FIRST, AN apology. Last week I wrote that social workers were unwilling to report concerns regarding suspected abuse by colleagues. That allegation was untrue and I want to apologise to social workers and their families for any distress I caused.
What happened? I made a stupid, sloppy mistake while reading a July 2008 report called, Analysis of Submissions Made on National Review of Compliance with Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children.
The section titled “Allegations of abuse against employees and volunteers”, says: “In addition, it was suggested that colleagues are ‘not comfortable’ reporting on each other and that sometimes ‘allegations and suspicions of child abuse may not be reported’, thus allowing the behaviour to continue . . . Even where allegations are found to be substantiated, it was noted that a staff member can gain employment in new employment without the new employer being aware of the person’s history.”
When I reread it, it was painfully and embarrassingly clear that it referred to organisations, including voluntary groups, that have the care of children and nowhere refers to social workers.
I am fully aware of the irony of maligning a whole group of hard- pressed and hard-working individuals such as social workers, given that I so often give out about the same thing happening to priests and religious.
I am truly sorry. And my thanks to the Irish Association of Social Workers for pointing out my error with such courtesy, and its willingness to believe it was not a deliberate slur.
Not a propitious start, mind you, to a week when I expected to be reading reports of the audits of six dioceses. For once, though, such reports give some good news, especially about current practice.
It is clear there are signs of hope and that good, and sometimes excellent practice, now prevails in these dioceses, as would also now appear to be the case in Cloyne, Ferns and Dublin.
This is no reason for complacency. As Ian Elliott of the National Board for Safeguarding Children points out, the Catholic Church is not one monolithic entity, but 188 separate authorities, principally dioceses and religious orders. It’s a case of nine down, 179 to go.
The national board’s work continues and there is also a Health Service Executive (HSE) audit under way. There is a long, long way to go before we can be sure best practice now prevails. Nor can any audit undo the damage already done to innocent children.
It was inevitable that victims would be disappointed by these reports. Although the board has done the necessary research to publish detailed reports, the complexity of the Catholic Church’s structure and the demands of data protection meant publication of details of individual cases, except where the accused individual was dead, would contravene data protection legislation.
Ian Elliott explains in his summary report the board is both a separate entity and a part of the church. Under data protection legislation, it represents a “third party” to each of the 188 church authorities. This led to a legal conundrum, because the bishop, as data controller in his diocese, could not legally release material to a third party. Extensive consultations with government departments followed.
Eventually, it was decided the best way forward was that the board could become a nominated data processor to each of the church authorities by means of a legal deed.
It may sound complex and legalistic, and it is, but it is a vitally important point. Even now, information gleaned by the board can only be revealed to the data controller, that is, the bishop. If this is contravened, the bishop, and indeed the board, could be subject to legal action.
Therefore, the kind of information and detail that victims crave cannot be made available publicly. Some bodies such as the HSE and Garda have a privileged position under data protection legislation. I am no legal expert, but I suspect it would require a ministerial directive to grant that kind of privilege to the board, and even that might be challenged as unconstitutional.
Victims deserve information. It is truly terrible there is no record of the original complaints about Fr Eugene Greene, for example. Either the diocese of Raphoe knew it had an explosive situation on its hands and kept no records, destroyed what it had, or was shockingly incompetent. None of these scenarios reflects well on people supposed to be living by gospel values.
Furthermore, the data protection legislation presents barriers to sharing data between church bodies, say a religious order and a diocese.
There has been a lot of talk about putting the board on a statutory footing, allowing it to compel compliance, for example. It might be better to look first at the barriers presented by data protection legislation.
I am not opposed in principle to full statutory footing if that is necessary, but would it not just be duplication of the role given to the HSE’s Gordon Jeyes? The board would have to be funded by the State instead of the church. It might lose some of the important influence it currently has, as shown by the changes evident in these reports.
Victims deserve information, but it is also important that no more children become victims and the board’s slow, painstaking work is finally bringing the church closer to that vital goal.