Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

I read the Ferns Report on two occasions and join others in praising the courage of those victims of child sexual abuse who have come forward voluntarily to give evidence. These acts of courage were borne out by the judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy. The process was obviously distressing and hurtful and impacted on the private lives of the victims and their families, but their decisions to come forward with evidence have been helpful. A learning process for this society must be at the core of this report. I disagree somewhat with the previous speaker in that this matter is not about prosecuting people per se but is about examining a sorry chapter in the history of the diocese of Ferns and the terrible wrongs perpetrated on a large number of young people.

I also pay tribute to the team who delivered this report, in particular retired judge, Mr. Justice Frank Murphy, formerly of the Supreme Court, Dr. Helen Buckley and Dr. Laraine Joyce. I have read numerous reports over the years but this one is a model of clarity and succinctness. I particularly like the fact that, in one chapter, all of the allegations of abuse are set out, item by item and then, in a later chapter, again on an itemised basis, one can see and easily follow the nature and extent, if any, of the State agency response to that abuse. It is easy to follow and comprehensive.

We should remember that this was not a typical judicial inquiry, in that it was entirely voluntary in nature. In that context, I wish to refer to a section from Chapter 8, Conclusions and Recommendations, which states:

The persons against whom the allegations were made were not given an opportunity to confront or cross-examine the complainants in the course of this Inquiry. The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry require it to identify the allegations of child sexual abuse as reported and to consider the response to those allegations by the appropriate authorities. Such response could not be predicated on proving the truth or otherwise of such allegations. The Inquiry does not express, and was not required to express any view as to the truth or otherwise of any allegation.

Therefore, judicially, all of these allegations are actually unproven. They may have been given under oath and so on but they are not proven in the sense that evidence was properly taken either in a court of law or before a judicial inquiry. That is as it should have been because the key point is for the State to look at itself and see whether the response of its agencies — the Department of Health and Children, the health boards and, in particular, the Garda Síochána — was adequate. All Members of the House who read the report can see that the response varied from case to case.

I wish to focus on the response of the Garda authorities. They are criticised quite strongly, particularly in terms of keeping inadequate records. There also seems to have been a reluctance to investigate in certain cases, particularly those dating from before 1960. In fairness, however, if one reads the chapter where all the responses of the Garda authorities are detailed, the inquiry finds that most of the responses were quite good or quite adequate. In fact, the word "adequate" is used a great deal. Therefore, other than the unacceptable failure to keep records and the pre-1960 reluctance to investigate, it seems that Garda investigations were fairly adequate.

Unfortunately, not enough people were prosecuted for abuse at the time. Formal complaints were made in respect of ten priests and seven investigations were conducted. No prosecution arose in one case, the remaining six were prosecuted, with only three criminal convictions secured. As part of the lessons for the State, we must acknowledge that the number of convictions was very small.

I welcome the setting up of the commission of investigation, under Ms Justice Yvonne Hardiman, into the Dublin diocese in the period 1975 to 2004. I read the comprehensive speech delivered by the Minister of State, Mr. Brian Lenihan, and accept his statement that:

It is proposed that the commission may investigate the situation in any Catholic diocese in the State following a notification from my office that the diocese may not be implementing church guidelines on child sexual abuse by a priest or religious or a notification that a diocese may not be implementing satisfactorily the recommendations of the Ferns Report.

I was not totally happy with that paragraph, however, because it appears to be putting the onus back on the church authorities to police themselves.

More importantly, perhaps, I wish to repeat a question posed in The Irish Times today. Why is there only an investigation into the Dublin diocese? I do not know the answer to that question. It is possible that clerical child abuse may have been a widespread practice in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, is there not a case for a more general investigation? This is not a question, as the Minister of State also argued, of a grand inquisition into the Catholic Church. Rather, we need to look at ourselves, as a regulatory body and as a State, to see how we responded to allegations of child sexual abuse in every diocese. I understand that the new commission of investigation will only examine the period between 1975 and 2004. I hope the Minister can indicate why earlier periods are excluded. Why are the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s not included in the investigation?

In general terms, I agree with what the Minister of State said. I too am appalled, shocked and dismayed by what I read. The report is a document of the utmost seriousness. By and large, the State and the monitoring agencies did not put adequate or timely monitoring procedures in place to stop the abuse. I do not believe we can ever completely stop it. However, all organisations, within their own cultures, must want to prevent a situation where this kind of thing can happen.

It is sad that it was the State, and not the church, that brought forward this document. The church has learned and has moved on. However, it is healthy for us to have this debate and I hope we will learn more and improve the situation for the benefit of the children of this country in the future.

See this speech in context