Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

Shock, revulsion, dismay and sadness - the full lexicon of condemnation has been used in response to the report of the Murphy commission into the Diocese of Cloyne. I share those sentiments while realising that no words of mine can do justice to the horrors that were inflicted on those who suffered child abuse. It is the survivors that should be foremost in our thoughts when dealing with this subject. The hurt they feel must only be surpassed by the bravery of those who came forward to give evidence to the commission of investigation. I only hope that the publication of the report will give them some comfort that, at last, their dreadful experiences are being believed and acknowledged. We must bear in mind the many other survivors whose experience of abuse is known to themselves alone and who continue to feel unable to articulate what they went through. The State owes a significant debt of gratitude to those survivors who gave evidence to the commission and to the members of the commission itself - Ms Ita Mangan, Mr. Hugh O'Neill and its chairperson, Judge Yvonne Murphy.

The most shocking aspect of this report is that the failures it describes are not ancient history. All of the complaints, allegations, concerns and suspicions of child sexual abuse referred to in the report occurred between January 1996 and February 2009. The year 1996 is the crucial dividing line in the handling of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland as it was the year in which the Catholic Church in Ireland put in place detailed procedures for dealing with child sexual abuse. The mishandling of complaints of child sexual abuse by members of the Catholic hierarchy can never be excused no matter when it occurred, and the fact that the Cloyne diocese simply ignored the guidelines and procedures put in place by the hierarchy is utterly unforgivable. It placed children in greater danger and compounded the suffering and feeling of betrayal of survivors even further.

That the authorities in the Diocese of Cloyne, in particular Bishop John Magee and Monsignor Denis O'Callaghan, failed in their duty until so recently gives the lie to the oft repeated mantra that the response to abuse reported in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was a product of its time, when bishops and others had little understanding of the nature and scale of abuse. This was never a defence and has been rubbished even more by the revelation that the church's own guidelines were not being followed in Cloyne until 2008. In addition, the attitude of the Vatican towards the Irish church's guidelines and to the commission of investigation was nothing short of deplorable. It is not the behaviour that we expect from a sovereign state with whom we have friendly relations, and it certainly lacked the moral courage and integrity that one would expect from an entity that preaches such values.

When the Cloyne report is added to what we have learned from the Murphy commission's report into the Dublin archdiocese, the Ryan report and the many other aspects of the scandal of clerical abuse, one conclusion is very clear - self regulation is not enough, and it must be backed up by a robust legislative framework. In that regard, I welcome the proposals put forward by the Ministers, Deputies Shatter and Fitzgerald, and I look forward to debating the detail of them in the House. I hope that will occur as a matter of urgency when we return in the autumn.

I particularly welcome the commitment that persons in certain professions, including clergy, will be obliged to report suspicions of abuse or face criminal penalty. This is an important step but it must be backed up by the appropriate resources. The experience in other jurisdictions, where a mandatory reporting requirement has been put in place, is that the volume of reports of abuse increases massively. For example, the number of reports made increased six-fold when mandatory reporting was introduced in New South Wales in Australia. It is vital that the number of social workers is increased to cope with this. If this does not happen, the mandatory reporting requirement may actually end up doing more harm than good, with social workers sitting at their desks assessing the urgency of cases rather than getting out of the office and fulfilling their role of supporting families and protecting children. I urge the Minister to assess carefully over the summer the resource requirements involved in mandatory reporting before coming back to the House with legislation in the autumn.

The other main policy issue which arises here is whether to extend the remit of the commission of investigation to the remaining dioceses. Fianna Fáil's position is that at the very least all survivors should have the opportunity to have their experiences acknowledged in a formal setting. It would be unfair to survivors of abuse in the 23 remaining dioceses that they would not have the chance to give testimony to what they endured. I appreciate that many do not wish to revisit this painful chapter in their lives. However, many survivors were met with scepticism or denial when they first came forward with their stories and so desire to have it acknowledged that they were telling the truth. Fianna Fáil has an open mind on whether this needs to be done through a full blown commission of investigation and we hope that we can have a discussion on it in the coming months.

It is sensible that the relevant Ministers, Deputies Shatter and Fitzgerald, should wait for the completion of the HSE and the Catholic Church's national board for safeguarding children audits to be completed before making a final decision on this. I know some doubt has been cast - not unreasonably - on the usefulness of these audits given that they rely on voluntary information from the church authorities. We should wait to see Mr. Ian Elliot's assessment of the audits and what level of compliance there is from bishops in publishing the audits. It is our belief that nothing short of full publication by all bishops would be acceptable. I note that the stance being taken by the Government now differs from that expressed by the Fine Gael spokesperson on children a few months ago, who called for the Murphy commission to be extended to all dioceses. We should continue to consider the matter.

There is also a cross-Border dimension to the question of extending the commission's work. Six dioceses fall into this category, and we believe it is important that the two Ministers consult their colleagues in the Northern Executive regarding co-operation to ensure that the audits and any possible extension of the Murphy commission can take place effectively. Perhaps they could update the House on their contacts in that regard when responding to this debate.

The systematic and endemic abuse of children by clergy that has been revealed in report after report shames our State and our nation. Church and State failed far too many children by exposing them to predatory abusers and then compounded their suffering by failing to act in an effective manner when the abuse was brought to light.

For the sake of some of the survivors, I hope prosecutions will follow from the publication of the Cloyne report. More importantly, perhaps, the outcome of the work of the Murphy commission should be total dedication on the part of official Ireland to ensuring all children are protected to the greatest extent possible. That is the priority of my party, as I am sure it is of all Members of the House. I am sure we will disagree on nuances, but Ministers can be assured that they will find willing allies on this side of the House in all their efforts to protect children. I hope we can work towards that objective on a cross-party basis. In that spirit, I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context