Mr. Cormac Quinlan:

If I am correct, I think the Deputy is asking about retrospective abuse and the issues with the legislation and those matters. To be clear, retrospective abuse is when a person comes forward today and alleges they were abused in the past, when they were a child, and they are concerned that the person who abused them may be in contact with children today. Our obligation is to try to identify the child today who might be at risk from that individual. When we have an identified child and reasonable grounds to suspect that he or she might be at risk, of course we intervene in the situation and such children go up on our system like any other child referred to our service today.

The secondary issue is that when we have this information, this person might, for example, be in a position of employment where they are working with children or might be part of a youth club. Since the enactment of the legislation, case law has made the interpretation that we have a responsibility to proactively protect children who might be at risk from this person. In doing so, our obligation is to share relevant information with relevant third parties so that they can make a protective decision. We are obliged to consider sharing the information with a school authority, for example, so that it can take protective action against that person in the contact they have with children.

In order to share that soft information, as the Deputy can imagine, we have to have a standard of proof. That is what the court has asked us to ensure. We have to provide an evidential basis in order to be able to share such information because it affects a person's constitutional rights to employment and his or her good name. That is where the legislation is weak, as we have pointed out. We have a clear responsibility but the legislation does not give us authority. If a victim comes forward today and has a concern, they are normally traumatised and upset. They may begin to disclose with us and then step away from the process because of the hurt and harm it causes. We do not have any ability to compel them to come back and speak with us or any powers to compel the person against whom allegation of abuse is being made to come and speak to us. We are working with a responsibility but without powers of obligation.