Kilkenny Incest Case Report: Motion.

Minister for Health (Mr. Howlin)

I move:

The Dáil Éireann notes the report of the team which was established to investigate the Kilkenny incest case and endorses the action taken by the Minister for Health on the recommendations set out in that report.

I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the House about the Kilkenny incest case and the recent report of the investigation team which I established to inquire into the role of health services in relation to that case.

The entire nation was shocked and horrified as details of the dreadful abuse, both physical and sexual, suffered by the young woman at the hands of her father emerged following the court case on 1 March last and the subsequent interviews given by the victim herself. It is hard to believe that such savagery exists in our society and it is almost impossible to appreciate the extent of the pain and suffering experienced by the woman involved.

I share the widespread and genuine revulsion which our community as a whole feels about this case. I know that all Members of this House will join with me in conveying our deep sympathy to the woman and in expressing our determination that such abuse will never again occur in our society.

As details of the case unfolded questions began to be raised about the performance of the health services. In particular, there was concern about how the abuse could have continued for such a period of time and not be brought to light earlier so that appropriate action could be taken to protect the woman concerned. I was particularly concerned at suggestions that the results of the abuse had been seen by different health care professionals at various times but that no action had been taken to remedy the situation.

In the light of all these concerns, I instructed the chief executive officer of the South Eastern Board to set up a team to carry out an immediate investigation of the case in so far as the health services were concerned, and to report back to me as a matter of urgency. While this was my immediate concern, I was also anxious that we should learn from the lessons of this case and I also asked the team to make recommendations for the future investigation and management by the health services of cases of suspected child abuse.

Given the depth of public concern about the case and the questions that had been raised about the role of the health services, I was particularly anxious that the team should have an eminent and independent chairperson. We were indeed fortunate in securing the services of Ms Catherine McGuinness, Senior Counsel, who combines a distinguished career at the Bar with a long standing commitment to the whole area of child care.

Ms Catherine McGuinness was ably assisted by Ms Brid Clarke, Head Social Worker, Eastern Health Board; Dr. Sheelah Ryan, Director of community care and medical officer of health, Midland Health Board and Mr. Martin Hynes, programme manager, South-Eastern Health Board.

I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to the team for the willingness with which they undertook this difficult task despite the many other pressures they face in their own work. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance which the team received from the South Eastern Health Board and from the many professionals and other people who came forward to provide information. This was not a statutory inquiry and the willingness of a wide variety of people to lend their support helped to contribute to the full and timely completion of the task given to the team.

I know that there is widespread admiration for the thoroughness and speed with which the team performed their work and for the excellent report which they presented to me on Friday, 14 May. It was particuarly helpful that the report was drafted to avoid identifying publicly the woman, her family or the various professionals. This enabled me to publish the report in its entirety on Tuesday, 18 May and to have it circulated to Deputies, Senators and to other interested parties immediately.

The report is in two main parts. The first part deals with the Kilkenny case itself. It sets out the context in which the case must be viewed in terms of the organisation of the health care system, the legal framework within which it operates and the level of awareness of child abuse in the early eighties. The second part sets out the team's recommendations in relation to child care, child abuse and domestic violence generally.

I want to deal, first of all, with what the team had to say about the Kilkenny case. The report sets out in minute detail the various contacts which the young woman had with the health services over the years. It is clear that the woman and, indeed, her family sought and received services and assistance from various elements of the health services over a long period of time.

In all, there were over 100 contacts between the woman and the health services, many for routine medical ailments but some directly related to the abuse she was suffering. While the health care personnel responded to the presenting symptoms it is most regrettable that the true reality of what was happening in the family was not fully addressed until 1992. On the basis of their investigation, the reasons put forward by the team to explain why this happened include: the fact that each aspect of the health services dealt with the individual manifestations of the abuse and the various illnesses entirely separately and without inter-disciplinary communication and co-operation; each injury was treated separately and the plausible explanations for the injuries which were given by the woman and her family were accepted; the prevalence and the tell tale signs of physical or sexual abuse were not as well understood at the time either by professionals or the public at large; and there were certain weaknesses in the management of the community care services in relation to the investigation of suspected cases of child abuse.

While allowing for these factors, it is still a cause of very great concern and regret to me and to this House that this unfortunate woman should have been subjected to brutal and degrading treatment over such a long period while the services which could have been expected to help her were so close at hand and yet failed fully to grasp and act on the abuse that was taking place.

In their analysis, the investigation team reviewed the response of the health services to the victim and her family in the light of the legal situation and professional practices which pertained at the time in question and their report should be read in that context. At that time the procedures which are now in place for the detection and investigation of sexual abuse had not been developed. The whole concept of child sexual abuse was only beginning to be acknowledged and accepted as relevant to the health services.

However, during those long years of suffering a significant change was taking place in society's awareness of sexual abuse and there was a growth in understanding among health professionals of their role in tackling it. It is encouraging, therefore, to note that in early 1992 when the girl was finally persuaded by a friend as well as her GP and hospital staff to make a formal complaint to the gardaí, all services responded swiftly. It is also heartening to read that the investigation team concludes that today an early diagnosis of such abuse would be much more likely.

This, of course, is of little comfort to the young woman. We all deeply regret the suffering she endured. We must learn from this tragic case. It is for this reason that I asked the team to let me have recommendations on the future management of suspected child abuse by the health services. There are over twenty major recommendations in the report. In putting forward its recommendations, the investigation team indicated that it was aware that some of its recommendations would require further consideration and elaboration, that additional resources would be required and that changes in policy, attitude and approach would be necessary. It also asked that its recommendations receive early and wide circulation so as to stimulate debate and bring about the change necessary to improve the protection of children.

It is for this reason that the Government considered and released the report within five days of my receiving it. The speed of my response is an indication of the concern and urgency with which I and the Government view the whole question of child care and child abuse. I welcome the opportunity for the House to reflect on this most harrowing report and to hear the views of the Opposition Deputies in relation to it.

I now want to outline the preliminary response which I and the Government have decided to make to this report. The team states that they cannot recommend too strongly the urgent need to provide the necessary resources to implement the remaining sections of the Child Care Act, 1991, and in particular those parts of the Act which deal with the taking of children into care and which strengthen the powers of health boards, the gardaí and the courts in relation to children at risk.

The effect of those parts would be to increase from 16 to 18 years of age up to which health boards may intervene to protect children at risk. Health boards and the courts would have available a greater range of options, including supervision orders which would authorise health staff to visit and monitor children at risk in their own homes.

The full implementation of the Child Care Act is the single biggest contribution which we can make towards promoting the welfare of children and protecting those who are at risk. Nothing less than this would be an adequate response to the terrible suffering experienced in the Kilkenny case and to the report of the investigation team.

I am pleased to announce that the Government has agreed to my proposals to implement all the remaining sections of the Child Care Act over a three year period, commencing with those provisions that relate to the protection of children from abuse and neglect.

Mr. Shatter

When will they be implemented, next year or the following year?

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister out. Deputy Shatter will have an opportunity to speak later.

Mr. Howlin

From the time I was made Minister for Health I sought a time frame for the implementation of the remaining sections of this Act. There are a number of complicated matters that must be dealt with, some with which the Deputy opposite will be familiar having served on the special committee. The drawing up of complicated inter-related regulations will take some time.

Mr. Shatter

Three years is a long period. Has none of them been implemented?

The decision to proceed rapidly with the implementation of the Act represents a milestone in social reform and is a mark of the concern of the entire community and, hopefully, all sides of this House, regarding the protection of children and the promotion of their welfare.

The new legislation will not be fully effective until the necessary procedures are put in place to underpin it and to ensure that it is fully operational. In this regard the team's recommendations in relation to child care guidelines, written Protocols, child abuse registers, the conduct of case conferences and record keeping will require careful consideration by my Department, the statutory agencies and relevant professionals. My Department is already in discussion with the Garda Síochána in relation to the strengthening of the child abuse guidelines. I will be taking immediate steps to ensure that the recommendations of the investigation team are evaluated and implemented to the maximum extent possible.

Having reviewed the legal framework, the investigation team are of the view that the very high emphasis on the rights of the family in the Constitution may consciously or unconsciously be interpreted as giving a higher value to the rights of parents than to the rights of children. They believe that the Constitution should contain a specific and overt declaration of the rights of children and have recommended that the Constitution be amended accordingly. This is a complex and far-reaching recommendation which will require detailed consideration by the Government in consultation with the Attorney General and I intend that this process be initiated as a matter of urgency.

A central recommendation of the investigation team is that there should be mandatory reporting of all forms of child abuse by designated professionals. The team heard evidence and received submissions both for and against the introduction of a mandatory reporting law. On balance, I am in favour of mandatory reporting. However, I realise that some professional groups may have difficulties with regard to client confidentiality that would need to be resolved before this could be introduced. I am anxious to ensure that we achieve as much common ground and consensus as possible on this before proceeding with legislation. Therefore, I will be initiating broad ranging consultations with all the relevant interest groups with a view to securing the widest possible agreement on the question of mandatory reporting.

The report makes a series of recommendations in relation to the improvement of services for families and children. These relate to prevention and education, family support, treatment and staff training. These measures will be carefully considered as services are expanded and strengthened to implement the provisions of the Child Care Act. I will be instructing health boards and other agencies to incorporate these recommendations in their implementation plans.

As a significant part of the abuse in the Kilkenny case occurred after the woman had attained adulthood, the team with my agreement extended their remit somewhat to include adult abuse and domestic violence generally. Their report includes a series of recommendations in relation to domestic violence. They have called for the provision of more refuge places for victims of family violence, for support services for those victims, for training for health care staff in identifying cases of family violence and the introduction of approprite referral procedures to the Garda. The team have also recommended changes in the legislation governing barring orders to make these orders available in all cases of domestic violence and not just, as at present, in cases of violence against spouses.

I intend to address the question of having adequate refuge spaces available in the context of the additional funding now being made available to me by Government. I see such refuges as a key component of the network of child care and family support services needed to be put in place to underpin the Child Care Act. I have instructed my Department to urgently examine the other recommendations that relate to my area of responsibility. I intend to discuss the recommendations in relation to barring orders with my colleague, the Minister for Justice, who has responsibility for the current legislation in this area. I have done this already on a preliminary basis and will do so more formally in the immediate future.

The need for very close co-operation and co-ordination between all the various agencies dealing with children is obvious form this report. The team has some telling recommendations in relation to the role of gardaí, teachers and other professionals dealing with children at risk. I have already had preliminary consultations with my ministerial colleagues with a view to finding effective and efficient mechanism to give expression to these particular recommendations.

The report also makes recommendations in relation to specific measures to be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Justice and the medical council. These agencies have already been contacted with a view to having the team's recommendations examined as a matter of urgency. In response to a further recommendations by the investigation team, I have asked the health promotion unit of my Department to develop a campaign to promote the welfare of children and to educate the public so that they can play a more effective role in this whole area.

I have also been considering how I and my Department should respond to the growing incidence of child abuse. Because of the very much increased workload in this area I have decided to create a child care policy unit within my Department. This unit will play a key role in the implementation of the Child Care Act nationally, in considering and implementing the recommendations in this report and in developing policy in the whole area of child care and family support services.

Finally, I want to echo a point made in the report that violence and sexual abuse, whether against children or adults, must not be seen solely as the responsibility of the health services. Other agencies, both statutory and voluntary, also have responsibility in this area as indeed has the community as a whole. The elimination of such abuse and violence must be a shared responsibility and must be supported by society at large.

Mr. Flanagan

May I seek the approval of the House to share my time with my colleagues, Deputies Shatter and Frances Fitzgerald?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Flanagan

The timing of the debate this afternoon is most unsatisfactory in that the 166 Deputies in this House are required to share a few minutes between them to discuss a very important report.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Ms Burton)

Whose fault is that?

Mr. Howlin

The Deputies have wasted half an hour already.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us not waste any more precious time. Deputy Flanagan, without interruption.

Mr. Flanagan

The Government should order the business of the House in a more satisfactory manner. At the outset I wish to pay a sincere tribute on behalf of the Fine Gael Party to former Senator, Catherine McGuinness, and the team that produced this fine report in so short a time. It is an indication of the expertise available to the committee which included as its members Dr. Sheelah Ryan, Ms Brid Clarke, Mr. Martin Hynes along with Catherine McGuinness. I hope we can act on this report at the first available opportunity.

The committee made 23 recommendations which have great relevance for all cases of child neglect and abuse. It is disappointing to hear the Minister's reaction on the implementation of the Child Care Act. He has admitted to the House openly and unashamedly that the best he can hope for in terms of a timescale is three years from now. This is simply not good enough. The Minister must readily accept that if it was not for the emergence of the facts of this Kilkenny savagery implementation of this Act would have remained firmly on the back burner.

Mr. Howlin

I have been in office for only four months.

Mr. Flanagan

It is a dreadful reflection on our society that there are people in our community who will inflict such injuries on members of their own family. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. The ISPCC reckons that at least six children have died as a result of severe physical and sexual abuse within the past 12 months. The help line set up by that group receives calls at a rate of 1,000 per week. Successive Fianna Fáil Administrations must take the blame for not providing appropriate resources to implement the Act. It strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous of the Minister to call legislation which we have had on our Statute Book for over two years new legislation. Successive Administrations must take the blame for this lack of resources which directly allows so many abused children to fall through the safety net and continue their suffering undetected.

This State has not prioritised the needs of children within society. There is little co-ordination of services, and communication is sadly lacking. The Minister's response this afternoon was weak and unimpressive. How long more must we wait for the Government to recognise that the protection of children is fundamental and of considerably more importance to the social health of the community than many other schemes and proposals which cost much more money. It is absolutely incredible and shameful in the extreme that we are dealing with child care legislation enacted 85 years ago, legislation which was substantially amended in Westminster during the twenties. I participated in the closing stages of the Committee Stage deliberations and the Child Care Act in this House and the sense of achievement among Deputies on all sides of the House was palpable. There was agreement that this was good, reforming legislation which would be of considerable benefit to our society. Plaudits were exchanged at the end of the debate and the Minister of the day felt great. However, the reality is that legislation is only as good as the resources available to implement it. The success and application of any legislation depends on resources. Resources mean numbers and numbers mean social workers, psychologists, care centres, homes and the availability of foster parents. Staff, care facilities and referral centres are the kernal to solving the problem. The Government must accept that child care cannot be confined to an eight hour day or a five day week. Over the past three years there has been no commitment to follow up and implement the legislation. Only 14 of the 79 sections of the Act have been given statutory force. Having regard to the huge increase in suspected child abuse and neglect cases the type of action proposed must be concrete and radical. We need an independent national children's council which will be independent of he Department of Health, thereby ensuring full accountability for child care services in the State. Such a council was recommended 23 years ago. It is now time to inaugurate this council as a matter of some urgency.

The McGuinness report makes a recommendation on the constitutional amendment of Articles 41 and 42 which would include a statement of clarification on the constitutional rights of our children, something we do not have at present. This is the type of protection we need if we are to tilt the balance in favour of the child, which is what is required by society at present. A constitutional amendment to enshrine the rights of children must be set in the context of the type of protection we have given to the unborn in recent years. While respecting the rights of the unborn, nobody can argue against the need to guarantee the rights of the born, with particular reference to the vulnerability of a defenceless child. The balance of rights as expressed in our Constitution has given rise to a confused situation. I hope the Minister and the Attorney General are in a position to introduce the appropriate framework for change in this House at the earliest opportunity.

One aspect of the investigation which caused me some concern was the matter of the Garda authorities. I am surprised that there was little in the Minister's speech in terms of forging direct links with the Minister for Justice on the matter of changing the law in the justice area. Unfortunately, there is a reluctance on the part of many members of the Garda Síochána to become involved in family disputes. That attitude must change. The reason for this reluctance is a lack of training. It is of fundamental importance that a child care officer be appointed in each Garda division. The officer could have functions similar to those of the crime prevention officer or the juvenile liaison officer. If Part III of this Act was implemented and properly enforced any delay in coming to the rescue of a child who has been abused and neglected would be minimised. In this regard, we need a charter for victims of crime. It is extraordinary that the Minister for Justice has remained so silent on the publication of the report.

The concept of third party barring orders must be considered. There is need to have a mechanism available to remove the offender from the house and leave the child in the home. As we have seen too often in the past, the removal of the child from the home seems to be the priority rather than the removal of the offender. In this regard it is regrettable that neither the Ministers for Justice nor Equality and Law Reform have addressed the matter of the amendment of the 1981 Family Law Act. The present law is clearly inadequate. The argument in favour of allowing an abused party, be they brother, sister, son, daughter or parent, apply to the local District Court for a protection order or barring order to let the court decide the case in the normal course is overwhelming. Similarly many injured parties are too fearful to take an action in their own name. The powers of the health boards must be considerably strengthened in this respect.

Another area which has been debated in this House on many occasions, and deliberated upon at length in the Law Reform Commission Report on Child Sexual Abuse, is the matter of the mandatory reporting of cases. The points made by the Minister this afternoon are insufficient as regards a concrete proposal in this area. I hoped the Minister might at least have set a process in train by way of his programme managers to ensure that a Cabinet sub-committee would be set up between the Departments of Equality and Law Reform, Health and Justice to deal with this matter.

Perhaps the chronic feature of the report is the serious drawbacks within the entire area of communication. The fact that the girl in question made contact on 100 occasions with official personnel is proof that the system of communication is seriously deficient. Many of the recommendations in this report have already been made in other reports on other occasions, particularly the 1980 Task Force Report on Child Care and the Law Reform Report on Child Sexual Abuse.

Cases of an appalling nature will continue to emerge in Kilkenny, Mayo and elsewhere unless the Government acts positively. These are not isolated cases. Tragedies will occur unabated unless the Government are seen to take charge of the situation. Money must be made available now. It is not sufficient for this House to react in a knee-jerk manner after successive tragedies are unearthed or a court decision is handed down. Thousands of children on this island are suffering neglect and abuse and our children need the protection of the law.

Successive Fianna Fáil led Administrations have failed to tackle the problem of child sexual abuse. Comprehensive changes recommended in 1991 have not been acted upon and guidelines on child sexual abuse circulated in 1987 are now out of date as the official reported number of incidents of child abuse is just under 4,000 per year. Some areas of the country have shown a dramatic rise in the number of cases reported to health boards. We need a system of public policy aimed at protecting our children and rehabilitating the victims by way of an education programme. Perhaps, most importantly society as well as statutory instruments need to change if we are to afford a sufficient scheme of welfare and safety for our young people.

I regret having to bring my remarks to a conclusion. On behalf of Fine Gael I wish to say to the Minister and the Government that they will have our full co-operation and assistance in enacting the positive recommendations in this report. However, if the Minister or his colleagues fail to react we will, as we have done in the past, introduce Private Members' legislation and lead the Government screaming into the House, as Deputy Shatter has done on three occasion during the past two years.

Mr. Shatter

The tragic victim in the Kilkenny incest case and the many professionals with whom she came into contact are the victims of governmental neglect, ministerial incompetence and self-delusion, health board management failures and political posing, some of which we have witnessed again this evening.

The Kilkenny case should not be viewed in isolation but should be seen in the context of similar and related cases over the past decade and in the context of the failure by successive Ministers for Health in a variety of different Governments to take the action necessary to ensure the best protection possible is available to children at risk.

This case should not be seen solely as a case of incest and sexual abuse. That was merely one part of the horror that the victim had to live with. It is also a case of brutal, physical violence inflicted by a parent on a child which resulted in the victim sustaining a large number of serious physical injuries including almost losing an eye. It is, to use social work jargon, not only a case of sexual abuse but also a case of non-accidental injury.

In January 1980 the Department of Health first published guidelines on the identification and management of non-accidental injury to children. In 1982, two children died as a result of non-accidental injury. One-year-old Patrick O'Brien of Clondalkin died in April 1981 and his father was sentenced to five years penal servitude. Three-year-old Sandra Sutton died in December 1981 and her parents were imprisoned for manslaughter. Both children and their families had been brought to the attention of the Eastern Health Board and a report into their deaths to the then Minister for Health, Deputy Michael Woods, acknowledged that the professionals involved in the Eastern Health Board community care team did not initially work cohesively as a team with full communication of facts and co-ordination of efforts, and that "the complex problems of the O'Brien family and its previous history should have demanded" that they co-ordinated their approach earlier.

The report into the Sutton case exonerated the professionals involved but failed to refer to the fact that two months prior to the death of Sandra Sutton her parents were convicted of child neglect at Kilmainham District Court. In his response published in July of 1982, the Minister, Deputy Woods stated: "It is vital that all professional staff dealing with the welfare of children should accept that they have a responsibility in this area and that they should develop a greater awareness of child abuse and of the family circumstances and personalities of the parents with whom they may be dealing". He also stated that it was his intention to provide greater protection for children at risk in a new Children Bill. He acknowledged the need for new guidelines relating to child abuse, which were ultimately published in February 1983.

Deputy Woods was replaced as Minister for Health by Deputy Barry Desmond who in 1985 introduced the long promised Children Bill. This Bill was so ill-prepared and badly drafted that after a lengthy Second Stage debate it had to be withdrawn, never again to see the light day.

In July 1987, the child abuse guidelines were updated. Announcing their publication, the then Minister for Health, Deputy Rory O'Hanlon, stated that they were designed "to ensure a systematic and sensitive approach to caring for the victims of abuse" and that their "main emphasis is on the exchange of information and co-ordination between the various professions and agencies working on individual cases to ensure a balanced, effective and consistent response from the statutory support services". The Minister requested the health boards to review urgently their present procedures and services in dealing with child abuse in the light of the new guidelines and again promised the publication of a new Children Bill. The Child Care Bill was finally published in 1988 and only completed its passage through the Oireachtas on 2 July 1991.

The 1987 guidelines, like their predecessors, were grossly deficient in prescribing the legal measures available that could be used by health boards and social workers to obtain protection for a child at risk. Whereas the protections provided by the Children Act of 1908 only extended to children under the age of 16 years, additional protections were, and still are, available by way of legal intervention for children up to the age of 18 years by use of the Wards of Court jurisdiction of the Circuit and High Court where a child of 16 or 17 years was or is a victim of violence or sexual abuse. No mention of this was made in the guidelines.

This deficiency in the guidelines was drawn to the attention of Deputy Michael Woods, the then Minister for Health, by me in the Dáil on 4 May 1982. By correspondence, in August 1987 this deficiency was also drawn to the attention of Deputy Rory O'Hanlon following publication by him as Minister for Health of the revised guidelines. Despite this, at no time have the guidelines been corrected so as to ensure health boards and social workers can make similar use of this legal mechanism as was made of it by many English local authorities for many years to extend protection to children in circumstances where no such protection was provided for under their Children Acts.

Why is any of this of relevance to the Kilkenny case? It is of relevance because if the guidelines had been better drafted and if the professional personnel had better training and were made fully aware of all the legal mechanisms available to them, the abuse of the tragic victim in Kilkenny would have ceased earlier.

Part of the remit of the McGuinness inquiry was to establish "why action to halt the abuse was not taken earlier". One reason is, of course, that a majority of those who dealt with the victim were not in a position to know that she was being abused due to the explanations given by her and family members for injuries suffered by her. That is, however, only part of the story. Another reason was the extraordinary lack of co-ordination at health board level between the different professionals and their failure to act in accordance with the then departmental guidelines. It seems from the report, however, that this failure is more the fault of the former Minister for Health, Deputy Woods, and the management of the South Eastern Health Board than that of individual health board personnel. Such failure does not only attach to Deputy Woods when Minister but also to each of his successors. This is clear from the report which acknowledges that "even today, many professionals have little or no training in recognising the signs and symptoms of child abuse and that on the evidence they heard "many of the professionals involved in [the Kilkenny victim's] care are even now unfamiliar with the 1987 Guidelines". Some were unaware of their existence or had never seen them. From this part of the report, it is clear that when the victim was still a child many of the professionals dealing with her were unaware of the departmental guidelines on child abuse despite contrary ministerial assurances given in this House in 1982. Even more frightening it appears that in 1993 professionals working in this area are still unfamiliar with the revised 1987 guidelines.

The report also documents that "the social work services of the South Eastern Health Board have the care and protection of children under 16 as their absolute priority" and in this context children over 16 were not seen as a priority. This is explained on the basis "in part because the service was under resourced and overstretched, and in part, because social workers were aware they had statutory powers to protect children under 16 which were entirely lacking in the case of abused persons over 16 years of age."

The report confirms that in late 1982 early 1983 when the tragic victim had just attained her 17th birthday, she admitted to a social worker that her father was the father of her child and that she was a victim of incest. It is clear from the report that the social worker at that stage was of the view that as she was over 16 years of age no social work intervention could take place and that despite assurances given in the Dáil on 4 May 1982 by the then Minister for Health, Deputy Woods, that he would ensure all persons dealing with children at risk were made aware of the possibility they could use the Wards of Court procedures to provide for protection for children, nothing was done in this regard. Clearly. if the Minister's Department had communicated this to health boards following the exchanges in the Dáil there would have been a very real possibility that the senior social worker to whom the Kilkenny victim in late 1982 early 1983 communicated that she was a victim of incest and violence would have invoked the Ward of Court jurisdiction to provide protection for her some ten years prior to the date of Garda intervention by Garda Reddy who was previously praised by members of this House.

Catherine McGuinness S.C. deserves the congratulations of all of us in this House for the speed with which she and her team have completed their deliberations and published their report. I fully support the recommendations contained in the report, most of which are not new, such as the proposal that the Constitution should be changed to fully and properly protect the rights of children. Ironically, the need for such a referendum was stated by me in the debate on the Bill introduced by Barry Desmond in June 1985. My only quibble with the report is in its failure to make clear that until such times as the Minister brings into force the relevant sections of the Child Care Act, 1991, the Wards of Court jurisdiction is available to be used by all health boards to provide protection to children between the ages of 16 to 18 years.

It is the Minister's response to this report that I find both extraordinary and appalling. It is almost two years since the Child Care Bill was enacted by the Oireachtas and it is now five years since the Bill was first published. From newspaper reports of last week's press conference and from the Minister's speech today one would think that immediate changes were being introduced. In fact, what the Minister promised is that in a period of three and a half years he hopes to bring into operation the Child Care Act, and much play has been made by him of the expense involved.

Part III of the Act provides new legislative measures to extend protection to children in emergencies. It in effect updates provisions already contained in the Children Act of 1908 and fills in some of the gaps left by that legislation. Part IV of the Act details the circumstances in which a child can be taken into care or placed with foster parents or supervised in the home. It also updates provisions already contained in the Children's Act of 1908 and fills in the gaps which can at present be filled by use of the Wards of Court jurisdiction. Part V of the Act deals with the court jurisdiction and procedures applicable in child care cases. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why all of the provisions of Parts III, IV and V of the Children's Act could not be immediately brought into operation.

The Minister's successful public relations exercise last week in which he appeared to convince the media that something dramatic was happening was, in effect, a statement saying that if you are 16 or 17 years of age and being battered or sexually abused this Government is going to do nothing to protect you for another two or three years. The Minister effectively said last week that if you are three, four, five, ten or 16 years of age and you are believed to be at risk in your family home of sexual or physical abuse this Government will wait for two or three years before putting in place a scheme to allow for a supervision order to be made. You will be left in a position where you might be taken into care if you are sexually abused or assaulted, but no pre-emptive action will be taken.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter has three minutes remaining.

Mr. Shatter

Moreover, by ignoring the wards of court power the Minister is ensuring that health boards will not utilise this jurisdiction.

The Minister's response in this House is little short of abysmal. As someone who has addressed these issues here for over ten years and who brought to the notice of this House what was stated in the O'Brien and Sutton cases, when I read this report it filled me with outrage. How many more children must be physically or sexually abused before essential training is provided to health board personnel and legislation already enacted brought into force? How many more children will have to wait? How many more times are we to suffer Ministers coming into this House expressing empty, meaningless words of regret and concern, but in reality doing nothing of substance to ensure that children are truly protected by our laws and social services? How many more hollow words will we hear from this Minister when he is inevitably required to order another inquiry into yet another tragedy sometime in the not too distant future?

Ms F. Fitzgerald

We ought to have had more time to discuss this. If we take the report of the Kilkenny incest investigation and put it beside the report of the Commission on the Status of Women with its 201 recommendations, it is an indictment of a value system which has informed decisions and policy in this country.

The impact of this case on so many people has forced the issue of sexual abuse and violence within the home to the top of the national agenda. This is welcome, as is the overall tenor of the report in highlighting the problems faced by the various individuals and groups dealing with this case. There is a perception that in some ways this case is unusual, isolated in its severity and in the continuation of the abuse over a long period. It is not. Sadly, social workers, doctors, gardaí, health visitors and teachers regularly come in contact with cases equally as shocking as this case in their own way. It is vital that we acknowledge and deal with the aftermath of the Kilkenny case and this report in a way which determines that shortfalls in services are dealt with and that resources are put in place.

It is not an isolated case and we cannot hide behind the silence of many women. The message has been clear for years as women have campaigned for rape crisis centres, refuges and better laws to deal with violence and access to support. It must be asked whether this case would have continued if there has been a nationwide support service in place ten years ago. I believe not. How many more cases are occurring behind closed doors while we cannot find the funds to establish such a system? It is vital for the Minister to detail when the resources will be made available.

We should learn from the experience of many commentators in the UK where there have been 40 child abuse inquiries over 18 years. The commentators there take the view that the kinds of reactions embodied in those reports have had a very negative effect on professional morale and have created a climate in which defensive practice has become the norm rather than protecting the interests of children and parents. We do not want to have dawn raids here taking children into care. Neither do we need non-intervention. We must get a balance. This report is not about identifying a few bad apples in a system that otherwise works well. The whole system needs to be analysed. This is a balanced report that puts it up to us to answer about our priorities and our value system. It is clear that we need a Department of Health and Social Services and a system that supports professionals and others in doing their job effectively in the area of child protection.

Mr. O'Donnell

I pay tribute to the Minister for commissioning this report and to the former Senator McGuinness for producing the report so quickly. The Kilkenny incest investigation report is horrific and chilling. Anyone who has read it has been horrified by it. It has many fine, worthy recommendations. The speed with which the Minister for Health and the Government as a whole have indicated a willingness to act on its findings and to provide over £30 million for their implementation is heartening and encouraging, but we cannot let the promise of future improvements in the health and welfare services and their capacity for effective intervention in child abuse cases could our judgment on the appalling failures of the existing public services as revealed in this report, particularly since the same practices still exist.

I have to conclude that this report unveils a scandalous level of incompetence bordering on negligence in the public services, notably by the South Eastern Health Board, and apparent inaction by the local gardaí, who on one occasion actually assisted the victim's violent father in tracking her down in a refuge in Dublin. This report cries out for greater explanation than has been offered either in the text of the report or by the Minister here today or by any of the officials, including the chief executive officer of that health board. There is an indecent haste for us to move on to the general and away from the specific. We are being urged, for instance, to almost see this case as a learning point through which we can improve our laws and our capacity to deal with child abuse in the future. The Minister has called it a milestone of social reform.

The Minister stated that he does not want to make a scapegoat of anybody. Neither do I; but this report, for all its fine, compassionate recommendations is a whitewash and a further betrayal of the unfortunate victim, whom we call Mary in the report. It is not good enough in this day and age, in the wake of this legacy of incompetence and neglect by various South Eastern Health Board personnel and the local gardaí in the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, that nobody is being held accountable. There is a failure to catch anyone's eye in the report, a similar evasion to that experienced by Mary over the years.

Why do we as a community invest all of our resources in the provision of such vital services as gardaí, social workers and public health nurses? We do so to prevent the criminal and sustained abuse of children like Mary, or at least to ensure when they come to light that there is effective intervention to end it. Yet we learn from this report that although Mary told social workers at the end of 1982 that there was violence and incest in her home, that her father was the father of her six month old baby, that he beat her, her mother and her younger sister and that all of this was confirmed then and there by her mother, it was to be almost ten years before effective action was taken by the authorities to tackle her nightmare.

Unfortunately, the fanfare of publicity with which the Minister announced the good news about future investment in childcare services last week — and that is all very welcome — has resulted, whether intentionally or otherwise, in the full brutal truth of the Kilkenny incest investigation not getting across to the general public. I have no doubt that there are people who believe that here was a case of appalling child abuse that slipped through the net because the victim did not tell anybody or perhaps because the social services were so stretched that they could not reach her. Neither supposition is correct. Mary was disclosing her orderal whenever she had an opportunity over the ten year period. She told social workers, public health nurses and doctors and nobody cried stop. Probably busy, well intentioned professionals wrote up their case notes, although there were serious omissions in the recording of those notes. They sought advice here and there, but nobody cried stop. On page 64 of the report it says that on September 4, 1985, at a meeting of no fewer than five professionals — the local public health nurse, a senior public health nurse, an area social worker, an acting senior social worker and a senior area medical officer — discussed "Mary's" case. What was their conclusion? Surely we could have had effective action after that, but we only had more worthy aspirations. The report tell us that these five professionals concluded:

It is necessary to find truth of Mary's allegations against her father. Get Garda to keep a watch if necessary and see for ourselves if someone is being battered.

Inherent in this conclusion was an obvious disbelief of Mary and lethargy to act. As far back as 1982 Mary had revealed that she was the victim of incestuous violence. In all, as we now know, Mary had no fewer than 115 contacts with the health services throughout the long nightmare of her life of violent abuse by her father. Yet, over six years elapsed before effective action by Garda Agnes Reddy and her detective colleague brought effective intervention to help Mary and bring the physical aspects of the abuse to an end.

I am driven to the conclusion, having read the report carefully, that for all its good recommendations it is no less a scandal than the decade of official incompetence and neglect which it reveals in the South Eastern Health Board. The Minister says we must not seek scapegoats. What does he mean? It is simply unreal and bizarre if nobody is held accountable for this extraordinary and appalling litany of official failure.

Cian O Tiarnaigh of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is right in saying that claims that the report exonerates the professionals involved in this case are "sick-making". Dr. Joseph Robins, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Health is also right when he says it is "clear that the misery suffered by this young woman, for so long, arises less from the lack of legal provisions and health board resources than from what appears to be gross indifference by far too many people in authority at the brutalisation of women and children".

Even today we see reports that measures to allow children who have been sexually abused to give evidence by video link are being challenged on the grounds that the rights of the accused might possibly be compromised. Our jurisprudence as to the rights of children is undeveloped and pitched against children's rights is a mountain of jurisprudence to protect the accused.

Dr. Robins also points out, for instance, that child abuse guidelines have been in existence for the health boards since 1977 and have been revised and updated occasionally. The South Eastern Health Board, therefore, can hardly have been unaware of public policy in this area.

The report is also deficient because of the inexplicable decision not to interview the two banghardaí who eventually took effective action in this case. Indeed, the only two people who took action were not invited to give evidence. The report lamely tells us on page 79 that "the investigation team were not given the opportunity to hear evidence from the gardaí actually involved in the case". Why not? This is a disgraceful omission from the report, we are presented with bureaucratic packaging and expected to settle for Garda evidence from a deputy commissioner on general matters of principle and policy but not the specifics of the handling of this case. I hope Garda Reddy is in the gallery today.

The terms of reference of the inquiry team were twofold: to carry out an investigation, in so far as the health services are concerned, of the circumstances surrounding the case and, in particular, to establish why action to halt the abuse was not taken earlier and, second, to make recommendations. The second part of the report has been delivered in sterling fashion while I welcome the recommendations which have been made which go beyond the provisions of the Child Care Act.

As to the investigation, the report presents us with a disjointed audit of professional incompetence and inaction which borders on negligence. Presented as they are, dispassionately, they still manage to paint a pattern of abuse and horror which is barely credible. The Minister has asked us to be reasonable, to look forward and not back but I cannot be reasonable when I am furious. Is it any wonder that the victim in this case said she is unhappy with the report? She has every reason to be because her case seems to be impervious to justice. Piled on the physical and sexual abuse by her father rests the incompetence of those who had statutory and professional responsibility for her safety. This report exonerates all, offers the victim nothing.

The Minister's plea for reason and for us to look forward constructively denies us the right to be furious. Anger should be expressed about the shortcomings of those involved in the South-Eastern Health Board. It is unacceptable that she could have slipped through every net in the system.

These bad practices, such as the failure to record properly conversations with her or to follow up on broken appointments and — worst of all — the failure to be pro-active in intervening when she had disclosed violent incest have been collectively excused as being understandable or the norm for that time in the context of "prevailing community attitudes" but the reality is that the same practices still apply in health boards right around the country. This will not change today or tomorrow even with a promise to provide £30 million.

I do not know how the Minister can be content with phasing in the new procedures as no amount of money will change bad professional practices if there is a denial, as there is in this report, that bad professional practices exist. The Minister is being over-protective of the professionals involved and compromising his own position in the interests of maintaining harmonious industrial relations. Anger must be expressed at the fact that our professional health workers let us down. It would be far better if we faced up to the fact that everybody concerned blew it. Then at least we could start afresh and I would be glad to look towards the future.

It has been mentioned that this report should provide us with a monumental precedent and a learning point, in terms of developing our child care policies in the future but up until tonight there was not even an apology to the woman involved. I note that the Minister was contrite tonight, which is welcome, because the report moved from the individual to deal with the general issue. This was unacceptable. I do not know if the reluctance to accept responsibility masks a fear of litigation but I hope she will bring a case because we owe her a lot and she should be compensated for a great injustice.

This report is not a serious analysis of bad practice which had a bottom line and a conclusion but rather a series of justifications, excuses and cover ups of individuals which seek to exonerate the professionals instead of finding out why nobody acted. We are talking about professional people trained in the field of child care protection. As I said, guidelines have been in place since 1977 but these were not adhered to. At every juncture there was slippage and the South-Eastern Health Board can hardly have been unaware of public policy in this area. In 1985, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights presented a comprehensive report to the Government on this issue and I do not accept that in 1982 nobody knew about sexual abuse.

It would be different if Mary has been taciturn and refused to talk. As I said, she disclosed information over the place and time after time, in an unbelievable fashion, nobody took any action. She disclosed information to general practitioners, a consultant and a public nurse. Garda Agnes Reddy and her detective colleagues were the first to take action and to take her claims seriously.

Much play has been made of the fact in the report, in terms of exonerating the health services, that by the time the health board had formal disclosure of the incest and violence Mary was over 16 and, therefore, out of the ambit of the 1908 Act but this is not sustainable. Following that vital disclosure in 1982 a social worker had a general discussion with the Garda but did not formally disclose the fact that incest had taken place. No case conference was held and no serious attempt was made to help either Mary or her 14 year old sister and her six month old baby who was on the "at risk" register and who could have been taken under the 1908 Act. They failed to act in relation to the 14 year old child and the six month old baby and at all times Mary and her child could have been made wards of court.

The involvement of the Garda in this case deserves another report. The inquiry team points out that it was not within the sphere of their terms of reference to look into matters other than the health services but the inactivity of the Garda in this case is remarkable. On two occasions, as I said, they actively colluded with the father in bringing her back from where she had sought refuge from her violent father.

The Garda has a long history of reluctance to become involved in domestic violence. It has become masters of the blind eye. This has to change. I note that the Minister for Justice has committed herself to enhancing the responses of the Garda to incidents of domestic violence, particularly against women and children. That is not before its time.

It is interesting to examine the statistics, comparing the cases of alleged sexual abuse reported, the ultimate low level of cases taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the even lower number of those who managed to bring a successful prosecution. This aspect of the law must be examined immediately by the Minister for Justice.

The McKeown report is referred to in the report of this investigation in relation to prosecutions taken within the Eastern Health Board area in 1988. We note that the total number of cases reported to the relevant health board was 990; those referred by the health board to the Garda numbered 507; the number referred by the Garda to the Director of Public Prosecutions was 162 — one will note the numbers diminishing all the time — the number of decisions taken to prosecute was 55 and the number of cases in which the defendent was found guilty was 38. Only 38 defendants were found guilty out of the total of 990 cases reported to the Eastern Health Board. There appears to be a culture among the Garda that there is little point in initiating prosecutions because they are difficult to prove, so they take a non-interventionist approach. I think the Minister for Justice has accepted that we need greater numbers of women in our Garda force. Violence against women must be looked at within the broader context of women being victims in a patriarchal society. There has been much comment on that.

I agree with the emphasis in the report on the need for more refugees around the country. The refuges in Dublin, at first and second stage, are constantly full. Of course, there is a latent need obtaining for refuges which is not even articulated; in other words for women who would leave violent homes if they had a place to go. The overall question of violence against women and incest is only beginning to be articulated by women. Women's secrets in this overall area must be told if we are to put in place protections for them and endeavour to change the cycle of family violence. There are many women who remain silent. Here I might refer to women within the travelling community. I believe they have not told their story at all to date. We must be prepared not only to listen to their story but facilitate its telling.

The report contains an excellent recommendation that we should move on to consider a constitutional amendment to enshrine the individual rights of children which will take precedence over the conflicting rights of the family, stipulated in the Constitution to be antecedent to all positive law. Much of the reluctance to intervene in family violence over the years has been linked to a distinct discomfort on the part of Irish people to intervene in the integrity of the family based on marriage. Such reluctance has allowed circumstances to arise in which violent males have inflicted torture and abuse on their wives and children over many years during which nobody saw fit to intervene. Irish society, the Church and the State has had an obsessive interest in the rights of children so long as they are unborn but, once born, they take a hands-off approach, leaving the style, content and substance of the child's life, in the main, to the vagaries of the family unit.

This subject is of particular relevance to the travelling community. We are all in favour of recognising the rights of minorities, including the travelling community, their right to a folk way of life that is not part of the settled community. We must provide mobile support services immediately to supervise the health and care of infants and children of travellers. Their ill health is well documented and demands a specific targeted response.

It is my belief that teachers also are in the front line when it comes to the early detection of sexual abuse against children. They too must be protected if they are to assume a wider welfare role since for a part of the day they are in loco parentis and are ideally placed to note early signs.

I believe the Minister is aware of a case in the midlands where a teacher was proactive in reporting her suspicion of physical abuse of a pre-school child in her care. For her efforts that teacher was intimidated by the child's father who arranged a boycott of the school, which was ultimately closed for lack of numbers. In that instance, other children of the same family were already in care. Despite that prima facie justification of her suspicions, the teacher was isolated and a prejudicial report was submitted to the Department of Education which cast aspersions on her professional integrity as a teacher. As recently as the twelfth of this month the Minister said he was quite satisfied that that teacher's experience was properly handled by the relevant health board. The Minister is getting into the habit of being quite satisfied with the activities of health boards. For example, in the Kelly Fitzgerald case the Minister was reluctant to apportion accountability. In the Kilkenny case, depite the publication of a report which he himself commissioned to investigate why action was not taken earlier by the health board he is adopting a similar over-protective stance of the personnel involved. Why is the Minister allowing his ministerial interest in industrial relations to compromise the need for justice in the case of this woman, who has become known to all of us as Mary?

I would be the first to commend the Minister and the Government on agreeing to make the necessary resources available for the implementation of the provisions of the Child Care Act, 1991. Would the Minister issue guidelines immediately for the improved practice of our professionals nationwide within the various health boards? It is not sufficient to put it on the long finger.

I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government has any plans to compensate this woman for the terrible tragedy that befell her, for the fact that, no matter what she did, our system of justice did not respond to her plight. She was abused by her father and the authorities did not respond to her needs. She was then meted out injustice at the hands of the court, her father having received a light sentence which cannot be appealed. We learn that the provisions of the legislation cannot be applied retrospectively to that case.

The report exonerates everyone. This is not good enough. The woman concerned is left asking what has gone wrong, as though she were impervious to justice. This State owes that woman a lot. She should be compensated and should not have to plough a furrow through the courts to gain justice, as many others have had to do when they have been gravely wronged.

I hope the Minister, in replying, will give the House some indication of his intentions to make good the injustice meted out to her and to help her. I believe she is living in poverty. It is unacceptable that this woman, who has been a victim of injustice all her life, ultimately a victim of our inadequate resources, could not be offerred a new life in same way, with a decent place to live. I hope the Minister will respond and confirm that she will be offered at least that.

Ms McManus

I should like to share my time with Deputy Sargent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms McManus

This report is indeed a welcome document. For those of us who have worked for many years to combat abuse and violence it has been a long wait. The report is also a terrible indictment of our services, in that a young girl was brutalised and abused for 16 years while professional people were aware of the incest of which she was the subject. The local community must have been aware of the violence that was being meted out to her. Yet for many years, indeed until her life was threatened, nobody intervened to put an end to her agony.

Before rushing to judgment let us remember that they are not the social workers, doctors or Garda who are on trial here. Rather they are the politicians, in particular those who participated in Government over the years, people who had the power to do something and yet did nothing despite the clear warnings on the part of many professional and voluntary bodies who pointed out repeatedly that the legal framework was wrong, that the necessary supports were not in place, that the services simply could not cope. Our warnings fell on deaf ears. Those politicians — in particular I might mention the Progressive Democrats who have an ideological commitment to cutbacks in public services — would do well to examine their own consciences before shooting off their mouths. During the lifetime of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat Coalition Government, in particular, no attempt was made to face up to the needs of the abused despite the enormous increase in demand. That period was characterised by a systematic downgrading of social services and an abject failure to recognise, let alone tackle, the problems of abuse and violence. I would take a lot more seriously protestations from the Progressive Democrats were it not for their record.

I was elected and entered this House after many years of working with battered women. My experience of setting up a refuge in County Wicklow taught me a great deal about male violence and abuse. All women are entitled to the fundamental civil right of being safe in their homes, not a right we have yet secured. The reality of abuse and violence is only now being recognised although thousands of Irish women and children have lived with it for generations.

The conspiracy of silence surrounding it derives from society's attitude to the family, an archaic attitude underpinned by an archaic Constitution. It also comes from a tradition which made women and children subservient to men. I have no doubt that even today if it had not been for the Kilkenny case there would have been no real effort to confront the problem. Unlike Freud we, as a society, recognise that abuse exists but, equally, we have not confronted it. I can give a simple example: last night as I sat writing this speech there was a knock on the door, a woman who is abused and battered by a very violent man of whom she is terrified calls on me. The system does not allow her to escape from this situation or even to get relief from it. I know every detail of her story. Because I cannot help her does that mean I am guilty of neglect? I resent that idea. The type of violence she is experiencing is not unique to Kilkenny, it is in every parish, townland and suburb and we should face up to it. It is not a question of dealing with one case but with every case.

If the judge had handed down a heavier sentence in the Kilkenny case it would have received nothing more than a few headlines. The critical factor was that the victim spoke out, which created an overwhelming public demand for action. This report is an appropriate response to the anger and anguish which people expressed. It sets the parameters for change and puts the onus on the Government to tackle violence and abuse once and for all. If the Government proves up to the job many women and children will have cause to be grateful to the victim of the Kilkenny case.

I have criticisms of the report and the way it is being handled, nevertheless it is a significant document. It defines a strategy which rightly encompasses three Departments, Health, Education and Justice. I regret that only one of the relevant Ministers is here — the Minister for Education and Justice are not — to underline the importance of what we are discussing, violence, abuse and brutality against women and children. Only one Minister of the three is present, yet it is not solely within the remit of the Minister for Health to deal with this problem. The Department of Justice has a vital role in relation to changes in the law and in the Constitution. The Minister's only response so far has been to increase the penalties for incest and indeed that item was not referred to in the report. She certainly showed a great deal of interest in the case at the time, before she went to Australia and I would like to see her dealing with all the factors relating to law reform and the Constitution.

Mr. Flanagan

Is the Minister's party interested in this? Where are the members of the Fianna Fáil Party?

Ms McManus

The Deputy has already taken enough of my time.

The first priority must be the implementation of the Child Care Act and we all agree that we are far too slow in implementing its provisions. The task force was set up in 1974 and it is now time that we implemented its recommendations quickly. I am not happy with the idea that it has taken almost four years to implement this Act. Women come to me daily looking for help and I am not able to provide it. I run a women's refuge which is packed to the doors. It is not a very pleasant place in which to be but a queue of people are trying to get into it to be safe. If a market development fund of £50 million can be made available overnight we should be able to find £40 million to deal with this problem. However, the will is not there to provide it.

We should consider taking a different approach to the implementation of the Child Care Act. I suggest a simple and logical approach that cuts through the complexities, indeed this view is being expressed by a growing body of opinion. The perpetrator, not the victim, should be removed from the home where there is suspected abuse. Why should the victim suffer because of a crime committed against him or her? If there are grounds for reasonable suspicion of incest or violence it would be much less traumatic for the victim and much more human to remove the suspect, the grown man rather than the child. Even in the best managed arrangements, removing the victim from the home means that the victim is either punished or feels punished by that experience, and loses the right to be at home. It is certainly preferable for women and children to come to a refuge rather than remaining at home in a climate of violence, but it is not the best option. It is very hard to move into a refuge. It is an unpleasant place filled with other people who are equally traumatised by their experiences. Very often it is under-staffed and overcrowded. I do not believe it is necessary any longer to think in terms of providing women's refuges, instead we should provide refuges for the men and allow the family unit to stay at home in control of their own lives.

What is missing from the debate is a lack of understanding of what happens in a violent home, we are punishing the innocent by ensuring that the man is not taken from the home. We should devise ways of taking him out. I am sure there is a risk and people will always jump up and ask about the innocent man. Even with the best will in the world I accept mistakes will be made but this would happen very rarely. Let us remember that the child is always innocent and that the man is often guilty of the most appalling brutality. If we keep that as a marker we may bring common-sense to bear on this debate. It is a matter of getting away from being adult centred and becoming genuinely child centred. At present barring orders fail as many families as they assist. They apply only to married couples. Presumably the Minister for Justice has it in her power to deal with the problem quickly. Many family units comprise a cohabitating couple and this should be addressed. We should also consider the case of the mother who is battered by her son — indeed we have not even considered this phenomenon — or grandmothers who may be attacked by grandchildren. Every form of violence exists in the traditional Irish family and we should not ignore any of it when dealing with the question of incest and violence.

The Minister for Justice has also another area of responsibility — I wish she was here to answer — the treatment of offenders. Why is there no treatment for those found guilty of incest? Increasingly — because more offenders are going to jail — the perpetrator is not being put in the position of confronting his crime and he may well come out as bad as when he went in. When we discussed the Incest Bill I raised a point with the Minister of State about ensuring there is some type of protection order for a victim when the offender comes out of jail. The Minister of State did not seem to grasp what I was talking about or to envisage the possibility that the offender would harass his victim. Since that debate an offender in prison has been able to terrorise his daughter. The Minister for Justice has a very strong case to answer on her attitude to this problem.

The Minister for Education should also be present and I am sorry she is not. She has a crucial role to play. The Minister for Health said that the community has a responsibility to deal with this issue and I agree with him. Where is the Government? Where are the Members who can bring about the badly needed changes? The "stay safe programme" was not instituted by the Department of Education but was brought in because private individuals understood how important it was. The Department of Education has never faced up to the question of sex education in schools or to protecting children from abuse. Frequently I address school children on the areas of violence, although I have no expertise in teaching. Teachers are so conscious of making children alert to the dangers that they are willing to take that responsibility but guidance from the Department is missing.

The Minister for Education has a direct responsibility. She should never forget that the victim in the Kilkenny case did not know or understand the simple biological functions of her own body until a nurse in the hospital told her, after she had her first child. This was a girl who had gone through our national school system and into second level and she still did not know the basic facts of life, even though at that stage she had been abused for six years.

I commend the team for having produced this document so quickly. They did a good job and their recommendations are important. It deals with the structural failings in the system and it does not take the easy option. The easy option would have been to go for a scapegoat saying, "We will box this in, this is an individual case, we will get at the professionals". I have no doubt the professionals were not able to cope with the problem — they are not super human. The Tory approach would have been to screw the professionals and ignore the reality of the huge numbers who are getting no support, no help, no protection from the system. The Minister has a tremendously heavy responsibility in this regard. If he does not live up to the challenge of this report, he too will be indicted for it.

The record is atrocious. The girl in question had 100 contacts with various parts of the health services who were not able to respond to the signals she was giving. Sometimes the professionals were not even aware of the guidelines that had been issued. The medical services were all over the place. The people who were aware were probably hamstrung by legal inadequacies or else were overcome with the question of the taboo in relation to incest. This is a genuine thing. It is very easy for us to talk about incest now because it has been brought into the light. How many people were brave enough to speak about it in the days when nobody did so? It is so easy to judge. It is much harder to tackle this problem in a way that is fair and just.

It would have been fair to bring Garda Reddy into the team to hear her story. She has a story to tell and we need to know it. I want an answer as to why she was not there. She had a right to be there. There was no problem in bringing her in when the Garda needed her expertise and her particular way of extracting information in order to make the case stick. Why then did they abandon her? We certainly need to know what her position was.

The recommendations suggest the provisions of video cameras and play therapists for the health boards. In my health board region a person in south Wicklow who has been abused and needs treatment will find the nearest point of contact is Crumlin Hospital, which is in a different county and a considerable distance away. There is no bus service from Tinahely, Shillelagh and south Wicklow generally. Even if you get a taxi or a lift you can be waiting months to get treatment. We are a long way off the play therapists. If the waiting list could be reduced the people who need treatment would be grateful.

The health centre in my own area, the eighth biggest town in Ireland, does not have an interview room, it barely has chairs for people to sit on, it does not have a receptionist two days a week and the answering machine is broken. How does a victim of abuse cope with that system? Most people would be happy enough without the play therapist if we had a facility to meet a social worker, who does not have to jump up every ten minutes to answer the phone which a receptionist should answer. That is simple and it would be a start. The first thing the Minister for Health should tackle is the deplorable state of many of our health centres.

Another grave omission is that the report failed to see the victim as part of the jigsaw in solving the problem — I do not mean this particular victim but the victim as opposed to the professional. In the North many of the refuges have battered women on their management boards. That is a very sound principle. The danger about this report is that it is seen continually through the perspective of the professional — the doctor, the social worker, the administrator. It is a very old-fashioned Fabian approach. We need to ensure that the people who have been abused participate in finding the resolution to this problem. They have something to offer that we should recognise. If we are assessing progress we should include them. The more we enable victims of abuse to speak, the better chance we have of ensuring that more victims will speak. Having read the book on this victim it is clear that in many instances she was not able to speak or she said things in such a way that she was unable to make herself clear. That was enforced silence because of terror, shame and conflicting emotions. We should not underestimate the complexity of the emotions that often ensure that a victim will not speak. One way to overcome that is to include the victim as part of the team so that progress can be made.

This report demands a response from the Minister for Health. We have heard some of the commitments. The Minister must face up to certain key points. The first is the fact that children will be punished unless the man is taken out of the house rather than the victims of the man's abuse. The Minister must deal with providing resources for statutory bodies and voluntary groups. He must bring in an effective legal framework. He must introduce training — this is critical — particularly for the gardaí but also for medics and nurses and he must also ensure that the rights of children can be established under the Irish Constitution. Finally, he must give a voice to those who have been terrified into silence. If he fails to do all these things he too will be indicted. He has made a promise and I will make another one. I am committed to full reform and nothing else will satisfy me. It will not satify me and it will not satisfy the abused who have been betrayed over the years. As a member of the Opposition I promise the Minister and his Cabinet that I will hound and harry them until there is full reform.

Mr. Sargent

I welcome this report on behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, and particularly on behalf of the equality group and the women's group in the party who are dealing all too often with cases such as the Kilkenny incest case. It is a specific case but it would be an injustice to the work of the team and the victim if we did not deal with its general implications and learn from the mistakes of the past.

We are dealing with a general social illness, not just incest, where the weak and those who are unable to defend themselves are open to exploitation. To date in this State the family has enjoy a hallowed position, and rightly so. However, it is certainly not infallible and that has been recognised in this report. There is a need for more safeguards and resources to counteract the negative attitude and the exploitation in society which is destroying family life.

In the short time available to me I would like to deal with expenditure and resources as they relate to incest. The Minister has said that funding will be made available to deal with this problem. Is he prepared to give a commitment as to where the money will be spent? Some of the shortcomings in funding are indeed appalling. For example, Women's Aid has received no funding for the past two years and they are dealing with problems like this all the time, whereas, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council has received £40,000. Here is an example of Government quite rightly encouraging good marriages but not recognising the problems that can arise. Women's Aid, without help, have set up a training programme with one of the city hospitals to recognise signs of abuse and how to deal with it.

There are associated aspects. For instance, will money be made available for research into violence against the mothers of incest victims? In 45 per cent of cases of incest there will be violence against the mother as well. If women are protected, children will be protected.

There has been a failure so far to recognise the effects on children who have witnessed abuse in the home and there is an urgent need to deal with this indirect abuse, given that we are now learning increasingly that abuse breeds abuse and violence creates violence.

Will money be made available for a training programme for professionals in general to enable them to recognise abuse at an early stage? The finger is being pointed at authorities here all the time, and blame is warranted, but it is certainly not enough. There has been a failure by successive Governments to recognise rape and abuse in the home.

Although there has been some recognition of rape outside the home, within it it is being largely ignored. Unless action is taken in all of this area, we are wasting our time here. Children should be made aware that nobody, even a family member, has a right to do to them anything that could come under the heading of sexual abuse. I have worked as a teacher and I welcome the stay safe programme. It is a hopeful sign, but it will be no good if merely left on the shelf. Teachers do need that kind of backup. I would reiterate what Deputy McManus said, that it is a pity the Minister for Education is not here to answer some of those points. Society has a responsibility to protect its members.

Let me conclude by reiterating what I said before because it is basic to what we are discussing: the Minister says funding will be made available to deal with the problem, but can he make a commitment here as to where that money will be spent?

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Ms Burton)

I want to comment on some aspects of the debate. First I welcome the recommendation in the report for the extension of barring orders to all cases of domestic violence. This is a critical recommendation for many women and for many families. Second, I hope that following that recommendation there will be proposals which will essentially allow the victims to stay at home. That will have two effects — it will decrease the number of women who need to resort to refuges and will give women in particular far more confidence in coming forward and highlighting abuse. Those proposals are under active consideration on an interdepartmental basis.

In relation to matters of education, the Department of Social Welfare, as I am sure Deputies are aware, has a very broad scheme of funding for locally based women's groups and I am pleased to say that at the Department I am actively encouraging such locally based women's groups to include in their programmes of personal development and education the areas of sexuality, violence and abuse. What we need is a climate created right throughout the community where there is a confidence about reporting cases of sexual abuse or violence. As many Deputies here will know there still exists fear among neighbours about the consequences of reporting such cases. It is not just education at school level which is required through the formal education system. A great deal of work and education can be done through women's groups and women's organisations because they can deal with this in a sensitive manner.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State but, in accordance with an order of An Dáil of this day, the Minister for Health must be called at 6.55 p.m. That time has arrived and I now call on the Minister.

Minister for Health (Mr. Howlin)

First I want to thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate. I have taken careful note of all the points made. I am disappointed at some of the criticisms which have been levelled both at the report and at the response to the report that I have outlined to the House on behalf of the Government.

The first thing I want to say is in relation to the timescale for implementing the Child Care Act and the criticisms levelled particularly from the Fine Gael benches in relation to that. It must be said that because of the scale and complexity of the Act it was already recognised that it would be implemented on a phased basis. I was a member of the special committee which processed this Bill through the House. It was an excellent committee and all members understood that this particular legislation would require substantial increases in spending and would be implemented on a piece by piece basis. That was debated and understood.

When I came into office as Minister for Health, just four months ago, I found that the process of implementing the Act had come to a standstill due to lack of funding for the necessary developments and the lack of staff within the Department to prepare the necessary regulations, guidelines etc. There are some Deputies on the opposite benches who share the responsibility for that.

I have tackled both of those problems and cleared the way for the implementation of the Child Care Act to be resumed and accelerated. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress contained a commitment to implement the Act by 1997 and that was accepted and voted on by many parties in this House. I now intend to accelerate the processing of the Act——

Mr. Flanagan

Fine Gael voted against it.

Mr. Howlin

They voted against it for different reasons. The Act will be implemented by the end of 1996. The new provisions in relation to child abuse will be fully implemented by 1995, about 18 months from now, and not the three years mentioned by Deputy Shatter. I have accepted the best advice available to me that the necessary staff, services and facilities cannot be put in place at an earlier date.

There is a number of reasons this leadin time is necessary. The first is that all current child care services are under resourced and it is essential that they be built up and expanded in line with additional duties and responsibilities placed on them. It would be irresponsible to devolve new duties and responsibilities on them without putting the necessary resources in place. The implementation of the Act will require the recruitment of several hundred additional staff, many of them highly qualified and specialised. Recruitment of such staff will take time. There is a need, too, to build, equip and maintain new residential facilities. Again that will take time.

Much emphasis has been placed on training, and there is a need to train the staff to resource implementation of the Act. That will take place but cannot be rushed. For all those reasons the time frame I have outlined is the quickest possible and that is accepted by many people I have spoken to, people who are professionals in the area and who have been concerned about this problem for some time.

In the one minute I have left I want to deal with the other major contention coming from the Opposition side and that relates to why, in her report, the finger has not been pointed at anyone. My approach in establishing this committee was to examine what happened in this case with a view to seeing what lessons could be learned and what improvements could be put in place. If the team had been asked to find a scapegoat within the health services it would have been necessary to establish a very different type of investigation, probably a statutory tribunal along the lines of the beef tribunal which could have crossed-examined under oath, which could have called every witness, every health board worker with their union representative, with senior counsel and so on and which would probably take years to arrive at the facts of the case. I do not believe we would have got as comprehensive an analysis of what happened or as clear a set of recommendations if we had waited another year for that type of approach. I am delighted with the work done by the committee of inquiry. On behalf of the Government I have accepted its recommendations and I will proceed at full speed to implement them. I thank my Government colleagues for giving me the resources to do that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the motion agreed?

Mr. Flanagan

In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of this debate from a time point of view, will the Minister agree to a referral of the report to the Select Committee on Social Affairs so that we might have an opportunity to have a meaningful debate on the matter?

An Ceann Comhairle

I must get a clear indication as to the outcome of this debate.

Mr. Flanagan

Subject to the Minister's agreeing to my request I will agree to note the report.

Question put and declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 25 May 1993

Kilkenny Incest Case Report: Motion.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 May 1993