Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their contributions and welcome the House's debate on the implementation of the Children Act 2001. I have not been disappointed by the quality of the contributions. It has been a most informative debate and I appreciate the support extended to me by Members regarding my work in three Departments. Senator Browne queried the necessity of involvement by three Departments but this was a decision made by the Oireachtas in 2001. I assure him that I have often questioned the wisdom of this arrangement. It is the system for which the legislation provided, however, and it is my job to implement it in a robust manner.

It is important to appreciate that we are discussing a very troubled group of youngsters. I have responsibility in the Department of Education and Science for the Education (Welfare) Act which aims to address the problem of non-attendance. This group does not consist only of students who did not attend school in the past. In the Department of Health and Children, I have responsibility for children taken into care. Again, some of the children we are discussing have been taken into care and others not. These are the children coming to the attention of the law and not just through the diversion scheme, appropriate and important as it is. The most difficult group consists of those who come habitually before the courts.

Senator Cummins started from a good point of departure when he referred to the experiments which took place in the United Kingdom, whereby the objective of bringing offenders to justice in a more rapid manner was achieved on foot of a pledge given by the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, prior to his election. It was discovered that with the same level of investment but better interagency co-operation, a dramatic reduction could be achieved in the time between bringing an offender before the courts and the disposal of the offence. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and I met the consulting group which piloted that programme in different metropolitan areas in Britain, such as the greater Manchester area. One of the issues being considered in the review of the juvenile justice system by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the one highlighted by Senator Cummins at the outset.

Senator Glynn showed tremendous insight of the type of problem we are facing with juvenile offenders. I agree entirely with his analogy with the psychiatric service and that incarceration must be the last resort. It is popular to call for it and to criticise Ministers for not providing enough of it. It must only be a last resort, however. I discussed this issue in my opening statement and will not develop it any further.

Senator Norris was anxious about the question of the guardian ad litem service. It is available in proceedings under the Child Care Act so that the separate interests of the child are fully safeguarded in those proceedings. The amendment which Senator Norris successfully carried through in 1998 was to extend the guardian ad litem service to private law proceedings, for example, where there is a custody dispute between two parents. I regret to advise the Senator that this has not yet been implemented. However, the National Children's Office engaged a consultant who has completed a study of the guardian ad litem service and a steering group is considering its extension.

There is a cost attached to everything and the question of resources was referred to by a number of Senators. In terms of both the justice and health aspects, there has been a significant increase in the level of resources committed to this area in recent years, as is essential. Senator O'Rourke referred to her experience of the Department of Education and Science and asked who would take responsibility for these children. The Senator is right. That is also my experience in the Department. It is for that reason the special residential services board is important because it brings the whole together and makes clear where responsibility lies. However, we must revisit this issue in the context of the current justice review. I am not convinced that the tripartite division of responsibility is wise. The issue will be examined. However, the examination of that issue will not delay the implementation of other provisions of the Act.

Senator O'Meara and others referred to recent murders by young people and there was much reflection with regard to the kind of country into which we have evolved and how we respond. I have some difficulty with the idea that the age of responsibility should be fixed at 12 years of age, but I do not support the idea that seven and eight year olds should be sent to jail. However, some high profile offences have been committed by 11 year olds in European countries in recent years. I am not sure whether the Oireachtas considered that when the legislation was enacted. It would be difficult for any Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to commence a section which would exempt an 11 year old murderer from the stigma of offending.

Senators O'Meara, White and Cox discussed the important question of child care which is related to this issue and is a subject worthy of a separate debate. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is responsible for the equal opportunities child care programme and I am responsible, through the Department of Health and Children, for the legal regulation of the standards that apply. Senator White also mentioned the involvement of many other Ministers and agencies. There has been significant investment under the equal opportunities child care programme, but we must extend that programme on the capital side. The issue also involves current staffing costs in disadvantaged areas. The programme must be extended when it expires in 2006.

The question of tax incentives is constantly raised, but I must strike a cautionary note in this regard. Senator Cox asked why expenses on child care are not tax allowable. Giving a tax break increases the cost of the service being rendered. It is an economic cast iron argument that the supplier makes a greater profit from the service when the State provides tax incentives. This was the result with the first-time buyer's grant. We must examine how we can reduce the cost. This may mean we must consider more supply side measures to reduce the cost. I accept that argument and the argument made by several Senators that we must do what we can to reduce the cost of child care provision. I have had much contact with this area because I have represented the Minister in his dealings with many of the county child care committees that do marvellous work in liaising with the Department on the needs of their particular areas. They have also produced a marvellous audit of our national needs.

Reference was made to various tax incentives. We must remember that these have resulted in the establishment of a substantial infrastructure, for example, in workplaces, of high quality crèche places. However, besides these areas and the other sectors mentioned, child minding is still important in the context of child care.

Another issue we must consider, to which almost every Senator referred, is early education. We must consider what we are going to do not just to set standards for early education, but to ensure it is provided to two, three and four year olds. This is vital.