Response to Murphy Report

Today I would like to welcome the publication of the Commission of Investigation’s Report into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against priests operating in or under the aegis of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

It is worthy of note that it is almost 14 years since I first moved information into the public domain to the effect that the Catholic Church in Dublin had a practice of moving priests with a record of child sexual abuse into other parishes in the Diocese, a practice which clearly put other children at great risk. It is almost 11 years since I first wrote to then Taoiseach Ahern requesting an inquiry into this practice and only now is the State ready to publish a report detailing how such allegations of child sexual abuse by priests were handled. This inability to respond more efficiently does not say much for the State’s attitude to the protection, welfare and rights of children. Those who turn a blind eye to these offences are as much a part of the problem as those who actually commit them. Looking the other way causes more children to be sexually abused.

With regard to the report itself I would like to start by thanking Judge Yvonne Murphy and her team for their very hard work in conducting this investigation and producing this report.

No matter how much I may have already known or anticipated I was nonetheless shocked by the content of this report. This report details consistent practices by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin to cover up child sexual abuse and cause children to be sexually abused by priests that should never have been allowed to continue in ministry.

Many times in the past the Archdiocese has claimed that such priests were only reappointed following medical advice to the effect that it was safe to do so. Repeatedly in recent years the Catholic Church has claimed that it felt very let down by that medical advice.

The truth, as spelled out in this report, shows that in many cases the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin misled the medical professionals it referred offending priests to and even when it received recommendations to send priests for residential rehabilitation or remove them from having access to children this medical advice was ignored.

Never again should the Catholic Church in Ireland attempt to blame others for its own decisions to reassign priests who were clearly a danger to children. Furthermore anyone who believes that what has been revealed in Ferns and Dublin has not happened elsewhere in the country is not living in reality, so vigilance at all times with an institution that has been so reckless with the welfare of children in the past is vital.

As a society we need to respond to the publication of this shocking report by working harder to raise standards of child protection. These are the measures that I believe are needed:

(It should be acknowledged that since the publication of the Ferns Report an offence of an act of reckless endangerment to children was incorporated into the Criminal Justice Bill, so much of the behaviour revealed in the Dublin Report would today attract criminal prosecution.)

The 99 point plan announced by Minister Barry Andrews in July of this year needs to be implemented in full and on time. The time frame given for some of the changes to be made go as far as December 2011 which is strangely generous and implementation must be monitored by all to ensure that the agenda doesn’t slip once media attention is focused elsewhere. I would have preferred if non compliance with Children First was a criminal offence instead of a breach of contract but in time we will see if the new arrangements are strong enough. There is also no mention of a duty to report by any member of the public who may have concerns or even knowledge about physical or sexual abuse of a child or child neglect. In short the Children First guidelines need to be put on a statutory basis and should include a statutory responsibility on every person to report knowledge, suspicion or reasonable grounds for concern of abuse or neglect of a child.

The rights of children have to be enshrined in the constitution so that their rights as individuals have its protection and it is time the government presented the wording and a date for that referendum. It should specifically reflect the following:

The inclusion of an express reference to the rights of children, and to the special and vulnerable nature of childhood, asserting that all children must be treated equally.

The right to have their voices heard and to be represented in any proceedings affecting their welfare.

The right to be protected from abuse and exploitation.

The right to appropriate alternative care outside the family where needed. Also included should be obligations on the State:

To supply that care, but always with due regard to the rights and welfare of the child.

To promote their welfare fairly.

To safeguard with special care the interests of children who are disadvantaged by economic, social or cultural exclusion, or by disability, and to support parents as far as practicable who cannot meet their children’s needs unaided.

The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Some changes have been made to the current system but much more is needed:

The fact of being on the sex offenders register should involve more stringent signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.

Those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should make regular unannounced visits to the homes of people on the sex offenders register.

Parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern about an individual who they may be concerned about and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a registered sex offender or not. This measure is already at an expanded pilot level in the UK.

Monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and certain restrictions, for example an offender who only ever abuses children after he/she has taken alcohol should have it as a condition of their release that they don’t consume alcohol.

It is not appropriate to offer shorter sentences to offenders who participate in treatment programmes in prison – those who don’t participate voluntarily should be considered very high risk on release and should be monitored accordingly.

Vetting of adults working with children – there is need for Garda Vetting of people working with children to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information, this could possibly be done by amending the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998.

In conclusion this Report is a shocking indictment on the Catholic Church in Dublin. Its publication may bring closure for some victims, it may also serve as the only justice some victims ever receive, but its publication if not acted upon will have been a wasted opportunity to raise standards of child protection in this country.

DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT

I wish to condemn in the strongest possible terms the leaking of some details of the Commission of Investigation’s Report into how allegations of child sexual abuse against priests were handled by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin and agencies of the State between 1975 and 2004. It is wholly inappropriate that those of us who have worked so hard over the years to ensure that the Government held this Inquiry should now be reading extracts of the Report in a Sunday newspaper before we have even been notified of a date and time for publication.

I am also particularly annoyed as I wrote to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern TD in July of this year requesting that I be given an embargoed copy of the Report 24 hours before its eventual publication and this request was refused. It is inappropriate that any victim should have been denied this request only to then read details of the Report in today’s Sunday Independent.

DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT

I very much welcome the Judgement from Mr. Justice Gilligan in the High Court this afternoon. It is now clear that this judgement requires that only references to the person identified in Chapter 20 have to be removed from the Report but most of this important Chapter will be published. It is vital that both the actions of the former Eastern Health Board and the Gardaí be investigated alongside the actions of the Catholic Church in their handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against priests and publication of most of this Chapter lends itself to this.

It is now imperative that the Government publish this report before the end of next week at the latest, as publishing any later than that would be inappropriate given the upcoming budget on 9th December and I urge Justice Minister Ahern to attend to this matter without delay or fault.

DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT

I wish to condemn in the strongest possible terms the government's decision to delay publication of the Report into sexual abuse by priests in Archdiocese of Dublin by referring the matter back to the High Court today. The government has had this report since July 2009. It has had plenty of time to read it, detail its concerns over ongoing criminal proceedings and present them to the High Court on two separate occasions.

Last Thursday the High Court issued a very clear order regarding publication which a child could have understood and have actioned within an hour, but a full week later Minister Barry Andrews announces that there is 'a material fact that wasn't brought to the attention of the High Court', and so they are having to go back. If the government had made a competent presentation to the High Court originally it would not have to now return to the court with its material fact it didn't present first time round.

I am reminded of the incompetence and snail's pace of progress I observed as I watched the Department of Justice fumble and stumble its way through every stage of setting up the Dublin Commission of Investigation as a full three and a half years went by. It beggars belief that this government has found yet another example of its incompetence to parade in front of the country as if it wasn't already plain for all to see.

CARDINAL CONNELL

Shame on Cardinal Connell. The Archdiocese of Dublin made a promise to victims of clerical sexual abuse, to the people of Dublin whose taxes are paying for the Commission of Investigation, to the Government and to the Commission itself that it would co-operate fully with the Commission of Investigation which was eventually set up in 2006 to investigate how allegations of child sexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin were handled, regardless of who those allegations were made to.

Now Cardinal Connell is running to the High Court in an attempt to get in the way of some of its work. This is not at all acceptable behaviour. Seemingly the Cardinal is now claiming that the current Archbishop of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin had no right to hand over all the documentation that the Commission had requested from him as this documentation includes legal advice which the Cardinal had sought and he believes this somehow entitles him to some personal privilege in relation to these documents. It is hard to imagine that the Cardinal as a legal leg to stand on.

When he sought legal advice in handling allegations of child sexual abuse against Dublin priests he did so in his capacity as Archbishop of Dublin and so it should follow that the advice and any documentation relating to it belongs to the Archdiocese and not to the Cardinal. Indeed if this was personal legal advice to the Cardinal why were the papers still in Archbishop’s House long after the Cardinal retired? And who paid the legal bill – the Cardinal personally or the Archdiocese?

I have read reports into child sexual abuse by priests in the Archdioceses of Boston and Philadelphia. In reading these reports it becomes very clear that the statutory investigations into these Archdioceses enjoyed full access to any documentation they required to properly ascertain whether allegations were handled properly or not. If Cardinal Connell were to be successful in his legal action in the High Court there is a risk that his claim for privilege with legal documentation could spread into other areas.

What happens if the Cardinal runs back to the High Court next week and claims that any medical reports he received on paedophile priests should also be blocked from the Commission of Investigation’s eyes? The Catholic Church in Dublin and elsewhere has for many years repeated its mantra that offending priests were only ever returned to ministry (with further access to children) after the Church had received medical advice that it was perfectly safe to do so. Any Inquiry into how allegations against such priests were handled must surely be in a position to ask the Church to produce documentary evidence of such medical advice. What will Cardinal Connell do then?

It is imperative that such claims can be examined thoroughly – In Boston and Philadelphia such claims did not stand up to much scrutiny. In those published reports it was revealed that both of those Dioceses used various tactics to enable them to claim that they had sound medical advice to the effect that it was safe to re-appoint a priest with a record of child sexual abuse. In one case where a priest admitted to the sexual abuse of a child he claimed to have a problem with alcohol. The Diocese sent the priest for treatment for his alcoholism (declining to advise the treatment centre of the priest’s sexual abuse of a child) and then sent him back out to his work as a priest. Yes the priest had “received treatment” but he was not safe to be put back in a position where he had access to children just because he had done a stint at an alcohol treatment centre. On another occasion a priest was sent for treatment after confirming that one allegation of sexual abuse against him was true. During his time in treatment many other allegations of child sexual abuse were made against him but these were never passed on to the people treating him and so they did not have a clear picture of the nature and extent of abuse committed by the priest they were treating. Those reports also revealed that all too often priests who had admitted sexually abusing children were sent to treatment centres controlled by the Catholic Church. This practice was strongly criticised by the Inquiry because it gave the Diocesan leaders inappropriate influence in the production of medical reports. In went on to give the example of one Bishop who instructed staff in a treatment centre not to use the word paedophile in any report about an offending priest. That Bishop then spent several years claiming on the public record that he had never returned a known paedophile priest to ministry even though he had indeed returned to ministry many priests with a record of sexually abusing children.
And so it is in the Archdiocese of Dublin that all documentation relating to how allegations of child sexual abuse by priests were handled should be handed over to the Commission of Investigation in order for it to properly ascertain if those allegations were handled properly and if not why not – and Cardinal Connell should be ashamed of himself for attempting to block that process.

SPEECH AT TRINITY COLLEGE 18 10 07

This house believes that the Catholic Church holds an improper place in today’s society.
I agree.

In Ireland where the Catholic Church is entitled, like anyone else, to have influence it has a certain level of authority which I believe is quite improper. The main area I wish to focus on is Education but before I do I just want to make a few comments about its role in our Health Services.

I had talks in recent weeks with many organisations representing and working with women. These included Irish Family Planning Association, Well Woman Centre, Women’s Health Council, National Women’s Council, and Irish Council for Civil Liberties. I was particularly interested to hear of difficulties women had in accessing information, treatment or services in our hospitals because such information, treatment or services while perfectly legal, did not conform with a Catholic ethos.

I was very surprised to find that between all of these organisations they had almost no accounts of women experiencing the sort of difficulties I had anticipated. Whether this is because women are not experiencing difficulty or because they are not complaining to anyone about the difficulties they have had or because they are able to avail of such information, treatment or services elsewhere, I do not know.

There was the recent case here in Ireland, of a woman who was pregnant and was diagnosed with cancer. Her local hospital refused to treat her cancer because such treatment might have had detrimental effects on her pregnancy and this was not in keeping with the Catholic ethos of the hospital.

And at the Mater hospital in Dublin trials of a new cancer drug Tarceva were stopped because the trials contravened the Catholic ethos of the hospital by requiring the use of birth control.
I think that when people attend for treatment at hospitals they have paid for with their taxes, their treatment should be determined by their medical need not by the religious views of other people.

In London recently doctors and consultants at the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth in north London were unhappy at a new code of ethics proposed by Cardinal Cormac Murphy which will prevent them offering any service that conflicts with Catholic teaching on the value of human rights.

The code will require doctors to refer any woman who inquires about contraception, the morning-after pill and abortion to another hospital and prevent the use of amniocentesis to detect Down's syndrome in unborn children and in vitro fertilisation for couples unable to conceive naturally.

The idea that the Catholic Church should have the authority to decide what treatments are available in hospitals where the public are paying for the services is hugely objectionable and improper.

I think there will be more public debate on this issue in due course particularly if we ever reach the stage where abortion is legalised in Ireland. It’s easy to imagine the Catholic Church then declaring “not in our hospitals”. That will surely be the time to ask “why are they your hospitals? What makes them your hospitals? – we’re paying for them.” Perhaps then the debate about Catholic Church patronage of publicly funded services will be extended from the area of education, where it has been recently, to the area of health.

Now I would like to deal more comprehensively with the Catholic Church’s role in Education in this country.....

There are approximately 3,280 national schools in the Irish Republic and about 3,032 of them are so called Catholic schools. These schools have, for the most part, been built by the taxpayer, are maintained by the taxpayer and the majority of the salaries of teachers working in the schools are paid by the taxpayer. But, amongst other reasons, because the land on which the schools are built is owned by one of the largest private landowners in the country, the Catholic Church, the schools are considered to be Catholic schools and as a result I believe the church’s authority in the area of education is hugely improper. And ....it is up to the state to change it....
In a modern republican democracy the state should be responsible for all aspects in relation to the provision of schools and education for all Irish children and others in the care of the state. You would be forgiven for thinking the state is responsible but in actual fact there are many gaps. For example in a recent civil action taken by a woman who had been sexually assaulted as a child by her school principal, it was determined that the Minister for Education is this country has no legal responsibility for teachers whose salaries are paid by the Department of Education. This is because the department is not considered to be the employer of teachers in national schools. Despite paying the salaries of teachers and determining their terms and conditions of employment, the Department of Education is not the employer of teachers in this State.
In Ireland, for far too long, the state has failed to rise to its responsibilities in education in any meaningful way. Even now where the government has announced a pilot scheme in which the state, through the VEC, will control one primary school in Dublin 15, due to open in September 2008, it says it is looking to provide this type of alternative “where a traditional patron is not available”. This is far from the proactive stance that is required. The government should be actively working to provide parents with choice in relation to the type of school they send their children to. Indeed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that ‘Parents shall have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children’ – very difficult for parents to exercise this right when over 90% of schools are managed by the Catholic Church.

The current government maintains the position of keeping itself removed from its responsibilities by allowing the Catholic Church to manage schools, leaving local Boards of Management with the authority to sack teachers, whose lifestyles they may not approve of, but whose salaries they do not pay.

As we saw only last month school managers are allowed to ask to see children’s birth certificates and to give preference for school places to Catholic children. In the current education system, funded by the taxpayer, this is highly improper. There may be a case for such preference being shown in a society where there is great choice for parents in choosing the type of school to send their children to, and where there is great choice for teachers in deciding which type of school they want to teach in, but in Irish society today where well over 90% of our national schools are controlled by the Catholic church, this is not at all acceptable. Nor is it acceptable that all primary teacher training is conducted through colleges owned by religious institutions – where are the State’s teacher training facilities?

In an ideal world I would prefer to see all children educated in non-denominational schools leaving them free to learn about religion at home or in church. But I am also a firm believer of choice in as many areas of life as possible so let there be they religious schools, let there be private schools, but also let the government start providing education for our children in state schools on state land where the Department of Education takes full responsibility for all aspects of the education of the children and the management of the school and let them match the high standards of education as delivered by other patrons.

No more schools should be built by the state on land owned by the Catholic Church. It is not necessary for the state to purchase lots of land on which to start building new non/multi-denominational schools, we already own the so called Catholic schools, as I said earlier we built them and we maintain them.

The Catholic Church should hand over to the people of Ireland some of the schools currently under their patronage and this transfer should include ownership of the land on which the schools have been built. The Church’s Education Commission and the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin, have already expressed some interest in the patronage of schools changing hands but it should be remembered that neither the Commission nor the Archbishop constitute the Catholic Church in Ireland. There are many other bishops in the country running their dioceses with autonomy and parents having access to choice should not be dependent on the local bishop’s agreement.

However even those bishops who do agree with handing over some schools to alternative patrons have said there will be a price.

They want to be paid compensation:
Their request for compensation should be considered in the context of the huge compensation bill payable as a result of offences committed against children by members of the religious orders. Current estimates put the bill at €1.16 billion. In 2002 the government indemnified the religious orders against any further liability in exchange for a mere €127 million, with the bill for the remainder being handed to the taxpayer. In proper settlement of the compensation bill the government should revisit that deal and start the process of acquiring ownership of the land some of our schools are built on so that real progress can be made in providing parents with choice. There should be no question of the Catholic Church receiving any taxpayer’s money in this context. It should be done because it’s the right thing to do.

It should also be noted that the Church’s Education Commission said in their recently published document, Catholic Primary Schools – A Policy for Provision into the Future, that where schools were transferred out of Catholic patronage those new patrons should include Catholic religious instruction as part of the school curriculum. Religious education, where children learn about many different religions, is already part of the curriculum in multi-denominational schools but religious instruction in a particular religion is conducted after school hours and in accordance with parents’ wishes. When schools are transferred out of Catholic Church patronage, the curriculum of the schools is no longer any of their business and any attempts to exert such improper control in our schools should not be tolerated.

Taking some schools out of Catholic patronage would not solve the current problem but, coupled with a cessation of building new schools on Catholic Church land, it would be a very good place to start. Such schools would then be managed by the state or other patrons and the process of providing more choice for parents would be impressively advanced.

In addition to this, to further increase diversity, the government should increase its funding of Educate Together Schools. Educate Together aims to meet a growing need in Irish society for schools that recognise the developing diversity of Irish life and the modern need for democratic management structures. In particular, Educate Together guarantees children and parents of all faiths and none equal respect and equal access to education, including the operation and management thereof.

The Government would argue that it is providing funding for these schools but the level of funding is not meeting the level of demand and consequently Educate Together cannot offer as many places to children as are required by their parents who are seeking an alternative to schools offering education with a Catholic ethos.

So I am not arguing that there is no role for the Catholic Church in schools or in education, but at present its role is improper and the way forward is for the government to more fully embrace state run national schools and to increase funding for alternative patrons considerably....

I commend this motion etc....

COMM OF INVESTIGATION 08 11 05

Thanks in part to RTE’s Prime Time Special ‘Cardinal Secrets’ in October 2002 and to the response of the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform Mr Michael McDowell TD to that programme, the Commission of Investigation into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse by priests in Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin is almost ready to start its work. This is a very welcome, though long overdue, response to a decade of revelations of abuse by priests and cover up by the Archdiocese of Dublin.

This Commission of Inquiry has its legislative basis in the Commissions of Investigation Act, 2004 and its Terms of Reference as just published by the Government are as follows:

1. To select a representative sample of complaints or allegations of clerical child sexual abuse made to the Archdiocesan and other Church authorities and public and State authorities in the period 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 against clergy operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
2. To examine and report on the nature of the response to those sample complaints or allegations on the part of the authorities to which those sample complaints or allegations were reported, including whether there is any evidence of attempts on the part of those authorities to obstruct, prevent or interfere with the proper investigation of such complaints.
3. In the case of complaints or allegations being examined, to examine and report also on the nature of the response to any other complaints or allegations made by the complainant, including any such complaints or allegations made before 1 January 1975.
4. To select a representative sample of cases when the Archdiocesan and other Church and public and State authorities had knowledge of or strong and clear suspicion of or reasonable concern regarding sexual abuse involving clergy operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
5. To establish the response of the Archdiocesan and other Church and public and State authorities to those sample cases.
6. To establish the levels of communication that prevailed between the Archdiocesan and the other Church authorities and public and State authorities with regard to those sample complaints, allegations, knowledge, reasonable concern or strong and clear suspicion.
7. The Commission shall conclude its investigation and submit a full and final written report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform before xxxx xxxx, setting out the facts established by it in relation to the matters referred to it for investigation under paragraphs 1 to 6 above, based on the evidence it receives. The Minister shall cause the report to be published as soon as possible after it is submitted to him, subject to the requirements of section 38 of the Commissions of Investigation Act, 2004.

These Terms of Reference are comprehensive and strong and the statutory powers of the Commissions of Investigation Act provide the Commission with all it needs to see that no one is allowed to obstruct its work in any way and anyone failing to co-operate will be guilty of a criminal offence.

The Commission will not investigate how every allegation made against every priest has been handled by either Church, public or State authorities. Paragraph 1 requires the Commission to select a representative sample of complaints or allegations of clerical child sexual abuse. Those of us - Colm O’Gorman, Marie Collins, Deirdre Fitzpatrick and myself - who have worked with Minister McDowell and his Departmental officials have been assured that anyone wishing to make an initial statement to the Commission with regard to an allegation or allegations made between 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 will be welcome to do so. The statements may be made in writing or through the Commission’s legal representatives. Along with these statements, the Commission will also have access to any Church, public or State authorities’ files as it requires. Having a broad initial view of all allegations brought to its attention it will then select a representative sample for further investigation.

Like the Ferns Inquiry, this Commission is not just investigating how allegations against priests were handled by the Catholic Archdiocese but by other public and State authorities too where evidence exists that such allegations were brought to their attention.

Paragraph 3 in the Terms of Reference is very important. It means that if the Commission is investigating the response to an allegation made against a priest after 1 January 1975 it should also examine the response to any other allegations made against the same priest, even if those allegations were made prior to 1 January 1975, thus allowing the Commission to be informed about any allegations and the response to them made before 1 January 1975.

The Terms of Reference fall down somewhat on Paragraph 7. It is most regrettable that Minister McDowell has insisted on putting an 18 month time frame on the Commission’s work. Firstly remember it took the Minister over 3 years to set up the Inquiry. It is true that the Commission of Investigations Act requires the Minister to set a date by which the final report must be submitted - though this is the Minister’s own legislation – but this does not prohibit the Minister from including in the Terms of Reference a commitment to extend the Commission’s time frame if the Commission determines for itself it needs more time in order to conduct a proper investigation.

It is not for the Minister or his officials to determine how long the Commission will need to do its work. I have listened to Mr McDowell and his officials tell us over the last 3 years how long it would take them to get the Commission of Investigations Bill through the Oireachtas, how long it would take them to draft Terms of Reference, how long it would take them to secure resources for this Commission from the Department of Finance, how long it would take them to find a Chairperson and other staff, how long it would take them to secure accommodation from the OPW, and on every occasion they got it wrong. If they can’t determine accurately how long it will take them to do their own jobs how well placed are they to say how long the Commission will need to do its job. They have not met any of their own time frames in setting up this Commission yet they are inappropriately confident in determining how much time is needed for the Commission to do its work. We do not know what the political landscape will look like in 18 months time and it is less than satisfactory that this Commission is not guaranteed all the time may need to do its work.

In the Terms of Reference for the Ferns Inquiry it states very clearly that in the event of the Inquiry not producing a final report within 12 months, the Inquiry will publish an interim report and indicate a date for the Inquiry’s final report. Very clearly the Inquiry was left to determine for itself how long it considered it needed to complete its work and it is a great pity that the Minister and his officials did not learn from the Ferns experience despite promising to do so all the way through.

Now we are left to ‘hope’ that the time frame does not in any way limit the effectiveness of the Inquiry and given that what we are ultimately about is enhancing standards of child protection in this country it is unfortunate that this loop hole has been left in place.