What the Government promised after Ferns: * In 2005, the Government under then taoiseach Bertie Ahern said it would take immediate action to implement the recommendations in the report into allegations of sex abuse in the diocese of Ferns.
This included the introduction of a criminal offence applying to anyone who “wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act”.
The reality:
Children’s rights groups said the Government has failed to implement this recommendation, which would amount to mandatory reporting of sex abuse to the Garda and the HSE.
* The Ferns report recommended the establishment of an inter-governmental group to monitor complaints of sexual abuse against those working with children.
The reality:
That body has still not materialised.
* In October 2005 the Government commissioned an audit to ensure that the recommendations of the Ferns Report were being implemented by all Catholic dioceses.
The reality:
That report was published this week, but the bishops failed to answer questions in the main section of the audit relating to the number of complaints received and whether complaints were passed onto the HSE and the Garda. They cited a lack of legislation to use “soft-information” for their failure to answer these questions.
The opposition said the absence of this information rendered the audit useless. Mr Andrews said the absence of this information “significantly detracted from the value of the HSE audit”.
* In September 2008 the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Children’s Rights recommended laws should be introduced before Christmas to allow the exchange of “soft-information” in relation to vetting procedures of those working with children.
The reality:
Mr Andrews said this week that legislation will be drafted in the coming weeks, will come before the Dáil in the next six months, and is likely to pass into law before Christmas 2009.
Fine Gael said yesterday Mr Andrews was a member of the committee but did not inform members that legislation on soft information was deemed essential by the Church to provide information to the audit.
What the Church promised after Ferns:
* The exchange of information between all relevant agencies (HSE and An Garda Síochána) is a key element in safeguarding the welfare of children. Effective communication between the Church and civil authorities is essential.
* Civil policies in the Republic and the North place an obligation on all adults and organisations to report abuse to civil authorities.
* It is imperative those who hear allegations of abuse, or who suspect abuse, act promptly and sensitively.
* Any allegation or suspicion should be accurately recorded in writing.
* The Church has a dual responsibility in relation to an abuse complaint. First is the safeguarding of children and second is dealing with the accused person. It is made clear that the protection of children must be the priority at all times. Proper procedures must also be followed in the second case, ensuring the accused is treated as innocent until proven otherwise.
The reality:
In Cloyne, it emerged the majority of these guidelines were disregarded, with gardaí informed after delays of years with a policy in place of “minimal information” to gardaí. The HSE report published this week found the HSE were not informed of complaints. Priests, against whom complaints were made, were left in positions where they had access to children and so children’s welfare was not the number one priority.
The report also raises serious questions about the HSE’s audit of dioceses after it emerged that the majority of bishops, on advice from the HSE itself, refused to answer some of the more relevant and vital questions.
The admission by Mr Andrews that Ian Elliot’s group, the National Board for Safeguarding Children (NBSC), is to play a more central role in future investigations, brings in to question what future role the HSE will play.
What the HSE promised after Ferns:
* Health boards must consider the protection and the welfare of the child as a priority.
* They must avoid actions which cause the child or family undue stress.
* They must respect the rights of parents/carers and children to have their views heard and to be fully informed of any steps taken.
* All agencies dealing with children must have a policy of co-operating with the health board in the sharing of their records
The reality:
Its future role could be severely watered down after the publication of its national audit, which one campaigner claimed “was not worth the paper it was written on”. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: IE)