The Government's decision to accept Mr Alan Shatter's Bill to protect people reporting suspicions of child abuse is praiseworthy. It comes in a week in which, yet again, we have listened to the stories of children abused - this time in the swimming world - and of officials whose response to complaints was far from welcoming. Mr Shatter's Bill is, of course, a minimalist one: it protects people who report their suspicions but it does not oblige them to report. Specifically, it protects people who pass on suspicions or concerns in good faith to the appropriate authorities. The Bill, when passed, will mean that people cannot be sacked or sued in these circumstances.
That we have had to wait until now for these simple measures to be taken is a further indication of the low status given by governments to issues affecting children. This low status was evident in recent weeks in the confusion about mandatory reporting of child abuse, with one junior Minister saying it would be introduced and another saying it wouldn't. The Taoiseach's announcement that it would be introduced has rekindled the debate on the desirability or otherwise of mandatory reporting.
Already the Irish College of General Practitioners and the Irish Association of Social Workers have expressed concerns. These include fears that the volume of complaints will swamp an already over-stretched and under-resourced system; that abused people will be reluctant to confide in doctors or counsellors if they know the outcome will be an investigation and that much-needed resources will go into investigations - rather than into preventive child-care services.
Opponents of mandatory reporting also point to the McColgan case in Sligo where the health board was warned that abuse may have been that suspected abuse is no guarantee of effective action. But Supporters of mandatory reporting say that it would force the State to provide the necessary resources for child-care services and that the confidentiality offered by doctors and counsellors must be modified for the sake of protecting children. They point out that health boards are spending more than 80 per cent of their child-care resources on dealing with abuse and neglect rather than on preventive services. In the McColgan case, they contend that complaints would have had greater weight if there been a system of mandatory reporting in operation.
The swimming scandal raises further questions concerning this issue. Would concerns of parents have met with a far more effective and speedy response if swimming officials had been obliged to report all complaints and suspicions to the Eastern Health Board? There is surely an argument to be made that mandatory reporting would have seen the abuse stopped at an earlier stage. Are there other areas where abuse is happening that might be brought to light by a system of mandatory reporting? In the area of mental handicap, for instance, we know that some organisations involve the Garda in all complaints, but we don't know if all organisations do so.
Those who argue against mandatory reporting have earned the right to have their case treated seriously and with respect: but with every passing week, their case appears more difficult to sustain.