It's time to face facts about industrial school failings

Irish Independant
Saturday August 25 2007

BROTHER Edmund Garvey, in this week's press statement about Artane, claims that the Department of Education inspection -- following Fr Moore's Report -- made by two senior inspectors together with Dr Anna McCabe, the Medical Inspector, was not notified in advance.

He says: "The Brothers in Artane at the time did not have prior notice of the inspection, contrary to reports in recent media commentary."

It was the regular practice, in all industrial schools, for prior notification to be given by the Department of coming inspections.

As a result, special food was served, clean clothing issued and everything was smartened up.
It was a charade, but it allowed everyone to go on as before and reform nothing. Countless inmates have testified to this factual situation.

It is not sufficient to challenge what Brother Garvey has said about the inaccuracy on this point in Irish Independent coverage, which he criticises.

There is more evidence, however. The boy who served meals to Fr Moore -- who generally fed on his own -- knew of the inspection in advance and knew also that Fr Moore expected it.

As soon as they arrived he drove out of Artane and back to his house. There was no doubt, in Fr Moore's and the boy's minds, as well as in gossip among the Brothers, that there was prior knowledge of the visit.

Conflict of evidence goes deeper. Reading the sustained and unrelentingly negative judgments made by Fr Moore in his Report, it is inconceivable that a two-day visit by inspectors could in any way whatever refute the testimony.

And it is a disgrace that the two approaches were treated to cancel each other out.

The Moore Report, presented to the Archbishop, was concerned with every aspect of Artane witnessed over almost two years (Fr Moore remained at Artane as chaplain for seven years).

The other, done more or less on the orders of the chairman of the inter-departmental committee, Peter Berry, was done with Charles Haughey's backing. He as minister was the instigator of the response.

Department of Education alarm -- expressed very strongly by its representatives at meetings of the committee -- sought to refute everything the priest had said. To do so would have needed a stay at Artane of months, rather than two-days.

It was done as a 'response' to Fr Moore, according to Bridget McManus, present secretary general, in her testimony to the Commission on June 12, 2006.

She said the inspectors, whose brief was "to state the facts reasonably and with discretion, good and bad to be included", had, in their two-day inspection and according to department records, managed to look "at virtually every aspect of life in Artane ... including food the children were eating and the clothes they were wearing ... the relationship between boys and teachers ... virtually every heading ... [and] the Department's report was satisfied that there was no substance to the allegations of Fr Moore."

According to Bridget McManus, "there was some criticism subsequently in the Interdepartmental Committee minutes and discussions that perhaps they hadn't dealt with all headings". Hardly surprising if their assessment was confined to two days.

Later, the Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, agreed with part of Fr Moore's report but rejected its findings over food.

This was later to have a humourous postscript. When Dr McCabe, a formidable lady, retired in 1965 she visited Artane for a farewell lunch, dressed for the occasion in a tweed suit and wearing a smart tweed hat. She was accompanied by the senior brothers.

Informed in advance, the boys were given the usual 'special day' food of boiled pork chops in gravy.
When Dr McCabe came into the dining hall the boys were picking up the unusual food and inspecting the chops. Deciding that they were in her honour, those near the entrance threw them at her.

Both she and the senior brothers beat a hasty retreat. A large detachment of brothers later entered the dining hall and anyone without a chop on his plate was flogged. The event became known as giving Dr McCabe 'the chop'.

Compared with the reprehensible handling of Fr Moore's report, the treatment of Dr McCabe was light relief.

Brother Reynolds, who appeared at the Commission for the Christian Brothers, said, in talking about Fr Moore, he found himself "in difficulties". These difficulties were the 1994 conviction against Fr Moore for sexual abuse, 30 years after his report.

Brother Reynolds started his testimony saying: "I am so sorry, I need some direction ... I meant to do this before... a name was mentioned and it has caught up with me... I am not too sure how to put this without saying what I want to say. I am not too sure how to deal with this."

Instead of stopping him, Commission chairman Sean Ryan directed him to continue on the grounds of vital public interest. He allowed the references to a conviction of Fr Moore for sexual abuse to be made, and for a general debate about what might be done with this extraneous and -- to Fr Moore and his report -- damaging testimony.

This is just one of the many loopholes of error in the whole industrial school saga.

We still have a long way to go.

The Archbishop of Dublin should give us more help of the kind he gave in releasing Fr Moore's Report.