Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 5 Mar 1993

Vol. 427 No. 5

Report on Juvenile Crime: Statements.

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.

Like the Minister, I should also like to congratulate Deputy Quill for chairing this committee and the members of the committee for the hard work which they put into the report. I should also like to thank the secretariat.

At no stage in history has there been so much change in the lives of children as there has been in the past 100 years, but there is no change in one vital area — how we deal with children who break the law. Ireland in the nineties has the same legislation as it had almost 100 years ago. This is quite simply outrageous and makes nonsense of our claim to cherish all the children of the State equally. It not only makes nonsense of that claim but does something much more significant — it underlines the fact that we have put on the backburner the issue of children in trouble. The Minister spoke about the justice approach and the welfare approach to the problem, but it is quite clear when you examine the legislation that we have not pursued either approach. We have postponed, ignored and glossed over it. We have failed the children involved and we have failed those sectors of society affected by those children. The end result in that our response to this problem of juvenile crime is all over the place. We have not though about the age of criminal responsibility and developed a policy in relation to it or a coherent approach to truancy.

It is unbelievable in a society which places such a premium on education that it should be possible to tune into the "Gay Byrne Show" this week and hear comment after comment about children being seen in shops during school time. People are asking what is happening? The message coming across from that radio programme is that truancy is widespread, although I heard a slight correction on the programme this morning: we were told there was a half-term break last week when some of the people had phoned in. Nevertheless, having taken that into account, truancy is still a major problem in our society. It is widespread, undetected and unsolved. I have done some study in this area and it is very clear that unless you begin to tackle the problems of truancy you are not dealing with the problem of juvenile crime. There is no doubt that truancy is the high road to juvenile delinquency.

As well as casual truancy there is a deeper problem of troublesome children who cannot be contained within the school system. We have to remedy this and find ways of continuing to include them in the education system. We have to find creative ways of helping them to stay in the education system and we must given more support to teachers in this regard. It should not take a radio programme to bring the whole area of nonattendance at school to our attention. We seem to have plans for everything else, but it is strange that we have heard nothing about the beginning of the potent cycle of deprivation that is known to us. The cycle of deprivation begins when difficult children from difficult home situations fail to become regular school attenders. What happens is that they leave school unqualified, and probably illiterate, but streetwise in all the negative skills that are likely to land them in court, and which indeed often do. As I said, this is the high road to delinquency and should be our top priority. The Minister for Education should make it top priority also. We should have a coherent national policy to deal with this problem. It is dealt with in an ad hoc manner at present. Different authorities with different guidelines are responsible for this area. Will the Minister examine this in order to bring forward a coherent policy? There is a conspiracy of silence and we are not tackling the problem.

Few are rooting for the delinquent child. Until two judges refused last year to go along with poor practice in relation to places of detention, we had no action. We must ask what we are waiting for and what outrage must happen before it becomes a priority to examine this area with what I term ruthless radicalism. That is what is needed. I do not think it is decent to allow generation after generation of young people to slip through the meshes of our much praised education system onto the streets to terrorise the population and each other. It is very serious when law abiding citizens begin to lose respect for the law. That is what is happening and it is very worrying indeed.

Earlier this week I mentioned that I attended a meeting in my constituency where many people expressed that they felt they would have to take the law into their own hands in order to deal with the groups of youths who were gathering on the stairwells of the flats. The people were experiencing high levels of frustration as they felt the Garda did not have the powers to intervene. I hope the Criminal Justice Bill will help to remedy this.

The question of homelessness is another critical issue. I understand there are 12 and 14 year old girls in bed and breakfast accommodation being paid for by the State. Is this true? Is this the best we can do for these young girls? It is outrageous. We cannot have this type facility being used for young children and we must take immediate steps to ensure that young boys and girls are not placed in such accommodation. The young difficult children need a multi-faceted approach in order to help them and we have to take a more imaginative approach to their problems.

The Minister said that we sometimes adopt the attitude of almost not thinking about juvenile crime and then seeking solutions by locking the door and throwing away the key. That is absolute nonsense. The report takes a very balanced approach to the problem and suggests a range of measures and sanctions which we can begin to put into effect. We need to resource a variety of projects, including neighbourhood projects in every area. I welcome the work that has been done in this area already. Indeed, the Minister mentioned the work of the probation and welfare service, which is hard pressed, overstretched and under-resourced, as indeed are social workers working in this area. They will tell you that the only cases they are able to deal with are children at risk, such is the demand on the community care services. We must face up to this fact.

If the resources are not there at community care level — and the professionals are saying they have to prioritise their work so much that they can deal only with cases of children at risk or cases of abuse — there is something wrong with the resources we are putting into the community care system. If the Minister examines the community care service he will find that what I am saying is true. Many of the local health board offices are not in a position to deal with the young children we are talking about and cannot prioritise working with them in any way. I worked in England for a number of years and I did a great deal of work with young children with these problems. As the Minister said, it is mostly boys who are in this situation. We ran what were called intermediate treatment programmes which succeeded in keeping these young boys in the communities, but out of court and not committing offences. We need to develop projects like that in this country. We must also put the resources into the schools in the disadvantaged areas and I welcome the Minister for Education's comments in that regard yesterday.

It is true that we can identify the children who will become delinquent at a very early age. International research suggests many can be identified at three and four years of age and that must be taken seriously. We must put preventive programmes in place that will make a difference. However, we have behaved like an ostrich and not faced up to our responsibilities. As I said already, the 1908 Children's Act is still in place. There is no recommendation in the budget to provide more money to implement the Child Care Act. It is estimated that it will cost £58 million to implement, but only £3 million has been allocated and none this year. As far as I am aware, the Minister has not planned to remedy this. Only 17 of the many recommendations have been implemented. There was a commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress also that the Child Care Act would be implemented over a seven year period. Where do we stand now in relation to that commitment?

I agree with the Minister that we must develop non-custodial measures to deal with juvenile crime. Some custodial measures are necessary but they are extremely expensive. The demand for more detention facilities must be examined carefully. I understand that one place in an institution can cost up to £70,000 per year. The cost of keeping one child in residential care for four years could be £250,000. In other words, it could cost £10 million to keep 30 children in residential care over four years. That makes no sense and, therefore, residential care should not be regarded as the future plan to deal with juvenile crime. We must develop and spend money on non-custodial measures at community level. I understand a report has been compiled of the measures taken to deal with the problem in the Neilstown area. I do not think this report has been published, and I should like to know if the Minister intends publishing it? The report suggests the adoption of an integrated co-operative approach and such a strategy must be used, not alone in the Neilstown, but in other areas. Are there plans to implement such measures in other areas?

The Minister referred to parental responsibility. Of course, we must encourage parents to take as much responsibility as possible for the supervision of their children. This is a major issue. I am amazed at the number of parents who do not know the whereabouts of their children late in the evening. This lack of supervision will lead to further difficulties for those children and will put them at risk in many other respects. Parents must teach their children the difference between right and wrong and discuss the consequences of risk-taking behaviour with their teenage children. Taking risks is part of the nature of adolescent years, but such risk-taking must be discussed with young people at home or in school. In discussing risk-taking behaviour with teenagers, we must address the difficult issues of AIDS, drugs and drink. Our education system must allow for such discussion. School programmes which develop life and parenting skills in children to help them tackle these difficult issues are an essential part of any approach to solving this issue in a comprehensive way. This complex problem cannot be solved by one Department. There must be co-ordination between the Departments of Justice, Social Welfare, Education and Health.

The law and order approach is important and the justice system must make children aware of the consequences of their behaviour if it is unacceptable. We have seriously underestimated and undervalued the approach which highlights prevention and identifies young people who are likely to get into trouble.

Parents are often blamed for their children's behaviour and that has been highlighted in recent reports. It is important to bear in mind that many parents are struggling and need support to cope with the serious problems with which they are faced. There is not a direct correlation between being unemployed and being involved in crime, but many families face serious social problems as a result of chronic unemployment. This makes it much more difficult for them to cope with the financial pressures and so on that arise when rearing children.

I recently reviewed statistics on young children involved in the sad area of child murders and noted that 25 per cent of the children charged had been watching a violent video the week before. This is a critical issue and, again, the question of parental supervision and access to such videos must be addressed. With the advent of satellite television, easy availability of videos and so on, it will be difficult to control this problem nationally. Parents will have to develop a system of censoring and not rely on others. However, the State must take all possible action to prevent the spread of videos which have a violent and dangerous influence on young people. We do not need to carry out more research, we know such videos are closely connected with the increase in violence in our society and we are a little too complacent about this.

We can certainly identify at an early stage many of the children at risk of becoming involved in juvenile crime. We must do so and put support services in place for their families. I hope the new legislation will carefully examine the juvenile justice system. We must tackle the problem of truancy in an integrated way and develop a policy to deal with it on a national basis as it is the high road to deliquency. We must also develop a range of services at community level to help deflect young children, mostly males as the Minister said, from a criminal career. If we do not we will fail this generation of young people and the public who suffer from the consequences of juvenile crime.

We are also failing the elderly, many of whom, as I noted during the election campaign, are afraid to open their doors and have a number of locks on them. Some elderly people will not go to their local church in the evenings out of fear. This is a worldwide problem and, in some ways, it is in the early stages of development here, but if we do not tackle it in a co-ordinated way we will not solve it. We must intervene effectively in this area. It is critical for the well-being of children, families and society as a whole.

I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy O'Dea, for his kind comments on my work as chairperson of the select committee that prepared this report. His comments are much appreciated. I thank him also for the interest he has taken in the recommendations of this report. I wish to record my appreciation of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, who cannot be here this morning because of other commitments in Cork, for her interest in the report since taking office. I wrote to her immediately after her appointment informing her that this report had been published, brought before the House last July and presented to the previous Minister last September who promised that its recommendations would be considered and the drafting of the long promised juvenile justice Bill would commence. I pointed out to the Minister that that had not happened.

The Minister has shown a keen interest in this report. She has played a strong role, as have all the party Whips, in bringing the report before the House for discussion and in speeding up the drafting of the legislation to put in place the long awaited juvenile justice Bill which will replace the hopelessly outdated Act of 1908.

The select committee got off to a slow start and had a number of setbacks in its early days, but it did great work in a short time. In this regard, I pay tribute to the members of the select committee who worked hard, sometimes away from the gaze of the media. They were very conscientious and applied themselves with great sincerity to the matter under discussion today. There are times when people are very cynical about politicans, and it is easy to be so, but my work as chairperson of that committee restored fully my faith in politicians, who applied themselves with great seriousness to the work of the committee.

Sadly, a number of people who worked hard on this report were not re-elected in the last election — maybe that tells us something about the shallowness with which we sometimes make our judgments at election time. I know it is not politic to name particular people, but one of the most hard working and conscientious members of the Committee on Crime was former Deputy Pat McCartan. It is a matter of public record that he did not miss one meeting of the committee. He made a continuous, conscientious and professional input into the workings of the committee. I was very saddened he was not returned at the last election and that he is not here this morning to see the progress that has been made on the work into which he had such an input.

I also want to pay tribute to people such as John Stafford, Bill Cotter and Dr. Pat Lee, all of whom worked on the committee and none of whom was re-elected to this Dáil, which is a pity. I hope if these people are listening this morning they will take some comfort from the fact that their work has not gone unnoticed and that, unlike so many other good reports, this report has not been allowed gather dust on the shelf. I am glad it has been brought before this House and is being incorporated in the legislation being drafted, legislation that will meet the objectives that were so clearly set out during the 15 month lifetime of the committee.

I want to pay particular tribute to the clerk of the committee, Mr. Peter Lumsden, who is in the House this morning. Any reference that will be made to this report will be very familiar to his ears because he was involved in all the workings of the committee, the person who behind the scenes organised people who came and made submissions to us, oral and otherwise, and organised the research that was put into the findings of the report. Single-handedly he did an enormous amount of work in putting the report in place. I hope I have remembered everybody, even if I have not mentioned all of them, who worked hard in the compiling of this report.

I am pleased the report is getting such a good discussion here this morning. I thank Deputy Fitzgerald for her contribution — it is obvious she has read the report. She brings a good deal of personal experience, having worked for a number of years in the field of child care and youth work, and also a professional perspective to our discussion, and that is very welcome.

I hope everybody in the House, whether present today or not, will read the report. There is no point in all of us telling people what should be done in the future and what has not been done in the past. The committee of which I was chairperson brought all these matters together and put them between those two blue covers. Let that be the blueprint for our discussion from now on. Let it be the springboard for action on juvenile justice. Let us not go over all the ground again but let us work on the drafting of the Bill and apply ourselves with great seriousness to getting it through the House and into law.

When talking about young people I am reminded of what Dickens said at the start of his very fine novel, A Tale of Two Cities:“It is the best of times; it is the worst of times”. The same can be said of the times in which young people live today. In many ways it is the best of times in that young people have access to facilities, amenities, educational opportunities and consumer goods on a scale that was unthought of when I was a child. However, there is also a negative side to being young today. There was never a more difficult time for young people to grow up and make judgments, a time when adults are so confused, when there has been such a breakdown in moral values and when it is so difficult even for adults and parents to decide what is right and wrong. Young people are confronted with the kind of consumer society that breeds greed and cuts across the idealism that ought to be native to young people. Therefore, there is a stronger obligation on us than ever before to put in place the framework, legal and social, to make life easier for young people and ensure that their education is somewhat easier for teachers and parents alike. There is an obligation on us as legislators to face that task — other elements must be considered by other agencies.

It is true that law can go only so far, but if the law is not there a huge vacuum remains to be filled. The major influences in any society are religion, education and the media, and unless the people in these areas play their part in supporting legislators our task is much more difficult. Our primary task as legislators is to put in place legislation to deal with the position as it exists today. That is what we are aiming to do in this report, which is the basis of the upcoming legislation on juvenile justice.

This report calls for a new beginning, a fresh start in relation to juvenile crime and justice. In compiling the report the best scientific information from people involved, formally and informally, in youth work and education in this country and other countries was drawn upon. The report deals in some depth and detail with the dramatic upsurge in juvenile crime, not just to find explanations or even excuses for the prevalence of such crime but, more fundamentally, to enable us to arrive at solutions that will not simply address the symptoms but will seek to eradicate the root causes of youth crime in so far as that is practical and possible. The report fully acknowledges that there are no quick fixes, that the root causes are complex and varied and that accordingly the solutions will have to be multiple and broadly based.

The report emphatically states that no further delay in tackling the problem can be tolerated and that any such delay would represent criminal negligence on the part of legislators. I will give some statistics in relation to juvenile crime. Almost 40 per cent of all recorded crime is committed by juveniles. Ireland has a higher percentage of juveniles in detention than has any other country in the EC. Accordingly, tackling juvenile crime constructively can make a real difference to the crime rate, but more significantly it can reduce the number of persons who stand to be sucked into a lifetime of crime so that not alone will it have immediate benefit but a very real long term pay-off if the manner in which it is tackled is effective. If the prescription in this report is put in place it will have immediate benefit. A self-respecting society does not lightly abandon so many of its young people to a life of crime.

We must consider the impact that juvenile crime is having on society in general. The more vulnerable members of society — the old, the frail and the very young — are very often the victims of juvenile crime. We must consider too the damage young people do to their life prospects and employment prospects if they get caught up in crime. If a young person has a record of crime that will militate against him in applying for a job. If a person wants to apply for a visa to work abroad and he has a crime on record the visa will be refused. It must be explained clearly to young people that not alone are they damaging other people and their property, but they will also damage themselves, their families and their prospects.

The misery and havoc visited on the victims of crime can no longer be tolerated. Young people have a right to grow up in a society where law and order is the norm and where they experience justice in their daily lives. The Minister talked about what are perceived to be two different approaches, the welfare approach and the judicial approach. In this report both approaches are brought together. They must be brought together if the recommendations are to be effective.

We must have in place a law that is fair and just, that can be clearly communicated to young people so that they can fully appreciate and understand the legal framework within which they have to grow. It is important that young people should know the penalties for breaking the law. There has been a remarkable absence of that clear communication to date. Alongside the moral vacuum which has been referred to, there is a corresponding legal vacuum. That is what this report seeks to address. There must be a law, because at the end of the day one of the best deterrents to crime is the presence of a good law that is fair, just and clearly communicated.

For far too long this area of justice has been neglected. Politicians have been content to condemn teenage violence, vandalism, lawlessness and hooliganism every time there is a fresh outbreak and then they call for more gardaí. That is the end of the story, as if more gardaí on their own could solve the problem. While more gardaí are important, more gardaí on their own simply cannot confront the problem. This report calls for a more courageous, comprehensive, coherent and thoughtful approach. It is motivated not alone by deep concern for the victims of crime but respect and concern for the perpetrators. It calls for a new juvenile justice Act to replace the hopelessly outdated Children Act of 1908 which is the basis of current law. It recommends that the age of responsibility ought to be raised to 12. That is an important point which I hope will be fully debated here today. The current age is set at seven. The committee put a lot of thought into where it would be right to set the age of criminal responsibility. We looked to other countries where the age is much higher. The average age in Europe is 16. When we considered that a child of eight years of age could be caught tampering with a car in O'Connell Street we considered that putting the age at 16 was far too high and we finally decided, after much deliberation, to call for the setting of the age of criminal responsibility at 12. We based that recommendation on the fact that 12 is the age at which youngsters leave primary school and its caring environment and go to post primary school where they will be called upon to make decisions and judgments for themselves. We saw the age of 12 as being the correct age for this country and I hope that recommendation will be adopted.

In the report we go on to say that problem children under the age of 12 must be dealt with through the childcare system with the co-operation of the junior liaison section of the Garda. It is unthinkable that children under the age of 12 in any civilised country cannot be correctly cared for and should be brought into the justice system.

We have set the age for juveniles as being between 12 and 18. In other countries people aged 18 do national service and they have a range of adult rights in that they can vote and do a number of other things. When we looked at the age band for juveniles for the purpose of this law we set the age at between 12 and 18. We said in the report also that in courtroom and similar situations people who deal with juvenile justice should be specially selected and trained and have expertise in understanding young people, the environment in which they grew up and the psychology of young people. Judges and others who deal with young people should have special expertise in that area.

The Deputy has a little over a minute to conclude.

The main thrust of the report is to call for a range of mechanisms which will prevent juvenile crime and for good co-ordination between all the agencies involved. We want to put in place at local level proper programmes of crime prevention. We see this as being the most important part of our report. We must have mechanisms which will involve parents. In the course of our report we put a special obligation on parents, in law and otherwise, to take responsibility for their childrens' behaviour and, when their children offend, to take responsibility for making compensation to the victims of the crime and to divert young offenders from a lifetime of crime. We see parents as having a key role in that area. We want to put in place a range of recommendations on crime prevention and on diverting first offenders away from crime. I hope this will get a good discussion in the House today.

We fully acknowledge the great work done by the junior liaison officers of the Garda Síochána, by the Garda Síochána, people in youth services, in education and in voluntary bodies. Very often, however, through lack of co-ordination and a proper public policy all this good work does not have the desired impact. Often one group does not know what another is doing. In this report we have called for the bringing together of all the agencies — State agencies, local authorities, FÁS and so on — to tackle the problem of troubled young people with a view to diverting them away from crime in the first place.

I welcome the report of the Dáil Committee on Crime and I join in the words of congratulations to Deputy Quill, who chaired the committee, and to our colleagues for the presentation of this very comprehensive report to the House. Because of the unavoidable absence of former Deputy McCartan, I thank Deputy Quill on his behalf for her complimentary remarks about his work on the committee. At the end of the last Dáil I replaced the former Deputy McCartan on the committee and I heard Deputy Quill pay such tributes to him then. Indeed I have heard such compliments paid to him also by other Members of the House. We might well ask those who sometimes comment on the empty benches in this House if they would sometimes undertake a case study on the former Deputy McCartan, who made an enormous contribution to the work of this House and who was rewarded for that by not being re-elected to it.

Like other Members of the House I support the broad thrust of the recommendations in the report before us. A fine body of work has been presented to us and, as Deputy Quill said, if this report is used as the blueprint for addressing the problem of juvenile crime and if the Government acts on it quickly and effectively, a major contribution will have been made to tackling the problem of juvenile crime. I share the widespread concern about the increase in juvenile crime and its implications for the future because, as we all know, the juvenile criminal today is the adult criminal of tomorrow.

I am not taking from the excellence of the report before us when I raise one or two points by way of critique of the report, because it is only by addressing some of the areas which the report did not address, or areas where the focus may be somewhat misplaced, that we can have a productive debate. It is a very good and thoughtful report, but in many respects, it is incomplete. Like most responses to crime, the focus is too much on the trouble maker and the measures proposed are for the most part centred on the criminal.

I do not disagree with the recommendations but I question why virtually all of them, including those which require considerable sums of public expenditure, are addressed to young criminals. Any teacher will tell you that if you spend all your time in the classroom attempting to control the troublesome pupils you will neglect the rightful needs of the good pupils, encourage attention seeking behaviour and end up with more brats than you started with. Why does this report, and most of the commentary today on crime, virtually ignore the needs of those young people who stay out of trouble? Why does it ignore the needs of parents who are doing their parenting job well, or the needs of voluntary community workers who probably do more to keep young people out of trouble than a whole division of gardaí ever would, although I acknowledge that the report does comment on the work which these bodies do.

The report rightly identifies factors such as high unemployment, ghettoised urban planning, family disintegration and the sexual and physical abuse of children as contributing to the causes of juvenile crime; but it fails to answer, or even ask, why the vast majority of children whose parents are unemployed do not get into trouble, why most children in poor urban developments are well behaved and why most children from broken or troubled homes never get involved in crime. I believe that as a society we must be hard on crime. Criminal activity deprives the ordinary citizen of the basic simple freedoms of living. In extreme cases the criminal deprives humans of the right to life itself and from there down the scale of criminal activity the rights and freedoms of citizens are trampled on by a minority of deviants and troublemakers.

It is not acceptable that retired people cannot enjoy the comfort of their own homes, that women are denied the freedom of movement and travel around their own localities and that children are often subjected to cruel pranks, the most recent of which I have come across is the painful and dangerous practice of nipple crushing. Indeed, the most imprisoned people in our society are ordinary people who are prisoners of fear. Our society must be properly policed to protect the public against crime and to detect those who have offended. I also believe that those who have offended must be punished, required to make restitution and, if possible, rehabilitated.

Difficult social, personal and economic circumstances may explain why criminal behaviour occurs, but they can never excuse it. No society can be soft on crime. Softness on crime is a betrayal of the rights of law abiding citizens. Hard punishment alone and rhetoric on crime are not enough to make our streets safe and our homes and persons secure. Even the most extreme behaviourist knows that for effective control and correction it is not enough to punish bad behaviour, you must also reward good behaviour. In addressing juvenile crime it is not enough to propose a range of measures — improved Garda services, new modern laws and new methods of punishment and rehabilitation. These are necessary, and I agree with them, but they must be matched by a corresponding improvement in services and spending on young people who behave themselves and who stay out of trouble.

Let me give an example. Ballybrack boys' football club, in the heart of my constituency, caters for 600 young people drawn mostly from an area of high unemployment; indeed, it is one of the CODAN areas referred to in the report. At a recent meeting of officers of the club and local TDs we were told that no youngster who had been through that club had ever got into serious trouble, but now the club itself is in trouble, financial trouble. It takes a modest £12,000 per year to run the club, to buy the gear, to maintain the club house and to hire buses to take the youngsters to their games. The committed group of young men and women who run that club voluntarily week in week out, take charge of large numbers of youngsters and direct their youthful energies into constructive sporting activity, now find they can no longer raise the money to keep the club in operation. The national lottery, which ironically was introduced to help clubs such as this, is now their greatest rival as people on low incomes are more likely to buy a ticket for the lotto than to buy a ticket for the soccer club draw.

Ballybrack boys' football club have written to the Minister for Education, who has responsibility for youth and sport, seeking a small annual subvention from national lottery funds to relieve them from constant fund raising so that they can concentrate on football. So far they have got nothing. They have pointed out to their local TDs that if they continue to get nothing the club will fold and, if so, I believe that juvenile crime in Ballybrack will increase. Ballybrack boys' football club does more to prevent juvenile crime than a squad of Garda officers ever could. They are not alone. Throughout my constituency their case for modest help can be repeated. Valeview football club want a piece of ground which the Office of Public Works wants to sell to a private building contractor. The community in Loughlinstown need a community centre which can house a youth club. The York Road youth activity group need a small hall to occupy the youngsters in that area. Blackrock athletic club need a running track on the grounds of Carysfort. The list is endless, and I am sure it could be repeated in every constituency throughout the country.

All of these groups have a number of things in common. They are run by the unpaid effort of dedicated local people. Theirs is the voluntary effort which President Robinson discovered on her journey throughout Ireland and of which she speaks so passionately. They all keep young people out of trouble and without them the problem of juvenile crime would be much worse. But they are not recognised by the State. They are given little or no help and more often than not they have to overcome the most unbelievable bureaucratic obstacles to get even the simplest of concessions. In my view it is time they were given the help and recognition they deserve.

I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister and to the House arising from this report. This report recommends many measures to deal with the consequences of juvenile crime and the care of juvenile criminals. By all means implement those recommendations. I agree with Deputy Quill that it should be the blueprint for action by this House. But we should go further and match those recommendations with a corresponding effort in respect of those juveniles who avoid crime and on those who help them. My simple suggestion is this: from now on for every £1 spent on the punishment and rehabilitation of juvenile criminals £1 should be spent on the voluntary groups and clubs which keep youngsters out of trouble. For every detention centre that is opened we should provide a swimming pool, youth centre or community hall. For every additional garda who is employed in the policing of juvenile crime a youth worker or community worker should be employed to back up the local voluntary effort. For every extra warden employed in prisons or detention centres an extra teacher should be employed in our schools. Every initiative to deal with young troublemakers should be matched by a corresponding step to help young people stay out of trouble. It costs more to keep one young offender in custody for six months than it would cost to cater for the entire 600 members of the Ballybrack boys' football club for a whole year.

A teacher union representative recently told me that when the Government started cutting back on spending on education she spoke at that time to the then Minister for Education, former Deputy Gemma Hussey. That representative pointed out to her that the consequences of reducing the number of teachers in our classrooms and cutting spending on education was going to result in a requirement some years later to increase spending on prisons and policing. That prediction has been borne out over the years. The shortsightedness of the Government in cutting back on spending on education and youth welfare has led to the kind of difficulties which now exist. If the Government simply used the national lottery for what it was intended, to help youth and sport activities in local communities, there would be less need for prisons, extra gardaí and new laws. It is not enough to punish crime; we must also encourage good behaviour. We need to take a fresh look at the whole question of values and at what constitutes right and wrong in our society.

I have deliberately focused in my contribution on children who do not get into trouble. I do not have any doubt but that poverty and unemployment contribute to the rise in crime and the hopelessness which results from unemployment and poverty are the circumstances on which rising crime thrives. I agree with Deputy Frances Fitzgerald that the problem of truancy in our schools has to be addressed as soon as possible. However, it is not enough to look at the problems of those who leave school; we also need to look at the problems of those who stay in school and who, perhaps, could stay in school if there was more help for them.

We all know the difference between right and wrong. However, people's understanding of the concepts of right and wrong have been blurred by the kind of modern society in which we live. We all know that it is wrong to kill and injure people but our understanding and sensitivity to that has been blurred by the atrocities in Northern Ireland which are presented on our screens daily. We all know that it is wrong to steal. Yet, for more than a decade, the dominant ideology which has driven economic activity has been based on the assumption that people are greedy and that the only thing which will motivate people to act economically is their own self-interest. The logical conclusion of that assumption in the criminal area is that people will steal in order to get what they want. We have a problem with the attitude to public property, for example, graffiti, defacement and vandalism, a problem which is not unrelated to the culture we have created in recent years in our attitude to public property generally and public sector activity.

I do not think we can solve our crime problem through either the justice or welfare approach. We must encourage a set of values which people can act upon. There is a need for a radical approach to the question of crime. The most radical approach to solving juvenile crime is the rediscovery and promotion of traditional values, personal responsibility, personal ethics and respect for others. It was possible to do that in the past, but we now have different social structures. These structures have changed dramatically over the past 20 years. There have been very dramatic changes in the social area which has caused problems for parenting, an issue to which other Deputies referred.

If one uproots young parents from the extended family network and the integrated community, whether in urban or rural areas, and transplants them into green field suburban sites where they all live in the same kind of houses, surrounded by people in exactly the same circumstances, with the same kind of social and economic problems, and, on top of that, tell them they can no longer discipline their children by giving them the traditional clip on the ear, which had been used on them, one creates a problem of confusion. I do not subscribe to the clip on the ear method of disciplining children but there is a need to provide support for parents and for a discussion about the problems of parenting so that parents can re-establish a degree of confidence in dealing with their children.

Many parents no longer have the confidence to deal with the discipline problems of their children. Indeed, many parents are afraid of their children. One of the unspoken problems in our society is the violence which is inflicted on parents by their children. I repeatedly come across the problem of women who have been battered by their 13 and 14 year old sons. It is time we addressed the crisis which exists in our society with regard to parenting and providing the structures and methods by which parents can be supported to have confidence in their parenting and to develop a sense of values and discipline in children so that we do not end up having to deal with the problem of juvenile crime from the perspective of punishment, confinement, detention and the traditional justice approach to which the Minister referred.

I strongly support the comprehensive findings of the report on juvenile crime. I was a member of the committee in its early stages and I was happy to be associated with the preparation of this report. I found working on this committee very informative and rewarding. Those involved in preparing the final report, especially its hardworking chairperson, my constituency colleague, Deputy Máirín Quill, deserve praise and our sincere thanks for ensuring that this report was brought before the House for debate. I concur with the comments about former Deputy Pat McCartan, who was a great inspiration to all of us when he was a member of the committee.

Dáil committees give Deputies an opportunity to play an active part in the formulation of policy, to consider various matters on a cross-party basis and to make recommendations to the Dáil on issues which are of major concern to the general public. It is clear from experience that the committee system is a very effective means of achieving real political consensus on a wide range of issues. That is not to say we should always agree on all matters, but is more satisfactory if we can identify and deal with issues on which there is general cross-party agreement.

I was a member of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism from 1983 to 1987. That was a very effective committee and, contrary to public opinion, many of its recommendations have been implemented while others are under active consideration with a view to incorporating them in legislation in the near future.

In attempting to characterise the modern age most of us would resort to the word "change." Whatever view one has of the various dimensions of change, there are extremely few elements of the condition of mankind which have managed to avoid severe turbulence in the last quarter of the 20th century. The pattern and nature of employment, the structure of institutions, the relationships between countries and the norms defining the basic units of society are in a state of constant flux. While a very high proportion of such change has been for the good of the individual, it is not surprising that a number of negative developments have followed in the wake of rapid change. One of the most worrying and sinister fellow travellers of change has been a major increase in the nature and extent of crime.

Before examining the various aspects of crime and the formal reaction of our legal institutions to it, I would like to make some brief overall comments. The term "crime" is used to cover a very wide range of illegal acts. Thus when we are attempting to assess the pattern of crime over time, it is sometimes useful to break down the overall level of crime into categories. While any illegal act cannot be condoned, acts which are violent in nature and directed at one or more victims are particularly cruel. Unfortunately such acts have been most prominent in the growth of recorded crime over the last 30 years or so.

When we are drafting our laws and developing our legal and custodial institutions we cannot ignore the plight of the victim of crime. Our response must, of course, show compassion towards those who become involved in illegal activities. However, this natural and positive response must never be allowed to slip into indulgence. The vast majority of our society give their full support to our legal system and deserve no less from us than a full commitment to take every possible step to ensure their safety. Thus the overriding need for anyone involved in the preparation and implementation of legal change is to keep in mind the need for balance between the absolutely justified expectations of the citizen for a safe environment while at the same time making every effort to cope with the rights and needs of the offender.

The statistics in the report in relation to juvenile crime are extremely worrying. We see that nearly one in four convictions involves juveniles in the age range from 14 to 17 years. This level is among the highest in the EC. In interpreting this finding we must of course take into account two important facts, namely, the very high proportion of young people in our country and the generally lower rate of serious crime in our society. Thus the simple breakdown of all criminal acts on a percentage basis does not, perhaps, tell the full story. Nevertheless, we cannot but react with extreme disappointment to see a serious pattern of increase in the level of crime among our young population. One's childhood and youth should be a time of happiness, wonder and, above all, relative innocence. Unfortunately, if we are to take the recent statistics on crime as a basis for gaining an insight into the life of modern youth, we see that many young lives are being blighted by the curse of criminal activity and all that goes with it.

When attempting to come to terms with juvenile crime we naturally look for possible environmental factors which might help to explain the initial involvement of a young person in illegal activities. Perhaps not surprisingly a number of factors emerge from the analysis of juvenile crime statistics. These include social deprivation, conflict in the home, alcohol and drug abuse and homelessness. Poor academic performance and truancy have been highlighted as significant indicators. Also young males are seen to be particularly vulnerable; the level of juvenile crime has been estimated to be approximately five times greater for males.

When one assesses the suggested causes of juvenile crime it is difficult not to feel a certain level of unease in terms of our potential to deal directly with many of these issues. For example, how successful has modern society been in eliminating the scourge of alcoholism? Rather than significantly reducing the level of alcohol abuse, it has been joined by drug abuse as a very unwelcome reality in our society. The level of violence and abuse within the home shows little or no sign of decreasing. In terms of social deprivation we are continually faced with the urgent need to develop our economic and industrial structures in order to offer a fairer deal to the underprivileged. Thus, if we are to be honest, practically all suggested factors affecting the growth of juvenile crime in our society are unlikely to be significantly diminished in the near future. This grim reality strongly underlines the need for all involved in the legislative process to begin to deal systematically and in the most effective possible manner with the variety of ills affecting our society.

It must of course be acknowledged that the news is not all negative. A number of initiatives have been taken by successive Ministers for Justice to improve our ability to deal with juvenile crime. The Garda Síochána have implemented a number of extremely positive measures which attempt to deal with the convicted juvenile offender in the most humane manner possible. I commend the general philosophy adopted by the Garda Síochána in dealing with young people. The first-time offender is offered every chance of avoiding a custodial sentence through a range of alternative forms of censure and sanction. Recent crime statistics clearly illustrate the wide-ranging application of this policy; the mechanism of caution is widely used when the nature of the crime is not severe.

A number of agencies, both State and voluntary, continue to carry out sterling work in the area of juvenile crime. This work generally takes one of three basic forms. (1) Every effort is made to rehabilitate the convicted juvenile offender. In particular he or she is encouraged to become more involved in society in a positive manner at a number of levels. (2) Once a relationship has been established with an offender, great emphasis is placed on attempting to prevent him or her from any further involvement in crime. This work is particularly valuable since to a certain degree it is difficult to identify the specific individuals at greatest risk of being drawn into crime. Once the first offence has been committed, however, there is no longer such an excuse. (3) The third, and some might say the most important aspect of dealing with juvenile crime, is to constantly attempt to identify those most at risk of being drawn into crime. When such individuals have been identified a number of initiatives can be taken to increase their identification with society through active involvement in both educational and leisure activities.

The excellent work of those involved in the juvenile liaison officer scheme, the national juvenile office of the Garda Síochána, the Garda Síochána schools programme and the probation and welfare service deserve the highest praise and support. Likewise the contribution of a small number of highly motivated voluntary groups cannot be over-emphasised.

I strongly agree with the vast majority of the report's recommendations. For example, there is little doubt that the minimal age for defining criminal responsibility should be raised. Similarly, the policy of making institutional effort to reduce the acute feeling of alienation among many young offenders deserves support. Thus, avoidance of a custodial sentence where possible, combined with the provision of strong and effective follow-up services, is to be commended. I also feel strongly that the overall management of young offenders should be totally separate at all stages from the processes used for dealing with adult crime. There can be no doubt that the innovations being considered currently by Ministers Geoghegan-Quinn and O'Dea will strive to enable in every possible way the maximum possible integration of responses to juvenile crime. Practically every State Department has a meaningful role to play — for example, Justice, Education, Health and the various Departments involved either directly or indirectly in the stimulation of job creation.

In my concluding comments I would like to address two key aspects of our response to juvenile crime. First of all we must never forget the victims of crime. After all, they expected the institutions of the State to protect them, and for whatever reason they feel let down. No society with its own best interests at heart can fail to ensure that the punishment fits the crime to the greatest possible degree within the context of dealing humanely with offenders. At the most extreme level a perceived failure of institutions to deal adequately with crime can only help undermine the authority of our total legal framework in the long term.

Thus every effort must always be made to ensure consistency in the decisions arrived at by our courts. Our generally excellent judical system bears a heavy responsibility and cannot but benefit from the development of our laws to minimise the potential for loopholes which are often shamelessly exploited. I strongly feel that in every possible instance the victim should be compensated for his or her damages; it is the very least that should be done. Where at all possible the offender should directly bear the cost of such compensation. Strict adherence to such a principle would at least result in the unrepentant offender sharing to some degree in the material consequences of his or her actions.

My final point relates to the major role which our educational system should and indeed must play in the prevention of juvenile crime. The strong link between poor educational performance and the risk of involvement in juvenile crime has already been stressed. I personally felt that our modern educational system, which is excellent in so many ways, is far too oriented towards academic performance with a corresponding lack of emphasis on the need for fostering the development of the character and self-esteem of all of its pupils. When an overemphasis is placed on academic excellence, one is automatically labelling many children — indeed perhaps the majority of children — as being in some way inferior. The preoccupation with the points system, for example, is a clear example of the survival of the fittest. We must react as soon as possible to any developments in our educational system which inhibit it from dealing fully and generously with the needs of all of our pupils. While the promotion of academic excellence deserves our full support and admiration, the basic philosophy underlying our educational system must always be the need to provide equality for every pupil irrespective of his or her ability. I would strongly urge all those involved in the preparation of forthcoming legislation in the area of education to keep the needs of all children firmly in mind. Our education system must never be allowed develop into a process for identifying winners and losers. Rather the unique talents of each individual must find support and nurture in our schools.

The community at large has a very important part to play and we as legislators can do so much. An article in the Cork Examiner of 23 February last cites areas, as outlined by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, where disadvantaged youth may be helped. They include the provision of extra resources to disadvantaged areas, allowing for the special needs of disadvantaged students, and the development of partnerships through community education. The article also stated that the involvement of the whole community in a partnership geared towards improving the system should be based on a strong structure of home-school community liaison and that the system should promote and recognise the complementary role of parents at all levels and enhance the role of community based education.

I would strongly urge the Minister and the Government to review the operation of the Department of Justice and establish executive agencies to deal with day-to-day matters. In that regard I am pleased to see the commitment in the Programme for Government for the setting up of a commission to look into the management of the courts. A smaller central Department of Justice, more concerned with policy and the overall management role in regard to the various branches of the criminal justice system, would be much more effective in reviewing the causes of crime and putting forward for public consideration the views of the professions on what needs to be done to tackle the problems of increasing crime in society.

First I would like to congratulate those involved in the production of this report, particularly Deputy Máirín Quill and all the other Members involved in compiling the report, which serves to focus the attention of this House on an area which is gaining importance with each passing day. I want to join in the tributes to the former Member of the House, Mr. Pat McCartan, for his sterling work in that area. We all know the inherent dangers of being too good a legislator. However, that is the way the electoral system works and as time goes on maybe we will learn to live with it.

It is safe to say that of all the issues being discussed at present crime, along with unemployment, is something people expect sooner or later to visit them, and the most vulnerable in our society are usually the victims of that growth in crime. It is worrying that in a sophisticated and caring society, despite the attention to detail in dealing with problems that arise on a daily basis, we do not seem to be able to tackle this problem or make any inroads into it. It is like Chicago in the thirties and forties. It is necessary to introduce something like the "Boys' Town" we saw in books and films in years gone by to deal with a situation which is not being dealt with otherwise.

There are a number of factors which must be taken in conjunction with one another. We must recognise that failure to deal with the problem will result in a greater cost to society in the long run. That point was emphasised by previous speakers and by the Minister.

The high risk areas are areas of high unemployment where young people have a lot of time on their hands and very little to do. To be honest, I am not one of those people who is soft on juvenile crime, because I can give realistic instances of it, as I gave to the House previously, and have been a witness of juvenile crime on a few occasions. However, it should be recognised that in a densely populated urban area, not necessarily a deprived area, where there is a considerable amount of unemployment — whether or not we like it, every area is affected by unemployment — there is not much for young people to do. They can watch television or videos or hang about the street corners and wait for inspiration. The video syndrome must surely be the main inspiration to young people who get involved in crime. When young people have time on their hands they watch videos, many of which are unsuitable and a bad influence. They study this material and with so much time at their disposal become involved in criminal activities depicted on the undesirable videos. I deliberately zoned in on the influence of videos for the reason that almost every street has a video shop. I have nothing against those who run the video shops, more power to them, but we must seriously question the quality of the material available on video, despite the passage of legislative measures in the past few years. I recognise that more legislation is pending arising out of a difficulty in regard to the most recent legislation. We have a responsibility to recognise high-risk areas. Unless we try to do something about the problem juvenile crime will get worse.

Peer pressure, too, plays its part. While one might argue that three or four good people are likely to influence those around them, it should be remembered that one or two bad apples in a barrel are likely to contaminate the contents of the barrel. That is also the case with juvenile crime. Peer pressure can operate in the form of dare system under which only the toughest and those who dare win. That leads young people to become involved in crime and it is strange that they often find they can get away with it without being caught. I am able to provide the House with a classic example. A couple of months ago I was at Dolphin's Barn in Dublin in a line of cars waiting to be released by traffic lights when I saw a young man rush up to a car that had a woman driver and a woman passenger, break a window, snatch a handbag and take off across the road with the handbag. That happened in broad daylight and the young man involved was not badly dressed, he did not seem deprived or undernourished. The opposite was the case. I reported the incident to the authorities. Due to the speed and precision with which the crime was committed the criminal had escaped before anything could be done. By becoming involved I was at risk. Therein lies another problem, there is absolutely no respect for authority.

As Deputy Gilmore said, there is no longer any respect for authority. There is no respect for parents, teachers in the school or gardaí. The consequence is a breakdown of law and order. That dangerous development has to be tackled. It is easy for me to say that parents must be more conscious of the pressures faced by their children and be prepared to check them and I recognise that it is virtually impossible to monitor the activities of young people 24 hours a day. Parents from my constituency brought to my attention the need for facilities for young people. They specifically requested the provision of a dropin centre where young people can congregate and meet their friends in the evening without a huge financial outlay. The centres where young people go nowadays are expensive. They need to be able to go somewhere that does not cost a fortune; a place where they can have a cup of coffee. It is unlikely that in such centres they would meet people who would encourage them to break the law.

The report, and several speakers, referred to the issue of custodial care as opposed to being released into the community. If we are to ensure that young people do not become involved in criminal activities the provision of facilities must be a priority. For those already inclined towards a life of crime there must be an intervention. The junior liaison service should be upgraded and expanded to cope with modern demands and curtail criminal activity.

The next level of treatment has to be custodial. If a young person is found guilty of committing a crime there is little point in saying at that stage that the crime was wrong, apologising to the unfortunate victim who was beaten or robbed and saying that the juvenile involved was deprived or had come under a bad influence. Excuses are of no value to the victims of crime. It should be recognised that those involved in crime deserve custodial care of one kind or another. Those who deprive another person of his or her rights and privileges should be deprived of their liberty. The simplest penalty to impose is the deprivation of freedom.

I accept that rehabilitative services, psychological and otherwise, should be provided. I recall discussing this matter with a person involved in the provision of such services and being told of the mirth with which some well-advanced juvenile criminals regard the psychological services. Apparently, they laugh themselves sick when recounting their encounters with the psychological assessors, the unfortunate people who are trying to help them and encourage them away from a life of crime. They think it is great fun that society is so soft on them and that people as innocent as the psychologists are sent to encourage them away from criminal behaviour. A little deprivation might assist them.

There is no sense in putting juvenile criminals into overcrowded accommodation to become students in another school. That action only exacerbates an already difficult problem. It does nothing to rehabilitate them, and, at a later date, turns out on society juvenile offenders who are better qualified to carry out misdeeds than they were when first incarcerated.

The revolving door syndrome gives the young criminal the idea that the pursuit of a life of crime is quite romantic, that there is a good possibility that he or she will not be caught and, if caught, will be incarcerated for a very short period. Those who recognise that there are easy pickings and that there is a good possibility that they can get away with a misdeed will repeat criminal activity.

I do not wish to sound critical of the courts because they also have their problems but young people who are not disposed towards crime can become very cynical. I wonder what kind of thoughts run through the minds of young people when another young person is charged before the courts with a very serious crime such as a threat to the life, limb and well being of another individual. They then see those people being discharged, perhaps on a technicality, or remanded. Even if they are sent to prison they see that because of the revolving door system they are back on the streets two or three weeks later pursuing the same activities. In the same court they may see an unfortunate person — young, middle-aged or old — who may have been involved in shoplifting or failing to pay a bill on time. I do not make excuses for any crime, but these people are often incarcerated for a specific period by way of punishment while those to whom I referred earlier go free. We must ask how the impressionable will be affected by that obvious imbalance. Public sympathy, whether we like it or not, flows to the person who is genuinely in need and who may feel forced to shoplift or to commit some other crime to feed themselves and their families. Of course it is illegal and we accept that it must be punished, but why do they always seem to pay the full price whereas the person who continually commits crime — and benefits from it — gets the best deal when it comes to paying the price?

Crime must be dealt with in legislation. We must give a clear indication to the young population that there is recognition for people who keep on the straight and narrow path and that they can expect to pay a price by diverting to a life of crime. It must be made clear in proposed legislation that society fairly recognises people who are not really to blame or ill disposed — initially at least — to society. However, those who make their livelihood from the proceeds of crime must pay a huge price. If we do not implement legislation of this kind nothing will be done.

Unemployment is a contributory factor to crime. If the Government does not deal with unemployment in a realistic fashion matters will not improve. It is a cop-out to say that nothing can be done. If we do not enact legislation cynicism and unrest will grow and there will be too much spare time available to those who might not originally have been disposed towards a life of crime but who will be drawn into it. As a result public institutions will fall into disrepute by virtue of their inability to deal with the problem.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Costello.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

In his speech the Minister referred to the good old days and gave the impression that we did not have crime in the past, that it is a modern phenomenon. I am concerned about his remarks and I wonder whether the Department is trying to convince us that things are not as bad as some Members claim. My fears were increased when I listened to the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn in Private Members' Time, replying to Deputy Harney's Bill, talking about the background to the legislation being put forward. She said it was modelled on the UK system and that much of its contents seemed to be geared to the situation which pertained in the UK in the seventies and eighties when there were strikes by the miners and in the newspapers and the National Front made their appearance. Major civic disorder is of great concern to the State but it is not always of such importance to the ordinary citizen. If there is a major riot in a certain part of the city people probably know that there is such a danger and can stay away from the area. There is very little the ordinary citizen can do to get away from juvenile crime because it happens on most streets and is part of the everyday pattern of living.

Perhaps as a Dublin Deputy I am looking at it from one side of the fence. Perhaps it is not a national problem. Indeed, it may not be a problem in the whole of Dublin but there are many areas of the city where it is a huge problem and I am sure the same applies to urban areas in Cork and Limerick. It is particularly serious when elderly people are being terrorised in their own homes and are afraid to go out after 3 p.m. I know it is a different world and there is no point in talking about the good old days. Everything nowadays is controlled by a press button, everyone wants instant pleasure and children seem to be bored all the time. It seems to be the "in" word; I do not recall being bored when I was growing up, perhaps we called it something else——

We used to be tired.

Teachers tell me that they can identify likely offenders at a very early stage by their lack of motivation, anti-social behaviour, lack of interest by parents and "mitching". If these children can be so readily identified early in life surely we should be able to do something about them? We are losing the battle in some urban areas and action must be taken to regain the initiative, to win back people's confidence and to give them the feeling that we are in control. In the good old days obviously there was crime, but it was against property, shops or organisations. To some extent one can understand the need for people robbing to feed their families, but it is very hard to understand the mindless vandalism, robbing and mugging, particularly of elderly people. Some of the horrific things we have seen would not happen in the animal world.

There were standards in the old days, although I do not know whether they existed through fear or because of good teaching and discipline. Of course the crime wave did not start over four or five years; we have gone down a liberal slope for maybe 30 or 40 years and those who have been preaching this liberal philosophy must shoulder some of the blame. I do not think we have reached the turning point yet, but that there is general acceptance among all politicians that things are bad gives me some hope. I have been involved in politics at local authority level since 1985. In earlier years when we discussed crime at our meetings those on the liberal or left wing excused all kinds of behaviour, but that has now changed. People have now copped on. Those who have campaigned for removing corporal punishment in schools and the "do-gooders" of all sorts have a case to answer. Even the State may have a case to answer for encouraging people by financial means to keep their children, when many could be identified from day one as likely to have children who would become delinquent, since these people were unable to look after themselves, never mind their children. We need discipline in the home and a few slaps never did anybody any harm. A friend told me recently that when he gave a few clatters to his 13 year old son the boy jumped up after a few seconds and told him: "Don't you dare do that again or I will ring Childline". My friend got a fright. Childline is a great organisation and does a great deal of good and my friend agrees with this. He never thought, however, that it would be used as a tag to threaten an ordinary parent trying to instil discipline in his child.

That is what is called being gunned down by friendly fire.

I believe we can move forward if we use the carrot and stick approach. Some other speakers recommended the carrot approach, but action on that front will cost a great deal of money and take a great deal of time. We need to provide far greater sporting and recreational facilities for young people. When the national lottery began local authority members believed it would greatly improve the facilities around town; in fact things have gone the other way, because with the cutbacks the corporation cut back on the community grant scheme. The lottery funds have been hijacked by Government Departments and certainly the money is not going to where it was intended to be spent.

Hear, hear. We are fully supportive on this side.

And on this side.

There are numerous people trying to run football clubs and sporting organisations. In the disadvantaged areas in particular people are doing marvellous work, but they are getting very little help. In many cases these people are struggling and are barely surviving on low wages or unemployment benefit. We need to give them far greater support. There are huge areas of the city with very few facilities and we must support the people who are prepared to work on a voluntary basis in their community. They do tremendous work in diverting the energy of the juveniles into training so that they use their sweat on the playing field rather than in mindless carry-on.

No matter what facilities we provide, it all goes back to the home. Parents have to be told that they are responsible for their children. It should be the law that parents are legally bound to pay for their children's behaviour. Some say that is unconstitutional, but if that is so I recommend that we change the Constitution or find another system where parents can be levied with the cost arising from their children's behaviour. The report of the Select Committee on Crime mentions a number of non-custodial measures. It was suggested that a youth could be put under curfew and have to be home by 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. The parents would have to provide a bond and ensure the curfew was kept. Obviously, we would need a follow-up system and if the youth was not at home during the curfew the bond would be forfeited.

The carrot approach is fine but when it does not work you have to change the approach to fear. The perception is that crime pays and the fear of loss is gone. As there is no work for a great many young people they may ask themselves what they will lose if they are confined. We have to face up to that. We have to put greater emphasis on both the rewards and the penalties. If the carrot approach does not work the penalties have to be spelled out and enforced. The Garda and the probation and welfare service are doing great work. The Minister announced there are more gardaí than ever, but the general view is that they are not around. The typical Dublin attitude is that they are all down the country or perhaps up in court. I was in court a few months ago — not a personal case — and I was astounded to see the number of Gardaí present at 11 a.m.

We have a great body of law, but no law to deal with the issues at hand. What we need is value for money, instead of throwing money at the problem and at the legal profession. If the carrot approach does not work we have to use a stick and enforce the law much more rigidly than it is seen to be enforced at present. The report is full of non-custodial measures. But we need more places of detention. Even if custody in a place of detention does not cure the problem it gets these people off the streets. That is essential. Our citizens are entitled to protection. If the law does not provide that, people will look to themselves.

First, may I compliment the members of the Select Committee on Crime for the fine enlightened report before us today? May I compliment the Minister also for steering a middle course between what he described as the justice model and the welfare model in dealing with juvenile crime? It is ironic that we are debating this subject when another tragic suicide in Wheatfield Prison was announced on the news. A male juvenile took his own life and hanged himself from the prison bars. This is the first self-inflicted death in prison this year. The report on prison deaths was published in 1991. It made the specific recommendation that the open bars on prison windows should not be accessible to those serving custodial sentences of detention. The statistics show that 75 per cent of those who take their life in prison do so by hanging, using the bars on the windows. That puts in perspective what we are seeking to do to date. The Whitaker report of 1985 made wide-ranging recommendations on the entire prison system and juvenile justice. As recently as last year we had a report on prison death, but no steps have been taken to implement it. When will we take the necessary steps to implement the recommendations of these fine reports? This report is as good as any that is likely to be published by a select committee on juvenile crime. The Department of Justice proposes to conduct an internal inquiry — an inquest and a post mortem will be held and that will be the end of it. Its findings will be put on a shelf in the Department of Justice and we will hear no more about it. That would be disgraceful. We must impress on the Government the need to introduce a juvenile justice Bill and to implement the recommendations of this report.

The report recommends that nobody under the age of 17 years should go to prison. The 1908 Act allows for children termed "unruly and depraved"— I would like to know what a depraved child is — to go to prison. Children regularly spend time in our adult prisons. It is ironic that young people between the ages of 17 and 21 years are forbidden by law to spend time in juvenile prisons while young people under 17 years can be sent to Mountjoy Prison. That anomaly should never have been allowed. I welcome the recommendation in the report that no person under 17 years should receive a custodial sentence.

No juvenile prison exists for women offenders between the ages of 17 and 21 where they are separated from adult offenders, whereas St. Patrick's Institution and Wheatfield Prison cater for male offenders in this category. Therefore, women who are sentenced by the courts are, regardless of age, sent to the adult women's prison in Mountjoy, where there are no segregation or separate remand facilities, despite the fact that the prison rules and regulations specify the need for such facilities. The question of providing juvenile facilities for women sentenced by the courts or on remand must be addressed. The Whitaker Committee expressed similar concerns and I welcome the Government's commitment to the introduction of a juvenile justice Bill, to which the Minister referred this morning.

The Minister should indicate when he intends implementing the recommendations of the report because there is no point dealing with any of the issues in isolation. The prison system in general must be addressed. The Government should adopt an holistic approach to the problem but use this report as a stepping stone. The joint Programme for Government recommends the upgrading of the juvenile liaison and the probation and welfare services, which are also covered by this report.

In the past the problem of crime was dealt with in the traditional manner of treating the symptoms but not the causes. The report implies that such an approach is traditional, blinkered and one-sided and that too much emphasis is put on penalising people without addressing the underlying causes of crime — in other words, lock them up, throw away the key and forget about the causes.

There are many causes of crime in modern urban societies which must be addressed. There must be an educational approach to the problem of drugs, joy riding, children in need of remedial attention and so on. The problems of the disadvantaged, unemployment, inadequate housing and the ghettos created through bad planning, must all be addressed and the lack of sporting and entertainment facilities should not be overlooked.

There are many excellent proposals in this report. For example, it advocates the greater involvement of parents in the courts and prison systems and, subsequently, in the rehabilitation process. I welcome the move to explore non-custodial sanction for young people rather than sending them to prison. I welcome also the raising of the age of criminal responsibility and the establishment of the juvenile liaison office which will work in conjunction with the Garda Síochána. I welcome the establishment of juvenile crime prevention committees at local level and hope they will deal with the problems of senior citizen harassment, inadequate housing and so on. Finally, I welcome the strong emphasis on the structuring of a research programme on juvenile crime that will provide accurate statistics.

I welcome this report on juvenile crime because at least it will highlight one of the most serious social problems of our time. Its value goes beyond that in so far as it helps to clarify the source of the problem in social disadvantage and makes practical recommendations for the formation of public policy to provide the necessary response to an issue which has reached crisis proportions.

The publication of the report will be pointless if appropriate action is not taken on a scale commensurate with the extent of the problem. The final report of the task force on child care was published in 1981. Many of the steps that need to be taken were identified at that time, but they still have not been implemented. If they had been implemented in the early eighties, following the publication of that report, this report might not have been necessary and we would not be planning what is essentially a fire brigade reaction to a fire that is out of control.

Indeed, this is true of the whole areas of child care and juvenile crime. Both are inextricably interlinked and cannot be discussed in isolation. All existing measures and services in child care are, in effect, only brought to play when the child or the particular circumstances have reached a crisis and, in most instances, are already beyond control. Perhaps the starkest example to demonstrate this point can be seen in the governmental response to the dramatic rise in the abuse of hard drugs since the early eighties. For several years, while the heroin crisis festered and social workers, community workers, the clergy, local politicians and the media drew attention to the "heroin bushfire", as it was called, there was no response at Government or even senior departmental level. There was a refusal even to recognise that the problem existed for some considerable time. By the time there was a grudging acknowledgment that heroin was here in a big way, and here to stay, hundreds if not thousands of young lives, many as young as 13 or 14 years, had been destroyed. Even now, following ten years of the hard drug problem, the response is still totally inadequate, particularly in the context of the HIV and AIDS related crisis that in many cases is directly linked to hard drug addiction.

It is time to move away from the fire brigade action and put all necessary resources into preventive services. That is my main concern. If that is not done, all the reports, no matter how well meaning they are, will be of little real long term value. Until now the preventive services — some of which are listed in this report — have been the Cinderella of the overall welfare service. They are almost always referred to as pilot schemes, temporary projects on the periphery. They are invariably underdeveloped and not part of any overall co-ordinated policy programme. None is seen as a mainline service. The mainline services are virtually entirely crisis services working with the victims of the system that failed them at the time they could have been helped. These crisis services are under funded, without real flexibility and are constantly overwhelemed by ever-increasing numbers of drugs, AIDS and child sexual abuse cases with which it is becoming increasingly difficult to cope. The problem of juvenile crime must be seen in the context of lack of investment in child care services, the measures being taken and the funding provided to implement the Child Care Act, 1991. It cannot be denied that the level of investment so far provided is totally inadequate and is a major contributory factor to the explosion in juvenile crime in the eighties and nineties.

A campaign group representative of child care workers, social workers and other interested groups was recently established to pursue full implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991. They called for a special allocation of £12 million in the 1993 budget so that the health boards might begin to provide new services and facilities to which disadvantaged children and the families are now legally entitled. In a statement issued by the campaign group, they said that although certain provisions of the Child Care Act relating to the provision of services to homeless children and the provision of child care and family support services were signed into law last year, very little reform or improvement in existing services has been achieved. They say there is no great value in devolving new functions to health boards under the Child Care Act, 1991, if the boards are not in a position due to lack of resources, staffing and funding to carry them out.

The statement of this group is significant because it outlines the background to the juvenile crime problem. It states that the Child Care Act, 1991, represents a major update of the law in relation to the care of children, particularly children who have been assaulted or are at risk. The Government agreed to implement the Act as part of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The recently agreed Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-1997 restates the commitment to full implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991. Implementation is to have effect on a phased basis over a seven year period, with a gradual increase in the number of social workers, psychologists and medical staff. Other specific commitments include the provision for residential facilities and an increase in home support services for problem families.

The estimated total resource requirement to implement the provisions of this Act in full is £58 million. Yet in terms of resources allocated to date, £1 million was allocated in 1991 and £2 million in 1992. The amount allocated in both years was significantly less than the amount deemed necessary by the health boards and other agencies involved in the provision of child care services to respond to the extra demands imposed by the provisions of the Act which were the subject of commencement orders in that period.

Towards the end of 1992 the Minister for Health signed further commencement orders to give effect to section 5 of the Act which requires a health board to take reasonable steps to provide accommodation for homeless children and to section 3 which requires a health board to promote the welfare of children not receiving adequate care and attention and to provide child care and family support services. There is no doubt among those involved in the direct provision of services that health boards currently do not have the resources or staffing to meet fully their obligations under these sections.

We have now reached a critical point in terms of the implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991. The campaign group asked the Minister for Finance to allocate an additional £10 million to £12 million in this year's budget to bring this about but so far there has been no mention of any such increase. If the funding is not provided more and more children who are now at risk will end up on the streets involved in crime, thereby costing the State much more in the long term than the amounts required now to provide an adequate preventative programme of services.

Some important statistics showing the background to the growing juvenile crime problem have been compiled in a short study by an expert in this field, Mr. Robbie Gilligan, and I will quote briefly from his report:

In the 1980s there was a dramatic increase in social problems on a number of fronts .... The rate of unemployment grew from 10.1 per cent in 1981 to 17.2 per cent in 1990 and is still rising. In the period 1983-1989, there was a dramatic elevenfold growth in the annual number of confirmed cases of child abuse... from 156 confirmed cases in 1983 to 1,658 in 1989... cases involving sexual abuse, from 37 in 1983 to 568 in 1989.

The proportion of children in care on a compulsory basis grew from 16.3 per cent in 1981 to 51.3 per cent in 1989 — a more than three fold increase.

The early 1980s saw a large increase in the rate of drug misuse in Dublin, the effects of which are still working their way through the social services system. These developments must also be seen in the context of the impact of alcohol abuse on families and children.

Mr. Gilligan refers to the emergence of the AIDS problem which when combined with the drug problem, especially in Dublin, produces a whole new source of complex social problems, many of which will inevitably have a child care dimension. He goes on to say:

The pattern of deprivation influencing the demand for social work and child care services also includes other factors.

He refers to the growth of the proportion of poor households with children, the evidence of adverse living conditions of traveller children, the figures for youth homelessness, yielded by a number of studies in and outside Dublin, and the question of high rates of truancy, a generally quite sensitive indicator of current or impending social distress in a child's life. Mr. Gilligan said: "In 1988-89 there was an average rate of non attendance in Dublin city of 8.9 per cent, a rate which rose to 11.8 per cent in the north inner city", an area I represent.

Lest there by any doubt that social conditions influence demand for child care services, Mr. Gilligan suggests that we consider one small piece of evidence in relation to children in care: "The rate of children in care per 1,000 under 19 years in Dublin's north inner city — a byword in social deprivation — is four times the rate of the Eastern Health Board region, and 4.5 times the national rate." This of course, as we all know, is paralleled by a crime rate which is dramatically higher in the north inner city than in other parts of Dublin or indeed nationally. Mr. Gilligan states: "These adverse trends ... produce an unmistakeable picture of unremitting social stress against which is pitted a band of community care social workers whose numbers have remained virtually static in the 1980s — 298 in 1981 and 309 in 1987." These people are now at crisis point. The perverse result is that problems have to be neglected until they become a crisis which is costly and difficult to resolve. Mr. Gilligan said: "The sad reality is that currently health board child care services have almost no energy to devote to preventative work, given that all their resources are soaked up by crisis and fire brigade intervention." Professional decision making in such conditions heightens the risk of embroiling health boards in very expensive litigation.

If we are to care for children at risk and provide the necessary preventative services thereby ensuring that they do not become involved in juvenile crime, Mr. Gilligan recommends the following, and it is important to list his recommendations because of the studies and research on which they are based. He recommends a 40-place day nursery, or equivalent, in each of the 32 community care areas, one neighbourhood resource centre, or equivalent, in each community care area, one neighbourhood youth project in each community care area and a second one in eight high stress areas. He recommends one intensive therapeutic family support service in each board area, additional social work management posts and states that 200 new social worker posts are urgently required.

He also recommends the extension of the existing successful Community Mothers Programme in the Eastern Health Board region to the other seven health board regions; a homemaker post, in each community care area; a supervised volunteer visiting scheme along the lines of Homestart in Blanchardstown, for vulnerable or isolated families in the eight high stress areas; a community based child care worker in each community care team and at least one administrative support worker to back up all this. He states there will also be a need for additional resources for legal services, training and research and estimates that a sum of £43.95 million is required to provide the care that will help keep children who are at risk out of crime.

If this funding and these resources are not provided, the alternative custodial response will require funding far in excess of what is required for preventive measures. Arising out of many questions in this House, we know what it costs to keep one child in a detention centre. Far more expensive to our economy in the long term is the inestimable impact juvenile crime is having on our tourist industry for instance. A small number of children, especially in inner city areas, are doing untold damage each year to what should be one of our most important money earners. It does not make economic sense to allow this to continue and as long as the unresolved problem of inner city deprivation continues only a few yards away from the tourist centre of this city, this most important of our national industries will inevitably go downhill.

This serious matter has already been recognised and highlighted by the very conservative City Centre Business Association who recognise its disastrous long term impact on our economy. Dublin City Council and Dublin Corporation have attempted to find a solution and submitting proposals to the Government for the use of European Community Structural Funds to halp eliminate economic social and environmental deprivation in the north inner city of Dublin. That area is only a stone's throw from the capital's main street, the scene of horrific crimes in the past year or two. At one stage there was open heroin dealing around its most famous monuments.

A fraction of the cost of the ongoing damage to tourism alone, leaving aside the costly effects of vandalism, car stealing and so on, would provide the necessary services to keep children at risk away from involvement in crime, yet many of the existing fragile youth services in the north inner city are totally under-funded, struggling to survive and some are threatened with closure. The result is that an increasing number of children continue to join small groups of children under 16 years of age, most of whom have numerous convictions and are beyond the help of youth projects or child care programmes. There are no custodial places available for them and they are either set free by the courts or turned away from the gates of the few existing detention centres to run amok on the streets. I have tabled many Dáil Questions about children who in some instances have pleaded to be taken into detention or whose parents have pleaded for it, but for whom there were no places. They were cast out on the streets until they reached 16 years of age and were sent to St. Patrick's Institution. Despite the best efforts of the staff there, most come out far worse than when they entered and for them crime becomes a lifestyle. Unless we provide the necessary funding and resources for preventive care facilities, this explosion in juvenile crime will continue until society is forced to act.

I would draw the attention of the House to the problem among youth today. For a long time I have been involved with Comhairle le Leas Óige and I taught in youth clubs throughout the city of Dublin. During that time, and when teaching in the vocational sector, I forged strong links with the youth of Dublin. I have noticed a dramatic change in the behaviour of young people and in their attitudes towards authority. I have noted the viciousness which has become prevalent in crime today. Our two major problems are unemployment and crime. There is no absolute evidence of a link between the two but we presume there is. What is alarming today is the degree of violence by young people and we have to come to terms with it.

The facilities for youth today are probably as good if not better than they were in the late sixties and early seventies when I was involved with youth. The facilities do not seem to make much difference. I would draw the attention of the House to the many support groups in communities who do excellent work, in many cases to no avail. The number of people involved in anti-social behaviour is quite small in comparison to the numbers of youth who are and will continue to be the backbone of our communities and who produce excellent work when given the opportunity. In schools they produce brilliant projects. They are brilliant in every sense of the word. Throughout the world it is recognised that some of the best sporting people in the world have come through our community organisations. We can be proud of our youth. A very small number of people have brought the reputation of our young people into disrepute.

The gangs that congregate on street corners are a problem in Dublin, particularly in the suburbs, where laneways are the gathering points. The effect of their behaviour is very unsettling for the weaker members of society. Gangs tend to gather in parks and behave in an anti-social manner. The weaker sections in our community, including women, the old and widows' are very disturbed. It has been reported to me that old people are being singled out for anti-social attention. I know of an old lady in my constituency who stands in her garden in terror while young people abuse her with violent expressions and threats and remove the simple little things that make her life pleasant, the flowers in her garden. It is frightening that there has not been a response to this type of intimidating behaviour.

When young people misbehave there is no evident deterrent so that younger people can be warned. When younger people see these attacks and hooliganism in laneways they see nothing to stop it. The Garda do not have sufficient powers to deal with loitering and drinking in public places. Younger people see the lack of response as a signal that nothing will happen so they join the fringes of the group and when they grow older they replace the older group who have given them this example.

I am chairman of the south Dublin area county council and the meetings with our parks department are usually taken up dealing with problems associated with anti-social behaviour. We have to sit down regularly and discuss where we can find finance to repair the damage caused by vandalism in such places as car parks and public parks where trees have been damaged. The public have a fear of using parks and open spaces. In many areas there have been requests from concerned community groups who want shrubbery removed in order that the dangers these anti-social groups present might be exposed. In many cases it is mainly women who experience this fear. It is only when we make comparisons with what it was like when I was involved with youth clubs in the seventies that we realise the extent of the problem.

Loitering is a particular problem because it is very difficult to deal with it. If somebody in the community tries to do something about a group of people legitimately standing and doing nothing wrong they can become the victims of the law. Those who are perpetrating the violence are so well versed in the law that they will have gone by the time a garda arrives on the scene. We must be careful when drawing up legislation to deal with this new phenomenon so that we do not drag innocent parties into the net and alienate them from the system.

We have to consider the attitude of the courts, who are given very few instruments to deal with young people coming before them for the first time. In many cases it would be much more practical for us to give those young people who are behaving in an anti-social manner community work whereby parks could be restored, laneways restored and defaced of graffiti. This is work which hard pressed communities have to do with scarce resources. If we were to channel all the moneys we spend on custodial sentences into the area of supervised community work we would be getting good value for money. Also the community would see that there was a followup to anti-social behaviour. The young people would see that it does not pay to act in an anti-social manner in the community when they had to come back to scrub and clean walls they had defaced, replant broken trees and repair the property of people they had attacked. This deterrent would be a considerable step forward and would do much to alleviate the problems.

Local authorities are, unfortunately, in the vanguard of the fight against the vandalism and crime we witness in urban areas but have scarce resources to deal with the problem. Local authorities need support in the short term if they are to deal with that problem. Many women are frightened to walk in some parts of our communities and through open spaces because of the lack of public lighting. We need to make exceptions in some cases and light up places so that people feel it is safe for them to walk in certain places.

The role of the Garda Síochána is a particular problem and I would like to emphasise a number of points under that heading. Wherever community gardaí are involved there is an improvement in the manner in which problems are dealt with. Because of the intelligence gathered by the community garda and supplied to his colleagues at the station they are able to segregate the innocent from the perpetrators of violence and also the organisers are singled out for attention rather than some of the innocent parties who are swept along because of peer pressure. I would like to see new developments and perhaps an extension of community policing. We need to examine how schools could be involved to help the Garda because they need the support of all the various institutions in the community to support them in their work. In many cases the Garda receive a phone call late at night and have to rush to a particular place to take fire brigade action and in doing so are taken away from more important serious crimes. After they leave the scene of the crime they return to something else. There appears to be an unplanned approach to policing but perhaps a special task force with a community garda could come into an area and establish a presence to deal with the problem.

There is a great deal of goodwill in local community organisations. At present they are very hard pressed to continue with their work when they see much of it being undermined by these groups. It is important that we send signals to those groups that we are concerned about their position. Like the schools, they are an important line of defence for society. We need the support of every voluntary organisation. I would like to see recognition for all those matters when we come to draw up legislation to deal with these serious problems. When we are under severe pressure because of vicious crimes on our streets we have to be careful not to overreact to the problem. We must be careful not to go too far and destroy what is very important to all of us — our civil liberties and our right to go about our business without interference. We must maintain a balance even though we are under severe pressure.

In the past we ignored the problem of youth, probably because it got to the stage where there were so many problems. We have allowed various organisations to get on with the job without too much attention being given to them. Traditionally, the boxing clubs in the city of Dublin did a great job in occupying young people. I taught in Brú Mhuire, North Great Georges Street, in the late sixties and early seventies. The young people there were probably the best one could find and they were taught by people who were totally dedicated to their welfare. We are coming to the stage where people today do not have the time to give to voluntary organisations in the way such time was given in the past.

I would like to see more people coming out and assisting in voluntary organisations. If we had evidence to suggest that our laws were to be brought up to date to deal with these problems, the goodwill which would be generated by such amended legislation would be enormous. We would then see a coming together of the voluntary organisations to ensure that this problem — caused by a small number of people — would be brought under control. We would have a reasonably good community lifestyle and communities working together to produce the type of community spirit which has made this country particularly good.

I conclude by saying that I would like to see the report on juvenile crime address new laws and powers for the Garda. That would reveal a commitment by this House and other groups, such as community groups, to give us a lifestyle which is proper for people today. I welcome the report on juvenile crime.

May I ask for your guidance, Sir, as to whether I am sharing Deputy Eamon Walsh's time?

It was not mentioned at the outset.

My apologies.

That is fine. I am now calling Deputy Derek McDowell who has 20 minutes at his disposal.

I do not think I will need that long. In the first instance, in common with all the speakers who have contributed so far, I would like to compliment those who produced the report which, I understand, Deputy Quill was instrumental in putting together. It is a particularly enlightened and worth-while report which is characterised as a judicious mix of carrot and stick. Certainly that is the impression I got when reading it but it reflects what the Minister said earlier this morning about a mix between the justice and welfare approaches, something which all of the speakers so far have endorsed. I join with them in that endorsement.

Before I was elected to this House I had cause to visit the law courts on many occasions. The one thing which struck me on those visits was the number of young people who were brought before the courts on a regular basis. Juvenile crime accounts for a significant percentage of the crime committed in our society and, in particular, for a very significant percentage of the crime committed on our streets. If the recommendations of this report are implemented we will have gone a long way towards improving the position in regard to the level of crime on our streets. It is frightening to think that a group of teenagers can hold local communities to ransom. It is well known to the Garda, and frequently well known within local communities, that two, three or four 14 year old youths are responsible in many cases for a large number of the burglaries and petty crime in our society. If this issue was properly dealt with the lives of many people would be improved.

I wish to make a point which I suppose is very obvious, that is, that most teenagers are not criminals. There is a tendency when dealing with this issue — I suspect that Deputy Dermot Ahern may have gone some distance down this road — to assume that all teenagers are either criminals or potential criminals. I do not believe this is the case. In regard to the issue of loitering, it is wrong to take a blanket approach and assume that every group of three, four or five teenagers at a street corner playing boisterously necessarily present a threat. We have to approach this issue from the opposite angle and say that they do not necessarily represent a threat. I say this because it is frequently suggested that we need to toughen up the law on loitering to essentially criminalise any large group of young people. That would be a serious mistake which would run the risk of alienating the very many law-abiding teenagers from the criminal justice system and, in particular, from the Garda and any symbols of authority. If we are to legislate in the area of loitering we should proceed very slowly and bear in mind that most teenagers who gather at street corners do so because they do not have access to proper facilities.

The reality, as the report so eloquently puts it, is that it is possible to identify without much difficulty the average picture of a child who is likely to engage in crime or who may have done so in the past. As the Minister said, they are almost always teenage boys with a relatively low IQ, in many cases they come from a difficult family background — perhaps their parents are separated — and in very many cases they come from a deprived background. Once we can identify the individuals who are at risk we then come into the area of prevention.

This report rightly places much emphasis on the issue of prevention. In this respect we need to give every help to our social services. The provisions of the Child Care Act, most of which came into play last year, are a major step forward in this area. Of course, all the regulations have not yet been formulated. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to set about the business of putting those regulations in place as soon as possible. Of course, it is not simply a question of introducing regulations. Sadly, it is also a question of resources. It is one thing to introduce a fine Act, which the Child Care Act is, but it is another thing to implement its provisions on the ground, which, quite frankly, is an expensive business. Over the past number of weeks we have seen the sorry sight of people involved in the social services taking industrial action because they believe they are under-resourced. If a provision is included in an Act then we must be prepared to pay for it. As politicians we have to argue the case with the public of putting our money where our mouths are, as it were, and taking preventative action.

I wish to refer to the youth service, which I believe is very much the Cinderalla of our caring services. The arrangements in place for the youth service such as it is, are run very much on an ad hoc basis. I am thinking in particular of the valuable work carried out by several youth projects in my constituency. I know that the youth workers involved in these projects live very much from week to week and month to month. These projects are financed by Comhairle le Leas Óige, usually on an annual basis. As I understand it, the youth workers involved frequently do not know until the end of the year whether finance will be forthcoming for the following year. The youth service should be put on a statutory basis and its functions properly defined. Those functions have to be broader than the traditonal notion of providing activities or adventures for young people. They must also be defined — practically speaking in many cases they already do — so as to be able to identify children who are at risk and deal with them on an individual basis. Having done this, we have to provide the resources the youth service needs so that it can get on with its job.

I wish to refer to the role of parents, a subject on which the report dwells at some length. Going back to my visits to the law courts, I have been struck by the absence of parents when their children are brought before the courts. I find this very disturbing. The fact of the matter is that, sadly, some parents appear to be unaware or indifferent to what their children are doing. I believe some parents wilfully neglect their children, thus actively contributing to the criminal activity in which their children become involved. Not all of us are born with the gift of being good parents. The report rightly points out that we need to provide support and help for people in their role of parenting. I entirely endorse that proposal. However, it is also true in the very limited number of cases of parents who wilfuly neglect their children that some culpability must attach to those parents and they should be made in some fashion to pay for the wrongdoing of their children. I entirely endorse the notion of a reparation order as outlined in the report.

We have to ask ourselves what the purpose of a court actually is. Having failed to prevent crime, what does a court actually do when it sits in judgment on a child? Obviously, in the first instance a court is seeking to protect society. It must also seek to ensure that a child does not sin again, does not become a recidivist criminal in any fashion. The element of punishment is also there, but it should be secondary. Clearly, we need to put down a marker and signal to a particular child that what he has done is wrong and is considered wrong; but it is more important that the child appreciates that what he has done is wrong and that appropriate measures are taken to ensure that he does not do it again.

I agree with the emphasis placed in the report on non-custodial sentences. I wish to refer to two such facilities, one of which is the community service order, which has been available to judges for some time. I believe inadequate use has been made by many judges of this facility. I imagine one of the reasons for this is the lack of appreciation on behalf of some district justices of the facility which exists. Undoubtedly, another reason is underresourcing. We have not given sufficient resources to our welfare services to enable them to develop the range of community projects needed in order to make proper use of this facility. The report rightly says that we should encourage the public and private sectors as well as all State agencies to develop projects where children who are given community service orders can properly apply their time and their talents to their own benefit and the benefit of the community. Community service orders can be of benefit to the community in getting work done which might otherwise not be done. Of course, they are also of use to the individual offender in so far as it gives them a sense of their own worth and a sense of doing something, something which very many of them usually lack. The same comments would apply to the notion of what I think is termed intensive supervision personal challenges orders, which again give the child a purpose and challenge which it can meet. Very often children who engage the crime regard the crime as being their sole purpose. We need to give these children an alternative focus, which is often missing.

Having referred to non-custodial sentences and commending the report for the emphasis it places on this issue. I should say that we also need some sort of custodial facility. The current position, where from time to time children are placed in adult prisons along with recidivist criminals from whom they can learn their trade better, is unacceptable. On the other hand few facilities are available for the specialised treatment which is clearly needed. Some facility is available for boys but I do not think any facility is available for girls. This position was highlighted only too clearly by Judge Ryan in Dún Laoghaire District Court last year or the year before when he refused to deal with certain cases until such time as proper facilities were put in place. I am aware that the position has improved somewhat since then, but clearly we still have a long way to go in this area. The fact of the matter is that society needs to be protected from the very small number of children who are basically recidivist criminals.

I wish to refer to victim support. Those who favour what the Minister termed the justice approach frequently seem to suggest — perhaps I misunderstand this, but I do not think I do — that victims can be made to feel better simply by increasing the amount of punishment which is doled out to the person who has offended. The reverse is clearly true. If overly lenient sentences are imposed it can add to the trauma of the victim, but it is no necessarily true that greater punishment of the offender improves the situation of the victim. That approach suggests a limited understanding of the trauma caused to some victims of crime. We have given very little Exchequer assistance to victim support groups. We need to take a much more active role in financing and encouraging such groups. There are two levels at which they operate. One is in dealing specifically with a court case. I know from my experience that victims of crime are regarded largely as witnesses who are called to give evidence and they have minimal contact with the DPP's office or the Garda in advance of the case. Frequently they do not know what is happening or what is expected of them. After the case they are left to pick up the pieces without any formal means of support. We need victim support from the day the offence is committed until such time as the person has recovered from the trauma.

I compliment Deputy Quill and the committee on putting together this enlightened report. I hope it is not too naive to expect that the Government will take on board its recommendations in framing the Bill which is promised under the Programme for Government. There have been reports in this area in the past which have gathered much dust. I hope the impetus given by the Programme for Government will ensure that many of the recommendations in this fine report will be carried into action.

I welcome the report of the Select Committee on Juvenile Crime which not only recognises the problem and its causes but outlines achievable goals to prevent and tackle it.

It is reported that 38 per cent of all crime is committed by those aged under 17. Juvenile crime is both high profile and of a high nuisance nature. Joyriding is an example. We need to protect society from the harm and fear caused by young trouble-makers. We must also support and compensate the victims of juvenile crime.

Deliquency and juvenile crime are both curable and avoidable. The causes are nearly always familial. Lack of opportunity to reach full potential is also a serious cause. An important point is that the socio-economic background of juvenile delinquents is nearly always below the poverty level. Any attempt to solve the problem of juvenile crime will be fruitless if the next generation go through the same deprivation and poverty as the present one. The role of Government should not merely be to provide recreational and detention facilities but to wipe out the real cause of criminal behaviour, that is, poverty and lack of opportunity in a world caught up with material gain, with the consequent pressure on youngsters to have whatever is in fashion.

For too long the juvenile justice system has been based on the archaic 1908 Children Act which should have been updated long ago. It still allows for the whipping of a child and states that a seven-year-old child is responsible for his or her actions. This is the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe, if not in the world. It is interesting to note that while the 1908 Act is archaic, it has been used this week by the British Home Office so that they, like us in Ireland, can establish places of detention for 12 to 15 year olds. Under that Act, parents can be fined by the courts but this is not usual.

Changes are clearly needed. The age of responsibility should be raised to 12 and the court system should be specialised. There needs to be a greater understanding of what is happening to our youth. Parents who wilfully neglect their children or who are known to have encouraged their bad and dangerous behaviour should be made answerable to the courts. Community service orders should be served on 12 year olds and teenage children. Many young people of this age already volunteer for community projects. Greater efforts should be made to deal with the problem at an earlier age. More use should be made of special schools for young children. Such schools should be used as places of short term release from the pressures of home or of the gang. For youths who are less out of control, intensive supervision orders should be used. These would oblige them to attend special courses, workshops or therapy sessions instead of attending a special school. Failure to comply with these terms would result in the initiation of a detention order.

Under the 1908 Children Act there are 216 places for boys and 15 places for girls in special schools and secure units. In some cases children are not being sent to these schools early enough. Schools which cater for younger children are rarely full. This must be seen as an opportunity to deal with the problem at a very early stage. Trinity House in Lusk is the only secure unit in the country for delinquent boys and it is dealing with the 30 worst offenders in the State. The cost per child per year is £70,000. While this is very taxing on the Exchequer, it is necessary for some offenders and it is half the cost of a similar service in Britain.

Diversions must be provided for juvenile delinquents. Alternatives to the excitement of joyriding and other gang activities can be provided for young offenders. Motocross, stock car racing and hang gliding will bring the same excitement as speeding around in a stolen car. Coupled with intensive supervision and community services, this will go half way to contributing to a safer community and controlling the behaviour of young offenders by offering alternatives to "buzz" activities.

Within the primary and secondary schools' systems teachers should be advised on the question of expulsion where a youth is causing particular difficulties. Specialist services and training should be available to teachers in all schools to inform them as to the best way of handling such problems. In areas of known trouble spots community crime prevention committees should be established which would set out alternatives to custody. Local people must be involved to allow for local streamlining and tailoring.

The payment of a subsidy would be an incentive to employers to take on troublesome youths. This would give such youths a chance to get back on the right road. They would also gain valuable work experience which could later lead to even better jobs.

These alternatives can bring about positive changes in the lives of troubled youths and the community as a whole. The new juvenile justice laws should state that when children in need of care are under the age of 12 the 1991 Child Care Act should be used. For juveniles between the ages of 12 and 18, special schools and diversionary tactics should be used. St. Patrick's Institution, rather than adult prisons, should be used to rehabilitate youths of 15 years or older who are out of control. Juvenile delinquents over the age of 18 can be treated in adult prisons.

I congratulate the people who worked on this report and outlined achievable goals in tackling the problem of juvenile crime. The report identifies many ways of creating a safer environment while at the same time offering productive rehabilitation to juvenile criminals. The problem of juvenile crime will never ease until services are updated and until the aspirations of youth, in our consumer culture, are met by the eradication of poverty and the provision of opportunities for young people to reach their full potential.

I warmly congratulate all the members of the committee who drew up this report on juvenile crime, its causes and remedies. It is clear even from a cursory study of the report that a great deal of time and effort went into its preparation. For that reason I compliment those Members who gave so much of their time and energy to drawing up what I believe is a very far reaching report which will be of great assistance not just in tackling juvenile crime but in expanding the areas of child care.

We are fortunate to have had Deputy Quill as chairperson of the committee and great credit is due to her for her persistence and perseverance, in difficult circumstances at times, in ensuring that the report was completed quickly and did not drag on as can happen for one reason or another. I should like to put on the record my appreciation, and that of the members of the committe, of Deputy Quill's work. The reason I applaud the committee members so much is because, as Minister of State at the Department of Health, I was given special responsibility to co-ordinate the provision of child centred services. Although I was only a short time in the position, less than two years, I was amazed at the enormous amount of work that had to be done and that remains to be done. I know the occupant of the Chair has a personal interest in this area and made a fine contribution to bringing to the forefront of debate the need to improve child care services.

In the short time available I cannot comment on everything in the report, but I would like to touch on some areas in the light of the experience I gained when I had responsibility for the provision of child centred services. The first item I would like to refer to is the Child Care Act, 1991. I listend carefully to those who in their contributions expressed concern that it is taking such a long time to implement the provisions of the Child Care Act. I sympathise with their concern but it is very important legislation. It is generally accepted by those who work in the area of child care that it is very radical legislation and contains many provisions that need to be implemented quickly to dramatically enhance child care here.

During its preparation, and the debate in this House, it was made clear that it would take some years to implement the Act in its entirety. That, perhaps, has led to a certain amount of frustration among people interested in the area. However, because it is so far reaching, and has such major implications for the whole area of child care, it would be better to go slowly and get it right than to hasten with speed and get it wrong. If one studies the Act one will see that it requires the allocation of a great deal of resources, first, for the recruitment throughout the health services of specialised personnel with the experience and expertise to deal with the different aspects of the Act. It would also require a great deal of resources to put in place the physical structure that is required to support the Act. It is very substantial legislation requiring the allocation of resources — something of the order of £70 million — over a five to seven year period, as well as touching no other legislation appropriate to the Department of Justice and, to some extent the Department of Education. Therefore, any comment about tardiness in the implementation of the Child Care Act should be based on the need to gradually put in place the proper facilities, structures and personnel. If we discuss this Act, and its implementation, in five years' time I hope we can say that not only is the Act the most radical legislation in so far as the care of children is concerned but also that its implementation is complete and that the necessary resources have been provided. It is easy to sign into operation sections of the Act merely by bringing forward the regulations and that might appear good in the public arena but those of us with knowledge or an interest in the area will want to be assured that the resources are in place to ensure its proper implementation.

The question of youth homelessness impinging on juvenile crime was referred to in great detail in the report and also by a number of speakers today. Those who study the inter-relationship between those two issues will readily agree that youth homelessness impinges greatly on and gives rise to juvenile crime. In my role as a co-ordinator I found that the difficulty was that so many Government Departments are involved in this area. This makes it more cumbersome to deal effectively with those aspects of childcare that impinge on juvenile justice. When I took over that role in 1991 I discovered that, while there was a desire to bring forward a juvenile justice Bill which had been awaited for at least 20 years, no Department was willing to take on the task of bringing the Bill forward. Essentially, it was being shunted between three Departments, the Departments of Justice, Health and Education. The conclusion I came to was that none of those Departments wished to be involved in bringing forward such legislation. The Department of Justice would have argued that children under the age of 17 come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education, or even the Department of Health. The feeling in the Department of Health at the time appeared to be that if there was any doubt about any legislation in the Oireachtas it was sent to the Department of Health.

I was in a position to bring the three Departments together under the then Taoiseach, former Deputy Haughey, and I am very pleased that within a half hour we had come to the conclusion that a Bill was essential in the juvenile area and that the Department of Justice would henceforth take responsibility for the preparation for such legislation. I am glad that decision at least brings to an end what was a 20 year saga.

Although this Bill was promised by the end of 1992 we have failed, for a whole variety of reasons, to adhere to that commitment. That is unfortunate, and many of the speakers have made reference, as does the report, to the fact that a juvenile justice Bill is most essential in our approach to dealing with juvenile crime.

The legislation will, hopefully, bring forward many provisions to deal with young people who break the law. I would like to see as many non-custodial methods as possible used for dealing with young people who are involved in criminal activities. It is clear that detaining a young person in custody, other than as a last resort, tends not be be helpful to the long term development of that person. Generally speaking, that has been the experience not only in this country but also in any other whose judicial system I have had an opportunity to study. I am particularly encouraged by my study of the Scottish reporting system. That system should be examined very closely and, perhaps, with enhancement, be adopted here. We do have the juvenile liaison scheme and other Garda initiatives that are working well but I was most encouraged in my visit to Glasgow and Edinburgh and my study of the Scottish system. Under that system young people are brought before respected members of their own community.

That is right. Well done, Deputy.

In a calm and rational way, young people are told by their own peers, people who are identifiable to them in their own community, that their behaviour is unacceptable——

Exactly.

——and a certain path is set out before them as to what their future behaviour ought to be. There is also the usual mechanism for monitoring those people and so on. I am sure that when drawing up the legislation the Minister of State will acquaint himself with the Scottish system. It is my understanding that the results of the use of that system are very encouraging. Certainly it is a system that works adequately and should be closely examined. There are many people in our community who could play a very important role in that regard, and I think here of peace commissioners who work closely with the Garda and with other respected members of the community. I recognise that there is a deal of suspicion concerning the great number of pilot projects we have under way, but if we do need one more pilot project it should be undertaken in the area of juvenile crime and a timescale set for it.

Early intervention is crucial in the attempt to break the cycle of juvenile crime. Those who work in any urban community — whether they be teachers, gardaí, members of the clergy of one denomination or another, officers of residents' or tenants' associations or other voluntary workers — can invariably identify families in which difficulties are arising. At that stage the children may be very young but there will be a problem in the home. The juvenile offenders of the future often come from such homes. It is our lack of ability to intervene at that stage in a co-ordinated way that has led to a considerable increase in juvenile offending. There is difficulty in reaching in at that stage because we do not have a genuinely co-ordinated approach to tackling the causes of juvenile crime. The lack of co-ordination results from different Government Departments and the services emanating from those Departments acting in isolation from each other. In recent times there have been attempts to overcome that difficulty. In my role as a co-ordinator between the Departments of Justice, Health and Education, I found when bringing the three Departments together on a regular basis to deal with the issue of child care — juvenile offenders being very much part and parcel of that, of course — that we gradually began to identify the difficulties under which each Department was operating and worked towards developing a mechanism whereby Departments would work together rather than separate from each other.

Truancy is one aspect that could be used by way of example. In certain areas truancy is a problem. It has been referred to today by several speakers, particularly Deputies from urban constituencies. Perhaps truancy is not so much a problem in rural areas, where youngsters are more easily identified, but it is very much a problem in urban areas. School attendance officers are employed by the local authority to operate in certain parts of the city of Dublin but other parts of the city have no school attendance officers. It is my opinion that it ought to be the function of the Department of Education to provide a sound education for all our young people and to be responsible for ensuring that those who are supposed to be at school are at school. The matter should not be left to the local authority and neither should the gardaí be brought in. I object most strongly to those areas that do not have coverage by school attendance officers having to depend on the Garda to ensure that a young person goes to school. The Garda should be brought in only as a last resort. If for whatever reason a young person is having difficulty in attending school he or she should not first be confronted by a uniformed member of the Garda because that would give the young person a bad first impression of the Garda. I would much prefer the utilisation of the home-school liaison project of the Department of Education in that regard.

Nowhere can one more easily identify a youngster moving towards a stage at which he or she will offend in some way than in the classroom. The home-school liaison project, established by the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, was a very imaginative and enlightened departure under which in certain schools teachers were taken out of the classroom and given the responsibility of linking between the child who has a difficulty in the classroom and the home. The teacher is usually readily acceptable in the home, in an unofficial and relaxed fashion. Generally speaking, when the teacher went to the home to determine what the problems were it was found that the youngster who was disruptive in the classroom or was staying away from school had real problems in the home setting. The home-school liaison project, if expanded and developed, could make a major contribution in the area of dealing with juvenile offenders.

There has been a great deal of debate about the nature and extent of homelessness in Ireland. I have found a great divergence of opinion between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector as to what precisely constitutes the classification "young homeless". To me, a young homeless person is a person who has no permanent place of abode in which he or she can expect care, love, affection and attention. If that young person is squatting, kipping down with friends or moving from one flat or another, so far as I am concerned, he or she is homeless.

There is not enough time remaining for me to speak on the other issues I should like to mention. I conclude by saying that it is my genuine hope that this report will not be put on a shelf, that in two or three years we will not find that little has happened. I therefore urge the Minister of State at the Department of Justice to ensure that so far as is possible the contents of the report find their way into legislation and that other Government Departments, the Department of Education and the Department of Health in particular, take account, in so far as they have such responsibility, of the contents of the report. Some mechanism should be found to achieve much better co-ordination between those Government Departments that impinge on child care.

I welcome the report. I congratulate the members of the Select Committee on Crime on the work carried out on the report on juvenile crime. I particularly congratulate my colleague, Deputy Máirín Quill.

I have read briefly through the recommendations in this timely report. We are dealing with the whole area of juvenile crime at a time of crisis so far as that problem is concerned. It is important, therefore, that the central body of policymakers in the land is dealing with it. I am glad that the Minister is preparing a juvenile justice Bill because there is an overwhelming need for society to confront our problems in this regard. I should like to look at it in the context of the proper functioning of families. There are many ways of looking at this problem, but sociologically it is very important to look at juvenile offenders in the context of where they come from. Many families, given the stresses of modern life and dealing with unemployment and poverty, are finding that the family unit is no longer capable of containing juveniles who are out of control. Very often the statistics in relation to juvenile offenders show that the offenders come from homes which are dysfunctional and which very often have a cross selection of problems, including alcoholism and violence.

As other speakers said, it is essential that the State can intervene for the protection of adolescents and children who are living in families at risk, which means therefore that the children are also at risk. I look forward to the implementation of the sections of the Children Act whch give the authorities a role in intervening in a situation where children are at risk. Sometimes not only are they at risk to themselves, but they cause a risk in the community.

The Constitution, since 1937, has given very strong protection to the family and it is time the modern State recognised that individual children and adolescents have constitutional rights which must be protected. In criminology, when one looks into the way the minds of young offenders work, the common thread running through the analysis of their personalities is one of low self-esteem. There is an enormous need — and this is recommended in the report — to look at the rehabilitation of young offenders. It is not enough to lock up young offenders if they have offended against the State and broken the laws of the land; we owe it to them, as individuals with equal rights to other citizens even if they are offenders, to look after and rehabilitate them into society. That should not be beyond our competence. We are a very sophisticated society. We have the skills and we know that these children can be rehabilitated. At the moment the system is not flexible or compassionate enough to tackle the problems which these young people face when they are sentenced and in the following years.

With a view to the prevention of crime there is an urgent need for more resources for sport and recreational facilities. I am a local councillor on Dublin Corporation and we are aware of the dearth of resources which we are called upon constantly to provide to local communities. They are doing their best to provide such facilities for their young people but they are getting insufficient support from central Government. They appeal to the local authorities for such support, but the local authorities have very little money to allocate. There is also great annoyance that the national lottery funds, which were meant to be the main source of money to be ploughed back into the community for sport and recreation, have become a slush fund being used as central funds — in other words, replacing funds from the Department of Finance.

Local authorities, in the context of the reform of local government, should be given a central block of funding from the lottery to spend as they deem fit and on the basis of their analysis of needs in the various communities. In the Dublin Corporation area, for example, there are communities which do not have a park or playing facilities for children. Sport is one way of providing distraction and athletic pursuits for young people which could, in a very structured way, keep those children out of trouble. This is particularly an issue in the inner cities. If we utilise the interest of sport and resource it more we could intervene at an early stage before children become involved in violent crimes.

There is also a wider welfare role for schools. Children who attend school — I know there is a lot of truancy — are captive and it is a fantastic opportunity for schools to extend and make progress in a welfare role, not just in a teaching role. A great opportunity is being missed in schools to reach children who may be opting out of the system. The hours in which children are at school could be used to get across the sort of messages contained in the report, to identify children prone to crime and at risk and in some way to structure help from the State.

I will not go through the many recommendations. The report takes a very holistic approach to the problem. It looks at the role of parents, the non-custodial disposition, the need for residential care and the need for legislation to back up the recommendations.

There is a great need for specialist training in the Garda Síochána. I also see that there is a recommendation that there should be a juvenile bureau, a team of gardaí specially trained to deal with the particular needs of young and potential offenders.

I very much welcome the report and I look forward to the legislation which will give breadth to the recommendations. We are only starting to tackle the problems. There is a crisis which, if we do not do something soon, will be unmanageable. Right around the country children as young as 14 and 15 are involved continuously in crime, which is escalating and getting more serious. Because of increased poverty and alienation the parents of those children are unable to cope. There is a role for the State to help parents under stress and I hope that the legislation which will be implemented in relation to the Child Care Act will incorporate provisions for helping parents to cope. The provision of child care centres all over the country at a community level will relieve stress on parents. Often, with the growing incidence of single parents, there is enormous pressure on very young mothers dealing with unmanageable children, especially when they are living in poverty. Parents must also be looked after. As I said, I look forward to the recommendations in this report being implemented.

I should like to congratulte the Acting Chairman on her appointment to her party's Front Bench. It is very well deserved and I wish her the best of luck.

This has been a most worthwhile and interesting debate on the juvenile justice system. The number of speakers and the wide ranging scope of their views illustrates the concern that we all feel at the amount of crime committed by young persons. However, it is important that we keep the amount of juvenile delinquency and the amount and type of crime committed by young persons in perspective and that we do not talk ourselves into an even greater problem than that which exists at present.

In my opening statement I spoke briefly on the type of young person who is more likely to become involved in crime and the reasons he or she may become so involved. In seeking a proper response to the problem of juvenile crime it is also important to know the types of offences that young persons are more likely to commit and when they are likely to commit them. This way resources can be concentrated in such a way as to deal with the major part of the problem so as not to be wasting time, effort and money on marginal problems. Of course, there will always be the occasional highly publicised vicious crime committed by young persons as well as by adults; but crimes of violence are very much a minor element in the number of offences committed by juveniles many of which, such as vandalism, have a high visibility factor and consequently are more often in the public eye. Young persons are also more likely to be involved in trespassing or simply making a general nuisance of themselves in their communities.

Most offences committed by young persons are included in the larceny and burglary categories. I have various statistics on that which I can make available to any Member of the House who wishes to have them. Suffice it to say that 60 per cent of the offences committed by young persons fall into the category of larceny and burglary and well over 50 per cent of all offences committed by young persons are committed between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m.

The other offences that make a significant impact on the statistics of offences committed by young persons are vehicle offences such as unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and other road traffic offences such as driving without insurance or dangerous driving. While in no way meaning to underestimate the importance of those offences, in particular the so-called joy riding offences, or "death riding" as they should be more properly called, the fact is that offences involving violence are very much a small minority of all offences committed by young persons. For example, common assault accounts for around 3 per cent and serious assault about 1 per cent of the total. Sexual offences would account for about one half of 1 per cent of the total and it is very rare for a young person to be involved in a firearms offence. Offences involving potential violence, such as possession of an offensive weapon, also account for around 1 per cent of the total.

Before leaving the statistics I will briefly refer to the age groupings and sex of young offenders. These statistics vary quite widely from one period to the next but I can say that the number of offences committed by children under ten years of age is fairly small — less than 3 per cent of the total. The ten, 11 and 12 year old age groups also account for a small amount of juvenile crime, about 7 per cent of the total, but that figure on occasion can be higher. Generally, most juvenile crime is committed by the 15 to 17 year old age group. In the first six months of 1992, the most recent figures available, almost 70 per cent of juvenile crime was committed by that age group.

While most juvenile crime is committed by young males, the amount committed by young females is not insignificant. For example, in the second half of 1991, almost 20 per cent of all juvenile referrals to the Garda national juvenile office were females, and a large number of those were in the 14 to 16 age group.

I think the above statistics show that it would be wrong to overreact to the problem of juvenile crime. Most of the crime could come under the general heading "juvenile delinquency" and no matter how far back you go in history you will find references to juvenile delinquency. Also, for as long as there has been juvenile crime those juveniles have been treated more leniently by the law than adults in respect of the same offences. For example, Roman law included several areas of mitigation for children who committed crimes. I could give other examples if time permitted.

In the context of the age of criminal responsibility it is interesting to note that by around the middle of the 14th century the common law stated that, below the age of seven, juveniles have no responsibility for their actions and therefore cannot be punished for any crimes they commit. A thousand years before that, Roman law applied absolute immunity to all children below the age of seven. Our own law still recognises seven as the age of criminal responsibility, and of course this is something that is being examined very carefully in the context of the preparation of the new Juvenile Justice Bill. I can assure Deputy Quill in her capacity as chairperson of this committee that their views on the 12 year old age limit will be carefully considered and the reasoning behind those views will be examined.

I am grateful to the Minister.

The age at which young persons should become criminally responsible is a complex one that will have to be settled by having regard to our own needs and circumstances and not by following other countries that have different cultural, legal and constitutional backgrounds that make comparisons unsustainable.

While emphasising the importance of not overreacting to juvenile delinquency, at the same time we should not falter in our resolve to deal effectively with the more serious form of juvenile crime. Most adults in this country have at some time during their youth engaged in what I might loosely describe as juvenile delinquency. While this type of behaviour cannot be excused, it has to be considered in the context of the naïve and unthinking nature of youth and their lack of respect for other persons and their property rather than as deliberate criminal behaviour. The juvenile justice system should be geared towards dealing with that type of petty vandalism outside of the criminal justice system in so far as that is possible. At the lowest level a member of the Garda Síochána might simply tell a child committing an act of minor vandalism to go home and not to let it happen again; or the garda might bring the youngster home to his parents and warn him in front of his parents of his behaviour. At a more formal level there is the Garda juvenile liaison diversion programme under which the gardaí may caution a young person — either formally or informally — in front of his parents. There are also other ways of dealing with children who become involved in petty vandalism, such as encouraging their attendance at school or their involvement in some local community enterprise. The local community should also have ways of ensuring that its younger members are not bored. It is important that each local community, with whatever assistance and advice it needs from the voluntary and State sectors, has in it adults who are willing and able to work with young persons from the community in an effort to keep those youngsters occupied during their spare time.

Even though the amount of serious crime committed by young persons is not great it is important that we are in a position to cope at all levels with such young offenders. There was a case recently in another jurisdiction where two 15 year old youths taunted their victim by saying that, because of their age, there was nothing the State could do to them. I would be appalled if that arrogant attitude of "You can't do anything with me, I'm a juvenile" was to become prevalent here. Where a young person commits a serious offence like a rape or an armed robbery, the law must be allowed to take its course. However, it would be wrong in any case where such a young person is convicted to imprison him with adults. His detention should be with other young offenders of the same general age group as himself. I referred in my opening address to what that detention should be and what its effects should be. While the full effects of the law can be brought to bear on such an offender his sentence, because of his youth, will usually be less than that which would be imposed on an adult convicted of the same offence. In other words, the law, even in cases of serious crime, treats young persons more leniently than adults, except where the penalty is set by law.

In my opening address I referred in general terms to the new Juvenile Justice Bill. This will replace all the remaining provisions of the Children Act, 1908, and as such will be substantial legislation. I would like to say a few things about the 1908 Act. There is a perception that because it originated at the beginning of the century it must be outdated and no longer relevant. There is no doubt that there are parts of the 1908 Act which are badly in need of reform. It would be extraordinary if after all this time an Act such as a Children Act did not need to be reviewed and reformed. However, that is not to denigrate the 1908 Act; far from it. That Act is widely acknowledged to be most enlightened legislation and it has stood the test of time fairly well. Indeed many of the shortcomings in the juvenile justice system are not attributable to the legislation. Nonetheless, I think we can all accept that after more than 80 years even the best legislation can become outdated, and that the time has now come for a new statutory framework for juvenile justice.

The 1908 Act itself was the culmination of years of piecemeal legislation that protected and looked after the welfare of young persons. By the time the Children Act, 1908, was enacted there was in existence quite a large body of legislation which looked after the welfare and protection of children. The provisions in the 1908 Act, which was known as the children's charter, brought together and updated in one Act much of the legislation of the previous half century that singled out children for protection. It was seen as enlightened and wide ranging and, as I said, it has stood the test of time quite well when one considers the enormous social changes that have taken place throughout the 20th century. I hope that in the area of juvenile justice the forthcoming Juvenile Justice Bill will also be a wide ranging enlightened piece of legislation which will see us into the next century.

I would see the legislation as rejecting what I described in my opening address as the justice and welfare approaches to juvenile crime. There has to be a balance and that balance will be in being lenient where it is clear that that approach is most appropriate but being tough where that is called for. By being lenient I mean giving young persons who have become involved in delinquency an opportunity within the community of accepting the chance they have been given to grow up without becoming involved in serious crime. There are many ways this can be achieved and legislative provisions are but one such way. By being tough I mean that where detention in secure accommodation is necessary it should be provided but that the primary purpose of such detention will not be to punish or to limit freedom but, instead, to educate and train in such a way that by the time the young person emerges full time into that society he will be capable of being fully integrated into society and of leading a life free from crime.

Of course, not every young delinquent who is treated leniently will accept the second, third or even fourth chance he or she is given and not every young offender who is detained will emerge from detention a fully reformed individual who will not get involved again in crime. We will always have crime and, therefore, we will always have juvenile crime because we will always have teenagers. What we can do is to give those who get involved in juvenile crime at whatever level, and at whatever age, every opportunity and incentive to lead a life free from crime. That it does not always succeed does not mean that the system is a failure or that the structures underpinning the system need to be abolished and replaced by others. No system will be perfect and we will always have to be sensitive to whatever further changes might have to be made to meet changing circumstances.

I would like to thank the select committee for producing the excellent report on juvenile crime which we have been discussing today.

We have heard some very strong talk about juvenile delinquency, and the role of the State and the community in addressing that serious problem. There is no doubt that Irish society must take a firm stand against juvenile delinquency. While we accept that it has social causes which are not the fault of the young offenders, we have to make it perfectly clear to young people, that we will not accept the intolerable behaviour we have seen recently. I adverted to the wide range of responses to young offenders ranging from cautions to supervision in the community to deprivation of liberty. I agree with the speakers who argue that measures to deal with young law breakers should always be firm and clear.

Young people must understand that there is no point in behaving in a criminal fashion, and, indeed, that it has repercussions not only for their victims, but for them. I have heard it said that even at kindergarten stage, or playschool stage as we might say, it is possible to identify children who will turn to crime later. While this may not be totally correct, I have no doubt that truancy is one of the first signals of a lack of proper adult supervision which may lead to a lifetime of anti-social activity. Truancy and bullying indicate a problem which is under the surface. Children who regularly mitch from school and bully their classmates when in school, frequently become involved later in criminal activities and drug abuse. In their teenage years, they join teenage gangs, the role of which should not be underestimated. The worst offenders in such gangs pressurise the rest of the gang into petty thievery, vandalism, joy-riding and so on. Parents, teachers and the community generally, have a central role to play in preventing the formation of such gangs, and I do not exclude the role of the retail sector either. This sector of our community can make petty crime too easy and, through off-licences particularly, provide alcohol under whose influence young offenders do stupid or reckless things or commit crime that they later regret.

In fact, the select committee rightly, I consider, emphasises its conviction that there is a role for those sectors outside the formal juvenile justice system to stem the rise of juvenile crime. The committee identifies the local authorities, the health boards, the world of commerce and industry and the education system. Some, such as the health boards, are already playing an important role in relation to juvenile justice matters as has been acknowledged here today. Local authorities can improve the planning of housing estates, for example, and provide adequate public lighting which would go a long way to preventing juvenile crime. Health boards can augment the good and effective work of the neighbourhood youth projects and extend the child abuse prevention project, currently applicable to schools in the Dublin area, to all schools. The world of commerce and industry has a very important role to play also, and the committee rightly points out the many ways they have been involved in the past and how they can become even more involved in curbing youth crime which, after all, affects trade and business particularly in urban areas.

One message comes across loud and clear from the select committee's report, that the problems of juvenile crime cannot be successfully tackled if left solely to the law enforcers, that is the Garda Síochána. The onus rests on all our shoulders to work together to curb the rise of youth crime. I thank the Members who, as members of the select committee, brought forward a most worthwhile and pertinent report on the subject.

I will conclude by once again referring to the high standard of debate today. Not only was it a very worthwhile exercise in itself but also in the context of the forthcoming legislation.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 March 1993.

Barr
Roinn