Lourdes House, the Bishop and the inquiry report

Acommission chaired by Judge Victor Caruana Colombo found instances of physical and psychological abuse of children perpetrated by Dominican Sisters at Lourdes House in Gozo. Gozo Bishop Mario Grech has chosen not to divulge any of the findings and recommendations of the inquiry report on grounds that the protection of the victims and the issue of confidentiality should be respected.

At the heart of any inquiry on child abuse the judge and his/her assessors must be concerned with the best interests of the child. The child's interests are paramount. When the said commission reported and wound up, that was certainly not the end of the matter; there continues to be a need to help those injured by the abuse, for the Church in Malta and Gozo to come to terms with a part of its past it may prefer to forget and a sober duty on the Church to play its part in ensuring that never again can children accommodated in its care be exposed to hurt as they have been at Lourdes House.

Why the Bishop of Gozo declines to divulge the report is beyond me and the media that rightly reflects the widespread interest and concern about this matter. The victims themselves have a right to know the commission's findings and recommendations, the families who entrusted their children into the care of the Dominican Sisters should be privy to such information and members of the public who finance Church institutions like Lourdes House should have access to the report.

Broadly speaking, any commission appointed to inquire into child abuse should have three primary objectives: First, to listen to the victims of childhood abuse who, without prompting and duress, want to recount their traumatic experiences to a child-friendly forum; second, to investigate fully all allegations of abuse made to it, except where the injured party does not wish for an investigation; and third, to publish its findings and recommendations. The report, as I understand, is the sole responsibility of the judge.

I argue that the inquiry report should be made public for the following reasons:

The Bishop's decline to have the commission's report made public is a predominantly paternalistic welfare model of child care decision, which, in the long-term, produces some extremely poor outcomes for children and young persons in care and run contrary to the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The victims should have the power to identify the abusers or the persons who were involved in the general management or operation of Lourdes House. Ideally, the names of the perpetrators should be made public; anything less would be a serious breach of trust with those who have braved the trauma of recounting their experiences and a serious abdication of responsibility to the Sisters at Lourdes House who, over the years, provided a considerable service to children entrusted in their care. It is not right that the names of the good Sisters should be tarred with the same brush as those responsible, directly or indirectly, for abuse.

The task of the said inquiry is to identify key lessons to be learned in terms of residential social work policy and practice and certainly not to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Many of the messages in the inquiry report need to be the subject of new policy and practice, advice and guidelines. It is particularly important, indeed vital, for the public to identify the membership of the commission of inquiry. Members of the commission should be chosen for their recognised impartiality and competence in child abuse cases and should be independent of the institution, agency or person that may be the subject of, or otherwise involved in, the inquiry.

I wonder whether the Commissioner for Children has any views regarding the inquiry report being made public.

Lord Justice Butler-Sloss took four months to complete a report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland 1987. It was a massive investigation of child sexual abuse in Cleveland, UK. In comparison, the Lourdes House inquiry report lasted two years. The commission owes the public an explanation for this seemingly unreasonable delay, which, in the normal course of events, is deleterious to the victims of physical and psychological abuse. All along the proceedings, Bishop Grech was rightly ill at ease with the delay.

Mr Muscat worked for several years for the Social Services Department of the London Borough of Hackney, as a member of the Inner and North London Panel of Guardians ad litem and Reporting Officers and as a member of the Law Society Child Care Panel for England Wales.