FOR survivors of child abuse within the Catholic Church in Scotland, the McLellan Commission was a great sign of hope and potential change. Not only did the appointment of Dr Andrew McLellan, a former moderator of the Church of Scotland, appear to demonstrate that the Church was prepared to genuinely open itself to independent scrutiny, the hierarchy responded well to the final report. Archbishop Philip Tartaglia offered a profound apology to the victims and the Church said that change was coming.

However, more than a year on from the publication of the report, some of its authors appear to have lost faith in the process. In a letter to The Herald, Dr McLellan and six other members of the commission have suggested the Bishops appear to be ignoring their report. “A year ago the bishops might have used the opportunity of the publication of the report to introduce systemic reform,” says the letter. “Now they are in danger of confirming the worst fears of survivors and observers by appearing to ignore its recommendations.”

The letter also makes a number of specific allegations. One of the report’s recommendations was that the church would publish a timetable for action, to be followed by a progress report within 12 months, but the letter says that has not happened. Another key recommendation was that the church would put survivors first – again, the letter says that has not happened. And on the recommendation the church be transparent and open, the letter writers say they are disappointed: “As far as we can tell from Catholic friends the members of the church themselves know nothing.”

The church’s response to the letter has been robust to say the least. It points out it allowed Dr McLellan two years to write his recommendations without comment and asks to be given the same time to implement them. It also says a detailed implementation plan was published and insists survivors’ needs have informed the formation of new policies. And the bishops say transparency and openness are at the heart of their mission to implement the report.

All of this is positive progress, but it is regrettable that the church and Dr McLellan would appear not to have kept in touch. In its response to the letter, the church says if that if Dr McLellan had gone to the bishops, he would have realised action was being taken and they are frustrated that he appears to have relied on information from Catholic friends rather than getting in touch with the church directly, and to some extent the bishops’ frustration is understandable.

However, Dr McLellan and his colleagues have a point in expressing concern that the bishops have not been acting transparently. Even if the McLellan Commission has not been shelved or sidelined, the fact that several of the commission members believe that it has been is worrying.

To be fair to the Church, it seems to be more or less keeping to the timetable proposed by McLellan. But the fact that some of the commission members were not aware of that demonstrates that the Catholic Church in Scotland may still have lessons to learn on how it communicates, particularly on an issue as important as child abuse.