Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When we raised the matter of the Ferns report yesterday I had only been handed it a brief time before the Dáil met. Having read the report last night and as a father of young children, the words we used in this House yesterday barely do justice to the horror suffered by so many people, the victims of the abuse outlined.

There is clearly a national consensus that we must deal with this type of suffering and institutional failure and ensure it never happens again. I believe that is accepted across the board. However, we must be particularly careful to guard against this report and its consequences being forgotten about when the next big headline comes along.

One of my abiding impressions from this report is that many of the victims were not believed when they were children but were only believed when they were adults. It is evident throughout the report that a climate existed in this country where it was not safe for children to disclose abuse and where adults would be empowered to respond. We would be wrong and failing in our duties today for today's children and tomorrow's children if we did not admit or acknowledge that abuse can happen anywhere and not only in the institutions examined in this report. Therefore, there is a heavy responsibility upon this Legislature to respond promptly and appropriately to this very clear report.

I would like to ask the Taoiseach three questions about it. The Government indicated an intention to set up an inquiry into the allegations of abuse in the Dublin diocese. Is there a case for extending that inquiry and audit across the country? Second, I suggest that a comprehensive audit be carried out of all State agencies which deal with child abuse issues to ensure this country adopts best international practice in order to ensure children and young people are afforded the same respect, value and rights as adults. Third, the legislative changes recommended by the report, particularly relating to the creating of the offence of reckless endangerment and expanding of the remit of the Health Service Executive need to be clarified and should be brought forward with the greatest urgency. The Taoiseach might respond to those three matters.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that Members of the House only received the report when we were dealing with leaders' questions yesterday. I had a chance to read a very large part of it last night, particularly the accounts of the witnesses; I had obviously read the recommendations prior to the Cabinet meeting. As I said yesterday, the report is a catalogue of serial abuse and gross dereliction of duty in the diocese of Ferns. It is shocking to everyone's sense of how our children should be protected. As I said yesterday, our thoughts go to the victims and their families and to the brave people who came forward. As Mr. Justice Murphy acknowledged, the fact that they were prepared to bring out the full horror of their situations serves us to try to make sure, as Deputy Kenny said, that these things do not happen again.

Over the past probably 15 years as a result of the uncovering of many allegations, many of which have been proven, as many of the allegations in this report have been subsequently fully proven — and that is the position in other parts of the country and not only in the Dublin diocese — we have put on the Statute Book a number of laws, six or seven of which I mentioned yesterday, including the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, the Sex Offenders Act and many other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Justice Murphy has given us a job to do. That is the important task we have today, namely, the recommendations of the report, some of them requiring legislative measures, with which we must deal. We must deal with those as quickly as we possibly can. The Government agreed on that yesterday. Mr. Justice Murphy specified the areas with which we should deal. In his view, and the Government agrees with him, the High Court should be empowered to grant orders against persons, including priests, who are a risk to children in order to restrain such persons from occupying any employment that exposes them to children. That is an answer to one of Deputy Kenny's points. We are not only talking about priests but about everybody in a position of responsibility.

It was acknowledged in the report that many organisations that deal with children in one way or another where there is not direct supervision have protocols to follow. It would serve us well for everyone concerned to examine those protocols. They should not wait for legislation to be enacted to do that. Anybody dealing with such situations should examine them, and I am aware many organisations do. Dr. Roderick Murphy's report on sexual abuse in swimming some years ago issued recommendations which many sporting organisations have passed. The second issue is that the Oireachtas should consider creating a new criminal offence around the issue of failure to protect children from injury or sexual abuse. That is set out in the report. That is an area we will deal with.

Deputy Kenny asked about the issue of the national audit. To deal just with Dublin would not hold up and I do not intend to do that now. We said all along we would await this report and see how best to proceed to a national audit or some means of investigation and how that should be done. We have not worked out how best to do that, but we will. The Attorney General has been examining this issue. Whatever we do, whatever way we do it and whatever terms or whatever remit or whatever form, it has to be wider. Two issues in this are important. Mr. Justice Murphy has been impressed with and recommends that the 1996 framework document as implemented in Ferns should be dealt with on a national basis and, equally, that the recommendations in his report should be dealt with. Whatever we do around the country, and I do not wish to give a suggestion off the top of my head, we have to work that out and we will do that very quickly. I think that answers the Deputy's question.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. In reply to a question yesterday from Deputy Rabbitte the Taoiseach, quite rightly, responded that he, as Taoiseach, could not answer as to whether similar incidents have occurred or are occurring in any other part of the country. Everybody here has had contact with priests of the Catholic Church who set out on their ecclesiastical business with the highest standards and who have always carried out their duties in an entirely responsible manner but there have been allegations that Ferns may not be unique. I accept the Taoiseach should proceed to deal with the Dublin diocese as quickly as possible. The Murphy report demonstrates that at quite reasonable cost a private inquiry like this can lay out a litany of truth about matters that took place many years ago. From that perspective, I think for the Catholic Church itself that a national audit would be in everybody's interest because where this abuse has existed it has to be cleared out once and for all and be dealt with. This report clearly outlines its own findings. Whatever decision is made with the Government in respect of the diocese of Dublin where there are some grave allegations also, perhaps that system should apply nationally and that, for once and for all, we can set in place not just protocols but the very best practice to ensure children now and in the future can and will grow up in an environment of respect and trust where their lives will not be completely and utterly destroyed. These are difficult choices and to legislate for each individual personality is difficult. I repeat that this side of the House will accommodate whatever the Government wishes to do in terms of implementing or legislating for that best practice.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the Deputy that we all have to learn from the mistakes of the past and especially but not only the church. The reality is that none of these issues was ever reported within the church authorities and even in the Garda authorities or in the health boards. Until 1990 it was a very different situation. This report, like other reports in other areas, has highlighted this issue.

In regard to the Dublin diocese, we have already gone down the road a considerable distance in terms of preparation for the work there but had held back pending this report, which was the right thing to do. We can say categorically and we rightly expect that the 1996 guidelines will continue to be implemented fully in every diocese. The first thing that has to be done, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said this yesterday at the press conference, is to write to the dioceses to ensure that is happening. One of the issues that arose from Mr. Justice Murphy's report is that not only the guidelines but the inter-agency action that was taking place between the Garda, health officials and others had proved to be hugely successful in other areas. It is a question of whether that should apply everywhere and it is in the interests of the church. We all realise there are many people involved in the church who would abhor what is outlined in this report as much as any of us and for their own sense of being able to carry forward their own mission they would want to do this. The 1996 guidelines are the first issue.

The second issue is what is contained in this report and, obviously, it requires legislation. There will have to be new ways for dealing with people who deal with children. I have already mentioned the legislative change. The important issue is to ensure as best we can this never happens again in society. As I said yesterday I am conscious that clerical abuse of children — I do not know how people worked out the figure and I am not too comfortable working out the figure — accounts for 3% of abuse, which means 97% rests somewhere else. Many of these reports are equally relevant to other places but we are dealing with the Ferns report. We have to build on our knowledge to ensure it never happens again. When looking at the Dublin diocese we have to look at the nature and type of inquiry. There have been some suggestions by my colleagues already on how this could be done but until we work out a means of doing it I do not want to say something off the top of my head. We will deal with it. The audit will have to be on a national basis. It will mean looking at those who, perhaps, have been prosecuted. The inquiry looked at how these issues were dealt with, and not just that they happened. The upsetting aspect of the report is that normally when a person is in breach of something, and certainly on an issue as serious as this, as happened properly under Bishop Walsh in Ferns, they are removed and are out of the equation, but that was not what happened. We have to ensure that is not the position that pertains anywhere else.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I said yesterday what I wanted to say on this terrible business and will come back to it when the Government's legislative proposals are ready.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the Government's response to the breakdown of talks for a new social contract and ask him to respond to the decision of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions not to enter into talks at this time, thus making the prospect of a new social contract less likely. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that this reveals the concerns that exist, quite widely, about the operation of social partnership, the handling of the dispute at An Post and the manner in which the necessary modernisation there is being driven, the manner in which the pensioners are being blackmailed as a factor in driving the programme of reform and the decision of Irish Ferries to dismiss its entire workforce and to employ people at reportedly less than half the national minimum wage? The Taoiseach will recall that on the day the Dáil started this term I raised this issue with him and he denounced the practices being operated by Irish Ferries. Yet it is the issue of displacement, more than any other, and its implications throughout the economy that has caused the breakdown of the talks. Whereas the Taoiseach roundly condemned Irish Ferries that day he has not, nor have any of his Ministers, since said what he intends to do about it. His letter to the leader of SIPTU has completely failed to address the issue. The Taoiseach could do a number of things. For example, the Labour Party has prepared a Bill which seeks to build on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It addresses the question of whether a link exists between a flagship and the state in which it is registered and enables the Minister to prohibit a vessel being registered in a state to which no connection exists.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Taoiseach meant what he said about disapproving so vehemently of the practices Irish Ferries engaged in, why does he not take on board such a measure, which would enable the Minister to prevent a ship being registered in any country that can be thought of off the top of one's head with no connection of any kind between that state and the origins of the vessel? If the issue of displacement is not addressed with the consequent knock-on effect it could have in other areas of the economy, it is highly unlikely a new social contract would be agreed with all the implications that would have.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note the decision of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions not to accept the invitation to enter talks on an agreement to succeed Sustaining Progress. I note the intention as proposed by SIPTU that clarification should be sought on what was envisaged in my letter to the president of ICTU. It did not, as Deputy Rabbitte said, reject that letter. It wanted clarification on issues of protection of employment standards.

I dealt with the issue of An Post yesterday. There is a Labour Court decision on the matter and there are talks. The Minister has been directly engaged with the unions over a long and sustained period right up to late last week in an effort to try to resolve these issues.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct that the issue of Irish Ferries has created this difficulty. The company has made its decision. I have said what I have said and there is no need to say it again. I have said it many times since. I have said it to SIPTU members and ICTU members as late as last Thursday night and at several meetings, so they are very familiar with my views.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Words are cheap. The Government should introduce legislation to address the issue.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must not forget the pensions.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have repeated it many times outside the House. The leaders of SIPTU have met the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and discussed at length the issues of the legislation. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has also given his best assessment on it. We have also agreed with ICTU and SIPTU to exchange our legal situations on the matter to see precisely what we can do. For the record, at this stage I am advised it would be extremely difficult to deal with the issue of re-flagging in both Irish law and international law. That has been the advice. I wish there was an easy solution to this issue, but there does not seem to be. It does not seem to be permissible to change it, but the Attorney General is closely examining the matter and he has also looked at international law to see what we can do on it. I will exchange any of those facts with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to try to resolve this issue.

An argument has been made over which I am deeply concerned. I have spoken to the senior management of Irish Ferries. I met the chairman and the chief executive. What I said here and much more I said directly across the table to them. Irish Ferries would argue, as would many others on the employers' side, that it is a totally exceptional issue. There are grave dangers for social development in the country if we are to create a situation that employers can get rid of Irish workers who are doing a good job and buy them out whether it is at large levels of remuneration or redundancy or otherwise and replace them with people from eastern Europe or elsewhere at low cost.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government financed it in the case of the MV Normandy.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are all kinds of arguments around that. Irish Ferries maintains it is not bringing in people on low wages. Its existing non-Irish staff are on quite large salaries; they are not paid below the minimum wage. The company has shown me the evidence and I must be fair in these matters. However, it is creating a difficulty and we are doing our best to resolve it.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Taoiseach that it is appalling. However, what I and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are asking is what he will do about it other than condemning it. He allowed a precedent to be created in the case of the MV Normandy. Our money was paid to make the workers redundant while cheap labour was employed by the company. Is it any wonder it would then try to do the same on the central corridor?

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is right and it was stated at the meeting.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the absence of any political will to do anything, the Taoiseach can easily get legal advice suggesting it might not be possible for one reason or another. We have prepared a Bill that would address the question of the link between the flagship and the state of registration. Will the Taoiseach give the Bill consideration? Does the Taoiseach not appreciate that the matter is wider than this issue? For example, compliance with minimum standards by contractors brought in here——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should conclude.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government sought to bring in contractors and minimum standards were not observed. If Dublin City Council can have an arrangement with contractors that requires compliance with minimum standards why can this not be applied in the rest of the economy? Instead, the Tánaiste went to Turkey and brought in a company that abused Turkish workers and the Government made a special arrangement with it not to pay any PRSI while they were here. Does the Taoiseach not appreciate that this matter goes wider than the issue of Irish Ferries as the Taoiseach claims? The unions concerned are concerned about non-invigilation of the construction industry where widespread abuse of workers' rights goes on. This is a far wider canvas than the Taoiseach seems to want to admit. With due respect to its craftsmanship, the Taoiseach's letter goes nowhere towards resolving the impasse that has been reached.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I dealt directly with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU so I know what the concerns were. I will not listen to the Deputy telling me——

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have dealt with them also and that is not what they have told me.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They told me the issues. The Labour Party was one of the parties in this House that advocated going outside the country to bring in construction companies and was very strong in its support for that.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We said they should comply with the standards here.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course any company operating in this country should comply with the law. I also readily admit that the culture in the country now is different from that in the past. Ireland was a country of emigration and high unemployment, and we did not have foreigners working here. It is now a different economy. There is a strong argument for improving the legislation we have. We have already given that commitment to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and to SIPTU. As late as last Thursday morning the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, gave that undertaking to SIPTU. The wider issues have been addressed in discussions. A commitment was given that SIPTU and ICTU would be able to have an input and give their views on that legislation.

Deputy Rabbitte has asked me whether I would look at his party's Bill and I would. The Deputy knows I cannot introduce legislation when I have advice that it would be unconstitutional. I cannot do that. I want to resolve this issue. The question is what we can do on the flagging issue.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the constitutional point?

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bunreacht na hÉireann was passed in 1937.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The advice I have received is that we would not be able to legislate on flagships, as it would be contrary to matters that are set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is suggesting that slavery is endorsed by the Constitution.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Deputy Joe Higgins that Deputy Rabbitte is well able to deal with his own leaders' questions. The Deputy had his opportunity yesterday.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, I will look at the Labour Party Bill and I will continue to engage with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on the legal advice. It asked me to share the legal advice and I stated I would.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Ferns report throws a glaring light on a very dark period of suffering, criminal activity, complicity and an appalling conspiracy of silence. It is sickening and makes my stomach turn just reading it. People outside this House, as well as those here, want answers to two basic questions. First, how was it allowed to happen? Second, could it happen again?

As of now, I fear the answer to the latter question is that it could. With regard to the former question, I wish to ask about the investigation that has been promised. Does the Taoiseach think that we are going to find out why no Garda files existed prior to 1988 on the abuse cases in the Ferns diocese? Is it not shocking to learn about such a black hole in Garda files? More shocking still is the report that the office of the Garda Commissioner was aware of the abuse by Fr. Grennan and therefore, according to "Morning Ireland", the political masters of the Garda must also have been aware of it.

It is also shocking to hear that a councillor tried to propose a motion concerning the sexual abuse at a meeting of the South Eastern Health Board but got support from only one other councillor. Will the investigation go as wide as it needs to go? Will it go from the Taoiseach and the Commissioner down and cover the health boards and the churches?

With regard to the question as to whether this could happen again, the Ombudsman for Children is on record as saying that legislation in areas of her responsibility is not strong enough. There are many sections of the Children Act 2001 that have still not been implemented. The Sexual Offences Act of 2003, in section 10, regarding notification, states that we need better notification, that gardaí need to be able to respond if somebody brings a report of a paedophile in an area to them. We know that the response is uneven. There is no direction, manual or handbook guiding the gardaí. Is the Taoiseach aware if, within the Garda code, there is a proper response outlined for gardaí in the event of information about a paedophile coming to light? Will the Taoiseach take action on that? Such action must be taken now and, indeed, should have been taken a long time ago.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Justice Murphy sets out the position since 1962 so I will not go back over that. We must recognise that progress has been made in many areas. The gardaí in the diocese, as per this report, have rightly prosecuted child abusers since 1990 and their omissions of the past have been corrected. Mr. Justice Murphy also emphasised the independence and integrity of the Garda Síochána over that period of 15 years. That is a considerable period of time, notwithstanding what was done by one senior member of the force in the past, which obviously nobody would stand over.

The health board has shown a willingness and a determination to investigate. As the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has pointed out, the whole issue now is to promote and foster a climate and culture of reporting child abuse in our society to achieve maximum disclosure. There are legislative areas that require more work and we will do that work.

Deputy Sargent mentioned protocols and the protocols in every area should be examined, based on this report. Many of the recommendations would be very helpful in updating such protocols and based on this experience, it is important that this is done. From the Government's point of view, while we have a number of Acts in place, Mr. Justice Murphy has pointed to two Acts in particular that should be dealt with and we have agreed that we will deal with them.

We are examining how we can conduct an audit or analyse cases around the country where perhaps there have been prosecutions previously to try to make things right for the future. By building on the 1996 framework document and this report, we will try to make things better.

The good thing to come out of this — terrible though it is — is that we have a good basis for action. Hopefully, we will see co-operation from the churches, though obviously we must be satisfied ourselves and not leave matters to them. We must be satisfied that we have the powers to act, but we also need the co-operation of the churches and other areas of society so that we can take the experience of this, and other reports over the last ten or 12 years, to make sure we are seeing a change. This report seems to indicate that we have seen a substantial change in recent years, both in Ferns and elsewhere. It is now up to us to make sure that this remains the case and that change happens in the rest of the country.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has not answered my questions relating to the pre-1990 period. I must ask him again, if, for example, he believes that it was right for the aforementioned councillor to only be supported by one other councillor. Is there not a veil of shame over the lack of political response when the information came to light? This information has been coming to light over a number of years, since the mid-1990s. Much of what is in this report would already have been known, one way or the other, though perhaps not in the graphic and horrific detail that is printed here. A large amount of information was already in the public domain.

The register for people considered unsafe to work with children is still languishing under the heading of promised legislation. The Taoiseach has said this is due to a blockage because the Northern Ireland Assembly is not up and running. However, the PSNI has structures in place and has a handbook or manual on how to deal with people who come to it reporting incidents of paedophilia or of someone considered unsafe to work with children arriving in an area.

Will the Taoiseach now make up for a lot of lost time? Will he put in place a system, like the one in existence in the North, a type of vetting procedure which can tell a person if there is a conviction of, or suspicion around, an individual? In the South, only the health boards and a limited number of organisations, such as Barnardo's, can avail of such a vetting procedure. Youth clubs, dance clubs, scouting groups and so forth cannot avail of the vetting procedure. When will it become available? If someone running a crèche wants to vet staff and calls the gardaí, he or she will be told that the gardaí do not have the resources.

This is a matter of grave urgency and this report makes all the more stark the fact that the Government has not acted and responded in the way it should. We should have mandatory reporting of sex abuse allegations and we should have the resources in place so that people can be vetted. At the moment, neither of these is in place and events like those described in this report could happen all over again.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot answer the question as to why people who had suspicions or information relating to people in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s did not come forward ——

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And the 1980s and 1990s.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have outlined the position in more recent years. Perhaps Deputy Sargent is not aware of what is already on the Statute Book because the Sex Offenders Act 2001, which provides for the monitoring of convicted sex offenders, has been on the Statute Book for over four years. We established the Garda central vetting unit over three and a half years ago to ensure that those working with children are screened.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The unit does not have sufficient resources.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That unit was doubled in size recently.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Doubled from what?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We enacted the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. We established the office of the Ombudsman for Children. Large sections of the Children Act that relate to this specific area have been enacted. We also have the Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Act 2000. Most of the matters raised by the Deputy are covered by legislation that is already on the Statute Book ——

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The ISPCC does not have the resources. The gardaí do not have the resources.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are other measures highlighted in this report that must be enacted and as I have just said, we will do that.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The resources have not been given to the gardaí.