Author: Jillian van Turnhout

Posted on

Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Report and Final Stages

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:” “best interpretation” means the interpretation of the relevant person’s past and present communication (using all forms of communication, including, where relevant, total communication, augmented or alternative communication, and non-verbal communication, such as gestures and actions) that seems most reasonably justified in the circumstances;”.

The Minister of State is extremely welcome to the House. Before I speak to this amendment, I want to congratulate her on her work on the mental health (amendment) Bill which seeks to remove the use of coercion in the application of ECT. I acknowledge that a Bill was published by the former Senator, Dan Boyle, as she knows, and I would particularly like to pay tribute to my cousin John McCarthy, God rest him,I can almost hear him using wonderfully colourful language and including words “about time” but it is great that this Bill will be progressing and well done to the Minister of State for doing that.

In association with my colleague, Senator Katherine Zappone I want to acknowledge the support of NUIG Centre for Disability Law and Policy and Tallaght Trialogue. While most people simply require recognition of their legal capacity and support to express their will and preferences there will still be a small minority of individuals who are not expressing a will and preference in a manner that others can understand. The Bill must establish the lawful response to such circumstances. However, I do not believe that a functional assessment of a mental capacity, and a subsequent denial of legal capacity, is the correct response to these difficult situations. A person in a coma or in a minimally conscious state, for example, will not be communicating their will and preferences to others and may not have made their wishes known in advance through an advanced health care directive or granted a power of attorney to anyone in respect of their relevant decision.In these circumstances decision making assistants, co-decision makers, decision making representatives, attorneys or designated health care representatives may need to make a decision on the relevant person’s behalf in accordance with their best interpretation of his or her will and preferences. While the Bill does require all interveners to respect the person’s will and preferences as part of the guiding principles included in section 8, further reference to the concept of best interpretation of will and preferences is needed for the hard cases in which it is very difficult to tell what a person’s wishes are.

The term “best interpretation” needs to be defined in section 2 of the Bill to guide those in the supportive roles I have outlined. Best interpretation of a relevant person’s will and preferences means taking into account past express preferences, where known, and includes knowledge gained from family and friends and other evidence available. Best interpretation can also be arrived at in seeking to communicate with the person in every possible way, including by using, where appropriate, assisted and augmentative communication, facilitated communication, signs, gestures and total communication, all of which are noted in the regulations and code of practice.

The use of best interpretation will rarely be an easy task. However, the best interest determinations used currently are similarly difficult in these circumstances. The provisions of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are merely shifting these difficult decisions from focusing on judgments existing outside the individual to the individual’s own will and preferences. That is why I am trying to insert a definition of best interpretation. We do need to deal with the hard cases, too.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 15, to delete lines 10 to 36 and substitute the following:“3. (1) Legal capacity may be exercised:
(a) by the relevant person with decision-making supports as needed (including a decision-making assistant) and/or reasonable accommodation; or

(b) by the relevant person and their co-decision maker, acting jointly; or

(c) in a situation of last resort, where all efforts to ascertain the relevant person’s will and preferences have been made and the relevant person’s will and preferences remain not known, legal capacity may be exercised by the person(s) selected to represent the relevant person in exercising the relevant person’s legal capacity (i.e. decision-making representative, attorney, or patient-designated healthcare representative in advance healthcare directive).
(2) Where legal capacity is exercised with the support of a decision-making assistant, codecision-maker, or is being made by a person selected to represent the relevant person (decision-making representative, attorney, or patient-designated healthcare representative), and where the relevant person’s will and preferences are not known, the decision shall be guided by the individual’s best interpretation of the relevant person’s will or preferences and how these are to be applied to a specific decision(s).

(3) In applying subsection (2), decision-making assistants, co-decision-makers and persons selected to represent the relevant person must be able to provide a reasonable account of how this interpretation was arrived at.”.

I propose this amendment to change the definition of “capacity” in the Bill and to move away from a functional test of mental capacity which is used in the current text of the Bill to deny the legal capacity both of adults with disabilities or mental health experiences and of older people. The amendment would replace the definition of “mental capacity” in the Bill with a recognition of the legal capacity which all adults enjoy.

This amendment is based on the explicit recognition of legal capacity and the principle set out by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that a functional assessment of mental capacity should never be used to restrict or deny a person’s legal capacity, even in respect of a single decision. The amendment draws on a proposal contained in A Statutory Framework for the Right to Legal Capacity and Supported Decision-Making by the Canadian Association for Community Living, CACL, which was published in 2012. The CACL was a key actor in the reform of Canadian adult guardianship law in the 1990s.It resulted in innovative statutory mechanisms such as co-decision-making and representative decision-making agreements, which influenced the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill here.

Functional assessments of mental capacity are now understood to violate human rights. In the terms of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, functional assessments of mental capacity are “discriminatorily applied to people with disabilities”. In April 2014 the committee stated:

[The] functional approach is flawed for two key reasons. The first is that it is discriminatorily applied to people with disabilities. The second is that it presumes to be able to accurately assess the inner-workings of the human mind and to then deny a core human right – the right to equal recognition before the law – when an individual does not pass the assessment. In all these approaches, a person’s disability and/or decision-making skills are taken as legitimate grounds for denying his or her legal capacity and lowering his or her status as a person before the law. Article 12 does not permit such discriminatory denial of legal capacity, but rather requires that support be provided in the exercise of legal capacity.

Instead of requiring a person who needs support with decision-making to undergo an assessment of his or her mental capacity, these supports should be provided for the person to avail of at his or her own discretion. The availability of supports should also be combined with a parallel process to explore the person’s will and preferences, something we have debated quite a lot on the floor of the House, so that the decision the person wishes to make becomes clear. This approach avoids any need for an assessment of mental capacity.

Section 3 of the Bill makes a person’s ability to enter into different support arrangements contingent on the individual’s mental capacity. This is quite a high standard for an individual to reach and will mean that some people will not be found eligible to make assisted decision-making agreements and co-decision-making agreements, even where this is the form of support the individual and his or her supporters would most likely use.

Under the Bill in its current form, the term “presumption of capacity” is used to try to prevent discriminatory application of functional assessments of mental capacity. However, two international human rights scholars, Oliver Lewis and Michael Bach, stated at a meeting in Belfast in April 2014 that a presumption of mental capacity is meaningless as it does not help to protect the individual’s human rights. They argue that the right to equal recognition before the law, from which the right to legal capacity stems, is a guarantee, not a presumption. In contrast, a presumption can be rebutted if evidence is provided to demonstrate that a certain individual is not worthy of equal recognition before the law.

This amendment is required to ensure Ireland meets its obligations under international human rights law and will, upon ratification, comply with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which we all wish to do. This is why I have tabled the amendment.

Full debate https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2015-12-15a.222&s=speaker%3A393#g287

Posted on

Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015: Second Stage

I welcome the Minister to the House on this, our penultimate day of term. I heartily welcomed the initiation of the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill. As did Senator Burke, I participated in the hearings of Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children on the scrutiny of the heads of the Bill. We covered the aspects of the Bill and I thank the Minister for taking on many of the committee’s recommendations in what we see today. It does show pre-legislative scrutiny works. The Bill is about reducing alcohol-related harm, improving people’s health and, ultimately, saving children’s lives. From my reading, a children’s rights focus is evident throughout the Bill.

I acknowledge and thank the Alcohol Health Alliance Ireland, which is spearheaded by the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland and Alcohol Action Ireland, for its work and advice to me in this area. In all of our debates on alcohol, even those on reducing the alcohol-related harm which we all agree is extensive and needs tackling, we feel we need to clarify that we are not anti-alcohol. This is because our relationship with alcohol is so twisted into our culture and psyche we do not wish to be portrayed as judgmental and anti-fun. I have been rapporteur for two EU reports on the issue of alcohol-related harm. I have seen the drinks industry in action first-hand so I have no doubt of the pressure it must have put on the Minister. At EU level, I was on the European Economic and Social Committee, which was small, and the industry tried to silence me and discredit me and undermine the work of the NGO for which I worked. Thankfully, the majority of my colleagues on the committee were willing to stand with me and face down the vested interests and defend the public good. This is what we are trying to do with the Bill.

My entry point to the issue is the impact of alcohol-related harm on children. Four in ten children in Ireland are at risk of being adversely affected by alcohol misuse. Four in ten child protection cases are associated with alcohol misuse. It is a significant contributor to the neglect and abuse of children, to domestic and sexual violence and family breakdown. I welcome the support for the Bill and its harm reduction measures from several sectors of the industry in Ireland, including the vintners’ associations, the majority of publicans, the National Off-Licence Association and the C&C Group.

I use the term “drinks industry” but I speak more about the giants who see Ireland as a small pawn in the global drinks industry. The drinks industry speaks about responsible drinking, but the way we drink in Ireland is only responsible for the huge profits the industry makes here every year. As soon as the Minister launched the Bill I could almost hear the smoke machine of the drinks industry spluttering into action and, through its puppet drinkaware.ie, a soon to be launched rebranding of MEAS, talk about the importance of education. We see drinks industry initiatives all the time and the involvement of the drinks industry in public health campaigns despite clear and definitive statements from the World Health Organization that it should have no role in public health initiatives.

Drinkaware.ie is funded by Diageo, Heineken and Irish Distillers. Earlier this year we saw it advertise for an education programme manager to head up an education programme targeting young people, parents and teachers. This is completely inappropriate. If I put it this way, who would entertain the idea of an education programme about the dangers of smoking being designed and delivered by an organisation that is funded by tobacco companies? We cannot let the drinks industry in whatever guise it manifests itself to go into schools and purport to educate our children about the usage of a substance on which its entire profit is made. I hope the Department of Education and Skills takes a firm stance. I have tried to raise this issue several times in the Seanad. There is no safe level of alcohol consumption for children and this is the clear message we must send. We know education informs our behaviour, but it does not influence our behaviour. It is the actions contained in the Bill which will change and reduce alcohol consumption.

I have no doubt that, as has happened in Scotland, the industry will go to court if it feels it can delay or frustrate the implementation of the Bill. In my opinion, this tells us the Minister is on the right track. With regard to sponsorship and sport, the drinks industry spends £800 million a year in the UK on advertising, and research has shown that children there as young as ten are familiar with, and can readily identify, alcohol brands, logos and characters from television. In many instances, recognition was greater for alcohol brands than for non-alcoholic products targeted at children. This tells me a lot. The study also provided new evidence that many children are familiar with the link between alcohol brands and the sports teams and tournaments they sponsor. This is why I welcomed the initiatives the Minister is taking. He knows my position, which is I would love to see a full ban, but I welcome what he is doing in this area to try to reduce the impact on children.

It was very interesting that in the days after the Bill was launched we saw a headline stating it would undermine the rugby World Cup. I cannot see the evidence for this. We have seen the rugby World Cup successfully held in France, which has a ban, and it made a profit. It made me think of FIFA, because it has influenced legislation in Brazil. Brazil has a law whereby alcohol is not sold in stadia, but a change will be made to enshrine the right to sell beer. Surprise, surprise, Budweiser is a big sponsor of FIFA. When the ban on tobacco sponsorship of sport was introduced we were told it would be the end of golf championships, and we would never see again championships such as the Carrolls Irish open. This has been disproved. It can still happen.

With regard to minimum unit pricing, over the past several years the alcohol strength of drinks has increased greatly. The alcohol strength of beers and wine has increased. The pricing the Minister will introduce is within the power of the drinks industry. If it reduces the alcohol strength we will not see price increases. It is simple because it has the power. The introduction of minimum unit pricing will not have an impact on people who drink alcohol in pubs, clubs and restaurants. We are speaking about off sales. People who drink alcohol purchased in supermarkets and consume it within the safe limits will pay 30 cent a week more, which is €15.70 over a full year, with minimum unit pricing. The difficulty is that people drinking cheap high-strength alcohol purchased in supermarkets and other retailers will notice, but we know this is what causes the most deaths, injuries, accidents and incidents. I recommend as reading the University of Sheffield report, which the committee dealt with during its hearings. We know minimum unit pricing works because we have seen it work in Canada.

I welcome what the Minister is doing with labelling. We very much see the importance of people having information. After we discussed it at the committee, we started looking more at labelling on bottles and we can see the misinformation, deliberate or not. It is very difficult to make informed decisions. For the first time, labels on alcohol products will include information which will tell consumers what they are consuming and the impact on their health and weight. More than 90% of Irish adults do not know what is meant by a standard drink. I must look it up and I am involved in the area. A total of 95% of people have said they support the labelling initiatives. The Minister knows I have raised with him the issue of cancer, and we know that alcohol is associated with 900 new cancer cases every year and 500 cancer deaths.

There is an issue with regard to structural separation, which the committee considered and brought to the Minister. I have read the explanatory memorandum which comes with the Bill. The Minister is taking a very pragmatic and easily implemented approach and I commend him for it. We have seen seepage in supermarkets with meal deals which normalise drinking wine every day. I commend the Minister on the pragmatic approach being taken. We will get to tease out each aspect of the report on Committee Stage and I say “Well done” to the Minister in respect of the children’s clothing issue also. We see the seepage on that matter throughout department stores. The Minister has my full support.

Full debate https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2015-12-17a.93&s=jillian+van+turnhout#g103

Posted on

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015: Report and Final Stages

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, line 14, to delete “child pornography” and substitute “child sexual abuse material“.

These amendments were also tabled on Committee Stage. As I have already articulated my views on this issue on Committee and Second Stage, I do not intend to be repetitive today. I appreciate that the amendments as drafted technically do not address everything that needs to be addressed, but I am strongly of the view that use of the phrase “child pornography” is abhorrent, and we need to be using it for the term that it is. The word “pornography” in some way implies that there is some consent. In the English dictionary in the mid-nineteenth century, the word was associated with terms such as “taboo” and “secretive,” but it has now become common parlance. For me, the words “child” and “pornography” should never be used together. We are clearly talking about child sexual abuse material relating to children who cannot and would not consent; they are victims of a crime. The child abuse images are documented evidence of a crime in progress, a child being sexually abused.

Similar to the amendments I tabled to the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 in relation to assault, these amendments seek to positively change this legislation. Similar amendments have been accepted. Also, I note that the UK, through an amendment to its Serious Crime Act 2015, has amended its Sexual Offences Act 2003. The term used in the UK for both child prostitution and child pornography is “sexual exploitation of a child.” I want us to name this material for what it is. What I am seeking from the Minister today is a commitment that her Department will seek to rectify this balance.

As I said, I do not propose to reiterate the arguments I put forward on Committee and Second Stages. I believe that in Ireland we should have a system to filter all child abuse material, as happens in the UK and on our mobile phones, as mobile phone providers have signed up to an EU agreement in that regard. We should be automatically doing this work. I commend the work of the Internet Watch Foundation in the UK and hope we could have something similar here. The purpose of these amendments is to name this material for what it is, namely, child sexual abuse material. Interpol and Europol have asked us to call it what it is. They have asked us not to use the term “child pornography,” because it in some way diminishes the act. I ask that the Minister consider my proposals.

I move amendment No. 39:
In page 26, to delete lines 12 to 14 and substitute the following:
“(17)(a) This section and section 19B do not apply where a complainant or witness has expressly waived his or her right to non-disclosure of a relevant record without leave of the court.

(b) No complainant or witness shall be deemed to have expressly waived his or her right to non-disclosure unless he or she has been offered a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent legal advice on the issue of disclosure rights before he or she is asked to sign any document purporting to waive his or her right to non-disclosure of a relevant record without leave of the court.

(18) In addition to the provisions of this section, section 19B shall apply to a relevant record relating to a child.
19B.(1) In this section and in section 19A(18) ‘relevant record relating to a child’ means a relevant record (or part of such record) relating to a sexual offence or sexual offences alleged to have been committed in respect of a person who was, at the time of the offence, under the age of 18.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 19A, the content of a relevant record relating to a child shall not be disclosed to the accused and shall not be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings save by order of the court and in compliance with the provisions of this section and section 19A.

(3) In determining an application for disclosure of a relevant record relating to a child, subject to the rules of the relevant court and in addition to the criteria set out in section 19A(9), the court shall take the following factors, in particular, into account:
(a) the extent to which the evidence contained in the relevant record relating to a child has substantial probative value;

(b) whether there is other evidence available to the accused that renders it substantially unnecessary to have regard to the relevant record relating to a child; and

(c) whether the public interest in disclosure or the constitutional and other rights of the accused person or both together outweigh the potential harm to the complainant.”.”.

I wish to raise an issue on third-party disclosures and I want to be clear from the outset that I welcome section 34. In June 2013, I tabled amendments to the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill concerning the disclosure of third-party records, namely, the counselling and therapy notes of child complainants in sexual offence trials. At that time, I expressed my deep concern regarding the issue of the court ordered disclosure of complainants’ confidential records by medical, psychiatric or therapeutic personnel, be the complainant an adult or a child, in the absence of any legislative guidelines. I am delighted to see the issue being addressed in the Bill and I support the approach taken to provide standards and guidance to the courts in determining whether to grant an order for the disclosure of a record in dispute.

I agree that an adequate balance has been struck between an adult complainant’s right to privacy and the right of the accused person to procedural fairness. However, upon further reflection in this regard, I have tabled an additional amendment – amendment No. 40 – which includes the same changes to sections 34(17)(a) and (b) as proposed in amendment No. 39, whereby the provisions of a new section 19A of the Act of 1992 would not apply where complainants or witnesses expressly waive their right to disclosure of a relevant record without leave of the court. I am sure the Minister fully acknowledges and sympathises with the vulnerability of a complainant or a witness during this time. My concern is that the right of a complainant or witness to advice or representation by the Legal Aid Board only kicks in where a decision has been made to prosecute. However, the point at which a complainant or witness is invited to waive his or her rights concerning disclosure often arises at a Garda station when a formal witness statement has been given. I suspect this happens without any real understanding of the implications should the matter proceed to trial. The amendment provides that any express waiver be made subject to independent legal advice or the offer of such advice. I know that the board, with its ample experience on the ground, is very supportive of the safeguard.
The purpose of the new section 19B is to act as an additional layer of protection for child complainants or witnesses in sexual offence trials who are uniquely vulnerable by virtue of their age and the heinousness of the abuse perpetrated against them. To understand the difficulty thrown up by an increasing number of blanket requests from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for disclosure of details of children’s private and confidential counselling sessions, it is important to understand that the therapeutic process happens in two distinct phases. The first phase is the compilation of an assessment report which records the baseline account – the who, what, where and when – of the abuse the child is alleging. It is clearly material evidence relevant to a criminal investigation in a trial and is rightly subject to disclosure.

The second phase is the therapy. The therapy notes are concerned with documenting the child’s feelings, thoughts, hopes, fears and dreams. If any information arises in the course of the therapy phase which substantively alters the account given in the assessment report, the practitioner will update the assessment report accordingly and make it available to the relevant parties. In effect, any information or material evidence relevant to a criminal investigation or trial for child sexual abuse is often disclosed as a matter of course. The remaining information contained in counselling records and therapeutic notes has no material relevance but it reflects the heart and soul of a damaged child and should not be subject to disclosure. There is a strongly held view on the part of many practitioners who specialise in assessment and therapy services for children who have been sexually abused that therapy notes should be privileged outright on the basis they are neither material evidence nor information relevant to legal proceedings. When one examines the purpose of therapy for children who have been sexually abused, what the therapy involves and, moreover, the arrangements the services have in place to manage the process, the rationale for affording such privilege is very strong. Therapy as a whole is not concerned with making judgments or assessing the veracity of what is shared in sessions. Rather, it is simply a particular type of human engagement where the exploration of a child’s thoughts and feelings at a particular point in time are facilitated. Therapy notes, in turn, are context specific. They derive out of a therapeutic encounter and as such are concerned with documenting feelings, thoughts, hopes, fears and dreams. They are not absolute facts. They are not material evidence.

Ultimately, the aim of therapy is to assist a child in getting back to a life that is not dominated by the sexual abuse he or she experienced and to equip the child to build trusting relationships. In doing so, the therapist will address patterns of behaviour or responses which have become unhelpful, burdensome or troubling in the child’s living experience. Therapy can also draw attention to healthy responses and coping strategies shown by the child in and out of sessions. This can involve the use of fantasy and therapeutic play scenarios, especially for younger children where the child can try out different roles in order to make sense of the abuse experienced. However helpful the process may be to the child, therapists are becoming increasingly concerned about how notes describing such a scene might be interpreted in a legal arena and taken out of context.

Trust in the therapeutic relationship and the creation of a safe space are paramount to the effectiveness and success of the therapeutic process. It is difficult to envisage how this can be achieved if the privacy and confidentiality of these therapy sessions are not sacrosanct. I argue that the effectiveness and success of the therapeutic process is an important part of the public interest consideration in restoring the child’s well-being and ability to function in society. The amendment is an added layer of protection to reflect the unique vulnerability of the child and the nature and type of information which comes through in the therapy process, as distinct from the material facts. Any additional relevant information is added as a matter of course to the assessment report.

I am acutely aware of the need to strike the proper and appropriate balance between the right of the accused to procedural fairness in a child sexual abuse case, the right of a child witness to privacy, as well as the right not to be revictimised or unduly traumatised by the criminal justice system, and the public interest. The amendment is wholly compatible with Irish constitutional law, Ireland’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the best interests of the child in the context of providing in law that the disclosure of sexual assault counselling communications of children will only be granted by a trial court where the evidence sought has substantive probative value, where there is no other evidence which could prove the disputed facts and where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm to the child.As I stated, I would prefer to make these notes privileged and sacrosanct, but what I have done in the amendment in strive to strike the balance that needs to be there in law. I hope the Minister would look favourably on these amendments.

Full debate https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2016-01-21a.178&s=jillian+van+turnhout#g190

Posted on

Motion: Direct Provision

The Minister of State is welcome to the House. I avail of the opportunity to welcome to the Visitors Gallery Dr. Bryan McMahon, chairman of the working group which is to report to the Government on improvements to the protection process, including direct provision accommodation and support for asylum seekers.

I am pleased that the last motion to be debated during Private Members’ business in the 24th Seanad looks at the living conditions of children and young people in the direct provision system. Our group has used its time to consider this issue and I have spoken about it at every available opportunity, including in numerous Adjournment debates and debates on legislation, in an effort to bring the plight of children to the fore. This is the critical issue of our time. In fact, Dietrich Bonhoeffer has said the test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. I fear our failures and the treatment of children in the direct provision system will be the subject of a Ryan report in the future, but we have an opportunity to make changes now. All too often we look back in shock at what happened in the past and say how desperate it was, but what we do now with that knowledge is on what we should be judged.

My entry point to the issue of direct provision is from a children’s rights perspective. My perspective has been informed by my previous work in the Children’s Rights Alliance, the recommendations of the Government appointed special rapporteur on child protection, Professor Geoffrey Shannon, the concerns raised consistently by advocacy groups, my visits to two direct provision asylum centres as an independent Member of the Seanad and the recommendations of the working group. It has taken me a long time to wade through the mire that is the political discourse on the direct provision system. I have struggled to understand the distinction drawn – I still do not agree with it – between children cared for by the State, as children in the direct provision system are described, and children in the care of the State as those in foster care and other care systems are described. I have argued strenuously that children are children, irrespective of their status, and that it is stretching credulity to claim that children in the direct provision system are in the care of their parents in circumstances where their autonomy to make even basic decisions about their children’s care, for example, on what and when to eat, is so limited as to render it absent.

The direct provision system is detrimental to the welfare and development of asylum seekers and, in particular, the 1,225 children residing in direct provision accommodation throughout Ireland. There is a plethora of difficulties, including the dubious legality of the direct provision system, the lack of an independent complaints mechanism for residents, the absence of independent inspection of centres in which children reside, the decision by Ireland to opt out of the EU directive to allow asylum seekers to enter the workforce if their applications have not been processed after one year and the fact that there are no prospects post-secondary education for young asylum seekers. It is like hitting the pause button for an uncertain and, doubtless, lengthy period.

I appreciate that we have made some moves, but for most of the children, there is this cliff, the fettering and erosion of normal family dynamics and functioning, the lack of autonomous decision-making and the negative impact on the mental health of adults and children in the direct provision system. The ultimate failure lies in the length of time people remain in the system waiting to have their claims processed. I note the efforts the Government has made to reduce the length of time involved through the International Protection Act 2015 by introducing a single procedure to deal with international protection applications, but the reality is that the average length of stay is four years. However, a significant number have remained within the system for five to ten years. Some 55% have been on the waiting list for more than five years. I ask the Minister of State to think of all the things we have achieved in the past five years when he is on the election trail. There are people who have been in the direct provision system for that period of time. What a substantial loss of time it has been for the individuals, families and, particularly, children who have spent their entire childhood in direct provision centres. They are waiting for their lives to resume.

I was saddened to read in the final report on the child care law reporting project by Dr. Carol Coulter and her team, presented in November 2015, that children born in 2007 were still in the direct provision system. The only time they spent outside it was when they were placed in foster care while their mother received treatment for a mental illness.

There are more than 17 recommendations in the report of the working group which are specific to children and young people. I take the opportunity to thank the Children’s Rights Alliance and its member organisations for ensuring the unique vulnerability of children in the direct provision system was not lost in the process. I will cover briefly the first of those recommendations that we have cited in the motion. My colleague, Senator Fiach Mac Conghail, will speak to the others.

There is a need for child-friendly materials containing relevant legal information. The reality for all of us in full health is that the system is very legalistic; as it can be intimidating, people need support, particularly children who are unaccompanied and seeking guidance on how to pass through the system and for what they need to apply. We need to ensure the material is in a language they can understand in order that they can appreciate the ramifications of the decisions they will take.

The remit of the Office of the Ombudsman for Children should be extended to include complaints about services provided, transfer decisions and so on. Ireland ratified the third optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which involves a communication procedure. It allows individual children, groups of children and their representatives, including those in the direct provision system, to submit a complaint to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child about specific violations of their rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I had the privilege of attending the hearing on Ireland before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The question was rightly asked how Ireland had in place a system that allowed children in the direct provision system to make a complaint to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child but yet they had no right to make it to the Ombudsman for Children. How can this be the case? Technically, the recommendation that the remit of the Ombudsman for Children be extended is supported in the Child and Family Agency Act 2013 which in section 69 includes a provision on the referral of complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Technically, it requires nothing more than a ministerial order or a statutory instrument similar to the one made in 2012 when the decision was made to extend the remit of the Ombudsman for Children to receive complaints from children in prison. It is a question of political will. It is absurd that one can report to a UN body based in Geneva but not to the Ombudsman for Children. I know that the Ombudsman for Children is ready and willing to receive these complaints and wants to be there for all children in Ireland.

The lack of an independent complaints mechanism is completely out of step with the jurisdiction conferred on the office of ombudsman across the Continent. In November 2014, in CA and TA – a minor – v.the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Minister for Social Protection, the Attorney General and Ireland, Mr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaigh found that the RIA’s complaint procedure was deficient, not sufficiently independent, owing to the fact that it was the final arbiter in the process and that some elements of its house rules were unlawful. I do not care what anybody says, I trust the system, yet I would not be comfortable in making a complaint to those who I perceive as being part of the asylum system. We need to develop a welfare strategy and ensure all children have a named social worker based within the Child and Family Agency, not within the system in which a decision will be made on an application. I have argued for the application of the HIQA national standard for the protection and welfare of children, for the involvement of the Health Service Executive’s child and family services, particularly where a referral is made by the child and family services unit in the RIA to the HSE of a child. It is shocking that there is still no independent inspection regime or national standards for direct provision centres, given that we know that there is a significantly higher referral rate for child protection and welfare cases from direct provision centre than among the general population. In one in four cases at least one parent is from an ethnic minority or an asylum seeker or Traveller. I implore the Minister of State to be cognisant of the consistent findings in child care law reporting projects that social exclusion, poverty, isolation, mental health issues and disability are common features of mothers and fathers facing court proceedings and the acknowledgement that minority groups, including asylum seekers, are particularly vulnerable.

My colleague, Senator Fiach Mac Conghail, will speak in greater detail about the issues related to the weekly allowance. There is also the issue of those seeking jobs.Ireland and Lithuania are the only two EU member states that apply a blanket prohibition on asylum seekers entering employment or setting up a business in the state. In conclusion, I wish to quote the words of Bill Frelick, the refugee programme director at Human Rights Watch. He said: “Ireland should recognise work not only as a source of dignity, but as providing a livelihood that is integral to sustaining asylum seekers in the pursuit of their right to seek asylum.”

………………..

I thank, in particular, Senator Fiach Mac Conghail who worked with me on this issue, on which we have been at one. I also thank Senators Brian Ó Domhnaill, Martin Conway, David Norris, Marie Moloney, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Ivana Bacik. It is great that the House is united on the issue.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh is correct to ask what we have achieved. For me, what is most depressing is that we can unite on an issue, but the question is whether we can really bring things forward. Senator Fiach Mac Conghail is correct – as we have the working group’s report, we do not need to have long discussions; we need to move to its implementation. I would like to see the progress reports of high level groups published in order that the process is transparent.
I have listened to the debate on the importance of cooking facilities for families. There is the issue of costs because people need materials in order to be able to cook. We can have that debate, but I will go home tonight and decide the time at which I want to eat and what I will eat. I do not have to depend on a service that provides for me to eat at a specific time. How many of us eat at the same time every day? That alone is institutionalisation. Friends have told me how difficult they find it when they are in hospital for one week. I cannot imagine what it is like to be in a direct provision system.
On the issue of tenders, why are we allowing people to profit from the misery of others? I have a fundamental problem with this. Why is the State not providing the service? Why do we not ask an NGO to do it? There are some really excellent NGOs working in this area. I am thinking of Crosscare, but I am sure there are others. I have seen first-hand the work they do.
On the remit of the Ombudsman for Children, I believe it could be done by statutory instrument or ministerial order. It is, therefore, an issue of political will. If one goes back to the debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas on the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, this issue was raised. Would we leave an especially vulnerable group of children and young people outside the scope of the Ombudsman for Children’s investigatory remit? In response the former Minister Mary Hanafin said, “The children of asylum seekers and refugees will have access to the Ombudsman for Children in the same way as every other child in Ireland.” That is what the Houses were told. The only thing excluded is the administration of the law, that is, the procedures for defining and determining whether a person is entitled to a particular status. She also explained:
If, however, there are problems in relation to delays, the provision of accommodation, nutrition, housing, etc, those issues are covered. This provision is only to ensure there is not a duplication of the actual process of the administration of the law.
Why does the Ombudsman for Children not have a remit to look at the application? We live on an island, but we really are an island as far as the rest of Europe is concerned because children in other countries can go to their ombudsman for children. It is enshrined in the Constitution that all children are equal, yet now we say we will interpret it slightly differently and that children in direct provision centres do not have the same rights. The Ombudsman for Children and Mr. Peter Tyndall made a joint submission to the working group which clearly explained the benefits, from their involvement in the direct provision system, that their experience could bring and the ease with which they could move into that space if allowed to do so.
The Minister of State has talked about the additional resources that would be needed. It makes me more fearful because it means that he believes there would be lots of complaints and resources needed. What is happening if we know that we will need all of these additional resources? We would need some resources. He goes on to say it is also important to recall that the working group looked specifically at the possibility of setting up a separate complaints procedure but rejected the idea in favour of extending the remit in order that the established offices could take on this role. It is welcome that the Minister for Justice and Equality will meet the Ombudsman for Children next Wednesday. I hope we will move on this issue because it is about giving people hope.
I explain that my job is about nudging. When one is in a direct provision system, it is difficult to understand the nuances in things moving forward and progressing. People need hope and we need to see some big changes. We need to see an increase in the amount of money given to those in direct provision centres in line with the working group’s report. Although a figure of 60% makes for a good news day, it has not risen in 15 years. The people concerned cannot afford to do the normal things children do. I want to be happy that we are moving forward and have a great report, but we are not doing enough. I hope that when the House comes back, Senators will again unite and push firmly for change.
I thank the cross-party group and all Senators who have united on this issue. In particular, I thank the working group’s members, the secretariat, the different Departments that have come together on the issue and, in particular, Dr. Bryan McMahon. We now need to stop the discussion and begin implementation. We need to ensure hope for all citizens and that children are children first and foremost.

Posted on

Motion: Children and young people in Direct Provision

The following motion will be taken from 4pm to 6pm on Wednesday 27 January 2016.

“That Seanad Éireann:

– welcomes the final Report of the ‘Working Group to Report to Government on Improvements to the Protection Process, including Direct Provision and Supports to Asylum Seekers’, published in June 2015;

– notes, according to the latest available statistics from the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA), in its Monthly Report September 2015, there are 4,814 RIA residents ‘live on the system’ of which 1,225 are children;

– welcomes Ireland’s ratification of the Third Optional Protocol on a communications procedure of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which allows individual children, including those in Direct Provision, to submit complaints concerning specific violations of their Convention rights;

Asks the Minister for Justice and Equality to outline the exact progress of the recommendations, in relation to children and young people, drawing specific attention to the following recommendations:

– child-friendly materials containing relevant legal information should be made available and widely distributed, including through special information services for children such as specialised websites (Recommendation 3.262);

– the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Ombudsman for Children should be extended to include complaints relating to services provided to residents of Direct Provision accommodation centres, and transfer decisions following a breach of the House Rules (Recommendation 4.135);

– Tusla – Child and Family Agency should liaise with the RIA to develop a welfare strategy within the RIA, to advise on policy and practice matters and to liaise on individual cases as required (Recommendation 4.199);

– Tusla and the HSE should identify a named social worker on their respective child protection, mental health and primary care teams to be the identified lead social worker for a Direct Provision centre in their area (Recommendation 4.199);

– the Minister for Justice and Equality should establish an inspectorate (or identify an existing body), independent of the RIA, to carry out inspections in Direct Provision centres against the newly approved standards (Recommendation 4.226);

– all families should have access to cooking facilities (whether in a self-contained unit or through use of a communal kitchen) and their own private living space in so far as practicable (Recommendation 4.75); and

– the Direct Provision weekly allowance for adults should be increased from €19.10 to €38.74 for adults and from €9.60 to €29.80 for children (Recommendation 5.30).”

– Senators Jillian van Turnhout, Fiach MacConghail, Mary Ann O’Brien, Averil Power and Katherine Zappone.

Posted on

Joint Committee Questions to the Minister of Children and Youth Affairs

Question 10 (Senator Jillian Van Turnhout)

Can the Minister give his considered view on the recommendations in the Report of the Joint Committee on Health and Children on the General Scheme of the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill 2015?

My Department is examining the Report on the Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of the General Scheme and Heads of the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill 2015, recently published by the Joint Committee on Health and Children.

I would to thank the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, Jerry Buttimer TD, and members of the Committee for their work in producing the Report without delay. I know that a considerable amount of work has gone into this Report and it is being studied in detail as we continue the preparation of the legislation.

The Report has made key recommendations as follows:

  • That the definition of ‘compelling reasons’ be further clarified and more tightly defined in the Bill.
  • In cases where non-disclosure is sought citing ‘compelling reasons’, this should be supported by medical evidence.
  • that consideration should be given to excluding the Statutory Declaration provision from the Bill. This could possibly be replaced by an alternative provision where the applicant is required to attend one preparatory session to discuss and explore the issues concerning privacy and respect, before the Birth Certificate is released.
  • that consideration should be given to reducing the lead-in to a much shorter time period, and to holding a shorter, more intense information / awareness campaign over a six-month period, to include engagement with social media and a wide range of community groups who can help to raise awareness about the new Register.
  • in the case of the illegally adopted, that consideration should be given to establishing a dedicated unit to actively investigate those cases.  
  • that a review of service requirements arising from the Bill is undertaken.   

All the recommendations of the Committee will be fully considered with a view to incorporating the Committee’s views where appropriate and subject to legal advice.

The Committee also recommended that I give consideration to issues highlighted during the pre-legislative scrutiny process in relation to step-parent adoption. I am addressing this matter in the context of the Adoption (Amendment) Bill.

Question 11 (Senator Jillian Van Turnhout)

Can the Minister provide an update on the progress by the Child and Family Agency of a national seven day, 24-hour social work service for children and families at risk?

Tusla, the Child and Family Agency provides a range of services aimed at addressing emergency situations in the area of child welfare and protection. In the main, these emergency situations arise out of hours.

I am pleased to inform the Committee Members that Tusla commenced the new Emergency Out-of-Hours Social Work Service last month. The key objective of the service is to co-operate with and support An Garda Síochána in the execution of their duties and responsibilities under the Child Care Act, 1991 and the Refugee Act, 1996.

Prior to this new development Tusla provided, in an emergency situation, for residential and foster care placements for children under Section 12(3) of the Child Care Act, 1991 and placements for children referred under Section 8.5 of the Refugee Act, 1996;

The additional service now available allows the Garda Síochána to contact a national emergency social work out-of-hours phone service for general advice or consultation. This on-call service will be staffed by social workers operating from the Out-of-Hours services in Dublin, supported by on-call social workers in different parts of the country. 

The social workers are currently employed by Tusla in its children’s services.

I welcome this new development. Up to now, under the Emergency Place of Safety Service, An Garda Síochána could access an emergency placement for children found to be at risk out of hours, but they did not have access to a social worker regarding the case or particular circumstances. In these circumstances, a child deemed to be at risk by An Garda Síochana was placed in a family setting until the following working day, when the local social work service would assume responsibility for the case.

Tusla and An Garda Síochána are the key agencies empowered by law to protect and promote the welfare of children and they have separate yet complementary roles. Mutual understanding and cooperation is essential in ensuring that these roles are carried out effectively and in a child-centred manner.

The aim of the Emergency Out-of-Hours Social Work Service is to ensure that the disruption and upset to which children may be exposed in emergency situations is minimised and the rights of parents and guardians are respected. The introduction of the Emergency Out-of-Hours Social Work Service assists in maximising inter-agency co-operation and promoting the safety and welfare of children.

Question 12 (Senator Jillian van Turnhout)

Can the Minister advise if he plans to legislate to vindicate children’s constitutional rights; including enacting legislation to satisfy Article 42A provisions on the best interests of the child, views of the child, and adoption.  And if he plans to carry out an audit of laws, judicial and administrative practices and policies to identify gaps in the implementation of the best interests principle and to address these gaps without delay?

At the time the wording of the then proposed thirty-first amendment of the Constitution was published by the Government, there was a commitment to bring forward important amendments in adoption law. In order to fully inform consideration by the people of the constitutional change being put forward for their decision, the Government published the General Scheme of a proposed Adoption (Amendment) Bill 2012 which would flow from implementation of the change. With the thirty-first amendment now standing as part of the Constitution, in the form of the new Article 42A, my Department is progressing the promised Adoption (Amendment) Bill, in which the best interests of the child are a paramount consideration, for consideration by the Oireachtas.

The Constitutional amendment was the subject of consultation with Government departments to ensure their compliance with the provisions therein. While the amendment has set a standard that must be observed, there is nothing to constrain measures being taken in the public legislative or administrative domain that exceed the standard set. The impact of the amendment, and the willingness of the Government to foster a child-centred approach, are to be seen in provisions relating to the views and best interests of children in certain legislation enacted or introduced since the referendum, such as the Child and Family Agency Act 2013, the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 and the Children First Act 2015.

The on-going implementation of Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020, is demonstrably rooted in the values and principles that the Constitutional amendment represents. The implementation of Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures is a ‘whole-of-Government’ commitment which is being driven with involvement by non-Governmental interests in the sector.

The policy framework relates to five specified outcomes for children and young people, which include that they will be connected, respected and contributing to their world. A major commitment by my Department in that regard is to greatly enhance the basis, and opportunity, for participation by young people in decisions that impact on them.  To that end, I published the first National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making 2015-2020 which is a constituent strategy of Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures. The Participation Strategy specifies a number of commitments to be delivered by various public bodies.  In my Department’s case this includes a commitment to bring about a major development by way of the establishment of a Children and Young People’s Participation Hub to become a centre of excellence on children and young people’s participation.  

While an audit of the kind referred to in the question is not planned at this time, emerging developments in the legislative and policy domains indicate that possible change is already underway and more is in prospect.

Posted on

Senator Jillian van Turnhout, TV3 Tonight Show ‘Politician of the Year 2015’

TV3 Tonight Show ‘Politician of the Year 2015’

Embargoed Statement from Senator Jillian van Turnhout

EMBARGO, 00.01, 18 December 2015, Dublin:  Senator Jillian van Turnhout, Leader of the Independent Group (Taoiseach Nominees) in the Seanad has been announced as TV3’s ‘Tonight’ Show 2015 ‘Politician of the Year’.  The award was adjudicated by a judging panel of 4 leading political correspondents: Sarah Mc Inerney of The Sunday Times; Harry Mc Gee of The Irish Times; Gavin Reilly of Today FM and Niamh Lyons of The Times Ireland.  The panel stated that Senator van Turnhout was being recognised for ‘demonstrating how to bring advocacy issues forward and make a real impact. They noted that her focus on advocacy for children and principled issues have made real and significant changes.’

Speaking after the announcement, Senator van Turnhout said that she was very honoured to accept the award.  She thanked both the ‘Tonight’ show and the judging panel.  “I have worked for many years as a volunteer and CEO in children’s and youth organisations, to try to address continuing and emerging discrimination and to improve the lives of all young people in Ireland.  When Taoiseach Enda Kenny appointed me as an Independent to the Seanad, I saw it as an excellent opportunity to effect change from within the political system.  I am therefore delighted to receive this award in recognition of that.” said the Senator.

“I am especially proud of my work to further children’s rights including: the ban on smoking in cars with children; getting the common law defence of reasonable chastisement (physical punishment) of children repealed and standing up to the drinks industry in an effort to protect children from alcohol related harm.” added Senator van Turnhout, “My membership of the Health and Children Committee has also allowed me to advocate on other important issues like the importance of consent, choice and control in ‘End of Life’ care and neuro-rehabilitation services following stroke and acquired brain injury.”

“I dedicate this award to my late Dad Michael Hassett, who, along with my Mum Jenny, inspired my sense of fairness and social justice.  I would like to thank my assistant and researcher, Amy McArdle, for her support and hard work. I would also like to acknowledge the many organisations and individuals who have supported my efforts in the Seanad with their excellent advocacy and analysis, and with their trust” concluded Senator van Turnhout.

Ends//

Available for comment:  Senator van Turnhout can be contacted directly on 087 2333784 or via her office at 01 6183375

Note to editors:

Jillian van Turnhout was appointed as an Independent Senator to Seanad Éireann in 2011.  She is the former Chief Executive of the Children’s Rights Alliance, former Chief Commissioner and current volunteer with the Irish Girl Guides, Chairperson of Early Childhood Ireland, Vice Chairperson of European Movement Ireland and Chairperson of Children in Hospital Ireland.

Over the past 20 years Jillian has undertaken a number of community and voluntary sector roles.  She was a Board member of Women for Election; President of the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI); member and Vice President of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC); Secretary General of the ECB-BEC (predecessor to the European Youth Forum) and a Council member of Gaisce – The President’s Award.  She was also a member of the National Children’s Advisory Council and sat on the Management Committee of the National Economic and Social Forum (NESF). Jillian started her career in the private sector, where she worked for more than 10 years.

Posted on

International Protection Bill 2015: Second Stage, 2 December 2015

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: It is almost ten years since the last substantive legislation was introduced in this area. I am cognisant of what we are trying to do today. It is complex. It has been difficult for Members and the civil society organisations specialising in the areas of refugees, asylum and children’s rights issues – from whom many Members, including myself, seek guidance and advice in advance of parliamentary debates – to analyse the intricacies of this Bill in the time that has been given to us. On the other hand, I appreciate the effort on the part of the Government to bring this important Bill to fruition before the Christmas recess.

I intend to focus my intervention and my engagement on this Bill to issues relevant to children and children’s rights, because I believe this is the area where I can add my expertise. In this regard, I thank the Children’s Rights Alliance for its support in helping me to understand the complexities of the Bill.

Article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges Ireland to ensure that children seeking or holding refugee status, whether unaccompanied or not, should receive appropriate protection and assistance in the enjoyment of the rights of the convention and other applicable human rights treaties. The State is further obliged to assist a child in the tracing of his or her family and in obtaining information relevant for reunification. In circumstances where the child’s family cannot be found, the child is entitled to the same protections as other children deprived of their families under the convention.

In 2006, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child called on the State to “take necessary measures to bring [its immigration] policy, procedures and practice into line with its international obligations, as well as principles outlined in other documents, including the Statement of Good Practices produced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Save the Children”. As the Minister is well aware, Ireland will be examined before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 2016, in other words, in a few weeks’ time. It would be very disappointing if the provisions for children in this Bill were found by the committee to be wanting in respect of our convention obligations. My concern in this regard is further heightened by the fact that the key recommendations of the working group on direct provision in respect of children are not implemented in this Bill. It is disappointing that there have been no positive reforms for the 1,600 children currently in the direct provision system – they are the most vulnerable group of asylum seekers – despite a HIQA report in May 2015 identifying serious child welfare and protection concerns in a number of children and family services areas.

I realise it is outside the scope of this Bill, but the Minister knows of my view on the importance of having an independent complaints mechanism similar to that afforded to the Ombudsman for Children. I have raised the issue with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs as well.

I am also concerned about payments, particularly payments to children. They have not changed in 15 years. At the least, the payments should be brought in line with the qualified child increase as referenced in the working group report. I imagine that is a decision for the Minister for Social Protection but perhaps the Minister for Justice and Equality could advise the Seanad on the matter.

I welcome the provision in the Bill for the new single application procedure to streamline and speed up the application process. It is long overdue. Even ten years ago people were talking about the establishment of an independent protection appeals tribunal and the inclusion of child-specific forms of persecution as grounds for protection. These are referenced in section 7(2).

One substantive area I have difficulty with relates to the notion of the best interests of children and how this is dealt with in the Bill. I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement in the past 24 hours to try to see how we can strengthen the relevant provisions and work together. Let us consider the provisions relating to the best interests of the child in Irish legislation. It was the current Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, who, during her previous role as Minister for Children and Youth Affairs at the time of the passage of the Child and Family Agency Bill as well as recently with the Children and Family Relationships Bill, put the key provisions relating to the best interests of the child into Irish law. I am keen to ensure we progress that legacy with this Bill.

Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as it relates to the best interests of the child is clear. My difficulty is that the Bill only refers to the best interests of the child in a limited way, for example, in cases where international protection has been granted upon recognition of a child’s status in the application of a medical examination to determine the age of an unaccompanied minor or in certain aspects of the conduct of protection interviews for unaccompanied minors. The working group report recommendation stated that the International Protection Bill 2015 should reflect the general principle contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the effect that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.

I submitted an amendment yesterday, but I have since redrafted it to ensure that in introducing the idea of the best interests of the child as the primary consideration, nothing in this legislation shall affect any provisions that are more conducive to the realisation of the rights of the child contained in other enactments or international law. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has asserted the importance of the child’s best interests. It also stressed the importance of reuniting the child with his or her family unless it is not in the child’s best interests. I have submitted an amendment to ensure that the best interest principle is subject to the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Another area I have concerns over relates to training for authorised officers on children’s rights. The working group report made clear that there should be a provision requiring decision-makers who take decisions in respect of children and those who interview children have received appropriate procedural and substantive training. This could be specific training on children’s rights and certified qualifications in interviewing children. Perhaps that is something the Minister could address. I have not tabled an amendment on the matter at this point but I will do so on Report Stage if I believe it is not being dealt with. Section 34(8) relates to how personal interviews by authorised officers may be dispensed with where the applicant is under the age of 18 years and he or she is of such an age and degree of maturity that an interview would not usefully advance the examination.   Will the Minister to look at the Children and Family Relationships Act which includes the provision for a court to appoint an expert to determine and convey a child’s view? I agree with the recommendation by the Children’s Rights Alliance that the Bill should include a provision that section 34(8)(b) can only be exercised upon the appointment of an expert on the views of children. Perhaps that is something we can look at.

Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is very clear on the issue of child detention: “The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time”. It was of great concern to me when I read section 20(1)(c) in conjunction with section 20(7). The latter provides that a child under 18 years can be detained as an adult if there are reasonable grounds for believing the person is not under 18 years. I believe this is a breach of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s general comment No. 6 which provides that in cases of uncertainty as to the individual’s age, the individual should be given the benefit of the doubt and should be considered a child. I realise that the Bill’s provision has been inserted to protect a Garda who, using reasonable presumption, makes such a decision. In response, I have submitted an amendment that I hope will provide protection for children’s rights and provide balance. I thank my group colleagues, Senators Fiach Mac Conghail, Marie-Louise O’Donnell, Averil Power, Katherine Zappone and Mary Ann O’Brien, who have supported the two amendments I have tabled for Committee Stage.