The recent revelations about former MP and political leader in Northern Ireland Jeffrey Donaldson, has placed his former political party the Democratic Unionist Party in the spotlight. Specifically, questions from across the political and societal spectrum are centred on who in the DUP knew what about his activities and when did they know?

It follows a well-worn path as miscreants are unmasked in entities across these islands, not least in our own organisation. Such revelations tend to result in lots of handwringing and navel gazing but little tangibility in terms of accountability for people who knew things and looked the other way.

It is topical because the recent non-apology by the board of Scouting Ireland to the former Chief Scout Christy Mc Cann on the topic of alleged interference in safeguarding procedures, merely confirmed what most of us knew all along – there was no case to answer – at least not by Mr Mc Cann or his colleagues.

Uttered through gritted teeth, said apology had the tone of a utilities company somewhat ungraciously acknowledging an effluent spill. It said a lot about just how corporate we have become. We ‘do things right’ but miss the boat when it comes to ‘doing the right thing’. The former can help tactically, but the latter more strategic approach usually delivers a better long-term outcome.

The note sent to former board members to (paraphrasing) ‘apologise for any hurt or offence’ the non-apology might inflict upon them had to be read twice, just to ensure it was not some sort of prank. It took from and underlined the insincerity of the public statement.

One suspects Mr Mc Cann’s colleagues who were also dragged through a process that smelt as bad as it looked and lacked any trace of fairness or natural justice, will not be receiving an apology. Mr Mc Cann took a legal action and Scouting Ireland’s response was the result of a settlement. There was no goodwill, nor conscience involved.

Of course, a report commissioned from the eminent lawyer Lorna Lynch had already exonerated Mr Mc Cann. A sub-committee of the National Management Committee* (comprised of at least two members who did not excuse themselves despite obvious conflicts of interest) seem to have used Mr Mc Cann et al as a useful way to divert questions away from other people.

Those questions, a little like the queries now being posed to the DUP leadership up North, might include (on the topic of historical abuse cases), who knew what and when. Also, why did it take an outsider to find (re-find) the files and alert the statutory authorities.

There are still many questions hanging over the multiple historic abuse cases. There are questions for those who were supposed to be managing safeguarding in Scouting Ireland at the time and right up to the point when these files were apparently discovered and examined in 2012, before being inexplicably placed back into storage for six years.

In addition, many of those who were in senior positions nationally in the Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland and the Scout Association of Ireland in the 1970’s and 1980’s have retired or have passed on at this stage, but some are still very much involved in day-to-day Scouting. What did they know?

An RTE documentary on the subject of a former high profile CBSI member against whom many allegations were posthumously made, indicated clearly that his activities were well known by at least some in the upper echelons of that organisation in the 1980s and 1990s.

We seem to spend a lot of time simpering about how much we care for the victims of historic abuse, yet curiously we seem less keen at rocking the boat and posing some pointed questions at volunteers and staff who may have insights that could help shine a light on a rather dark aspect of Scouting’s history.

That light of course was rather conveniently shining in entirely the wrong direction for several years. Now that the organisation has caught up with the membership and recognised that this was at best a fabrication driven by astonishing incompetence and at worst a cynical stitch up to protect others, is it time to conduct an investigation into who drove this entire debacle and why?

Many members may not know or recall the background to Mr Mc Cann’s removal as Chief Scout. A meeting took place between Mr Mc Cann and an individual against whom a serious complaint had been made.

By the time Mr Mc Cann (and a second senior figure) had met this individual, the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) had already decided (and communicated) no action would be taken. The individual concerned had requested the meeting.

The contrast incidentally, between the speed of this individual’s removal from active duty (and prompt removal from the database) and that of another member against whom many allegations were made over a lengthy period and who was ultimately convicted and jailed for the abuse of children, but who was rather well-connected with the right clique, is worth noting.

The Van Turnhout report produced by Gillian Van Turnhout (a former Senator and Chief Commissioner of the Irish Girl Guides), had highlighted how the treatment of individuals in Scouting Ireland was directly linked to how close they were to the dominant clique running the organisation behind the scenes. The report, commissioned by the government in 2019, was completely ignored by Scouting Ireland.

Christy Mc Cann had three flaws that led to his downfall. He was naïve – he lacked the political savvy of some of his predecessors. He trusted people – theirishscouter met him once and challenged him to be ruthless on a critical matter. It didn’t happen. He is not a ruthless man. But most serious of all, Christy Mc Cann was not in the clique. This made him a very handy and expendable scapegoat. The Minister wanted a head on a plate. She simply got the wrong head.

Mr Mc Cann did not inform the board of the meeting. That’s it. That’s all he failed to do.  One can take a view as to whether a senior officer needs to declare all meetings, especially sensitive ones, with the board. In any event, Ms Lorna Lynch, a distinguished barrister commissioned to write a report and make findings on the matter, did not consider that Christy Mc Cann had, by not informing the board or by having the meeting, in any way interfered with a safeguarding case (the rather implausible basis for his removal). In essence, the Lynch report exonerated him.

So why did a sub-committee of the by then moribund National Management Committee, make a finding that ignored the Lynch report and zone in on the ‘didn’t inform the board’ red herring?

This is where the term ‘conflict of interest’ raises its head. The meeting Mr Mc Cann had (with another senior member) offered a useful diversion from the real questions that strangely were never posed, nor answered. Some of those keen to avoid questions rather helpfully (and no doubt entirely coincidentally) had some close personal friends on that committee.

The real issue was historical files containing details of abuse cases stretching back to the 1940s but also including files from the 1970s and 1980s. Some of those files named people who knew things and did not disclose them. Some of those people were (and some still are) active in Scouting and rather well-connected with the clique that Ms Van Turnhout references in her report.

Another question: Who had oversight and access to these historic files? Spoiler alert: Mr Mc Cann did not, nor did the other volunteers removed with him (David Shalloo and Ollie Kehoe, former Chief Commissioner and National Secretary respectively).

Who was responsible for safeguarding in Scouting Ireland at the time the files were discovered? How long was the existence of the files known before the relevant authorities were alerted?

Another interesting side note: The safeguarding specialist Ian Elliot was hired after senior volunteers insisted on it, in the face of some stiff internal resistance. This resistance could have been reluctance to have an outsider involved, or some other political factor – but nobody has asked the questions!

Quite a few members of Scouting Ireland (and more than one journalist) have hypothesised privately to theirishscouter that the spotlight was kept on Mc Cann et al, because if it was not pointing there, where would it point instead?

Mc Cann and the others were the proverbial ‘fall guys’. The Minister wanted accountability. The organisation needed someone to blame because the minister was threatening to withhold funds. Of course, the Minister never had the full story. She was fed (via her civil servants) a narrative that carefully placed all the blame on specific senior volunteers.

Nearly three hundred files, ranging from bad to horrific, hidden from sight for years. Was it simply incompetence or something more sinister? Either way, Mc Cann had nothing to do with it – he was a handy scapegoat who was too honest for his own good.

His removal from office and the utterly callous manner of his expulsion, after a lifetime of not just blemish free, but outstanding service, looks like it was designed to protect others. This is a widely held view among members of Scouting Ireland who know the background. It destabilised what was already a dysfunctional and fractured national entity. It generated more division at a time when unity would have steadied the ship. Arguably we are still a long way all these years later, from recovery.

A price worth paying to protect some important people, it would seem.

WHERE TO NEXT?

The correct course of action now, in the view of theirishscouter, would be to issue a much more fulsome apology – one that means what it says. Christy Mc Cann is no threat to Scouting Ireland. In fact, he embodies the very values the organisation needs to project. Honesty. Decency. Kindness. Integrity. He is not perfect. He was naïve and lacked ruthlessness – I doubt he would make those mistakes again. He took on the role of Chief Scout at a time when it included the ‘Chairman of the Board’ role too. He was great at the former and not so great at the latter. Both need very different skillsets. Some of his predecessors were great at the ‘Chairman’ bit and less good at the ‘Chief Scout’ bit. The former Chief Scout role arguably asked for super-human qualities from its occupants – whoever they were.

Scouting Ireland should welcome Christy Mc Cann back as a ‘Chief Scout Emeritus’. (Maybe there should be a role for all former Chief Scouts as a sort of ‘Wizengamot’ or ‘Witenagemot’ to be more precise). With respect to various Chief Scouts, we have never had a more popular Chief than Christy Mc Cann. He has been through an ordeal that has been hugely disproportionate relative to the transgression.

His mistake arguably pales into insignificance versus the glaring governance oversights of late that the Charities Regulator has highlighted. Where is the accountability for those who led us into that mess?

If we accept the principle that leaders sometimes make innocent mistakes and make them with the best of intentions, this principle must cut both ways. If (as seems likely) we are never going to ask the individuals who ran safeguarding in Scouting Ireland for close to two years prior to the discovery of historic abuse cases, the questions they need to answer…. If we are going to gloss over holding to account those who presided over safeguarding during the period when the national association and its hard won, carefully built reputation crumbled before our eyes and has yet to fully recover…. If we are going to brush aside the frankly astonishing conflicts of interest held by specific individuals who made the rulings that led to Mr Mc Cann’s expulsion in the first place – the ruthless, disproportionate destruction of the reputation of four fellow Scouters (Mr Mc Cann and three others) in the name of blatant protection of friends… then our moral compass and the Scout law we all profess to be following dictate that Christy Mc Cann deserves reinstatement in some meaningful form.

…. Assuming he wants anything to do with Scouting in Ireland after the appalling way he has been treated.

On the wider, deeper and far more complex questions that would involve pointing the spotlight in the right direction, the board can do what previous boards have done and just gloss over everything and opt not to ask questions of people who are still members and have information about their handling of safeguarding cases and why some individuals received very different treatment to others.

The alternative would be to ask questions. That would be a complex and painful process. It would cause embarrassment in the short term. It would not endear the board to a still well-established clique. It could however bring some closure to a festering abscess that continues to blight the recovery and growth of a still deeply scarred entity.

There are people inside Scouting Ireland who have been incompetent. There are others who have known things and chosen to look the other way. There are likely still others who did things and have not yet been held to account. Much like a poisonous weed entangled in a garden of flowers and trees, extracting these people would be very difficult. There would probably be collateral damage. For this reason, a proactive approach seems unlikely.

Mind you, truth eventually outs. As the DUP might now be reflecting, this has a habit of happening at inopportune times and with potentially significant consequences.

• The ‘National Management Committee is the predecessor of the current ‘Board of Directors’ of Scouting Ireland Limited.