In taking nine questions together today the Minister responded with a rather lengthy statement, a statement that did nothing to dispel the fears of those who are opposed to his plan for the containment of children at Loughan House. In taking those nine questions together he rendered it more difficult for Deputies to get clear answers to the questions they wished to put. I was disheartened by the intransigence shown by the Minister in his attitude to this matter since the opening of the debate on it. The Minister set his face today against answering many of the specific questions and doubts relating to Loughan House, the staffing of Loughan House and the links of children with their parents. He gave the impression that all who opposed his plan for Loughan House were in some way opposed to any response he might come up with. This is not so. It is therefore necessary for us to restate our position.
The position of our party and of all caring associations on this issue is that we support the report of the task force. They admitted that there were a small number of children who, for their own good and the good of society, need to be contained in a secure unit. The task force are of the view that this special school should be provided in the Dublin area and should have three units, secured, intermediate and open, and should be staffed by child care workers. We were also concerned that a sum of £600,000—from the Minister's statement today that seems to have been reduced to £135,000—was to have been spent on an approach which has failed dismally in other countries and has tended to lead to more hardened anti-social attitudes among the boys concerned.
There are very few people who have studied the question of child care who do not believe that locking up substantial numbers of children in locations far removed from their natural habitat and environment and placing them under the supervision of persons who, with the best will in the world, are not trained for that purpose, is highly dangerous for the children whom the Minister in his proposal claims to want to rehabilitate. The question before us is not whether there should be a secure provision for a limited number of young offenders but rather what kind of provision should there be and what kind of training is necessary for those who will staff it?
In the course of replies to questions today and last week the Minister tended to be very vague. On 25 April I put down a number of questions for written reply. The Minister's replies were, to say the least evasive and demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of the complexity of the problem of meeting the needs of young offenders. On that occasion also he made no attempt to give an estimate of the number of boys who, in his opinion, would require accommodation at Loughan House or elsewhere. His failure to do so raises the question of whether there is not a danger that Loughan House will become a holdall for difficult boys.
The Minister has said nothing so far to lead me to believe that he has any conception of the crucial importance of ensuring that any secure provision does not lead to a dumping ground for young offenders for whom there is no alternative service available but who would benefit greatly from services such as youth projects, hostels of a more specialised range with residential facilities, than are or ever have been available here.
On the same day the Minister avoided answering a question relating to the detailed nature of the training being given to prison officers who will staff Loughan House. He said they would be given a 12 weeks' training course in child care. Anybody who knows anything about child care knows that a 12 weeks' training course is not adequate for people who will be responsible for the care of difficult children. He refused to be specific about the qualifications of those who will be providing the training and the location where this training will be provided.
On 25 April the Minister did not answer the question whether the psychologist, the only professional person being appointed full time to Loughan House would have a qualification in child psychology or if he would have any experience in that field. Not only is it absolutely scandalous that the only person who will be professionally qualified in Loughan House is one psychologist but so far the Minister has refused to indicate the qualifications of the person filling that post. He has also refused to indicate the qualifications, training or experience of the two welfare officers to be appointed full time to Loughan House. I have no way of knowing, and neither has anybody else, if these people have any qualifications whatsoever.
The Minister said that psychiatric care will be provided in that institution but so far he has refused to say where it will come from or if the psychiatric care will be provided by people with experience in child psychology. He has also made it clear that he is not making arrangements to ensure that even one residential child care worker with suitable training will be employed at Loughan House.
These are some of the matters the Minister has refused to answer. His failure to do so indicates that he neither understands the crucial importance of the training of the staff in the context of residential child care nor has made any suitable arrangements in relation to each of them.
I want to make it clear that there is no criticism by this party of prison officers or their work. We are merely saying that they are being asked to perform an impossible task after 12 weeks' training, to care in a residential secured setting, for the most difficult disturbed children in our society. I want the Minister to tell us how he can possibly reconcile his approach to Loughan House with the enlightened approach in the Fianna Fáil manifesto published last June. We heard of new, informal and less institutionalised procedures and tribunals in relation to family law and child offenders which would have expert and remedial backup services at their disposal. We heard of the 1908 Childrens Act being amended to bring it into line with modern social thinking. We heard of the age of criminal responsibility being increased and that suitable remedial places of detention would be provided for youthful offenders. The only provision made by the Minister is the provision of a secured centre at Loughan House, 100 miles from Dublin, the place of residence of the majority of the offenders and where the back-up services and the links with the community and the family which are so essential to these children cannot be provided.
Since the Minister first announced his plan, people whose lives were wrapped up in child care have shown total opposition to it. When asked what organisations he consulted the Minister said it was not in the public interest to let us know. We know 11 organisations sought to send a deputation to the Minister but he selected only six. I would describe that decision as ill-advised and arrogant in view of the very delicate issue involved. Why were the Association of Civil Liberties, the Prisoners' Rights Association and the Labour Women's National Council excluded? I know personally that these women are very interested in this area. They are very concerned and well-informed and would have had a contribution to make.
The Minister did not see comparisons with other countries as relevant. He should not have disregarded the wealth of knowledge and experience gained internationally, and to do so could not be in the public interest. I would ask him to consider the kind of boys we are dealing with in this institution, deprived boys, boys who by any yardstick have suffered disadvantages all their lives. Statistics show that a great number of them are the products of broken homes, a great number are under age, underweight, and in every way deprived and showing signs of deprivation.
While delinquency is not confined to these boys, in the main these are the boys who will be accommodated in Loughan House. Boys of more privileged parents will have been rescued long before they come to that point. I intend to allow my colleague, Deputy Lipper, to speak for the time remaining to me. It is very, very important, and it has been recognised as being so by those involved in child care, and by all the experts in this area of child care to build up a proper child-parent relationship from scratch, as it were, in some cases and rebuild it in other cases in which it has broken down. In the main the children are living in deprived homes, disturbed homes or broken homes.
The Minister talked about the work done by the social welfare section of his Department. How can the social work necessary be carried out by the welfare section of his Department when one party involved in the problem is situated 100 miles from the other party? The parents will be here in Dublin or elsewhere and the children will be located in County Cavan. I detected today, as I think most Deputies did, that the Minister was not quite as sure of himself as he was in the past on this issue. I hope this is an indication that he is having second thoughts. The buck stops with the Minister. The problem is a very serious one for him and I would ask him to be very careful and reconsider the whole matter. He is meeting associations deeply involved in this problem next week and I would ask him to hear their views, scrap this ill-advised scheme and spend the money allocated for this particular purpose, plus a great deal more money, on projects which will prove more effective and beneficial for the boys concerned and for society as a whole.
