We are meeting today with representatives of the Education Commission and the Child Protection Office of the Irish Bishops' Conference and the Conference of Religious of Ireland to discuss the recommendations of the Ferns Report and the church's national child protection policy, with particular reference to the document launched in late 2005, Our Children, Our Church. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Bishop Leo O'Reilly and other representatives, whom he will introduce to us. They are all very welcome and I thank them for being with us. I draw their attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same 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 or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Bishop O'Reilly to make the presentation on behalf of the Education Commission of the Irish Bishops' Conference.
Child Protection: Presentations.
Bishop Leo O’Reilly
On behalf of the Irish Episcopal Conference and the Conference of Religious of Ireland, we welcome this opportunity to meet the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science and thank them for giving us this opportunity to present and discuss the measures the church has put in place and plans to put in place shortly for the protection of children in all church based organisations and activities. We are conscious of the particular remit of the committee and the specific areas of interest indicated in its letter of invitation, notably the recommendations of the Ferns Report and the church's recently published child protection policy, Our Children, Our Church. For that reason, we have composed a delegation of persons with experience in the area of child protection in schools in the hope this will allow us to respond as comprehensively as possible to the issues members may wish to have clarified or discussed.
I am the Bishop of Kilmore and am here this morning in my capacity as chair of the episcopal Education Commission of the Irish Bishops' Conference. I am joined by my colleagues, Sr. Eileen Randles, an educationist and a member of the bishops' child protection committee; Mrs. Kay Hyden, national director of training in the bishops' child protection office; Sr. Evelyn Greene, former school principal and member of the child protection committee and a representative of the Conference of Religious of Ireland, CORI; Mr. Jack Cleary, child protection support officer, Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools, and a former principal of a secondary school; Fr. Dan O'Connor, general secretary, Catholic Primary Schools Management Association, and also a member of the Education Commission; and Fr. Timothy Bartlett from the secretariat of the Irish Bishops' Conference.
Before proceeding with the more general presentation, we take this opportunity, both as individuals and representatives of the church, to express our profound regret that people have abused their positions of trust in church related posts to harm and injure children. We want to do all in our power to ensure a safe, welcoming and professional environment for every child who comes in contact with the church. As stated in Our Children, Our Church, we want to ensure children will be safe.
Our Children, Our Church, the title of the new policy, represents the most recent in a series of initiatives taken by the church to acknowledge and understand the painful mistakes of the past and to do all in our power to ensure those mistakes will never be repeated. The initiatives included the establishment of an advisory committee on child sexual abuse in 1994; the publication of guidelines, Child Sexual Abuse — Framework for a Church Response, in 1996; and the commissioning of the Royal College of Surgeons report on child sexual abuse by clergy in Ireland in 2003 entitled, Time to Listen, which found that "child sexual abuse is a society-wide issue and the remit for child protection is broader than the Church". That was its second recommendation which was later borne out by the findings of the sexual abuse and violence in Ireland report, the SAVI report, commissioned by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Having said that, however, for the church the abuse of even one child is one too many.
The Time to Listen report suggested the Catholic Church in Ireland should seek to develop a model of best practice for child protection based on an ongoing review of current guidelines. It was with that objective in mind that the three main leadership groups in the Catholic Church in Ireland, the Irish Episcopal Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union, jointly established a child protection working group in 2003 to review the church's existing guidelines, the framework document of 1996. In line with the recommendations of the Royal College of Surgeons report, the working group was tasked to develop a comprehensive policy for child protection for the Catholic Church in line with the State's guidelines, Children First, which guidelines were in place when the first church guidelines were published in 1996.
Given our desire as a church to ensure full compliance with the guidance of the State, we were very pleased that Ms Maureen Lynott who had chaired the working group responsible for producing the State's guidelines, Children First, agreed to chair the church's working group on the same issue. We were particularly pleased that when the final version of Our Children, Our Church was published in December last year, Ms Lynott was happy to indicate her view that the church's policy put the Catholic Church in Ireland at the forefront of best practice nationally and internationally.
Members will see that the new policy is qualitatively different from the 1996 church guidelines in a number of key respects. Whereas the 1996 guidelines dealt only with child sexual abuse, Our Children, Our Church, in line with the State's guidelines, Children First, considers the implications of physical and emotional abuse as well as neglect, this being the most prevalent form of child abuse reported to the Health Service Executive today.
The 1996 church guidelines left each diocese and religious congregation to implement its child protection structures independently. Our Children, Our Church, on the other hand, brings a new level of consistency and professionalism to the church's child protection procedures in a number of ways. First, the new national board for child protection, to be chaired by former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Hederman, will oversee the implementation of the policies and procedures outlined in Our Children, Our Church at all levels of church life. Second, the board will undertake an annual audit of this implementation in every diocese and religious congregation and publish this and the details of the number of cases of child abuse involving church personnel on an annual basis.
Our Children, Our Church also brings a new level of consistency in other areas. A new national office will be established to facilitate the implementation of this one-church approach. Dioceses and religious congregations will form what are called "collaborative units". Each of these units will have a child protection management group and a professionally qualified director of child protection who will be the person who receives all allegations and suspicions of child abuse relating to church personnel. The names and contact numbers of these people will be well publicised. Critically, the professionally qualified director of child protection, as the designated person, will be the person responsible for referring all allegations and suspicions of child abuse to the civil authorities, following the State's Children First guidelines.
This relationship between the director of child protection and the civil authorities is a pivotal part of the policy. As Our Children, Our Church repeatedly points out:
The exchange of information between all relevant agencies is a key element in safeguarding the welfare of children and in providing an appropriate response where abuse occurs. Effective communication between Church organisations and the civil authorities is therefore essential.
That is stated on page 38 of the document.
The final draft of Our Children, Our Church was approved by each of the church bodies in June 2005. This was in advance of the publication of the Ferns Report in November. However, an analysis of Our Children, Our Church demonstrates that the key recommendations of the Ferns Report about child protection are addressed in the church's new policy. This includes an inter-agency approach to the handling of allegations and suspicions of child abuse by church personnel. Recommendations G8 to G12 of the Ferns Report state that this inter-agency approach would be further enhanced by the establishment of an "inter-agency review committee" for each diocese in which the Health Service Executive, the Garda Síochána and the diocese would raise suspicions, rumour or innuendo which are known to them about any member of the clergy, as well as complaints which are "demonstrably untrue".
Following the publication of the Ferns Report, the Primate of All-Ireland, Archbishop Seán Brady, requested a meeting with the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, at which he briefed the Minister of State and his officials on Our Children, Our Church in the light of the recommendations of the Ferns Report. At this meeting the archbishop made it clear that the church will co-operate, in consultation with the Health Service Executive, in the creation of such inter-agency review committees. I wish also to report that representatives of the bishops' conference and CORI are actively engaged in meetings with representatives of the Health Service Executive to ensure the speedy implementation of these committees in every diocese.
It is important to note, however, in this context that the Ferns Report also called for legal changes to be made in regard to reporting — as stated in recommendation G2 — and in regard to executive privilege — recommendation G12; the changes would be to protect those participating in this inter-agency group process from any potential legal challenge in the process of sharing suspicions, rumour or innuendo which are known to them about any member of the clergy, as well as complaints that are demonstrably untrue. For example, section 5(1) of the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998 states that "A person who states to an appropriate person that a child has been [abused] knowing that statement to be false, shall be guilty of an offence". We asked how that can be reconciled with the prospect of sharing information about a member of the clergy, or any person, which "is demonstrably untrue" as the Ferns Report states in recommendation G10. It is my understanding that the Health Service Executive has sought guidance on this matter from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It may be that there are important legal, constitutional and human rights issues here which need to be resolved. It is in the interests of everyone concerned that they would be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
I want to focus on the question of mandatory reporting. I want to advise the members of the joint committee that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is fully in favour of the principle of mandatory reporting where this is protected by law and State policy. However, a draft White Paper on Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse was prepared for the Oireachtas in 2000 along with a draft memorandum for Government. These documents were circulated to Departments and in view of the comments and observations made and in consultation with the Attorney General's office, it was clear that there were very complex legal issues which needed further consideration. However, in the meantime, Children First, National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children had been published and the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act had been passed. In the light of these developments mandatory reporting was not pursued and a number of complex legal and policy issues have yet to be resolved.
Given that the church's objective in establishing its own working group on child protection was to ensure best practice and compliance with the State's guidelines, as outlined in Children First, it was wholly reasonable and legally prudent that the reporting principles in Our Children, Our Church should be taken directly from the Children First. They are exactly the same principles used by, for example, Barnardos and other agencies and groups that have developed policies on the basis of the State's guidelines, many of which also call for the introduction of mandatory reporting.
It may also be worth pointing out that the church's 1996 framework guidelines were introduced three years before the State's guidelines. Section 2.2.1 of those guidelines states that "In all instances where it is known or suspected that a child has been, or is being, sexually abused ... the matter should be reported to the civil authorities”. Our advice at the time was that to “know” or “suspect” that a child has been or is being abused is to have reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion. Children First, the State’s own guidelines, later spelled out what should be reported in terms of “reasonable grounds for concern”. Having incorporated this criterion into Our Children, Our Church it is our view this does not introduce any change to the 1996 guidelines.
It is also important to note that in Our Children, Our Church it will be the professionally qualified director of child protection who will take responsibility for the process of reporting to the civil authorities and who will continue to liaise with those authorities throughout the management of any particular case. This voluntarily introduces a higher level of professional involvement in the management of all suspicions and allegations than is proposed by the State's guidelines, Children First. As is recommended by the Ferns Report, the bishop is informed that an allegation or suspicion has been received. The actions of the bishop in response to the allegation or suspicion are determined by the advice of the director of child protection after the director has discussed the case with the civil authorities. Our Children, Our Church also makes it absolutely clear that any canonical process should not impede the civil process.
Of particular importance is the fact that the policy recommends that all church personnel, whether clerical or lay, full-time, paid or voluntary, should be vetted. This is a work in progress. At present in the Republic, these checks are carried out by our own child protection office's national training strategy group. This involves the checking of personnel through application forms, declaration forms and references for all those appointed to work in a voluntary or paid capacity whether they are lay, religious and ordained.
However, we recognise the limitations of any checking we undertake in the absence of State provisions for vetting by the Garda. On behalf of the church and as a matter of urgency, I take this opportunity to appeal, as we have before, for the introduction of a system of vetting and clearance similar to the protection of children and vulnerable adults, POCVA, system operated in Northern Ireland.
As Archbishop Brady pointed out at the launch of Our Children, Our Church, the absence of such a system here is a vulnerability which can be exploited by determined abusers of children in either jurisdiction and, as such, should be a matter of the utmost concern to all of us who are committed to the care and protection of children on the island. The Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland participate in the POCVA vetting system in Northern Ireland and we need a similar model for all the island. Indeed a Europe-wide system would be welcome.
Before moving on to consider some of the issues which are more particular to education, I will conclude this part of the presentation by saying that Our Children, Our Church is wholly in keeping with the statutory guidelines in the Republic of Ireland and acknowledges that "all children have a fundamental right to be respected, nurtured, cared for and protected" and that this right "is embedded in Gospel values, international law and domestic law". It is designed primarily for use within those church settings which are not already subject to existing statutory guidelines and regulations, such as schools and certain youth work environments. Training is already under way within dioceses in preparation for the implementation of the new structures. This training is given by accredited personnel who are trained to the standard expected by the HSE of its own training officers and is quality assured by external agencies. Mrs. Kay Hyden will be happy to say more about this in the general discussion.
However, I invite Sr. Eileen Randles to make our presentation on the subject under discussion as it relates to schools.
Sr. Eileen Randles
The majority of children in this country are educated in Catholic primary schools which are under the patronage of the bishop in each diocese. The Catholic secondary schools, which educate just over 51% of all post-primary students, are under the patronage of a religious congregation, a bishop or — in a small number of cases — Catholic lay people. In all cases, the patron appoints the board of management composed of elected parents, elected teachers and a number of others.
Approximately one third of primary schools and half of Catholic secondary schools have lay chairpersons. This number will obviously increase. The boards of management must function in accordance with the Education Act 1998 and with directives from the patron, particularly in the area of the "characteristic spirit" of the school.
The procedures for dealing with allegations or suspicions of any form of child abuse are set out for the schools in guidelines published by the Department of Education and Science based on the document Children First, which was issued by the Department of Health and Children. The document, Our Children, Our Church, confirms that schools are to continue to use the procedures set out for the schools by the Department of Education and Science.
Each board of management is required to adopt as school policy the guidelines issued by the Department of Education and Science. The board is further required to appoint a designated liaison person, DLP — usually the principal — who will act as liaison with outside agencies and as support person for any staff members who may have a concern about child protection issues. The Department will seek confirmation from the schools this month that these steps have been taken, as well as information about in-service support availed of and briefing provided. The detailed procedures laid down to be followed by the designated liaison person are mirrored in the document Our Children, Our Church. We can expand on the procedures in use in schools later if members wish.
Clearly, as the recommendations of the Ferns Report state, the board of management and the designated liaison person need to be familiar with the responsibilities of their roles in child protection as set out in the Department's guidelines. On appointment, each board member receives a copy of these guidelines, which are also provided for each staff member.
In 2001-02, the Department of Education and Science and Department of Health and Children provided in-service days for the designated liaison persons in primary schools as well as information days for the chairpersons of boards of management. All training sessions for new primary boards of management held since 2001 have included input on child protection issues and the Department's guidelines. Support and advice for primary boards of management is provided by the Catholic Primary School Management Association, CPMSA.
At post-primary level, the Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools, AMCSS, provides training for boards of management which includes training in child protection. The Department provided a series of one-day in-service training courses for DLPs which began in October-November 2004, continued in 2005 and will be provided again in 2006. The Department authorised a half day closure of the schools to enable the DLP to brief school staffs on the guidelines.
At the request of school management associations, the Department has funded the appointment of a small number of child protection officers to provide a support service to the post-primary schools. This service provides documentation to facilitate the briefing by DLPs to staff and board members; telephone support for DLPs and boards of management; briefing for principals and chairpersons of boards of management at regional meetings; briefing for entire staffs of a small number of schools or clusters of schools. In addition, the education offices of a number of religious congregations provide briefing and support services for the schools for which they have responsibility.
There is a significant demand from schools for a much greater level of support in such an important area as child protection. It is reasonable to expect that the Department should respond to this need by facilitating arrangements for a continued and expanded support service and a more structured and comprehensive training programme for liaison persons, all school staff and board members. Ongoing training and briefing must become an integral and regular feature of the school system at all levels, keeping pace with personnel changes and with growing insights into the complex issues involved.
In this connection, the Catholic Primary School Management Association has recently asked the Department of Education and Science to initiate a review of the guidelines for schools now in place for six years with a view to incorporating, inter alia, an implementation plan and also a code of best practice for the proactive protection of children, both of which were absent from Children First as published. As a matter of urgency, provisions must also be made for arrangements in the 13 one-teacher primary schools — some of them island schools — in the Republic.
Apart from the issue of school-specific procedures for reporting allegations or suspicions of any form of child abuse, many of the points made in Our Children, Our Church apply also to practices in schools. For example, the following recommendations in the church document are already available or are being prepared in schools — codes of best practice and codes of behaviour for staffs, as recommended also in the Ferns Report; emphasis on keeping of records of all allegations and suspicions of child abuse, also in the Ferns Report; availability of complaints procedures; acceptable use of Internet and computers policies; attention to health and safety issues and safety statements; standardised recruitment procedures; induction programme for new staff; probationary periods for all staff, in line with employment legislation; and training and briefing for boards of management and staff in child protection issues, as we have outlined.
Of course, schools also have anti-bullying policies, codes of behaviour for pupils, policies on the acceptable use of mobile phones, specific policies on child safety issues while on school tours and lines of communication with parents — all of which can impinge on the area of child protection. These policies are developed by each school following an extensive process of consultation with staff, parents, boards of management and, where appropriate, students.
We wish to comment briefly on a number of other points made in the recommendations in the Ferns Report, which relate to schools. We agree with the Ferns Report that a "more open environment of reporting" instances of abuse must be encouraged. We need to facilitate a child in making a disclosure about any abuse suffered. In this connection, we have supported and promoted the Stay Safe programme within primary schools since its introduction in the early 1990s, despite opposition from some groups of parents. The programme is presented in the schools in consultation with parents and in accordance with the school ethos.
In a small minority of schools there is reluctance on the part of the parent body to have the programme taught to the pupils. We are convinced, however, that this programme can enable children to give expression to fears they may have and to describe experiences they may have had. It also empowers children to avoid situations which might or could cause them harm. The Catholic primary school management association has recently indicated to the Department of Education and Science that the compulsory inclusion of the Stay Safe programme in the primary curriculum would be supported by that association.
Relationships and sexuality education, RSE, is now a module of the compulsory social, personal and health education programme prescribed by the Department for all schools. The inspection and monitoring of that programme is a matter for the Department's inspectorate.
The recommendation of the Ferns Report about an open environment of reporting can also be seen as urging clear procedures for the reporting to the appropriate authorities of allegations and suspicions of any form of child abuse which come to the attention of school personnel. Catholic school authorities have undertaken to abide by and apply most rigorously the reporting procedures as prescribed by the Department guidelines, based on Children First, as Bishop O'Reilly has said.
We accept the recommendation 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. As we 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 which applies there to school boards of governors.
School authorities here have called for the vetting of all school personnel for many years. Indeed, school management representatives attended a meeting in the Department of Education and Science on the vetting of school personnel as recently as last week. We realise, of course, that the school's responsibility for checking references and career history would not be eliminated by vetting. However, satisfactory vetting of employees and of potential employees by the Garda Síochána would be a reassurance to the school authorities. We ask that potential members of a board of management be included in the vetting process.
All those responsible for Catholic schools in Ireland accept the principle of the paramountcy of the child's welfare. We are committed to doing everything in our power to protect the children in our care. Our objective is as enunciated in Our Children, Our Church, namely that "where the Church is, children will be safe".
We hope that we have now covered most of the main issues of interest to this committee. I will hand over to Bishop O'Reilly for a brief concluding comment.
Bishop O’Reilly
I thank members of the joint committee for their attention and for their invitation to attend today's meeting. I assure them that we are fully committed to the protection of children. We will deal with all cases that arise in accordance with the State guidelines, Children First, which are incorporated into Our Children, Our Church. We will co-operate with the State on the implementation of the recommendations of the Ferns Report. The committee can be assured there will be no case where something that should have been discussed with the appropriate civil authorities will not be referred to those authorities. Ongoing review is built in to all church documents and practices concerning child protection so that, as the document says, "Where the Church is, children will be safe".
I wish to acknowledge again the ongoing pain of those who have been abused. I wish to reiterate our deepest sorrow that priests, other religious or any church personnel were responsible for the sexual abuse of children. We apologise to those who have suffered, to their families and to all who have suffered through failures in pastoral responsibility on our part in handling these matters.
I thank Bishop O'Reilly for that comprehensive presentation. I will now call members of the joint committee for their questions and comments, before returning to the delegation, if that is agreed.
I welcome Bishop O'Reilly and his colleagues. I welcome his reiteration of the apology for failures in the past. I am conscious that the delegation is just one group or organ of many which have let people down in the past. As to where we go from here, the document Our Children, Our Church is extremely important. I wish to begin by going through some issues concerning that document and I will then deal with the presentations that were made.
On page 8 of the document, the issue of a proper balance between protecting children and respecting the needs of carers and adults is discussed. At some point in the document that issue is elaborated upon, but will the delegation explain it exactly for us today? The section is half way down page 8, beginning with the words "The principles derived from civil sources...". It is stated that the welfare of the child must be paramount but perhaps the delegation could explain that further.
Bishop O’Reilly
Is the Deputy referring to the document Our Children, Our Church?
Yes. I am sorry if Bishop O'Reilly thought I was referring to his presentation.
Bishop O’Reilly
It states that, "A proper balance must be maintained between protecting children and respecting the needs and rights of carers and adults...". The important thing is the last part of that sentence, "where there is a conflict, the welfare of the child must be paramount". However, in respecting and endorsing the paramountcy principle, I do not think we can afford to deny the rights of carers or other people who are working with children. We must protect their rights too, but where there is a conflict the rights and protection of children is the paramount concern.
We might allow members to speak first and then let the delegation come back in to comment on the points that have been raised.
On page 9, the report refers to "The responsibility of every organisation within the church and all church personnel to ensure procedures are applied in their own sphere of activity". This comes back to the point of ultimate responsibility and how one can guarantee sufficient knowledge among all spheres of activity within the church. Later on, the document mentions training and trying to get that knowledge out there, but it is not an easy thing to achieve. Perhaps, therefore, the delegation could expand on that point.
On page 12, the report states that the function of the professional practice committee is "to advise and support religious superiors in deciding the future of church personnel where there has been a conviction or an admission" of something happening. Will the delegation explain how this will work in practice?
It was stated that the review of procedures is not equal to the outcome, but I would question the fairness of that. If there is an appeal to the Supreme Court it is always on a point of law, not on a point of fact, and maybe that is where the delegation is coming from. However, somebody may have quite a genuine concern and it may not have been a procedural issue. It is important that that could be dealt with in a review as well.
I also wish to know what would qualify a person to be a reviewer under that system. What type of skills would be needed for that type of person? While the document is extremely detailed, I would have a concern about a danger of bureaucratising the entire process. There is a national board of child protection, a national office for child protection, a professional practice committee, collaborative units, the child protection management group and the director of child protection, and there is repetition of this at diocesan and at parish level. I suppose it brings me back to the issue of ultimate responsibility and hoping that all those chains of command will work, but it seems there is quite a bit to get through there.
Vetting, with which I will deal, is an issue I have examined. Where possible, the fewer people involved in some ways, the better. That is particularly the case in dealing with a person accused, where an accusation which turns out to be false will not have attained common currency among a considerable number of people along the way. Perhaps the delegation could deal with that point as well.
Who will pick the parish child protection representative and what guarantees are there as to the suitability of the person concerned? Such people will be given a responsible role and function, especially when they have the authority to bring suspicion of abuse to the director of child protection. They are being given quite a big task and with the best will in the world there will be people involved in any parish who may not necessarily be suitable, but it is difficult to decide on their suitability and for whoever is making the appointment to know. How will they deal with that?
On the codes of behaviour for children themselves, I would question the issue of having a young person sign a code of behaviour. I do not like the idea of getting a minor to sign up to something. At a young age, they do not necessarily have the understanding to sign-up to something. I do not have a difficulty with them being told what is acceptable behaviour but I have a difficulty with the issue of signing up to it. It might place too great an onus of responsibility on the child.
The document, on page 45, refers to allegations being "supported by some sort of evidence". One cannot always have evidence because that is the nature of it, especially if something happened in the past where it is one person's word against another's. The document is making the assumption that an allegation "is direct, specific and supported by some sort of evidence" and otherwise the document calls it "suspicion", but I would not agree with that. An allegation can often exist without having hard evidence to support it and it does not necessarily mean that it is not a genuine allegation. I would have a difficulty with that.
I ask the delegation to expand on the following, on page 45 of the document: "The accused person should be treated as innocent unless the contrary is established." Obviously that is a principle of natural justice but where somebody is working within a parish and a serious allegation has been made, it has been the practice in recent years to move the person away from the parish. That obviously is a contradiction of the statement, that the accused person is being treated as innocent. The paramount concern should be the safety of children rather than that the accused person be treated as innocent unless the contrary is established. I wonder where the delegation sees the contrary being established. Is it in court or through the church's own procedures; what defines the establishment of the contrary?
The role of the director of child protection is dealt with on pages 47 and 48. I would have concerns about the decision-making role here for them, and again question the skills required. The director of child protection examines the "reasonable grounds". Point 3 states that no further action will be taken against the accused person where the allegation is clearly untrue. Perhaps that is the church taking on responsibility for something that should be a civil function. With the best will in the world the director of child protection, no matter how good, is not a member of the Garda and will not necessarily have the skills to deal with accusations. While he or she may say this is something that is obviously untrue, that is a considerable responsibility for someone who is not fully qualified to take upon himself or herself; it is something that should remain within the remit of the Garda. That is important from the perspective of the person making the allegation of abuse but also the person who is accused. An allegation should be dealt with properly so that if it is found to be untrue by the civil authorities, it rests there and it is clear that nothing happened. Leaving it at the level of director of child protection could lead to difficulties in itself.
I also wish to deal with the selection procedures for boards of management. That is particularly important in light of the findings of the Ferns Report, the individual cases which the delegation is not here to discuss. A considerable number of the allegations made in that report were against people who gained access to children through the school system and I suppose that is part of our responsibility. The delegation has accepted the principles of vetting, etc. Fr. O'Connor came before the committee in the middle of last year discussing boards of management and issues such as training. While that is really important, I would like to know what exact procedures are in place and how decisions are made at present on the suitability of people to be members, particularly chairpersons, of boards of management. I accept the delegation's point about the importance of ongoing professional development.
Turning to Sr. Randles's report to us today, I welcome that contact has been made with the Department of Education and Science about the Stay Safe programme. It is fundamental that it is compulsory on the primary school curriculum. Having discussed this in different interviews, I am aware of a strong perception that it is individuals within the church itself who do not want to see the Stay Safe programme implemented in particular areas and that there would be pockets of the country where it is less implemented, rather than that one in ten schools around the country is not implementing it. It is fundamental that it is the curriculum and that every school would implement it, and I am glad that the delegation has made a clear statement about that here today. Sr. Randles stated that it involves individual parents in certain schools and I ask her to expand, if possible, on that.
On the issue of vetting, I welcome that the delegation members have clearly stated they will be happy to go through the vetting procedures. Unfortunately, they are not in existence. This committee should contact the Ministers for Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as it falls between the two remits, with a clear statement that we would like to see those vetting procedures implemented. While progress has been made in that regard, I met with the PSNI and the NSPCC in Northern Ireland and their procedures are excellent, better than those in the United Kingdom. The longer we leave them unimplemented here, the more children we leave open to danger. It cannot be hurried enough. The Northern Ireland procedures are extremely good and I see little difficulty in adopting them here, at least in the interim until we get our own procedures in place. Leaving it be is wrong.
I take Bishop O'Reilly's point on the contradictions in terms of the inter-agency groups and the protection for persons reporting child abuse. If we follow through with the vetting and with proper legislative procedures here, we also need to amend the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998 to deal with vulnerable adults. In that amending legislation, we should be able to surmount that problem in bringing forward amendments to that legislation. Perhaps we also could contact the Minister on that matter because that also needs to be done. The two could be done together.
I welcome Bishop O'Reilly and all of his colleagues and thank them for their presentation. Before I start asking questions, I want to support what Deputy Enright said about the two recommendations on vetting and on amending the legislation. Following this meeting, the committee should address those issues and bring them to the attention of the Minister.
I understand we are dealing with a delicate balance of people's right not to be falsely accused and, obviously, of the protection of children. I welcome the bishop's indication that the protection of children is paramount, which is very important. These are complicated issues, as evidenced by the significant documentation in front of us. I support Deputy Enright's comment that we should not make them overly bureaucratic and complicated by introducing too many layers of responsibility because if that were to happen, ultimate responsibility could be difficult to pinpoint. That is absolutely vital in these matters.
My main concern is that Our Children, Our Church diverges from the framework document of the Irish Bishops' Conference in 1996 and the recommendations of the Ferns Report regarding reporting suspicions and allegations of child abuse to the civil authorities. The 1996 framework document states, "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", while the Ferns Report recommended that "All rumours, suspicions and allegations should be reported to the HSE and An Garda Síochána". While the procedures follow Children First on some level, they are not explicit in defining adequately what a reasonable concern entails. The procedures put in place by the Bishop of Ferns, Eamonn Walsh, were strongly welcomed and appeared to follow the framework document. However, Our Children, Our Church states:
The Director of Child Protection, after informing the bishop or religious superior or chairperson of the church organisation, and having established that there are reasonable grounds for concern that child abuse has occurred, must report the allegations to the civil authorities in accordance with the procedures in Section 8.6 of this Chapter.
Bishop O'Reilly has explained this but the original principle should have prevailed, even if there could be legal difficulties, as he said. The principle is clear and protects those wrongly accused, as well as children.
My concern about using an intermediary who is supposed to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for concern centres on how this person defines what constitutes such grounds. The public knows there will be many false allegations because that is the experience. Even if an allegation is reported, it is not necessarily true. I am concerned that there is a difference between the documents. When the Oireachtas discussed the framework document, I very much welcomed the practices implemented by Bishop Walsh in the Ferns diocese but I am concerned that an intermediary will be appointed. I acknowledge, however, Bishop O'Reilly's comment that this is a work in progress and that it is not written in stone but I hope this issue will be re-examined, particularly if the legislation is amended. I also acknowledge that the document is in accordance with State guidelines on child protection but the State is not perfect. What is the definition of "reasonable suspicion"? I presume a great deal of discussion took place on these matters. What training, expertise and qualifications must the director of child protection have to ascertain what is a reasonable concern?
With regard to the difficult issue of dealing with somebody who does not have a criminal conviction but is under suspicion, how will it be decided that he or she is a danger to children? That is probably the $64,000 question and it is difficult to answer because one must also be fair to the accused. At what stage, for example, would a priest or person working in a school be asked to step aside, particularly where he or she is only under suspicion and has not been convicted? Would Bishop O'Reilly expect to have a level of proof? If so, is that level beneath that required to pursue a criminal conviction? I appreciate the questions are difficult and it may not be possible to provide black or white answers but we must grapple with them.
I refer to the Stay Safe programme and the vetting issue. I also welcome Bishop O'Reilly's desire to make the Stay Safe programme compulsory. When Fr. Dan O'Connor wrote to the committee about this issue last November, he stated it was recommended that it should be introduced in all schools. Can anything more be done to persuade schools which have not adopted the programme, for which the church has responsibility, to do so? The State also has an obligation in this regard. The vetting system in place is not as good as it should be in the State. What procedures does the church have to vet persons being considered for school boards of management?
I fully support Deputy Enright's desire for the State to proceed on vetting, as does the church. We want resources in place to ensure a proper vetting procedure is implemented in line with that operated in Northern Ireland. I agree with the bishop that uniform vetting procedures should be introduced, not only in Ireland and Britain but also elsewhere in Europe and beyond because nowadays people can move so easily in search of employment and so on. Presumably, this also happens within churches. Ideally, therefore, an international system should be established, whereby if somebody is included in a sex offenders' register in another country, that information should be made known to the authorities here.
I support previous comments regarding Bishop O'Reilly and the heartfelt apology made. A number of individuals believe the church has not apologised enough but one can only apologise so many times and the proof of the pudding will emerge in the action taken following the apology. The document, Our Children, Our Church, received a widespread welcome, although a number of reservations were expressed, to which I will refer. I welcome the guiding principles, the proposed vetting procedures and the proposed appropriate procedures for selecting candidates for the priesthood and religious life. I also welcome the bishop's comments on the Stay Safe programme. Anything to do with vetting needs to be implemented through legislation. For example, the legislation dealing with the register of persons unsafe to work with children has not yet reached the House. Will the bishop respond to criticisms made by bodies represented on the original working group and others which were not involved?
The question of mandatory reporting is complex and legal issues may arise. The bishop stated, "A number of complex legal and policy issues have yet to be resolved". It might be helpful if he elaborated on these. However, I refer to the underlying principle. Guidelines such as those included in the Children First document published by the Department or Our Children, Our Church are useless without enforcement and inspection procedures. One could argue that the church had the best guidelines in canon law and the Bible and that any member of the religious or clergy who followed the teachings of the church would not have abused children. One could also argue that if there were guidelines in place, clever modern-day abusers would find ways around them. In that context, reporting, in so far as any legal hurdles can be overcome, must be mandatory. Ms Marie Collins, a member of the disbanded working group, suggested the major recommendations in this regard had been filleted and that it should be the job of the Garda Síochána to investigate allegations. The Garda should be in a position to state there are no grounds for making an allegation, that a file has not been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions or that he is not bringing a case. This is another important element because the vast majority of the religious are hard-working and honest individuals who would never touch or harm a child. False accusations have been made in the past.
It appears to outside observers and groups such as One in Four, in particular, that even though the church is sticking to the letter of the law in following the principles of Children First, given the abuse that has come to light during the years, the spirit of the law is not being followed. The church may need to go a little further to show its credentials and prove that expressions of apology are not just platitudes, that a real and honest attempt is being made to ensure abuse will not take place again but that if it does, it will be nipped in the bud as quickly as possible. I would like some honest discourse on where the pitfalls are and what measures could be put in place to allow for mandatory reporting, to prevent criticism for its absence from the guidelines.
My next query relates to another group which welcomed Our Children, Our Church, namely, the ISPCC which was generous in its praise. However, it expressed concern that without the necessary statutory framework being put in place, the policy would not be sufficient in itself. Does the bishop believe, following the establishment of the National Board for Child Protection under Mr. Justice Hederman, that the State now needs to play its part and bring forward legislation in this regard? Even though he has alluded to it, there is an opportunity to be strong by calling on the State to do so. The church has been damned, but not sufficiently so in the view of some. It is up to the Minister for Education and Science in terms of the procedures to be followed within boards of management in schools, or the Minister for Health and Children by putting legislation in place, to deal with the issue.
When responding to the questions other critical groups and I have raised, will the bishop come back with some hard-hitting points on what the Government should do to ensure guidelines have a legal angle? The guidelines included in Children First have not even been placed on a statutory footing. I would like feedback on what the church would like the State to do and whether it would move the religious a little further in terms of providing for what many wish to see, namely, mandatory reporting.
I welcome Bishop O'Reilly, Sr. Eileen and their colleagues and thank them for what was a very interesting and well prepared presentation. We are aware that a vetting unit has been set up in Thurles, County Tipperary, to which at least 40 staff have been appointed — I understand more will be appointed shortly — to address the issues discussed here today.
It is stated on page 45 of Our Children, Our Church that an accused person should be treated as innocent until the contrary is established. Has it not been the practice of bishops to remove an accused priest from a parish until it has been established clearly that the allegation is true or false? It was a matter of concern in my own diocese where in one instance the allegation was false but the priest concerned was removed before the facts had been clearly established. I seek clarification on this point.
Sr. Randles mentioned in her presentation that we should all encourage a more open environment on the issue of reporting. I have no doubt that we all agree with her. Reference is made on page 40 of the document to the seal of confession. It reads as follows:
... and guarantees to the penitent that anything revealed to the confessor will not be divulged to anyone else (canon 983). It is not desirable for the confessor [I am not clear on what is being said here] to undertake to divulge matters revealed in confession, even when the penitent gives consent.
I find it difficult to accept this. While I have full regard for the seal of confession, if the penitent gives consent for the information to be divulged, is it not the duty of the priest to act accordingly? I understand this provides reassurance for the person involved but surely when consent is given for the information to be divulged, the priest should act accordingly. I would like this to be confirmed.
There has been a decline in the level of voluntarism in respect of the training programme provided for parish workers. While credit must be given for the serious work done in parishes to encourage all voluntary participants to participate in the training programme, has the church met with resistance in places, whereby having reared their own children individuals find it difficult to understand the reason they must go through a training process? While they may feel they are under suspicion, training must be provided to convince them that this process is for the common good.
We will suspend the sitting as a vote has just been called in the Chamber.
I welcome the delegation. Usually when it is my turn to speak, the faces of members of delegations begin to go blank but the break in proceedings has probably woken everyone up. I will try to be as succinct as possible.
As previous speakers stated, this is a very serious issue. Public confidence in church management of schools and other institutions has been heavily damaged in the past. It is important to know that the church is taking seriously its responsibility to act on past mistakes and to ensure that all our children are safe.
As a lay person, one of my concerns relates to the power of the Catholic Church hierarchy. The current pontiff's position on the likes of The Da Vinci Code and the Harry Potter series of novels and the meaning of love is well known. However, we have not heard his response to the Ferns Report. I am not being flippant and I do not mean to be disrespectful but as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, CDF, the sexual abuse of minors by priests was his responsibility to investigate from 2001 onwards, when Pope John Paul II charged that body with the task. Media reports suggest that on 18 May 2001, the then Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church reminding them of the strict penalties facing those who reveal confidential details about inquiries into allegations made against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, and indicating that such inquiries are reserved to the jurisdiction of the CDF. The letter extended a prescription, a statute of limitation of ten years, for those crimes.
In the same year, the Catholic Church in Ireland agreed a deal on victims' redress with the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, whose Department published new guidelines for protecting children in schools. However, it was only last December when the Catholic Church published its own guidelines entitled, Our Children, Our Church. These guidelines contain long sections dealing with canon law. Does the delegation understand the public's concern that, under the rules of the hierarchy, priests and religious orders are working professionally in situations where it appears the law of the land comes second to the rules of the church? Does the delegation understand the perception that the Catholic Church acted quickly to cut a financial deal on redress but that it has been slow to act on other elements of ensuring proper conduct in the schools under its jurisdiction?
As a public representative, I am continually lobbied by victims of abuse who were day students in many of these institutions but who do not qualify for redress under the current operation of the scheme. Does the delegation have an opinion on this issue?
Other areas of school management seem to have been overlooked. Why do we never hear opinions expressed by the bishops or the Catholic Church on the subject of school overcrowding, class sizes or the state of school buildings? Are these not important matters?
The study entitled, Time to Listen, included a survey of clergy and produced some startling findings. Most members of the clergy who participated in the survey stated that their initial awareness of child sexual abuse was raised through the media. Does the delegation realise that the general public may find this hard to believe? The survey also found that 45% of bishops and 80% of church personnel reported being satisfied with their handling of past allegations of sexual abuse. Does the delegation of church representatives understand why the general public might not hold the same view? What reassurances can the delegation offer to ensure that the public can be satisfied that in the future children in schools will be in the safest environment possible?
I wish to refer to page 263 of the Ferns Report. It is proposed that each diocese should have a code of conduct for personnel with significant measures of unsupervised access to children. The report concludes that the effectiveness of such a code obviously depends on the ability and willingness of all persons in a community. Can we depend on all Catholic clergy to satisfactorily implement these codes of conduct?
On page 266, the report refers to the issue of the Massachusetts law and states:
The Inquiry believes that consideration should be given by the Legislature to the introduction of a new criminal offence which would apply to situations where any person "wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act."
The Ferns Report recommends that consideration be given to the impact of such a provision in the case of professional conduct of teachers, child care workers and other professionals whose work brings them into contact with children. Does the delegation have a view on the introduction of the Massachusetts legislative provision into Irish law?
A mandatory reporting system has been proposed in the Ferns Report. The Catholic Church response has been the publication of Our Children, Our Church, which details its new child protection procedures. A reference to canon law in chapter 10 of this document has been noted. Which procedures — canon law or civil law — are binding on the members of the clergy? To which law do members of the clergy adhere? Can the committee rest assured that the two codes are not in conflict? This is important in the context of the series of cases highlighted in the media where religious superiors simply moved child abusers from school to school and parish to parish.
Most people will welcome the new safety programme, Keep Safe, run by the child protection office but the roll-out of the training programme seems to be very slow. From reading page 17 of the office's most recent review, it is clear that only four dioceses have protection committees in place. How long does the CPO estimate it will take for every diocese to have such a committee? How long will it take to have Keep Safe trainers in every parish? How many priests involved in teaching or school management have undergone this or other appropriate training?
The Ferns Report refers to the need to deliver management training for bishops. Has any such training been carried out? Is it the role of the CPO or, if not, who holds responsibility in this regard? It is particularly important to ensure the proper implementation of the Department of Education and Science child protection guidelines, which have been in place for almost five years.
I welcome the delegation. We have had a good discussion with many questions to be answered and teased through. I acknowledge that the document represents a good response. Many other good documents have been published but they have not always been implemented. There is an onus on everyone to ensure that such recommendations are implemented to the greatest extent possible. While I might have some questions about the document, I welcome it. As Bishop O'Reilly said, this is a problem with which society, not just the church, must deal. I am sure those in the church may feel they are getting a raw deal because they are the ones being mentioned. At present, the focus is mainly on the church because of the scandals and investigations. We must do what we can in every other area where abuse can occur.
As the organisation at which the finger has been pointed to the greatest extent, what has the church learned? What recommendations would it make to us and other groups? Where does it feel the State is failing? Where can we make improvements? The document states that, in many areas, the church did not go a step further because the State did not go a step further. In those cases, does it recommend that the State should go a step further? What changes do we need to make to our laws?
Questions have been asked about establishing reasonable grounds for concern. The church document is a copy of the State guidelines, with which I have no problem. However, do we need to review this? Do they cover all eventualities or are we missing something? Do we need more categories? Can we improve on it? Is Bishop O'Reilly happy that it reaches the highest standards? The church has learned much from mistakes it made. We must share information as much as possible and make improvements.
I welcome the single national child protection office. While guidelines existed in the past, they seemed to be implemented differently in different areas. It is good to have a national board co-ordinating this. The document refers to an audit by the national board in respect of how the changes will be implemented. Should the audit be carried out by another party such as, for example, a State body? If people still have concerns, it would be easy for somebody outside the board to carry out an audit in order to have the confidence of everyone.
Ms Lynott said that the document would reflect best practice nationally and internationally. How much international consultation — for example, with those in Northern Ireland — took place? We need to understand, from a State and church viewpoint, what other countries are doing better than Ireland.
While I do not really have a difficulty with the mechanism of reporting to the director of child protection, why was that system, which places the onus on that person to take the matter forward, selected? On page 51 of Our Children, Our Church, in section 8.10, which deals with allegations or suspicions not involving church personnel, it is recommended that everybody else go straight to the civil authorities. While I accept that this probably reflects State policy, why did the church decide to have something different for itself?
I have a problem with the director of child protection being just one person in each area. While I am sure that these individuals will be highly qualified and trained, there will still only be one in each area. If I bring a problem to the attention to the director and he or she decides not to take the matter further, for the right or wrong reason, I would be concerned that the matter would stop there. What mechanism exists to ensure that it does not do so? Should I be encouraged to report it not only to that person, who then has the responsibility to act on it, but also to pass it on to somebody else, as a safety measure? If I were also to report it to the director's immediate superior, perhaps the bishop, that person could ask the director what he or she did with the accusation and ask for a report. We do not know who will be appointed as directors of child protection.
Mandatory reporting has its pros and cons. Many other groups also do not want mandatory reporting because it might be unfair. I would like to hear some of the arguments on which the church deliberated on the issue. I accept that it does not exist in State law. However, this is insufficient reason because there might be a need to change our policy. I am not clear as to which is right and I would like to hear the Bishop's view.
I approve of the proposed inter-agency approach, which will allow the various groups to discuss the matter. Many people have questioned whether the review to follow, based on recommendations Nos. 8 and 9 of Ferns Report, is, as Bishop O'Reilly stated, legal and constitutional. Some representatives of the HSE have expressed their doubts as to whether this could be enforced. While I am happy with the concept, I would like to hear how it could work and whether we need to make changes to make it workable. As is often the case when something is finally announced, everyone says they already knew that. However, usually no one had taken action in respect of it.
While it might be wrong and it might infringe on somebody's rights to discuss what might be gossip or the word on the street, very often there is no smoke without fire. Perhaps a closed forum could be established where people could say what they heard. If the accusation is not true or unreasonable, it could be confined to that forum or a procedure could be defined in respect of how to handle it. Such a proposal might make sense.
While the Ferns Report only deals with the clergy, the problem is not limited thereto. If we are to have an inter-agency approach to child abuse, it should relate to everybody in the area. If a rumour is circulating, I would not be bothered as to whether the alleged abuser is part of a particular organisation but I would want the matter dealt with. It is pointless having three or four different bodies. We need to think more broadly than just focusing on the clergy. While others might have a problem with this, if abuse if taking place, I am afraid that we would not get to hear about it. With a combination of all these documents, I am happy that things should go well regarding the church. I want to see what we can do for everyone else. Provided that checks are in place, these documents can probably go there. I presume the HSE and the Garda are examining the matter. Bishop O'Reilly said that approaches had been made to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to obtain advice. The committee also needs to obtain advice to see where we can go. It is part of our job to implement some of these recommendations.
Part 3 of Our Children, Our Church refers to consultation with adults who suffered child abuse at the hands of church personnel. The church's working group met representatives, engaged in discussions, etc. We can probably learn most from victims' groups and victims themselves. How formal were those negotiations and discussions? Does the church, as a body, meet representatives of, for example, the One in Four group, to discuss these matters on a formal basis to try to work with, learn from and understand each other? In media circles, we have seen that there have been some meetings with certain personnel. Is there enough mutual respect to allow both bodies to sit down and discuss things, while understanding from where the other side is coming? We can all discuss the history of this issue — there is no doubt that a great deal of hurt was caused in the past — but we should also be concerned with ensuring that we do the right things in the future. We can learn from the various groups in that regard. It is important that we should get it right as we make progress.
Many groups have contacted their public representatives to ask about the issue of vetting policy. Pressure has been exerted on such organisations by those who will be vetted but that does not affect the need for vetting. We have been told that a vetting unit has been established and that we are moving in the right direction. However, it is not just about people. The right legislation, agenda and number of staff need to be put in place. A start has been made by providing for the recruitment of 40 employees but many more staff are needed if we are to deal with this problem. The process of vetting, which involves a massive procedure, needs to be done in a much quicker and fairer manner. We need to make progress in that regard. I welcome the church's recommendation in its document that we should get our house in order in this area. That is certainly something we must do.
A significant proportion of the document under discussion, Our Children, Our Church, refers to the need to follow the State guidelines. Did the church and Ms Lynott want to go further in that respect? Given that the church is being picked on to a greater extent than any other organisation, I am sure it would like to set an example of the highest standards. Is there a desire to go further with any of the recommendations? Should we be examining anything else?
Deputy Enright referred to the code of conduct that children will be obliged to sign. I can understand why it is needed but it seems quite extreme, particularly as we are dealing with very young people. I would not have a problem with parents being shown the code of conduct and being told that it outlines what is expected of their children. Parents could then make clear to their children exactly what is demanded of them. Perhaps people could sign and agree the code of conduct as a family. To ask children to behave in line with a code of conduct is asking a great deal of them. I agree that codes of conduct would be appropriate to many children in many areas. We could do a great deal of work in the education system and elsewhere to reverse the trend of children having less respect for those who work with them. We need to ensure that parents, who have a major role to play in making young people more responsible for their behaviour, can play a part in that process.
I will conclude on that point, although I may speak again later in order to obtain clarification on certain matters and misunderstandings.
I thank Bishop O'Reilly and the rest of the delegation for the presentation. Some members of the committee spoke about what the State needs to do, an issue that was also raised by the delegation. Bishop O'Reilly said earlier that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is fully in favour of the principle of mandatory reporting where this is protected by law and State policy. Why does the church need to wait for the State to take action? If it favours mandatory reporting, why does it not introduce it now in line with the recommendation in the Ferns Report? As far as I am aware — although I could be incorrect — the Ferns Report does not state that legislation is required. It could be argued that reporting was mandatory before the offence of misprision was abolished a few years ago. What is stopping the church from implementing a policy of mandatory reporting within its own parameters? I would like to ask a similar question about the Stay Safe programme, which the church would like the State to make compulsory. Is the church not in a position to ensure that the programme is implemented in all its schools? Can it not ensure that the boards of management of all such schools are charged with introducing and implementing the programme?
I thank Bishop O'Reilly and Sr. Randles for their presentations. I welcome the publication of Our Children, Our Church. I would like to ask a few questions about certain ideas in order to flush out some misconceptions. A great deal of concern was expressed about the process in the reports that were published after the document was produced. Some people were worried about the length of time the process would take and questions arose as to whether it is protectionist. There has been a degree of misunderstanding, even in the questions that have been asked today. It is clear from Our Children, Our Church that when a person makes a report to a member of the church:
The person who receives an allegation of child abuse should actively encourage the person who is making it to report the matter to the civil authorities. Appropriate arrangements should be made to support them in doing so.
That aspect of the document has, for a variety of reasons, been ignored by many people. We should acknowledge and understand that, in some cases, people might not want to report what has happened to the civil authorities. I would like the members of the delegation to comment on this aspect of the matter, which is not in the public domain. It is clear from the document that the church is not encouraging people to report allegations to it and not any other body. Equally, it is not advocating that investigations should take place within the church and not in any other forum. It is a matter for the person making the allegation.
Some people are concerned that the procedures relating to the director of child protection, such as the timeframe, will allow for stalling and delays. I would like the delegation to elaborate on this aspect of the matter. If the director of child protection decides that an allegation that has been made to the church authorities is vexatious, will the director report the allegation to the civil authorities? Has this been considered? Is it something that will happen? The people against whom vexatious allegations are made are entitled to be protected. If the church becomes aware, by any means, that an allegation has been made to the civil authorities and not to it, will the mechanism whereby the director of child protection initiates an internal church investigation be automatically triggered? Can such a church investigation take place regardless of whether the person making the complaint is willing to participate in the investigation? Will the church attempt to run a parallel process of investigation?
I welcome the delegation's comments on the Stay Safe programme. Some of my children were in national school when the programme was initiated. I attended the meetings that were called to consider the matter with an open mind. I was taken aback when I heard some of the comments made by parents who did not want their children to participate in the programme, although I could understand their arguments. We live in a different society with different family units and different relationships. Unfortunately, some children are not happy with the arrangements that are made for them, which may involve their parents having new partners, etc. Some people at the meetings expressed concerns in that regard. Having initially had an open mind on the matter — I thought it was a great programme — I came out of the meetings acknowledging the right of certain family units to, for whatever reason, make alternative decisions. When we are considering the merits of the Stay Safe programme, we need to place an emphasis at all times on the protection of the child. We should encourage, in every possible way, those who do not want their children to participate in the programme to change their minds.
What does the church propose to do in circumstances in which a criminal conviction is not achieved but where child protection concerns continue to exist? The 1996 guidelines, which meant that a member of the clergy would be asked to step aside in such circumstances, were good. I have observed them in practice in my home diocese. I was at mass one evening when the late Bishop Murphy informed the congregation, in an open and frank manner, that a priest had moved on. It is not always acknowledged that the right approach was taken with the parishioners and the broader church at that time.
I am concerned about the steps that are taken by people on boards of management and those with other roles in the absence of vetting procedures. Are any measures taken in respect of, for example, references? Are those who are being recruited into certain positions subject to a pre-interview process? Have people been recruited to such roles without serious attempts being made to take such steps, even in the absence of the necessary legislation, etc.?
Legislation aside, we still have a moral responsibility to ensure those we place in such positions are vetted, for example, by means of a pre-interview process.
With regard to the training provided for church representatives working with young people, is an active programme in place or have some adults or 17 and 18 year olds working with young people not received training? What is the nature of the training programmes in place? Are they provided by the church and is the church proactive in that regard?
The debate on child sex abuse must be issue driven. We must move away from the focus on individual cases because we are getting bogged down. It is a matter of concern that each bishop is, I understand, supreme in his diocese and answers to Rome, with Archbishop Brady acting as CEO, as it were. How can this be reconciled? Do the bishops have an informal arrangement governing this matter? Does it continue to be the responsibility of individual bishops in individual dioceses?
Many have asked for honesty and truth in examining the past. We must also have honesty and truth in moving forward. Those of us who have read and debated the Ferns Report will have noted that the State delegated its responsibility for the less well-off in the areas of health and education. It is unfair to believe the State and society as a whole were exonerated in the report. As such, we must all bear our responsibilities in this regard. That is the spirit in which we must forward as we try to ensure all agencies in society, whether church or State, provide proper protection for our children.
I wish to indicate, as I did during the recent debate on this issue in the Seanad, my unequivocal acknowledgement of the contribution made by the church and religious authorities to education here both before and since the foundation of the State. They have made an incalculable contribution which is unlikely, given the nature of the current debate, to be fully appreciated at any time in the future. I pay tribute to this enormous contribution without which the standards of education would have not improved in recent decades. Ireland is fortunate to have such high educational standards which have made an important contribution to the State, including in economic and social terms.
Some months ago I read the views of a certain person on child sex abuse allegations and the proportion which referred to people in religious life. I share the view that the church has, perhaps understandably and correctly, been somewhat coy in accepting that the proportion of child sex abuse cases which involve members of religious orders is approximately 5%. One must, therefore, ask about the other 95%. As this meeting was arranged to address the issue of child sex abuse as it relates to clergy and people in religious life, we must focus on that issue.
The questions I intended to ask have already been put but I will focus on two or three issues which have been covered, in some cases by a number of speakers. I will begin with the church's apology. Responses to the apologies given by the church have been varied. Having been remiss in not welcoming Bishop O'Reilly and other members of the delegation, I now acknowledge and accept in good faith the bona fides of the apology given today. The church, like society in general, is trying to get its act together in dealing with the horrible issue of child sex abuse.
It is justifiable, on the grounds of balance and fairness, to link the State with the church in this context. That brings me to Senator Minihan's final point. While it is necessary to focus on the church, it is all too easy to pass the buck and argue that it should give the lead on this issue. I accept it has a major responsibility as regards safeguarding children due to the role it has played, the respect in which it has been held and the trust afforded to the clergy as leaders in society but I do not accept it must give a lead. We, as legislators, have an equal, if not greater, responsibility to give a lead but have not always done so. It has been too convenient for successive Governments, including those led by my party, to shift responsibility, as was done for decades with regard to the institutions in which children were confined. As someone who taught in the south inner city of Dublin in the 1970s, I know what I am talking about. In terms of truancy and related problems, it was all too easy for us, through the Children Court, to consign children to institutions we were not prepared to provide ourselves. I do not wish to dwell on this issue as I covered it in detail in my contribution on the debate on the Ferns Report. Nevertheless, it is important that I repeat my views on the matter on this occasion.
On the issue of canon law versus civil law, the position appears somewhat ambiguous. When this issue became serious and the number of cases of clerical child abuse to enter the public arena increased throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, some spokespersons for the church authorities argued that canon law could justifiably be invoked. In more recent times, however, I understood — correctly — that experts in canon law had strongly indicated that it could never be invoked by any member of a religious order to justify non-compliance with civil law. Will the delegation comment on this matter, given that one or two comments made today appear to cast doubt on my interpretation of what I have read in recent months? I was reassured and consoled by the expert views I had read. I am not an expert on canon law and know little or nothing about it.
With regard to the Stay Safe programme in schools, as a former teacher, it has been my firm view from the time the programme was introduced that it should have been implemented in all schools. Having served on the board of management of a school a long time ago, I was not aware that a facility was in place to give the management board of schools the authority to compel schools to implement the programme. If that is the position, I would be supportive of school boards exercising that power to ensure the programme is taught in their schools. It should be a compulsory part of the school curriculum. There is no reason teachers should have an opportunity to opt out of it, given that, according to the experts who report on such matters, 95% of child sex abuse cases involve non-religious, that is, teachers, those involved in voluntary and sports organisations, the home and so forth. There is a compelling case to require all schools to teach the programme. If there are sensitivities such as those referred to by Senator Minihan, they should be accommodated and overcome using a degree of creativity.
I have been interested in and supportive of the concept of mandatory reporting from the outset. While I am heartened to read in Bishop O'Reilly's statement that the church is also strongly supportive of it, it would be hypocritical of me to call upon the church to introduce the procedure when legislators have not introduced legislation to provide for it. In saying that, I call on the Government and members of all parties to ensure that the amendments to existing legislation are brought forward so that mandatory reporting can be introduced throughout society. This must be done in the context of religious orders, schools, sporting organisations, youth clubs and for every individual or group that has any contact with the care, protection and provision of facilities for children. This is a must. Unless we start there and oblige everybody to do that, I will not point my finger at the church. In view of how strongly the delegation feels about this and given its ongoing communication with Government it should press home this point to it. I would certainly support such a move.
I am somewhat uncomfortable with the role of the director of child protection. It is not that I would wish in any way to cast doubts or put a question mark over the calibre of the person. The process for appointing that person has been outlined here to some extent and in other places. However, I hoped the designated person would be the bishop. That is the only aspect with which I have difficulty. Of course I have difficulty with the absence of reporting but I would put that in context.
I am not happy either with the vetting procedures but I cannot call on the organisation to come forward and be more holistic about this matter if we do not have a proper system fully implemented throughout the country. As people mandated by the public we have a duty of care to ensure we take the lead in this regard. In condemning the group before the committee I also condemn us. That is the point where I would start. I am most interested in what has been said about vetting procedures in Northern Ireland. I am heartened by the group's enthusiastic encouragement to us to consider adopting a similar system here.
There are a number of other points but I have probably gone on for too long. I must apologise as I have to be elsewhere at 2 p.m. I hope I will get an opportunity to read the responses to what I have said.
I thank the members. We will go back to the delegation. I am not sure if its members have individualised all the questions or where the speakers will wish to begin. Perhaps the bishop would like to start and then other members of the delegation can take over as they see fit.
Bishop O’Reilly
I thank the committee members for their close attention to what we said and for their comments. I will ask other members of the group who are more familiar with the details to respond to the questions.
Deputy Enright asked how people would be made aware of the provisions of the policy we have now adopted, and what the procedure would be for publicising that and bringing it to the attention of people everywhere. Perhaps I could link that with the dangers of bureaucracy because that is something of which we were conscious in drawing up the policy. We expressed our concerns to the professional group that worked on this. We are dealing with a large body of people — the whole country — and a certain degree of organisation is necessary to make that awareness universal and to implement all these things. Some of the other members of the delegation who are more familiar with the training programme designed to create this awareness can speak about it.
Mrs. Kay Hyden
I can tie it in and try to answer some of the questions on training. If there is a need to come back on anything, I can do that. A number of questions had similar themes but if I do not address them specifically then the committee members should please come back to me.
It is important to put the training strategy that has been adopted by the Irish Bishops Conference into context, in that it has its origins in 2000 in the youth work sector. An inter-agency training programme was initiated with the church as one of the partners. References were made by members to the Keeping Safe initiative implemented across the youth work sector. Since then, several more initiatives have been contracted with our Northern Ireland colleagues, the Volunteer Development Agency, an external agency that oversees and monitors the delivery of training in consultation with the Open College Network. The programme is an accredited training programme. It is the same training programme that the HSE implemented in 2001, the year following the initiative in the youth work sector.
It is significant that we have our roots in the youth work sector. We recognise the shortfalls in the State guidelines, which have also been accepted by committee members. We support the amendments referred to by the committee. Ireland is unique in Europe in that, unlike other member states, we have a code of good practice for the youth work sector. It is designed to relate to the needs of young people in particular.
Information about the policy will flow by means of a cascade model. In the training programme the idea is that everybody in a parish who works with children and young people would be introduced to a basic awareness session on how to recognise child abuse and how to respond to it, including how to liaise appropriately with the civil authorities. In terms of getting this information out, contact sheets will be put in the porch of every church. There will be mass announcements, bulletin announcements and, critically, parish representatives will be trained to disseminate information and ensure that people in a parish know where to go if a problem arises.
Effective recruitment and management of all those who work with children and young people in parish settings will be critical to the programme. As it stands currently, Our Children, Our Church refers specifically to people who are not already governed by existing State guidelines such as schools or the youth work sector. However, borrowing from the youth work model, we have introduced a consistent approach in terms of application, reference and declaration forms, and pre-interview checks for all those people.
In reply to Deputy Hoctor's question on whether we meet opposition, we meet fear and hesitancy. I cannot say we meet resistance. People are concerned because they are volunteering their time, which is difficult enough. That leads us to a concern that if we do not introduce this properly and in a measured way we will prevent young people from having access to services they need within the local community because people will not volunteer. We introduce the training programme in context. Every step of it is externally quality assured through the Volunteer Development Agency and the Open College Network.
We always examine whether there is an external factor in what we are delivering. While the specific recruitment procedures that I mentioned refer to parish personnel, be they ordained, religious or volunteer, dialogue is ongoing with school personnel in terms of introducing those aspects of Our Children, Our Church that may benefit school procedures. That is something that must be introduced, measured and progressed.
Both Deputies Enright and English referred to children signing a code of conduct. In the development of the guidelines we consulted with a significant number of children across the country from the ages of 12 to 18. One of their concerns was that things were being imposed on them without actively engaging them in the process. If one were to interpret it as simply telling them what they have to do we would not stand a chance of anything being done. I speak from experience as I have three children. Even parenting programmes introduce the concept of family meetings and signed family contracts. We have negotiations in my house about where we will go on holidays. We have votes in which everybody puts his or her name in a hat.
Everything should be age-appropriate and we must involve children, who currently do not feel they are involved in the process. They do not feel they have access to decisions we make that have an impact on their lives. Through the church's consultation process involving children and through our approach by way of training and working with parish personnel, we hope to encourage the active participation of children in church.
The roll-out should be measured. There are currently 14 child protection committees and we anticipate that, by September 2006, there will be a minimum of 18. The process may appear slow because we want it to be consistent and sustained. For it to be sustained it must be enabled to be present within the local community. The idea is to have accredited, trained professionals in every diocese so people will have access to a consistent approach of the same standard that the HSE expects of its own information and advice officers. It is critical that the system be quality-assured externally. This will be ongoing. It is also important that the document have a provision for review. That will be a critical part of the work.
Fr. Timothy Bartlett
Deputy Enright raised a question about the professional practice committee and expressed a particular concern about the review of process rather than outcome. I will very happily raise this point of concern with the new national board. I recollect that the concern arises from questions on what may happen in a civil process following an allegation and anxiety that it be clear that the review by the professional practice committee could not potentially affect the civil outcome. This may not be expressed sufficiently clearly and I will therefore raise it with the national board.
A question was asked about the qualities of the members of the professional practice committee. That committee will be established by the national board, the members of which are experts in a range of fields. It will satisfy itself according to the criteria outlined in the documents. The members are in a position to bring professional competence to the assessment.
Bishop O’Reilly
A question was asked about boards of management of schools and how the members thereof are selected.
Sr. Randles
I will deal with that matter. There is quite a degree of overlap and I might be able to address a number of the points raised. On the appointment of boards of management, the procedures are the same for all patron groups. They have been agreed with the education partners, that is, the parents, teachers' unions and the Department of Education and Science, in accordance with the Education Act 1998. As we are all aware, all members of the boards of management are volunteers and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get people to agree to provide this service, which involves increasing responsibilities and a significant time commitment.
In the absence of formal vetting we must rely on the knowledge of the group in the parish that elects the parents who are to represent parents on the board of management and on those who elect the two community representatives on the board. The teachers elect the teacher. Where the nominees of the patron are concerned, there is a process in every diocese which kicks into action. It used to occur every three years but now occurs every four years. The extension of the term of the board of management to four years was because of the need for training, which costs a lot of money, and the fact that we need people who are familiar with their responsibilities. It was believed an extension would be helpful to keep people who are trained in place slightly longer. The patron gets advice from the diocesan education secretary, one of whom is based in every diocese in the country and who deal with primary education. Advice is also received from the outgoing chairperson of the previous board.
The chairperson is appointed from among the members of the board of management. Whatever knowledge is available in the appointment of the board members will also have been available in the appointment of the chairperson. It is our view that there should be no reason a chairperson of a board or any member of a board per se should have unsupervised access to children. It is the practice that all board members, including the chairperson, abide by the code of conduct in the school regarding unsupervised access to children. The code of conduct would require that nobody would have access to a child on his or her own.
On the training of the boards, the training programmes were jointly funded in the past by the Department of Education and Science, for which funding we were very grateful, and the management association. The State funding was withdrawn but we are living in hope that it may be made available again. Some training is provided specifically regarding child protection by the group responsible for drawing up the Stay Safe programme.
I omitted to say in my presentation that we are in consultation with the child abuse prevention programme working towards a review of the Stay Safe programme. As Ms Hyden stated, we hope to be in a position very soon in which we can avail of training from those who have received the specific training relative to the child protection area.
Our information is that the Stay Safe programme is currently delivered in more than 85% of the schools. We can identify four pockets of resistance, which were referred to. As far as we can establish, the resistance is led by lay people. We do everything we can to encourage the presentation of the Stay Safe programme and we can confirm that in three of the four pockets, the diocesan education secretaries have visited the schools concerned. In the fourth pocket this has not happened, for other reasons, but the bishop is aware of this and we will be addressing the matter.
While the programme is optional, there is a weakness in that if there is sufficient resistance, schools will take the line that they do not have to participate and will not do so to avoid creating hassle for themselves. Hence our support for the proposal that participation in the programme be compulsory.
On Deputy Crowe's point, I do not believe the Department of Education and Science would agree that the church is silent on class sizes, school buildings, shortages of teachers and money. Perhaps we do not broadcast loudly enough but I assure the Deputy we are constantly speaking about these issues.
Individual members, but not the church.
Sr. Randles
Not at all. I was ten years in the position that Reverend Dan O'Connor now holds and I could produce the records of correspondence and publications on those issues.
Fr. Dan O’Connor
I wish to verify what Sr. Randles has said. All the diocesan education secretaries and the INTO representatives have a joint campaign throughout the country on the issue of class size. Presentations are being made in every region by the local INTO executive and the local Catholic Church diocesan education secretary.
The constitutional rules and procedures for boards of management, which have been circulated, are drawn up by the Department of Education and Science in consultation with the education partners. This committee could influence the work of the Department by suggesting possible ways of selecting members of boards of management.
We have been in consultation with the Department of Education and Science on the vetting procedure. It informed us only last week that the office will be able to vet up to 3,000 applications from next September. This will be done on a weekly basis. As for the Stay Safe programme, CPA asked us to set a day aside for the training of all people involved in schools in child abuse protection and we agreed. The difficulty facing us is volunteerism and we must assure people about that.
Another difficulty has arisen for boards of management. When the DPP decides not to proceed against a person whom a board of management has reported, or when the health board writes back to state the report has been made but the result is inconclusive, the board of management faces a painful decision as to what to do with the person it reported. It has been my experience and that of Sr. Randles that after serious consultation, the board of management has always acted in favour of the protection of the child in those issues. Boards of management have had to face that difficult and painful decision. The protection of the child, however, has always been the issue.
In our presentation, we mentioned that when the national guidelines Children First were produced, the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children offered positive training days for the designated liaison person and the chairperson of the board of management. We have written to both Departments and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, asking them to review the Children First guidelines and adjust them in light of the Ferns Report, and to consider offering that service again because it was a successful training event.
Bishop O’Reilly
Questions were raised about consultation with people who had suffered abuse in international or other agencies. Sr. Greene will address those issues.
Sr. Evelyn Greene
I was part of the group working on the document and was present at some of the consultation sessions. We listened to the experts who visited from the US and England and heard of their learning and shared good practice experience on the ground. The chair of the working party and the director of the national office visited the US to see best practice at first hand. We also read in great detail and received oral communication from Australia, where there is an exemplary code of good practice and national guidelines. International consultation took place.
In Ireland, we consulted with many organisations and groups, beginning with children. A listening session was held with a group of children and different members of the group were in attendance at the feedback sessions. We had listening sessions with parents and received feedback from those. We organised many listening sessions with victims' groups which were formally invited to sessions in Dublin and other parts of the country. I was present for two such sessions and we heard at great length the pain and suffering involved for the victims of abuse. We also heard of the desire to achieve closure and move forward with their own lives. They were supportive of the work we were doing at the time. We listened to priests, colleagues of the perpetrators and other professionals on the reality for them. We read in detail the State guidelines from the youth sector, the Department of Education and Science at primary level — post primary guidelines were just in gestation at the time — Our Duty to Care, the guidelines published in Northern Ireland, and Children First here. Wide-ranging research and consultation was carried out. An open invitation was advertised in the press for written submissions which were read in detail and the feedback in them taken on board. Extensive consultation went into the production of the document.
Will that consultation continue, if people want that, now the document has been published?
Ms Hyden
The previous executive director of the office, Mr. Paul Bailey, and the current acting director, Sr. Colette Stevenson, engaged on a number of occasions and had open communication with victims' groups. Our office is accessible at all times.
Bishop O’Reilly
Many people raised the issues surrounding mandatory reporting and we must address this. I will ask Mr. Jack Cleary from the AMCSS to begin that discussion.
Mr. Jack Cleary
I picked up five references. Deputy Enright picked out "supported by some sort of evidence" on page 45 of the document and later made a further reference. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the perception that there may not be continuity between the 1996 document, the Ferns Report recommendations and Our Children, Our Church. She also asked if we could define "reasonable suspicion". There were other references from Deputy Gogarty, who talked about the confusion about mandatory reporting and what is to be reported, from Deputy Crowe, who mentioned mandatory reporting in the context of the Ferns Report, and Deputy English, who talked about reasonable grounds for concern and asked if there are other categories we would like to add to those categories specified in the State guidelines, Children First.
The first thing to state, as has been acknowledged by the committee, is that the contents of Our Children, Our Church are exactly, word for word, the same as Children First and there are good reasons for that. Children First was published in 1999, the year after the enactment of the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act. This Act makes it clear that people are protected unless it is proved that they have not acted reasonably and in good faith. The reasonable grounds for concern followed on from that and define what constitutes reasonable concern. Anyone looking at the five grounds specified in Children First would accept they are reasonable and fair and should encompass anything that has any substance or potential substance to it.
In answer to Deputy English's question as to additional categories, the other side of the coin is that if the State chose to cover matters that do not come within the five criteria specified, such as innuendo, rumour or matters which, according to the Ferns document, could not possibly to be true or are not true, there would be an immediate difficulty from the point of view of the personnel who might be on the receiving end of possible allegations. The committee is aware that the guidelines for post-primary schools involved extensive consultation with the education partners, including the teacher unions. There is already anxiety among personnel in schools as to what would be sufficient to warrant being forwarded to the HSE and/or the Garda. If that were extended to include rumour and innuendo, which by definition do not have a substantial origin, it could raise serious questions about the acceptability of such a policy. Many have suggested that because Children First was published in 1999 it might be time to review and revise it. If that happened, and if the protection for persons reporting was also contemporaneously reviewed and revised, and those matters that could be safely reported were extended, the church would readily amend its guidelines.
If the guidelines were changed to incorporate rumour, innuendo etc., that could legally jeopardise the director of child protection in the case of the church, or the designated liaison person in each school. We would feel neither safe nor confident doing that. That is why the church is waiting for the State to take the next step to push the matter further. The church and education documents have pushed the matter as far as is reasonable and safe. If they are to go further the State must introduce legislative protection for persons reporting, apart from acknowledging the legal and constitutional rights of those who might be accused.
It is reasonable, therefore, that the document requires the matter to be supported by some sort of evidence. The term "reasonable grounds for concern" is glossed. That does not give the director of child protection in the church, or the designated liaison person in the school, the opportunity to decide on his own judgment what constitutes reasonable grounds for concern. It is specific, and if the suspicion or allegation reported fits into any one of those categories it will be reported.
This requirement is as close to mandatory reporting as possible, falling short only in that it is not a criminal offence not to report. Effectively the message for schools and in the church document is that the director of child protection in the church and the designated liaison person in a school have no option but to report matters which fit into these categories.
Sister Randles
I wish to add one point in answer to a concern raised by Senator Minihan. If the designated liaison person in the school context is not sure whether the information warrants being reported, there is a facility for that person to seek advice from the Health Service Executive, without using names.
In the event that the designated liaison person decides not to report, he or she must tell that to the teacher who conveyed the information, giving the reasons it is not being reported. The teacher retains the right in effect to leapfrog the designated liaison person and make the report directly. It is a very restricted discretion which can be overruled.
Fr. Bartlett
Senator Tuffy asked the important question why wait for the State. The church authorities asked themselves the same question. In the Ferns Report Mr. Justice Murphy stated that the inquiry recommends that every effort should be made by legislation to strengthen the more open environment of reporting. He also refers to the need to protect people in the inter-agency review committee by introducing legislation on executive privilege. This acknowledges the need for legislation to protect that process.
I am conscious that several members have mentioned Northern Ireland. I am in the happy position of liaising between the Northern bishops and the authorities, vis-à-vis POCVA and child protection. I am happy to say that all the Northern dioceses are POCVA compliant and participate in POCVA.
The legislation on policy allows for the sharing of soft information which is one of the consequences of being registered for participation in POCVA, following the Soham murders in England. Previously, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland used the pre-employment consultancy service, PECS, a vetting procedure which dealt with convictions and cautions. POCVA goes a step further in the light of the Soham murders by introducing soft information. If an organisation wishes to have a person vetted it must take on the responsibility of providing and sharing that soft information with the civil authorities. There are strict legislative protections for everybody involved in that process.
In discussing child protection and the church with the Northern authorities they pointed out that the inter-agency review committee proposed in the Ferns Report focuses on the clergy. Some members here have mentioned this too. It invites the sharing of innuendo, rumour, suspicion and, controversially, information that is demonstrably untrue. The Health Service Executive is liaising with us about this group which it proposes to establish.
POCVA acts in a similar manner and the church shows that where that is present it will comply. The Northern authorities and other public representatives in the North, across the political traditions, have indicated to me that in the interests of child protection throughout school, and with an eye to equality issues, anything they regard as best practice must be applied to every organisation, church and institution in the State. They do not wish to set up inter-agency review committees with the Catholic Church because they have sufficient legal and procedural systems in place to cover all those eventualities.
There are two other measures in place in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland that the Oireachtas could recommend to the Government as legislators. One is barring, following on vetting, which is the focus of some controversy in England. The second is monitoring. In Northern Ireland there is a comprehensive system called the multi-agency assessment review and management, MASRAM, of people who have been suspected or convicted of child abuse.
The model proposed in the Ferns Report covers all of those functions but, as the Health Service Executive has demonstrated, there is already some legal difficulty about fully operating it. The second difficulty is that if the State regards that as best practice it should be applied to every organisation and person in the State to maximise the protection of children. I make the point with some reluctance, for fear of being seen as defensive, but the point was made to me by the Northern authorities and political representatives. It would be wonderful to see the very just alacrity and speed with which resources have been focused on setting up those committees matched in every other area where children might be at risk.
Bishop O’Reilly
Deputies O'Sullivan, Enright and English, among others, asked about the role of the director of child protection. There seems to be a perception that the person forms a barrier which may impede the reporting of allegations. It is worth clarifying that the director of child protection is the designated liaison person whose role is to report allegations to the civil authorities. As I understand it, the Children First guidelines require organisations to have such a person in place. It was suggested the bishop should be that person, but we did not want the policy to result in the impression being given that the bishop himself will decide whether an allegation is reported. That was the last thing we wanted. We wanted a person who was professionally qualified and whose professional integrity was such that, in liaising with the authorities, there would be a certain independence from the organisation — from the bishops — that would allow the person to make the necessary reports.
Ms Hyden
That is important, but another critical point, as the Senator mentioned, is the notion that everybody is encouraged to go directly to the civil authorities if they know a child is being abused or hurt. That remedy to the civil authorities is available and should be taken up.
Sr. Greene
Also, the Garda cannot act unless a complainant comes forward. That is why it is important to urge the complainant to approach the civil authorities.
Fr. Bartlett
As Senator Minihan has pointed out, once the information has been received, like any citizen who receives such information the church has a responsibility to act. Our first and preferred policy is to encourage people to go directly to the civil authorities but, even if they do not do so, no commitment of confidentiality is given by the church or by any person receiving such information. People are advised what the church will do with the information and that the director of child protection will bring the information to the attention of the civil authorities. We just acknowledge that, as with any citizen, the church has a responsibility to respond to such information no matter how that information was obtained.
Returning to my previous question, I want to ask about a statement on page 40 of the document that, under the seal of confession, it is not desirable for priests to divulge any information even with the consent of the penitent. I imagine the penitent referred to is an abuser who confesses to having carried out abuse, but the document states priests are not encouraged to divulge such information even with the consent of the abuser. I find that hard to accept.
Bishop O’Reilly
I imagine it refers more to a victim who discloses something in confession but, either way, there is a strong concern that the sacredness of the seal of confession, which Deputy Hoctor has acknowledged, should be preserved. The conflict that might arise is more theoretical than practical in the sense that, if someone tells a priest in confession something of obvious concern, the priest can easily ask that person to meet him immediately afterwards to discuss the matter outside confession. The priest might first encourage the person to report the matter independently, as Senator Minihan suggested. However, if the person does not want to do that and does not want to talk to anybody else about it, the priest can encourage the person to meet him afterwards to discuss matters outside the context of confession so that the priest is free — he is not only free but obliged — to report the information.
The other question concerned the role of bishops, as each bishop is lord in his own diocese. The important point is that, at our meeting in June 2005, every bishop in the country signed up to the policy. That is the situation, which is a great advance on what we had before.
Fr. Bartlett
A critical dimension is the accountability in the structures. As someone — I cannot recall who — said previously, without accountability and enforcement these procedures will have limited value. With that very much in mind, and to ensure implementation of the policy, the church is setting up the structure of the national board for child protection, which is to be chaired by a former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Hederman. He and his team will publish an annual audit of the implementation of the policy by every diocese, religious congregation and collaborative unit. It will also be helpful that the national board will put into the public domain statistics on the cases of abuse by church personnel, which will be published annually. The church has imposed on itself a high level of accountability for the implementation of the procedures.
Putting on my former journalist's hat, so to speak, I think one headline that could appear as a result of today's presentation would be Mr. Cleary's assertion that the guidelines in the policy document Our Children, Our Church are as near to mandatory reporting as is possible. I have a few questions on that.
In an earlier question, Deputy Crowe asked whether the various bodies promoted issues such as lower class sizes, but I know from my previous meetings on school issues with Fr. O'Connor that press releases have gone out after those meetings. However, I have never seen prior to today — if this is due to ignorance on my part, please correct me as I simply want the information to be put into the public domain — any press statements issued by either the Irish bishops conference or CORI calling for a system of vetting procedures to bar people from working with children or calling for the Department to introduce a system of monitoring similar to the multi-agency sex offender risk assessment and management procedures, MASRAM.
It seems to me the church is saying that its procedures are as near to mandatory reporting as is possible under the current system and it is up to the State to change that. However, my impression is the church is coming from a defensive position and, if it wants more credibility, it needs to take a position that is a bit more offensive. It is one thing to inform this committee, but a more offensive or proactive approach would be to issue a press statement calling on the State to amend the Children First guidelines immediately so they be put on a statutory footing. That would be seen as a desire to move the process forward and to take it as far as it will go rather than just wait for the State to make a move. Following today's presentation, will the church call for the Children First guidelines to be amended and put on a statutory footing? What view does the delegation have about the fact that failing to report an allegation is not a criminal offence at the moment? In that regard, will the church call for changes to legislation to provide protection for persons who report allegations?
From a PR point of view, even though the number of accusations that are wrongful may be disproportionately lower than the number of accusations that turn out to be right, there is still a disproportionately high number of clergy and religious who have not abused children in any way, shape or form, whether sexually, physically or through neglect. That point has now been made constantly, but the church still seems to be on the defensive. Unless the church goes a bit further, it will be seen to be continually defending itself. This may be just one Deputy's impression of the presentation we have heard today, but this is perhaps not the prime committee for the presentation that has been given. In putting forward its case and in answering the questions that have been asked, the delegation seems to be saying the matter is up to the State. Will the delegation proactively call on the State — publicly and not merely through channels of internal communication — to amend the legislation, leaving no shred of doubt that it is necessary? It should work proactively to ensure that no child is abused. Regardless of whatever guidelines are in place, there should not be an atmosphere in which anyone could ever continue to abuse children.
Bishop O’Reilly
We call for many of the things that the Deputy has mentioned in the statement made today. It is being circulated to the media, if that has not already happened.
We need a single page of key points saying what the delegation seeks.
Bishop O’Reilly
I would entrust that to our communications——
It is on the public record.
I am trying to secure a clarification and some information. Is that the key message that the delegation wishes to send out today?
Bishop O’Reilly
This process has already begun. Fr. O'Connor has already consulted the Department and the Northern bishops have already taken action on this. It has begun and will continue.
Fr. O’Connor
As a result of the debate that took place in England when the Christmas holidays ended, our standing committee had a meeting on 16 January and issued a press statement picked up by John Walshe in the Irish Independent. It called for much of what we have discussed here today. It was not issued defensively but because of our concerns that a situation that occurred in England could happen just as easily in Ireland.
We also have a situation at primary level whereby the designated liaison person, once he or she makes a decision on the five reasonable grounds that a matter must be reported, goes to the civil authorities. All that the person does is inform the chairperson of the board of management that he or she has done so. That is as close as it is possible for us to get to mandatory reporting at present. That message must go out, since the impression has been given in the media that a great deal of authority is still vested in the chairp erson of the board, and that person is but one member. Mr. Cleary has already referred to concern among primary teachers who are designated liaison persons that they need further training in the area. This is an issue where church and State can come together.
The final point I would like to make is that in vetting people to work in schools, and chairpersons of boards in the South, we have certainly got the impression that "soft" information will not be included.
Mr. Cleary
Deputy Gogarty asked whether we are calling for the amendment of the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998. I do not think we could say that, since it is immensely complicated. I referred to a balance of respect for the rights of persons who might end up being the victims of a report that may have no substance. At present, it is reasonable to assume that, unless there is a very wide-ranging debate in society in general regarding whether the gains might justify it. There would be some benefits, although they would be reasonably tenuous if one considers what would happen to the information that would go to the review committee and be noted by it. It would lie there and not be acted on or referred to the HSE or the Garda for investigation. That is my understanding of recommendation No. 10 of the Ferns report.
Matters would go to the review group but simply be noted there. They would not be passed on for investigation. They would obviously be there to accumulate and if other material came to light, it might help. There is a serious balance to be struck, taking account of the rights of individuals not to have what might be vexatious allegations, offhand remarks or rumour, with very little or no substance, passed on to the civil authorities.
We are not calling specifically for extension of the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998. We said that if the Legislature decides, having issued a Green Paper and explored everything — as was done in 1996 and 2000 in respect of mandatory reporting — it could then decide whether to extend the protection. If the protection is extended and if the Children First guidelines are also extended, I have no doubt that church organisations, and many others, such as the Sports Council — which has a fine document — Barnardo's and so on, would revise their documents in that context.
What if there is a rumour or innuendo coming from one location where a person has worked and a similar story from a second or third location? It would only be a rumour or innuendo but how could people have got together and created it? There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that in a minority of cases people are talked about as abusers or as being a little "off" in some way over a period of years, only for it eventually to transpire that they have been involved in abuse. In that context, if the area is to be addressed, would it not also make sense to make recommendations to protect those reporting?
Fr. Bartlett
That is precisely the scenario that led to the introduction of the POCVA system following the Soham murders carried out by Ian Huntley. Disparate information, innuendo and so on in different places are brought together by the civil authorities. Where that exists in legislation and policy, with all the due protections, the church is participating. That is evidence of our will and desire to see, as Bishop Leo O'Reilly said, such a system introduced in this jurisdiction.
Sr. Randles
The majority of allegations reported from a school context will result from disclosures made by children about abuse that they are suffering outside the school context altogether. The number of allegations not reported is negligible. We might be too hung up on the phraseology "reasonable cause for concern". The vast majority of allegations and disclosures made by children are reported. Then the health board comes in and conducts the investigation.
Would a figure of 99% or 98% be involved?
Sr. Randles
I am hesitant to put a percentage on it, since I do not think that anyone has ever counted.
One is too many in some instances.
Sr. Randles
From my experience of advising people about this, the word I would use is "negligible". It would be for extremely obvious and blatant mistakes, such as accusing someone who was not present in the country.
I wish to comment on the point that Fr. O'Connor made. Whatever the number involved, Fr. O'Connor is probably right in saying that examination of the system in this jurisdiction seems to be solely from the perspective of a pre-employment consultancy service. I asked the Taoiseach yesterday and got that answer. I would strongly support the inclusion of soft information.
Does the delegation see it as a real barrier? It is quite explicit in the document that it feels that such information must be used. However, if the State does not do so, does that bar one's way?
Sr. Randles
Certainly, for it to be useful, we would need soft information. However, we recognise that considerable constitutional difficulties must be overcome.
Bishop O’Reilly
It is also important to state that even where a conviction is not secured, in circumstances in which someone has been accused and not convicted, the church does not leave it there. There will be a canonical investigation and many priests are permanently out of ministry who have never been convicted of abuse because of the conclusion of such investigations. That is a fact.
Deputy Crowe raised the question of canon law. That is one place where canon law contributes to the protection of children and where State law cannot take matters any further.
Fr. Bartlett
It is only fair to point out as I did earlier, that the principle of that level of reporting of soft information has been accepted by this Government, in proposing the implementation of the Ferns recommendations — and that standard of reporting in the inter-agency review committee. The church has indicated its willingness to participate on those terms.
The Health Service Executive has drawn our attention to the fact that there may be some legal difficulties that need to be resolved, as did Judge Murphy. However, it is not unreasonable in the interests of the protection of children to ask the question: if it is all right to do it for clergy, who represent 3.7% of those responsible for abusing children, according to the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report's statistics, where is the determination or acceptance in principle? That standard of information and reporting can and should be implemented for everybody else in this State, as it is in Northern Ireland.
Fr. O’Connor
Deputies Enright, English and Gogarty raised the question and gave examples of soft information and then very hard and definite information occurring, suddenly. The Chairman asked whether there was a barrier to using soft information. There certainly is, but it will require a change in legislation.
In the school situation as well the onus is on boards of management, which will have to make painful decisions. As I have said already, and as Bishop O'Reilly pointed out in regard to priests, situations have arisen where allegations have been made against school employees. Nothing conclusive might have happened, but the boards will have had to make very painful decisions, and err, if necessary, in the interests of protecting children. The message should go out from this committee as well, that boards of management must act in a responsible manner.
I asked about management training for bishops. Has this happened or will it happen? It was clearly inadequate as regards the bishops of that time and I just wondered whether there were any developments in this regard. As regards the Massachusetts law as well, has the delegation a view on its relevance as regards reporting?
I also asked about day pupils concerning whom anomalies may arise. I know the State accepts that an individual or institution can act in loco parentis. There are so many victims who do not have the money to go through the legal process, yet who want to tell their stories. They can be left out of the equation because supposedly they are day pupils, yet many of them have suffered the same level of abuse as children in residential care.
Bishop O’Reilly
In the past ten years the bishops have had inputs from a large number of experts in the management of child protection and in the whole area of learning about it. We have undergone a steep learning curve in this regard. We also have had an input from the bishops' committee on child protection and the National Children's Office, which have put in place a significant number of these structures already. A good deal has been done already because of the 1996 guidelines. All of that has enabled us to begin to manage this whole area much more effectively than ever before.
It is far from perfect, but we have certainly learned a good deal in the past ten years. That type of management training for us has been very intensive over that period. We also plan to have further management training in a more general area. In a more general sense we have an annual four-day meeting, not one of our regular business meetings, where we normally engage with a particular subject or project. The proposal for the future is that this should concentrate on this whole management area.
Sr. Randles
I want to inform Deputy Crowe that when the Residential Institutions Redress Board was being set up, we encouraged the Department of Education and Science to include what he described as day schools for children who may have suffered. We had in mind physical abuse which took place in the past, as it was perceived. However, that suggestion was not taken up.
As regards the Massachusetts legislation, in so far as that gives expression to what we are about and trying to put in place, we would have no difficulty with the introduction of such a model here.
I thank everyone who contributed. It was a very detailed and lengthy discussion and perhaps we will have to come back to it for further discussion. On my behalf and on behalf of the committee I thank Bishop O'Reilly and the members of the delegation for their time and co-operation. We have found it beneficial.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.56 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 9 February 2006.