Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

This is the second time within the space of a just a few months that we have come into the House to debate a report which outlines an appalling story of the abuse of young children; the second time within a few months that the public has been shocked to its core by what has emerged.

In the case of the Ryan report, it was a shocking and sordid saga of the systematic abuse and neglect of thousands of Irish children who were handed over by the State into the custody of religious orders over a period of more than three decades. In the case of the Murphy report, it is an equally shocking account of the systematic sexual abuse of young children in the archdiocese of Dublin and what was clearly a cold and calculated attempt to cover up offences, protect the abusers and leave children exposed to further danger and attack.

The uncovering of systematic abuse of children is a test as to whether the State has finally come of age and abandoned its decades-long practice of deference and subservience to authority. The real test for us in these situations is whether we, as a Parliament, and the Government, as the Executive authority in the country, are prepared to learn the appropriate lessons and to take steps, to the extent that this is possible, to ease the damage done to victims and to ensure that such abuses can never occur again.

It is true that the very act of commissioning a statutory report into the handling by church authorities of allegations and suspicions of child sexual abuse by clerics was a major milestone. That would have been inconceivable a generation ago, but it is not good enough to publish the report, express our collective shock and horror and then leave it at that.

When the Ryan report was published last July, I spoke about this culture of deference that had, for far too long, characterised the relationship between church and State. I also said that Judge Ryan's report had put paid, once and for all, to the illusions some might still have harboured that the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children could be explained away as the isolated actions of some abusive individuals. The overwhelming evidence of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was that abuse was the culture of these institutions, not the exception. The other fact laid so clearly before us by the Ryan report was how the wider Irish society colluded with the incarceration and abuse of children in religious institutions.

A blind eye was turned by all institutions of authority and by society at large. Again and again, the needs of the religious congregations which ran the institutions were put before the needs of the vulnerable children in their care, and not just by the congregations themselves. That deference to authority and the silence it engendered cost tens of thousands of children their childhoods and, for many, their chance to live a full and healthy life as adults. Judges Ryan and Murphy have ensured that we know now the full horror – the systematic terror and abuse – that characterised the lives of so many vulnerable children at the hands of those who were supposed to promote and protect their welfare.

We have a duty to make amends to these survivors. We know now what Judge Murphy and her colleagues have uncovered and we are grateful to them for their hard work for more than three years. The question is what we do with that knowledge and how we re-orient the structures of our State and our public services to ensure this can never happen again. The Murphy report makes grim reading. Its central finding is that it is abundantly clear that child sexual abuse by clerics in the Dublin Archdiocese was widespread throughout the period from 1975 to 2004.

The Murphy commission considered and rejected the excuses offered by the church for its actions and inaction in response to this widespread criminal activity. _The commission rejected the claim that archdiocesan officials lacked an appreciation of the phenomenon of clerical child sex abuse or its scale. It considered and rejected the claim that church authorities were "on a learning curve" about the matter. It pointed out that taking out insurance was an act proving knowledge of child sexual abuse as a potential major cost to the archdiocese. _The commission considered the role of canon law and discovered that, rather than sheltering behind the rules of the church, the archdiocese had not even implemented its own canon law rules. The rules of the church had "fallen into disuse and disrespect".

The commission's conclusion is that the archdiocese's preoccupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church and the preservation of its assets. It states: "All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities." The reaction of church authorities to reports of clerical child sexual abuse was to ensure that as few people as possible knew of the individual priest's problem. There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest. Complainants were met with denial, arrogance and cover-up, and with incompetence and incomprehension in some cases. Suspicions were rarely acted on.

The report also makes it clear there were very significant failures on the part of the State authorities. It is clear that Garda authorities, in particular, connived in this practice of cover-up. There were inappropriate contacts between the Garda and the archdiocese, and the relationship between some senior gardaí and some priests and bishops was inappropriate. A number of very senior members of the Garda clearly regarded priests as being outside their remit. Against that backdrop, particular credit is due to those gardaí, most of whom were lower rank, who did their duty without fear or favour.

It was not until November 1995 that Archbishop Connell allowed the names of 17 priests about whom the archdiocese had received complaints to be given to the Garda. However, even at that stage, the figure was not complete. At that time there was knowledge within the archdiocese of at least 28 priests against whom there had been complaints. In summary, there is no arguing with the conclusions of the Murphy commission that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin over much of the last quarter of the last century; _that the State authorities facilitated the cover-up, by not ensuring that the law was applied equally to all and by allowing church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes; _that the welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered; and _that the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution and the priests. In particular, I welcome and endorse the commissioners' remarks:

In the mid 1990s, a light began to be shone on the scandal and the cover up. Gradually, the story has unfolded. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no similar institutional immunity is ever allowed to occur again. This can be ensured only if all institutions are open to scrutiny and not accorded an exempted status by any organs of the State.

As public representatives and legislators we have a particular responsibility. It is not enough for us to identify and decry the wrongdoings of the past, especially the wrongdoings of others. This report, together with the earlier report of the Ryan commission and a number of other reports published over the years dealing with child protection and the lack of it, should set a Government and Oireachtas agenda for action. I will identify some examples.

First, the Murphy report points out that the HSE has only a very minor role in dealing with child sexual abuse by non-family members. It remarks that the HSE has given the impression to church authorities and the Garda that it can do more in the area than it actually has the power to do. The report says that the legislation governing the role of the HSE is inadequate, even for that limited role. Specifically, the Child Care Act 1991 does not sufficiently clarify the powers and duties of the health authorities. We must, therefore, legislate to clarify exactly what the role of the HSE is with regard to non-family abusers and to set out clearly the powers it has to implement that role.

In that regard, I note that the Government response to the Ryan report was published on 28 July. It contains 99 commitments, but only one of these is a commitment to law reform. That commitment, that public servants and employees of publicly funded bodies must adhere to the Children First guidelines, will have no impact on persons or bodies which do not receive public funds and which have authority over children. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, and the Government must re-examine their priorities on foot of the Murphy report and must strengthen the remit and powers of the HSE and other State agencies. Whatever else we have learned, we are all surely in agreement that the State has the primary responsibility for ensuring that children are protected from sexual abuse and that when abuse does take place it is properly investigated and appropriate action is taken.

Second, the legislation to deal with the exchange and use of "soft" information by regulatory bodies, as recommended by the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children in 2008, is clearly relevant and necessary. The legislation must be brought forward as a matter of urgency.

Third, shocking as the extent of the abuse that has been revealed is, I believe the organised cover-up will cause most anger. Innocent children continued to be exposed to the risk of serious sexual abuse. It is true that many of those who were involved directly in the abuse and in the cover-up are now dead and no longer amenable to the law. However, there is an obligation on the State authorities to make up for its previous failings by now ensuring that anyone still alive who was involved in the abuse or whose failures to act amounted to criminal offences are brought to justice at the earliest possible time.

Fourth, we must re-examine our criminal laws as they relate to cover-ups such as this. Do we have adequate legislation to punish those who withhold information about the commission of serious offences against children? We have laws that prohibit impeding the apprehension or prosecution of a person one knows or believes to have committed a serious offence. However, the offence is aimed at action rather than inaction. In other words, mere inaction or mere failure to disclose highly relevant information is not an offence. Since 2006, it is a crime to intentionally or recklessly endanger a child by causing or permitting any child to be placed or left in a situation of substantial risk. Again, however, that new offence does not relate to covering up an offence that has already been committed. If we believe that the cover-ups dealt with in the Murphy report should be prohibited, something more is required.

Under the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, a new offence of withholding information about serious offences was introduced. It applies to offences punishable by five years imprisonment or more. However, this applies to all offences that involve "loss of human life, serious personal injury, false imprisonment or serious loss of or damage to property or a serious risk of any such loss, injury, imprisonment or damage" except sexual offences. In other words, sexual offences are specifically excluded from its ambit, although all serious injuries to the person and serious damage to property are covered. As a result, it is an offence under emergency legislation for a teacher to fail to report to a garda his or her belief that a child was seriously assaulted in the home, but not if it was a sexual assault. We need to bring some clarity to this area.

Whether bishops implicated in the Murphy report resign from ecclesiastical positions is a matter for the church. However, whether any such bishop should remain as a patron of a school or otherwise continue in the management or supervision of education or health provision for children should most certainly be a matter for the State. Therefore, where a bishop has been directly implicated in the Murphy report, he should have no role as a school patron or a hospital board chairman.

Effective implementation of child welfare and protection policy in our schools, hospitals and other institutions must be the paramount consideration. The patrons and members of school boards of management and their equivalents in health agencies must be persons whose integrity, competence and suitability have not been called into question as a result of a public investigation like this. The State has a duty to ensure that this is so. It is the Government's job to take the necessary action to implement it.

I was disappointed with the Taoiseach's reply to me during Leaders' Questions when I put this point to him. The Government and the State can act on this issue. As the Taoiseach stated, we cannot declare who should be bishop in a particular diocese, but the State can determine who can be patrons of our schools. Under sections 10 and 11 of the Education Act 1998, it is a condition for the recognition of a school, thereby allowing it access to public funding, that the Minister is satisfied that the school complies with health, safety and building standards as are determined by law and any further such standards that are determined from time to time by him or her and that the patron agrees that the school should operate in accordance with any regulations by the Minister under section 33 of the Act and with any other terms and conditions as may reasonably be attached to recognition by the Minister.

Section 33 allows the Minister to make regulations relating to the recognition of schools and its withdrawal, but no such regulations have been made. I am calling for a ministerial regulation to the effect that, having regard to the need to ensure the effective implementation of child welfare and protection policy, the patron and members of the board of management of a recognised school must be persons whose integrity, competence or suitability have not, in the opinion of the Minister, been called into question as a result of any public investigation or inquiry authorised by law. This can be done now. The Government can determine that any bishop or person who has been found to have been negligent in dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse and who has been criticised in the terms clearly set out in the Murphy report can and should be stood down as patron of a school.

I note the Murphy commission's satisfaction that there are now effective structures and procedures in operation in the Dublin archdiocese. In particular, the commission was satisfied that all complaints of clerical child sexual abuse made to the archdiocese and other church authorities are now reported to the Garda. While acknowledging that the current archdiocesan structures and procedures are working well, the commission was concerned that they were heavily dependent on the commitment and effectiveness of two people, the archbishop and the director of the Child Protection Service. It is for the State to develop, maintain, implement and enforce child protection and welfare guidelines that ensure all bodies, public and private, have embedded institutional structures that ensure an ongoing and effective commitment.

We must also consider the future of the Murphy commission itself. It already has further work to do. The Government has referred to it the report of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland on the diocese of Cloyne. We now know the full extent of the shocking abuse that went on in the Dublin archdiocese. We know from the report published in 2005 that there was a similarly sorry and sordid story in the diocese of Ferns. We also know from the January 2009 report of the national board that there were serious problems in the diocese of Cloyne, which are now being examined by the Murphy commission.

If there were such extensive incidences of child abuse and systematic cover-up in three dioceses, how can we safely assume that there were not problems in other parts of the country? We cannot and we owe it to any victims of child abuse to bring out the truth, no matter how long it takes or who stands to be embarrassed by the findings.

The Murphy commission has done an exceptional job of work in examining the Dublin archdiocese. Notwithstanding the considerable additional burden that would be placed on the members of the commission, the Taoiseach should ask them if they would be willing to continue its work to cover other areas of the country and to make the appropriate order required.

I join the commission in paying special tribute to the complainants who gave evidence before it. I have no doubt that reliving their experiences was extremely painful. The commission itself states that it was left in no doubt about the devastating effect child sexual abuse can have not just on victims, but on their families of origin and the families they create subsequently. These witnesses were giving evidence not just on their own behalf, but as a public service. Their evidence was instrumental in helping the commission to examine properly the catalogue of secrecy, cover-up and inaction in which the church authorities indulged.

One lesson we must learn is that the vast majority of those who were abused as children complained when they were adults. In almost all cases, they said that they did not complain as children because they did not think they would be believed or because the abuser had told them not to tell anyone. We must never again rear a generation of children who are taught to kowtow to authority and to believe their complaints will not be taken seriously.

See this speech in context