DAIL DEBATE

Take Number: EE

Next Take Number: FF

Forum

DÁIL ÉIREANN

Sitting Time

Sitting Date

16:10

5 April 2000

^ Adjournment Debate Matters. ^

^ Children Bill, 1999 (Resumed). ^

Mr. Kelleher: When discussing the Bill, we must acknowledge the work and consultation which has gone into this in the past. We have been waiting for the Bill for a long time. If one looks back at the way in which the State dealt with children at risk over many years, it was done in an unstructured and very fractured way. This is a very comprehensive Bill which was worth waiting for.

When discussing legislation we have to acknowledge that resources are vital for its implementation. The aspirations and design of the Bill are positive and set out a statutory framework for dealing with juveniles. Until such time as a proper funding mechanism is put in place we are reneging on those whom we are trying to protect. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for publication of the Bill. Will the Minister explain who will provide the funding given that the health boards and the Department of Education and Science are involved? We must not fall between stools as in the past when it comes to dealing with juveniles before the courts. In a much highlighted case recently a judge was requested to place a child in detention. However, no proper facilities were available. After the Bill leaves the House a proper funding mechanism must be put in place.

The Bill covers four main areas of the law. It provides a modern statutory framework for the development of the juvenile justice system. It provides for a family welfare conference and other new provisions for dealing with out of control non-offending children. It re-enacts and updates provisions in the 1908 Act protecting children against abuse by persons who have the custody, charge or care of them. It provides for a special residential services board to advise the Ministers for Education and Science and Health and Children on policy matters relating to the remand and detention of children and ensures the efficient and effective co-ordinated delivery of services to children in respect of whom detention orders or special care orders have been made.

The starting point for the Bill was the Children Act, 1908. That Act was the basis for the creation and development of a juvenile justice system that has, despite its many weaknesses, served the country well throughout the greater part of the 20th century. There have been many problems in dealing with juveniles through the justice system. Because of the number of agencies involved no clearcut decision could be made by one without consulting the others. That has happened too often in the past.

A matter I have raised in the past is the enrolment of children in national schools. Until such time as that is addressed we will be always one step behind finding out children at risk. For example, if a child is enrolled in a national school and is taken out by a parent, nobody knows whether the child has been enrolled in another school. From a statistical point of view the Department of Education and Science assumes it has been enrolled in another school. A centralised enrolment mechanism must be put in place whereby, if a child is taken out of one school, the parent or guardian informs the principal that the child is enrolled in another school. There must be a mechanism of checks to ensure the child is enrolled. Many children drop out of national school and fall away from the mainstream education system and are at risk at an early age. If a mechanism was in place and it was shown that the child was not attending any national school, educational services, such as the home-school liaison officers, could be availed of. In this way the immediate problem of children who are at risk could be addressed.

Those in the education process say they can pinpoint at an early age the vast majority of children who will fall out of mainstream education and lean towards a life of crime. A computerised enrolment system which would show if a child is not in full-time education should be put in place. Now by the time it comes to the attention of the authorities the child is at risk. This issue which has been mooted by the Department of Education and Science will have to be addressed. There will have to be correlation between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Education and Science on a centralised computerised enrolment system.

An issue about which I am concerned is that children are used for the specific purpose of begging on the streets. There must be hundreds of children on the streets day in day out who are used for begging purposes. We heard in the House previously that vans drive around and drop the children off at various points throughout the city where they have to beg, often in inclement weather conditions. That issue will have to be addressed immediately. Those children are at risk. Who profits from their begging on the streets? While there is poverty in the country, the abuse of children in systematic type begging is appalling and should not be allowed at the start of a new millennium.

I welcome the family welfare conference system provided for in the Bill. If a child commits an offence and is brought before the family welfare conference and the parents or guardians come and discuss it in an open forum, without the pressure of the court and the confrontational type legal system, the child might accept it has done wrong and the parents might accept they have been negligent in their duty to look after and rear the child in a normal fashion. In that way it may be possible to resolve the problem without recourse to the legal system. The family welfare conference is an innovative idea but the health boards must have in place a stand alone fund for this purpose. Health boards must not shy away from their responsibilities due to a lack of funding. I have outlined cases where judges have been unable to put children into detention units simply because they do not exist. The family welfare conference can make a huge contribution to helping children at an early age. It will allow health board officers build up a knowledge of which children are at risk at an early stage. If that is put in place along with the centralised computerised enrolment system we may be able to pick out the children before they move into a cycle of violence. The provision of special care orders is a positive step. There are children who have to be put into care. There have been cases where children were a threat to themselves and to others.

A case was reported in Cork of a young child being placed in completely unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. If we are to build proper detention centres and use the special care order elements of this legislation, we must provide the necessary detention units and human resources to deal with children in a compassionate but firm manner, for their own good and for the good of society. This has not been done in a co-ordinated fashion in the past.

The diversion programme makes huge advances in steering a child away from a life of crime. This programme was formerly known as the juvenile liaison scheme and is now to be put on a statutory footing. Section 19 sets out the objective of the diversion programme. This is "to divert from committing further offences any child who accepts responsibility for his or her criminal behaviour". Section 20 establishes that the diversion programme shall be managed "by a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent". The officer will be called the director and will be under the "general superintendence and control of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána". Gardaí are trained to deal with adults. Juveniles who are involved in crime think differently and must be treated differently from adults. A proper training programme must be put in place to allow gardaí to update their skills in this regard. Dealing with a juvenile is very different from dealing with an adult and gardaí are trained to deal with adults. Resources must be made available to ensure that the gardaí can implement this legislation in a caring and fair manner.

Victims of crime are rarely consulted with regard to sentencing and the conduct of court cases. Section 26 provides for restorative cautioning. The section provides that a victim may be present at the administration of a formal caution. This will allow for discussions during which the child will have to confront the effects of his or her behaviour. The child will also be invited to apologise and to make some form of reparation to the victim. A child might commit an offence at an early age but for him to confront his victim and discuss his crime openly could be a very positive step. Most children, even those who have committed crimes, are remorseful. This facility, by which children can be made to understand the consequences of their actions, and the family welfare conference system are to be welcomed.

Part 5 sets a new age of criminal responsibility, places the doli incapax rule on a statutory basis, clarifies the duties of the Garda Síochána when dealing with an underage child and creates a new offence of aiding or abetting an underage child to commit an offence. Section 54 makes it clear that "a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a child to be responsible for an act or omission which, but for the child's age, would be an offence can be indicted, tried and prosecuted as the principal offender". This is a very important provision. We have all heard of children who have been used by adults for criminal activity. We have heard of young children being used to climb through small bathroom windows to steal from houses. We must address this problem and it is important that this section is applied forcefully. The courts must make it very clear to people who have access to children that the use of children to commit crimes is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. An adult may encourage and help a child to commit an offence, knowing that only the child can be prosecuted. Sections 51 and 54 are very welcome.

We must try to understand why children are becoming involved in crime at an early age. We have problems with regard to drug, alcohol and gambling addictions. These issues must be addressed in other fora. We must be responsive to children and try to understand how this involvement comes about. I hope the Bill will be seen as a caring and understanding piece of legislation. I hope it will deal firmly with adults who are in positions of responsibility and ensure they confront the consequences of their actions.

The State has neglected its duties regarding the spiralling problem of drug addiction, alcohol abuse and gambling. People who deal regularly with children say that their involvement with crime is usually the result of a family problem or addiction. Until we deal with this aspect of the problem we will be using this legislation to fill detention units and to provide subjects for family welfare conferences. Resources must be targeted at areas where high unemployment is coupled with drug abuse and other social problems. We all know where these social black spots are and we must provide resources in the form of education, sport and recreation facilities and employment opportunities to confront this problem.

I welcome the Bill. Through the diversion programme and family welfare conference system, it will make an important contribution towards steering young offenders on a path away from crime. Until we deal with the underlying difficulties we will continually fill our detention units with children who should not be in them.

I hope the Minister will clarify the question of an early enrolment system which would allow for an early check on children who are not attending school and the reasons for that. I cannot understand why children can be seen begging in the streets in front of the offices of local authorities and even of the national Parliament during school hours. This is unacceptable.