HSE Advocates State Role in Diocesan Child Protection
By Patsy Mcgarry
The Health Service Executive (HSE) has recommended that the State intervene and work with all Catholic dioceses in the Republic to ensure children are properly protected in each. Read the full text of the audit here Read the main points from the audit here It recommends “that the State applies its resources to intervene and work with all dioceses in a systematic way to address the shortcomings outlined” in an audit it published this afternoon. The Audit of Safeguarding Arrangements in the Catholic Church in Ireland, deals with 24 Catholic dioceses which, wholly or in part, are in the Republic. Two further Catholic dioceses are entirely in Northern Ireland. Today’s publication is Volume I of the audit. Another volume, dealing with the religious congregations, will be published at a later date. Covering the period to the end of November 2011, it found “significant weaknesses” in a number of dioceses in the State in the area of child protection. While there had been “significant improvement in their safeguarding arrangements” there was “considerable variation in the approaches adopted by the dioceses” also. Such State intervention as it recommends, it says, might be achieved by “putting all necessary resources in place to achieve closer monitoring by the State of the dioceses”. This would “include a requirement for them to report regularly on matters such as the progress being made in achieving an acceptable standard of compliance with agreed safeguarding standards and practices, as well as a requirement to report on the number of allegations made and the actions by the Church in relation to them”. It continues that “an initial 'hands on' approach of proportionate intervention on the part of the State is envisaged until such time as there has been a substantial and demonstrable improvement in child protection practices across all dioceses”. The audit further recommended “that Church resources be devoted to this developmental activity”. It recommended that the Church’s own child protection watchdog, its National Board for Safeguarding Children (NBSC), “continues its work with the dioceses” to ensure child-protection criteria in each “are fully satisfied to an adequate standard by all”. It also recommends that “a single child protection policy should be provided for all dioceses and maintained by a single body such as the NBSC. All dioceses would sign up to and commit to following such a policy and procedure”. In the inter-agency context of the Garda, the HSE and the dioceses, it recommends as “imperative” that dioceses are advised of allegations coming to the attention of the gardai and/or HSE. This is so that the relevant individual can be appropriately managed, particularly in relation to his/her access to children. “Any legal impediments to such a strategty . . . must be addressed to ensure the safety of children,” it says. Where the three agencies are concerned it also recommends that their records be revised “to facilitate better co-ordination between all three”. It also recommends that “the policies and procedures of the Church should be extended from the safeguarding of children to include the safeguarding of vulnerable adults who are in contact with the Church, including the elderly or persons with mental health and intellectual disabilities who live in care settings or in the community”. The HSE audit involved voluntary co-operation by Church authorities in each diocese. Diocesan files were not physically examined by HSE personnel. The bishops completed questionnaires provided by the HSE with follow-up engagement by HSE child care managers as well as cross-referencing of information provided with the gardai. The purpose of the audit, which dealt with allegations received up to November 31st last year, was to assess whether the dioceses were complying with Church guidance and best practice when it came to child protection, including the reporting of allegations to the civil authorities. Overall it found that a total of 579 child abuse allegations had been against 189 priests in the 24 dioceses that are wholly or partially in the Republic. Of those accused priests, 31 diocesan priests have been convicted in the courts. Dioceses that performed well when it came to child safeguarding included Armagh, Waterford &Lismore, Clonfert, Elphin, and Dublin. “Significant improvement” had been found in Kilmore and Killala, with Limerick and Kerry “making steady progress”. Kildare & Leighlin was found to have demonstrated “examples of good practice over a consistent period.” Some dioceses, however, “did not perform satisfactorily” across key areas. Their shortcomings were “not numerous” and did “not reflect any unwillingness . . . to put good safeguarding systems in place.” For instance, three dioceses - Meath, Raphoe, and Ossory - were found to have “inadequate collection and retention of data . . . whilst improving.” The audit also found that the Ferns report (2005) “did not immediately result in the diocese adapting its policies and procedures to keep up to date with current Church guidance as expected”. Similarly, it found that it took 12 months following publication of the Murphy report (2009) “before a comprehensive child protection policy and reporting procedure was fully implemented” in the Dublin archdiocese. Of those allegations that should have been reported by the dioceses to the civil authorities the audit found that just 15 per cent had been reported “with immediacy”. It also found that some dioceses, which had responded with an unqualified Yes to a question in the 2006 HSE audit as to whether they reported allegations without delay (within a day), had not done so. Some cases were not reported to the civil authorities as this was done by complainants themselves. However, “in many other instances, the time taken to report was determined at the complainants’ request.” Further “anonymous allegations were, in general, not reported to the civil authorities”. The audit also found that “some allegations came to the attention of the diocese through admissions by priests and were not notified (to civil authorities) for some time due to the confidential nature of the submission, for example, during a submission for laicisation from the priesthood,” In some cases “the allegation was not deemed credible, or not serious enough to constitute abuse” and so was not notified to civil authorities. And where dioceses were notified about allegations by solicitors “often the diocese did not notify the civil authorities”.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.