In 2006, it was estimated that it would take the HSE 10 years to read all the files, writes PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent
IN NOVEMBER 2006 the Murphy Commission concluded it would take 10 years for the HSE to process files relevant to the period of its remit.
The commission investigated the handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations in Dublin’s Catholic archdiocese by church and State authorities between January 1st, 1975, and April 30th, 2004.
In its report, published on November 26th last, it said “very few” of the allegations it examined were made initially to health authorities but that “the HSE had considerable difficulty in providing the commission with information relevant to its remit”.
On November 3rd, 20006, the HSE informed the commission “that there were 114,000 social work files covering the period of the commission’s remit and that these were in up to 50 different locations.
“It was estimated that it would take half-a-day to read and consider each file. The commission concluded it would take nearly 10 years to complete this process.”
The Murphy report continued “the commission formed the impression that the HSE was not adopting a systematic approach to locating records.
“There was an identifiable group in each community care area dealing with child abuse issues and there was, at this stage (November 2006) no listing of the relevant people or no written reports on what steps had been taken to try to find files.”
So in February 2007 the HSE was issued with an Order for Discovery by the commission. An affidavit of discovery was delivered to the HSE in March 2007.
Even then matters remained unsatisfactory. As the Murphy report puts it, “initially, the HSE provided the commission with documentation in relation to 12 priests in the representative sample (46).”
But “documentation which had been provided by the Archdiocese of Dublin showed there had been contact with the health boards in relation to eight others. Subsequently, documentation received from the religious orders showed contacts with the health boards in at least three other cases”.
Also “some of the documentation received from the HSE was provided as late as 2009 when the commission forwarded extracts from the draft report to the HSE. Indeed, the commission heard of a complaint in June 2009 just as this report was being finalised. This complaint was made to the health board in 2002 and reported by the HSE to the archdiocese in May 2009. The fact of this complaint was not notified by the HSE to the commission although it was clearly within the commission’s remit.”
The report did say, however, that “the commission was impressed by the social workers’ commitment and concern” but noted that “until the late 1990s, virtually all their notes were handwritten”.