Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews. This is a troublesome issue, as any of us who spent the weekend, or part of it, reading this sickening report knows. I record my appreciation of the work Judge Yvonne Murphy has done on the matter. I know her personally and I am not surprised by her clear, direct and focused approach to the issue. The report was written in a way that made one feel angry rather than ill. It hit the right spots without being emotive. She told the story factually, like she saw it, in clear and simple language, with nothing hidden and no stone left unturned, for which we are grateful. It may sound sexist, but women can do a job like this better than men, as we are aware from previous reports such as the the report on the Lourdes Hospital inquiry.

I cannot find words to add to what has been said in terms of what one should say to the victims. I cannot deal with this. However, I found it heartening to hear what the monsignor had to say this morning on "Morning Ireland" when he was asked a direct question as to how he felt about Cardinal Connell's so-called "mental reservations" - in other words, half saying something and saying the rest in his mind. He was asked how as a theologian one could reconcile this with one's religion and beliefs. His answer was superb: "I have no time for it." He dismissed it straight out and it was great to hear it.

I am not a regular churchgoer, but last Sunday I was at a christening at which the parish priest spoke on the issues dealt with in the report. I could see he was moved and upset. He was genuine in his comments and did not really know how he would be able to face his congregation. He was so disturbed that I, the agnostic, felt compelled to meet him afterwards and thank him for his comments. I felt they were measured and dealt with the issues in a way that made sense to someone like me. I thought it important that he had made his comments. He contacted me afterwards to say how appreciative he was that I had taken the trouble to thank him.

I have tried to reconcile that approach with the case of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. On a television programme this week he said only two of his hierarchical colleagues had taken the trouble to ring him in the previous ten days. I was blown away by this. I could not believe there was such a lack of esprit de corps, solidarity, understanding, sympathy or sensitivity. I asked myself what kind of people they were that only two of them had taken the trouble to ring Archbishop Martin. It is not my job to be an advocate for him, but I appreciate what he is trying to do. I admire him and see what he is trying to do in an impossible situation. One feels he deserves support. More than anything since publication of the report, it stunned me that only two bishops found themselves in a position where they could ring him.

This confirms my view that I am not interested in calling for the resignation of bishops. I do not care whether they resign. However, I do care about them being replaced by another bishop. Why do I say this? I have dealt with the question of child abuse and paedophilia in many areas, once as general secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO, to which I will come back shortly. This was an issue we had to deal with from the 1990s onwards. I have also spent three years on the central management committee of the GAA. Were a bishop to take charge of an under-14 or under-16 team in the GAA, he would have to be vetted. At the same time, a bishop can walk into the position of patron of a school without a question being asked about his background or anything else. We cannot reconcile these two positions.

This may sound anti-Catholic or anti-religious, but I am a true republican. I believe in plurality and people having the space to act, discharge and practise their religion. I have no time for the liberalism defined by anti-Catholicism. That is not from where I come. I believe there are huge questions to be answered in this regard. People are entitled to have Catholic schools if that is what they want. However, I can no longer support the idea that the State should willy nilly fund schools under the patronage of people who have not been cleared as being appropriate persons to deal with the lives, futures and protection of children. It is simple and clear that we cannot deal with the matter in any other way.

I cannot understand why anybody would say other than tthere should be a full audit of every diocese in the country to see where this happened. We are looking at a sample of cases in one diocese and have uncovered all of this information. People do not seem to realise the report does not even deal with all of the cases in the archdiocese of Dublin. It only deals with a sample. Everywhere we looked at this issue, including Wexford and Cloyne, there were huge problems. There must also be problems in other places. The issue must be dealt with and there is no other way of doing so than by a full audit.

I commend the Minister of State for his words that there will be no hiding place. I commend him also for saying neither cloth nor collar will protect people. Our view, as I know his thoughtful view would be, is that we must have laws in place. There is no point in leaders of political parties or leading politicians calling for the resignation of bishops. It is not our business. Our business is to ensure that if somebody breaks the law by abusing a child, that person will be brought before the courts and made amenable to the laws of the land and answerable to whatever form redress we demand of them. Sadly, that is lacking at this time.

There is another issue. I have found myself in this situation many times in the past 20 years, whether in dealing with the way the previous Ceann Comhairle or people like Judge Flaherty were dealt with. I agree with Bishop Willie Walsh and share his views on the people we saw. However, the evidence must be provided before we can condemn anybody. I find it difficult to deal with a situation where the evidence is not used to bring them to book. That is the way it should be done. The person should be forced to answer. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said he wants these people to answer and so do I. I do not care if they choose to answer by means of a television interview but I want them to answer to the laws of the country, to the Garda, to the investigation or to the courts.

In fairness to some of the people in the church - I am beginning to sound like an advocate of the Catholic church, I will be losing votes all over the place - as general secretary of a teachers' union I have dealt with paedophiles and with cases of paedophilia as a result of complaints. These are the cleverest, most difficult people I have ever dealt with. Even now, I recall cases where decent people who investigated complaints and left no stone unturned were completely taken in. I remember one occasion when an official of our union told me he had initially made the wrong decision because he had been taken in by the person but subsequently saw the evidence clearly.

I recall another case I dealt with in 1990 or 1991. A teacher brought to the attention of the union his concern that a teaching or professional colleague was interfering with children. We commenced an investigation with the intention of passing on any information to the Garda and the patron body. There seemed to be evidence of a problem emerging when suddenly the man in question vanished. He was teaching in a rural school. Two years' later I found out that he had gone to America and enrolled in a seminary to become a priest. I followed his progress from afar. He was ordained a priest and he returned to Ireland. I did not have any evidence but I rang the bishop of the diocese where he was working. I explained my misgivings to the bishop but there was no complaint from a pupil on which to act. I heard no more and this was in the mid-1990s. However, on reading the report last week, it bothered me that the bishop I had contacted was one of the people mentioned in the report. I do not know where this guy is now but I have asked people to find out. I tell this story to illustrate there is no end to the lengths to which a paedophile will go to groom a child or to get into the circle of trust.

As I always say on these occasions, I could tell of the difficulties experienced for many years in obtaining Catholic church support for the Stay Safe programme in primary schools. It is an appalling situation. The INTO ended up paying for the doctor and psychologist who put the programme together because, under pressure the State withdrew funding and because of opposition from the Department of Education and Science. Apart from the support of people such as the then Minister, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, and a few others who pushed for it, the programme would never have been implemented.

In 1997, my first year in the Seanad, and many times later, I asked for the introduction of mandatory reporting in light of the Kilkenny and Mayo cases. I do not know the current situation. It should be a crime not to report when a law is broken, in my view and this should be a tenet of a democracy. There is a requirement on anyone who knows about these things to report it. This should apply to anyone dealing with children. Mandatory reporting should be insisted upon.

I have had formal meetings with the Minister of State on the question of vetting and child protection procedures to be used by sporting organisations and others. His support and his progressive ideas are beyond reproach. I know he has been subject to criticism and the point made by Senator Cummins is relevant in that the Government has been in place long enough and decisions should have been made. However, I do not question the commitment of the Minister of State in this area and I wish him well as there are hard things to be done and we must do them.