We should mark in the Dáil that we are talking about minors and children being detained in prison. Every day I wake up and put on social media and my jaw drops to the floor at the stuff that is happening in the world, especially in the US with ICE and so on, but there are things in this Bill we should mark as being in exactly the same trend. One of them is for the first time explicitly allowing the possibility of children being detained for their own good, apparently. Detaining children never serves the good of anyone. The Ombudsman for Children has called this legislation a lowering of human rights and asked that there be an explicit prohibition on children being detained. Instead, it is being put in as a possible option. The UN committee for children would also state the same. We have definitely come a long way since the Minister took over this position. It is not just him as it is a trend happening throughout the EU and western governments. Fair play to the far right for the impact they are having because we are actually talking about unaccompanied children potentially being detained. There are other things in the Bill in relation to children I will come back in on but we need to send a message out that this is in the Bill because it is a lowering of human rights standards, as the ombudsman has said.
Sentiment score: -0.12
I would like to hear some examples of what the best interests might be because I struggle to see an example of when it would be in the best interests of a child to be detained. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has said that children should never be detained because of their or their parents' migration status. We all know it is not a good idea to put children in prison or detention. There is a presumption of adulthood in the Bill, whereby a Garda, an official or whoever would be able to guess a person's age and presume that they are an adult. We do not have a great track record with regard to differentiating the ages of people of different races, nationalities and so on. The Bill states that reasonable grounds must be shown, but what are reasonable grounds? It is a broad term. Under this provision, 16-year-olds could very easily be detained because somebody assumes they are an adult due to the fact they do not know or do not have proof of their age. As everybody has said, it is a slippery slope. I am sure the Minister is aware that all of the children's rights agencies have asked for this to be explicitly ruled out of the Bill, but he is leaving it in. He has told us he will come back with further measures down the line. As others have said, when accommodation, proper care facilities or whatever cannot be found, children will end up in Garda stations or other detention centres that the State might develop in the years ahead. We have seen with Irish citizens, never mind people coming in from other countries, that people have to go to Garda stations because otherwise they would be on the streets. I would like some examples of when it might be in someone's best interests to be detained in this way.
Sentiment score: 0.06
It is for 12 hours.
Sentiment score: 0.00
On this practical application of the best interests of children, I agree with the definitions. The child's developmental needs and vulnerability are some of the items that are listed in this amendment. I want to give the Minister an example, and this needs to be carried through to how we treat people in IPAS accommodation, not just those applying for accommodation. I have been contacted by IPAS residents in the Crown Plaza hotel in Blanchardstown. They have lived there for a number of years. They were told in a letter dated 13 February, but I do not know whether they received it then, that they must move this Friday, 20 February. That is less than a week's notice. They have to move to Breaffy Woods in Castlebar, more than 200 km away. These people have children in local schools and preschools. In the case of the family who contacted me, they have a child who is autistic. They have a child linked to essential services in Blanchardstown. They have a child in preschool, which is like hens' teeth as it is absolutely impossible for somebody who has special needs to get into a preschool that caters for those needs where they get the therapeutic services necessary for their development. I ask the Minister to intervene to see that the best interests of this child are protected and that they are not moved to an area 200 km away where, I am absolutely certain, they will not have treatment services for their autism lined up or services necessary for their language skills. I ask the Minister to intervene to make sure this family, for example, is able to stay in Dublin even if they have to move to other IPAS accommodation until they find their own accommodation, be it out in Finglas or wherever, to allow them to stay in Dublin and to continue getting the services. This is an example of the best interests of the child in practical application. We should adopt these amendments. It really is very unfair for the Department to issue people with letters to move hundreds of miles away within a week, when they have been in an area for several years and made links there, developed there and have children in schools there. We all know the crisis there is in autism and special education in particular. I hope the Minister will take this on board.
Sentiment score: 0.19
I will not go on about this but I want to clarify something for the Dáil record. By raising a case, I am not asking the Minister to break any rule. The IPAS residents I mentioned are being transferred to another place. It is not breaking a rule for them not to transfer to that place. They could transfer to another place. We already have a rule that children's developmental and health needs, etc., will be taken into account. They have not committed any crimes. If they are in the hotel, presumably they have not got a deportation order so I do not know why the Minister raised that. If they are being transferred to Mayo, they hardly have a deportation order. It was very confused things the Minister said. The case I mentioned is just an example. The people in question are living in an area where their children are going to school. They are accessing services after a huge amount of work was done to get those services. We are just asking that they be allowed to maintain that. We are not asking the Minister to give them an amnesty or anything like that. It is important. There is already a rules-based system where we are meant to take children's needs into account.
Sentiment score: 0.02