Opening Statement

MNH-2326

MH 60

MH 60 MNH-2327

MH 60 MNH-3194 MNH-3220

MH1

MH48

MH46 MNH-3221

MH46

MH 52 MH48

MH 10 MNH-3200

MH1

MH1 MNH-3237

MH1

MH61

MH48

MH1

MH1 MNH-3192

MH 10 MH 62

MH 62

MH1 MH1 MH1 MH 62

MH 62 MH1 MNH-3266

MH46

MH1

MH1 MNH-3199

MH46 MNH-3202

MH1

MH1 MNH-3220

MH1

MH48

MH46 MNH-3281

MH48 MH46

MH48

MH46 MNH-3218

MH48

MH44 MH44

MH44 MNH-2029

MH46

MH48 MNH-2030 MNH-2031

MH44 MNH-3308

MH46

MH 10

MH48

MH48 MNH-3309

MH48

MH63

MH44 MNH-3310

MH46 MH 10

MH48

MH45 MH46 MH45 MNH-3311

MH44

MH48

MH45

MH46

MH46 MNH-3313

MH46 MH 10

MH46 MH48

MH48

MH45

MH44

MH46

MH45 MNH-2506 MNH-2242 MNH-2243 MNH-296

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY

STATEMENT TO THE HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE INQUIRY

MODULE 9

MANOR HOUSE CHILDREN’S HOME (LISBURN)

18 December 2015

MNH-308

ANNEX A

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY ANNEX TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESS STATEMENT

MODULE 9 – MANOR HOUSE CHILDREN’S HOME, LISBURN

A1. Manor House was opened as a children’s home by the Society for Irish Church Missions in November 19271. The minutes of the management committee indicate that between May 1928 and 1929 the home appears to have run into financial problems which resulted in its closure in or around December 1929, when all the children were moved to Dublin. Due to concerted efforts by the management committee to raise funding, the home was reopened in May 19322.

A2. No information is available within the evidence received from the HIAI regarding the involvement by MoHA with the home until 30 May 1950 when an application to have Manor House registered as an adoption agency was received by MoHA. Miss Harrison and Miss Forrest (MoHA children’s inspectors) visited the home initially, it would appear, in connection with the application for adoption agency registration. Miss Forrest’s report dated 8 June 19503 noted that a member of the committee, MH46 , who met them with the Matron, MH1 , was opposed to the committee of the home becoming an adoption society, they had no ‘outside worker ‘ who could undertake enquiries and the Matron ‘had her hands full with her own work: 20 children’.

A3. Miss Forrest listed the staffing in place and reminded MH1 and MH46 of the obligation to register as a voluntary home. The inspectors cleared up a misunderstanding on the part of MH46 that registration as a children’s home was “tied in with application for a grant”. Staff said they needed approval of the Superintendent of Irish Church Missions in Dublin or even of “HQ in London” before making application4. The inspectors were shown over the home which Miss Forrest described as “very clean but shabby …. Seemed generally to be run on good lines but handicapped by lack of money”. She commented on the cooking arrangements in the home, which to her

1 MNH-156 2 MNH-2324-2327 3 MNH-2939 4 The statements relating to this information in Miss Forrest’s report were annotated with an ‘X’ by an MoHA official (see paragraph A11). MNH-2939

MH1 MH46

MH46

MH46 MH1

MH1 MNH-2938 MNH-2937 MNH-3278

MH46 MH48 MH46

MH46

MH1 MNH-2933 MNH-2934

MH1 MNH-2935 MNH-2936 MNH-2733 MNH-2929 MNH-2927 MNH-2918

MH46 MNH-2919

MH1

MH46

MH46 MNH-2917 MNH-3319

MH48 MNH-3322

MH48

MH46

MH46 MNH-3332

MH 64

MH46

MH46 MNH-2908 MNH-2894

MH46 MH48

MH46 MNH-2895

MH46 MH48

MH48

MH46 MH48

MH48

MH46

MH46 MNH-2892

MH47

MH46

MH46 MH47

MH46

MH46 MNH-2897 MNH-2877

MH46

MH46 MNH-2878

MH46

MH 43 MNH-2889 MNH-2875 MNH-2872

MH 64

MH46 MNH-2865 MNH-2866

MH46 MNH-2867 MNH-2868 MNH-2869 MNH-3333

MH46 MH 51, MH 52

MH 10 MH48 MNH-2855

MH 52 MH 51

MH 52

MH 51

MH 51 MNH-2852

MH 64 MH 64

MH 64

MH46 MNH-2853

MH 64 MNH-2854 MNH-2848 MNH-2846 MNH-2847 MNH-2843 MNH-2837 MNH-2838 MNH-2830 MNH-2828 MNH-2822 MNH-2824 MNH-2730 MNH-2813

MH 64 MNH-2817

MH1 MNH-2807

MH1 MNH-2811

MH 43 MNH-3336

MH 10

MH 43

MH 64 MNH-3337

MH 43

MH46 MH 10

MH 10 MH 10

MH 43

MH45

MH 64 MNH-3347

MH46

MH46 MNH-3348 MNH-3349

MH46

MH46 MNH-3350

MH46

MH44 MH44

MH44

MH46 MNH-3352

MH46

MH46 MNH-2738 MNH-2739 MNH-2771 MNH-2745 MNH-2746 MNH-2744 MNH-3353

MH46 MNH-2300 MNH-2732 MNH-2733 MNH-2734 MNH-2728 MNH-2729 MNH-2661 MNH-2663 MNH-2662 MNH-2683 MNH-2671 MNH-2659 MNH-2633 MNH-2605 MNH-2584 MNH-303

2.9 While monitoring the situation with the children through Inspectors’ visits, MoHA continued to impress on the Committee the seriousness of the situation (A26; A27) and the need for immediate action, perhaps with a view to pushing the Committee towards its own decision to relocate and close, but in the end culminating in MoHA informing the Committee of its intention to withdraw the Certificate of the home as from 1 August 1953 (A29). The children ultimately were transferred to Dublin, with the exception of one child, for whom Fermanagh Welfare Authority was responsible (A34) and the home closed for what was to be a period of almost 4 years.

2(c) Does the Department accept that intervention by the Minister of Home Affairs prevented the recommended de-registration of this home? What more can the Department say about this intervention?

2.10 There were four different Ministers for Home Affairs each from the then Ulster Unionist Party responsible to the Northern Ireland Parliament for their policies and the decisions of their Departments and hence the decision made in respect of the Manor House Home during the period 1952 to 1957:

• Brian Maginess 4 November 1949 - 25 October 1953 • George Hanna 26 October 1953 – 19 April 1956 • Terence O’Neill 20 April 1956 - 22 October 1956 • WWB Topping 23 October 1957 – 14 December 1959

2.11 Officials may advise Ministers but ultimately they are accountable to and required to take instructions from the Minister. The first communication to the Manor House Committee from MoHA warning the committee that the MoHA would “have no alternative but to withdraw the home from the register” unless immediate steps were taken to bring the home up to standard, was sent on 8 June 1953 (A27). A further letter sent on 19 June 1953 stated MoHA’s intention to withdraw the certificate as from 1 August (A29). By letter dated 29 June, the Committee’s Honorary Treasurer confirmed that the home was to close, but asked MoHA to take no further steps regarding withdrawal of registration and the home would “voluntarily surrender our registration until such time as we are in a position to carry on again” (A31). Shortly after this a new Manor House Committee was up and running by 9 July 1953 (A34).

2.12 Whether, as a result of the representations of the new committee or solely because of his own concerns, it would appear that it may have been around the late Summer of 1953 that Brian Maginess, the then Minister instructed officials not to withdraw the certificate. MoHA officials, having expressed satisfaction in July 1953 that the Children Act had “at least cleared out this dump” (A33) were by November 1953 processing a grant application and MNH-304

recognising that a strategic decision had to be taken about the future of the home (A35). By this time Brian Maginess had moved on and a new Minister was in post. Various reasons were attributed to the Minister’s decision not to withdraw the home’s registration by officials writing at later dates including:

• the local committee was a well meaning and kindly body of persons and he did not want to bring scandal on them (A37); • the home was much too close to his own doorstep to be denied an opportunity of putting its affairs in order and starting a renewed life (A37)19; and • there was a possibility of improvements which could enable it to function more effectively (A39).

2.13 A further consideration is that in the 1950s there continued in Northern Ireland to be sensitivity to the desire for children to be placed within same faith institutions. This is evident in the communications of MoHA officials (A39; A42:A47) and an example reflected in statute, is found in section 72 of the 1950 Act which required MoHA or a Court in determining the training school to which a young person was to be sent to ascertain the religious persuasion of the child and to “select a school for persons of the religious persuasion to which he belongs”20. If Manor House had closed permanently, the numbers of fully functioning voluntary children’s homes in Northern Ireland would have reduced to six Protestant institutions in contrast to eleven Catholic homes (A25). The provision of homes of differing religious persuasion was a relevant consideration. That is not to say a Minister would not also have been mindful of any perceived imbalance in public funding being made available by way of grants to institutions of differing religious persuasion.

2.14 Although the Minister’s decision may well have been influenced by all of these factors, the questions are whether the decision not to withdraw the home’s registration or demand the return of its certificate was reasonable and whether his decision had any adverse impact on the lives on children within the home. With regard to the first issue, whilst Ministers must have regard to the advice given by officials, it is the Minister who ultimately has to make the decision, taking into account all relevant factors. These factors would include any view expressed by officials. It is evident that MoHA officials were not themselves in agreement about what should happen (A37-A38) although Miss Forrest appeared to have remained neutral throughout. With regard to the second question, it is noted that the children in the home were removed to suitable alternative placements within five months from the inspection visit which had

19 Brian Maginess was the MP in the NI Parliament for the Iveagh consitutency. This bordered the South Antrim consitutency which included Lisburn. Mr Maginess also had strong personal Lisburn connections (father was a Lisburn solicitor and he went to school in Lisburn – might well have had his home there). 20 SPT-80025 MNH-305

highlighted the problems. During these months there was close supervision of the home by MoHA and standards improved although, as a result of lack of funds and ineffective management, not sufficiently so to warrant the children remaining there.

2.15 It should also be noted that whilst George Hanna, Mr Maginess’s replacement as Minister, might have had reservations (A44), successive Ministers, Terence O’Neill and WWB Topping, were content to support in principle the re-establishment of Manor House and the Committee’s grant application, with Terence O’Neill taking a personal and supportive interest in the matter (A50). Whilst there were considerations about the Ministry acting ultra vires in relation to its ability to provide grants to a children’s home that was not “a going concern” (A38), the fact that it technically retained its registration by not returning the certificate enabled the home’s grant application to be considered ultimately by MoHA (A40) and then by the Maconachie Committee (A56).

2.16 Having approved the eligibility of the home for grant, the Maconachie Committee suggested that anything spent by the Manor House Committee in excess of £10,000 might be regarded as improvements, rather than initial expenditure to provide “a registerable voluntary home” (A52). It therefore recommended grant aid of 70% of the approved costs exceeding £10,000 of the expenditure incurred in the modernisation of the home.

2.17 The new committee rose to the challenge and against most expectations were able to raise the required funding and recruit suitable and sufficient staff to enable MoHA in December 1957 to authorise the Manor House Committee to reopen the home for the reception of not more than twenty children (A58).

3. HIAI Question 3

3.1 Did the Department receive any complaints from residents or others regarding Manor House? If so, what action was taken?

3.2 To the Department’s knowledge MoHA did not receive any complaints from residents of Manor House although some concerns were notified to the Ministry in 1950 (A3) and 1953 (A13) by Welfare Authorities. The DHSS also did not receive complaints directly from residents but was, however, alerted to two situations which are set out below.

3.3 In June 1982 allegations made by MH 23 , a boy at the home regarding indecent behaviour of a male person towards him were properly reported to the Southern Health and Social Services Board (SHSSB) and the police. The SHSSB’s Director of Social Services, Mr R Moore wrote to Mr J MNH-3514 MNH-3806

MH 3

MH 9

MH 3

MH 3 MNH-161

MH65

MH65 MH65 MH65

MH65 MNH-3204

MH 55

MH46

MH1

MH46 MNH-3205

MH 10 MH 55

MH46 MNH-3207

MH1

MH1 MNH-3226

MH48

MH48 MH1

MH1 MNH-2908

MH46 MNH-329

HIA REF: [ ] NAME: [ HSCB ] DATE: [ 22 December 2015 ]

THE INQUIRY INTO HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE 1922 TO 1995 ______Witness Statement of the Health & Social Care Board ______

I, Fionnuala McAndrew, Director of Social Care and Children’s Services, Health and Social Services Board, (“the Board”) will say as follows: -

1. This statement has been prepared with reference solely to documentation that identifies the facts and issues that were relevant during the period of operation of the Home. References are provided throughout. I have no personal knowledge and had no personal involvement at any time.

Question 1: How many children were placed in Manor House by the Board’s predecessors?

2. I do not believe that the HSC Board is able to provide an answer to this question. This is due to the way records were kept. The HSC Board does not hold records of children by reference to the residential Home in which they resided. Rather, the records are kept under an individual’s name as individual case files with the person’s care history records included in each file.

3. I believe that the record of all such placements would be held in the Unit Admissions Book which is not available, in full, to the Board.

4. Records show that when the home was authorized for re-opening in 1957, it was intended that it would be “for reception of not more than 20 children”, see MNH 2312. In later years however the document referred to at MNH 2322 suggests this was increased to 22 boys and girls up to the age of 14/15 years old. MNH-300

• 12 September 1966: Miss Hill visited (and inspected the home) with the MOHA Minister and other officials10 ;

• September 1970: “Miss Hill called and carried out an inspection, bringing with her Dr Bell”11.

1.8 On account of the incidents outlined in paragraphs 3.3-3.4 below, the Manor House Home was included within the scope of the Hughes Inquiry12. The Inquiry found that the frequency of inspections by the Social Work Advisory Group (SWAG) for the period 1978 to 1983 to be “no more than adequate”. According to the Hughes Report, SWAG had inspected the home in July 1978 and September 198113. The report acknowledged that a Social Work Advisor had visited the home in: January and August 1978; July 1979; and that a follow up visit to the 1981 inspection had been made in December 1982. The report did not reference SWAG visits made (probably) in July 198214 and (definitely) in September 198215. The Hughes report concluded that “in any event, SWAG’s inspections could have had no direct bearing on the prevention of such incidents.”

1.9 At present the Department has no further evidence of inspections or visits by Inspectors other than those reported above.

2. HIAI Question 2

2(a) Did the Department carry out any inspections of Manor House prior to 1950. If not, why not?

2.1 With regard to children’s institutions that were not reformatories or industrial schools, section 25 of the Children Act 1908 (the 1908 Act)16 provided that “the Chief Secretary may cause any institution for the reception of poor children or young persons, supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government Department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for that purpose”.

2.2 The Department does not hold any information with reference to the implementation of this provision. The Departmental submission to the Hughes

10 MNH-2042 11 MNH-2056 12 The Committee of Inquiry into Children’s Homes and Hostels. 13 The 1981 inspection report is contained within the HIAI evidence MNH- 14 see paragraph 3.3 15 see paragraph 3.4 16 As read within section 133(1) of that Act MNH-2147 MNH-2148 MNH-2149 MNH-2150 MNH-2151 MNH-2250 MNH-2251 MNH-10198

MH 9

MH 9 MNH-10199 MNH-10200 MNH-10201 MNH-10202 MNH-10203 MNH-10204

MH 9

MH 9 MNH-10205

MH50 MH 9 MNH-10212 MNH-10213 MNH-10214

MH 9 MNH-10215 MNH-10216 MNH-10217

MH 9 MNH-10218

MH 9 MNH-10219

MH 9 MNH-10220 MNH-10221 MNH-2541

MH 39 MH46 MNH-2542

MH46 MNH-2543

MH 38

MH46 MNH-10227 MNH-10228 MNH-10229 MNH-10230

MH46 MNH-10063 MNH-10065 MNH-10074 MNH-10076

MH 9 MNH-10079

MH 9 MNH-10068 MNH-10258 MNH-10137 MNH-10144 MNH-10146

MH 9

MH 9 MNH-10147

MH 9 MNH-10148

MH 9 MNH-10151

MH 9 MNH-10155 MNH-10158

MH 9

MH 9 MNH-10159

MH 9

MH 9 MNH-10160 MNH-10162

MH 9 MH 9 MH 9

MH 9