I am truly appalled by the contents of the Murphy report which was published last week. Arising from that report, does the Taoiseach consider it appropriate that persons in authority in the Catholic Church, who knowingly moved paedophile priests from parish to parish should continue to be in positions of authority either in the church or in State-funded institutions?

I have been very clear on this matter. The State's job is to ensure everybody is equal before the law and that applies to institutions and individuals. The State must also ensure that best practice in this entire area will be promoted in the future. From this and previous reports, we have confirmation that there was an horrific deficit of accountability and these matters were not handled properly. The reputation of institutions was held to be of higher priority than looking after children and ensuring that anybody who offended was dealt with by the law. That belongs to that era and needs to be recognised and accepted. Agencies of the State or people who acted on behalf of the State who similarly were less than proper or appropriate in how they dealt with these matters must be also apologised for and I do that unreservedly on behalf of the State.

It is for the individuals who are affected by the findings of this report and conclusions to consider in what way they can continue in whatever positions they hold. It is a matter for them to consider how that is to be dealt with within their own institutions. There are people considering this now in the context of the report and its implications. For my part, as Taoiseach, it is important to point out the State holds no brief and must ensure that everyone is amenable before the law. I will continue to state this openly and candidly. I hold no brief for anyone who has failed in his duty in this respect.

The question of what position individuals should hold within the Catholic Church or any other institution or denomination will have to be addressed through personal reflection and by those with whom they work and to whom they are beholden, including the members of the church and their peers in the clergy.

I am a member of the Catholic Church and note that, in recent days, devout Catholics who have followed the teachings of their church faithfully over very many years are appalled by this position. They want their church to be a church of the future with a future. The symbolism of change is very important.

The Archbishop of Dublin said in his pastoral letter on Sunday that child abuse was and always is a crime in civil law and Canon Law. Those in positions of authority who knowingly moved paedophile priests from parish to parish, thereby allowing them to perpetrate their crimes and destroy children's innocence, should not continue in positions of authority.

Consider the communications between the Murphy commission and the papal nuncio and Vatican. It is discourteous that the papal nuncio did not respond to the two letters sent to him by the Murphy commission. The Vatican, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, responded to the Department of Foreign Affairs indicating the communication was not made through the proper channel. In light of this response, what action was taken by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, who happens to be the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister who presented the Murphy report some days ago? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the equivalent in the Vatican of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister were actively making contact with the British Government and British ambassador about the Barron and McEntee inquiries into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, yet how is it that, in respect of this sensitive issue concerning the destruction of the innocence and lives of vulnerable children, there was no response from the political end of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the response from the Vatican that contact had not been made through the correct channel? Did the Minister for Foreign Affairs know about this? Was the Government informed of the response from the Vatican? Why was no action taken in respect of information in files from the Archdiocese of Dublin submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome? The lack of action was such that the grievous and evil circumstances that obtained were allowed to continue.

Deputy Kenny asked about the Department's position on what happened. It is a matter of regret that the Holy See was not in a position to provide a substantive response to inquiries from the commission of investigation of the Dublin Archdiocese. It is important to be clear as to how and why this occurred.

The commission of investigation wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in September 2006 seeking, inter alia, information on reports of child sexual abuse that had been passed on to the congregation by the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Holy See responded to that request by diplomatic note, sent by the Vatican Secretariat of State to the Embassy of Ireland to the Holy See in March 2007. This note made clear the view of the Vatican that, as the commission had been established under the authority of the Government through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, such a communication should be routed through diplomatic channels and in accordance with international laws and customs. This diplomatic note was forwarded via the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which passed it to Judge Murphy of the commission. There does not appear to have been any further communication between the commission and the Holy See after that note was passed.

I understand, however, that the Holy See sought confirmation that the content of its note had been made known to the commission. That was confirmed to the Holy See and Judge Murphy was informed of the Vatican's interest in knowing the note had been conveyed to the commission. The Vatican made clear to the Embassy of Ireland to the Holy See that its concern to confirm that the note had been passed on was to avoid any impression that the correspondence from the commission had been ignored. It is not unreasonable to assume the Holy See was open to responding to a further approach through formal diplomatic channels. Neither is it unreasonable to assume that when the papal nuncio received correspondence from the commission in February 2007 and earlier this year, both the present and previous papal nuncios believed the matter was more properly addressed by the diplomatic note. It would not be normal practice for a diplomatic mission to release papers to a body in its country of accreditation without an approach through the host Government.

It is regrettable that the failure to acknowledge either letter has given rise to the impression the Holy See was refusing to co-operate with the commission. The commission notes in its report that, as a body independent of the Government, it did not consider it appropriate to use diplomatic channels and that it was a matter for the commission itself. The approach by the Holy See was consistent with international law, according to which dealings between states should be conducted via the diplomatic channel unless other arrangements are made by mutual consent.

The commission and the Holy See, it appears, acted in good faith in this matter, even if the best outcome was not achieved. It may be that an approach to the Holy See through appropriate diplomatic channels could assist in following up on the commission's report. This is a matter that the Government can consider, if appropriate, in the context of its response to the report.