Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997

Vol. 475 No. 4

Children Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I prefaced my remarks by asking that any extra resources to be put into this area should be devoted first to family and community support services. The Bill addresses prevention in a serious way. The provision of family and community support services to those in need and under pressure is one of the most effective ways of ensuring children will not come in contact with the system for which the Bill legislates in the first instance.

I dealt with the juvenile liaison system in my previous work in the youth and community area. It has been the Cinderella of the juvenile justice system to date, not in terms of the effort or interest of the personnel from the Garda Síochána participating in the scheme, but in terms of not having the statutory back-up, the organisational and management support within the Garda and the commitment of the necessary resources.

I pay tribute to juvenile liaison officers in the Garda Síchána who, with little back-up and support, have worked effectively in communities across the country for many years. I am pleased their role is to be recognised in law and a director of the service is to be established within the Garda. Giving them the powers to call family conferences and to deal on a statutory basis with parents, guardians and other relatives will strengthen their work. The resources they require within the Garda Síochána are small, proving that while answers to these kinds of problems depend on resources, they also depend on effective personnel who are interested in their work.

In the town from where I come, the juvenile liaison officer, who does more than his share of the work he is obliged to do during the week, is also chairman of the board of management of the community training workshop for early school leavers and of the board of management of the local youth services board. His input is replicated by others in many towns and communities. The members of the juvenile liaison officers scheme will welcome the provisions of the Bill.

I also welcome the serious manner in which children's courts are being addressed. Hitherto, these have been shamefully handled under the 1908 Act. The provisions regarding the Constitution and the procedures in these courts will make them more friendly, not alone to those who may be tried or brought before them but also to victims who may have to give evidence. The changes proposed will only have serious effect when the issue of courthouse accommodation is addressed, so resources for these courts should be a priority.

The thrust of the children's courts is to avoid detention. Under section 133, imprisonment will be abolished. I attended a courtroom where a child was sentenced to imprisonment at Mountjoy Prison. Those in attendance felt a great sense of shame, but the judge considered that to bring the child's case to the attention of the authorities he had no other option but to impose such a sentence. The aim here is to provide effective sanctions outside of a place of detention, while a place of detention will be available as a last resort.

This is a welcome development from the point of view both of the child charged before the court, and who may be convicted, and the victim of crime. Without the back-up of legislation, people working in the judicial system in local areas have attempted to implement an unofficial system of fines and compensation to avoid bringing the child formally into the judicial net. Their purpose has also been to provide the victim, for example of a break-in, burglary or malicious damage, with a feeling of recompense.

I welcome the provisions in the area of fines and compensation. The safeguards built in to protect families in financial difficulty will be used by the courts. However, they will also give the victims of crime a sense that their needs and experiences are recognised. I hope the compensation system will be used to give victims material compensation for damage done, especially where it is not of a serious nature.

I also welcome the range of community or non-custodial sanctions, where a penalty is imposed on the young offender without sending him to a place of detention. Judges, gardaí and probation workers have tried to do this through the years. However, the provision of specific powers and the differentiation in types of orders is helpful. For example, there are probation orders, similar to the orders already provided, and orders allowing the person undergo a period of training or education, a period of intensive supervision and a period of residential supervision. There is also a provision to allow the court impose an order of care and supervision and orders regarding support for families, which is very welcome because the imposition of a probation order on the child may not be effective in the absence of providing support to the family to deal with what is a very difficult situation. The provision regarding the restriction of movement is also unfortunately necessary in a small number of cases.

These innovations are responses to practices that have evolved. They also take account of the range of sanctions and other penalties in the community which can be effective in penalising children while educating and directing them away from the penal system. The early introduction of any young person or child to the penal system is a recipe for reoffending and anything that encourages them in another direction is welcome.

However, the effective implementation of these provisions will require a large increase in the resources available to the probation and welfare service. In my previous work, I dealt with many probation officers. They, like the juvenile liaison officers, are strongly committed to their work but over the years they tend to become disillusioned and leave the service because the resources they require to effectively supervise young offenders and ensure they avoid future custodial sentences have not been available. I urge the Minister of State to back these good provisions with effective targeting of resources to the probation and welfare services.

The vexed question of child detention schools has come before the courts on many occasions and has involved some high profile cases. I welcome the organisation of these schools under a single board of management. The present provision is too fragmented, with insufficient co-ordination and liaison between the various places of detention for young offenders.

There is a provision in the Bill which will prevent a place of detention refusing entry to any child. It has been suggested that it may be more feasible to provide that the service generally, or the board of management responsible for the service, cannot refuse to accept a child, but that the director of the board would have the power to send the child to a place of detention. Those working in the juvenile justice area suggest that the director should have the power to send the child to a suitable place of detention. Will the Minister of State comment on this?

The provisions are cumbersome and may result in a child falling between two stools. The detention school would have to take a child referred to it by a court but I would like to know whether the director or the individual school would decide the matter. In the event of pressure on places in a particular school the process which the head of that school may have to go through to refuse a child may be cumbersome and lead to delays.

I encourage as much variety as possible in the type of children detention schools to be put in place. As many as possible should be provided in the communities from which the children come. We can be imaginative in this area. In the past the Department of Education recognised special schools in conjunction with neighbourhood youth projects. There are special day care centres which could be used for child offenders without necessarily placing a child in an institution far away from their place of residence, from which they will find it difficult to reintegrate into the community when their time of detention is complete.

I compliment the Minister of State on his achievement in bringing this legislation before the House. Last week I listened with interest to Deputy Flood who has experience as a Minister of State in this area. In the past there were kneejerk reactions by various Governments in response to cases highlighted in the courts. Judges made examples of cases in order to put pressure on the Government. The media, social workers and probation workers said the failure of previous Governments to address this issue meant they had to exert pressure to resolve individual cases. While that might work in individual cases it does not solve the problem.

I compliment the Government on deciding that a Minister of State would work in conjunction with three Departments — Justice, Education and Health. When the Bill is enacted, I ask the Minister of State to pay attention to its implementation and ensure the co-ordination he has effected between the three Departments will be carried through by their agents so that young people will not experience the fragmentation we have witnessed at legislative and official level. I would appreciate his comments on the interface between the three Departments in respect of 16 and 18 years olds. A distinction is being made between the roles of the Departments of Justice and Education as regards responsibility for those up to the age of 16 and 18 years. Health boards have responsibility for those up to 18 years of age. I ask him to ensure the buck is not passed in respect of 16 to 18 year olds and that the Bill, when enacted, is implemented in a sensible fashion that meets their needs and those of their families and communities.

Cecilia Keaveney

I welcome this new legislation which updates the 1908 Act. While it seeks to put many programmes on a statutory basis it could go further. I will confine my remarks to two areas, one of which is the juvenile liaison officer scheme.

In my limited experience as a public representative I have come to realise the value of the juvenile liaison officer scheme in County Donegal where there are three juvenile liaison officers. They deal with approximately 44,000 people under the age of 18 and have an 80 per cent to 90 per cent success rate in that people do not re-offend. This is a golden opportunity not only to put the juvenile liaison officer scheme on a statutory basis but to increase the resources. If those under the age of 18 can be introduced to that scheme, which has proved successful, surely a stronger programme would help more children and keep them on the straight and narrow. Ultimately we are trying to prevent them from getting into serious trouble and keep them out of prison. If it has worked surely that is the way to proceed. Other speakers said juvenile liaison officers are often associated with sporting clubs. In Donegal such officers are involved in many community based activities. Thus it is easy for them to meet young people and have a positive influence on them.

A matter that should be examined not only by the Minister of State but by other Departments is the issue of funding for sporting facilities. Different sporting facilities are required to bring children together. In most small communities 100 to 200 children of varying age groups are brought together for sports purposes. Children of varying ages, gender and religious beliefs have no difficulty associating in gaelic games, soccer, swimming or tennis groups and participation in all such activities gives them considerable teamwork experience. This has a positive impact not only within their own group but in the community.

When involved in sport young people are occupied and assume a sense of responsibility. Children may become involved in anti-social behaviour out of boredom. I ask the Minister to use his influence with other Ministers to get more funding for sporting and recreational facilities for young people as that is the key to keeping them on the straight and narrow.

Many EU programmes are geared towards social inclusion and trying to stop social exclusion. To get children playing together on the sports field is a step forward and should be encouraged.

I wish more money had been made available for social workers. What happens at the end of the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. working day? Many parents return from work and children return from school at 5 p.m. In many health board areas there may not be a facility for social workers after 5 p.m. In the event of a family problem or a child getting out of control there is no one to call. Provision should be made for a 24 hour help line. This is a serious lack in the Bill, particularly when a difficulty arises.

The Bill seeks to put various programmes on a statutory basis. The social workers service and the juvenile liaison officer scheme should be extended. We are trying to provide for the children of the future and ensure they do not go down the path of prisons and so on.

Mr. E. Walsh

I wish to share my time with Deputies Lynch and Frances Fitzgerald.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is satisfactory.

Mr. E. Walsh

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very welcome legislation and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. I wish to confine my remarks to the section dealing with the Child Care Act, 1991. I do so because of the level of child neglect in my constituency and in other constituencies, both urban and rural. We are told that 80 per cent of crime is drugs related. I wish to deal with the drugs problem in so far as it relates to child neglect. I have been told that in some areas children as young as one year or 18 months have been left unattended on grass verges during the evening. I would like this serious matter to be investigated to see how widespread it is.

In a case I reported to the Eastern Health Board seven children were in care and a three year old child and six month old baby were with the mother. Following the death of the six month old child in very strange circumstances, the three year old child was taken from the mother, who is due to give birth to another child in April, and put into care. What measures are in place to protect children who are in serious danger from the moment they are born? What steps can the Eastern Health Board, which is responsible for these children, take to deal with such cases? These are the matters of concern to me and I hope the Bill deals with them.

We have heard reports of children who have been locked into houses for many days. In one case five children, the eldest of whom was ten years, were locked in a house for three days during which time one of the children lost his finger after being hit with a lump hammer. It was only after the intervention of neighbours that these children were take from the house and given proper care and attention.

In some cases children as young as two, three, four and five years witness their parents injecting themselves with heroine. These children are at risk from a health and welfare point of view. I am aware of a case where children were taken from their parents who are drug addicts and put into the care of their grandparents who did not want them and dumped them in various places. I do not want to exaggerate the problem but figures can hide the tragedy behind many problems. Last January these children were left out in the snow with no proper clothing or food, while one of them did not have his nappy changed for four days. Even though it was reported, nobody took responsibility for them. Eventually they were taken in by families who gave them the care to which they are entitled.

I wish to give some more examples which will highlight the kind of deprivation which is beginning to develop as a result of neglect of children by parents who are drug addicts. Following a house fire some days ago a father, who was totally intoxicated, brought his children into the local authority offices. These children, who were looking after their father, were hungry and had to be fed by local authority personnel. Will the Minister introduce, in conjunction with the Bill, an emergency service so that the Eastern Health Board can intervene in such cases which unfortunately are becoming more prevalent? Mechanisms must be put in place immediately to ensure that information is given to the Eastern Health Board as soon as possible. There must also be immediate intervention by all State agencies, including the Garda who can play a central role in cases where children are at serious risk. The Garda operates on a 24 hours a day basis and already has a communications system in place. We need an emergency service which will save, cherish and look after children who are being neglected by drug addicted parents. Child neglect may not always be related to drugs but the two problems are becoming increasingly related.

Kathleen Lynch

This is a good Bill and the people who have been calling for its introduction in recent years should be well satisfied with it. However, some amendments are necessary to make the Bill even better and I am sure the Minister will be open to taking these on board on Committee Stage.

Following the Child Care Act, 1991, the Bill finally repeals the remaining provisions of the 1908 Children Act. The Child Care Act and the Bill form a comprehensive child protection package. I hope we have learned lessons from the delay in the implementation of the Child Care Act and that this Bill will be backed up with sufficient resources to allow for the swift implementation of all its sections.

I am delighted at the decision to increase the age of criminal responsibility. The current age of seven years is the lowest in the European Union — I am not saying this should colour our thinking or determine how we act but it should be borne in mind — and reflects a Victorian view of crime and punishment. I have been told that this age was picked to reflect the determination by the major religion at the time that the age of reason was seven years. I am sure that religion has changed its mind about this issue in the meantime. I welcome the provision under which there will be a three yearly review of the age limit. Given the changes in society, it is important to review certain provisions at specific times. However, the age limit of ten is still too low. In this context I welcome the flexibility being provided for in the three yearly review.

It must be extremely difficult to impose an arbitrary cut-off point for criminal responsibility. We all know ten year olds who are mature and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. However, we are all equally aware of 12, 13 and 14 year olds whom some seven year olds could take to the fair and back and they would not know they had left the house because they are so immature.

Rather than simply raising the age of criminal responsibility, I would welcome the establishment of two categories: under the age of 11 years where no responsibility can attach and a separate category of 11 and 12 year olds where criminal responsibility can attach but is rebuttable. I am sure the Minister of State will look at that required flexibility. It is notoriously difficult for legislation to reflect individual circumstances. However, such a differentiation can take account of the fact that children do not develop mentally, emotionally or physically at the same rate.

I hope the Minister of State will take these concerns on board and that a compromise can be achieved which reflects the needs of individual children as well as those of society. This Bill is trying desperately to strike a delicate balance between the rights of the child and the rights of society, which are interlinked.

I also urge the Minister of State to address the issue of detention. When we refer to a child within the meaning of this Bill, we are referring to a child between the age of ten and 18 years. It is quite inappropriate for such juveniles, particularly in the lower age bracket, to be detained in a Garda station under any circumstances, except for the purpose of the initial interview.

Section 43 states: "The member in charge of a Garda Síochána station shall, as far as practicable, ensure that any child while detained in the station shall not associate with an adult who is so detained". However, most Garda stations do not have the physical accommodation to ensure such separation and children will inevitably end up being held with adult detainees. A workable alternative could be the establishment of a separate detention facility in the form of closely supervised hostels which would be separate from the detention schools envisaged at the court proceedings.

We recently held a referendum during which the issue of bail was teased out at some length. In the light of that referendum and the concerns which were raised about the possible grounds under which people may be denied bail, I am amazed by the bail condition detailed in section 55(2) which states: "A child shall not be released on bail...if the member in charge has reason to believe that the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice". This is one of the most sweeping clauses in this legislation. I would like to see the circumstances under which a juvenile can be denied bail far more circumscribed. If denied bail, where will ten, 11 and 12 year olds be detained? I urge the Minister of State to re-examine that section with a view to finding a more palatable solution.

We need to catch vulnerable children before they come within the remit of this Bill and into contact with the criminal justice system. It is unfortunate that when children come into contact with the State it is usually at the final stage rather than at the beginning. While researching the background of this Bill I came across the following profile of a mugger. He — it is normally a male — is young, almost invariably in his teens or early twenties. He will tend to come from an area suffering from social disadvantage and poor resources such as schools and recreational facilities. He has a 50 per cent chance of coming from a troubled home where alcohol abuse is a factor. There is a strong likelihood that he is addicted to drugs or alcohol, or both. There is an 89 per cent chance that he left school before the age of 16 years with no qualifications. In two out of five cases he has been in contact with the psychiatric services.

That profile was not plucked out of thin air. The Bill goes a long way towards dealing with children in that category. However, in order to ensure that many do not fit that profile, we need a multi-agency approach to dealing with children. I will save the rest of what I have to say for Committee Stage because I am anxious to allow some time to Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. However, I appreciate the Bill and I know it will have a long and fruitful Committee Stage.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I thank Deputy Lynch for sharing her time with me. I welcome this very important Bill. Any analysis of the work of this Dáil will highlight the fact that children's issues were one of the key areas we discussed and for which we legislated, which is important and right. It is, however, outrageous that it has taken so long for this Legislature to respond to the needs of children. It is disgraceful that the current legislation covering this area dates back to 1908. That tells us that, until very recently, the rights of children did not receive the sort of legislative attention which they ought to have had, despite how we like to think of ourselves as a child and family centred society. I am very pleased to be a Member of a Dáil which has paid so much attention to children's rights.

I congratulate the Minister of State and his officials on bringing this legislation before the Dáil. Everybody knows that trying to bring three Departments together to produce legislation is a most difficult task. The fact that responsibility for children is divided between three Departments is one of the factors which has made it almost impossible to bring forward such legislation. This is very complicated legislation to which I cannot do justice in five minutes but I would like to make a number of points.

As somebody with a background in social work, I have a particular interest in this Bill. I was the first Deputy to call for the establishment of an all party committee on children and I also emphasised the need for a national inspectorate of child care. I am very pleased that we now have an Oireachtas committee dealing with family issues and a promised national inspectorate of child care. That is very important because we must view this Bill, and the children to whom it refers, against a very wide background. We must take into account the disadvantages which they face. I make no apologies for highlighting that. It is incredibly important that we have secure facilities, remove these children from danger and take them off the streets. However, it is equally important that we emphasise, and are aware of, the enormous disadvantages faced by so many of these children. This was very appropriately highlighted by Deputy Lynch and Deputy Éamon Walsh.

We need to appoint an ombudsperson for children. No Department likes to have an ombudsperson looking over its shoulder but the Minister of State has put forward this idea. I would like to hear his views on whether this is practicable. The value of the ombudsman has been proved in the area of social welfare and it is very satisfactory to see how he has dealt with cases. I would like to see an ombudsperson for children appointed soon.

It is probably very difficult to come up with an appropriate title for such schools but is "children detention schools" the best possible title? It has a very odd ring to it. I ask the Minister of State to re-examine that name.

Family conferences are a well established precedent in social work and I welcome their use in the Bill for children who get into trouble with the law. However, could the Minister of State consider having these cases conferences initiated not just by the Garda, as is the case in the Bill, but also by other professionals? That might broaden the scope of the conferences and could be useful.

Staff working in residential centres have welcomed the Bill but have expressed a number of concerns about it. Among those concerns is the fact that when a child is admitted to one of these schools there is no contact with the parents for approximately eight weeks. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of allowing some flexibility in that area.

I agree members of the travelling community should be on the working party established to address the problem of children begging on our streets. It is important that we have their views on dealing with this complex issue. We will not do any justice to this problem if we pretend there are easy solutions. It can be resolved but questions arise in relation to resources.

The question of parental responsibility is emphasised throughout the Bill but that must be balanced with an understanding that in many cases we are dealing with disadvantaged parents. I welcome the additional resources the Minister has put into child care but I repeat, as I have often said in this House, that when it comes to child care we are coming from a very low base in terms of resources. We are seeing new problems emerge such as homelessness and young refugee children prostituting themselves on the streets of Dublin. That is a totally new phenomenon that requires additional resources if it is to be adequately tackled.

I welcome the Bill which raises key issues and puts a structure on the whole area of juvenile justice. We are currently experiencing economic success but we should judge our country's success not just in terms of the economy but the way we treat our children, particularly those most disadvantaged. The Bill will go a long way towards ensuring that we reach out to those children but the Minister will need more resources to continue the job to which he has applied himself to so successfully since taking office.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. Currie)

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate which, to a large extent, have been of a constructive nature. The debate has been thoughtful and thought provoking and that illustrates the seriousness with which we all consider the problem of juvenile crime. I had intended making some general observations on the Bill but, given the number of areas I need to cover and the time available, I will try to do justice to the contributions by concentrating on the points made.

I want to deal with Deputy O'Donoghue's assertion that the Bill is not innovative. In setting about reviewing an area of the law as broad as the one covered by the Bill, it must be accepted that one does not completely have a free hand. There are parameters which cannot be wished or legislated away. That is particularly the case when one is dealing with a complex, pre-existing system such as the juvenile justice system. We cannot tear down an edifice on which the State relies on a daily basis. It must be recognised that changing such a system cannot take place in a short space of time; it is a process which must be given time to develop in an organised way. The flexibility of the provisions in this Bill will allow for that development in accordance with prevailing conditions at any time. Constitutional and legal constraints are obvious examples.

During the course of the necessarily lengthy period of preparation of the Bill, a number of juvenile justice models around the world were examined to see if there were worthwhile approaches suitable for adaptation to our circumstances. The Scottish juvenile justice system is often held up as a model of its kind but the reality is that if it were to be imposed here, it would encounter constitutional problems. For that reason, a model along the lines of that system was a non-starter.

One must also accept that there are constraints related to the availability of resources. The question of resources was raised by most Deputies, including Deputies Haughey and Flaherty. All of us must recognise that there will not be a limitless fund to meet costs associated with operating a revised juvenile justice system. That is a fact of life with which we must live. I recognise, however, that a new juvenile justice system cannot be provided on the cheap and it will demand the application of properly targeted resources if it is to be successful. My record on bringing the Child Care Act, 1991 fully into operation should allay fears that the implementation of this Bill will be put on the long finger.

Deputy Bree considered the title of the Bill unsuitable for a juvenile justice Bill. I would not have any problem using a title such as Juvenile Justice Bill if juvenile justice matters only were contained in the Bill, but it has a wider scope including protection provisions and a Part dealing with out of control non-offending children. The title covers all three aspects of the Bill and is technically necessary. It also allows us introduce the child pornography provisions on Committee Stage.

Several Deputies referred to the age of criminal responsibility. Deputy O'Donnell wanted to know the reason the age of criminal responsibility could not be raised to 12 years. Perhaps a number of Deputies have in mind the recommendation some years ago of the Select Committee on Crime. I assure Deputies that much weight was attached to that recommendation when the proposals before the House were being prepared. Account also had to be taken of the fact that, regardless of the age to which the age of criminal responsibility is raised, there must be a credible alternative for dealing with troublesome youngsters below that age. The Bill recognises that a five year change in the age of criminal responsibility in one go would place an intolerable burden on those charged with looking after difficult children under that age. The aim of the Bill does not differ fundamentally from that of the advocates of 12 years; it is simply that the Bill recognises that a staged approach must take place. I believe Deputy Lynch was prepared to accept that when she raised this issue.

Deputy O'Donnell raised a particular difficulty which may be associated with a rise in the age of criminal responsibility, namely, that children under that age may be used by unscrupulous adults to commit offences. That is a good point which I will consider before Committee Stage.

Deputy Shortall stated that 15 is the age of criminal responsibility in Scandinavian countries and that we should move towards that. I do not have the time to respond in detail on this point but it should be taken into account that fundamentally different legal systems apply in those countries, and it does not follow that what holds in those countries would suit our circumstances. For example, the meaning of the expression "the age of criminal responsibility" is different in mainland Europe from that in common law countries such as Ireland. The alternative meaning, as explained by Deputy Flood, simply could not be transferred to the reality of our legal and constitutional circumstances.

Deputy O'Donoghue raised points in relation to curfews, that is, the provision in the Bill for community sanctions which entail placing restrictions on the movement of young offenders. The Deputy seemed to favour penalising the parents or guardian, as well as the young offender, for breach of a restriction on movement order. The parents or guardian would know about the existence of the order because the court would be required to send a certified copy of it to them and the judge could make it clear what is expected of them in relation to the performance of the community sanction by their child. It would be going too far, however, to penalise a parent or guardian where, for example, a child climbs out the window.

Deputies O'Donnell, Haughey, Kenny and Walsh were concerned that the Bill did not sufficiently address the issue of drugs and their impact on the criminality of the young. The sad reality is that drug abuse underlies crimes committed by many of the young people who are the focus of this Bill. The Bill is intended to allow for drug-related measures where that is necessary in particular cases, but the way in which it does so is not very obvious because it is not a function of this Bill to focus on specific causes of crime or on social problems.

The growing problem of drug abuse among young people who are out of home is presenting major new challenges to the child care services, in particular to the staff in residential centres trying to manage their behaviour. The board is developing new strategies to combat this problem. I will bring the points made by Deputy Walsh to the attention of the Eastern Health Board. The board's child care and drug services are working on a joint initiative which will include the establishment of treatment services for adolescents in the north and south inner city. The board is also examining the skills mix of the staff in residential centres to cope with young people who present with serious drug problems.

Deputy O'Donnell asked if the new board of management should have a role in the court's decision on which school to send the offender. The court will have available to it in virtually all such cases a probation officer's report and possibly some other report, such as a psychological report, which will offer guidance to the court on the appropriate options in a particular case. The board's chief executive, as part of his or her case management role, will have the power to transfer the child offender to a more appropriate school should it transpire that the offender is unsuited to the one to which he or she is sent or that the child's needs have changed so that they are more suited to the particular programmes or treatment offered by another school. Deputy Gallagher suggested that school directors should have the power to allocate children to other detention schools. I want to avoid differences between directors about appropriate schools for children. For that reason the decision as to which school a child should be transferred to will rest with the board of management. In practice, the board's chief executive will decide on the transfer in consultation with the directors concerned.

While on the subject of the children detention schools, Deputy Flood was concerned about a revolving door policy developing if schools were not allowed to refuse admittance. Such a development would defeat the purpose of what we are trying to achieve with these schools. Under section 92 a court will be able to defer the implementation of a children detention order until a suitable place becomes available.

Deputies O'Donoghue, Broughan, Haughey and Keaveney spoke of the importance of sport in diverting children from involvement in criminal activities. I strongly endorse that view. Sporting activities have great potential for giving children at risk of becoming involved in crime a positive and satisfying outlet for their energy and interests. The crime prevention scope of such activities is invariably undervalued. They should be given every encouragement. The family conference provides an opportunity for young offenders to become involved in sporting or other positive activities in their areas.

Deputy O'Donnell drew attention to the Foster Care Association's concern about the power under section 90 to order the parent or guardian to pay compensation. Officials of the Departments of Justice and Health met representatives of the Foster Care Association in recent weeks and were able to allay its concerns in this regard. I will introduce amendments to sections 90 and 91 which will exclude foster parents from the scope of both sections.

Deputies O'Donnell, Haughey and Kenny raised the problem of homeless children, in the Eastern Health Board region in particular. The delivery of services for homeless children is provided for under the framework of the Child Care Act, 1991. The Eastern Health Board has introduced a wide range of important measures to help tackle this problem. These are too extensive to outline in detail but they include an emergency short-term residential unit, supported lodgings to maintain young people in their area of home origin, a day project, the funding of St. Vincent's Trust to include out of home young people in the training programmes offered by the trust and the funding of a number of hostels run by voluntary agencies.

Deputies Haughey and Gallagher, in particular, raised the question of the need to provide support to families through the development of parenting skills. I place great emphasis on the development of such skills. The development of parenting skills is crucial if we are to be successful in reducing juvenile crime. Health boards provide a range of services to assist parents and families in difficulty. These include the community mothers programme, the provision of nursery services and family support services. However, the Government recognises that much more needs to be done in this area and the issue of how best to proceed in the development of parenting programmes has been referred to the Commission on the Family for its consideration.

Deputy O'Donoghue made a point about the need for more research. He stated that some research had been carried out but that it is very thin on the ground. I could not agree more with him. Section 225, which provides that the Minister for Justice may conduct or assist other persons in conducting research, should go some way towards improving matters in this regard.

Deputy Broughan made a point about the school attendance Bill not being before the House. I accept that Bill is vital in the context of crime prevention and work on it is at an advanced stage. I regard nine and ten year olds mitching from school as often the first indication that they are commencing a journey down the slippery slope to a life in crime. Deputy Flood's point about the school attendance provisions being included in this Bill is taken. However, they would make it even more unwieldy and could result in the school attendance provisions not receiving the attention they deserve. Deputies should bear in mind that the Child Care Act, this Bill and the school attendance Bill are designed as a trinity.

Deputy Costello felt that provision should be made for removing licences from proprietors of dance halls, discos and pubs who allow drugs to be sold on their premises. The Deputy will be glad to know the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, recently obtained Government approval for the drafting of the Licensing Bill, 1997, the purpose of which will be to deal with drug abuse in dance halls, pubs and other licensed places of entertainment, as well as to enhance Garda powers in relation to unlicensed dances. It will do exactly as the Deputy suggested.

Deputies O'Donoghue, Haughey, Costello and Kenny referred to the proposed child pornography provisions. I will introduce these by way of Committee Stage amendments. While Deputies O'Donoghue and Ryan are to be commended for the speed with which they introduced their Bill, we had to await the finalisation of the relevant European Joint Action before we could move our proposals forward. Our proposals take a different approach to the problem of child pornography from that contained in the Private Members' Bill and would have made it difficult to amend that Bill.

Most Deputies who spoke, including Deputies O'Donnell, Costello, Haughey, Bree and Fitzgerald, welcomed the provision on begging and Deputy Costello also welcomed the provisions on cruelty and neglect of children. While not part of the framework on juvenile justice, these provisions offer increased protection to children against being put out to beg or being otherwise abused.

I was heartened by the welcome for the placing of the diversion programme on a statutory basis, as recommended by the Select Committee on Crime. That will enhance the status of the present scheme and more resources will be attracted to it. Deputy O'Donnell was concerned about follow-up and assurances required by the victim, particularly in cases of a sexual nature. I empathise with the Deputy's concern. The provisions dealing with the diversion programme make it clear that great weight is given to the views of the victim before a child is admitted to the programme. Less than half of 1 per cent of children involved in cases of a sexual nature are admitted to the programme. Those who are admitted are admitted because the close and intensive supervision they receive is considered the best way of ensuring they will not get into trouble again.

Deputy Flood thought persons such as community leaders should be involved in the family conference. I agree. Section 24 permits the JLO to ask any person whom he or she considers to have a knowledge of the child or whose presence would be of benefit to the conference to be present. Such people would be community leaders, although I am not sure how one would define a community leader. Persons whose presence would be appropriate would also extend beyond community leaders to others, such as priests, teachers, sports trainers and even neighbours. Any attempt to refer specifically to a particular category of people could inadvertently restrict those categories.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald and Deputy Flaherty referred to an ombudsman for children and asked when progress would be made in making such an appointment. Work is proceeding on preparations for the introduction of an ombudsman for children. It has been referred to the Cabinet committee on children and I will make every effort to ensure the Government delivers on its commitment to that as quickly as possible. The appointment will add to the protections for children and will be a symbol of our determination and commitment to children's position in society being protected and promoted.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and I look forward to their positive participation when the Bill is examined in greater detail on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.