Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2006

Ferns Report: Presentation.

I welcome Mr. Colm O'Gorman of One in Four to discuss the Ferns Report. I also welcome Ms Deirdre Fitzpatrick, advocacy co-ordinator, Ms Therese Gaynor, clinical director, and Ms Bernadette Morris.

Before I ask our guests to commence their presentation, I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but 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 members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an officially by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. O'Gorman to begin the presentation.

Mr. Colm O’Gorman

I thank the Chairman and the committee for this opportunity to air some issues arising from the publication of the Ferns Report. It has always been our view that the report is such a substantive work that the issues arising from it in terms of child protection need the proper consideration of a committee such as the Joint Committee on Health and Children.

We are eager to move today's discussion on Ferns to examine specifically current child protection practice and legislation, a number of the issues arising from the Ferns Report and others that I have highlighted. We are informed of our views on this matter. When we look back, particularly in terms of how the State has prioritised children and child protection, it is interesting to read a section of the democratic section of the first Dáil Éireann in 1919 which stated that it shall be "the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provisions for the physical, mental and spiritual well being of the children". This was quite an aspiration for the first Dáil to make. It is sad to reflect that our Constitution in 1937 failed to recognise these rights, which has been an ongoing difficulty.

On examining the Ferns Report, what seems clear is that the catalogue of abuses detailed therein were only possible in the main because the State abdicated its primary role in guaranteeing the welfare of children. It failed to put in place proper safeguards for the protection of children and, in particular, seemed unwilling to intervene in matters it often saw as church affairs. When I say the State, I do not necessarily mean Governments. Often there was an attitude in Irish society that these issues were the domain of the church and not something that the State should interfere in. It has been particularly important for us to challenge this mindset over recent years.

I remember looking towards the establishment of the Ferns Inquiry when there was a discussion that the committee might remember about whether it would be constitutional for the State to carry out an investigation of that type, that the Constitution guaranteed churches the right to manage their own affairs and an investigation that examined the management of child protection within the church context might, therefore, be unconstitutional. This may seem farcical at this stage but was a serious consideration in 2002.

The Ferns Report details compelling evidence of the failure of the State to protect its children adequately and how appalling sexual abuse of children occurred despite numerous complaints and allegations to both church and civil authorities. It found that current child protection policy and legislation are almost entirely ineffective in cases of extrafamilial abuse.

The committee will be aware of the detail of the report, which dealt with more than 100 allegations of rape and sexual assault allegedly perpetrated by 26 priests in the diocese of Ferns. Following on from the report, we saw revelations from other dioceses suggesting that almost 300 priests in the Republic had faced allegations of some type. This was extraordinary given the context of where we were at the beginning of this process of inquiry. There is no doubt that there was a particular difficulty in a church context.

What was significant about the Ferns Report in terms of current child protection legislation was that it discovered that in cases of extrafamilial abuse — third party abuse cases, the Health Service Executive, HSE, had no explicit powers of intervention. If it received a report of someone outside the family context abusing a child, all it could do was carry out an investigation and perhaps validate that abuse. Having validated the abuse, it had no powers of intervention. It could only sit on its hands and do nothing to prevent further abuse. The only power the HSE had was implied rather than explicit under the Barr judgment, meaning that the HSE could inform an employer about a concern or allegation but only if it also informed at the same time the person against whom the allegation was made. Beyond this, the HSE had and has no powers of intervention in cases of extrafamilial child abuse.

It is striking that there have been seven inquiries into child abuse over recent years. Referring to the Kilkenny incest case, Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness commented that: "The very emphasis of the rights of the family in the Constitution may consciously or unconsciously be interpreted as giving higher value to the rights of parents than the rights of children." This is within the familial context. It seems the failure in the Constitution to recognise explicitly the inherent and individual rights of children and to require the State to act to safeguard those rights is a contributing factor to failures in current child protection practice and legislation.

Over recent weeks we have heard discussions on List 99, a list of people who should be barred from working with children in the United Kingdom because of the risk they pose. The Minister of State with responsibility for children suggested that although this was a good idea, it would not be possible in Ireland because of constitutional difficulties. Although our Constitution fails to protect children, fails to recognise their inherent rights and particular vulnerability, and fails to place an obligation on the State to safeguard those rights, it prevents significant preventative measures, such as the use of soft information in child protection, which are accepted as good practice in child protection.

We recommend an amendment to the Constitution that recognises the inherent and individual rights of the child and the unique status and vulnerability of the child. Such an amendment should reflect the right of children to live free from abuse and exploitation and affirm the duty of the State to safeguard children from harm. Such an amendment would require that child protection practice and legislation vindicate those rights. Current constitutional guarantees of the right of citizens to their good names may be in conflict with that practice in child protection if we consider some of the comments made last week. Until the State explicitly recognises and affirms the rights of children and deals with the ridiculous situation in our Constitution where, as Ms Justice McGuinness stated, children's rights are often seen as secondary to the rights of others, no legislation, practice or policy has intent of the State behind it.

Existing child protection legislation policy and practice must be reviewed to ensure meaningful intervention in extrafamilial child abuse and retrospective disclosure by adults of past child abuse. The Ombudsman for Children appeared before this committee last week and spoke of complaints received about current child protection practice. In our work, we make referrals to the Health Service Executive, HSE, on ongoing concerns revealed through disclosures by adults of past child abuse. Our work tells us that the approach adopted by various regions of the HSE, the former health board regions, is inconsistent.

Last week, in preparation for appearing before this committee, we decided to examine the Children First guidelines, calling every duty social worker department listed in Children First to see how easy it might be to make a third party disclosure of child abuse. In one day we placed a call to each of the 32 duty social work departments. In 10% of cases we received no answer; in 12% we encountered a voicemail service; in 12% we were offered a call back; 7% of numbers were incorrect, despite being listed in Children First as those of duty social workers; in only 7% of cases details of the concern were taken; in 7% of cases the caller was directed to other services and in 31% of cases no one was available to speak to the caller.

In light of the Ombudsman for Children's statement last week, there are significant difficulties in implementation of policy and practice. Children First is an extraordinary policy and is excellent in many respects apart from the obvious gap in protection in extrafamilial cases. Adequate resources have not been granted and the policy has not been fully implemented. Social workers have not received adequate training or resources to implement the policy.

For example, one person we called took details of a scenario concerning a music teacher. The caller thought there was a concern but was unsure what measures were possible. The person dealing with the call believed it could be possible for the HSE to alert parents in the area of the danger but added that this would have to be verified. This is impossible as the HSE cannot deal with a third party allegation, without investigation, by informing people that an allegation has been made. A social worker in a duty social work department believes this is possible. While I do not wish to attack the integrity or professionalism of social workers, the failure to implement and provide resources for child protection policy engenders patchy provision.

In another case we attempted to make a third party disclosure but the social work team leader suggested we could find ourselves in court and asked if we had consulted a solicitor before making this disclosure as what we said could be construed as defamation. We sought to pass on information on a specific case in which the complainant wished to remain anonymous because of safety fears. The complainant sought to pass on soft information that might help should further concerns arise. The social work team was reluctant to accept this information and suggested it was illegal for us to make the referral. This runs counter to the Children First policy and best practice.

Implementation of current policy needs to be urgently reviewed and we understand this is happening in some regard. A robust review and update of policy and legislation is needed. Ongoing review of policy and implementation is essential to ensure best practice. Unless policy is understood, resourced and implemented, it means very little.

A joint agency approach to child protection is needed. Lip-service has been paid to the idea in this State. Children First requires that the Garda Síochána and the HSE should share information but despite agreement that it would happen, the Ferns Report shows this did not happen, even after 1995. The Ferns Report suggested a process by which we would establish inter-agency review groups. These review groups would comprise representatives of the HSE, the Garda Síochána and the diocese. Such a review group exists in the diocese of Ferns.

The church has suggested that to establish such review groups solely in the context of the Catholic Church might be discriminatory, a view I believe is true. However, it would be sensible to establish such inter-agency review groups in the wider context of child protection. Such groups should include child protection specialists from the HSE, the Garda Síochána and voluntary groups working in child protection. The probation and welfare service could also play a role in post-release supervision and treatment of offenders. This would ensure a joined-up approach.

Inter-agency review groups should retain records of their meetings and collect soft information to best inform child protection. These records should be granted executive privilege. Inter-agency groups would be responsible for individual case reviews and for reporting on child protection practice in each area. A cohesive, coherent process could collate child protection practice and implementation into a national overview.

We suggest the establishment of a national office for child protection, perhaps under the National Children's Office, which could audit child protection policy and submit an annual report to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Unless we constantly review implementation of policy, things go wrong. This committee would be an excellent forum for overseeing current practice, raising concerns and examining policy and recommendations.

Clear anecdotal evidence suggests Children First is not working and is not being fully implemented or applied uniformly. The Government has accepted a significant number of the Ferns Report's recommendations. In particular, it accepted the recommendation for a new express power to allow the Health Service Executive, HSE, to intervene in extrafamilial cases by applying for a High Court application to prevent those who may be a danger to children from working with them. Concerns were raised in some quarters that a power with such oversight might not be appropriate and may raise a civil rights issue. Ongoing review and examination of child protection practices in those cases would be a way around it.

Explicit recognition of the rights of a child through a constitutional amendment would be welcome. We recognise the recent recommendations of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution. However, we share the views of the Ombudsman for Children, Barnardos and other organisations that those recommendations fall a long way short of what is necessary and do not guarantee specific and inherent individual rights.

The Government also promised to make the reckless endangerment of the welfare of the child a new criminal offence. Legislation is valuable and extremely significant. However, it has meaning only if it is properly implemented. We must resource those responsible for child protection to ensure we work to best practice standards.

It is also clear that we must work on public awareness. Every report, inquiry and research, such as the SAVI report published in 2002, suggests we must undertake a programme of public awareness on child abuse to reach a point where we, as citizens of the State, recognise that the protection of all our children is our responsibility, individually and collectively. We must also reach a point where people are assured it is in order to raise a concern and that the best action to take if one has a concern is to contact a duty social worker. It is hoped one would have more success in making contact than we did. A duty social worker will listen to a concern, consider it and deal with it appropriately and professionally.

There is no doubt about the fact that not only in Ferns but in a great many cases, a fear of their words being viewed as an accusation caused people not to raise a concern when clearly there were grounds for doing so. We must inform our opinions and beliefs and reach a point where we recognise that the significance of the child protection issue makes it appropriate to raise a concern and refer the matter to the appropriate authority. The difficulty is that, in the absence of a properly resourced child protection service, often little happens on foot of those complaints. The Stay Safe programme in schools is very important but we now know it is not taught in 20% of schools. There is little understanding of how effective it is and how effectively it is taught.

To value children properly, we must value child protection. Everything will flow from recognising and crediting the rights of children to be safe and be protected and recognising our collective responsibility as a State to protect our children under the most basic instrument of our law.

I thank Mr. O'Gorman. A number of members have indicated. I will begin with Senator Henry and proceed to Deputies Twomey, McManus, Devins and Connolly.

I congratulate Mr. O'Gorman on his presentation. It was most helpful and informative. We can take a number of actions. The situation regarding legislation on intervention in extra-familial cases is not a difficult proposition to put forward to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I brought it forward in the Seanad. None of us meant to leave this out when the Children Act and the Child Care Act were brought forward. It does happen that despite all of us having our wits together, one finds one has left a gap in legislation. We must press the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to introduce an amendment immediately. It was disturbing to see in the Ferns Report that the two doctors in community care had probably acted beyond their powers. In attempting to help the children in Monageer they could have ended up in a serious position. I urge the Chairman to treat this issue as a priority and attempt to have amending legislation brought forward.

I am glad Mr. O'Gorman brought up the issue of the Stay Safe programme. Every now and then I attempt to find out from the Department of Education and Science the number of schools in which it is taught. The answer is always 70% to 80% of schools. It has never varied since its introduction. I do not know how well it is taught or how useful it is. We may have fooled ourselves into thinking we have put in place a protection which in fact is inadequate. I remember when it was introduced that some objections were raised on the grounds that children would inform on their fathers. However, we must find out if their fathers are abusing them. Mr. O'Gorman is correct to state we must address the issue of the rights of the child as opposed to the rights of the family. This is a major issue and would require a constitutional referendum. While it is more difficult for us to act on that, it is possible to promote the Stay Safe programme as it is.

Mr. O'Gorman's statements on the survey conducted with Children First is profoundly depressing. In this country we are inclined to undertake reports, nod them through and believe we have taken action without resources and training. Perhaps they also do so in other countries. This is obviously what is happening here to a serious extent. The Ombudsman for Children's recent remarks regarding complaints to her only reinforces every word Mr. O'Gorman stated. It is extraordinarily worrying. The second matter we can push is obtaining improved resources and training for those involved in Children First.

Regarding High Court applications, Mr. O'Gorman again correctly brought up the situation where people are afraid of making statements about people who are obviously a danger to children. I do not know whether whistle-blower legislation will help. Public awareness is very important. I remember cases from when I first qualified as a doctor which obviously involved child sexual abuse. We had no notion of what we were dealing with. There is still not enough emphasis on it within the professions, not to mind attempting to bring public awareness to the issue. We have shied away from it.

I commend Mr. O'Gorman on his presentation. We can act on amending the Child Care Act. It is easy. We can also act on the Stay Safe programme. That is also not difficult. We can take action on training and resources, which is slightly more difficult. The area of High Court applications is more difficult as it would involve legislation on the reckless endangerment of the welfare of the child and perhaps whistle-blower legislation and a constitutional amendment. We can certainly begin with the easy matters.

I thank Mr. O'Gorman for his presentation. It is unbelievable that after so many years and scandals regarding children, Mr. O'Gorman has informed the committee that nothing is being done for children from the top down and that we need constitutional changes to protect children in many cases of abuse. It has been going on for a long time and we hear nothing about it. Mr. O'Gorman also informed the committee that the legislation in place is half-hearted and does not protect children in the way it is meant to or is not implemented.

Mr. O'Gorman's statement that only one in six calls to duty social workers is answered in any way that could be considered adequate is disgraceful. They are the frontline people who are supposed to identify the children at risk. The rest of the calls, five out of six, are pointless. As we both know well, if first contact fails, the person may not attempt contact again. This percolates down from the top. Public awareness is poor and those working with children, such as teachers and other care workers, are afraid to stand out because they know instinctively that the authorities, namely, the Government and State agencies, have a lukewarm approach to dealing with the issue.

I would like to know if it is because they do not care, there is a lack of resources or a lack of joined-up thinking on the issue. Are there cracks in the system for dealing with child abuse, be they related to constitutional, legislative or resource issues or to a lack of public awareness? Can we sort out this problem?

I found the points made about duty social workers fascinating. I remember hearing of a case where a mother slapped her child in a car in a car park in Dublin. Someone took note of her registration number and informed social workers. That mother was met by social workers when she arrived home. Social workers continued to visit the family to ascertain what problems existed simply because someone reported the mother for slapping her child. On the other hand, the delegation have stated that with regard to sexual abuse, the follow-up is non-existent. That is strange. Has anything changed since all this was brought to our attention in the media?

I thank Mr. O'Gorman and his team for their presentation, which is extremely enlightening and raises very serious questions about progress, or the lack thereof, following on from the Ferns Report. Certain issues are clear-cut and I do not want to go over them again. The constitutional issue, for example, is clear-cut but it would be interesting to hear if Mr. O'Gorman has a proposal for a suitable wording. The legislative issue is also clear-cut. Legislation needs to be passed and that should be done as soon as possible, as Senator Henry has argued.

The implementation issue is the most disturbing one to have emerged at this meeting. We all have an expectation that when changes are made they will work but that clearly is not the case. There is a serious difficulty with the HSE and the vacuum in terms of accountability atlocal level, which we must tackle. I am conscious that there will never be another Councillor O'Halloran, who spoke out — although very few people believed him — at health board level about what was happening in the south east. That ability to speak out is gone. The HSE is now somewhere in outer space and while, from time to time, we get a glimpse of what is happening with the executive, most of the time we have not got the foggiest notion.

The idea that the committee alone could monitor and evaluate progress on an ongoing basis is insufficient. We need to examine how this monitoring can continue in a formalised way and I suggest we invite the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to discuss this issue with the committee.

I was glad to see that the Minister of State was upgraded in terms of his status because he had a fairly lowly status up to now. The fact that the upgrading has occurred is at least a sign of goodwill. We must have a means of evaluating the system, ensuring that resources are put in place and that staff are doing their job to best practice standards. Otherwise, the changes are just window dressing. I suggest we invite the Minister of State and look at the issue of implementation in more detail because this committee is the only body left that can hold the HSE to account. We all complain about the fact that the system is essentially an unaccountable one, but unfortunately that is just the way it is, so we must tease out with the Minister of State ways to ensure ongoing evaluation takes place.

Young children who are being abused now need counselling and I would like the delegation to comment on how speedily the system responds to their needs. There is also a very large body of people who, because of all the media exposure of this issue, are now seeking counselling, which is a very good outcome. Does the system have the capacity to meet that need? There is a very extensive need among those two groups of people and I would like to know what the situation is on the ground in that regard.

Like the other committee members, I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution, of which I am a member, published a report recently and most of the media attention focused its recommendations on the family and the rights of individuals within the family. However, one of the committee's recommendations that was lost sight of in the blur of publicity was that there should be a constitutional amendment to protect and enhance the rights of children. That recommendation has been sent to the Government and perhaps the group's suggestion regarding a constitutional amendment could be worked into that.

I support Deputy McManus's suggestion that we invite the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to outline the up-to-date position on the issues.

I was somewhat surprised to hear that the HSE has no power in cases of extra-familial abuse. Does the HSE not have a duty to report such abuse to the Garda Síochána, who would then investigate the matter? The study carried out by the group is absolutely shocking. Will the delegation outline when the telephone calls were made? Were they made during the day, at night, on weekdays or at weekends? The delegation at one point used the term "soft information" and I would be grateful for a precise explanation of that term.

Both my substantive points have already been raised. I thank the delegation for the report, which I found enlightening and disturbing. The HSE is viewed by the public as a statutory body and it is in a privileged position in the sense that it has access to a wealth of information. People believe that if they pass information on to a statutory body, it will be dealt with by that body. Are the people who make complaints to the HSE told they have brought their information to the wrong place and advised to tell their story to others? It is quite frightening to think, as Dr. Devins has said, that the HSE would not feel it has a moral obligation to notify the Garda authorities of complaints.

Dr. Twomey referred to the issue of people not getting a response to telephone calls and the fact that one in ten calls are not answered and one in eight are transferred to a voicemail system. That indicates a culture that is developing within the entire public service and I am sure that members of this committee are guilty in this respect also. That culture exists and it is grossly frustrating for people. I have no doubt that voicemail is an excellent system but it must be used properly. Perhaps the problem lies with pressures on staff. It is certainly not just duty social workers who are at fault, the problem arises with every Department. Perhaps work pressure is the underlying cause.

Were return calls made on foot of messages left on voicemail systems? Where staff were unavailable to take a call at a particular time, did they ring people back at a later stage or was it the case that the 7% of people who got through were the lucky ones? Was there any follow-up with regard to the remaining 93% of people? It takes a lot of courage to raise such issues in the first instance, to lift the receiver and make a telephone call. If people's initial experience was an inability to make contact, did they give up and are some of them now lost, having been gobbled up by the system?

What is the delegation's view on employee vetting here and the fact that we are not linked into the system in Britain? We source many of our health services staff from Britain and Northern Ireland but we have no access to the vetting records held in that jurisdiction. There are approximately 600 paedophiles in Northern Ireland who know the law and who know they can move across the Border with impunity.

I thank Mr. O'Gorman and his group for their presentation. This is an area in which I have been interested for several years, as have many others. The lack of activity and commitment to address the problem is manifest. People find it extremely difficult to report abuse and they have to think long and hard before doing so. It must be soul-destroying when, after working themselves up to perform this difficult task, they do not receive a response. While this is not surprising, it is appalling. We have received a number of commitments since the Kilkenny incest case but, while we hear positive statements from various organisations and politicians about what they plan to do, it is obvious that the issue has not been prioritised and is not regarded as political. In other words, do those taking a political perspective consider this in a similar manner to other issues? Unfortunately, it is the buck that counts in society today and matters that affect the pocket are more important than the well-being of minorities.

We know from the Ombudsman's report that more than 80% of child abuse is perpetrated within the family or by close members of the local community. We should highlight the effect child abuse has on children and their later life opportunities. Victims suffer depression and low esteem, experience difficulties in relationships and, sometimes, commit suicide. Given the devastation that child abuse can inflict on people throughout their lives, nobody should resist the allocation of resources to that area. Unfortunately, this and other aspects of mental and emotional illness are not political issues in this country. Until we look beyond the Celtic tiger and its success to the difficulties experienced by many people, we cannot justify ourselves as a nation nor can politicians pretend to be concerned with anything other than filling pockets.

Mr. O’Gorman

I shall begin with Senator Henry's comments on whistleblowing legislation, an issue which arises in a broader context than the area of child protection. Effective whistleblowing legislation exists in terms of child protection. The 1998 reporting of child abuse legislation means that anybody who makes a disclosure or referral in good faith and for non-mischievous reasons is protected and cannot be sued or accused of defamation. Considerable sanctions are, however, applicable in the case of people who make mischievous or malicious complaints, as is proper. There are, therefore, protections for people who make complaints as well as against false allegations of child abuse.

Deputy Twomey wondered if the problems arise because people do not care or whether they are due to a lack of joined-up approaches. A common theme in many of the comments from committee members is that the way in which we approach particular issues depends upon how we value them as a society.

Deputy Neville asked whether this is regarded as a political issue but, while it often is, it is managed in a retroactive fashion. It is only when everything has gone horribly wrong and an extraordinary scandal is revealed, such as Ferns, Kilkenny or the institutional care establishments, that we become animated and react to it rather than thinking proactively about how to effectively protect our children. This relates to the need for a purposeful public discussion and an education process on the area of child protection in general.

The Deputy is correct that most people do not really care about this issue because they do not think it impacts on them. No parent wants to imagine the rape or abuse of his or her child. It is one of those awful matters which we do not want to think about so we do not go there. Often, we do not want to think about it with regard to children who are close to us and will not even consider that people we know and love might harm a child. On a human level, we do not want to visit these areas but we must move beyond that problem. We can only do so, individually and collectively, if we know that services exist which are sensitive to broad human needs and are resourced to deal with cases effectively. Why would anybody want to report a case if he or she made a telephone call but could not reach anybody or face our criminal justice system when it deals inadequately with child abuse?

What interventions do we imagine in place for families following disclosure of child abuse? Even in terms of current cases, few interventions are available. Waiting lists for child victim counselling are often considerable and lack provision. There can be very few purposeful interventions at a family level to provide support for the entire family across the breadth of the experience. Joined-up interventions, such as, assessments of alleged perpetrator, victim support services and system supports for non-abusing family members, and to address issues which may arise within the family, are not available. How can we expect people to make disclosures if they are not given help? It simply will not happen.

While I recognise the constitutional amendment we are discussing is probably a difficult measure to achieve, it is of fundamental importance that we start from there. Deputy McManus asked about ensuring accountability, both in terms of the Health Service Executive and in this specific area. The Oireachtas and this committee is one oversight mechanism which can question and examine the implementation of legislation and policy. However, other arms of Government also exist, such as the Judiciary. If the Constitution recognised the basic rights of children to safety and protection, and the duty of the State to safeguard their interests as much as possible, other recourses would be open for individual cases in which rights are not properly protected.

A number of UK cases before the European court involve people who have taken action against their government for its failure to fulfil its obligations to protect them. The Child Care Act 1991 recognises that this State has an obligation to protect its children and the HSE is responsible for children in its areas. The principle therefore exists but it has not yet been underpinned so that the State can be forced to meet its obligation. We believe a constitutional amendment would go a long way towards achieving that. We have placed an obligation on the HSE but have not given it the power to meet it. That is extraordinary and, as Senator Henry noted, nobody imagined when drafting Children First and passing the legislation that we would miss this matter.

Has the organisation carried out much work in terms of changing the Constitution on this issue? Is it a simple matter of holding a referendum at the next election or will there be significant effects on other aspects of the Constitution? Dr. Devins may be able to throw some light on this. Can Mr. O'Gorman share background information on the constitutional change because, while it sounds straightforward, I have a feeling it will become extremely difficult?

Mr. O’Gorman

It will prove difficult. Giving children primary rights may impinge on the constitutional guarantees given to families.

I beg to differ.

Mr. O’Gorman

Excellent. I am delighted.

The committee on the Constitution has examined this issue and made a recommendation. As constituted, children do not have the rights they should have in the Constitution. Our recommendation was specific, that those rights be enhanced by an amendment to the Constitution. Once the legal people have sorted out the wording, that can be done.

Is it straightforward?

Yes. It would call for a referendum but there would be widespread support across all parties for it.

Mr. O’Gorman

There is considerable support for a constitutional amendment to recognise the rights of children. We acknowledge the committee's recommendation for a new clause to be inserted into Article 41. The advised wording is:

All children, irrespective of birth, gender, race or religion, are equal before the law. In all cases where the welfare of the child so requires, regard shall be had to the best interests of the child.

This is progress——

It is not enough.

Mr. O’Gorman

——but it is not enough. It does not recognise or name the explicit rights of children to live free from harm, abuse and exploitation and the State's duty to safeguard their welfare. That must be the approach. There are so many holes in the wording. Who will determine what is in the "best interests" of the child? Existing legislation states the best interests of a child should always be considered, yet we know that it is not working.

It arose from a case that the North Western Health Board took against parents who had refused to have their child tested for phenylketonuria, PKU, in a routine test done shortly after birth. Unfortunately, the Judiciary upheld the rights of the parents. The child was exposed to the danger of missing out on the appropriate early treatment for PKU. I will not elaborate on the workings of the committee, but our philosophy is to insert it into the Constitution and then to underpin it in legislation rather than trying to include everything in the Constitution and have no legislation in place. It is a complex approach. While I take Mr. O'Gorman's point, the actual wording may not be ideal but this can be worked on by the legal experts.

Mr. O’Gorman

Although the Constitution is the foundation of all our laws and the basic instrument that recognises the rights, responsibilities and duties of citizens, it does not recognise the rights of a significant and particularly vulnerable section of our population. That is a basic flaw.

That is why we are making recommendations.

Mr. O’Gorman

Given that so may reports have highlighted the impact of this failure in child protection, it is time to bite the bullet, not to compromise, and take the full step we need to take and explicitly name those rights and the State's obligations in the context of the vulnerability of the child.

I suggest Mr. O'Gorman submit those points to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution in response to what it has done. There is flexibility in the wording.

Absolutely.

Mr. O’Gorman

We will certainly do so. Others have raised similar concerns; Barnardo's and the Ombudsman for Children did the same. Information is soft when there is not enough substance to a concern to make a specific allegation but there is a clear sense that something is wrong.

As politicians, we have much experience of handling soft information.

Mr. O’Gorman

Absolutely. There must be a place where such information can be gathered, contained and dealt with appropriately. In child protection terms, the collection of a lot of information often allows a larger picture to emerge. One never knows which piece of information will be the trigger that will allow the facts to be uncovered. We do not handle this well. Although the Minister of State with special responsibility for children has recognised that soft information is vital in child protection terms, we do not have a way to collate, gather or act on such information effectively.

Deputy McManus asked about counselling capacity. I am grateful for the question which allows us to talk about some of the other impacts of the Ferns Report. I will ask our clinical director, Ms Gaynor, to talk about this in the context of One in Four. Current counselling and psychotherapy capacity does not meet demand. We cannot do much to meet demand immediately but we must do more. The waiting lists to which people are subjected when they seek help for historic or adult disclosures are extraordinary, up to two years long. There are also delays in the case of children, not of up to two years but in some areas we have seen delays of six months to one year in the provision of counselling and psychological support for children, a matter about which CARI has made statements.

That is shocking.

Mr. O’Gorman

Does Ms Gaynor want to speak on that issue?

Ms Therese Gaynor

From the date of publication of the Ferns Report until December there was an increase of over 130% in One in Four in the demand for psychotherapy and counselling. On 21 and 22 December we decided to close our waiting list because we had 74 people on it. When a person contacts One in Four to seek psychotherapy, a first contact assessment is offered to him or her. Although everybody is automatically given information on all the services open to him or her, depending on which part of the country he or she is calling from, 74 decided to remain on our waiting list, rather than being referred to another service. From that date up until yesterday 174 individuals contacted the service seeking either one-to-one or group psychotherapy. We make a recommendation where a person wants to be referred to another service. We have made many referrals to the HSE and other services but many choose to wait for a first contact assessment with us. They are not even on our waiting list.

Mr. O’Gorman

We have had to operate a waiting list for therapy since we first offered the service in February 2003. As Ms Gaynor outlined, we reached the extraordinary situation after the Ferns Report was published where we had a waiting list for a waiting list. As she explained, when somebody first contacts us, we initially arrange a first contact assessment, a clinical assessment of need. Once a therapeutic need has been determined, a person is placed on the waiting list to access therapy. We had 74 on a waiting list in January and a further 174 on a waiting list to access therapy. It is unprecedented.

Mr. O'Gorman has said One in Four closed its waiting list in December. When will it be reopened? Would group therapy at least offer some people access to therapy?

Ms Gaynor

In the last year we ran one mixed group. We now have two. If we had psychotherapists available, we would be able to begin a third immediately, given the number on our waiting list. We also have a unique group called the"allies group" which offers support to individuals supporting someone who has experienced sexual violence.

Are there trained psychotherapists available whom One in Four could employ if it had the resources?

Ms Gaynor

Absolutely.

Mr. O’Gorman

We are looking at how we can increase the human resources available to the organisation. It is an important issue which illustrates the extraordinary need that has to be met. On publication of the Ferns Report, whenever a documentary is aired or a soap opera deals with the issue, there is a huge upsurge in contacts with organisations such as ours, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, etc. Deputy Neville spoke about the social impact. It can be hugely damaging when somebody tries to come forward to report a concern but gets no response when he or she picks up the telephone.

Mr. O'Gorman referred to other organisations. Do they experience the same flood of demand as One in Four?

Mr. O’Gorman

The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre reported an increase of approximately 150% at one point on the back of publication of the Ferns Report. We saw an increase of just over 400% in the demand for psychotherapy services. Advocacy services, Ms Fitzpatrick's area of responsibility, saw an increase in demand of 850%. Our advocacy programme provides practical support based on people's experience of sexual violence. It is, therefore, a point of first contact that leads to referral to the Garda Síochána, the HSE and ancillary support services. It addresses people's practical needs surrounding the legal process or ongoing investigations. For the first time ever we had to put in place a waiting list for the service. From November——

Ms Gaynor

The beginning of December.

Mr. O’Gorman

——we had to take contact details and get back to people.

What is 850% in numbers?

Mr. O’Gorman

It refers to the number of new contacts.

What are the numbers?

Ms Gaynor

Last year approximately 750 individuals accessed the advocacy programme. From the date of publication of the Ferns Report up until December there were 400 contacts. The figure has remained at a similar level since, with 115 contacting the advocacy support service up until last Friday.

Are these new contacts?

Ms Gaynor

Yes. There has not been a let-up.

Mr. O’Gorman

It is extraordinary. We anticipated an increase in demand after publication of the Ferns Report but we could not have forecast such levels which have remained consistent.

Mr. O'Gorman may not be able to answer my next question. Can he estimate the percentage of child abuse cases vis-à-vis the total population?

Mr. O’Gorman

We know that the SAVI, Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland, survey commissioned by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, funded by the Departments of Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and carried out by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland in 2002, showed that 27% of Irish children had had an experience of sexual violence. In addition, it showed that 35% of Irish women and men had had an experience of sexual violence.

Is that is why the organisation is called One in Four?

Mr. O’Gorman

That is correct.

The organisation is trading under false pretences.

Mr. O’Gorman

One in Four gets its name from the 27% figure. It was founded in the United Kingdom. I remember being in Dublin Castle for the launch of SAVI and feeling disconcerted.

Do the figures support this?

Mr. O’Gorman

Absolutely. Even SAVI states it may be a conservative estimate.

My goodness.

The Ombudsman for Children, Ms Emily Logan, only submitted the report. She did not present here. I suggest we invite her, as well as the Minister, to come before the committee.

I shall take it as a recommendation that we invite the Minister of State with special responsibility for children. We agreed in private session to invite Ms Emily Logan. To clarify the point, she was not here today but made a written submission.

Mr. O’Gorman

There was a question about employee vetting. The appropriate exchange of information is the key to protecting children and vulnerable adults. Unless we can develop ways to ensure the proper sharing and exchange of information on an agency basis within the jurisdiction, while linking with services in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, we will fail to protect our children. Only by sharing information and acting responsibly can we do so. Employee vetting is the key. One in Four took the view that as we were working with a vulnerable section of the population, it would be appropriate for us to vet our own employees, but we cannot do so.

Is that because it is a voluntary organisation?

Mr. O’Gorman

Absolutely. In a presentation to the Joint Committee on Education and Science representatives of the Catholic Church also made the point that the lack of vetting mechanisms presented a problem. I do not have much sympathy with that view because vetting depends on the sharing of information. One of the difficulties we have faced has been that relevant information was not shared with statutory agencies. That is why a joint agency approach, involving the appropriate sharing and retaining of information, is the right one. We hear time and again of the need to provide for something as basic as record keeping. Dr. Roderick Murphy said during the swimming inquiry that the maintenance of proper records was essential to ensure child protection, yet we still do not do this effectively.

Ms Deirdre Fitzpatrick

The main limitation is that it is only possible to vet those with convictions, but there is a very low conviction for sexual assault. That means only a very small number will appear on a register. In Northern Ireland there is a register of persons under suspicion or considered unsuitable to work with children. It is called the POCVA system.

People awaiting trial in Northern Ireland are not allowed to work with children. We must look at such a provision here also because it is a serious charge. We should make a recommendation in that regard. Because of our close working relationship, it would be appropriate to link the two systems.

We should invite the Minister to come before the committee. Following his presentation, we should make recommendations based on what we have heard this morning and from Ms Emily Logan. We will try to achieve this within the next two to three weeks.

The organisation is known as One in Four in both Britain and Ireland, despite the very different approaches to the problem. Has any jurisdiction dealt with the issue comprehensively? Has Mr. O'Gorman observed measures in other countries that have seriously addressed the problem? We have talked about constitutional issues, the possibility of introducing legislation, the question of resources and the implementation of policy. Would such measures bring about comprehensive change? Have they been proved to work in other jurisdictions?

Mr. O’Gorman

I cannot speak about any jurisdiction where there has been huge success, although my colleagues may know of examples. The recognition of the phenomenon has been belated, not just here but elsewhere. UK policy, practice and legislation are much more advanced than ours, which is interesting. Having worked in both places, I have observed that the issue is much more political here, yet we do not seem to be making the fundamental changes and legislative provisions that are necessary.

Perpetrator treatment and assessment is a key issue on which we need to focus. Ms Fitzpatrick has mentioned that only a tiny minority of cases result in a conviction. This is another area with which we need to come to grips. If we are only ever going to deal with cases in respect of which there is finally a conviction, we will never deal with the vast majority of cases. The proportion of cases resulting a criminal convictions varies from less than 1% to 4% according to different sources. All of the interventions put in place around working with offenders are only based on between less than 1% and 4% of all cases of child abuse.

People almost have a minimalist approach to the issue and they only appear to deal with what they must. We need to open up to wanting to take the issue on board rather than shying away from it. More often than not, professionals working in the area can feel that they do not want to open a can of worms because they recognise they are not resourced to do so. Everything is, therefore, minimised and closed down. There is no proactive approach taken with regard to child protection. This is not unique to Ireland and it is also the case in other jurisdictions. Given the size of the country's population and in view of what is now our sad and detailed understanding of the issue, perhaps we will become the jurisdiction with a leading light, developing the type of practice that makes a difference.

What does Mr. O'Gorman hope to obtain from the committee in response to his presentation, besides having it invite the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, Emily Logan and others to come before it? Mr. O'Gorman made the point that this joint committee could be the vehicle to move matters along. Is that his view?

Mr. O’Gorman

Absolutely. It appears that the joint committee is uniquely placed to continuously monitor this issue, to review it on an ongoing basis and to invite people to come before it to consider the matter.

We should not do a rehash of the Ferns Report but see the matter as it stands and check progress on a regular basis, perhaps every three months.

Mr. O’Gorman

Absolutely. We have not focused on what we know of the scandal of Ferns and its history because the Ferns Report did so. We must consider how we will move on and deal with the issues that arose. In particular, we should take into account how to deal with the shocking and alarming gaps in our current practice and legislation.

I suggest that the joint committee should invite the people to whom I referred to come before it and that we will then send reports on what occurs to the One in Four group. The witnesses can then feel free to inquire about reappearing before the joint committee to check progress.

Would it be possible for members to obtain the transcripts of this presentation earlier than normal? It is important that we review what has been said.

We will attempt to do so and we will send a transcript of the proposed meeting with the Minister of State and Ms Logan to the One in Four group. After that, the group can contact the joint committee to arrange a meeting.

Mr. O’Gorman

I thank the joint committee.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 February 2006.

Barr
Roinn