The demand from many quarters for the mandatory reporting of cases of suspected child abuse is easily understandable. In principle, the objective is the correct one to aim for. Revelations of decades of such abuse in recent times have finally triggered a communal anger, despite the fact that many people have for years tacitly accepted the existence of physical and psychological maltreatment of children in many families and in supposedly caring institutions. Anger demands action, the more so when it comes after decades of acquiesence. There is a kind of collective guilt to be assuaged.
But to move directly from a situation governed by virtual mandatory concealment to one of mandatory reporting, requires - despite the fact that such reporting has been recommended by various bodies over recent years, most recently by the Western Health Board in the report on the death of Kelly Fitzgerald - a little more debate and discussion. To that extent, and to allow such discussion to take place openly and comprehensively, Austin Currie's document is to be welcomed, even if the warmest part of that welcome is simply for its title: Putting Children First is, to judge by the accumulating evidence, not something that this State has consistently done in recent decades.
The question of whether the reporting of suspected child abuse should be mandatory or voluntary has been answered differently in different countries. The issue of whether a voluntary or a mandatory process is more beneficial to the children involved cannot be clearly decided on the evidence from elsewhere. There appear to be benefits to children from both methods, and possible difficulties for society from either. One thing, however, seems clear: if the reporting is to be required by law from professionals involved in child care, in medical care or in law enforcement, then those professionals need protection against litigation which may be instituted by aggrieved parties because they do their legal duty.
Other matters which deserve close scrutiny can less easily be determined within the context of a changing Irish society. There appears to be urgent need (whether reporting is to be voluntary or compulsory) for more education and training of the professionals involved. There seems also to be a need for the creation of an infrastructure which will render all reporting transparent, sensitive and skilled. Mr Currie may too swiftly have dismissed the proposal that an independent child care authority be established. There is also need, if mandatory reporting is to be introduced, to establish the means of screening out those reports which turn out to have no substance (the percentage of which appear to have increased in those American states which have made reporting mandatory) so that families will not be disturbed and services not swamped by unnecessary investigations, yet so that abused children will not be neglected.
These issues, and a great many more, need to be debated and teased out. But the discussions must not go on for ever. The Minister has said that he hopes to be in a position to make recommendations by the autumn of this year. He needs to be a lot firmer than this. He needs to set a specific date on which the debate will close and decisions will be made. To do less than this is, simply, not to put children first.