Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and I wish him well. I am sorry Deputy O'Donnell is not here because I listened with some surprise to what she had to say. Her speech was lacking in honesty and I believe it was an attempt to rewrite history. The Progressive Democrats has been in government for the past eight years and bears equal responsibility for the decisions of Government, including the infamous indemnity deal with the religious orders that in effect let them off the hook. The Progressive Democrats must take responsibility for that with Fianna Fáil. They must also take responsibility for trying to have a referendum on abortion passed which would have created a threat to the lives of young desperate pregnant women. That is equally the record of the Progressive Democrats and nothing said this morning can negate that fact. At least Fianna Fáil takes responsibility for what it does, even when it is wrong.

The Ferns Inquiry report is one of the most disturbing documents ever to come into the public domain. The report recites a litany of depravity and pain, cowardice and courage, shameful evasion of duty and quite remarkable dignity and resilience. It paints a picture of how latter day scribes and Pharisees protected their institutional interests and how children suffered grievously and struggled as adults to cope with what had been done to them. In the words of Colm O'Gorman of One in Four:

The Ferns Report speaks of the sexual abuse and rape of children by priests in the Diocese of Ferns spanning a period of forty years. Those children as adults spoke out, many turned to their Bishop, and they were not responded to. In many cases they spoke to others and often their cases came directly or indirectly to the attention of the Garda or the Health Board. The gross failure of the Catholic Church to respond to their complaints and the failure of state agencies to effectively investigate and prevent the abuse of those victims and countless other victims is detailed with forensic insight in the Ferns Report.

With such a report, one looks at the recommendations and whether they will be implemented. However, all of us have a duty to ask the deeper question the report raises. How could this have possibly happened? Much of the answer rests in the existence and exercise of unaccountable power. For too many years, too much of our society was controlled by an institution which exerted too much influence and which saw itself as wholly unaccountable.

We live in different times, but we must not lose sight of the lesson. Where there is power without democratic accountability, that power will be abused. Where there is authority without transparency, that authority becomes oppressive. When we lose sight of the basic principle of equality, human rights will be trampled.

Those who raped and abused the children of Ferns were figures who held responsible positions in society, including in a number of cases the position of school manager. They are people who demanded and received the respect of others. Therefore, the abuse of trust involved here, of parents and their children, is all the more shocking.

Mr. Justice Murphy and his colleagues are entitled to our appreciation and thanks. They in turn have recorded their debt of gratitude to the people who spoke about their experiences of abuse, and so should we. We should also recognise that there is still a hidden reservoir of pain being plumbed. In one week, since publication of this report, the agency One in Four has received 250 new approaches from victims of abuse. During the period from May to September the total number of approaches was 380. Ministers and Catholic bishops have called on abuse victims to come forward, but unless the resources are provided to meet their needs these so far unheard voices will be speaking into the wilderness.

The report is quite clear in stating where the priorities of the Church authorities lay: "By failing to properly identify the problem of child abuse even to colleagues and professionals, Bishops placed the interests of the Church ahead of children whose protection and safety should at all times have been a priority". The Catholic Church may well believe that as an institution it has the right to self-regulate and develop and follow its own internal rules, but we are a democratic society and as such we have a right to ensure that control of our education system is at all times open and accountable to the people.

It is said that a childhood can last a lifetime. For those who have suffered abuse as children, that is true. We know that the terrible effects and the grave psychological damage of having been abused can lead people to suffer throughout their life. The Ferns Report states:

The impact of such abuse can have far reaching consequences, not only for the victim, but also for their relatives and friends. This damage can continue over a period of many years and into subsequent generations.

Since the report was published, the victims of child sexual abuse have heard us express our revulsion that such crimes could be committed against children, our astonishment at the nature and extent of this phenomenon and our determination to ensure it does not continue. If I were one of those victims, I would concentrate on this third aspect. How great is the State's determination to take steps against child abusers and what, specifically, is proposed?

The first issue facing us now is the Dublin inquiry to which the Government has long since committed and has finally announced. The Labour Party welcomes the appointment of Judge Yvonne Murphy, but we are concerned at the restrictive timeframe imposed on the inquiry. It has taken the Minister three years to deliver it and he has no qualms about justifying the delays. However, there is a real danger that the strict limits he is applying to it may prevent it completing its work.

There is another concern. The terms of reference confine the inquiry to examining a sample of "complaints or allegations of child sexual abuse made ... against clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. " This would appear to exclude members of religious orders from the remit of the inquiry.

Let us take a practical example involving three men in religious life against whom allegations of child sexual abuse are made. The first is a Christian Brother who worked in a residential unit. The claims against him will be examined by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The second is a Dublin parish priest, a manager of a national school. His case will be inquired into by the Dublin inquiry. The third is again a Christian Brother who worked in a non-residential school. The allegations made against him, no matter how serious, will not be investigated by either inquiry.

When the Minister first announced this inquiry in 2002, he held preliminary meetings with representatives of the diocese and of CORI. I do not know the purpose of the second meeting since the inquiry announced yesterday has no bearing on CORI members, unless, perhaps, securing such an outcome was the purpose of that meeting. I would be grateful if the Minister would elucidate on this issue.

With regard to the time an inquiry can take, I am conscious of the facts that pertain to an investigation into the Kilcornan centre run by the Brothers of Charity in Galway where there were allegations of sexual abuse of up to 100 residents in the years from 1965 to 1998. These are people with severe physical and intellectual disabilities. In response to the allegations, the Western Health Board established an inquiry. Six and a half years later we still await publication of that report. In 2003 a health board official admitted that the investigations had taken a great deal longer than anticipated. We should know why it is taking so long to publish its findings? Why has no interim report been published and what is being done to address the issue?

On the more general question of what reforms are immediately proposed, it is important to address this question in the light of one of the more sobering statistics quoted by Judge Murphy in his report. According to research undertaken by the College of Surgeons on behalf of two Departments in 2002, the prevalence of child sexual abuse by religious is 3.2% of all reported cases. That figure should not, of course, provide comfort to the religious since they represent nowhere near 3.2% of the adult population. Nonetheless, it should give us cause for thought. The figures published last week on the numbers of children taken into care as a result of sexual abuse are also highly relevant. One does not take a child away from its parents and out of the family home because the child has been abused outside the home by someone who is not a family member.

Mr. Justice Murphy points out that what he calls "third party" abuse of children — the systematic abuse of children outside the family and the family home by third parties in a position of trust and authority over children — represents a small fraction of the abuse occurring in Irish society. That is not to say, however, that it does not constitute a major issue for organisations entrusted with the care of children.

The recommendations set out in the report are addressed to three separate Departments. I will refer in more detail later to the disjointed nature of Government structures for the care and protection of children. My colleagues, Deputies O'Sullivan and Costello, will deal in more detail later this afternoon with the recommendations pertaining to the Departments of Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, respectively. Some of the recommendations in the report relate to the health services. The essential problem in respect of the health services was that although the health boards — now the HSE — had a power to investigate, they did not have a power to intervene or to take other action on foot of their investigations. It seems that, in such circumstances, some of what they did may have been ultra vires. Therefore, the proposed new power to take out barring orders against third parties is welcome. I am not convinced that the HSE's approach to the duty of care it owes to children at risk is adequate. The resources and training given to HSE employees are also insufficient to meet that duty of care.

I would like to speak about a wider structural problem in the health sector. The poor relations within the health services are welfare in general and child welfare, care and protection in particular. It is an accident of history that such services are provided by the Department of Health and Children. Those of us who have tried to compare this country's health expenditure with that of other countries are aware that Ireland's figures are entirely skewed because much of what is classed in this country as health expenditure would be described in other countries as welfare provision. Child care and child protection will not thrive as long as they rank as also-rans within a health service that regards its main role as the provision of primary health care and hospital care to the general population.

Equally, preschool child care will not be taken seriously as long as its delivery is entrusted to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Regardless of the good intentions and dedication of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan — I do not doubt his ability or dedication — at the end of the day he is just a Minister of State operating under three different Departments. He does not have his own budget, he does not have his own legislative programme and he does not have direct access to the Government.

The Public Service Management Act 1997 was supposed to introduce new procedures to enable our system of government to manage better a cross-cutting issue such as child protection. Under that Act, the Government was supposed to be able to make orders assigning functions and responsibility for cross-departmental issues and allocating a team of civil servants dedicated to delivery. Eight years after the legislation was passed, no such order has been made in respect of an obvious issue like child protection, or in respect of any other issue. As long as Departments and Ministers maintain this silo mentality, something as important as the protection of our children, which is the shared responsibility of three Departments or Ministers, will remain the priority of none. I recognise that almost every interest group with an agenda for Government action demands the appointment of a Minister, or a seat at the Cabinet table to put it another way, to deal with the issue in question. It is clear that the present system is not working and needs to be addressed.

The issues which arise from the Ferns Report will not be dealt with in a coherent fashion if they continue to be divided between three Departments, none of which wants responsibility for managing what it perceives to be unmanageable. A single Department of children's affairs would deal with preschool, primary and secondary education, the child care and child protection functions of the health boards and the juvenile justice functions of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It would be able to adopt an approach that encompasses the Breaking the Cycle programme, school truancy, homelessness, juvenile diversion, the Stay Safe programme, children at risk and much more.

The Labour Party's position on this matter is clear — children's voices deserve to be heard, children's rights must be recognised and services to children must be provided coherently and holistically. I do not think the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, or any other Minister of State can guarantee us that this will happen. If that is the lesson we will take from the Ferns Report, I hope it is one we can act on. If legislation is published to protect children, the Labour Party will not be found wanting when it comes to supporting the Government in that regard. It is important, at all times, that there should be honesty about the Government's record and an honest approach to this important issue.

See this speech in context