And now, for some great prizes, including superb pre-election photo opportunities, the next question is: what is the difference between a Special Olympics athlete arriving in Ireland for a few weeks of fun and games, and a child with cancer arriving at the Barretstown Gang Camp in Ireland for a few weeks of fun and games?
Both are vulnerable and need lots of volunteer helpers? Yes, that's the similarity; the question is, what is the difference? Is it that the first is physically or mentally challenged, but is healthy, and the second is seriously ill? True, but only up to a point. Sorry, but no lovely photo ops, I'm afraid, you're much too naïve.
The answer is, the first gets volunteer helpers who have been checked out by the police; the second has to take his chances.
Why? No one knows. We only know that the Garda will not carry out criminal background checks on prospective volunteers for any voluntary or private organisation in the Republic, not even those with unfettered access to children.
That list includes not only organisations synonymous with children, such as Barnardos, the ISPCC, Barretstown, the Scouts, the GAA and Swim Ireland (remember Derry O'Rourke and George Gibney?), but every third-level social care student seeking work experience, every summer camp, Montessori school and creche in the book.
But someone has made an exception of the Special Olympics, a private voluntary organisation.
No one knows why or how the famously under-resourced Central Vetting Unit could suddenly come up with the manpower to vet 30,000 volunteers for the few weeks of a sports event.
Still, it made for some dreamy pre-election pictures involving the Taoiseach and a Special Olympics athlete when our leader announced that he would undergo a security check by the Garda after becoming the first person to apply to become a Special Olympics volunteer. And why would he undergo such a check? "To ensure the safety of all involved", of course.
And what of "the safety of all involved" in Barnardos or Barretstown, who are struggling "to ensure the safety of all involved" all year round? It's a conundrum, but then so is the Central Vetting Unit. Last January, in answer to Nora Owen, John O'Donoghue announced that the unit had been established on January 2nd. It will, he said, "provide the basis for the development of an enhanced employee clearance system with the objective of meeting growing demands in this area".
WITHIN days, the limited informal co-operation Barretstown had been receiving was withdrawn. A voluntary organisation dedicated to therapeutic fun and games for 1,500 seriously ill children, and dependent on the public for its 450 volunteers, was on its own.
At the same time, an Irish solution to which many organisations had resorted - by which prospective workers applied for their own Garda clearance under the Data Protection Act - was also withdrawn.
A letter from the CVU, dated February 1st, dispatched to one applicant, stated: "Currently, An Garda Síochána only process requests for Garda clearance for full-time prospective healthcare employees who have substantial access to children or vulnerable adults. This includes nurses, doctors and hospital staff directly employed by hospitals and homes under auspices of the health board, with whom we deal directly. Please send your application to the Human Resources Department, Barretstown Gang Camp, who will forward to us." The applicant's €6.35 was returned with the letter. "There is no charge for this service," it said.
Yet, a few weeks ago, after the Soham murders, a Garda spokeswoman was quoted as saying: "If an individual wants a Garda character reference, they can get that for around €7."
What can it all mean? Seven months ago this writer requested an interview with the head of the CVU and has still to receive an acknowledgment.
But the same questions remain. How is "substantial access" to children defined and by whom? Who decided that one vulnerable person's security is superior to another's? Why the babel of confusion about who may apply for Garda clearance?
And a new one: what is the status of the application of Alan Croghan, who described himself in the Mirror on Sunday as a "convicted and former criminal now turned investigative journalist", whose request for a criminal background check under the Data Protection Act lay unanswered eight weeks later? While waiting, he worked with a security company at Dublin Airport.
NO one believes that a CVU clearance is the holy grail. A glance at the consultation document on a Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill prepared by the North's Department of Health shows how much more is possible.
By contrast, CVU clearance is basic, verifying whether the applicant is a convicted criminal. But it is vital information.
Our politicians have known this for years. Documents refer repeatedly to the "new unit" and its promised "phased extension of the existing clearance system". A Department of Justice letter of July 2001 said helpfully that "it will, however, be some months before the phased extension of the system will be effected".
So 14 months ago, apparently, the "extension" was virtually up and running. Why then, after Soham just a few weeks ago, was the new Minister for Children, Brian Lenihan, talking vaguely about forthcoming "discussions" between the Department of Justice and the Garda on this very subject? Hello? Is anyone out there?