On a point of clarification, the final few words of this definition are "for reasons which are not beyond the applicant's control". Could the Minister outline what those reasons might be, who will determine what those reasons are and if there is a threshold given that is part of the definition?
Sentiment score: 0.00
Notwithstanding the merits of this amendment, we should be clear first that we should not be legislating for the detention of children who have done nothing wrong. That should never be a part of legislation and certainly not legislation that has been described in this House today as rushed in nature. It has not been thought through. There will be amendments forthcoming on other Stages. We have not thought this Bill through and with that in mind, legislating for the detention of children who have done nothing wrong simply does not seem right. If the Minister is to pursue that then we need to ensure we obtain what Deputy Kelly is providing for about what a clear definition of "last resort" is and by extension who gets to determine when that has been reached. It is incumbent on the Government to make sure that detail is provided in this legislation.
Sentiment score: 0.29
I thank the Minister for his response. Today we are misjudging in an overwhelming fashion the vulnerability associated with children and young people who are experiencing this process. In doing so, I have lost count of the number of bodies with acronyms that have come out and said that it is never in a child's best interests to be detained. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has included point 3 in the Bill, against every research piece and piece of evidence that says it is never in the child's best interest to be detained, who is experienced or qualified enough to go against that and decide it is deemed to be in a child's best interests to be detained? We have amendments that ask for this to be removed wholesale. We should not be legislating for the detention of children. I will take the opportunity to say that now. Will a lack of availability in the State of appropriate care ever be a rationale for detaining children? If we cannot or are not in a position to provide appropriate places for children or young people, based on it being in their best interests could there be a rationale to detain them? We spent the guts of what felt like 14 hours discussing a definition of "absconding". Children and young people will not even have the opportunity to abscond because, in some cases, they will be detained for doing nothing wrong. How will it be deemed to be in their best interest to be detained for nothing at all?
Sentiment score: 0.21
I wish to pick up on what the Minister said that judges or Tusla will quite often make that determination. I struggle to think of an example where they would make such a determination in a child's best interests - to detain them simply for existing. There are no behavioural issues, crimes being committed or laws being broken. There is no rationale for that decision. It is quite disingenuous to say Tusla or a judge would have the competency to determine that it is in a child’s best interest to be detained for no reason other than for existing. The Minister can withdraw that if he likes. It is not a comparison and it does not make sense to include it.
Sentiment score: 0.20
With regard to amendment No. 20, I am fully supportive of amendment No. 10. We will take another run at it in a definition in terms of Article 14.1 of the Eurodac regulation. My concern equally with this legislation, and it speaks again to the somewhat rushed nature of it, is that it could even be at odds with domestic legislation with regard to Children First and young children and young people's rights and welfare and protections in the State because it does not underpin this legislation. It does not go far enough at all to very clearly highlight the importance of what we must remember are a very vulnerable cohort of people in this society. They are people who have experienced trauma and a whole diversity of issues, and what they need are services. This legislation, as Deputy Kelly said, could be seen from a child's point of view as an opportunity to underpin what is not an optional extra. A child's access to basic human rights and services is not an optional extra. This legislation is not underpinned by a child's best interests, not just with regard to the detention - we have covered that, and I am sure we will cover it again - but also the way in which they interact with the services of this State as they experience the international protection system. My amendment No. 14 was ruled out of order because of the money message. I am a new TD; I am learning. I will have it written in a different way for future pieces of legislation. However, I say that to show the Minister there is a series of ways in which he and his officials could draft what this will look like as a definition. It is essential that the ways in which a child's welfare are of utmost importance are central to this legislation.
Sentiment score: 0.09
I thank the Minister for coming in. With regard to amendment No. 10 and equally the one in my name, amendment No. 20, I want to highlight a couple of aspects of amendment No. 14 that went into detail on this matter. It has since been ruled out of order. It is essentially just an extension-----
Sentiment score: -0.01
-----of what amendment No. 20 was. It is the same amendment essentially without the detail. The Minister can see that. Long before I ever considered or entertained a career in politics or had an opportunity to do so, I was a youth worker in Kildare. I worked with children and young people who were living in direct provision centres. I would love to be here appealing for legislation to enshrine meaningful opportunities for young people and children to engage in education, to engage in play and to engage in appropriate health outcomes. It is really hypocritical of the Minister to say that the best interests of the child are already enshrined in this legislation when we are collectively engaging in a process of legislating for the detention of children. It is still there; we have just voted it through. It is still part of it. I accept the Minister's sincerity in this regard. I can see in him that he believes that children's rights are not being impinged as part of this legislation. The lived experience I have had, which is a very limited one in comparison to the children and young people who have experienced direct provision or the international protection system, is at complete contrast and odds to that. I appeal to the Minister again. Amendment No. 14 is out of order based on the cost; that is fine. There are really meaningful pieces in amendments Nos. 10 and 20, and many others, that ensure that what actually comes out of this, among many other things, is an opportunity for the State to very clearly say it will ensure that the experience of a child or young person experiencing the international protection system is just and is fair, and that there is a quality associated with this. We have seen way too many contracts being signed by this State over the last number of years that did not define a minimum set of standards with regard to accommodation, play, education, independence, meal preparation or anything like that. On many occasions, we have seen operators riding roughshod over what they believe to be optional extras with regard to quality of life. That is why I am here today. I am trying to represent the children and young people who have experienced that system. We cannot ever stand over a statement that a child's best interest is part of this legislation if we intend to provide for their detention when they have done nothing wrong.
Sentiment score: 0.19
I have tried to listen attentively to this. This has been a really interesting conversation over the last hour or so. I have mixed emotions on it, I have mixed views on it and I do not really know where I stand on it yet. Ultimately, proposed centres were never set on fire because of a lack of GP services, a lack of school places in a community or because the traffic congestion was too bad, and this amendment is almost a damning indictment of how Government has got it so wrong in the past. I am from a constituency where we have seen significant housing growth in the last 30 years. Our population in Kildare has doubled from 120,000 in the 1990s to 250,000 right now and I have yet to see a mobilised effort, a demonstration or a protest at any of the hundreds of housing developments that are proposed. That needs to be said tonight because, ultimately, the narrative and the discourse about what is before us tonight and what has happened over the last couple of years is the manifestation of an absence of political leadership, if I am honest, in all sections of this House. We have seen too many examples of where immigration and diversity is what makes us thrive as a country, but what we have allowed is a small cohort of people to blame the process and the mode of delivery as the rationale for racism. With the greatest respect to my colleagues in Sinn Féin, I completely understand where this amendment comes from but when the State cannot even comply with its own planning legislation as enacted right now, I fear that an amendment like this would gather dust with haste because we have seen the State sign so many contracts with private providers in buildings that are not fit for purpose for anybody to live in, that do not have any sort of services - no running water, no heat, no electricity - and where we appeal that contracts are not signed for those services for those sites, people are ignored. So much of the issue has been covered. The piece that I thought was a little ironic in this is that so many of us have spoken tonight about local issues that pertain to this amendment, about how communities have struggled because of a lack of investment over generations, but I wonder which of the communities we have spoken about tonight would pass through the stages of this assessment and be deemed okay to host a direct provision centre or an IPAS accommodation centre. When the mode of delivery is wrong, everything else that comes from that will always be wrong. We need State-run services. That is fundamentally a really important part of this. We need standards, we need quality but we need the State to comply with its own laws when it comes to planning permission in the first instance to ensure that where services are established, they can provide the basic amenities to those who will be living in them.
Sentiment score: -0.09