Protecting children - Increase in Garda checks welcome

The Garda Central Vetting Unit (GCVU) was established in 2002 with the aim of vetting those intending to work with children or other vulnerable people.

The need was highlighted not only in the revelations of the shocking Ryan report, but also in the scandals involving coaches who abused children over the years.

In a number of the more horrific instances outlined in the Ryan report, people were forewarned about the paedophile activities of certain people, but for various reasons the abusers were not stopped, or they were moved to places where they continued their sordid and depraved practices.

Internationally there have been instances of paedophile rings involving influential people. They were able to get away with such behaviour because of their positions.

The same thing happened in this country, where members of religious institutions or congregations were treated as if they were above the law.

The GCVU is responsible for vetting individuals to ensure they do not have any prior convictions. The number of applications for vetting received last year was 218,404, which was an increase of over 30,000.

A report of such an increase might have caused considerable alarm at one time, but in this instance it is a positive development. It shows people are more conscious of the need to protect children against this form of vile insidious behaviour.

At the end of December 2008 there were still about 10,000 applications to be processed. But those were cleared by the end of January, which means the average time for vetting was between four and five weeks, down from the five to seven weeks it took in 2006.

This improvement is as welcome as the increase in demand for the process itself.

The GCVU was moved from Templemore to Thurles in 2006 and there was a staff increase but even in an economic downturn we must exercise maximum caution when it comes to protecting children.

In the Dáil debate on the Ryan report last week Taoiseach Brian Cowen endorsed the idea of erecting a monument to those who had been abused in the residential institutions and inscribing it with the words of the apology issued by his predecessor, Bertie Ahern, in May 1999.

In the intervening years there must have been times the apology sounded particularly empty, especially in light of the way some victims were treated by the Redress Board, as well as the manner in which the religious congregations sought to deny their responsibility.

All of this is a grim reminder of the need for vigilance and the danger of complacency.