IT IS extraordinary how the once obscure term "mandatory reporting" has entered the mind in recent times. The concept has become a virtual mantra. The faithful almost believe, it seems, that mandatory reporting on its own can transform the fortunes of abused and neglected children. Yesterday, the Western Health Board investigation into the tragic case of Kelly Fitzgerald came out strongly in favour of mandatory reporting. But does mandatory reporting really represent a panacea? The reality, as even the most enthusiastic proponents have to concede, is that mandatory reporting of child abuse is a contentious, indeed, divisive, issue.

One worry is the possible risk of swamping the system with referrals, many of which will prove unfounded and will divert attention from the most urgent cases. There is also the worry that it will drive resources away from the crucial bread and butter work of ongoing treatment and the support of confirmed cases.

Other concerns are that mandatory reporting will drive cases underground, erode professional autonomy and discretion, and lead to much unnecessary distress among innocent people swept up in its wake. Its proponents must also concede that many countries with good childcare services have chosen not to go down the road of mandatory reporting.

Child abuse, of course, is a very serious matter and society must ensure that it does not go unchecked. But if the supposed "solution" involves forcing professionals to do what they should do anyway - i.e. referring on concerns about child abuse - then perhaps it is worth looking at the problem in another way.

WHAT IS it that stops professionals reporting suspicions of child abuse? And can any disincentives to reporting be identified and removed?

The readiness to refer child abuse cases may be inhibited by a number of factors. Professionals trained before child abuse received such prominence may have little understanding of the implications of abuse for a child and, thus, little sense of urgency about reporting. They, literally, may not know what to do. On the other hand, the professional may try to pretend there is no problem or that a child's difficulty is someone else's problem.

Professionals may also experience the all too human reaction of fear. There is the fear of legal liability, of physical retribution by disgruntled - family members or perpetrators and, most of all, the fear of looking foolish if their concerns prove unfounded.

There are also genuine concerns about unleashing a legal leviathan which may prove unstoppable or of invading the privacy and integrity of a family.

Professionals can also lack confidence that the "system" will respond helpfully. They may have had unsatisfactory responses to past reports. They may fear, mistakenly, that reporting will inevitably land the child and themselves in court. Organisations may not give sufficiently clear and specific messages as to what they expect staff to do in these circumstances.

Whether we like it or not, these are real doubts and fears that are out there among the very professionals on whom we rely to get reports of suspected abuse or neglect.

In my view, it is essential to learn from these concerns through effective programmes of training, information and support. In my experience as an educator/trainer in this field, professionals want to do the right thing once they are freed of their not unreasonable doubts.

We must see professionals as responsible people who can be guided and persuaded to act in the interests of the child, not as people who must be bludgeoned by a crude and coercive measure which could serve to add fear and powerlessness to the whole area of child abuse.

There are clear dangers in moving from a situation in which there is not one advertisement by the State to sensitise professionals or the public about how best to respond to a suspicion of child abuse to mandatory reporting, where legal sanctions suddenly loom and tension fills the air.

I would suggest there is a whole range of measures short of mandatory reporting which should be implemented. These involve identifying and removing the disincentives to report.

Firstly, professionals who make reports in good faith should be given explicit and unambiguous legal protection. Secondly, there should be revision and co ordination of national guidance to professionals in the health, education and criminal justice systems. Each organisation, school, hospital, and Department should also have to produce its own version of the guidelines and ensure regular training for new and existing staff.

Each health board should be required to establish a child abuse education/training unit. These units maintain a flow of education and guidance to health board staff of all grades, to non health board professionals and to the public on their respective responsibilities, legally and morally.

As part of this initiative, every health board should provide a hotline for concerned professionals and members of the public where concerns can be discussed, fears allayed confusion clarified and referrals initiated where necessary.

Crucially, in order to preserve and promote confidence in the system, it is essential that the reports of inquiries into the Madonna House and the west of Ireland cases are published fully. The decision of the Western Health Board not to publish its report yesterday was also regrettable. But the ultimate responsibility rests with Government.

HOW CAN requests or requirements about reporting have any shred of moral authority when the Government itself appears to lack the kind of courage it demands of referring professionals? The failure to publish these reports is very damaging to the credibility of the child protection and childcare systems and those who work within them. Perhaps the Minister for Health and the key officials involved would do well to remember that the real error is not making mistakes but not being willing to learn from them.

If the Government gives leadership by publishing these reports and following the other steps outlined above, then we may not need mandatory reporting. But whether we opt for mandatory reporting or not, there is a crying need for coherent action. Let the Minister commit himself to a date within the next six months by which he will announce his plans.