JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 23 Mar 2006

Ferns Report: Discussion.

Chairman

We are meeting with representatives of One in Four to consider the child protection issues arising from the recommendations contained in the Ferns Report. On behalf of the Joint Committee on Education and Science, I welcome Mr. Colm O'Gorman, director of One in Four, Ms Deirdre Fitzpatrick, advocacy director, Ms Therese Gaynor, clinical director and Ms Bernadette Morris, personal assist to the director.

Before we begin, I wish to draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Colm O’Gorman

We are grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Ferns Report which were not fully explored in the extensive media coverage it received. Few would disagree that the report is one of the most significant documents to have emerged over the past 20 years in terms of child protection in this State. In order to consider the implications of the report and, in particular, to understand why the documented abuse was able to occur, we have to identify the system failures in legislation and in the State's general approach to areas such as education and social policy. Today, we intend to focus on the role of the State in education and child protection in the context of education.

Given that we are about to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising, it is appropriate to reflect upon the vision for this State of the participants in the rising. The democratic programme for Government of the first Dáil in 1919, which is highly relevant to today's discussion, states:

It shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing or shelter but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland.

That was a noble aspiration and one which we might celebrate 90 years later. However, the Ferns Report questions whether we have lived up to that vision. It is our view that, since its foundation, the State has abdicated responsibility for the welfare of children and the effective oversight of the education system. Since the publication of the Ferns Report there has been much talk about the role of the Roman Catholic Church in education and about whether it should remain centrally involved in education. That is an inappropriate route for us to consider as we examine the implications of the report. The real question should be on the role of the State in education, not whether churches should be involved but whether the State should be more centrally involved in education and its oversight. Since the report was published, members of the Government have suggested that the State could not manage to be more involved in education due to lack of resources and skills. That is an extraordinary statement by the Government of what is considered one of the wealthiest nations on the planet and one of the most successful economies of the new century. How can we talk about our success as a nation and simultaneously suggest that we lack the will, ability or resources to protect children in our communities, and particularly in our schools? Had the State not abdicated responsibility for the welfare of children in the context of education, many of the situations uncovered and discussed in the Ferns Report would not have been allowed to happen. The State failed to establish safeguards for children and was unwilling to interfere in matters it saw as church affairs. In the past the State has seen education as the responsibility of the church, and the management of church schools as affairs of the church, not of the State. It is sobering to note that 15 of the 26 priests who were the subject of allegations of sexual abuse in Ferns had some kind of educational role, as managers of national schools, teachers or religious education teachers in both primary and secondary schools. They proactively used their roles in education to access children, whom they removed from schools or abused in schools. Parish priests in church-run schools are now the managers of two thirds of primary schools and half of secondary schools in the State. The patron of over 90% of national schools in the Republic is the bishop of that diocese.

Where does the responsibility for the protection of children lie within the education sector and what role does the Department of Education and Science play? Recent cases highlight this question. A cost issue is being decided in the courts this morning on a woman who took litigation against the Department of Education and Science. She was abused by a lay schoolteacher who was convicted of sexual offences. She lost her case on the basis that the Department had no vicarious liability. Although the Department sets many of the rules on the recruitment of teachers and the standards to be applied in appointing teachers and centrally pays teachers' salaries, by some dodge it has no liability as the employer of such teachers and therefore cannot be held responsible in these cases. The Department of Education and Science is aggressively pursuing costs against this woman. It is disgraceful.

The following is a section from the Ferns Report:

Parish priests are appointed as managers of national schools as a matter of course, automatically almost. In this role they have made a valuable contribution to Irish education under the patronage of their bishops. However the inquiry has become aware of a number of priests who have abused this position and used it to give them greater access to children for the purpose of abusing them sexually. The inquiry believes that no person should be appointed or retained to a position of authority over children without proper investigations being made as to their suitability for such an appointment.

Before this committee Sr. Eileen Randles speaking for the Roman Catholic Church in response to the Ferns Report said:

We accept the recommendations of the Ferns Report that the appointment of the chair of the board of management of national schools should be made with the utmost care and diligence. This has been our view since boards were first put in place in 1975.

According to this comment the Church accepts this and has always done it. As stated earlier, we call for the urgent introduction of a comprehensive system of vetting and clearance similar to the POCVA system which operates in Northern Ireland and applies to school boards and governors.

Let us examine what the Ferns Report says about the role of priests in education after boards were put in place in 1975:

The inquiry also notes from documentation submitted by the Department of Education and Science that principal Patrick Higgins of Monageer national school made a complaint to the Department inspector in early May 1988 in relation to the complaints and allegations made known to him by the schoolgirls in April 1988. The inspector noted that he considered these to be of the utmost seriousness and subsequently disclosed the visit to his senior officer, the divisional inspector. The Department felt it could not investigate the case because it had not received any formal complaint directly. This decision was reinforced by the fact that the principal had acted according to the Department of Health guidelines.

This is the case of Fr. James Grennan who in 1988 was accused of having sexually abused a number of girls as he prepared them, in his role as religious education teacher, for confirmation. Many members will be familiar with the case. The then South Eastern Health Board investigated the case and validated the allegations of abuse and there was a Garda investigation and inquiry which went wrong. The relevant point is that despite that abuse being validated by a statutory agency, the South Eastern Health Board, and despite significant issues in how the Garda inquiry was handled, Fr. Grennan was returned to his role as parish priest and manager of the national school. He was returned to a role in which he had oversight of that school and in which he was centrally involved in the education of children. The school principal acted with extraordinary courage. Although Fr. Grennan, as chairman of the board of management of the school, was his boss, he contacted the Department of Education and Science for input and advice. The Department's view was that it could not become involved because it had not received a formal complaint.

We hear much about joined-up government and one would have thought that a complaint of sexual abuse validated by the South Eastern Health Board was an example of a complaint that needed to be taken seriously by another statutory agency. Fr. Grennan continued in his role as chairman of the board of management of the national school in Monageer after this controversy without any investigation into this suitability by the Department or the diocese. I remind members of the statement made to the committee about the church's attitude and, as it said, its consistent attitude since 1975 about the suitability of appointments. The inquiry has not examined the files or records of the Department of Education and Science in this matter but believes the Department should have been proactive in ensuring that children were protected once a complaint had been communicated to it.

As curate of Ballymurn, Fr. Seán Fortune was appointed chairman of the board of management of the Ballymurn national school. In addition Fr. Fortune gave classes in religious instruction in Bridgetown VEC. Within 18 months of his appointment to Ballymurn serious problems arose concerning Fr. Fortune's management of the national school. Fr. Walter Forde met with the deputation of parents to try to resolve this boycott and it was resolved after some weeks by the Department. I highlight this to show a particular inconsistency in when the Department of Education and Science was able or unable to get involved in the role of manager of national schools. In this case the issues arose about Fr. Fortune's general conduct as manager of the school. There was no allegation of sexual abuse. Parents boycotted the school and threatened to withdraw their children from it. At that point the Department of Education and Science got involved and negotiated a settlement between the patron, represented by Fr. Forde, and the school, thus resolving the matter.

The first complaints about Fr. Fortune were made known to the Roman Catholic Church by February 1981 at the latest. He was appointed to Ballymurn in 1988. By that time, the Diocese of Ferns had received allegations of serious sexual abuse and assault against Fr. Fortune that ran into double figures. Before his appointment as parish priest to Ballymurn he was required to provide the diocese with an affidavit in which he swore that the allegations against him were untrue. On the day he provided the diocese with that affidavit he was appointed as parish priest in Ballymurn and manager of the national school. He was also appointed religious education teacher in a secondary school in the area but was subsequently removed from that position for making sexually inappropriate comments.

In November 1995, the Mid-Western Health Board informed the Eastern Health Board, in whose region Maynooth college is situated, that certain allegations had been made against Monsignor Micheál Ledwith who, at that time, was president of the college. At a meeting of three relevant health boards on February 1996, a decision was made that the hierarchy should be contacted to establish Monsignor Ledwith's whereabouts and that the Department of Education and Science should be informed of the allegations. In April 1996, a letter was sent to the Secretary General of the Department informing him that an allegation of sexual abuse had been made against the monsignor, now former president of Maynooth college.

It would appear, therefore, that there were inconsistencies in the way the Department dealt with allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse of minors. Monsignor Ledwith was in a role in a university. Three health boards were so unfamiliar with what to do that they contacted the Department of Education and Science, which became involved in the case. In Ballymurn and other instances, however, it could not become involved. We still hear the Department state that it has no specific oversight duties of issues relating directly to patrons but in this case, and in that involving Father Seán Fortune — when it did not relate to sexual abuse — it was able to intervene.

The case of Canon Clancy was one of the most shocking dealt with in the Ferns Report because of the length of time — over three years — his career as an abuser lasted. The inquiry expressed shock at the duration and extent of the abuse allegedly perpetrated by this priest, which in some instances appeared to involve the rape of very young girls. He appeared to use his position as manager of the local national school to freely access children aged as young as nine. The inquiry believes that the appointment of a chairman of the board of management of a national school, which is at the discretion of bishops and is usually the local curate or parish priest, should be made with the utmost care and diligence. As will be obvious from the allegations in the Ferns Report, some priests appear to have abused their position as managers of national schools to access children. The powerlessness of children in such situations was particularly acute and the inquiry urges all concerned to ensure that such situations are prevented as far as possible.

We have all been profoundly shocked by the detail of the abuse exposed in the Ferns Report. It was to be expected that the coverage, post-publication, would focus on the most shocking information. However, if the report is to have any purpose, it must cause us to consider how the abuse happened and what do we need to do in the future. It is striking that since the publication of the report and the raising of such issues, there has been some discussion of what needs to happen in education. However, this has focused on whether people should be excluded from the sector rather than on whether the State should be more centrally involved and responsible for it.

Whenever Governments comment on the issue, they seem to do so from the point of view of liability rather than responsibility. The approach seems to be to protect the taxpayer and, therefore, the State from liability rather than to accept responsibility for the education and protection of children in the arena of education. Another example relates to the recent discussion on crèche provision, when it was suggested that proper regulation would be too expensive. Ireland is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe and one of the most successful economies in the world but we continue to question whether we can afford to properly protect our children. That is not acceptable in light of a report of this nature and numerous others on child protection in the past ten or 15 years.

One in Four wants vetting in the educational sector to be considerably extended. The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science with special responsibility for children has made significant moves on this issue in recent months and we welcome them. I am chairperson of a local Educate Together primary school in my home town of Gorey, so I am familiar with the management of schools. Much has been said about the need to vet chairpersons of boards of management, which I strongly support, but if we simply vet the chairperson of a school and not those involved in its day-to-day administration we will not achieve very much. There is no point in applying a sticking plaster to the problem in the belief that this will solve it. We must consider the way we manage education and apply child protection practices.

I have also heard suggestions that the Minister may impose a fee per head for schools applying for vetting of members of boards of management and general school staff as a way of controlling the number of applications. Vetting will clearly create a significant workload for the unit involved but surely there are better ways to manage that than for the State to simply charge schools and boards of management, which are voluntary bodies. Charging a fee begs the question of how much we value child protection. If the Minister is concerned about the workload of a unit, she can find a better way of approaching it, perhaps on a region by region or school by school basis. It seems ridiculous to charge schools for vetting.

The POCVA system in Northern Ireland needs to be considered. We need a system, not only in education but in any area where we work with children, that allows an assessment of somebody's suitability. If we rely only on convictions in criminal courts to dictate whether somebody should be appointed to a position of responsibility for children, we will not properly protect children. We must start to use soft information, references and disciplinary information on people's professional conduct in roles where they have had responsibility for children, as part of the process of assessment. There have been suggestions that there might be constitutional issues with the recording of soft information. The Constitution is too often used to explain why we cannot protect children instead of being used to protect our most vulnerable citizens.

Moves to vet staff in the education system should include external instructors, such as in music, religious education and sports education. The constitutional obstacle to the gathering of soft information should be resolved now. It is inappropriate that it is trotted out every now and again as a deterrent to moving down that route. How long is it since the Kilkenny incest case? What about the Madonna House inquiry or the Ferns Inquiry? We have still not moved decisively on the issue.

It is important that the Department of Education and Science have a statutory responsibility for the management for all schools. It cannot be acceptable that this State, uniquely, seems to avoid responsibility for the management and supervision of schools and the safety of the children in them.

An in-depth analysis of the current child protection guidelines, Children First, demonstrates that there are inadequate provisions to deal with the instance of extra-familial abuse. This has been discussed in the aftermath of the Ferns Report. Many members will be aware that the report found that while the health boards had a statutory responsibility for the welfare of children under the Children Act 2001, they had no powers to intervene in cases that were extra-familial. If an abuser, alleged or otherwise, is outside the family, the HSE has no powers of intervention. The Government fudged this at the time by giving the authorities powers to investigate but once they did so, as in Monageer, and established that abuse had taken place, they were forced to stand on the sidelines and watch as it continued. Staggeringly, the Ferns Report did not find that the South Eastern Health Board had not fulfilled its obligations in the case of Fr. James Grennan in Monageer. It found that the board had acted ultra vires, going outside its powers.

The Stay Safe programme must become compulsory in all schools. When will we realise that we have a responsibility to properly protect our children and inform their ability to protect themselves? It is time to move beyond a position where we protect the sensibilities, blushes and difficulties of parents in engaging with these issues, and begin to seriously protect our children. When State agencies such as the HSE and the Garda Síochána become aware of allegations or suspicions involving people working within education, the Department of Education and Science must be informed and have a role that makes it responsible for an intervention.

We know that legislation has been promised and that express powers are being considered to grant the HSE interventions in extra-familial cases. Specifically, it will be able to apply to the High Court for applications preventing those who pose a risk to children from having direct access to them. We are pleased the Government accepted this recommendation from the Ferns Report and we look forward to it being acted upon.

With regard to the rights of children, many people have called for a significant constitutional amendment to introduce a concept which would perhaps finally live up to the aspirations of the first Dáil Éireann and grant our children significant rights. It would also ensure that the State had an obligation under the Constitution to properly protect children and consider their welfare. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution made some recommendations but most people have made it clear that these do little to advance children's rights at all. All they do is repeat that individual children's rights are equal to the rights of other children. The Ferns Report also recommended the enactment of new legislation to criminalise the reckless endangerment of the welfare of children. I understand that the new criminal justice Bill will make provision in this regard.

There has been much recent comment in the public arena regarding false allegations and injustice in respect of those accused of child sexual abuse. It is important that public understanding be properly informed in respect of the different demands relating to child protection and criminal justice allegations. When an allegation of child abuse is made in the context of a person who, either in a voluntary or professional capacity, has significant access to children, two processes should be acted upon. One is the criminal justice process, which contains enough provisions to ensure that people's rights are properly protected. Most people accept that the rights of the person accused are perhaps more fully considered than those of the victim of a particular crime.

In the case of child protection, many people, including public commentators and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, seem to believe that the requirement within any particular guideline of a certain body which asks a person accused of a serious allegation of child sexual abuse to step aside pending investigation would be a grave injustice to the accused. Any allegation of child sexual abuse must be a serious allegation. A requirement to step aside is not an injustice. The focus of asking a person to step aside has nothing to do with justice or injustice to the accused person, and is absolutely about child protection. Requiring somebody to step aside does not imply guilt, innocence or another quality. It does, however, concern child protection.

People use language that minimises the issues central to child protection. It may be stated that an allegation is "historic" or "of a less serious nature". I would like commentators that use such phrases to explain how any allegation against a person who, for example, holds a position of extraordinary authority, who is held in high esteem and who has behaved in a sexuallyinappropriate way towards a child is anything other than very serious. A scale cannot be applied in such circumstances. If a person in authority, be it a member of a religious faith or any other individual, abuses a position of trust or if there is a suggestion that they behaved in a sexually inappropriate way with a child, the allegation can be nothing but incredibly serious.

There is a need to progress a public understanding of the issues relating to child protection and the sexual abuse of children in a way that clears some of the muddy area surrounding, for example, false allegations. There is little evidence to suggest that false allegations are an issue in this context or that there is a lack of protection for those who have been falsely accused.

We have seen one case where it has been determined that there is a significant possibility of a false allegation. A case in the archdiocese of Dublin saw a priest accused. He stepped aside to facilitate an investigation and the Garda Síochána carried out a significant and thorough examination. When the investigation concluded, it was decided that the accusation was false. The person making the accusation was charged and appeared before the courts, and the priest involved was restored to his ministry. A mass was held on the night he returned to his parish to celebrate and welcome him back. That was entirely appropriate.

There is no doubt that the priest in question underwent an horrific ordeal. We should all respond with absolute care and with the utmost consideration in respect of what he endured. We should also commend his actions in stepping aside to facilitate this kind of investigation, as well as the integrity of his response, which valued child protection above all else. We should recognise the case as an example of a system working. It is the only case we have seen of a false accusation and it is the only case where the Garda Síochána, following an investigation, determined the accusation to be maliciously false.

Public awareness is vital, as is the Stay Safe programme in the context of child protection. The programme must be implemented and mandatory within schools. If we say that we value or children, we must value child protection.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Gorman for the informative presentation. Joint committee members will now ask questions and we will then return to the members of the delegation.

Deputy Enright

I welcome Mr. O'Gorman, Ms Fitzpatrick and Ms Morris and thank them for the presentation.

On reading the Ferns Report on its publication, the first matter that came to mind was that there was an institutional disregard for the needs and protection of children. That occurred across the board, through the church and State. In discussing this matter and formulating proposals to ensure that this does not happen again, we must remember this.

The delegation made a number of points, with which I will try to deal individually. The first issue concerns vetting and related to this is the system in Northern Ireland, including the POCVA, protection of children and vulnerable adults. This system is probably the best practice we can consider with regard to vetting. I propose that the committee should again contact the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, with regard to bringing forward the register of persons considered unsafe to work with children. That is a priority.

We also require legislation to amend the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998 and the Sex Offenders Act 2001. These currently exclude reporting the abuse of vulnerable adults who, in effect, are affected in the same way as children. We must offer a greater degree of protection, which currently does not exist under the Sex Offenders Act, to people with physical disabilities.

I fully support what has been stated with regard to vetting and I ask the witnesses to expand on it. We cannot have any loopholes with regard to who should be vetted. There appears to be an inherent assumption that if a person is being paid to do a job, he or she will be vetted. If, however, there is no payment, there is no vetting. Existing loopholes will be exploited and a person who wants to prey on children could find an avenue to facilitate his or her activities. Our responsibility, as legislators, is to close off as many avenues as possible.

People in voluntary positions should be vetted. The National Youth Council of Ireland, which represents over 140 different organisations, including most sport organisations, wants this process, in respect of which there is wide acceptance, implemented. Members and volunteers in the council would be offered a greater degree of protection if a proper system was put in place. I acknowledge that this is not the ultimate solution but it is part of it. We must also have proper procedures in respect of employers. Linked to the vetting, if done properly and in the same way as in Northern Ireland, is the whole issue of false allegations. There are proper procedures there for somebody who makes false allegations. Such a system protects people against whom allegations are made. If there is a proper system in place the matter will be dealt with more quickly than at present. Sometimes the length of time it takes to deal with cases is a difficulty for whoever turns out to be the victim.

On the issue of soft information a constitutional referendum may be needed. There is some case law that has used the issue of soft information. For example in MQ v. Robert Gleeson information was allowed to be passed by the health board to the VEC. He made the point that the role of the HSE is to protect vulnerable children but the role of the Garda is to detain and convict child abusers. He made it clear that these are two very different functions. In protecting vulnerable children the HSE cannot apply the same rigours as the Garda in getting a criminal prosecution. There is some leeway there. This issue was discussed in the House in December 2003. At that time I made the point about soft information. I am disappointed, that two and a half years on the Ferns Report had not been published although we knew what was coming down the tracks and that no action has been taken. It is great that the vetting unit is vetting more people. Unless soft information is used we will not get to the kernel of the problem. In cases of child abuse only one in 20 proceed to prosecution. That is a serious concern.

Perhaps Mr. O'Gorman would expand on the recommendation in terms of reckless endangerment in the Ferns Report. I was interested in the case he mentioned that was in court recently about the State being in locum parentis. This brings me to a matter we have discussed in the committee, the number of people who were abused by Donal Dunne, particularly in the midlands. That man got seven different references and moved to seven different schools. I strongly believe the writing of those references should be an offence when it was known he was a danger to children. Even if an abuser moves away that does not mean he or she is not a danger to people. If we are to move on we cannot sweep aside a whole sector of the population who were abused in day schools and say we have dealt with those who were abused in institutions. That the others went home to their parents does not lessen what they went through. As a committee perhaps we can try to make some inroads. It is appalling the Department is pursuing that person for costs. I assume it is a test case for many people

Given that Donal Dunne spent a good deal of time in County Offaly I have met many of those who were his victims. They cannot get any finality or move on. While they can go to the commission and tell their story that is it. It is a sad state of affairs. The Donal Dunne case is only one example.

One of the other recommendations was the audit practice in all dioceses. On the day the Ferns Report was published the Taoiseach said he would support the extension of the Dublin diocese investigation nationally. I am not sure if that has happened. Perhaps the delegation will say if that has changed.

The Stay Safe programme has been discussed in the committee. A few months ago we had representatives of the bishops conference before the committee to discuss it and they support its extension. While I welcome that it is for the Minister for Education and Science to make it mandatory rather than optional. I have no logical explanation as to the reason a school would not want it within a school. It does not make much sense.

Mr. O'Gorman referred to procedures and the role of boards of management. Given that the Ferns Report has been published for some time, is the delegation satisfied that the procedures in schools are better than, say, 15 years ago? Much of what is contained in the Ferns Report refers to 1995. I am not satisfied that we have moved on sufficiently. The church is beginning to accept that it has to try to change its procedures but unless the Department of Education and Science does likewise progress will not be fast enough.

The last point Mr. O'Gorman made was in regard to personal responsibility and liability. If we took responsibility as a State, liability would not be an issue because the gaps would be closed down.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome the delegation and thank it for the presentation. Originally the joint committee had intended to sit with the Joint Committee on Health and Children but it was decided the two committees would set separately. We have already met the bishops on the Joint Committee on Education and Science. The two committees need to formulate proposals to put to Government either jointly or independently. I favour some contact between the two committees. One of the big issues in this debate is that there has not been joined up working between both Departments and agencies, such as the health boards, the Garda and so on. There is an onus on the committee to ensure the process is moved forwarded and that it addresses the issues it can deal with.

I support Deputy Enright on practically everything she has said. She raised many important issues. I second her proposal on the register of persons considered unsafe to work with children legislation and the need to amend the Sex Offenders Act.

If I go through the issues in the same order it will make it easier when it comes to responding. In regard to vetting, Deputy Enright has covered most of what needs to be done in that area. The register of persons considered unsafe to work with children has been on the list of promised legislation for several years but no progress has been made. The usual response when a Bill cannot be progressed is that because it relates to Northern Ireland we do not have public representatives working there as ministers. I do not accept that. Given the progress made in Northern Ireland we need to move the issue forward and adapt some of the models there to protect children here.

On the suggestion that there might be a constitutional problem in regard to soft information, does the delegation know if legal advice has been obtained from the Attorney General or if the Government has published official legal advice in this area? It has talked about it but we need to know for definite if there is a constitutional issue and, if so, it needs to be addressed. It is essential to move forward if children are to be adequately protected. If it can be done in other countries with the balancing protection that is required where there are false allegations then we can move it forward. However, we cannot do it until we ascertain the problem and the obstacle.

I now turn to the question of the Department of Education and Science not taking responsibility. I have a note on the Department's child protection guidelines, which advises school boards of management what they should do. However, the guidelines do not suggest anywhere that the Department has any responsibility in that regard. Is the kind of model that One in Four has in mind one where there would be shared responsibility between the Department and the management or patrons of individual schools or does One in Four consider that there are certain areas where the Department should accept responsibility? Does One in Four have a model in mind as to how we could move from where we are now to where the State can protect children adequately? I would be interested to hear Mr. O'Gorman's views on those points.

As regards the case referred to, if the State wins today I believe it should waive its right to costs. However, I support what Deputy Enright said, that the State should not pursue a person in that situation for costs. It is absolutely wrong that the State should seek costs, particularly in a criminal case like that where it has been proven that the person concerned was abused. If a decision is being made today in this case, we can call on the State to waive its right to costs if it wins. In subsequent cases, however, the State should certainly not seek costs in a situation where somebody has already been found guilty of child abuse in a school.

I also wish to raise the question of the current position of the Catholic Church with regard to priests stepping aside or being asked to do so. There is some confusion about the church's situation. Following the publication of the Ferns Report, the new bishop, Bishop Walsh, was quite clear that there was a difference between somebody — as Mr. O'Gorman said — being dealt with in a criminal way, accused and found guilty, or somebody being asked to step aside for child protection reasons. We need to make that distinction. As I understand it, Bishop Walsh implemented a system whereby, if there was an accusation, the priest was immediately asked to step aside.

The Catholic Church's framework document of 1996 also said that in all instances where it is known or suspected that a priest or religious has sexually abused a child, the matter should be reported to the civil authorities. The church also talked at that time about stepping aside. Since then, however, there seems to have been a lack of clarity about the exact position in different dioceses. I am interested to hear Mr. O'Gorman's views on that matter, which is something we also raised with the church authorities when they appeared before this committee. It seems to me, however, that there should be no lack of clarity and that the child protection issue should be completely separate from the question of justice and a case being taken to court.

I agree that the Stay Safe programme should be compulsory in schools and I hope the Minister will take steps to make it compulsory as soon as possible. I wish to ask Mr. O'Gorman about the sharing of information between agencies, including the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children, the Health Service Executive and the Garda authorities. Does Mr. O'Gorman feel there has been progress in sharing information, meeting regularly and adopting plans, programmes and structures that will ensure that agencies can work together for the protection of children? That is one of the big issues that arose from the report and what was said subsequently.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the delegation to the committee. The question of the State taking over boards of management is a vexed one. As Mr. O'Gorman said, the State would be concerned about the financial implications involved. It is a hard case to stand over when, on the one hand, one is dealing with the protection of children and, on the other hand, one is balancing the books. It is totally invidious, yet one must deal with it and examine what things are going to cost. On a policy basis we can make a clear declaration that we want the best possible protection for children without considering anything after that. It is incredibly difficult to consider the implications that would flow from that, given the property that is owned by the churches and trusts. There are certainly ways and means of doing it, other than the straightforward sale of properties by parishes to the State. The other ways of proceeding must also be explored.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the laity are as capable of abuse as the church. The case Mr. O'Gorman spoke about today is one of those and, therefore, it is not just about the church, it is about protection of children first.

As far as I understand cases of vicarious liability — when I was a lawyer I was a poor one — at a certain point the employer stops being liable for what happened and what the employee did, because it was out of their control and foresight. It is natural justice for the courts to recognise that there should be a limit to an employer's liability if the behaviour or conduct of an employee is beyond the person's control or is unforeseeable. There must be a limit in that respect. Perhaps the State will apply for its costs but it should not pursue them in that case where it was clearly a matter of public interest.

The Stay Safe issue is non-confrontational but I wish to make an observation on it. I recently visited Uganda where they have a major problem with HIV. Primary schools there display signs warning children of the dangers of early sex. From the age of six, such posters are in their faces telling them that message. It removes the stigma from normal conversation about HIV and AIDS. The crisis is so great for them that they say one must put other considerations to one side. It is as plain as telling a child to be careful when crossing the road. Similarly, in this country, we need to remove the stigma from this topic by trying to educate children from the earliest possible age.

Last month, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, made an announcement about the reckless endangerment of children. How does Mr. O'Gorman see that matter in operation? Let us assume that such a law had existed before what occurred in the diocese of Ferns, which of those cases could have attracted a criminal prosecution under that heading?

I sat on the all-party Committee on the Constitution, as did Deputy O'Sullivan. On the basis of all the submissions we heard, we came up with what we considered to be a far-reaching programme in terms of the protection of children's rights. Mr. O'Gorman is aware of the phraseology concerned. Looking at previous cases and bearing in mind that people say it cannot be done because of constitutional restrictions and while I know it is a hard question, can Mr. O'Gorman describe circumstances where the proposed change would not be adequate? Will he provide examples where in his view that change would not meet the requirements?

Deputy Gogarty

We have heard a number of good contributions from some of the previous speakers and I will not repeat what others have said. I agree with the recommendations in terms of changing some of the legislation such as the Sex Offenders Act 2001, the protection of persons reporting child abuse legislation of 1998 and of the register for persons who are safe to work with children.

Does the delegation have any specific recommendations on what part of the Education Act 1998 should be changed in the context of the Department's responsibility for boards of management? I am not from a legal background. Would there be a constitutional impediment to such a change? Would that require a constitutional amendment or is it purely a legislative procedure?

When the bishops came before the committee to defend Our Children, Our Church, I raised some of the issues which One in Four had raised in response to that publication. They seemed adamant, notwithstanding what One in Four has said today on there having been only one false accusation, on the issue of opening up soft reporting and rumours and innuendo being passed along the line. I am playing devil's advocate on this. In many cases children may bandy words around, cast aspersions and act out something they have seen elsewhere. While I recognise one needs to be conscious of the majority of genuine cases, sometimes a person's name can be blackened among peers even if it does not go outside the school due to the very act of stepping aside because of soft information.

If there was a constitutional amendment which would allow soft information to be passed on, there is a risk that there would be many more cases where someone would feel obliged to step aside because of rumour and innuendo even though the person had done nothing wrong. I agree with Mr. O'Gorman that the child's protection is paramount, but where would he draw the line in terms of the rumour and innuendo short of soft information? Can Mr. O'Gorman put forward a possible prescriptive amendment to the Constitution which would define soft information, whether it would be just a case of someone reporting to a teacher but the board of management not going forward with it and information that comes out through some other channel, rather than rumour or innuendo, for example?

Has One in Four had any discussions with the Department of Education and Science on the Stay Safe programme and why it is not being made compulsory for all schools? Has the Department given One in Four any reasonable argument or is it merely a case of stonewalling and fear of conflict?

The child protection guidelines on allegations or suspicion of abuse in schools include the provision of a designated liaison arrangement in each school. What is One in Four's views on, first, who gets to appoint the designated liaison officers and, second, the fact that they could use that position as a means of gaining access to children? The designated liaison officers may not be a member of the school's board of management. Whereas the Department should be the body responsible for boards of management, who is responsible for appointing the designated liaison officers? Is it the board of management in each school and in that context, what, if any, vetting is done of such individuals?

Deputy Crowe

I welcome the One in Four delegation. The idea behind the investigation in the Ferns diocese was, first, to uncover what happened at the time and, second, to set in train structures so that it would never happen again. The Ferns Report clearly showed the failure of the church authorities, the medical profession, the Garda, the media and the courts. All the pillars of society failed to protect young children.

There is a view that tribunals and reports which uncover all these matters are a waste of time, that it all happened in the past. One hears that the ongoing tribunals on corruption, etc., are a waste of money. The Ferns Report makes shocking reading. What is One in Four's view on conducting inquiries in other diocese? The Taoiseach spoke of one in Dublin.

Clearly, there was a failure in Ferns. The idea behind this committee meeting One in Four on the Ferns Report and the Joint Committee on Health and Children meeting again is to set in train legislative recommendations to ensure this does not happen again. However, One in Four's report states that what happened in Ferns could happen again and that is our failure. The problem is that while people say this all happened in the past, it is happening now. The SAVI report published in 2002 contains the following statistics: 150,000 adults were shown pornography when they were children; 40,000 were stripped naked and made to pose in sexually suggestive ways; 450,000 people, as children, were exposed to someone displaying their sexual organs; 160,000 saw a man masturbate in front of them when they were children; and there is more. These are the shocking figures on what is happening today. That report further states that 350,000 were touched sexually by adults; 100,000 were subjected as children to sexual intercourse; 40,000 had sexual intercourse; 25,000 were forced to have oral sex; 50,000 were subjected to anal sex; and more than 60,000 women had objects inserted in their vagina when they were children. That report dates from 2002 and here we are discussing issues from the past.

Does One in Four have a response for those who say the Ferns Report is a matter for the past or even for those, such as some in the church, who say that only 3.2% of those abused come from a church background — as if that puts it in context? Perhaps people need to put into context media reports that it seems to come from one particular church, but this needs a response to the effect that it is still happening and will continue unless we provide the safeguards, which One in Four recommends and which, I hope, will arise from the reports of our meetings and of the HSE. If we achieve anything here today or through past meetings and inquiries, it will be that we put in train structures to ensure that it does not happen to another child.

I welcome the fact that One in Four mentioned the democratic programme of the First Dáil. South Africa has what is called the Freedom Charter. In Ireland, that democratic programme should have been adopted as our freedom charter. It outlined the way in which Irish society could have developed from 1919, instead of the church-ridden, narrow-minded way in which much of Irish society developed. We must put the safeguards in place.

The Ferns Report did not have access to psychological reports of priests who had been involved in abuse. Would such psychological reports have been helpful to those compiling the Ferns Report or would we have learned anything from them? It was an aspect which was left out of that report. Perhaps it was because the psychologists could not come forward and give them and because some of those persons are dead, etc. However, can we learn from the expertise in the field to ensure it does not happen again?

Deputy English

I thank Mr. O'Gorman and his colleagues for their presentation. As he pointed out, being asked to step aside does not necessarily mean one is guilty. He outlined a case of a priest returning to his parish and attending mass locally. However, in most cases, whether clergy or non-clergy are involved, it does mean one is guilty. People assume straight away and the talk starts. It is correct that accused people should step aside. It would happen in business if an issue involving a worker or director was under investigation. However, what does Mr. O'Gorman think can be done when the person returns, no matter what their background? What can be done to restore his or her reputation? Regardless of the result of the investigation or court case, a serious black mark is held against them. I have witnessed this regularly in all walks of life and the talk continues for a long time. The persons cannot resume a normal life.

When the delegation of bishops appeared before the committee, we asked them how they responded to One in Four and whether they met the group often for consultation, advice and so on. I was not overly happy with their reply. I got the impression that they did but I am not convinced. Do the bishops consult and listen to the group? This issue does not only relate to the church, as other groups must also learn. Do many other groups contact One in Four for advice and opinions or to learn what they can do to make sure children are protected?

The interagency review group on the clergy was mentioned in the Ferns Report recommendations and the church's document, Our Children, Our Church. What is Mr. O'Gorman's view on that? Could it work? Is it a positive step? Health service staff have responded negatively and they do not think it is appropriate. The group should cover everybody and not only the clergy and it should address innuendo.

Mr. O’Gorman

I will go back to the beginning and track through the questions. Deputy Enright mentioned the need to consider vulnerable adults when we consider protection and we support that view. As an organisation, we work with people who have had an experience of sexual violence in all contexts, not just within the clerical context and not just as children. Too often, our collective approach — as citizens and the State — to these issues is to try to repair what we have been forced to repair by its presentation to us. It is time we were more proactive about that. We are either serious about our care and consideration for each other or we are not. It should not be based on the need to minimise how much discomfort we might have to go through in facing a challenging situation. I absolutely agree with Deputy Andrews that cost always must be an issue but there is more than a financial cost to these matters. It must be considered but nobody is suggesting the State should be bankrupted to protect its children. However, it is suggested that the State might, for a change, do a little more than the minimum it can get away with doing. We support the view that this should, in particular, be extended to vulnerable adults.

The area of people with disabilities is significant. There is an attitude within our nation that has a great deal to do with the way in which the State has handed over responsibility for health, education and social care needs to the voluntary sector through churches of any denomination or charities. It means that the attitude of many who require those services is based on the concept of charity rather than entitlement. It creates a situation where we do not feel entitled to criticise somebody who provides a poor service or people who are provided with a poor service feel they so lucky to have anything at all that they have no right to complain about it or when they complain, the rest of us turn around and say "look at them complaining, they are lucky to have anything". People are not lucky to have anything. We talk a great deal here about our Christian values. Perhaps it is time we started to live them rather than talk about them. We have responsibility to each others as citizens. None of us is no more than a slip on a banana skin away from needing such services, yet more and more we dismiss them, push them away and suggest they are not of significance to us collectively.

A number of members suggested that we might expand on the concept of reckless endangerment and we were asked to indicate what cases in Ferns might have come under the legislation. The concept was brought in in Massachusetts and other American states during similar investigations. It essentially suggests that if somebody wilfully and recklessly ignores significant information that there is a criminal threat to the welfare and safety of children when he or she is in a position to do something about it, he or she has committed a criminal offence. Most people believe the conduct of senior members of the Catholic hierarchy was criminal but it was not following the dismantling of the offence of a suspicion of felony. There is nothing to prevent that conduct from happening again tomorrow. A bishop or I, as chairperson of a school board of management, can ignore the welfare of children. We can ignore the fact that somebody is raping or abusing a child and appoint that person to as many positions in which they can continue to rape and abuse children as they like and not face a criminal sanction. That is insane.

With regard to the cases in the Ferns Report, one can open a page in major sections of the report and pick one. One of the issues we often worry about in regard to reports such as the Ferns Report is that in raising individual cases, we continue to create bogeymen. People such as Seán Fortune and Brendan Smyth have become public demons but, at times, we forget about the impact that might have. I am always conscious in situations such as this of the impact the re-telling of the stories of the evil that such people perpetrated has on the families of the accused and those who committed offences. We always need to bear this in mind.

The Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland banned Seán Fortune from any involvement in its organisation before he was ordained a priest because there were allegations of sexual misconduct while he ran a scout troop in St. Peter's College when training to be a priest. The CBSI banned him but the Catholic Church knowingly ordained him and continued to appoint him to parishes and schools and positions of extraordinary authority. At the same time Brendan Comiskey was referring to Seán Fortune as the Monsignor Horan of the south east and talking about what a great guy he was, people were contacting him desperate for help. That failure needs to be criminalised. People need to be responsible if they are in a position of authority and they fail to fulfil their obligations both moral and legal. They need to be held responsible for those actions. It is one of the ways we can make sure this does not happen again.

Deputy Enright referred to the Donal Dunne case. There are other cases such as the John Hannon case in Clara, with which she will be familiar. Another brother of the Third Order of Franciscans from the same school in Clara was convicted only last week. The order said it was shocked when it discovered what was happening. Anybody involved in these cases would be surprised at that shock because knowledge in those cases went back a long way.

John Hannon was a member of the Brothers of the West, a minor Franciscan order. He was convicted eight years ago, served an eight-year sentence and is out of prison. Unfortunately, many of the people who made the complaints to the Garda that led to his conviction are still bring dragged through the courts by the order and the Department of Education and Science. They have not been able to put this behind them but he has. The Department has admitted liability in a number of cases. It did so on the day cases were to be taken into court and it tried to frighten people out of pursuing the cases. Liability was admitted because departmental files, which were disclosed late in the process, showed that in 1973 the Department at every level was aware this man had faced significant allegations of child sexual abuse, yet it worked in collusion with the order and the bishop of the diocese to arrange for this brother to be moved to another school and reappointed as a teacher where he continued to abuse. They did not just arrange that, they organised a farewell party for him and part of the deal for his removal was that it would be reported in a certain way in the local newspaper.

It is fascinating to examine the case in light of pronouncements made by the Department of Education and Science before the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. No one understood that child sexual abuse was even possible until the late 1980s, even though this evidence has been on file since 1973. The Department is being held liable in a number of cases but only where people can prove that it had existing knowledge. There is no responsibility on the State in respect of the welfare of children. Parents bring their children to school and leave them there and the State has no liability to ensure that they are safe within that setting. At this stage in our history, that is insane.

Deputy Enright

Will we get some idea of the level of knowledge in the Department of Education and Science from the investigations of the Ryan commission. Is there merit in actively ensuring that everything the Department knew and the action it took in all the cases enters the public domain? Is it vital for the Department to move on? There is a tendency to say that it happened in 1973 or 1982 and that we need to move on.

Mr. O’Gorman

We have a peculiar view of ourselves at times. I recently had a conversation with a journalist from the United States who asked me about the role of the church in education. He looked at me as if I had four heads when I outlined what is involved. We accept the role of the church in education because we are familiar with it. We sometimes have a rose-tinted or narrow view of matters which does not allow us to consider some of the difficulties that might be inherent in the system. It is important to understand what happened in the past, not just for the sake of it but in order that we can understand the systems which allowed it to happen and examine whether we can do something now about the system. We should also be able to say to people that, as a State, we have failed collectively. Ireland is a republican democracy. The State works collectively with the citizens and, therefore, we failed people who have been abused in the settings to which I refer. We failed to properly protect our citizens and we need to do something about it.

Ms Fitzpatrick

These cases continue to occur. I receive a number of telephone calls from parents. They may not necessarily be about sexual abuse in school; they may relate to physical abuse by a teacher or another person in the school. The Department will tell them to consult the board of management or the parish priest because the matter is not its responsibility. This continues even today.

Deputy O’Sullivan

That relates to my question regarding the model we should put in place.

Mr. O’Gorman

As Ms Fitzpatrick said, we are regularly consulted on issues of this kind, sometimes by people working within the State sector. It is not unusual to get a call from a social worker asking what should happen in a particular case. So much for the implementation of the Children First guidelines.

On the question of schools, it becomes much more difficult when the culture of the administration of a school is so heavily influenced by its patronage. People comment on the involvement of parents in the national school sector and schools run by religious denominations refer to the democratic nature of this. Two parents are appointed to the boards of management of schools, two community representatives are appointed by the rest of the board of management and there are also two teacher representatives and two patron representatives. We continually encounter situations where there are real concerns about the welfare of children within the school setting, not so much around sexual abuse but in respect of emotional and often physical abuse. When one tries to address the problem at board of management level, one often finds that there is a split whereby the two patron representatives and the two teacher representatives, who become part of the culture of the school, vote in a particular way and sometimes the parents and community representatives vote in another. The casting vote rests with the chairperson, who is a patron representative.

Patrons will not take responsibility for matters such as those to which I refer. Bishops are very hands-off in responding to these kinds of issues and do not want to engage with them. Perhaps it is because they do not have the capacity to deal with these matters. God knows that, at this stage, they are being obliged to deal with enough in this regard. If the State does not have the resources to manage and respond to these issues within education, it is not surprising that an agency — for example, a particular church — does not have such resources to do so.

It is not just about responses — we have an obligation to respond to people we have failed in the past — it is also about child protection. Most of these conditions still exist. There has been no remarkable change since many of these issues were raised. Reference was made to the fact that these are recent issues, that it is just ten years since 1995. In regard to the tribunal system, it is very easy when we uncover a major area of corruption — whether corruption of this kind or that which is financial in nature — to put in place inquiries. The latter will run for years and the information will emerge in dribs and drabs. By the time it comes out, we will all accept that this is how it is, that we should move on and that nothing changes.

If nothing changes as a result of this inquiry because we have all been somehow numbed to the kind of information that has been made available, it will be to our collective shame, particularly that of the Oireachtas because this is where change can happen. We cannot ignore these reports.

The Dublin archdiocese inquiry, which is in the pipeline, was mentioned. If this report has caused concern about child protection in the context of education, the Dublin archdiocese inquiry will appal people, particularly when we examine inner city schools, the number of significant offenders in the Dublin archdiocese in inner city schools and the way in which they used their position within those schools to access children and remove and abuse them. They did so consistently, particularly in deprived inner city areas. We can either take note of the Ferns Report and take action or we can return here in two or three years' time, or whenever the process ends, and talk about it again. It would be a great shame if we did not act now because the same conditions and threats exist.

The Taoiseach referred to the possibility of extending the Dublin archdiocese inquiry nationally. Soon after, he said there were no particular proposals to do so. We had discussions with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and other people working for the Government on the process. The structure that is being put in place is somewhat ad hoc and a bit of a mess. Following the inquiry, much was said about what might happen nationally. First, the Minister of State with responsibility for children was going to write to the bishops to inquire if they were implementing current procedures and if they would implement the recommendations of the Ferns Report. There was a suggestion that there would be a national audit or practice but it turned out that they were probably the same thing. At this stage, the audit appears to be that the Minister of State with responsibility for children is consulting the bishops to find out if they are implementing Our Children, Our Church as opposed to the 1996 guidelines and if they will put in place the recommendations of the Ferns Report. The only time the Dublin archdiocese will examine what is happening in the diocese is if, under its terms of reference, it is informed by the Minister for Health and Children that it is not doing so.

It is unclear how this decision will be arrived at. We will be in a position to alert the Department of Health and Children as to whether the guidelines are being implemented. Our Children, Our Church was launched in a flurry of publicity not long after the Ferns Report was published. However, the guidelines are still in Rome. They have not been granted normal status. They have not been accepted by Rome and there is no guarantee that they will find acceptance. When the guidelines were launched, Archbishop Brady spoke about a Northern Ireland edition of the document being launched in the new year. We heard last week that they are going to work on a version of it, using Our Children, Our Church as a draft. Who knows how the guidelines will develop in the future?

We are not suggesting that Irish bishops are at fault because it is happening consistently internationally. The same thing happened in the United States, where there was huge publicity. Guidelines were discussed in draft form. However, when they were produced, there was clear evidence that they had been watered down to a significant extent. They were then introduced in a blaze of publicity. As time passed, there were attacks on their integrity and they were watered down further. We now have a situation in the United States where two heads of the church's national review board have criticised the leadership of the church, there and generally, for introducing and watering down guidelines that had little merit or purpose.

In Ireland we saw a draft document produced that seemed robust and was welcomed. There was then a suggestion that this had been significantly watered down, leading to the resignation of members of the group involved in drafting it. The document was then launched in a blaze of publicity before it was granted enormous status by Rome. There are now suggestions and attacks upon the integrity of the document from those closest to the church. There is also a suggestion that another document will be prepared for the other jurisdiction. This will be the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that it has tried to implement completely different policies on the island of Ireland and the document still is not available.

There is something of a pattern here. The policy is not mandatory. We are still in a position where the guidelines are internal guidelines for a particular organisation. They have no force. As Cardinal Connell said to Marie Collins at one point, he did not have to follow the church's guidelines because they were not enforceable under either canon or civil law. The church had robust guidelines in 1996, but it ignored them.

It is important that any agency working with vulnerable people should have robust practices and procedures in place to ensure their work has integrity and they properly care for and consider the needs of all people working within the organisation. Let us be clear. Responsibility for the welfare of the citizen lies with the State. The Ferns Report, for example, criticised the Vatican, the first time ever the Vatican was criticised by any international report. The report said the Vatican had failed in its responsibility to properly inform an understanding of these issues at a time when it knew what was going on. It demonstrated that since 1962 the Vatican had pursued a policy on child sexual abuse — the only mandatory policy the Catholic Church has universally — to swear anybody with any information on it to absolute secrecy under threat of excommunication. That is the only policy the church had and it has not changed.

In 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whom we know as Pope Benedict XVI, wrote to every bishop in the world updating those norms. He made one significant change. The 1962 guidelines allowed bishops to decide whether they would refer cases to Rome or manage them locally. The 2001 letter from Pope Benedict XVI dictated that all cases had to be referred to Rome and Rome would control them. The letter reapplied the pontifical secrecy to the area and to all documents involved.

We are dealing with a worldwide institution that is a sovereign state and that uses its position as a sovereign state to avoid responsibility or culpability in individual nation states and in their legal systems. Its only response to these issues is a document that suppresses knowledge or understanding of the area. There is no child protection approach from within the Catholic Church centrally nor has the policy being produced in Ireland any force in Canon Law. This may well be granted, which would be great, but for the moment the policy has no force.

In the meantime, the State says the church has brought in good guidelines. Where are they? We hear, for example, that Our Children, Our Church is more robust than Children First. The Ferns Report drove a coach and horses through Children First. It said that Children First had no ability or power to protect children in the context of this kind of abuse and third party abuse. Should we be glad Our Children, Our Church is more effective than Children First which is completely ineffective in these cases?

In any case, it is the State's responsibility. Once again it is abdicating responsibility to an agency which has been proven to have little regard for the responsibility. One of the grave issues is that we fail to take religion out of the issue. We fail to look at the issue in an objective way because we are all influenced by our experience of faith, particularly our nation's experience and connection with that faith. If this was any other agency, would we even discuss whether it was appropriate to allow it to determine how to protect our children? We would not.

We need to grow up in our approach to this issue. It is not about lashing anybody or having a go at any church. We are responsible. We are making scapegoats of clerics and the church, who clearly have some responsibility, but the ultimate responsibility lies with us, individually and collectively, and with this House.

It is unclear what will happen with the Dublin archdiocese inquiry. Our biggest concern is that we may commit the most Irish of mistakes with regard to inquiries and have an inquiry that will argue the issue for decades and when it is all over nobody will really care or be interested because their priorities will have changed.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked about joint work. I support that view and for that reason when we called for committee hearings, we were eager to see joint hearings of both the Joint Committee on Health and Children and the Joint Committee on Education and Science. I understand there are unique issues both committees need to address, but it would be a great idea for the committees to work together in putting together proposals for legislation that might be necessary.

I agree that using the excuse of Northern Ireland as a reason for not proceeding in the development of new policy and practice is ridiculous, considering that just this week Northern Ireland launched massive changes to its policies, legislation, procedures and practices. This seems to rubbish that suggestion somehow.

The issue of whether there is a constitutional issue in the gathering of soft information is with the Attorney General. It is important that rather than hearing the Government talk about whether there might be a constitutional issue, we determine whether there is. If there is, we need to deal with it. We cannot accept that our Constitution would be a bar to child protection. It is disgraceful enough that our Constitution does not grant children particular recognition, given their unique status, vulnerability and importance to the future of the State. Not only that, it now seems that the rights the Constitution grants to other people may mean we cannot properly protect children.

There is a question as to whether there should be shared or total responsibility between the patrons and boards of management in the State in national schools. If children are accorded appropriate rights under our Constitution and if the duty of the State to properly safeguard its children is recognised under our Constitution, everything can flow from that and legislation must bear this in mind. The exact form this might take can evolve over time, but it is clear that the State needs to be responsible for and to actively ensure the welfare and protection of children in all contexts, but particularly in areas as important as education.

We talk about the need to become a knowledge based economy. In a way this goes back to something Deputy Andrews said about cost. I am aware of and sensitive to the issue of cost and the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the State can finance what is necessary and that it must bear this consideration in mind. However, if we are serious that becoming a knowledge based economy is the way forward for this State, surely education is a key part of the process, a robust education system in which the State has a real involvement and responsibility.

Education is about more than turning out people with academic qualifications. It is about turning out people who have not been harmed, traumatised and damaged by their experience of education because the State has acted to ensure they are safe in that context. Trauma and damage have not been an issue for the majority of people who have gone through our education system. Our education system has been one of our strengths. It is not necessarily something of which the State can be proud, because it abdicated responsibility for it. However, it is something for which the State must take on responsibility.

On the issue of the individual case, I will ask Ms Deirdre Fitzpatrick to deal with it in a moment. The fundamental issue must be the need for the State to step in and safeguard the welfare of children.

A number of committee members touched on the issue of perpetrators stepping aside. I spoke to John Littleton, president of the National Conference of Priests of Ireland, on several occasions. Priests consistently say that stepping aside is not an issue for them. They are happy to accept that principle. The issue is publicity and how it is handled. I agree there is an issue in that regard and have discussed it with Mr. Littleton on a number of occasions.

There is a tendency among certain bishops, almost a robot-bishop style of dealing with such matters, where having dealt so appallingly with such issues in the past they are eager to sweep in and pronounce from the pulpit that they are acting decisively. Child protection is about child protection and not about how a particular individual or agency appears to be doing something. I wonder whether it is possible to allow a priest who is stepping aside and making a decision that has integrity, is appropriate and courageous to perhaps announce that decision himself. He could say: "There has been a suggestion of an inappropriate piece of behaviour. I will not comment on that suggestion but in the interests of child protection and on the basis of all the known policies of best practice, I will not be around for a little while so that it can be investigated and I hope to see you again soon." People should be allowed their dignity. The situation should not simply be created where a bishop can be seen to be acting decisively and in a way that is completely in contrast to the way he has acted in the past. It is a question of child protection.

Deputy English referred to people's names being blackened and the harm that this can do. This is a very real issue and we have some uncomfortable things to face about ourselves and our culture in this respect. When I was working with the BBC to produce the documentary that ultimately resulted in the Ferns Inquiry being established, I remember talking to people in the area about the specifics of the case in which I was involved. I asked them if they knew at the time and they said that people did know. People would joke and say things in church such as, "Don't bend down in front of that fellow." People knew what was happening. They would tell you but they would not really tell you. It was that kind of rubbish, that kind of innuendo.

We love the thrill of the gossip without having to take responsibility for ourselves in it, for what we are saying or doing or failing to do, or for the impact it might have on others. We must face that fact and deal with it. To effect change there is a need for a change in public attitude but the way to change that attitude is not to pander to it but to challenge and confront it. There is a need to show leadership and vision and to talk about alternatives.

Deputy Gogarty

This may be an urban legend but there was an instance when a paediatrician was attacked for being a paedophile. Even if someone decides to step aside with dignity and makes a public statement, there is a danger some people may assault that individual for being a paedophile without any verification.

Mr. O’Gorman

The criminal justice system exists to deal with those issues if they arise but there is no evidence that they arise at this stage. I lived in the UK at that time. The incident followed a particularly appalling murder of a young girl and there were calls for the introduction of legislation in the UK to make the sex offenders register publicly accessible, which One in Four would always oppose because we do not regard it as being an appropriate measure. I remember the case in which a Welsh female paediatrician was attacked. Her house was attacked and the words, "beast" and "paedo" were scrawled all over it because those people did not understand the difference.

There is a need to show some kind of leadership and vision and to open up a public debate on these issues so that we do not allow people to move to those polar, populist positions where they can pander to the worst in human nature. We must be more responsible in how we deal with these issues. The criminal law protects people in those contexts and it should do so. Those of us in a position to influence public opinion should do so responsibly and appropriately and create platforms from which this can be done. It would be much more appropriate for those who oppose this policy to stand four-square with others like us and start to talk about the need for a change in social attitudes towards these issues, and for us all to be a little bit more grown-up about them rather than simply suggesting that because people will not be fair-minded, we should not take this kind of action. This would have the effect of allowing such attitudes to continue. It is a comfortable option but it is not the one which is correct, moral, just, reasonable and mature.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked if we believed that the sharing of information is working. It works on the occasion when sharing occurs. I have had conversations with people working in the church who have struggled to get some of the statutory agencies to talk to them about particular cases. Their policy is to speak to the Health Service Executive and to individual members of the Garda Síochána about a particular case but they find it is a struggle to make that happen. The document, Children First, must be acknowledged as significantly flawed but also as a fine piece of policy which was very progressive but which ignored almost entirely the area of extra-familial abuse. It was a great document which was produced in a flurry of publicity but it is a policy and a document that has neither been implemented nor resourced.

When One in Four appeared before the Joint Committee on Health and Children, we talked about our experience of trying to contact duty social workers about third party disclosures and being singularly unsuccessful on the occasion when we tried to do so. It is not a case of blaming the social workers because there is a lack of resources. It has not been implemented and the training has not been provided. Many social workers do not even understand Children First or what action they should take. When One in Four makes such referrals, we often have to take the social workers through the policy and the procedure and show them what Children First says. There is a real failure to resource and implement that policy properly.

Last week the Minister of State with responsibility for children announced the establishment of a national hotline for the reporting of child protection concerns. This is an incredibly valuable step which One in Four wholeheartedly welcomes. It is perhaps overdue but it is a progressive and sensible idea to give people somewhere to report their concerns.

Ms Fitzpatrick

The joined-up working between the HSE and the Garda Síochána is a very ad hoc arrangement and its existence depends on the area of the country. We are aware that gardaí in one area will refer the children to the HSE and, equally, in another area this will not happen. It depends on each Garda station.

Mr. O’Gorman

To answer Deputy Andrews, I agree we must be realistic and consider costs. With regard to changes in the manner of managing education, One in Four is certainly not suggesting that the State needs to take over the running of education completely from any existing patron bodies, be they bodies like Educate Together, the one in which I am involved, the Catholic Church or the Church of Ireland. This is not necessarily the way to resolve these issues. The State must have clear responsibilities and obligations to ensure that child protection is robust in schools. The State must ensure the safety of the children for which it has a responsibility and for which it can be held accountable.

Deputy Andrews

How can that be achieved?

Mr. O’Gorman

It can be achieved by legislation. We need to rethink and re-frame the way in which we organise education.

Deputy Andrews

Does that mean at the level of board of management or at the level of principal?

Mr. O’Gorman

I am involved in a board of management of a very small school which opened last September with 36 children and will probably have about 70 next year. However it takes an extraordinary amount of time from an entirely voluntary group of people to develop and administer that school.

Under the existing system the management of our education system is voluntary and not professional and very little training is provided. Provision has recently been made for training for boards of management. This may have been done to provide funding in another way to certain patron bodies and it is to be welcomed. This is the 21st century and we are discussing our knowledge-based economy while the management of our education system is entirely voluntary, a charitable gift. This can be of significant benefit because it means that if the model works well, communities and parents are very actively and significantly involved in education. We do not wish to lose this involvement but we must also ensure that the education system is properly resourced with professional administration and support and the kind of backup which the State has not provided to date.

There is a tendency to argue that a lot more money is being thrown at education. Money can be thrown at many things but that policy does not necessarily work. The answers are not always to do with money but may be to do with structure and form. There needs to be a much closer relationship between the Department of Education and Science and the patrons and the boards of management. I suggest some form of regional or area structure administered by the Department to provide an arena, to which issues that are not being handled by the patron or the board of management could be brought. I suggest the Department should exercise more oversight in the education system and it should be held responsible. As Ms Fitzpatrick has said, we constantly get calls from people who are very concerned about things that are happening in their schools. I had a conversation with someone recently who talked about children who were now drawing pictures of themselves in coffins, and were having nightmares and not sleeping. They have been trying to address this issue with the patron of the school for a long time and cannot get anywhere. The Department of Education and Science stipulates that people must deal with the patron and the board of management. It is a mess. There is no real point of appeal. There is no real transparency in the management of schools. There is no real involvement or regulation in the area of child protection, which is part of what needs to change.

I agree absolutely that members of the laity are as capable of abuse as members of the church are — nobody is suggesting otherwise. Abuse issues as they arise in education are not specifically about the involvement of people in religious life. They are about abuse within the education sector, regardless of the nature of the person's involvement. I agree that, obviously, we need limits in terms of vicarious responsibility. At the moment there is no State limit because it does not employ teachers. It is a unique construction. I know from managing the payroll in my school that while the Department of Education and Science pays the salaries, determines the contracts etc., it is still not the employer and therefore has no liability, which is a dodge and it is working. It may well now result in a victim of abuse, who tried to highlight the dodge and have something done about it, losing her home. We will later find out the decision of the court.

Ms Fitzpatrick

Particularly in that case, it is not just that the State has been found not liable. Today it is seeking the costs — a judgment will be made today. If the court finds in its favour, the State should waive its right to claim the costs. The State is pursuing this matter vigorously in court today and is also going after reserved costs.

Mr. O’Gorman

Some people might suggest that it is entirely responsible for solicitors acting for the State to make sure that in the future people do not bring claims against the State, where they do not have grounds to bring such a claim. While that is fine on one level and it is responsible, it needs to be judged in the context of the particular case. There is a significant public interest in this case. If the State is successful, we can be certain that not many people will try to bring such a case again. The dodge will become even more effective as it will be backed up by an order for costs that ruins a woman's life.

Deputy Gogarty asked what would be required to change the relationship with the Department of Education and Science and the boards of management of primary schools. Political will is required for such change. A cultural shift is needed in order that we all start to consider more the way in which we organise areas like education, health and social care. I previously said that one of our biggest issues is the culture of almost viewing the provision of these services as charity rather than central to how we organise ourselves as a State.

Deputy Gogarty

To take a specific example, the patron appoints the chairperson. Does Mr. O'Gorman believe this should change or does he believe it is acceptable provided the board has an extra parent representative and a regional inspectorate to monitor boards of management?

Mr. O’Gorman

We need to examine the way in which boards of management are made up and resourced — the skills available to them — while at the same time being very careful that we do not lose the gifts in the current system of the involvement of people from the local community and particularly parents, and of course the significant gift for many people of their children being educated within a particular ethos. Parents have a right to make those choices for their children and it is absolutely right that they should. It is important that we should not lose some of the gifts. However, at the same time we need to deal with some of the inherent difficulties. I do not believe it particularly matters who appoints the chairperson. It is about the way in which chairpersons are appointed and where accountability lies. The central point is that the State is not responsible or accountable for what happens in our education system, which is unique internationally. We, as a state, abdicate responsibility completely in this regard and tell parents they must talk to the board of management or patron on such matters. If the board or patron does not want to talk to particular parents, the State claims to have no role.

I was asked whether we had discussions with the Department of Education and Science on the stay safe programme. Our work relates to working with people who have experienced sexual violence in some context. As part of that work, obviously, we have a significant learning side. I would love for us to be in a position to do that. Unfortunately, the demands on us will not allow it. Since the publication of the Ferns Report, we have seen our waiting lists for psychotherapy almost treble. In the advocacy arena of the organisation, led by Ms Fitzpatrick, the demand is consistently higher. In the first three months of this year, Ms Fitzpatrick's programme will have supported more people than it did in the first ten months of last year. We have seen an extraordinary increase — at one stage it was an 850% increase in demand on the advocacy service and a 500% increase in demand on psychotherapy. These are the arenas we try to use to move those issues forward. We hope the members of the committee will begin to move that forward.

We were asked about the role of a designated liaison person in a school. I am aware of people who have worked in the education system for a long time and who do not even understand that system. There are issues about the level of awareness and training that exists within the education sector about how the system works and is applied. The principal in negotiation with the staff agrees who will be the designated liaison person and then training is supposed to be provided. We were asked whether they could carry out abuse. We know that the perpetration of sexual abuse is not limited to any demographic group or profession. Anybody is a potential abuser.

Deputy Gogarty

There is no vetting of them.

Mr. O’Gorman

At the moment there is no vetting.

Deputy Crowe, who has left, asked whether we regard tribunals as a waste of time and money as they address matters from the past. If something is all in the past, I would absolutely support the idea that there is no point in going back and looking at it. However, these issues are certainly not all in the past and members of the committee could come to our office any day to see the work we are doing and the needs of those who present themselves. While the events might have happened ten, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years ago, they are very much part of people's lives today. The Ferns Report offers the possibility that, as a result of that inquiry into events that were historical, our children will be safer in the future. While the crimes may have happened in the past and their impacts are felt now, the implications of what we understand may well mean our children are safer for the future. It is always worth looking at these issues where they need to be looked at.

This matter relates to what Deputy Andrews said about the need to be responsible in how we use resources. Inquiries need to have a purpose and should not just be cathartic. If an inquiry has a cathartic purpose for those taking part, that is wonderful. However, it cannot be the purpose of the inquiry. They should not be therapeutic. The State provides therapeutic interventions in other more appropriate ways. We need to be clear always as to the reasons we conduct inquiries. If we can learn in terms of how we need to respond to people we have failed in the past, then they are effective. If we can learn things that will help us ensure we make our systems more robust, then they are absolutely more worthwhile.

However, one of the difficulties is the issue of having an inquiry and putting matters on the long finger. Ultimately when people need to be held accountable, they are no longer available, so what is the point? The point is that we need to look for more than just scapegoats in particular processes. For instance, it would be very easy to hold Bishop Brendan Comiskey up as being responsible for what happened in Ferns: he is not. While he bears significant responsibility for what happened in Ferns, so do many others and so do we all as citizens. We are all part of what went on there. We all created the structure to our society that meant we handed over that kind of power and authority to people who then abused it. Inquiries are important only if we do something meaningful with them, which is hopefully what this is about.

Deputy Gogarty

Of all the inquiries, the Ferns Inquiry is the most recent. To play devil's advocate, why are the recommendations not being implemented?

Mr. O’Gorman

There is no political will.

Deputy Gogarty

Are politicians merely reflecting society at large?

Mr. O’Gorman

Absolutely. When we appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, one of the members stated that child protection was not an issue that was particularly political and there was no political will to deal with a major issue. I think he was right and Deputy Gogarty is right. It is about us as a nation not attaching that level of importance to it. It is interesting that until very recently, when the Irish Examiner examined the provision of crèche facilities and the welfare of children in such facilities, people only became animated politically about child care when they were talking about its cost. That is something we should reflect on. Child care became a political issue when we thought about how much we would have to pay for it, but not when we thought about how safe our children would be in child care facilities. That is something we have to start to challenge collectively and to accept as a failure on our part. While it is absolutely a political failure, I do not necessarily mean that political parties are solely at fault. As citizens, we do not value the welfare of our children as much as we should.

Deputy Gogarty

We should focus on the real issues, rather than thinking about where votes are coming from.

Deputy English

I do not wish to comment on the political will of the general public, but I remind Mr. O'Gorman that a national group, in which I was involved, considered the quality of education in crèches. When I went home to speak about it, I found that people did not give a hoot. My point is that there was another group doing it.

Mr. O’Gorman

Part of the reason people do not give a hoot is that the kind of discussion and debate on the issue that needs to happen at a significant level is not happening. It is not a sexy issue, politically.

Deputy English

I agree with Mr. O'Gorman.

Mr. O’Gorman

It is not something on which people can adopt particular positions. We have not dealt with this issue in the past because we have been frightened of it. It was easy for Irish people to dodge the issue in the political arena by saying it was all about the church. When the Taoiseach was asked, not long after the Ferns debacle emerged in a television documentary, whether he had been following the matter, he said he had not been following it, it was a matter for the church and he did not believe in mixing religion and politics. I have paraphrased what he said, but I am pretty sure I have done so accurately.

Deputy Gogarty

That was four years ago.

Mr. O’Gorman

I would like to qualify what I have said. I am not making any kind of political point. I am not attacking the Taoiseach for expressing that view. He accurately reflected a view that was commonly held in Ireland at the time, which was that this issue was a matter for the church. Before 2002, nobody at a political level had questioned what had happened in Ferns even though there had been a couple of criminal trials and a few convictions, Seán Fortune had committed suicide, a book had been written, acres of newspaper reports had been published and the Garda and the health board had conducted an inquiry into events at Monageer. The State had not intervened at a political level to try to understand the systems failure that had taken place. The Ferns Inquiry was ordered only after One in Four had insisted on the need for an inquiry. It became a political issue only after a high level of public disquiet developed as a result of a television documentary. We know that our elected representatives will listen when people care enough to make their feelings known. We all have a responsibility in that regard. There is no political will on many levels and we need to do something about that.

Deputy Gogarty

I apologise for interrupting Mr. O'Gorman again. I will try to ensure this is the last time I do so. The issue of child abuse has received a great deal of publicity. It is correct, given what has happened in the past, that it has been identified with the church. Mr. O'Gorman was talking about society and politicians. Does he think it is time to emphasise that just 4% of child sexual abuse is carried out by members of the religious orders? Much more abuse is taking place elsewhere in society. I refer not only to intrafamilial abuse, but also to other forms of abuse. If we open up a can of worms and cause people to get outraged, we might start a real debate and possibly encourage more involvement in this matter on the part of politicians and communities.

Mr. O’Gorman

The Deputy's comments raise a number of issues. The scandal of clerical sexual abuse is not about the percentage of priests who have abused children; it is about the failure of those in positions of extraordinary authority to do anything about something they knew was happening. The global Catholic Church has offered significant psychological treatment facilities to priests with sexual problems for more than 60 years. One of the Catholic Church's leading clerical experts in this area warned in 1957 that it was too dangerous to move priests from parish to parish as they would continue with their wanton activity, seeing new dioceses as green pastures. The scandal of clerical sexual abuse does not really relate, in its biggest sense, to the percentage of priests who abused children; it relates to the extraordinary institutional failure and corruption that facilitated the abuse. I refer to those who lied when they were challenged about these matters, for example. It is extraordinary that dioceses were falling over themselves, after the Ferns Report was published, to reveal that between 350 and 400 priests in Ireland had been accused of perpetrating acts of sexual abuse. Many of the bishops in question said five years ago that they did not know child sexual abuse was going on. We are now hearing about cases going back to the 1940s, even though a few years ago we were told that the dioceses did not have a clue about it. That is the scandal of the issue.

References to the percentage of priests who may have sexually assaulted children are misguided because they focus the debate on priests. Human beings will abuse each other. People in positions of particular authority will take advantage of their positions to abuse other people. We should not be shocked when the creation of positions of unquestioned authority without a degree of accountability or transparency attracts people who are inclined to be corrupt or to abuse people. We should not be concerned with the percentage of priests who abused children; but with the failure to prevent abuse, the facilitation of abuse and the knowing and wilful cover-up of abuse. They are the issues of importance. We should move on from feeling the need to refer to the fact that just 4% of those who abuse children are priests. We can throw statistics around as much as we like to seek to minimise or maximise the number of priests involved. If someone says to me that just 3% or 4% of all child sexual abusers in prison are priests, I can respond by saying that priests represent just 0.5% of the adult male population and asking whether that means priests are six times more likely to abuse children. We should not be concerned with such statistics, however. We have an opportunity to move this debate forward in a manner that allows us to discuss our continued failure to protect our children properly in all contexts. The focus on whether it is appropriate for the Catholic Church to have its own guidelines encourages the belief that this is just about the church. We should acknowledge that this is about our collective failure to ensure child protection and move on from there.

It is time to address the significant failures for which we all have responsibility. We should recognise that if we do not take action now, we will never again be able to say we did not know that certain things were going on, or argue that it is a matter for the church or anybody else. The next time it happens, we will have to acknowledge we knew it was happening, we knew it was likely to happen, we understood it and we still allowed it to happen. The Catholic Church, uniquely, has not acknowledged that it knew what was going on even though it did. It facilitated child sexual abuse, it knew the abuse was taking place and it allowed the abuse to continue. When it made its own little judgment on whether it was too damaging to deal with or too damaging to cover up, it decided that it had to cover it up. That is the horror of the appalling abuse with which we really need to deal. We need to reflect on our failure to prevent it from happening and our collective collusion in it. I apologise for straying from the points raised.

Deputy English spoke about the issue of names being blackened and rumours being spread. I hope I have dealt with that issue appropriately.

I was asked whether the church consults One in Four. While One in Four has been in contact with individuals working within the church on a number of occasions, there is no official consultation between the two organisations. One in Four has had meetings with the bishops on some other occasions, but it has had to act proactively to seek such meetings rather than being approached about such consultation. There is some very good practice in some dioceses, such as the archdiocese of Dublin, which has been extraordinarily proactive in dealing with these issues. When I heard on his appointment that Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's professional career within the church had been as a senior diplomat, I was suspicious about the reasons for his appointment to Dublin, but I have to say I think he is acting with a great deal of integrity. Those of us who work for One in Four are familiar not only with the church's public pronouncements, but also with how it is dealing with individual cases. The experience of One in Four is that Archbishop Martin has demonstrated considerable integrity in his approach. He has not just done that publicly, as many people do, but he has also done it privately.

One in Four does not have a huge amount of consultation with the church. I am not aware that the archbishop's conference has ever invited anybody whose comments it might not want to hear to come to address it. When the conference has discussed issues of this nature, it has invited newspaper columnists who are very sympathetic to its views, and who will not tell it things which would make it terribly uncomfortable, to speak. It has certainly never engaged in such dialogue with One in Four. The representatives of One in Four were asked to contribute to the Our Children, Our Church process and we were happy to do so, although we have real issues about the outcome of that process.

I was also asked whether many other organisations make contact with One in Four. Such contacts take place in all kinds of contexts, in areas which are appropriate, such as those pertaining to sexual violence, and in other areas. Most significantly, Ms Fitzpatrick is often contacted by people working in the statutory sector, who should have been trained and resourced effectively to deal with these issues, asking that One in Four explain to them what should be their policies and procedures.

Ms Fitzpatrick

There is a major gap in child protection services in that no agency is available to assist people with child protection concerns in making complaints to the Health Service Executive. I encounter this problem almost on a daily basis. A parent with a concern will telephone One in Four but there is no organisation to which we can refer them. CARI, for instance, offers therapy services, while Barnardos and the ISPCC do not have a service in place. There is, therefore, a gap.

Mr. O’Gorman

One can only approach the Office of the Ombudsman for Children after one has tried to address all the issues as part of a direct complaint. One cannot seek to have the Ombudsman for Children address an issue.

We have a culture in Ireland that when a person comes forward with a complaint or difficulty, rather than trying to engage or find out how the matter should be addressed, it is decided that all will be fine if one settles the issue. The way in which we engage with many of these issues creates a lost opportunity for learning and developing much more effective procedures.

Acting Chairman (Deputy O’Sullivan)

Does the HSE not have a designated person to deal with complaints?

Ms Fitzpatrick

Allegations are addressed to a duty social worker but no organisation is available to help a parent or individual make the telephone call. Access to information is not freely available.

Mr. O’Gorman

One of the recommendations of the Ferns Report was to launch an educational awareness campaign. While it was a different type of document, the SAVI report made the same recommendation in 2002 and the Minister of State with responsibility for children has announced that this proposal is being actively considered. This is welcome and it will be interesting to see what will be the outcome of his considerations. The purpose of any initiative must be to give people information and show them how they can access the type of services and information they need to address issues that arise.

On Deputy English's question on how inter-agency review groups will work and whether they should be extended beyond the church context, they definitely should be extended. The one fact to emerge from every jurisdiction that examines child protection is that joint agency work is the most effective way to proceed. This requires that people engage in real communications and share information responsibly and appropriately showing proper regard for all those involved. We must give great weight to the rights, needs and sensibilities of everybody involved in a process such as this as we seek to do the right thing. The paramount determination at all times must be to respect, value and protect children. That is the way to deal with these issues.

Inter-agency review groups should be established at regional level and include representatives of the churches, statutory sector and voluntary and NGO sector working with children and vulnerable adults. These groups should be granted privilege in order that information can be held and shared appropriately. In such circumstances, many of the issues Deputy English raised in terms of people's names being blackened through rumour and innuendo might be properly addressed. This problem would be part of their remit.

The inter-agency review groups must be placed on a statutory footing and be part of a joined up joint agency approach to child protection. We do not have to create some ridiculous superstructure. Sometimes being a small nation is a gift in that we do not have to go over the top when developing structures. Child protection is given proper consideration using a joined up approach with information reported back in an accountable manner.

We suggested to the Joint Committee on Health and Children, for instance, that these agencies should be established on a regional basis, feeding into a national office for child protection which might be established in the Office of the Ombudsman for Children who would report regularly to the joint committee. Not only would best practice be implemented in such circumstances, it would be seen to be implemented and the learning necessary from the implementation of that practice could come through to the Oireachtas where legislation could be introduced or policy changed if necessary. Everything needs to be joined up, from the first point on the ground right through to the Legislature.

Acting Chairman

I thank the delegation for a most interesting session, particularly in responding to members' questions. The joint committee must, at its next meeting, place this issue on the agenda for a future meeting to ensure the process is advanced.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 April 2006.