That concludes questions for today. I now come to deal with Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on abuse allegations. Before I call on Members, I remind the House that under the sub judice rule, there is an onus on Members to avoid comment which might prejudice the outcome of any proceedings which would arise following investigations. I now call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office. I call Deputy Pat Rabbitte to put his question to the Minister.
Private Notice Questions. - Sex Abuse Allegations.
In view of the huge public concern arising from the disclosures on the RTE "Prime Time" programme on clerical child sex abuse in the Dublin archdiocese and the decision of the Government, announced yesterday, of the establishment of a non-statutory inquiry into similar allegations in the Ferns diocese, will the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform say what proposals he has for an inquiry into widespread allegations of abuse highlighted in the "Prime Time" programme, if a Garda investigation is under way; and if he will make a statement on the matter?
Will the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform clarify what actions the Government is taking regarding the allegations of clerical child sexual abuse in the Dublin archdiocese and if a criminal investigation is under way?
I thank Deputies Rabbitte and Deasy for tabling these Private Notice Questions. I accept the statement that there is widespread public concern about this matter. I do not believe any right-minded person could watch the programme without a sense of shock, anger and revulsion, even more so because it raised issues which we, as a society, have to find an effective means to address. The issues involved will not go away and have to be faced up to by everyone fairly and squarely whatever the difficulties and wherever they lead.
The House will be aware that my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, has announced the establishment of a non-statutory investigation into allegations in relation to the Ferns diocese. The Government was aware of the progress that had been made by George Birmingham SC in this matter and felt it would be unfair to the victims involved to delay making further progress on the cases in Ferns while we were considering what further action might be necessary in relation to other allegations of sexual abuse.
I know all members of the House will want to avoid knee-jerk reactions and will be prepared to give the Government the time that is necessary to reflect on the highly complex issues which arise. This is not a recipe for inaction, but marks a determination on our part that whatever might be done will be effective in addressing the issues which arise. We all agree that this is the least we owe to some of the most vulnerable members of our community who suffered, often in silence and desperation, while terrible wrongs were done to them.
I will return to this issue but I want to outline to the House first the steps that are being taken immediately by the Garda Síochána to deal with some of the issues which arise. Following the television programme I had urgent consultations with the Garda authorities. It is important to emphasise initially that sexual abuse complaints will be fully investigated by An Garda Síochána and that no resources will be spared in bringing perpetrators to justice. It is the case that many clerical perpetrators of sexual abuse have been convicted following numerous and extensive Garda investigations and many of them are in custody at present.
Irrespective of any other form of inquiry that might be undertaken it must be a priority that every effort is made to ensure that anyone who has engaged in criminal behaviour in this matter, or in a matter of this kind, is brought to justice. Following consultation with the Garda authorities I can inform the House that a chief superintendent is being assigned, with additional gardaí, as part of the domestic violence and sexual assault unit to carry out an analytical overview of the type of cases in question, to review particular cases with a view to seeing whether further lines of inquiry might be available which could lead to preferring criminal charges, to pursue any additional evidence which becomes available and to investigate fully fresh complaints which may be brought in this area.
I know all Members of the House will join with me in appealing to anyone who has information which would enable such cases to be pursued to come forward. To facilitate this the Garda will announce today details of a special telephone line which is being set up for the chief superintendent and his unit. I assure the House that the Garda Síochána fully recognises the terrible wrongs done to victims of sexual abuse and it deals with these cases with utmost sensitivity and will continue to do so.
Questions have been raised in relation to the adequacy of the criminal law in pursuing those who failed to report details of sexual abuse. I have obtained a preliminary survey of the existing law from the Office of the Attorney General and am currently examining it. This is an extremely complex question and I will seek further advice on the matter. As part of any criminal proceedings the application of the law has to be considered in the light of the details of the particular case and I assure the House that in pursuing cases the Garda, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, will consider all legal options available. I neither want to understate nor overstate the difficulties involved in that regard but it has to be borne in mind that one of the primary functions of the new deployment of Garda resources will be to pursue actual abusers where evidence can be obtained against them.
While the criminal law has a primary role to play in addressing what in many cases was clearly criminal behaviour of an egregious kind I accept that other issues arise which may be beyond the scope of the criminal law. It will be clear from what I have said that I am not yet in a position to announce specific proposals in this regard although the Government has given some preliminary consideration to this matter. In particular, I assure the House that the Government fully accepts that we have to tackle the question of finding some mechanism that can address effectively issues which rightly are the cause of grave concern. These include what form an inquiry might take, what precisely it is to inquire into and what powers it should have. More importantly perhaps, we should be careful not to do anything which would in any way diminish the chances of criminal prosecutions being brought successfully where they are warranted.
The "Prime Time" programme highlighted something very rotten at the heart of our society and it cannot be ignored. The Government is determined to face up to its responsibilities in this matter. I know all Members will support it in doing so and I, of course, will fully consider any suggestions which Deputies Rabbitte or Deasy, or any other Member, have to make in a constructive approach to the resolution of these matters.
I thank the Minister for his reply and acknowledge that it may be necessary to make haste slowly as these are complex issues. However, I am bound to put it to him that when he says the "Prime Time" programme highlighted something very rotten at the heart of our society that the State did not have to wait for that programme to know about some of these terrible events. In terms of making those in positions of authority in the church, especially in the Archdiocese of Dublin, accountable and amenable there is nothing in the Minister's answer that holds out hope for either the victims concerned or to assuage public opinion. Is it the case that Garda action is being taken and prosecutions being initiated in respect of the perpetrators, the "actual abusers", but that in regard to those in positions of authority who colluded and concealed the evil that was going on, information in respect of which was in their possession, neither he nor the Government is in a position to say how best they ought to be made amenable to the law of the land?
In this matter one has to proceed carefully. We are talking, in the context of one archdiocese, about a small group of people who are in authority. I do not want to say anything which amounts to an assault on them or is a pre-judgment of their liability in civil or criminal law. The Deputy has the liberty of asking searching questions but I have to be circumspect with the answers I give him.
The Government does not direct the processes of criminal justice in this country. We have the Garda Síochána, which in partnership with the Director of Public Prosecutions, conducts the inquiry into suspected criminal offences and makes its decisions independently of the Minister. I wish to correct any wrong impression in the House that I purport to direct a prosecution or criminal investigation. That is not how our system works and we would be the poorer as a country if it was.
I use the phrase "sins of omission" to cover those who may or may not have been in possession of information which they, for one reason or another, did not bring to the attention of An Garda Síochána. The Deputy will appreciate that there are two broad issues here. Firstly, there is the question of whether omissions amount in any individual case to a contravention of our criminal law. That is a matter on which I will offer no opinion at this stage because it is complex as anyone who has been listening to our airwaves or reading our newspapers will appreciate. The second issue relates to the civil law in regard to the duty owed by one person to another and whether such activity could render anybody liable to being pursued for civil remedies. Again it is a complicated separate issue.
There is another area of law, so to speak, namely public law as more widely interpreted. That concerns the obligations of institutions in the State to protect people in their charge, or with whom they have contact, from egregious sexual violation of the kind that this programme portrayed. Any institution, of any kind or any religious denomination, however organised, which claims the right to provide services to engage in education or pastoral work, in circumstances where its members are likely to come into contact with young people clearly owes those young people, quite apart from criminal or civil liability issues, a fundamental duty under our Constitution to save them from violation and degradation of the kind we saw. That duty and the question as to whether it was complied with are the issue now. If we are of the prima facie view that it was not complied with, what we do about it, how we establish the facts, how we assign accountability and how we learn lessons and ensure these kind of things do not happen again are at issue. I presume that is the area that would be the proper subject matter of an inquiry. Deputies should understand as well that, once we go the road of a statutory inquiry, either under existing or new machinery, and with compelled testimony, it compromises the capacity subsequently to use the compelled testimony to prosecute the people involved. Choices must be made.
I want the House to understand, therefore, that these are fundamental issues because the matter is one of fundamental importance. I do not want to be rushed into either knee-jerk reactions or making superficial judgments on the issues. I and my colleagues in Government must look around a number of corners to see where a course adopted by the Government would bring us. I appeal to Members to understand that there are occasions when one cannot outline a course of action which is blindingly obvious and failure to take which would be inexplicable. On this occasion, a number of options are open to me and I intend to examine them carefully.
This afternoon I met some of the people who have acted as spokespersons for victims of this type of abuse and they had a full, frank and friendly interview with me. They have also supported my position which is that I want to proceed carefully to ensure whatever I do is effective.
I thank the Minister for his response. If one had read the newspapers, one might have been excused for assuming that all child sex abuse was perpetrated by priests. We know it is not and that a small number of sex abuse cases are attributed to clerics. The figures I have seen from the Department of Health and Children indicate that there was one such case in more than 2,000 child sex abuse cases. The size and scale of this is massive and is not solely related to clerical sex abuse.
How will the Government combat that and what will it do about it? We had a debate last week about the re-offending rate of sex offenders and the level of therapeutic treatment they receive in prison. The Minister was forthcoming and forthright about that when he acknowledged that not enough was being done. What plans does the Government have to combat child sex abuse in general?
The Deputy is widening the issue from that in the special notice question but I appreciate that he is making a valuable point which is one that cuts both ways. Sexual abuse of children is by no means a phenomenon confined to any single denomination, member of clergy or religious organisation. As the Deputy fairly points out, the great majority of sexual abuse of children is not perpetrated by people who fall into the classic definition of a paedophile and is certainly not carried out by people in religious orders. From that perspective the Deputy makes a good point, that we must not view our social policy as one which places one denomination or its members in the dock, so to speak, and which labels them accused in some social theatre when the problem is more widespread.
The difficulty posed by the "Prime Time" programme is that the organisation in question purported to have a system of internal justice set out in canon law and safeguards set out for the parents and children who were the victims of the heinous acts. The question is whether that system was effective or whether it compounded the wrong rather than dealing with it and preventing it. That is the issue I see arising from the "Prime Time" programme. That is an issue which, of itself, merits inquiry.
Although the Deputy is correct to say that there are many other victims of abuse and surveys show a staggering total of our children have been subject to some form of abuse at some stage in their lives, nonetheless I am being asked by these two private notice questions to address the specific issues which arise in this context and to say what steps I propose to take. I appeal to the House to give me time to reflect on it. It would be easy to devise some knee-jerk solution, but as the House knows well, this matter is so serious that it merits some time before being acted upon.
For example, a decision was made to go the non-statutory route in the Ferns inquiry. That decision has the support of the spokespeople for the victims of that abuse. It might well be that, if someone on the first day had suggested taking that route, the immediate point would have been made that it was likely to run into obstruction and to be confounded by an unwilling diocesan clergy. The Government took the prudent course of asking senior counsel, George Birmingham, to survey the territory and determine the most appropriate means of going forward. In doing so, the Government brought the victims of the abuse in that diocese along with its subsequent decision to proceed on a non-statutory basis.
Whether an inquiry on such a basis would be adequate to deal with the issues in the Dublin archdiocese is a matter on which I have still not made up my mind and will not until such time as I have taken steps to examine fairly and even-handedly what is likely to happen. Issues such as the degree of anticipated co-operation, the extent of the issue in question and the likelihood of it becoming embroiled in court procedure and objections must be taken into account by me, as is the issue of whether, if I go down the route of a statutory inquiry, I will prejudice criminal prosecutions which may or may not be sustainable in the light of what may become available to An Garda Síochána.
The issue is difficult and is not one on which I can offer Deputies some pat solution. I appreciate that, yesterday, the day before and today, Members were and are supportive of my position and that of the Taoiseach that this is an issue on which we need time to reflect so that we do not do something just for the appearance of doing something and that we do what is demanded by the situation, namely to take action which will be effective in the long-term rather than in the short-term.
I welcome that this private notice question is being allowed today, having been disallowed yesterday. My colleague, Deputy Cuffe, tabled a similar question.
While there is full knowledge that what needs to be done must be done with care and caution, part of the public concern about the Government's response is that there appears to be respect for the institution concerned which should not exist in the context of the vastness of the alleged crimes. In public discussion to date there appears to be an acceptance that canon law is equivalent to State law, even to the extent that the welcome inquiry announced by the Minister for Health and Children into the Ferns diocese recognises a church administrative area. It should be made clear that whatever investigations take place will be on the basis of how the existing laws of the State are created and enforced. If we are discussing tackling problems relating to the State, we must be careful not to do so with excessive caution and respect. Not only should the announced inquiry be conducted into a proper geographical and accepted political entity, we should also put the lie to the fact that whatever status canon law has within the institution concerned, it has no status with an investigation the State might decide to carry out in future.
I apologise to the Deputy. Yesterday I was in Hillsborough on official business and I would have been unable to take this question had it been tabled and allowed. Nobody has suggested equivalence between canon law and the law of the State. The Taoiseach has repeatedly stated, including in the Deputy's presence in this House, that there is only one law in this State and that is the law to which we are all subject. This morning on the airwaves I repeated that point and elaborated on it. There is no question of confusion on this side of the House that there is any equivalence between the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church or the law of any denomination or private organisation in education or elsewhere and the law of our State. No contrary impression has been given by anybody associated with Government.
The Deputy stated that by announcing an inquiry in relation to the diocese of Ferns, the Government was adopting a geographical size to its inquiry, which somehow slavishly followed the contours of church dioceses. That is not right at all. In that case we are dealing with an issue which arises from the organic structure of authority in relation to the activities of one particular diocese. It is nothing to do with taking the boundaries from the Catholic Church. It is precisely because that diocese was the subject of the inquiry that it is confined to that diocese.
In the Deputy's question, I detect the innuendo – maybe it is unjustified – that somehow I am being unduly accommodating to the Roman Catholic Church in the caution I am taking. I am not afraid of the bang of a crosier from any direction. I am acting in the prudent interests of the State and, most of all, of the victims. I will not be embarrassed or in any way found to be wanting. I will follow this where it goes, regardless of how high or low it goes. The Deputy should not attempt to imply in any way that the cautious and careful approach I am adopting is in some sense a subservient approach because we are dealing with the Church, which is the largest in the country. On the contrary, that is not affecting my view.
There are many Deputies offering. It is the Chair's intention to facilitate all Deputies offering and that can only be done if Deputies are brief and to the point. I remind the House this is a question, it is not an occasion for statements or debate.
I say again to the Minister that the only concern on this side of the House is that the people involved are made amenable to the law of the land. There is no wish to embarrass the Government into taking speedier action than it might otherwise take. However, is it not the case that the Government ought not have been taken by surprise by the "Prime Time" programme? The issues that programme put, in a powerful way, in the public domain were in the main already known to the Government and it appears the previous Government was somewhat lax in pursuing some of the issues to their logical conclusion.
Can we take it that it has been resolved by Government that there will be an inquiry and that the only issue that arises is the form and character of that inquiry? Can we take it that the issue that determined a non-statutory inquiry in the case of Ferns was that the necessary co-operation is seen to be forthcoming? If co-operation is the issue, will the Minister say whether discussions are under way, or have discussions taken place with Cardinal Connell about him and his office co-operating in a similar fashion to that demonstrated by Bishop Eamonn Walsh in Ferns?
Does the Minister think there may be merit in following the model of the Kilkenny incest inquiry? Is the Minister as conscious as Deputies on this side of the House of the need to assure the public that the heinous acts to which he referred are not still continuing within some of the institutions of the Catholic Church on this island? Are there steps that can be taken to try to ensure that is not happening?
We have an elaborate and fairly modern law in relation to the protection of children from sexual assault and sexual violation. We have elaborated considerable change in the way the law works in such cases. The Deputy asked me for an assurance that it is not happening now, but I cannot give him that assurance. I cannot give him the assurance that sexual abuse is not taking place either within or without any particular Church or, as Deputy Deasy implied, in any other part of society. That is not an assurance I could give this House and if I gave it, it would be worthless because it would be a statement of hope rather than of fact.
The Kilkenny incest inquiry conducted by Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness was effective because most of the agencies, whose activities were under investigation, in that context were State agencies which could be directed to co-operate. Naturally in the case of non-State organisations different considerations apply. The Deputy asks the fair question whether the Government has in effect decided to hold some form of inquiry but has not yet decided the form or ambit of that inquiry. The Government considered this matter at its last Cabinet meeting and decided it must carefully assess what steps are open to it now. There are a number of possibilities. There is the Kilkenny model, mentioned by the Deputy. There is the Ferns model, which involves an initial survey by an independent person of eminence, followed by a non-statutory inquiry. In that context, I stress that it was not simply the co-operation issue, although that was one of the issues that weighed heavily, it was also the advice given to my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, by Mr. Birmingham about the attitude of the victims which was of some significance.
In relation to the Dublin archdiocese, the Deputy asked whether I had spoken to the Cardinal or anybody else in the archdiocese yet to ascertain their willingness to co-operate. The answer is that I have not, but I assure the Deputy that before a final decision is made in this matter as to what course will be adopted, the Government will have to come to an assessment of the degree of likely co-operation. My door is open to anybody who wants to offer co-operation on an open-handed basis. I will go to anybody whom I believe I should consult to see if co-operation will be forthcoming. I have been in consultation with the Garda on a number of occasions, as I have indicated.
I have been examining the adequacy of the existing criminal law. I have been looking at the legal options open to me in terms of inquiries – statutory, non-statutory, private and so on – as well as the possibility in the wake of the Abbeylara decision that the House may have to establish a new type of inquiry which is not an adversarial tribunal but a private inquiry backed up by statutory powers. Those are the options I am examining and I assure the House I am taking the time to do so.
The Minister has not said the Government has decided there will be an inquiry.
The Deputy can draw his own conclusions from what I am saying. I have told the House that the Government will follow this where it leads and some type of inquiry will form part of the Government's response. I do not want to elaborate further. I am not in a position to hand down Government policy without a Government decision having been made. The Deputy can see the logic of the position.
I ask that Members and outside commentators appreciate that I need time and will take time, regardless of the sense of impatience which is bound to exist in these circumstances. I will take the necessary time to ensure I do not lead us collectively up a blind alley and that everything does not end up in smithereens in the Four Courts.
Rape Crisis Network Ireland issued an interesting press release yesterday which stated that it was not surprised to hear about clerical sex abuse or the findings of the "Prime Time" programme. That is not surprising when one considers the last report on sexual abuse in the country, which showed that 42% of women in the country had been abused at some point in their lives and 28% of men had been abused. Are we going to wait for another "Prime Time" programme to do something about this? One of the biggest issues in sexual abuse is that people do not report the crimes as the onus is switched from the alleged perpetrator to the victim. We will have to deal with this if we are to deal with sexual abuse in its totality. I understand the Minister cannot give us assurances that this is not occurring within the Catholic Church and other places but can he tell us the Government's position on tackling child sexual abuse? Does the Government have a policy on tackling child sexual abuse?
Deputy Deasy echoes a point made by Deputy Rabbitte, which is the issue of whether I or the Government were surprised by this and that this was obvious in some way. Obviously the facts of sexual abuse have been unfolding before our eyes for a number of years and successive Governments, not just those involving the present parties in Government, have seen these revelations about the extent of sexual abuse in our society. I appreciate that point and I am shocked by the depravity of the crime and the suffering of those involved, but I am not shocked to find that there has been abuse of children by members of the clergy because, as Deputy Deasy pointed out, survey after survey has shown that sexual abuse of children in our society and similar societies is much more widespread than is generally felt. I hope the Deputy does not think I am dismissive when I say I am not here simply to announce some broad new Government initiative on sexual abuse.
Is there a policy?
There is a policy. "Is there a policy?" is a glib question. Is there a policy on murder or robbery? Of course there is. There are laws which must be upheld and the Government improves those laws constantly. I ask the Deputy not to suggest that in some sense these events are the fault of the Government. They are not. They may represent something in which society in general and successive Governments have been found wanting but to polarise this by the Deputy somehow asking me to come up with a policy initiative which will put paid to sexual abuse in our society is to reduce this matter to a political Punch and Judy show, which is not what I intend to do. I intend to do my duty and to take the time to do so carefully. I do not intend to be distracted by questions as to what my policy is on matters such as sexual abuse. I grant the Deputy that there are issues on which there is a clear demand for action.
Such as?
One issue is action on mandatory reporting, which is fraught and complex, as any social worker will tell one. Another legal area we must examine relates to the changes in 1997 to the common law offence of misprision of felony and whether we must do something regarding what was an archaic and somewhat unworkable offence dealing with those who conceal serious crime.
What about the Law Reform Commission's recommendation about the failure to report?
I remind the House that questions should deal with the matter at hand.
In 1998, in the immediate wake of the Omagh bomb, an Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act was passed. This was prior to my becoming Attorney General. In the course of passing that legislation, the offence of failing to report serious offences was created. "Serious offences" were defined as offences attracting a penalty of more than five years but it is notable that at that time, to avoid the whole area of mandatory reporting of sexual abuse, the category of sexual crime was expressly deleted from the category of crimes which were to be reported. That is what I have been studying for the past few days – the fact that in 1998 we passed a law which made it an offence to fail to report any serious offence with the sole exception of sexual offences. Neither I nor the Deputy was here at the time and I can see the reason it was done. It was probably thought that rather than face a constitutional challenge in the area of mandatory reporting, it was more important to confront the post-Omagh situation on narrower ground. This issue has not gone away and must be addressed.
I am aware of the parameters of criminal law outlined by the Minister, particularly with regard to the Criminal Law Act, 1997, which abolished the distinction between common law felonies and misdemeanours. Is the Minister satisfied that the abolition of misprision of felony, which appeared to be gathered into the legislation, was on a retrospective basis? Is part of his review establishing whether that was retrospective rather than prospective? Was that offence abolished hook, line and sinker as of the date the legislation passed or was it still extant at that date and operating retrospectively?
In 1995 there was an updated canon law review, which the Minister has studied. It mentions a five year statute of limitations. Is the Minister satisfied that the statute of limitations for some of the laws dealing with sexual abuse passed here – which are part of secular, civil law – override any edicts in canon law? Is that part of the Minister's review?
The Deputy's first question is about the effect on the pre-existing common law offence of misprision of felony of the passing of the 1997 Act. The situation appears to be that no express repeal of that common law offence was carried out. Whether by abolishing felonies as a category one effectively repealed that common law offence is something on which there are two opinions. If it were by implication repealed by the 1997 Act, whether that was retrospective so as to prevent prosecutions now arising on pre-1997 evidence, that again is an issue on which there are two points of view. When the offence of assault was merged into the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, the previous common law offence of assault was abolished.
The Deputy will know that there were a number of cases, including a case in which the plaintiff was a Mr. Grealish, which went through the courts to the Supreme Court. In the course of that, the meaning of the Interpretation Act arose. The Interpretation Act, for the benefit of Deputies who have not studied this closely – I do not expect most will have – provides that where a statute repeals a statutory criminal offence, unless the repealing statute provides otherwise, it is still possible to prosecute, after the repeal, offences under the repealed statute, during the time when it was in effect. That is not necessarily the case in respect of common law offences. The Interpretation Act is silent on that. I note that one of the judgments in the Supreme Court in, I think, the Grealish case, commented that it was a matter for another day. Yet again, that is an issue of uncertainty.
I am not, and do not hold myself out to be, an expert on canon law. I am advised that it is obvious because the five year limitation period under canon law that was referred to has been amended by some subsequent amendment of the canon law to ten years, so I am told. I accept correction on the intricacies of canon law from any source because I do not offer myself as an expert in it and I never have. Time periods provided by the rules of any organisation, be it a Church or a voluntary organisation, are merely binding on that organisation and not on the greater world.
In relation to the civil law of the State, the Statute of Limitations has been amended so as to extend liability beyond the ordinary statutory period for the commencement of civil actions in cases where the mind of the victim was overborne, so to speak, and the victim was by virtue of the nature of the crime or the behaviour of the perpetrator, rendered incapable of bringing an action during the statute period. That is a question which is quite removed from canon law. I would not offer an opinion on canon law save to say again, in case I am accused of equating it with the civil law of the State, that the provisions of canon law are a matter of interest to the Church which operates it, they are not cognisable in our ordinary courts of law and they are not to be equated with the law of this republic.
While recognising the need to proceed with caution in matters of this nature, perhaps it is also recognised that there is now a need to proceed. Given that matters of this nature have been in the public arena for ten years or so, will the Minister indicate to the House why it should have fallen to the current affairs programme, "Prime Time", to raise this issue in the way it was done? Was information available to his Department prior to the programme which was substantiated subsequently in the programme? Had the Minister information available to him prior to the broadcasting of the programme which the programme subsequently underlined and confirmed?
I welcome the broadcast of that programme. I do not feel any resentment that these matters have emerged. I regard it as a great tribute to RTE and the quality of its broadcasting and its current affairs section that it was able to put together such a compelling account of these events in a manner which attracted the public's attention and has evoked such a reaction.
The Deputy should be aware that we are not in an era of trial by television and that due process is slightly more exacting than that. I commend the makers of that programme for the industry and the professionalism they exhibited. They put a challenge to us all of very substantial proportions. I regard that programme as a challenge, not a challenge that I resent in any way but a challenge.
The Deputy asks if anything had happened in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform before this programme was aired to alert us to the matter and if it had been ignored. The answer is that I do not mind him trawling in the chance that there is some information in my Department which I have been concealing. As far as I know, there is not. The programme is not based on material which was reasonably available to my Department. I remind the Deputy that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not privy to most investigatory files and is never made privy to them. Most of these are entirely confidential and will never come into the public domain. Most victims of sexual crime are accorded total privacy if they want it. The circumstances in which the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would become aware of any individual sexual offence are few and far between. There is nothing now in my Department to warrant a different approach which was not there when the Deputy's party held that portfolio.
The Minister stated that very few people who are the victims of sexual abuse report the crime, and we all accept that. One priest named in the "Prime Time" programme admitted that he had abused up to 100 children, yet the programme only told of one of those children. When the Minister is deciding on what course of action to take, will he take into consideration that if 2% of people are abused, then there must be at least 10% to 20% of people who know about it? Will the Minister take into consideration mechanisms to allow people who know about these matters to come forward and give evidence to the adjudicators? I am talking about whistleblowers. By any reasonable reckoning, if 2% were abused, 20% must have known about it. Will the Minister take that into account?
In the course of his reply the Minister outlined that he is appointing a chief superintendent to the domestic violence and sexual assault unit of the Garda Síochána. One of the duties of the officer will be to review particular cases with a view to seeing whether further lines of inquiry might be available which could lead to the preferring of criminal charges. Is this an indication that there may be lines of inquiry available? Is he concerned that some of these cases may have been investigated to a certain extent and then stonewalled and the files put on the shelf? Would he agree to extending the chief superintendent's remit that if he encounters cases where further lines of inquiry may lead to the preferring of criminal charges, he would examine why these lines of inquiry were not followed up in the first instance?
I appreciate the Minister's view with respect to not having a knee-jerk reaction. As there has been a reluctance to release files, it would appear that there was a scheme of non co-operation. Has the Minister concerns about the integrity of the files which exist in respect of these cases, whether in the possession of the Garda or the Catholic Church? I appreciate the Minister outlined that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not have access to these files but he has had discussions with the Garda authorities. If files exist and if further examinations take place which lead to prosecutions, will he examine why that was not done in the first instance? Is he concerned that some of these files, which may not have been properly documented, may disappear?
Will this process in which the Minister is now involved bring the issue of mandatory reporting to a head? Will the Government take a clear decision on mandatory reporting as part of this process? The Minister said there is a constitutional obligation on institutions to protect children in their charge yet, as we saw in "States of Fear" and again in this case, institutions are systematically failing to honour that constitutional obligation. Has the Minister initiatives which will create some momentum for this constitutional obligation to be honoured and a system which will enforce it if necessary? Is he satisfied that is adequately done?
The Minister rightly raised the concern that if one has compelled testimony, one compromises the capacity to use it in subsequent criminal investigations and yet he said a criminal investigation is being carried out by the Garda. Is he suggesting that if he triggers some form of inquiry, all criminal pursuit is, in some way, halted at that stage or can the two processes continue in parallel, that is, the pursuit by the Garda of criminal prosecutions and the inquiry which the Minister has under serious and active consideration at this stage?
To deal with Deputy Lynch's point, everybody who reports sexual offences or their suspicion of sexual offences to the appropriate State authority, namely the Garda Síochána, is given all requisite confidentiality. Nobody should think they will, in some sense, be liable to be adversely affected, at least as far as the State is concerned—
They could lose their job.
—by so doing. When it comes to employees, any employee removed from their employment for whistle-blowing would have the right to reinstatement under the Unfair Dismissals Act, except in limited circumstances which would be unlikely to occur.
The awarding of damages is the usual remedy as the Minister knows.
Reinstatement would be appropriate if there was egregious behaviour by an employer in circumstances such as those. The State, as an employer, would not penalise or adversely affect a public servant for doing their duty. I assure all public servants that is the case and I hope that message is widely understood.
I am glad Deputy Timmins raised the important question of whether there is information in files or other places which might be of use in reviving prosecutions which fell by the wayside due to lack of evidence, age, lack of corroboration or whatever. There have been cases of which we are all aware where prosecutions were not brought forward because of the inadequacy of the complainant's evidence, the passage of time and the absence of supporting evidence. If, in those cases, evidence of a confession or an acknowledgement of the crime by the alleged perpetrator had been available, that would have tipped the scales decisively in favour of prosecution and perhaps a conviction at a later stage if that evidence stood up. There is a serious issue here for those who are in possession of information which they know would tip the scales in terms of effective prosecution of people who have perpetrated sexual crimes. If they have that information within their power of procurement, the question arises as to whether it is conscionable for them to withhold it and to deny the criminal law of this State that evidence on some ground or other. It is evident that there are some people in our society who are entitled to invoke some form of privilege, such as lawyers and spouses.
Whether it is conscionable for people on an organised basis to offer themselves to the people as an organisation or a Church which may run schools and hospitals and put priests into contact with young people while saying that whenever they are in the possession of information which could lead to a criminal prosecution they can, in good conscience, keep it in pectore, so to speak, and allow the criminal law to be confounded, raises a deep question of ethics. While I am not here to preach to anybody, many people find it difficult to understand how an ethically driven body could withhold information, leading to many perpetrators not merely not being prosecuted but going free to commit the same crimes again.
On Deputy Richard Bruton's point, our laws are divided into criminal law and civil law. We provide criminal penalties for some activities and civil remedies for others. There is a third branch of the law where the State intervenes as regulator, licensor or guarantor of quality. It is in relation to those three areas of potential law that the question arises as to whether we are doing enough to vindicate the right of children not to be sexually violated. We must balance our laws; we cannot rush in one direction while forgetting about due process, practicality or principles of criminal or civil justice.
I take the point in relation to mandatory reporting. The White Paper, which was in the course of preparation and the subject of reference in this House in the near future, was designed to put before the people the serious and difficult choices which must be made in this context. It is not a matter of the Government shirking its responsibility. The issue is complex. Whether anybody should be in a position to report to a social worker their suspicions on the basis that the matter will not go to the Garda Síochána immediately is open to two quite different judgments. The Association of Social Workers, the representative body of social workers, takes a view not shared by some editorial writers on this subject. It does not favour a blanket and un-nuanced mandatory reporting law. It will not be for me, as Minister, to deal with but it will be for me and all Members to consider when the White Paper is published. It is not an easy question and it will require careful consideration before the right solution is found. I regret that electoral matters have held back the publication of the White Paper from the time it was last the subject of imminent publication. Maybe it is the case that the passage of time will improve it, although I do not know. I agree with the Deputy that we cannot ignore the issue any longer. In view of the uncertainties in the criminal law to which I have referred at some length, this is a subject we must address sooner rather than later.
I appeal to Members to be brief since there are a few Members waiting to be called and for their questions to be directly relevant to the subject matter before the House.
I accept what the Minister said about the need to proceed slowly to the type of inquiry required into the handling of sexual abuse claims.
Does this not give an added urgency to the Garda investigation he announced this evening into the individual cases? Undoubtedly there are many documents in the hands of the Church relating to at least some of those cases which would be extremely helpful to the Garda in their investigations. The Minister has said that the diocese of Ferns is co-operating fully with the State, but there is as yet no guarantee that other diocese are of the same mind, and while documents may be in existence today they may not be in the future. Can the Minister assure us this investigation can proceed with all speed, that the necessary resources will be given to the chief superintendent to investigate all these matters thoroughly and quickly?
The strongest motivating force in getting people to come forward and talk about their experiences has been their desire to ensure that no child ever again has to suffer child abuse. While I appreciate the Minister's response to Deputy Rabbitte in that regard and people's right to due process, has the Minister a role in engaging with Church and Garda to ensure that information is shared and that every effort is made to prevent people against whom accusations have been made from being in a position where they might have an opportunity to abuse children?
I agree with the Minister that it is wise to deal with matters slowly to get them right because we are dealing with complex issues, many of which are historical. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Was he surprised at the revelations on the RTE "Prime Time" programme? I contend that in the past, not everything possible would have been done by the State, particularly through the Department of Education inspectorate, in relation to issues of this nature.
Does the Minister agree that we need to examine all of the various steps that have been taken and at all of the various Departments that deal with children, including the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to see if we can tighten up on the level of inspection in matters? The Minister noted that it is important to emphasise that sexual abuse complaints would be fully investigated by the Garda Síochána. Many of the victims of child sexual abuse will not make complaints formally to the Garda, but there is a system in place now for registering complaints through the Laffoy commission, where many submissions are being made. There is an ambiguity about whether the Garda has access to that information, which is being given to the Laffoy commission by many people. Does the Minister agree the Garda should have access to that information and that the information being submitted to Ms Justice Laffoy should be treated formally as a complaint by the victim and therefore subject to Garda investigation? Otherwise we are going to have a long drawn-out process through the Laffoy Commission and will not get to the root of many of the difficulties of this very serious and complex matter for many years to come.
The Minister will appreciate that there is still widespread public concern that some abusers may still be in positions of trust. When will he outline definitively the terms and mode of inquiry the Government will ultimately decide?
I will deal with the last point first. I am not in a position to indicate now a timeframe, but although I have spoken earlier about the need to proceed with caution, I am not making a virtue of slowness. I just want to be deliberate in what I do, and I think most Deputies in this House want to be deliberate in what they do and say about this matter. It is tempting on occasion to surf the wave of public outrage—
The Minister has surfed it often himself, and very successfully.
We have to realise that the wave will pass but the victims' suffering will endure, and we must ensure that when public opinion has moved on to other issues, there is still in place a good process to deal with this issue. Regarding the question of preserving documents, it has been suggested here that documents may be shredded. I hope Deputies will appreciate that I am not in a position to direct or encourage the Garda to swoop on any repository of documents and to preserve them. If the Garda Síochána seek judicial authority for an evidence-gathering exercise within its remit, that is a matter for it, and it would be very strange if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was seen to be directing matters from the outside or advising it on what it should or should not do. I do not propose to do that. In relation to—
That is not what the Minister was asked
The Minister is making his final reply without interruption.
I got the impression from Deputies Timmins and Olivia Mitchell that they were hinting that some documents might not be—
I do not hint.
The Deputy explicitly suggested that some documents might not remain in existence unless early action was taken. Maybe I am naive or maybe I am not—
(Interruptions.)
There is unanimous agreement on this side of the House that the Minister is not naive.
Deputy Hogan asked whether I was surprised by the content of the "Prime Time" programme. At one level I was shocked and angered, but I was not surprised because having spent many years as a practitioner in criminal law, I have always suspected that things of this nature were happening. I have always been of the view that what we see in the criminal courts is by necessity only a small fraction of crime of any kind.
The Deputy asked me in particular about the Department of Education and Science's inspectors and so on, and whether I was concerned on that front. When I was an Opposition Deputy, I was approached by an individual public servant, who I think has approached the Deputy more recently, with concerns about this matter. I took a lot of time attempting to bring about action on foot of her concerns. It is a worry to me that there have been occasions on which people who have attempted to be whistle-blowers have run into heavy weather.
Finally, there is the issue of the Laffoy commission. I am not in a position now to say whether, as of right, material given to the Laffoy commission is transmissible to the Garda Síochána or whether it can be given to the Laffoy commission on condition that it is not, or subject to confidentiality or the wishes of the person confiding in the Laffoy commission. I do not know the answer to this, but I will undertake to write to the Deputy and inform him in due course.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.