THE HEALTH Service Executive (HSE) has recommended that the State works with all Catholic dioceses in the Republic to ensure children are properly protected.
In a major audit published yesterday, it recommended “that the State applies its resources to intervene and work with all dioceses in a systematic way to address the shortcomings outlined”.
The Audit of Safeguarding Arrangements in the Catholic Church in Ireland dealt with the 24 dioceses that are wholly or in part located in the Republic. Covering the period from January 1st, 1996 to November 30th, 2011, it found that a total of 579 child abuse allegations had been made against 189 priests in the 24 dioceses.
Of those accused priests, 31 diocesan priests have been convicted in the courts.
Dioceses which 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.”
Three dioceses, Meath, Raphoe, and Ossory, were found to have “inadequate collection and retention of data . . . whilst improving”.
The audit involved voluntary co-operation by church authorities in each diocese where bishops completed questionnaires supplied by the HSE with follow-up by HSE child care managers as well as cross-referencing of information provided by the Garda.
The purpose of the audit 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 autorities.
Yesterday’s publication was the first volume of the overall audit. Another volume, dealing with the religious congregations, will be published at a later date.
Such State intervention as it recommended yesterday, it said, 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 continued 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”.
It further recommended “that church resources be devoted to this developmental activity”.
It recommended that the church’s 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 recommended 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 interagency context of the Garda, the HSE and the dioceses, it recommended as “imperative” that dioceses are advised of allegations coming to the attention of the Garda 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 strategy . . . must be addressed to ensure the safety of children,” it said.
Where the three agencies were concerned it also recommended that their records be revised “to facilitate better co-ordination between all three” and that the policies and procedures of the church be extended to include the safeguarding of vulnerable adults in contact with the Church.
Three dioceses criticised
RAPHOE DIOCESE
The reporting record of Raphoe, both in quality of information and speed of reporting, was found to be “poor”. Information was “difficult to decipher” and there were problems with dates.
Almost 80 per cent of the allegations that could be categorised took more than a year to report. There were five allegations against 12 priests (82 per cent were against four priests) in the reporting period.
Raphoe met many of the standards but recommendations included developing a policy on managing those who pose a risk to children and a complaints policy.
OSSORY DIOCESE
The report is very critical of the information on allegations provided by the diocese. It found “significant omissions” from the audit returns to be “concerning”, and describes the quality of data as “poor” , particularly in relation to dates. There were 27 allegations against nine priests since 1996. Two were reported to the HSE decades after the diocese was notified. The diocese was under the “mistaken impression” the Meath diocese was handling allegations against a priest in Ossory.
MEATH DIOCESE
Record keeping on allegations was a “matter of concern” and it “took a number of requests” for the HSE to receive dates on allegations for the report.
It also raised concern that 12 allegations known to the Garda “appear not to have been known to the diocese”.
