Falling down the cracks of the Catholic Church

So, let us summarise the situation with regard to child protection in the Catholic Church, as it applies to Ealing Abbey. The Bishops of England and Wales recently produced a Statement. In it they said.

In our dioceses we will continue to make every effort, working with our safeguarding commissions, to identify any further steps we can take, especially concerning the care of those who have suffered abuse, including anyone yet to come forward with their account of their painful and wounded past. We are committed to continuing the work of safeguarding, and are determined to maintain openness and transparency, in close co-operation with the statutory authorities in our countries.

The key phrase is "in our dioceses". They are unable to deal with parts of the Catholic Church which are not in their dioceses. Like Ealing Abbey. Geographically, Ealing Abbey is within the Diocese of Westminster, but organisationally it is not, and Archbishop Vincent Nichols' writ does not run there, and on present appearances he is unwilling even seriously to try to address problems there.

Therefore, if the Abbot chooses to ignore advice from the Archbishop about child protection (or any other subject for that matter), neither the Archbishop nor anybody else in the Catholic Church in England and Wales can do a single thing about it, apart from complain to Rome if they decide to.

During my conversations with Peter Turner, I asked him what happens if the Abbey or St Benedict's School does not take his advice. Peter Turner's response was very illuminating. He said that "they would leave themselves very open" if they don't take his advice. On further discussion, it became clear that what he meant was that the Abbot didn't have to follow his advice, but a failure to follow it left the Abbot open to an increased possibility of a further incident.

And this is what seems to have happened in the case of David Pearce. According to The Times, Peter Turner had written to the Abbot in 2004 recommending that Pearce be placed on a restricted ministry and kept away from children, but this advice was ignored.

The Abbot seems to have retained this propensity to ignore external advice.

If you are parent of a pupil at St. Benedict's School, the next bit is directly for you.

You cannot assume the good words on child protection emanating from the Bishops mean anything to you at all. Ealing Abbey is not within the Diocese of Westminster, and the Archbishop can do nothing for you. Neither can NCSC, CSAS or the Diocesan Safeguarding Team.

You cannot assume that the school will be adequately inspected in respect of child protection. As has been shown in numerous cases, OFSTED (for most schools) and ISI (for independent schools such as St. Benedict's who are members of the Independent Schools Council) frequently fail to ensure that their inspectors are even aware of recent child protection issues at the school. They fail to ensure that the school's child protection procedure is anything more than a sheaf of paper with the words "Child Protection Policy" on the cover page. The ISI gave an absolutely glowing report to the child protection procedures in its November 2009 report on St. Benedict's School, partly as a result of being apparently blissfully unaware of the significant number of recent court cases involving monks and former teachers.

You cannot rely on the fact that the Abbey and school are a registered Charity and assume that the Charity Commission will properly inspect and ensure that child protection measures are adequate. The Charity Commission has no inspecting role in respect of child protection. The Charity Commission's own guidance states. "We do not administer legislation on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. The Commission’s role is about protecting public confidence in the charity involved (and charities generally) and also ensuring the trustees comply with their legal obligations as trustees in managing and administering the charity." The Charity Commission has extensive guidance on safeguarding, but it is all couched in terms of "should" not "shall". The school can ignore just about all of it, and still truthfully claim to be meeting its legal obligations as a charity.

You cannot assume that the school itself will voluntarily report a suspicion, allegation or incident of child abuse to the authorities. A publicised paedophile case is terribly bad for business (this is true of all independent schools, and not merely Catholic schools), and the school's present policy includes dozens of different justifications for doing nothing, and especially lots of different justifications for not reporting an incident. The current (May 2010) version of the child protection policy is in one key respect even worse than the previous version published in September 2009. Section 23 used to state the following

23. Referral guidelines: A referral to the SSD or police will not normally be made where:

• the complaint does not involve a serious criminal offence; and
• a referral would be contrary to the wishes of a pupil complainant who is of sufficient maturity and understanding and properly informed, and contrary also to the wishes of the complainant's parents; and
• the case is one that can be satisfactorily investigated and dealt with under the School's internal procedures, the parents being kept fully informed, as appropriate.

However, if during the course of the internal procedures, it appears that the situation is more serious, the Designated Teacher will again consider whether a referral should be made in accordance with paragraph 22 above.

In the current version, this has been changed to the following.

23. Referral guidelines: A referral to the SSD or police will not normally be made where:

• a referral would be contrary to the wishes of a pupil complainant who is of sufficient maturity and understanding and properly informed, and contrary also to the wishes of the complainant's parents; and
• the case is one that can be satisfactorily dealt with under the School's internal procedures, the parents being kept fully informed, as appropriate.

However, if during the course of the internal procedures and the procedures required
under paragraph 5, it appears that the situation is more serious, the Designated
Teacher will again consider whether a referral should be made in accordance with
paragraph 22 above.

Notice the loss of the first of the three bullets. The school has changed its policy to find ways of not having to refer cases to the police or Social Services even in cases of a serious criminal offence! This is heading in the wrong direction.

So, you cannot rely on the wider Catholic Church. You cannot rely on the government. If you want to ensure that your children are protected while at the school, then you have to get involved yourselves and insist on proper safeguarding procedures. You have to understand what good practice consists of, and get wise to the prevarications of those who would avoid implementing it.

Believe me, the greatest nightmare a school - state or independent - can face is a pushy parent who is properly informed as to what ought to be happening. The Abbot can (and does) ignore me, because my son is no longer at the school. But he cannot ignore you.

You may be concerned that the school will take retribution against your children in a way which damages their education. I have heard parents express precisely that fear. There is a simple response to that.

1. As parents (fee paying parents at that) you have far greater rights in this and many other matters concerning the school than you may realise.
2. If your fears of retribution are well-founded, then what on earth are you doing sending your children to the school in the first place?
3. Is keeping in with the school authorities worth running the risk that your child will be sexually abused by one of the teachers? I promise you that from having heard accounts from a great many victims of abuse, the adverse psychological effects of the abuse far outweigh the advantages gained from an expensive and exclusive education. Your child would be better off at the local comprehensive and not abused than being at St. Benedict's and abused.

I can help you get informed as to what the school's child protection policy ought to look like. I can point you in the direction of experts who will be able to help you spot and bring to light failures to implement good practice. But you have to be prepared to stand up and confront the Abbot over the scandal of the current child protection policy. Nobody else can do that for you.