unable to feed and clothe them. 7 In Britain the years between 1945 and 1950 saw the 8 introduction of the Welfare State with a number of 9 reforms in social security, health and welfare services 10 that were introduced by the Labour Government. These 11 changes were read across to Northern Ireland. The 12 Public Health and Local Government Administrative 13 Provisions Act 1946 introduced eight local authority 14 Welfare Committees, comprising Belfast, Londonderry and 15 the six county councils. These were given a wide range 16 of responsibilities for welfare issues that affected the 17 community over subsequent years. 18 The 1950s mark the beginning of the statutory sector 19 making its own provision for children in children's 20 homes through the Children and Young Persons Act 21 (Northern Ireland) 1950 in order to end the use of 22 placement within the workhouse system. There continued 23 to be, however, a high degree of reliance, particularly 24 among the Catholic community, on voluntary children's 25 homes provided by religious orders. Despite the 1950s 13 1 Acts' legislative bias in favour of fostering, 2 considerable numbers of children remained in residential 3 care. Indeed, child care was provided by voluntary 4 organisations in large institutions up until the 5 mid-1980s. 6 Following the publication of the Hughes Report, 7 there was a rapid reduction in the provision of 8 voluntary run homes. However, by 1997, even after the 9 enactment of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, 10 there were still six children's homes in existence run 11 by voluntary organisations. One was provided by Belfast 12 Central Mission. The five others were run by Catholic 13 orders. By the start of this millenium in 2000 there 14 was only one. 15 It is suggested by Acheson and others that the fact 16 that the homes run by Catholic orders outlasted other 17 voluntary homes by some ten years may be explained by 18 the nature of Catholic vocations. Those called to 19 religious life were essentially called to a life of 20 service without earthly reward whereas the withdrawal of 21 secular organisations from the field was in no small 22 part due to the increasing costs of employing suitably 23 qualified staff. 24 Changes in public attitudes to child care, publicity 25 about abuse alleged to have occurred in them and the 14 1 fall in religious vocations finally brought to a close 2 the history of voluntary action in Ireland with regard 3 to the residential care of children by the end of the 4 20th century. 5 The onset in 1969 of the troubles in Northern 6 Ireland and the ensuing years of conflict had an impact 7 on virtually every aspect of life in Northern Ireland. 8 The operation of the Welfare State within Northern 9 Ireland and the provision of child care services were 10 not exempt from this. 11 The segregation of children's homes along 12 denominational lines already in existence was only to 13 acquire greater acceptance as the norm in 14 an increasingly divided society. 15 Can we please see page HIA-557? This is an extract 16 from the 1966 report of the Northern Ireland Child 17 Welfare Council into the role of voluntary homes in the 18 child care service. It was a report of the fourth 19 Welfare Council appointed by the then Minister for Home 20 Affairs, Brian Faulkner, to explore the role of 21 voluntary organisations which provided child care 22 services within the meaning of section 98 of the 23 Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950. 24 The Council visited and inspected all voluntary 25 children's homes in the province in order to carry out 15 1 its work. Ironically the Council had advocated closer 2 cooperation between children's homes and the welfare 3 authorities. 4 We can see if we just scroll down to paragraph 71 at 5 the bottom of the page -- we can see there that at 6 the -- sorry. If I can just pause and find it exactly. 7 It is at the bottom of the page, bottom of the 8 paragraph. It is at the start: 9 "The best hopes lie in simply increased mutual 10 understanding and sympathy and in an appreciation of 11 what each has to offer for the other. The voluntary 12 homes we feel will have a great deal to lose by standing 13 aloof from the statutory services; those which do so 14 will tend to move steadily away from current standards 15 and practices in child care and may end by being 16 regarded as no more than outdated survivals of a bygone 17 age." 18 The advent of the troubles meant it was to be the 19 early 1980s before this increased mutual understanding, 20 sympathy and appreciation was achieved to any 21 significant degree. 22 The Inquiry will hear evidence in relation to what 23 is said to have occurred in some voluntary homes which 24 it might feel suggest the words of the Council in 1966 25 were somewhat prophetic in that the evidence suggests 16 1 that those homes operated as outdated survivals of 2 a bygone age. 3 In the late '60s and early '70s life in Northern 4 Ireland was disrupted by riots. People, including 5 children, were displaced as their homes were burnt out 6 or because people were too frightened to live in certain 7 areas. In practice many, including welfare officers, 8 faced practical difficulties in attending work, being 9 physically unable to access certain parts of Northern 10 Ireland safely due to rioting or barricades. This meant 11 that they were unable to carry out their work properly 12 and effectively. The risk to personal safety of workers 13 increased when the so-called tit-for-tat shootings began 14 in the aftermath of the violence of 1972/73. 15 Communities in Northern Ireland were increasingly 16 polarised both geographically and socially. There was 17 an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion engendered 18 throughout society in Northern Ireland on a scale much 19 greater than had been seen previously. In Northern 20 Ireland during the troubles people lived in a constant 21 state of vigilance. This had a detrimental effect on 22 the mental health of society as a whole and only 23 exacerbated the social ills with which families 24 contended. 25 Additionally, residential child care faced a number 17 1 of difficulties with regard to the recruitment of staff. 2 Could you please put up page HIA-681? This is 3 an extract from the Hughes Report published in 1986, 4 which states at paragraph 2.37: 5 "Unsocial working hours, the requirement to live in, 6 the stress of caring for disturbed children, low 7 professional status and low pay were all factors which 8 contributed to this difficulty." 9 The fact is that, despite the increasing 10 professionalisation of social work, which occurred from 11 the 1970s on, the problems of recruiting residential 12 staff persisted. 13 Hughes also pointed out in paragraph 2.34 that field 14 work appears to have attracted many more qualified staff 15 than residential work. The reason for this is that it 16 was seen as offering better status and working 17 conditions. This was, of course, a problem throughout 18 the United Kingdom and Ireland and not peculiar to the 19 situation in Northern Ireland. 20 Following the suspension of the Stormont 21 administration in March 1972 and the introduction of 22 direct rule from Westminster, the radical institutional 23 reform that had already been planned by the government 24 of Northern Ireland was implemented. Major public 25 services such as Health and Social Services, Education 18 1 and Housing became the responsibility of new 2 administrative structures. Welfare functions were 3 amalgamated into four unitary Health & Social Services 4 Boards as a result of the Health and Personal Social 5 Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which came into 6 effect from 1973. 7 In 1976 Sir Harold Black was appointed to chair 8 a review of the legislation services relating to the 9 care and treatment of children and young persons in 10 Northern Ireland, taking account of developments in 11 Great Britain. The review, which reported in 1979, 12 stressed the need for children to have a stable and 13 secure environment with caring adults and made a number 14 of wide-ranging recommendations, which I do not propose 15 to rehearse now. 16 The report proposed a strategy for help, which 17 emphasised the need for an intercommunity approach to 18 child welfare through formal and informal child care 19 institutions and networks. It was widely seen as 20 progressive, but failed to have any significant impact. 21 Not only was no constituency enthused to take the 22 proposals forward at the time; the possibility of the 23 full debate was also cut short by Kincora, Northern 24 Ireland's first major child care scandal. 25 Prior to the late 1970s and early 1980s the sexual 19 1 abuse of children was not a topic for discussion and 2 many people were unaware of its existence. This may be 3 explained by the secretive nature of the abuse and the 4 stigma and shame that attached to the victims of sexual 5 assault generally until the late 1980s. 6 Further, until the abuse of children was accepted as 7 occurring within the community generally, the chances of 8 a complaint of abuse in residential care being believed 9 or taken seriously would have been much lower than 10 today. This accords with reactions received by those 11 individuals who have come forward to this Inquiry, who 12 allege that they did tell staff members about the fact 13 they were suffering sexual abuse but who were not 14 believed. 15 Following the Kincora scandal, the Hughes Report 16 made recommendations which endorsed the type of thinking 17 exhibited in the Black Report and also in the Sheridan 18 Report of 1982, which was a Department of Health & 19 Social Services' initiative in the aftermath of the 20 Kincora scandal. Among other things Hughes advocated 21 more vigorous home visiting by councillors, more 22 stringent monitoring by social work professionals and 23 a more comprehensive investigations mechanism and 24 complaints procedure designed to protect those making 25 allegations pending their resolution. 20 1 There were also recommendations made surrounding 2 improvements to staff morale, recruitment, gender, 3 training and salaries. The report advised that 4 departments should have restricted protocols in place 5 when hiring staff, including the inclusion of past 6 criminal convictions, and suggested that it be made 7 mandatory for any potential staff to obtain two 8 references before employment. 9 There was additionally a strong emphasis on training 10 and professional qualifications for those in the 11 residential child care section. It also focused on the 12 need to educate residential workers in the criminal law 13 aspects of sexual and physical abuse and the appropriate 14 monitoring arrangements in relation to this. 15 Parity of pay between residential staff and field 16 work social workers was also discussed, as it was felt 17 that the residential care had become the Cinderella 18 service of the DHSS. 19 While the purpose of the Hughes Inquiry and it 20 recommendations were to ensure that as far as possible 21 the homosexual abuse of children in residential care was 22 eradicated, it also had some unfortunate, although 23 possibly inevitable, consequences. Commentators have 24 suggested that while there was an emphasis on the 25 employment and training of the right calibre of staff to 21 1 care for children, there seemed to be a tendency towards 2 over-emphasis on monitoring and control and less on 3 practical recommendations surrounding good child care 4 practice. This in turn resulted in staff detachment 5 from children in their care and a shying away from those 6 qualities so important to the development of children, 7 such as demonstrations of love and reassurance. They 8 have also suggested that child care in Northern Ireland 9 moved towards a clinical, detached approach that focused 10 primarily on the reporting of incidents and risk 11 management procedures. 12 As Caul and Herron state in "A Service for People: 13 Origins and Development of the Personal Social Services 14 of Northern Ireland", which was published in 1992, the 15 impact this had on those working in the residential 16 child care sector was profound. Staff were commented to 17 be frozen into a defensive state, confused and 18 ambivalent about the appropriateness of their human 19 relations with the children in their charge. 20 The implementation of Hughes did, however, result in 21 Northern Ireland having the highest level of trained 22 residential workers within the UK, and indeed the 23 emphasis on the development of monitoring arrangements 24 for staff in residential homes for children has also had 25 a lasting impact in Northern Ireland. 22 1 In 1992 the Social Work Advisory Group in 2 collaboration with the Health and Social Services Boards 3 published "Quality Living: Standards for Services -- 4 Children who Live Away from Home" which focused on 5 applying a children's rights framework to residential 6 care, and these standards were then implemented into 7 inspection procedures. 8 Statutory child care in Northern Ireland at the 9 beginning of the 1990s placed a heavy emphasis on child 10 protection and child abuse and there was an emphasis on 11 disclosure work and improvements in legal and 12 administrative systems. 13 That concludes what I want to say at this stage 14 about the history and social context of residential care 15 for children in Northern Ireland, and hopefully it will 16 be of some use in understanding the evidence which falls 17 to be considered. 18 In the next section I will outline the legislative 19 framework relating to child care in Northern Ireland 20 during the period covered by the terms of reference. 21 Chairman, the next section will be somewhat 22 lengthier than the last, and I propose, if I may, just 23 to deal with part of it up to perhaps the 1950s and then 24 take a break, if that's acceptable. 25 CHAIRMAN: Very well. 23 1 MS SMITH: It would be wrong to look at the legislative 2 developments in this area in isolation. Legislative 3 developments are informed by and reflect the views of 4 the society at the time they are enacted and it is 5 important to always have regard to the social context in 6 which their decision is placed. It is for that reason 7 that I outlined the broader social context in the last 8 section before looking at the key legislative 9 developments in respect of residential child care. 10 I am now going to outline the historical development 11 of the law relating to residential child care in 12 Northern Ireland. 13 The following is meant to be simply an overview of 14 the key pieces of legislation and policy documents which 15 the Inquiry is likely to have to consider in the course 16 of hearing evidence. It is not intended to be 17 definitive, and simply seeks to track the changes which 18 have occurred during the time period under 19 investigation. 20 Child care policies in Northern Ireland have changed 21 dramatically in the course of the 20th century from 22 an era when harsh treatment, which we may now describe 23 as abusive, was a relatively normal experience for 24 children to a time when the paramount principle 25 governing the treatment of children is to ensure their 24 1 welfare and well-being. 2 Before 1922 the legislation which covered the care 3 of children was fundamentally based in the poor laws 4 which had existed and been passed since 5 Elizabethan times. The emphasis was simply on the 6 alleviation of poverty rather than the needs of the 7 child. Boards of guardians were empowered under the 8 Poor Relief Acts to care for children in workhouses or 9 to have them boarded out, a practice we would today 10 describe as foster care. 11 In the first decade of the 20th century two Royal 12 Commissions were established, one in 1900 and the other 13 in 1910. These led to three significant pieces of 14 legislation: the 1902 Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, the 15 1904 Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act and the 1908 16 Children Act. The purposes of these pieces of 17 legislation was to seek to improve the law relating to 18 the protection of children. 19 The 1904 Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act set 20 out the punishment for cruelty to children and allowed 21 children to be taken to the workhouse if their parents 22 were deemed to be unfit. Alternatively, they could be 23 fostered by a relation or other fit person. 24 Responsibility for taking action rested with the board 25 of guardians of each parish. 25 1 Cruelty was defined in the Act as: 2 "Wilfully assaulting, ill-treating, neglecting or 3 abandoning a child or exposing, causing or procuring any 4 of these behaviours towards a child in a manner likely 5 to cause the child unnecessary suffering or injury to 6 its health." 7 A court dealing with an offence of child cruelty 8 could also determine what would become of the child who 9 had been subjected to cruelty. 10 By section 6(1) that child could be placed with 11 a relative or other fit person, which included any 12 society or body corporate established for the reception 13 of poor children or the prevention of cruelty to 14 children until the age of 16. 15 Other relevant provisions include section 6(5), 16 whereby the Chief Secretary of Ireland could empower 17 someone to arrange the emigration of a child. 18 A parent could be ordered to contribute to a child's 19 maintenance under section 7(2), and under section 8(1) 20 the court was directed to seek to place a child with 21 a person of the same religious persuasion as the child. 22 In 1908 the Children Act was passed. The importance 23 of this Act cannot be understated. The legislative 24 framework and mechanisms it contained provided 25 a template for the main pieces of legislation that this 26 1 Inquiry will be considering. The Act was largely 2 a consolidating Act insofar as child protection 3 legislation was concerned, but it also introduced major 4 changes in the way in which children charged with 5 offences were to be handled by permitting transfers 6 between industrial schools and reformatories, 7 introducing juvenile courts and remand homes and 8 abolishing imprisonment for under 16s. 9 A child was defined in the Act as someone under the 10 age of 14 and a young person was defined as someone aged 11 14 to 16. The Chief Secretary of Ireland had power 12 under section 25 to cause voluntary homes for the 13 reception of poor children or young persons to be 14 inspected by persons appointed by him. The Chief 15 Secretary could have this inspection carried out with 16 the organisation's consent by an officer of that 17 organisation, in other words, voluntary organisations 18 were potentially able to inspect themselves. 19 The impact of the Act, which was applied across 20 Great Britain and Ireland, was so fundamental that, like 21 the Prevention of Cruelty to and Protection of Children 22 Act 1889, it became known as the Children's Charter. 23 The Government of Ireland Act was passed in 1920, 24 which brought about the partition of Ireland and created 25 Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. A number of Acts 27 1 were passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland during 2 the period between 1922 and 1950 which have some bearing 3 on the Inquiry's work. 4 The Education Act (Northern Ireland) 1923 imposed 5 duties to educate and set up education authorities and 6 school committees. Section 36 placed restrictions on 7 the employment of children. Section 55 imposed a duty 8 on the education authority to make provision for what it 9 termed "afflicted children". 10 In 1926 the Malone Training School Act (Northern 11 Ireland) transferred the Malone Protestant reformatory 12 school to the Ministry of Home Affairs to be run as 13 a borstal. 14 In 1942 the Children (Juvenile Courts) Act required 15 resident magistrates to sit with lay panel members known 16 as children's guardians for cases involving children or 17 young persons. 18 However, it was the pre-1922 Acts which continued to 19 govern the field of child care on both sides of the 20 border post-partition until after the Second World War. 21 Considerable legislative change in keeping with the 22 introduction of the Welfare State began with the Public 23 Health and Local Government Administrative Provisions 24 Act (Northern Ireland) 1946. This saw the creation of 25 health authorities and welfare authorities, which were 28 1 to be operated by county councils and county borough 2 councils, and the abolition of the boards of guardians 3 that had previously operated the poor laws. The 4 functions of each health or welfare authority were to be 5 performed by a health or welfare committee, which had to 6 be set up by the relevant authority. Ultimately, as we 7 shall see, it would be these new welfare authorities for 8 each county or county borough council who would have 9 responsibility for those children who met the criteria 10 for being taken into care. 11 The statutory duty the authorities owed to any child 12 in their care was to further his best interests and 13 afford him the opportunity for the proper development of 14 his character and abilities. In the context of that 15 duty if the welfare authority could not board out such 16 children, then the welfare authority had to create 17 and/or provide a home for them or place them in 18 a voluntary home that was willing to receive the child. 19 This led to the creation of welfare authority or 20 state-run children's homes in Northern Ireland in 21 addition to those children's homes operated by voluntary 22 organisations. 23 The Welfare Services Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 saw 24 the effective dismantling of the poor law system. It 25 abolished workhouses, and section 4 of the Act imposed 29 1 a general duty on welfare authorities to provide 2 residential accommodation for persons who by reason of 3 age, infirmity or other circumstances were in need of 4 care and attention where this was not otherwise 5 available to them. These provisions primarily establish 6 the network of what would commonly become known as "old 7 people's homes". 8 Section 7 of the Act permitted the welfare authority 9 as part of the discharge of its duty to provide suitable 10 accommodation to make arrangements with welfare 11 organisations who operated such suitable accommodation 12 to place the individuals in voluntary homes. 13 Chairman, that then leads me to consider what 14 occurred post-1950 and it may be an appropriate time to 15 take a short break. 16 CHAIRMAN: Very well. We will rise now for ten minutes and 17 start again at 11.20, ladies and gentlemen. 18 (11.10 am) 19 (Short break) 20 (11.20 am) 21 MS SMITH: How children in need of care were looked after 22 completely changed in the 1950s. Could you please put 23 up page HIA-546? Again this is an extract from the 1996 24 Northern Ireland Child Welfare Council report on 25 voluntary homes in the child care service, to which I 30 1 have already referred. Could you just highlight 2 paragraph 28, please, about the middle of the page? At 3 paragraph 28 this report documented how before 1950 4 statutory authorities and voluntary organisations in 5 Northern Ireland followed completely independent and 6 uncoordinated policies in respect of child care. This 7 changed with the passage into law of the Children and 8 Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950, an Act that 9 the Inquiry is likely to return to again and again as 10 part of its work. 11 The Act was considered necessary for a variety of 12 reasons. It was apparent that standards of 13 accommodation, education and staff training needed 14 improving across the board and it was felt that the best 15 way to ensure an adequate standard would be to bring 16 homes within the control of a government department. By 17 ensuring that voluntary homes required to be registered 18 it was believed that the organisations operating 19 voluntary homes would be afforded a measure of 20 protection themselves. 21 The 1950 Act has 142 sections and seven schedules 22 and I intend at this stage to only give a brief overview 23 of some of the most important provisions. 24 However, because this is the legislative framework 25 which governed the time frame of the vast majority of 31 1 complaints this Inquiry will hear, it is necessary that 2 the architecture of that system it was intended to 3 operate be clearly understood. 4 A child under the Act was defined as someone under 5 the age of 14 and a young person was someone who had 6 turned 14 but was under the age of 17. Children and 7 young people were essentially those aged 16 years and 8 under. Section 52 of the Act further legislated that no 9 child under the age of 8 could be guilty of a criminal 10 offence. 11 Part 1 of the Act is not relevant to the work of the 12 Inquiry in that it was effectively concerned with the 13 operation of non-residential child care and in 14 particular the regulation of the operation of day 15 nurseries. 16 Part 2 of the Act was concerned with the prevention 17 of cruelty to children and preventing their exposure to 18 moral and physical danger. It regulated the behaviour 19 of and provided criminal sanctions for those individuals 20 over the age of 16 who had custody, charge or care of 21 any child or young person under that age. Section 11 22 defined the offence of cruelty to a child under 16 as 23 wilfully assaulting, ill-treating, neglecting, 24 abandoning or causing or exposing a child to some of 25 these treatments in a manner likely to cause a child 32 1 unnecessary suffering or injury to health. 2 Interestingly, injury to health included any mental 3 derangement. 4 Neglect likely to cause injury was further defined 5 as: 6 "Failing to provide adequate food, clothing, medical 7 aid or lodging or, if unable to provide them, taking 8 steps to procure their provision through the welfare 9 system." 10 Importantly section 11(7) provided a defence to the 11 offence of cruelty by specifically retaining the rights 12 of parents, teachers and anyone else having lawful 13 control or charge of a child to administer punishment. 14 We see this at page HIA-173. Section 11(7) is set out 15 there about one-third of the way down -- halfway down. 16 Part 3 of the Act was designed to protect children 17 or young persons in relation to criminal and summary 18 court proceedings. This part covered the juvenile court 19 system, which was tasked with dealing not only with 20 criminal offending by children and young people, but 21 also their care and protection. 22 Would you please bring up pages HIA-193 and HIA-194 23 side by side so we may see section 46, please? Thank 24 you. Is it possible to enlarge section 46 at the bottom 25 of the first page and at the top of the second page, 33 1 please? Thank you. 2 The Act required the court in respect of each child 3 or young person brought before it either as being in 4 need of care and protection or as an offender or 5 otherwise to have regard to the welfare of the child or 6 young person. 7 In an appropriate case a juvenile court could take 8 steps to remove the child or young person from 9 undesirable surroundings and ensure that proper 10 provision was made for his or her education and 11 training. The Act reenacted the place of safety regime, 12 which had been set up under the 1908 Act. 13 Section 63, which is found at page HIA-205, provided 14 power to the juvenile court to make various orders in 15 respect of a child or young person who it was satisfied 16 was in need of care or protection. What is meant by 17 "child in need of care or protection" is found on the 18 previous page in section 62. That's HIA-204. The 19 definition included children without parents, or those 20 who had parents who were not capable of looking after 21 them, or those who had parents who were simply not 22 looking after them, and as a result the child or young 23 person was falling into bad associations or was exposed 24 to moral danger, or a child who was beyond parental 25 control. 34 1 In addition, if a child or young person had been the 2 victim of cruelty as defined by the Act or had been the 3 victim of specified criminal offences, then that child 4 or young person might also meet the test of being in 5 need of care and protection. 6 Section 63 imposed a duty on the welfare authority 7 to bring before a juvenile court any child or young 8 person in their area who appeared to them to be in need 9 of care or protection. If the juvenile court was 10 satisfied that a child was in need of care and 11 protection, then it was empowered by section 63 to 12 exercise its discretion to order the child or young 13 person to be sent to a training school, require a 14 recognisance from the parents or make a supervision 15 order to essentially keep an eye on the child over 16 a specific period. 17 Importantly for this Inquiry's purposes the court 18 also had the power to commit the child or young person 19 to the care of a fit person, whether a relative or not, 20 who was prepared to look after them. Section 80, which 21 is found at HIA-218 -- could that be put up, please -- 22 stated that the relevant welfare authority was a fit 23 person, and accordingly orders could be made committing 24 children to its care. It had then to undertake the care 25 of the children so committed. 35 1 It was essentially through this process and that 2 under part 4 of the Act, to which I will refer shortly, 3 that children who were found to be in need of care and 4 protection became the responsibility of the welfare 5 authority and ended up in those residential care homes 6 which are the subject of investigation by this Inquiry. 7 Part 4 of the Act placed a statutory duty on welfare 8 authorities to assume the care of children under the age 9 of 17 in certain circumstances. If we look at 10 page HIA-219, please, under section 81 where a child was 11 orphaned, abandoned or its parent or guardian was ill or 12 otherwise unable to provide proper accommodation, 13 maintenance and up-bringing, a welfare authority was 14 required to intervene where the interests of the child 15 made such intervention necessary. In certain 16 circumstances section 82 gave welfare authorities the 17 power to apply to a juvenile court for a Parental Rights 18 Order in respect of a child taken into the welfare 19 authority's care under section 81. As the name 20 suggests, such an order invested all those rights 21 enjoyed by a parent in the welfare authority, subject to 22 the terms of the order. Welfare authorities were 23 entitled to seek to recover maintenance from the parents 24 in respect of the child. 25 Section 83(7) reenacted the obligation to bring the 36 1 child up in that child's religious persuasion by 2 imposing that obligation on the welfare authority. 3 Section 84 gave the juvenile court power to revoke 4 a Parental Rights Order, which in any event ceased to 5 have effect when the child reached 18. 6 Section 87 obliged the parents of a child taken into 7 care by the welfare authority to keep in touch with the 8 welfare authority in respect of the child. 9 Aside from these statutory provisions other children 10 still ended up in the care of voluntary homes. 11 Voluntary homes operated by religious congregations 12 appeared to operate on the basis that no-one who came to 13 them would be turned away. A family unable to cope may 14 have sought help from a religious order by asking the 15 home to take in one or more of its children. 16 Accordingly many children who were not legally in need 17 of care and protection ended up in residential homes. 18 The state through the welfare authorities only had 19 responsibility, including financial responsibility, 20 towards those legally in care. This led to tensions 21 between the authorities and the voluntary homes on 22 matters of finance and the issue of boarding out of 23 children within a reasonable time. Such interpretations 24 will be matters the Inquiry will have to consider in due 25 course. 37 1 Part 5 of the Act sets out the duties of welfare 2 authorities for the treatment of those children taken 3 into their care under section 81 or on foot of a 4 Fit Person Order. 5 If we look at page HIA-137, please -- I don't know 6 if that's the right page. I am looking for section 89 7 of the Act. So 137 is not the correct page. In any 8 event while we are finding the correct page reference, 9 can I just say that section 89 imposed a general duty on 10 the welfare authority to exercise its powers so as to 11 further the child's best interests and to afford him 12 an opportunity for the proper development of his 13 character and abilities. 14 A welfare authority or group of welfare authorities 15 could appoint a children's officer to carry out its 16 functions in respect of children in its care. Such 17 an appointment was subject to requirements as to 18 qualifications, experiences and conditions of service 19 set by the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern 20 Ireland. 21 If we could please call up pages 226 and 227 side by 22 side. It might be page 226 rather than 137 for 23 section 89. 24 Section 90 of the Act is particularly relevant for 25 the Inquiry's work, as it sets out the duties of the 38 1 welfare authority in respect of the provision of 2 accommodation for children in its care. 3 Section 91(a) of the Act gave primacy to boarding 4 out, more commonly known as fostering the child. If 5 that was not practicable or desirable, then the welfare 6 authority had to maintain the child in a children's home 7 set up under part 5 of the Act or place them at a 8 voluntary home willing to take the child. 9 Could we move to page HIA-230, please? Even if 10 a welfare authority had placed a child in a voluntary 11 home, the Ministry or the voluntary home could insist on 12 the removal of that child by virtue of section 93. 13 Section 93(2) in essence also required, where possible, 14 that a child in care of a welfare authority not be 15 placed in a voluntary home other than one of his own 16 religious persuasion. 17 For those young persons who had obtained the upper 18 limit of compulsory school age but who were under 21 19 they could be accommodated in a hostel, whether provided 20 by the welfare authority or not, set up specifically for 21 this age group. This type of arrangement will be 22 relevant when the Inquiry comes to look at homes like 23 Kincora . 24 Section 95 of the Act made provision for a welfare 25 authority to pay for the maintenance of those children 39 1 placed in homes or hostels not provided by the welfare 2 authority. The amount of such maintenance was to be 3 agreed between the welfare authority and the home and 4 was subject to approval by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 5 If we could go back to pages HIA-228 and 229 side by 6 side, we see that section 92 gave power to a welfare 7 authority to provide, equipment and maintain homes for 8 the accommodation of children in their care. The 9 Ministry of Home Affairs had powers to mandate this. 10 The obligation to provide accommodation could be met by 11 one welfare authority placing a child in a home operated 12 by another welfare authority. 13 Section 92(4) gave the Ministry of Home Affairs 14 power to make regulations in respect of children's homes 15 provided by the welfare authority. We will look at what 16 regulations were made in due course. However, it is 17 clear from section 92 that the legislature anticipated 18 what they ought to cover, as a number of matters were 19 specifically listed as being matters particularly 20 relevant to securing the welfare of children resident in 21 the homes. 22 Section 90(5) gave the Ministry power to close 23 a home if the premises were unsuitable or it was not 24 satisfied the home was complying with regulations. 25 Section 94, together with section 111, provided the 40 1 welfare authority, with the consent of the Ministry of 2 Home Affairs, with power to procure the emigration of 3 a child in its care. 4 Part 6 of the Act, which is from sections 98 to 103, 5 specifically makes provisions relevant to voluntary 6 homes. To date most complaints that the Inquiry has 7 received are from individuals who resided in voluntary 8 homes after the passing of this Act, and therefore the 9 parameters within which those voluntary homes were 10 required to operate will be of particular importance to 11 the Inquiry. 12 The provisions that we are about to look at appear 13 to be the first legislative provisions from the state 14 attempting to regulate the conduct of voluntary homes. 15 Would you please put up page HIA-232? Section 98, 16 if that could be looked at. This section defined for 17 the purposes of the Act what was meant by "voluntary 18 home". As we can see, it was: 19 "... any home or other institution for the boarding, 20 protection, care and maintenance of poor children or 21 children otherwise in need of help, being a home or 22 other institution supported wholly or partly by 23 voluntary contributions or endowments ..." 24 Section 99 prohibited any voluntary home from 25 continuing to operate as a home unless within three 41 1 months of the passing of the Act the home had been 2 registered with the Ministry of Home Affairs. 3 Section 99(4) gave the Ministry of Home Affairs 4 power if the voluntary home was not being run in 5 accordance with the regulations laid down by the 6 Ministry to remove the voluntary home from the register. 7 Section 99(5) made it a criminal offence to operate 8 a voluntary home that was not on the register. 9 Section 100 provided a right of appeal against any 10 decision by the Ministry to refuse to register a home or 11 to remove it from the registry. 12 Would you please put up page HIA-236? Section 101 13 gave power to the Ministry to: 14 "... make regulations as to the conduct of voluntary 15 homes and for securing the welfare of the children 16 therein ..." 17 We will look at those regulations shortly, but just 18 as with the welfare authority home regulations, 19 section 101 envisaged the regulations dealing with 20 a number of matters in particular. These matters were 21 more extensive than those expected to be dealt with in 22 respect of welfare authority homes. They anticipate 23 regulations imposing requirements as to the 24 accommodation and equipment, medical treatment, 25 prohibiting particular types of clothing, the mechanism 42 1 for parents to visit and communicate with children in 2 the voluntary homes, directions limiting the number of 3 children in the voluntary home, consultation over the 4 appointment of the head of the voluntary home and 5 provision of information to the Ministry about the 6 operation of the home. 7 Section 101(2) gave the Ministry power to require 8 the person in charge of the voluntary home to hand over 9 any child in their care to the welfare authority for the 10 purposes of boarding out and the welfare authority would 11 then receive the child under section 81. 12 Could we look at page 237, please? It is not 13 clearly showing the entire page. That's better. You 14 see here that section 102 provided the Ministry of Home 15 Affairs with power to inspect voluntary homes from time 16 to time. 17 Further, it will be a criminal offence under 18 section 101(3) -- again back to page 237 -- not to 19 comply with any regulations made or any directions given 20 on foot of them. This would appear to suggest that the 21 state intended to have a much greater degree of 22 oversight and control over voluntary homes than it had 23 previously. The Inquiry will need to consider how 24 effective such oversight and control was. 25 Part 7 of the Act essentially dealt with the 43 1 provision and operation of remand homes and training 2 schools, and I don't intend to look at that section at 3 this point. 4 Part 8 of the Act covered financial matters and made 5 provision for how the expenses of the Ministry and the 6 councils were to be dealt with. They also provided for 7 the payment of grants and loans in respect of training 8 schools. 9 Section 117 made provision for the Ministry to 10 defray or contribute towards the expenditure of anyone, 11 including someone from a voluntary organisation, who was 12 undergoing training linked to the Act. 13 Section 118 of the Act gave the Ministry of Home 14 Affairs power to pay capital grants, subject to 15 conditions and with the consent of the Ministry of 16 Finance. Grants could be paid for improving the 17 premises or equipment to voluntary homes or for 18 employing qualified staff. 19 Responsibility for administering the provisions 20 relating to capital grants initially fell to a committee 21 known as the McConaghy Committee. This committee made 22 recommendations to the Ministry of Home Affairs after 23 considering applications for grants, and we will be 24 referring to the work of the McConaghy Committee when we 25 deal with the evidence relevant to voluntary homes. 44 1 By section 118(2) a welfare authority also had the 2 power, with the consent of the Ministry of Home Affairs, 3 to make contributions to any voluntary organisation, the 4 primary object of which was to promote the welfare of 5 children. 6 Section 119 involved a rather elaborate scheme for 7 payments between the Ministry of Home Affairs and 8 welfare authorities in respect of the expenses that the 9 welfare authorities incurred in operating the 10 requirements imposed on them by the Act. 11 Section 121 of the Act required the parents of 12 a child taken or committed into care or committed to 13 a training school to pay maintenance in respect of the 14 child. Section 112 gave the juvenile court power to 15 make Contribution Orders to ensure that this obligation 16 was enforced. The Act contained similar provisions in 17 respect of illegitimate children and affiliation orders. 18 What is clear from the provisions is that the 19 legislature intended that the care system which was to 20 be provided by welfare authorities was to be paid for 21 where possible by the parents of those children taken 22 into care by the state. 23 Part 9 of the Act is a miscellaneous and general 24 section. It includes the setting up of the Child 25 Welfare Council, about which I have already spoken and 45 1 about which we will hear much more during the course of 2 the Inquiry. Its remit was to advise the Minister of 3 Home Affairs in respect of the performance of his 4 functions under the Act and to make representations to 5 the Minister on any matter affecting the welfare of 6 children or young persons. A number of child welfare 7 councils were constituted over the subsequent 8 twenty years and carried out a lot of detailed work on 9 the area of child welfare. 10 As I said at the outset of my examination of the 11 1950 Act, it holds a primary position in setting the 12 framework for many of the arrangements that will be 13 examined by this Inquiry in search of systemic failings. 14 Over the years following 1950 a series of 15 regulations were made on foot of the various powers 16 provided by the Act. 17 The Children and Young Persons Boarding Out 18 Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1950 were made by the 19 Ministry of Home Affairs under section 91 of the Act. 20 The regulations were designed to regulate the provision 21 of foster care and the primary obligations were again 22 placed on the welfare authorities. However, for this 23 Inquiry's purposes the regulations amplified and 24 emphasised the statutory bias in favour of fostering. 25 Regulation 4 required the welfare authority to make 46 1 arrangements for every child committed or received into 2 care to be boarded out as soon as possible with 3 a suitable foster parent. In addition, where within 4 three months of being committed or received into care 5 the child had not been boarded out, then the welfare 6 authority had to report that fact to the Ministry of 7 Home Affairs, explain why not, and seek consent to any 8 alternative arrangements. In other words, if a child 9 were not placed in foster care within three months of 10 admission to a children's home, a welfare authority had 11 to explain why not and get agreement to the child 12 continuing to reside in the institution in which it was 13 originally placed. 14 In July 1952 two sets of regulations were passed 15 regulating the conduct of the welfare authority and 16 voluntary children's homes respectively. Both came into 17 force on 1st October 1952. 18 I will deal first with the Children and Young 19 Persons Welfare Authority Homes Regulations (Northern 20 Ireland) 1952 made by virtue of the power conferred by 21 section 92 of the Act. If you could please put up 22 HIA-292. These regulations set out detailed provisions 23 governing the operation and administration of welfare 24 authorities' children's homes from the appointment of 25 the person in charge, record-keeping, fire precautions, 47 1 medical and dental inspections, notification of deaths 2 to the approval of buildings. 3 Moving to page 293, we see at regulation 5 that the 4 welfare authority was required to arrange for each home 5 to be visited at least once per month by a member of its 6 Welfare Authority Committee or its Children's 7 Subcommittee. The visitor was supposed to satisfy him 8 or herself that the home was being conducted in the 9 interests of the well-being of the children, sign the 10 home's record book and report his or her findings to the 11 committee. 12 Regulation 7 again required the welfare authority to 13 ensure that each child attended religious services and 14 had religious instruction according to the religious 15 persuasion to which he belonged. 16 Can you move on to page HIA-295, please? Regulation 17 12 dealt with corporal punishment and required that it 18 was to be avoided as far as possible. Order was to be 19 maintained by the influence of the person in charge of 20 the home and his or her staff. Where correction for 21 minor acts of misbehaviour was required, it was to be 22 through the form of forfeiture of rewards or privileges, 23 or temporary loss of recreation, but a light tap to the 24 hand could occasionally be applied to indicate urgent 25 disapproval rather than inflicting pain. Corporal 48 1 punishment in the form of caning was strictly 2 controlled, the subject of specific regulation, and its 3 use was to be recorded and reported to the Ministry of 4 Home Affairs every quarter. 5 The four types of records to be kept by the welfare 6 authority home were set out in a schedule to the 7 regulations, which we see at page HIA-296, the bottom of 8 that page. 9 Can I now ask that page HIA-287 be put up? In 10 respect of voluntary children's homes the Children and 11 Young Persons Voluntary Homes Regulations 1952 were 12 passed and came into force at the same time as those of 13 the welfare authority homes. They were similar to those 14 for welfare authority homes, again covering the 15 appointment of the person in charge, record-keeping, 16 fire precautions, medical and dental inspections, 17 notification of deaths, the approval of buildings, but 18 they were not the same. 19 In these regulations the person or persons carrying 20 on the voluntary home were known as the administrating 21 authority. We see that at page HIA-288. If we look at 22 page 288, we see regulation 4(2) imposed a mandatory 23 requirement on the administrating authority to make 24 arrangements for the voluntary home to be visited at 25 least once a month by a person whose duty it was to 49 1 satisfy him or herself as to whether the home was 2 conducted in the interests of the well-being of 3 children, to record his visit in the record book and 4 report on his visit to the administrating authority. 5 We can clearly see that this inspection regime was 6 different for voluntary homes as compared to that which 7 applied to welfare authority homes. It was not to be 8 carried out by the welfare authority, which did not have 9 responsibility for the home, although any welfare 10 authority placing a child with a voluntary home would 11 have had to satisfy itself that the voluntary home was 12 a fit and proper place for the child to be cared for. 13 The general inspection regime was to be arranged by the 14 organisation operating the voluntary home. It is 15 possible that a voluntary home may never have received 16 a child who was in the care of the welfare authority. 17 Therefore the only state inspection of that voluntary 18 home would have been any inspection carried out by the 19 Ministry of Home Affairs under section 102 of the Act. 20 The Inquiry will want to consider how frequently this 21 power was exercised. 22 Regulation 5 required the administering authority to 23 appoint a person to be in charge of the home and that 24 person was responsible for ensuring that records were 25 kept in accordance with the schedule to the regulations. 50 1 The schedule, which can be seen at page HIA-292, 2 required the voluntary home to keep a register of the 3 admission and discharge of every child, a record book 4 recording events of importance connected with the home, 5 records relating to fire drills and fire precautions, 6 and records of the food provided to the children in 7 sufficient detail to allow any person inspecting the 8 record to judge whether the diet was satisfactory. 9 Going back, if we may, to page HIA-288, we see that 10 in accordance with regulation 5(3) at the bottom of that 11 page the person in charge of the home was also to be 12 responsible for the custody of the medical records of 13 each child and keep them at all times available to the 14 medical officer or the inspector for the Ministry of 15 Home Affairs. 16 I draw specific attention to the duties of 17 record-keeping, because a repeated complaint from 18 individuals coming forward to the Inquiry, particularly 19 in relation to voluntary homes, was that they were 20 either unable to or had considerable difficulty in 21 obtaining basic information about themselves and their 22 time in care. 23 I made the point earlier that it was a criminal 24 offence under section 101(3) of the Act to fail to 25 comply with these regulations and anyone who did on 51 1 summary conviction could be fined. 2 Each set of regulations remained in force until 3 1975. The Inquiry will have to consider to what extent 4 the requirements of the 1950 Act and these regulations 5 were complied with in relation to children's homes, 6 whether they were breached, and, if so, what steps were 7 taken to deal with any breaches. In hearing from the 8 organisations that operated the homes and those 9 departments that succeeded the Ministry of Home Affairs 10 and Health such issues of governance will have to be 11 addressed. 12 The Inquiry will also hear that many children were 13 placed in voluntary homes on foot of private 14 arrangements. They may not have met the statutory 15 criteria for being in care. Such children were not, 16 therefore, on the radar of the welfare authorities. In 17 whatever way a child came to be in a voluntary home 18 voluntary organisations had from 1952 a set of duties to 19 comply with. These have at their heart the requirement 20 for their homes to be conducted in such a way so as to 21 further the well-being of that child. 22 Rules were also passed for the regulation 23 and administration of training schools, the Training 24 Schools Rules (Northern Ireland) 1952. These dealt with 25 similar matters to those relating children's homes but 52 1 with additional rules relevant to the operation of 2 training schools. 3 As well as the legislation relating to the homes 4 from time to time guidance circulars were also issued by 5 the Ministry of Home Affairs. In September 1952, 6 shortly before the regulations came into force, the 7 Ministry issued on its own behalf a memorandum which had 8 been issued by the Home Office in Westminster a year 9 previously entitled "Memorandum by the Home Office on 10 the Conduct of Children's Homes". We see this at 11 page HIA-470. If that could be put up, please. The 12 Inquiry has obtained copy covering letters of the 26th 13 September 1952 and these would suggest that the 14 memorandum was sent to every children's home in Northern 15 Ireland, whether a voluntary home or a welfare authority 16 home. 17 This memorandum provided detailed guidance and 18 advice for those operating children's homes. Its 19 contents were informed by the experience gained by Home 20 Office inspectors in visiting children's homes in Great 21 Britain and on advice given to the Secretary of State 22 for the Home Office by the Advisory Council on Child 23 Care. 24 The comprehensive memorandum dealt with issues such 25 as the type and size of children's home, staffing, 53 1 furnishing and equipment, the reception of children, the 2 religious upbringing of children, daily life in the 3 home, recreation, personal hygiene, dress and footwear, 4 money and personal possessions, helping in the home, 5 contact with relatives and friends, holidays, dietary, 6 medical arrangements, safety precautions, discipline, 7 education in the home, choice of employment, provision 8 for children on leaving the home, aftercare and the 9 keeping of records. The memorandum also contained 10 various appendices dealing with recommendations on fire 11 precautions and on discipline, but also relating 12 specifically to large homes, described as institutional 13 in character. 14 This will be an important document for the panel to 15 consider, and I do not intend to go through it in detail 16 now. I would, however, observe that the Inquiry may 17 feel that had the guidance it contained been followed, 18 many of the experiences you will hear complained about 19 during the course of the coming months would not have 20 arisen. Certain institutions will need to account for 21 what attention, if any, they paid to the advice and 22 guidance set out in this document. 23 For example, it has been stated on behalf of one 24 institution that the causes of bed wetting were not 25 known and the psychological trauma suffered by these 54 1 children were not fully appreciated. Yet in the 1952 2 memorandum, as seen at page HIA-474 at the bottom of 3 that page and I think on the following page -- sorry. 4 Back up. Paragraph 23. Yes. It states: 5 "Bed wetting cannot be attributed to any one cause. 6 If effective help is to be given, the child must be 7 studied as an individual. The trouble may be due to 8 an organic cause, to delay in learning bladder control 9 or to emotional disturbance due to loneliness, a sense 10 of being left in strange surroundings or of not being 11 wanted. A feeling of hopelessness about the habit may 12 cause it to persist. A child who persistently wets the 13 bed should be seen by the medical officer so he can 14 advise on treatment or, if necessary, refer the case to 15 a hospital or child guidance clinic." 16 It goes on to offer practical advice on how to deal 17 with bed wetting. This was in 1952, but we know from 18 what the legal team have heard from individuals' 19 allegations that children claim they were being punished 20 for bed wetting well into the 1970s. One applicant who 21 was resident in a home from 1971 to 1976 complained that 22 when she wet the bed, she had her nose rubbed in it, was 23 stripped and locked in a cold room before being made to 24 bathe in cold water and Jeyes Fluid. 25 The Child Welfare Council was tasked between 1963 55 1 and 1966 to look at the operation of voluntary homes in 2 the care system. The voluntary homes were visited by 3 a committee appointed to consider and report upon the 4 role in the child care service of organisations 5 providing voluntary homes within the meaning of 6 section 98 of the Children and Young Persons Act 7 (Northern Ireland) 1950 and the principles adopted by 8 such organisations in caring for children and young 9 people. The report is entitled "Role of the Voluntary 10 Home in the Child Care Services". The thrust of the 11 report's recommendations was to ensure greater 12 coordination between the voluntary homes and welfare 13 authorities regarding the care of children. However, as 14 I've already stated, it was many years before this was 15 to happen. 16 In passing I should just mention that in this time 17 period in 1967 the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 18 1967 was passed. Section 5 created an offence of 19 failing to report relevant criminal offences to the 20 police. This type of obligation was not new. Prior to 21 1967 it was also a crime at common law to fail to report 22 a felony, obviously a more serious type of offence. 23 Moving on, legislative provision in this area did 24 not change until December 1968, when the Children and 25 Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 was passed. 56 1 This Act had 182 sections and eight schedules. It was 2 described in the preamble as an Act to reenact with 3 amendments the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern 4 Ireland) 1950, and that is essentially what it did. The 5 care and juvenile justice systems' general architecture 6 remained mostly unaltered. 7 Section 20 reenacted the offence of cruelty to 8 children. The age of criminal responsibility was now 9 set at under 10 rather than under 8. The question of 10 whether a child or young person needed to be taken into 11 care became one of whether the child was in need of 12 care, protection or control. If we look at 13 page HIA-357, we see that section 93 defined what this 14 meant in greater detail. In addition, there was a new 15 emphasis in the field of child care towards preventing 16 children coming into care in the first place. Part 11 17 of the 1968 Act gave special preventative powers to 18 welfare authorities and imposed a duty on them to make 19 available such advice, guidance and assistance as may 20 promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need 21 to receive children into or keep them in care or bring 22 them before a court. This assistance could include, if 23 the welfare authority thought fit, giving assistance in 24 kind or in exceptional circumstances cash, or it could 25 include the welfare authority arranging for a voluntary 57 1 organisation to provide advice, guidance or assistance. 2 This Act remained the legislative framework for 3 children's services in Northern Ireland until 1995, 4 a period of 27 years. 5 Following the implementation of Direct Rule in 1972, 6 local government in Northern Ireland was reorganised and 7 the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern 8 Ireland) Order 1972 was enacted. Article 72 imposed 9 a duty on the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide or 10 secure the provision of personal social services under 11 the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 12 1968. A general duty to provide and secure the 13 provision of social services in Northern Ireland 14 designed to promote the social welfare of the people of 15 Northern Ireland was placed on the Ministry, later the 16 Department of Health and Social Services, by virtue of 17 article 4. 18 However, by various rather convoluted legal devices 19 that I do not intend to go into at this point the 20 responsibilities for the operation of the 1968 Act 21 passed to the four new Health and Social Services 22 Boards, which were established in October 1973. 23 An exception was the matter of inspection. That 24 function was transferred to the Department of Health and 25 Social Services. 58 1 Incidentally, article 72(2) of the order dissolved 2 the Child Welfare Council, whose existence had continued 3 under the 1968 Act. 4 1975 saw new regulations passed to regulate the 5 operation of voluntary homes, the Children and Young 6 Persons Voluntary Homes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 7 1975. These regulations, while reflecting the changes 8 in governmental structures, did not substantially alter 9 the regulations passed in 1952. The welfare authority's 10 version of the regulations was replaced by the Conduct 11 of Children's Homes Direction (Northern Ireland) 1975. 12 Again the direction essentially reenacted the 1952 13 regulations except that the monthly statutory visiting 14 duty of the Welfare Committee was replaced by 15 a quarterly visiting duty imposed on a member of the new 16 Personal Social Services Committee. 17 In the ten years that followed very little 18 legislation was passed which had a bearing on the 19 protection of children, save, for example, in the field 20 of private law proceedings under the 1978 Matrimonial 21 Causes (Northern Ireland) Order and the 1980 Domestic 22 Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order. One exception was 23 the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 24 1980. This abolished borstals and provided for the 25 setting up of the young offenders' centre. Where there 59 1 was no new legislation covering the area a number of 2 important developments occurred. I have already 3 mentioned these in the last section dealing with the 4 social context, but it is nonetheless appropriate to 5 deal with them again here. 6 Between 1976 and 1979 Sir Harold Black reviewed the 7 legislation and services in Northern Ireland relating to 8 the care and treatment of children and young persons. 9 The Black Report was issued in 1979, but, as I 10 have said, partly due to political opposition to its 11 progressive recommendations in the field of juvenile 12 justice, its recommendations were not implemented until 13 1995 with the enacting of the Children (Northern 14 Ireland) Order. 15 In the 1980s the Kincora scandal broke, resulting 16 ultimately in the setting up of an Inquiry under the 17 chairmanship of Judge Hughes, which reported in 1986. 18 Before the Inquiry was established the Sheridan Report 19 was published in 1982. This was a review into how the 20 Department of Health and Social Services in Northern 21 Ireland carried out its role in relation to the 22 supervision and management of homes and hostels for 23 children and young people. The report emphasised the 24 management, supervision, monitoring and inspection of 25 children's homes, the need for links between the 60 1 voluntary and statutory sectors, the need for 2 a complaint system for children in care and their 3 parents, effective recruitment and selection procedures 4 for residential workers, and the examination of 5 residential child care within the context of all child 6 care services. 7 The Hughes Inquiry itself made a whole series of 8 recommendations. I referred earlier to some of the 9 recommendations made in that report, and we will revisit 10 them in the course of these hearings. 11 Work was also carried out by the Department of 12 Health and Social Services to establish a complaints 13 procedure for children in residential care as well as to 14 develop standards for the inspection and monitoring of 15 children's homes in Northern Ireland. In 1986 the 16 Social Work Advisory Group, now the Social Services 17 Inspectorate or subsequently the Social Services 18 Inspectorate, in collaboration with the Health and 19 Social Services Boards' Assistant Directors of Social 20 Services, Family and Child Care agreed a comprehensive 21 set of standards for residential child care. This was 22 the first time that an explicit statement of practice 23 and professional criteria had been issued. 24 As I have already mentioned, in 1992 this paper was 25 comprehensively redrafted and entitled "Quality Living: 61 1 Standards for Services -- Children who Live Away from 2 Home". This framework adopted a children's rights 3 approach to the setting of standards. An inspection 4 framework document was formulated and shared with boards 5 and voluntary children's homes. The standards 6 established have informed subsequent inspections of 7 homes. 8 In the early 1990s no further legislation was 9 passed, but from 1992 onwards steps to develop regional 10 strategies were taken in advance of the enactment of the 11 Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Children's 12 legislation was comprehensively updated by the 13 introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 14 1995, which came into force in 1996, in November. It 15 was passed, based in part on the Children Act 1989, 16 which covered England and Wales, but also reflected the 17 recommendations of the Black Report published in 1979. 18 The statutory bias in favour of foster care was removed 19 and placements were thereafter to reflect a child's 20 assessed needs. Its coming into force in 1996 reflects 21 the end date for the Inquiry's terms of reference, and 22 I~do not wish to say much about the changes wrought by 23 the new legislation, but it may be instructive to 24 consider some of the changes effected by the Children's 25 Homes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996, which gave 62 1 flesh to the bones of the 1995 Order. 2 These include provisions regarding information to be 3 included in confidential records concerning children, 4 the conduct of homes in terms of staffing, accommodation 5 and adequate facilities. Regulation 8(1) abolished 6 types of discipline which had until then been a feature 7 of many homes and about which we have had many 8 complaints. For example, it forbids any form of 9 corporal punishment, deprivation of food or drink as 10 punishment, restrictions on visiting or delay in 11 communications with family or friends. Further, any 12 disciplinary measures have to be adequately recorded by 13 a duly authorised person. Implementation of the 1995 14 Children Order resulted in the transfer of the duty to 15 inspect children's homes from the Social Services 16 Inspectorate to the Health and Social Services Boards' 17 Registration and Inspection Units. 18 Change continued. A review of residential child 19 care services in Northern Ireland by the Chief Inspector 20 of the Social Services Inspectorate entitled "Children 21 Matter" led to a departmental task force to see its 22 recommendations implemented. In 2001 the Health and 23 Personal Social Services Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 24 created the Northern Ireland Social Care Council, which 25 had a duty, amongst other things, to promote high 63 1 standards of conduct and practice among social care 2 workers and high standards in their training. 3 The method for doing so involves mandatory 4 registration of all social work staff, including 5 residential care staff, with the Social Care Council, 6 and therefore provides further safeguards that past 7 experiences and the evidence which the Inquiry will hear 8 have indicated were both necessary and desirable have 9 been created (sic). 10 In April 2005 the Regulation and Quality Improvement 11 Authority or RQIA was established as a non-departmental 12 public body of the Department of Health and Social 13 Services and Public Safety. It is responsible for 14 monitoring and inspecting the availability and quality 15 of health and social care services in Northern Ireland 16 and for encouraging improvements in the quality of those 17 services. 18 It is probably fair to say that the residential care 19 system today is considerably different from that which 20 will be described in the evidence to this Inquiry. 21 While the Inquiry may conclude that no system can 22 guarantee that child abuse will not occur, it is perhaps 23 less likely today than during the time period this 24 Inquiry is investigating. 25 That concludes my brief examination of the relevant 64 1 legislative provisions that operated in respect of 2 residential child care during the period under 3 investigation by the Inquiry. 4 The Inquiry is not only looking, however, at 5 residential children's homes but other residential 6 institutions for children, and I now turn to say 7 something about those, and begin with those institutions 8 caring for children accused or convicted of crimes. 9 I am indebted to Nick Perry of the Department of 10 Justice, who in a statement provided to the Inquiry 11 helpfully sets out much of the following history of the 12 juvenile justice system in Northern Ireland. 13 As I have indicated previously, reformatory schools 14 were established in order to train and reform boys who 15 had been convicted of criminal offences. Industrial 16 schools were principally designed to cater for children 17 in need of care and control. The Children Act 1908 was 18 the legislation which consolidated the operation and 19 management of industrial and reformatory schools. These 20 were on an all-Ireland basis, with control and 21 inspection in Dublin. Courts had the power to send 22 children anywhere within the island. 23 Borstals were a form of youth detention centre 24 designed to separate young offenders from older convicts 25 in adult prisons. The first such institution was opened 65 1 in a village called Borstal in Kent in 1902. The system 2 was developed throughout the UK and borstals were 3 established formally under the terms of the Prevention 4 of Crime Act 1908. Borstals were intended to be 5 educational rather than punitive, with the focus on 6 education, regular work and strict discipline. 7 There were no borstals in Northern Ireland until 8 Malone Reformatory School converted part of its premises 9 in 1927, enabling it to become a borstal. From this 10 point on there was one main borstal for boys in Northern 11 Ireland, although at various points within the Inquiry's 12 terms of reference some boys were also held within 13 prison establishments. There were also a girls' borstal 14 at Her Majesty's Prison Armagh from 1954 to 1961. 15 Following the creation of the Ministry of Home 16 Affairs under the Ministries of Northern Ireland Act 17 1921, responsibility for those reformatory and 18 industrial schools based in Northern Ireland passed to 19 the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Branch within the 20 Ministry. Children continued to be sent to these 21 schools on the basis of their religion, with Catholic 22 children sent to schools run by the Catholic church and 23 Protestant children and non-Catholics sent to schools 24 run by charitable or voluntary organisations or by the 25 Belfast Corporation. 66 1 Financial arrangements for the reformatory and 2 industrial schools were complex. Local authorities were 3 obliged to either provide such schools within their area 4 or to contribute towards the costs of sending a child to 5 a school run by voluntary or religious organisation or 6 by another local authority. 7 The Belfast Corporation was the only local authority 8 which operated such schools, having taken over Malone 9 and Balmoral schools from a voluntary body in 1920. The 10 Ministry of Home Affairs and parents, where appropriate, 11 also provided per capita contributions. The Ministry of 12 Home Affairs met all financial obligation, including the 13 provision of premises and staff, for those sent to 14 borstals. 15 The responsibilities of the Ministry of Home Affairs 16 were limited when it came to the reformatory and 17 industrial schools. It had no direct control over the 18 running of the schools, including the hiring or 19 dismissing of staff, and neither controlled nor directed 20 policies in place within the schools, although it did 21 have statutory power to set rules governing the 22 overarching framework within which schools had to 23 operate. 24 After 1921 the Reformatory and Industrial Schools 25 Branch had some responsibility for inspecting schools 67 1 under section 46 of the Children Act 1908, but 2 inspections were limited to reporting on the health and 3 conditions in which children were kept and ensuring that 4 records were kept in order. The Principal Medical 5 Officer attached to the Ministry carried out these 6 annual inspections. 7 An informal arrangement was made with the Ministry 8 of Education for their inspectors to examine educational 9 provision within the schools and technical inspectors 10 dealing with drawing and manual instruction also visited 11 the schools. 12 Section 4 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908 also 13 established visiting committees for borstals. These 14 committees would conduct periodic visits to borstals and 15 would, amongst other duties, monitor conditions and the 16 treatment of the young offenders. 17 The first major review of governmental policy 18 relating to children in the justice sector was the Lynn 19 Committee Report on the Protection and Welfare of the 20 Young and the Treatment of Young Offenders, which was 21 published in 1978. The committee broadly speaking 22 recommended bringing the law regarding children into 23 line with the position that pertained in England and 24 Wales under the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act. 25 The Lynn Report made a number of recommendations. 68 1 There was no official government response to these 2 proposals and the outbreak of World War II put on hold 3 any reform of the youth justice sector in the same way 4 that reforms of the child care system were also put on 5 hold. 6 Many of the Lynn Committee proposals were put into 7 effect by the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern 8 Ireland) 1950, including the merging of reformatory and 9 industrial schools into training schools. As 10 I indicated earlier, the 1950 Act permitted the juvenile 11 court to make Training School Orders in respect of 12 children who committed offences, those who needed care, 13 protection or control, or for persistent truancy. 14 Higher courts could also make Training School Orders in 15 specific circumstances. 16 I also mentioned that the Ministry of Home Affairs 17 issued Training School Rules in 1952. These detailed 18 the responsibilities of the boards of management of the 19 schools and provided that each school should be visited 20 by its board once a month. Rule 38 details standards 21 for discipline and punishment, including appropriate 22 methods of correction and conditions for the application 23 of corporal punishment. 24 The rules were followed by the Malone and Whiteabbey 25 Training Schools Act (Northern Ireland) 1956, which 69 1 merged the Malone and Balmoral schools. It also 2 provided for the establishment of a board of management 3 entitled Malone and Whiteabbey Training Schools 4 Management Board, members of which were appointed by the 5 Ministry of Home Affairs. This board took over the 6 general management and control of the two training 7 schools from the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect of 8 Whiteabbey and Belfast County Borough Council in respect 9 of Malone. The. 10 Relationship between other training schools and the 11 Ministry of Home Affairs continued as before, as these 12 training schools were run by religious orders or 13 charitable organisations, for example, St. Patrick's 14 Training School run by the De La Salle Brothers. 15 In 1968 three relevant pieces of legislation were 16 enacted which affected the field of juvenile justice. 17 The first of these was the Treatment of Offenders Act 18 (Northern Ireland) 1968. This provided that children 19 aged 16 or over but under the age of 21 on conviction of 20 serious offences were to be detained in a young 21 offenders' centre rather than go to prison. The second 22 was the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern 23 Ireland) 1968, to which I have already referred, and the 24 principal effect of this Act for juvenile justice, as I 25 have stated, was to raise the age of criminal 70 1 responsibility from 8 to 10. The third was the Malone 2 and Whiteabbey Training School Act (Northern Ireland) 3 1968, as Malone Training School was replaced by a new 4 school at Rathgael. This Act changed the name of the 5 Malone and Whiteabbey Training Schools Management Board 6 to the Rathgael and Whiteabbey Management Board and 7 altered its membership. 8 In 1972, when a deteriorating political situation 9 led to the proroguing of the Northern Ireland 10 Parliament, the Northern Ireland Office, headed by the 11 Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was established 12 and assumed many of the responsibilities of the Ministry 13 of Home Affairs, including those covering training 14 schools. A Training School Branch was set up to provide 15 policy direction and funding for training schools and 16 officials held regular meetings with the training 17 schools' boards. In the same way as under the Ministry 18 of Home Affairs there was a more hands-on relationship 19 with the training schools in the state sector. The 20 Secretary of State appointed the board members and 21 officials were more involved with staffing matters for 22 these schools. 23 Whilst officials met with the managers of those 24 schools operated by religious orders, they had little 25 involvement in the day-to-day running or 71 1 decision-making. This separation of state-run versus 2 voluntary-run institutions reflects the state of play in 3 the non-justice residences and is indicative of the way 4 the two Northern Irish communities operated in 5 a segregated way. 6 Also in 1972 the Health and Personal Social Services 7 (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 made amendments to the 8 arrangements for financing of training schools. All 9 funding for the schools was to be provided by the state, 10 with local authorities and parents no longer required to 11 make contributions. The training schools were split 12 into two types, those funded directly by the Northern 13 Ireland Office and managed by boards appointed by the 14 Northern Ireland Office, such as Rathgael, and those 15 which were funded by the Northern Ireland Office but 16 which were managed by voluntary boards, such as St. 17 Patrick's Training School. 18 The Northern Ireland Office entered into an informal 19 arrangement with the Department of Health and Social 20 Services' Welfare Advisory Group to have the Social 21 Services' Welfare Advisory Group conduct inspections of 22 training schools. Formal inspections were to take place 23 every four years and there were to be annual unannounced 24 inspections. A member of the Education and Training 25 Inspectorate was to be provided by the Department of 72 1 Education to be part of the team responsible for 2 inspecting training schools. Borstals and the young 3 offenders centre were inspected by Her Majesty's 4 Inspectorate of Prisons. 5 In 1979 the Children and Young Persons Review Group 6 (otherwise known as the Black Committee) published its 7 report, to which I have already referred. As I made 8 clear previously, the recommendations of that report 9 were wide-reaching. One of the most important proposals 10 was that care cases should be separated from justice 11 cases. By "care cases" I mean those occasions where 12 a juvenile court made a Training School Order in respect 13 of a child or young person not because she had committed 14 an offence -- he or she -- but because that individual 15 was deemed to have been in need of care and protection 16 or care, protection and control after 1968. A lack of 17 political consensus meant that there was no possibility 18 of legal separation at this time, and this led to the 19 1982 Prior Compromise, which was an agreement between 20 the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Health 21 and Social Services. This compromise split justice and 22 care cases administratively, even though both remained 23 under the control of the Northern Ireland Office. 24 A formal split did not take place until the commencement 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. 73 1 In the late 1980s the Girls' Training School at 2 Whiteabbey closed and girls were transferred to 3 Rathgael. In 1980 borstals were abolished by the 4 Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. 5 Currently the position is that all children are held in 6 the Juvenile Justice Centre at Woodlands, which opened 7 in 2007 on the old Rathgael site. Provisions for the 8 inspection and oversight of it are found in the 2002 9 Justice (Northern Ireland) Act as amended. 10 That completes a brief history of the juvenile 11 justice provisions relating to the residential 12 institutions which fall to be considered by the Inquiry. 13 Before I move on to make some concluding remarks and 14 raise some questions that I suggest the Inquiry will 15 want to consider over the coming months I should say 16 that in addition to children's homes and institutions 17 for the detention of the juvenile offender other 18 institutions have fallen within the Inquiry's terms of 19 reference. One applicant has spoken of his time in the 20 workhouse. There are also a small number of other 21 individuals who have complained about their time in 22 special types of hospital or residential schools for 23 children with special needs. In respect of some of 24 these institutions the Inquiry has received very few 25 complaints. It will nonetheless be necessary to 74 1 consider the nature of those complaints and look at 2 other evidence in order to determine whether there is 3 evidence of potential systemic failings sufficient to 4 cause those institutions to be examined in this Inquiry. 5 At present the Inquiry intends to consider what 6 occurred in Lissue Children's Unit, Lisburn, which 7 closed in the late 1980s. Lissue House was built around 8 1807 and it was owned by the Lisburn linen family, the 9 Richardsons, well into this century. In 1941 its owner, 10 Colonel Lindsay, offered it to Belfast Hospital for Sick 11 Children as a refuge from the air raids on the city. In 12 1947 the house was bequeathed to the hospital and was 13 used as a children's convalescent home until 1988. The 14 Inquiry has received complaints from individuals about 15 what happened to them when they were resident in the 16 unit. 17 That's all I want to say about other types of 18 institutions at this point. In due course, as we come 19 to them, more details will be given. 20 Chairman, there is a short concluding section, which 21 I am happy to go on to now, which should take us to 22 about lunchtime, and then I should have finished my 23 remarks. 24 CHAIRMAN: Very well. 25 MS SMITH: In this section, and by way of conclusion to this 75 1 general opening, I am essentially going to pose a series 2 of questions and set out a number of topics or themes to 3 which the Inquiry might have regard when hearing the 4 evidence and in arriving at its conclusions as to 5 whether there were systemic failings by an institution 6 or the state in the care of children. 7 At the beginning of my opening I made it clear that 8 our terms of reference state that this Inquiry is to 9 examine if there were systemic failings by institutions 10 or the state in their duty towards children in their 11 care. The Act makes it clear that the Inquiry is not to 12 determine civil or criminal liability, and although in 13 fulfilling its remit the Inquiry must come to certain 14 conclusions about the evidence it hears, it does not 15 have to and should not conduct a series of mini-trials 16 into each allegation that is made. 17 The issue for the Inquiry is whether the facts as 18 the Inquiry determine them to be support a finding or 19 findings on the balance of probabilities of some systems 20 failure. For example, it has been accepted by one 21 institution that children were subject to sexual abuse 22 by members of its order. The matters for the Inquiry to 23 consider in light of such an admission is: what was 24 known about this, by whom, when, and what was done about 25 it? What steps were taken to avoid any repetition and 76 1 how did the congregation deal with the matter generally? 2 Were police involved? If not, why not? 3 In respect of all matters about which you will hear 4 I intend to ask the Inquiry to look at the evidence and 5 have in mind a number of topics or themes which may 6 assist in identifying whether systemic failings 7 occurred. These are matters which we have seen recur in 8 the accounts given to the Inquiry and about which the 9 Inquiry will no doubt want to explore in some detail 10 with certain witnesses. I will list these in no 11 particular order. 12 Firstly, the Inquiry will need to consider and 13 establish what abuse, if any, occurred in children's 14 homes. The Inquiry is already aware of accepted sexual 15 and physical abuse and there are a large number of 16 further similar allegations to be considered. 17 The Inquiry will then need to consider whether such 18 abuse was avoidable and whether there was any systems 19 failure which either facilitated it or failed to prevent 20 it. 21 In addition, the Inquiry will have to consider 22 whether any abuse was complained about and, if so, how 23 the complaint was dealt with, whether the home had 24 procedures for dealing with complaints and whether they 25 were adequate. 77 1 The Inquiry will want to consider the issue of 2 accommodation, and I suggest a number of questions will 3 need to be asked about accommodation. What 4 accommodation was provided for the children? Was it 5 adequate for the number of children who resided there? 6 What was the state of repair? Were there facilities 7 specific to the needs of children? If not, did this 8 permit abuse to occur? What capital funding was 9 available to an institution to maintain and improve the 10 accommodation provided? Within an institution how was 11 the accommodation arranged? Were children separated by 12 age? Were siblings separated or permitted to stay 13 within a family group? How did these arrangements 14 change over time? Why did they change, if they did? 15 Funding will also be an issue. Questions that need 16 to be asked in relation to this matter are: how was the 17 institution funded? What were the differences between 18 the funding of state-run homes and those provided by 19 voluntary bodies? Was there a consistency of approach 20 regarding the release of funds for improvements to 21 homes? If not, why not? In the case the voluntary 22 homes how much reliance was there on charitable 23 donations and how were these secured? Was there any 24 difference between the per capita payments made to 25 individual homes by the state? If so, how did this 78 1 affect the ability to properly feed and clothe the 2 children? Did a reliance on parents to make 3 a contribution have any bearing on how children were 4 treated? For example, we have received complaints that 5 children were denigrated because of a parent's inability 6 to pay towards a child's keep. 7 One important matter I suggest will be the issue of 8 staffing. What were the staffing ratios in any 9 institution? Was there enough staff to look after the 10 children? What were the levels of supervision like and 11 who carried out the supervision? Did a lack of 12 supervision allow abuse to occur and were children 13 effectively neglected? Were the staff trained or 14 qualified to look after children? This is something 15 that will no doubt have changed over the time period 16 under consideration. What provisions were made to 17 ensure that staff members were updated on developments 18 in the understanding of child care and the effects of 19 behaviour on a child's development? For example, what 20 knowledge did staff have or ought they to have had about 21 the risks of peer abuse or bed wetting? Were the staff 22 temperamentally suited to the task of looking after 23 children? What experience did they have? Were 24 background checks carried out or references obtained 25 before appointment? If it was subsequently ascertained 79 1 that someone was ill-suited to the task, what was done 2 either to remove that person or to educate or retrain 3 him or her? How was labour divided in the home and who 4 had responsibility for what tasks? Was there reliance 5 on volunteers or former residents? If so, had any of 6 these people been vetted in any way by the institution? 7 If children were released to the care of individuals or 8 families in the community for periods of time, what 9 steps were taken to ensure that those individuals or 10 families were suitable to look after children? What 11 monitoring of the time spent outside the home was there? 12 Illness and injury of children is another matter 13 about which complaints have been received. Aside from 14 the actual complaints of serious physical and sexual 15 abuse the Inquiry will hear that illnesses or injuries 16 sustained by children did not receive appropriate 17 medical attention, leaving some with physical scars and 18 other psychologically affected. The Inquiry will wish 19 to know did any staff have medical or nursing 20 qualifications? How often were doctors called to the 21 home? Did the children receive proper medical or dental 22 care? 23 Record-keeping is another matter to which the 24 Inquiry must have regard, and I suggest will be asking: 25 what records were kept? What records were required to 80 1 be kept at any given period? What level of detail was 2 expected to be recorded? Were the records kept 3 adequately? 4 The experience of the Inquiry to date suggests that 5 the level of record-keeping varied in institutions and 6 we have experienced difficulty in obtaining historical 7 records. Some records appear to have either been 8 destroyed or archived in a non-systematic fashion. 9 There are certainly gaps in some of the records provided 10 to the Inquiry by some institutions, and it has been 11 suggested about some of those who have spoken to us that 12 one institution disposed of records when the home 13 closed. 14 Another issue is whether there were cultural 15 differences between institutions that led to certain 16 behaviours being accepted. For example, what was the 17 attitude within a home to the physical chastisement of 18 children? Was it seen as an acceptable form of 19 discipline? Was it seen as teaching children how to 20 behave in order to rehabilitate them? Did religious 21 teaching inform how children were treated or punished? 22 If so, was that appropriate? How might the religious 23 ethos of a home impinge on whether a child who 24 complained was believed? For example, you will hear 25 that in one institution when a child made a complaint 81 1 about sexual abuse to someone in charge, the child was 2 struck and accused of lying. Did the religious ethos 3 actually lead to punishments for challenging the ethos? 4 Did different community attitudes to illegitimacy 5 lead to greater numbers of children in certain homes? 6 Were illegitimate children treated any differently to 7 those whose parents still had contact? Was any such 8 difference justified? 9 The Inquiry will want to look at what inspection 10 systems operated in relation to the homes and ask: what 11 was supposed to happen under the relevant legislation? 12 Did that actually happen? Were reports on inspections 13 adequate? Were any recommendations arising from 14 inspections followed? Did the fact that Northern 15 Ireland was a divided community affect how in particular 16 the voluntary organisations interacted with the state 17 authorities? If so, how did that impact on the matters 18 to be determined by the Inquiry, if at all? 19 These are just some of the matters that will need to 20 be considered by the Inquiry and the list is not 21 exhaustive. I have no doubt that as the Inquiry 22 progresses many more questions will fall to be asked. 23 This is only the start of what will be a lengthy and 24 at times difficult process. The Inquiry's legal team 25 recognises that this will be a difficult one not only 82 1 for those who have had the courage to come forward to 2 share their experiences but also for those whose 3 responsibility it was to look after the children in 4 their care. 5 Chairman and Panel Members, ladies and gentlemen, 6 that concludes my opening remarks. It may be that some 7 of my colleagues appearing for the core participants 8 before the Inquiry will wish to make some short opening 9 comments but, subject to your view, Chairman, it may be 10 appropriate they do so following a break. 11 CHAIRMAN: Very well. 12 Ladies and gentlemen, it is the Inquiry's intention 13 to offer to each of the core participants the 14 opportunity to make, if they wish to do so, a short 15 opening statement now that you have heard my opening 16 remarks and those of Counsel to the Inquiry. We will 17 give that you opportunity when we resume again at 18 2 o'clock. If you wish to have some discussions with 19 Inquiry counsel as to the order in which you make your 20 submissions, please feel free to do so, otherwise you 21 will be invited to do so -- and I should say to make 22 your appearances -- in alphabetical order of your 23 clients. We will sit again at 2 o'clock. 24 (12.50 pm) 25 (Lunch break) 83 1 (2.00 pm) 2 CHAIRMAN: Now, ladies and gentlemen, in alphabetical order 3 the first core participant to whom I will offer the 4 opportunity to make an opening statement is Barnardo's. 5 Ms Bates, you appear for Barnardo's. 6 Opening statement on behalf of BARNARDO'S 7 MS BATES: Thank you. Chairman, Panel Members, I appear on 8 behalf of Barnardo's UK in relation to this Inquiry. 9 I~am grateful for this opportunity to make these brief 10 opening remarks on behalf of my client. 11 Sir, you have quite properly designated Barnardo's 12 as a core participant to this Inquiry. At this point, 13 the commencement of the public hearing stage, we are 14 aware that Barnardo's will be one of the organisations 15 which will be investigated by the Inquiry, although we 16 have not yet been provided with a detailed account of 17 the matters which the Inquiry intends to investigate. 18 These opening remarks are not, therefore, a response to 19 issues to be investigated but rather an affirmation of 20 the commitment of Barnardo's to assisting the Inquiry 21 with the process of gathering evidence throughout the 22 public hearings in an open and transparent manner. 23 Barnardo's is committed to learning from the past and 24 participating fully in any process which improves the 25 provision of protection and care to children. 84 1 Many present today will be familiar with Barnardo's 2 as a contemporary children's organisation providing 3 services to some of the most vulnerable children in 4 Northern Ireland and across the UK. Barnardo's is 5 a registered charity, committed to transforming the 6 lives of the abused, the forgotten and neglected, 7 campaigning for better policy on the care of children 8 and championing the rights of every child. In Northern 9 Ireland Barnardo's delivers 63 services, including 10 family support, safeguarding, trauma, suicide and 11 bereavement services. 12 Barnardo's is also an organisation that has 13 delivered residential care across a broad spectrum of 14 history. Barnardo's has been working in Ireland since 15 1899 with the establishment of the "open door" in Great 16 Victoria Street in Belfast, whereby no child was turned 17 away. 18 As an organisation Barnardo's has a strong sense of 19 the heritage of the responsibility for those who have 20 been under its care. This includes the direct 21 experience of listening to, working with and supporting 22 victims of historical abuse. 23 The management of Barnardo's is formally entrusted 24 to its board of trustees, two of them have travelled 25 from England to be in Northern Ireland to hear the 85 1 opening remarks made by you, sir, and also by senior 2 counsel to the Inquiry. This is a significant 3 indication of the commitment of the trustees to this 4 Inquiry and a demonstration of the support of Barnardo's 5 to the important work of this Inquiry. 6 It is worth clarifying that when Dr Thomas Barnardo 7 began his work in Northern Ireland in 1899, Barnardo's 8 operated on an all-Ireland basis. This continued until 9 1989, when Barnardo's Republic of Ireland was 10 constituted as a separate charity. Until the early 11 1920s most of the service was based on the "open door" 12 policy. From the onset of the Second World War the 13 policy of moving children to Britain reduced, with 14 longer term provision being established in Ireland. 15 However, for many more years young people left 16 Barnardo's residential care in Ireland to attend 17 residential training facilities in England and Scotland. 18 Barnardo's was involved in fifteen residential 19 facilities within the scope of the terms of reference of 20 this Inquiry during the period 1922 to 1995. The 21 investigation by the Inquiry relates to two of those 22 facilities. 23 Moving on to today, it is already a matter of public 24 record that Barnardo's embraces the objectives of this 25 Inquiry, both from the perspective of a current 86 1 organisation with the commitment to the safeguarding of 2 children, and also as an organisation it has a duty of 3 care, which is at times weighty, to former residents. 4 Barnardo's continues to make provision for those who are 5 historically in their care. The Barnardo service called 6 Making Connections provides a national and international 7 service for adults, providing access to care and 8 adoption records, support and counselling. Barnardo's 9 retains a vast archive of records about children 10 previously in their care. The Making Connection team is 11 staffed by experienced social workers and researchers. 12 At UK and at Northern Ireland level there is a body 13 of experience of responding to the needs of adult victim 14 survivors. Barnardo's Northern Ireland supports and has 15 contact with the Barnardo's old boys' and girls' 16 network, who meet at least once a year. 17 Barnardo's has demonstrated a commitment to the work 18 of the Inquiry. Barnardo's recognises the important 19 role of the Inquiry to meet the needs of victim 20 survivors. From the submissions made by Ms Linda Wilson 21 of Barnardo's to the Committee for the Office of the 22 First Minister and Deputy First Minister in 23 September 2012 on the draft Inquiry bill through to 24 this, the opening of the public hearing stage of the 25 Inquiry, Barnardo's have adopted an open and cooperative 87 1 stance with the Inquiry. Barnardo's has complied on 2 a voluntary basis with the request from the Inquiry for 3 disclosure of information. 4 Barnardo's commend the considerable effort made by 5 the Inquiry legal team to protect the privacy and 6 identity of those whose information has been disclosed 7 to the Inquiry. The redaction protocol and the 8 procedures helpfully outlined by Ms Smith in her opening 9 remarks will allow the Inquiry to deal with evidence in 10 a fair and transparent manner whilst at the same time 11 ensuring the privacy and rights of the victim survivors 12 are protected. 13 Barnardo's hope is that the critical focus of this 14 Inquiry will be on the voice of the victim survivor. 15 Through the work of this statutory Inquiry and the work 16 of the Acknowledgment Forum victim survivors will have 17 the opportunity to bear witness to their experiences. 18 It is essential that the Inquiry thoroughly and 19 comprehensively considers the relevant evidence gathered 20 to allow that distilled knowledge to be made available 21 for wider learning and policy-making for the future care 22 of children. Barnardo's recognises the scope, 23 complexity and sensitivity of the task before the 24 Inquiry team and stands committed to assisting the 25 Inquiry, ready to participate fully in this process and 88 1 prepared to learn from the past to ensure that the 2 current and future needs of the most vulnerable are met. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Bates. 5 Mr Rooney, do the De La Salle Order wish to say 6 anything? 7 Opening statement on behalf of the DE LA SALLE ORDER 8 MR ROONEY: Yes, Mr Chairman. I appear on behalf of the De 9 La Salle Order with Mr Declan Quinn of counsel. We are 10 instructed by Napier & Co., Solicitors. 11 Chairman, the De La Salle Brothers would like to 12 thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to make this 13 opening statement. 14 First and foremost, the Brothers would wish to say 15 publicly at the outset of this Inquiry that they accept 16 and deeply regret that boys in their care were abused. 17 They wish to offer their sincere and unreserved apology 18 to all those whom they failed to protect. 19 The De La Salle Brothers were founded in the 17th 20 century by St. John Baptist de La Salle with a mission 21 to meet the Christian, educational and welfare needs and 22 care of deprived children. In keeping with that mission 23 the De La Salle Brothers staffed two institutional homes 24 in Northern Ireland, namely Rubane House in Kircubbin 25 and St. Patrick's Training School in Belfast. At all 89 1 times during the operation of these homes the Brothers 2 worked in conjunction with and alongside the Diocese of 3 Down & Connor, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the 4 Department of Education, Department of Health and Social 5 Services Board and various welfare boards in furthering 6 the needs and requirements of the children in care. 7 The De La Salle Order has previously acknowledged 8 that innocent victims within its care were abused by 9 some of its members. That some Brothers abused boys in 10 their care was in total contradiction of their vocation 11 as De La Salle Brothers and of their mission as 12 established by their founder, namely to look after the 13 welfare and the educational needs of deprived, 14 vulnerable and abandoned children. 15 The Brothers recognise the immense pain and 16 suffering and damage caused to those victims who have 17 been abused. The Brothers recognise the sense of 18 betrayal that the victims have experienced and the 19 violation of trust caused by certain Brothers within the 20 order. They recognise that there have been failures to 21 protect the victims. The De La Salle Order deeply 22 regrets the acts of some of its members which have 23 irreparably damaged the reputation of the Order and 24 undermined the selfless care provided by so many of the 25 Brothers in pursuance of their vocation. 90 1 Rubane House and St. Patrick's Training School have 2 been the subject of various police investigations from 3 1980 to the present date. There was a Public Inquiry in 4 1984. At all times the De La Salle Order has fully 5 cooperated with all governmental agencies. The De La 6 Salle Order remains committed to assisting both this 7 Inquiry and the police with their investigations. 8 I say, Mr Chairman, that the De La Salle Brothers 9 have adopted a proactive and collaborative approach to 10 this Inquiry with a view to making the process less 11 onerous to the victims by ensuring that a holistic 12 account is achieved. The Order is committed to honesty 13 and transparency. Essentially, Mr Chairman, it is hoped 14 that the Inquiry would provide a forum for those victims 15 to courageously speak out as to what happened, but also 16 to allay rumour and suspicion in respect of those who 17 have been wrongly accused. 18 It is the hope of the Order that this Inquiry will 19 establish the truth and identify any systemic failures 20 on the part of the institutions. As former residents 21 and staff of the institutional homes grow older, this 22 Inquiry represents perhaps the last opportunity to 23 establish what exactly occurred during the operation of 24 the homes. 25 The Order's knowledge of events of abuse have 91 1 evolved considerably over the years. It is confident 2 that as a result of various civil claims and in-depth 3 discussions and consultation with former residents it 4 knows more than its predecessors about the abuse within 5 the homes it staffed. The Order is now working to 6 repair those past injustices and to learn lessons from 7 mistakes that were made. The Order remains encouraged 8 by and grateful to those former residents who continue 9 to support it and those innocent Brothers through these 10 difficult times. 11 The coming months will not be easy for the De La 12 Salle Order or for the former residents as individuals 13 or groups. It will bring many days of hurt and 14 discomfort. However, as emphasised previously, 15 Mr Chairman, the De La Salle Order recognise that it is 16 imperative that it engages with this Inquiry in a fully 17 cooperative and open manner. 18 Finally, Chairman, may I say on behalf of the Order 19 that the Inquiry questionnaire has been of considerable 20 assistance in allowing the Order to compile and provide 21 assistance to the Inquiry. The Order trust this Inquiry 22 in establishing the truth and identifying failings on 23 the part of the Order will also bring healing to those 24 who have been directly and indirectly affected by abuse, 25 especially those innocent and vulnerable children. 92 1 Thank you, Mr Chairman. 2 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Rooney. 3 Mr O'Reilly, the Department of Health I think is 4 next in order. 5 Opening statement on behalf of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 6 MR O'REILLY: Mr Chairman, Members of the Inquiry, I am 7 instructed on behalf of the Department of Health, Social 8 Services and Public Safety, perhaps better referred to 9 as "Department". Although of more recent creation, it 10 is, of course, the successor to the main government 11 departments which had social care responsibilities and 12 the care and custody of children going back to the time 13 of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the successive 14 government successors from that time. 15 The Department is grateful for having been allocated 16 the status of a core participant. In fact, unlike most 17 of the other core participants, its involvement in this 18 Inquiry is probably throughout the 18 month period, as 19 reference has been made, and particularly by my learned 20 friend Ms Smith this morning, to the powers particularly 21 of inspection that the Department's predecessors had 22 from the beginning of the last century. 23 The terms of this Inquiry have been fully 24 acknowledged by the Department to the extent that the 25 Department has brought together a panel of social care 93 1 experts who have been working industriously for a number 2 of months and who are in the final stages of a report 3 which will be provided to the Inquiry within the next 4 few days. 5 The Department believes that it has to date provided 6 the Inquiry with such documentation as it has in its 7 possession, but that that search will continue, and that 8 it will continue to assist and cooperate with the 9 Inquiry in all aspects of its investigation. It has 10 also granted access without hesitation to such documents 11 as are held by the Public Records Office of Northern 12 Ireland, and it will answer and hope to continue to 13 answer all questions posed by the Inquiry over the 14 course of the rest of the Inquiry. 15 Thank you, Mr Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr O'Reilly. 17 Ms Smyth, you I understand appear for the Health and 18 Social Care Board. 19 Opening statement on behalf of the HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE 20 BOARD 21 MS SMYTH: That's right, Chairman. Chairman and Members of 22 the Panel, I appear on behalf of the Health and Social 23 Care Board for Northern Ireland, which I will refer to 24 as "the Board" in the course of this brief opening. 25 Previously this was the four Health and Social 94 1 Services Boards created by the Health and Personal 2 Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. 3 Chairperson, the Board welcomes this Inquiry and at 4 the outset the Board wishes to make it clear that it has 5 and it will continue to make every effort to assist the 6 Inquiry in the conduct of these public hearings. 7 In the public hearings the Inquiry will hear from 8 people who lived in institutions and will be reflecting 9 upon the functioning of those institutions, the 10 behaviour of individuals within the institutions, and 11 the effectiveness of the registration, monitoring and 12 inspection processes that were in place over time. 13 The Board recognises that there will be very close 14 scrutiny of the practices of state authorities in 15 residential institutions. The Panel will note that over 16 time there were different obligations on the Board and 17 the Department of Health, depending on the status of the 18 institution as voluntary or statutory. In general terms 19 whilst the Board had operational responsibility for the 20 statutory units, the Department of Health retained 21 overall responsibility for monitoring and inspection of 22 the voluntary sector units. 23 The Panel will also note, as referenced by Ms Smith 24 in her opening, that many of the children placed in 25 voluntary homes in the early years were placed privately 95 1 and accordingly many were not known to the Board. That 2 is regrettable, because by not knowing about these 3 children, the Board did not have the opportunity to 4 intervene. 5 Chairperson, the Board recognises that it is very 6 important that the life stories of those who lived in 7 institutions are listened to and that claims of systemic 8 failures by institutions in relation to the abuse of 9 children is fully explored. 10 Where the Board failed to meet acceptable standards 11 for the care and upbringing of children in institutions 12 and that resulted in wrongdoing the Board is sorry and 13 offers its apologies to the individuals concerned. 14 Finally, the Board recognises that these public 15 hearings will undoubtedly be a painful process for those 16 who lived in institutions. However, it is hoped that 17 the sharing of experiences by those affected by 18 childhood abuse and the close scrutiny that will be 19 applied to the behaviour of those who worked in 20 institutions will assist in gaining a deeper 21 understanding of where wrongs occurred and should assist 22 in further informing and developing working principles 23 and practices to ensure a better future for current and 24 future generations of children and young people who live 25 in residential care. 96 1 Thank you, Chairman. 2 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 Mr Wolfe, you appear for the Department of Justice 4 I understand. 5 Opening statement on behalf of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 6 MR WOLFE: That's right, sir. My name is Martin Wolfe and I 7 am instructed to represent the interests of the 8 Department of Justice at this Inquiry. 9 Chairman and Members of the Panel, I am grateful for 10 this opportunity to make a brief opening statement on 11 behalf of the Department of Justice. I understand that 12 there will be a further opportunity to address you in 13 greater detail when we reach that part of the hearings 14 which will examine the activities of those bodies for 15 which the Department takes responsibility. Therefore, 16 I will limit my remarks to the following discrete points 17 at this time. 18 Sir, as you are aware, the Department of Justice is 19 a relatively new creation. Prior to 12th April 2010, 20 when justice powers were formally devolved to the 21 Northern Ireland Assembly, the functions which are now 22 performed by the Department, including the care of young 23 people within the youth justice system, were exercised 24 by the Northern Ireland Office. Those functions are now 25 performed by the core department and its agencies, 97 1 including the Youth Justice Agency and the Northern 2 Ireland Prison Service as well as the Probation Service, 3 which is a non-departmental public body. 4 As Ms Smith has acknowledged already this morning, 5 the Department's Permanent Secretary, Mr Nick Perry, has 6 assisted the Inquiry by providing a detailed witness 7 statement which charts inter alia the main historical 8 developments in the arrangements for supervision and 9 provision of care to young people whose circumstances or 10 behaviour has brought them into contact with the justice 11 system between 1922 and 1995. Mr Perry has also 12 described the current arrangements, including the major 13 changes and improvements in systems and policies that 14 have taken place in the years since 1995. 15 In addition to the historical overview provided by 16 Mr Perry, the Department has performed extensive 17 searches of all the records and files which the 18 Department and its agencies have retained relating to 19 the relevant period, and has ensured that any relevant 20 individual or general files have been forwarded to the 21 Inquiry. 22 The Department has also separately written to the 23 Inquiry in order to specify those predecessor bodies 24 whose activities the Department will take responsibility 25 for at the Inquiry. I refer specifically to the letter 98 1 sent to the Inquiry by Ms Claire Archbold on 8th 2 January 2014, which, sir, you can find at Historical 3 Institutional Abuse reference 1316 and 1317. I needn't 4 bring it up just now. 5 The Department, sir, is responsible for the 6 resourcing, legislative and policy framework of the 7 justice system in Northern Ireland. How young people 8 are cared for within that system is at the heart of its 9 activities. In particular, special attention is paid to 10 the needs and interests of children in custody, with 11 strong and independent scrutiny through such bodies as 12 the Criminal Justice Inspectorate for Northern Ireland 13 and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. 14 The Department has recently engaged in a reform 15 programme, whose remit has included a review of the 16 criminal justice system, which has, for example, seen 17 the removal of children from Prison Service custody and 18 a statement of intent produced to include the best 19 interests of the child in the statutory aims of the 20 youth justice system. 21 In terms of its own role and the vital services 22 which it delivers to the community the Department of 23 Justice will have a keen interest in examining the 24 findings of this Inquiry in due course. 25 Therefore the Department wholeheartedly welcomes the 99 1 commencement of the oral hearings of this Inquiry. It 2 commends the Inquiry for its valuable work to date, 3 particularly the ground-breaking initiative of the 4 Acknowledgment Forum. The work of the Inquiry has 5 attracted the interest and commitment of the Department 6 at the highest level and will continue to do so. The 7 Department fully appreciates the importance of the 8 Inquiry's work, and it is sensitive to the requirement 9 to proceed in a collegiate fashion so that the Inquiry 10 can comply with its terms of reference and the demands 11 of the timetable. 12 The Department has sought to provide the Inquiry 13 with its fullest support in its preparation for these 14 oral hearings and pledges to maintain that approach as 15 the Inquiry enters this pivotal stage. The Department's 16 participation in the oral hearings will be guided by 17 a spirit of openness and cooperation. In particular, 18 the Department undertakes to continue to respond to the 19 Inquiry's ongoing requests for information 20 and documentation as fully and as quickly as possible. 21 Allegations that vulnerable young people have been 22 abused while in the care of state-run and voluntary 23 institutions are rightly regarded with the utmost 24 seriousness. The Department recognises that for the 25 individual the damage caused by abuse in childhood can 100 1 stunt potential and trigger a downward spiral in which 2 the victim may suffer lifelong physical and 3 psychological impairment, educational under-achievement 4 and economic disadvantage. 5 The Department acknowledges the courage and 6 fortitude of those who have come forward to tell their 7 stories to the Inquiry and it recognises that there are 8 perhaps many others who have not lived to tell their 9 story or for diverse reasons have felt unable to do so. 10 It is right that effective steps are now being taken to 11 investigate the allegations of abuse that have been 12 made. If allegations are upheld, it will be necessary 13 to measure the extent of the abuse, to say whether it 14 has been systemic and to identify the policies, systems 15 and organisations which have permitted abuse to occur 16 and to go undetected or unsanctioned. 17 As the Inquiry embarks on the work of conducting the 18 oral hearings, it is also important to keep in mind that 19 most of the young people who have been cared for within 20 the justice sector have been treated responsibly 21 and with dignity. Those who have worked in that sector 22 or who continue to choose that work as their career are 23 in the main diligent and professional people committed 24 to those entrusted to their care. The vast majority 25 regard the abuse of any young person as being deeply 101 1 repugnant and an affront to the service which they and 2 their colleagues have provided. They too have 3 a profound interest in ensuring that the Inquiry 4 proceeds by shining a powerful spotlight on the concerns 5 that give rise to its establishment in the first place. 6 The Department recognises that just as this Inquiry 7 holds out the potential for truth and closure to those 8 who complain that they were abused in an institutional 9 setting, it also provides those who work or who have 10 worked with young people in this area with a unique 11 opportunity to learn lessons from the past and to ensure 12 the contemporary systems and policies accord with best 13 practice as it is now understood. Accordingly the 14 Department reiterates its commitment to assist the 15 Inquiry in any way in which it can. 16 Thank you, sir. 17 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Wolfe. 18 Mr Montague, you appear for the Sisters of Nazareth 19 I understand. 20 Opening statement on behalf of SISTERS OF NAZARETH 21 MR MONTAGUE: I do, Chairman. Chairman, Members of the 22 Panel, I do indeed appear for the Sisters of Nazareth 23 along with my learned friend Mrs Walkenshaw, instructed 24 by Jones & Company, Solicitors. 25 At the outset, Chairman, I do wish to refer very 102 1 briefly to your opening remarks and in particular your 2 statement that: 3 "The Inquiry provides a unique opportunity for 4 everyone involved in any way with the care of children 5 in institutions to reflect on what may have happened to 6 those children and to consider whether there are lessons 7 that can be learned that may prevent the mistakes of the 8 past being repeated in the future", 9 to which you added: 10 "We realise that this may be a challenging process 11 for everyone involved, but it is our hope that everybody 12 who is requested to assist the Inquiry will do so." 13 Can I say, Chairman, that my clear instructions from 14 the Sisters of Nazareth are that they are very anxious 15 to ensure full cooperation with the Inquiry. It is 16 indeed a challenging and daunting task for them to face 17 the Inquiry. They have already begun their period of 18 reflection on the past. Former residents have come to 19 them over the past number of years to tell them of their 20 unhappiness in their homes, and they have been appalled 21 and shocked at the statements of those persons who have 22 come before the Inquiry to date to tell of their 23 experiences in their homes. 24 The Sisters of Nazareth are also reassured by the 25 terms of reference of the Inquiry that the standards 103 1 will be judged by the standards of the time. Ms Smith's 2 opening before the Inquiry today, which was, if I might 3 say so, a tour de force charting the history of the 4 provision and development of child care over the past 5 century and longer, demonstrates the historical context 6 that we respectfully urge the Inquiry to adopt when 7 assessing the wrongdoings or the omissions on the part 8 of any of the institutions that are before the Inquiry. 9 I also wish to state on behalf of the Sisters of 10 Nazareth that they recognise the hurt that has been 11 caused to some children in their care. They apologise 12 unreservedly for any abuse suffered by children in their 13 care. They go forward hoping that lessons will be 14 learned not just by them in the provision of care but 15 also by carers generally in society and the wider 16 society at large. 17 We will address the Inquiry further when it comes to 18 the specific phase dealing with my clients on the 19 respective homes both in the city of Derry and in 20 Belfast. 21 Thank you. 22 Remarks by CHAIRMAN 23 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Montague. 24 Well, ladies and gentlemen, this brings us to the 25 end of this particular initial stage of the work of the 104 1 Inquiry in the public sphere. As you know, but I just 2 take the opportunity to repeat, we will next sit on 3 Monday, 27th January at 10.30 am here in Banbridge and, 4 as she has already indicated, Ms Smith will then deliver 5 an opening specifically related to the two institutions 6 in Derry that we have announced that we will be looking 7 at first in the module which commences on 27th, and on 8 Tuesday, 28th January we anticipate that the first 9 witnesses will be called by the Inquiry and will 10 commence their evidence. 11 The order in which the witnesses will be called and 12 the initial timetabling of their evidence will be 13 notified to you all very soon by the Inquiry team. 14 I would like to take this opportunity to say 15 publicly that the work of the Inquiry will be greatly 16 assisted by a willingness on the part of all legal 17 representatives for your core participants or when the 18 time comes those who are alleged to have committed 19 abuse, a willingness to work in a sensible, effective, 20 cooperative fashion with the Inquiry and its legal team, 21 because I am well aware from my previous judicial life 22 that these matters tend to move forward much more 23 effectively and expeditiously if everyone works in 24 a cooperative frame of mind rather than doing the best 25 they can to keep their cards as close to their chests 105 1 for as long as possible. 2 I am sure that my colleagues will agree with me that 3 we are encouraged by the expressions which we have heard 4 today on the part of the various core participants that 5 they are anxious to cooperate with the work of the 6 Inquiry, and we are grateful for that expression of 7 willingness on the part of those concerned, because the 8 work of the Inquiry, as you all appreciate, will extend 9 dare I say it relentlessly over the next 18 months or 10 so. Not all of you will be engaged throughout. Some no 11 doubt will be, but it will be of great assistance to us 12 to have the whole-hearted cooperation of everyone 13 concerned. 14 We are operating under a tight and challenging time 15 frame, and that means we cannot always give a very long 16 period of notice of who we will be calling as witnesses 17 or what we are going to do or to serve documents weeks 18 and months in advance. We will serve anything we can, 19 as we have been doing, as rapidly and as far in advance 20 as we possibly can, but there will undoubtedly be 21 occasions when through no-one's fault inevitably -- 22 because our investigations continue as we speak -- that 23 inevitably there will be occasions when some may think 24 they do not get documents as far in advance as they 25 would perhaps wish. I'm afraid that will be inevitable, 106 1 but I trust that everybody will approach this in 2 a sensible and cooperative way. 3 Finally, whilst, of course, it is for those to whom 4 the apologies have been directed to measure them and 5 weigh them as they think fit, I have no doubt that it is 6 appropriate that the various core participants who have 7 given their apologies, where appropriate, and their 8 expressions of regret, where appropriate, have taken 9 this early opportunity to do so and not waited until the 10 time, which will occur, of course, for each institution, 11 when we turn to reach that institution and examine that 12 institution in more detail, because regrettably one of 13 the features which is very much to the forefront of all 14 our minds is that it has taken a very long time for the 15 matters which many people have sought to ventilate to be 16 ventilated in this Inquiry, and I am sure they at least 17 will be grateful for what they have heard from each of 18 you in the course of this afternoon. 19 Now with those words, ladies and gentlemen, we will 20 draw this afternoon's proceedings to a close and those 21 who are concerned with the module on 27th will no doubt 22 hear from us very soon, if they have not already done 23 so. Thank you for your attendance today. 24 (2.38 pm) 25 (Hearing adjourned until 10.30 am on 27th January 2014) 107 1 I N D E X 2 Opening remarks by COUNSEL TO THE ....................3 3 INQUIRY (cont.) 4 Opening statement on behalf of ......................84 BARNARDO'S 5 Opening statement on behalf of the ..................89 6 DE LA SALLE ORDER 7 Opening statement on behalf of the ..................93 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 8 Opening statement on behalf of the ..................94 9 HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE BOARD 10 Opening statement on behalf of the ..................97 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 11 Opening statement on behalf of .....................102 12 SISTERS OF NAZARETH 13 Remarks by CHAIRMAN ................................104 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108