John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and compliment him on his approach to this issue. The Labour Party motion refers to measures to prevent children offending and re-offending and to how to help young people at risk of offending. If one looks at the range of actions that make up the work of the National Children's Office, it is obvious that truly helping children requires a broad approach. Many interventions are possible before a child ever reaches the stage where he or she becomes at risk of offending. Helping involves both a long-term and co-ordinated approach.

The National Children's Office was set up to drive the implementation of the ten-year national children's strategy and to co-ordinate policies and services for children at national and local levels, across many Departments and agencies. The Government recognises the cross-cutting, multifaceted and long-term approach needed to address the problem of juvenile crime. Through the National Children's Office and other initiatives it is working to address this issue.

Before discussing juvenile crime specifically, I want to talk about crime in general. I am glad that juvenile crime is distinguished from crime in general as it has particular causes and should elicit particular responses. The victims of crime are not concerned about the age of the perpetrator. They do not care whether the person who damaged their property or assaulted them is 13, 18 or 40 years of age. Who could blame them? The view of policymakers must be different.

Crime levels are never far from the minds of the public. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responded to the concerns of the public in many ways, for example, through the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003 and the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. The Garda Síochána was strengthened from 11,750 in 2002 to 12,227 by March last. The Government will continue to strengthen the force to an increased level of 14,000 gardaí. Legislation, resources and Garda numbers are just part of the broader approach required. However, this is not so evident in the Labour Party motion.

We must not overlook the importance of the personal responsibility of individuals, families and the community. When we start to abdicate our responsibilities to the State, the State's intervention must be in the enforcement of law and order. This ultimately leads to a "them and us" situation. Through education, for example, CSPE programmes, and awareness, we can instil in young people a sense of responsibility, not just for themselves but for the community in which they live. We can give them a sense of pride that will place a value on society. Simple programmes, such as litter awareness or the success of Tidy Towns projects, prove that this can be done. Individuals, families and communities all have a responsibility in combating juvenile crime. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the great support given by sporting organisations in providing facilities and a sense of purpose for young people.

There are particular contributory factors to juvenile crime and, therefore, particular responses are required. Part of that response will be legislative. The motion makes specific reference to the Children Act 2001 which is important, modern and progressive legislation. It recognises correctly that detention is a measure of last resort in addressing juvenile crime. Research has pointed to many factors that lead juveniles to commit crime, namely, the environment in which they live, family, friend and peer influence, a strong adolescent desire for material possessions, fashion, money, etc.

Research also illustrates that at times these demands can be intensified by society, particularly societies such as ours that see increasingly high mobility, social change and materialism. Social changes can create anxiety and disillusion for adolescents, thereby contributing to juvenile crime. The Children Act thus provides for a broad range of interventions for young offenders, based on the central principles of diversion and restorative justice. We must welcome this approach and the approach of the Garda Síochána. When responding to juvenile crime, gardaí consider whether the offender might be included in the Garda juvenile diversion programme. I cannot overstate my support for and the importance of this scheme.

In certain circumstances, a juvenile who freely accepts responsibility for a criminal incident may be cautioned as an alternative to prosecution. At a time when commentary inaccurately suggests that we as a society are moving towards increasing criminalisation of children, the juvenile diversion programme is a valuable alternative to prosecution. I was delighted that the scheme was put on a statutory footing under the Children Act. While alternatives to prosecution are desirable, the youth diversion programme, as its name suggests, relates more to diverting young people away from crime by offering guidance and support to juveniles and their families, which is critical. The programme has proven to be extremely successful in doing that. I welcome the focus it places on local interventions. I understand that the Garda national juvenile office received almost 20,000 referrals, relating to more than 17,000 individuals, under the programme in 2003.

The motion before the House refers to many ways of addressing juvenile crime, including legislation, funding, resources and the probation and welfare service. I have focused on juvenile diversion and reducing recidivism. It is to be welcomed that the Government, its Departments and agencies and, in particular, the National Children's Office have taken positive steps in these areas. I accept that juvenile diversion programmes and projects are not appropriate in all instances. Given that detention is a measure of last resort in addressing juvenile crime, however, we must consider such approaches to an increased extent. Research shows that over 85% of those formally diverted from prosecution under these measures do not come to the attention of the Garda again by their 18th birthday. The diversion programme is just one strand in the overall approach to dealing with juvenile crime. That we need other ways of dealing with it is reflected clearly and realistically in the amendment, which I support.