Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome this debate and agree with a considerable portion of the Labour Party motion, although there will, no doubt, be a vote on it at the conclusion of Private Members' business. The Government has tabled an amendment extolling the work we have done in this area, which is set out in bullet points. The content of the Labour Party motion chimes in with my aims as Minister of State and is something I intend to implement within the lifetime of this Government. I would, of course, qualify some elements of the motion in the name of Senator Ryan but it accords considerably with my aim as Minister of State attached to the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, all of which are involved in the implementation of the Children Act 2001.

The one area of the Labour Party motion which I welcome but which does not fall within its spirit is the call for the passing of legislation on the rehabilitation of offenders. I welcome its inclusion in the motion but it falls within the remit of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform because such legislation would apply to all offenders, not just juveniles. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is examining this issue but Seanad Éireann might be a better place in which to examine it.

The rehabilitation of offenders is a legislative lacuna. A person convicted of a crime in England whose criminal record is transmitted to Ireland continues to retain an Irish criminal record after the UK criminal record is expunged, which is an extraordinary state of affairs. Many jurisdictions have arrangements whereby offences eventually become spent and the person with the conviction receives a clean slate in the sense of not merely serving a sentence but having his or her criminal record wiped out. This does not happen in Ireland. I mention this because it is worthy of debate, although it is not exclusive to youth justice.

Senators' contributions to this debate were very stimulating. I will not bring Members through every aspect of the Government amendment. The Government is implementing the Children Act 2001. I have secured additional staffing for the probation and welfare service to enable it to implement the Act and have a presence in the Children's Court, which did not occur before my appointment and the Government's term of office. The Special Residential Services Board has been established on a statutory basis and is providing a service to the courts by indicating the services that are available for troubled children who come before them. This matter must be fine-tuned. Our survey of the courts revealed that a considerable number of parties are willing to appear before the courts to suggest what should be done for children but that fewer parties are willing to discuss the services which are available. Courts and judges want clear options, whether they involve diversion, sanctions, detention or care.

The Act's provisions regarding restorative justice have been implemented in terms of the provision of restorative justice by the probation and welfare service as an alternative to the full court hearing, as well as the Garda diversion programme. The amendment refers to the youth justice review. In 2004, I was not satisfied that I would be able to commence the Children Act 2001 within the lifetime of the Government and asked it to consider instituting a youth justice review to restructure the youth justice system, improve delivery of services and strike a balance between rehabilitation of offenders and the essential protection of the community. This review has now been completed and I will bring proposals on foot of it to Government in the coming weeks. The youth justice review aimed to bring about an effective youth justice system, complete the implementation of the Children Act and secure the necessary resources to see this happens. The review also aimed to bring about essential legal changes in the Children Act to finalise its implementation. I will return to Senator Tuffy's query about the age of criminal responsibility. I have attached considerable importance to implementing the above measures, which is why I welcome this motion.

On my appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I was struck by the lack of a unit dealing with youth justice. The Garda established its excellent juvenile liaison scheme several decades ago and the work carried out by juvenile liaison officers has been praised by Senators on both sides of the House. This scheme has now been put on a statutory basis as has the Garda diversion scheme. However, this was the preserve of the Garda. The detention of offenders over the age of 16 was the preserve of the Prison Service and community sanctions were the responsibility of the probation and welfare service, although the bulk of the service's work is naturally and rightly taken up with the management of adult offenders.

There was no research base on juvenile justice, the approaches used in other countries and what we could learn from them in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department even lacked a statistical base on the issue. I suggested the creation of a youth justice unit within the Department that would be dedicated to analysing these issues and coming forward with solutions. Otherwise, and with respect to Senator Cummins, we will end up with the same scenario as that at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis in Millstreet, County Cork, last week, where Deputy Jim O'Keeffe called for the electronic tagging of children as the ultimate solution to youth justice problems. I accept that Senator Cummins is on the side of the angels in today's debate but this subject leads rapidly to that kind of analysis at many party conferences, congresses and Ard-Fheiseanna.