Does the Minister not agree that there is almost total agreement among all organisations dealing with child care and with social work among children that the concept of Loughan House is totally detrimental to the best interests of the children? The Minister has said that it will be at least three years before any alternative to Loughan House can be provided and irreparable harm can be done to up to 90 children in that period.

The Deputy is making a speech.

Does the Minister not agree that to go ahead with the project in the circumstances is wholly irresponsible?

I do not accept that there is agreement between the objectors to Loughan House who say that the concept is wrong. I have heard their spokesmen over a period of weeks offering differing views. There is an extremely serious problem in existence with regard to these young people. If that problem did not exist perhaps we could afford the luxury—and it would be a luxury—of waiting for a while. One need only refer to the recent accident involving young Dublin people in County Galway. I do not want to add further injury or pain to the families of the young people but quite a number of young people—all of them under 16 years and some of whom had been to Lusk but who could not be kept there —were involved in the escapade that ended in death.

Does the Minister not accept that all the organisations involved in the protest regarding Loughan House agree that there is a very serious problem among a small number of young people? Does he not accept that they agree that some preventive measures must be taken to protect society against their operations at the moment but that Loughan House is totally against the best interests of the children and ultimately against the best interests of our society? Further, does he not agree that in the interim report of the task force there is an alternative way of dealing with this problem?

I accept the fact that many of the people who object to Loughan House are genuine in their belief, but they do not agree between themselves regarding the need for a secure custodial centre. I should like the Deputy to clarify for me now whether I am to interpret from what he said that people have told him or led him to believe that there is no need for a custodial centre. Is that the position?

I never suggested that. I said that the vast majority of people and organisations who have specialised for many years in child care agree that there is a problem with regard to a small number of young people. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the Minister, instead of being selective about whom he meets with regard to the objections to Loughan House, would meet all the organisations who have banded together to protest against his proceeding with this project.

This is developing into a debate.

The Minister is answering nine questions together.

I have said in my answer that I am going to meet other interested people, people with genuine interest in the matter. I believe that there may be one or two organisations or associations whose interests may not be as genuine as one would think.

In view of the widespread belief among Deputies and interested organisations that the interim solution proposed by the Minister is likely to make a bad situation even worse——

I reject that.

May I ask the Minister——

In view of that belief, does the Minister not agree that an invitation should be extended to us to visit Loughan House—as his predecessor did in relation to Deputies like myself who visited Mountjoy— and enable us to talk to the staff and those proposed to be employed in Loughan House?

I have no objection whatever to giving favourable consideration to the Deputy's suggestion that Members of this House should visit Loughan House when the present reconstruction work is completed.

Even now.