Vol. 1 No. 27
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and officials from his Department to discuss education for young offenders and extremely disruptive children.
I remind members of the long standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment upon, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Táim an-bhuíoch díot go bhfuil an seans seo agam ceist na scoileanna seo a phlé os comhair an choiste.
There are five residential schools for young offenders under the Department of Education and Science. These schools, at present, are governed by the terms of the Children Act 1908, the provisions of which Act will be replaced by the Children Act 2001, specifically by Part 10 of that Act. The intention of the Department is to shadow the provisions of Part 10 before they are brought into operation on a formal legal basis. While the schools operate at present under the 1908 Act, it is our intention to ensure that the schools are operated in accordance with the Children Act 2001. We are already at an advanced stage of planning and implementation in the Department to ensure that is the case. Deputies may wish to question me on that matter at a later stage.
The schools provide residential care, education and rehabilitation for children up to the age of 16 years referred by the courts. In fact, under the 1908 Act in the case of females it is up to 17 years and in the case of males up to 16 years. Children convicted of offences may be committed to the schools for periods ranging from one to four years. Children on charges before the courts may be remanded in custody in the schools, either on remand only or remand for assessment. The period of remand can range from days to weeks. The five schools at present have an operational capacity of 115 boys and 15 girls. The operational capacity fluctuates from time to time to accommodate refurbishment and new developments, fire safety and security concerns and current child care practices.
The schools employ more than 500 whole-time and part-time staff consisting of management and care staff, teachers, administration, catering and domestic staff and maintenance and security staff. Directors and boards of management manage the schools. A director is appointed to each of the schools. There is a single board of management for the three schools at Lusk, that is Trinity House School, Oberstown Boys School and Oberstown Girls School. In effect, the site at Lusk is an extensive campus where three of the schools are located and there is a common board for those three schools. There is a separate board of management for the Finglas child and adolescent centre, which is located in west Finglas. Both boards were appointed in January 1997. The board of management for St. Joseph's in Clonmel was appointed in June 2002.
These boards are set up on an administrative basis while Part 10 of the Children Act 2001 provides for the setting up of these boards on a legislative basis. I intend in the near future to appoint new boards to those schools under the Children Act 1908 but mirroring the provisions of the Children Act 2001. The board of management at St. Joseph's in Clonmel was set up in accordance with the provisions of the Act and will continue to exist on the commencement of the Children Act 2001. All the schools are funded directly by my Department on an annual budget basis. That provides for quarterly draw down payments from the Department to each of the five schools. The provision for 2003 is €25,585,000. That figure excludes the teaching costs at the schools. I am sure that members appreciate that the primary purpose of the schools is to care for, house and look after the offenders concerned. They are known as schools and are primary schools, but the comparison with the general run of primary schools under the Department's management is erroneous, since they are very special primary schools where persons convicted of offences are detained and cared for.
The schools are designated as special primary schools, and the teaching staff, director and deputy director are paid via the payroll system of the Department of Education and Science. The average cost of providing residential accommodation in one of those schools amounted to €213,506 per place in the calendar year 2002. That cost was computed using the operational capacity of the schools and their current level of funding. The educational curriculum and syllabus on offer at the schools for young offenders are in line with those in first and second level schools. The general aim is to provide a positive experience of education through an holistic approach and the provision of an appropriate range of educational programmes.
The pupil-teacher ratio applied by my Department to the children in detention schools is the same as that recommended for pupils who are severely emotionally disturbed by the special education review committee report. Classes for pupils, who are severely emotionally disturbed, under the recommendations of the special education review committee report, are entitled to one teacher for each group of six pupils. There are four schools within the five centres for young offenders. There are schools located at Trinity House, at St. Joseph's, Clonmel, and at the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre. Trinity House is in effect one half of the Oberstown campus to which I referred. The other half is Oberstown Boys' and Oberstown Girls' Centre. In their case, there is a shared primary school, an education centre that provides educational programmes for the young persons residing there. Each of the four schools has an administrative principal. In total, 43 teachers were employed in the schools in September 2003. The cost of that service for the year 2002 was €3,336,955.
The schools not only provide education but also play a large part in the rehabilitation process. The educational background of many of the pupils can be characterised by a failure to benefit from conventional mainstream schooling. The vast majority are not only underachieving but may have been excluded from the school system for several years. The first task of the teaching staff is to create an environment capable of providing the children with the opportunity to experience success in school. Teachers and care staff work closely together to create a positive environment in which young persons can fulfil their potential socially, emotionally and academically. That interdisciplinary approach is necessary to deliver the highest standard of care and education. A comprehensive educational assessment is carried out on each student on admission, and an individual education plan is drawn up. The aim of those programmes is to build on the strengths and try to remedy the weaknesses of each young person. Many of the students in those schools come with specific problems in literacy and numeracy, and the programme is designed for each student on the basis of his or her needs and abilities.
Educational programmes take in intensive learning support in literacy and numeracy so that a wide range of academic and practical subjects can be studied up to State examination level. The schools currently prepare students for the junior certificate examination and for Further Education and Training Awards Council modules in each subject area where suitable. In November 2003, 92 children were in detention. Of those, 35 were preparing for State examinations, and 44 sat State examinations in 2003. The schools offer a broad-based curriculum and educational programme, teaching the primary and second level curricula. Subjects taught in the various schools include English, mathematics, history, a life skills programme and political education, arts and crafts, physical education, home economics, woodwork, metalwork, religious education, geography, technology, science, engineering, building construction, music and horticulture. The educational facilities in the schools include general subject classrooms and classrooms equipped for teaching specialised subjects.
Good behaviour is encouraged by frequent expression of approval by staff and generous use of rewards rather than the extensive imposition of disciplinary measures. It is recognised that, on occasion, extreme forms of behaviour can be exhibited. It is therefore essential to exercise physical restraint or separation as the final part of a continuum of approaches to the care of young persons. Physical restraint should be used only when the young persons' actions pose a danger to themselves or others or a serious danger to property and must never involve excessive force. The purpose of separation is to give a seriously disruptive young person the opportunity to gain self-control. It should never be used as a form of punishment. The placing of a young person in separation is an extreme measure to be taken only when all other methods of positive control and supervision have been tried and exhausted.
As I outlined, the schools are currently governed by the terms of the Children Act 1908, which will be replaced by the Children Act 2001 when the provisions of the latter Act commence. The provisions of the Children Act 2001 are a fundamental revision of existing legislation governing the treatment of children in conflict with the law or in need of special care. Those provisions have far-reaching implications for the roles of the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and their agencies in the delivery of support services for children with special care needs who are in conflict with the law. The implementation of that legislation is my responsibility as a Minister, and in that respect I am assisted by the National Children's Office. Members will be familiar with the principal provision or theme of the Act, which is that the imposition of a custodial sentence should be a matter of last resort.
One of the changes arising from the Act that will have implications for education provision in the schools is the amendment of the period of detention. The period of detention in the schools will be reduced from between one and four years to between three months and three years. The Oireachtas has legislated for that regarding the discretionary sentencing that young offenders will face on conviction in cases where the judge is minded to impose a custodial sentence. The provision of suitable educational programmes for shorter periods will have to be developed. Work is ongoing in schools on devising those programmes. An ongoing review of educational provision will therefore be required in the context of assessing the Act's implications.
The fundamental agreement between the three Departments before the adoption of the legislation was that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would be responsible for all offenders over 16, the Department of Education and Science for all offenders under 16, and that children who had not committed any offence but were seriously out of control would be the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children. That basic administrative arrangement was implemented in the Children Act 2001. The Oireachtas accepted that fundamental tripartite division of responsibilities between the three Departments. As a result, Part 11 of the Children Act 2001 provided for the establishment of a special residential services board. Its purpose was to ensure that the three Departments, which had all accepted responsibilities under the legislation for the custody and care of offenders or out of control children, can apply a uniform set of standards to their detention.
I am glad to say that the board was established on a statutory basis on 7 November 2003. Its function is to provide policy advice to the Ministers with responsibility in the different Departments on the remand and detention of children in detention schools and special care units. The board will also advise on the co-ordination of the delivery of residential accommodation and support services for children in those schools and units, the efficient use of such schools and units and the level and nature of services available for children charged with offences, as well as those with behavioural problems and in need of special care and protection. It is expected that the single-agency approach of the Residential Services Board will ultimately lead to a better service for young persons needing care.
The board in question, as well as having the general function of advising the Minister and co-ordinating an approach to those services, has also recruited staff to liaise with the courts. One of the great difficulties in the area has been that the courts have made many inappropriate placements over the years. It was viewed as essential that proper liaison should exist with the courts regarding the placement of young offenders. I am glad to say that, notwithstanding the embargo on recruitment to the various branches of the public service which has now been in operation for some time, an exception was made in this case, and the board has now commenced on a statutory basis and been permitted to recruit several staff members who are being trained in that very important liaison work.
Dr. Michael Laxton, an independent recognised expert in the field of residential care, was commissioned by the Department of Education and Science in October 2001 to examine and review existing residential service provision for young persons who have been convicted of an offence or placed on remand by a court. The study was undertaken to examine existing capacity in the light of the Children Act 2001, international best practice in the care of such children, and to indicate future requirements in the area. The report was completed in December 2002. The inspector does not envisage any significant change to requirements in the short-term. In the medium to long-term, with the implementation of the Children Act 2001 and the increasing availability of early intervention measures and alternatives to custody provided for under the Act, there should be a reduction in demand for residential places for young offenders. In his report, the inspector made recommendations on the future of each of the children detention schools.
The Special Residential Services Board was operating on a shadow basis before the commencement of the legislation, and I referred the issue of Dr. Laxton's report to it. I await its views on the future provision of residential places before any decisions are taken on individual schools. However, I would not like members to leave the meeting with the impression that I am treating this as a matter of review or that the fact that I have referred the report to the Special Residential Services Board means that the matter is in any sense being put on the long finger. On the contrary, I anticipate receiving the board's views within a matter of days. On receipt of those recommendations, I will proceed to implement them.
Clearly, the view of the board established by the legislation on the appropriate delivery of services will be of great assistance and guidance to the Department of Education and Science in its discharge of responsibilities imposed on it under Part 10 of the Act for the establishment of the children detention schools. There is little point in establishing a board to co-ordinate services if it is not allowed time to give us a considered view of where we should be acting regarding services committed to the Department of Education and Science.
I will now turn to youth encounter projects. They were first established on a pilot basis in 1977 to provide educational facilities for children who become alienated from the conventional school system, are persistent truants and have become involved in, or are at risk of becoming involved in, minor crime and delinquency. The youth encounter project consists of five special primary schools - three in Dublin, and one each in Limerick and Cork. Each project deals with an enrolment of approximately 20 to 25 pupils aged between ten and 15. The stated primary objective of the youth encounter project is to rehabilitate the pupils and return them to the conventional school system in the shortest possible time. It is not intended that the projects develop into an alternative system of education. Therefore, the projects require liaising closely with specified schools in their catchment area at both first and second level.
The youth encounter projects have a teacher-pupil ratio of eight to one, which is related to the ratio in special schools and classes for socially disturbed children, as recommended in the 1993 report of the special education review committee. As well as having a preferential pupil-teacher ratio, the projects also benefit from additional resources, such as a community worker, a bean a tí and clerical, maintenance, cleaning and security staff. In total, the school employs 17.28 non-teaching staff. That enables the project to provide a comprehensive life skills programme in addition to the normal curricula. The schools also receive VEC-funded hours for the provision of specialised subjects. A patron and a board of management manage them. An administrative principal is assigned to each of the five schools.
In a similar manner to the children detention schools, the youth encounter projects are funded directly by the Department on an annual budget basis. That provides for monthly payments by the Department of the agreed annual budget for each of the schools. The total pay and non-pay allocation for 2003 is €915,000. In addition, the teaching staff in the schools are paid via the primary pay roll from the Department, the annual cost of which currently stands at approximately €1.1 million. The education, curriculum and syllabus on offer in those schools are broadly in line with those in first and second level schools, offering a broad range of subjects with the general aim of providing a positive experience of education. Educational programmes can range from intensive learning support in literacy and numeracy to a wide range of academic and practical subjects that can be studied up to State examination level. Pupils are assessed on entering the school and an individual education plan devised.
The strategic management initiative envisaged that the Department of Finance and the spending Departments would agree a programme of comprehensive expenditure reviews to be carried over an agreed period. The youth encounter project is one such area selected for review. Officials from my Department in conjunction with the Department of Finance are currently examining the terms of reference.
I know I have trespassed on the Chairman's slot for some time now. Perhaps I might summarise the rest of my statement. I concluded on the section within the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, namely, the child detention schools. However, it is worth briefly mentioning the high-support and special care units, which illustrate the nature of how the State responds to the residential treatment of children who are out of control and at risk, as well as those who are sentenced by the courts.
The purpose of high-support and special care units is to provide residential care for children legally termed "out of control". That refers to children who are at risk and in need of care, protection and the provision and delivery of an education service in a secure and therapeutic environment. As I already explained to members, the fundamental agreement preceding the Children Act 2001 was that the health authorities would take responsibility for that category of child. On numerous occasions the High Court reminded us in the Oireachtas of our obligations in that regard.
The Department of Education and Science has the responsibility of providing education services for those young persons and ensuring that it is adequate for their needs. High-support care is for children with severe emotional and behavioural problems whose difficulties cannot be dealt with in the mainstream. Children in high support are not legally detained and therefore do not fall within the remit of the Special Residential Services Board.
Special care facilities, on the other hand, accommodate children who are the subject of special care orders or orders made by the High Court. It is important to understand that, before the Children Act 2001, there was no clear legislative provision for a special care order involving the detention of a child in the absence of criminal jurisdiction. In other words, there was no alternative to the criminal detention of a child. Part 3 of the Children Act 2001 provides for special care orders. I intend to commence that part by the end of January 2004. Clearly, the establishment of the Special Residential Services Board was a necessary preliminary to that. When Part 3 is brought into force, it is anticipated that High Court jurisdiction will no longer be invoked to commit such persons to secure care and that the jurisdiction will be exercised by the District Court in liaison with the Special Residential Services Board and its officers. The problem of inappropriate placements to which I referred will be dealt with.
To shadow the provisions of the Act, considerable progress has already been made in transferring persons committed to child detention schools to health board facilities. That has resulted in a reduction in demand for places in the child detention schools. Today, there is a very small number of cases - I believe one or two at most, though I would have to verify it with my officials - of persons who have not been sentenced by a court still being in the child detention schools. They are under a High Court order that dates back a considerable period and must expire. The intention is, in accordance with the spirit of the legislation, to ensure that any child who is out of control and requires secure care is secured in a health board facility. As members are well aware, the principal facility is at Lucan in County Dublin. There are also facilities in Limerick and Cork.
I do not wish to detain members too long. The note spells out the facilities which the Department of Education and Science has provided at the special care facilities and high-support schools and contains the same type of information as has been given on the youth encounter projects and the children detention schools. The high-support and special care units are subject to full inspection. The Social Services Inspectorate has responsibility for inspecting those bodies. In its 2002 report, it found that the standard of education in the residential centres was commendable. The report made reference to the fact that teachers highlighted close co-operation between the schools and the centres. One teacher cited an instance where a request was made for volunteers to carry out yard duty at the school, and a member of the care staff took turns with the parents. The 2001 report also stated that care staff were supportive of all aspects of the young persons' school life. They attended school meetings and events, assisted young persons with their homework, and maintained regular liaison with the schools. The report also highlighted several examples where care staff and teachers co-operated closely in adopting a flexible approach to sustaining school placements. Some young persons were reintegrated into the system with a care worker accompanying them at school. The inspection of education provision in all such schools is carried out by the primary inspectorate. Its core task is to inspect and evaluate the quality of the schooling, advising the Department on educational policy and supporting teachers and management. Primary schools are inspected on a cyclical basis in line with annual inspection targets.
A pilot inspection of Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre for young offenders was commissioned by my Department. The inspector, Dr. Michael Laxton, examined and inspected the centre's operations with reference to draft standards drawn up by the Department of Education and Science in consultation with the centres themselves and the Irish Social Services Inspectorate. Those standards cover all aspects of residential child care and reflect best practice, both in Ireland and internationally. The inspector completed his work in July 2002, and his report is available on the Department's website. It was retained by the Department to monitor progress in the centre.
The issue of inspection of the remaining four schools for young offenders is currently being considered with regard to the new inspection provisions set out in the Children Act 2001. One of the provisions of the Children Act 2001, section 185, provides for an inspector of children detention schools. Planning is under way in the Department for the appointment of such an inspector, but we are anxious that any such appointee should work in close liaison with the Irish Social Services Inspectorate, which has already established a good track record in the inspection of the health facilities, and that there should be a co-ordinated approach between the various inspectorates to the inspection of facilities. Of course, I mean their inspection in their totality as care and detention centres and not simply of their educational dimensions, which can always be dealt with by the Department's inspectorate.
Mention has been made in the script of the position of Finglas, and perhaps I should deal with that, since it has frequently been mentioned in news reports since my appointment. Dr. Laxton completed his work in July 2002 and submitted his report to me. I then engaged in very intensive consultations with the unions representing staff members at Finglas, namely, SIPTU and the INTO, and I appreciate the co-operation which they extended to me in those very intensive discussions. I am glad to say that we have made substantial progress in Finglas. The standards recommended by Dr. Laxton are being observed. The director of Finglas has taken up a new position, believing that his talents could be deployed elsewhere. I have referred the question of the centre's future to the Special Residential Services Board, and I will receive news on that matter very soon.
I am free to say that one option being examined by the Special Residential Services Board is that Finglas should become a pure remand centre. Deputies will note that it is envisaged, under the Children Act 2001, that, as well as detention facilities, there should be a junior remand centre for offenders under 16 remanded by the courts. Clearly, as Deputies are all too well aware from newspaper coverage, there is a persistent suggestion that there are no places available for remand cases. A dedicated facility located within the Dublin metropolitan area would be desirable among our child detention centres.
An option canvassed by Dr. Laxton in his report was that Finglas should close. I have decided not to pursue that option. It is very difficult to obtain sites for such centres. The State has a site at Finglas and one at Oberstown, and facilities should be developed at them. I am happy to report to the committee that morale is currently high among staff at Finglas, and I know that they are eagerly awaiting the conclusions of the Special Residential Services Board. On receipt of those conclusions, I will lay out a very definite road map for Finglas. A capital project has been under examination there for several years. I have reviewed that project, and I will make an announcement about that in the context of the recommendations of the Special Residential Services Board. Finglas can be - and is being - turned around, and it can become a valuable element in the children detention service. I received tremendous assistance from the staff unions representing the different interests in the centre concerned.
I note that an inspection process will begin at St. Joseph's School, Fairyhouse, Clonmel, on 1 December 2003. Perhaps I might say a few words about Clonmel, since the position in that regard is somewhat different from the case of the other centres. In the Department, we think that we have three centres, since we have three boards. The Oberstown campus is very substantial and has three detention centres and two schools. However, essentially it is contained within one overall campus. Finglas is also a distinct location. In all those centres, the intention under the Act, which has already been substantially realised, is that they would be restricted to persons under 16 convicted of offences before the courts.
In Clonmel there has been a tradition of having both offending and non-offending children. Owing to that tradition, and because of the anxiety of the Clonmel authorities to continue their work, special provision was made by the Oireachtas in section 161 of the Children Act 2001 that the Minister could "enter into arrangements with persons for the provision by those persons on behalf of the Minister of a place providing facilities for the detention of children found guilty of offences" and that "Any such place need not cater exclusively for children found guilty of offences".
Essentially, a substantial number of those in Clonmel have not been convicted of offences and are there as the result of health board referrals. The current number in Clonmel there as a result of court orders in criminal proceedings is very small - I am advised that it is fewer than five. That is the current position on Clonmel, which the Oireachtas envisaged in the Children Act 2001. Clearly, one of the Act's key objectives is to reduce, as far as possible, the use of custody as an option for offenders. How that will work out in the courts will have to be reviewed in the Department in due course to assess demand in the area. I think that I have covered most of the field, but I would be delighted to take any questions.
I thank the Minister. I will call members for comments, beginning with Deputy Stanton.
I welcome the Minister this morning and acknowledge the work that has been done to date in this extremely important area and that is taking place in the schools. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that much more remains to be done. We offer our support in any way that we can to the Minister and his Department in that regard.
We could probably stay here all day discussing this issue, since it is so vast. I will probably be able to touch on only a few areas. One question that comes to mind initially is that of judicial training for judges. Dealing with children is obviously a very important, sensitive and specialised area. Does the Minister have any views on the need for judges to gain expertise and be trained in it? What is happening there? Does the Minister have any plans in that area?
I note that the report that was published in December 2002 on residential provision for children under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science, the preliminary view, spoke of the chronic lack of community-based alternatives to detention rather than objective assessment for such a placement. I also note that the heads of the schools quoted in the same report feel that between 33% and 50% of young people in their care at any time should be in a more appropriate and less restrictive setting. There is obviously much more to be done. What plans does the Minister have to introduce such community-based alternatives, given that another section in his Department, responsible for Youth Work Act, is not being funded at all and that youth work would possibly have a large role to play in providing alternatives? I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on this matter.
The report concludes with the observation that residential schools may be considered a neglected area that urgently needs to be given proper attention. I am glad to see that this is now happening.
When does the Minister expect the Children Act 2001 to be fully implemented? I note, from a recent reply to a parliamentary question, that a number of sections of the Act remain to be implemented. These include Part 10 of the Act, which is the responsibility of the Minister himself. The reply stated:
The Minister for Education and Science has responsibility for Part 10 of the Act which provides for the establishment of the detention schools to replace existing reformatory and industrial schools. These provisions cannot be commenced until separate detention facilities are provided for 16 and 17 year old girls.
Can the Minister of State tell us what is happening to this provision and elaborate on his answer? The Minister also stated in his reply to my parliamentary question that, "A key consideration in commencing the Children Act is the identification of the appropriate number of residential places required under the new arrangements". Can the Minister tell us when the sections that have not yet been implemented will be put in place?
Father Peter McVerry, speaking at the annual conference of the Irish Penal Reform Trust on 1 November last, said that young people who become involved in regular criminal activity have, in his view, major unmet personal, interpersonal, emotional and developmental needs which have not been adequately met by their families, their schools or their communities. He said that many also suffer from childhood traumatic experiences that have not been healed. The focus in responding to their criminal behaviour is to provide services and opportunities for those unmet needs to be belatedly met.
Will the embargo that has been placed on the hiring of psychologists by the Minister of State's Department have an impact on centres? In a response on 14 October to my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, the Minister for Education and Science mentioned residential institutions for young offenders. How many psychologists are working? Are they full-time; are they educational psychologists and how many are attached to each centre? What counselling services are available in the centres?
There are also residential care places for troubled children. A recent newspaper report referred to 24 places in Ballydowd in Lucan; 24 in Castleblaney and 25 in Portrane in north Dublin. Can the Minister give us an update on these places?
The age of criminal responsibility has been raised from seven to 12. What are the Minister of State's views on the impact of that change?
There has been much publicity recently about parents taking responsibility for the actions of their children through the requirement to pay compensation in respect of offences committed by their children. The other Minister for State at the Department of Education and Science issued a press release recently telling us this had happened, although the measure had been enacted some time previously. What is happening with regard to this measure? Have any such cases occurred? What happens when parents are unable to pay compensation? Very often children who are involved in this area come from families who do not have the means to pay compensation.
Has a curfew for children found guilty of offences been put in place and is it working? One notices children begging on the streets of Dublin, which is sad to see. There was talk of reversing the burden of proof for parents whose children are found begging. Has the Minister of State taken any action to assist these children? Are people from his Department, from other Departments or from the health boards on the streets, interacting with the children and intervening in a positive way?
Have special care units for non-offending children who are committed under special care orders of the health boards been established throughout the country? If so, are they working?
Many of the questions are in my area of responsibility. Today, I am prepared to answer questions on the education side rather than the health or justice sides. However, I can deal with all questions.
We must return to the question of co-ordination between the various agencies. What measures are in place to ensure proper co-ordination between the agencies? The reports I receive indicate that it could be much better.
Which agencies?
The health boards, the Garda, the Department of Education and Science, schools and all the agencies involved. Is any one group responsible? Who is responsible for co-ordinating agencies? The Minister of State has told us this morning that he is only responsible for one section.
I am not saying that. I will take political responsibility——
I apologise if I understood the Minister of State incorrectly.
I was asked to attend here today to discuss the special residential schools operated by the Department of Education and Science, which is a large subject in itself. Deputy Stanton has raised a number of issues about the schools and about the Children Act provisions pertaining to them. I am also responsible for many of the other areas he has mentioned but I am not here today to discuss them. I am not before the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to discuss, for example, the issues of criminal responsibility, the role of parents, Leanbh or children on the streets. I am not here with officials from the Department of Health and Children to discuss health centres and special care units. However, in relation to co-ordination, I thought I had made it clear, in the context of the provision of detention places, that we have established the Special Residential Services Board to co-ordinate the services. I will deal with the other matters Deputy Stanton has raised but my officials do not accompany me on them.
I sympathise with the Minister of State's position. The fact that he is putting things this way points to the validity of my case. No one Minister is responsible for this area.
There is. I am responsible. However, this committee decided to discuss certain matters today. If the committee wishes to discuss everything with me I will come and discuss everything. I was invited to discuss the child detention schools.
The Minister of State is quite right. However, there are areas of overlap that are so grey that Deputy Stanton has put the problem as well as it could be put.
I agree.
We will constrain the answer to the education area in so far as we can or are obliged to do so.
I do not have all the information to hand.
Deputy Stanton's questions have some impact on the education aspects. It is difficult to break them up.
I accept the Minister's point. I understood that we were to discuss education for young offenders and extremely disruptive children, including schools. We can come back to that subject at another time. The report to which the Minister of State referred stated that the residential schools will become isolated and continue to be used inappropriately because of the lack of positive alternatives in the community and that they may be considered a neglected area. Fr. McVerry suggests that the criminal justice system is not the most appropriate system to meet the needs in the first place. That is a wider issue. He maintains, and this is curious, that our society and the drafters of the legislation, Deputies and Senators, see the parents of these children as the problem when we should see them as the solution.
What is the average time between arrest and sentencing for young offenders? I understand there may be delays. Restorative justice involves community members. In the United States and in Britain, there is a system of community justice. Are there any plans to introduce such a system here? How many children attend the schools, leave and then are sent back? What are the recidivism rates? They are probably low but it would be interesting to see the figures.
I also welcome the Minister and his officials to the committee and thank them for an informative presentation. I will try to avoid asking the same questions as Deputy Stanton.
I do not mind if the questions are wide ranging. I am delighted to take questions on the health or justice areas, I can deal with them, but my answers will be general in character. I might not have the precise data.
On occasion we have had meetings in conjunction with other committees where all the areas were examined in detail. It is not, however, the most convenient way to do business.
I have found it of great political benefit that someone has responsibility for co-ordination. I found what was said interesting because it is straight to the point and I share the convictions expressed.
It is disappointing that the Children Act 2001 is being implemented so slowly, with a number of sections yet to be implemented. I will support the Minister of State in every way to ensure it is implemented in full. It shows a change in attitudes to young offenders that was agreed on all sides and it is a disappointment that it is being implemented so slowly. It is right that there is a Minister of State with responsibility across Departments because co-ordination is vital. It is also vital that the inspector liaises with the social services inspectorate.
Will the Minister of State expand on the situation in the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre? This is a controversial matter. A report has been published and monitoring is ongoing, but could we have more information on the situation? The director is no longer there. Has a new director been appointed?
The two deputy directors are acting up in agreement.
The Minister of State also said there is a proposal that it may become a remand centre. When will the changes to the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre be announced?
We are all aware of past difficulties and there is no point in going over them again but the number of people being released at weekends from Finglas and re-offending was brought to my attention. There did not seem to be co-ordination between the gardaí in the areas where these people lived and the centre. Has that been addressed? The health dimension and staff retention are issues for the young offenders centres. Are there similar problems in the education centres?
The centres have high running costs, more than €25 million for the 92 students currently in them. Many staff are required and the costs contrast with those for running the youth encounter projects. There should be more resources in community intervention as opposed to custodial intervention. We cannot cut back on the custodial side while the need for it exists but it is so much more cost effective to put money into these youth encounter projects.
The Education Welfare Board still does not have the money to expand to provide services throughout the country. It was established to stop children dropping out of school because there is a statistical relationship between young children not going to school and children ending up in detention centres. It is not necessarily an area within the Minister of State's remit, but it is an important point because we are meeting to make such connections.
Areas of Limerick have been highlighted in the media in recent weeks where the brothers of people named in the papers go to schools that do not get much extra support. It is crucial that both the parents and the schools in areas where there are high levels of juvenile offending get the support they need. I am familiar with the youth encounter project in Limerick. It has a waiting list and a shortage of resources so I ask the Minister of State to ensure the centres get the resources they need.
I have doubts that the purpose of these schools should be to get young people back into the mainstream as soon as possible. I have spoken to people involved in alternative centres and they say that some young people are much better off if they stay in the youth encounter projects because they do very well in them and they are suited to their needs. They have never liked school and they cope well in the projects that are run differently. Is anyone researching the possibility of changing the current approach? Establishing more youth encounter projects and having more places available might address the problems of the growing number of young people who are unhappy in school and do not fit into that system. I know we have school retention programmes but the alternative, parallel system works very well for some young people. Is the step-down centre for the centre in Oberstown open yet?
I asked a parliamentary question about the number of beds that are occupied at any one time. We were told that there are 92 in residential centres across the system in November. I understand they are not always there all the time, so that, while one might have a figure of 92, there might not necessarily be 92 there at any one time. I ask that because it is such a costly system, and it is difficult to know whether we are getting value for money in the use of the centres. There is a common perception that it is very hard to find a place and that the poorest cannot find places. It was in that context, six or seven months ago, that I tabled that question. It seems that there are unoccupied places, and perhaps more than there should be. Courts and judges have also highlighted that they cannot find anywhere to put young people.
I have asked everything that I wanted to ask. Perhaps I might sum up by saying that the transition to the new regime is very slow, and it will be important to maintain what we have until such time as we reach the point where community interventions are in place. Unless young offenders are dealt with by someone, they will become much more serious offenders as adults.
Are the schools about which we are speaking all residential, or does there come a stage in the educational programme where there is greater access to home, meaning that pupils return there but are accountable to the school every day? Those of us who are members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights visited certain schools that were dedicated to young offenders in San Francisco. Those offenders returned home every evening, but there was a parent-student programme in operation.
I would like clarification regarding hours of learning. I understand that the pupil-teacher ratio is significantly reduced because of circumstances. What is a typical day in school? Like Deputy Stanton, I would like to ask what psychological services are available. Obviously, it cannot all be academic. There must be personal development courses and so on to help the young person overcome his or her difficulties. No doubt, as Father Peter McVerry says, it is as a result of unmet needs that they are there in the first place. In the education of the young offender, are there any outreach programmes from within the residential setting for the parents of the offenders? I fear that, once they complete their time, be it three or four years, they will return to the family setting which first nurtured their undisciplined behaviour. There must be intervention with parents, or the whole exercise will be counterproductive.
There was provision in the Act for a visiting panel to be established at each school. Has that been done?
None of that part has commenced.
When might that happen?
I have not attached particular priority to establishing the visiting panel. I will come back to that.
I was just curious to know whether it had happened. Is there any current research into the area, especially offending by juvenile females? Are there any plans to commission such research? We have research here into the operation of the schools and reports and so on, but what about the sociological, psychological and other reasons that youngsters find themselves in such places in the first place?
Some of my questions are similar to earlier ones. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to community support, particularly difficulties that children have, sometimes for behavioural, sometimes for other reasons. They can have enormous difficulty fitting into the school regime. I know that there are some excellent projects in the youth area. I know of one in County Clare - the alpha project. It takes people who had, by and large, no behavioural difficulties, but simply could not prosper in the school regime - as well as some others with behavioural difficulties. They frequently complain that they get very little support and would welcome evaluation of the impact of their project. They tend to be dismissed and marginalised. Some of the other more mainstream interventions suffer from lack of resources, as well as from not being taken seriously. I am interested in the study by Dr. Michael Laxton, which is in some respects the way to go. It obviously brings best international practice to bear. I would also be very interested in what ongoing evaluation of outcomes is in place. We have not been good in that area, and it bears some examination.
I would also like to revisit the point made by all three Deputies regarding support for communities and parents. There is obviously a cohort of people who must be accommodated in such institutions. However, next to them are many people for whom relatively inexpensive interventions in mainstream schooling, community support or direct support for parents might be much cheaper but bring better outcomes. Deputy Stanton asked about judges and how well they might be briefed. In a sense, one could say that that is a justice question. How much information about educational provision and requirements in the case of specific children does the judge get? I mean the background and educational information specific to the child that is presented to the judge. I am also interested in what figures are available on the number of people in, for example, the ADHD or Asperger's spectrum who ultimately find themselves in those units rather than in the high-support set-ups that the Minister mentioned.
One need hardly ask the final question. We have dealt here in the committee with the implications of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2001 and the fact that the State is open to claims arising from the mistreatment of people in residential institutions. I presume that by now we have put in place very specific measures. The Minister mentioned the Irish Social Services Inspectorate and the schools inspectorate. I hope that we have cast-iron guarantees that the kinds of difficulties that we are currently dealing with badly will not be visited on our successors in 20 years.
In case I caused any confusion, I am very interested in all the questions. They were certainly all relevant to my responsibilities. I was only highlighting the fact that I cannot deal with all of them in as much detail as I would like.
Judges are appointed under the Constitution and are independent in the performance of their functions. The traditional response has been that it is not for us to prescribe their qualifications other than the minimum periods that they must serve as legal practitioners and the assessment that is now done by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. That said, the Courts Service has worked in this area since its establishment, and it is worth noting that the Courts Service has organised regular seminars for judges at different levels. I am sure that many of the concerns that have been expressed in the Houses of the Oireachtas on such issues as the consistency of sentencing have been part of those discussions. Of course, at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, we are not briefed on the content of such discussions, but we are aware that the Courts Service has, as a matter of priority, established a Judicial Studies Institute and fostered a greater sense of collegiality among judges.
That is for the good, and in the specific context of the Children Act 2001 I was invited to address the District Court judges, who have the primary responsibility for it, in late 2002. I had a very successful meeting with them at which I outlined the Act's provisions and how we proposed to proceed. They expressed many of their concerns, which of course had to be expressed in the abstract. It was a useful exchange, and I agree with the Deputy. The president of the District Court has tended to allocate specific judges to the children lists in the major metropolitan centres. However, in areas in provincial Ireland the children list is simply an interruption in the regular list of the sitting of the District Court, because of the small number of cases involved. I will draw to the attention of the Courts Service the Deputy's wish that training and collaboration on children's problems should be at the forefront.
I pay tribute to the Judiciary. In my experience a number of District Court judges have a close interest in this area, are very concerned about it and keep themselves abreast of social, psychological and child development issues as well as their purely judicial functions.
Deputy Stanton raised the question of the review of placements. Dr. Laxton's report, as I indicated in my opening address, envisaged that community based approaches might reduce the demand for residential placements. Deputy O'Sullivan touched on this also. We must all acknowledge that at the end of the matter there must be a very expensive full stop. Total secure detention of a juvenile offender is now and again essential for the protection of the public and we must have that facility, however expensive it might be.
In addition, and by way of exception to the general embargo, money was voted in the 2003 Estimates for the recruitment of 30 additional probation officers to service the Children Court and sanction was obtained from the Department of Finance for this. Recruitment has been slow. The posts have been advertised and the officers must be trained up but it is intended that a dedicated group of probation officers will serve the different sittings of the Children Court so that a designated service would operate within the probation service to service the requirements of the Children Court. This would be a major advance. That is the first essential step in the rolling out of community-based services. Once these probation officers are appointed and trained the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform envisages commencing those provisions of the Children Act relating to conferencing. Out of that can flow the link of the persons who are the subject of the conferencing with the necessary community-based services. My own instinct is that we should not establish a parallel bureaucracy of services for youth offenders. Rather, through the conferencing, we should seek to link up the offenders with many existing services, such as labour training, workshops and so on.
Deputy Stanton referred to the provision of places for 16 and 17 year old females and the implementation of Part 10 of the Children Act. My Department is anxious to commence Part 10 as soon as possible and my officials are working hard on ensuring that the protocols are put in place, the staff are trained and that we move forward to implementing Part 10. We could do that in a matter of months. Of course, once we do so we lose responsibility for all offenders over the age of 16 and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has not yet established a facility for the female offenders who are aged 16 and 17. There is a facility in St. Patrick's Institution for boys aged 16 and 17.
The Government decided before the last general election that a special school would be established in St. Patrick's Institution for offenders under the age of 16. That decision has now been rescinded but the facilities were developed at St. Patrick's Institution. I pay tribute to the prison service and to Mr. Aylward, its director, for developing a marvellous facility in St. Patrick's in a very short time and at a minimal cost. That facility will house 44 offenders although, again, I do not have the precise data to hand. It has been decided by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the facility will be available for 16 and 17 year old males. I have sanctioned the appointment of five teachers to that facility so that it will have a teaching capacity. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform can now say that it has made a start at shadowing the provisions of the 2001 Act with regard to 16 and 17 year old boys. That Act envisages that designated child detention centres will be set up, either within existing institutions or separately, to give a high educational content. That has been done, at least for 16 and 17 year old boys. The facility has not yet opened, because of wider issues currently in train in the prison service. However, the decision in principle has been taken, the facility has been provided, the teachers have been sanctioned and it is the firm intention to progress the group along those lines.
One of the problems with the 16 and 17 year old females is that, to some extent, we legislated for an absurdity because the category is a very small one and it is difficult to design an appropriate institution for such a small category. I have spent many hours on this problem and we are determined to find a solution to it. The director of the prison service, the officials of the Department and I are anxious to progress the matter. The Government decided not to proceed with the facility at the Naas Road, which would have provided the necessary facilities for this group.
Deputies Stanton and O'Sullivan raised a question about implementing the remaining provisions of the Act. It was made clear by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, when he introduced the legislation that it was never the intention to implement this Act in a matter of a year or two. It was such a revolution and such a permanent change in our way of approaching juvenile justice that it would be implemented over time. I am anxious to ensure that we get on with implementing the Act in various respects. Deputies are familiar with the provisions of the Act that were already in force and that I have recently commenced Part 11 of the Act, which deals with the Special Residential Services Board. It is clear from what I have said today that I am anxious to ensure that the Department of Education and Science is in accordance with Part 10 of the Act before we commence it. We are making progress in that regard. I mentioned the fact that the Department of Health and Children intends to commence Parts 2 and 3 by the end of January, at the latest. I would like to see the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform beginning to commence the parts of the Act that pertain to its area of responsibility by the middle of next year. There is a definite plan for the implementation of the Act. The fact that the staff of the probation service and the Special Residential Services Board were exempted from the embargo on public service recruitment, or rather that we were permitted to recruit within the limits of existing vacancies, has helped in allowing us to progress the implementation of the legislation.
Deputy Stanton raised the issue of psychological services. A review of the psychological provision within the schools is going on at present. The schools directly employ some and some are employed on a contract basis. We have had discussions with NEPS and we are seeking the views of the schools on how best the psychological and counselling service can be provided. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no complaints about the service itself. Of course, it is important that the Oireachtas should monitor an issue like this. The Chairman raised an issue at the conclusion that many of the offenders in these centres do not have people to speak on their behalf and, therefore, complaints do not arise as readily as in other contexts. However, the directors of the schools regarding the psychological or counselling services have expressed no concerns.
The question of the age of criminal responsibility was raised. The common law position still stands. In theory, a child can be tried for an offence from the age of seven. Criminal intent is a special one in the case of a child and evil intent must be proved up to the age of 14. The intention of the legislation is to bring that age up to 12. I had some concern, although I appreciate that the Oireachtas decided the matter. It was always made clear that this would be the last element of the Children Act to be implemented because, if one decided to raise the age to 12 it would then be necessary to decide what to do with persons whose conduct amounts to criminal offences but who can no longer be dealt with by the Garda or the courts. The intention was that the health boards would become responsible for this and that would involve recruiting staff to the health board.
One of the implications of the age of responsibilities provisions in the Act, which I do not feel was fully understood at the time, was that diversion programmes would not be available for ten or 11 year olds. There can be no diversion unless an offence is committed and if no offence is committed by someone under 12 years of age, we are saying that they should not be subject to diversion either. I have been concerned about this question and I have appointed the necessary committee under Part 4 of the Act dealing with the Garda diversion programme. I have asked both the committee and the Garda authorities to look at the issue as to whether on an administrative basis, subject to the wishes of the DPP and the Garda Commissioner, we could make a start by lowering the age to ten and to see to it that health boards have the necessary facilities for everyone under the age of ten. I want to keep the diversion programmes in operation for ten and 11 year olds because they do much good work. Part 4 of the Act has been fully commenced and the gardaí, through the juvenile liaison scheme, are implementing it. They have introduced the concept of restorative justice and conferencing into the juvenile justice system. We have started at garda level, the courses in Templemore have been changed and emphasis is placed on restorative justice within the juvenile side of the diversion scheme. The juvenile liaison officers have been trained in diversion work and have conducted many conferences where the restorative justice technique has been used and the victim of the offence confronts the perpetrator. This is good work and I want to leave that option for children over the age of ten for now, although the Oireachtas has legislated and we must respect that. That is how I am addressing the issue in the sequence of implementation.
I agree with Deputy Stanton that the role of parents is important. The provision regarding compensation was commenced in May 2002. Deputy O'Dea was drawing attention to the powers of the courts in this area but it is an important issue and when the probation and welfare service gets down to conferencing with offenders in court, we are going to see the issue of the community based approach we want to use. I said to the probation and welfare service that I would like to see a stronger focus on parental responsibility as one of the remedies available to the courts. For many of the offenders, particularly the most hardened ones, there is not much point in pursuing parental responsibility but the fact remains that through the criminal justice system we must set an example and we can do that through more effective parental responsibility.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has funded the ISPCC Leanbh project that attempts to deter begging in the streets. That is the carrot of the operation, the stick is contained in the Children Act where there is a section dealing with begging that has commenced.
The special care units are my responsibility within the Department of Health and Children. I am satisfied that progress has been made in Lucan, which is the major national centre in the holding of a defined number of individuals in a special care context.
Parts 2 and 3 of the Act will be commenced by the end of January. They involve conferencing on the health side with the out of control children and the commencement of a definite legal provision for the detention of children who are out of control. That is important because until now we have had High Court decisions based on evidence produced by the parties invoking an inherent jurisdiction of the court. When the matter is before the District Court, the health boards and the care authorities will initiate the approach. That is as it should be. There is a danger of judicial micro-management of child welfare cases. The scheme envisaged by the Oireachtas in Part 2, dealing with the family welfare conference, and Part 3, which deals with special care orders, is well thought out and should address the issue.
The establishment of the special residential services board will bring rationality to co-ordination of the secure places. That will deal with the issue. There is a wider issue about the co-ordination of the juvenile justice system generally, which Deputy Stanton raised. I do not like to spend my time questioning the wisdom of the Oireachtas and I do not want it to be taken as a sign that I am about to introduce amending legislation, but was it wise to leave the juvenile justice system split between the Departments of Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The decision to leave the Department of Health and Children with the children who are out of control but not offending makes sense but there has been a split between the two Departments responsible for juvenile justice since 1908. The legislation tries to put mechanisms in place to overcome this.
I have taken initiatives to increase our flow of information in the area and the courts are working on improving the statistics on juvenile offending. For years, Ministers were criticised on the basis of the large number for whom no place could be found in the detention centres. When we looked into the statistics we discovered that a large number referred to the same person who is appearing before the courts on repeated occasions. It is sometimes suggested that nowhere is available but when we check the matter, we find out that it is not that a place is not available but no appropriate place is available because a person had already served a number of years in a child detention school and the school was not satisfied that it could do more with the individual although he or she was back before the courts.
That brings us to the point raised about recidivism. The Department is establishing a database of the students in the child detention schools so it can do research on recidivism. It is only since the enactment of the legislation that questions are being asked about statistics and the need for an evidence-based approach throughout the area.
When will the Department be able to implement Part 10? Are we talking about 2004, 2005 or 2006? The Minister of State mentioned lowering the age of responsibility to ten.
That will be on an administrative, not a statutory, basis. It was always envisaged that Part 5 would be the last to be implemented but we should start working on it on an administrative basis. The implementation of Part 10 is contingent on what the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does on the facility.
Is there a timescale?
I am not prepared to set a timescale for the formal commencement of Part 10 but the Department of Education and Science will shadow all of the provision in 2004, with one exception. I am not convinced of the merit of establishing visiting panels because there is provision for a professional inspectorate in the legislation. We will shadow that and work with the social services inspectorate. It is an indulgence for us to have a visiting panel too.
It is a very highly regarded precedent.
Yes, and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform clearly believes that that precedent should be taken from the adult world to that of the child. However, I am still not convinced that it will do very much for the child.
I disagree with the Minister of State.
That is particularly so when we have the Special Residential Services Board to co-ordinate the policy side and the statutory inspector to carry out the inspection of the centres. That is the position.
I asked another question.
The time lag between arrest and sentence is a crucial issue.
There was also the matter of plans to build other centres in Lucan, Castleblaney and Portrane.
They are up and running. They are the centres for the special care and high-support units. The centre at Lucan is the national centre. There were difficulties in ensuring that that got up and running. Deputy O'Sullivan touched on that when she mentioned that there were many staff retention problems on the health side. We have not had the same experience regarding staff retention on the education side. One of the issues here is that establishing an institution of this type is very difficult. Building up the tradition and culture so that one can ensure the secure detention of children with staff moving around on eight-hour shifts is very difficult. I pay tribute to the Department of Education and Science.
I have visited Oberstown on several occasions, and I have also visited Finglas, though I have yet to visit Clonmel. A very definite tradition has been established in all those schools and centres, and it builds on itself. The Department of Health and Children, on the other hand, has had to construct a system from nothing. It has had staff retention problems and numerous difficulties in Lucan, which, I am happy to say, have been resolved. Lucan is now functioning as a viable centre for special care, which involves detention. It would clearly be of great importance when those provisions are commenced on the health side in late January.
Castleblaney is a high-support unit, so it is not full detention, though it is similar in physical construction and design. I opened it last autumn, and I am satisfied with the general position there. Crannóg Nua at Portrane is also a high-support unit. There have been considerable staff retention difficulties there. It is also located in the greater Dublin area, where staff retention difficulties tend to be far greater. I know that the Department of Health and Children is examining the position at Crannóg Nua.
What about time lags?
I do not have statistics on that. I have raised the issue with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is a key issue in juvenile justice. In the United Kingdom, the Home Office is giving great attention to the question of why there is such a delay in the system. That systemic delay is not unique to our jurisdiction. With juvenile offenders, as distinct from adult offenders, the quicker the turnabout the better. To some extent the problem is met through the diversion programme. In the case of the early-offending individual, it is an expeditious way of dealing with matters. The problem is that, when the offender gets to the court stage, he or she is in the same world as the adult in the sense of delay. Though it is much less fatal in the case of deterring adult offending, it is a serious problem with juvenile offending.
The Minister was saying that the remand period ranges from days to weeks. I do not expect that the Minister would not have the information here, but would it be possible to get the numbers?
The Courts Service is doing a statistical exercise on that now.
It would be very interesting, and more interesting still if the Minister could find out whether those who are not sentenced go back to education.
It will take time to develop such longitudinal information. It cannot be assembled overnight, and the complete dearth of statistics in the area surprised me on my appointment, I have to say. That is one of the consequences of the division of responsibility between different Departments. There was a dearth of statistics in this area, and it is now being remedied. I have asked the Courts Service to examine it. It has done so, and I understand that it is rolling out a project to improve statistics in the Children Court. Within the Department, much attention has been paid to statistics as a preliminary to the implementation of the Children Act 2001.
The Chairman referred to community supports and projects. It is important we realise that every time there is a desirable youth project - and I appreciate this very much as a Minister of State - the parents, teachers, social workers and concerned persons who work so hard on such projects say that if the Minister gave them some money, that would help their project. Of course, the difficulty is that, under the Children Act 2001, there is a very clear scheme. We will start with diversion. As I am sure the Deputies are aware, a substantial amount is spent - I believe €5.4 million - on diversion-based community schemes too. The diversion scheme has a high success rate. There is a decline in offending throughout the teenage years. Of course, there are those - and I am sure that Deputy O'Sullivan has had more direct experience than anyone present apart from myself - whom diversion cannot divert. We then bring them before the courts. The key requirement is that we have community-based approaches targeted at those offenders who get to the court stage. That is where the gap has been in the system historically. There is not a sufficiency at that stage. Starting the conferencing with probation and identifying the kinds of community supports that will divert those offenders is extremely important.
Subsequently evaluating the impact?
Evaluating the outcomes, yes. The Chairman touched on the question of judges and that of inappropriate placements. I hope that it was clear from my opening that we have got to grips with that through the implementation of the Act. That is another respect in which we have shadowed what is envisaged in the Act. The Chairman also raised the question of abuse. Of course, we have security clearance and guidelines agreed with the schools and child protection, and there has been a great transformation in standards. The State is establishing an entirely secular system. Historically, religious orders and congregations administered much of this sector. Some of the locations are the same. For example, Finglas, Oberstown and Clonmel all had a religious dimension, but they are now all secular institutions, so the State is now managing them as such. That is a huge change, but there has also been a huge change in numbers. The numbers that were detained in industrial schools and reformatories in previous decades were enormous compared with those detained here now.
Deputy O'Sullivan also asked me to focus a little more on Finglas. Nothing has consumed as much of my time since my appointment than the problems at Finglas, and I am glad to say that I think we have made progress on it. Dr. Laxton visited it in early 2004. A partnership committee was founded and a strategic plan drawn up. He is requesting a detailed response to issues raised before a final visit. Security at Finglas is very important. Deputy O'Sullivan touched on it regarding weekend visits, but there is also a problem with absconding. We commissioned consultants in 2002, and we are expecting a final report from them by the end of the year.
On the specific issue raised by Deputy O'Sullivan about the releases, historically Finglas combined an industrial school with a remand and assessment centre recommended by Judge Kennedy back in 1970. The practice in Finglas was that weekend releases were permitted. It was therefore not viewed as a total detention centre. We have taken legal advice on that, and in that light, we have asked the authorities in Finglas to review their policies on that whole subject, which has caused us concern too.
I dealt with staff retention. I believe that Deputy O'Sullivan also asked about aftercare. There is an aftercare unit at Oberstown for girls. Trinity House also has one. The work being done in those units is marvellous. They are converted houses where the offender goes towards the end of his or her sentence. One of the exercises done is to assemble a complete portfolio of the individual, including birth certificates and any other certificates that he or she has obtained in the course of educational progress. A registry of that is established in the aftercare centre. Workers are finding in the child detention centres that individuals come back many years afterwards seeking those records when they finally opt to reform and pursue a lawful path. It also helps the offender into the community. That so many of the graduates of those institutions then become homeless or offend further is a key issue. There is a very ambitious youth homelessness strategy, but we will not go into that today. However, the health boards have spent a great deal of money on it. There are several facilities there, particularly, of course, in the capital. Deputy Hoctor raised the issue of outreach to parents. Courses are run by some of the schools, which aim to maintain maximum contact with families to facilitate reintegration. With juvenile offenders, one tries to maintain some family contact. However broken and weak that is, it is still more desirable to have an element of that contact rather than no contact at all. Schools certainly work at that.
I think that I have addressed most of the questions, but I will take a few final supplementaries.
I asked about the occupancy of places.
Yes, I had a note on that. There are sometimes empty spaces. I think that I gave a figure for occupancy for the early 1990s. For 2002, it was 102 and for 2003, so far, it is 97. The current total number of places available is 130. Deputies will appreciate that there must be some reserve capacity in the system. A careful examination of the figures will show that some of the over-occupancy tends to be concentrated on the female side. Since the commencement of the health provision of places for out-of-control children, there has been a substantial female take-up. There is a radical difference in offending patterns between males and females, as the Chairman mentioned. The number of female offenders under 16 is very small indeed. In a sense, there are two different problems in the area. We have not conducted detailed research, but everything one sees suggests that there is a significant difference in the patterns of male and female offending. That said, the average for 2002 was 102 and 97 for 2003. The current bed provision is 130.
I thank the Minister for attending and being so helpful, interesting and informative. I congratulate his Department on its work, with which we will support him in any way we can. What are the typical offences being committed by young people in detention? Has the Minister any breakdown? Perhaps he might get the statistics to us.
I do not have precise statistics. I would have to go to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We could get that information for the Deputy.
I do not want to put the Minister on the spot on this. Teachers in Fort Mitchel Prison on Spike Island have done excellent work. They are now worried about the loss of that centre and their own futures. I hope that it does not close, and I have asked both sides to meet behind closed doors away from the media glare and try to resolve their differences for everyone's sake. The Minister has been saying that it will be mothballed. I understand that it was initially open temporarily. Perhaps the Minister might use his own good offices to intervene there and allay the fears of teaching staff.
I am well aware of the concerns of teaching staff at Spike Island. The island is a place of detention under the Prisons Act 1970, and that means that offenders aged between 17 and 21 can be committed there by way of transfer from St. Patrick's Institution. Rather unusually in the context of the Children Act 2001, it will be very difficult to implement a separate centre for 16 and 17-year-olds at Spike Island, since the offenders tend to group in county units. The Munster offenders are grouped in county units rather than in accordance with age limits. That poses a practical problem for us. It is another example of the thinking of the Children Act 2001 being very advanced, while the Department has a practical problem.
As the Deputy is aware, it is not intended to close Spike Island. However, in the absence of agreement with the Prison Officers' Association, the Minister will have no option but to close it in the context of ensuring that essential prison places are available. I hope, as I am sure the Deputy does too, that agreement can be reached between the Department and the Prison Officers' Association on this difficult dispute. I know the point that the Deputy is raising about teaching staff, who are innocent victims of this industrial dispute. However, the solution does not lie exclusively in the hands of the Minister. There must be realistic negotiations. They have dragged on all year, and we want to bring them to a conclusion.
What will happen to the teachers if it closes?
I cannot answer that question today.
We hope that it will not happen. I thank the Minister and Deputies who participated in a really interesting and worthwhile meeting. Perhaps a few of us might value the opportunity to visit one of the centres at some stage. If the Minister could facilitate that, it would be useful to let people see how those places operate. I thank the Minister and his staff for coming along and giving us so much information.
I was going to offer that chance to the Deputies. I would be delighted if any of them wished to visit an institution.
