I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill before us today. As I start, I acknowledge that we all speak on important issues like this from a place of bias. Personal experience, our values and our world views all incorporate much of what we say on these issues. I spent a great deal of time as a youth worker working in direct provision settings with children and young people. While I speak about this issue, I am speaking about it with those children and young people in mind, people whom I came to know and care so much about. The first question I will put to the Minister is: why does the principle of the best interest of the child not underpin this Bill? In fact, all the provisions for the best interests of the child in the EU pact have not been transposed into this Bill. Why not? I am happy to give way if the Minister would like to answer that now.

Sentiment score: 0.55

The Bill has not put any children's rights safeguarding measures in place whatsoever. It does not speak about children first or rights. It speaks of detention in the same breath as talking about the best interests of the child. The Bill legislates for the detention of children. Section 24 specifically relates to the detention of children in the screening procedure. Section 24(10) states that if a parent of a child is not co-operating, the parent will be detained and Tusla will be notified. For what purpose will Tusla be notified? This is not clearly established in the Bill and, from a child protection perspective, merits immediate attention and amendment. Section 24(12) allows for the detention of an unaccompanied minor "in exceptional circumstances and as a measure of last resort". What are these exceptional circumstances? Who decides whether the threshold has reached last resort territory? There is no clarity here and, despite the risk of imposing lifelong harm on children by detaining them, the Bill leaves a breadth of scope that is concerning. Where will children be detained? The Bill might tell us where children will not be detained - in locations such as prisons, detention schools or Garda stations - but it does not tell us where they will be detained. Why not? The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has said that detaining a child is never in their best interests. This Bill allows so much scope for this to occur without knowing who the decision maker is, the destination for such detention, the level of care provided and by whom, and for how long. Who else would be subjected to this? Legal counselling is not defined in this Bill. This is one of the many concerns held by the Children's Rights Alliance. What legal advice and representation will be provided to children and young people seeking international protection? The EU pact sets out the minimum standards for states to have in place but stops short of precluding states from going beyond that, including legal aid. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has said this Bill goes further than what is required in the pact in restricting the rights of applicants but not as far as the pact allows in protecting their rights. I began by highlighting that our words, values, emotions and bias all influence what we say here today. It is all back to our moral compass and mine reminds me very steadfastly that legislating for the detention of children and young people who have done nothing wrong is just downright wrong. To do so in this Bill with so much ambiguity is reprehensible.

Sentiment score: 0.01