Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I support the proposal that the Committee on Health and Children and the Committee on Education and Science should have the opportunity to study this extremely good report jointly. They should examine its recommendations in detail. The report not only relates what occurred but also provides a useful examination of the structural aspects of the bodies concerned. In the circumstances, the aforementioned committees are the appropriate fora to undertake a study of the report. I hope that specific recommendations will be made that can be agreed upon and implemented.

Earlier today, Deputy O'Donnell spoke in the slot ordered for the spokesperson of the Progressive Democrats Party. I must assume, therefore, that since that was by an order of the House, she was speaking on behalf of her party in everything she said. If so, I expect that her party will be making proposals to Government concerning the issues she raised. I wonder if Deputy O'Donnell was speaking on behalf of Deputies Sexton, Tim O'Malley, Grealish and Parlon because she was occupying the official slot of the Progressive Democrats Party. None of us should throw out statements in the House on this issue without giving thought and consideration to them within our party structures.

One of the points raised by Deputy O'Donnell concerned the indemnity deal with the religious institutions. I wonder if there will now be a proposal for a fairer balance both in terms of financial and legal responsibility with regard to cases — not just in the redress board, but also legal cases that may arise, which were also covered under that indemnity deal. Members of the House have a responsibility not only for what they say but also for what they do as a result of their remarks.

In an earlier contribution, my colleague, Deputy McManus, referred to gaps that exist in this context. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse deals with institutional abuse, and in addition we have the Ferns Report, the Dublin report and the audit for other dioceses. However, there is no way of investigating religious who were not priests of a diocese but who may have abused their positions of responsibility in schools. This morning, I listened to Mr. Timothy O'Rourke who has long campaigned on behalf of day-pupils in schools. There is a broader issue to be addressed, therefore, and gaps remain. We must learn the lessons of this report and other investigations that have taken place or will occur in future.

The message from this report and the experience of child abuse generally is that there was a terrible imbalance of power in our country in the past and, to some extent, there may still be. Young children were powerless and people in institutions, in this case the Catholic Church, had enormous power and wielded it to abuse children.

I acknowledge that there were very many priests who did not abuse that power, but the structures allowed some priests to do so. We owe it to everybody to ensure a rebalance of power takes place. The State as a democratic entity must play its role in the education system. In the past it did not play an appropriate role but allowed the Catholic Church use its power, and in the cases instanced here, abuse that power.

The report states that in some cases abusing priests availed of their roles in the school system. On page 187 it refers to Canon Clancy who it appears used his position as manager of the local national school to access children as young as nine years of age. On page 164 it states that Father Fortune as curate of Ballymurn was appointed chairman of the board of management of Ballymurn national school. He also gave religious instruction in Bridgetown VEC. These are just two examples in which the priest's role as manager of a school was used to abuse children.

I recently heard a principal of a school in the Ferns diocese on the radio saying he had to make up excuses not to send children to the priest's house because he suspected the priest was abusing children. He did not have the power to face the priest and refuse to send the children to his house. We must address those power structures.

The first way to do so is to give children power by ensuring that the Stay Safe programme runs in all schools. I raised this issue yesterday with the Minister for Education and Science. I do not accept that her Department will not exert its authority to ensure that every child has the protection of the abilities and skills the programme provides for children, parents, teachers and the community.

While I acknowledge that the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science with special responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has worked hard on the vetting procedure, this applies only to those in a few categories in the education system. That needs to be introduced immediately. I agree with Deputy Enright that it should be introduced for volunteers who have power in schools, whether on boards of management or other situations or organisations which have access to young children.

We also need stronger anti-bullying programmes in schools because these matters are related. There is an element of bullying in abuse and if children learn how to stand up to bullies they will have more power to stand up to abuse. We need to examine specific areas with regard to legislation because for example, the churches are largely excluded from the equality legislation. Aspects of the Education Act deal with the ethos of schools. Parents can choose to send their children to schools with a certain ethos, or schools should be allowed to maintain that ethos but parents who choose to send their children to multi-denominational schools also have rights and choices and I echo calls for support for Educate Together.

Within that framework, however, the Department of Education and Science has further responsibilities. Although an ethos should be maintained, the Department cannot give total governance of schools to religious or other bodies. We must examine the structure of boards of management and how we appoint and train teachers, particularly in the primary sector which is denominational.

The bishops choose the chairperson and formally appoint the other members of the boards of management and set up the panels to interview teachers. The State as a democratic entity needs to ensure that it balances the power of the hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church, which do business in a different way. Pages 25 and 26 of the report deal with those structures and the power of individual bishops, some of whom make good choices and decisions, particularly the present Bishop of Ferns and the Archbishop of Dublin. It is not mandatory, however, for bishops to adopt the framework they have agreed.

The strong individual powers within a hierarchical structure are very different from those within a democratic structure. We as legislators, and the Government, must ensure that the democratic structures have a better balance of power within the running of schools than they have now. The joint committees that will deal with the issues raised in this report must consider this in depth.

These matters are also raised on pages 37 and 38 in respect of Canon Law and the constitutional rights of churches. We need to examine the constitutional rights under Article 44.2.5° of churches to order their own affairs. How does this cross over with their role in schools? Are schools parts of church institutions or are they State institutions? Where do these constitutional rights intersect? The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has some knowledge of these matters but it is not clear. We need to know that the State has ultimate control over what happens in schools but we have not reached that point.

There is much more to be said. We need clear structures, protocols and arrangements for conveying information, including "soft information", about people who might abuse children. We need to ensure that information is passed from one place to another where relevant, so that schools and churches are not islands unto themselves, and our democratic responsibility to all the children of the nation is properly followed through. We need to tease out further the important lessons in this document and implement the necessary changes.

See this speech in context