Mandatory reporting is a complex legal and social issue. In effect it is a form of "policing" of professionals which operates on a carrot-and-stick basis: fines/prison for failure to report suspicions; immunity from civil liability if one gets it wrong.
At first glance, therefore, it offers double protection to professionals to report the merest suspicion of abuse. But does it protect clients? Herein lies the rub.
Professionals who deal with child abuse know too well that (a) almost any upset in a child can be a symptom of abuse and yet diagnosing it is very difficult, and (b) that too early an investigation can do a lot of damage. There is no evidence that Irish professionals are deliberately withholding information about abuse from the authorities. The opposite is the case. For example, reports of child sexual abuse increased by 2,700 per cent between 1984 and 1995.
However, in some parts of the Eastern Health Board area, as many as seven out of eight cases of suspected abuse are unsubstantiated. This is soaking up vast amounts of time and resources.
There are other problems: adult victims of sexual abuse have been denied the chance of therapy due to reporting problems. This led to one service for victims ceasing to accept referrals for seven months in 1995. This caused great disquiet among child protection staff.
The split between those for and against mandatory reporting tends to run along lines of responsibility. Those agencies most in favour of mandatory reporting - like the ISPCC and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre - have no responsibility for child abuse investigation. Those who do - like health boards - have grave doubts about its value.
Ironically, lawyers, including solicitors Minister for Health, Brian Cowen, and Minister of State, Liz O'Donnell - both in favour of mandatory reporting - would be under no legal obligation to report suspected abuse, if they were in private practice.
Lawyers have a unique and jealously guarded professional privilege and thus would be exempt if mandatory reporting were introduced.
It is inconsistencies like these and the risk of damaging clients - particularly children - that motivate professional opposition, not self-interest, as some have suggested.
The jury is still out on this issue and a government policy that has been changed twice already can be changed again.
Kieran McGrath, editor, Irish Social Worker
On the face of it, mandatory reporting of suspected cases of child abuse is on the way.
The Government, despite previous opposition to the idea from its Minister of State for Children, Mr Frank Fahey, announced earlier this year that mandatory reporting would be introduced in its lifetime.
Mr Fahey duly appointed a working party to pave the way for mandatory reporting - or did he?
It certainly looked like it from the outside. The terms of reference of the group were, Mr Fahey announced, "in view of the implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991, changes in the management of health boards and the commitment of the Government to introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse, to review:
"(i) the guidelines on procedures for the identification, investigation and management of child abuse;
"(ii) the notification of suspected cases of child abuse between health boards and Gardai;
"and to prepare revised guidelines aimed at improving the identification, investigation and management of child abuse."
To some people the conclusion that the committee had been appointed to prepare for mandatory reporting was inescapable. To others, it meant nothing of the sort.
When this reporter stated in the introduction to a recent article that the committee was "devising" a system of mandatory reporting, social workers were quick to say that this was not what they were about at all.
One committee member, Ms Bernie Price of the Irish Association of Social Workers - which opposes mandatory reporting - said that "there would be quite a number of people working hard on the group who would not have a commitment to mandatory reporting".
She hoped the new guidelines would focus on child care and welfare rather than solely on child protection work.
That the Government has declared a commitment to introducing mandatory reporting "is accepted as a given piece of information within the working group but I don't think the working group as a complete group would be working towards that".
Another social worker put it more bluntly: "We know the Department of Health doesn't want it, we know Frank Fahey doesn't want it and we know it's going to be long-fingered and it will never happen." Long-fingered? Well, yes. There is to be a White Paper on the topic and that will certainly push the implementation of mandatory reporting further into the distance.
The committee includes not only opponents of mandatory reporting but also fervent supporters of the idea, such as members of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre.
Shortly after the appointment of the committee was announced, a cynic suggested to this reporter that the committee had been set up in such a way that it could not reach agreement.
The cynic may be right.