Dáil debates

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Report by Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin: Statements (Resumed)

 

Photo of John CurranJohn Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

Deputies from all sides of the House have had the opportunity to respond to the report of the commission of investigation and its findings. This is a disturbing and emotional subject. I commend Deputies on the thoughtfulness of their contributions, which not only dealt with the report's findings and implications, but also made clear their revulsion at what the report revealed. Above all, the House has paid tribute to the courage of the victims and survivors of child sex abuse in their fight for justice and their outstanding contribution to the work of the commission.

It is right that we have placed emphasis on the State's response in this area, but of course the primary focus of the report is on the failings of the church authorities. No government in a democracy can or should prescribe how a church should be run. However, we can ensure that all institutions are subject to the laws of the State. I have no doubt Deputies are determined this must be the case. While there have been advances in recent years in how this issue has been dealt with, there are no grounds for complacency. It is the duty of Government to ensure that all institutions in the State are subject to the law of the State without exception and above all to the laws that protect children. The Government will do whatever is necessary to ensure the old ways of responding to allegations and evidence of child sexual abuse will not be repeated and the ways we now handle them will be continually updated in the light of developing best practice.

The victims are entitled to expect that the issue of criminal liability on the part of anyone in authority - either church or State - in the handling of these cases is pursued fully and rigorously. I assure the House that this is exactly what will happen. Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney and his team will have the full investigative powers of the Garda Síochána in carrying out the examination of the report's findings relating to the handling of complaints and investigations by both church and State at the Commissioner's request. They will pursue their inquiries, without fear or favour, wherever they lead.

Members referred to the fact that while the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 introduced an offence of withholding information which might be of assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing a prosecution, it excludes an offence of a sexual nature from this provision. This matter was discussed when the Bill was being considered by the Oireachtas. The view taken then was that if offences of a sexual nature were not excluded in this way, it could lead to the introduction of mandatory reporting in sex abuse cases. It would not be appropriate to deal with such a complex issue as mandatory reporting in an Offences Against the State Bill.

The Government does not propose to introduce any form of mandatory reporting at this time. International evidence suggests that mandatory reporting serves only to swamp child protection systems with high volumes of reports, often resulting in no commensurate increase in substantiated cases. One need only look to New South Wales in Australia as a case in point.

Recent reviews of the Children First guidelines have found them to be robust and appropriate. What we need to focus on now is having the guidelines implemented on a consistent basis. The implementation plan drawn up following the publication of the Ryan report states that the Government will draft legislation to impose a duty to comply with the Children First guidelines on all staff employed by the State and all staff employed in agencies in receipt of funding from the Exchequer. Legislation will also be drafted to provide for sharing of information and co-operation between relevant services in the best interests of children.

The commission's report and several Deputies expressed concern about the statutory powers of the HSE to deal with child sexual abuse by non-family members. The Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will consult further with the Office of the Attorney General to seek clarity in this regard. However, in the wake of the publication of the Ferns report in 2005, legal advice was sought from the Attorney General regarding the powers of health boards, or the HSE as it now is, to investigate and deal with instances of child abuse perpetrated outside the family. The Attorney General was not of the view that the HSE's powers under section 3 of the Child Care Act 1991 are limited to cases of intra-family abuse. The HSE has stated that it responds to all allegations of child sex abuse regardless of the circumstances of the allegation.

The Government earlier this year requested the commission of investigation to extend its work to deal with the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne because of concerns which had arisen about that diocese. The Government believes the work of the commission on the Archdiocese of Dublin and its forthcoming report on the Diocese of Cloyne will serve the primary purpose of establishing what happened so that lessons can be learned.

The Government and the Department of Education and Science are examining school patronage in general. This is a wide-ranging review. This is in addition to the Department's consideration of new developing areas, new patronage for schools and international experience in this area generally.

The Government has also been asked to amend the provision in the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 2000 to facilitate victims of clerical sex abuse in taking civil actions against their abusers and the church authorities, by extending the 12 month period. However, this is based on the misapprehension that the Act restricts to one year the period under which claims must be brought. In fact, the law enables those who suffered abuse and are under a disability as a result to have the limitation period suspended until they cease to be under such disability. It is, therefore, not necessary for the law to be amended.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to this debate today.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.