In June 1991 this House established a Select Committee on Crime for the purpose of examining such aspects of the administration of justice, the implementation of the criminal law and existing legislation as impinge on the daily lives of our citizens. It is a measure of the importance the committee attached to the problem of juvenile crime that that was the first subject it tackled. Its recommendations can be found in its first report, title Juvenile Crime — its Causes and its Remedies. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the committee on its report and to assure its members that their report has been of invaluable assistance to the Department of Justice in the preparation of the new juvenile justice legislation. I also take this opportunity to particularly compliment Deputy Máirín Quill for her excellent and exemplary chairmanship of that committee. Deputy Quill's work was outstanding and we all owe her a great debt of gratitude.
I will discuss the proposed new legislation in a moment but first I would like to express some general thoughts on juvenile crime. I am sure I am right in saying that many generations look back with nostalgia to what they describe as the good old days. People who were young in the forties look back on those times as the good old days. Their parents would have looked back to the earlier years of the century as the good old days, and so on. There is a natural perception that life was better in the past and that crime, including juvenile crime, is a modern phenomenon. In other words, the argument goes, we are now in the midst of our first juvenile crime wave. In most developed countries that is not the case — juvenile crime has been a constant problem for many years. Indeed, it can be described as almost an inevitable consequence of urbanisation and industrialisation due in part to the breakdown of the traditional controls on troublesome youngsters associated with rural and feudal life. Possibly because urbanisation came late to this country, juvenile crime may appear to be more a manifestation of modern life rather than a continuum, as in other countries.
Before attempting to deal with the problem of juvenile crime, we have to ask ourselves two questions. First, what type of young person is more likely to get involved in crime and, second, why will he or she become so involved? The first question is comparatively easy to answer. A disproportionate amount of crime is caused by young males. A typical profile of such a teenage boy would be that he has a low IQ, he will exhibit anti-social behaviour at an early age — often well before he reaches his teens; he will have a poor school record from an early age and, possibly, will also have been mitching from school, and he will lack proper family support.
The second question, why do young persons become involved in crime, is infinitely more difficult to answer. It has perplexed criminologists, psychologists and sociologists for many years. If we understood the causes of juvenile crime we would have a better chance of coming to terms with the problem, but anyone who thinks he has the answer to juvenile crime would do well to ask himself why a solution has evaded industrialised societies for nearly 200 years.
As it is, there are various approaches to the problem of juvenile crime. Two that stand out are loosely called the justice approach and the welfare approach, or, put another way, a conservative and a liberal approach. The proponents of both approaches will agree amongst themselves that juvenile crime is currently very high, that present policies do little to alleviate it and that changing those policies will reduce juvenile crime. That is where the agreement ends.
Advocates of the justice approach — I should explain that that is justice with a small "j"— take the view that all juvenile delinquency is criminal behaviour and also that young offenders should be punished in proportion to their crimes. The welfare approach is that deliquency is a cry for help and that such behaviour should be dealt with by what are called the caring agencies rather than processed through the criminal justice system. The justice system emphasises the absolute right of society to protect itself. It ignores the causes of juvenile crime and disregards the needs of juvenile delinquents to be rehabilitated. The welfare approach, on the other hand, pays little regard to the right of society to protect itself by emphasising a policy of excluding young persons from the criminal justice system — no matter what their offence may be. I would respectfully submit that both approaches have been tried time and again in other countries without any significantly positive results.
What happens is that Governments, pushed by society, because of perceived increases in juvenile crime or of a more violent type of juvenile crime, bring in harsh measures aimed at curbing that crime. When, after a time, these measures are not seen to work, softer measures are again adopted, and so on, the cycle of harsh and soft measures continuing. We must learn from the lessons of history and from the sometimes all-or-nothing policies towards juvenile crime tried unsuccessfully elsewhere. I also make the point that juvenile crime is a manifestation of the crime problem generally. Crime rates are a reflection of the society in which we live and, because male juveniles commit a disproportionate amount of crime, juvenile crime will thus be relatively more serious in a society with a young population.
Before attempting to place what I have been saying into the context of the proposed legislation, I would like to say something more about the reasons for juvenile crime. There is no doubt that poverty and unemployment play a role; anyone arguing otherwise would simply not be facing reality. However, in a materialistic and consumerist society it is relative rather than absolute poverty that is important. To say that poverty was the only reason, or even the biggest single reason for juvenile crime, would be a grave insult to the vast majority of decent people in receipt of social welfare assistance who are successfully bringing up their children to be good citizens. It also ignores the fact that juvenile crime has always been a problem in wealthy societies.
However, in many cases of young offenders, poor parenting is a problem. It may be just that the parent or parents cannot cope; the complex and demanding role of parents in this modern age has been dealt with in some detail by the select committee. However, parents may be irresponsible in their abuse of alcohol or other substances and sometimes children themselves may be physically, sexually or mentally abused by their parents or other family members. Maybe there are some parents who simply do not care about their children, being, perhaps, too wrapped up in their own problems to exercise the parental control, guidance and discipline that would be regarded as normal. It may be that the parents being the first modern generation to be brought up in an era of lax discipline and lack of respect for others, have not inherited or learnt the skills of successful and responsible parenting.
Young people are constantly bombarded with messages, whether explicit or subliminal, that make it difficult for them to have a balanced outlook on life. At the extreme it may be pornographic or violent videos, but even a constant diet of television can affect youngsters in many negative ways that have to be counteracted, but very often are not, by good parenting. Indeed, some parents succumb to the very same negative influences and it is the children of these parents who will end up most disadvantaged.
What I am saying is that some young people are brought up in a moral vacuum and do not, as in the past, have the necessary family support, religious belief or moral or social values to fall back on as a balance to a constant bombardment of negative influences. Is it any wonder that some — and it is a relatively small number — get involved in crime? Our task is to identify at an early age those youngsters at risk of becoming involved in vandalism and crime and who try to prevent that involvement. For example, early intervention at the first signs of truancy from school is crucial. It is also our task to try to wean those already involved in crime back to a life of decency by giving them, above all else, hope for their future. This has to be done, through a properly co-ordinated and integrated response by the voluntary agencies, through local community effort and State agencies, all within the context of a multi-faceted, non-statutory and legislative framework. I come now to the proposed juvenile justice legislation. Expectations for this legislation vary from those who see it as an opportunity to clamp down severely on young offenders — the justice approach that I have already mentioned — to those who see it as an opportunity to almost remove young persons altogether from the criminal justice system as we know it — the welfare approach. In fact the Bill will take neither approach. As I have already said, experience in other countries over extended periods shows that adopting the justice model will inevitably lead to its eventual abandonment in favour of the welfare model and vice versa. The preparation of the legislation does however lead one to ask: why a Juvenile Justice Bill? Why not let the young offenders take their chances with the ordinary criminal justice system like other offenders? After all, a victim is a victim no matter what the age of the offender. There are many reasons young persons should be treated differently within the criminal justice system because of their age and I will just refer briefly to some of the more important.
The first is the role of parents. Parents have certain rights and duties with regard to their children. It is important that these be recognised in the Bill. When a child first becomes involved with the law his parent, or preferably where possible both parents, should be involved in every stage of the legal process thereafter. It is not just a question of ensuring that irresponsible parents who do not care are involved — and at some stages in the proceedings that involvement may have to be obligatory — but that the process is fair and flexible enough to ensure that parents who do want to be involved are not excluded because of an over formal system. When a young person commits a crime his parents should at all times be kept fully informed of what is happening and of what is expected of them in the rehabilitation of their child or in his reintegration back into society where it was found necessary to impose a custodial sentence. Of course, parents, whether or not they want to be involved, should receive all the help, support and advice from the relevant voluntary and State agencies alike that they need to enable them in turn to help and cope with their children. Some youngsters become involved in petty vandalism and delinquency for the sheer excitement it brings to their humdrum lives. They are simply bored. Many will grow out of it and mature to lead normal law abiding lives. It is important not to over-react to that type of delinquency but instead to encourage each local community, with help and advice from relevant agencies, to provide both the facilities and the efforts of local people of goodwill that will enable it to guide its younger members relatively unscathed through their difficult teenage years.
Second, the courts should have a range of relevant and creative non-custodial sanctions available to them as alternatives to the imposition of custodial sentences on young offenders. The Select Committee on Crime listed several such community based sanctions and while I cannot promise that they will all appear in the legislation — some are more practical than others — I can state that the Bill will not be found wanting in the range of non-custodial options that will be available to the courts.
Third, no matter what we might wish, some young offenders will, as a last resort, have to be detained in secure accommodation. I am thinking about the persistent young offender for whom previously imposed non-custodial sanctions have failed or the vicious young thug who is incorrigible, a menace to society and also possibly a danger to himself. There are some persons, regardless of age, against whom society has to be protected. Some people will argue that by detaining such youngsters you are, in effect, condemning them to a life of crime because of what they will learn from fellow detainees. My answer to that is that by the time such youngsters end up in detention, or because of the nature of the crimes they have committed, there is very little left for them to learn about crime. In fact, their one hope may well be the training, education, care and even affection they receive as well as the discipline and self-motivation they learn while in detention, all aimed at trying to successfully reintegrate them back into society. Detention will of course be with persons of the same general age group — there would be no mixing of adults and young offenders.
Much work has already been done in the preparation of the Juvenile Justice Bill. It is intended to repeal all remaining provisions of the Children Act, 1908. This will leave a large area to be covered in the new Bill which will, accordingly, be substantial legislation.
Apart from legislation to deal with the problem of juvenile crime and delinquency, the House will be interested to hear that the Garda Síochána and the probation and welfare service of my Department are highly active in the fight against youth crime.
The juvenile liaison system, which has 83 full time gardaí attached to it, has dealt with over 42,000 cases since 1963. The cautioning system is carried out under the auspices of this scheme, which was revamped and augmented in December 1990, when the national juvenile office of the Garda Síochána was established. This office is headed by a superintendent of the Garda Síochána and it co-ordinates the Garda schools programme and crime prevention programmes for juveniles at risk. The office also liaises with other agencies in the development of diversion programmes and the outreach programmes in which the Garda are involved in Dublin and Limerick. The dedicated staff of the national juvenile office regularly visit juveniles at risk in their own homes and have a long record of success in diverting young people from further contact with crime.
The Garda Síochána schools programme does not target specific young offenders but attempts to use classroom visits, organised trips and projects with fourth and fifth class pupils to warn them of the dangers of crime and of becoming involved in vandalism and substance abuse. They also give talks on road safety. The probation and welfare service of my Department come into play when the courts are involved with the lives of young people, either as offenders or as a consequence of civil cases arising from family difficulty. The service is nationwide with 169 posts. Its officers prepare social inquiry and other reports for the courts. They supervise young offenders in the community and assist in setting up community based facilities, including hostels, of which there are four, two in Dublin and one each in Cork and Waterford, catering for 14 to 18 year olds and workshops, which cater exclusively for young people at grave risk.
I should stress that many other community services and facilities are provided for young people at risk. The neighbourhood youth projects, involving the health boards in Cork, Galway and Dublin strive to pre-empt the need for court appearances or admission to public care, through techniques such as personal counselling, group work, informal school work, outings, adventure sports, holidays etc. Youth encounter projects, which are funded by the Department of Education, cater for boys and girls aged ten-14 years who are persistant truants and/or have been or are likely to be in trouble with the law. These projects are based in the north inner area of Dublin, Finglas, Cork and Limerick. The special schools funded by the Department of Education provide custodial care and education for young offenders in the age range 12 to 16 years. There are five of these residential special schools in total which cater for 15 girls and 216 boys. This may seem disproportionate in gender terms, but the fact is that young girls are a lot less involved in serious crime and only represent a small percentage of the total of young offenders.
Finally, I note that the report of the select committee goes into the institutions in some detail as well as international developments in relation to juveniles. It is clear that, while it is desirable that we do more, Ireland provides for young offenders well within the minimum standards of good practice acceptable to the UN for the administration of juvenile justice as outlined in the so-called Bejing rules.
I look forward to the contributions in this debate. I compliment the committee for its excellent work, especially Deputy Quill for chairing it, in bringing out this report which has been of great help in preparing the legislation.