Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

I am glad to be here for the debate on this progress report. As the Minister of State was speaking I was thinking we should get progress reports on Bills that have become Acts and which are in various phases of implementation. We pass legislation and live by it and it is consigned somewhere. Legislation becomes a statue and then we do not hear anything more about what has happened in respect of it. It is a good idea to get a detailed progress report such as this on the various parts of legislation that have been enacted and what has happened in regard to the Act.

As the Minister of State was speaking, I heard of many measures with which I am familiar at local level, but I did not know they were part of this legislation. One must bear in mind that the genesis of the 2001 Act was the 1908 legislation and later 1991 legislation. The 1908 legislation was based on centuries of developments mainly of a custodial and penitential nature for young people and it was then amended by 1991 legislation and later by the 2001 Act. Much that is good and of great value has arisen from this legislation.

We mostly hear of the cases in which the judge quite rightly utters a tirade against the Department or various Ministers who are not executing orders that he gives them. Everybody is very distressed about this matter. We also hear of cases such as those mentioned by Senators Glynn and Norris. These cases are very disturbing to us all. We all have sympathy for the mother in the case of the murder in Laois. The impact statement that she was unable to read in the court was welcome because it demonstrated graphically to us all the distress caused by what had happened. It was a very powerful and emotive statement. Why would it not be? The mother was but 16 when she had her son and he was murdered when he was 14. I know this was the crime of one person but we are all involved in society in one way or another and should consider what we could do to help in every case.

On the implementation process, I commend the Minister and his officials for being able to skirt the provisions of the Department of Finance on numbers such that they were able to get 30 extra personnel under the global heading of the Department. This was very necessary. The Act represents a major change in how our children are to be treated within the juvenile justice and welfare system. There is a significant shift away from residential and custodial care.

When I was Minister for Education, there was a constant barney over who had responsibility for the various institutions. Nobody wanted responsibility and it was hanging between all the Departments.

If something dreadful happened in one of the institutions everybody ran away from it as fast as they could. The purpose of the Minister of State is to do away with this shirking of responsibility. All blame will fall on his office.

I like the term "diversionary programmes" and the option of community sanction. When the Minister of State is replying, I would like him to state exactly what is a community sanction. What can a young person do in preference to a custodial sentence? We know the kinds of community tasks that can be done by adults and I suppose the community sanctions that apply to juveniles are versions thereof.

I pay tribute to juvenile liaison officers. We have always had one in Athlone, where I live, and I know much good work was done by that person.

On the basis of what we read in the report, the Minister of State has done considerable work on the issues in question. That so much has happened is of enormous benefit.

Let me refer to a matter that is not referred to in the progress report but which is in itself important, namely, the great pressure under which parents labour to rear their families and pay huge mortgages. I believe Senator Glynn touched upon this. It is now the norm in most households to have two parents working, whether they want to or not. This is because of penal mortgage rates and the need to keep the family and home together. I know this is not the Minister of State's preserve or his baby — that is the wrong analogy — but perhaps he will update us on the issue of child care. What is wrong is that the issue is nobody's child, so to speak, and it is talked about very randomly. If the Department of Finance talks about it, it does so in terms of taxation; if the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does so, it is a capital matter. However, it is now the norm that a couple's monthly child care cost exceeds that of their mortgage. When one is not involved at this level one says the cost of child care is dreadful and moves on, but it really is dreadful, as I have occasion to know from my family's family. It is horrendous and a significant burden on parents, yet they must bear it if they are to provide for their children. If there is more than one child, paying for child care practically becomes an impossibility.

To return to the progress report, will the Minister of State outline in his reply whether the perpetrators of the recent murders of children in Laois and Dublin had come under the provisions of any Act prior to the murders? Had they come under the purview of a juvenile liaison officer or whoever is responsible for working through the kinds of difficulties they might have been encountering, or had school reports, for example, been examined, might early signs of what was to happen have been revealed? I do not know if this can be worked through.

The issues raised in the report are of great interest to us all. We have all come across examples of them. We realise that custodial treatment is not always the answer for young people caught up in the perpetration of terrible crimes or petty crimes. In many cases they need guidance, care, foresight and a belief that they can be helped if the correct line of action is taken. I hope we will have further progress reports on this important matter.