Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this worrying and troubling issue. With the nation, the House shares a sense of shock and horror at six children who were robbed of their childhoods and endured unimaginable suffering within our community. My heart goes out to them because we cannot restore what was taken from them. The House shares this feeling collectively.

That the matter should be fully, comprehensively and swiftly investigated goes without saying. What is at issue is the shape and scope of the investigation. The HSE has appointed a four-person team of inquiry led by the highly respected director of advocacy at Barnardos, Ms Norah Gibbons. Each member of the team brings an important and relevant set of skills and expertise to the task set him or her and is considerably respected. None of these facts is at issue in tonight's debate.

In March 1993, a father was convicted of rape and incest in the Central Criminal Court. The details of the case, which became known as the Kilkenny incest case, gave rise to an outrage similar to that surrounding this most recent case. I was the Minister for Health at the time. I asked then senior counsel, Ms Catherine McGuinness, to lead the investigation into that awful event. The investigation included the head social worker with the former Eastern Health Board, a medical officer of health from the former Midlands Health Board and a senior administrator from the former South Eastern Health Board, the board directly involved. When the report was produced, it was a model of its kind. It was published within approximately two months and debated in the House at the end of May 1993. The report's recommendations are still relevant to this debate.

Deputy Shatter referred to the Kelly Fitzgerald report, which followed some years later. Equally, it is worthy of debate within the context of this discussion. Unfortunately, we do not have time for a broader debate. The fact that the 1993 report was drafted in a way that avoided publicly identifying the victim, her family or the various professionals involved enabled me to publish it in full and immediately.

The Minister of State did not initiate this team of inquiry. Rather, by his request, that was done by the HSE. The team is modelled on the 1993 initiative. All these years later, Deputy Shatter makes a compelling and unanswerable point, namely, that matters have moved on. There is a clear public requirement that no organ of State or group of individuals can inquire into its own activities. In terms of politicians, we set up the Standards in Public Office Commission. After years of arguing, we established the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Regarding doctors, the Medical Council has a lay majority and so on. Confidence in the outcome of any investigation is critical. The voices and needs of victims must be heard and factored into the equation. We need an inquiry that is speedy, but thorough, comprehensive and, above all, has public confidence.

If the proposal tabled by Deputy Shatter is not acceptable, it may be possible to reconstitute or reshape the existing group. In essence, the Kilkenny incest case was an inquiry conducted by Ms Catherine McGuinness, senior counsel, with a plethora of supporters who knew the map of the minefield, what questions to ask and how to go about it, including a medical doctor, a senior social worker and so on. It may be possible to reconstitute the current group, with the investigative team comprising Ms Norah Gibbons and supporters, as with a commission of inquiry in which there is a sole member assisted by a team of investigators. If the Minister of State does not feel minded to go the full way, my suggestion would restore public confidence in the process, which would be important.

Deputy Shatter has discussed a number of the outstanding issues in the difficult matter of protecting children to the extent demanded and required by the public and desired by every Deputy. He rightly mentioned the comprehensive and nationally uniform application of the child protection guidelines. We must all ensure that it becomes the case.

Deputy Shatter and the Minister of State discussed the constitutional amendment on children. None of these matters is simple. I will be honest, as I have heard compelling cases for a rebalancing of the Constitution and for the current balance being better than an alternative. After rereading the 1993 record of the House, I am minded to support the constitutional amendment, but we will have a job to do to get it passed. People in the House will say that they are in favour of it. When push comes to shove, however, and they are told that they will be dismantling the family, there might not be many people knocking on doors to press the issue when it comes to be determined. However, it is right that we should try to shape and advance the constitutional amendment.

While there are good arguments for and against mandatory reporting, I am minded to support it. Deputy Shatter was clearer on this view at an earlier date than I. On balance, it is the right thing to do. The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children is working hard. We produced an interim report on soft information. It is a source of regret that the Government has not acted more speedily to introduce legislation to deal with that issue. It is an issue which we regarded as of such urgency, we extracted it from the body of other important work and asked the Government to legislate quickly.

The following is a point on which I have strong views. This House is a debating Chamber and we often take sides on issues. There are no sides on this issue. As one in this House, we have a simple and clear objective, namely, to protect children as best we can, to put in place as many supports as we can in that regard and to find the resources to do so. There are no political differences on this issue rather, it is a basic and fundamental task we share.

This is an issue on which, uniquely, we can work together. When I say it is an issue on which we can all work together, that is not to suggest we will all reach the same conclusions; we will not. Simple issues to which people put forward simplistic solutions are often not simple. I have said in private in committee and say publicly now that I have changed my view on many of the fundamental issues. We need clear and public debate on this issue, a respect for each other's views on it and a determination to work quickly in that regard.

Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this issue. I recall the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform pushing through without adequate debate the 2006 Act, aspects of which I argued trenchantly against. Unfortunately, I have been proven right. There are a number of critical issues in respect of child protection which we need to address and to get right. I believe that the net issue on which we can pull together, in respect of the awful tragedy in Roscommon, is the establishment of an inquiry system in which the public can have confidence. I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on what has been said in this House so that there is no division about this process, the objective of which we are all agreed upon.

See this speech in context