INTRODUCING the Children Bill, the Minister of State for Justice, Mr Austin Currie, said it would provide a statutory framework within which a new juvenile justice system could be developed.

The system should be responsive to the challenges posed by a sophisticated and largely urbanised society at the end of the 20th century, he said.

Under the Bill the age of criminal responsibility would be raised from seven to 10. In future children under 10 would be presumed to be incapable of crime.

A credible alternative way of dealing with the problem of under age children would be devised. The Bill provided a framework under which health boards would have responsibility for these children. It would amend the Child Care Act 1991 by giving additional powers to health boards to ensure that children who were out of control received special care, education and treatment.

Why young persons became involved in crime was not easy to answer but we were not unique in having this problem. "All developed countries have, to a greater or lesser extent, a problem with juvenile delinquency and most have a more serious problem that we have."

Juvenile delinquents were usually male and from deprived backgrounds with a dysfunctional family and a strong possibility that one or both parents were involved in crime. The delinquent was usually below average intelligence and suffered low self esteem. "He will be a youth who has very little hope for himself in the future and has nothing to lose through his anti social activities."

The role of parents was crucial in dealing with young criminals and that was recognised by the Bill. It provided for the setting up of a family conference where the child's problems could be aired and a programme of corrective measures suggested.

Where a youth was brought to court the Bill provided that both parents should be present. Where that was not possible an adult relative or other adult could attend.

The court could impose fines, oblige parents to enter into recognisance to exercise proper control, or require the child to attend a day centre.

The Department of Education would become responsible for the detention of all child offenders under 16. The reformatory and industrial schools would be replaced with "children detention schools", which would operate under a board of management with a chief executive.

The law on encouraging or causing a sexual offence against a child under 17 was being updated and the penalties increased. The law 0 cruelty and neglect was being revised. Where children were sent out to beg the evidential burden would be on the person who sent "the child out, making prosecutions easier.

Under the Bill the health boards would have responsibility for operating appropriate services and facilities for children who, while not in trouble with the law, needed to be detained in their own interests. Health boards would have to apply to the courts where the behaviour of the child was such that "it poses a real and substantial risk to his or her health, safety, development or welfare."

The Fianna Fail spokesman on justice, Mr John O'Donoghue, described the Bill as a disappointment. "It is a Bill which merely tinkers with solutions and systems which cave already been seen to be inadequate. It lacks innovation and it lacks vision."

If those sections of the Bill which merely restated the existing law in a mildly altered form were removed what remained amounted to window dressing. "It is a Bill which seeks to create the illusion of reform whilst maintaining the status quo. It is a tired Bill which has emanated from a tired minister in a tired department."

If the age of criminal responsibility was to have any meaning in the late 20th century it must refer to mental and not physical age The Bill wholly ignored the issue. "It is silent. As far as the Government is concerned the issue does not exist."

Alternative forms of sentencing needed to be explored. Community service should be expanded but must have increased funding to ensure that each sentence was closely monitored, and there must be sufficient, meaningful projects.

Mr O'Donoghue recommended a curfew for both juvenile and adult offenders. A combination of increased community service and a curfew would lead to several benefits. It would keep young offenders out of prison, reducing overcrowding, and the work done under community service orders might sow the seeds of community and civic spirit in young people.

Drug related crime committed by juveniles must be separately considered. Increased powers must be given to courts to deal with these charges as quickly as possible.

"There must be increased funding for drug treatment programmes for juveniles as a matter of urgency. Young offenders might be given a choice of detention for the full statutory period or a reduced sentence with attendance at detoxification and treatment programmes."

The PD spokeswoman on justice, Ms Liz O'Donnell, welcomed the Bill. Comprehensive legislation was long overdue to reflect the reality that the profile of criminals was pathetically predictable, mainly disadvantaged young males.

The proof of the measures would be in their enforcement. "An effective juvenile justice system integrates crime prevention strategies, early intervention with young offenders and diversion away from crime. The importance of recreation and leisure activities, specially sport, must be recognised," she said.

Many people were scandalised by the regular sight of children begging on the streets and door to door in the full knowledge of their parents. "For too long, the authorities have turned a blind eye to this blatant abuse of children. We warmly welcome the fact that the Bill restates the offence of causing a child to beg, with the burden resting on the responsible adult to prove that they did not send the child out to beg."

Regarding the juvenile diversion programme, as an alternative to prosecution, she said this was being widely used. In the period 1992-1994 a total of 22,693 cautions were issued to juveniles who admitted crimes, including serious sexual offences.